Posted on 11/23/2004 9:07:40 AM PST by Stubborn
Father Michael Muller was one of the most widely read theologians of the 19th Century. He ranks as one of the greatest defenders of the dogma “Outside the Church there is no salvation” in modern times. Father Muller always submitted his works to two Redemptorist theologians and to his religious superiors before publication, thus we are sure of the doctrinal soundness of his teachings. This article, first published in 1875, is one of the finest treatments of the doctrinal truth that Our Lord founded one true Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. Father Muller’s firm writings are desperately needed in our time when this doctrine is denied by those who are the most influential members of our Holy Church. We publish Father Muller’s excellent little Catechism as an antidote to the prevalent religious indifferentism — an indifferentism that is the direct result of what Blessed Pius IX denounced as “Liberal Catholicism”.
I am a deacon in a Baptist church. My allegiance is to the church that is the Body of Christ. The Baptist church, being an organization of men, is not worthy of the faith that I have in Christ.
That being said, +Cyprian did advocate a strong Papacy, but he also advocated that the laity appoint and depose bishops, and that all bishops have the same authority.
And every one of us is equally corrupt, interpret the Bible in our own corrupt way -- including your views on the Church. Christ established the Church, gave His authority to the Apostles who, in turn give it to their bishops. You and I don't have that authority. The Protestant churches are not churches because they lack the authority to be churches.
If the Church were made up of saints it would be free of corruption; but it's made up of sinful humans. Jesus did not come to save the righteous, but the sinful. Your view seems to suggest that individually we are somehow free of corruption, but the Church is corrupt because of "others." That is a very lame excuse.
MarMema: "A favorite point of mine as well"
There was no Church then. Salvation is God's prerogative. To assume that God has no other ways of saving people is to be arrogant and Adamesque. The idea is that God gave us a Church after He left the earth as a means of salvation. How God handles those who are not aware of Him or who do not know the Gospels is something known only but to God, and we should not concern ourselves with that.
Those of us who know His teachings should concentrate on following them.
As long as one can repent, one has the potential for salvation.
Yes of course I agree with all you said. But what is Adamesque, please?
Adamesque, MarMema, is our attitude that we know as well if not better than God does: pride.
"If, for instance, the church I belong to embraced homosexuality, then I would be forced to separate myself from that church. That would have no effect on my membership in the Church that is the Body of Christ.
I know that I, as an individual, am corrupt; which is why I know that the organizations of men are equally as corrupt."
But you see, your understanding of "church" is that it is an organization of men while the "Body of Christ" is something else. This is not what the Orthodox or the Roman Catholics believe. We believe that the "Church" is the Body of Christ and its iconic representation on earth is the local bishop surrounded by his people and clergy in a Eucharistic community. The mystical fullness of the Church is found locally, but throughout the world, bishops and their flocks in communion with each other by sharing a common Eucharist form the visible "Body of Christ", organized under the bishops, metropolitans and Patriarchs with the Patriarch of the West, the Pope, ideally the living symbol of the unity of the Church and the first among equals. This structure is divinely ordained for the appropriate and Orthodox teaching of the Faith and the theosis, not only of the people but in fact the entire Creation. This is what the Church always and everywhere has taught, from the days of St. Ignatius of Antioch who was named Bishop of Antioch by St. Peter.
Individuals within the Church, from the hierarchs on down, may be corrupt, but the Church, the Bride of Christ, is incorruptible. For us the Church (not the church) and the Body of Christ are the same thing.
Christ's true Church, while imperfect because we are imperfect, will never embrace homosexuality. If your church does, it is not the true Church.
That is why I am not Catholic.
There is a difference between my local "church" and the "Church" I refer to as the "Body of Christ" for clarity. The Body of Christ will never embrace homosexuality. I do not believe that my local church will either; but I know that as an organization of men, it can be corrupted.
Just as my local church can be led in the wrong path by men who are not doing God's will, I believe that the early Catholic church was corrupted. The true Body of Christ is still intact and alive in the collective body of believers that have not embraced the false god of the "Church".
"That is why I am not Catholic."
I assume you mean Roman. Same hold true for Eastern Orthodox?
I am a Baptist
"I am a Baptist"
Oh, I know. Why? I am asking sincerely. No tricks, I promise.
After studying my Bible, I found the doctrine of the Southern Baptist Convention, as stated in the Baptist Faith and Message, to be scripturally sound. While I do not claim that the SBC is the only denomination that is scripturally sound in their doctrine, it is the one that I am most comfortable with.
"After studying my Bible, I found the doctrine of the Southern Baptist Convention, as stated in the Baptist Faith and Message, to be scripturally sound."
When you studied your Bible, upon what did you base whatever conclusions you came to in determining what the Bible is saying in order to use it as a measure against the Baptist Faith and Message?
"While I do not claim that the SBC is the only denomination that is scripturally sound in their doctrine, it is the one that I am most comfortable with."
Fair enough, but might it not be more important to determine if their doctrine were true rather than if you were comfortable with it? What I mean is, if a church were to teach something that made you comfortable, but was nevertheless untrue, would that still be ok? If not, how does one tell if the doctrine being advanced is true?
I'm not trying to be a sophist here at all. Thanks for any response.
And exactly where in scripture does it say that only the pope can interpret scripture? You realize of course that the best way to keep the great unwashed blind and ignorant is to make them believe that only a select few can understand what the scriptures say .... and therefore, everybody else better not attempt to read it at all.
Ah, if this matters to you ... the "church" is the body of believers according to the Bible. Try reading the Bible sometime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.