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”.

[deaconjim]

Yes, this is the Faith and Message to which I referred. We do see scripture as the supreme judge of our faith (the F&M is not a creed).

Allow me to pose a question. If I were a Catholic, and my studies of the scriptures led me to a different interpretation than that of the Pope, what must I do?

[deaconjim]

I certainly do not deny the history of the Church. That is, of course, why I am not Catholic.

I do believe that the Apostles knew more than a bunch of 21st century Southern Baptists, but I also believe they know more than a bunch of 21st century Catholics.

When I read my Old Testament, I can see how the church established by Moses was corrupted by the time Jesus arrived on the scene. He had little regard for their rules and traditions. It is my firm belief that he has the same opinion of the rules and traditions of the Catholic Church.

[Kolokotronis]

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

Well, with the Roman Church's interpretation of it. But fair enough! You are an RC, after all.

[pachomi33]

I did know you weren't trying to evoke a reaction.
But I thnik that reducing salvation to imputation- and focusing upon one possible interpretation of Romans 5:12-21 neglects the testimony of the other scriptures in regard to this and just as importantly, neglects the fact that no Christian really professed that doctrine till the Reformation. Augustine started this interpretation but it was because he had a bad translation of the Greek text (he could only read Latin). The Orthodox understanding of the fathers of the church is that Adam's disobedience was the cause for our mortality- death passed upon all men- which leads to sin- the cause of our judgment -for the sting of death is sin not vice versa. It is not strictly true to state that His righteousness is imputed to us, anymore than Adam's sins are laid upon me. I suffer the consequences of his disobedience being his offspring. To keep from going too far to the right or left we must look to the Church to keep us from our prejudices
God bless

[pachomi33]

As an Orthodox Christian I do disagree with the Pope. He is unorthodox. The standard for arriving at a right interpretation of the scripture is 1. the dogma of the church as defined in the 7 councils appointed by the Holy Spirit with their respective canons 2. The consensus of the orthodox fathers 3. the liturgy- we believe what we pray 4. the unwrittten traditon passed from the Apostles (eg instructions on invocation of the Holy Spirit in the Liturgy over the gifts as St. Basil said)These are the basic guideposts to keep from hermeneutical ditches. Like I said the scriptures do teach the Orthodox understanding of the scriptures, but before you can interpret it you must have the mind of Christ- phronema in GK.- which is the mind of the church. The Church has never lost it's mind :) it always keeps in mind the thoughts of those lying reposed in communion with her ands asks for their help. It has never been severed from her Head and He continues to lead to the truth through His bishops, priests and laity collectively.
God bless

[deaconjim]

Is it not possible to interpret scripture with the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

[Pio]

"And exactly where in scripture does it say that only the pope can interpret scripture? "

The Roman Catholic Church established the canon of scripture...it did not drop out of the sky.

I mean....I'm glad you read the scriptures...but you seem to forget that it is an original publication of the Roman Catholic Church...the one that happened to be headed by a Pope in Rome...the Pope is a successor of Peter whom Christ appointed as head.

I have a 1914 Douay Rheims Bible that contains a Papal indulgence if you read scripture for 30 minutes each day.....who is not supporting Bible reading?

Now you Protestants hate indulgences....what do you think of that one?

[Kolokotronis]

"Is it not possible to interpret scripture with the guidance of the Holy Spirit?"

Well yes, of course it is. But here's the difference. It is not up to you or me to interpret the scripture, or for that matter, up to Fr. Ted, or Archbishop Demetrios, or Patriarch Alexios or Pope John Paul II, but rather up to the Church as the sydesmos of the the Laity (the Laos tou Theou, the People of God), the clergy and the hierarchy together in an Ecumenical Council of the Eucharistic Community which is the Church. Indeed, most Ecumenical Council proclamations state "It seemed correct to us and the Holy Spirit".... You will find that we Orthodox and generally Roman Catholics talk a lot about the "Fathers of the Church". These holy men did not write infallibly for the Church, but rather wrote on theological questions which in many instances became the dogma (doctrine) of the Christian Faith because the same was adopted by the Church in Ecumenical Councils and accepted by the Body of Christ. Their holy writings explain and place in both Biblical and social context the meaning and origin of the dogmas of the Church. Not everything these men wrote was necessarily correct theologically and in many instances was downright wrong. But it is the mind of the One Church, which is the mind of Christ as pachomi points out, which always teaches the correct interprtetation. Otherwise, we would have the Church of Kolokotronis, or Pachomi or Deacon Jim and not the One Church.

[Kolokotronis]

"As an Orthodox Christian I do disagree with the Pope. He is unorthodox."

Well, a bit overly broad, wouldn't you say? A more "nuanced" (isn't it a shame what the recent political campaign did to such a fine word!) approach is more appropriate. Clearly the office of Pope is completely Orthodox and +JPII is certainly introducing a more Orthodox phronema to the Latin Church both in ecclesiology and theology. The increasing liturgical contacts between Rome and Constantinople speak volumes on this.

[Pio]

"I prefer the original protestants. "

Understatement of the century.

I'm not so sure what % of American Bishop are in communion with Rome when they regularly flout Rome's liturgical guidance..when they favor female ordination and same sex unions...and turn a blind eye to abortion loving politicians.

I'm pretty sure the Bishops who issued the Baltimore Catechism were in communion with Rome....their passing from this earth did not abrograte that communion.

Sorry, Charlie, I won't have homosexual apostates (Levada, Cawcutt, Mahoney, Weakland, McCarrick, Egan,etc etc etc) forced down my throat..that they suit you is okay by me...you can call yourself Catholic too...

[Kolokotronis]

"I'm not so sure what % of American Bishop are in communion with Rome when they regularly flout Rome's liturgical guidance..when they favor female ordination and same sex unions...and turn a blind eye to abortion loving politicians."

Makes it pretty hard for we Orthodox to have any in depth discussions with the American branch of the Roman Church too. But we'll keep trying, I suppose. The EP and the Pope want us to. Maybe they hope we can pull Rome's chestnuts out of the fire over here!

[Tantumergo]

"You make an interesting point. The verb in question "thoso" (long O, long O") is a momentary future form. It means that something will happen at a discrete moment in the future. The only other time there is any mention of the power to bind or loose is 2 chapters later when all the apostles get that power together. As far as I know, there is no other mention of the keys as in when Christ actually does give the keys to Peter alone."

I thought the verb in question was "doso" not "thoso", but then I will readily admit that my grasp of Greek is at best rudimentary (crap in fact ;-)), and will bow to your knowledge of your ancestral vernacular!

However, I do not question in the least that Jesus is referring to an event that will happen in the future. Simply because Jesus had not yet come into His Kingdom and therefore had not yet "obtained the keys" Himself to give to Peter, or any other apostle for that matter. Jesus Himself would only fully receive that authority after His death and resurrection when all things were put under His feet.

Although the grammar may not reveal it, the passage from Matt 18 is similarly referring to an event that will happen in the future. We see this fulfilled in John's Gospel with Christ's post-resurrection appearance to the apostles where He breathes on them and empowers them to forgive and retain sins.

It is interesting that you should see in the power of "binding and loosing", that the donation of "the keys" is an implicit part of this. While the two are obviously closely connected, we see them as being separate issues - "the keys" being the authority to govern the house of God on behalf of its King - determining who will and who will not have citizenship - while the "binding and loosing" relates to the forgiveness of sins. The first we see specifically entrusted to Peter, whereas the second is given to all the twelve.

It seems improbable that if Jesus had intended to give "the keys" to all twelve that He would have used the singular second person pronoun to Peter in the presence of the rest! We see this singular appointment of Peter being fulfilled at the end of John's Gospel when Christ commissions him alone as the Chief Shepherd of His flock.

Nevertheless we do not see Peter's position as precluding lively debate and disagreement among the successors of the apostles. Nor does it negate St. Ignatius' ecclesiology that "Where the bishop is , there is the Catholic Church." We see the Church as being simultaneously both universal and local - a compenetrating reality in which ideally there should never be a conflict between the two.

I realise that we will have different understandings of these passages, because ultimately this issue is the major stumbling block in the way of communion between East and West. If this issue didn't exist I suspect full communion could be achieved relatively quickly.

However, it would help us to appreciate your position better if you could give us a clearer understanding of what you mean by "Primacy of Honour". To us that has the ring of a "lame-duck president" i.e. nice to have but no effective use to anybody!

You may think that we have a Patriarch who claims too much jurisdiction, but perhaps we think that you have a Pope who has too little. :)

P.S.:

"As an interesting aside, +John Paul II is mandating a renewal of the concept of a Eucharistic Community as the image of the Church right now, I believe."

There was a meeting of the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs a few days ago which could presage a dramatic change along the lines you suggest.

[Tantumergo]

"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."

As far as I'm concerned, he was truly prophetic in identifying the attack on EENS as one of the greatest threats to the Church - I have certain sympathies with his position.

My understanding is that he went too far, though. If you feel that his true position has been misrepresented, then I would certainly be interested to hear why.

[deaconjim]

That requires me to put my faith in men rather than Christ. I'm sorry, but that is not an option.

[pachomi33]

I did not mean to give the impression or characterization of HH as a heretick- such I did not aver. Perhaps a more accurate word would be schismatic. I think if he speaks the world should listen, but not without weighing it. He has said many fine- Orthodox things- of late. What is particularly refreshing with his Pontificate is the publication of the Cath. Catechism which abundantly relies upon the witness of the Eastern fathers to show their relevance to Catholic dogma, and perhaps provide a more Eastern flavor to Catholic spirituality.
He has made significant overtures to heal the breach between Est and West, and in a world where Moslems are eyeing us Christians his witness is needed (let's hope he doesn't kiss a Koran again however).

[Tantumergo]

"That requires me to put my faith in men rather than Christ."

The New Testament was written by such men - if you can have no faith in their word, then you have no faith in Christ anyway.

The apostles didn't exist in a vacuum - men they knew and taught like Timothy, Titus, Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius took up their mantle and carried on giving their lives for Christ's Church under fearsome persecution. They were succeeded by others who cherished what had been handed on. Their proximity to Christ and his apostles in time and space gives their words and legacy far greater weight than any 21st century modern who picks up a book and thinks he can understand what its all about from a distance of 2,000 years and numerous cultures.

[Rose of Sharn]

You are so very wrong.
Your "religion" requires men to list their sins to another human in the confessional. Why? I can talk to GOD anytime. We are all born sinners and He knows our wrongs. If I do wrong then I talk to God and ask His forgiveness. What makes a mortal man think he is entitled to give out punishment in Gods name? You are all SINNERS for thinking that you have the right to do so. God did not grant you that right. Ancient rules were placed to give CONTROL over man and you have twisted and turned Good Christian Faith until you think that you have the POWER to reign over people who have more faith than you do. I can talk to God anytime I want. I can listen to God anytime I want. I can live by His rules and by His judgement without any intereferance from a man in a dress. The Catholic faith is full of priests who are sinners in the worst form. Children are abused everyday by these "men" using their power in the church to do the devils work.
I pray for all of you catholics who feel the need to answer to anyone but GOD.

[pachomi33]

I understand exactly where DeaconJim is coming from in his concern for correct exegesis. Let me perhaps enter mind of a Protestant and his concerns with reference to my past. He sees the trustworthiness and scripture that the man of God can be perfect by it (2 Tim.3:16) And then someone says they should have submission to the mind of the fathers -something which is revulsive to them or some- because they don't want to even call anyone father (Cf.Mt.23:9- call no man father) To them this accumulation of interpretations is the tradition Jesus condemned (Mt.15)
This disdain for the opinions of repected ancient writers continues as long as corruption is perceived. And with the (seeming) multitude of opinions this only verifies it for them. That summarizes a discussion I had with a good friend about this.
What is important to understand about the fathers and the mind of the church are a few things. 1. The truth does not change- there is no development of doctrine or accumulation 2. the formulation of the truth does however change (eg Nicene creed to N. Constantinople creed)and becomes fixed to give clarity to thought and expression 3. understanding of the scripture is like any science it is progressive and foolish to go back to former understandings of something when a more plausible understanding of a passage is accepted. For instance the Orthodox church and Rome as well, accept unreservedly an amillenial interpretation of eschatology. When Christ returns- it is to judge the living and the dead whose kingdom shall have no end. No debate. But prior to the acceptance of the Creed premillenialism still had sway among extremists and even some good ascetics. In the mind of the Church it still was not clear- time had to sift out the possibilities and so the exegesis begins. The options are weighed- the fathers reason why from the scriptures it is not correct to teach premillenialism and then by the time of 381 it is accepted in the collective mind of the church that Christ has one single Parousia- not two stages.
Henceforth the Creed dogmatizes unreservedly that Christ's coming is the literal end of the world. This amillenial view is abundantly clear in scripture if one interprets the scriptures aright. But on the surface (as many teachings) it is not. MT.25:42-46 really seals it. Now this is a case where Augustine was a good influence. The publication of his City of God crystallized the amillenial view in the western church. His exegesis is right on the money with this. So this an an example of why we can trust the opinions of someone who prior to the clarification of a dogma held a contrary opinion. This view of exegesis allows history to make sense- and gives it purpose. The Holy Spirit is preserving Truth through the passage of time sanctifying it. He has preserved not just His Word as Protestants so ably commend, but the people who were inspired to write it and the correct interpretation of it. God is wonderful in His saints!
God bless

[deaconjim]

The New Testament was written by such men - if you can have no faith in their word, then you have no faith in Christ anyway.

Those men knew Christ, and their writings were inspired by God. There have been many, many Godly men in His service since then. None of them, however, are authorized to write or change the scriptures. We can see from the history of the Church since that time that the "Bishops" that are in the "lineage" of the apostles have not always been the most Godly of men, and have not always served Christ.

I reserve the right to interpret the scriptures for myself, trusting in the Holy Spirit to provide discernment and understanding. I trust my salvation only to Christ, and not to any mortal man.

[Stubborn]

There have been many, many Godly men in His service since then. None of them, however, are authorized to write or change the scriptures.

No offense intended but, if thats the case, then why are seven books of the OT missing from the Protestant Bible. They were there before the reformation.

I reserve the right to interpret the scriptures for myself

Please interpret 2Peter 1:20 and 3:16 for me since it sounds like a direct contradiction - to the Church as well as me.