Are Protestants Saved?

[Janet1983]

Think about it. The first Protestants were Catholics, and were raised up in the Catholic faith. Martin Luther was an Augustinian priest. Because of the lights and the helps and graces given them in virtue of their Catholic faith, they were blameworthy – especially the priests, like Luther and Zwingli, who actively and deliberately led so many astray, and others who, by their disedifying lives, left the souls under their care weak in the face of this spiritual onslaught. Sound harsh? No harsher than the final verses of 2 Peter, Chapter 2 (which, by the way, shoots down the theory of “once saved, always saved”):

Present-day Protestants who were born into Protestantism are not on the same moral footing as those who had left the Catholic Church. These did not voluntarily abandon the faith, but find themselves outside the Church through no fault of their own. However, if they come to know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, and still persist in remaining outside her, that is another story.

Yeah right… And so you are telling me that the reformers as well as every Cradle Catholic who converts away from Catholicism is doing what we find in Peter??

“For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.”

I disagree with that interpretation. I actually found Christ and started having a relationship with Him after I was disentangled from the RCC… That was when I have escaped the pollutions of the world. I agree that there are Catholics who are definitely saved, but I was not and now I am.

 

[gabriel22a]

And the rest of that passage is critical:

"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

This is speaking directly to religious people facing judgement without ever having a relationship with Christ. This ought to be a wake up call for anyone who thinks that their religion is going to save them.

I agree with your interpretation of this passage. But I’m confused about why this is being debated. Do Catholics not follow the current teachings of the Church? My sister says that she is friends with a person who claims that some Catholics consider some teachings after Vatican II wrong. Does this include the Catechism promulgated by Pope John Paul II ? Because it says:

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 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." (Bold, mine)

If we are not using the current, Church approved CCC, what do we base our discussion on? I had to come to the understanding when coming into the RCC from Protestantism that Sacred Tradition was not only valid but necessary. Likewise, that the Church reserves the right to interpret Scripture. So if we are supposed to trust this Church and its interpretation of Scripture, why the debate about Protestants being saved?

Not at all trying to be argumentative, I just know there must be something I am missing because seemingly well-informed Catholics disagree with this part of the CCC.

Thanks.

 

[yablabo]

According to the current CCC:
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 thems 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."

You seem really up to date on early teachings of the Church and I am not. So I cannot speak to your arguments from those. But I hope that the CCC is sufficient.

While the Catechism of the Catholic Church is binding on religious assent (under pain of mortal sin) where it teaches truly, it is not binding when it contradicts or is contrary to infallible teaching (teaching of the highest authority which is binding on the assent of faith). The Catechism was not promulgated as an infallible work which means that the Holy Spirit does not protect it from containing error. This does not remove the binding character of the Catechism, however. It simply means that we cannot reject infallible teaching in favor of what is in the Catechism and we MUST reject the error that we find in the Catechism. That is not to say that your quote is necessarily in error, simply putting things in perspective.

It really does not matter, also, when an infallible pronouncement came since it is binding for all times and places once pronounced. There is evidence of this in the First Vatican Council:

Ch. 3, On Faith:

1. Wherefore, **by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed **which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

The council did not put an end date in the pronouncement above or a limitation of locations which it binds.

As for Protestants being “justified by faith in Baptism,” no adult with the ability to use right reason can be justified unless he holds to what the Council of Trent binds on us:

The Sixth Session. Decree on Justification.
Chapter XVI. On the fruit of Justification, that is, on the merit of good works, and on the nature of that merit:

After this Catholic doctrine on Justification, which whoso receiveth not faithfully and firmly cannot be justified, it hath seemed good to the holy Synod to subjoin these canons, that all may know not only what they ought to hold and follow, but also what to avoid and shun.

It would be different for infants or idiots who are validly baptized, to the degree that they cannot use right reason. They could be born into heretical communities and be validly baptized and therefore be members of the Mystical Body of Christ, so that if they died in the infant stage (or as adults w/out the ability to reason) we have no reason to believe they are not sharing in the Beatific Vision. This above statement in Trent disqualifies anyone from heaven, who, once having attained the use of reason, does not receive the doctrine on Justification faithfully and firmly. That applies whether he claims to be Catholic or Protestant.

I see that the statement you quoted from the Catechism could be applied to infants and idiots who are baptized validly by the Protestants. Using infallible teaching to understand further, though, it is obvious that it does not apply to those who are able to exercise the use of reason.

– Nicole

 

[gabriel22a]

While the Catechism of the Catholic Church is binding on religious assent (under pain of mortal sin) where it teaches truly, it is not binding when it contradicts or is contrary to infallible teaching (teaching of the highest authority which is binding on the assent of faith). The Catechism was not promulgated as an infallible work which means that the Holy Spirit does not protect it from containing error. This does not remove the binding character of the Catechism, however. It simply means that we cannot reject infallible teaching in favor of what is in the Catechism and we MUST reject the error that we find in the Catechism. That is not to say that your quote is necessarily in error, simply putting things in perspective.

It really does not matter, also, when an infallible pronouncement came since it is binding for all times and places once pronounced. There is evidence of this in the First Vatican Council:

Ch. 3, On Faith:

1. Wherefore, **by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed **which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

The council did not put an end date in the pronouncement above or a limitation of locations which it binds.

As for Protestants being “justified by faith in Baptism,” no adult with the ability to use right reason can be justified unless he holds to what the Council of Trent binds on us:

The Sixth Session. Decree on Justification.
Chapter XVI. On the fruit of Justification, that is, on the merit of good works, and on the nature of that merit:

After this Catholic doctrine on Justification, which whoso receiveth not faithfully and firmly cannot be justified, it hath seemed good to the holy Synod to subjoin these canons, that all may know not only what they ought to hold and follow, but also what to avoid and shun.

It would be different for infants or idiots who are validly baptized, to the degree that they cannot use right reason. They could be born into heretical communities and be validly baptized and therefore be members of the Mystical Body of Christ, so that if they died in the infant stage (or as adults w/out the ability to reason) we have no reason to believe they are not sharing in the Beatific Vision. This above statement in Trent disqualifies anyone from heaven, who, once having attained the use of reason, does not receive the doctrine on Justification faithfully and firmly. That applies whether he claims to be Catholic or Protestant.

I see that the statement you quoted from the Catechism could be applied to infants and idiots who are baptized validly by the Protestants. Using infallible teaching to understand further, though, it is obvious that it does not apply to those who are able to exercise the use of reason.

– Nicole

But you go on to say that the quote is an error. Forgive my ignorance, but why would the Vatican put its stamp of approval on it if it contains errors? Is it not approved? I do understand your post, but it doesn’t make sense to me. And I know things have changed in the Church since its inception, which is understandable. Why can the decisions from the Council of Trent not change? Because it was declared infallible doctrine? It was before the Reformation, so is that why the new CCC has this paragraph about salvation outside the Catholic Church?

If even the CCC is not a point of agreement among Catholics, which I understand was written to inform Catholics of their faith, and Scriptures exist which can be used to support both views, I guess I am going to have to explore this further. It felt safe coming into the Church because it seemed that there was at least agreement on what to believe. But I guess everything is open to interpretation.

And while I attend daily Mass, have been Catholic for almost two years, and read as much as I can, I don’t understand this. I’m thinking it has to do with what my sister’s friend believes–Vatican II was an invalid council. (Sorry if I’m using the wrong words.) If that’s the case I need to study more before I can debate canon law with you.

Does everyone know that this section of the CCC is an error?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well, we know that the canonized saints are in heaven. When the Church canonizes a saint, she is declaring that that person is in heaven. Furthermore, even before canonization, we are capable of having an inkling that a particular person is or may be in heaven: the whole reason people get causes for sainthood is because someone venerates them on account of their outstanding virtue, or at least has a pretty good idea that they might have practiced heroic virtue. So I disagree that we cannot say definitively who is in heaven, because in fact the Church has done just that on thousands of occasions.

What we don’t have is a canon of the damned. We do not know for certain that any particular individual is in hell. This goes even for Judas Iscariot, in spite of his exceedingly poor outlook, and in spite of the opinions of saints and theologians. If the Iscariot had in fact saved his soul, it is awfully hard to believe that Jesus would have said that it would have been better for him had he never been born; but even so, the Church has never pronounced one way or the other on his present whereabouts – or those of any other evil dead person.

Victorious,

I LOVE your signature…the Tolkien quote. I’d like to read more about Tolkien’s religious views and quotations. Where did you obtain the quote from?

 

[MitchBeck]

To be honest, I believe that Catholicisim is the one true religion and Protestants ( I even hate that term as if it was a threat to another religion) miss out on the worship of the Blessed Virgin.

Having said all that I also believe that the Lord will want you to acknowledge how you lived accordingly to His Word, whether Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, whatever.

The fundamental position:

Did you keep my commandments?

Did you love thy fellow human being as thyself?

Did you renounce yourself and take up your Cross willingly to follow me?

Big answers required, no matter what the belief.

MitchBeck.

 

[Victorious]

Yeah right… And so you are telling me that the reformers as well as every Cradle Catholic who converts away from Catholicism is doing what we find in Peter??

“For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.”

I disagree with that interpretation. I actually found Christ and started having a relationship with Him after I was disentangled from the RCC… That was when I have escaped the pollutions of the world. I agree that there are Catholics who are definitely saved, but I was not and now I am.

Janet…I realize you have a personal investment in this issue. You are in my prayers.

Victorious,

I LOVE your signature…the Tolkien quote. I’d like to read more about Tolkien’s religious views and quotations. Where did you obtain the quote from?

Thank you. It’s out of a letter Tolkien wrote to his son Michael in 1941. It’s published in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Humphrey Carter, ed. (1981). Here’s the full quote:

Out of the darkness of my life, so much frustrated, I put before you the one great thing to love on earth: the Blessed Sacrament…There you will find romance, glory, honour, fidelity, and the true way of all your loves upon earth, and more than that: Death: by the divine paradox, that which ends life, and demands the surrender of all, and yet by the taste (or foretaste) of which alone can what you seek in your earthly relationships (love, faithfulness, joy) be maintained, or take on that complexion of reality, of eternal endurance, which every man’s heart desires.

 

[adstrinity]

Janet…I realize you have a personal investment in this issue. You are in my prayers.

Wouldn’t it be prudent for all Catholics (and Orthodox) to pray for the Protestants who may not be saved. I think this would be the most loving thing for us to do. They probably do not have anybody else to pray for them on this matter.

 

[Leonius]

Extremely unlikely and certainly rare if it happens at all.

Read this and see what Sacred Scripture says on the matter:
catholictradition.org/Classics/salvation-text.htm

 

[Janet1983]

Extremely unlikely and certainly rare if it happens at all.

Read this:
catholictradition.org/Classics/salvation-text.htm

I hope you do not expect us to read it all…
What makes you think it is extremely unlikely and certainly rare for a Protestant to be saved?

 

[Bob_Crowley]

According to Catholic teaching, are Protestants saved (being saved, are to be saved, etc.)?

The wisest and most prophetic man I’ve met so far was my original Protestant pastor, who at the time was in the Presbyterian Church, but was Methodist by training.

He died in 1992. However fairly late in the piece, probably around 1990 or 1991, we were talking in his office.

To my surprise, and remember this was a Protestant pastor, he made the following commments -

1. “I sometimes wonder if Protestants get to heaven”. His argument was that he didn’t think God was as easy going about the division of HIs Church as we are. We tolerate, or at least live with, a great many things that would not get a moment’s tolerance in heaven.

The Reformation he stated, was easily the most violent episode in Church history.

1. “I think (the 'false prophet”) was Martin Luther Some of the things Luther said and did weren’t very Christian."

They’re not what you expect Protestant pastors to say.

Towards the end of his life, he came to the conclusion that the Protestant postion on the Pope was a heresy, particularly the Westminster Confession of Faith which bluntly states the Pope is the Anti-Christ, and which every Presbyterian pastor swears on as part of taking office.

A couple of years after he died, he appeared briefly in a vision (one of about four or five all told) in which he said, “We’re not in heaven. Oh, we’re not suffering any pain - in fact, its pretty good, so you don’t have to worry about that. But we’re not in heaven.”

So … if he was right, and I used to find from experience he was nearly always right about everything, and that if he said something would happen, it usually did, then my understanding is that there are no Protestants in heaven. That doesn’t mean they’re condemned, but I think they’ll have to wait till the churches recombine. Some of them have been waiting a long time.

I’m inclined to agree with him. I thnk they’re “saved” (along with the Orthodox), but I don’t think they’re in heaven. I think God won’t tolerate the division of His Church with extreme violence, or the continued lies told in His Name about Catholics and the Catholic Church.

 

[Leonius]

I hope you do not expect us to read it all…
What makes you think it is extremely unlikely and certainly rare for a Protestant to be saved?

If you want to know then read the link, how do you expect to have knowledge if you are to lazy to study? How do you expect to be saved without making any effort?

 

[Janet1983]

The wisest and most prophetic man I’ve met so far was my original Protestant pastor, who at the time was in the Presbyterian Church, but was Methodist by training.

He died in 1992. However fairly late in the piece, probably around 1990 or 1991, we were talking in his office.

To my surprise, and remember this was a Protestant pastor, he made the following commments -

1. “I sometimes wonder if Protestants get to heaven”. His argument was that he didn’t think God was as easy going about the division of HIs Church as we are. We tolerate, or at least live with, a great many things that would not get a moment’s tolerance in heaven.

The Reformation he stated, was easily the most violent episode in Church history.

1. “I think (the 'false prophet”) was Martin Luther Some of the things Luther said and did weren’t very Christian."

They’re not what you expect Protestant pastors to say.

Towards the end of his life, he came to the conclusion that the Protestant postion on the Pope was a heresy, particularly the Westminster Confession of Faith which bluntly states the Pope is the Anti-Christ, and which every Presbyterian pastor swears on as part of taking office.

A couple of years after he died, he appeared briefly in a vision (one of about four or five all told) in which he said, “We’re not in heaven. Oh, we’re not suffering any pain - in fact, its pretty good, so you don’t have to worry about that. But we’re not in heaven.”

So … if he was right, and I used to find from experience he was nearly always right about everything, and that if he said something would happen, it usually did, then my understanding is that there are no Protestants in heaven. That doesn’t mean they’re condemned, but I think they’ll have to wait till the churches recombine. Some of them have been waiting a long time.

I’m inclined to agree with him. I thnk they’re “saved” (along with the Orthodox), but I don’t think they’re in heaven. I think God won’t tolerate the division of His Church with extreme violence, or the continued lies told in His Name about Catholics and the Catholic Church.

What kind of a theology is that? Waiting for the churches to unite to enter heaven?
That definitely is wild and how do we know that these visions were really him?

 

[Janet1983]

If you want to know then read the link, how do you expect to have knowledge if you are to lazy to study? How do you expect to be saved without making any effort?

I study scripture. You did read it, so “enlighten us”. I won’t spend my time reading through the words of a man who lived in the late 18th and early 19th century and condemns Protestants.
I can’t just fly over the text… it takes quite some time for me and that is not what I am willing to give to this gentleman.

 

[Leonius]

I study scripture. You did read it, so “enlighten us”. I won’t spend my time reading through the words of a man who lived in the late 18th and early 19th century and condemns Protestants.
I can’t just fly over the text… it takes quite some time for me and that is not what I am willing to give to this gentleman.

Then I will not waste your time either.

Christianity has not changed since then what he says is all from scripture, I would think for a person who studies scripture this would be considered short, read it one part at a time if it is to long for you to digest all at once.

Or don’t read, its no concern of mine I am not interested in engaging in dialogue with you especially as there is another whom I have introduced you to who can explain what I would have said to you more perfectly than I would.

Good day to you.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

What kind of a theology is that? Waiting for the churches to unite to enter heaven?
That definitely is wild and how do we know that these visions were really him?

How do you Protestants know the Pope is the anti-Christ?

How do you know the bread and wine in the Eucharist is not the body and blood of Christ, despite HIs saying so Himself?

How do you know the Pope is not the earthly head of the Church, with powers to bind and loose on earth and in heaven?

How do you know that Mary is not your spiritual mother, despite Christ saying to all disciples via the one at the foot of the cross, “Behold, your mother”, and to Mary, “Behold, your son”?

How do you know the immense of the Rerformation was justified?

How do you know the Bible is the Word of God? It was the Catholic Church which canonised it. This means then that you accept the authority of the Catholic Church?

How do you know the Bible is the sole rule of faith, despite the fact the earliest church had only apostolic authority and no Bible?

You answer these questions and I’ll answer yours.

I don’t know for sure that the vision was my old pastor, but I strongly suspect it was. I’ve had plenty of spiritual experiences, but these of course, always come with the realisation that we cannot be absolutely sure whether they’re from God, the devil or our own minds.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Correct to error - the question about the Reformation should have included “Immense violence”.

 

[adstrinity]

Extremely unlikely and certainly rare if it happens at all.

Read this and see what Sacred Scripture says on the matter:
catholictradition.org/Classics/salvation-text.htm

Wasn’t it one of the apparitions of Our Lady who said that Protestants are in Purgatory the longest because they have nobody praying for them? This concludes that they will be saved.

I didn’t see that in there, but, admittingly, I skimed it.

 

[historyb]

worship of the Blessed Virgin.

A Catholic admits what Protestants have stated all along, interesting no.

 

[adstrinity]

A Catholic admits what Protestants have stated all along, interesting no.

A Catholic says worship in one way. A Protestant hears it in another. Interesting, no?