Apostles of Sentimental Theology
Father William Most
* * * * * * *
To Our Readers:
These past few months have brought a wave of assaults upon the foundational doctrine of the faith, "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" (no salvation outside the Church). Strange to say, all of them have emanated from the pens of so-called conservative Catholic theologians.
Periodicals, such as the Homiletic and Pastoral Review and publications of the Saint Pius X, and newspapers, such as The Wanderer, The Remnant, and the National Catholic Register, all have thrown aside their mutual bones of contention to zero-in on enemy number one, Father Leonard Feeney and Saint Benedict Center. Some friends of ours have hinted that we should "'make more noise." Although our policy has been to act as a quiet ferment both in the Americas and abroad, we have found ourselves, our defense of the Church's doctrine, and our revered Founder hotly debated wherever there are nuclei of souls truly concerned about Our Lord, His Church, and salvation. This is proof sufficient that the dogma of faith refuses to die. The Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth, continues to enkindle this fire of the divine challenge as long as there are souls to be sanctified and saved.
As in past ages, the steel of pure doctrine must be refined in the furnace of tribulation. And too, as in past ages, voices of self-righteous, more-generous-than-God rationalizers have set themselves up as interpreters of the real meaning of the Scriptures and defined ecclesiastical teaching. Early heretics had it from private inspiration that the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity did not really possess a numerically identical nature. Later, self-established "theologians" were sure that the Savior Jesus Christ was not really God. Then, other false teachers came along who were sure that Jesus was not really a man, but rather a divine person inhabiting soulless flesh. After this, more and more heretics tried to undermine the one true revelation; some said the Blessed Virgin cannot really be the Mother of God; others said the Holy Ghost is not really God. After these errors were condemned by the Church, Tancred, a pre-Lutheran, twelfth-century Protestant, became the first to teach that Christ could not really be present in the Sacrament of the altar. Then, in the sixteenth century, came Luther and Calvin and Zwingli, and a whole host of destroyers, who were obsessed with the idea that the true Church of Christ was not at all the visible Roman Catholic Church and that the Mystical Body of Christ could not really be identical with the Catholic body. They followed the example of the Greek schismatics in rending asunder the seamless garment of' Church unity and hierarchy by denying the universal and apostolic authority of' the Pope.
In the past the devil has had much success in disrupting the body of Christendom, but he has never had so much success as he has today. Though there are all kinds of' heresies rampant in the modern Church, the one that is most of a threat, because it strikes at the very foundation of the ark of salvation, is the heresy regarding the nature of the Church itself and, consequently, the necessity for all to belong to it.
The problem with all of these "conservative" theologians who attack Father Leonard Feeney is that they refuse to believe in the Church as Christ instituted it. They insist with one breath that there is no salvation outside the Church, and, in the next breath, they tell you, ''Of course, one must understand what is the Church." So, by changing the definition of the Church to suit their popular innovation, they pretend that they can hold both the dogma of salvation and its actual opposite, which is to them what the salvation dogma really means.
The article by Father William Most is a perfect examples of the common deception we are fighting-that of sentimental theology. We think that their errors, and our rebuttals, are well worth your study.
In Our Lady,
Brother Michael, M. I. C. M.
In Defense of the Catholic Theologian Father Leonard Feeney
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Reply to Father William Most's Article in the Wanderer: "A Question of Salvation"
February 9, 1987
Saint Cyril of Alexandria
Mr. Alphonse J. Matt. Jr.. Editor
The Wanderer
201 Ohio Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55107
Dear Mr. Matt,
Father William Most's article in a recent issue of the Wanderer (February 5, 1987), "A Question of Salvation,'' has to be one of the most irresponsible attacks on the Church's true teaching and the Catholic theologian, Father Leonard Feeney, that I have ever read. And I am mildly surprised that the Wanderer would put such distortions in print.
This seems to be that time of year, again, for all the right wing liberals to take a swing at Father Feeney. Such unwarranted and misrepresentative publicity as the Wanderer article exhibited, only provides our wounded Savior with another occasion to produce good out of evil. As for Father Most, justice compels me to say that his theology is more uncharitable and cruel to those outside the ark of salvation than that of a hundred Jimmy Swaggarts, because he is a priest who, through his sacrament of Orders, is obliged to speak only the truth of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Instead, he has denied a defined dogma of the Church which he represents. And he has, in effect, told Protestants, Jews and infidels to stay right where they are. No greater scandal can be conceived. For, with the authority of his priesthood, he has planted no small obstacle in the path of salvation for God knows how many souls. In this regard, I am loath to say who is worse, Father Most or Father Curran. [To understand the comparison here, the reader should first read Father Most's original article.] I thank God, that with the clarity of the papal definitions which I have to guide me, I do not have to make that choice.
The article in the Wanderer rehashes the same points that Father Most unfortunately propagated several years ago in a series of articles in the National Catholic Register. One would think that, by now, he would have corrected his previous errors.
I have highlighted Father's main allegations in the following fourteen-point recapitulation, to each of which I have appended our rebuttal.
Point 1) There seems to be a clash of teaching between the de fide definitions of the past and the more recent papal encyclicals and decrees of Vatican II. He then provides extracts from the seemingly conflicting teachings.
Answer: We definitely grant that there seems to be a clash between the traditional teaching on the doctrine and the present teaching. [Karl Rahner, Hans Kung, and Avery Dulles, in their efforts to destroy the dogma of papal infallibility, all join in contending that the Church has changed her teaching. They are wrong.] When such a clash occurs, our divine faith tells us to uphold what has been infallibly defined as the final measure. If a non-defined teaching of the Church, be it even from a Pope, conflicts with that which has been defined, the lower must be interpreted in light of the higher, not vice versa. Nor can one look for some kind of a "solution" depreciatory of the clear meaning of that which is de fide, for such papal or conciliar definitions are issued to clarify controversy, not to open the door for it. Pope Pius IX himself said that we must accept with the assent of faith only those non-definitional papal teachings that are drawn from the "common and constant agreement (in all ages) of the Catholic theologians." (Denzinger #1683).
Furthermore, the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, despite the fact that they issued from an ecumenical synod, were, with the expressed and explicit insistence of Pope Paul VI, not given the note of infallibility(not to say they are in error but they are of a lower order than other dogmatic statements). Therefore they must be accepted only with that assent of conscience which weighs such teachings in the light of tradition. Father Richard O'Connor, writing in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review, (July, 1981) asserts the same. He explained in his article, "How Binding is Vatican II?" that Pope John Paul II "never tires of emphasizing when referring to Vatican II" that its decrees are "to be interpreted in the light of Tradition, of other Councils and papal encyclicals; and, where found to be in conflict with these, disregarded."
Point 2) Based on the encyclical Quanto Conficiamur of Pope Pius IX, Father Most concludes that "if one keeps the moral law. as he knows it, he will not be lost."
Answer: Nowhere in the encyclical Quanto Conficiamur does Pope Pius IX ever say that keeping the moral law, as one knows it, is sufficient for salvation. If he had said this, he would have uttered sheer Pelagianism. Saint Paul is most explicit when he writes that we are not saved by works alone. "But that in the law no man is justified with God, it is manifest because the just man liveth by faith." (Gal. 3:11) And again the Apostle says, "Without faith it is impossible to please God." (Heb. 11:6) So clear is this, that the Council of Trent merely had to reiterate the Pauline texts to uphold the truth about true faith's absolute requirement for justification. Good works are the normal pre-condition for a fruitful reception of the gospel, and an incentive for more grace, but they do not in themselves merit grace.
Point 3) Discussing the same encyclical, Father Most determines that membership in the Church for those in the above mentioned category is "implied" or "somehow that it is taken care of automatically as it were."
Answer: There is no hint in the encyclical cited that such a negative thing as inculpable ignorance makes one "a member of the Church" by implication or "automatically as it were." Moreover, Father has used an incorrect translation of the Pope's true words. Pius IX wrote that God would not allow a person to be "punished with eternal torments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault." He used the Latin word suppliciis ("torments")* not poenis ("punishments"). If the Pope had used the word "punishments" in the work cited, he would have denied the banishment the unbaptized children suffer in Limbo, for they are punished with loss on account of original sin, yet they have no fault of their own. Lastly, as several theologians "in good standing" have pointed out in their own ex professo works (Msgr. Joseph Fenton and Father Maurice Eminyan, S.J.), the words which the Pope used in this encyclical definitely do not imply that the invincibly ignorant can be saved in this state, for it is one of mere deficiency. And the initium salutis (the beginning of salvation) is the positive act of faith. The most that the Church ever said on the ordinary level (as distinguished from the ex cathedra level), prior to the Second Vatican Council, was that invincible ignorance of divine things diminishes culpability. [Or, in cases of children and simple people, excludes it.]
Point 4) Father Most states that Pope Pius XII ordered the Holy Office to condemn "Leonard Feeney" for his error. According to Father Most (not the Holy Office), that error was that "those who fail to enter the Church formally, even with no fault of their own, are all damned."
Answer: Here we have two gigantic errors. First of all, if, as he says, the Pope had "ordered" the Holy Office to condemn the "error" of Father Feeney, why did Pius not take responsibility for the action by having such a papal decree published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, as is required when such issuances are intended to be binding upon theologians? (Which action Pius XII himself specifies as necessary in his own encyclical Humani Generis #20) As Father Feeney acutely observed, Rome did not want to take official responsibility for this Holy Office letter. Its issuance was due to the political pressure exerted by the American hierarchy, whom Rome, during the post-war period, did not want to alienate. Father Most should have noticed that the source Denzinger gives for the unfortunate letter is merely the American Ecclesiastical Review.
The second error is a more deliberate misrepresentation. He knows perfectly well that Father Feeney never taught that one had to "formally" enter the Catholic Church in order to be saved. If by "formally" Fr. Most means-as he himself once expressed it in a previous article calumniating us-to have one's name "on the registry of some Catholic parish," then no, Father Feeney never taught this. Perhaps there are some baptized Christians (God knows, not we) who have rejected heresy and schism and yet have no Catholic "parish" to go to-one example comes to mind: the Russian apostle of unity, Vladimir Soloviev. Father Feeney always taught us that there could be such people who are actually, though not from the world's point of view, in the Church. There are also many others who on their deathbeds convert from their errors as a result of the extra graces bestowed at the last moments. The number of such are known to God alone. But convert they must, for no one can have grace in his soul while formally denying any article of the Catholic religion. But it seems to me that the author of A Question of Salvation ridicules the more common avenue nonCatholics are obliged to tread; that is. precisely. to get themselves into a Catholic parish. For once they are so "registered" they then can partake of the other sacraments, which are necessary for salvation by precept. Or does he hold that such gifts from God as the Holy Eucharist, Confirmation, and Penance are dispensable for the unconvinced?
Point 5) He maintains that the teaching of Vatican II on invincible ignorance is the same as the teaching of Popes Pius IX and Pius Xll. And that the "Feeneyites" reject these teachings.
Answer: Father Most is incorrect again, factually and accusationally. The quotation that he provides is not part of Vatican II's Constitution on the Church. Nor is it part of the footnote from which, I assume, he thought he was extracting it. I am truly perplexed as to the exact source of his transcription. In the official footnote (#59) of the section (16) he refers to, the letter concerning Father Feeney is appended, but minus the phrase he includes which treats of "implicit" desire's acceptability before God. Abbot Jerome Theisen, O.S.B., in his book, The Ultimate Church and the Promise of Salvation, comments on this deletion in the text: "The suppression of the votum implicitum is probably due to disenchantment with the term, especially since it was used indiscriminately to describe the situation of both separated Christians and the "unevangelized" in their diverse relations to the Roman Catholic Church." Furthermore, this "footnote" did not appear in the Relationes-the reports which accompanied the official schemata. Evidently, it was added later by a peritus. Is Father Most going to bind our consciences to a footnote that is not even part of the actual Constitution-a footnote that does not even contain the objectionable phrase which he dishonestly pretends emanated from the Council? [We are indebted to the scholarly research of Brother Thomas Mary Sennott. whose unpublished manuscript, the Father Feeney Case, contains this revealing information.]
Point 6) He accuses us of "the worst possible error;" indeed, we are "worse than" Father Curran; we "paint God as a monster, who damns millions without their own fault;" and that such a God as we have painted "could not exist at all." These are interesting observations to say the least. One would have to say even a wee bit emotionally charged.
Answer: No, we do not "paint God as a monster." Nor do we go so far as some of the Doctors and Fathers of the Church in saying that God "damns" millions without their own fault. We phrase the truth which the Church and her saints teach, in the most palatable language possible, without diminution of dogma: We say that God "punishes" millions despite no fault of their own by sending them to Limbo-a place of natural happiness, but of unfulfilled destiny. And woe to us if our theology helps to populate hell instead of heaven! The hell of fire is reserved for those-the vast majority of mankind, say all the saints-who die outside the Church through their own fault and our lack of zeal in not preaching to them. If this is the "worst possible error," then we have no one to blame for our belief but the Author of Scripture Himself, the infallible Church teaching, and the unanimous and constant interpretation of the salvation dogma as the Fathers and Doctors have transmitted it to us.
Moreover, collateral with our defense of the salvation dogma is our defense of the damnation dogma. The essence of hell, Father Feeney used to say repeatedly, is the loss of the Beatific Vision. The fires are the accidental part of hell. Without getting into a speculative treatise as to the manner in which such a fire can torment a soul (or, after the resurrection, the full man) without consuming him, it is enough to say this: There are as many degrees to hell as there are people in it. For some, the fire may be only ligative, that is confining, placing the condemned person in a prison as it were. Some, who have rejected grace after attaining the use of reason, but who have not lived long enough to commit serious sins against the objective moral law implanted in their hearts, may not be physically tormented at all by the fire although they are still in it. In other words, God's mercy as well as His justice will be manifest in both realms. No one will be punished beyond his deserts. Rather, the tempering of divine justice by divine mercy will render the affliction of the damned to be less than they deserve, for having freely rejected so great a gift. And no one is in the hell of fire who has persevered in his cooperation with God's actual graces. For such a one must necessarily "come to the knowledge of the truth" if actual grace is what the Church has always understood it to be. (Check Father Peronne's classic definition of actual grace in Pohle-Preuss, Grace, p. 18.) As for our being "worse than Father Curran," the very accusation sufficiently reflects whence Father Most is coming.
Point 7) We are accused of holding that God will damn people of "good faith" (whatever that means) "in spite of their keeping the moral law."
Answer: Again we have instruction concerning this from the Book of Proverbs: "There is a way that seemeth just to a man but the ends thereof lead to death." (14:12) It must be held therefore, that "good faith" or sincerity can mitigate culpability in rejecting or persecuting the truth, but it does not extinguish it. To maintain that it does is to deny the whole economy of grace. Does Father Most not believe that God "enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world?" (John 1:9) And that God "will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim. 2:4) They come not to true Faith because of "bad faith" and resistance to grace.
Point 8) We will be judged harshly because we have (in our "good faith") made God "very harsh" and have "contradicted the Church."
Answer: We have not made God "very harsh." We take God on His word. Our Lord said, "wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and straight is the way that leadeth to life, and few there are that find it." (Matt. 7:14) Eternal life in the Beatific Vision is not a reward that man can merit by natural virtue alone. Natural virtue is a helpful predisposition and, for those who practice it, the grace of faith will not be wanting, but they must not allow pride or cowardice to frustrate it.
It is a miracle that any man at all should be elevated to an eternal sharing of God's beatific life. We "diehard Feeneyites" (as Father Most sarcastically refers to us-and we are proud of our loyalty to the deceased priest so unjustly maligned) refuse to cheat those who are outside the Church with humanistic theologizing. We want to save souls! We are serious about it. Therefore, may God strike us all dead before we should ever stop bellowing about the "narrow way" of the gospel. We are not going to risk giving scandal by using recent papal utterances in such a way that even one non-Catholic would get the impression that he need not become a Catholic to be saved. If you want to do that, Father Most, go ahead, continue to do so. The day will come when we shall see who is judged harshly. And I have no doubt that the "diehard Feeneyites" will have a more strict accounting to make than others. "Unto whomsoever much is given, of him much is required." (Luke 12:48)
Point 9) The Fathers of the Church "knew" that when revelation appears contradictory, both apparent contradictions must be affirmed until a "solution" is found. And the Fathers did do this in regard to the dogma in question, i.e. No salvation outside the Church.
Answer: The Fathers absolutely did not speak out of both sides of their mouths concerning the doctrine of revelation: No salvation outside the Church. Almost every writer I have ever read insists that the Fathers believed the doctrine of salvation in the absolute literal sense. Liberal writers (like Ives Congar) are critical of them for it. The quotes which Father Most presents as "contradictions" are out of context and misapplied. And why didn't he list any of the more Pope Eugene-like quotations? Are they too clearly on our side? Why, he would not even give his readers the benefit of seeing the full text of Pope Eugene's ex cathedra definition! And this is just one of many similar pronouncements meant for the instruction of the universal Church. Was this Pontiff sidestepping the guarantee of infallibility (an impossible thing) when he rose to the height of his authority to bind the consciences of all generations of Christians with these unmisinterpretable words: "none of those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal . . . no one, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ (e.g. Cranmer, my addition) can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church"?
Point 10) The Fathers "never could clearly manage" their own two sets of apparently contradictory statements in regard to the possibility of salvation for non-believers. Alleged examples provided (e.g. Saint Justin, Hermas, Saint Augustine).
Answer: The Fathers did not have to "manage" their own two sets of apparently "contradictory" statements, because they had no such "two sets." They had one doctrine on the issue. What kind of a picture was Father attempting to create for your readers? Is the Church Hegelian or Catholic? If a Father had held an erroneous view on some dogmatic issue and then corrected it later, this would be understandable. But Father Most alleges that Saint Augustine, in particular, held two conflicting views about the salvation dogma at the same time. He did hold erroneous views on other issues that were corrected in his Retractationes (Retractions), but not on the salvation dogma.
First, let us look at the text cited from Saint Justin the Martyr. We must examine when it was written. At what stage in his process of conversion? And to whom was he writing? Was he giving witness to the faith as he received it? Or was he merely rationalizing like the philosopher that he was? Actually, Saint Justin was writing to Tryphon, a Jewish philosopher friend. All he was saying was that the philosophers of old, like Socrates and Heraclitus, were quite capable of living according to the law of God as it was written on their hearts. In what some of the Greek thinkers wrote about the Logos there could be implied a supernaturally implicit faith in the Logos as Son of God and Savior to come. This was a legitimate interpretation by Justin, based upon the fact that the Greek politicians considered Socrates an "atheist" that is, a rejecter of the gods. In fact, a Jew would have been labelled an "atheist" by the Hellenistic pagans, as the Christians later were by the Romans. Furthermore, if Saint Justin had not been martyred, it is very doubtful that he would have had a cultus among the early Christians. What if the controversial Tertullian (who is also a Father of the Church) had died a martyr and subsequently been honored as a saint? Would we be bound to all the errors he had espoused? To deduce from this passage of Saint Justin's apologia that he believed one could be saved after the Redemption without explicit faith in Christ is a very forced interpretation, to say the least. [Saint Thomas Aquinas devoted two articles in his Summa Theologica to demonstrate how after the Incarnation explicit faith in Our Lord as Redeemer was necessary for the salvation of all men. (Summa, Il-II, Quest. 2, arts. 7 & 8)]
What Father Most relates from the writings of Hermas and Saint Augustine is simply basic Catholic doctrine. Only he misapplies it. Of course. the holy people in the O!d Dispensation, Jew as well as Gentile, could be considered members of Christ, and anticipatively, of His Church! But without Faith, they could not be so considered. Saint Augustine never said that an idolater could be saved, no matter how moral his ethics were.
Point 11) The Fathers held that people who did not belong to the old People of God could yet be saved, and were members of the Church without realizing it. However, the Fathers "never found out" how-or at least, never explained it explicitly.
Answer: Technicly no one was saved in the old Testement. They were all waiting in limbo of th eFather's. They died with sanctyfing grace but more was needed. The death and resurection of Chrict, who will open the Gates of heaven. So in a sense, yes, one could be saved in the Old Testament without belonging to the Chosen People of God is not clear. But they could not be saved without believing in the God of the chosen people and his future savior. I think Saint Augustine explained this as sufficiently as he could.
Point 12) Father Most implies that Gentiles and pagans are synonymous terms. Pagans will be judged by the natural law, which is merely moral, not at all doctrinal. In fact, the Spirit of Christ (the Holy Ghost), makes known to all men what morality requires. This is sufficient to unite them to Christ, that is, to His Church, even if they have never heard of Christ "not by external formal adherence, of course, but yet really and substantially."
Answer: Father Most uses the word "pagan" incorrectly. He knows well that, by Pagan, people today understand the implied ism (Paganism), not just the "non-Jews." The correct word is "Gentile." The Gentiles were the "others," the uncircumcised, among whom the Jews were not supposed to mix. God had His reasons for this. The appellation does not automatically imply heathenism or idolatry. The true faith could be found outside of Abraham's race, or later, outside of Israel (Jacob). (Witness: Job, Melchisedech, the Queen of Sheba, Ruth, Naaman the Syrian. and many other holy Gentile believers at the time of Christ--the Magi, etc.) Father Most seems to adopt Cardinal Danielou's error as expressed in the latter's inappropriately named book, "Pagan Saints of the Old Testament." Among such ''pagan saints Danielou even includes the "Israelite" prophet Daniel. If "pagans" can be united to Christ in the New Dispensation without ever having heard of Him, simply by living up to the moral law as conscience dictates it, then, pray tell, what is the "real and substantial" difference between a baptized Christian and a "good faith" non-Christian? Can Father Most explain to his readers why so many saintly missionaries gave their lives in order to spread the gospel and baptize? Was Saint Francis Xavier "harsh" and narrow-minded when he told the Japanese that their ancestors could not have been saved unless they had the message of Christ's redemption preached to them? To use the saint's own words: "If they had been worthy, God would have sent a missionary."
Again, in the texts provided from Saint Paul's letter to the Romans, our antagonist posits the same error, going so far as to parenthetically supply the word pagan after the appellative "Gentile" used by the Apostle. This is an illicit supposition. If Saint Paul had used the word which we understand by pagan, i.e. idolater, his teaching would contain a blatant contradiction and, consequently, his inference would be invalid. And, since this seems to be the way Father Most understands the meaning of Gentile, then I am forced to conclude that he holds that an idolater can be "doing by nature the things of the law" and showing "the work of the law written on his heart." This is a blasphemy. Can the "Spirit of Christ" working among the Gentiles elevate idolatrous worship as His own divine act in supernatural faith? Or does the act of faith not depend on both the truth of its objective matter and Divine cooperation? Or does the law written on the hearts of every man exclude the First Commandment? If it does, then why does the same Apostle excoriate the Roman "pagans" as "inexcusable" for not knowing the true God? (Romans 1:20) If they had not corrupted the knowledge of God by their immoralities, they would have looked, at least implicitly, for a Savior to come in recognition of their fallen condition, for such godlike and humble submission to the true God as the rewarder of good acts would manifest an implicit faith in a Redeemer. However. as we see from the Book of Job. explicit faith in the Redeemer to come was not a foreign belief among the Gentile nations. Cornelius the centurion is another classic example of a Gentile who had such Messianic faith. And even this implicit faith in the Redeemer to come (correlatlve with the observance of the law of God as He implanted it in the soul of every man was to become explicit for all the justified (awaiting the Redemption in Limbo) when the Soul of Christ descended into the temporary hell to "preach" to those in prison. (I Pet. 3:19)
Point 13) We are implicitly accused of holding that salvation is more difficult after Christ than before, because before Christ one did not have to join the People of God by being circumcised and obeying the Mosaic discipline.
Answer: The world is not "far worse off now than before the coming of Christ." This is a completely erroneous conclusion. Grace has become much more abundant after the Redemption. With the commission by Christ to go forth and teach all nations, (and thanks to those who took this mandate seriously), far more souls are being saved after Christ's coming than than before. If we take the Pentateuch history seriously, this conclusion is obvious. At the time of Noah there was not one just family living, outside of his own. Many converted when the floods came but the very fact of this universal chastisement proves how evil the world had become after the death of Adam. By Abraham 's time the situation had degenerated again, and God had to make a new covenant with this holy Patriarch. Then, with the Israelite occupation wars under Joshua, we see again how corrupt the Gentiles (for the most part) had become-so corrupt, in fact. that God actually had to order His people to utterly destroy many of these pagan nations. Of course, their populations were not so great; in fact, very small by today's standards.
Even still, though sin abounded, grace was not rationed sparingly among non-Jews in Old Testament times. For there never was a time or place when salvation was beyond man's reach. But certainly, for reasons God alone knows, it was more difficult to be saved before, than after, Christ. After Our Lord came, many nations who knew not God were preached to and millions were saved. Yet, Saint Paul was prevented by the "Spirit of Christ" from going into Asia. God alone knows why. Perhaps Saint Thomas the Apostle announced the gospel to those who were worthy in the East. We know he traveled to India and, probably Tibet. No doubt the natives of this area carried the light of the Faith themselves to whomever the "Spirit" directed them, but preach they must because without faith it is impossible to please God!" So. I stress this: after the establishment of the Church (the Body of Christ on earth), incorporation into that Body was not more difficult, simply because there was now an obligation to join a visible Church. The Church's visibility does not make salvation more difficult. but easier. Why? Because, the more zealous children of God were now empowered by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to cast fire on the earth, which was not the case in the Old Dispensation. Rather. it was quite the opposite, for the Jews were commanded to segregate themselves from the Gentiles in order not to become contaminated, though they often did not heed this mandate. This made faith in the true God and observance of His moral precepts more difficult for the Gentiles.
Point 14) According to Father Most's commentary on our commitment to the literal truth of the salvation dogma, he sees the Redemption, through what he falsely assumes to be our eyes, as being a "tragedy," because so many nations and millions are damned. And he concludes: "Saint Paul will have none of this."
Answer: As I said before, the fact that the majority of mankind is lost is indeed "tragic." But the Redemption is not the cause of the tragedy. The establishment of the Church has brought salvation to untold millions. Without Christ 's Incarnation and redemptive death, no one at all would be saved. Father Most would do better to get into focus the enormous "tragedy" of the original sin, for which, in some sense, all men share the actual (though not personal) guilt. The good tidings is that we can be saved at all. For the glories of heaven that have come to us as a result of Christ's Passion far outweigh whatever glory was destined for us had Adam not sinned. We do right to sing O Felix Culpa! in the Easter Praeconium. The victory of the Cross and Resurrection is not to be measured by the percentage who win the battle, but by the grace of the victors themselves, for many are called but few are chosen. We ought not to accuse God in our own niggardly fashion because seventy percent of the world is unbaptized; rather, we should thank God that we have been given the grace of union with Christ. This is enough. This is our Eucharistia. If we do not appreciate what we have in our Holy Communions that makes us infinitely different from those who spurn this "saving Food" or who, in their darkness, labor in ignorance of such a divine thing. how shall we be consumed with the zeal required to preach to them? Of this Saint Paul indeed has much to say, which Father Most apparently has overlooked.
Sincerely, In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Brother Michael, M.I.C.M.
c/c Father Most
Heed Church Teaching On Salvation, Not Private Judgment? "Amen!"
