Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
39 thoughts on “New Marian Apparition Approved”
KEWL!!!
The Church in Laus is very orthodox and the Gregorian or Tridentine Mass has been offered many times in recent years at that beautiful Basilica.
I went on a pilgrimage to the Holy site in 2003 and was blessed to assist at a Gregorian Mass at the Basilica.
Thank you for this post and God bless you.
I recently read a book by, Abbe Roger de Labriolle entitled “Labergere de Notre Dame de Laus”
In it is recounted a very important and interesting occurance in Blessed Benoites apparitions.
“One of the punishments suffered by Benoite merits being underlined in our ecumenical era. She was taking a child to be baptized at Remollon, where some Huguenots [i.e. Protestants] asked her if she believed that they were able to save themselves in their religion.
“I leave that judgement to God”, she replied.
The Virgin-Bishop Gaillard affirmed- corrected her saying that, ” she had to much human respect and she had not told the truth, because if she had said no, some of them would have been converted. This they have not done.”
As a penance She did not appear to Benoite for a month.”
Dan Hunter,
Interestingly, that anecdote you cite is just about the only tidbit in English anywhere on the Internet (at least according to Google) that turns up in connection with Roger de Labriolle.
I can’t verify that the book exists in English… nor is it all that readily available in French, apparently. Did you read it in French? Is the translation above yours, or did you grab it from somewhere else?
SDG,
j’eris et je lis correctement le francais, mais j’ai plus de mal a le parler.
I had seen a quote from the book in a brochure that I found in the Basilica on my retreat to Laus and Googled for it.
I found Abbe Labriolle’s book on http://www.antiqbook
God bless you.
SDG,
Totally unrelated to the topic, it pained me to see the ‘defanging of Aslan’ in movie clip after movie clip leading up the to “Prince Caspian” movie.
Your article in NCR unfortunately justly put the nail in the coffin.
P.S.
The guys responsible for “VOTDT” MUST consult you, who seems to be the only fellow with a understanding of how the books should be adapted to screen. Do I make assumptions? 😀
some Huguenots [i.e. Protestants] asked her if she believed that they were able to save themselves in their religion.
“I leave that judgement to God”, she replied.
The Virgin-Bishop Gaillard affirmed- corrected her saying that, ” she had to much human respect and she had not told the truth, because if she had said no, some of them would have been converted. This they have not done.”
We have to remember that this apparitian is a private revelation. I don’t know that the above is Church teaching. As far as I am aware we do leave the question of who shall be saved to God and non Catholics, as long as they are not aware that they should be Catholics and live a good life according to their understanding may be saved.
Surely she cannot have been a young girl by 1718.
Sharon, I am sure that you are aware of the Dogmatic Teaching of the Church: “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” or “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”
Either the Blessed Mother said what she did to Benoite about telling the Protestants that they can not be saved by their religion or She did not.
“Let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no”.
Your comment about letting Protestants remain unaware of the Truth so they remain blissfully ignorant of their obligations flys in the face of all the Churches Missionary work.
St Frances de Sales converted 70,000 Calvinists by telling them and teaching them that they where in error.
The Missionary activity of the Church is among the highest forms of charity that a loving Mother can bestow upon her children.
If some of those protestants had been told that their false faith would not save them then they would have converted.
We should all be so merciful.
All Catholics are called to attest to the truth in this way.
I have told protestant friends of mine that they will not be saved by their religion.
Three of them are now taking CCD classes to enter the Church.
God bless you
Geoff,
She was 17 when the Blessed Mother first appeared to her.
The Blessed Mother continued to appear to Benoite for 50 years.
She did become old.
Dan,
Sharon rightly points out that this is private revelation. Approval amounts to finding nothing contrary to the faith. There can be no new Dogma here.
Pope Piux IX in Singulari Quadem says: “For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God.”
While this is no excuse for us to accept relativism or not evangelize, just because you tell someone the Catholic Church is the true church, does not mean that “invincible ignorance” can no longer apply.
The status of “approved” private revelations, according to the Catechism [My emphasis].
67. Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfilment, as is the case in certain nonChristian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.
Of course Protestants can’t save themselves by their religion. There is no question there in terms of Catholic doctrine. Protestantism involves all sorts of grave matter in terms of heresy and disobedience. Also they don’t have a valid Eucharist. If any Protestant ends up saved (and I strongly suspect many are) they are saved in spite their religion not because of it.
Before I go jumping into the fray, I would like some clarification. I also read French (better than I speak it). I would like to see the original quote. The construction of the sentence:
She was taking a child to be baptized at Remollon, where some Huguenots [i.e. Protestants] asked her if she believed that they were able to save themselves in their religion.
in French strongly suggests the use of the reflexive and it would mean – can they save themselves in their religion, NOT, can they be saved within their religion. When I first read it, I assumed that it was referring to the doctrine of sola fide – can one be saved by making a self-statement of faith.
It is true about Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, but who is outside of the Church is sometimes a difficult question to discern, which is why the Church has issued guidelines. The statement in the quote did not refer to other “religions,” but rather a very specific form of Christianity. The quote from Pope Pius IX covers more than just the Protestant religion and refers to any person seeking the Truth who has never had the chance to encounter a Catholic or who cannot see, despite being to told, that the Catholic Church is the ark of salvation.
Conscience must be followed, even when it is in error, assuming that it is rightly formed. One cannot simply argue against this point that, “well, if it were rightly formed then they would do the right thing,” because the words, “rightly formed,” assumes not that the conscience is correct, but that it has been diligent. One can sometimes be diligent, as in a police investigation, without discovering the truth. Sometimes the evidence is not available in a way that makes sense to the observer. This does not mean that the evidence is wrong, but that the processing is incomplete. This another reason why the Church is patient in her evangelization, unlike some fundamentalist protestants, who believe that if you don’t accept Jesus as your personal savior when they offer the opportunity that night, you will not be saved.
Before I can make any comments, I need this point cleared up. This is an example of a conscience being rightly formed, but I lacking the evidence to make a determination of the intent of the sentence. If the sentence suggests, as Dan Hunter does, that it refers to the Protestant Religion in general, then I can start from there. If it refers to sola fide, then I can start from there.
It is true that there are heresies within any form of Protestantism and if one adheres to them knowing and understanding what the Church teaches, then one cannot be saved (the anathemas of Trent still apply), but the Lord said that the servant who did not know his Master’s wishes would receive a lighter punishment. Some people hold to sola fide because they are too afraid to let go of it; some because they believe it; some because they have never heard of anything different. Both sola fide and Protestantism in toto are wrong. I just do not know to which the sentence refers.
The Chicken
Masked Chicken,
I believe the answer to your query lies in the Blessed Mothers own words.
She admonished Benoite by telling her that,:she had to much human respect and she had not told the truth, because “if she had said no [the Protestants could not be saved by their religion] some of them would have been converted.
This they have not done”.
“The fear of God is the Beginning of Wisdom”
Many people begin their conversion to the Church by a realistic fear that their religion is the wrong one and they had better make sure that they worship Almighty God correctly.
Yes, this is like imperfect Contrition, but many times it leads to a more perfect Contrition in the absolute love of God, for His sake alone.
This is what I think Our Blessed Mother meant when she told Benoite that, had she told the Protestants that their religion will not save them, some of them would have converted.In other words,
they were disposed at that point to listen to the Truth.
St Frances de Sales in his book:”The Catholic Controversy” tells of a similar occurance.
Father De Sales exhorted many Calvinists in France, to turn back to the Church, they were ready to convert.They did.
They just needed his holy coaxing.
Thats all it took.
We should be so merciful.
God bless you.
Doesn’t it bother you that this apparition claimed Jesus’ role as reconciler?
Dan,
It is the teaching of the Church that believing protestants are separated brethren, not lost, in imperfect but real communion with the Church, and that their denominations are ‘ecclesial communities’ the same term used for orders, if I’m not mistaken. Feeneyism on the other hand, which you seemed to possibly have promoted, has been declared a heresy.
Sola fide does not mean a self-statement of faith, but that that faith which works in love, which truly fears, trusts, loves and obeys God, is the channel for justifying -grace-,(and is itself a gift of the Holy Spirit) where justification means regeneration and the forgiveness of sins, -not- entire sanctification as it does in Catholic terminology.
John,
I am echoing Notre Dame du Laus words to Blessed Benoite and have never stated ANY heresy.
“If you do not eat My Body and drink My Blood, you do not have life within you”.
As to your reference to Feenyism, take a look at the website for the,”Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary”, they are in complete union with the Holy See and stand by the Churches Dogmatic teaching that,”Outside the Church there is no salvation”.
Pope Pius XI stated in “Mortalium Animos”, in paragraph 10, that: “For since the mystical Body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body is one, compacted and fitly joined together, IT WERE FOOLISH AND OUT OF PLACE TO SAY THAT THE MYSTICAL BODY IS MADE UP OF MEMBERS WHICH ARE DISUNITED AND SCATTERED ABROAD: WHOSOEVER THEREFORE IS NOT UNITED WITH THE BODY IS NO MEMBER OF IT, NEITHER IS HE IN COMMUNION WITH THE CHURCH AS CHRIST HER HEAD.”
God bless you.
Forgive me,
The previous response was directed to labrialumn.
God bless.
Dear Dan Hunter,
All I asked for was the quote in the original language. The admonishment could have applied to either the case of sola fide or the Protestant religion. One can be afraid of losing one’s soul in either case and convert. I just wanted to see the quote in the original context. Do you know of a source?
Labrialumn,
We may be talking about two different things and if so, I apologize, but grace comes before faith, it is not the other way around. God calls. That is grace. Our response (also borne of grace) is with faith.
The Chicken
MC, I did say that grace came first, that faith was itself a gift of the Holy Spirit.
Dan, you must be what they call a ‘rad trad’, more Catholic than the pope. More Catholic than either BXVI or JPG. Because what I told you is the current teaching of the Roman See, and what you said is what is condemned as the heresy of feeneyism. If I’m not mistaken. Certainly it is heresias from the Roman See, making you a ‘protestant’.
Again,
Labrialumn, point out to me anything I said, or quoted that was heretical.
And if, as you say,”I am protestant”, how could I be more “Catholic than the Pope”?
What does more Catholic than the Pope mean?
And I assume, maybe I shouldn’t, that “JPG” means John Paul the Great.
Since when has this appelation become officially attached to his name.
If you call me a protestant you are also calling the Holy Father Pope Pius XI,the Great, a protestant as well.
Thanks for the ad-hominem attack though.
It gives me a chance to offer it up for reparation of sacriliges against the Most Holy Name.
God bless you.
Labrialumn,
I am still waiting.
God bless you.
I am a Catholic, and I think we should leave judgment to God. The institutional church is just that, and institution. The salvation of souls is up to God, not up to you. I know the dogmas, and I know they are not revelation but teachings. Be careful upon what you build your faith. Is it in Christ? Or in an institution?
The Church is not an “institution”; it is the Body of Christ. The Church teaches with Christ’s authority. As Catholics we are required to believe that the dogmas *are* revelation.
The Church was instituted by Christ as His visible Body on Earth.
The Church has always and everywhere taught that the Institution of the Church is directly Christs doing and without this Institution we would have no Church, No priesthood, no Blessed Sacrament, and therefore no salvation.
If we do not believe the Dogma of the Church we have no part in the mystical Body, as Pope Pius XI affirmed in, “Mortalium Animos”, and has been affirmed by the Church for 20OO years.
God bless you.
This is a nitpick over the pronunciation of the town of Laus – the pronunciation the narrator on the video was using reminded me of the name of the nation of Laos in Southeast Asia.
Would a French speaker help me out here? Wouldn’t the proper French pronunciation of the name of this town sound similar to that of the English word low? (as in the opposite of high)? Thanks in advance.
Often, when someone says “I’m a Catholic,” it is used as a shield to protect the the subsequent dissing of the Church’s teaching authority. I wonder if it’s even possible for a Catholic to be misinformed to the point of saying what Steve said above.
We must be careful of what we believe on the internet…
All of you are missing the point about salvation. Nobody — Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, liberal, conservative, traditionalist, progressive, fundamentalist, charistmatic, whatever — will be saved by their religion. They will only be saved through Christ’s blood, which represents the ultimate atonement needed to redeem humanity. What do you think the sacrifices in the Mosaic Law represented? Why do you think Christ is said to have fulfilled the Mosaic Law? Why do you think the curtain at the Temple’s Holy of Holies was torn in two from the top? What do you think the whole Letter to the Hebrews was about?
For that matter, why did Christ have to die if blood atonement wasn’t necessary for redeeming humanity?
But Christians long ago stopped viewing their faith as a means of redemption before a holy, righteous God and started viewing it as a philosophical system and a geopolitical entity (“Christendom”).
Good grief, people, get a grip and get over your infatuation with your own theological and confessional identities.
Joseph,
I am merely commenting on the words of Notre Dame du Laus as spoken to Blessed Benoite.
Take it up with Her.
Ut Prosim.
Joseph D’Hippolito,
“Christendom” is what happens when a culture of a people reflects their belief in the truth. By our Love they will know us.
As far as your condescension towards faith, might I remind you that Jesus wished Christians to be One as I and the Father are one. There are many disagreements today over the Eucharist, the importance of devotion to Mary, Baptism, Confession, etc. Even the necessity of Christ is disputed. Anyone reading the gospels, anyone searching for the Truth can see man’s essential need of salvation, and understand that this question must have only one true answer.
Just believing that Jesus’ Sacrifice saves isn’t enough for salvation. During His earthly life, Jesus
taught specific teachings. Before He Ascended into Heaven, he told the Apostles to “teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to obey all that I have commanded.” (emphasis added)
I can’t understate the importance of knowing just WHO Jesus is. In order for that to happen, we must know where the truth lies. Jesus created His Church to be the normative way in which men come to know, love, and serve Him. Your flippant dismissal of the importance of His Church and His may feel right to you, but it leaves me cold. I’m following Him through His Church.
David B., I wholeheartedly agree knowing WHO Jesus is fundamentally important. I also agree that believing in Christ’s sacrifice isn’t enough; the devils believe and tremble. But the key is appropriating that sacrifice for oneself (i.e., “accepting Christ as Lord and Savior”), then following what He says.
Does the contemporary Catholic Church really teach who Jesus is? Does it teach what He commands? How many Catholics know about the necessity for blood atonement for sin? How many Christians have any sophisticated understanding of a holy, righteous, just, merciful and loving God?
For that matter, how many non-Catholic Christians know about such things?
Those who study Scripture seriously and prayerfully can find out the answers. Too many Catholics (like all too many Christians) rely on their “leaders” to teach them — and those leaders are spiritually bankrupt, false shepherds themselves.
Moreover, if Catholicism is “Christ’s Church,” then what happens to all those Protestants and Orthodox who die devoted to Christ as Protestants and Orthodox?
If Christianity is merely a matter of joining the “right” church, then it has no more meaning than joining the right country club. Even worse, it mocks Christ’s sacrifice and places group identity over God’s demands for righteousness and redemption.
Does the contemporary Catholic Church really teach who Jesus is?
Yes. And always will. That’s part of the promise about the gates not prevailing.
Any Catholic can go to any bookstore and pick up a Catechism or a Compendium and see what his Church teaches. He can go online and read the latest encyclical or CDF document. And he will find there the same faith given once for all to the saints.
In large part, I became a Catholic because as a Catholic I have confidence that if my great-great-grandchildren remain in the Faith, they will find in Catholic teaching the same faith I believe today. I couldn’t say that as a Dutch Reformed Christian.
Moreover, if Catholicism is “Christ’s Church,” then what happens to all those Protestants and Orthodox who die devoted to Christ as Protestants and Orthodox?
Are you asking because you really don’t know the Church’s answer to this question, or for some other reason?
If Christianity is merely a matter of joining the “right” church, then it has no more meaning than joining the right country club.
Certainly, Christianity is not “merely a matter” of joining the “right” church. By the same token, marital fidelity is not “merely a matter” of only sleeping with the “right” person. There is more to it. But not less.
Since many of your questions were regarding the Catholic faith in general, and not a personal practice of mine, SDG, as a Catholic, was able to and did answer many of them. Therefore I will assume that you don’t wish for a mere carbon copy of SDG’s answers, which suffice for the questions they answer. Does the contemporary Catholic Church really teach who Jesus is?
Since you added “contemporary” in your sentence, are you admitting that you believe that the Catholic Church, at least at one time, taught who Jesus is? If so, can you elaborate on how, or in what way, you think the Church changed? Those who study Scripture seriously and prayerfully can find out the answers.
Jesus didn’t hide the Truth under a bushel, to be ‘found out.’ Yes, the answer are in scripture, and those who have not be taught the truth can begin
their great search there, but Jesus created a Church, the Church, to bear the Truth at His command, and promised to protect her, through The Holy Ghost, from error. This was evident throughout the NT, in The Acts of the Apostles, etc. Furthermore, it was after Jesus Death and Resurrection that God revealed truths, concerning the baptism of uncircumcised men, to Peter alone. Only then was it proclaimed to the rest of the Church. Too many Catholics (like all too many Christians) rely on their “leaders” to teach them — and those leaders are spiritually bankrupt, false shepherds themselves.
I attend Mass in a parish whose Pastor is lifetimes ahead of me in the spiritual life. He loves God, and wants all men to come to know Him. Jesus did not condemned merely being a figure of authority, but condemned men who failed to be trustworthy guardians of their duties. Neither you, nor anyone else, can issue a condemnation against all of the shepherds entrusted with God’s flock. Moreover, if Catholicism is “Christ’s Church,” then what happens to all those Protestants and Orthodox who die devoted to Christ as Protestants and Orthodox?
What happened to those outside of the people of Israel? God judges each man based on his own story, but Chiefly on the Sacrifice of His Son. Those who have never heard of Christ or His Church may be saved by Him nonetheless, because God is God, and a man who does what is right based upon his best knowledge and whatever grace given to him by God may receive salvation. If Christianity is merely a matter of joining the “right” church, then it has no more meaning than joining the right country club. Even worse, it mocks Christ’s sacrifice and places group identity over God’s demands for righteousness and redemption.
Christ chose to found His Church (not churches) upon Peter. Jesus said “I am The Way”, not “A way.” The way. Therefore, when many communions have opposing beliefs concerning even how one is saved by Christ, all cannot be in agreement with the truth, because the truth is not contradictory.
Lastly, no other Catholic I have met believes that just being a member of Christ’s Church can save one, but rather that being faithful to Christ’s teachings as taught through His Church leads to Salvation in Christ.
Just a few examples of the Churches perrenial dogmatic teaching of:”Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”
Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903), Encyclical Annum Ingressi Sumus: “This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church.”
idem, Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae:”He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God.”
Pope Pius X (1903-1914), Encyclical Jucunda Sane: “It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation.”
Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922), Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum: “Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
Pope Pius XI (1922-1939), Encyclical Mortalium Animos: “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation… Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors”
Deo Gratias!
Someone said: “Doesn’t it bother you that this apparition claimed Jesus’ role as reconciler?”
Actually, she didn’t. Just going by the youtube video, she is encouraging sinners to go to Confession/Reconciliation, which is going to Jesus for the forgiveness of sins committed after Baptism. If our loving and tender mother accompanies us along the way to do what is difficult yet freeing, wonderful. After all, she said, “Do whatever he tells you!” But she is not appropriating Jesus’ role to herself. She is not claiming to forgive our sins personally herself through her own sacrifice–that would be nonsensical and heretical and the mark of an inauthentic apparition or perhaps even a satanic deception. The sensus fidei of ordinary Catholics wouldn’t tolerate that for one second.
Re the Huguenots bit, Our Lady seems to have become much more ecumenical in Amsterdam and Medjugorje. I’m just going to drop that bomb and run. LOL
Nossa Senhora Mãe e Rainha das FamÃlias (Our Lady, Mother & Queen of Families)
Apparitions of Our Lady, of Our Lord Jesus Christ, St. Michael the Archangel, St. Gabriel the Archangel, and three messages from God the Father, to Fabiana Oliveira.
From 1996 to 2004. Vitória da Conquista – Bahia – Brazil. http://www.getway.com.br/nossasenhora/
Dear Tony
Qual seria a posição oficial da diocese a respeito dessa aparição?
(What would be the official position from the diocese regarding that apparition ?)
KEWL!!!
The Church in Laus is very orthodox and the Gregorian or Tridentine Mass has been offered many times in recent years at that beautiful Basilica.
I went on a pilgrimage to the Holy site in 2003 and was blessed to assist at a Gregorian Mass at the Basilica.
Thank you for this post and God bless you.
I recently read a book by, Abbe Roger de Labriolle entitled “Labergere de Notre Dame de Laus”
In it is recounted a very important and interesting occurance in Blessed Benoites apparitions.
“One of the punishments suffered by Benoite merits being underlined in our ecumenical era. She was taking a child to be baptized at Remollon, where some Huguenots [i.e. Protestants] asked her if she believed that they were able to save themselves in their religion.
“I leave that judgement to God”, she replied.
The Virgin-Bishop Gaillard affirmed- corrected her saying that, ” she had to much human respect and she had not told the truth, because if she had said no, some of them would have been converted. This they have not done.”
As a penance She did not appear to Benoite for a month.”
Are you sure it wasn’t a Martian Apparition? http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/008922.php
Dan Hunter,
Interestingly, that anecdote you cite is just about the only tidbit in English anywhere on the Internet (at least according to Google) that turns up in connection with Roger de Labriolle.
I can’t verify that the book exists in English… nor is it all that readily available in French, apparently. Did you read it in French? Is the translation above yours, or did you grab it from somewhere else?
SDG,
j’eris et je lis correctement le francais, mais j’ai plus de mal a le parler.
I had seen a quote from the book in a brochure that I found in the Basilica on my retreat to Laus and Googled for it.
I found Abbe Labriolle’s book on http://www.antiqbook
God bless you.
SDG,
Totally unrelated to the topic, it pained me to see the ‘defanging of Aslan’ in movie clip after movie clip leading up the to “Prince Caspian” movie.
Your article in NCR unfortunately justly put the nail in the coffin.
P.S.
The guys responsible for “VOTDT” MUST consult you, who seems to be the only fellow with a understanding of how the books should be adapted to screen. Do I make assumptions? 😀
some Huguenots [i.e. Protestants] asked her if she believed that they were able to save themselves in their religion.
“I leave that judgement to God”, she replied.
The Virgin-Bishop Gaillard affirmed- corrected her saying that, ” she had to much human respect and she had not told the truth, because if she had said no, some of them would have been converted. This they have not done.”
We have to remember that this apparitian is a private revelation. I don’t know that the above is Church teaching. As far as I am aware we do leave the question of who shall be saved to God and non Catholics, as long as they are not aware that they should be Catholics and live a good life according to their understanding may be saved.
Surely she cannot have been a young girl by 1718.
Sharon, I am sure that you are aware of the Dogmatic Teaching of the Church: “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” or “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”
Either the Blessed Mother said what she did to Benoite about telling the Protestants that they can not be saved by their religion or She did not.
“Let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no”.
Your comment about letting Protestants remain unaware of the Truth so they remain blissfully ignorant of their obligations flys in the face of all the Churches Missionary work.
St Frances de Sales converted 70,000 Calvinists by telling them and teaching them that they where in error.
The Missionary activity of the Church is among the highest forms of charity that a loving Mother can bestow upon her children.
If some of those protestants had been told that their false faith would not save them then they would have converted.
We should all be so merciful.
All Catholics are called to attest to the truth in this way.
I have told protestant friends of mine that they will not be saved by their religion.
Three of them are now taking CCD classes to enter the Church.
God bless you
Geoff,
She was 17 when the Blessed Mother first appeared to her.
The Blessed Mother continued to appear to Benoite for 50 years.
She did become old.
Dan,
Sharon rightly points out that this is private revelation. Approval amounts to finding nothing contrary to the faith. There can be no new Dogma here.
Pope Piux IX in Singulari Quadem says: “For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God.”
While this is no excuse for us to accept relativism or not evangelize, just because you tell someone the Catholic Church is the true church, does not mean that “invincible ignorance” can no longer apply.
The status of “approved” private revelations, according to the Catechism [My emphasis].
Of course Protestants can’t save themselves by their religion. There is no question there in terms of Catholic doctrine. Protestantism involves all sorts of grave matter in terms of heresy and disobedience. Also they don’t have a valid Eucharist. If any Protestant ends up saved (and I strongly suspect many are) they are saved in spite their religion not because of it.
Before I go jumping into the fray, I would like some clarification. I also read French (better than I speak it). I would like to see the original quote. The construction of the sentence:
She was taking a child to be baptized at Remollon, where some Huguenots [i.e. Protestants] asked her if she believed that they were able to save themselves in their religion.
in French strongly suggests the use of the reflexive and it would mean – can they save themselves in their religion, NOT, can they be saved within their religion. When I first read it, I assumed that it was referring to the doctrine of sola fide – can one be saved by making a self-statement of faith.
It is true about Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, but who is outside of the Church is sometimes a difficult question to discern, which is why the Church has issued guidelines. The statement in the quote did not refer to other “religions,” but rather a very specific form of Christianity. The quote from Pope Pius IX covers more than just the Protestant religion and refers to any person seeking the Truth who has never had the chance to encounter a Catholic or who cannot see, despite being to told, that the Catholic Church is the ark of salvation.
Conscience must be followed, even when it is in error, assuming that it is rightly formed. One cannot simply argue against this point that, “well, if it were rightly formed then they would do the right thing,” because the words, “rightly formed,” assumes not that the conscience is correct, but that it has been diligent. One can sometimes be diligent, as in a police investigation, without discovering the truth. Sometimes the evidence is not available in a way that makes sense to the observer. This does not mean that the evidence is wrong, but that the processing is incomplete. This another reason why the Church is patient in her evangelization, unlike some fundamentalist protestants, who believe that if you don’t accept Jesus as your personal savior when they offer the opportunity that night, you will not be saved.
Before I can make any comments, I need this point cleared up. This is an example of a conscience being rightly formed, but I lacking the evidence to make a determination of the intent of the sentence. If the sentence suggests, as Dan Hunter does, that it refers to the Protestant Religion in general, then I can start from there. If it refers to sola fide, then I can start from there.
It is true that there are heresies within any form of Protestantism and if one adheres to them knowing and understanding what the Church teaches, then one cannot be saved (the anathemas of Trent still apply), but the Lord said that the servant who did not know his Master’s wishes would receive a lighter punishment. Some people hold to sola fide because they are too afraid to let go of it; some because they believe it; some because they have never heard of anything different. Both sola fide and Protestantism in toto are wrong. I just do not know to which the sentence refers.
The Chicken
Masked Chicken,
I believe the answer to your query lies in the Blessed Mothers own words.
She admonished Benoite by telling her that,:she had to much human respect and she had not told the truth, because “if she had said no [the Protestants could not be saved by their religion] some of them would have been converted.
This they have not done”.
“The fear of God is the Beginning of Wisdom”
Many people begin their conversion to the Church by a realistic fear that their religion is the wrong one and they had better make sure that they worship Almighty God correctly.
Yes, this is like imperfect Contrition, but many times it leads to a more perfect Contrition in the absolute love of God, for His sake alone.
This is what I think Our Blessed Mother meant when she told Benoite that, had she told the Protestants that their religion will not save them, some of them would have converted.In other words,
they were disposed at that point to listen to the Truth.
St Frances de Sales in his book:”The Catholic Controversy” tells of a similar occurance.
Father De Sales exhorted many Calvinists in France, to turn back to the Church, they were ready to convert.They did.
They just needed his holy coaxing.
Thats all it took.
We should be so merciful.
God bless you.
Doesn’t it bother you that this apparition claimed Jesus’ role as reconciler?
Dan,
It is the teaching of the Church that believing protestants are separated brethren, not lost, in imperfect but real communion with the Church, and that their denominations are ‘ecclesial communities’ the same term used for orders, if I’m not mistaken. Feeneyism on the other hand, which you seemed to possibly have promoted, has been declared a heresy.
Sola fide does not mean a self-statement of faith, but that that faith which works in love, which truly fears, trusts, loves and obeys God, is the channel for justifying -grace-,(and is itself a gift of the Holy Spirit) where justification means regeneration and the forgiveness of sins, -not- entire sanctification as it does in Catholic terminology.
John,
I am echoing Notre Dame du Laus words to Blessed Benoite and have never stated ANY heresy.
“If you do not eat My Body and drink My Blood, you do not have life within you”.
As to your reference to Feenyism, take a look at the website for the,”Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary”, they are in complete union with the Holy See and stand by the Churches Dogmatic teaching that,”Outside the Church there is no salvation”.
Pope Pius XI stated in “Mortalium Animos”, in paragraph 10, that: “For since the mystical Body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body is one, compacted and fitly joined together, IT WERE FOOLISH AND OUT OF PLACE TO SAY THAT THE MYSTICAL BODY IS MADE UP OF MEMBERS WHICH ARE DISUNITED AND SCATTERED ABROAD: WHOSOEVER THEREFORE IS NOT UNITED WITH THE BODY IS NO MEMBER OF IT, NEITHER IS HE IN COMMUNION WITH THE CHURCH AS CHRIST HER HEAD.”
God bless you.
Forgive me,
The previous response was directed to labrialumn.
God bless.
Dear Dan Hunter,
All I asked for was the quote in the original language. The admonishment could have applied to either the case of sola fide or the Protestant religion. One can be afraid of losing one’s soul in either case and convert. I just wanted to see the quote in the original context. Do you know of a source?
Labrialumn,
We may be talking about two different things and if so, I apologize, but grace comes before faith, it is not the other way around. God calls. That is grace. Our response (also borne of grace) is with faith.
The Chicken
MC, I did say that grace came first, that faith was itself a gift of the Holy Spirit.
Dan, you must be what they call a ‘rad trad’, more Catholic than the pope. More Catholic than either BXVI or JPG. Because what I told you is the current teaching of the Roman See, and what you said is what is condemned as the heresy of feeneyism. If I’m not mistaken. Certainly it is heresias from the Roman See, making you a ‘protestant’.
Again,
Labrialumn, point out to me anything I said, or quoted that was heretical.
And if, as you say,”I am protestant”, how could I be more “Catholic than the Pope”?
What does more Catholic than the Pope mean?
And I assume, maybe I shouldn’t, that “JPG” means John Paul the Great.
Since when has this appelation become officially attached to his name.
If you call me a protestant you are also calling the Holy Father Pope Pius XI,the Great, a protestant as well.
Thanks for the ad-hominem attack though.
It gives me a chance to offer it up for reparation of sacriliges against the Most Holy Name.
God bless you.
Labrialumn,
I am still waiting.
God bless you.
I am a Catholic, and I think we should leave judgment to God. The institutional church is just that, and institution. The salvation of souls is up to God, not up to you. I know the dogmas, and I know they are not revelation but teachings. Be careful upon what you build your faith. Is it in Christ? Or in an institution?
The Church is not an “institution”; it is the Body of Christ. The Church teaches with Christ’s authority. As Catholics we are required to believe that the dogmas *are* revelation.
The Church was instituted by Christ as His visible Body on Earth.
The Church has always and everywhere taught that the Institution of the Church is directly Christs doing and without this Institution we would have no Church, No priesthood, no Blessed Sacrament, and therefore no salvation.
If we do not believe the Dogma of the Church we have no part in the mystical Body, as Pope Pius XI affirmed in, “Mortalium Animos”, and has been affirmed by the Church for 20OO years.
God bless you.
This is a nitpick over the pronunciation of the town of Laus – the pronunciation the narrator on the video was using reminded me of the name of the nation of Laos in Southeast Asia.
Would a French speaker help me out here? Wouldn’t the proper French pronunciation of the name of this town sound similar to that of the English word low? (as in the opposite of high)? Thanks in advance.
Often, when someone says “I’m a Catholic,” it is used as a shield to protect the the subsequent dissing of the Church’s teaching authority. I wonder if it’s even possible for a Catholic to be misinformed to the point of saying what Steve said above.
We must be careful of what we believe on the internet…
All of you are missing the point about salvation. Nobody — Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, liberal, conservative, traditionalist, progressive, fundamentalist, charistmatic, whatever — will be saved by their religion. They will only be saved through Christ’s blood, which represents the ultimate atonement needed to redeem humanity. What do you think the sacrifices in the Mosaic Law represented? Why do you think Christ is said to have fulfilled the Mosaic Law? Why do you think the curtain at the Temple’s Holy of Holies was torn in two from the top? What do you think the whole Letter to the Hebrews was about?
For that matter, why did Christ have to die if blood atonement wasn’t necessary for redeeming humanity?
But Christians long ago stopped viewing their faith as a means of redemption before a holy, righteous God and started viewing it as a philosophical system and a geopolitical entity (“Christendom”).
Good grief, people, get a grip and get over your infatuation with your own theological and confessional identities.
Joseph,
I am merely commenting on the words of Notre Dame du Laus as spoken to Blessed Benoite.
Take it up with Her.
Ut Prosim.
Joseph D’Hippolito,
“Christendom” is what happens when a culture of a people reflects their belief in the truth. By our Love they will know us.
As far as your condescension towards faith, might I remind you that Jesus wished Christians to be One as I and the Father are one. There are many disagreements today over the Eucharist, the importance of devotion to Mary, Baptism, Confession, etc. Even the necessity of Christ is disputed. Anyone reading the gospels, anyone searching for the Truth can see man’s essential need of salvation, and understand that this question must have only one true answer.
Just believing that Jesus’ Sacrifice saves isn’t enough for salvation. During His earthly life, Jesus
taught specific teachings. Before He Ascended into Heaven, he told the Apostles to “teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to obey all that I have commanded.” (emphasis added)
I can’t understate the importance of knowing just WHO Jesus is. In order for that to happen, we must know where the truth lies. Jesus created His Church to be the normative way in which men come to know, love, and serve Him. Your flippant dismissal of the importance of His Church and His may feel right to you, but it leaves me cold. I’m following Him through His Church.
David B., I wholeheartedly agree knowing WHO Jesus is fundamentally important. I also agree that believing in Christ’s sacrifice isn’t enough; the devils believe and tremble. But the key is appropriating that sacrifice for oneself (i.e., “accepting Christ as Lord and Savior”), then following what He says.
Does the contemporary Catholic Church really teach who Jesus is? Does it teach what He commands? How many Catholics know about the necessity for blood atonement for sin? How many Christians have any sophisticated understanding of a holy, righteous, just, merciful and loving God?
For that matter, how many non-Catholic Christians know about such things?
Those who study Scripture seriously and prayerfully can find out the answers. Too many Catholics (like all too many Christians) rely on their “leaders” to teach them — and those leaders are spiritually bankrupt, false shepherds themselves.
Moreover, if Catholicism is “Christ’s Church,” then what happens to all those Protestants and Orthodox who die devoted to Christ as Protestants and Orthodox?
If Christianity is merely a matter of joining the “right” church, then it has no more meaning than joining the right country club. Even worse, it mocks Christ’s sacrifice and places group identity over God’s demands for righteousness and redemption.
Yes. And always will. That’s part of the promise about the gates not prevailing.
Any Catholic can go to any bookstore and pick up a Catechism or a Compendium and see what his Church teaches. He can go online and read the latest encyclical or CDF document. And he will find there the same faith given once for all to the saints.
In large part, I became a Catholic because as a Catholic I have confidence that if my great-great-grandchildren remain in the Faith, they will find in Catholic teaching the same faith I believe today. I couldn’t say that as a Dutch Reformed Christian.
Are you asking because you really don’t know the Church’s answer to this question, or for some other reason?
Certainly, Christianity is not “merely a matter” of joining the “right” church. By the same token, marital fidelity is not “merely a matter” of only sleeping with the “right” person. There is more to it. But not less.
Since many of your questions were regarding the Catholic faith in general, and not a personal practice of mine, SDG, as a Catholic, was able to and did answer many of them. Therefore I will assume that you don’t wish for a mere carbon copy of SDG’s answers, which suffice for the questions they answer.
Does the contemporary Catholic Church really teach who Jesus is?
Since you added “contemporary” in your sentence, are you admitting that you believe that the Catholic Church, at least at one time, taught who Jesus is? If so, can you elaborate on how, or in what way, you think the Church changed?
Those who study Scripture seriously and prayerfully can find out the answers.
Jesus didn’t hide the Truth under a bushel, to be ‘found out.’ Yes, the answer are in scripture, and those who have not be taught the truth can begin
their great search there, but Jesus created a Church, the Church, to bear the Truth at His command, and promised to protect her, through The Holy Ghost, from error. This was evident throughout the NT, in The Acts of the Apostles, etc. Furthermore, it was after Jesus Death and Resurrection that God revealed truths, concerning the baptism of uncircumcised men, to Peter alone. Only then was it proclaimed to the rest of the Church.
Too many Catholics (like all too many Christians) rely on their “leaders” to teach them — and those leaders are spiritually bankrupt, false shepherds themselves.
I attend Mass in a parish whose Pastor is lifetimes ahead of me in the spiritual life. He loves God, and wants all men to come to know Him. Jesus did not condemned merely being a figure of authority, but condemned men who failed to be trustworthy guardians of their duties. Neither you, nor anyone else, can issue a condemnation against all of the shepherds entrusted with God’s flock.
Moreover, if Catholicism is “Christ’s Church,” then what happens to all those Protestants and Orthodox who die devoted to Christ as Protestants and Orthodox?
What happened to those outside of the people of Israel? God judges each man based on his own story, but Chiefly on the Sacrifice of His Son. Those who have never heard of Christ or His Church may be saved by Him nonetheless, because God is God, and a man who does what is right based upon his best knowledge and whatever grace given to him by God may receive salvation.
If Christianity is merely a matter of joining the “right” church, then it has no more meaning than joining the right country club. Even worse, it mocks Christ’s sacrifice and places group identity over God’s demands for righteousness and redemption.
Christ chose to found His Church (not churches) upon Peter. Jesus said “I am The Way”, not “A way.” The way. Therefore, when many communions have opposing beliefs concerning even how one is saved by Christ, all cannot be in agreement with the truth, because the truth is not contradictory.
Lastly, no other Catholic I have met believes that just being a member of Christ’s Church can save one, but rather that being faithful to Christ’s teachings as taught through His Church leads to Salvation in Christ.
Just a few examples of the Churches perrenial dogmatic teaching of:”Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”
Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903), Encyclical Annum Ingressi Sumus: “This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church.”
idem, Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae:”He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God.”
Pope Pius X (1903-1914), Encyclical Jucunda Sane: “It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation.”
Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922), Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum: “Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
Pope Pius XI (1922-1939), Encyclical Mortalium Animos: “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation… Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors”
Deo Gratias!
Someone said: “Doesn’t it bother you that this apparition claimed Jesus’ role as reconciler?”
Actually, she didn’t. Just going by the youtube video, she is encouraging sinners to go to Confession/Reconciliation, which is going to Jesus for the forgiveness of sins committed after Baptism. If our loving and tender mother accompanies us along the way to do what is difficult yet freeing, wonderful. After all, she said, “Do whatever he tells you!” But she is not appropriating Jesus’ role to herself. She is not claiming to forgive our sins personally herself through her own sacrifice–that would be nonsensical and heretical and the mark of an inauthentic apparition or perhaps even a satanic deception. The sensus fidei of ordinary Catholics wouldn’t tolerate that for one second.
Re the Huguenots bit, Our Lady seems to have become much more ecumenical in Amsterdam and Medjugorje. I’m just going to drop that bomb and run. LOL
Nossa Senhora Mãe e Rainha das FamÃlias (Our Lady, Mother & Queen of Families)
Apparitions of Our Lady, of Our Lord Jesus Christ, St. Michael the Archangel, St. Gabriel the Archangel, and three messages from God the Father, to Fabiana Oliveira.
From 1996 to 2004. Vitória da Conquista – Bahia – Brazil.
http://www.getway.com.br/nossasenhora/
Dear Tony
Qual seria a posição oficial da diocese a respeito dessa aparição?
(What would be the official position from the diocese regarding that apparition ?)