Do Catholics have "Assurance of Salvation"?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,     

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

Faith is a personal act - the free response of the human person to the initiative of God 

who reveals himself. But faith is not an isolated act. 

No one can believe alone, just as no one can live alone. 

You have not given yourself faith as you have not given yourself life. 

The believer has received faith from others and should hand it on to others. 

Our love for Jesus and for our neighbor impels us to speak to others about our faith. 

Each believer is thus a link in the great chain of believers. 

I cannot believe without being carried by the faith of others, and by my faith I help support others in the faith.

--#166, Catechism of the Catholic Church

There is a common question that is posed by Evangelicals:  "If you died tonight do you have absolute assurance that you will go to heaven?"

The Evangelical Christian's position is this:  the Bible tells me that if I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior, I do indeed have absolute assurance that I am going to go straight to heaven.  It doesn't matter what I do, how badly I fail, Jesus Christ died for my sins and because of that I am going to heaven.

This does indeed sound appealing.  All a person has to do is answer an altar call, go down on one's knees, confess Jesus as our savior, and no matter how we live the rest of our lives, we are assured that we will enter heaven.

However, this Sunday's second reading seems to suggest otherwise.  St. Paul professes, "I do not even pass judgement on myself. I am not conscious of anything against me, but I do not thereby stand acquitted; the one who judges me is the Lord"--1 Cor 4 

In other words, he is proclaiming the Catholic position regarding assurance of salvation (interesting how St. Paul and the Catholic Church's position go hand in hand!) We have a moral assurance of going to heaven, but not an absolute assurance.

And the rest of the Scriptures proclaim the idea that we must fight the good fight, cooperate with the graces of God and remain in friendship with Christ in order to achieve joy of heaven. Our final salvation depends upon the state of our soul at death, and our relationship with Christ until the end. "He who perseveres to the end will be saved"-Matt 24:13 

One Catholic apologist, John Martignoni, when asked this question about assurance of salvation responds with, “Where is that question in the Bible?”  Where does Jesus, or Paul, or Peter, or James, or anyone else ask someone, “If you died tonight do you know for sure that you would go to Heaven?”  Ask them to give you book, chapter, and verse.  They can’t do it, because that question is not in the Bible.  In other words, these “Bible–only” Christians have made up some sort of salvation test that is nowhere found in the Bible…it is a man–made invention."

Catholics can thus be confident that Christ abundantly accomplished what he intended--our salvation and entry into heaven.  We do proclaim that we have assurance of salvation; we just don't have an infallible certitude of this.

And while Evangelical Christians may be able to take a verse or two in Scripture to support their view that we can never lose our salvation, Catholics take the Word of God in its entirety and declare that we are not saved ONLY by confessing Jesus as our Lord and savior.

This is how Catholic profess we are saved:

By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

By eating his flesh and drinking his blood (Jn 6)

By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)

By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)

By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By his righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By keeping the commandments (Matt 19:17)

By our words (Matt 12:37)

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

Catholics Come Home

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15   

30 second Apologetics: Didn't the Catholic Church used to teach that...

Over the years I've heard some really bizarre claims about the Catholic Church.

For example: "Didn't the Catholic Church used to teach that..."

• wolves were the spawn of Satan. 
• women had no souls
• left handed people were possessed 
• the Pope was God on earth 

The inner Catholic in me, whenever I hear these things says:

The outer Catholic, however, needs to be more charitable and say something like, "That is something that I've never heard before as a Catholic.  Would you mind showing me where it is that the Church taught this?"

Typically, what evidence will be provided, if anything at all, is either a document written by a random Catholic (priest or layperson), and this is interpreted as "Therefore, the Catholic Church used to teach this."

Or it is something taken out of context and needs to be understood within the lens of the entirety of the manuscript.

Or a reference will be provided that says, "The Catholic Church taught [fill in the blank with the canard du jour]", but no primary source will ever be offered.

In order for something to be a teaching of the Catholic Church, it needs to come from the Magisterium of the Church--that is, the teaching authority of the Church which includes the bishops, in union with the Pope, or a Pope writing to the Church, or an ecumenical council of the Church.

In fact, even if a statement comes from a Pope, it need not be interpreted as a teaching of the Church.  It may simply be his personal, theological opinion.  One must always look at the context of the writings, the source and the authority with which this particular statement is promulgated.  For example, Pope Benedict XVI wrote, in his book Jesus of Nazareth, that he does not believe that the Gospel of John was written by the Apostle John.

That is his theological opinion only.  For a person to read that statement by Pope B16 and conclude, "The Catholic Church believes that the Gospel of John was not written by the Apostle John" would be erroneous.

For more info on how the claim that the Catholic Church taught that women had no souls circulated, see this article:
The Myth of Soulless Women

Why do I need a Church to tell me what to believe?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,     

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

Faith is a personal act - the free response of the human person to the initiative of God 

who reveals himself. But faith is not an isolated act. 

No one can believe alone, just as no one can live alone. 

You have not given yourself faith as you have not given yourself life. 

The believer has received faith from others and should hand it on to others. 

Our love for Jesus and for our neighbor impels us to speak to others about our faith. 

Each believer is thus a link in the great chain of believers. 

I cannot believe without being carried by the faith of others, and by my faith I help support others in the faith.

--#166, Catechism of the Catholic Church

Question:   Why do I need a Church to tell me what to believe?  I am an independent thinker and don't need a Church to tell me how to think!

Short answer:  because it's only through the Catholic Church that we can know anything at all about Jesus and what he taught.  

For example, when someone says, "Jesus loves me!" the ONLY way this Christian knows this is because he believes what the Church told him.  He can't know this any other way (unless he is claiming some sort of private revelation), except through deferring to the authority of the Church and believing what the Church said in this instance.

Thus, anyone who is a Christian conforms himself to revealed Truth.  No one gets to re-define and "independently think" up their own truths.  (For example, he doesn't get to say, "I believe that God is a Quadrinity, rather than a Trinity!" or "I think that God only forgives the sins of females, but not of males!")  Rather, he defers to what has been revealed through Scripture (and the Church, whether he acknowledges this or not).

Now, being an "independent thinker" and following the Church's teachings are not mutually exclusive.  Of course we are all called to independently think, critically analyze, and come to a knowledge of the Truth.  We are commanded, in fact, to do this when St. Matthew professes that we are to love God with our entire MIND.  Catholic scholars are some of the greatest independent thinkers in the history of academia!  

And as Catholics we are forbidden to follow blindly anyone (that is called Fideism, and is a heresy in the Church).  We should never be blind automatons who never examine and evaluate that which has been proclaimed to us by the Catholic Church.  Faith and Reason are the two wings upon which we rise to contemplate the Godhead.  

But, as the great Cardinal Henry Newman said, "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, for a man may be annoyed that he cannot work out a mathematical problem, without doubting that it admits an answer".  In other words, an independent thinker may struggle to come to an understanding of a truth, but he knows that there is a truth that he has to conform to.  He cannot simply re-define truth and declare, "I am an independent thinker and now re-define this to be a circle.  I just think independently like that.  No one can tell me what to believe!"

We don't get to just decide for ourselves what the Truths are.  Rather, we must discern what they are using our Faith and Reason, and then conform ourselves to these Truths.

There are a multitude of Christians who reject the Catholic Church and declare that they don't need any church to tell them what to believe, because all has already been revealed in the Bible.  "I have Jesus and my Bible.  I don't need a church to tell me what to believe!"

This prompts a lot of thoughts:

Namely, without the Catholic Church they wouldn't have the Bible.  It was the Catholic Church that discerned for them which of the over 400 ancient Christian texts belonged in the New Testament, coming to a decision, guided by the Holy Spirit, that 27 books belong in the canon.  Thus, when a Christian believes that the Gospel of Mark is inspired and the Gospel of Barnabas is not, it is because he defers to the authority of the Catholic Church in discerning this for him (even if he doesn't acknowledge this).

Also, following Jesus without the Church is like following a Head without a Body.  The Church is the Body of Christ, and without the Body, the Head is merely a disembodied entity.  

From Apologist John Martignoni:  

"Whenever someone tells me that I should think for myself, be my own man, and not simply believe what the church tells me to believe, I ask them a couple of questions: “Did Jesus found the church?” Most will say that yes, Jesus did indeed found the church.  And, the second question: “Doesn’t the Bible say the church is the Body of Christ?”  To which they generally answer that the Bible does indeed say the church is the Body of Christ.  To which I then reply, “So, you’re telling me that I shouldn’t just accept what the Body of Christ tells me, I should decide for myself, right?  And, if what I decide for myself is contrary to what the Body of Christ is telling me, then you’re saying I should go with my individual decision over the decision of the Body of Christ?”  

Silence.  Or, someone will say, “Well, the Catholic Church isn’t the church of the Bible.”  To which there are two responses: 1) “Oh yea, says who?” and, 2) “So which church is the church of the Bible and do you accept everything it teaches, yes or no?”  Now they have backed themselves into a theological corner.  First of all, before we go on, I want you, the reader, to say out loud, right now, the following sentence - not as an oath or any such thing, but just to hear it said out loud: “I will trust my own individual decisions about doctrines and morals, over and above the decisions about doctrines and morals made by the church of the Bible, the church founded by Jesus Christ, the church that is the Body of Christ.”  Sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn’t it? ...

Anyone who claims they do not necessarily go by what any church says, or that they don’t let any church get between them and Jesus, or that they don't need the church as long as they have their Bible, or who looks down on Catholics for just accepting what the church says and not going by their own private interpretations of Scripture, has done something really terrible.  They have, in essence, using their private fallible opinion of Scripture as the weapon, decapitated Jesus.  Think about it.  Scripture tells us that Jesus is the head of the body and that the body is the church (Ephesians 4:15-16, 5:23; Colossians 1:18, 2:19).  Also, Scripture tells us that Jesus identifies Himself with the church.  We see this in Acts 8:3 where it tells us that Saul (Paul) “laid waste the church.” In other words, Saul was persecuting the church something fierce.  And then, in Acts 9:4, Jesus asks Saul, “Why do you persecute Me?”  Jesus identifies Himself with the church.  The church is His body.  He is its Head.  They are one.
Which means, anyone who tells you that you should decide matters of doctrine and morality on your own, regardless of what the church says; and that you should never let the church come between you and Jesus, is, essentially, decapitating Christ."

There is no reason to have any type of dichotomy between Jesus and the Church. Or the Bible and the Church.  

It's the good old Catholic Both/And principle at work here.  We follow Jesus and the Church. We follow the Bible and the Church.   

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Faith and Reason by Pope JPII

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

Catholics Come Home 

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15   

Using "The Two Year Old Toddler" Argument* for the Prolife Position

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,     

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

*"Argument"--used in the philosophical sense of "presenting reasoned premises to set up a logical conclusion".  It does not mean to quarrel or to fight.

On this 41st anniversary of the legalization of abortion, I thought it was important to address some ways we Catholics can present our apologia (defense) for being prolife.  

One such apologia is "The Two Year Old Toddler" argument, which basically says, "Any argument that an abortion-rights advocate presents can be applied to a 2 yr old toddler."

That is, say a prochoice friend says, "How can you force motherhood upon a single mom who just lost her job and is in danger of being evicted, and finds out that she's pregnant with her 6th child?  Wouldn't it be the compassionate thing for her to have a legal abortion?"

We can respond, "What if this single mom had a 2 yr old toddler, plus 5 other children?  Would you say that it's the compassionate thing to terminate this 2 yr old since the mom just lost her job and is in danger of being evicted?"

Would we kill a 2 yr old whose father abruptly abandons the family, in order to relieve the mom's economic hardship and prevent the other children from growing up in poverty?

Would we advocate killing a 2 yr old in order to prevent her from growing up in an abusive drug-ridden household?

Would we kill a 2 yr old who has spina bifida so she won't suffer from life in a wheelchair?

The prochoice response will naturally be, "Well, that's different!"

We can then say, "How is it different?   Is not the situation the same for both the 2 yr old and the unborn baby--an adverse life event (job loss, abandoned mother, poverty, illness/disability, etc etc) that suggests to someone that a compassionate solution is the elimination of the child?"

The response may then be, "Well, the toddler already exists!" 

And then the Catholic response is, "So does the unborn baby"

Really, what is the essential difference between a 2 yr old and an unborn baby?

It always comes down to this question:  is the unborn baby a human worthy of the right to life, or is it not?  And if it's not a human, when does it become a human?

There's really only 3 possibilities:  

1) it is human at conception

2) it is human at birth

3) it is human at viability (when it can live outside of the mother).

Regarding #2:  how can something be inhuman 3 inches inside a birth canal, and then receive humanity 3 inches later?  What changes so acutely that one considers it tissue in one location and a valuable human being in another location?

Regarding #3:  how can humanity be based upon technology?  For a 32 week unborn baby 40 years ago would not have been viable (and therefore not human), but today she is viable and therefore human?  Humanity ought not be dependent upon technology.  That is too arbitrary!

And please note that religious beliefs need never be appealed to in the prolife apologia.  We as Catholics need never argue only from a religious point of view that abortion is wrong. 

For it is not from a religious paradigm that we are against abortion, but rather from a human perspective.  

All humans ought to have the same rights as everyone else.  That's a human paradigm, not only a religious one.

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Case for Life

A Reasoned, Scientific Prolife Argument

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

Catholics Come Home

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.  But do this with gentleness and respect--1 Peter 3:15 

30 second apologetics: Does the prophet Jeremiah condemn Christmas trees?

According to some fundamentalist Christians, Christmas trees are condemned in the Bible, based on these words of the prophet Jeremiah:

Hear what the LORD says to you, O house of Israel.
This is what the lord says:

"Do not learn the ways of the nations or be terrified by signs in the sky,
though the nations are terrified by them.

 For the Customs of the peoples are worthless;
they cut a tree out of a forest, 
and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel (axe in some translations).

They adorn it with silver & gold;
they fasten it with hammer and nails so it will not totter.

Like a scarecrow in a melon patch, their idols cannot speak; they must be carries for they cannot walk.
Do not fear the; they can do no harm, nor can they do any good."--Jeremiah 10: 1-5

If this is to be taken as a condemnation of having trees that are chiseled, and adorned, then it also is a condemnation of having chairs in one's homes as well, for those, too are made of wood and are chiseled into shapes.  Sometimes we even adorn our chairs with silver and gold!  Yet no fundamentalist Christian objects to having chairs in one's homes, obviously.  

Clearly, the above is not a condemnation of having decorated Christmas trees in our homes, but rather of worshipping trees, which was a pagan practice observed in the time of Jeremiah.  If we make an idol out of our Christmas tree, then, yes, God condemns that.  

But I don't know too many folks who believe that this is actually a god.

Have a Merry, Merry Christmas--remember, it's Christmas until Epiphany!  And a blessed 2014

Doesn't the Bible state that "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23)? So why do Catholics believe that Mary never sinned?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,     

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

Short answer:  because "all have sinned" doesn't mean, literally "all".  We know that there are exceptions--one big one would be, of course, Jesus Christ Himself.  And, of course, there are millions of other exceptions to the "all have sinned" verse:   all the little babies and wee ones younger than the age of reason (about age 7).  We know that they can't sin until they make a free choice to sin. 

So if there are millions of exceptions, why couldn't Mary be another exception?  

Thus, we can see that belief in Mary's sinlessness in no way contradicts Scripture, in particular, Romans 3:23.  

In fact, if anyone wants to argue that "all have sinned" is, literally, every single human being, then this person will have a difficult time convincing a Muslim that Jesus is divine...for all the Muslim has to do is say, "Well, even your own holy Bible declares that Jesus sinned--does it not say that  'all have sinned'?" and the only response for this person would be to admit, yes, all have indeed sinned, including Jesus.

A Catholic, however, is in good position to provide apologia to a Muslim for he can say: "We don't believe that 'all have sinned' means a literal every single human being."  And thus, we can confidently assert to this Muslim that Jesus was divine and that our Scriptures do not declare that He sinned.

Incidentally this Sunday's Gospel from Matthew proclaims another example of "all" not meaning, literally, every single human being:

At that time Jerusalem, all Judea,
and the whole region around the Jordan
were going out to him
and were being baptized by him in the Jordan River
as they acknowledged their sins.--Matt 3

We know that, in fact, not every single person in Judea was baptized by John the Baptist.  This is confirmed in the Gospel of Luke which declare that the Pharisees in Judea were never baptized by John the Baptist:

 (All the people who listened, including the tax collectors,
and who were baptized with the baptism of John, 
acknowledged the righteousness of God;

but the Pharisees and scholars of the law, 
who were not baptized by him,
rejected the plan of God for themselves)--Luke 7

Thus, we can see that "all" does not necessarily mean "all".

Thank God for the Church, through whose divinely assisted wisdom we can be guided into reading His Word with the proper understanding!  Without her guidance we are predisposed to erroneous interpretations, being "tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes."--Ephesians 4:14

Rather, we, the flock, are shepherded into knowing when to take the Word literally, when it is symbolic and metaphorical, when it is binding, when it is loosing, etc etc etc, without being subdued and conquered by the waves and winds of false interpretations.

As the magisterium of our Church states:

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church,  whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.--Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Biblical Q and A about the Blessed Virgin Mary

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

Catholics Come Home

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15   

Scriptural proof that there is no purgatory?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,     

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

Question:   Doesn't the Bible state that the Good Thief went to heaven without Purgatory? Isn't this Scriptural proof that there is no Purgatory? So why do Catholics believe in Purgatory? 

This Sunday's Gospel from Luke proclaims that, indeed, Jesus told the Good Thief (known by Catholic tradition (small "t") as St. Dismas) that he would be in heaven with Him.

Then he said,
"Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
He replied to him,
"Amen, I say to you,
today you will be with me in Paradise."

So is the above verse proof that Purgatory doesn't exist?  It would appear that the Good Thief didn't have to go to Purgatory.

What's the Catholic response?

Firstly, it may be that St. Dismas did not need Purgatory.  He was already pure and cleansed of any attachment to sin.  But that doesn't mean, therefore, that no one needs a final purification (or "purging"--hence the word, purgatory).

As CS Lewis (who was, curiously, not a Catholic) states:   "Our souls demand purgatory, don't they? Even if God doesn't mind people entering heaven dripping with mud and slime, should we not reply, I'd rather be cleansed first,' even if it may hurt?"

Secondly, it may be that Jesus did not mean St. Dismas would be with Him in paradise today.  In Biblical Greek, which is the language the New Testament was written in, there was no punctuation.  The commas were inserted by the translators.  As such, the text could be rendered,  "Amen, I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise".   In other words, Jesus may have said that  it is today that I tell you that (someday) you will be with me in Paradise.

Thirdly, Revelation is not clear about time in the afterlife.  As such, since Purgatory is simply a purification, it may be done "in the twinkling of an eye" (1 Cor 15:2) or it may take years.  Thus, St. Dismas could indeed have undergone purification/Purgatory but this cleansing occurred immediately.  Incidentally, as there is no longer day and night in eternity, a time reference for "today" may not necessarily be referring to a 24 hour time period.  All we know about "today" is that St. Dismas would be with Christ "at some point".  Not necessarily within 24 hours.

Fourthly, when Jesus says that the Good Thief would be with Him in Paradise, "paradise" prior to the advent of Jesus, referenced the bosom of Abraham, not heaven.  Paradise was the place of peace, or the "holding area", for souls who died before Christ's atonement and were unable to enjoy the Beatific Vision.

Thus, the Good Thief being told by Jesus that he would be in Paradise is in no way a proof that Purgatory doesn't exist.

Also, this verse in Scripture is also used by folks to refute the Catholic belief that baptism is necessary for salvation.  They will state, "See!  The Bible states that the Good Thief was told he would be in heaven and he was never baptized!  So baptism is NOT necessary for salvation!"

Catholics respond:  where does the Bible state that the Good Thief was never baptized?  (Answer:  nowhere).

Another response is that there is baptism of desire, which St. Dismas may have received through his union with Christ and His suffering.

From the Catechism:  The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament. 1258

 

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Dismissing the Dismas Case

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

Catholics Come Home

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15