SALVATION

Protestants ask if acceptance of Christianity be necessary for salvation, what of those who lived before Christ?

The merits and grace of Christ were applied by God to men of goodwill in anticipation of His death on the Cross. God, in His eternity, is not conditioned by time, and men could benefit by the death of Christ just as they can make use of an inheritance which is absolutely certain to be given to them in due time. The merits of Christ were applied to Jews of goodwill in virtue of their faith in a Redeemer to come.  Every single human being has the moral standard that what is apprehended to be morally good must be done, whilst moral evil must be avoided.

Those who – through no fault of their own (the major hurdle in order to qualify as being invincibly ignorant of Jesus Christ and His true Catholic Church,)  – did not know of a Redeemer to come could be saved if they:

1. a) obeyed the natural dictates of their right reason and good conscience.

But extremely rare is the soul who has never fallen into mortal sin. Such common mortal sins include as having ever attended and/or participated in non-Catholic religious worship or prayer services, including:

1. pagan (L paganus non participant, country dweller, civilian), heathen (Old Norse Heidinn, from which came Old English Haeden criminals and others who have not behaved according to Christian teachings) Judaic, Protestant, Vatican II Novus Ordo, Non-Denominational, and now the U. S military allows a new designation of “Atheist Chaplains” to hold “services” in the same military chapels as all the others.   Worship,
2. sins of the flesh (fornication, adultery, etc)
3. murder or mayhem,
4. lying, etc.,

Despite having fallen into sin, they could yet achieve salvation if prior to death  they

1. b) repented of their failings by an Act of Perfect Contrition

For a soul to meet both requirements  “a)” above, and requirement “b)” with the proper intensity of true contrition necessary as to make effective any attempt at an Act of Perfect Contrition, especially in one not habitually conscious of doing so, is so rare, the Catholic Church teaches, as to be almost impossible.

However, be there any such invincibly ignorant soul who exists, or has ever existed, dying in a state satisfying those two requirements by being so intent upon having lived throughout his life focused on, and practicing, truthful behavior, the Church teaches and that such a person would immediately recognize the complete truths of the Catholic Church as being of those of the Supreme Being. And for that reason, that particular invincibly ignorant person is a member within the bosom and unity of the true Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, by Baptism of Intent.

Thus, the infallible teaching that there is no salvation outside the bosom and unity of the true Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ remains true.

Protestants ask if God is everywhere, He must fill every man even as He filled Jesus. What was the difference between the relationship of Jesus to God, and that of other men? God must be part of all.

It does not follow that, because God is everywhere, He must be part of man’s being. Man’s being is finite and created. The Infinite and Un-created God could not be a component part of created finite being. God and man are in two totally different orders of being, and their co-existence in the same place or space could not make them part of each other. As a matter of fact, God is not even conditioned by space as are creatures. But even in the natural and physical order, thought and brain (a nexus of physical nerve endings) co-exist in a human head without thought becoming part of the brain. The brain belongs to the material order; thought to the spiritual order.

If thought were part of the brain, the brain would increase or diminish as thought increased or diminished. But it does not. And just as thought can co-exist in one’s head with a material brain without becoming a component part of that brain, so God’s existence everywhere does not make Him a part of man’s being.

What then was the difference between the relationship of Jesus to God, and that of ordinary men? It cannot consist in any aspect of God’s omnipresence, since the human nature assumed by the Second Person existed as much within the immensity and omnipresence of God as you do. It must consist of something over and above that relationship to the omnipresence of God; in something proper to Jesus, and not possessed by any other human being. What was it? It was this: Apart from the Divine Attribute of omnipresence possessed by the Divine Nature, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity entered into possession of, and controlled the human nature born of Mary, so that this human nature never became a created human personality, but remained the created instrument of a Divine Personality.

Thus, within the omnipresence of God, which no created being can escape, a new bond is established between the human nature of Christ and God, a bond which does not exist in the case of any other human nature. It is a personal bond, enabling the one Person of the Eternal Son to say equally, “I am God,” or “I am man,” according to His possession of both a Divine and a human nature.

Other human beings can never say, “I am God.” They are restricted to the expression, “I am a man.”

But the human nature of Christ was gripped into a bond of personal union with the eternal and Divine Son who possessed and controlled it, making it integral to His one Personality for the purposes of our redemption in a nature drawn from that human race which was to be redeemed.

Protestants ask: Did Christ’s death on the Cross have to be?

It had to be by what is known as a conditional necessity. God could have exercised His mercy only, and condoned our sins without exacting expiation on the part of the human race. But if God wished to satisfy the claims of justice that was requiring a divine atonement for man’s sins against an infinite God – something incapable of finite, created mankind – then the Incarnation and death of Christ were necessary. The Son of God freely chose to offer Himself in sacrifice, and that sacrifice was the logical necessity consequent upon His choice. He need not have chosen to die, and to die in such a way; but having chosen to do so, the fact necessarily followed.

Protestants ask: Had no one attempted to crucify Christ, what would have become of our salvation?

In dealing with God’s work for the salvation of souls, our knowledge is limited to what He has revealed and actually accomplished. It is impossible to say what would have been done by God if what has happened did not happen. We must take things as they are, and be content to let curious speculations go unanswered.

Protestants ask: If it was ordained that Christ should die, why does any blame attach to those who put Him to death?

Just as the sins of mankind in general from which Christ came to redeem us were not willed by God, so the evil dispositions of those who actually put Christ to death were not willed by God. Thus, the treachery of Judas, the injustice of Pilate, the hatred and malice of the Jews—these things were evil and opposed to God’s will. And those guilty of such evil dispositions were blameworthy before God. You must not think of God as planning that Christ should die, and then arranging that some men will be evil enough to kill Him. Where we think one thing after another, God sees all things simultaneously. He sent His Son to a world which He knew was wicked, and needed redeeming; and into the midst of men who would, as a matter of fact, be evil enough at heart to condemn Him to death. But the evil was the fault of men, not of God. God did not ordain, nor cause the evil; but God the Father in cooperation of the Holy Ghost permitted it to be the death of His Son who had undertaken to expiate in a manner that only such a divine atonement would be acceptable to God for mankind’s sins.  For even if all men ever created sacrificed themselves seeking forgiveness, collectively it would not be sufficient expiation to achieve redemption crimes against the infinite Divinity of the Holy Trinity that required a divine sacrifice of infinite value.

Protestants ask: If the Second Divine Person suffered only in His human nature, how was the atonement made by God? Catholic doctrine makes it a purely human sacrifice.

The sacrifice of Calvary was not a purely human sacrifice. The atonement was made by God because the Person, whose human nature was nailed to the cross, was God. The Person, and not the nature under the then control of that Person, is the terminus of attribution.

If a person abuses his use of reason by willfully committing murder by punching a man to death, it is irrational, unjust and useless in court for the murder to say “It wasn’t me that killed him.  It was my fist.” Thus, the human nature which was nailed to the cross was His Who was and is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.  And the sacrifice, though directly involving the death of the human nature, derived its dignity from the Person to whom it belonged. It was, therefore, an atonement of infinite value derived from the infinite dignity of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. In no logical, just sense can one say that a purely human sacrifice took place on Calvary.

Yet there are today in 2019 Talmudic Judaics, heathens, atheists and rapidly increasing many others globally of a contumacious and pertinaciously blinded intellect who reject the proven divine nature of Jesus Christ.

Those who adopt that mentality are the ones willingly or unwittingly are (now not so subtly) promoting a scio-econo-religio- (but mainly) political pre-figurement of what eventually becomes acceptance of a long-awaited  “Political Messiah” who becomes the ultimate Antichrist that Scripture says will have totalitarian rule for forty-two months.

As a lyric of the late John Lennon (shot to death 1980 in NYC) espoused in the Beatles song, Imagine:  “Imagine a world without religion.”  Lennon’s sophistry therein was that is the way to achieve world peace.  With incredulous and alarming alacrity, the world apostatizes unrestrained towards that Talmudic Judaic New World Order (NWO) goal by

Firstly, annihilating its major obstacle: true Catholicism.  With exception of a mere faithful remnant, this has virtually been achieved via Talmudic Judaism founded & controlled Freemason infiltrators to the Sacred College of Cardinals who executed a coup d’etat of the Chair of Peter in the October 26, 1958 Papal Conclave.  Subsequent actions of the unbroken successive line of anti-popes (i. e., illicit claimants to the Papacy) during the 1960’s as follows:

April 1962’s defective, QUO PRIMUM-condemned “1962 Latin Mass”/”John XXIII Mass” that replaced the true Roman Missal of Pius V Mass in all once-Catholic churches globally;

October 1962 beginning of the EXECRABILIS-condemned Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) with its two hundred plus heresies; the

Easter Sunday 1968 Announcement by Anti-pope Paul VI illicitly instituting the QUO PRIMUM-condemned NOVUS ORDO MISSAE [New Order of the Mass in the vernacular] and DEFECTIBUS-condemned NEW RITE of ORDINATION Rite of Ordination for priests and bishops.  No man claiming to be a priest or bishop, who says he receives his “ordination” or promotion to the episcopacy wherein the defective New Rites was utilized, is valid.  Jorge Bergoglio was invalidly “ordained” in the New Rite of Ordination in Argentina in December 1969. Thus, Mr. Bergoglio was never a validly ordained priest, must less a bishop, cardinal or pope.  He is an anti-pope now teaching since January 2017 there are no flames of torture nor punishment when a bad person dies… that hell and Satan are both myths created by the Catholic Church in order to scare people into joining, and paying in for “protection” from these myths.

Secondly, the ongoing phase of gathering all other religions worldwide (Talmudic Judaism, Freemasonry, Socialism, Communism, Anarchists, Pagans, Heathens, Heretics, Muslims, Hindus, African Animists, Atheists, etc.) into cooperation with the apostates who run the Vatican have nearly established a “One World Contra-Church” where doctrinal differences are not discussed.  The name of Jesus Christ will be diminished in usage until it becomes forbidden to mention (as is the case in most Freemason Lodges) and considered a word that conjures “hate” against mankind.

Protestants claim Catholics hold that Christ died to save sinners.

The Catholic doctrine says that Christ died for the purpose of saving sinners. But note this: Christ did not die to save sinners unconditionally, as if His death means that all sinners are necessarily saved. His death provides salvation for all who are willing to comply with the conditions laid down by Himself.

Protestants ask:  Did Christ died for me personally?

That is true, but Christ does not force salvation upon anybody. He did die to offer the means of salvation to all mankind, and, therefore, to every single member of the human race. In that sense His death will avail for you personally, if you personally comply with the conditions prescribed by Christ. It is as if it were in a person (debtor) in financial debt with a bank, and some charitable soul (benefactor) lodged sufficient money in the bank to discharge that debt, giving the debtor (now beneficiary) a checkbook to draw upon the money. The benefactor could truly say that he had done enough to save the beneficiary from beggary. But if the beneficiary refused to put his name to a single check, and would not walk a step towards the bank, despising the benefactor’s arrangements, the beneficiary would not be saved from beggary. That would be the beneficiary’s own fault, however, and no proof that the benefactor’s provision for the beneficiary was not efficacious in itself.

Christ did not die for sinners so that they could go on being sinners.

Yet that is precisely what is taught by the heresiarch Martin Luther (1483-1546), founder of Lutheranism.  His biographers record that he once wrote a friend: “Sin on boldly.  You need only put your faith in Jesus Christ and you are saved.  You may commit a thousand acts of immorality or a thousand murders a day, and you are saved.  So sin on boldly.” and signed his name to that letter.

The apostatized Vatican of the Counterfeit-Catholic Novus Ordo Contra-Church in recent years:

1. a) erected a statue of Martin Luther in the Vatican (Anti-pope Francis stands aside it for photo ops.,)
2. b) are now accepting Martin Luther’s heresy that man is saved by faith alone (Sola Fide,) and
3. c) have begun the process to have Martin Luther declared a “Saint.”

Protestants ask: Can you tell me from what He saved sinners?

People who have died in the bosom and unity of the true Catholic Church in the state of sanctifying grace, who were sinners during life, but who repented of their sins, and did their best to comply with the conditions imposed by Christ, have been saved by Him from hell. People who are still living have not yet been saved by Christ. He has paid the price necessary for their salvation, if they choose to avail themselves of it.

Those who are actually sinners in grave matters (such as those living outside the Catholic Church, or those being a member of the Catholic Church but living in mortal sin) are not availing themselves of it at present; and if they die in that mortally sinful state, will not be saved at all. Those true Catholic sinners who do abandon their sins, repenting of them, and die in a state of such repentance, appealing to Christ for salvation, will be saved by Him—from hell.

Protestants ask: Did Christ die to save sinners from death in the ordinary sense of the word, or from hell?

He did not die to save sinners or anyone from death in the ordinary physical sense of the word. Even those who will be saved and who have been saved, were not intended to be freed from the necessity of death as the termination of this earthly life. Their salvation is from a future and eternal hell—that living death of all man’s hopes and aspirations for happiness.

“Abandon hope all ye who enter here” (from Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri [1265-1321])

Protestants ask: If I do not escape hell, does the atonement apply to me?

It will not be applied to anyone who dies Protestant because they are dying as heretics, schismatics, therefore, outside the bosom and unity of the true Catholic Church.  But the fact will remain true for all eternity that Christ did do His part to atone for Protestant sins, and the privilege of salvation was possible for them, if they had repented and returned to the true flock before the first death. Those that didn’t are now are experiencing the second death.  The atonement was there, but the Protestants dying in such state of heresy and schism will not avail themselves of it.

Some Protestants believe: My reason abhors the thought that another should suffer for my shortcomings.

One who has no faith in Christ, as Christ really was and is, could alone speak like that. If Christ be reduced to the merely human level, and emptied of His Divinity, then it becomes a question of merely man and man; and we all admit that, where man and man are concerned, no mere man could satisfy for the sins of another man; and that he who sins should do so, if it be possible to him. But in reality, no mere man can satisfy adequately for sin against God, however well able he may be to repair injuries against his fellow creatures. And only abiding faithfully by the complete, true Christian doctrine with the true Catholic Church solves the problem of reparation of sin against God.

Protestants state: We would be base and cowardly, knowingly to allow the existence of such a position.

We have no choice in the matter. For it is an accomplished fact that Christ died for the redemption of mankind. The only choice left to us is rejection of Christ’s sacrifice, or acceptance of His redeeming work. He who has no faith in God’s revelation and no sense of sin or real understanding of what sin means will reject it.

Protestants believe such a doctrine does not strengthen, but weakens the Christian religion.

Protestants would not say that, did they have a right idea of the doctrine. Grasp the position. The gravity of an offense is intensified by the worth of the person offended. Precisely because one’s own mother has a special claim upon the respect and reverence of her child, ill-treatment of her is worse than that of another.

But sin is against the infinite dignity and majesty and authority of God. No mere creature could make adequate atonement or reparation to the Creator for such an offense. Yet since human nature gave such offense, one in a human nature should make reparation. So the Eternal Son of God became man. Because of His Divinity, He could make adequate reparation; because of His humanity, He could make it in our name.

Man did not love God enough to keep God’s law, but broke that law and became worthy of death. Why should God preserve man in life only that man might offend him? So Christ endured death, expiating our sinful pleasures by His sufferings, and compensating for our own lack of love by the immense love in His human heart for God. And in order that this might not be just one isolated individual suffering for another, even as He blended Himself with our humanity in the Incarnation, so He blends us with Himself by grace. He is the Head and we are the members; and Head and members are one. So Christ sacrificed Himself, making those for whom He did so one with Himself.

By this very union of love between Himself and those in attendance at the Mass, Christ could say to His Father, “Father, what I offer, they offer; and the love you have for me will be your love for them also.”

Note: The adding of a few drops of water to the Chalice of wine before Consecration represents faithful Catholics participating at the true Latin Mass as the offering of themselves to be immolated on the altar with Jesus during the actual Consecration of the bread and wine mixed with water to become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ at a true Roman Missal of Pius V Mass. 

Thus God “so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son.” That Son, by shedding His blood for us, atoned for our sins, exemplifying His own words, “Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” John 15:13. One who sees no spiritual significance in this does not understand ordinary gratitude.

It is this doctrine of Christ’s death on the Cross for us, of His vicarious death, that the Saints found their greatest inspiration.  As St. Paul said, in Gal. 2:19-20

“19  For I,  through the law, am dead to the law, that I may live to God : with Christ I am nailed to the Cross.

“20  And I live, now not I ; but Christ liveth in me.  And that I live now in the flesh, I live in the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself for me.”

Haydock Commentary Galatians Chapter 2

“Ver. 19. He here expresses the change which had been wrought in him.  The law to which he had been attached, had passed away from him.  Now he was so united to Christ and His Cross, that he says : Not I, but Christ liveth in me.  The strong expressions made use of by S. Paul with regard to the Jewish law in this chapter, may appear strange, and very capable of wrong interpretation.  But we must ever bear in mind that S. Paul speaks exclusively of the ceremonial part of the law, and not the moral, contained in the decalogue:  of this latter he says in ep. To the Romans (ii. 13.) he doers of the law shall be justified.  But to this effect,  was and is necessary the grace which Jesus Christ has merited and obtained for all, grace which God has shed on all, more or less, from the commencement of the world.

Protestants state: Catholics have said that after His death, Christ resumed the life He sacrificed on the cross.

Catholics believe that. The man who rejects it must shut his eyes to the historical evidence available.

Protestants believe such a statement is due to Catholic confusion as to the nature of factual proof.

That is not so. Factual proof may be either by personal experimental knowledge, or by the evidence of history. If historically a man must shut his eyes to the evidence, or believe that the Battle of Waterloo took place, Protestants cannot say that the Catholic is blind to the nature of factual proof.

Protestants question whether Catholics possess evidence other than that of the Gospels; evidence which leaves no shadow of doubt as to the resurrection being a fact.

The Gospels and St. Paul’s Epistles constitute five independent historical documents which leave no shadow of doubt. Their being bound in one volume does not affect their independence of each other.

Protestants who espouse the heresy of Sola Scriptura will – in contradiction of their demanding one only relying on Scriptures – frequently reject certain Scriptures as being too unbelievable.  Protestants begin by rejecting the resurrection on the score that they will not believe in what seems to Protestants so incredible an event. They doubt the Gospels precisely because they record what Protestants deem incredible. But had a Catholic produced any other documents recording the resurrection, Protestants would then have had the same reason for doubting the reliability of those documents found outside the Bible. Such is Sola Scruptura-believing heretics who have made their own irrational conundrum because of the Protestants who conjure up excuses for denying the reliability of the Gospels!

It is not reasonable to refuse to believe what is in the Bible unless a Catholic can produce evidence other than that contained in the Bible which contain the evidence to validate the meaning of the Bible verse Protestants may find incredible, and so reject. Whosoever rejects documental evidence in Scripture is obliged to prove why it should be so rejected. It is the Protestant duty to disprove the historical value of the five documents of the Gospels and St. Paul’s Epistles.  Instead, Protestants merely to ignore the verses they find unbelievable, and shut their eyes to the evidence. Picking through the Bible and choosing what they accept, how they want to interpret it,  or reject and skip over verses hard for them to believe is one of the main characteristics of Protestantism. It is the cause for the never-ending fragmentation and disagreement of mainline Protestant and Non-Denominational sects over the last five centuries.  It is only getting worse and leading them to become indifferent to their corrupted concept of “Christianity.”  The demonized chaos of Protestant, Non-Denominational, and Vatican II Counterfeit-Catholic Novus Ordo sects are all spinning further from belief in Jesus Christ and His WORD.  This situation makes them unknowingly (and increasingly uncaring) prime subjects for soon succumbing to a seemingly pious, far more intelligent, charismatic, and effective world leader who then supersedes all religions… by the required adoration of him, the Antichrist.

Protestants say the only unquestionable fact is that certain contemporaries of Christ have given accounts of the resurrection which may or may not be sincere; or which, if sincere, may or may not be mistaken.

Here the Protestants show they do not doubt, therefore, that the accounts were written by contemporaries of Christ. Protestants place their doubts on the possibility of the writers being insincere; or, granted their sincerity, on the possibility of their being mistaken. Now the possibility that they were insincere has long been abandoned as quite unreasonable by even the bitterest enemies of Christianity. Firstly, it would be so pointless to conspire to impose on the world a religion in which the Apostles themselves did not believe. They had nothing to gain. Men do not break with all their friends, and invite persecution and death, for a lie which they know to be a lie. Nor were the cowardly Apostles rendered suddenly courageous by a conviction they knew to be unfounded. If they were liars, they were not conscious liars. They were sincere.

That leaves the second possibility per the Protestants: Were the writers mistaken? That supposes the writers to have been deranged, and suffering from some strange hallucination. But that is impossible. It is so evident that they were not expecting Christ to rise. Their tendency was to un-believe and not to believe. And also, there were too many witnesses for them all to be subject to precisely the same hallucination. Nor is it reasonable to admit their sanity on things Protestants are willing to accept, and arbitrarily declare them insane whenever Protestants do not happen to like what they have to say. To make Protestant likes and dislikes the test of credibility is prejudice—not reason.

Protestants say the before such an event is accepted as historical, it must satisfy the strictest tests imposed by the laws of evidence.

Quite so. And the historical evidence for the resurrection is better than that for the greater number of events of those times accepted as historical by scholarly men. The only reasons Protestants have advanced against the value of the evidence are suggestions that the writers were either liars or insane. And neither suggestion is reasonable.

Protestants claim to be too inclined to take someone else’s word for things; i. e., to depart from the strict laws of evidence.

All historical evidence consists in the acceptance of the recorded word of others. Such acceptance is not a departure from the strict laws of historical evidence, provided we make sure that the documents are 1) authentic, 2) that there are sufficient witnesses to preclude the possibility of derangement, and 3) that the witnesses were men of unimpeachable honesty.

Protestants state that unless evidence as disinterested as an entry in a birth register were forthcoming, one must hold that no real proof exists.

That is foolish. The fact that an account of an event has been written voluntarily, and not at the instigation of State officials, cannot invalidate the account. We cannot reject history merely because the authors were interested enough to want to write it.  Of course, when extraordinary events are recorded, one must inquire more carefully into the nature of the interest prompting the writers. In the case of the Gospels, there is no interest other than the desire to record the truth.

Protestants say that even in an official record the chances of faked entry and human error would have to be considered.

In the case of the Gospel and Pauline accounts of the resurrection they have been considered, and with a thoroughness with which no one who is familiar with the subject could quarrel. The chances of faked entry are excluded by the very independence of the records. And that human error is responsible for the narration of the event is impossible.

Protests say Catholics may think it worth their while to believe it, but they must not therefore pretend that a proof exists.

They do not pretend that a proof exists. They say that the historical proofs of the resurrection as a fact render its denial a violation of reason. It is the man who does not want to believe who pretends that the evidence is not sufficient. Yet he has nothing to advance against that evidence except his prejudice against anything supernatural. He practically says, “I do not think that it would happen, and I refuse to accept any evidence that it did happen.” But preconceived ideas of the probable and improbable must yield to facts.

Grace and salvation

Protestants ask:  Does Catholic dogma admit our Protestant doctrine that since Christ has paid the price of man’s salvation, man is no longer in danger of losing his soul?

No. And you will find no support for your belief in the Bible. Christ Himself warns us to watch and pray lest we enter into temptation. That is meaningless, if temptation in no way endangers the soul. He said, “Blessed is that man who, when his Lord cometh, is found watching.” Lk. XII., 37. That implies that it is possible not to be in a fit state when called to judgment. Again and again He warns us of the danger of losing our souls, and puts the question, “What does it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?” St. Paul tells us to work out our salvation in fear and trembling. Those who think themselves to stand are told to beware lest they fall. Protestantism’s “once saved, always saved” idea finds no justification in the Bible.

Protestants say that Christ saved us by His death once and for all.

In other words, no man can be lost, in whatever wickedness he may indulge, and even though he persists in evil dispositions until his last conscious moments! According to Protestant doctrine, therefore, it does not matter whether a man tries to live a good life or not. Whether he wants it or not, he’s got to be saved. There is no other alternative. Christ was talking folly, according to Protestants, when He said in Matt. X., 28.  “28 And fear not them that can kill the body, and cannot kill the soul: but rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

If all men are necessarily saved, there’s no need to fear anything at all. Again, why does our Lord tell us that, on the last day, all men will be judged, the good being rewarded, and the wicked sent to the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels? Such Protestant ideas do not harmonize with the Bible at all.

Protestant claim that their truly Protestant position is that the “just shall live by faith.”

If that text is rightly interpreted as meaning that the just man must have faith, and must live in practice according to the requirements of his faith, it expresses the truly Catholic position. But the “original” Protestant position was that good works were in no way necessary for salvation, and that man is saved by faith alone.  By the 20^th century, not one in a hundred Protestants accepts it. Now that belief vacillates among younger Protestant generations.

The first Protestants said, “Not what a man does but what a man believes is the test of salvation.”

The modern Protestant says just the opposite: “Not what a man believes, but what he does.”

When Protestants say they will never lose their Protestant inheritance, poll acts say they have lost it. The original Reformers, men like Luther, and Calvin, and Knox, would denounce their present position with violent rebuke.

Protestants say: Faith alone makes a man good. As soon as the idea arises that we become good and are saved by good works, they become utterly damnable.

If we turn to the real teaching of the New Testament, we find in James 2:17-24

“17 Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself.

18 But some men will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee my faith by works.

Haydock Commentary Chapter 2

“Ver. 18. Some men will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works. Shew me thy faith, &c. He confutes the same error, by putting them in mind that one can shew that he has faith, which is an interior virtue, only by good works, and that good works in a man shew also his faith; which is not to be understood, as if good works were merely the marks, signs, and effects of faith, as some would pretend, but that good works must concur with faith to a man’s salvation by an increase in grace. (Witham)

“19 Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble.

Haydock Commentary James Chapter 2:19

“ Ver. 19. The devils also believe, and tremble. St. James compares indeed faith without other virtues and good works, to the faith of devils: but comparisons must never be stretched farther than they are intended. The meaning is, that such a faith in sinners is unprofitable to salvation, like that of devils, which is no more than a conviction from their knowledge of God; but faith which remains in sinners, is from a supernatural knowledge, together with a pious motion in their free will. (Witham)

“20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 *Was not Abraham, our father, justified by works, offering up Isaac, his son, upon the altar?

Haydock Commentary James Chapter 2:21

“Ver. 21. Was not Abraham….justified by works? We may observe, that St. James here brings the very same examples of Abraham and Rahab, which it is likely he knew some had misconstrued in St. Paul, as if the great apostle of the Gentiles had taught that faith alone was sufficient to salvation. But St. Paul neither excludes good works done by faith, when he commends faith, excluding only the works of the law of Moses, as insufficient to a true justification. See Romans iii. 27. And St. James by requiring good works does not exclude faith, but only teacheth that faith alone is not enough. This is what he clearly expresseth here in the 22nd and in the 24th verse. Man, says he, is justified, and not by faith only. And (ver. 22.) seest thou that faith did co-operate with Abraham’s works, and by works faith was made perfect. In fine, we must take notice, that when St. James here brings the example of Abraham offering his son Isaac, to shew that he was justified by works, his meaning is not that Abraham then began first to be justified, but that he then received an increase of his justice. He was justified at least from his first being called, and began then to believe and to do good works. It is true his faith was made perfect, and his justice increased, when he was willing to sacrifice his son. (Witham)”

22 Seest thou that faith did co-operate with his works: and by works faith was made perfect?

23 And the Scripture was fulfilled, saying: *Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God.

24 Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only?”

Thus speaks St. James. He taught that both faith and good works are required, and that both are taken into account at our judgment. But even if one takes, not New Testament teaching, but Protestant teaching, it cannot be said that good works fulfilled in order to obtain salvation are today regarded as utterly damnable by Protestants. That was Protestant teaching. Depending on which of the 38,000+ mainline sect one asks today in 2019, it still exists among them now, just not as prevalent.

Protestants often say they very much pity Roman Catholics.

Compassion for those whom one believes to be unfortunate is certainly to a person’s credit. But Protestant belief that Catholics are unfortunate is not justified by anything When the women of Jerusalem wept over our Lord during His passion, He said to them gently, “Weep not for Me. Weep for yourselves and your children.” Lk. XXIII., 28.

The same words apply to Protestants.  Believing in their heretical, privately interpreted Scriptural concepts of Christ that differ from sect- to-sect, pew-to-pew, and person-to-person, they de facto make their own person gods in contrast to reality.

Protestants “pity” Catholics.  They had been doing so precisely because the faithful Catholic conduct (nearly extinguished today) is orthodox; it is completely in accordance with all Christian principles instituted by Christ and His Catholic Church.

Many “Christian” principles held by Protestants contradict, reject, skip, or change interpreted meaning frequently to quickly adapt to accommodate their own prideful, changing lifestyles, and perversities so as to manipulate and/or personally exploit the rapidly changing times, technologies, and situations.  That’s called relational morality.  It assuages not only he nearly one billion Protestants and Non-Denominationals,  but also the 1.3 billion V2 Counterfeit-Catholics  – approximately 2.3 billion, all of whom call themselves “Christian” and collectively claim now to subsist within one Church.  They are edging closer to totally morphing into a One World Religion.   …by simply and expediently disregarding (even legislating against any negative mention of Judaism, Freemasonry, and Islam in Canada and other countries, and suppressing discussion of any doctrinal differences.

The delicate challenge remains to domesticate the world’s 1.7 billion world’s Muslims and have them join with the “Church”… without it becoming a colossal jihad fest of swinging scimitars and rolling heads.  If only this man-made “Church” could soon find & celebrate whatever they can accept in common with such current heathen outsiders.  But if unsuccessful efforts delay the agenda of milestone achievements, well then, there’s always that resistance-remover known as total warfare to keep the end-goal schedule on time and people employed.  Men like war-hawk John Bolton, currently the Chief Security Adviser – along with several dozens of others in President Trump’s immediate Administrative circle  – are all holders of an Israeli passport.  That pledges their allegiance to Israel, despite their U. S. citizenship.  No man can serve two masters.  These Israeli passport-holding U. S. federal government people are technically unregistered, de facto Israeli agents dealing daily with our nation’s national security and top secret issues.  Since any one of them could gleefully explain the “military option” to defend Israel at all cost with American flesh, blood, lives, equipment, and wealth, one need not be taken aback unexpectedly to learn in a crisis which master these dual citizenship agents serve loyalty in the long run…especially if the Zionist goal of world domination is achieved.

Monitoring the rate of progress being made toward completion of the One World Religion (OWR) aspect by this 2.3 billion-strong amalgamated congregation, pseudo “Christian Church” involved as a major element in Talmudic totalitarian goal may serve in calculating the expected arrival of the ultimate Antichrist. The work of corralling and mentally conditioning those affiliating with it to eventually accept the “Political Messiah” has begun.  It is necessary in order to have as smooth as possible segue from sovereign nation-states into a One World Government.   Since

1) there have been are no true popes since October 9, 1958 to restrain such evil men from completing their “one and the same plan”;

2) considering that charity is waning worldwide, and;

3) the true Christian faith is all but abandoned, suppressed, and forgotten,

The Talmudic Judaic power controlling this NWO/OWR movement might advance the time schedule.

Although its emerging center of OWR authority tentatively is based now in Rome, that might change quickly to be relocated to Jerusalem.  Now in his 83rd year, Mr. Bergoglio (born Dec 17, 1936, Argentina,) a/k/a Anti-pope Francis, has already said he doesn’t want any more to be called “pope,” that that he is just the bishop of Rome.  So when dies, there may be no more illicit claimants to the Chair of Peter.      The U. S. Embassy, formerly in Tel Aviv, to Jerusalem.   And the Talmudic Judaics, the true masterminds controlling this One World Religion phenomenon, generally favor Jerusalem.

The TALMUD (Hebrew for Teaching), completed 500 A. D. by the Jewish Rabbis who reject Christ, states in it: “Any man not a Jew is just an animal you can kill.”  It also states that “Jesus is in hell boiling in excrement.”  Having been taught from the Talmud, Muhammed put the same statement about Jesus in the Qu‘ran.

Be aware that today’s 2.3 billion practicing false “Christian” characteristics of their heresies, schism, and apostasy enable them to care not about their voting for, participating in, facilitating, or condoning  by their silence the heinous, Law & Order-destructive sins of Modernism, Liberalism, Divorce, Abortion, Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide, Private Interpretation, LGQBT Movement, Sanctuary Cities for Illegals, Usury, etc., etc. …

It is no wonder that many Protestants are motivated to maintain and teach Sola Fide and be against having to do good works because it allows them to not have to stop sinning.  One need just look at their personal immorality to know they never were serious about Knowing, Loving, and Serving God as He commands to achieve salvation, if they were ever seriously hoping and earnestly striving for that eternal outcome.  All these false “Christian” sects continually vitiate what God has given so as to tailor-fit those principles so they can never have condemnations or place constraints against their changing modes of abusing God’s commandments relational to their having total liberty to extract greater gains from their humanistic and secular pursuits of entertainment, sensuality, pleasures, and mammon.  Belonging to a “Christian” sect can serve them for social fellowship and advancing one’s career contacts. If they are to ever seek holiness, it must be validated to them by physically experiencing an existentialist phenomenon.  Faith is too “mental” for them.  They want to physically “feel holy”  or think they have not had a spiritually satisfying experience at their church that day.

False “Christian” sects not sincerely seeking salvation according to true and complete Christian principles.  True, unchangeable Christian principles as fully taught by Jesus and His true Catholic Church are deemed too restrictive and unaccommodating of their perverse lifestyles.  If only by example, their own marital-status of divorcing, “remarrying” in concubinage, or cohabitation with a “significant other” constitute their personal scandalous lives or their condone with their sect others living in such states of sin that scandalize children and others.

The heresy of Sola Fide without any need for good works, as Martin Luther taught it, both allows and encourages engaging in the biggest sins throughout life to attest how great is the mercy and forgiveness of God because Jesus Christ paid for all sins on the Cross.  These are their personal evils creating morally dysfunctional families & societies.  That list of immoral behaviors above perpetrated by false “Christian” sects represent those characteristics that willfully interfere with the perfection of the nature of things.  That accurately paraphrases the definition of “evil” [the absence of good] written in the Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas, O. P. (1225-1274.)

Protestants say Catholics always have to be striving to be good Roman Catholics.

That certainly is the Catholic doctrine. Surely if one is a Catholic, he ought to strive to be a good one. But the Protestant difficulty is concerned with the idea of striving.

Protestants think that all this striving to be good is not in the spirit of Christianity. But did not Christ Himself say, “If you will enter into life, keep the commandments.” Matt. XIX., 17; and again, later, “If you love Me, keep My commandments”? Now one who wishes to be a good Catholic is told that he must strive to keep these commandments. And it is not always easy. It is easier to follow temptations opposed to them. Christ said, therefore, “Strive to enter by the narrow gate.” Lk. XIII., 24. He evidently believed in striving to be good Christians. St. Paul writes to the Galatians, VI., 7, “Be not deceived. God is not mocked. For what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap. In doing good, let us not fail. Whilst we have time, let us work good to all men.”

And as if he had not insisted sufficiently on the necessity of striving to be good, he wrote to the Philippians, II., 12, “With fear and trembling, work out your salvation.”

To the Corinthians 1, IX., 25, he said, “Know you not that they who run in a race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that you may obtain. And everyone who striveth for the victory, refraineth himself from various things. I run, but not carelessly; I fight, but not as one beating the air. But I chastise my body and bring it into subjection.”

What is all that but striving! In 1 Timothy VI., 11, he writes, “But thou,O man of God, pursue justice, godliness, faith, charity, patience, mildness. Fight the good fight.” Add to all this our Lord’s constant warnings to us to be vigilant, to watch and pray, to pray without ceasing, and it is very difficult to see what you can find to condemn in our doctrine that one has always to be striving to be good.

Protestants say: Good works will never save anyone.

Natural good works, performed without any motive of love for God, and by one not in God’s grace and friendship, will save no one. That is why St. Paul says, “If I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.” 1 Cor. XIII., 3. But good works inspired by love of God and performed by one in God’s grace and friendship do contribute towards one’s salvation. That is why the New Testament, in James II., 24, says, “By works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” In fact, such good works are necessary for salvation, for St. James says in V., 26, “For even as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.”

Protestants state St. Paul says, “Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Eph. II., 9.

St. Paul excludes works performed by one’s own efforts, independently of God’s grace. No man will be able to boast that he saved himself by his own efforts, and that he did not need the grace of Christ. But St. Paul did not contradict St. James who declared that, “By works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” And this is the teaching of Christ who said, “If any man love Me, he will keep My commandments,” and the keeping of Christ’s commands means good works. We do need, besides good works, both faith and charity, and in the text you quote St. Paul is insisting upon faith as one necessary condition, a faith which is a gratuitous gift from God. But not for a moment does St. Paul mean that a man is saved by faith only, to the exclusion of good works.

Protestants state that as Christ died He said, “It is finished.” He completed our salvation, and we believe in His finished work.

Christ’s words, “It is finished,” do not show that our salvation is completed in one glorious act. They indicate that He had fulfilled His part in the essential work of our redemption. But our part still remains. He has paid the price, but we shall be saved only if we fulfill the conditions necessary to profit by His death for us. And it is not enough to believe in the finished work of Christ by simple faith in order to secure eternal salvation in heaven with Him. Christ said to the Apostles, “Teach men to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Matt. XXVIII., 20.

Protestants say: Did not St. Peter champion salvation by works of the Jewish Law, whilst St. Paul demanded salvation by faith?

Both St. Peter and St. Paul insisted upon salvation both by faith and good works. Did St. Peter insist on salvation by works only, when he wrote, “There is an inheritance reserved in heaven for you who, by the power of God, are kept by faith unto salvation”? I. Peter 1, 5. And how can people say that St. Paul championed salvation by faith to the exclusion of good works, when he wrote to the Galatians, “Be not deceived. God is not mocked. What things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap. For he that soweth in his flesh, of the flesh also shall reap corruption. But he that soweth in the spirit, of the spirit shall reap life everlasting. In doing good let us not fail. Whilst we have time, let us work good to all men.” Galatians VI., 8. He is a very shallow reader of Scripture who would confine St. Peter’s teaching of salvation to works, and St. Paul‘s to faith. But, above all, it is a mystery how anyone can say that St. Peter based salvation on works of the Jewish Law, when we find him writing in his first epistle, I., 18, “You were not redeemed by your vain mode of living and the tradition of your fathers, but by the precious blood of Christ.”

Protestants say God must know beforehand whether a soul is born to be damned or otherwise.

No soul is born to be damned. God sincerely wills the salvation of all men, and gives all men sufficient grace to be saved. In fact He warns us all by conscience and by His commandments against the very things that could destroy our eternal happiness. He would not warn us against the things that take us to hell if He wanted us to go there. He would keep silent about them and let us go over the precipice.

Protestants say: If God knows a soul is to be damned, it is useless for that soul to try to attain salvation.

There is no predestination for damnation. Nor is it futile for an individual to endeavor to save his soul. God says even to the worst sinners, “Repent, and if your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made white as snow.” Isaiah I., 18. If a man is lost, it will be solely through his own fault. God may know that certain souls will choose to damn themselves, but He knows they have not got to do so, nor does His knowledge make them do so. Knowledge doesn’t cause an event, the event causes knowledge. Because Jack is running I know that he is running. But he certainly isn’t running because I know it. God knows that a man will choose to lose his soul only because that man will so choose. There is no need for him to choose so disastrously. He receives sufficient grace for his conversion.

Let him correspond with the voice of God and of conscience, repenting of his sins, and he will be saved. It is not futile for him to endeavor to save his soul, and if he is lost it will be precisely because he did not endeavor to do so. Just imagine a farmer who says: God knows whether I’m going to have a crop or not. If He knows, I’ll have it, whatever I do. If He knows that I won’t have it, I won’t have it, whatever I do. So I won’t plough, I won’t sow any seed, it’s futile. Such a man is working on the absurd idea that knowledge causes the event instead of realizing that the event causes knowledge of it. Let us all do our best in the service of God, the practice of extra virtue, the avoiding of sin and the desire of holiness. If we do, the practical result will be our salvation. The solution of the speculative problems can safely be left to God.

Protestants ask: Was not St. Augustine, an orthodox Catholic bishop, author of the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination to hell?

No. Calvin certainly did not get that doctrine from St. Augustine, though he may have pretended to do so. G. P. Fisher, Protestant professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale University, in his standard work “The History of the Christian Church,” page 321, says that Calvin, in his “Institutes,” went further than Augustine, declaring that sin, and consequently damnation, are the effect of an efficient decree of God. Now St. Augustine could not have taught that doctrine, if Calvin had to go further than Augustine in order to teach it!

But let us go to St. Augustine himself. A man who believed that some men are predestined to hell no matter what they might do, could not possibly write as follows. In his book on “Catechizing the Ignorant,” St. Augustine writes, “The merciful God wishes to liberate men from eternal ruin, if they are not enemies to themselves, and do not resist the mercy of their Creator. For this purpose He sent His only-begotten Son.”

Again he writes in his book “On the Spirit and the Letter,” “God wills all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth; but not in such a way as to take away their free will, according to the good or bad use of which they will be most justly judged.” No man who believed that God predestines some men to hell could write those words.

Those who claim St. Augustine as the author of Calvinistic predestination to hell have never understood St. Augustine; and perhaps have never made anything like a serious study of his works. The Pelagian heretics denied the necessity of grace for salvation. St. Augustine insisted that man cannot save himself without the grace of God. He insisted, too, that grace, being grace, must be a gratuitous gift of God which, though given to all men, could not be due under any title of justice to them. Calvinists made the unwarranted conclusion for themselves that, because it was not due in justice, therefore it was not given to some; and that God therefore created some souls intending them for hell. But St. Augustine never taught that.

Protestants ask: Why should a good-living Catholic go to hell because he dies without repentance after committing mortal sin, whilst a bad Catholic, sinful all his life, repents at the last moment, and goes to heaven?

Take the good Catholic first. To live his good life he kept the commandments of God. But no observance of God’s commandments gives any subsequent right to break them. If he breaks God’s commandments by later mortal sin and refuses to repent, he dies in a state of mortal sin and at enmity with God. He necessarily goes to hell, though he need not necessarily have fallen into a state of sin, and further, need not necessarily have remained in such a state. A previous good life in no way justifies later sins. If a man commits murder on Wednesday, is it any defense that he did not commit adultery on the preceding Tuesday? Now take your poor sinner, who, after living a bad life, repents and saves his soul. By repentance, he recovers God’s grace. And he is saved, because he availed himself of God’s mercy, asked for forgiveness, and died in God’s friendship. The one-time good man is not lost because of his previous good life, and this man is not saved because of his previous bad life. There would be injustice if that were the case. But it is not. The one-time good man is lost because he nullified his good life by subsequent sin; the bad man is saved because he nullified his bad life by subsequent repentance and a request to share in the merits of Christ.

Protestants ask: What value has a deathbed repentance when a soul has steadfastly refused to submit to God’s will during life?

If there be a sincere deathbed repentance the soul would be saved, provided the sorrow were perfect, or, if imperfect, it had the assistance of the Sacraments of the Church. But steadfast refusal during life to do God’s will does not give much hope of a deathbed repentance. Firstly, God has promised forgiveness to those who do repent. But He has never promised time to repent. He says Himself that death may come to us at any moment and blessed is the one who is found to be watching. That does not augur well for the unprepared. Secondly, even granted some form of regret, the ingrained dispositions of a soul which has steadfastly refused to do God’s will during life do not give much hope of suddenly attaining to a perfect love of God and perfect sorrow for past sins. And if such a soul dies without the Sacraments, it is lost. Yet such a soul has done nothing to deserve the happiness of the Sacraments. We are warned over and over again by God against the presumption of delay in our conversion to Him. To carry on in sinful dispositions, determined to go on with them, is the conduct of a fool. The only safe preparation for a good death is a good life.

Protestants ask What value has repentance when a soul decides to conform to God’s will only when this life offers no further hopes of self-indulgence. The only motive is expediency and fear of the fate awaiting the wicked.

If such repentance proceeds from a purely natural dread it is not really repentance at all, and has no value whatever.

If it proceeds solely from a supernatural fear based upon faith in the revealed doctrine of hell, it would have sufficient value to save a soul provided the Sacraments were received. Otherwise it would not save the soul. And there is no guarantee that a priest could be obtained in time for the administration of the Sacraments. We do not know whether we are to die of a slow illness, giving us plenty of time to prepare to meet God, or suddenly of heart failure.

Mere fear of what will happen to us will not of itself save us. Perfect sorrow without the Sacraments will save us. Imperfect sorrow with the Sacraments will save us. But imperfect sorrow without the Sacraments is powerless to do so.

The persistent and habitual sinner cannot rely on salvation except by taking it for granted that he will have the opportunity to receive the Sacraments, or that he will suddenly attain to perfect dispositions of love and sorrow which are absolutely alien to his distorted and warped nature. It is clear that there is no justification for his taking these things for granted. The only real security is the security of a good conscience, and the only possible advice to the man who is not running straight with God is that he should square up, repent sincerely of the past, and begin to serve God. Remember the words of Christ, “Thou fool, this night do they require thy soul of thee,” Lk. XII., 20, and His estimate, “What does it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his soul.” Matt. XVI., 26. Our Lord made both. And He ought to know. To risk one’s soul for anything this life can offer is to be a fool. To be prepared to make any sacrifice rather than jeopardize one’s eternal salvation is wisdom.

I heard a Missioner say that God is not satisfied with the last miserable year of a sinner’s life. That is, it is no use accepting Christ in the last year of life.

You are making the priest say more than he did say. He did not say that it was no use repenting of one’s sins at the end of life. God has promised forgiveness whenever a man sincerely repents of his sins, even though it be with his very last breath. A man who thus repents will at least save his soul, and God is more satisfied with that than He would be, did the man not repent at all. The mission priest you heard was trying to bring home the fact that, if God is worth serving in the last year of a man’s life, He is worth serving throughout life.

Scripture itself says that it is indeed good to have served God from one’s youth. Nobility of soul rebels against the thought of spending all one’s best years in sin, and offering God the dregs of one’s life. And that is certainly not the way to serve God as God must wish. But we cannot conclude from that that it is no use turning to God at the last. If one has not served God as he should, it is of the utmost use to die at least repenting of one’s sins; and the more one’s sins the greater one’s obligation to repent of them.

Protestants say that according to Catholic doctrine a murderer can repent and save his soul. But what of his victim, killed with no time to repent? That does not seem fair to Protestants.

It is certain that the murderer can repent and save his soul, though he will have to expiate in Purgatory the injustice of taking his neighbor’s life, so much greater than the mere taking of his property. Meantime we have to remember that if the victim were in a state of mortal sin at the moment of the tragedy, the murderer was not responsible for his being in such a state.

Death may come to a man in any one of many ways, whether slowly by disease, or suddenly by accident, or even by the ill will of some fellow human being. But whenever death comes, and however it comes, no man has a right to be in a state of sin at that decisive moment. Every man has the obligation to be ready to meet God just when God takes him, and by whatever means he is taken. So Christ warns us, “Watch ye, therefore, because you know not what hour your Lord will come.” Matt. XXIV., 42.

And again, “If the householder did know at what hour the thief would come, he would surely watch and not suffer his house to be broken open. Be ye then also ready, for at what hour you think not the Son of man will come.” Lk. XII., 39. In actual practice, of course, we cannot say that any man has been killed with no time for repentance. In a flash, quicker than the speed of any bullet, God could offer a man all the graces necessary for a complete reconciliation with Him. We cannot therefore form any certain judgment concerning the actual fate of any soul, and must leave that question to God. He alone knows the interior dispositions of each soul as He recalls it to Himself. Of one thing we are sure. Every soul receives sufficient grace for its salvation. Of one thing we are ignorant—of the manner in which God dispenses that grace. And we must leave each soul to God, refusing to judge concerning its eternal destiny.

 

TO BE CONTINUED