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]

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

Where is the contradiction? It seems pretty straightforward to me.

[Tantumergo]

"Your "religion" requires men to list their sins to another human in the confessional. Why? I can talk to GOD anytime."

Next time you are advising Jesus on the correct way to set up His Church, be sure to tell Him that He blew it big time when He said the following:

Jn 20,21 "Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." And when He said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. WHOSE SINS YOU FORGIVE ARE FORGIVEN THEM, AND WHOSE SINS YOU RETAIN ARE RETAINED."

It isn't just the Catholic Church which celebrates the Sacrament of Penance. ALL Churches which are descended from the apostles have this Sacrament - the Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, Armenians, Copts, even the Nestorians.

Its only you johnny-come-latelies who would take the Cross out of Christianity for the sake of a comfortable life who have abandoned the precious mysteries which were given by Christ Himself.

Sure, we have far too many evil priests, but all their evil combined is not enough to outweigh the grace of the Holy Spirit acting through a single good confession.

[Stubborn]

Thanks for the confirmation. IOW, do not privately interpret Scripture.

[Kolokotronis]

"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! "

Ah, Deacon. I get to play teacher! In Greek, the letter we call in English "Delta" is actually pronounced "Thelta", with a "th" sound. The "D" sound in Greek is designated by two Greek letters "NT". The "B" sound is not made by the Greek letter "Beta" but rather by the Greek letters "M" and "Pi" (which this post will not allow me to show but which looks like the symbol in the equation for the circumference of a circle). Beta sounds like the English letter V. In any case, I think "doso" is a Japanese word!

Your comments on the relevance of the use of the future momentary in Matthew is interesting...it also makes sense theologically. As you know, Orthodoxy does not reject the Papacy at all. Clearly St. Peter was the First among the apostles and it is appropriate, as the Ecumenical Councils make clear, that his successor, the Pope of Rome be the First among the bishops. What being first means is where the problem arises.

"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!"

Well, we sure don't mean lame duck! Following is an Agreed Statement (from the SCOBA Website) of the Orthodox hierarchs here in America and the American Roman Catholic Bishops meeting with the permission and authority of Rome and at least the Patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria, Antioch, Belgrade, Sofia, and Bucharest, as well as the Church of Albania, the OCA and the Carpatho-Russians in October 1989. I thnik it lays out the current view on the Papacy from the Orthodox viewpoint quite well, certainly better than I could.

"For the past three years, the Orthodox/Roman Catholic Consultation in the United States of America has been studying questions related to the theology and practice of councils and to the exercise of primacy in our churches. Our papers and discussions prompted the following reflections, which we now offer in the hope that they will advance the work of the international Orthodox/Roman Catholic dialogue, and the wider relations among the churches, as they have advanced our own understanding of these issues.

1. In both Orthodox and Roman Catholic theology, the Church is the mystery of God-given unity among human beings, who are bound together by their faith in the risen Lord and by the transforming gift of the Holy Spirit into the divine and human fellowship (koinonia) we call the Body of Christ (I Cor 12.13). Joined by the Holy Spirit to the Son in his loving obedience to the Father's will, the Church manifests redeemed creation within the embrace of the Triune reality of God, calling God "Abba! Father!" by the gift of the Spirit of his Son (Gal 4.6), as it strives towards the fullness of his Kingdom.

2. Individual human persons become sharers in this mystery through sharing in the Church's profession of the apostolic faith and through baptism "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt 28.19). "Born" there into the Church's life "by water and the Holy Spirit" (John 3.5), they may now "consider themselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus" (Rom 6.11). So the Church, in its most extensive and inclusive sense, genuinely comprises all those who profess the apostolic faith and are baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, recognizing them as "fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God" (Eph 2.19).

3. When it gathers, under the life-giving impulse of the Holy Spirit, to celebrate in the Eucharist the Son's "obedience unto death" (Phil. 2.8) and to be nourished by participation in his risen life, the Church most fully expresses what, in God's order of salvation, it is: an assembly of faithful human persons who are brought into communion by and with the persons of the Holy Trinity, and who look forward to the fulfillment of that communion in eternal glory. So the clearest human reflection of the Church's divine vocation is the Christian community united to celebrate the Eucharist, gathered by its common faith, in all its variety of persons and functions, around a single table, under a single president (proestos), to hear the Gospel proclaimed and to share in the sacramental reality of the Lord's flesh and blood (Ignatius, Eph 5.2-3; Philad. 4), and so to manifest those gathered there as "partakers of the divine nature" (II Pet 1.4). "If you are the Body of Christ and his members," proclaims St. Augustine, "your divine mystery is set on the table of the Lord; you receive your own mystery...Be what you see and receive what you are." (Serm. 272)

4. The mystery of Christ's Church, in its fullness, is therefore most directly and clearly encountered in the Eucharistic community. Each local Church, recognized in its celebration of the Eucharist, is a full sacramental realization of the one Church of Christ, provided it remains within the full apostolic faith and is bound in love and mutual recognition to the other communities who profess that faith. The Church in each place expresses its participation in the universal Church through its celebration of the one Eucharist and in its concern for the worldwide spread of the Gospel and for the welfare and right faith of its sister communities, as well as in its prayer for their needs and the needs of the world.

5. United with Christ and within itself by the divine gifts of faith and love and by the other charisms and sacramental events which enliven it, the Church is also "set in order," as St. Basil reminds us, "by the Holy Spirit." (On the Holy Spirit 39) This ordering of charisms within the community is the basis of the Church's structure, and the reason why permanent offices of leadership have been divinely established within the Eucharistic body, since apostolic times, as a service of love and a safeguard of unity in faith and life. Thus the same Spirit who unites the Church in a single universal Body also manifests his presence in the institutions which keep local communities in an ordered and loving communion with one another.

6. The two institutions, mutually dependent and mutually limiting, which have exercised the strongest influence on maintaining the ordered communion of the Churches since apostolic times, have been the gathering of bishops and other appointed local leaders in synods, and the primacy or recognized preeminence of one bishop among his episcopal colleagues.

a. Synods - whether held at the provincial, national or universal level, whether standing bodies (such as thesynodos endemousa of the Ecumenical Patriarchate), regularly convened gatherings, or extraordinary meetings called to meet some historic crisis - are the faithful community's chief expression of the "care for all the Churches" which is central to every bishop's pastoral responsibility, and of the mutual complementarity of all the Body's members.

b. Primacy - whether that of the metropolitan within his province, or that of a patriarch or presiding hierarchy within a larger region - is a service of leadership that has taken many forms throughout Christian history, but that always should be seen as complementary to the function of synods. It is the primate (protos) who convenes the synod, presides over its activities, and seeks, together with his colleagues, to assure its continuity in faith and discipline with the apostolic Church: yet it is the synod which, together with the primate, gives voice and definition to the apostolic tradition. It is also the synod which, in most Churches, elects the primate, assists him in his leadership, and holds him to account for his ministry in the name of the whole Church (Apostolic Canons 34).

7. The particular form of primacy among the Churches exercised by the bishops of Rome has been and remains the chief point of dispute between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, and their chief obstacle to full ecclesial communion with each other. Disagreement has often centered on the way in which the leadership exercised by Peter in expressing and confirming the faith of the other disciples (Matt 16.17f.; Lk 22.32; John 21.15-19) is to be realized in Church life. The Orthodox have emphasized that the role of Peter within the apostolic college is reflected principally in the role of the church. Roman Catholics have claimed for the bishops of Rome, since the fourth century, not only the first place in honor among their episcopal colleagues but also the "Petrine" role of proclaiming the Church's apostolic tradition and of ensuring the observation of canonical practices.

As our Consultation has suggested in its earlier statement, "Apostolicity as God's Gift in the Life of the Church" (1986; par. 12), "There is no intrinsic opposition between these two approaches." The Orthodox do accept the notion of universal primacy, speaking of it as a "primacy of honor" accorded to a primus inter pares; at the same time, they cannot accept an understanding of the role of the primate which excludes the collegiality and interdependence of the whole body of bishops, and in consequence continue to reject the formulation of Papal primacy found in Vatican I's constitution Pastor Aeternus. Engaged since the Second Vatican Council in further development of the doctrine of Papal primacy within the context of a collegially responsible episcopate (see especially Lumen Gentium 22-23), the Roman Catholic Church is presently seeking new forms of synodal leadership which will be compatible with its tradition of effective universal unity in faith and practice under the headship of the bishop of Rome.

8. The fullest synodal expression of the Church's universal reality is the gathering of bishops from various parts of the world in "ecumenical council," to deal with questions of urgent and universal importance by clarifying and defining the "ecumenical" faith and practice of the apostolic tradition (see the statement of the International Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, "The Sacrament of Order in the Sacramental Structure of the Church" [New Valamo, 1988] 54). The Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches agree in recognizing the seven great councils of the early Church as ecumenical in character and import. Because the circumstances of their convocation, their preparation and membership, and the process of their subsequent recognition by the Churches vary, history offers us no single juridical model of conciliar structure as normative. Still, the acceptance of the binding authority of certain councils by the apostolic churches in worldwide communion - however and whenever that acceptance becomes clear - constitutes for the whole Body of Christ an event of charismatic unity at the highest level. It is in the reception of a common faith, especially as that faith is formulated by the ecumenical councils, that the Churches experience most authentically the unity in the Lord that is the foundation of Eucharistic communion."

Please note the emphasis on what the Church is and the Eucharist. Very current isn't it? But then again, and this is for our protestant brethren, this is what the Church has ALWAYS taught. Questions?

[Kolokotronis]

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

Not at all. Indeed, in the East there is a very healthy skepticism about what men, especially hierarchs, have to say on most things. The Church knows if doctrine is of God if the whole Church accepts it. Thus the Holy Spirit operates throughout the Church collectively just as He does when the Church meets in council.

[Kolokotronis]

That's better! :) Though you should know that by strict definition, from our pov the Pope could be called a heretic as could we by him. That, however, is hardly helpful and in any event, at least as between Rome and the East, our situation is rather unlike the positions of heretics in the past.

[Kolokotronis]

"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."

Bingo!

[pachomi33]

Yes kolo- he could be in strict terms called a heretick, that is why to be PC I said he was unorthodox. But is it a necessary polemic to call one a heretick or even schismatic? Especially in this age. your last post was well said and informative. I think it is important to highlight the Eucharist as you did.

[Kolokotronis]

Your comment to Tantumergo is betrays a sorry lack of knowledge of the history of the very Church protestants claim to represent. You are troubled by the sacrament of Confession and say that you can talk to God whenever you wish. Of course you can, but the sacrament of Confession was instituted by Christ so that we might reconcile ourselves to God and be healed. The Orthodox Church bases this on Mat. 9:2-8 and 18:18, 1 John 1:6-10 and John 20:22-23. We view the Church as a sort of spiritual hospital, among other things. In Confession the penitent confesses to God and receives absolution from God. The priest is merely a witness to the confession on behalf of the Church. This is in accordance with the ancient practice of the Church of required, public, confession of sins. Private confession only developed later in the history of the Church.

Your comments on priests using their "power" to lord it over people and even abuse them are true. But to reject the Church because of priestly or hierarchial abuse is incorrect and borders on an ancient heresy called "Donatism". The sacrament of Confession (like the heresy of Donatism) pre-date the rise of protestantism by centuries. Why do you suppose that from the first days of the Church, confession was recognized as a sacrament, according to you wrongly, and it was only after Martin Luther came along that mankind figured out just how wrong it had been all along?

[deaconjim]

I will continue to interpret scripture for myself, thank you. If I listened to you, I would be worshipping false gods, bowing down and kissing the ring of men who are not worthy to be worshipped. I would denigrate the sacrifice of Christ by pretending that it took more than that for me to be saved, and I would be obeying men rather than God.

Not thanks. I trust Christ more than I do you.

[Kolokotronis]

Absolutely excellent, Pachomi!

[Rose of Sharn]

Cf.Mt.23:9- call no man father
what do you call the men who serve God in your Catholic church?
Do you not also worship symbols?
Dont you worship the pope and kneel down and kiss his glorified ring?
Where does it say in the Bible that these are the actions that God would wish us to do?
I worship only one. Our Lord God.

[deaconjim]

This is in accordance with the ancient practice of the Church of required, public, confession of sins. Private confession only developed later in the history of the Church. So which group is going to hell, those who practice public confession, or those who practice private confession?

I don't mean to be flippant with this question, actually. I am making a point. The "Church", with all of it's traditions and rules, denigrates the death of Christ. His sacrifice has paid the price for my sins, which I freely confess to God and all men. Confessing my sins, however, does not mean that I need to publicly or privately itemize those sins. God and I know what they are, and we have it worked out for the best.

There is not one thing that I can do to add to the sacrifice of Christ, nor is there anything that I can do to undo His sacrifice. My salvation has been taken care of completely. By adding rules and "traditions" to the requirements for salvation, the Church is doing what Christ came to stop.

[Rose of Sharn]

God Bless you too.
Your knowledge is true.

One extra line from me is that I truly believe that as Jesus has already sacrificed himself for our sins, what the catholic church preaches is an INSULT to God.

[Kolokotronis]

" So which group is going to hell, those who practice public confession, or those who practice private confession? "

Hopefully, neither!

Deacon, to the extent that protestants do not accept the seven sacraments of the Church as they existed for the 1500 odd years the Church existed before the rise of protestantism in the West, your comments are spot on. That however does not deal with the question of why Christians for 1500 years, in all parts of the Christian world accepted and understood seven sacraments, among them confession before a priest, if it were wrong and in contravention of Christ's teachings. Now remember, it was almost entirely Eastern Bishops who decided upon what would be in the canon of the NT. The job wasn't completed for several centuries after the Resurrection. These same bishops were the ones who themselves or through the clergy, administered the seven sacraments, including confession. How could they all, for so many centuries, have missed what protestants claim to have found since 1500 or so? Fair question, isn't it?

[Tantumergo]

LOL! "what do you call the men who serve God in your Catholic church?"

Lonely!

"Do you not also worship symbols?"

Sure! Whole drumkits as well!

"Dont you worship the pope and kneel down and kiss his glorified ring?"

Sure, he's Jesus' dad after all, but we usually can't get close enough to his backside to kiss his ring!

"Where does it say in the Bible that these are the actions that God would wish us to do?"

You tell me, you obviously wrote it.

"I worship only one. Our Lord God."

Yep, and I'm sure you made him as well.

[pachomi33]

Greetings in Christ!
You make an interesting observation. As Orthodox Christians we believe that Christ did die once for sins. He does not die again- the blood is not spilt again. You have to remember the way the bible speaks of remembrance. The Lord's table is a rememembrance- an amemnesis. Literally more than a memorial. The sacrifice of Christ is made PRESENT again. The Church orthodox and catholic have always understood there to be two understandings of time. There is our normal time - kronos- linear and successive. Then there is liturgical time called kairos. Literally we step out of time and into eternity where Christ's life from the womb to the tomb and the glorious ascension to the right hand of the Father is present. When the Holy Spirit is invoked in the sacrifice (and it is called a sacrifice which I will discuss in a moment) we enter into eternity and partake of the blessings of Christ's obedience. I don't know about you but I always need more grace as I struggle to follow the Shepherd; that is what is imparted to us in the Eucharist- forgiveness of sins and sanctification- partaking of that eternal life- the very life of God Himself.
Now Christ is not offered in a bloody sacrifice. He is set down on the throne. Yet He is also seen as the Lamb standing- still interceding as our High Priest. Revelation4-5 describe liturgy (if you want we can discuss this later)
This re- presentation of Christ is a SACRIFICE- literally a sacer facere - it makes holy. Compare the OT prophecy spoken of about the Eucharist:
FOR FROM THE RISING OF THE SUN UNTO THE GOING DOWN OF THE SAME MY NAME SHALL BE GREAT AMONG THE HEATHEN; AND IN EVERY PLACE INCENSE SHALL BE OFFERED IN MY NAME, AND A PURE OFFERING; FOR MY NAME SHALL BE GREAT AMONG THE HEATHEN SAITH THE LORD OF HOSTS.
BUT YE HAVE PROFANED IT, IN THAT YE SAY, THE TABLE OF THE LORD IS POLLUTED; AND THE FRUIT THEREOF , EVEN HIS MEAT IS CONTEMPTIBLE." MALACHI 1:11-12
Now we see that the Lord's table is a place of sacrifice. Incense is offered. It magnifies God's Name. It is done daily. And most importantly IT IS SNUFFED AT. Men despise the Lord's table and have stripped the altars.
God was so pleased with the obedience of His Son He commands it to be made present to Him EVERY day. When you say the Lord's prayer- give us our daily bread. It was always understood as give us a share of Jesus the bread of heaven this day in the Eucharist. Thank God he died for us- but thank God He can be ever present with us IN FLESH AND BLOOD and not just in spirit till the end of the Age

[pachomi33]

Why do you bow your head when you pray? Why do you fold your hands? Or why do you keep silent when a sermon is preached? Reverence is the basis for the commandments of God. We rightly (ortho) praise (doxa) HIM.
Did not the sons of Joseph do obeisance before those he was to govern? So we bow before those who govern over us and submit. Worship? NEVER. But honor yes because we are honoring GOd who has given them authority. He that despises those whom God has sent despises God (Lk.10:16)
"Call no man father"
read the whole context. Call no man a teacher also- verse 10. Yet we see people called teacher all the time in the NT and Paul calling himself a father 1 Cor.4:15
Please do not proof text. The church wrestled with these things and gave the correct interpretation.
God bless you and please struggle to understand- it will be worth it.

[Rose of Sharn]

My whole point, and my final post on this thread, is that if Kosta50 or anyone else reads scripture and feels led to follow the Catholic Church, then that is exactly what they need to do. It is not my place to interpret the scriptures for them.

I, on the other hand, interpret the scriptures another way, and since it is my salvation that I am dealing with, then it is up to me to decide what to do about it.

What I feel led to do for others is to bring the good news of God's salvation to them. Once they are saved by accepting Christ, their spiritual education begins, and they too will need to read and interpret the scriptures. With the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, I trust God to lead them where He wants them to be.

May God bless you all, and thank you for the opportunity to discuss these issues.

[Vicomte13]

We could indeed re-initiate a discussion of Catholicism, of the Roman and Eastern varieties. The more that we discussed these things, the more I realized that we really are the same in everything important to me. I also realized that there are many of my co-religionists who have markedly different attitudes from my own. It would be good to continue the dialogue.