Can protestants only be saved because of ignorance ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adamski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It would seem that for a Protestant to be saved it would be extremely hard since most of their churches teach some or many mortal sins are excepted or even good so doesn’t it seem the only way they could have salvation is through ignorance ??
Your burden is first to make a creditable case that Catholics are “saved”. Many Protestants don’t think that they are. How do you reconcile that apparent problem?

This all seems like a difference of opinion to me. How can you dismiss another person’s carefully considered spiritual path? Perhaps your focus should be less on others, and more on yourself, and your own salvation.
 
Your burden is first to make a creditable case that Catholics are “saved”. Many Protestants don’t think that they are. How do you reconcile that apparent problem?
What problem? That protestants don’t think we “are saved” We know they are wrong.
 
What problem? That protestants don’t think we “are saved” We know they are wrong.
How do you know that your claim to salvation is any more plausible than anyone else’s?Even Christianity is a young religion, which sits in the midst of many competitors. Since your “proof” relies on faith, then how can your assertion be “more valid” than another’s?

Martin Luther was a catholic monk, and a catholic priest. Do you claim to have a better understanding of Catholicism, or of Christianity than he did? Do you claim greater piety, more religious devotion, more sincerity…?

Please tell me how you are more qualified to evaluate Catholic religious teachings than he was.
 
How do you know that your claim to salvation is any more plausible than anyone else’s?Even Christianity is a young religion, which sits in the midst of many competitors. Since your “proof” relies on faith, then how can your assertion be “more valid” than another’s?

Martin Luther was a catholic monk, and a catholic priest. Do you claim to have a better understanding of Catholicism, or of Christianity than he did? Do you claim greater piety, more religious devotion, more sincerity…?

Please tell me how you are more qualified to evaluate Catholic religious teachings than he was.
I’m not, but odds are, when one man separates from the whole and claims an interpretation different from the whole - he’s the one who’s wrong, until proven otherwise. Of course, one could claim that about Jesus, except Jesus claimed divinity; I don’t think Martin ever did.

Besides not all “protestants” say Catholics are not saved. Certainly not the majority, only a very small subset of protestantism even claims such views.
 
We are talking here about “invincible ignorance” or the idea that you can be saved by ignorance if it is through no fault of your own. And yes most priest and theologians will tell you that what catholicism considers to qualify under this ignorance is having no exposure at all from the idea of Jesus, sin, catholic church etc.
:eek: Dear lady, you are really off the mark, and need to do some homework on this. That is NOT the teaching of the Church regarding invincible ignorance.
If someone has had a minimal level of exposure then under this idea they are not ignorant because it stops beings through no fault of their own. According to the church very few people qualify under invincible ignorance.
May we please have a written and documented source for your claim? I doubt you’ll find it anywhere in Catholicism.
 
There was a lengthy list of citations posted recently that included writings from the Church Fathers, saints, and Popes on the matter of invincible ignorance. After reviewing this list, I challenge anyone who would continue to hold a doubt about what the Church believes and teaches. The poster only submitted a partial list up to 1908, and did not include the many recent teachings.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12076159&postcount=12

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12076163&postcount=13
 
I’m not, but odds are, when one man separates from the whole and claims an interpretation different from the whole - he’s the one who’s wrong, until proven otherwise. Of course, one could claim that about Jesus, except Jesus claimed divinity; I don’t think Martin ever did.

Besides not all “protestants” say Catholics are not saved. Certainly not the majority, only a very small subset of protestantism even claims such views.
I disagree with your claim that one who disagrees with a larger group is probably wrong. I would rather think that an individual’s decision should be evaluated on the merits of her reasons.

Some Protestants think that Catholics are less likely to receive salvation than some other Christian denominations.

All Christians share a common mythology, but differ in ritual, morality, theology and mystical experience. I think that it is the mystical experience which most differentiate Christians. I question the claim that one group has more merit in any of this, than any other does.
 
How do you know that your claim to salvation is any more plausible than anyone else’s?Even Christianity is a young religion, which sits in the midst of many competitors. Since your “proof” relies on faith, then how can your assertion be “more valid” than another’s?
Our proof for Christianity, and even though Syro and I disagree on theology, I think he would echo my view here, is not on “faith,” but on actual historical events.
 
Our proof for Christianity, and even though Syro and I disagree on theology, I think he would echo my view here, is not on “faith,” but on actual historical events.
But, you accept on faith that among the many prophets born of a virgin (a very popular concept during Jesus’ time), that Jesus is different from the others. We can surmise that this claim was not considered remarkable contemporaneously, as there is no mention of it in any historic record which has survived.

It is very difficult to separate fact from allegory in the Bible. I am assuming that this is your historic source.

But your position strengthens mine, which is that religious choice is deeply personal, and in the end can only be an act of faith. Denigrating that act by declaring one person saved, while another is said to be lost, which appears to be the OP’s claim, has little merit.

If your reliance is on the same historic facts as another’s, how could you be Lutheran while another is Catholic?
 
Read this

Note that says those who are “truly unaware” of what God requires are not held responsible. On the next one note that there must be reasonable diligence in finding the truth and moral principles are presumed to be known

staycatholic.com/salvation_outside_the_church.htm

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1203http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/tradition-eens2.html
romancatholicism.org/jansenism/original-sin-ignorance.html

Read cathecism #1791

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm

Note that you are still responsible for not finding the truth.

Also know that the basic dogma is that there is no salvation outside the catholic church. And mostbsaints and popes have been very clear about it. (See cites above of saints and popes as to how difficult is to be saved outside the church)

To obtain salvation outside the church due to ignorance is very very unlikely
 
But, you accept on faith that among the many prophets born of a virgin (a very popular concept during Jesus’ time)
Source for this?
that Jesus is different from the others. We can surmise that this claim was not considered remarkable contemporaneously, as there is no mention of it in any historic record which has survived.
Except for the New Testament, which happens to be the most accurate historical record from the time period, that we possess today.
It is very difficult to separate fact from allegory in the Bible. I am assuming that this is your historic source.
No it isn’t difficult. Even if it were, no, I wouldn’t rely primarily on the Bible because I don’t have to. The NT record is corrorborated nicely from other secular sources.
But your position strengthens mine, which is that religious choice is deeply personal, and in the end can only be an act of faith.
No more so than any other worldview is an act of faith.
Denigrating that act by declaring one person saved, while another is said to be lost, which appears to be the OP’s claim, has little merit.
Well, relative to discussions between Catholics and Protestants, it should not be an issue of salvation. I realize that some Protestants and some Catholics do hold the view that the other is not. It is, however, a minority position in both groups.
If your reliance is on the same historic facts as another’s, how could you be Lutheran while another is Catholic?
I wasn’t referring to differences in view on certain theological points. While we differ on some particulars, we do not as to the identify of Who we put our trust in and Whom we worship and adore.
 
Mary, it is obvious to the reader that you are submitting this information based on your own biased and personal interpretation, and not as the Church teaches. Your links do not fully appreciate the essence of the teaching behind them. For instance with CCC 1777, there is a footnote #48. Did you read it? It is scripture, what we believe and know is inerrant truth, as taught by St. Paul in Romans 2:14-16, regarding the natural law written in the heart, and how God judges it… Maybe you should read that first.

Going a bit further into CCC 1791, footnote #59 is from the Vatican II Council Document Gaudiem et Spes Article 16, which teaches solemnly, “For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged.”
…] Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.

We see that a lax conscience resulting from habitual sin is not the meaning of invincible ignorance … we’re not talking about that here. A true conscience may err, as per G.S., but that individual is not judged, as was stated earlier with respect to the 3 conditions that make a sin mortally damning.

And for the other link regarding original sin, this topic is not speaking about original sin, but about those who are Protestants who do not know they are in a false religion and have been taught from their youth what to believe… When they are baptized, they receive the Holy Spirit (also Vatican II). Re those who are not yet baptized and follow their conscience as per Romans 2:14-16, they may be saved, as baptism of desire. No ifs ands or buts about it.
 
Mary, it is obvious to the reader that you are submitting this information based on your own biased and personal interpretation, and not as the Church teaches. Your links do not fully appreciate the essence of the teaching behind them. For instance with CCC 1777, there is a footnote #48. Did you read it? It is scripture, what we believe and know is inerrant truth, as taught by St. Paul in Romans 2:14-16, regarding the natural law written in the heart, and how God judges it… Maybe you should read that first.

Going a bit further into CCC 1791, footnote #59 is from the Vatican II Council Document Gaudiem et Spes Article 16, which teaches solemnly, “For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged.”
…] Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.

We see that a lax conscience resulting from habitual sin is not the meaning of invincible ignorance … we’re not talking about that here. A true conscience may err, as per G.S., but that individual is not judged, as was stated earlier with respect to the 3 conditions that make a sin mortally damning.

And for the other link regarding original sin, this topic is not speaking about original sin, but about those who are Protestants who do not know they are in a false religion and have been taught from their youth what to believe… When they are baptized, they receive the Holy Spirit (also Vatican II). Re those who are not yet baptized and follow their conscience as per Romans 2:14-16, they may be saved, as baptism of desire. No ifs ands or buts about it.
I think you are just not reading and you are skipping things based on your biased vision. The principal doctrine of the church is that there is NO salvation outside of the catholic church. Conscious or not conscious there is no salvation outside the church. Many dont like it but that is the doctrine. And it is dogma constantly repeated by the church over centuries. If your positiom is that you can achieve salvation through other means you arevwrong because the catholic church specifically states that their teachings are right and truth and there is no salvation outside it. The other links were not about original sin. You obviously did not read. Is about the fact that there is NO salvation outside the church. Original sin just adds to the fact that someone outside the church will have even further impossibility to salvation for someone outside the church. Invincible ignorance is the only exception to that rule. Invincible ignorance means that someone who is truly unaware of god’s requirements mat be relieved of responsibility. Invincible ignorace yes may cause your mind to err but but you have to do reasonable diligence. If you don’t you don’t get relieved from responsibility. Very few people will actually get saved due to this and the quotes I have you from saints and popes are very clear that very rarely someone will get saved by invincible ignorance.

So as to protestants, basic rule: no salvation outside of the catholic church so answer is no. Exception, can they be saved under the argument that they were always told x y and z. The answer is no because they had a duty to do reasonable diligence as to the truth.
 
Please do not paint all Protestants with the same brush. Some teach the real presence, but not transubstantiation. Many teach contraception, divorce, and gay marriage are wrong.

God is both just and merciful. Only He knows for certain the mind and heart of any person (Protestant or Catholic, or non-Christian) and their culpability and their sincerity and desire for HIm. Only He can make the perfect judgment.
Like finding a needle in a hay stack I have never ever met a pastor that has not remarried a couple
 
How do you know that your claim to salvation is any more plausible than anyone else’s?Even Christianity is a young religion, which sits in the midst of many competitors. Since your “proof” relies on faith, then how can your assertion be “more valid” than another’s?

Martin Luther was a catholic monk, and a catholic priest. Do you claim to have a better understanding of Catholicism, or of Christianity than he did? Do you claim greater piety, more religious devotion, more sincerity…?

Please tell me how you are more qualified to evaluate Catholic religious teachings than he was.
Jesus, god founded the Catholic Church
 
A lot of modernism is being thrown around in this thread. It is only by innocent ignorance that protestants will not be condemned. It is a sin against the Holy Spirit to know what God requires of us and how he saves us, and to purposely reject it. Dividing the Church and claiming it went apostate is death to its adherents if not innocently ignorant.
 
To be clear though, it is not as simple as dividing Catholics from protestants. In each person is a war between accepting and rejecting truth (Jesus Christ). I am just saying in theory, the existence of the reformation is a condemning action due to its dividing the body of Christ. God’s mercy will sort everything out at judgement day. That is why we must be merciful if we expect to receive mercy.

God bless
 
The principal doctrine of the church is that there is NO salvation outside of the catholic church.
It is very sad to find such rigidity in this thread against the true teachings of the Catholic Church - teachings that cling to private interpretation and further the rift to prevent others from ever desiring to enter the Church. Preaching damnation as though God only saves Catholics who are within the RCC. I am ashamed to see this attitude and false teaching here at CAF! I see that it is futile to make any attempts at rebuttal! This is how outsiders see Catholics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top