Are Protestant communities salvific and if so, how?

[DustinsDad]

You bet he has heard the Gospel and he preaches the Gospel and sola scriptura and all the rest of that baggage. He doesn’t reject the Gospel at all he rejects how we chose to interpret it.

How I interpret it is not in question - it’s in rejecting how Christ’s Church interprets it that is the problem. He who hears you hears me…that sort of thing. Serious business.

Just hearing the “Truth” as you and I see it isn’t going to move him an inch. He believes on Jesus and while not saying it to my face believes I am hell bound because I am not born again to his way of believing. I have no doubt he believes he has the truth and that I am the one that needs to be saved.

Just because someone hears the “Truth” does not mean they are no longer ignorant.

Perhaps culpable is the better word than ignorant - since one can be culpably ignorant or inculpably ignorant. Depends on where the fault lies - and we can’t see that.

Just because they were told a certain “way” at one time doesn’t automatically get them “off the hook” so to speak. Every adult that ever converted - pagan, Jew, non-Catholic, athiest, agnostic, etc. - had to overcome the exact same thing. No one is a blank slate as an adult. Personally, I believe that God’s grace is there for them to say “yes” at the presentation of the Gospel. Sometimes more, sometimes less - sometimes muffled by all the bagage we carry…but it’s there nonetheless. Just hearing the Gospel is a grace in and of itself.

It is only when the “Truth” convicts them and they know they are wrong and then still reject it. Like in the Parable of the sower there are those who listen but do not hear. It is all well and good to have the “Truth”, and praise Jesus I think I do, but to be able to break through to a mind like this guy has will take an act of God, not my arguments for the Faith.

You are absolutely correct. Arguments alone do nothing apart from God’s grace. That’s why prayer is so important. And then there’s this pesky little thing called “free will”…that can resist that grace. God doesn’t want robots - he wants us totally and freely loving Him (as He loves us). So keep “preaching the truth with charity” - and keep praying for this fella. That’s your part. The Good Lord and this fella will have to take it from there

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Cat]

DustinsDad, if you don’t mind answering a question. Have you ever been Protestant?

Thank you.

 

[DustinsDad]

DustinsDad, if you don’t mind answering a question. Have you ever been Protestant?

Thank you.

Hello,

I was a long, long way from home for way too long. But never Protestant. I guess you’d have called me an agnostic heathenist who bought into the lies of the world until the Lord slapped me upside the head with a two-by-four to get my attention. So I’m not a convert - guess I’m a “re-vert”.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

Oops. Should be hedonist up there - not *heathenist. *

 

[royal]

This question may get moved to the Apologetics forum, but I wanted to get a Traditional view on this issue since it seems to involve an evolution of Church thought. From the Catechism:

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers … All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

What does this mean? Does this mean that Protestant communities are salvific? If so, how can that be? Are they not subject to the same “rules,” if you will, that Catholics are? Does mortal sin not exist for them? How are they sanctified without the Sacraments? It just seems that they are getting a bye on some of the requirements for salvation. This is a bit confusing for me … sorry, I can be a rock at times.

thanks for any and all (name removed by moderator)ut.

Dear Roman Revert, I believe that what the catechism and the Doctrine of Catholic faith is saying is that it is possible for any community that believes in Christ may possibly provide a pathway to the truth. The fullness of truth resides in the Catholic faith and the sacraments and so the pathway the protestant communites could possibly provide is directly to the Catholic church. In other words, one would expect the protestant at some point in time to seek out the Catholic church if he or she were in fact searching for the fullness of truth. In contrast, then the protestant who does not move beyond his or her protestant belief is not seeking the fullness of truth but is satisfied with only part of the truth. Christ is ultimately the judge of mankind in every community therefore, His judgement is considered omnipotent as he is able to read hearts. Man is usually unable to do that and so according to the judgement of Christ, knowing the heart and what impedes the heart’s search for the truth, may save even a non-Catholic. There is no way to say for absolute certainty that anyone will be saved outside the Catholic faith, the Catholic Doctrine is saying that it is possible for someone outside the Catholic church to be saved by Christ if Christ so chooses to save that person.

The most effective form of salvation is the sacraments in the Catholic church no matter what and the Catholic church prays for the conversion daily of all non Catholics, not only from the protestant communites, also Islam, Buddhists, Scientologists, Hindu’s, Native American etc. as God wants all to come to the one true faith which is Catholic.

 

[nobeerinheaven]

Many of you seem to be defending the line that Protestants are only culpable for not joining the Catholic church if they know the Catholic Church teaches the truth and, despite that knowledge, do not believe in Catholicism or obey its teachings. Such a defense seems strange, since belief is a necessary condition for knowledge. So anyone who knows x must thereby believe x. Thus, if a Protestant knows that Catholicism is true, then he will believe Catholicism is true. If he didn’t believe it, he couldn’t know it.

Is the charge, then, that Protestants are culpable whenever they don’t act on that belief that Catholicism is true? They choose to ignore the belief, say, and continue acting as they did before.

Although possible, such a response is extraordinarily unlikely, making the set of culpable Protestants quite small. So small, in fact, that the charge seems vacuous. Instead of a such a vacuous charge, wouldn’t it be better to understand culpability in terms of knowing the truth de re, instead of de dicto? That is, shouldn’t Protestants be culpable for heresy whenever they have heard the truth of Catholicism, even if they don’t believe (or know) the proposition “Catholicism is true”?

 

[jmcrae]

Many of you seem to be defending the line that Protestants are only culpable for not joining the Catholic church if they know the Catholic Church teaches the truth and, despite that knowledge, do not believe in Catholicism or obey its teachings. Such a defense seems strange, since belief is a necessary condition for knowledge. So anyone who knows x must thereby believe x. Thus, if a Protestant knows that Catholicism is true, then he will believe Catholicism is true. If he didn’t believe it, he couldn’t know it.

Is the charge, then, that Protestants are culpable whenever they don’t act on that belief that Catholicism is true? They choose to ignore the belief, say, and continue acting as they did before.

Although possible, such a response is extraordinarily unlikely, making the set of culpable Protestants quite small. So small, in fact, that the charge seems vacuous. Instead of a such a vacuous charge, wouldn’t it be better to understand culpability in terms of knowing the truth de re, instead of de dicto? That is, shouldn’t Protestants be culpable for heresy whenever they have heard the truth of Catholicism, even if they don’t believe (or know) the proposition “Catholicism is true”?

If human beings acted logically, your conclusions would make sense.

Unfortunately, there are many Protestants (I was one, at one time) who know that the Catholic Church is the one that was founded by Jesus Christ, yet fail to act on that knowledge for a variety of social and emotional reasons. (In my case, it was a fear of being disinherited and possibly becoming divorced, if my husband were to react badly - fortunately, he didn’t.)

 

[DustinsDad]

…Is the charge, then, that Protestants are culpable whenever they don’t act on that belief that Catholicism is true? They choose to ignore the belief, say, and continue acting as they did before.

Although possible, such a response is extraordinarily unlikely, making the set of culpable Protestants quite small.

I think those you describe here would indeed culpable for being outside the Church. This in no way means all the rest are not culpable.

…So small, in fact, that the charge seems vacuous.

Excellent choice of a term there.

vac·u·ous *–adjective *1.without contents; empty: *the vacuous air. *2.lacking in ideas or intelligence: *a vacuous mind. *3.expressing or characterized by a lack of ideas or intelligence; inane; stupid: *a vacuous book. *4.purposeless; idle: a vacuous way of life.

Heheh, that’s a pretty good description - especially number one and number 4.

…Instead of a such a vacuous charge, wouldn’t it be better to understand culpability in terms of knowing the truth de re, instead of de dicto? That is, shouldn’t Protestants be culpable for heresy whenever they have heard the truth of Catholicism, even if they don’t believe (or know) the proposition “Catholicism is true”?

I think that would be the traditional way of objectively looking at it - all with the caveot that we can’t be sure on an individual basis, since the Good Lord reads the hearts and is the final Judge.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

…Unfortunately, there are many Protestants (I was one, at one time) who know that the Catholic Church is the one that was founded by Jesus Christ, yet fail to act on that knowledge for a variety of social and emotional reasons. (In my case, it was a fear of being disinherited and possibly becoming divorced, if my husband were to react badly - fortunately, he didn’t.)

I’m sure the Good Lord takes that all into account on the day of Judgement - but remember…we are to choose Him above *all *else.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad