Dear stchadwick,

You said:

“Our world is comprised of a different dynamic today and one has to live out and share their beliefs differently than in times of the past.”

“Even if that was her original reason, she may have realized it just wasnt a very plausible thing for her to be able to do.”

“Her understanding of her mission may have been better understood once she saw the changing dynamic of how one should share ones faith with another because of the pluralistic world we live in.”

“That changing dynamic I alluded to has more to do with having to change how we may be the most successful in getting conversions.”

“One probably wont be as successful preaching, like in centuries past, by going to a foreign land of nonchristians as the apostles did.”

Regarding these quotes, your thinking is incorrect in two areas.

First, I see you adopting the 19th century liberal mentality about missiology. That approach was based on a disbelief of the biblical text and the traditional approach. Those churches that adopted that approach are now banks and bars. You are correct that God does the converting and that is why we do not monkey with the message or the manner in which the message is conveyed. St. Paul said:

“How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things (Rom. 10:14-15)?”

The children of Adam have not changed, and they are in desperate need of salvation.

Second, Mother Teresa did preach. The problem is not that she did not preach but many times what she did preach was heresy and blasphemy. No matter how sincere and correct Mother Teresa was on other issues, when she was asked by unbelievers if she had come to their country to convert them and she told them that she converts them to be a better whatever they are, she was committing treason against the Lord. She said:

“I do convert. I convert you to be a better Hindu, a better Catholic, Muslim, Jain, or Buddhist” (Mother Teresa: The Case for The Cause, 4),

For a Christian to do such an act is also idolatry. I would hope that all who read that quote of Mother Teresa and call on the name of Christ who would rather die than to ever profess and bless what she said as the truth of God. May the Lord have mercy on her!

You have many other errors in your post but I must comment on your last sentence. You said:

“I believe this is a major factor in why the Church teaches that other faiths may be saved, but it is ultimately still only through the Catholic Church.”

No the Church infallibly teaches the opposite. Rome has spoken:

“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; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441).

There is no salvation outside the Gospel of Christ. That is the Catholic faith taught everywhere, always, and by all.

Dear stchadwick,

You said:

Saints were criticized in their lives especially starting in their beatification processes. But that time for Mother has ended. It comes down to the fact that the Church has spoken and any criticism of Mother now becomes a criticism of the Church. She has much more info and better insight of her life than either one of us. We either follow Her or we don't.

Rome has spoken the case is closed? No!

Rome has spoken when she speaks infallibly. If criticisms come after Rome had canonized Mother Teresa then you may have a point. Beatification is not an infallible act of the Church. Therefore, Rome has not spoken.

I spent four years researching and writing the only book in print that examines Mother Teresa’s words and deeds in light of the Catholic faith, her virtues and vices. I am well qualified to render an opinion about the suitability of canonizing Mother Teresa. Your objections are addressed in the first chapter of my book. I sought council with many priests before writing the book and every priest who has read the book has praised it highly. One former sister of the MCs read the book and said I was very fair to Mother Teresa. The book is more than a book about Mother Teresa. The book serves as a manual for knowing the qualifications for canonization.

Mark,

From the movies I've seen of her life, other faiths there seemed convinced that Mother's presence there was to convert them. Even if that was her original reason, she may have realized it just wasnt a very plausible thing for her to be able to do. Her ammo may have then been like St Francis and to preach and sometimes use words. If she had continued to try and convert people, I believe she would have eventually been martyred and that may not have been her calling, but rather in simplicity to see Jesus in everyone she saw, especially in the lowest and the forgotten. Her understanding of her mission may have been better understood once she saw the changing dynamic of how one should share ones faith with another because of the pluralistic world we live in. She shared Christ by an example of her actions, the rest was up to the Holy Spirit. That changing dynamic I alluded to has more to do with having to change how we may be the most successful in getting conversions. One probably wont be as successful preaching, like in centuries past, by going to a foreign land of nonchristians as the apostles did. But because of a changing demographic of so many varied belief systems, that is why I believe one has to take a different approach to be the most successful in obtaining conversions, especially in countries comprised mainly of nonchristians. We dont do the converting, the Holy Spirit does. We are a mere instrument. I believe this is a major factor in why the Church teaches that other faiths may be saved, but it is ultimately still only through the Catholic Church.

Dear stchadwick,

You said:

“So Mark, how realistic is it that Mother Teresa would go to a country with so many Hindus and expect to make them better Catholics?”

Drop the “better” and you will have the idea. Spreading the Gospel is the missionary mandate of the Church (CCC, 849) and certainly something Mother Teresa wanted to do. Mother Teresa said:

“All souls need to be converted” (Mother Teresa: The Case for The Cause, 45).

You said:

“Our world is comprised of a different dynamic today and one has to live out and share their beliefs differently than in times of the past.”

True, today we have more sinners, so we need more preaching of the Gospel.

You said:

“I don't believe Mother's first thoughts in going to India was to convert all those nonbelievers; rather she mainly recognized a call that had more to do with the many poor and miserable souls that were dying in the street completely alone. That is what she was about and has a lot less to do with having a religious agenda.”

Mother Teresa would be very vexed at this comment. Mother Teresa was very explicit:

“I came to India solely with the hope of saving many souls and to gain a Martyr’s palm” (Come Be My Light, 92).

“There are millions who live in Indian cities and villages in ignorance of God and of Christ, in abominable sinfulness. We shall bring them to Christ and Christ to them” (Come Be My Light, 116).

She hated the thought of being called a social worker. Mother Teresa said:

“We are not social workers, though we do social work” (Mother Teresa: The Case for The Cause, 139).

You said:

“Saints of the past were often criticized in their lifetimes for some things they did, so this isnt as unprecedented as you assume.”

True, Saints, or in this case a Blessed, have been criticized. They were criticized for fidelity to the faith. What is important for the Church to discern now is if Mother Teresa deserves the same criticism.

So Mark, how realistic is it that Mother Teresa would go to a country with so many Hindus and expect to make them better Catholics? Our world is comprised of a different dynamic today and one has to live out and share their beliefs differently than in times of the past. I don't believe Mother's first thoughts in going to India was to convert all those nonbelievers; rather she mainly recognized a call that had more to do with the many poor and miserable souls that were dying in the street completely alone. That is what she was about and has a lot less to do with having a religious agenda. Saints of the past were often criticized in their lifetimes for some things they did, so this isnt as unprecedented as you assume.