Questions and Answers on Salvation

Catholic Family News ^ | first published in 1875 | Father Michael Muller, C.SS.R.

[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”.

[Stubborn]

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.

He did not say,"I will give all the apostles the keys", He said "I will give thee the keys" - present or future makes no difference.

[Stubborn]

Thats the plan. I gotta say that so far, the implications of uniting are great, but the reality of it seems pretty dismal IMHO, anyway, if all goes well, I hope to get through the rest of it before tomorrow night.

[Kolokotronis]

"He did not say,"I will give all the apostles the keys", He said "I will give thee the keys" - present or future makes no difference."

You are right, he didn't say he would give the keys to all the apostles, but don't fall into the trap of believing that the verb forms don't make a difference. Believe me, they really do in Greek. Misinterpretations of Greek words have lead to schisms and cross claims of heresy in the past and not just between the Latin and Greek speaking Churchs. The use of the future momentary tense makes a difference. What that difference is is where the rub lies.

[Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...]

LOL My guess is that you do many things very well - one of them ISN'T reading. LOL Now where exactly did I say what it appears you thought I was saying? In case you didn't notice, I was asking a question. Go back and check exactly what was posted by me.

[pachomi33]

"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."

Are you implying that this body is invisible- an invisible church? If it is just an invisible church how does it justify the meaning of ekklesia as an assembly?

"not based upon a bunch of rituals"
What of the OT? The Levitical cult was established by God and God expected observance and honored it even when it went sour.

"Disagree with God if it pleases you"
God forbid that I would ever want to disagree with the Holy Spirit- no one ever profited who was stiffnecked against Him
thanks and God bless

[deaconjim]

Again, I will ask you, upon what do you base your conclusions?

[bondserv]

In case you haven't noticed, Rome has been over-run with the enemy. As such, expect the enemy to contradict the teaching of the perennial magisterium at every opportunity while suppressing, twisting and belittling the authentic traditional teachings.

If I may be allowed to add my two cents?

This is precisely why we must keep Jesus Christ as the head of the church. We are members of His body. We are the temple of the Holy Spirit, as individuals. A personal relationship with Him is what Adam lost with his disobedience, which was reestablished for us by Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

Spending personal time with Him in a Cathedral or just as good, in a park, is what He desires. Mary, the sister of Martha, chose to sit at Christ's feet. In so doing she was transformed into a worker of the will of God, sacrificing her perfume to fulfill prophecy regarding the sweet smell Christ had on the cross. She got it because she was attentive in her relationship with Jesus, whereas Martha missed her opportunity being to overly busy to be transformed first, then work next.

Oh how the traditions of men come between us and our Lord. Be we transformed by the renewing of our minds and the washing of His Word.

God Bless you brother, and I pray your closeness to Jesus Christ becomes your priority in life!

[pachomi33]

Deacon is this the faith and message document you were referring to?
If so the statement on scripture is a good one. The difference lies in authority for us. However we don't believe that any discipline or dogma contradicts the scriptures so we would not see the scripture as the supreme judge of creeds etc; the scriptures are fruit of the revelation not the revelation itself, they testify to the truth.
this was from www.sbc.net
The Baptist Faith and Message

I. The Scriptures

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

Exodus 24:4; Deuteronomy 4:1-2; 17:19; Joshua 8:34; Psalms 19:7-10; 119:11,89,105,140; Isaiah 34:16; 40:8; Jeremiah 15:16; 36:1-32; Matthew 5:17-18; 22:29; Luke 21:33; 24:44-46; John 5:39; 16:13-15; 17:17; Acts 2:16ff.; 17:11; Romans 15:4; 16:25-26; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Hebrews 1:1-2; 4:12; 1 Peter 1:25; 2 Peter 1:19-21.

[kosta50]

"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."

The body of believers includes Gnostics and demons (James 2:19). They, like Protestants, lack Apostolic authority, which is what the Church was built on (Mt 16:19, 18:18) and there are those the Lord appoints in the Church (1 Cor 12:28), and in the Church not all are equal (1 Cor 14:3).

[kosta50]

Which part don't you understand, friend? Do I have to do your homework? The authority was given to the Apostles to preach to the four corners of the world in the name of Trinity. The authority was not given to a buch of believers. As I remined one another Freeper, gathering of believers includes Gnostics and demons -- does that make it a legitimate church?

Do you deny history of the Church? Do you deny that Apostles perhaps knew what the Church was about better than a bunch of 21st century Southern Baptists whose sect appeared out the outgrowth of Protestant newcomers to Americas in the 17th century, pretty much out of nowhere, and was organized into a "church" a little more than a century ago (1845 to be more exact)? Let me ask you -- what do you base your conclusions on? What "feels" right? Feels good, feels bad? That's very Freudinan as far as I am concerned.

[ladyinred]

If it were all the same to God whatever religion a person professes, God would not have forbidden, in the First Commandment, to worship Him in any other than in the true religion.

It doesn't say that!!!

[kosta50]

Scripture must be understood in the context of its purity at the time of the Pentecost, which is preserved by the teachings of the Church. The Scripture all by itself, especially in various translations from the original, is not a document free of error -- human error for sure -- that has created many a misunderstanding and schism. The reason why the Church (both East and West) remains relatively stable us because Scriptural "understanding" is not left up to "the church" but is a combined product of Apostolic teachinhg, worship and Holy Tradition. The reason why there are more than 33,000 Protestant sects and growing is because each (wo)man is his own "pope" interpreting [now, that's a stretch!] the Bible according to his or her own cultural, linguistic, educational and other backgrounds and prejudices -- invoking "feels good" as the supreme "authority" in deciding what is true and what is not.

[davidj]

Tantumergo - good to see you back!

Thank you for your reference. Unfortunately, as you may realise, the SSPX and the followers of Fr. Feeney don't exactly get on. In fact, here is their response to Fr. Laisney in book form on-line:

Father Feeney and the Truth About Salvation

which may provide more ammo to the argument. You can start to appreciate why I have never really made up my mind on this one...

[Stubborn]

LOL My guess is that you do many things very well - one of them ISN'T reading.

Well said.

[FormerLib]

He did not say,"I will give all the apostles the keys"...

But that is what He did when He gave them all the power to loose or bind.

[Stubborn]

You are right, he didn't say he would give the keys to all the apostles, but don't fall into the trap of believing that the verb forms don't make a difference.

Thats fine, but forget about the words for a moment and consider a simple argument, namely, the sequence of events, for example of the first 100 years after the keys were given to whoever.

There were five popes in the first 100 years. If the Church is wrong in declaring that St. Peter was the one who actually received the keys, then what is to be said of the first five popes? St. Peter (32-67), St. Linus (67-76), St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88), St. Clement I (88-97), and St. Evaristus (97-105) - can we honestly believe that it was screwed up from the get-go?

Regardless of verbs, nouns, adjectives etc., the *actions* speak volumes IMHO.

[Stubborn]

FWIW, the subject of Fr. Feeney might be a good one for a thread all its own, though I feel that he has been sufficiently smeared to the point that it would garner little participation and only serve to further alienate many trad folks here on the freep. - JMHO.

I only wish to say to the SSPX folks - you saw how they smeared and what they did to the good Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, they did what they did rather well - no? Well, they had experience. Consider what they did to the Archbishop was actually easier given the condition of the Church in the late 80's vs the early 50s.

When was the last time anyone good was not thoroughly and publicly dragged through the mud?

[Kolokotronis]

Perhaps I am missing the point of your post. The Orthodox would not question that there were five popes in Rome in the first 100 years of the Church or that +JP II is in the Apostolic Succession from St. Peter, or that St. Peter was the first in honor among the Apostles just as his successors are among the bishops and Patriarchs. There were also three bishops of Antioch, four of Alexandria (also called Pope), and two in Jerusalem. Rome and Antioch were established by St. Peter, who was the first bishop of each city, Alexandria by St. Mark and Jerusalem by St. James. In the early Church, the term Pope wasn't used at all. By the 5th century it had gained a certain amount of currency and was applied to the bishop of Rome, but it was also used for certain other bishops. The Patriarchial Sees of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria are all older than that of Rome. I'm now sure I've missed something in your post.

[Cvengr]

My post was not provided to cause reaction, rather it was responding out of fellowship to rejoice in Scriptural doctrine.

I have found seven imputations within Scripture. Two of those judicial and five real.

Just as an original sin or sin nature has been imputed upon all man since Adam, except for the second Adam who later had all sin imputed upon Him and Judged for those sins, likewise through faith, the same faith Christ has which is counted for righteousness, we have received an imputed righteousness which we never had before we exercised that faith.

God Bless

[Stubborn]

I guess my point was simply that I agree completely with the Church's interpretation re: post #177