Are protestants able to go to Heaven?

[Della]

If Protestants can’t go to heaven then I don’t want to, either. My mother was a Protestant and a heck of a lot better Christian than I am. I sprain my ankle and struggle to pray for even 15 minutes a day as a result, she is diagnosed with terminal cancer but never misses a prayer along the way, even when she was too sick to physically move. I have to believe that’s worth something to God, something a lot more than a church affiliation that many of us don’t even earn.

No one here has said Protestants are all going to hell no matter how good they were. Wherever did you get that idea? No one goes to heaven automatically, either. Each of us must stand before God and be judged by him according to what we did with the grace he gave us. That’s it. That’s all there is to it. And it sounds like your mother took as full advantage as her Protestantism would allow her. That’s the point, really.

The Catholic/Orthodox Church has the fullness of faith. Every other ecclesial body, no matter how close they may be to the Catholic/Orthodox, is a truncated version of Christianity. It may be good enough for many, but it’s not good enough to give us everything God intended us to have. And believe me, I want/need everything God intended me to have–all of the Sacraments, not some, all the means of gaining grace, not some, all the Sacred Tradition upon which our faith is built, not some, all the Spiritual Direction and Example of the Saints down through the ages not some, etc. That’s what it’s all about.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I notice you say “Catholic/Orthodox.” The Holy Father has pointed out that the Orthodox Churches of the East that are not in communion with Rome are “defective” and lack the fullness as well. So with “outside the church there is no salvation” they are really “outside” the Church as well. They have valid orders and sacraments but by Catholic standards and analysis, they are outside, too.

No one here has said Protestants are all going to hell no matter how good they were. Wherever did you get that idea? No one goes to heaven automatically, either. Each of us must stand before God and be judged by him according to what we did with the grace he gave us. That’s it. That’s all there is to it. And it sounds like your mother took as full advantage as her Protestantism would allow her. That’s the point, really.

The Catholic/Orthodox Church has the fullness of faith. Every other ecclesial body, no matter how close they may be to the Catholic/Orthodox, is a truncated version of Christianity. It may be good enough for many, but it’s not good enough to give us everything God intended us to have. And believe me, I want/need everything God intended me to have–all of the Sacraments, not some, all the means of gaining grace, not some, all the Sacred Tradition upon which our faith is built, not some, all the Spiritual Direction and Example of the Saints down through the ages not some, etc. That’s what it’s all about.

 

[Della]

I notice you say “Catholic/Orthodox.” The Holy Father has pointed out that the Orthodox Churches of the East that are not in communion with Rome are “defective” and lack the fullness as well. So with “outside the church there is no salvation” they are really “outside” the Church as well. They have valid orders and sacraments but by Catholic standards and analysis, they are outside, too.

They are only defective in that they are not in full communion with Rome, other than that their theology is sound (even if we disagree on some points, none of them fatal), as well as their holy orders. They are in schism not in revolt/protest. And no one who has been baptized as the Church prescribes is formally “outside” the Church. Therefore, those Protestants who have the proper form of baptism are connected to the Church, but imperfectly.

So no, the Protestants are not outside the saving graces given to the Church. They don’t take advantage of most of them, sadly, but if they were to desire to be in full union with the Church they can be reconciled to us. This is why the baptized Protestants who go through RCIA, like I did, are called “candidates” not “catechumens”.

A catechumen is one who has not been baptized who is seeking communion with the Church. They were not in communion with the Church, not even in an imperfect way until they become catechumens. And even for the formally unbaptized, the Church has clearly stated how they may be saved–the relevant paragraphs have been cited in this thread.

 

[dzheremi]

No one here has said Protestants are all going to hell no matter how good they were. Wherever did you get that idea?

The title of the thread is “Are Protestants able to go to Heaven?”

That doesn’t say that Protestants are all going to hell, and neither did I. I said that if Protestants can’t go to heaven (one of the possible answers to the question), I wouldn’t want to, either.

 

[moondweller]

No one here has said Protestants are all going to hell no matter how good they were. Wherever did you get that idea? No one goes to heaven automatically, either. Each of us must stand before God and be judged by him according to what we did with the grace he gave us. That’s it.

And you believe that at that judgment, based on what you did with “the grace” given to you, God will determine your entrance into heaven or not?

 

[Della]

The title of the thread is “Are Protestants able to go to Heaven?”

That doesn’t say that Protestants are all going to hell, and neither did I. I said that if Protestants can’t go to heaven (one of the possible answers to the question), I wouldn’t want to, either.

I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you stated something you didn’t.

As to not wanting to go to heaven if certain others can’t go there, two things come to mind. Firstly is, then we can thank God because we know that Protestants can go to heaven.

And secondly is that we know that many people will not go to heaven, Catholics and Protestants alike. Should this stop us from desiring heaven? I don’t think you are stating/asking that, but I think it needs addressing. The answer is no. We must desire heaven no matter who does or doesn’t “make it”, yes? And of course, we won’t know that until we are faced with our own mortality and die.

That’s the whole point of the thread, I think. That certainly Protestants can be saved and that we cannot know who, Catholic or Protestant, will be. We do not know anyone’s interior life and to judge by mere appearances is to judge badly.

 

[Della]

And you believe that at that judgment, based on what you did with “the grace” given to you, God will determine your entrance into heaven or not?

Yes. Of course, anyone who is endeavoring to live within God’s grace has no need to fear for his salvation. We have Christ’s promise of eternal life for all who believe, take up their cross daily, and follow him. Thanks be to God!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

There are Anglo-Catholic Anglicans who are closer in theology with Rome than the Orthodox are and yet the Orthodox are always considered just ever so slightly eskew while the Anglicans are “null and void.” Some Anglicans have Dutch Touch orders and are very, very close to Catholicism.

Orthodox view Catholics as in revolt and as having questionable sacramental powers. The Catholics view the Orthodox with higher esteem and I’m not sure why.

The Orthodox reject the filioque, they reject most Western views on the Atonement, see Original Sin differently, reject unleavened bread for the Eucharist, they consider Catholic theology as overly-legalistic scholasticism gone awry, and they have a fundamentally different view of Church polity utterly rejecting the papacy as a) infallible b) a magisterial head c) supreme leader of the Church, they reject the annulment process and have a different view on divorce, they largely reject the Marian apparitions and disagree with the process for canonizing saints, they believe all bishops are equal, don’t like the “transubstantiation” terminology, they reject indulgences, and many others. They are not as close to Catholicism as you might think. Most Orthodox I know don’t take kindly to the whole “they’re just a millimeter away from being just like us!” argument. Usually it’s met with a “speak for yourself!”

They are only defective in that they are not in full communion with Rome, other than that their theology is sound (even if we disagree on some points, none of them fatal), as well as their holy orders. They are in schism not in revolt/protest. And no one who has been baptized as the Church prescribes is formally “outside” the Church. Therefore, those Protestants who have the proper form of baptism are connected to the Church, but imperfectly.

So no, the Protestants are not outside the saving graces given to the Church. They don’t take advantage of most of them, sadly, but if they were to desire to be in full union with the Church they can be reconciled to us. This is why the baptized Protestants who go through RCIA, like I did, are called “candidates” not “catechumens”.

A catechumen is one who has not been baptized who is seeking communion with the Church. They were not in communion with the Church, not even in an imperfect way until they become catechumens. And even for the formally unbaptized, the Church has clearly stated how they may be saved–the relevant paragraphs have been cited in this thread.

 

[Della]

There are Anglo-Catholic Anglicans who are closer in theology with Rome than the Orthodox are and yet the Orthodox are always considered just ever so slightly eskew while the Anglicans are “null and void.” Some Anglicans have Dutch Touch orders and are very, very close to Catholicism.

Orthodox view Catholics as in revolt and as having questionable sacramental powers. The Catholics view the Orthodox with higher esteem and I’m not sure why.

The Orthodox reject the filioque, they reject most Western views on the Atonement, see Original Sin differently, reject unleavened bread for the Eucharist, they consider Catholic theology as overly-legalistic scholasticism gone awry, and they have a fundamentally different view of Church polity utterly rejecting the papacy as a) infallible b) a magisterial head c) supreme leader of the Church, they reject the annulment process and have a different view on divorce, they largely reject the Marian apparitions and disagree with the process for canonizing saints, they believe all bishops are equal, don’t like the “transubstantiation” terminology, they reject indulgences, and many others. They are not as close to Catholicism as you might think. Most Orthodox I know don’t take kindly to the whole “they’re just a millimeter away from being just like us!” argument. Usually it’s met with a “speak for yourself!”

Yes, I know. How I wish we lived in a perfect world with perfect understanding of each other. It’s sad, isn’t it, that we don’t?

Of course, the Holy Father recognized the closeness of the Anglicans and so we have the new Ordinate. I’m so happy about that and excited, too, as a former Episcopalian. How I’d love to be near an Anglican Use parish or one of the new Ordinate, but none in my area are likely ever to appear.

 

[moondweller]

Yes. Of course, anyone who is endeavoring to live within God’s grace has no need to fear for his salvation. We have Christ’s promise of eternal life for all who believe, take up their cross daily, and follow him. Thanks be to God!

So since it’s based on what you do and not on what Christ did, you won’t know until the judgment.

You don’t put a lot of stock in Christ words:John 5:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."You’re still hoping for eternal life, and must yet come into judgment, and have not yet passed out of death into life. So your hope is that at the end of your life you’ll have taken up enough of your cross and followed Him closely enough to be rewarded eternal life.

 

[Della]

So since it’s based on what you do and not on what Christ did, you won’t know until the judgment.

You don’t put a lot of stock in Christ words:John 5:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."You’re still hoping for eternal life, and must yet come into judgment, and have not yet passed out of death into life. So your hope is that at the end of your life you’ll have taken up enough of your cross and followed Him closely enough to be rewarded eternal life.

Sorry, I don’t go by your interpretation of Scripture nor will I take the thread off topic by debating OSAS with you. That topic has been discussed to death on CAF, but if you can’t get enough of it, you should do a search to find threads in which you can wallow all you’d like.

 

[SteveVH]

There are Anglo-Catholic Anglicans who are closer in theology with Rome than the Orthodox are and yet the Orthodox are always considered just ever so slightly eskew while the Anglicans are “null and void.” Some Anglicans have Dutch Touch orders and are very, very close to Catholicism.

Orthodox view Catholics as in revolt and as having questionable sacramental powers. The Catholics view the Orthodox with higher esteem and I’m not sure why.

The Orthodox reject the filioque, they reject most Western views on the Atonement, see Original Sin differently, reject unleavened bread for the Eucharist, they consider Catholic theology as overly-legalistic scholasticism gone awry, and they have a fundamentally different view of Church polity utterly rejecting the papacy as a) infallible b) a magisterial head c) supreme leader of the Church, they reject the annulment process and have a different view on divorce, they largely reject the Marian apparitions and disagree with the process for canonizing saints, they believe all bishops are equal, don’t like the “transubstantiation” terminology, they reject indulgences, and many others. They are not as close to Catholicism as you might think. Most Orthodox I know don’t take kindly to the whole “they’re just a millimeter away from being just like us!” argument. Usually it’s met with a “speak for yourself!”

Yes, I have actually been very disapointed in the attitude of Orthodox toward Catholics. I have always considered them our very close brothers and sisters and have always admired their liturgies - very beautiful. Not quite sure what is up with the attitude. What I have found is that it is pretty much “We don’t need you and we could really care less. Leave us alone.” If there are any Orthodox reading this thread - what’s up with that?

 

[dzheremi]

Orthodox view Catholics as in revolt and as having questionable sacramental powers. The Catholics view the Orthodox with higher esteem and I’m not sure why.

You know, before I began seriously exploring Orthodoxy, I used to read polemical articles at places like orthodoxinfo and other places and get really annoyed at what I perceived as smugness on the part of the Orthodox. Some even said things like “Why is Rome always bothering us? Because they know we are the true Church! They wish they were what we are!” I mean, how ridiculous is that?

Well…

Now that I think about it, that’s not far from what my old Dominican priest told me concerning objections to the Filioque clause. “They say it insists on double procession because that’s what they want to believe that we teach! But it isn’t!”

So I don’t think it’s so crazy anymore. And viewed from the other side (or at least on the road from Rome) it really does seem that way. By trying to equate Eastern praxis and theology with itself, Rome seems to be trying to regain a legitimacy it long ago abandoned in favor of…well, what it is now. (I know where I’m posting, so I won’t go into detail, but I mean the Novus Ordo, the “charismatic Catholic” movement, the moribund nature of Catholic monasticism, etc. The things that many, many good and faithful Catholics see as problematic in one way or another.)

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m not so sure the papacy is trying to equate Eastern Orthodoxy with itself though? I don’t see that? I think Benedict was pretty bold in saying that the Orthodox Churches not in league with Rome were “defective.” that was pretty bold IMO…he hasn’t seemed to try to coax the East or fancy himself or the Church more Eastern? I think some individual Catholics tend to try to move in Orthodox directions sometimes. Case in point is how many Catholics I talk to in here who reject Anselmian views of the atonement, which the CC has adopted for years and now adopt the Christus Victor/Ransom views on the subject. I think there is a flirtation that many Catholics have with icons and the bells and whistles for sure. but I don’t see the Vatican courting the East or trying to be more like them? If anything I think Rome has said that if the Orthodox want to be reconciled, they have to accept Roman primacy with no ifs ands or buts.

You know, before I began seriously exploring Orthodoxy, I used to read polemical articles at places like orthodoxinfo and other places and get really annoyed at what I perceived as smugness on the part of the Orthodox. Some even said things like “Why is Rome always bothering us? Because they know we are the true Church! They wish they were what we are!” I mean, how ridiculous is that?

Well…

Now that I think about it, that’s not far from what my old Dominican priest told me concerning objections to the Filioque clause. “They say it insists on double procession because that’s what they want to believe that we teach! But it isn’t!”

So I don’t think it’s so crazy anymore. And viewed from the other side (or at least on the road from Rome) it really does seem that way. By trying to equate Eastern praxis and theology with itself, Rome seems to be trying to regain a legitimacy it long ago abandoned in favor of…well, what it is now. (I know where I’m posting, so I won’t go into detail, but I mean the Novus Ordo, the “charismatic Catholic” movement, the moribund nature of Catholic monasticism, etc. The things that many, many good and faithful Catholics see as problematic in one way or another.)

 

[dzheremi]

I’m not so sure the papacy is trying to equate Eastern Orthodoxy with itself though? I don’t see that?

I don’t see that, either. I meant the stance that “we are more or less the same” which has been inculcated in many Catholics via various proclamations and the general showcasing of the ECCs. I didn’t mean specifically the Eastern Orthodox, though they would certainly be included in the category of “Eastern praxis”, too. I am being less specific about any particular church because I see Rome’s attitude towards the EO as problematic for much the same reasons as it is problematic for the ECC’s, too (and lest anyone think that it isn’t because in the case of the ECs they are “in communion”, please read the Eastern Catholic forum closely). In yolking (or attempting to yolk) Eastern Christians not just with Rome but under, it seems to embrace a dualistic view by which “we are more or less the same” (just with ‘different understandings’ of the things that separate us) but also “defective” in some way or another (as you’ve pointed out, by not being in union with Rome in the case of the EO and the OO; for ECs, it seems to be by not being “Roman” or “Rome-friendly” enough; see things like this situation). Well, by that logic, isn’t Rome also defective by not being in union with Constantinople? With Alexandria?

I think Benedict was pretty bold in saying that the Orthodox Churches not in league with Rome were “defective.” that was pretty bold IMO…he hasn’t seemed to try to coax the East or fancy himself or the Church more Eastern?

Yes, I appreciate his honesty and plain speech in this, and in many other things. That doesn’t, however, change the RCC approach to Eastern Christians and Eastern Christianity in general. That’s what I see as defective (in addition to Rome’s own approach to the faith, which I have much more personal experience with, and hence have come to reject).

I think some individual Catholics tend to try to move in Orthodox directions sometimes. Case in point is how many Catholics I talk to in here who reject Anselmian views of the atonement, which the CC has adopted for years and now adopt the Christus Victor/Ransom views on the subject. I think there is a flirtation that many Catholics have with icons and the bells and whistles for sure. but I don’t see the Vatican courting the East or trying to be more like them? If anything I think Rome has said that if the Orthodox want to be reconciled, they have to accept Roman primacy with no ifs ands or buts.

I thought Rome’s version of primacy had always been taken as a given in any discussion with the Orthodox church? Why else do you think that such discussions never go anywhere. The East says “sure, a primacy of honor, in recognition of Rome’s long history of orthodoxy” (or some similar explanation), but that’s not the primacy Rome is interested in.

 

[JaredM]

What about someone who was baptized catholic but also considers himself part protestant?

 

[dzheremi]

What do you mean by “part”, Jared?

 

[JaredM]

What do you mean by “part”, Jared?

I consider myself both Catholic and Lutheran. If I had to put it in to percentages it would be 30% Catholic and 70% Lutheran.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

I consider myself both Catholic and Lutheran. If I had to put it in to percentages it would be 30% Catholic and 70% Lutheran.

… You’re either full Catholic and nothing else or your not Catholic at all and you can be whatever you want outside the Church. To be Catholic is to fully assent to all doctrine and decree made from ex-cathedra and listen to the magisterium. Not out of ignorance but knowing that the Church established by Christ that was given to Peter will always have the Holy Spirit and will be guided in “all truths”. Rebellion against the Church, like Lutheranism and the rest of the Reformation, is rebellion against the Holy Spirit and thus is a rebellion against the LORD.

If I were you, I’d read from cover to cover the Catechism.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Coming from a person who has struggled MIGHTILY with Anglican-or-Catholic, Anglican-or-Catholic over and over for the better part of a couple of years, I feel your pain in which you are caught between two worlds. It’s tough indeed. But I will say that Lutheranism and Catholicism are incompatible, hence Luther’s split with Catholicism. His very departure was his own admission to he and his followers that they could not in good conscience remain in the CC. Likewise, one cannot attend Lutheran worship and theological values and be Catholic. They have too much that contradicts and especially the Catholic Church has an all-or-nothing product. Like Costco, you buy it in bulk or not at all!

I consider myself both Catholic and Lutheran. If I had to put it in to percentages it would be 30% Catholic and 70% Lutheran.