The Urgency of the New Evangelization: An Interview with Dr. Ralph Martin

Share this:

Ralph Martin 2

Today I have the pleasure of interviewing my good friend, Dr. Ralph Martin. Ralph has been a leader in Catholic renewal movements for many years. He’s the president of Renewal Ministries and host of “The Choices We Face”, the longest running television show on EWTN. He’s also an associate professor and Director of Graduate Programs in the New Evangelization at Sacred Heart Major Seminary.

Urgency of the New EvangelizationRalph has authored several books including at least three on the New Evangelization. His important 2012 book, Will Many Be Saved?: What Vatican II Actually Teaches and Its Implications for the New Evangelization (Eerdmans) made waves upon its release and continues to generate discussion. His most recent book, titled The Urgency of the New Evangelization: Answering the Call, was just published by Our Sunday Visitor.

Ralph has a well-earned reputation as an expert in the New Evangelization. In 2012, Pope Benedict XVI made him a Consultor to the Pontifical Council for the New Evangelization and also appointed him as a “peritus” (i.e. expert) to the Synod on the New Evangelization in October 2012.

In our interview today we explore the New Evangelization, its many barriers, and what Ralph saw and heard at the Synod.


 
BRANDON: We often hear about the urgency of the New Evangelization, but many people are left with a basic question: what is the New Evangelization?

Dr. RALPH MARTIN: The New Evangelization is a new emphasis on the Church’s ongoing mission of evangelization. The message isn’t different since Jesus Christ is indeed the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, but there are some new dimensions.

The first thing that’s new about it is that it’s no longer just directed towards traditional mission territories where people have perhaps never heard the gospel before. It is now directed towards the growing numbers of baptized Catholics who aren’t living as disciples of Christ. While “non-practicing” and “fallen away” Catholics have always been a part of the landscape, their numbers have grown dramatically to the point where traditionally-Catholic and Christian parts of the world can now accurately be described as “post Christian.” The fact that evangelization now has to occur in a post-Christian culture is another aspect that is new.

Another thing that’s new about the New Evangelization is who is expected to do it: every Catholic who is living their faith. While traditional mission work was primarily carried out by priests and nuns, primarily from religious orders, Vatican II recovered the meaning of baptism and its implications for lay holiness and mission, and clearly teaches that all of us by virtue of baptism are called to participate in the ongoing mission of Christ “to seek and to save those who are lost.” All the post-conciliar documents on evangelization also emphasize the importance of each baptized Catholic embracing our mission. Pope Francis, of course, has dramatically underlined this for us today by asking “What are we waiting for?” and outlining all the simple opportunities we have to “preach the gospel” in the multiple encounters and environments of lay life.

Finally, John Paul II never tired of saying that the New Evangelization also needed to be new in “ardor, method, and expression,” emphasizing the key role of the Holy Spirit in inspiring both courage and creativity in sharing the good news.

 
BRANDON: What are the biggest barriers preventing Catholics from evangelizing and how can we overcome them?

Dr. RALPH MARTIN: Ignorance of the faith and the fear of sharing it are certainly common obstacles, but solutions to these obstacles are rather obvious and near at hand.

Will Many Be SavedI think, though, that there is an underlying doctrinal confusion that, unless directly addressed, will make the response to the New Evangelization lukewarm at best. Many of our fellow Catholics have drifted into an unexamined presumption that perhaps only a few very evil people will be lost and since God is so merciful, virtually everyone will be saved. This unexamined presumption therefore makes of the duty to evangelize not a matter of life or death, heaven or hell, but a matter of “enriching” someone’s life, something like an “optional” enrichment course. This presumption often springs from an alleged development of doctrine at Vatican II. I’ve devoted a considerable amount of time to showing the fallacy of this since I believe that a lukewarm response to the call to the New Evangelization will actually endanger the salvation of souls. While Vatican II clearly teaches that under certain conditions it is possible for those who haven’t heard the gospel, through no fault of their own, to be saved, it also clearly teaches that no one lives in a neutral environment and the powerful spiritual realities of the world, the flesh and the devil, make it likely that “very often” these conditions aren’t met. Therefore the gospel must urgently be preached for the sake of peoples’ salvation. (cf. Lumen Gentium 16 and my book Will Many Be Saved? What Vatican II Actually Teaches and Its Implications for the New Evangelization).

I was happy to see that Proposition #6 from the Synod on the New Evangelization didn’t omit these crucial last three sentences of Lumen Gentium 16 as most treatments of this question do. And concerning the salvation of baptized Catholics who aren’t living their faith the Council is even more startlingly direct, teaching in Lumen Gentium 14 that indifferent, baptized Catholics will not only not be saved but will be the more severely judged, listing in a footnote some of the numerous sayings of Jesus that underline this truth.

While God’s mercy is great, so is his holiness, his truthfulness, and his justice, and that great messenger of God’s mercy, St. Faustina, makes this very clear. In her Diary, where she recounts what Jesus and Mary have communicated to her, she faithfully transmits a message that is in total harmony with the scriptures, that while the mercy of God is great, that mercy doesn’t force its way into peoples’ lives, but “knocks on the door,” so to speak. St. Faustina makes very clear that there needs to be a response to mercy – repentance, confession of sin, faith – in order for mercy to be effective in reconciling sinners to God and gaining for them eternal life. In my new book, The Urgency of the New Evangelization: Answering the Call, I devote a whole chapter to the question of God’s mercy and quote rather fully the amazing revelations St. Faustina received from Jesus about the reality of hell and the urgent need for there to be a response to mercy – an urgent need to call unbelievers, fallen away Catholics, and those not practicing their faith to conversion, for the sake of their salvation.

In the post-conciliar church we have tended to want to just present the positive message of God’s love and mercy and leave out some very important additional information! I believe we need to not only tell people about God’s love and mercy but also tell them what Jesus and the apostles said about the kind of response which is necessary for this mercy and love to be effective in a person’s life, namely faith and repentance. In addition we need to tell them about the consequences of responding or failing to respond to the offer of mercy, namely, heaven or hell. We need to follow the example of Jesus and the apostles and not think we can be more effective by leaving out essential elements of the message. All of the message, the offer of mercy, the need to make a personal response to that mercy, and the consequences of responding or failing to respond to mercy, are revealed to us by the mercy of God.

 
BRANDON: In your new book, The Urgency of the New Evangelization, you claim the New Evangelization requires a new Pentecost. What does this mean?

Dr. RALPH MARTIN: I do have a chapter on the need for a new Pentecost in order for the New Evangelization to be launched but as people will see there is an absolutely consistent and passionate call for a new Pentecost from Blessed John XXII through every subsequent Pope including now Pope Francis’ impassioned teaching on the need for the Holy Spirit in his recent Apostolic Exhortation. The clarity and consistency of this call has not really been noted and I think people who read the chapter will be quite amazed and inspired.

In the chapter, I also analyze the factors that prepared the way for the first Pentecost, which launched the first evangelization. I explain how these factors are actually reproducible and relevant for today. The condition of the disciples before the first Pentecost is not unlike many very dedicated Catholics today. Those first disciples had the best teaching anyone ever had, had the best bible study, had the best personal spiritual direction, the best supervision in evangelization. But something was missing, an encounter with the Holy Spirit that enabled all these elements to come together, in a passionate knowledge, experience, and love of Jesus and his message. That gave them the courage and zeal to go to the ends of the earth with the message and suffer martyrdom. We certainly need that same encounter today – martyrdom is coming, martyrdom is here – in order to give us that “power from on high” without which bold evangelization and witness is not possible. In the chapter I explain how we can dispose ourselves for such an encounter and identify resources that can help us.

 
BRANDON: Before he retired, Pope Benedict XVI appointed you as a Consultor to the Pontifical Council for the New Evangelization. You also participated in the Vatican’s Synod on the New Evangelization (October 2012). What did you see and hear at the Synod, and what do you think its impact will be?

Dr. RALPH MARTIN: I think the main impact of the Synod was that Bishops and Cardinals from all over the world – even in the so called “young churches” where the faith seems to be growing – agreed without argument that the New Evangelization was urgently needed everywhere there were Catholics. In the developed countries the statistics are absolutely shocking at what can only be described as a great apostasy; in the growing churches of Africa, bishop after bishop testified that the faith has grown a lot. But there is still a great need for true and deep conversion that affects every dimension of a Catholic’s life. Pressure from Islam was also noted as a significant problem.

At the same time I can’t say that by the end of the Synod that a very clear understanding of the New Evangelization had emerged, so various were the final propositions. I hope my new book can be a contribution, among many others, to that. At the Synod, I had a chance to assist various bishops and Cardinals in drafting propositions. I also had the privilege of working closely with Cardinal Wuerl, who was overall responsible for leading the Synod to its final conclusions. Two things in particular that Cardinal Wuerl said at the Synod continue to stay with me. First of all, he identified the problem in vivid language: “A tsunami of secularism is sweeping over the world.” Secondly, he identified the most important element of the solution: “We need to recover our confidence in the truth of our faith.” I agree!

 
BRANDON: If you had thirty seconds to share the Gospel with an unbeliever, what would you say?

Dr. RALPH MARTIN: When people die two very different kinds of things happen. For some, death is truly an entryway into a higher form of life where we share in immortality and experience resurrection and infinite love and joy. For others death confirms an alienation and separation from God rooted in unbelief and unconfessed sin. The doorway to the glory of heaven passes through God’s gift to suffering humanity – Jesus. The doorway to eternal isolation is clinging to the illusion of an autonomy that proudly refuses to surrender to the offer of love. Time is short and only one decision is significant. The decision to humble ourselves and accept the love with which we are loved in Jesus, or the decision to reject that love. Let’s talk.
 


 
For more, check out Dr. Ralph Martin’s new book titled The Urgency of the New Evangelization (Our Sunday Visitor). And be sure to follow Ralph through his website, RenewalMinistries.net.

If you liked this discussion you’ll find several more on my Interviews page. Subscribe free via feed reader or email and ensure sure you don’t miss future interviews.

Share this:
 
  • kelso

    Annon, there have always been good and bad Catholics. Most bad Catholics today, if they are pro-abortion and contraception, have lost the Faith. The Faith did survive in Japan, after Xavier, but it never thrived. Nevertheless, there were thousands of Japanese Catholic martyrs, many of whom have been canonized. You seem to be questioning the power of truth and grace. St. Paul writes God “will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Anyone who has good will and seeks the truth of God will find it by grace and they will hear of Christ and believe in the Savior. Even if there are no missionaries. God will provide. Quoting Lumen Gentium, the New Catechism (it is a catechism, and can err, even if the pope approves of it) is not de fide definita in every affirmation.The addendum to the true doctrine “Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it” is a partial truth, far from total. Sadly, this apposition is used to mollify the de fide truth that precedes it and, by so doing, renders it ambiguous, and meaningless. If extra ecclesiam nulla salus means only what is quoted above from the Catechism, then the dogma would have been formulated with the added apposite you give above. It wasn’t. In fact with each ex cathedra definition of the salvation doctrine (there are three), it is worded more specifically, not less so. Vatican I condemned any tampering with de fide dogmas such as to give them a new form. Every dogma is by essence “irreformable.” What you have quoted turns the dogma on its head and gives it a meaningless new form devoid any any salutary challenge.

    • nannon31

      So the catechism not only erred but is pernicious in your view?

      • kelso

        On the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? Yes, that is my view! To mislead people on the whereabouts and means of salvation is pernicious. It is a sin against charity and Faith. Part of the disorientation of which Sister Lucia of Fatima lamented about.

        • nannon31

          Your view seems to mean that God’s hands are tied as to saving souls if the Catholic human leadership is distracted from missionary work. Brazil and Peru have two of the highest numbers of uncontacted indigenous tribes on earth. That might mean that Catholicism historically did not reach those groups despite being in those countries for 500 years. Are you saying that natives who followed conscience in those groups until death, many or few, are now in hell? I’m saying God saved them through the Church’s merits but unbeknownst to the native as to that connection to the Church. Christ repeatedly broke the borders of Judaism by pointing out the goodness possible in heretical Samaritans. He forbade the disciples from drawing down lightning on them in Luke 9. His good Samaritan parable would be equivalent to you telling a like story about the good Mennonite. Christ pointed out that of ten lepers cured, only the Samaritan returned to thank him and not the Jewish lepers. That would be like you curing 9 Traditionalists Catholics and one Lutheran and noting that only the Lutheran returned to thank you.

          • kelso

            I am only relaying what all the doctors of the Church have taught and what three infallible pronouncements teach. Eugene IV knew quite well that there were vast regions that were unevangelized. Dominican missionaries brought the Faith to China in the 13th century. You assume that pagans could easily live up to the natural law. Even Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 16c, says not so.) We do not know why missionaries did not reach so many pagans after the promulgation of the gospel ( post Pentecost) but all people needed to hear the gospel. I am Irish. I do not ask, what happened to those Irish who never heard the gospel until Patrick. I leave them to God. If they followed the natural law and rejected false religion, idolatry, immorality, God would have sent a missionary (or an angel, says St. Thomas, or a special grace of light) but they needed, insists also St. Thomas, to have explicit Faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation. This is what all the doctors of the Church held, knowing full well that many had never received a missionary. St. Paul, however, under God’s inspiration, in Romans says “Have they not heard? Verily their voice has gone out to the four corners of the earth.” St. Francis Xavier told the Japanese (and it took guts) that if their ancestors had been worthy a missionary would have arrived to give them the Faith. I guess all these saints were heartless “traditionalists.” I repeat: to give a false message, that one can be saved without Faith in Christ is a presumptuous sin against charity, a terrible sin, for a priest to commit. Jesus insisted that no one (Samaritan, Gentile, or Jew) could be saved who did not believe in Him. Period. Let God be God and provide His providential means to enlighten as He deems just. But do not invent a new way to salvation by natural “sincerity.” That is Pelagian. It has been condemned. I will abide by Florence and the other ex cathedra definitions on the subject. Indeed every Catholic, including Father Sullivan, is (or was) bound to. These ex cathedra definitions (and all other definitions) are, as Vatican I defined, “irreformable.” Do you know what that means Annon?

          • nannon31

            I read all of the Summa T. after reading all of the Bible and most of Augustine. Love Aquinas…but he was not infallible especially on sinning venially in asking for the marriage debt sans procreative intent and he was wrong on the IC. Augustine misled Aquinas on both. A person who truly reaches love of those who trespassed against him is connected to the Trinity. He need not know of the Trinity. The Church has moved from explicit faith to implicit faith and trads have not moved with the Church. The Church went back not to Karl Rahner but to St. Justin Martyr early in the Church who saw any pre Christ pagans who followed Logos…reason…as having followed Christ implicitly…ergo Benedict’s theme at Regensburg of rationality in God.
            Francis Xavier’s comment is off the wall. Scripture says God loved us while we were still sinners. Being worthy of missionaries is ludicrous.
            You hustled past real life as to Japan. Japan had an armed Catholic revolt prior to closing the door to Catholicism. She saw Spanish conquistadors force Catholicism on the nearby Phillipines. You hurry past data because a bad Catholic habit is theologizing past data. The current anti death penalty campaign hurries past murder data as to Catholic countries in the Catholic continent. You do it as trad. Rome does it to please the Euro Union. Adios.

  • ITBWTW

    Liturgy! Liturgy! We believe as we pray. That is an absolute Truth! The Novus Ordo Mass is a garbage prayer, and therefore those that pray it, have garbage beliefs, i.e. universal salvation, no sin, no Hell, social justice, etc, etc! Sorry, but they go straight to Hell, without knowing what hit them.

    Evangelization must start with the Liturgy! and that means restoration of the Tridentine Mass, It is THE pray of Faith, the uncompromising belief and faith in God, His goodness and… His Justice. It is prayer with life and promise!

  • kelso

    I have read Dr. Martin’s book, “Will Many be Saved,” twice; one time in a cursory manner, the next time meticulously (including every footnote). Very scholarly effort. The book, however, is too redundant. The same points are repeated over and over and over again. And, concerning the theme of the book, the points provide nothing revelatory. Except to say, that the liberals are too optimistic about salvation outside the Church. Salvation outside the Church is impossible. To say that it is, is a heresy. Dr. Martin is no different in the end than von Baltasar and Rahner because, in the end, its just a question of degree. If some can be saved outside the Church, why not all? The door is left open. Martin’s whole thrust, which he imagines refutes the heresy of universalism (apocatastasis) is Lumen Gentium 16c. So, section c, of a chapter from a constitution of non-defining council, which three popes have affirmed has no definitions, trumps the clear ex cathedra teaching, that Martin dismisses with a wave, on the authority of Vatican II. To say that there has not been a rupture regarding the Church’s previous definitions regarding salvation outside the Church is an exercise in presumptuous double-speak. It is a denial of the law of contradiction. So, according to Martin (and countless other modern obfuscators, there is salvation for non-believers, but only for a few. I see no reason to limit the number, if any at all can be saved without explicit Faith in the person of Jesus Christ. The book ends up being an exercise in futility, an effort, by all means, to demonstrate that the Holy Office in 1949, condemned the literal meaning of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, in the Father Feeney case. And, by the way, Father Feeney was only one of several slightly less than contemporary renowned theologians (Archbishop Hay of Scotland, Father Michael Mueller, C.SS.R), Archbishop Hughes of NY, and the great Orestes Brownson (not to mention all the canonized teachers of the Faith), who wound up being “condemned” non-nominatim by the 1949 Holy Office Letter to the overt heretic Archbishop Richard Cushing of Boston. To say that Cushing was not a heretic is supine dishonesty for anyone familiar with the Feeney case. A quote from Cushing that appeared in the secular papers at the time of the controversy: No Salvation Outside the Church?” he asserted with disdain, Nonsense!” Yet, it was Father Feeney who gets labeled a heretic. Diabolical disorientation? Sister Lucia of Fatima hit the nail on the head. I would hope that I be given the courtesy of a post even though the censors disagree. Perhaps Dr. Martin can reply, hopefully to the particular points I made.

    • 1ray1

      Thanks, Kelso. You have formulated a cogent response without venom. I for one, feel a response is necessary. Thanks.

    • nannon31

      Kelso,
      The catechism then must offend you:

      846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: (161, 1257)
      Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
      847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
      Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

    • MarcAlcan

      The question is, if you look at the statement “There is no salvation outside the Church rigidly”, then you are saying that the greater part of humanity is damned because let’s face it, as a percentage of the whole world population, faithful Catholics are small. How do we reconcile a loving God with the damnation of peoples who – through no fault of their own – have not come to know Christ?
      I am very much against universalism but your extreme take on this doctrine is very problematic. It borders on Calvinism.

      I think Martin presented it very well.

  • Aldo Elmnight

    “I also analyze the factors that prepared the way for the first Pentecost, which launched the first evangelization. I explain how these factors are actually reproducible and relevant for today.”

    One of those factors was the sacrifice on Calvary, Christ (i.e. the Church) crucified. For the past 50+ years the Church has been infested with homosexuals (esp clergy) and communists. Once these folks start to die off, or are sidelined, is when your evangelization can begin. Once most parishes offer more than one hour of confession per week, do away with communion in the hand (a sacrilege), eliminate altar girls (an absurdity) and send away the armies of extraordinary Eucharistic ministers (another absurdity), then you will see people flock the Church because then it will be truly different than the secular world. The newest crop of priests want to resurrect the sacred in the Church and in the liturgy. Hopefully there will be fewer bishops that will block this resurrection.

  • Erick Ybarra

    James Patton,

    Could you elaborate?

    • James Patton

      The call for a “new Pentecost”, in my opinion, is a serious problem.

      • Hegesippus

        Any actual reason you are able to share..?

        • ColdStanding

          Because one, the first one, was enough. To suggest that a new one was needed is to suggest that the Holy Spirit, for some reason, is no longer with us, contra the promise that the Holy Spirit would always guide the Church. So how can the Holy Spirit come again? To come again presupposes that one has left before hand. The Holy Spirit has never left the Church. Ergo, another or a new Pentecost is likely impossible, and nearly heretical to suggest.

          ( I am not James Patton. Please forgive my presumption to but in)

          • James Patton

            Thank you, ColdStanding for your wonderful reply.

      • 1ray1

        Maybe the term a New Pentecost is a stretch. However, a prayer I say daily is “Come O Holy Spirit fill the hearts of Your faithful and enkindle in them the fire of Your love”.
        V. Send forth Your Spirit, O lord, and they shall be created.
        R. And you shall renew the face of the earth.
        Essentially this prayer asks for the coming of the Holy Spirit and you are bickering about the title of the request. Christ died for our sins(once) but we continually ask for His forgiveness. Personally, I never mind folks praying and asking the Holy Spirit for help….

  • James Patton

    It must be very difficult to convey the concept of salvation when one believes that so few can obtain it.

    • Aldo Elmnight

      Everyone can obtain it. Few choose to.

      I love how when people criticize the Catholic Church they are often criticizing their misunderstanding of the Catholic Church. For example you are actually criticizing the heresy of Calvinism which has been condemned by the Catholic Church for over 400 years.

      • James Patton

        Which is it, Aldo? Am I criticizing the heresy of Calvinism or am I criticizing the Catholic Church?

        • Aldo Elmnight

          “you are actually criticizing the heresy of Calvinism which has been condemned by the Catholic Church for over 400 years.”

          • James Patton

            Anything outside of the five New Testament histories seems to be a form of Calvinism to me, Aldo…:)

          • Hegesippus

            Would be worth consulting the CCC at http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm (or other sites) to find this is not the case.

          • James Patton

            This isn’t really relevant to the issue at hand but it is my belief that the further removed the writing is from Jesus the farther away you are from Christianity…Outside of the five New Testament histories, that distance becomes very visible and problematic being Christian.

          • Chris Downey

            Who decided that those particular Gospel’s ere in fact inspired? Whose authority?

          • James Patton

            I decide what information is closer to the subject at hand. Authority? I don’t need no stinking authority to formulate my own opinions on mythology.

          • MarcAlcan

            Of course you do. Once you’ve made yourself God what other do you need but yourself.

          • James Patton

            I didn’t call myself God, you did. “I am not a god, I have been misquoted.”- Dave Lister

          • MarcAlcan

            Considering that you have made yourself the sole arbiter of morality – then you have made yourself God.

          • James Patton

            Perhaps you could define morality in the terms that I was discussing but that hardly requires an arbiter…:D

          • MarcAlcan

            But the terms of morality that you were discussing did have an arbiter – you.

          • MarcAlcan

            Ergo, James Patton is the most intelligent of all human beings because by himself he can determine Truth with a capital. Hubris.

          • James Patton

            Thank you.

          • MarcAlcan

            You are stoked by your hubris?

          • Rufus Dsouza

            James Patton,
            ALL YOU ever NEED, to get a PhD., is to skim through all the books, & confer that title on yourself !!
            No Classes, No Lectures, No Institution, No Test, No exams, Nobody TO TEACH YOU, no “NOTHING !!!”
            Isn’t THAT “exactly” what you are saying ???
            Jesus “chose”, “appointed” & “taught” HIS Apostles,ONLY SO, they could, in like manner, SPREAD HIS TEACHINGS, “to the ends of the

            Earth!!!”
            Pity they missed out on your Address, Tel. No., & E-mail !!!!

            Make sense, my friend.
            That is why there are 60-THOUSAND + Protestant Denominations. Each splitting, one from the other, ONLY on Theological, Scriptural & Spiritual ISSUES !!!
            Simple Quest., really : WHO among them, has “THE TRUTH??”
            Wise-up, my friend. I used to be, much like you.
            rufus (India)

    • MarcAlcan

      Actually no. That makes it easy. What makes conveying the concept of salvation difficult is 1) when people think there is no such thing as sin and hell so there is no need for it 2) when people think we are all saved anyways so what’s the point of talking about it since it’s already a done deal.

      • James Patton

        Those two difficulties are the elephants in the room…:)

        • MarcAlcan

          No they’re not. It is precisely the acknowledgement of these difficulties that we have the New Evangelization. If you read the article, these are precisely the points that Ralph Martin is addressing. Post Vatican II happy, clappy feel good, all are saved theology is precisely what we are trying to address with this New Evangelization.

          • James Patton

            The issue is either you follow the teachings of Jesus or you follow the teachings of Saul. They are not compatible no matter what dogma is used to say they are.

          • MarcAlcan

            That is just totally stupid since Paul follows Jesus.

      • Rufus Dsouza

        The greatest EVIL in the eyes of GOD is “not” : SIN !!!
        It is, the “DENIAL” of SIN !!!!

        • MarcAlcan

          Bravo Rufus! And this is precisely what we are witnessing now on a massive scale in western society.

          • Rufus Dsouza

            Dear Brandon,
            If I may, PLEASE send “any” give-aways AND other Books/DVD’s AND Second-hand/unwanted STUFF to a Contemplative NUN in Bangalore, India.
            There is a huge DEARTH of “resources” & authentic CATHOLIC TEACHINGS there. The Novices are “STARVED” for knowledge!!
            They are very much like the Bl.Mother Teresa Society.
            I can send you the E-Mail & address later.
            Write me at rufodsouza@gmail.com
            Thank you. God-bless,
            rufus.
            &, Thank you for the “bravo!!”

  • "There is only one tragedy in the end, not to have been a saint." - Léon Bloy