Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Do Aborted Babies Go To Heaven?

By Ann Barnhardt at Barnhardt.biz

It is getting progressively harder and harder for me to leave the house. Not because I'm threatened or under surveillance or anything like that. It's because every situation or conversation I enter, or even just OVERHEAR or OBSERVE, is potential fodder for this bizarre website. It's as if I am eavesdropping on and then plagiarizing the world or something.

(Pause for moment of scruple-driven angst.)

Aaaaannnnddd......I'm over it.

So, I found myself in a discussion, the base of which was the question of what happens to babies who are killed in abortion. Do they go to heaven?

The answer is NO, they do not.

If you are recoiling in disgust and red-faced rage at this point, I would urge you to humble yourself and receive instruction, as this is a nuanced yet incredibly important bit of theology - and a lesson in logic. When you're done reading it, I guarantee you will have learned something. If you are Catholic, you will see how shallow and inadequate your catechisis has been, and if you are Protestant you will see how much you are missing.

1. The Church teaches and has taught from day one that baptism is essential for salvation. This comes straight from Our Lord Himself:
He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.
Mark 16:16
This is repeated throughout the four Gospels and in the epistles. Baptism, baptism, baptism. Go forth and BAPTIZE. Don't just talk. BAPTIZE everyone you possibly can. With water. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. In fact, baptism is so non-negotiably essential that ANYONE can baptize - even a non-Christian. As long as the baptism is with water, and the form is correct, meaning in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit), then an atheist could baptize. A musloid could baptize. A Jew could baptize. A Hindu could baptize.

(*The notable and particularly relevant caveat to this is if the baptizer says the right words, but consciously means something completely different by the words "Father", "Son" and "Holy Ghost". I'm talking about the cult of Mormonism here. Did you know that Mormons teach and believe that God the Father is one of many "gods" who came from another planet and just happens to be the "god" of this particular planet, and that "God the Son" was once a non-divine mortal man, and that satan was his brother, and that the man they call "Jesus" at some point achieved divinity and was made the god of this world? Further, Mormons teach that when they die that they will also become gods and be given their own "celestial kingdoms" to rule? Mormons also teach that the Holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost are two completely separate and distinct beings. 

Bottom line: Mormons are NOT, NOT, NOT Christians and Mitt Romney is NOT, NOT, NOT a Christian. Does that piss you off? Wow. I SO don't care. It is the truth. Deal with it. 

Oh, and for the record, Obama is not baptized either. One of the huge selling points of Jeremiah Wright's Trinity "church" is the fact that he DOES NOT baptize muslims. Thus, muslims who are engaging in the war tactic of KITHMAN, that is pretending to be non-muslim while infiltrating a culture for stealth jihad, flock to Wright's "church" because they can pose as Christians while avoiding the sacrament of Baptism. If you don't believe me, just call Trinity and ask them yourself. Their number is (773) 962-5650. Be polite. 

Not that this election is real, and not that the First American Republic still exists, but I do think that it is VERY interesting and telling that NEITHER candidate is Christian, which would be a first, and is certainly apropos.)
 
2. What is heaven? Heaven is nothing less than indwelling INSIDE the Trinity, contemplating the Trinity for all eternity. This is hard to understand from the "outside", but we know that this is the case from the words of Our Lord Himself:
That they all may be one, as Thou, Father, in Me, and I in Thee; that they also may be one in Us; that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me.
John 17:21
This is called "the Beatific Vision", which could perhaps be simplistically stated as "seeing and contemplating God from the inside."

3. Who DESERVES the Beatific Vision as a mere corollary to their existence? Nobody. Not even the Angels. The Angels had to choose to serve God even before the creation of the world. They were created by God, and then shown the plan of Salvation History before the Big Bang (Let There Be Light). Those who chose to serve God were granted the Beatific Vision. Those who chose not to serve God, specifically the Second Person, the Divine Man, Whom they resented as being "beneath them", were cast out of heaven, never having seen the Beatific Vision, and never to see it. Satan and demons are real.

Even the Blessed Virgin Mary doesn't DESERVE the Beatific Vision merely as a corollary to her existence. She says so in her Magnificat:
And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior. Because He hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Because He that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is His name. And His mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear Him.  
Luke 1:46-50
Given these realities, does an unborn baby DESERVE the Beatific Vision? The answer is obviously "no".
4. But an unborn baby (Or even a born and yet unbaptized baby) has committed no sin. Their fate can't be hell. So where do they go? The answer is, they go to a "place" (for lack of a better word) called Limbo, specifically The Limbo of the Innocents. There is another Limbo called the Limbo of the Fathers which was filled with the righteous people who died on earth before Christ opened the gates of heaven on Calvary. The Limbo of the Fathers no longer exists - Christ emptied it while He was in the tomb.

At this point many are screaming, "BUT THAT ISN'T IN THE BIBLE!"

Oh, yes it is. If you bother to READ IT. And again, from the lips of Our Lord, no less:
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell.
Luke 16:22
Abraham's Bosom is NOT the Beatific Vision. When Our Lord spoke these words, the Gates of Heaven were yet closed because He had not yet opened them. Abraham's Bosom was the Limbo of the Fathers.
The proof for the Limbo of the Innocents actually comes from the very first scripture I quoted above:
He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.
Mark 16:16
Read that VERY carefully. Note that the second phrase does NOT tie non-baptism to condemnation. Condemnation (hell) is for those who reject Christ, but the baptismal state is left open. Note that in the first phrase that baptism is only tied to the Beatific Vision. What does this tell us? It tells us first that a person MUST be baptized in order to reach the Beatific Vision. It also tells us that those who die unbaptized and yet without any sin (which can only mean babies, both pre-born and born, and children who have not reached the age of reason, and therefore cannot be guilty of sin) DO NOT GO TO THE HELL OF THE DAMNED.

Makes sense, huh? And remember, NOBODY deserves the Beatific Vision.

So, the "place" these innocent yet unbaptized babies and children go is the Limbo of the Innocents. The Limbo of the Innocents is a "place" wherein these souls experience MAXIMUM NATURAL HAPPINESS, but do not experience the SUPERNATURAL happiness of the Beatific Vision.

Let's think about this. Maximum natural happiness. Guys, you have never, ever experienced anything even close to maximum natural happiness. In fact, if you were given the gift of five seconds of maximum natural happiness, I'll bet that you would swear up and down that you had just seen heaven and that there is no way that there could be anything better. You would be wrong. Heaven, the Beatific Vision, is so far above Limbo that Limbo is considered to be at the edge of hell by comparison, simply because it is outside the Beatific Vision. But it is still better than anything you have ever experienced.

5. Now, we have to answer the question, "Why can't unbaptized babies go straight to heaven?"
It is a great question, with a great answer. On the surface it sounds "unfair" that a baby, especially a baby that was murdered in cold blood by its own mother, couldn't go straight to heaven, especially when we consider the fact that the mother could sacramentally confess her sin and die in a state of grace and achieve the Beatific Vision herself.

Boo! Not fair, the critics say.

Again, let's think this through. WHAT IF all aborted babies went straight to heaven? How would the logical truth table from that false premise play out?

Well, if all aborted babies are GUARANTEED heaven, but a born person who lives to the age of reason runs the risk of living a life wherein they reject Christ and end up in hell, wouldn't it be an act of charity and mercy for every mother everywhere to abort every child they conceive so that the child will absolutely, positively spend all of eternity enjoying the Beatific Vision?

Let's put a context to it. Let's say a poor woman who lives in an urban slum gets pregnant. She looks around and sees a terrible environment. She knows that her child will be raised fatherless. She knows that the odds of her child escaping the grasp of the gangs and the Marxist overlords are very slim. What should she do? If all aborted babies go to heaven, then the young mother should kill the child in utero, thus guaranteeing her child heaven and sparing it the risk of life in this world and thus the high risk of being lost to hell. In fact, it would be selfish and uncharitable for her NOT to abort the child....

Do you see what happens when we try to form a logical truth table off of a false premise? We end up with abortion as a charitable act of mercy. And satan SQUEALS with delight.

6. Now the question must be answered, "Why SHOULD the young mother allow her child to be born even with the high risk of the child eventually being lost to hell?"

The answer comes from Lesson Number One in the Catechism:

Q: Why did God make you? 

A: God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in heaven.
 
Every person is made by God with the desired end of the Beatific Vision. If the mother aborts the baby, the baby can never see the Beatific Vision, which is what God created the child for, and nothing less. In order to achieve the Beatific Vision, a person must be born and baptized, and die in a state of grace. Because remember, NOBODY deserves the Beatific Vision. Nobody.

No matter how long the odds seem, that baby is born with the Beatific Vision within grasp. Human beings CAN NEVER deprive a child of that chance.
And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible.  
Matthew 19:26
7. What about miscarriages?

True miscarriages and stillbirths are God's will, and remember, those babies, like the aborted babies, are granted maximum natural happiness in the Limbo of the Innocents. We must trust God in these matters. It is possible that God in His omniscience and Divine Providence allows miscarriages and stillbirths in order to bring about the best possible outcome for the child. This is a very difficult idea to face, but again, it comes straight from Our Lord Himself:
The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of Him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born.
Matthew 26:24
It would have been better for Judas Iscariot to have been miscarried because then he would have the maximum natural happiness of the Limbo of the Innocents. Instead, Judas betrayed Our Lord, doubted His mercy and never sought forgiveness and instead committed suicide, thus choosing the hell of the damned for all eternity.

But remember, ONLY GOD can make that call. No man can ever, ever play God and induce miscarriage, which is to say MURDER a pre-born child.

8. Why have I never heard anything about any of this up until now?

First, if you are Catholic and under the age of 60 or so, it is because the Church has been infiltrated by Marxist-homosexualists tasked with destroying the Church from the inside. Their father, satan, wants to convince as many people as possible that abortion is "morally neutral" or "contingent on the circumstances".

Beyond that, satan actually does want people to believe that aborted babies go to heaven so that eventually he can convince people that abortion can be a MORAL GOOD. Satan gets two things out of this. He maximizes the number of people who murder their own children and then DO NOT REPENT, thus dying in mortal sin and going to hell. The second thing satan achieves is keeping as many human beings from achieving that which he himself rejected and RAGES against: The Beatific Vision. Satan is willing to compromise and cut his losses. He'll take the baby going to the Limbo of the Innocents, never seeing the Beatific Vision PLUS the damnation of the unrepentant mother AND the damnation of the apostate priests, nuns and clergy who told the woman that her abortion wasn't a sin because "the baby is in heaven."

If you are Protestant, it is because Protestantism is intrinsically stupid and insipid. That's it. Superfun Rockband church. Jimmy Swaggart. Brain dead Methodist "we're just here to keep up appearances". Don't believe me? Okay. Ask your pastor on Sunday if aborted babies go to heaven, and after reading this, stand back and bask in the bumbling ignorance of his (or her, shudder) answer. Yep. You can almost visualize it right now, can't you?

UPDATELimbo Citations

By Ann Barnhardt

This is just excellent. I'll pick out just a few of the 24 reasons. Do read the whole thing.

Source Link HERE.
24 Reasons Why Not To Reject Limbo 
John Vennari
Limbo is in the news. A new document from Rome's International Theological Commission [ITC], released on April 20, states that Catholics may virtually ignore the teaching on limbo and may have "many reasons for hope" for the salvation of unbaptized infants.
Practically every major newspaper carried the story. Headlines such as "Vatican Abolishes Limbo;" "Vatican Report Rejects Limbo;" and "Concept of Limbo Now Assigned to Oblivion" appeared throughout the world.
Yet despite this latest study, many intend to hold to the conventional teaching that the souls of infants who die before Baptism do not attain Heaven, because they have not obtained the remission of Original Sin that only Baptism provides. They go to Limbo, a place of natural happiness wherein they suffer no pain of punishment since they are guilty of no personal sin.
Listed below are 24 of the chief reasons why I, and thousands of Catholics the world over, will not reject the Catholic doctrine of Limbo:
1. Because Pope Pius VI, in a formal magisterial decree, denounced the rejection of Limbo as "false, rash, slanderous to Catholic schools";
2. Because the ITC's study on Limbo is neither a papal document, nor a magisterial document, but a modern theological exercise that does not bind the conscience of Catholics in any way;
4. Because it is an unchangeable article of Faith, taught infallibly by the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence that the souls of those who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision;
5. Because Pope Sixtus V taught in a 1588 Constitution that victims of abortion, being deprived of Baptism, are "excluded from Beatific Vision," which is one of the reasons Sixtus V denounced abortion as a heinous crime;
7. Because to reject Limbo strengthens the implicit denial of Original Sin, a chief error of our age;
http://www.catholicessentials.net/limbo.htm 
I. The Limbo of the Fathers - A place and state of rest wherein the souls of the just who died before Christ's ascension were detained until he opened Heaven to them; referred to as "Abraham's Bosom" (Luke xvi,22) and "Paradise" (Luke xxiii, 43) and notably in Eph. IV, 9 and I Peter iii, 18-20.
II. The Limbo of Children - It is of faith that all, children and adults, who leave this world without the Baptism of water, blood or desire and therefore in original sin are excluded from the Vision of God in Heaven. The great majority of theologians teach that such children and unbaptized adults free from grievous actual sin, enjoy eternally a state of perfect natural happiness, knowing and loving God by use of their natural powers. This place and state is commonly called Limbo. (Definition from A Catholic Dictionary, 1951)
References in Scripture:
"And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell" Luke 16:22
"Now that He ascended, what is it, but because He also descended first into the lower parts of the earth" Ephesians 4:9
"Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that He might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water." 1 Peter 3:18-20
"And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when Thou shalt come into Thy kingdom. And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with Me in paradise" Luke 23:42-43
Church Teaching:
"Moreover as Christ was true and perfect man, He of course was capable of dying. Now man dies when the soul is separated from the body. When, therefore, we say that Jesus died, we mean that His soul was disunited from His body. We do not admit, however, that the Divinity was separated from His body. On the contrary, we firmly believe and profess that when His soul was dissociated from His body, His Divinity continued always united both to His body in the sepulchre and to His soul in limbo. It became the Son of God to die, that, through death, He might destroy him who had the empire of death that is the devil, and might deliver them, who through the fear of death were all their lifetime subject to servitude." Catechism of Council of Trent, The Creed, Article IV
"Q: What are we taught in the Fifth Article: He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead? A: The Fifth Article of the Creed teaches us that the Soul of Jesus Christ, on being separated from His Body, descended to the Limbo of the holy Fathers, and that on the third day it became united once more to His Body, never to be parted from it again". Catechism of St. Pope Pius X, The Fifth Article of the Creed
"The fourth and final reason is that Christ might free the just who were in hell [or Limbo]. For as Christ wished to suffer death to deliver the living from death, so also He would descend into hell to deliver those who were there". Also, "The reason they were there in hell [i.e., Limbo] is original sin which they had contracted from Adam, and from which as members of the human race they could not be delivered except by Christ. Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas, The Creed, The Fifth Article, Reasons for Christ's Descent
"The limbo of the Fathers and the limbo of children, without any doubt, differ as to the quality of punishment or reward. For children have no hope of the blessed life, as the Fathers in limbo had, in whom, moreover, shone forth the light of faith and grace. But as regards their situation, there is reason to believe that the place of both is the same; except that the limbo of the Fathers is placed higher than the limbo of children, just as we have stated in reference to limbo and hell." Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas, Whether the limbo of children is the same as the limbo of the Fathers?
"Suarez, for example, ignoring Bellarmine's protest, continued to teach what Catharinus had taught -- that unbaptized children will not only enjoy perfect natural happiness, but that they will rise with immortal bodies at the last day and have the renovated earth for their happy abode (De vit. et penat., ix, sect. vi, n. 4); and, without insisting on such details, the great majority of Catholic theologians have continued to maintain the general doctrine that the children's limbo is a state of perfect natural happiness, just the same as it would have been if God had not established the present supernatural order" 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Limbo Summary
Contrary to what some Catholics have come to believe today, the doctrine of Limbo is mentioned in Scripture (albeit by a different name) and as we can see above, has been taught century to century by the Catholic Church. To deny its existence is not Catholic.
Link:
Related:

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Theology of the Body "Smoking Guns" of Christopher West's Theology

From Wade St. Onge at From the Ivory Tower:

Many who followed (or attempted to follow) the Theology of the Body debate that ensued after Dr. David Schindler went public with concerns about the theology of his former pupil, Christopher West, following the latter’s appearance on “Nightline”, were not sure how to sift through all the arguments on both sides and come to a conclusion. Some who may have become leery of his theology or who may have leaned in that direction have since forgotten about the criticisms and changed their minds back. This is understandable considering the support and praise he receives all around us in the orthodox Catholic circles and most especially among bishops (most of whom are as unfamiliar with the content of his teaching as much as his critics are accused of being) and big-name Catholic speakers. Sheer numbers seem to influence most of us.

Even I myself begin to question whether or not my criticisms are valid. However, when I begin to think of the evidence on both sides, my mind often goes back to a few things that confirm my initial position. There are, I believe, some “red flags” that taken together sift through all the many voices and arguments and make a clear case against Dr. Janet Smith’s judgment that the theology of Christopher West is “perfectly sound”. What makes it even more convincing is that most of these have never been responded to or given substantial justification by West or any of West's most prominent defenders.

This is something I was intending to write over a year ago at the “height” of the debate. Thanks to the discussion that broke out after Kevin O’Brien wrote a series of articles on his blog, I was reminded and motivated to finally write it.

A. “Mature Purity” (including West’s doctrines of “Shameless Nakedness” and “The Pure Gaze of Love”).

1. The argument between Dr. Scott Hahn and Christopher West on the set of “Franciscan University Presents” which turned Dr. Hahn into a “closet critic” of West and his theology after West disagreed with Hahn when Hahn said the proper response if he was to see his colleague's naked wife's would be to turn his eyes away.

When Christopher West was a guest on EWTN’s “Franciscan University Presents” a few years ago, Dr. Scott Hahn, who is a regular on the program, got into an argument with him on this very issue. James Simons was in the audience when the program was recorded, and in his article in defense of West, entitled “Should We Look Away or Not Lust?”, he recounts the exchange:

During a university TV interview of Christopher West [actually, a panel discussion on “Franciscan University Presents”] a professor [Dr. Scott Hahn] told West that if he were to see a friend’s wife [the friend being fellow panellist Dr. Regis Martin] naked, it would be his responsibility to look away. West responded, ‘No, it would be to not lust.’ [Hahn] and West took turns repeating themselves until the moderator called for a break in the program.” [1] Drawing upon other accounts, this exchange began when West began speaking about his doctrine of “mature purity”, whereby when we grow enough in chastity, we should dispense with practicing “custody of the eyes” which is merely an initial “negative” step for those in the “purgative stage” of purity, and should instead look upon women and their God-given beauty with the “pure gaze of love”. Considering how contrary this is to the Catholic Tradition (as will be shown later), Hahn objected and told West we could never be sure we were in that state and that we would remain in that state if we gazed. During the commercial break, Hahn had some sharp words for West.

That day, Dr. Scott Hahn became a closet-critic of Christopher West and his understanding of theology of the body, and remains so to this day. In and of itself this is not telling – Hahn could be wrong and West right. But those on both sides of this debate fully flesh-out their positions and attempt to defend their own and critique the other, it becomes quite clear that Hahn represents the orthodox position while West’s position is novel and contradicts the Catholic Tradition.

2. Long-time disciple of Christopher West borders on advocating Christian nudism and other long-time disciples defend him.

James J. Simons, who by his own admission listened to West over 100 times, [2] provided, in the aforementioned article, an apologia for nudism. Simons argued that it is right to baptize people naked in front of an entire church so everyone can see them and it is right for women to read in church topless. He chided men for not being able to look at naked women and not lust, and chided Dr. Scott Hahn for saying that if he saw his colleague’s wife naked the proper response would be to turn his eyes away. He said we should see the naked body as simply a naked body and nothing more, and that to look away when seeing a naked body is actually an objectification of women. [3] Terri Kimmel, who attributes the beginning of her conversion to the listening of West’s presentation of Theology of the Body, [4] defended Simons’ arguments in the combox. [5] “Lauretta”, who has also listened to West over 100 times, [6] likewise defended James and professed the same “doctrine of mature purity”. [7]

It cannot be argued that both James and Lauretta have misunderstood West in the over 100 times they listened to him. Rather, it becomes clear, when listening to and reading West, especially pages 169-172 of the original edition of Theology of the Body Explained, that they have understood him perfectly well. They have just taken his teachings, which he never fully fleshes out and which always masterfully couches in orthodoxy and connects to Magisterial documents, to their logical ends and stated explicitly what West is careful not to present publicly.

Genevieve S. Kineke, author of The Authentic Catholic Woman, which she asked Christopher West to wrote the foreword for, [8] seemed to begin to recognize the problems with West’s theology only when seeing its logical conclusions fleshed out by his disciples: “I am reading this with absolute astonishment, as though enough parsing of texts and clever citations are cause to abandon all common sense … ‘Pride goeth before a fall …’ and I believe only pride could cause a man to think he was beyond temptation in this realm, especially since he’s naturally hard-wired to act on certain stimuli – Saint Francis knew this well, and humbly heaved himself into the thorn bushes rather than taking any chances”. [9] This article made Ms. Kineke realize something may be seriously wrong with West’s theology, and after presumably scrutinizing more carefully the debate surrounding West’s work, continues to offer objections to his errors. [10]

3. The work and writings of West disciple, Father Thomas Loya, including the use of erotic images on the homepage of his TOB website and his advice to Christian men that they “check women out”.

Loya is a faithful supporter of and believer in the theology of Christopher West, something West acknowledges and which seems to be mutual. [11]

Anyone well-grounded in the Catholic Tradition as it concerns purity and modesty will consider the erotic images on Loya’s Theology of the Body website, “Tabor Life”, [12] to be proof enough. The fact that the reader has to be warned at this point that clicking on the website may be an occasion of sin should be a red flag in itself.

For further confirmation, Loya’s advice in the first step of his “See-Pray-Pass On” technique for chastity provides it: “Alright Look at her!! That’s right, look at her!! Look at her butt, her breasts, but don’t stop there. Look at every aspect of her magnificent femininity! Take her in completely and say, ‘How many are your works, O Lord, in wisdom you have made them all!’ (Psalm 103)”. After all, “A true freedom in the Spirit, a true, lasting and integrated purity of heart comes not from ‘looking away’ from the human body. Rather it is in learning to look ‘at’ the human body with the eyes of God, with the deep soul of true Catholicism and the sacramental worldview”. [13] Anyone for whom this may be scandalous should be told at this point: this is not Catholic and is even more scandalous and dangerous because it is being taught by a priest whose work is recommended by Christopher West, whose word of approval is accepted without question by his most devoted disciples...  (continued)


Link:
Related:

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

The Cross teaches Christians to renounce pride and choose love, Benedict XVI says


.- In the presence of thousands of people at St. Peter's Square, Pope Benedict XVI continued his weekly teachings on St. Paul, speaking about the central place of the Cross of Jesus Christ in Paul's preaching. The Cross should teach Christians to renounce their own "superiority" and choose love, the Pope underscored.

The Pope began by noting that Paul's "existence was entirely consumed for souls." In his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, the Holy Father said, Paul "understood that Jesus had died and risen for all and for him also."

"Both were important," Pope Benedict explained. Jesus really died for all, and he also died for me. Once Paul experienced this love "above all in himself," he became a believer and an apostle, the Holy Father added.

For Paul, his new life in Christ was a daily experience that “salvation was 'grace'," Benedict observed. The "gospel of grace, became for Paul the only way to understand the Cross, the reason not only for his new existence, but also the message in his preaching."

The importance of the Cross had an even greater impact than a personal one for St. Paul. The power of the Cross was so great in Paul’s teaching that he saw it as having “fundamental primacy in the history of humanity," Pope Benedict asserted.

Thus, St. Paul’s belief in the primacy of the Cross guided him when he was confronted by the Church in Corinth, where disarray and scandal were present and the community was threatened by internal division, the Holy Father taught. Instead of presenting himself with words or wisdom, Paul came proclaiming the “announcement of Christ crucified."

Benedict XVI then went on to highlight how "the 'stumbling block' and 'foolishness' of the Cross," of which St. Paul, speaks are to be found "in the fact that where there seemed to be only failure, suffering and defeat, there, in reality, is all the power of God's limitless Love."

In his First Letter to the Corinthians, Paul writes, "For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength." The Holy Father explained that the Apostle Paul identifies himself with Christ who loved him and gave himself up for his sins and for those of all. This, Pope Benedict continued, "becomes the paradigm for all of us."

In Paul's Second Letter to the Corinthians, the Pontiff unfolded the way that Paul applies Jesus’ sacrifice through an "admirable synthesis" of the theology of the Cross: Christ died for all and God has reconciled us with him. This "ministry of reconciliation" is relevant for our life, as we must also renounce our own "superiority" and choose love, the Pope said.

"St. Paul renounced his own life and committed himself totally to the ministry of reconciliation, of the Cross which is salvation for us all, Pope Benedict said as he concluded his teaching on St. Paul. “This is something we must also do. We can find our strength in the humility of love and our wisdom in the weakness to renounce, thus to enter into the strength of God. ... We have to mold our lives on this true wisdom, not living for ourselves, but living in faith in the God of Whom we can all say: 'He loved me and gave Himself for me'."