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 have been brought up post VAtican II, but am increasingly of hte opinion that the Church erred by trying to "modernise".
Many of the early Protestants seem to rail against the human corruption in the church, all cleaned up -- just a 200+ yeas before then, St. Francis and his friars did clean up the Church.
oops, make that only Luther. Calvin's philosophies were more dogma related IMHO
Up until VCII, those who were reunited to the Vatican were known as "Uniates". The term implies union. Such union was one sided in that it meant a union on Western (Latin Chuch) terms. This meant the loss of some authentically Eastern liturgical customs and disciplines. Ultimately, uniatism came to be perceived as a pejorative term in both the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
The Council (VCII) recognized that a high price was paid by the Eastern Catholic Churches in terms of latinization. Thus, the Council directed that the process of coming into communion of the Churches needs to be done differently in these days of ecumenism than had previously been done and that terms "uniatism" and "Uniate" must never again be used.
It is now spoken of as "reestablishing communion." This attitude has strongly been endorsed by Pope JPII in messages to Catholics as well as in dialog with the Orthodox.
Could we follow the lead of the Vatican and drop the word "Uniate"?
Wonderful response.
I have a lot of respect for the other Orthodox traditions vs the Roman one. I find the arrogance of the Roman assumptions about Petros to be at least as bad, if not worse, than that chronic arrogance of the Pharisees of Jesus' dusty pathed days.
Jesus was seen High and Lifted Up by the prophet of old. But I don't see Jesus in any context PONTIFICAL. Majestic, awesome etc. but NOT pontifical. His suffering servant Love is always pervasive regardless of His majesty, imho.
And, I must say, the Greek governmental church had the citizens in 1973 rather cowed toward RELIGION vs awed and passioned toward God--at least from what I could tell in Athens and Corinth.
I don't think much of RELIGION in any form. Even the 'Christian' form of it is rather deadly.
No, my preference is not per se for the pastor or the group. It is toward the degree to which the group espouses and practices the priorities of Scripture as best as I can discern them. Foremost: loving God wholly and others as self. Listening to The Spirit and following The Scriptures and The Lord's Voice, doing 'the stuff' as Wimber used to say. I much prefer humble, servant-hearted leaders leading their people in humble, servant-hearted acts toward the flock and a hurting world.
I absolutely deplore grandstanding, RELIGION, arrogance in high places, forms of 'godliness' denying the power; coercive manipulations pretending to be God moving; organizational customs, habits and traditions of men foisted off as Mt Sinai edicts from the throne of God etc.
I have found folks who earnestly seek and Love God and others in virtually every remotely Christian organization I've come across. I suspect God sees their hearts and responds accordingly.
I have found pharisees, those who worship organizations and traditions of men etc. in virtually every remotely Christian organization I've come across. I'm confident that in His time, God will respond acordingly to the more stubbornly so of that lot, too.
You might find post #724 on this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1274030/posts?page=730#730
of some interest. It speaks about and sources the historical record re the operation of the gifts post 50 A.D.
My reading of Scripture and observations of man, religion and God in our era leave me with an intense conclusion that God hates RELIGION in all it's forms.
But He died for Relationship.
Christianity is the right philosophy of life by a wide margin. More, it's THE TRUTH. But mangled by hearts deceitful too often beyond their knowing into and by organizations more focused on their customs and traditions of men vs worshipping, hearing and following God . . . as deadly a model for horror as any could come up with.
It doesn't really matter to me the DEGREE of horror in the Inquisitional period. I know the heart of man as God has made my own heart painfully vivid in a list of its hideous aspects. As well, the prison/guard experiments of Zimbardo are quite vivid enough. On top of that, I've lived in, participated in a long list of local congregations who'd about as quick take on the role of Grand Inquisitor as look at you sometimes.
I don't think much of Freud; but he did have this right. He said that even members of a religion based on love would be unloving toward those not members of it--IN-GROUP/OUT-GROUP dynamics. Sadly, 'Christians' have been proving him far too right for ~2,000 years.
I hope my feeble efforts are quite otherwise--at least most of the time!
Thanks tons for your tone and thoughtful words.
Blessings to you and yours.
Wonderful response.
I have a lot of respect for the other Orthodox traditions vs the Roman one. I find the arrogance of the Roman assumptions about Petros to be at least as bad, if not worse, than that chronic arrogance of the Pharisees of Jesus' dusty pathed days.
Jesus was seen High and Lifted Up by the prophet of old. But I don't see Jesus in any context PONTIFICAL. Majestic, awesome etc. but NOT pontifical. His suffering servant Love is always pervasive regardless of His majesty, imho.
And, I must say, the Greek governmental church had the citizens in 1973 rather cowed toward RELIGION vs awed and passioned toward God--at least from what I could tell in Athens and Corinth.
I don't think much of RELIGION in any form. Even the 'Christian' form of it is rather deadly.
No, my preference is not per se for the pastor or the group. It is toward the degree to which the group espouses and practices the priorities of Scripture as best as I can discern them. Foremost: loving God wholly and others as self. Listening to The Spirit and following The Scriptures and The Lord's Voice, doing 'the stuff' as Wimber used to say. I much prefer humble, servant-hearted leaders leading their people in humble, servant-hearted acts toward the flock and a hurting world.
I absolutely deplore grandstanding, RELIGION, arrogance in high places, forms of 'godliness' denying the power; coercive manipulations pretending to be God moving; organizational customs, habits and traditions of men foisted off as Mt Sinai edicts from the throne of God etc.
I have found folks who earnestly seek and Love God and others in virtually every remotely Christian organization I've come across. I suspect God sees their hearts and responds accordingly.
I have found pharisees, those who worship organizations and traditions of men etc. in virtually every remotely Christian organization I've come across. I'm confident that in His time, God will respond acordingly to the more stubbornly so of that lot, too.
You might find post #724 on this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1274030/posts?page=730#730
of some interest. It speaks about and sources the historical record re the operation of the gifts post 50 A.D.
My reading of Scripture and observations of man, religion and God in our era leave me with an intense conclusion that God hates RELIGION in all it's forms.
But He died for Relationship.
Christianity is the right philosophy of life by a wide margin. More, it's THE TRUTH. But mangled by hearts deceitful too often beyond their knowing into and by organizations more focused on their customs and traditions of men vs worshipping, hearing and following God . . . as deadly a model for horror as any could come up with.
It doesn't really matter to me the DEGREE of horror in the Inquisitional period. I know the heart of man as God has made my own heart painfully vivid in a list of its hideous aspects. As well, the prison/guard experiments of Zimbardo are quite vivid enough. On top of that, I've lived in, participated in a long list of local congregations who'd about as quick take on the role of Grand Inquisitor as look at you sometimes.
I don't think much of Freud; but he did have this right. He said that even members of a religion based on love would be unloving toward those not members of it--IN-GROUP/OUT-GROUP dynamics. Sadly, 'Christians' have been proving him far too right for ~2,000 years.
I hope my feeble efforts are quite otherwise--at least most of the time!
Thanks tons for your tone and thoughtful words.
Blessings to you and yours.
To touch on your second question first: as long as we are not in communion, all bets are off, but not the cionsequences. If we are to reestablish communion, all the Churches in the West, regardless of their rite would be under the jurisdiction of the Pope.
The first seven Ecumenical Councils established that each Patriarch has exclusive jurisdiction over his Patriarchate; that included the Patriarch of the West, also known as the Bishop of Rome.
Since the Catholic Church recognizes all seven Ecumenical Councils of the (undivided) Church, exerting its jurisdiction and, worse, actively enticing churches traditionally under a different patriarchate to break with Constantinople and join Rome is seen as highly counterproductive when it comes to overtures of reconcilliation from the very side that is engaged in enticing Eastern churches to break with Constantinople.
The Uniate churches are naturally perceived as offenders in the East, as for example any Catholic Church would be if it decided to join Constantinople or the Anglican community for example. Thus, as long as these hybrids exist, they will be a stumbling block. Since they represent only 2% of the Catholic faithful, the damage their existance presents to reconcilliation is disporpotionate -- but glaringly obvious.
Try being realistic and skim some of the ideal we all tend to make thicker on this forum. Let's face it: the dominant Catholic Rite is Latin and will undoubtedly stay so. It is unlikely, even impossible, to imagine that some Ruthenian Uniate or a Maronite bishop will become the next Pope.
At the time when Europe is becoming not just secular but ourtight atheist, and America is dominated by fundamentalist Evangelicals whose message sounds like anything else but what our Lord Jesus Christ preached, and where Later Day Saints polytheistic quasi-Christianity is gaining along with New Age and other "religions" of the world, while Protestants continue to atomize into tens of thousands of individual "churches" completely void of Apostolic authoirty, valid clergy or sacraments -- the Catholics can count on none other than Orthodoxy. Are Uniates worth jeopardizing possible reconciliation?
You may say: we don't need the Orthodox, nor do we wish to cozy to them. To which we say: fine! We are not the ones asking for reconcilliation. To us numbers mean nothing ("narrow is the path and few shall find it."). But the reality is somewhat discouraging: church attendence has dropped to mere 25%, only 1/3 of all Catholics believes in the Real Presence, churches are closing and priestly ranks are drying up.
Maybe these are all the wrong reasons why anyone should seek reconcilliation and perhaps it is even humiliating, but on the other hand maybe the time has never been better and the opportunity may be God's blessing.
BTW, I'm still trying to track down a good source placing St Nilus prophecy about the end times squarely from his lifetime. Do you know of such a source or anyone helpful toward that?
I think you need to read the Councils -- starting with Chalcedon. Since there was no America on the radar screen, it is debetable under what Patriarchate it would fall (it may be even divided), and because there is no communion, different jurisdiction prevails.
The thing is that the Catholic Church isnt' made of separate Churchs in the same way as the Orthodox communion
What would happen if the Archbishop of Spain decided to establish communion with Constantinople? He is not a heretic. He is a validly ordained bishop and his Holy Order remain valid even if he goes over to a schismatic church. Can you take his diocese away from him? On what grounds? He would still recognize the Pope, as we all do, but in a different way so how is this any worse than say bishops who march for gay rights and who commune abortionist politicians?
"Perhaps it doesn't inspire the halves as much as it inspires the whole?"
You may well be right. I keep watching my back for the flames!
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.