Denominations that teach that salvation is exclusive to them

[ozso]

How do you know Jesus didn't tell the Apostles that this was to be done?

It's a foregone conclusion since none of the Apostles nor their immediate successors ever instructed it. If they had, it wouldn't have started taking place in the 4th century.

 

[Valletta]

How so? I just asked you to name a few and that I'd do the leg work from there.

The veneration of Mary started in the 4th century. Lighting candles for the dead started in the 4th-5th century. Cardinals came about in the 8th century. Holy water started in the 9th century. Vernation of saints started in the 10th century. Confessing to a priest started in the 11th century. The belief in the transubstantiation of the Eucharist started in the 12th century. Roseries started in the 13th century. That's just the few things I know of off the top of my head and looked up.

Incorrect. First, you are confusing Sacred Tradition with mere traditions, such as having a manger scene at Christmas or lighting a candle. These practices/traditions are meant to honor God. As to the sacraments passed down by Jesus, the form may change but the core of the sacrament is still there. The celebration of the mass was not in churches because churches could not be built while Catholics were persecuted. Building churches did not start a new religion or break from God. Nor did having music at mass. But the core of the mass and the Holy Eucharist, the readings and the liturgy are the same. It's the same for confession. The core of the sacrament is there. Instead of going to anti-Catholic websites for your history, read the early century documents available. Then you won't get so much wrong. The Didache describes first century Catholic practices. Confession was made at mass:

"In church, make confession of your faults, and do not come to your prayers with a bad conscience."

The Didache | EWTN

EWTN is a global, Catholic Television, Catholic Radio, and Catholic News Network that provides catholic programming and news coverage from around the world.

www.ewtn.com

While the confession of sins was made in public back then, the core of the sacrament remains the same. Today we go to confession, we still say the confession before a priest, but privately and not publicly. It can be face to face or behind a curtain. Jesus never specified to the Apostles whether they were to hear the sins in public or in private. The differences are not important as long as the sacrament remains the same.

 

[ozso]

Incorrect. First, you are confusing Sacred Tradition with mere traditions, such as having a manger scene at Christmas or lighting a candle. These practices/traditions are meant to honor God. As to the sacraments passed down by Jesus, the form may change but the core of the sacrament is still there. The celebration of the mass was not in churches because churches could not be built while Catholics were persecuted. Building churches did not start a new religion or break from God. Nor did having music at mass. But the core of the mass and the Holy Eucharist, the readings and the liturgy are the same. It's the same for confession. The core of the sacrament is there. Instead of going to anti-Catholic websites for your history, read the early century documents available. Then you won't get so much wrong. The Didache describes first century Catholic practices. Confession was made at mass:

"In church, make confession of your faults, and do not come to your prayers with a bad conscience."

The Didache | EWTN

EWTN is a global, Catholic Television, Catholic Radio, and Catholic News Network that provides catholic programming and news coverage from around the world.

www.ewtn.com

While the confession of sins was made in public back then, the core of the sacrament remains the same. Today we go to confession, we still say the confession before a priest, but privately and not publicly. It can be face to face or behind a curtain. Jesus never specified to the Apostles whether they were to hear the sins in public or in private. The differences are not important as long as the sacrament remains the same.

I'd be interested knowing when the Didache was written and by whom, from a more neutral source than EWTN global Catholic Television. I do know ahead of time that it was probably written sometime in the 2nd century, so that would leave out the Apostles and the 1st century Church Fathers. Do you ever delve into finding out the raw facts regarding this sort of stuff, independent of RCC traditional teaching?

When it comes to confessing one's faults as you put it, either in public or to a priest, the question is whether or not the RCC says that it is mandatory to do so. The same goes with the veneration of Mary and the Saints. Or anything else I listed. Where at some point, in the 4th, 5th, 6th etc century the RCC issued an edict saying doing this particular act is now absolutely mandatory.

 

[Valletta]

I'd be interested knowing when the Didache was written and by whom, from a more neutral source than EWTN global Catholic Television. I do know ahead of time that it was probably written sometime in the 2nd century, so that would leave out the Apostles and the 1st century Church Fathers. Do you ever delve into finding out the raw facts regarding this sort of stuff, independent of RCC traditional teaching?

When it comes to confessing one's faults as you put it, either in public or to a priest, the question is whether or not the RCC says that it is mandatory to do so. The same goes with the veneration of Mary and the Saints. Or anything else I listed. Where at some point, in the 4th, 5th, 6th etc century the RCC issued an edict saying doing this particular act is now absolutely mandatory.

Actually I'm a researcher who has spent thousands of hours seeking out and reading documents. You can get your own copy here from a neutral source if you don't trust EWTN: The Didache | Baker Publishing Group. The consensus is the first century. Likewise I encourage you to read the early Church Fathers. Jesus never specified how often to go to confession, that that was left up to Peter and the Apostles. With such things the Catholic Church can decide what should be done in best keeping with the teachings of Jesus. The Catholic Church could set rules as to as to how often or not.

 

[jas3]

Vernation [sic] of saints started in the 10th century.

"O holy mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in thee, and who in hymns august celebrate the memory, which will ever live, and never fade away. And do thou also, O honoured and venerable Simeon, thou earliest host of our holy religion, and teacher of the resurrection of the faithful, be our patron and advocate with that Saviour God, whom thou wast deemed worthy to receive into thine arms." - Methodius (AD 230-311), Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna
More early sources on veneration of the saints here. If you include veneration of relics as veneration of the saints, there's the Martyrdom of Polycarp which records veneration of the bones of Polycarp in the 2nd century.

Confessing to a priest started in the 11th century.

Plenty of examples of confession even as far back as the 1st century. If you're looking for a source that uses the word ἱερεύς or sacerdos exactly, a safe bet is Origen's Homilies on Leviticus 2:4 from the 3rd century.

The belief in the transubstantiation of the Eucharist started in the 12th century.

Again, easily disproven. Justin Martyr's First Apology couldn't be more explicit: "For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."

 

[ozso]

"O holy mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in thee, and who in hymns august celebrate the memory, which will ever live, and never fade away. And do thou also, O honoured and venerable Simeon, thou earliest host of our holy religion, and teacher of the resurrection of the faithful, be our patron and advocate with that Saviour God, whom thou wast deemed worthy to receive into thine arms." - Methodius (AD 230-311), Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna
More early sources on veneration of the saints here. If you include veneration of relics as veneration of the saints, there's the Martyrdom of Polycarp which records veneration of the bones of Polycarp in the 2nd century.

Plenty of examples of confession even as far back as the 1st century. If you're looking for a source that uses the word ἱερεύς or sacerdos exactly, a safe bet is Origen's Homilies on Leviticus 2:4 from the 3rd century.

Again, easily disproven. Justin Martyr's First Apology couldn't be more explicit: "For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."

The question is when did the things I listed become an official and or mandatory practice or belief?

 

[jas3]

The question is when did the things I listed become an official and or mandatory practice or belief?

That's a different standard than you started out with:

You know them better than I do. Tell me a few, and then I'll look up when they were first put into practice and or mandated.

The veneration of Mary started... Lighting candles for the dead started... Holy water started... Vernation of saints started... [etc.]

And regardless of that, the standard of "when did the things I listed become an official and or mandatory practice or belief" doesn't make sense, because that either limits definitions to ecumenical councils (and then you have the problem of which churches accept which councils) or it varies by time and jurisdiction if you consider local councils. If the practices are authentically apostolic, we would expect to see evidence of them before any council defined them as binding on the faithful anyway.

 

[ozso]

Actually I'm a researcher who has spent thousands of hours seeking out and reading documents. You can get your own copy here from a neutral source if you don't trust EWTN: The Didache | Baker Publishing Group. The consensus is the first century. Likewise I encourage you to read the early Church Fathers. Peter told people in some case how they were to act.

I don't think it matters what source gives the exact written contents of the Didache. What matters is what is said or claimed about it. Now it seems your reason for bringing up the Didache, is the line saying "In church, make confession of your faults, and do not come to your prayers with a bad conscience."

The question is what is "In church, make confession of your faults," supposed to mean exactly? Does it mean when praying in church, confess your faults to God in prayer? Or does it mean confess your faults out loud to the all people in the church? Or does it mean, go into a confessional and confess your faults to a priest?

And what exactly does "faults" mean? Does it mean character flaws or sins that have been committed?

 

[ozso]

The question is when did the things I listed become an official and or mandatory practice or belief?

That's a different standard than you started out with:

You know them better than I do. Tell me a few, and then I'll look up when they were first put into practice and or mandated.

I'm not seeing what the difference is.

And regardless of that, the standard of "when did the things I listed become an official and or mandatory practice or belief" doesn't make sense, because that either limits definitions to ecumenical councils (and then you have the problem of which churches accept which councils) or it varies by time and jurisdiction if you consider local councils. If the practices are authentically apostolic, we would expect to see evidence of them before any council defined them as binding on the faithful anyway.

How does that differ from what I said?

 

[jas3]

I'm not seeing what the difference is.

How does that differ from what I said?

Original standard: when was X first put into practice?
New standard: when did X become a mandatory belief?

Let's take a case study: the doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine was defined by the Church as binding on all believers in AD 325 at the Council of Nicaea, and it took another century or so before Nicaea was fully accepted. So if your standard is "when did all of the bishops relay this requirement to the laity in their dioceses," the Trinity didn't "start" until at least a few decades after the Council of Constantinople (AD 381) which would make it a 5th century doctrine.

Now, obviously the apostles taught the Trinity, even if not in the explicit understanding of "three hypostases, one ousia, each hypostasis is 'homoousios' with the other hypostases" that Nicaea defined. So the answer to "when did the Trinity 'start'" by the original standard is "with the apostles and its belief as promulgated by Nicaea is first attested to some time before 325," but by the new standard is "the 4th/5th century."

 

[ozso]

Original standard: when was X first put into practice?
New standard: when did X become a mandatory belief?

Let's take a case study: the doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine was defined by the Church as binding on all believers in AD 325 at the Council of Nicaea, and it took another century or so before Nicaea was fully accepted. So if your standard is "when did all of the bishops relay this requirement to the laity in their dioceses," the Trinity didn't "start" until at least a few decades after the Council of Constantinople (AD 381) which would make it a 5th century doctrine.

Now, obviously the apostles taught the Trinity, even if not in the explicit understanding of "three hypostases, one ousia, each hypostasis is 'homoousios' with the other hypostases" that Nicaea defined. So the answer to "when did the Trinity 'start'" by the original standard is "with the apostles and its belief as promulgated by Nicaea is first attested to some time before 325," but by the new standard is "the 4th/5th century."

I've come to realize there's a twofold issue here.

The first issue is that the RCC of today is different in several ways from the original Church up to about the 4th century.

The second and important issue is, what practice or ritual et al does the RCC say is mandatory for Christians, that non-RCC Christians don't observe practice acknowledge et al?

The Trinity is not a practice or ritual et al, it is a theological doctrine that is accepted by nearly all Christians.

 

[concretecamper]

I came to the conclusion that the Apostles were acting under the direct instruction of their Lord and Master. You'll have to explain why it is wrong of me to conclude that, because I can't fathom why that's a problem.

It's not a problem. It is just not a protestant viewpoint. You are adding to scripture, which is something they don't like.

It's a foregone conclusion since none of the Apostles nor their immediate successors ever instructed it. If they had, it wouldn't have started taking place in the 4th century.

So you put time limits on what you'll accept. That is your choice, but it is your fallible choice.

 

[ozso]

It's not a problem. It is just not a protestant viewpoint. You are adding to scripture, which is something they don't like.

The alternative is to conclude that the Apostles acted contrary to what Jesus instructed them on.

So you put time limits on what you'll accept. That is your choice, but it is your fallible choice.

You asked me how I knew Jesus didn't tell the Apostles to do certain things that became practices and rituals centuries later.

I said, It's a foregone conclusion since none of the Apostles nor their immediate successors ever instructed it. If they had, it wouldn't have started taking place centuries later.

You seem to have a running theme that a Christian isn't supposed to draw conclusions and or make decisions. And I think that's basically what you've been taught.

 

[jas3]

The Trinity is not a practice or ritual et al, it is a theological doctrine that is accepted by nearly all Christians.

Now you're focusing only on practices, but earlier you said

The question is when did the things I listed become an official and or mandatory practice or belief?

and one of the examples you gave was

The belief in the transubstantiation of the Eucharist

That aside, you're ignoring that textual attestation to a belief or practice only sets an upper bound on when it began. We know people believed in the Trinity before the 4th century, but your argument ("we first see explicit textual attestation of X in the Yth century, therefore X is a Yth century doctrine and not an apostolic doctrine") could just as easily be used by Unitarians against the Trinity.

 

[ozso]

Now you're focusing only on practices, but earlier you said

and one of the examples you gave was

That aside, you're ignoring that textual attestation to a belief or practice only sets an upper bound on when it began. We know people believed in the Trinity before the 4th century, but your argument ("we first see explicit textual attestation of X in the Yth century, therefore X is a Yth century doctrine and not an apostolic doctrine") could just as easily be used by Unitarians against the Trinity.

Practice and belief go hand in hand. Usually someone doesn't practice a practice when they don't accept the belief that practice was founded on.

I agree with you that the belief in the transubstantiation of the Eucharist can be compared to belief in the Trinity. Although believing that the bread and wine are symbolic of the flesh and blood of Christ, rather than actually literally being the flesh and blood of Christ, does not detour Christians from practicing the sacrament and taking it seriously. Because whether one believes it's symbolic or literal, it's clear that Jesus told us to practice it.

Now as to the topic of this thread, there's the claim that the Roman Catholic Church has been the only one true church from the very beginning. However it can be pointed out that there are fundamental beliefs/practices in the Roman Catholic Church that do not go back to the beginning. That the Roman Catholic Church is different than the original early Church had been for centuries.

How can it be argued that there aren't some clear differences? That significant changes were made and things were added on a long time after the fact. Therefore many don't see RCC as being the original church, but rather that it stems from the original church as does the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Protestant Church.

I don't see any shortcomings or inadequacies that existed in the Church for the first 4 centuries, do you? Therefore it seems that several, not all, but several beliefs/practices that were added on centuries later, are questionable or unnecessary or just plain wrong. And when it comes to a questionable or unnecessary or plain wrong practice/belief, one of the things that's often taken note of is how new it is. Like the boatload of new practices/beliefs that didn't exist until the 19th or 20th century. Like Unitarianism for example.

 

[concretecamper]

You seem to have a running theme that a Christian isn't supposed to draw conclusions and or make decisions. And I think that's basically what you've been taught.

Not at all, just don't expect us all to believe the Gospel of MMXX

 

[ozso]

Not at all, just don't expect us all to believe the Gospel of MMXX

Or the Gospel of Concretecamper

 

[ozso]

So you put time limits on what you'll accept. That is your choice, but it is your fallible choice.

The irony of this is it seems that you don't like some of the newer directions the RCC has gone in.

 

[jas3]

Now as to the topic of this thread, there's the claim that the Roman Catholic Church has been the only one true church from the very beginning.

This claim is also made by the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East, but yes, that is also a claim of Roman Catholicism.

What I point out is there are fundamental beliefs/practices in the Roman Catholic Church that do not go back to the beginning. That the Roman Catholic Church is different than the original early Church had been for centuries.

I don't see how you can substantiate this claim at this point, because we seem to have agreed that the earliest textual attestation of a belief/practice is not a "start date" for that belief/practice.

And when it comes to a questionable or unnecessary or plain wrong practice/belief, one of the things that's often taken note of is how new it is. Like the boatload of new practices/beliefs that didn't exist until the 19th or 20th century.

The difference between these early beliefs/practices and 19th/20th century novelties is that we have pretty extensive documentation from prior to the 19th century that things like Unitarianism and Seventh-day Sabbatarianism were rejected by every group that could reasonably be called the Church. We have very few documents surviving from the first three centuries of the Church, and those that have survived don't contradict the teachings you see as 4th-century innovations.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Hello everyone,

I was just wondering- does anyone know of any denominations that teach that salvation is exclusive to their church? That is, teaching that they're denomination is the only one that will be saved. I've heard things about branches of Pentecostalism, but I was curious as to how many are out there that teach this.

Thanks for your time!

I believe the Catholic Church...not positive. They teach or taught that everyone in the Catholic church is saved.