What's with all the eens posts?

[CradleCath]

It seems that the Traditional Catholic forum is being innundated by posts that deny the WHOLE doctrine that we call ‘Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus’, which translates into "No Salvation Outside the Church.

Many here are claiming that they have “proof” that one must be a card-carrying, pew-sitting Catholic who is registered in a parish in order to obtain Salvation. These people supply NO links to their claims, partial quotes & insinuations. The Catholic Church has NEVER taught that all non-Catholics are destined to go to Hell. Yes, we believe that Salvation is obtained through the Church specifically…BUT, there are several ways that one can be in communion with The RCC. I agree that it is easier for Catholics to spend eternity with God, as we have the Sacraments & the Grace they bestow upon us. However, to say that any man/woman who…through **invincible ignorance **is not a physical member of the Catholic Church…is doomed to Hell, is heritical teaching.

They also deny the Church Doctrines concerning** Baptism of Blood **(those who have died as martyrs in defense of Christ’s teachings) & **Baptism of Desire **(the desire to serve God, lead Holy lives & search for the truth…whether they actually find said Truth or not) connect them with the Church enough to spend eternity in Paradise. These poster do not believe that these forms of Baptism can save ANY non-Catholics. These posters deny the fact that these forms of Bapism can serve to bring a Jew, a Muslim, or a Protestant spiritually into the Church. Though not in FULL communion, **through no fault of **their own, they are considered part of the Church.

The doctrine of Baptism of desire and blood is **repeatedly evinced **in both Sacred Scripture and the writings of the Saints and Doctors of the Church. Finally, there are the official pronouncements of the Magisterium. These latter are found in the Council of Trent, and subsequent catechisms and Papal encyclicals right up until the Second Vatican Council.
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bpdsir.htm

I well remember the newspaper articles about Father Feeney who stood on the Street corners of Boston & declared that all Jews, all Muslims, all unbaptized babies, all those who had not been Baptized BY WATER into the Catholic Church…all of these people…would suffer eternal damnation.

In fact,
I was a Junior in High School when someone brought a newspaper to my Catholic school & discussed one of his horrible quotes:
“You heard this filthy kike say that Jesus was not God. I ask God to punish this dirty Jew in a most conspicuous manner. I ask God to punish that cigar-chomping Catholic who stands next to that blaspheming Jew and does not lift a finger to protect Jesus and Mary.”
—the very same Father Leonard Feeney, responding to a heckler on Boston Common, July 10, 1956.
Read more: thephoenix.com/boston/news/91119-father-feeney/#ixzz0r3xOLXKt

These posters are what I call Feeneyites…Father Leonard Feeney was first excommunicated for disobedience, refusing to go to Rome to explain his position. Then the Holy Office, under Pius XII, sent a letter to the Archbishop of Boston, condemning Feeney’s error. (It is known that Pius XIIpersonally checked the English text of that letter). In the very first paragraph pointed out what is obvious: we must avoid private interpretation of Scripture – for that is strictly Protestant. But then the letter said we must also avoid private interpretation of the
official texts of the Church. To insist on our own private interpretation, especially when the Church contradicts that, is pure
Protestant attitude.

Whenever I have put one of their cut & paste partial statements of one of the saints, popes, I’m inevitably led to sites of sedevacantists, the “Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary”, The Saint Benedict center (both organizations that Father Feeney started), the “Most Holy Family Monastery”, the Dimond Brothers, “Father” Muller Hutton Gibson …all of whom are Catholic splinter groups preaching heresy. I do hope the moderators will help us out with this.

 

[MarkThompson]

In the very first paragraph pointed out what is obvious: we must avoid private interpretation of Scripture – for that is strictly Protestant. But then the letter said we must also avoid private interpretation of the
official texts of the Church. To insist on our own private interpretation, especially when the Church contradicts that, is pure
Protestant attitude.

Exactly, CC. When you go “sola scriptura” on the Bible, you wind up with countless Protestant denominations that disagree with each other. When you go “sola scriptura” on Church documents, you wind op with complaints and recriminations about who is the “real Catholic Church,” who about whether the Pope or an ecumenical Council is being faithful to (your interpretation of) the Magisterium, and all kinds of similar dangerous thoughts. Feh, is what I say.

 

[Sirach2]

:tiphat: CradleCath, I commend you for having the courage to speak out in a separate thread, for this issue has been grieving many of us for a long time. I do hope, as well, that the moderators will consider the harmful effect on other Catholics, and as you once pointed out, it gives the true traditionalist a bad rap.

These posters are what I call Feeneyites.

No doubt about it … out of the heart, the mouth speaks.

I have seen “stalking” of those known to be against their errors, so most likely, they will be here shortly, in full bloom.

 

[CradleCath]

QUOTE=Sirach2;6754012]:tiphat: CradleCath, I commend you for having the courage to speak out in a separate thread, for this issue has been grieving many of us for a long time. I do hope, as well, that the moderators will consider the harmful effect on other Catholics, and as you once pointed out, it gives the true traditionalist a bad rap.

That’s the truth. They make us all look intolerant & ignorant of true Church teaching.

No doubt about it … out of the heart, the mouth speaks.

I have seen “stalking” of those known to be against their errors, so most likely, they will be here shortly, in full bloom.

I hope not, but if this happens, I hope they realize that this thread is NOT to discuss this teaching as that has been done ad infinitum in this forum. This thread is to ask posters who are sedevacantists NOT to claim to be Catholic, to ask those who get their cut & paste messages
from St. Benedict Center & most Holy Family monastery to provide LINKS to them. If they are not ashamed of their sources, why would this be a problem?

 

[giuseppeTO]

I agree that it is easier for Catholics to spend eternity with God, as we have the Sacraments & the Grace they bestow upon us.

I would offer that it is harder for Catholics to spend eternity with God for the very reason that we have the truth and the Sacraments and misuse and ignore them.

 

[DebatingDebator]

I would offer that it is harder for Catholics to spend eternity with God for the very reason that we have the truth and the Sacraments and misuse and ignore them.

Perhaps, but that would make it a better thing to remain in ignorance of the truth rather than to possess it.

I think one should be very careful to state such things.

As for EENS it is a dogma, but often people do not understand it at all. If the Feenyites were correct in their narrow interpretation then quite a number of Popes are in heresy towards it including Pope Pius IX and others saintly.

I recomend that anybody who is struggling with understanding the correct position read Father William Most on the subject - because it is online in the catholic culture archives online and it is very well explained there.

God Bless

D

 

[CradleCath]

I would offer that it is harder for Catholics to spend eternity with God for the very reason that we have the truth and the Sacraments and misuse and ignore them.

First, THANK YOU for showing your affiliation with the SSPX. in your on-line “biography”. It shows up in the right hand corner of all your posts & let’s us know where you’re coming from. I pray daily that we reconcile ALL differences with the SSPX & achieve unity between the RCC & the SSPX soon.

Next, I agree with your sentiments somewhat. To those who much is given (Catholics), much is expected.

 

[ProVobis]

That’s the truth. They make us all look intolerant & ignorant of true Church teaching.

And if I can add something, that was the Church teaching prior to Vatican 2 as well.

 

[AnneElliot]

This thread is to ask posters who are sedevacantists NOT to claim to be Catholic

Are you claiming particular posters are lying about their affiliations? That’s a rather assuming statement, I hope you have evidence to back it up more than just quotes that are found on a trashy website. Instead of making a topic about it, you should send a message to the moderators who can investigate and take care of things.

I hope they close this topic, it’s nothing but trouble.

 

[Tradycja]

Istatements of one of the saints, popes, I’m inevitably led to sites of sedevacantists, the “Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary”, The Saint Benedict center (both organizations that Father Feeney started), the “Most Holy Family Monastery”, the Dimond Brothers, “Father” Muller Hutton Gibson …all of whom are Catholic splinter groups preaching heresy. I do hope the moderators will help us out with this.

The Slaves of the Imaculate Heart of Mary, the Saint Benedict Center, and the Benedictine Abbey in Still River, Massachutesetts are officially approved by the Diocese of Worcestor, whose Bishop is Rev. John McManus.

Additionaly, here is an article by Peter Vere, a Canon Lawyer on the matter. Vere has written for Envoy Magazine, appears in the book Suprised By Truth #3, and has written for This Rock magazine. He has also written great apologetic material againsts the Lefebvre schism.

Here he responds to a question on the matter from the Saint Benedict Center in New Hampshire. Now it must be noted that the group in New Hampshire is not approved by the Church. Vere simply answers the question if a Catholic in good standing may hold the same interpretation of “extra ecclesia…” as Feeney. He does not go into the Canonical standing of the group in New Hampshire, but merely the status of the individual Catholic faithful who holds this view.

catholicism.org/downloads/Peter_Vere_SBC.pdf

While the Saint Benedict Center in New Hampshire is not approved, the following are the websites of the approved communities:
abbey.org/
sistersofstbenedictcenter.org/
saintbenedict.com/

(Note that this last website says “Saint Benedict Center in Still River is not associated or affiliated with St. Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire.” The New Hampshire one is the one that is not approved, the Still River one is. It gets confusing sometimes but you need to distinguish!)

As you can see in this link, they are listed in the Directory page of religious orders in the Diocese of Worcester (Benedictines of Still River and MICM)

198.87.234.92/vicar/Religious…8/Default.aspx

So, what does this mean? Not only can a Catholic hold a stricter interpretation of EXTRA ECCLESIA NULLA SALUS and still be in good standing with the Church, but there are actually religious orders officially approved in the Diocese of Worcester that hold this view.

This “Fr. Mueller” of whom you speak lived from 1825-1899, so I kinda doubt he was associated with Hutton Gibson. LOL en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_M%C3%BCller

 

[Tradycja]

Also if you have a problem with the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart or the Saint Benedict Center you would also need to take up the issue with the following people:

1)Rev. John McManus, Bishop of the Diocese of Worcestor (approves of 3 communities that hold the “strict” interpretation of EENS) worcesterdiocese.org/Default.aspx?alias=www.worcesterdiocese.org/bishop

2)Peter Vere, canon lawyer and writer for Patrick Madrid’s magazine “Envoy”

3)The Bishop of Juarez, Mexico who has friendly relations with the Saint Benedict Center’s school in Still River
zenit.org/article-25799?l=english

4)Fr. Frank Pavone of the Priest’s for Life who held a retreat in the “Feeneyite” community
priestsforlife.org/clippings/95,04-07catholicfreepressstillriverretreat.html

5)Fr. John Zuhlsdorf
wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/some-thoughts-about-the-sspx-rome-and-unity/

6)Fr. Brian Harrison, a writer for “This Rock” and a professor at a Pontifical University who spoke at a Saint Benedict Center Conference
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Harrison_%28theologian%29

7)Msgr. Camille Perl Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei commission who says:
“The question of the doctrine held by the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not. We do not judge it opportune to enter into this question.”
ewtn.com/library/curia/cedsspx2.htm

Additionally, Adam Miller, a well known defender of EENS wrote a book defending the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass against radical traditionalists.
http://books.google.com/books?id=8nODQotcSfkC&lpg=PA42&ots=z3j2uszIEU&dq=Adam%20Miller%20is%20the%20new%20mass%20valid&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Vin Lewis, a Catholic Apologist who also holds the “strict” interpretation publically debated the Most Holy Family Monastery. Vin also defends the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass and he also attends it himself. http://allroadsministry.com

Bill Strom, another EENS apologist also goes to the Novus Ordo Mass and defends Vatican II: catholicvox.blogspot.com

I myself go to the Novus Ordo Mass and I defend Pope Benedict XVI against the sedevacantists. I think it is unfair that you lump all of these people in with the Dimond Brothers. The Dimond Brothers are actually probably the first sedevacantists to also be “Feeneyites”. They also stole a lot of quotes and arguments from the “Feeneyites” who are not sedevacantists.

The majority of “Feeneyites” are not traditionalists even (most even attend the Novus Ordo Mass), just like the majority of attendees to the Traditional Latin Mass are not sedevacantists either.

Whether or not the sedevacantists quote the same documents as the approved Feeneyite groups is irrelevant. I mean, William Lane Craig has a ton of great arguments against atheism, if a Catholic uses the same arguments that Lane Craig uses to refute an atheist, does that make him a Protestant???

 

[RosaryCrusader]

There’s a few things you have to keep in mind.

First, the so called “Feeneyites” are in full communion with the Church and are allowed to continue teaching the more ‘rigorist’ interpretation of EENS. A letter from the Vatican says they are free to have the same latitude in teaching EENS as those who would hold a more “liberal” view. So labeling those who hold the more strict interpretation as heretics is unjust and uncharitable - especially since there are a good number of Popes, Saints, Fathers and Doctors of the Church who all taught the more strict interpretation and would have to be labeled as such.

Another thing you must realize is that EENS is defined dogma. It’s been repeatedly defined over and over and over again - yet by the sentimental nature of your post it seems you would like to redefine it to a meaningless formula as Pope Pius XII warned against doing. There is no getting around it - there is no salvation outside of Church. Careful in trying to make exceptions to this because there are none. Just as there is no salvation outside of Christ there is no salvation outside of His Body - the Church.

Invincible ignorance we have no way of knowing anything about and it’s morally wrong to try to apply that to anyone. That sort of judgement is God’s alone and we have no way of knowing if there ever has been or ever will be anyone who’s ignorance is so indestructible that it could be said to be invincible.

Concerning Baptism of Desire - St. Thomas Aquinas and the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church have two different oppinions - one for and one against. But you have to understand that they never understood this as applying to anyone other than a catechumen with explicit desire.

There is a knee jerk reaction to EENS because people have something at stake in believing or disbelieving this dogma. It’s usually the pure emotion conjured up at the thought of a non-Catholic relative or someone dear to them who’s passed away outside the faith. Let me just say that a knee jerk reaction based upon this type of sentimentality is ill founded since that person could’ve acknowledged the Catholic Faith before they died and sought repentance - so we don’t know. All we know is what Christ taught - the Church is necessary. Anything else is pure speculation and outside the realm of true charity which desires to see every man in the bosom of the Church.

Now time for some questions to ponder:

1. Can someone who explicitly rejects water baptism have ‘baptism of desire?’
2. Do you think there are people of good will out there who love what they perceive to be God and have kept the natural law and are pleasing to God but are so hopelessly ignorant that God cannot grant them any graces to convert them and come to the knowledge of the truth?

 

[RosaryCrusader]

Also if you have a problem with the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart or the Saint Benedict Center you would also need to take up the issue with the following people:

1)Rev. John McManus, Bishop of the Diocese of Worcestor (approves of 3 communities that hold the “strict” interpretation of EENS) worcesterdiocese.org/Default.aspx?alias=www.worcesterdiocese.org/bishop

2)Peter Vere, canon lawyer and writer for Patrick Madrid’s magazine “Envoy”

3)The Bishop of Juarez, Mexico who has friendly relations with the Saint Benedict Center’s school in Still River
zenit.org/article-25799?l=english

4)Fr. Frank Pavone of the Priest’s for Life who held a retreat in the “Feeneyite” community
priestsforlife.org/clippings/95,04-07catholicfreepressstillriverretreat.html

5)Fr. John Zuhlsdorf
wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/some-thoughts-about-the-sspx-rome-and-unity/

6)Fr. Brian Harrison, a writer for “This Rock” and a professor at a Pontifical University who spoke at a Saint Benedict Center Conference
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Harrison_%28theologian%29

7)Msgr. Camille Perl Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei commission who says:
“The question of the doctrine held by the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not. We do not judge it opportune to enter into this question.”
ewtn.com/library/curia/cedsspx2.htm

Additionally, Adam Miller, a well known defender of EENS wrote a book defending the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass against radical traditionalists.
http://books.google.com/books?id=8nODQotcSfkC&lpg=PA42&ots=z3j2uszIEU&dq=Adam%20Miller%20is%20the%20new%20mass%20valid&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Vin Lewis, a Catholic Apologist who also holds the “strict” interpretation publically debated the Most Holy Family Monastery. Vin also defends the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass and he also attends it himself. http://allroadsministry.com

Bill Strom, another EENS apologist also goes to the Novus Ordo Mass and defends Vatican II: catholicvox.blogspot.com

I myself go to the Novus Ordo Mass and I defend Pope Benedict XVI against the sedevacantists. I think it is unfair that you lump all of these people in with the Dimond Brothers. The Dimond Brothers are actually probably the first sedevacantists to also be “Feeneyites”. They also stole a lot of quotes and arguments from the “Feeneyites” who are not sedevacantists.

The majority of “Feeneyites” are not traditionalists even (most even attend the Novus Ordo Mass), just like the majority of attendees to the Traditional Latin Mass are not sedevacantists either.

Whether or not the sedevacantists quote the same documents as the approved Feeneyite groups is irrelevant. I mean, William Lane Craig has a ton of great arguments against atheism, if a Catholic uses the same arguments that Lane Craig uses to refute an atheist, does that make him a Protestant???

Not only that but the FSSP gives it’s Ignatian retreats at the so called “Feeneyite” Still River Location If they were heretics and not approved the FSSP could not give retreats there.

 

[CradleCath]

Are you claiming particular posters are lying about their affiliations? That’s a rather assuming statement, I hope you have evidence to back it up more than just quotes that are found on a trashy website. Instead of making a topic about it, you should send a message to the moderators who can investigate and take care of things.

I am “claiming” nothing. If you will please read my posts, you’ll see that I’m ASKING those who continually post on EENS, to supply the infomation about their religious affiliations. The reason…you are miss interpreting Catholic Dogma, repeatedly. Therefore you are either poorly informed re the Catholic faith or you are involved in a splinter group.
Ex. if you are affliated with Feeneyism, include that in your online “biography”. If you are attending an SSPX. church, include that also, same if you are sedevacantists, members of Hutton Gibsons “Holy Family” splinter group, etc., etc. Surely, if you really believe the errors you’re propagating, you won’t be ashamed of your affiliations.

I also ask that you include links when you quote someone.

I hope they close this topic, it’s nothing but trouble.

I’ll just bet you do. Meanwhile, you can go back to the "Invincible ignorance/material heresy thread.

 

[CradleCath]

Not only that but the FSSP gives it’s Ignatian retreats at the so called “Feeneyite” Still River Location If they were heretics and not approved the FSSP could not give retreats there.

WOW, you’ve all converged on this thread. Must have been a LOT of PMing going on. I do not care what your Bishop McManus is doing, nor do I care WHERE the FSSP holds it’s retreats (although if I find that they are in ANY way connected with the heresy of Feeneyism, I will cancel my plans to attend one of their Masses).

The fact is you have denied Church Doctrine that specifically says:

** It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood**.
newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#X

You are condemning to Hell, unbaptized stillborn babies whose parents had fully **desired **for them to be Baptized. You are condemning to Hell, good God-fearing people who through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, (invincible ignorance) have desired to find the Truth & die before this happens. You are condemning to Hell, for instance, the early Native Americans who had never heard of Jesus Christ, nor the Catholic Church.

This is not Catholic teaching, so perhaps it would be better for you to post on either the Non-Catholic forum or the Apologetics forum.

I am done with the lot of you & will not reply to another post denying Church teaching on the subject of EENS. I hope every other truly traditional Catholic will do the same.

 

[AnneElliot]

CradleCath:

I am “claiming” nothing. If you will please read my posts, you’ll see that I’m ASKING those who continually post on EENS, to supply the infomation about their religious affiliations.

You said,

CradleCath:

This thread is to ask posters who are sedevacantists NOT to claim to be Catholic

Implying that there are sedevacantists here who are claiming to be Catholic.

CradleCath:

The reason…you are miss interpreting Catholic Dogma, repeatedly. Therefore you are either poorly informed re the Catholic faith or you are involved in a splinter group.

I am taking the declarations at face value, as though they are truths fallen from Heaven. I am not misinterpreting anything. I’m reading and believing that the Popes and Councils meant exactly what they said.

For the upteenth time, I go to a Novus Ordo daily Mass during the week at the Cathdral. I go to the TLM (at a Diocesan parish which also celebrates the Novus Ordo) on Sundays. I have a strong devotion to Our Blessed Mother, I pray the Rosary daily. I have a strong devotion to the Sacred Heart of Our Lord, I have a Holy Hour once a week and visit on other occasions when I can; I pray fervently for ALL priests and offer them constantly to Our Lady and the Sacred Heart of her Son. I teach CCD and youth group, I also lead an adult Bible Study and apologetics course at my parish. You’d think with all that interaction, someone would correct me if I was so grossly in error about a matter of Catholic doctrine.

Did you read/see Tradycja’s post(s)? If this is a misinterpretation of Catholic dogma, why are there communities in good standing with the Church they hold this exact understanding?
"CradleCath:

Ex. if you are affliated with Feeneyism, include that in your online “biography”. If you are attending an SSPX. church, include that also, same if you are sedevacantists, members of Hutton Gibsons “Holy Family” splinter group, etc., etc. Surely, if you really believe the errors you’re propagating, you won’t be ashamed of your affiliations.

I don’t have “affiliations”. Just because I agree with a theologian (any theologian!) about a particular point doesn’t mean I necessarily then agree with everything he said or did. I read a lot of (then) Cardinal Ratzinger too, do you want me to list every theologian I read?

CradleCath:

I also ask that you include links when you quote someone.

This is not always possible. That’s why I tell you the name of the document. I don’t always use the internet for sources… I usually use books (as I stated in one of the threads about this topic, I was using Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma and/or Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma)

I’ll just bet you do. Meanwhile, you can go back to the "Invincible ignorance/material heresy thread.

I’ve been there. Where have you been?

 

[AnneElliot]

WOW, you’ve all converged on this thread. Must have been a LOT of PMing going on.

I did not get a PM.

3 people have responded to defend themselves. There are others who participated in the threads who have not responded, yet you are surprised that “all” those who hold the Church’s dogma have responded? Don’t make this bigger than it is. If you have problems with posters, report it to the moderators rather than dragging it out over the forums. It just clutters them up.

And regarding condemning anyone to Hell… go check out my last post(s) in the invincible ignorance thread. You should find it enlightening.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6757808&postcount=197

 

[RosaryCrusader]

WOW, you’ve all converged on this thread. Must have been a LOT of PMing going on. I do not care what your Bishop McManus is doing, nor do I care WHERE the FSSP holds it’s retreats (although if I find that they are in ANY way connected with the heresy of Feeneyism, I will cancel my plans to attend one of their Masses).

So you’re saying the Catholic Church has given official permission to teach the “heresy” of “Feeneyism”?

The fact is you have denied Church Doctrine that specifically says:

** It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood**.
newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#X

Newadvent is not an organ of the Catholic Church and is not vested with any papal authority whatsoever.

You are condemning to Hell, unbaptized stillborn babies whose parents had fully **desired **for them to be Baptized. You are condemning to Hell, good God-fearing people who through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, (invincible ignorance) have desired to find the Truth & die before this happens. You are condemning to Hell, for instance, the early Native Americans who had never heard of Jesus Christ, nor the Catholic Church.

Christ alone is Judge. No one here has judged anyone. Everyone is free to choose and your post shows clear misunderstanding of the nature of the sacraments and the Church itself. If you have problems understanding something you should read and pray more about it instead of having the emotional knee jerking.

Concerning unbaptized babies - they do not go to Heaven - they go to limbo - a place of natural happiness. The early CHurch Fathers referred to this as well as the limbo of the fathers as “hell” although not to be confused with the hell of the damned which consists of pain and eternal torment.

There is more than enough proof that the Indians actually did have the Gospel preached to them. See here: audiosancto.org/sermon/20051218-Saint-Thomas-the-Apostle-Preaching-the-Gospel-to-the-New-World.html

There is also what the Saints say - for example St. Francis Xavier once said that if there ever was anyone of good will in a land who kept the natural law and earnestly sought after God - then God would’ve sent a missionary to that land and instruct and baptize them long ago. God would not let that soul perish without the Faith. St. Thomas Aquinas said the same as well as the North American Martyrs.

Look, like it or not, Christ said that the road is narrow and FEW are saved. This should put you on your knees (all of us) praying and sacrificing for the conversion and salvation of those who God puts in our path.

 

[AnneElliot]

Regarding the Native Americans…

Venerable Mary of Agreda bi-located no less than 500 times (!) to convert the Native Americans and promised them that priests would come to baptize them. When the Franciscan priests showed up, the Natives were all properly catechized and waiting for them.

“Mother Agreda received also the gift of bilocation, and she was able to go to North America to preach the gospel to the Indians. As a result they were prepared to accept the Catholic missionaries when they went there.
It is said that from 1620 to 1631 made over 500 visits to the various tribes of Indians in America’s Southwest. She was known as the Blue Lady.”
theworkofgod.org/saints/Lives/Agreda.htm

“Perhaps the most extraordinary case of bilocation is that recorded in the life of VEN. MARY OF AGREDA (d. 1665), a humble nun who spent forty-six years in the Convent of the Conception in Agreda, Spain. Not only did the Venerable travel mystically across Spain and Portugal, but she also crossed an ocean to visit another continent that was known as America. Her final destination was New Mexico and the Indians of an isolated tribe. The event took place in the following manner. One day in the year 1620, while rapt in ecstasy, Maria was transported to New Mexico, where she was commanded by Jesus to teach the Indians. She spoke in her native Spanish, but was nevertheless understood; she, in turn, understood the language of the Indians. Because they did not know her name, the Indians called her the “Lady in Blue” because of the blue mantle she wore over her habit. When she awoke from her ecstasy she found herself in the convent in Agreda. Two reports of a nun teaching the Indians reached Don Francisco Manzo y Zuniga, Archbishop of Mexico. One report was from Mary of Agreda’s own confessor, Fray Sebastian Marcilla, who contacted the Archbishop to learn if Mary of Agreda’s report to him that she had bilocated to the Indian territory was correct. The other report came from missionaries who related how the Indians sought them out under the direction of a Lady in Blue. To determine the truth of these reports the Archbishop assigned Fray Alonzo de Benavides of the Franciscan Order to investigate. Fray Benavides was then the director of the missionaries who labored from Texas to the Pacific. One day in the year 1629 Fray Benavides was sitting outside the Isleta Mission when a group of fifty Indians from an unknown tribe approached him and asked that he send missionaries to their territory. In his letters to both Pope Urban VIII and King Philip IV of Spain, Fray Benavides revealed that the Indians had travelled a great distance from a place called Titlas, or Texas, and that they knew where to find the friars from the directions given them by a Lady in Blue who had taught them the religion of Jesus Christ. Two missionaries were sent back with the Indians. These holy men found the Indians well instructed in the Faith and baptized the entire tribe. After searching for eleven years, Fray Benavides finally found the mysterious nun, not in America, but in Spain. On his return to Spain in 1630, he visited the Superior General of his order, Fr. Bernardine of Siena. It was he who told Fray Benavides that the Lady in Blue was Sr. Maria of the convent in Agreda. Realizing that the nun, out of humility, would not reveal her secret to him, the holy nun was placed under obedience to tell all she knew about the visits to America. In the presence of her confessor, Fray Benavides questioned her in regard to the various peculiarities of the province in New Mexico. She described the customs of the different tribes of Indians, the nature of the climate and other details. Fray Benavides later wrote that “she convinced me absolutely by describing to me all the things in New Mexico as I have seen them myself, as well as by other details which I shall keep within my soul.” Fray Benavides was later installed as the Auxiliary Bishop of Goa, India. He was ordered by His Holiness Pope Urban VIII in 1634 to write an account of his personal investigations. Of Sr. Mary of Agreda, Fray Benavides once wrote, “I call God to witness that my esteem for her holiness has been increased more by the noble qualities which I discern in her than by all the miracles which she has wrought in America.””
tanbooks.com/doct/mysteries_marvels.htm

 

[PhanxicoXavier]

“what’s with all the eens posts??”

Well, its a Catholic forum!

We love the dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla Salus as much as we love the Real Presence, the Immaculate Conception, etc!

Pascal says that the only people that deserve to be called rational are those who are serving God, or those who are trying to find out how to serve God - the overwhelming majority of men these days do not fit either category. I’m in a very pagan country right now (Viet Nam) and I can assure you that most of the people are concerned with where their next meal or cigarette or beer is coming from, or maybe the next TV or I-phone, maybe the winner of the World Cup – but hardly any about finding out the one true God to love and serve Him. Its really tragic. Which is why I think that whatever few souls that are truly seeking God, He will send them the necessary graces for salvation.