Denominations that teach that salvation is exclusive to them

[ozso]

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.

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.

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.

Do you believe that "Know Mary, Know Jesus. No Mary, No Jesus" was likely taught from the very beginning?

 

[jas3]

Do you believe that "Know Mary, Know Jesus. No Mary, No Jesus" was likely taught from the very beginning?

I haven't heard that phrase before. I would say no, though; the idea that we would have to have a devotion to Mary to have a devotion to Jesus seems incorrect to me. Maybe someone who's Catholic or Orthodox could weigh in here if I'm misunderstanding what is meant by the phrase.

Now, I do believe Marian veneration was taught from the beginning alongside veneration of the saints. You have Mary saying "all generations will call me blessed" in Luke 1:48, veneration of the saints and their relics attested to in the 2nd century, the Sub Tuum Praesidium prayer to Mary in the 3rd century, liturgical veneration of Mary in the Liturgy of St. Basil in the 4th century, and all the textual support from the Church Fathers I linked previously.

 

[RileyG]

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

Absolutely not. That is not what the Church teaches.

 

[RileyG]

I haven't heard that phrase before. I would say no, though; the idea that we would have to have a devotion to Mary to have a devotion to Jesus seems incorrect to me. Maybe someone who's Catholic or Orthodox could weigh in here if I'm misunderstanding what is meant by the phrase.

Now, I do believe Marian veneration was taught from the beginning alongside veneration of the saints. You have Mary saying "all generations will call me blessed" in Luke 1:48, veneration of the saints and their relics attested to in the 2nd century, the Sub Tuum Praesidium prayer to Mary in the 3rd century, liturgical veneration of Mary in the Liturgy of St. Basil in the 4th century, and all the textual support from the Church Fathers I linked previously.

Also, St. irenaeus calling Mary the New Eve in Against Heresies.

 

[ozso]

I haven't heard that phrase before. I would say no, though; the idea that we would have to have a devotion to Mary to have a devotion to Jesus seems incorrect to me. Maybe someone who's Catholic or Orthodox could weigh in here if I'm misunderstanding what is meant by the phrase.

Now, I do believe Marian veneration was taught from the beginning alongside veneration of the saints. You have Mary saying "all generations will call me blessed" in Luke 1:48,

Jesus said:
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." Matthew 5:3-11

Now that's Jesus Christ himself proclaiming who is blessed. So how does Mary saying "all generations will call me blessed" in Luke 1:48 set her apart from all of those whom Jesus Christ calls blessed?

veneration of the saints and their relics attested to in the 2nd century, the Sub Tuum Praesidium prayer to Mary in the 3rd century, liturgical veneration of Mary in the Liturgy of St. Basil in the 4th century, and all the textual support from the Church Fathers I linked previously.

The question is, is that mandatory (required by law or rules; compulsory) to Christian faith according the RCC? And if so, is it unreasonable to ask 'when did it become mandatory'?

 

[ozso]

Absolutely not. That is not what the Church teaches.

Then what's the explanation for:

"The Nature of the Catholic faith is such that nothing can be added to it, nothing taken away. Either it is held in its entirety or it is rejected totally. This is the Catholic faith which, unless a man believes faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved"....Pope Benedict XV

 

[jas3]

So how does Mary saying "all generations will call me blessed" in Luke 1:48 set her apart from all of those whom Jesus Christ calls blessed?

Because in addition to those Jesus calls blessed, all generations call Mary blessed. That's the veneration you're looking for.

The question is, is that mandatory (required by law or rules; compulsory) to Christian faith according the RCC?

Maybe, I'm not sure. I thought we already established though that this question doesn't really make sense with the example of the Trinity. At the very least you have a split between the Catholic-Orthodox Church and the Church of the East over whether to call Mary "God-bearer" or "Christ-bearer" in 431, but that's all I can think of off the top of my head.

And if so, is it unreasonable to ask 'when did it become mandatory'?

Yes, if your intention in doing so is to point to the belief/doctrine becoming mandatory as the "start date" for the belief/doctrine. We've been over this with the Trinity example.

Maybe a clarification here would help. When councils (ecumenical or local) define things as binding on the faithful, or anathematize a certain position, they aren't claiming to establish a new doctrine or to add something to the faith. They're claiming that the faith has always included some belief/practice X and that it is impermissible to deny X.

 

[ozso]

Because in addition to those Jesus calls blessed, all generations call Mary blessed. That's the veneration you're looking for.

Vernation in what form and to what degree though?

Maybe, I'm not sure. I thought we already established though that this question doesn't really make sense with the example of the Trinity. At the very least you have a split between the Catholic-Orthodox Church and the Church of the East over whether to call Mary "God-bearer" or "Christ-bearer" in 431, but that's all I can think of off the top of my head.

Yes, if your intention in doing so is to point to the belief/doctrine becoming mandatory as the "start date" for the belief/doctrine. We've been over this with the Trinity example.

Maybe a clarification here would help. When councils (ecumenical or local) define things as binding on the faithful, or anathematize a certain position, they aren't claiming to establish a new doctrine or to add something to the faith. They're claiming that the faith has always included some belief/practice X and that it is impermissible to deny X.

Does the Methodist denomonation agree with every single one those claims? Are there RCC beliefs and or practices based on what was decided in all those councils, that are not believed in and or practiced by Methodists?

 

[Valletta]

Do you believe that "Know Mary, Know Jesus. No Mary, No Jesus" was likely taught from the very beginning?

You've got so much wrong about the Catholic Church and Church history and I hoped you have learned some real history. I like that saying, I never heard it growing up as a Catholic in 13 years of Catholic schooling, but it well sums up Mary's role as we see in the Bible. My guess it is quite modern in origin. It appears that Catholics are wrong if they don't conform to what your personal interpretation of the Bible is and what you think is extra-Biblical. Let me ask you, we Catholics have an old prayer, found in the Didache, that still today we sometimes say at the end of the Our Father. "For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, now and forever." I know many Protestants say it. That's not just a saying, it is part of a Catholic prayer. But it is meant to honor God, as are all Catholic prayers and disciplines. Perhaps you yourself have said that Catholic prayer, have you? Do you find that wrong because it is extra-Biblical?

 

[ozso]

It appears that Catholics are wrong if they don't conform to what your personal interpretation of the Bible is and what you think is extra-Biblical. Let me ask you, we Catholics have an old prayer, found in the Didache, that still today we sometimes say at the end of the Our Father. "For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, now and forever." I know many Protestants say it. That's not just a saying, it is part of a Catholic prayer. But it is meant to honor God, as are all Catholic prayers and disciplines. Perhaps you yourself have said that Catholic prayer, have you? Do you find that wrong because it is extra-Biblical?

What have I said in this thread that can honestly be called only my personal interpretation of the Bible and no one else's?
What have I said in this thread that can honestly be called only what I personally and no one else thinks is extra-Biblical?
What have I said in this thread that can be honestly called me personally saying that RCC beliefs and or practices are wrong, or heretical or blasphemous or words to that effect?

What I consider to be or wonder about being potentially wrong, is if something extra-Biblical is proclaimed as being mandatory for Christians to comply with agree with believe in and practice ; especially when or if it is said (or even implied) to be mandatory for salvation. Are you going continue along the line of the accusations you've made against me, and make the accusation that that line of thought is exclusive to me alone?

 

[ozso]

You've got so much wrong about the Catholic Church and Church history and I hoped you have learned some real history. I like that saying, I never heard it growing up as a Catholic in 13 years of Catholic schooling, but it well sums up Mary's role as we see in the Bible. My guess it is quite modern in origin.

"Know Mary, Know Jesus. No Mary, No Jesus" is contained in the signature of someone who's been posting in this thread. Could you explain more about how it sums up Mary's role as seen in the Bible? Is there any verse in scripture that's comparable to that saying?

Please note that I'm asking questions like this to establish clarity, rather than trying to attack or accuse you, other Catholics, or the RCC of anything.

 

[Valletta]

What have I said in this thread that can honestly be called only my personal interpretation of the Bible and no one else's?
What have I said in this thread that can honestly be called only what I personally and no one else thinks is extra-Biblical?
What have I said in this thread that can be honestly called me personally saying that RCC beliefs and or practices are wrong, or heretical or blasphemous or words to that effect?

What I consider to be or wonder about being potentially wrong, is if something extra-Biblical is proclaimed as being mandatory for Christians to comply with agree with believe in and practice ; especially when or if it is said (or even implied) to be mandatory for salvation. Are you going continue along the line of the accusations you've made against me, and make the accusation that that line of thought is exclusive to me alone?

I'm not at all saying that your interpretation is not shared by others. There are thousands of denominations that agree with each other, at least for a while until a new denomination is formed. My point was that it is a human interpretation and thus can be flawed. But as brought up, you switched your line of thought to the topic of whether something is mandatory or not within a religion. Of course the Catholic Church has a number of rules and disciplines, that's no secret. An example would be fasting on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, Jesus fasted so the Church requires healthy adults of particular ages to fast. It's a minor thing but is helpful to bring your mind toward Jesus. Thus rules and disciplines fall under Jesus giving Peter the keys to the kingdom. As to Mary in the Bible, Mary was there for the Incarnation, there when Jesus was born, at her request he performed His first really public miracle, she was there at the foot of the cross, there in the Upper Room when the Apostles received the Holy Spirit, and is in Heaven in Revelation. Also in the Bible you can find where Jesus addresses her with the very respectful title of "woman" used back in Genesis for Eve, and where Jesus adds in that she is most blessed because she does God's will. Mary is part of salvation history.

 

[ozso]

I'm not at all saying that your interpretation is not shared by others.

"It appears that Catholics are wrong if they don't conform to what your personal interpretation of the Bible is and what you think is extra-Biblical." Add to that "the Gospel of MMXX" from someone else. You guys have been rude and gotten way too personal. I've questioned things in Eastern Orthodoxy here before too, and EO members were much politer.

There are thousands of denominations that agree with each other, at least for a while until a new denomination is formed. My point was that it is a human interpretation and thus can be flawed. But as brought up, you switched your line of thought to the topic of whether something is mandatory or not within a religion. Of course the Catholic Church has a number of rules and disciplines, that's no secret. An example would be fasting on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, Jesus fasted so the Church requires healthy adults of particular ages to fast. It's a minor thing but is helpful to bring your mind toward Jesus. Thus rules and disciplines fall under Jesus giving Peter the keys to the kingdom. As to Mary in the Bible, Mary was there for the Incarnation, there when Jesus was born, at her request he performed His first really public miracle, she was there at the foot of the cross, there in the Upper Room when the Apostles received the Holy Spirit, and is in Heaven in Revelation. Also in the Bible you can find where Jesus addresses her with the very respectful title of "woman" used back in Genesis for Eve, and where Jesus adds in that she is most blessed because she does God's will. Mary is part of salvation history.

I've heard a lot about thousands of denominations, but I'll bet most Christians, perhaps even you, couldn't name more than 15 denominations off the top of their head. And I bet if you named 50, probably 40 of them would be a branch of or a slight variation of about 10 main denominations. You say that human interpretation is flawed, yet the RCC goes with quite a lot of human interpretation. You can say oh but that interpretation is through the Holy Spirit, though divine revelation, but that's what everyone says.

Like I said, I don't have a problem with rules, disciplines and traditions in general. The church I go to acknowledges Ash Wednesday and I get an ash cross put on my hand (they do forehead or hand according to preference). They also acknowledge Lent and encourage us to practice it. We just finished 21 days of fasting and prayer (Daniel fasted and prayed for 21 days). I even observe Shabbat by refraining from work from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday as a discipline (but I strongly disagree with SDA and similar). I have no problem whatsoever with order and discipline.

Now I, like thousands of other Christians, don't quite see Mary in the same light as Catholics seem to. Like many I don't pray to Mary, because when Jesus taught us how to pray, he taught us to pray to the Father. You say Jesus called Mary "woman" but he also called the Canaanite woman at the well "woman". Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment. Matthew 15:28. (the same word used for "woman" in Matthew 15:28 "gunai" is the same that's used in John 2:4). There's several of things that I, and many others, can argue over the Catholic view of Mary. But I'm not going to put you down for your view, belief and practice. And I freely acknowledge and confess that I, along with many others, could be wrong.

Another thing is Protestants too are against independent personal interpretation of the Bible. Most Protestants believe in adhering within orthodoxy and consensus. When someone on CF starts in with their own personal homespun interpretation of the Bible, I and others object to it. There's quite a list of things most Protestants agree with when it comes to what's considered orthodox and what's considered heresy or just plain nonsense.

 

[concretecamper]

"Know Mary, Know Jesus. No Mary, No Jesus" is contained in the signature of someone who's been posting in this thread. Could you explain more about how it sums up Mary's role as seen in the Bible? Is there any verse in scripture that's comparable to that saying?

Please note that I'm asking questions like this to establish clarity, rather than trying to attack or accuse you, other Catholics, or the RCC of anything.

St Augustine said that all heresies come from either a misunderstanding of the Trinity or the Incarnation. Your apparent objection to the quote in my sig indicates a misunderstanding of the Incarnation.

 

[ozso]

St Augustine said that all heresies come from either a misunderstanding of the Trinity or the Incarnation. Your apparent objection to the quote in my sig indicates a misunderstanding of the Incarnation.

Where did I object to it? All I did was ask someone what they thought about it. Then I simply asked Valletta for his interpretation of it since he commented on it. I'll ask you for the same. That's not a challenge or an objection. I'm just asking for clarity. Can you give some clarity on how it's supposed to be interpreted please?

 

[splish- splash]

You know, if Mrs White was an Israelite by descent, maybe I could have tried to give her the benefit of the doubt.

How on earth does a gentile try to observe commandments & statutes that clearly aren't for them? & to make matters worse, a law that was done away with through Christ.

 

[splish- splash]

This is another reason why King David was notorious for taking people's wives. Examples would be the Bathsheba and Abigail cases etc.

That is because, David could not be with a married woman so this is why both Uriah and Nabal were gotten rid of, so he could become married to their wives.

If David symbolized Christ, then taking these women from their husbands was as a matter of fact, Christ getting rid of the law, so he could become our husband.

1 Samuel 25
2 Samuel 11
Roman's 7 v 2-4

 

[ozso]

You know, if Mrs White was an Israelite by descent, maybe I could have tried to give her the benefit of the doubt.

How on earth does a gentile try to observe commandments & statutes that clearly aren't for them? & to make matters worse, a law that was done away with through Christ.

It's debatable about how much she came up with on her own. James Ockford, Peter Chamberlen, William Saller, among others in England preceded her around 1650 by starting the Seventh Day Baptist World Federation. But EGW is the one who got the blaze going across America and around the world.

 

[BPPLEE]

This is another reason why King David was notorious for taking people's wives. Examples would be the Bathsheba and Abigail cases etc.

That is because, David could not be with a married woman so this is why both Uriah and Nabal were gotten rid of, so he could become married to their wives.

If David symbolized Christ, then taking these women from their husbands was as a matter of fact, Christ getting rid of the law, so he could become our husband.

1 Samuel 25
2 Samuel 11
Roman's 7 v 2-4

I think that’s a stretch. God let him know he was not pleased in the case of Uriah

 

[jas3]

Vernation in what form and to what degree though?

In some form and to some degree, and if you acknowledge that it was there at all, that's a significant development from saying it "started in the 4th century."

Does the Methodist denomonation agree with every single one those claims? Are there RCC beliefs and or practices based on what was decided in all those councils, that are not believed in and or practiced by Methodists?

Methodism, as I experienced it growing up, is silent on Mary most of the time. We acknowledged her virginity and motherhood of Jesus in the Apostles' Creed, but otherwise didn't bring her up except around Christmas.

Interestingly, John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, wrote in one of his letters that all someone needed to do to be a Christian was believe in a few core principles, one of which was the perpetual virginity of Mary. That would be news to most Methodists today.

There are definitely beliefs that Methodists don't share with the RCC or any other apostolic church for that matter. A tongue-in-cheek answer would say they would probably ordain a self-made eunuch which was forbidden at Nicaea I, but more seriously they would disagree with veneration of icons from Nicaea II (787), which is considered ecumenical by RC and EO, although icon veneration is also practiced by the OO.