Denominations that teach that salvation is exclusive to them

[ozso]

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."

I'll take that as a you don't know for sure.

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.

This has gotten off topic. What we should be discussing is if the RCC teaches or implies that salvation is exclusive to Roman Catholics. Now I once listed to a debate that featured a well known RCC apologist named Tim Staples, and as I recall he said according to Vatican II, non-RCC Christians can become saved, but that it's a lot harder for them to become saved. He went into greater detail, but as I recall it sounded ambiguous. Not that this is exclusive to Roman Catholics, but there seems to be a lot ambiguity in answers regarding this.

When it comes to Nicaea II in the "Anathemas concerning holy images" section it says: "If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema." But maybe that only pertains to someone who's a Roman Catholic. More uncertainty and or ambiguity as to what's being said.

 

[JoeT]

The Church does not teach those who are not Catholic are automatically damned. That's heresy.

That's really wonderful. So, will I, as a Protestant Christian, spend some time in Purgatory after I die, or will I enter heaven directly because Purgatory does not exist?

The Church teaches that "it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained." [Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio), I, 3, November 21 964] "Salvation," then, "comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother.

"t is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience--those too many achieve eternal salvation. [Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio), I, 3, November 21 964]. It is His body which the his power brings together the Church, both the interior union of members with himself and love among the faithful.

Wherein we come to a dilemma beliefs of many are aligned with the Protest of the One True Church, wherein revolt against God's kingdom is their dogma. We must ask how one protests the Body of Christ and at the same time demands entrance to its heavenly domain.

JoeT

 

[jas3]

I'll take that as a you don't know for sure.

I don't know what you want here. Every time you're shown to be wrong, you change the topic to a different question without interacting with the evidence you were presented.

This has gotten off topic. What we should be discussing is if the RCC teaches or implies that salvation is exclusive to Roman Catholics. Now I once listed to a debate that featured a well known RCC apologist named Tim Staples, and as I recall he said according to Vatican II, non-RCC Christians can become saved, but that it's a lot harder for them to become saved. He went into greater detail, but as I recall it sounded ambiguous. Not that this is exclusive to Roman Catholics, but there seems to be a lot ambiguity in answers regarding this.

A lot of pop apologetics is ambiguous because you never know who is going to take a sound bite out of context and run around saying, "see? Roman Catholics think only they're saved!" As has been stated over and over in this thread by others, that is not strictly true.

When it comes to Nicaea II in the "Anathemas concerning holy images" section it says: "If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema." But maybe that only pertains to someone who's a Roman Catholic. More uncertainty and or ambiguity as to what's being said.

If you're bringing this up in relation to the salvation of non-Catholics, it's not really ambiguous. It pertains to everyone. The Orthodox have no problem with maintaining those traditions and would argue that Catholics are the ones who have abandoned traditions like infant communion or communion under both kinds.

 

[concretecamper]

I'll take that as a you don't know for sure.

This has gotten off topic. What we should be discussing is if the RCC teaches or implies that salvation is exclusive to Roman Catholics. Now I once listed to a debate that featured a well known RCC apologist named Tim Staples, and as I recall he said according to Vatican II, non-RCC Christians can become saved, but that it's a lot harder for them to become saved. He went into greater detail, but as I recall it sounded ambiguous. Not that this is exclusive to Roman Catholics, but there seems to be a lot ambiguity in answers regarding this.

When it comes to Nicaea II in the "Anathemas concerning holy images" section it says: "If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema." But maybe that only pertains to someone who's a Roman Catholic. More uncertainty and or ambiguity as to what's being said.

I doubt that if you are told a fourth time that the Catholic Church teaches and has always taught that those who are not card carrying members of the Catholic Church can be saved you will believe it.

 

[splish- splash]

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

Yeah true! But then remember David repented of his sin and God let him keep Bathsheba, where they later both had Solomon the wise King.

 

[ozso]

I doubt that if you are told a fourth time that the Catholic Church teaches and has always taught that those who are not card carrying members of the Catholic Church can be saved you will believe it.

Even though in the post you're replying to I quoted a Catholic apologist saying "non-RCC Christians can become saved"?

 

[concretecamper]

Even though in the post you're replying to I quoted a Catholic apologist saying "non-RCC Christians can become saved"?

So I guess you should remove the RCC from the list of those who say only members of their church can be saved.

 

[ozso]

Yeah true! But then remember David repented of his sin and God let him keep Bathsheba, where they later both had Solomon the wise King.

But their first child conceived out adultery died.

 

[ozso]

So I guess you should remove the RCC from the list of those who say only members of their church can be saved.

The thing is "can" be saved is ambiguous. I heard Tim Staples say 'can be saved, but it's a lot harder to be saved'. And then he went on to list a bunch of provisos non-Catholic Christians have to meet to be saved, like not being wilfully ignorant of Catholicism and having perfect charity etc.

 

[ozso]

I certainly have not read or heard a clear statement like "Protestants are just as saved as Catholics". Or “God shows no partiality between Catholics and Protestants".

Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. Acts 10:34

 

[concretecamper]

Such as "can" be saved is once again ambiguous.

It is not ambiguous. Let me see if I have the patience to type all this out.

First, recognize these 3 dogmas of the Church. These are all scriptural. You may disagree, but that is your right.

--Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation.
--For children before the age of reason the reception of the Eucharist is not necessary for salvation.
--The Sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation to those who, after Baptism, fall into grievous sin.

Jesus, Peter, and Paul tell us if the necessity of Baptism and that through Baptism we become part of His Body which is the Church.

So, any valid Christian Baptism makes one part of His Body and part of the Church. For a valid Christian Baptism we need proper matter, proper form/intention, and proper minister. So, if anyone is Baptized with water in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit with the intention of doing what the Church does, it is a valid Baptism.

Let's take Johnny. He is born into a a family that attends a Lutheran Church that believes Baptism is a sacrament and that it is needed for salvation. When Johnny is validly Baptized he is incorporated into His Body. Johnny lives his life and at some point hits the age of reason where he is capable of commiting serious sin. Johnny has no access to the sacraments of the Eucharist or Penence and the graces they provide. If Johnny dies in a state of Grace (before he commits serious sin), the Grace of Baptism saves. So in this case a non-Catholic Christian can be saved. If Johnny commits a serious sin before he dies, he has no access to the Sacrament of confession, too bad for Johnny. In addition, he has no access to the Eucharist after the age of reason, therefore, a double too bad for Johnny.

Susie, is born into family that attends a Baptist Church that believes Baptism is only a symbol. Even though water is used and the proper words are used, proper intention is not there. The Baptism is invalid. If Susie dies before she is validly Baptized, too bad for Susie.

Mark is born into a Catholic family. He is validly Baptized. Mark grows up and he doesn't go to confession or Mass. If he dies in a state of serious sin, too bad for Mark.

So, as you can see, non Catholic Christians can be saved. Not all Catholics are saved.

I hope this helps.

 

[ozso]

It is not ambiguous.

So, any valid Christian Baptism makes one part of His Body and part of the Church. For a valid Christian Baptism we need proper matter, proper form/intention, and proper minister. So, if anyone is Baptized with water in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit with the intention of doing what the Church does, it is a valid Baptism.

By "Church" Does that mean the Orthodox, Protestant and Catholic ie Body of Christ Church? Does "proper minister" include Protestant pastors ordained by a Protestant denomonation like Baptist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian etc?

Johnny has no access to the sacraments of the Eucharist

What entails the sacraments of the Eucharist? For instance during the lockdowns when church was closed, I performed communion at home according to Lutheran instruction. Did that qualify?

[Sacrament of] Penance and the graces they provide... Sacrament of confession... not being available

What does "not being available" mean? That sound like if Johnny goes to God in prayer and confesses his sin, repents of his sin, and asks God for forgiveness, that's not good enough, because that's available anywhere at any time.

 

[concretecamper]

By "Church" Does that mean the Orthodox, Protestant and Catholic ie Body of Christ Church? Does "proper minister" include Protestant pastors ordained by a Protestant denomonation like Baptist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian etc?

What entails the sacraments of the Eucharist? For instance during the lockdowns when church was closed, I performed communion at home according to Lutheran instruction. Did that qualify?

What does the sacrament of Penance entail?

What does the sacrament of confession entail?

I answered your question, I'm not interested in going down a few rabbit holes. You can have the last word.

 

[ozso]

I answered your question, I'm not interested in going down a few rabbit holes. You can have the last word.

I'm just trying to obtain clarification. Your somewhat hostile replies, like the one above, gives the impression that you don't have a full understanding of the dogmas you post.

 

[ozso]

RileyG said: "To be fair, most Catholics aren't knowledgeable about their faith."

Which would explain the circular, flip-flop, ambiguous answers I've seen from some, and why some become evasive and or get angry when pressed for details.

 

[ozso]

I also find it somewhat telling that trying to flesh out Catholic dogma was likened to going down rabbit holes.

 

[Valletta]

I also find it somewhat telling that trying to flesh out Catholic dogma was likened to going down rabbit holes.

RileyG said: "To be fair, most Catholics aren't knowledgeable about their faith."

Which would explain the circular, flip-flop, ambiguous answers I've seen from some, and why some become evasive and or get angry when pressed for details.

You've put out false information on Catholicism and Catholics have taken the time to put out links to documents showing just how wrong you have been. I have not seen any Catholic get any dogma wrong in this thread. What I have seen is a failure of you to answer so many questions posed to you. When proven wrong you just move on to another accusation. Studite pointed this out to you over a week ago and you are still true to form.

"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics “adore statues”; because they “put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God”; because they say “indulgence is a permission to commit sin”; because the Pope “is a Fascist”; because the “Church is the defender of Capitalism.” If the Church taught or believed any one of these things it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do. If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates…" Bishop Sheen, 1938

 

[ozso]

Now those are accusations. You post

Accusations of what? That "most Catholics aren't knowledgeable about their faith"? I got that from a Catholic.

You've put out false information on Catholicism and Catholics have taken the time to put out links to documents showing just how wrong you have been. I have not seen any Catholic get any dogma wrong in this thread. What I have seen is a failure of you to answer so many questions posed to you. When proven wrong you just move on to another accusation. Studite pointed this out to you over a week ago and you are still true to form.

I've talked about how Catholicism is perceived and I've asked questions about it to obtain clarity.

"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics “adore statues”; because they “put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God”; because they say “indulgence is a permission to commit sin”; because the Pope “is a Fascist”; because the “Church is the defender of Capitalism.” If the Church taught or believed any one of these things it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do. If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates…" Bishop Sheen, 1938

I was raised listening to Bishop Sheen on TV.

I won't bother you or concretecamper any longer.

God bless.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I'm going to disagree with you a bit. As you say the shabbat is old covenant. So I don't think it was a matter of keeping and changing the old covenant shabbat. I think the early Christians simply decided to assemble together to worship Christ on the day of his resurrection to our salvation.

I agree with you. Shabbat was not changed, but Christians no longer assembled on Shabbat, rather worshipped the Lord on the day of His resurrection and descent of His Holy Spirit which is the first day of the week.
We are not saved by Sabbath keeping, but by the passion and death of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The holy sacrifice of the Mass is presented everyday. We come to eat His flesh and drink His blood as He commanded. Although Mass is everyday, the Church knows that not everyone can come at that frequency. She presents is with our Sunday obligation, and, in America, six additional holy days of obligation. Jan 1 solemnity of Mary, ascension Thursday, forty days after Easter, Aug 15 the Assumption of Mary, All saints Day, Nov 1, the Immaculate Conception Dec 8 and Christmas Dec 25. Those are the minimum days required to attend Mass. Deliberately missing Mass on one of those days is mortal sin, as it is direct rebellion against God’s holy Church.
The Catholic Faith is practiced with obedience. I was Protestant for 20 years after being born catholic. I listened to the alleged gospel but I was as a lost sheep, unable to be free from sin. I loved Jesus and wanted to be free, but I was told by my Protestant brethren that it was vain to even desire to be free, just pray for Jesus to cover your sin, you cannot stop sinning.
For a while I believed that, but the Lord lead me back to Catholic faith. When I submitted to the full authority of the Church and asked for God’s grace, the sin that so easily beset me was gone. The grace of God flows through the Sacraments, by His authority and His Holy Spirit. Confession gives me the grace of forgiveness, and the Eucharist gives me nourishment and strength for spiritual battle. Come taste and see that the Lord is good.
I had a Protestant friend once tell me that he was just as bad a sinner as he was 40 years ago. To me that is horrifying. How can one claim Christ as savior yet not be changed? That is not the gospel
I have the wisdom of the Church and all the saints that have gone before me. Jesus is as a cleansing fire. We will be free from sin when we enter heaven. We can either pray for grace to be purged from sin in this life, but if our work is not done, the final cleansing takes place in Purgatory. For us to live this life believing we can never be free from sin in no way prepares us for heaven

 

[ozso]

I agree with you. Shabbat was not changed, but Christians no longer assembled on Shabbat, rather worshipped the Lord on the day of His resurrection and descent of His Holy Spirit which is the first day of the week.
We are not saved by Sabbath keeping, but by the passion and death of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The holy sacrifice of the Mass is presented everyday. We come to eat His flesh and drink His blood as He commanded. Although Mass is everyday, the Church knows that not everyone can come at that frequency. She presents is with our Sunday obligation, and, in America, six additional holy days of obligation. Jan 1 solemnity of Mary, ascension Thursday, forty days after Easter, Aug 15 the Assumption of Mary, All saints Day, Nov 1, the Immaculate Conception Dec 8 and Christmas Dec 25. Those are the minimum days required to attend Mass. Deliberately missing Mass on one of those days is mortal sin, as it is direct rebellion against God’s holy Church.
The Catholic Faith is practiced with obedience. I was Protestant for 20 years after being born catholic. I listened to the alleged gospel but I was as a lost sheep, unable to be free from sin. I loved Jesus and wanted to be free, but I was told by my Protestant brethren that it was vain to even desire to be free, just pray for Jesus to cover your sin, you cannot stop sinning.
For a while I believed that, but the Lord lead me back to Catholic faith. When I submitted to the full authority of the Church and asked for God’s grace, the sin that so easily beset me was gone. The grace of God flows through the Sacraments, by His authority and His Holy Spirit. Confession gives me the grace of forgiveness, and the Eucharist gives me nourishment and strength for spiritual battle. Come taste and see that the Lord is good.
I had a Protestant friend once tell me that he was just as bad a sinner as he was 40 years ago. To me that is horrifying. How can one claim Christ as savior yet not be changed? That is not the gospel
I have the wisdom of the Church and all the saints that have gone before me. Jesus is as a cleansing fire. We will be free from sin when we enter heaven. We can either pray for grace to be purged from sin in this life, but if our work is not done, the final cleansing takes place in Purgatory. For us to live this life believing we can never be free from sin in no way prepares us for heaven

There are many Protestants who hold a Catholic view towards salvation. One of obligation, obedience, commitment, perseverance and charity. Some refer to it as Lordship Salvation. One time on CF there was a debate regarding "Free Grace". One of the members arguing against it, sound exactly like proponents of Lordship Salvation. I would have thought for sure that's where he was coming from, but I saw in his profile that he's Catholic. I had heard Free Grace proponents complaining that Lordship Salvation was just like Catholicism, and after reading what that Catholic gentleman had to say, I could see why. Eastern Orthodox Theosis is also quite similar to LS. There are many Protestant Christians who seek that level of Christianity. My long run experience has resulted in being repulsed by sin, rather than being tempted by it. So it's certainly not like all Protestants are habitual sinners who can not overcome sin. I've seen many Protestant children grow into adulthood and maintain their dedication to the Lord and maintain a Christian lifestyle. My Christian experience has always involved the sacraments of the Eucharist and Confession. Now as far as your Protestant friend sinning for 40 years, I know that there are Catholics who also life long sinners. There's been and are many career criminals who were/are Catholic. Al Capone was Catholic. John Gotti was Catholic. El Chapo is Catholic. Being Catholic is not a guarantee of not being a lifelong sinner. I'm very glad for how things worked out for you.