Trying to understand Catholic tradition on salvation and eternity

[Vico]

SaintPatrick333,
You know there is a difference between a psychological disorder called scroupulosity and being scroupulous?

Being a scroupulous Christian is charitible.

Merriam Webster

SCRUPULOUS (adj.)

1: having moral integrity : acting in strict regard for what is considered right or proper

Synonyms: conscionable, ethical, honest, honorable, just, moral, principled, conscientious
Antonyms: cutthroat, dishonest, dishonorable, immoral, unconscionable, unethical, unjust, unprincipled, unscrupulous

 

[LorenzoL]

The great theologian, Hans Urs von Balthasar (who some wrongly consider to be a liberal) correctly points out that the Church has never definitively proclaimed one single person to be in Hell; i.e. to be damned. The Church only declares who we know for certain is in heaven. For the rest, it is our Christian duty to hope and pray that not one soul is in Hell. Truth is, we will never know in this life.

Along related lines, as far as non-Catholics and non-Christians are concerned, Eastern Christianity has a wonderful saying: “We know where the Church is, what we do not know is where it isn’t.” This is perhaps a more poetic way of affirming the whole “baptism by desire” and “baptism by blood” thing. Again whether or not non-Catholics and non-Christians enjoy eternal beatitude or eternal damnation is none of our business. That is God’s decision alone. Christian charity demands that we hope and pray that all of our fellow men will be saved through Christ’s redemptive power.

There is a wonderful story of a young monk who asked an elder monk about such matters. The elder monk simply replied, “Mind your own business.”

Very well stated, Philip!

 

[codefro]

To be fair though Scripture combined with approved Marian apparitions as well as countless Saints all warn of the large number of people going to hell (especially recently due to the hyper sexualization of our society). Sin is sin. St. Augustine (I believe) wrote of how there were many married couples going to hell for sexual immorality since they strayed from what is holy and just within the confines of marital sex (ie not finishing the act open to life, thus it becoming self gratification and a mortal sin). I agree completely that God isn’t sitting around waiting to condemn someone, far from it. But to assume that we have tons of leverage and that few of us truly have to worry about the potential of being condemned is a serious matter and not one I’d rest my laurels on. No sense living in constant fear or paranoia or becoming scrupulous but we should be ever aware of the state of our soul (as best as we can) and always try to adhere to God’s will and the will of the Church and seek confession as often as necessary to entrust ourselves fully to the Blessed Trinity.

I appreciate this reminder because to say there may not be anybody in hell doesn’t make any sense in a world where so much evil has been done by human beings.

13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." -Matthew 7:13-14

On Catholic.org they summarized salvation saying this-

It is mostly Catholics that will gain salvation through the one true faith, but then lays out the guidelines for the potential possibilities that a non-Catholic may be saved, but incredibly difficult and rare. This I can understand.

 

[Vico]

Codefro, I think you are on to something. It is difficult to imagine that everyone has been just.

Catechism

633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. 479 Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”: 480 “It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Saviour in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.” 481 Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him. 482

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P1R.HTM

 

[codefro]

So is there merit that when we invite those to join the Catholic Church, it is that they may not be in potential danger of perdition? Isn’t joining the Christ’s one true church the means for living a life lived towards wanting to spend your eternity with Christ in Heaven? I get really tired of hearing Catholics being so passive about what the church really teaches about salvation and just saying “You don’t have to be Catholic, be whatever religion you want. Just be a good person.” My biggest issue with this is- doesn’t most of mankind consider themselves good people? Someone who constantly lies and commits fornication or any other thing, and has no religion in their life (I would say as I have met some) still consider themselves good people. Yet these people have no regard for how much Christ loves them and calls them to a better life. Some people couldn’t care less- and yet… be a good person and you will go to Heaven. I hear that in my RCIA and supposedly heard a story being told where a Monsignor at another local church told that to a girl who converted to Islam when she married a Muslim. Seems pretty harsh when you go from believe in Christ as one with God as a part of the trinity to diminishing all Christ did as simply being one of God’s many prophets…

So back to my topic, Heaven and salvation come from what Christ did on the Christ and is carried to the world through His one holy catholic and apostolic church? I understand the possibility of salvation if someone may become spiritually tied to the church and dies before being able to act on being physically tied to the church, but does that generally sum it up?

 

[Vico]

So is there merit that when we invite those to join the Catholic Church, it is that they may not be in potential danger of perdition? Isn’t joining the Christ’s one true church the means for living a life lived towards wanting to spend your eternity with Christ in Heaven? I get really tired of hearing Catholics being so passive about what the church really teaches about salvation and just saying “You don’t have to be Catholic, be whatever religion you want. Just be a good person.” My biggest issue with this is- doesn’t most of mankind consider themselves good people? Someone who constantly lies and commits fornication or any other thing, and has no religion in their life (I would say as I have met some) still consider themselves good people. Yet these people have no regard for how much Christ loves them and calls them to a better life. Some people couldn’t care less- and yet… be a good person and you will go to Heaven. I hear that in my RCIA and supposedly heard a story being told where a Monsignor at another local church told that to a girl who converted to Islam when she married a Muslim. Seems pretty harsh when you go from believe in Christ as one with God as a part of the trinity to diminishing all Christ did as simply being one of God’s many prophets…

So back to my topic, Heaven and salvation come from what Christ did on the Christ and is carried to the world through His one holy catholic and apostolic church? I understand the possibility of salvation if someone may become spiritually tied to the church and dies before being able to act on being physically tied to the church, but does that generally sum it up?

I recommend reading these from the Magisterium. Indifferentism is condemned by the Catholic Church.

1. Dialogue, however, cannot be based on religious indifferentism, and we Christians are in duty bound, while engaging in dialogue, to bear clear witness to the hope that is within us (cf. *1 Pt *3:15). We should not fear that it will be considered an offense to the identity of others what is rather *the joyful proclamation of a gift *meant for all, and to be offered to all with the greatest respect for the freedom of each one: the gift of the revelation of the God who is Love, the God who “so loved the world that he gave his only Son” (*Jn *3:16). As the recent Declaration *Dominus Iesus *stressed, this cannot be the subject of a dialogue understood as negotiation, as if we considered it a matter of mere opinion: rather, it is a grace which fills us with joy, a message which we have a duty to proclaim.
   The Church therefore cannot forgo her missionary activity among the peoples of the world.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20010106_novo-millennio-ineunte_en.html

Catholic ecumenism might seem, at first sight, somewhat paradoxical. The Second Vatican Council used the phrase “subsistit in” in order to try to harmonise two doctrinal affirmations: on the one hand, that despite all the divisions between Christians the Church of Christ continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand that numerous elements of sanctification and truth do exist outwith the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church whether in the particular Churches or in the ecclesial Communities that are not fully in communion with the Catholic Church. For this reason, the same Decree of Vatican II on ecumenism * Unitatis Redintegratio* introduced the term *fullness *(unitatis/catholicitatis) specifically to help better understand this somewhat paradoxical situation. Although the Catholic Church has the fullness of the means of salvation, “nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from effecting the fullness of catholicity proper to her in those of her children who, though joined to her by baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her.”[16] The fullness of the Catholic Church, therefore, already exists, but still has to grow in the brethren who are not yet in full communion with it and also in its own members who are sinners “until it happily arrives at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.”[17] This progress in fullness is rooted in the ongoing process of dynamic union with Christ: “Union with Christ is also union with all those to whom he gives himself. I cannot possess Christ just for myself; I can belong to him only in union with all those who have become, or will become, his own. Communion draws me out of myself towards him, and thus also towards unity with all Christians.”[18]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_commento-responsa_en.html

 

[fred_conty]

The Church has clearly stated, but that doesn’t mean that a lot of Catholics truly understand. The Church itself says you have to have full knowledge to commit a mortal sin. I don’t understand how a Catholic who doesn’t understand the necessity of adhering to Catholic teaching is any different than a protestant when it comes to full knowledge.

Regarding the saints, I’m not sure what saints have said we cannot exclude the possibility that we ourselves are in mortal sin, no matter what we think of the state of our soul. This sounds to me like they are saying you can love God with all your heart and think you are doing His will, and are following Him to the best of your ability, and still be damned. Maybe some saints did say that, but that is not Church teaching. You need to have full knowledge and full consent before you can commit a mortal sin.

From Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ott p. 261
"Without special Divine Revelation no one can know with the certainty of faith, if he be in the state of grace. (De Fide.)

It goes on to say, "The impossibility of the certainty of faith, however, by no means excludes a high moral certainty supported by the testimony of conscience. Cf. S. th, i II 112, 3.

For example, suppose someone is a truely good christian, but dosen’t know that he is
seriously obligated to support his church financially. Is the person excused because he is ignorant of the requirement and is lacking knowledge in this regard? Could it be that he is seriously negligent in knowledge that he should have had and did not pursue thru his own fault? He may think that he is in good spiritual condition but in reality he is anything but. Now it dosen’t have to be the financial topic, but it could be any topic just to show that a person may not be correct in judging his own spiritual condition. No one can be certain because no one can be aware of everything that may be affecting his soul adversely. But there are some things not known that we are responsible for, or as the civil law puts it, “ignorance of the law is no excuse.”

Just a thought.

 

[Incomplete]

From Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ott p. 261
"Without special Divine Revelation no one can know with the certainty of faith, if he be in the state of grace. (De Fide.)

It goes on to say, "The impossibility of the certainty of faith, however, by no means excludes a high moral certainty supported by the testimony of conscience. Cf. S. th, i II 112, 3.

For example, suppose someone is a truely good christian, but dosen’t know that he is
seriously obligated to support his church financially. Is the person excused because he is ignorant of the requirement and is lacking knowledge in this regard? Could it be that he is seriously negligent in knowledge that he should have had and did not pursue thru his own fault? He may think that he is in good spiritual condition but in reality he is anything but. Now it dosen’t have to be the financial topic, but it could be any topic just to show that a person may not be correct in judging his own spiritual condition. No one can be certain because no one can be aware of everything that may be affecting his soul adversely. But there are some things not known that we are responsible for, or as the civil law puts it, “ignorance of the law is no excuse.”

Just a thought.

This just doesn’t make sense to me. I can understand that people may not be as “holy” (for lack of a better word) than they think they are, but you need to be in a state of grace when you die to eventually enter heaven, right? (Or maybe this is where my understanding is faulty?)

So is Ott saying that the Church teaches that we can have a great love of God and do every single thing we can to live as we thing He desires, and somehow, through our own fault, we did not pursue something we had no idea we should pursue…something that kept us from a state of grace…and it was our fault, even though we had no idea…

This would seem to contradict the teachings of mortal sin. Mortal sin requires full knowledge. My understanding has always been that if we are not in a state of mortal sin at death, we will eventually enter heaven. But Ott is saying full knowledge is not necessary.

Am I reading this right? And what did Ott reference for this? I do understand the importance of this work; I’m just trying to grasp all of this.

 

[fred_conty]

This just doesn’t make sense to me. I can understand that people may not be as “holy” (for lack of a better word) than they think they are, but you need to be in a state of grace when you die to eventually enter heaven, right? (Or maybe this is where my understanding is faulty?)

So is Ott saying that the Church teaches that we can have a great love of God and do every single thing we can to live as we thing He desires, and somehow, through our own fault, we did not pursue something we had no idea we should pursue…something that kept us from a state of grace…and it was our fault, even though we had no idea…

This would seem to contradict the teachings of mortal sin. Mortal sin requires full knowledge. My understanding has always been that if we are not in a state of mortal sin at death, we will eventually enter heaven. But Ott is saying full knowledge is not necessary.

Am I reading this right? And what did Ott reference for this?

There is such a thing as being responsible for our own ignorance. It dosen’t mean that we do not commit sin just because we do not know it is wrong. If we should have know, and it is our own fault that we do not know, then we have sinned.

On a parrallel, a man who is intoxicated is responsible for his actions even tho he may not know what he is doing under the influence. He is responsible because he intended to get drunk and thereby is responsible for those activities he does under the influence.

 

[Incomplete]

There is such a thing as being responsible for our own ignorance. It dosen’t mean that we do not commit sin just because we do not know it is wrong. If we should have know, and it is our own fault that we do not know, then we have sinned.

On a parrallel, a man who is intoxicated is responsible for his actions even tho he may not know what he is doing under the influence. He is responsible because he intended to get drunk and thereby is responsible for those activities he does under the influence.

But only to a degree. Civil law is a lot different from God, though it is important to note that the man who got drunk had intent to get drunk, so this starts with a premise of a man doing what he knows is wrong. God knows our hearts. He knows if we are doing everything we possibly can to follow His will. He knows if we love Him with all of our heart. My understanding is that He wants everybody to be saved.

I am the first to admit that I have a ton of faults that I am constantly working on. But I love God with all my heart and strive to serve Him and strive to improve. I thought until now that this is all that God requires, that we do our very best, that we strive to love and serve Him and follow His will to the best we know it. But you are saying that if I die today, none of that matters if there is something that I am ignorant of.

And there probably is something I am ignorant of. I’m sure there is. I can’t possibly have all knowledge. And reading these forums, and hearing different priests…even they can’t agree on everything.

I do get your point about being ignorant about things we should know. There is a biblical passage about God’s laws being written in our hearts, and I think sometimes people try to avoid what they really do know. Or, as in your example, they do something they know is wrong, and that leads to more actions that are wrong. But Ott seems to be saying that we can never know. Yet in my heart, I am confident (or was until I read this today) that I am in a state of grace. I have done nothing to turn away from God.

As I asked before, does this not contradict the condition of needing full knowledge to be in a state of mortal sin? Is this saying that you can go to hell even through venial sin…which I think contradicts the catechism?

 

[fred_conty]

The civil law is not different in this application. We are responsible to know certain things.
For example, a catholic suspects that this Wednesday is a holy day of obligation. But since he kinda heard this, he needs to check it out. This is easy to do. But he dosen’t and misses it. Is he responsible or not? I think you know the answer. Ignorance in this case does not excuse.

I’ve known people who think that they can cheat the insurance company and that this is alright. And we are talking a lot of money. Is a person responsible for his ignorance?
Wouldn’t that person have the duty to find out. And if you try to tell them different, you get an argument. Is this ignorance allowable? Or is this diliberate ignorance out of fear of knowledge?

Now as far as loving God in everyway possible and doing all that one knows one should do and is doing it, then he can reasonably think that he is in grace. But he still can’t know absolutely for sure. And this is not what Ott is saying, it is what the church is saying.

So we go right back to what a lot of people have said on CAF, we don’t know who goes up and who goes down for sure, except the saints who are cannonized.

I would suggest that you get a copy of Ott and check it out. It is a great book to know what the faith does say and it isn’t that much to purchase. I know you would like it.

 

[Incomplete]

The civil law is not different in this application. We are responsible to know certain things.
For example, a catholic suspects that this Wednesday is a holy day of obligation. But since he kinda heard this, he needs to check it out. This is easy to do. But he dosen’t and misses it. Is he responsible or not? I think you know the answer. Ignorance in this case does not excuse.

I’ve known people who think that they can cheat the insurance company and that this is alright. And we are talking a lot of money. Is a person responsible for his ignorance?
Wouldn’t that person have the duty to find out. And if you try to tell them different, you get an argument. Is this ignorance allowable? Or is this diliberate ignorance out of fear of knowledge?

Now as far as loving God in everyway possible and doing all that one knows one should do and is doing it, then he can reasonably think that he is in grace. But he still can’t know absolutely for sure. And this is not what Ott is saying, it is what the church is saying.

So we go right back to what a lot of people have said on CAF, we don’t know who goes up and who goes down for sure, except the saints who are cannonized.

I would suggest that you get a copy of Ott and check it out. It is a great book to know what the faith does say and it isn’t that much to purchase. I know you would like it.

But your example is of someone who, as you says, hears something somewhere and should check it out. For something as important as a Holy Day of Obligation, yes, they have a duty to check it out. This is a person who had knowledge and did nothing with it.

Reading Ott’s quote, it sounds like you don’t even have to have knowledge. He is saying you can never know if you’re in a state of grace. You might be committing mortal sin without knowledge. That’s the piece that is hard to understand, that a just and loving God would say, look, I know you didn’t know, I know you did your best, but you offended Me in a way you never realized, so you will never see My face.

I know the importance of Ott. That’s why this disturbs me so much. What you say makes sense, but it doesn’t seem to me that Ott is saying this. He is saying we can just never know. Which seems to contradict teaching on mortal sin.

On a side note, I’ve tried to purchase this but have not been able to obtain it. Nobody seems to have it in stock. I’ve even done the thing where you wait and wait, only to eventually be told I can’t get it.

To say I’m a bit shaken up would be to put it mildly. To reconcile a God of love, a God who wants us with Him eternally, with a statement like this is difficult. I feel like everything I ever knew has changed.

And again, is it not true that we are in a state of grace unless we commit mortal sin? And that mortal sin requires full knowledge and consent?

That brings up another issue. If we are not in a state of grace, we should not receive Eucharist. But how can we know? According to Ott, we can’t. Yet we should receive Eucharist at least once a year. Yet…we can’t be sure if we are in a state of grace when we receive it. I go to Mass every day and receive Eucharist every day.

I appreciate your patience with me.

 

[w_s_s]

But your example is of someone who, as you says, hears something somewhere and should check it out. For something as important as a Holy Day of Obligation, yes, they have a duty to check it out. This is a person who had knowledge and did nothing with it.

Reading Ott’s quote, it sounds like you don’t even have to have knowledge. He is saying you can never know if you’re in a state of grace. You might be committing mortal sin without knowledge. That’s the piece that is hard to understand, that a just and loving God would say, look, I know you didn’t know, I know you did your best, but you offended Me in a way you never realized, so you will never see My face.

I know the importance of Ott. That’s why this disturbs me so much. What you say makes sense, but it doesn’t seem to me that Ott is saying this. He is saying we can just never know. Which seems to contradict teaching on mortal sin.

On a side note, I’ve tried to purchase this but have not been able to obtain it. Nobody seems to have it in stock. I’ve even done the thing where you wait and wait, only to eventually be told I can’t get it.

To say I’m a bit shaken up would be to put it mildly. To reconcile a God of love, a God who wants us with Him eternally, with a statement like this is difficult. I feel like everything I ever knew has changed.

And again, is it not true that we are in a state of grace unless we commit mortal sin? And that mortal sin requires full knowledge and consent?

That brings up another issue. If we are not in a state of grace, we should not receive Eucharist. But how can we know? According to Ott, we can’t. Yet we should receive Eucharist at least once a year. Yet…we can’t be sure if we are in a state of grace when we receive it. I go to Mass every day and receive Eucharist every day.

I appreciate your patience with me.

If you are morally certain that you are in a state of grace, you may receive the Eucharist without fear of committing a sacrilege in doing so, just as a person whose putative marriage was declared null may marry without fear of being culpable of adultery.

Even so, it is possible that one who thinks himself to be in the state of grace receives unworthily. St. Thomas Aquinas seems to reference this in the sequence Lauda Sion:

Sumunt boni, sumunt mali:
Sorte tamen inæquáli,
Vitæ vel intéritus.
Mors est malis, vita bonis:
Vide paris sumptiónis
Quam sit dispar éxitus

or (in English):

Both the wicked and the good
Eat of this celestial Food:
But with ends how opposite!
Here it is life: and there it is death:
The same, yet issuing to each
In a difference infinite.

 

[Incomplete]

If you are morally certain that you are in a state of grace, you may receive the Eucharist without fear of committing a sacrilege in doing so, just as a person whose putative marriage was declared null may marry without fear of being culpable of adultery.

Even so, it is possible that one who thinks himself to be in the state of grace receives unworthily. St. Thomas Aquinas seems to reference this in the sequence Lauda Sion:

Sumunt boni, sumunt mali:
Sorte tamen inæquáli,
Vitæ vel intéritus.
Mors est malis, vita bonis:
Vide paris sumptiónis
Quam sit dispar éxitus

or (in English):

Both the wicked and the good
Eat of this celestial Food:
But with ends how opposite!
Here it is life: and there it is death:
The same, yet issuing to each
In a difference infinite.

But for all we know, that quote is talking about the people who are knowingly wicked.

Could you give me a link to the catechism or other authorized document that says we can receive if we are unknowingly in a state of mortal sin? I still don’t understand how to reconcile that with the catechism. For that matter, can you resolve what Ott says with the question I asked about mortal sin?

 

[Incomplete]

If you are morally certain that you are in a state of grace, you may receive the Eucharist without fear of committing a sacrilege in doing so, just as a person whose putative marriage was declared null may marry without fear of being culpable of adultery.

Even so, it is possible that one who thinks himself to be in the state of grace receives unworthily. St. Thomas Aquinas seems to reference this in the sequence Lauda Sion:

Sumunt boni, sumunt mali:
Sorte tamen inæquáli,
Vitæ vel intéritus.
Mors est malis, vita bonis:
Vide paris sumptiónis
Quam sit dispar éxitus

or (in English):

Both the wicked and the good
Eat of this celestial Food:
But with ends how opposite!
Here it is life: and there it is death:
The same, yet issuing to each
In a difference infinite.

I was thinking this through again. You said it’s OK to receive if you just think you’re in a state of grace, but then quoted Aquinas to prove you can think you’re in a state of grace and still receive unworthily. Yet if you are right about what Aquinas is saying, to receive unworthily still leads to death. So if I can’t know if I am in a state of grace, how can I ever know that I can receive Eucharist without condemning myself?

 

[fred_conty]

But for all we know, that quote is talking about the people who are knowingly wicked.

Could you give me a link to the catechism or other authorized document that says we can receive if we are unknowingly in a state of mortal sin? I still don’t understand how to reconcile that with the catechism. For that matter, can you resolve what Ott says with the question I asked about mortal sin?

To me you sound like you are doing what you know to be good. I was always taught that
if I am unaware of any serious sins, then go to Communion, and I have been a Catholic since 1 day old, and I have never heard any thing different. That would be high moral certitude. And this is what we have to go on. Everyone should follow their confessor’s advice.

If you want Ott’s book, I bought mine a couple of years ago for about $16 on Amazon.

 

[Incomplete]

To me you sound like you are doing what you know to be good. I was always taught that
if I am unaware of any serious sins, then go to Communion, and I have been a Catholic since 1 day old, and I have never heard any thing different. That would be high moral certitude. And this is what we have to go on. Everyone should follow their confessor’s advice.

If you want Ott’s book, I bought mine a couple of years ago for about $16 on Amazon.

I ordered through Amazon. Months later I received an email that they couldn’t get it anymore.

Moral certitude doesn’t appear to be enough, and confessors aren’t perfect.

Can you reconcile this with the Church teaching on mortal sin?

 

[fred_conty]

I ordered through Amazon. Months later I received an email that they couldn’t get it anymore.

Moral certitude doesn’t appear to be enough, and confessors aren’t perfect.

Can you reconcile this with the Church teaching on mortal sin?

Dosen’t appear to be enough for what reason? That is all we have to go on.
Confessors don’t have to be perfect to give us a correct teaching.
You may want to ask a priest here on CAF which might be a more satisfying way to resolve this.

 

[Incomplete]

Dosen’t appear to be enough for what reason? That is all we have to go on.
Confessors don’t have to be perfect to give us a correct teaching.
You may want to ask a priest here on CAF which might be a more satisfying way to resolve this.

Doesn’t appear to be enough based on Ott’s statement. I realize confessors don’t have to be perfect, but I’ve seen enough on this forum about priests giving incorrect teaching.

Can you tell me what Ott referenced when he made the earlier statement you quoted? I’m not sure how to ask a priest here.

 

[fred_conty]

Doesn’t appear to be enough based on Ott’s statement. I realize confessors don’t have to be perfect, but I’ve seen enough on this forum about priests giving incorrect teaching.

Can you tell me what Ott referenced when he made the earlier statement you quoted? I’m not sure how to ask a priest here.

It will take a few minutes. I did find Ott’s book on Amazon starting at $95 and up for used.
They must be out of print. I will be back.