November AD 2011
Our Lady of the Rosary
ON THIS PAGE:
Does Anyone Go to Hell?
Is Freedom Against the Natural Law?
New Translation: Of the Mass or of the Novus Ordo?
Names for Our Guardian Angels?
[ Q&A ARCHIVES ]
I saw a video of a Novus Ordo priest who didn’t think anyone actually
went to Hell.
He also blamed Saint Thomas for being spiteful about those thought to be in
Hell. Does this make any sense?
No! But to be
fair to Fr. Robert Barron, who made the video, he doesn’t go farther than to
suggest that “we may reasonably hope that all men will be saved.” He
bases this on the work of Hans Urs von Balthasar, a Modernist theologian who
died just before being made a Cardinal.
Balthasar claimed that God’s love for mankind led the “utter abandonment” of
His Son, which was so great a sacrifice that it leads to the “reasonable
hope” of universal salvation. This is not quite the same as saying that all
men will be saved, but does come close, and will probably promote
indifference to keeping the Commandments and receiving the Sacraments among
many who are exposed to this theory. And this indifference itself may bring
about the loss of many souls.
bubbling optimism is deeply embedded in the Modernist psyche. Von Balthasar
was considered by many Catholics to be the greatest theologian of the
twentieth century. In Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Pope John Paul
II opined that “perhaps Purgatory is enough.”
And the mistranslation of the consecration of the wine, employed in many
languages, suggests that Christ’s blood was shed for the forgiveness of sin
of all mankind—an notion which Pope Benedict has sought to correct, but with
a fair amount of resistance.
The biblical evidence
for hell, and that people may actually spend eternity there is strong: “How
narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few
there are that find it!”
“Then he shall
say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you
cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his
angels. For I was hungry... I was thirsty ... I was a stranger ... naked
... and in prison, and you did not visit me.”
“And fear not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul:
but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
“It is better for thee to enter into life, maimed, than having two hands to
go into hell, into unquenchable fire: Where their worm dieth not,
and the fire is not extinguished.”
At Fatima, Our Lady
showed the children a vision of Hell containing human forms, and said quite
directly: “Many souls go to Hell because they have no one to pray for them
or make sacrifices for them.”
The Church professes her faith in the Athanasian Creed: "They that have done
good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into
everlasting fire" (Denzinger, "Enchiridion", 10th ed., 1908, n.40).
The Church has repeatedly defined this truth, e.g. in the profession of
faith made in the Second Council of Lyons (Denx., n. 464) and in the Decree
of Union in the Council of Florence (Denz., N. 693): "the souls of those who
depart in mortal sin, or only in original sin, go down immediately into
hell, to be visited, however, with unequal punishments" (poenis
The notion that Hell
might be a temporary state was condemned in 537 with the authority of Pope
Canon 9: If anyone says or holds that the punishment of the demons and of
impious men is temporary, and that it will have an end at some time, that is
to say that there will be a complete restoration of the demons or of impious
men, let him be anathema.
What Saint Thomas
said about the attitude of those in heaven toward the dead was:
A thing may be a matter of rejoicing in two ways. First directly, when one
rejoices in a thing as such: and thus the saints will not rejoice in the
punishment of the wicked. Secondly, indirectly, by reason namely of
something annexed to it: and in this way the saints will rejoice in the
punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice
and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy. And thus the
Divine justice and their own deliverance will be the direct cause of the joy
of the blessed: while the punishment of the damned will cause it indirectly.
The rejoicing comes
only from the recognition of having escaped punishment, a fact that will be
certain when considering the fact that not all souls did escape just
It may be
theoretically possible to drive drunk from California to Florida without
getting arrested or having an accident, but anyone promoting the hope of
this unlikely possibility would be terribly irresponsible. It is at least
as irresponsible to promote the hope that everyone goes to heaven no matter
In another video he claimed that the American idea of freedom is at odds
with the natural law.HeIt claimed that freedom “is the disciplining of
desire, first to make the good possible, and then effortless” and that law
is essential to this discipline.
The American idea
of freedom is in fact founded on the principles of the natural law. All men
are endowed by their Creator with a natural right to life and property.
Unquestionably, a man might be said to be most free when he has acquired the
ability to make maximum use of his God given rights and talents.
In a free society
civil laws are in conformity with the natural law so that all individuals
can “make maximum use of their God given rights and talents,” thereby
maximizing the good of everyone in that society.
What is at odds with
the American ideal is the society that passes laws that conflict with the
natural law—laws that impinge on life, liberty, and property to benefit some
elite group at the expense of others—and, of course, laws that deny God and
His authority to rule mankind. Natural rights are taken away—either lost,
or replaced with specious “rights” to the fruit of other people’s labor. A
classic example of this reassignment of “rights” is found in the recent
contention that all women have a “right” to free birth control and
subsidized abortion through government mandated insurance!
Can someone explain how to square that with the keeping of the natural law?
It is simply taking away the rights of some in order to confer imaginary
“rights” on others. Women who want children, women who are chaste, women
who are infertile, and men will be required to pay for the convenience of
promiscuous women. And babies, with every natural law right to life, will
be slaughtered for the same group of women. Amazing!
often play into the hands of those who seek to take away or redistribute
rights. They labor under the delusion that many people are unable to take
care of themselves, and must be protected by a wise political elite. They
fail to recognize that society—and the individuals in society—are far better
off when everyone has “the ability to make maximum use of his God given
rights and talents.” It is simply not possible to redistribute what has not
been produced—and nothing gets produced unless man is free to exercise his
talents and abilities, and motivated to do so by his own enlightened self
I received the following message from my brother. Is it correct? (RD,
Went to vigil Mass last evening and was told by our priest that there would
be a new version of the Missal beginning first of Advent this year. He
mentioned some differences but essentially the missal would be a nearly word
for word translation from the Tridentine Latin that was a disappointment to
so many Catholics. I admit I would rather the entire Mass revert to the
original Latin but a word for word translation into English is the next best
There will be a new translation of the Novus Ordo this Advent, but it
will still be the Novus Ordo and not the Tridentine Mass that
is being translated. It is important to note that Pope Paul VI issued the
text of his Novus Ordo Missæ in Latin. The English translation
currently in use, and the one that preceded it, were extremely
loose—sometimes varying from the Latin, and sometimes ignoring it
The most notable
mistranslation was that of the consecration of the wine, where the Latin “pro
multis” was translated as “for all men” and later “for all.” This error
gave the idea, mentioned above, that everyone would be saved because the
shedding of Christ’s blood forgave everybody’s sins. This translation was
employed in English and a number of other languages despite an explanation
in the Catechism of the Council of Trent explaining why it should not be.
In November 2006 the Vatican issued an order that the error be corrected in
(Apparently the Vatican has yet to discover the felt tipped pen.) Many are
opposed to doing so.
The new translation
will also reflect the few references of the Latin Novus Ordo that
suggest that the Mass is a sacrifice. For the most part, these were simply
ignored in the old rendering.
But even with a
perfectly accurate translation the English version cannot be any better than
the Latin Novus Ordo. All of the shortcomings pointed out by
Cardinal Ottaviani, former head of the Holy Office, will remain in both
The offertory prayers will still be replaced by Jewish table graces.
Genuflections and other forms of reverence to the Blessed Sacrament with
continue to be left out. The service will continue to be a memorial meal
shared by the congregation under the presidency of the priest. The
“consecration” will continue to be a narrative of what Christ did at the
Last Supper, rather than a doing of what Christ did by a priest acting in
persona Christi (in the person of Christ).
But it gets worse.
Cardinal Ottaviani’s successor in the Holy Office, now Pope Benedict XVI
lamented precisely that many Novus Ordo priests have, in fact, lost
the belief that in offering Mass they are offering the Sacrifice of Calvary.
In declaring Anglican Orders invalid, Pope Leo XIII insisted that the
essential form for the Consecration of Bishops must refer to the “summum
sacerdotium,” the “fullness of the priesthood.”—Pope
Paul VI removed this reference in his 1968 revision of the rites of
Back in 2003, Walter Cardinal Kasper suggested that the Catholic Church no
longer believes in the physical continuity of apostolic succession!
With no sacrifice,
and no priesthood, this memorial meal will continue to be a far cry from the
Catholic Mass, no matter what the language or the quality of the
On of the “permanent” deacons said that his friends gave nick-names to their
guardian angels. Isn’t the naming of angels restricted to the names of the
angels in the Bible? (AH, New York)
At a Roman synod
in 743 Pope Saint Zachary (741-752) expressed the concern that Catholics
were regarding the angels in a superstitious manner, demanding their
constant intervention, and even worshipping them. A host of names had been
proposed for the angels without reference to Sacred Scripture or Tradition.
The names “Ariel” and “Uriel,” for example, originate in apocryphal Jewish
and gnostic literature. Pope Saint Zachary ruled that only the names of the
biblical angels, Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael would henceforth be venerated
in the Roman Church.
Michael means “Who is
like God,” a reference to his role in the struggle against the apostate
angels who thought of themselves as equals to God. Feast days: May 8th and
“Strength of God.” It is he who represents God in the Scriptures to make
important announcements. Feast day: March 24th.
Raphael means “It is
God who heals,” sometimes given as “Medicine of God,” referring to his role
in healing the elder Tobias of blindness in the Old Testament book by that