"Separated Bretheren"

[JReducation]

There are many groups out there who call themselves Franciscan, because they have an admiration for St. Francis or they follow some of his spiritual principles. We accept those principles, because we share them in common. But they are not members of the Franciscan family. To be members of the same family, we must first have the same father. Our father made no provisions for sons or daughters outside of the Roman Church.

The first chapter of the rule is very clear.

Friar Francis promises obedience and reverence to the Lord Pope Honorius and his canonically elected successors, and to the Roman Church; and the other friars are bound to obey Friar Francis and his successors.

Francis makes no exceptions for anyone outside of the Roman Church. He sets up a very clear line of succession. We answer to Francis who answers to the Lord Pope.

To be admitted to Francis’ family you have to pass a test that he writes into his rule. You cannot write that out of his rule.
Let the ministers indeed examine them diligently concerning the Catholic Faith and the sacraments of the Church.

If you have a Franciscan community, you must then examine your candidates to ensure that they profess the Catholic faith and faith in the Church’s sacramental system. If you fail to do this, then you are out of compliance with the rule. If you’re out of compliance with the rule, then you’re out of communion with Francis. If you’re not in communion with Francis, then you cannot claim him as your father. You can admire him, venerate him, imitate some of his virtues. All that is possible. That’s why there are not such people at legitimate sons and daughters of St. Francis outside of the Roman Church, not even in the Oriental Catholic Churches that are in full communion with Rome. The order was founded as Roman religious order.

Chap II of the rule also says ** Having truly finished the year of probation, let them be received to obedience, promising to observe always this life and Rule.** when you finish your novitiate, you are to be received to obedience. This means that you vow to obey this rule, this founder, this Church until death. Our Holy Father leaves no wiggle room here.

He also says in the rule ** And in no manner will it be licit for them to go forth from this religious institute [de ista religione exire], according to the command of the Lord Pope**. There is no legitimate way to separate oneself from the order once one has made profession into the order unless it’s with the permission of the Lord Pope. You must have a dispensation from the pope to exist outside of the order, once you have made profession.

Finally, please do not play games with me. You may confuse these lay people, but I’m a little sharper. You’re throwing out rules and regulations and citations regarding the Secular Franciscan Order. But you’re signature says “Franciscan Friar”. The Secular Franciscan Order does not have friars. If you’re a friar, their rule does not apply to you. The rule that applies to you is either the Rule of the Friars Minor or the Rule of the Brothers of Penance, not the SFO Rule. If you’re a Secular Franciscan, then take off Franciscan Friar from you signature and we can discuss what the Secular Franciscan Rule says about being Roman Catholic in order to be a professed member. He mentions the Roman Church in their rule as well.

It is dishonest to say that a non-Catholic group is a member of the Franciscan family. We may have wonderful gatherings, but we’re not the same family. We’re part of the same Christian family, not the same Franciscan family. Other non-Catholic groups who claim to be Franciscan admit that they do not have Franciscan Succession and that they are not part of the Franciscan Order or Franciscan family. Go back and look at the Anglican Society of St. Francis. They are the largest non-Catholic Franciscan organization.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SGWessells]

Apologies for jumping so far back in the discussion, but the quote I’m replying to involves the basic principle, in my view, of the whole discussion.

R5 wrote:" The Jehovah Witnesses are wrong. So are the Mormons. So are most Muslims. So are any people who believe that they alone have the true faith."

So only those who deny that they alone have the true faith actually have the true faith, since everyone else is wrong. This makes my head hurt. But it points out the self-refuting nature of relativism. Since the basic rule of reason is that two contradictory propositions cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense, and since it is obvious that the religions of the world all contain foundational or essential principles (without which they would not be what they are) which contradict the foundational principles of other religions, two things must follow: either

1. No religion is true, or:
2. There is one true faith. Other faiths may share some tenets with it, but not all, since if they shared all, they would not be different faiths but the same faith.

Therefore, anyone who believes in a religion at all believes that there is only one true faith – that is, one faith that teaches no errors. The question then becomes how to discover which faith is the true one.
But couldn’t all religions teach the same error? If so, how would we know it was an error? It would have to contradict some principle which we know to be true, which would be another way of saying that all religions are wrong, which is the other alternative, #1. But we are discussing the differences between religions, not the difference between religion and secularism, so alternative #1 is irrelevant. The only logically consistent way to say that there is no one true faith is to say that all religions teach falsehood, including one’s own. But if one’s own religion teaches both truth and falsehood, you would need to know the truth in order to distinguish which is which, in which case that distinguishing truth would be the one true faith.

Thus R5’s contention that an essential principle of the one true faith is that it deny that it is the one true faith (even while believing that it is) disintegrates into logical incoherence. It says that every religion is a mixture of truth and error. But how does one distinguish? By what standard? One would have to know what the truth is in order to say one’s own faith does not conform to it in particulars A,B, and C, which other faiths teach. For if everything my faith teaches is true, then I have the one true faith, and am therefore wrong, according to R5, and therefore do not have the one true faith.
There is also the issue of revelation. If God revealed one’s religion, how can it not be the one true faith? Is God divided in His mind, mistaken about His universe, or muddled in His understanding? Will He know the truth, yet reveal a lie? Far be it from anyone to say so! To say that God revealed religion X, yet religion X can be wrong, means either that God is mistaken or that He is incompetent. I am not prepared to say either. Are you?

So how does this apply to the current discussion? There is not only nothing wrong with believing that one’s own religion – or somebody else’s – is the one true faith, it is logically inevitable, if one believes in any faith at all. Thus it becomes a moral duty to preach that faith to others as the one true faith. To do otherwise results in the unraveling of reason and the ultimate denial of any truth at all. The only way we can know that the JW, the Mormons, the Muslims etc., are wrong, and why, is if we are right. Denying that fact helps neither them nor us. Of course, we cannot be arrogant about it either, for “what have we that we have not received?” 1 Cor. 4:7. We must remember that God chose the foolish things of this world to confound those proud of their own wisdom.

Yet there is a distinction between the correctness of the doctrines involved and the culpability of those who hold them. People can believe a doctrine to be true which is objectively false, yet, through no fault of their own, be in a saving relationship with Christ. Those who have never heard of Christ can be saved, but only through Christ. Those saving elements of the Catholic Church which their condition allows are conveyed to those people without their knowledge, through the unfathomable mercy of God. And boy, how surprised they will no doubt be when they find out!
Nevertheless, that does not relieve us Catholics of the responsibility to teach the fullness of the Gospel; for just as someone may be kept afloat in the ocean by clinging to a plank, but they are much more secure on an ocean liner.

 

[SGWessells]

I know this sounds nice to the ears, but it doesn’t really make a whole lot of sense. We serve an omnipotent and omniscient God. He sent His Son to make the ultimate sacrifice to redeem those who have faith in Him. Yet, he overlooked the fact that Africa or South America is a long way from Jerusalem? If He would potentially save some of these people anyway, without them putting faith in the gospel message, then why go to all the trouble in the first place?

The people in these continents were not saved without the sacrifice of Christ, even though they did not know about it. The saving merits of His blood were applied to them under the conditions specified, that they sought God with the saving faith and obedience which their state of knowledge allowed, The same is true of all the saved. Of him to whom much is given, much is required, Jesus said. Thus, less is required of the ones who are given less. But all who are saved are saved by the same sacrifice, eternally present through space and time in the Mass, regardless of their personal state of knowledge, just as all who are saved are members of the one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, of which they become members through Christ. Thus the writings quoted earlier remain true; people don’t have to be official, visible members of the organization called the Roman Catholic Church until they become aware of it and are convinced that it is the church of God, to which they have a duty to belong. We are judged, not just by how we act, but by how we act in relation to our state of knowledge and conscience. The more accurate the latter, the stricter the judgment of the former. Just as people can be saved by the blood of Christ without having heard of him, they can belong to his church without having heard of it. But these are exceptional, and probably rare, circumstances; we are safer and more assured of salvation the closer we are to the truth. As an ex-Calvinist, I have found this to be true through personal experience as well as reason.

 

[SGWessells]

"Religion on the other hand, is not a science, it is based on "faith’. There are many things that we can question and not get the answers? It is then our individual choice if we will accept them as ‘truth’ or not. If we choose to accept them without the proof, then that is faith. That is what all religions are based on. The many things that we must take on faith, as the truth, if we are to believe something. Science and Religion can work together, in fact they must. Albert Einstein once said; “Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”
Rev. Phil

I think this needs to be clarified; otherwise, it may give the impression that “faith” means merely deciding by personal preference (since there is no proof) which ones of a group of equally probable (because irrational) doctrines to believe. This is not the meaning of faith, as one with an MA in theology should know. Faith is not unsupported by reason or evidence. Not all unproven, or inconclusively proven, doctrines are equally probable or well supported. We should accept those with most reason behind them. We can also prove by reason and evidence that a given authority, for example, the Catholic Church, is worthy of credence; we then accept by faith the doctrines it teaches which we don’t understand, but that faith is not “without proof.” It is proven indirectly, and rests on the proof which supports the teaching authority.
Finally, supernaturally saving faith is a gift of God, not the result of arbitrary human choice. My poor mother believes in space aliens and the Urantia Book, but that will not save her.She has a strong faith, but in the wrong thing. My faith in the Catholic Church is supported by what I consider strong evidence and good reasoning; it is not an arbitrary choice among other beliefs which are just as probable.

 

[Marauder]

There are no Franciscans outside of the Latin Church, even among the Catholics. The Franciscan family is a Latin Catholic family. Those Catholics who belong to the Oriental Churches, must submit to the Patriarchate of Rome, to which the Franciscan order submits. While we have houses with brothers who are Chaldeans, Ukranians, Maronites and other Oriental Catholics, they do not operate under the jurisdiction of those Patriarchs. Those houses operate under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of the West, which is the Bishop of Rome.

Brother JR, I am a little confused here. Are you saying Byzantine Rite, Ukranian Rite, Anglican Rite Catholics in union with Rome can or cannot be in SFO?

If I am understanding you right it sounds like you are saying that can’t be but it also sounds like you are saying they can be because they are technically part of the Latin church via their obedience to Rome. I personally haven’t seen anything that said you had to be Latin rite to be a Franciscan, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t out there. Everyone in my SFO fraternity is Latin rite so I haven’t seen the situation come up yet. I wasn’t the person that put that sentence in Wikipedia, but if you have a good source I can change it to reflect whatever you say is wrong.

 

[lKer13]

Nevertheless, I shouldn’t say it that way because that would not be charitable or sensitive, and that’s not the way to promote unity. Right?

Tommy, you are on the right track. I understand where you are coming from. You might find this thread helpful. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=370284&highlight=saved Keep praying for them. God Bless!

 

[JReducation]

Brother JR, I am a little confused here. Are you saying Byzantine Rite, Ukranian Rite, Anglican Rite Catholics in union with Rome can or cannot be in SFO?

If I am understanding you right it sounds like you are saying that can’t be but it also sounds like you are saying they can be because they are technically part of the Latin church via their obedience to Rome. I personally haven’t seen anything that said you had to be Latin rite to be a Franciscan, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t out there. Everyone in my SFO fraternity is Latin rite so I haven’t seen the situation come up yet. I wasn’t the person that put that sentence in Wikipedia, but if you have a good source I can change it to reflect whatever you say is wrong.

Good gravy, no! Any Catholic can join one of the Franciscan obediences, if he or she meets the requirements. I’m saying that the orders themselves are under the jurisdiction of the Latin Church.

Let’s say that the Secular Franciscan Order (SFO) had a fraternity of Oriental Catholics. Pick your Church. The individuals continue to be Chaldeans, Maronnites, etc. However, the fraternity is part of the region. The region is part of the international order (OFS). The international order is under the jurisdiction of the Latin Church. In other words, the SFO is a Latin Order. Their highest authority is always the Patriarch of the West.

There are many religious and seculars from other Catholic Churches that belong to Latin religious communities, because these communities do not exist within the Oriental Churches. However, they do not exclude Oriental Catholics.

For example, I had a very good friend (RIP) who was Melkite. He was a Capuchin (OFM Cap). The Caps are Latin Catholics. For all community functions he participated in the Latin Liturgy. To join the order he had to comply with the Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church. The Code for the Oriental Churches does not apply to the Franciscan family, because this family is not part of any of the Oriental Churches.

The same is true of the Basilians. They are an Eastern Order. They have Roman Catholics. Those monks submit to the code for the Oriental Church, even though they are Roman Catholics. Once you join an order, you submit to the authority that governs that order, be it the Latin Church or one of the Eastern Churches. The individual himself or herself, may participate in both worlds. Canon Law grants him this right.

You may find that you walk into an SFO fraternity that has icons and incense all over the place, becaues they are Eastern. When it comes time to approve their constitutions and their elections and so forth, they submit to the authority fo the Bishop of Rome, not to the Patriarach of their Church. It’s not a conflict. It is understood by all parties that the Franciscans and many other orders are Latin. You can’t be governed by two sets of laws nor can you have to authorities of equal rank (two patriarchs) over you. Franciscans have always been under the Western Patriarch.

When the Custory of the Holy Land was created, it was given to the Franciscans. At the time there was and still is a Patriarch of Jerusalem. However, they were not under his jurisdiction. They were under the Bishop of Rome who is the Patriarch of the West. Chaldenas could still become Franciscans and retain their liturgy and customs. On all matters pertaining to the entire community and to community life, they defer to the Latin Church.

I hope this helps clarify any confusion that I may have caused.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Marauder]

I hope this helps clarify any confusion that I may have caused.

Brother JR,
Thank-you for the clarification. I am glad that I was just mis-reading you. Always learning from you on here

Pax et bonum,
Jim

 

[steve_b]

Is there an official document I can look at concerning this? This seems rather silly. I fully know what the Catholic Church teaches regarding the Papacy, Mary, the Eucharist, etc. I also fully understand exactly what these terms mean and how the RCC defines them. With all that, I fully reject what the Catholic Church teaches. These seems equal to saying, “Well, Oneness Pentecostals know what the Trinity is, but they reject it. However, since they can’t fully “know know” what it means, they aren’t damned.” I don’t know that anyone would really agree with that.

1 Tim 2:3-4
*3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. *

Since God desires this, then He will give sufficient grace to each person for this to happen, no excuses, no caveots, …agreed? No one can say when this life is over, that they got hosed. All have been given sufficient grace either actually or given the channels of grace where they can receive this grace…i.e. the Catholic Church and the sacraments.

By the same token, that does NOT mean all people will respond to this grace, and therefore, won’t be saved and come to the knowledge of truth, …agreed? They might just ignore all the subtle nudges or 2x4’s over the head (figuratively speaking )…agreed? As Our Lord said, the road to destruction is wide and many are on it. Conversely the road to heaven is narrow and few are on it.[Mt 7:13-14 paraphrased]

Re: those seperated from us. Everybody knows who started protestantism. Everybody knows who started each and every seperated group. The Holy Spirit isn’t the spirit of division. He isn’t the author of all these seperated groups from Our Lord’s Church. As St Paul said to the Church of Rome

*Rm 16: *
*17 I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19 Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I rejoice because of you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil. *20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

Personally, I want to be in the group Paul rejoices over. NOT the other group

 

[Steadfast_love]

You said the quote was addressing Catholics only. This has been proven to be false.

Are you honestly unable to make a distinction between who it was adressed to and what was the subject addressed?

Secondly, the RCC teaches that Protestants are heretics. The RCC teaches that such heretics are “separated brethren.”

So you say, but you are not the Catholic Church. Authentic teaching is that herecy is an **obstinate **post baptismal denial of an essential teaching.

ob·sti·nate/ˈäbstənit/
Adjective1. Stubbornly refusing to change one’s opinion or action, despite attempts to persuade one to do so.

Despite your opinion, many modern Protestants do not meet the criteria for herecy. They are unaware of Catholic dogma in a way that the original Protestants were not. So it is wrong of you to say that all Protestants are Heretics in the eyes of the Church.

If there is any deception in that, it is not my own…

I believe you. None the less, I hope that you are more careful to speak only truth when you set yourself up as an authority on what the Church ‘really’ teaches.

 

[Rogare]

So you say, but you are not the Catholic Church. Authentic teaching is that herecy is an **obstinate **post baptismal denial of an essential teaching.

ob·sti·nate/ˈäbstənit/
Adjective1. Stubbornly refusing to change one’s opinion or action, despite attempts to persuade one to do so.

Despite your opinion, many modern Protestants do not meet the criteria for herecy. They are unaware of Catholic dogma in a way that the original Protestants were not. So it is wrong of you to say that all Protestants are Heretics in the eyes of the Church.

I am fully aware of what the Church teaches regarding the papacy (its existence, infallibility, primacy, etc.), apostolic succession, the Eucharist (transubstantiation, propitiatory sacrifice), Mary (immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, assumption), confession, baptismal regeneration, indulgences, purgatory, infused righteousness, works, prayer to saints, etc. I reject each of these teachings as I’m sure any Protestant would (at least all that I know). Now, honestly, would this qualify me as a heretic?

 

[SGWessells]

I am fully aware of what the Church teaches regarding the papacy (its existence, infallibility, primacy, etc.), apostolic succession, the Eucharist (transubstantiation, propitiatory sacrifice), Mary (immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, assumption), confession, baptismal regeneration, indulgences, purgatory, infused righteousness, works, prayer to saints, etc. I reject each of these teachings as I’m sure any Protestant would (at least all that I know). Now, honestly, would this qualify me as a heretic?

The Catechism (Par. 2089) defines heresy as “the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.” If you are baptized and obstinately cling to these rejections, it seems to me that you qualify. No one but God, however, can judge your personal culpability for your heretical beliefs.
As a historical note, however, there are Protestant communions that hold some, if not nearly all, these beliefs.

 

[Rogare]

The Catechism (Par. 2089) defines heresy as “the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.” If you are baptized and obstinately cling to these rejections, it seems to me that you qualify. No one but God, however, can judge your personal culpability for your heretical beliefs.
As a historical note, however, there are Protestant communions that hold some, if not nearly all, these beliefs.

So, even though I believe that

1. There is one God.
2. God consists of three persons of the same substance: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
3. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity that was born of a Virgin.
4. Christ lived a life of perfect obedience.
5. Christ died on the cross to atone for my sins.
6. I am saved by the grace of God through faith.
7. Due to this salvation, I will one day inherit Heaven while the wicked will be sent to hell.
   and was baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, I am still a heretic?

Guess I should have been born among the ante-Nicene fathers so I wouldn’t be considered a heretic for my beliefs

 

[fhansen]

So, even though I believe that

1. There is one God.
2. God consists of three persons of the same substance: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
3. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity that was born of a Virgin.
4. Christ lived a life of perfect obedience.
5. Christ died on the cross to atone for my sins.
6. I am saved by the grace of God through faith.
7. Due to this salvation, I will one day inherit Heaven while the wicked will be sent to hell.
   and was baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, I am still a heretic?

If you believe that sinners can enter heaven, that perfection isn’t required, then your understanding is still faulty and therefore less beneficial, less instructive. This doesn’t mean you can’t gain eternal life. But there’s always been only one faith, one body of knowledge given for the purpose of our salvation.

 

[Rogare]

If you believe that sinners can enter heaven, that perfection isn’t required, then your understanding is still faulty and therefore less beneficial, less instructive. This doesn’t mean you can’t gain eternal life. But there’s still and always only one faith, one body of knowledge given for the purpose of our salvation.

If sinners can’t enter heaven then nobody is going in since we are all sinners

Seriously, however, surely you know the difference between Catholic and Protestant understandings on salvation.

In short: I get into Heaven based on Christ’s righteousness (Phil. 3:9, 2 Corinthians 5:21), which is imputed to me. God forgave all my sins on Calvary (Colossians 2:13-14), I was declared righteous upon faith in Christ.

I will go into much more detail with many more verses if you desire, but C’s and P’s will never agree on salvation. I think you’re just as wrong as you do me

 

[RevPhil]

If sinners can’t enter heaven then nobody is going in since we are all sinners

Seriously, however, surely you know the difference between Catholic and Protestant understandings on salvation.

In short: I get into Heaven based on Christ’s righteousness (Phil. 3:9, 2 Corinthians 5:21), which is imputed to me. God forgave all my sins on Calvary (Colossians 2:13-14), I was declared righteous upon faith in Christ.

I will go into much more detail with many more verses if you desire, but C’s and P’s will never agree on salvation. I think you’re just as wrong as you do me

…And that is why we have the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. They are starting points that all Christians can agree on! Every “Trinitarian” based Christian church out there accepts one of these two creeds as the basis for their “statements of faith”. They were established and agreed to by all the Christian churches and groups of the time and became the standard for the entire Christian Community (not just the Roman Catholic Church).

We are all born sinners. That was understood even by the Jewish people…

“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity.
In sin my mother conceived me.”
Psalm 51:5

Since Adam and Eve, we have been born with sin and by their disobedience to God, we (as part of our human nature) are prone to continue sinning. It is only through the death and resurrection of Christ was the cost of our sin paid in full, and the hope of our Salvation achieved. The death and resurrection of Christ was for all mankind. Not just Catholics and protestants, it was for everyone!

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.”
John 3:16

Plain and simple really. Why does each denomination think that they have the magic code that will buy salvation? **Only Through Christ can we gain salvation!
**

 

[Cat_Herder]

If sinners can’t enter heaven then nobody is going in since we are all sinners

Seriously, however, surely you know the difference between Catholic and Protestant understandings on salvation.

In short: I get into Heaven based on Christ’s righteousness (Phil. 3:9, 2 Corinthians 5:21), which is imputed to me. God forgave all my sins on Calvary (Colossians 2:13-14), I was declared righteous upon faith in Christ.

So how do unborn victims of abortion obtain salvation, seeing as they are unable to manifest faith in Christ? How about the mentally infirm? Children below the age of reason?

[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

Christ clearly wants these people to be saved. So how can He save them if salvation is based on faith alone?

 

[Cat_Herder]

…And that is why we have the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. They are starting points that all Christians can agree on!

Trinitarian Pentecostals and “non-denominationals” reject all creeds, including these. Moreover the Nicene profession in “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” is problematic even for those Protestant denominations that use that Creed, such as Lutherans, because it does not square with their claim that salvation is by faith alone.

Plain and simple really. Why does each denomination think that they have the magic code that will buy salvation? **Only Through Christ can we gain salvation!
**

Because no one agrees on how one actually obtains said salvation.

This is how.

 

[Rogare]

So how do unborn victims of abortion obtain salvation, seeing as they are unable to manifest faith in Christ? How about the mentally infirm? Children below the age of reason?

[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

Christ clearly wants these people to be saved. So how can He save them if salvation is based on faith alone?

As a Calvinist, I am a firm believer in election, so let’s take a look at your question based on that.

Scripture teaches that in eternity past, God chose those who would inherit salvation:

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will (Eph. 1:4-5)

Obviously, this choice is made before birth and does not depend on the individual, but on God:

Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls…(Romans 9:11-12)

It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. (Romans 9:16)

Now, I trust that God is completely sovereign over every last infinitesimal detail in His creation. Thus, He (sadly) knows which babies will be aborted or born with mental deficiencies as well as who will die before they can understand the gospel message. So it isn’t like God is taken by surprise by an abortion or malady.

Since I don’t hold God to be incompetent, there’s a couple of logical conclusions that can be drawn. (Since the Scriptures are silent on this issue, we can’t be certain) Either a) all of the aforementioned individuals are elect b) there are members of the elect and the non-elect in this group just as there are in the world. Whichever it is, I trust that God will ensure the salvation of all His elect.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

(Since the Scriptures are silent on this issue, we can’t be certain)

You can’t be certain, but Catholics have an authority outside of Scripture to appeal to.