Are Protestants going to Heaven?

[Philthy]

I never was a catholic.

Sorry, I misinterpreted your “conversion”. I thought you converted to Protestant from Catholic.
op:

It’s not my logic, it’s from the Kevin Smith movie “Dogma”.

Try using the brain God gave you. I’ve never heard of Kevin Smith and I wouldnt trust a movie to tell me anything. If you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, read the Catechism.
op:

Apparently (according to the film) if the church makes a rule, Christ has to honor it because St. Peter has the keys.

And as I told you, the Church has never bound anyone to Hell, so it is still an illogical application of the principle of the keys.
This principle is better approached from this standpoint: the promise that whatever is bound on earth is bound in heaven is not meant to imply that Heaven reacts to what the Church does. It is meant to say that what the Church will be guided by the Holy Spirit to ensure that the Will of God and of the Church are the same.
op:

The topic in the film is plenary indulgences, papal law do you call it?

It remains irrelevent as plenary indulgences do not bind or loose anyone from hell.
op:

Anyway, that’s where I’m getting my info from, Kevin Smith is a Catholic.

Poor decision on your part not to get the information straight from the Church - the Catechism is on line.
op:

So a rejection of the Catholic Church is always a rejection of Christ except when the rejection of the Church is done from ignorance? (is there a Cat no. for this one?)

Thanks.

Warm Regards,
Rev13_16

That would be a simplified version. As far as the “Cat no.” it’s already been posted for you from others - if you missed it you need to go backward in order to go forward.

 

[MariaG]

However, Protestants cannot claim invincible ignorance of Christ and his Church so I would think it very unlikely that Protestants will be saved unless there are some who truly want to become Catholics but are somehow forbidden/unable to do so.

How So? When I was in the Protestant Churches, we never studied the teachings of the Catholic Church nor the history of the Church. Even IF we looked at “Christian History” we never looked at anything before the reformation. In my Church we never even studied the reformation.

I knew nothing about the Catholic Church and only considered it “another denomination”. There are MANY Protestants whom their ignorance of the Catholic Church is almost complete. I say “almost” because they know it exists but that is about it.

This in no way implies they “will” be saved because they are ignorant. It is still a “may” as the Church teaches but for you to think that just because someone is protestant, they have knowledge of the Catholic Church is ludicrous.

It has been said that the Catholics who come here are more knowledgable than the average Catholic. I would have to say the same thing about the average Protestant. Most Protestants who come here, have the Catholic Church on their radar screen. The “average” protestant does not.

 

[jemfinch]

This is wrong and post # 2 proves it. Quit misleading the OP! Protestants through their conscience who feel the Catholic Church is not correct, but who have a deep belief in Christ through their own Christian denomination certainly have a chance at salvation.

A conscience does not make ignorance invincible. God will determine whether they truly were invicibly ignorant, not us; but I would rather err on the side of causing Protestants to question the invincibility of their ignorance than make them think they’ve bound for heaven when they’re not.

Protestants who have been informed of the claims of the Catholic Church and have not investigated them are in a similar position as contraceptive-using Catholics who have been informed of the Church’s stance on artificial contraception and have not investigated them: their culpability may be attentuated, but they are still engaging in something that’s evil, and may be held responsible for doing so.

We ought not to diminish the true meaning of “invincible” in the term “invincible ignorance.” Invicible ignorance means that they could not have gotten the necessary knowledge; it does not mean that they could have gotten it but chose not to.

Jeremy

 

[MariaG]

Protestants who have been informed of the claims of the Catholic Church and have not investigated them are in a similar position as contraceptive-using Catholics who have been informed of the Church’s stance on artificial contraception and have not investigated them: their culpability may be attentuated, but they are still engaging in something that’s evil, and may be held responsible for doing so.

Most protestants have never even heard of the claims of the Catholic Church. If they have it is in a general way like " the Catholic Church claims to have the true teachings of Christ". But see no difference between this claim and their pastors claim and the pastor over at the assembly of God claim to have the truth.

 

[Philthy]

.

Try using the brain God gave you.

Sorry - thats not quite how I wanted to say it! I was simply trying to say that you should be more discriminating as to your sources of information and more rigorous in assessing the reasonableness of that information…

Phil

 

[chris_molter]

Most protestants have never even heard of the claims of the Catholic Church. If they have it is in a general way like " the Catholic Church claims to have the true teachings of Christ". But see no difference between this claim and their pastors claim and the pastor over at the assembly of God claim to have the truth.

This is a very good point. It’s not that most protestants stick their fingers in their ears and go “lalalalala!” when you tell them about the claims of the Catholic Church, it’s that most protestant denominations have taught that:

1. The Roman Catholic Church (emphasis on Roman) is in error and teaches false doctrines.
2. The real Catholic Church is made of all those who believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and accept Him as their savior no matter what denomination or church they belong to.

so there’s no reason to seriously investigate the Catholic Church because you’re ok where you’re at now!

This is a simplification, of course, but if a person is born and raised a protestant and is taught that this is the whole truth from day one, then it’s easy to see why they would have little reason to delve into the bewildering amount of writings regarding what the Catholic Church claims!

If someone was raised on hamburgers and hot dogs, they don’t know that they’re missing out when it comes to filet and lobster tail.

 

[Revelation13_16]

Try using the brain God gave you. I’ve never heard of Kevin Smith and I wouldnt trust a movie to tell me anything. If you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, read the Catechism.

No Protestant ever reads the Catechism unless they:

a) Want to convert Catholics.
b) Are being converted by a Catholic.

Since I’m not trying to convert Catholics, nor am I far enough along the road of being converted to Catholicism, you shouldn’t assume I’d be familiar with the catechism.

Furthermore, I’d wager that most Catholics would say that the Catechism is open to misinterpretation just like The Bible is under sola scriptura, and hence even if I did read the Catechism I couldn’t say in full confidence that I’m assured of what I have deduced from it and hence would still need to trust knowledgable Catholics to help me in my interpretation.

And as I told you, the Church has never bound anyone to Hell, so it is still an illogical application of the principle of the keys.

This principle is better approached from this standpoint: the promise that whatever is bound on earth is bound in heaven is not meant to imply that Heaven reacts to what the Church does. It is meant to say that what the Church will be guided by the Holy Spirit to ensure that the Will of God and of the Church are the same.

I fail to see the difference, here’s why:

You say that the promise is not meant to imply that Heaven reacts to what the Church does.

Then you say the Church will be guided by the Holy Spirit to ensure that the Will of God and of the Church are the same.

Don’t you see that these things are one and the same?

If the Catholic Church opens a new Church somewhere, and upon the opening, all who pass under it’s arches are given a ‘clean slate’, then Heaven has to abide by that.

But why does Heaven have to abide by that?

Because Heaven willed the Catholic Church to make that law.

In essence, it’s not the Catholic Church making the law, but Heaven through the Catholic Church.

It remains irrelevent as plenary indulgences do not bind or loose anyone from hell.

I didn’t mention Hell in this way, I’m assume you’re skimming my posts and not reading them properly and thus any discourse is strained.

 

[mchale]

I never was a catholic.

It’s not my logic, it’s from the Kevin Smith movie “Dogma”.

Apparently (according to the film) if the church makes a rule, Christ has to honor it because St. Peter has the keys.

Well, the thing to remember is the Kevin Smith is a film maker who enjoys tweeking the sensabilities of his viewers. He is not a theologian and certainly does not have authority to speak on the positions of the church.

In simple terms, either the Pope or an Ecumenical Council has the ability to define the doctrines and dogmas of the Church infalibly. However, neither the Pope nor a Council has the authority to innovate. They simply recognize implications of what the Church has always taught. To most people, the results look similar, but it is an important distinction. Consider the following. If I say A=C that is an innovation. However, if I recognize that A=B and B=C then it is no innovation then say that A=C.

Further, we trust that the Pope and the Ecumenical Councils are protected from error when making determinations on doctrine and dogma by the guidence of the Holy Spirit.

Thus ultimately, God is not bound to obey the Church, rather the Church is bound to obey God.

The topic in the film is plenary indulgences, papal law do you call it?

Right, and remember, Kevin Smith got what plenary indulgence is completely wrong. Plenary indulgences are relief from the penalty of venial sin. A person with a full indulgence, does not get into heaven if they have the stain of unconfessed mortal sin on their souls.

Anyway, that’s where I’m getting my info from, Kevin Smith is a Catholic.

So a rejection of the Catholic Church is always a rejection of Christ except when the rejection of the Church is done from ignorance? (is there a Cat no. for this one?)

Thanks.

Warm Regards,
Rev13_16

Obviously, the question here resolves around the meaning of the word ignorance. If we understand the Church’s teachings but don’t believe them, I am not sure that alone relieves one of ignorance. If however, one understands that the Church truely is the Church that Christ founded, then at that point one would be rejecting Christ with full knowledge… and that would not be in a position I would care to be in.

–
Bill

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

No Protestant ever reads the Catechism unless they:

a) Want to convert Catholics.
b) Are being converted by a Catholic.

Since I’m not trying to convert Catholics, nor am I far enough along the road of being converted to Catholicism, you shouldn’t assume I’d be familiar with the catechism.

You see, but that’s not an excuse. There are many people who claim to be catholic and some of them are very far from the catholic teachings. That said, I don’t think it’s wise to trust movies when when it comes to Catholics believes. I understand that Protestants don’t read Catechism (and I wouldn’t expect that many would) but if they want to draw conclusions about Catholic believes they really should approach the official source.

Furthermore, I’d wager that most Catholics would say that the Catechism is open to misinterpretation just like The Bible is under sola scriptura, and hence even if I did read the Catechism I couldn’t say in full confidence that I’m assured of what I have deduced from it and hence would still need to trust knowledgable Catholics to help me in my interpretation.

You are right, Catechism can be misinterpreted but that doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t read it. If you find something unclear you should talk to someone wiser (a priest for example) who will explain to you what the Church means. You see, unlike Bible with Sola Scriptura, one can approach the author (or rather her “representatives”) and ask.

The problem with your statement here is that you’re comparing pears with apples. It’s one thing to blindly believe those who claim to be catholic or represent the catholic teaching and other thing to read what the official statement and discuss unclear passages with someone who should know the right interpretation of the passages.

I hope you see the difference.

I fail to see the difference, here’s why:

You say that the promise is not meant to imply that Heaven reacts to what the Church does.

Then you say the Church will be guided by the Holy Spirit to ensure that the Will of God and of the Church are the same.

Don’t you see that these things are one and the same?

If the Catholic Church opens a new Church somewhere, and upon the opening, all who pass under it’s arches are given a ‘clean slate’, then Heaven has to abide by that.

But why does Heaven have to abide by that?

Because Heaven willed the Catholic Church to make that law.

In essence, it’s not the Catholic Church making the law, but Heaven through the Catholic Church.

The question then is, would “heaven” condemn someone to hell before they die?

The answer is no. Souls of the departed are judged by God based on the lives they lived and God didn’t His Church the authority to judge the living (nor the already dead).

It remains irrelevent as plenary indulgences do not bind or loose anyone from hell.

Let’s not start accusing people of such things. We all human and may easily misinterpret texts even if we think we read them properly. In fact, the great number of protestant denominations proves it.

Peace with you!

 

[jemfinch]

This principle is better approached from this standpoint: the promise that whatever is bound on earth is bound in heaven is not meant to imply that Heaven reacts to what the Church does. It is meant to say that what the Church will be guided by the Holy Spirit to ensure that the Will of God and of the Church are the same.

One reason why you fail to see the difference is probably because you’re not reading the passage in Greek. The Greek text is explicit: the tense of the “bound” in heaven is a future perfect. Peter and the Apostles are promised that whatever they bind on earth will have been, at some previous point, bound in heaven. Whatever they loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven. Heaven does not respond to the Apostles; the Apostles are responding to heaven via the Holy Spirit as communicator and preserver of this unity between heaven and earth.

Jeremy

 

[MariaG]

No Protestant ever reads the Catechism unless they:

a) Want to convert Catholics.
b) Are being converted by a Catholic.

Well, actually…

Although a technical “revert” ie a cradle catholic who “left” the Church, my parents left when I was 4. No Catholic school, education, or church.

As an adult, when I started to go to church it was in Protestant churches.

But as to the above statement by you, I actually started to read the Catechism because I got tired of people telling/asking me what the Catholic Church taught when they heard I was originally baptized in the Catholic Church as an infant. I felt like an idiot.

Not intention of going to the Catholic church, just trying to sound slightly more intelligent when people would ask me things like “Do catholics worship Mary?” and I would have to answer, “I don’t think so.” and was told, oh no, they really aren’t Christians, they worship Mary.

Truly, the Holy Spirit rose up against those lies and led me to buy a Catechism. So I could answer, “Well if they do/did worship Mary, they aren’t supposed to according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

So this person who completely considered herself protestant actually studied for a reason other than the two you listed

 

[Revelation13_16]

One reason why you fail to see the difference is probably because you’re not reading the passage in Greek. The Greek text is explicit: the tense of the “bound” in heaven is a future perfect. Peter and the Apostles are promised that whatever they bind on earth will have been, at some previous point, bound in heaven. Whatever they loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven. Heaven does not respond to the Apostles; the Apostles are responding to heaven via the Holy Spirit as communicator and preserver of this unity between heaven and earth.

Jeremy

I think I understand now, please correct the following if it’s wrong.

What the Church does is pre-ordained by Heaven, therefore Heaven must honor it, because failure to honor it would be failure for Heaven to honor it’s own decree, and is thus a contradiction.

Eg.

Heaven’s will Heaven honoring
|…^
|…|
v…|
Church Action …/

It all comes full circle.

My understanding of it was this:

Church Action -----> Heaven honoring

But logically now I think about it, if the Holy Spirit is leading the Catholic Church through The Pope, then the Spirit is the one telling him what to make Papal Law and thus it is no different from God working through the hand of Moses in writing the Torah - it is not Moses who makes the Law but God through him, and that is why God can honor it, because he gave it in the first place.

True?

Love,
Rev

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

Hi CA,

As a Protestant I’m interested to know whether Catholics believe Protestants will be going to heaven or not.

Before you answer, I have some sketchy details that around 50-60 years ago the Catholic church took a ‘kinder’ view to Protestants than before, is this true or have I heard incorrectly.

Thanks.

(Waiting to find out if Heaven or Hell awaits)
Rev13_16

No. The Catholic Church teaches that no one outside of itself can go to Heaven.

It does however acknowledge that certain Protestants (children for example) may have a happier resting place due to the fact that they are ignorant of Church Teaching.

However, Protestants who know that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ himself (a historical fact…since the CC is the only Church even old enough to be Christ’s organization) and yet still refuse to come to Holy Mother the Church, are in a grave state and ultimately denied salvation.

The main reason for this is that Jesus Christ is the only Way to Heaven. And the Catholic Church alone contains the truth of Jesus Christ.

 

[Revelation13_16]

However, Protestants who know that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ himself (a historical fact…since the CC is the only Church even old enough to be Christ’s organization) and yet still refuse to come to Holy Mother the Church, are in a grave state and ultimately denied salvation.

Just a question here.

Since the Orthodox church also is old enough, is there salvation in that?

Regards,
Rev

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

Just a question here.

Since the Orthodox church also is old enough, is there salvation in that?

Regards,
Rev

I would say they have a much better shot at it. Since the arguements for Orthodoxy are a bit more solid than the arguements for protestanism (but that’s a different thread)

Ultimately…it still boils down to men who have willingly seperated from Mother Church.

 

[undeserving]

I saw this 1964 sermon by Fr. Ratzinger linked at dotCommonweal. Read it. "]Joseph Ratzinger, Catholic Church and Salvation, Pope Benedict XVI, Outside Church No Salvation, Non-Christians Saved – Beliefnet.com "Yet if we are honest, we will have to admit that this is not our problem at all. The question we have to face is not that of whether other people can be saved and how. We are convinced that God is able to do this with or without our theories, with or without our perspicacity, and that we do not need to help him do it with our cogitations. The question that really troubles us is not in the least concerned with whether and how God manages to save others.

The question that torments us is, much rather, that of why it is still actually necessary for us to carry out the whole ministry of the Christian faith—why, if there are so many other ways to heaven and to salvation, should it still be demanded of us that we bear, day by day, the whole burden of ecclesiastical dogma and ecclesiastical ethics? And with that, we are once more confronted, though from a different approach, with the same question we raised yesterday in conversation with God and with which we parted: What actually is the Christian reality, the real substance of Christianity that goes beyond mere moralism? What is that special thing in Christianity that not only justifies but compels us to be and live as Christians?.."

 

[jemfinch]

I think I understand now, please correct the following if it’s wrong.

Good, glad to hear it

What the Church does is pre-ordained by Heaven, therefore Heaven must honor it, because failure to honor it would be failure for Heaven to honor it’s own decree, and is thus a contradiction.

As far as I can tell, that’s accurate. I’m subject to the correction of the Church, of course.

But logically now I think about it, if the Holy Spirit is leading the Catholic Church through The Pope, then the Spirit is the one telling him what to make Papal Law and thus it is no different from God working through the hand of Moses in writing the Torah - it is not Moses who makes the Law but God through him, and that is why God can honor it, because he gave it in the first place.

True?

Sounds right to me. And an apt analogy.

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

I’m not sure why we’ve had so many Feeney-ish posts lately…

No. The Catholic Church teaches that no one outside of itself can go to Heaven.

That’s true.

It does however acknowledge that certain Protestants (children for example) may have a happier resting place due to the fact that they are ignorant of Church Teaching.

I don’t remember reading that particular passage in my Catechism. To me, it seemed to say, “Anyone who’s baptized with a valid Trinitarian baptism is in some manner united with the Church.” I believe it’s been quoted here earlier in this thread.

However, Protestants who know that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ himself (a historical fact…since the CC is the only Church even old enough to be Christ’s organization)

You know, except the Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, the Coptics, and some others.

and yet still refuse to come to Holy Mother the Church, are in a grave state and ultimately denied salvation.

As I’m sure you know, a grave state does not itself constitute mortal sin and a severing of the lifeline of supernatural grace.

The main reason for this is that Jesus Christ is the only Way to Heaven. And the Catholic Church alone contains the truth of Jesus Christ.

The Catholic Church alone contains the fulness of the truth of Jesus Christ. Don’t forget that “in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.”

We must also bear in mind that the same passages in the Bible that encourage us to remain in the Catholic Church (“Obey your leaders and submit to them…”) would encourage a Protestant, raised as a Protestant, to remain in his Church. I think that’s why James says that not many Christians should be teachers. Don’t forget the end of that passage from Hebrews: “for they are keeping watch over your souls, as ones who will have to give an account.” Many Protestant leaders will have to give an account for their deception of their flock, but I think many of the flock will be spared for abiding by biblical principles, even though their leaders were false.

You said in your next post:

Ultimately…it still boils down to men who have willingly seperated from Mother Church.

And, while we’re boiling it down, many people born into Protestant sects have never willingly separated from Mother Church. They were born in schism, they lived in schism, and they died in schism, very possibly through no fault of their own.

Jeremy

 

[Unitas]

I don’t remember reading that particular passage in my Catechism. To me, it seemed to say, “Anyone who’s baptized with a valid Trinitarian baptism is in some manner united with the Church.” I believe it’s been quoted here earlier in this thread.

I think this was supposed to be in referrence to limbo, although I cannot say for sure.

And, while we’re boiling it down, many people born into Protestant sects have never willingly separated from Mother Church. They were born in schism, they lived in schism, and they died in schism, very possibly through no fault of their own.

And, in this, makes sense. But it is all case-by-case, and we can only deal with hypothetical situations. A person who is born into, lives, and dies in a protestant religion isn’t really protestant per se. By all means it is still heresy, but there is ignorant heresy and heresy with full knowledge.

The people who grow up never knowing the Truth about Catholicism cannot be protesting anything, although their religion is defined as protestant. This is why protestantism only hurts salvation, because to be protestant you must know what you’re protesting.

Since the founders of protestantism are now long gone, very few know the Truth against which they protest. But the legacy to which they belong will always be called protestant, and so shall they, by belonging to these denominations, be called protestants, even though most probably don’t know what they’re protesting.

To me, there are those who protest the Truth, and those who are ignorant to the Truth. The protestors are true protestants, whereas the ignorant ones are merely caught up with them and don’t know any better. The theology is the same, but there are the ones who knows what makes that theology in protest of the Truth, and those who do not and take it in stride not knowing any better.

I think in discussing extra ecclesiam nulla salus it’s important to note that difference.

 

[thistle]

This is wrong and post # 2 proves it. Quit misleading the OP! Protestants through their conscience who feel the Catholic Church is not correct, but who have a deep belief in Christ through their own Christian denomination certainly have a chance at salvation.

The Catholic Church clearly believes this, and so states it.

Quote me exactly where it says that.

Post #2 CCC is about who can be called a Christian and part of the Catholic Church, even if loosely or at least not fully.

It is CCC 846 and 847 that talk about who might be saved and not CCC 818 and 848.