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”.
*This shows plainly that the Scriptures are not to be expounded by anyone’s private judgement or private spirit; because every part of the Holy Scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which He hath left, and promised to remain with His Church to guide Her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us that many of our divines interpret the Scriptures. They may do so: but they do it always with a submission to the judgement of the Church and not otherwise.
How does this info contradict the current CCC? I see no contradiction.
In a very small nutshell, the same things that the Perennial Magisterium has always taught, namely, we must first be Baptized, then receive the other Sacraments.
Malachi 1:11..."For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."
Deception is an appropriate word in the context of God's not keeping one of his covenants, but completely irrelevant in the context of his having the power to save someone outside the Church or sacraments.
It also speaks of a unity through baptism, and that those who are in such churches or communities can be saved.
Vatican II ecumenism is laid out in 3 documents of the council.
The focus of which is to highlight the similiarities instead of focusing on the differences, as I understand it. There is a great deal of controveresy around the council in general and particularly on this point. It is important to realize that all teachings of the Church must be interperted in the light of Tradition.
The Church has long held that the baptism of Protestants is valid if it is done in the trinitarian formula (in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) and water is used. Anyone can baptized anyone using that formula with water.
Its not that He does not have the power - thats not it at all. He is God and can do whatever He chooses to do - including remaining faithful to his own commands as He said He would.
I do not dispute that if He wants to, He can welcome Osamma Bin Laden into Heaven and put Him in charge over St. Michael the Archangel - but should we believe that salvation can go our way for our own convenience - or should we believe that salvation is going God's way, through the Church He established for that single purpose?
I have been studying the situation regarding the doctrine Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus for some time (years, in fact). One objection that is thrown at me is this. I assume the new covenant (i.e. the necessity of baptism) was brought in on the day of Pentecost, when the Church herself was born. However, was it then universal, or was it only when the gospel was preached? The difficulty (if there is one) lies in the fact that between one day and the next, a pagan in a far away land may be saved under the old law, but damned under the new. To a skeptic, this does not appear either feasible or possible with a just and loving God.
I am genuinely trying to find out here, and I am presenting a talk on the "Boston Hersy Case" to a group of fellow trads soon, so I'd better be prepared!! Many thanks for any light you shed on this.
Ahh, the Good Old Boston Heresy Case hey? Well, I hope you have better luck that Fr. Feeney did.
At any rate, Baptism did not become part of the new law, necessary for salvation till sometime after the Crucifiction just before the Ascension. Which is why the Holy Innocents are in Heaven without Baptism - they were killed when Jesus was still a baby Himself and had not yet instituted Baptism - same goes for St. Dismas, the Good Thief.
A Pagan would not have been saved if he died regardless of old or new law. For those who were "Just souls" in "far away lands" who died between the old law and the promulgation of the new law, may have had one of two things happen: 1) God sent someone to baptise them before they died or 2) They did not die until the "news" reached them, at which time they were Baptised.
Of course, we could assume that He allowed salvation to those who had not been baptised because they had no way of knowing, but if we assume that to be the case, then we can also assume that 3)He allowed provisos and did mean what He said, 4)It was impossible or inconvenient for Him to send someone to Baptize just souls in far away lands.
Items one and two would be examples of God's mercy and Divine Providence, items three and four would be examples of God's........laziness?
What are Catholic Traditionalist opinions of Eastern orthodox Christians? If the ecumenical councils gave weight to Rome as has been stated I would be RC, but I don't see the evidence for it, not saying it is impossible.
God Bless
I am aware that Papal Supremecy is one big issue that the Orthodox deny - as such, I stop right there since personal submission to the Holy Father is a defined dogma of the RCC and as such is non-negotiable.
Hopefully others can give a much better reply.
The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.
The baptism of blood (baptismus sanquinis) is the obtaining of the grace of justification by suffering martyrdom for the faith of Christ.... St. Cyprian (Ep. lxxiii) speaks of "the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood" (sanguinis baptismus).... The Church grounds her belief in the efficacy of the baptism of blood on the fact that Christ makes a general statement of the saving power of martyrdom in the tenth chapter of St. Matthew: "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven" (v. 32); and: "He that shall lose his life for me shall find it" (v. 39)....Encyclopædia of the Catholic Church (emphasis added). Please note that the same St. Cyprian who coined the phrase at the heart of this thread -- extra ecclesiam nulla salus -- explicitly recognizes the regenerative efficacy of martyrdom.
Salvation is a supernatural gift, which no one deserves. Therefore, it is not an injustice to deny it to someone who never knew the faith. It WOULD be injustice to send them, however, to eternal torment in Hell--which is precisely why the whole speculation of Limbo came about. Those righteous people who were not members of the Church, can still enjoy perfect *natural* happiness in Hell (cf. Dante) without the beatific vision.
And let's face it, most people's view of heaven is primarily (though falsely) purely natural anyway, as it was for the pagans. So in their minds, they wouldn't be missing much.
Fr. Muller sounds like he was a real fun guy!
Proud, too!
Yes, this is true and I agree. The dangerous thing about them is the misconception associated with the non-sacramental baptisms. The requirement is quite clear as commanded by Our Lord. The rare exceptions to that requirement are exactly that, rare exceptions - and THAT is what is never really stressed, it leaves most folks to believe that Baptism with water is an option.
Although non-sacramental baptism can be sufficient, if we considered the extreme rarity, the emphasis would remain on the "baptism", not the "blood" or "desire".
For example, how many people who have never been baptized and are presumably weak in the faith will accept or have the grace necessary to shed their blood for love of God when those who have been Baptized and are strong in the faith could not tell you if they could or would tell you of their grave doubts in being able too?
And even right.
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.