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 know that it's a translation from the Latin Vulgate, that it was first published in 1812, (I have the 20 pound, 1880 edition), throughout the 1800's the best known Douay Rheims Bibles were known as "Haydock's Bibles" because of the powerful footnotes or commentary that was selected by Fr. Haydock to help the faithful to understand scripture according to the mind of the church. The footnotes or commentary originate from the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, writings and teachings of Saints and Catholic scholars, theologins etc.
There are 39 approbations (there might be more now, I don't know) from Cardinals, Bishops and Archbishops from all over the world. It has had the stamp of approval and praise for it's footnotes and commentary from the heirarchy of the Catholic Church and accurately reflects the teachings of the Church.
FWIW, J.F.K., the first Catholic president of the United States took his oath of office on a Haydock Bible.
As to whether or not its absolutely infallible, not in the sense you might be refering to, - simpy put: the footnotes and commentary exemplify what the Church has always taught.
Thanks for providing the Haydock Bible interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1 but unfortunately, it didn't answer the question that I posed which was: 'So in 2 Peter 2:1, when 'false teachers' are referred to, what 'organization' do these teachers belong to?'
Actually, it gave the appropriate interpretation *for that verse*. If you were looking for a specific name like "Jehovah's Witness" or "Baptist" etc., for that particular Scripture, it only said "many more were to follow" without specifically prophesying because thats what that particular Scripture meant.
I think this is it - is it?
"You seem to be saying, that in the time of the old law, men could read the natural law written on their hearts by God, and at least believe in him, and serve him according to this natural law. In doing so, they could avoid ending up with Cain in hell, and therefore, be saved - without water baptism and outside the Church in the formal sense. Is the correct, or does this contradict the proclamations of the Church regarding EENS?
This is correct and in no way contradicts EENS, simply because the New Law is the fulfilment of the old, not a contradiction."
Prior to Christ's Passion, death, resurrection and ascension, none can be said to have been truly saved, as Christ had not as yet broken open the gates of Hades and opened the gates of Heaven to allow entry of the human nature into the presence of God in His glory.
The righteous dead of the Old Covenant era were consigned to sheol/hades, awaiting the "harrowing of hell" by Christ on Holy Saturday. The only possible exceptions to this that we know of from Scripture are Elijah and Enoch. Elijah in his assumption into heaven in the fiery chariot is a type of the Blessed Virgin.
David, one of the best treatments I have seen of EENS is a book by Fr. Laisney of the SSPX. It is available as an online book here:
http://www.sspx.org/books/Is_Feeneyism_Catholic.pdf
It should download quite quickly if you have broadband and only takes 40 mins. to read.
Let me ask you: what makes your church a church?
I'll answer your question, if you'll answer mine. ; )
Actually, we are a church because we are followers of Christ who have joined together as a family to minister to each other and to take the message of salvation to the lost. Our common bond is our fellowship with the Lord and our obedience to the Great Commission.
You found it! Good for you. We all had a wonderful time discussing the views of The Church in the East and The Church in the West. Mostly its Orthodox and Romans in the discussion. Give it a read and ping me! I think we all did a pretty good job.
This is what I was looking for. Deacon, has pachomi correctly stated the methodology of the protestants? If so, and with this methodology in mind, whose writings did you use to measure your interpretation (sacred writers)of those Biblical doctrines against which you measured Baptist doctrine.
I'll presume to answer your question to Kosta for him. Kosta's post wherein he defined the Church is from the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch. He was the third bishop of Antioch and was appointed by St. Peter. Even as early as 90 AD he was writing on the nature of the Church and the Christian Community. He wrote extensively on the Eucharist, on the unity of the Church through the Eucharist and on Church order. He is remembered for his definition of the Church:
"Where the Bishop is, let the people be, just as where Christ is, there is the catholic Church"
He used the Greek words "katholicos ecclesias" universal church. From this very early time, from the words of a man appointed to his see by St. Peter himself, we witness what the Church believed as to its visible structure. Reading St. Ignatius is particularly important since his writings demonstrate what the Church has always believed about the necessity of Eucharistic unity and structural order. From the beginning the Church has never believed that it could exist outside the framework of the apostolic succession of bishops and the celebration of the Eucharist which is the very body and blood of Christ (not a memorial).
And this being the future tense means that He had not done so but all of the Apostles are present when He does and they all receive equally.
Under what authority? Christ gave that authority (and mission) to his Apostles (Mat 18:18) and not the entire church. The Apostles were the only ones who could transfer their authority to people of their choice -- the bishops, and the bishops, in turn, to other bishops. This unbroken line of authority exists only the the Orthodox and Catholic Rites of the Universal Church.
1 Cor 12:28 clearly states that the church is not simply a collection of followers of Christ, but of people specially appointed by our Lord, and that some are "higher" than others (1 Cor 14:5).
I am asking you again, what makes your church a Church if you have no Apostolic authority? Kolkotronis correctly reminded you that not only tradition but historical perspective is paramount in understanding what the people who were alive when Jesus was around understood the Chruch to be: the Church is where the Apostle (or Apostle's successor -- a bishop) is. Our Lord made His Church -- Apostolic. Those "churches" that have no Apostolic authority are not churches by biblical definition.
"According to the Bible the "church" IS the body of believers and not based upon a bunch of rituals. You belief whatever you wish. Disagree with God if it pleases you."
Well, as far as it goes, your statement is correct, but that is not what Kosta has said and your statement is too "generic". Until the rise of protestantism in the Middle Ages, the Church in the East and the Church in the West, and prior to 1054 the Universal Church, believed that the Church was defined by the Eucharistic Community which was the bishop and his flock joined together by the Eucharist. These Eucharistic local communities were joined together worldwide by profession of the same faith and in sharing the same sacraments. From before the year 100 AD, the Church taught the office and role of bishop. The sacramental rituals and the Divine Liturgies taught and exemplified the correct faith by the correct worship (Ortha Doxa). The Divine Liturgies of the Church assured the continuation of the Eucharistic Community since it is within the Divine Liturgies that the Eucharist is celebrated and the True Faith taught. The idea that the Church can in anyway be defined as existing outside of a Eucharistic Community with bishops in the Apostolic Succession is a protestant, unbiblical innovation from the Middle Ages and later. When you read your Bible to say otherwise, you are ignoring the clearly expressed beliefs of the very people who decided just what the canon of the NT would be. Does it make any sense at all that the people who decided what the canon of the NT would be could have been wrong about what The Church is for 2100 years, or that certain protestant divines of the 16th century finally figured out what they apparently would have us believe the men who had learned from the Apostles themselves never could fathom?
The link you supplied from Fr. Laisney is filled with many of the same inaccuracies that were present in his first edition.
Good thing, I read the first 50 so far. So far so good:-)
Keep reading; it gets better!
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.