Can protestants only be saved because of ignorance ?

[Phil12123]

The question was in regards to the stance of the Catholic Church on the matter of salvation outside the Church. What I provided were statements by recent Popes on the matter. As for your personal beliefs or mine, well they are what they are. You have stated for instance that you believe that such and such criteria have to be met. I believe differently than you, however, I simply posted what has been taught. What I am posting is not what I think or what you think.

Okay, now you have made me curious. What do you believe differently from me? Jesus made a clear claim in John 14:6 that no one comes to the Father except through Him. And Peter said, “Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). We are all familiar with those verses and surely you believe both of them, right? So, how are we believing differently?

And while I am asking you, do you actually believe Muslims and Catholics worship the same god?

 

[marymary1975]

Sirach2:

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.

Basically your theory sums to that catholicism is just one of many options to get saved. If you are right then how you reconcile your position with the fact that what the catholic church teaches is true? Do you think that what the catholic church teaches is not truth? Or is one option out of many different truths?

The writings of st Agustine, st Thomas Aquinas and st alphonsus maria ligorious are not “private revelations.” Right there it shows you don’t know what the catholic church teaches. They are doctors of the church whose writings are considered doctrine if the catholic church. So basically what you are telling me is that someone whose writing has been declared as church doctrine is wrong because you say so. I m sorry but I think that st Augustine has a much better understanding of church teaching than you and if I have to choose between st Augustine and you, I will go with what st Augustine says.

 

[marymary1975]

The Church, especially since Vatican II, has developed a thoroughly inclusive understanding of soteriology in relation to other faiths, that has an explicitly theological foundation.

St. Pope John Paul II explained that this approach to other religions is based upon sacred tradition, the church fathers and the very origins of the Christian revelation:

Quote:
"…You speak of many religions. Instead I will attempt to show the common fundamental element and the common root of these religions.

The Council defined the relationship of the Church to non-Christian religions in a specific document that begins with the words “Nostra aetate” (“In our time”). It is a concise and yet very rich document that authentically hands on the Tradition, faithful to the thought of the earliest Fathers of the Church.

From the beginning, Christian Revelation has viewed the spiritual history of man as including, in some way, all religions, thereby demonstrating the unity of humankind with regard to the eternal and ultimate destiny of man. The Council document speaks of this unity and links it with the current trend to bring humanity closer together through the resources available to our civilization. The Church sees the promotion of this unity as one of its duties: “There is only one community and it consists of all peoples. They have only one origin, since God inhabited the entire earth with the whole human race. And they have one ultimate destiny, God, whose providence, goodness, and plan for salvation extend to all. . . . Men turn to various religions to solve mysteries of the human condition, which today, as in earlier times, burden people’s hearts: the nature of man; the meaning and purpose of life; good and evil; the origin and purpose of suffering; the way to true happiness; death…and finally, the ultimate ineffable mystery which is the origin and destiny of our existence. From ancient times up to today all the various peoples have shared and continue to share an awareness of that enigmatic power that is present throughout the course of things and throughout the events of human life, and, in which, at times, even the Supreme Divinity or the Father is recognizable. This awareness and recognition imbue life with an intimate religious sense. Religions that are tied up with cultural progress strive to solve these issues with more refined concepts and a more precise language” (Nostra Aetate 1-2).

…

The words of the Council recall the conviction, long rooted in the Tradition, of the existence of the so-called semina Verbi (seeds of the Word), present in all religions. In the light of this conviction, the Church seeks to identify the semina Verbi present in the great traditions of the Far East, in order to trace a common path against the backdrop of the needs of the contemporary world. We can affirm that here the position of the Council is inspired by a truly universal concern…

In another passage the Council says that the Holy Spirit works effectively even outside the visible structure of the Church (cf. Lumen Gentium 13), making use of these very semina Verbi, that constitute a kind of common soteriological root present in all religions.

I have been convinced of this on numerous occasions, both while visiting the countries of the Far East and while meeting representatives of those religions, especially during the historic meeting at Assisi, where we found ourselves gathered together praying for peace.

Thus, instead of marveling at the fact that Providence allows such a great variety of religions, we should be amazed at the number of common elements found within them.…”

• Pope Saint John Paul II (1994), Crossing the Threshold of Hope

He is expressing a theological statement. Lumen Gentium is a dogmatic constitution and it explains that the Holy Spirit operates outside the church among non-believers. This is the document which states that Muslims worship the same God as Catholics. A dogmatic constitution of the Magisterium and not some paper produced by the Vatican City State.

Note this section:

Quote:
The Council defined the relationship of the Church to non-Christian religions in a specific document that begins with the words “Nostra aetate” (“In our time”). It is a concise and yet very rich document that authentically hands on the Tradition, faithful to the thought of the earliest Fathers of the Church.

From the beginning, Christian Revelation has viewed the spiritual history of man as including, in some way, all religions

---

“…Everyone who has joined the ranks of Christ must be a glowing point of light in the world, a nucleus of love, a leaven of the whole mass. He will be so in proportion to his degree of spiritual union with God…”

• Blessed Pope John XXIII, Pacem in Terris (1963)

Thank you,
Gary

You are misinterpretating what the pope said. The pope is talking about the common origin of religion and he is trying to find a common ground. He is alsi talking about “knowlesge” he never states that that truth lies also outside of the catholic church or that salvation can be reached outside the church or that other religions are just different paths to reach the same goal (which is an idea against Catholicism coming from new age). Pope john Paul specifically mentioned that you cannot be a christian if you reject the church that jesus founded…which by the way is consistent with what st Augustine writes:

catholic.com/quickquestions/did-a-statement-by-john-paul-ii-mean-that-only-catholics-can-be-saved

 

[Vico]

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 ??

The classic Catholic teaching (Baltimore Catechism) is that it is difficult to know if sins been absolved for Christians that do not have access to sacramental confession. This is because to be absolved of mortal sins without sacramental confession requires perfect contrition, whereas for those with access to sacramental confession, the Church grants absolution with only imperfect contrition.

Baltimore Catechism No 4, Lesson 11, Q 121 commentary:Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never—even in the past—had the slightest doubt of that fact—what will become of him?

If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister—not being a true priest—has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition—that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic—with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts—might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.

If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.

cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/baltimore/bindex.htm

 

[DAML72]

Perhaps, but it does rather tempt me to suggest that the only way that we sinful and ignorant Protestants can be saved is through the grace of God.

 

[Sirach2]

Basically your theory sums to that catholicism is just one of many options to get saved. If you are right then how you reconcile your position with the fact that what the catholic church teaches is true?

The writings of st Agustine, st Thomas Aquinas and st alphonsus maria ligorious are not “private revelations.” Right there it shows you don’t know what the catholic church teaches…

Mary, you are aggressively determined to condemn baptized Protestants with your continual spins on Catholic teaching. May I suggest that you get a revelation … Doctors of the Church ARE NOT the Magisterium, no matter how worthy they are to express an opinion. We are not taught to listen to Saints, but rather to the Holy See who ALONE has God’s Divine Authority to instruct the faithful.

Therefore, as we listen to the Church in our present Catechism, which supplants all older catechisms, we find this truth:

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."81 "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."82
81 UR 3.
82 UR 22 § 2.

The footnote references Vatican II document Unitate Redintegratio. You can read Articles 3 and 22 from the footnote here.

I ask you the same question I posed to Adamski: If they are baptized, do they have the Holy Spirit? If yes, as the Church teaches, then does Romans 8:15-17 apply to them? And if they are sons, are they also heirs?

Rom. 8:15-17 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ.

 

[Sirach2]

You are misinterpretating what the pope said. Pope john Paul specifically mentioned that you cannot be a christian if you reject the church that jesus founded…which by the way is consistent with what st Augustine writes:

catholic.com/quickquestions/did-a-statement-by-john-paul-ii-mean-that-only-catholics-can-be-saved

Quite another spin there, Mary, in your continual efforts to make your opinion override that of the Church. Read what Pope JP II really said and meant … (from your link)

Pope John Paul II’s remark is consistent with the constant teaching of the Catholic Church. Notice that he uses the word “reject” which, in context, means making a conscious decision against the Church that one knows to be founded by Jesus Christ.

Taking this out of context with volumes of other Church teachings is not going to gain you a listening audience. He is referring to those who are well-informed and then fully CHOOSE to go against the Church.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi pacloc.

There is no way he said any of this.

Does this mean that you don’t need to check and see whether he said it? I.e. that you automatically know that he didn’t say it?

I see from your profile that you are Catholic … Do you think that this ^^ reflects the kind of humility that a Catholic ought to have?

This statement is not true. Your own idea of good and evil? That was our first sin.

 

[Sirach2]

Interestingly and timely, today’s gospel reading at Mass warns us “Do not judge; with what measure you measure, it will be measured back to you!”

I address one last probably futile effort to correct your false teaching, MaryMary. You rely so exclusively on St. Augustine who lived 354-430, many centuries before Protestantism was even born. There was one true faith - Catholic, and those who left the Church were called *apostates. *His writings cannot be correctly applied 17 centuries later to the Church of today.

The Church rightly addressed today’s situation in UR-3:
“The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.”

I ask you the same question, “Do you think that what the Catholic Church teaches [in our century] is not the truth?”

Right there it shows you don’t know what the catholic church teaches.

You know absolutely nothing about me, my qualifications, theological studies, degrees, etc., and yet you sit in your internet armchair fortified with weapons of isolated and out-of-context texts and think your strawman reflections are infallible truth to be adopted by all who read your posts. :dts:

You may have the last “infallible” word, Mary - I’m not going to waste my precious time in further discussion with you.

 

[epan]

Source for this?

Except for the New Testament, which happens to be the most accurate historical record from the time period, that we possess today.

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.

No more so than any other worldview is an act of faith.

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.

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.

Joseph Campbell, who might be the preeminent authority on such matters, has pointed out the Greek issue with Jesus. According to him, prophets of virgin birth were particularly prevalent in Greece, and it is no accident that Paul is the one who writes of Jesus’ virgin birth.

Your treatment of the bible as a historic record also reminded me of something that Campbell once said in an interview:

“My favorite definition of religion is “a misinterpretation of mythology.” And the misinterpretation consists precisely in attributing historical references to symbols which properly are spiritual in their reference. What a mythic image talks about is not something that happened somewhere or will happen somewhere at some time or other; it refers to what is now, and was yesterday, and will be tomorrow, and is forever.”

 

[Xuan]

You are misinterpretating what the pope said. The pope is talking about the common origin of religion and he is trying to find a common ground. He is alsi talking about “knowlesge” he never states that that truth lies also outside of the catholic church or that salvation can be reached outside the church or that other religions are just different paths to reach the same goal (which is an idea against Catholicism coming from new age). Pope john Paul specifically mentioned that you cannot be a christian if you reject the church that jesus founded…which by the way is consistent with what st Augustine writes:

Hi marymary,

Actually, this is what Pope John Paul II said about people who truly seek God, even though they practice a different religion:

Normally, “it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Savior (cf. Ad gentes, nn. 3, 9, 11)” (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue – Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Instruction Dialogue and Proclamation, 19 May 1991, n. 29; L’Osservatore Romano English edition, 1 July 1991, p. III).

Xuan

 

[Per_Crucem]

Joseph Campbell, who might be the preeminent authority on such matters, has pointed out the Greek issue with Jesus. According to him, prophets of virgin birth were particularly prevalent in Greece, and it is no accident that Paul is the one who writes of Jesus’ virgin birth.

Can you reference one? More importantly, can you reference one wherein the virgin birth at all resembles the biblical narrative of Jesus’ conception and birth?

Paul writes of Jesus’ virgin birth? Well, sure. But so does Matthew and Luke. If Paul had been the only one who mentioned it, however, Paul wasn’t Greek. So I am not sure what the connection you’re trying to make there is. Paul preached to the Jews before he preached to the Greeks.

Your treatment of the bible as a historic record also reminded me of something that Campbell once said in an interview:

“My favorite definition of religion is “a misinterpretation of mythology.” And the misinterpretation consists precisely in attributing historical references to symbols which properly are spiritual in their reference. What a mythic image talks about is not something that happened somewhere or will happen somewhere at some time or other; it refers to what is now, and was yesterday, and will be tomorrow, and is forever.”

That’s merely conjecture on Campbell’s part. The fact of the matter is that the writers of the NT documents do not present their case by referencing mythological ideas. They deliberately frame their records in historical, narrative, factual terms. They go to great lengths to demonstrate that their witness is not based on myth (viz. Peter), describe historical conditions, rulers, empires, et al. Campbell’s projection of gnostic, pagan sources onto the NT is misguided at best, demonstrably deceptive at worst.

 

[AlexV]

Sirach2 said:

“You rely so exclusively on St. Augustine who lived 354-430, many centuries before Protestantism was even born. There was one true faith - Catholic, and those who left the Church were called apostates. His writings cannot be correctly applied 17 centuries later to the Church of today.”

Saint Augustine is one of the four great doctors of the West. His teachings are read extensively in the Roman liturgy, both old and new. His writings most certainly can be applied to the Catholic Church of today…he is one of the greatest teachers of the Church, and his writings are free from doctrinal error and eminently efficacious to the faithful…of any age.

 

[Sirach2]

It seems like the document with the saints and popes quotes did not attach. Here it is

romancatholicism.org/jansenism/tradition-eens2.html

Mary, dear, you are perhaps invincibly ignorant that this website is heretical, and has a red danger rating here. They are a sede vacante website and their webmaster has been recently incarcerated in the UK.

This website promotes the error that the Popes who condemned Jansenism were wrong. The webmaster, Thomas Sparks believes that the Roman Church is in state of collapse and many popes have been heretics. The site promotes anti-Semitism. [As did Fr. Feeney in his writings]
He has sections on Jansenism, Augustinianism, Thomism, Feeneyism, Universalism, Father Leonard Feeney, Cornelius Jansen, Jansenius, Saint Benedict Center, SBC.

Whois shows the website belonging to Simon Sheppard from Hull. He and Thomas Sparks appear to be one and the same. This individual has been arrested, charged and convicted in 2008 for using a website (heretical.com) to circulate "material likely to incite racial hatred." He has been sentenced to four years incarceration in Leeds, UK.

It would be helpful if you link to bona-fide sites rather than heretical ones. Your entire argument resting on this link, is utterly without merit.

Let the reader beware.

 

[pacloc]

Hi pacloc.

Does this mean that you don’t need to check and see whether he said it? I.e. that you automatically know that he didn’t say it?

I see from your profile that you are Catholic … Do you think that this ^^ reflects the kind of humility that a Catholic ought to have?

What a jerk. I shouldn’t even respond to such self righteousness, but it would continue the idea that Pope Francis ever said such nonsense if I didn’t. Somehow you know that I just said it wasn’t a true statement without any resource. True humility there… Obviously none of you have looked up sources that say the interview was taken off of the Vatican’s website due to bad quotations. Plus you need to learn some basic theology before believing the media and protestants speaking about things they know nothing about.

 

[Sirach2]

Sirach2 said:

“You rely so exclusively on St. Augustine who lived 354-430, many centuries before Protestantism was even born. There was one true faith - Catholic, and those who left the Church were called apostates. His writings cannot be correctly applied 17 centuries later to the Church of today.”

Saint Augustine is one of the four great doctors of the West. His teachings are read extensively in the Roman liturgy, both old and new. His writings most certainly can be applied to the Catholic Church of today…he is one of the greatest teachers of the Church, and his writings are free from doctrinal error and eminently efficacious to the faithful…of any age.

It would help you to read previous posts in this thread in order to understand the context in which I made that statement before you contradict me. I agree that he is a great teacher, and we do read his words within the liturgy, most often in the Office of Readings in the LoTH. However, as I rightly noted, he is not the Magisterium, and his writings do not override that of the Church.

The problem is that MaryMary was linking here to a heretical website in order to convince us that the dogma of E.E.N.S. is in accord with that website’s interpretations. That is why I answered as I did. Here’s the review on the website, rated red-danger. The website itself publicly states that it is sede vacante. So everything they submitted from St. Augustine, et al, will most probably be quoted out of context and is utterly without merit concerning today’s Church teachings.

This website promotes the error that the Popes who condemned Jansenism were wrong. The webmaster, Thomas Sparks believes that the Roman Church is in state of collapse and many popes have been heretics.

The site promotes** anti-Semitism**. [As did Fr. Feeney whom they support] The webmaster recently served time in prison.

He has sections on Jansenism, Augustinianism, Thomism, Feeneyism, Universalism, Father Leonard Feeney, Cornelius Jansen, Jansenius, Saint Benedict Center, SBC.

Whois shows the website belonging to Simon Sheppard from Hull. He and Thomas Sparks appear to be one and the same. This individual has been arrested, charged and convicted in 2008 for using a website (heretical.com) to circulate “material likely to incite racial hatred.” He has been sentenced to four years incarceration in Leeds, UK.

 

[Per_Crucem]

What a jerk. I shouldn’t even respond to such self righteousness, but it would continue the idea that Pope Francis ever said such nonsense if I didn’t. Somehow you know that I just said it wasn’t a true statement without any resource. True humility there… Obviously none of you have looked up sources that say the interview was taken off of the Vatican’s website due to bad quotations. Plus you need to learn some basic theology before believing the media and protestants speaking about things they know nothing about.

Note: The above in no way proves everything Peter previously said

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

What a jerk. I shouldn’t even respond to such self righteousness, but it would continue the idea that Pope Francis ever said such nonsense if I didn’t. Somehow you know that I just said it wasn’t a true statement without any resource. True humility there… Obviously none of you have looked up sources that say the interview was taken off of the Vatican’s website due to bad quotations. Plus you need to learn some basic theology before believing the media and protestants speaking about things they know nothing about.

Good Evening Pacloc: The Kingdom of Heaven is inside of you. And if it is inside of you, then it is something that we have to bring forth from within. I have to think that it’s a state of being rather than a club with membership charters of one religious organization vs. another. Conversely, hell must also be a state of being. I recommend that we all use some genuine introspection when we read our own posts and try to imagine which of these we are finding within ourselves and bringing forth. Does it look like heaven or does it look like hell. Truth of the matter is that it is not a question of who is Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or whatever. It’s probably about our state of being really. And if it’s a club with exclusive ties to one sect or another as many here seem to suggest, do we think it would be a club of people who call each other jerks? I wonder what we must be thinking.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[pacloc]

Good Evening Pacloc: The Kingdom of Heaven is inside of you. And if it is inside of you, then it is something that we have to bring forth from within. I have to think that it’s a state of being rather than a club with membership charters of one religious organization vs. another. Conversely, hell must also be a state of being. I recommend that we all use some genuine introspection when we read our own posts and try to imagine which of these we are finding within ourselves and bringing forth. Does it look like heaven or does it look like hell. Truth of the matter is that it is not a question of who is Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or whatever. It’s probably about our state of being really. And if it’s a club with exclusive ties to one sect or another as many here seem to suggest, do we think it would be a club of people who call each other jerks? I wonder what we must be thinking.

Thank you,
Gary

Once again I am being told what my motives are. Have you read my comment earlier in the thread? I never claimed the “club” of Catholics are heavenbound and others are hellbound. I too explained that within each person is a struggle to either obey or disobey God. All that I am standing up for is that heresy is a serious sin that we cannot let it just be fine. Adultery is another serious sin, but I don’t see people treating that sin so lightly. The other problem with people like you and others attacking me is your wanting to be so well received you compromise our Lord’s call to stand firm for truth. You can distort the truth to fit you all day long, but that is not true Christianity. It is sad that so many Catholics are fine with the idea that people don’t need the Church. As for calling that person a jerk, I suppose you never correct children when they act rude. How else do you expect for him to learn not to speak so rudely? You seem to need similar lessons calling my comment a “hell” state of being. All this liberal talk not once discussed the real topic of whether dividing the body of Christ and claiming that it became apostate is a serious sin, worthy of condemnation in a theoretical sense. If not, then what is worthy of condemnation? Nothing is then, so do whatever makes you feel good. Sure thing, tell our Lord that when you die.

 

[CB_Catholic]

The bottom line is: God is sovereign and it is He who saves whom He wills. He has revealed what he wants us to know, he hasn’t revealed all there is to know. We cannot put limits on Him.

That is NOT saying one religion is as good as another. God has revealed Christ to us, and all are saved through Christ. We have been given the truth in the Catholic Church. But that IS saying we don’t have all the answers, and judgement is not ours to make, no matter what. Our minds are not like His, we don’t know all his ways. We only know what he has chosen to reveal to us. Whom he chooses to save and how is his business.

Our business is to live as Christians and spread the Good News of Jesus Christ. It is not our business to determine who goes to heaven.

And I believe that is Church teaching.