Are Protestants Saved?

[gabriel22a]

I was not referring to Protestants when speaking of invincible ignorance.

Though, the reference (if you have the Companion to the Catechism of the Catholic Church) for paragraph 817 is Canon 751 which reads, “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

And if you read further into the documents of the Second Vatican Council also referenced to the CCC 817-819 it reads, “Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God.” (Unitatis redintegratio, 3) [my emphasis]

I mean that they are not damned for the sin of heresy/apostasy/etc. They are not held culpable for sinning against the faith. They are culpable for sins against natural law (murder, lying, stealing, etc.), which, without the grace of Christ cannot be forgiven.

There is no middle ground, you misunderstood me.

No that’s not what I meant; but, those aware of ignorance are not ignorant so they could not count on it.

The dogma (which is meant as it says) is that there is no salvation out of the Church. See the references I mentioned above. The Second Vatican Council did not intend to say that Protestants could be saved as Protestants.

Thank you for your clarification. I know there are Catholics who believe the interpretations you make, but that many do not. Salvation through the Church does not require membership in it. I have read the arguments for both sides and I’m afraid at this point we’ll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Leonius]

Thank you for your clarification. I know there are Catholics who believe the interpretations you make, but that many do not. Salvation through the Church does not require membership in it. I have read the arguments for both sides and I’m afraid at this point we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Then you disagree with the Church.

It does not matter that some who claim for themselves the Catholic Faith disagree, nor does it matter how many are on the wrong side, democratic methods do not have the authority to define the truth, the truth is not decided by us, it is given to us by God.

The Church has always taught from the beginning that membership of the Church is necessary for salvation and still does, it is an essential part of the Catholic Faith and cannot ever be changed, furthermore to reject a de fide. doctrine such as this one is to no longer hold the Catholic Faith.

With all the said, protestant children who are baptised are members of the Catholic Church through their baptism. It is only when they reach the age of reason and become culpable for sin that they may excommunicate themselves through attachment to heresy etc.

 

[Janet1983]

Then you disagree with the Church.

It does not matter that some who claim for themselves the Catholic Faith disagree, nor does it matter how many are on the wrong side, democratic methods do not have the authority to define the truth, the truth is not decided by us, it is given to us by God.

The Church has always taught from the beginning that membership of the Church is necessary for salvation and still does, it is an essential part of the Catholic Faith and cannot ever be changed, furthermore to reject a de fide. doctrine such as this one is to no longer hold the Catholic Faith.

Did this just happen? You and I agree on what the church teaches?
Wow! May I use your post as a reference?
Outch… the thread that I debated exactly this (that the church teaches you have to be a member to be saved) has been closed…

 

[Leonius]

Did this just happen? You and I agree on what the church teaches?
Wow! May I use your post as a reference?
Outch… the thread that I debated exactly this (that the church teaches you have to be a member to be saved) has been closed…

Have you read this yet?

catholictradition.org/Classics/salvation-text.htm

Christ Himself taught it right in scripture so of course the Church teaches it, even protestants accepted it at one time though they changed the definition of Church.

The real question is why your beliefs are opposed to Christ’s teachings, have you ever read those as taught by the first Christians? (Who where Catholic by the way , check out the Athanasian Creed written sometime in the first 500 years of Christianity, at least 1000 years before even the first protestant church was made by men for worldly gain.)

 

[Janet1983]

Have you read this yet?

catholictradition.org/Classics/salvation-text.htm

Christ Himself taught it right in scripture so of course the Church teaches it, even protestants accepted it at one time though they changed the definition of Church.

The real question is why your beliefs are opposed to Christ’s teachings, have you ever read those as taught by the first Christians? (Who where Catholic by the way , check out the Athanasian Creed written sometime in the first 500 years of Christianity, at least 1000 years before even the first protestant church was made by men for worldly gain.)

I do not oppose Christ’s teaching. I do however oppose the catholic church in all those areas where their teaching is not conform with God’s Word. I know what the catholic church teaches and I told others that this teaching is still intact till today. However I disagree with the notion that the described catholic church back then and the catholic church today are in deed the same. I cannot find any better words than to say that this church has diverted from its original course by hanging tradition and their own teachings higher than revealed truth in scripture.

 

[Kit15]

I cannot find any better words than to say that this church has diverted from its original course by hanging tradition and their own teachings higher than revealed truth in scripture.

Not that Scripture is unimportant but if you want to talk about original course, Tradition was the only thing going on for quite some time before people decided they should get to writing or else everything was going to be lost to the flow of time.

 

[Janet1983]

Not that Scripture is unimportant but if you want to talk about original course, Tradition was the only thing going on for quite some time before people decided they should get to writing or else everything was going to be lost to the flow of time.

Scripture is the revealed and preserved Word of God. What could be more important than that?

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Psalms 12:6-7)

 

[adstrinity]

Scripture is the revealed and preserved Word of God. What could be more important than that?

God Himself incarnate teaching and setting up His Church?

 

[Leonius]

Scripture is the revealed and preserved Word of God. What could be more important than that?

Are you aware that the new testament was not but together until over 300 years into Christianity? Are you aware that it was the Catholic Church that put the New Testament together and also has preserved it all this time? Are you aware that Christ founded a Church not a book?

 

[Leonius]

I do not oppose Christ’s teaching. I do however oppose the catholic church in all those areas where their teaching is not conform with God’s Word. I know what the catholic church teaches and I told others that this teaching is still intact till today. However I disagree with the notion that the described catholic church back then and the catholic church today are in deed the same. I cannot find any better words than to say that this church has diverted from its original course by hanging tradition and their own teachings higher than revealed truth in scripture.

You do oppose Christ’s teachings and have replaced the ones you don’t like with your opinion. All Catholic teaching conforms with God’s Revelation. If you read the Early Church Fathers you will find the same Catholic Church as the one today as far as Faith and Morals are concerned, al that has changed is that the Church has grown, and outward appearances have developed, the Faith itself has not changed. Tradition was what Christ and the Apostles passed on to us, there was no New Testament until the Church compiled it.

You have been deceived into believing that there is a difference between the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition, there is not they both teach the same things.

Our Trinitarian God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit makes known His Revelation in a Trinitarian way, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of His Church. Just as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit act in union with each other so also are Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium in union with each other on what God has Revealed.

 

[Janet1983]

You do oppose Christ’s teachings and have replaced the ones you don’t like with your opinion. All Catholic teaching conforms with God’s Revelation. If you read the Early Church Fathers you will find the same Catholic Church as the one today as far as Faith and Morals are concerned, al that has changed is that the Church has grown, and outward appearances have developed, the Faith itself has not changed. Tradition was what Christ and the Apostles passed on to us, there was no New Testament until the Church compiled it.

You have been deceived into believing that there is a difference between the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition, there is not they both teach the same things.

Our Trinitarian God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit makes known His Revelation in a Trinitarian way, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of His Church. Just as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit act in union with each other so also are Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium in union with each other on what God has Revealed.

There is a definite difference between tradition and scripture: One is mere traditions of men and the other is given by the Lord our God.
I do not oppose Christ’s teaching and I therefore disagree with you. These kind of blunt accusations are not worthy of being answered as it does tempt me to tell you what I think about the RCC. As I actually do like to write on this message board I will not let you lead me somewhere I do not want to go. Go and tempt somebody else to anger or even better: Ipse venena bibas.

 

[Leonius]

Sacred Traditions were given to us by God Himself they are not the traditions of men, saying that is like saying the scriptures where written by men just because men held the pen that wrote them.

You are a hypocrite as far as I am concerned. The source of the Scriptures are the same as the Source of the Traditions you cannot follow one and reject the other they both come from the same source God thorough the same teachers the Apostles and their successors chosen by God to teach.

The scriptures were written by men just as the traditions were handed on to us by men, if one is of men then they both are or neither of them are.

The Traditions came before the Scriptures.

 

[Matt33]

There is a definite difference between tradition and scripture: One is mere traditions of men and the other is given by the Lord our God.
I do not oppose Christ’s teaching and I therefore disagree with you. These kind of blunt accusations are not worthy of being answered as it does tempt me to tell you what I think about the RCC. As I actually do like to write on this message board I will not let you lead me somewhere I do not want to go. Go and tempt somebody else to anger or even better: Ipse venena bibas.

No one is personally attacking you so anger should not be an issue here. Are you stating that mere logic and Truth cannot be expressed by your position because it is too emotional? Perhaps, Truth is something that can, and should be told in love and Charity, as the Scriptures tell us to. You do want to follow scripture right?
One thing I never understood about Bible beating protestants is thier absolute insistance on Sola Scriptora EXCEPT when it applies to things like the Eucharist, or the Church. All of the sudden, what is usually a literal view of the Bible becomes contextual, but only if it doesn’t rub YOUR opinion right. Must be why the Bible was changed…

 

[treba]

There is a definite difference between tradition and scripture: One is mere traditions of men and the other is given by the Lord our God.
I do not oppose Christ’s teaching and I therefore disagree with you. These kind of blunt accusations are not worthy of being answered as it does tempt me to tell you what I think about the RCC. As I actually do like to write on this message board I will not let you lead me somewhere I do not want to go. Go and tempt somebody else to anger or even better: Ipse venena bibas.

Isnt the Bible mere tradition of men as you say?

 

[Janet1983]

Must be why the Bible was changed…

The Bible was not changed and in Scripture everything has to be seen in its context… in the chapter, the book and then in the Bible.
Concerning my answer: I will not debate someone whose only interest is to start wild accusations about my faith. There are good and right ways to say things and other ways to say things… Unproven accusations should not be part of a charitable discussion.

You do oppose Christ’s teachings and have replaced the ones you don’t like with your opinion.

You have been deceived…

 

[Matt33]

The Bible was not changed and in Scripture everything has to be seen in its context… in the chapter, the book and then in the BibleSays who? where do you get that idea?.
Concerning my answer: I will not debate someone whose only interest is to start wild accusations about my faith. There are good and right ways to say things and other ways to say things… Unproven accusations should not be part of a charitable discussion.Ok well… there were no acusations exept that he thinks you are wrong. Yours are the accusations unproved.

Perhaps a little introspection is in order here. So far on this thread you have posted far more unfounded “opinion” than anyone. Leonius Just was stating what he belives is the truth. Much like you can come on these boards and post what you believe. I must say you are following the textbook for protestant accusation against Catholics. Mary worship, Bible only, “I dont need no pope” As a proclaimed former Catholic I find it odd and perhaps sad that the faith was misunderstood by you in such a way that you are outside of the Church. And each time someone engages you, you evade.

 

[Leonius]

Janet you are a liar and a deceiver, you admitted as much when you revealed that you are not telling us what you really think of the Catholic Church. Such ways are not the ways of God. It is clear you are only here to seek to spread your fathers poison among the faithful, not for the dialogue you claim to be otherwise you would have told us the real reasons you hate the Church so much by now instead of regurgitating the usual protestant drivel that was refuted 400 years ago.

You are wasting your time, your father only has power over those who consent to be his slaves, and cast off the protection of Almighty God voluntarily, you will not find anyone to join you in your corruption here, apage operatur iniquitatem.

 

[Matt33]

Arrg Leonius, I defend you and then you post that. That was maybe a little harsh.

 

[Leonius]

Arrg Leonius, I defend you and then you post that. That was maybe a little harsh.

Well you were correct when you posted my brother, first the poison must be drawn out from her before healing can begin.

 

[Janet1983]

Perhaps a little introspection is in order here. So far on this thread you have posted far more unfounded “opinion” than anyone. Leonius Just was stating what he belives is the truth. Much like you can come on these boards and post what you believe. I must say you are following the textbook for protestant accusation against Catholics. Mary worship, Bible only, “I dont need no pope” As a proclaimed former Catholic I find it odd and perhaps sad that the faith was misunderstood by you in such a way that you are outside of the Church. And each time someone engages you, you evade.

Why? Asking where someone gets their ideas from is not wrong, is it?
And getting this kind of an answer? Well…

Janet you are a liar and a deceiver, you admitted as much when you revealed that you are not telling us what you really think of the Catholic Church. Such ways are not the ways of God. It is clear you are only here to seek to spread your fathers poison among the faithful, not for the dialogue you claim to be otherwise you would have told us the real reasons you hate the Church so much by now instead of regurgitating the usual protestant drivel that was refuted 400 years ago.

You are wasting your time, your father only has power over those who consent to be his slaves, and cast off the protection of Almighty God voluntarily, you will not find anyone to join you in your corruption here, apage operatur iniquitatem.

q.e.d.