Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus

[quote=PreVatII]Servus Pio XII,
If you are the future of Holy Mother Church, then there is hope for our post-Vatican II youth! God bless you.

As to sacred music: I am a huge fan of Hendrix, Cream, Van Halen, Aerosmith, et al. But NEVER during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. In fact, I can not think of one single song (they are not hymns by any means) that has been written since Vatican II that can hold a candle to Faith of our Fathers, Panis Angelicus, Regina Coeli, Hail Redeemer King Divine, Holy God we praise Thy Name, Lady of Knock and Ave Maria (Bach) to name but a few.

Our children will respond to sacred music and the beauty and majesty of Tradition if they are exposed to it. If the Mass is “dumbed down” they will leave…and for good.
[/quote]

PreVatII (like the name! mine was supposed to imply the same thing), have you ever heard of the Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Petri?

They are a fraternity of priests, given a seminary at the request of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who use the liturgies in force in 1962, just prior to the Vatican II reforms. Not only are they growing in numbers (over 200 strong, in France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, the USA, Australia, Canada, Great Britain , Nigeria. and Benin), but they now have an ally in the office of Pontificus Maximus.

Take heart, friend. I believe that the liberal Catholics are in for a rather nasty knock when they find that their abuse of the post-Vatican II Church is put to a stop.

Speaking of the FSSP, I am seriously considering the priesthood, and the fraternity. I wish to celebrate the Mass of the first 2000 years of the Church, not of the last fifty.

My parents are less-than-thrilled with the viewpoints I have come to develop on the Liturgy, the role of laity, proper handling of the Eucharist, etc. They are rather for the reforms, and for allowing Protestants to continue to go misguided with-out any deterrent from the heresy they have come to follow. In addition, they consider the traditions of the Church, which are my view-points, “being extreme”. I can no longer talk with them about religion, and my Mom today said she is no longer supportive of me entering the priesthood (she said she wished I were a parent someday, and also that I can’t be a good priest with my “extreme” view-points). Not that, at this rate, there will be a priesthood for much longer.

What ever happened to Pio Nono’s “No salvation outside of the Church?”

[quote=Servus Pio XII]What ever happened to Pio Nono’s “No salvation outside of the Church?”
[/quote]

Are you talking about Bl. Pius IX? It’s still there. I actually have a strong devotion to him and hope he is canonized one day because he was such a warrior against false Liberalism and he loved Our Lady very much. I have read most of his encyclicals and other writings and I think the Syllabus is more appropriate today than ever. Even he, however, acknowledge invincible ignorance and that we cannot presume to know the bounds of such ignorance (jut making sure we don’t fall into Feeneyism here):

It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand,it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors?Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is [1Jn 3:2] shall we really understandhow close and beautiful a bond joins divine mercy with divine justice.
[Allocution: “Singulari Quadam” (December 9, 1854)]

Also from the encyclical QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE

  1. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

Note:

This thread has been split off from a pre-existing thread and turned into its own new thread. Please continue the discussion here. Thanks!

Servus Pio XII wrote:

PreVatII (like the name! mine was supposed to imply the same thing), have you ever heard of the Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Petri?

For anyone (now MOSTLY everyone!) not versed in Latin would not know that you are referring to the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter, which was formed mainly from former priests (and seminarians) from the Society of St Pius X who reconciled with Rome following the consecrations in 1988 of the four SSPX bishops by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer.

Take heart, friend. I believe that the liberal Catholics are in for a rather nasty knock when they find that their abuse of the post-Vatican II Church is put to a stop.

Well, let us hope that this is made reality!

Speaking of the FSSP, I am seriously considering the priesthood, and the fraternity. I wish to celebrate the Mass of the first 2000 years of the Church, not of the last fifty.

Then, may I suggest that you take to heart the sentiments of Bishop Fernando Rifan of Campos, Brazil who, together with some approx. 30 priests and 30,000 lay-persons reconciled with Rome a few years ago:

If Bishop Rifan says the rite of Paul VI, he alone, by himself without priest, that is his right and his duty of Full Communion with the Successor of Peter … Here is the reason of FULL COMMUNION:

*“Some persons have questioned the occasional participation of Dom Fernando and some of his priests in Masses celebrated in the Rite of Paul VI. Dom Fernando is a Catholic bishop, member of the Catholic episcopate, in communion with the Holy Father the Pope. Thus, like every Catholic bishop, even those of a different rite, he must demonstrate this full communion practically. No one can be Catholic while remaining in an attitude of refusal of communion with the Pope and with the Catholic episcopate. In fact, the Church defines as schismatic those who refuse to submit to the Roman Pontiff or to remain in communion with the other members of the Church who are his subjects (canon 751). Now, to refuse continually and explicitly to participate in every and any Mass in the rite celebrated by the Pope and by all the bishops of the Church while judging this rite, in itself, incompatible with the Faith, or sinful, represents a formal refusal of communion with the Pope and with the Catholic episcopate. The objective fact cannot be denied that the rite of Paul VI is the official rite of the Latin Church, celebrated by the Pope and by all the Catholic episcopate. *

continued -

continued from previous post:

If we consider the New Mass in itself, in theory or in practice, as invalid or heretical, sacrilegious, heterodox, sinful, illegitimate or not Catholic, we would have to hold the theological conclusions of this position and apply them to the Pope and the entire episcopate residing in the world – that is, the whole teaching Church: that the Church has officially promulgated, maintained for decades, and offers every day to God an illegitimate and sinful worship – a proposition condemned by the Magisterium – and that, therefore, the gates of hell have prevailed against her, which would be a heresy. Or else we would be adopting the sectarian principle that we alone are the Church, and outside of us there is no salvation, which would be another heresy. These positions cannot be accepted by a Catholic, either in theory or in practice.

Our participation, therefore, is based on doctrinal principles. And it does not mean that we do not have reservations about the new rite, as we have already respectfully brought to the attention of the Holy See. Neither does our participation signify approval of everything that may happen. To be united to the hierarchy of the Church and in perfect communion with her does not mean approval of many errors that grow in the bosom of the Holy Church, provoked by her human part. And, of course, we lament profoundly with the Holy Father that the Liturgical Reform has given room for “ambiguities, liberties, creativities, adaptations, reductions and instrumentalizations” (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, n. 10.52.61) and also has given “origen to many abuses and led in a certain way to the disappearance of the respect due to the sacred” (Cardinal Edouard Gagnon, Offerten Situng – Roemisches, nov. dez. 1993, p. 35). Above all, we reject every profanation of the Liturgy, for example the Masses in which the “Liturgy degenerates into a ‘show,’ where one is tempted to make religion interesting with the help of silly changes in fashion…with momentary successes for the group of liturgical fabricators”, as Cardinal Ratzinger criticized (Introduction to the book La Réforme Liturgique by Mgr. Klaus Gamber, p. 6).

For all these reasons, we preserve the venerable rite of St. Pius V, but “cum Petro et sub Petro”, in full communion.” (Spokesman for Bishop Rifan)

What ever happened to Pio Nono’s “No salvation outside of the Church?”

This is not the personal property of Pope Pius IX! In fact, it is quite ancient, and was forcefully expressed (and is found in Denzingers Enchiridion of Catholic Dogma) by many popes including Pope Boniface VIII.

The Dogma still exists but is couched these days in moderate terms. The facts are, of course, that whoever is fortunate enough to find themselves in Heaven, whatever their religious persuasion on this earth (or, even if they were ignorant pagans) – then those persons would indeed have been saved by virtue of the fact that somehow they died “inside the Catholic Church.”

Interesting, isn’t it? I sincerely hope that you reconcile with your parents.

[quote=Genesis315]…
Also from the encyclical QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE

  1. Here, too,…his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

[/quote]

You’ve Misquoted… Get the original Latin and see for yourself.

SEAN OL:
The Dogma still exists but is couched these days in moderate terms. The** facts are**, of course, that [saved]…ignorant pagans – … died “inside the Catholic Church.”

Interesting, isn’t it?

That’s an undestatement.
So, worshipping a twig or stone “somehow” puts a pagan inside the “catholic” church! Amazing, indeed. Can anyone propose what, exactly, this “somehow” pertains to?
St. Thomas taught that invincible ignorance, while it undoubtedly excuses from sin, in this case the sin of infidelity, cannot save:
"If we consider unbelief as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character of punishment, not of sin, because such ignorance is a result of the sin of our first parents. When such unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, not because of their sin of unbelief. "

Rejected by the Magisterium:.
In 1679 Pope Innocent XI condemned the following proposition which implied that one could be saved without supernatural faith or revelation:
Condemned: “A faith amply indicated from the testimony of creation, or from a similar motive, suffices for justification” (Denz. 2123). 12 As St. Paul taught, if salvation were possible by the Mosaic Law, or by the natural law as well, then “Christ died in vain” (Galatians 2:21).

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her;”
(.Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441)

Anything beyond that is subjective speculation that diminishes the dogma, even to the point of a meaningless assertion.

Leo XIII:
Concerning New Opinions "The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them. It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas if the nature and origin of the doctrine which the Church proposes are recalled to mind. The Vatican Council says concerning this point: ‘For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention to be perfected by human ingenuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother, the Church, has once declared, nor is that meaning ever to be departed from under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them.’

The dctrine is now considered heretical.The church is a living thing in Communion with God.Living and growing and learning.

[quote=Servus Pio XII]PreVatII (like the name! mine was supposed to imply the same thing), have you ever heard of the Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Petri?

They are a fraternity of priests, given a seminary at the request of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who use the liturgies in force in 1962, just prior to the Vatican II reforms. Not only are they growing in numbers (over 200 strong, in France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, the USA, Australia, Canada, Great Britain , Nigeria. and Benin), but they now have an ally in the office of Pontificus Maximus.

Take heart, friend. I believe that the liberal Catholics are in for a rather nasty knock when they find that their abuse of the post-Vatican II Church is put to a stop.

Speaking of the FSSP, I am seriously considering the priesthood, and the fraternity. I wish to celebrate the Mass of the first 2000 years of the Church, not of the last fifty.

My parents are less-than-thrilled with the viewpoints I have come to develop on the Liturgy, the role of laity, proper handling of the Eucharist, etc. They are rather for the reforms, and for allowing Protestants to continue to go misguided with-out any deterrent from the heresy they have come to follow. In addition, they consider the traditions of the Church, which are my view-points, “being extreme”. I can no longer talk with them about religion, and my Mom today said she is no longer supportive of me entering the priesthood (she said she wished I were a parent someday, and also that I can’t be a good priest with my “extreme” view-points). Not that, at this rate, there will be a priesthood for much longer.

What ever happened to Pio Nono’s “No salvation outside of the Church?”
[/quote]

Thanks for the comments. I do know several FSSP priests and have found all of them to be truly outstanding men! Were I single, younger, and felt called to the priesthood, I would ONLY look to Traditional Latin Mass communities like the FSSP and The Institute of Christ the King.

Although I am not of the mindset that these communities should not celebrate the Mass of Paul VI (hard to justify if our Holy Father celebrates it), I would still want to be part of a priestly community that has the Tarditional Latin Mass as its focus and all that is attached to it.

As to your parents: Join the club. This is as old as time. My folks never wanted me to join the Marine Corps, and absolutely not the infantry. But I had to make my own way. They finally understood, and the love between us has only grown stronger after all these years.

I hope you do enter the FSSP. Semper FI.

The “modern moderation” of EENS was intended to lead to:
Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor in 2001:
“But if we look at all the Roman documents in recent years, it is clear that they do not spell a turning back to the ‘ecumenism of return,’ or ‘you-come-inism.’ The direction and dialogue of convergence were firmly set by the Second Vatican Council and endorsed and confirmed six years ago by [Pope John Paul II’s] Ut Unum Sint.”

** Card. Kasper:**
Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of ecumenism of a return, by which the others should “be converted” and return to being “catholics.” This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II. Today ecumenism is considered as the common road: all should be converted to the following of Christ, and it is in Christ that we will find ourselves in the end… Even the Pope, among other things, describes ecumenism in Ut unum sint as an exchange of gifts. I think this is very well said: each church has its own riches and gifts of the Spirit, and it is this exchange that unity is trying to be achieved and not the fact that we should become “protestants” or that the others should become “catholics” in the sense of accepting the confessional form of Catholicism.

For 26 years JPII has NEVER mentioned the words “need to return”( or equivalent) to the Catholic Faith for those who are in false sects.

Pius XII:
As regards the manner and method of proceeding in this work [ecumenism], the Bishops… shall also be on guard lest, on the false pretext that more attention should be paid to the points on which we agree than to those on which we differ, a dangerous indifferentism be encouraged, especially among persons whose training in theology is not deep and whose practice of their faith is not very strong…

Also they must restrain that dangerous manner of speaking which generates false opinions and fallacious hopes incapable of realization; for example, to the effect that the teachings of the Encyclicals of the Roman Pontiffs on the return of dissidents to the Church, on the constitution of the Church, on the Mystical Body of Christ, should not be given too much importance seeing that they are not all matters of faith, or, what is worse, that in matters of dogma even the Catholic Church has not yet attained the fullness of Christ, but can still be perfected from outside. They shall take particular care and shall firmly insist that, in going over the history of the Reformation and the Reformers the defects of Catholics be not so exaggerated and the faults of the Reformers be so dissimulated, or that things which are rather accidental be not so emphasized, that what is most essential, namely the defection from the Catholic faith, be scarcely any longer seen or felt…

Therefore the whole and entire Catholic doctrine is to be presented and explained: by no means is it permitted to pass over in silence or to veil in ambiguous terms the Catholic truth regarding the nature and way of justification, the constitution of the Church, the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, and the only true union by the return of the dissidents to the one true Church of Christ. It should be made clear to them that, in returning to the Church, they will lose nothing of that good which by the grace of God has hitherto been implanted in them, but that it will rather be supplemented and completed by their return. However, one should not speak of this in such a way that they will imagine that in returning to the Church they are bringing to it something substantial which it has hitherto lacked. It will be necessary to say these things clearly and openly, first because it is the truth that they themselves are seeking, and moreover because outside the truth no true union can ever be attained. **(Instruction on the Ecumenical Movement Proclaimed by the Holy Office on December 20, 1949
**

[quote=TNT]You’ve Misquoted… Get the original Latin and see for yourself.
[/quote]

Don’t have it on me, could you help me out? :tiphat:

[quote=TNT]You’ve Misquoted… Get the original Latin and see for yourself.
[/quote]

Ok, I’ve searched all over the net and can only find it in English, translated as I have it–even the anti-Vatican II and sedevacantist sites translated it that way. I’m trying to imagine what else it could say. Help me out :hmmm:

[quote=Genesis315]Ok, I’ve searched all over the net and can only find it in English, translated as I have it–even the anti-Vatican II and sedevacantist sites translated it that way. I’m trying to imagine what else it could say. Help me out :hmmm:
[/quote]

Ok, you’ve suffered enough. I’ll post it here shortly. Thanks for asking.

[quote=Genesis315]Ok, I’ve searched all over the net and can only find it in English, translated as I have it–even the anti-Vatican II and sedevacantist sites translated it that way. I’m trying to imagine what else it could say. Help me out :hmmm:
[/quote]

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=796067#post796067
See Denz 1677. Or the AAS (Acta Apostolicae Sedes ) for a good English translation.
I posted this last June, and strangely enough, *you *posted the very next post!:wink:

The word suppliciis in the Latin original is translated correctly by “torment” (although “torments” would have been more accurate)
The literal would be closest to this:
"…for God, Who has perfect knowledge, examines and judges the minds, the souls, the thoughts and the deeds of all men, and He does not permit, in His sovereign Goodness and Mercy, any men NOT CULPABLE OF WILFUL SIN to be punished with eternal TORMENTS.

Again, to add more clarity to the as to the significance:
[size=2]Pope Innocent III: "The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torment of everlasting hell" (DS 410).
Take seriously the great prophet St Pius X. He let us know then that modernism would seep into the very heart of the Church. Translations are one of those methods that are a favorite of modernists. Witness the ICEL.
[/size]

[quote=TNT]Rejected by the Magisterium:.
%between%
Concerning New Opinions "The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. … It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas

[/quote]

Would these statements apply to easing up on the rules and requirements to obtain an annulment, so that the situation comes to pass which we have today:
“Many people believe that virtually any failed marriage can be annulled on the basis of incapacity and immaturity.”

[quote=TNT]forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=796067#post796067
See Denz 1677. Or the AAS (Acta Apostolicae Sedes ) for a good English translation.
I posted this last June, and strangely enough, *you *posted the very next post!:wink:

The word suppliciis in the Latin original is translated correctly by “torment” (although “torments” would have been more accurate)
The literal would be closest to this:
"…for God, Who has perfect knowledge, examines and judges the minds, the souls, the thoughts and the deeds of all men, and He does not permit, in His sovereign Goodness and Mercy, any men NOT CULPABLE OF WILFUL SIN to be punished with eternal TORMENTS.

Again, to add more clarity to the as to the significance:
[size=2]Pope Innocent III: "The punishment[/size] of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torment of everlasting hell" (DS 410).
Take seriously the great prophet St Pius X. He let us know then that modernism would seep into the very heart of the Church. Translations are one of those methods that are a favorite of modernists. Witness the ICEL.

[/quote]

So, I guess the point is that the non-culpable unbaptised, while not going to Hell, may end up in some sort of limbo. But, would not it still be the case that some sort of baptism by desire would remove the punishment from original sin? And is it even possible for someone who has reached the age of reason to be any state besides culpable of Hell or qualifying for baptism by desire?

(those sedevacanists would probably have a heart attack if they found out they were using modernist translations :bigyikes: )

Great thought! Actually, I’m just interested in you being heads-up on PIUS IX. Then hopefully, you tell the next person.

So, I guess the point is that the non-culpable unbaptised, while not going to Hell, may end up in some sort of limbo.

In a practical sense, I would say that no one can please God without Faith. And, leading a life without ever consenting to mortal sin is a real guessing game.
In the end, we were never really given the answer in Divine revelation, and likely for a very good reason…it would be misused. Even now, the speculators of the means of unusual salvation have pushed it into universal salvation.
I have no idea where a place of NATURAL contentment would be, perhaps:
John 14:2 In my Father’s house there are many mansions. If not, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you. (I think the Magisterium has already rejected that idea. They insist that it is some place OUTSIDE of heaven which is then a place of non-heaven, which means hell. But then I look at N-York city, Calcutta and N-Orleans as hellish.)

But, would not it still be the case that some sort of baptism by desire would remove the punishment from original sin?

Yes, indeed. But I’ll stick to EXPLICIT desire. IMPLICIT desire is to me, an oxymoron. I never could reconcile a desire for something one does not know exists or could exist. I will include “written in the heart of all men…” in the realm of explicit provided they do not reject it, such as an atheist or abortionist, or the like.

And is it even possible for someone who has reached the age of reason to be any state besides culpable of Hell or [POSSIBLY] qualifying for baptism by desire?

No.
The Church only teaches that one must be in the state of Sanctifying Grace to enter heaven in the true sense. That grace nullifies the privation of Original Sin. BUT, the state of Original Sin does NOT condemn to hell’s TORMENT. That was PIUS IX’s whole point in par. 7.
The Church has only been taught, by revelation, that Sanctifying Grace is infused by water or blood martyrr baptism, as well as explicit desire for it.(Trent).
So, the answer I give is that at any moment, man is:

  1. Heaven bound. (In the state of Sanctifying Grace)
  2. Natural contentment bound. (no unforgiven mortal sin. and unbaptised by any of the 3 baptisms). This would include those without the ability to reason.
  3. Hell bound to torment. (Rejecting that which Divine Providence has given.)
    We cannot know that those who appear deprived of all access to Sanctifying Grace throughout history, would have accepted or rejected it if it was offered. That is God’s little secret.
    For instance, why was my soul and body put into a Catholic family, but another’s put into a heathen Aztec human sacrificing tribe? Did God know that the other would reject the obvious means of Sanctifying Grace? Did he know that I would accept it, but then sin mortally over and over?
    No one has the definitive answer. We only are told to spread the Gospel to all creatures. So, that’s our job. God never told us to speculate on the state of any one person’s soul and its ultimate destiny.
    I do not believe it is a worthy endeavor to spend much time on subjective theological speculation where no answer will be definitive anyway. In too many cases it obscures the objective means to salvation and reduces its primacy.
    I just stay with the objective Church teachings. That simply means to get others to accept the Faith and be baptised. Practice the virtues and receive the sacraments worthily. And , then to teach others the same.

Now, I have reached the end of my theological rope.

I think this is a good point.:thumbsup:

[quote=TNT]I do not believe it is a worthy endeavor to spend much time on subjective theological speculation where no answer will be definitive anyway. In too many cases it obscures the objective means to salvation and reduces its primacy.

[/quote]

Very interesting point. I will remember this and think about it for a while.

Since I engage in other endeavors of questionable worth, I don’t mind some speculation. But your point has an extremely practical implications. For sure it is far better to err on the side of ignoring speculative topics, as opposed to slipping in heresy. Also. our time is better spent on pursuits of real value.

Where’s that reputation system when you need it?

TNT: I so rarely agree with you that I thought I would chime this in: I can’t find anything here to disagree with you. “The objective means…” very good. Can’t argue with “the objective means.”

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.