Do born again Christians Protestants go to heaven?

[SoMissCatholic]

One of my Christian friends say good works do not get us into Heaven? Even our good works are dirty rags to the Lord. Can anyone provide passages from the bible to dispute the once saved always saved theory? And that just believing in Jesus our Saviour is not enough and we need some good works too? It is just for a debate.

John Martignoni of the Bible Christian Society dealt with this very topic in one of his recent Newsletters refuting an article by Matt Slick, founder of carm.org and very anti-catholic in his theology. The pertinent portion of the newsletter is the following:
John Martignoni:

Now that I’ve established that your interpretation of Scripture is greatly suspect, let’s look at some more of what you said here, in particular, this thing about our righteous deeds being as “filthy rags.” I get really tired of folks quoting that verse and saying, “See, our righteous deeds count for nothing.” First of all, if I, as a Catholic, were to quote from the Old Testament to “prove” some Catholic teaching, you would respond, “Well, that’s the Old Testament, it’s been done away with, or superceded, by Jesus’ death on the cross,” or some such thing. Yet, here you are quoting the Old Testament. So be it. You are, however, once again, wrong in your interpretation. Let’s look at, in its entirety, that passage you are referencing: Isaiah 64:5-7, “Thou meetest him that joyfully works righteousness, those that remember Thee in Thy ways. Behold, Thou wast angry, and we sinned; in our sins we have been a long time, and shall we be saved? We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment (KJV: “filthy rags”). We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. There is no one that calls upon Thy name, that bestirs himself to take hold of Thee; for Thou has hid thy face from us, and hast delivered us into the hand of our iniquities.”

Notice, from Isaiah 64:5, that there are two kinds of people being referred to here: those that remember God in His ways, and those that have not remembered God in His ways and have sinned against Him. But let’s focus for a moment on that first part of verse 5: “Thou meetest him that joyfully works righteousness…” Well, wait a minute, Mr. Slick, didn’t you essentially say that we can’t do anything righteous? That all of our works are like filthy rags? Yet, here Scripture is talking about some folks who can indeed work righteousness - as long as they remember God in His ways. If, however, they turn to sin, then their righteous deeds count for nothing…they are like filthy rags. That’s the distinction you have failed to account for Mr. Slick - the distinction between the works of those who are doing God’s will and those who are not. The works of those who are walking in God’s ways, and those who are not. This is why it is so dangerous to simply lift a verse, or a part of verse, out of Scripture and base one’s interpretation on it without any reference to the context of the immediate passage or to the context of the rest of Scripture. I’ve shown that your interpretation is in contrast with the immediate context of that passage, but it is also in contrast to the context of the rest of Scripture. For example, in Ezekiel 18, it says this: “The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” Well, if all of our righteous deeds are as filthy rags, and that is referring to absolutely everyone, then how can “the righteousness of the righteous be upon himself?” If your interpretation is correct, then there are no righteous who can do righteousness, are there? Furthermore, from the same passage, it says this: “When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity…None of the righteous deeds which he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committeed, he shall die,” (Ezek 18:24).

Mr. Slick, the “filthy rags” passage from Isaiah 64:6 is talking about this very situation. Someone who is walking in the ways of the Lord…a righteous man who can indeed do righteous deeds (at least, according to Scripture)…and then turns away from the Lord and commits iniquity. It is then that his righteous deeds become as filthy rags. Isaiah 64:6 is not an absolute statement saying that no one can ever do a good deed…a righteous deed. Your interpretation is wrong…very wrong. Plus, we have all those passages in the New Testament that tell us we can indeed do things that are pleasing to the Lord, such as doing His will, forgiving the sins of others, being poor in spirit, being meek, hungering for righteousness, being pure in heart, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and visiting the sick and imprisoned, and so on. Your interpretation of Isaiah 64:6, like your interpretation of so many other Scripture verses, is simply wrong.

Now, since you quoted the Old Testament to “prove” your point, I hope you will allow me to quote the Old Testament to make a point. I won’t say “prove” a point, but to simply offer evidence for a particular point. I wish to quote once more from Ezekiel 18…verse 4 and verse 20 (they say the exact same thing): “The soul that sins shall die.” Do you believe that or not? Do you believe a righteous man, who God has said was saved, could then turn away from his righteousness and end up being lost? Yes or no? I ask, because it seems you believe in this once saved always saved doctrine…a very pernicious doctrine. If you believe that once you’re saved, then no sin can cause you to lose that salvation, then what do you make of this verse - “The soul that sins shall die?”

You can read the full newsletter HERE.

 

[NorthernAdams]

I think it’s in question.

First, the ‘phrase that pays,’ the one that is scripted and recited as the only way to salvation appears nowhere in the Bible. Nowhere. So salvation depends not on faithfulness but a on a one-time assent. Huh?

Second, Protestants deal with corrupted scripture.

Revelation 22:18-19 is explicit: 18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and [a]from the holy city, which are written in this book.

And yet, Martin Luther corrupted scripture by adding ‘allein’ (alone) to Romans 3:28. ‘Alone’ is not in the original Greek manuscripts–Luther added it when translating scripture into German. …if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues…

He also wanted James removed from the canon–effectively questioning Jesus’ judgement in making James an apostle. Martin Luther knows better than God? Are we to put our faith in God or in man?

Luther also questioned the authority of Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation. …if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and [a]from the holy city…

Not to mention the books of the Apocrypha which, ironically, were in the first KJVs (the version most used by Protestant sects) were removed. In the sixteenth century, the reformers proceeded to edit the actual canon to suit their own tastes, removing books from the OT that had been considered canonical for centuries. What good is sola scriptura (also an extra-biblical invention–even the idea of this is found nowhere in the Bible) if you can change what constitutes scripture? Revelation 22:18-19 takes all the mystery out of what might have ever become of Martin Luther. Follow not a man, but God only.

Third, no sacraments. Communion and baptism are the main sticking points.

I Peter 3:21 says that baptism saves us.
Mark 16:16, Christ says “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.”
John 6:53 “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.”
I Corr 11:29–if communion is just an ordinance, why is it so dangerous to receive it in an unworthy state/manner?
I Corr 1:16 --whole households were baptized. Households of only childless couples? Where does it say that?
Acts 16:15–another childless household is baptized…I think. Doesn’t say ‘childless’ but it’s a fair assumption, I guess.
Not a single verse of scripture prohibits infant baptism, but if Luther were still alive, that might have been rectified.
Col 2:11-12, Paul connects NT baptism with OT circumcision, and circumcisions were was administered to infants.
1,000+ years of infant baptisms conducted from the time of the apostles until the Radical and Magisterial reformations, all discounted by the Protestant notion of ‘Great Apostasy’ (face palm.)
Mark 16:16 and I Peter 3:21 both say baptism contributes to salvation.
Matt 19:14, Mark 10:14, and Luke 18:16 all commanded that children should be allowed to come to Him. And it sounds to me like it should be unobstructed and unabated. And what is the value of ‘believer’s baptism’ when an adult of diminished mental capacity wants to be baptized? Is he shunned?

If communion is just a meaningless ordinance, why is it so dangerous to receive it in an unworthy manner? If baptism is just a meaningless ordinance which contributes nothing to salvation, why are they so hostile towards infant baptism?

So salvation comes down to the one-time utterance of a phrase that appears nowhere in the Bible, and nowhere in the Bible does it say that salvation is gained by uttering any phrase at all (even if it chose not to tell us what that phrase was.)

Mary, and Jesus Himself are nowhere to be found in Protestant churches by way of Iconoclasm–a heresy.

No sacraments–not even the two which the Bible says contribute toward salvation.

Corrupted scripture as the ‘pillar and salt’ of the truth (which, by the way, the Bible says is the Church, not the Bible itself.)

I’m just not sure how you can show up empty-handed and be assured of anything. God will judge. None of the main tenets of Protestantism can be found anywhere in scripture, especially sola scriptura which provides no defense against heresy and promptly resulted in a mass rupturing of doctrine, hemorrhaging 30,000 - 32,000 different denominations.

If you judge the tree by the fruits, do these sects challenge the evils of society or do they not, each and every one, though some more than others, challenge instead other Christians–and not just other Christians, but the first Christians? Who would do that?

We’re not to judge sinners, but at no time at all ever were we to stop judging sin. These sects judge neither of those, and instead, judge original Christians. That’s a head-scratcher.

 

[steve_b]

CCC #846 says No (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus)

CCC #847 Says that it may be possible.

Our Lord gave us His Church, and we, as Catholics have the awesome responsibility to bring others into His fold, that “All may be One” (cf. St. John 17:21).

 

[CrossofChrist]

Do saved Christians go to heaven? I mean even if they keep sinning even if by accident but they are saved because they received Christ and believe.

Yes, saved Christians go to heaven when they die. By definition they do because they are saved.

We know that Protestants are in an imperfect communion with the Church of Christ and therefore Christ, but it is a communion nonetheless. I suggest reading the Catechism on this one:

*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 with respect and affection 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."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”
*

Christ can indeed save Protestants that sincerely love him. But it is still through the Church that they are saved since it is only because of the Church that they can hear Christ’s words of salvation. But anyone who rejects Christ’s Catholic Church rejects him, because he and the Church are one. Without the Church no one has Christ, and without Christ, no one has the Church.

Because Protestants are in an imperfect communion with the Church, their communion with Christ isn’t perfect either. A Protestant innocent of sin would clearly be ignorant of what it means to “believe” according to the Catholic faith, or what it means to receive Christ in his fullness, or else he would be guilty of rejecting Christ by rejecting the Church (unless there was the desire to join His Church but some serious impediment that prevented him from joining). God could still give his sanctifying grace and the theological virtues in his mysterious way, but the recipient’s knowledge or understanding of their gifts would have to not be clear.

Hope that helps at least a little. )

God bless.

 

[jmcrae]

Do saved Christians go to heaven? I mean even if they keep sinning even if by accident but they are saved because they received Christ and believe.

Presumably they are not Catholic, which means any mortal sin they commit remains in their soul forever. But if they never commit any mortal sin, then they would go to Heaven, as long as they had received a valid Baptism at some point along the way.

 

[steve_b]

CCC #846 says No (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus)

CCC #847 Says that it may be possible.

Our Lord gave us His Church, and we, as Catholics have the awesome responsibility to bring others into His fold, that “All may be One” (cf. St. John 17:21).

true

Re: [847 (Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 847) as we know

may ≠ will
may ≠ probable
at best may = might / possible, (if only remote)

For example

If I say it may rain tomorrow, that’s not a very strong prediction of rain. It may NOT rain tomorrow. And if it doesn’t rain, I didn’t mispeak.

846 sounds harsh. Where did [846 (Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 846) come from?

The apostles taught no division [Romans 16:17-20 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Romans Chapter 16) , [Galatians 5:19-21 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Galatians Chapter 5), ergo the HS [John 14:25-26 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 14) , taught it, ergo Jesus [John 16:12-15 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 16) taught it. The Church Our Lord established and gives all His promises to is the Catholic Church, apart from which therefore, there is no salvation.

• Acts 9:31 So the church throughout all ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς ,Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria…"

iow the Church ἐκκλησίατῆς] throughout all καθ’kata ὅληςholos] is the Kataholos Church = Catholic Church The English word catholic is a transliteration of the Greek katholikos which is a compound word from kata, which means according to, and holos, which means whole. catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means

• St IgnatiusBp of Antioch, ~69 a.d. - ~107 a.d., ordained by apostles, disciple of St John the apostle, called the Church the Catholic Church Epistle to the Smyrnæansof which schismatics won’t be going to heaven Epistle to the Philadelphians
• St Polycarp, Bp Smyrna, disciple of St John called the Church the “Catholic Church” The Martyrdom of Polycarp
• Muratorian canon earlychristianwritings.com/text/muratorian.html
• Irenaeus ~180 a.d. wrote “Against Heresies” called the Church the “Catholic Church” Adversus haereses [Bk 1 Ch 10 v 3], and also Irenaeus who was taught by Polycarp, teaches all must agree with Rome [Bk 3, Ch 3, v 2-3]Chapter 3
• Cyprian~250 a.d. Epistle 54
• The Nicene Creed, 325 a.d., it’s a matter of faith to believe in the “One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church”
• etc etc etc

Jesus expects absolute unity In His Church both at the ministerial level and the laity level. No division of any kind is allowed [John 17:20-23 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 17) .

Over the years, the Church made allowances for those born into divisions who at the individual personal level, was not a personal decision to divide [818 (Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 818). Providing that person remains ignorant of their division, they remain innocent of division. However, once they know for example, that Protestantism broke from the Catholic Church, and the result of that scripturally and personally, (provided above) and don’t return to the Church, and instead remain Protestant, THEN they are no longer ignorant nor innocent of the choice to remain seperated from Our Lord’s Church. [846 (Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 846) then, applies to them.

 

[NorthernAdams]

Presumably they are not Catholic, which means any mortal sin they commit remains in their soul forever. But if they never commit any mortal sin, then they would go to Heaven, as long as they had received a valid Baptism at some point along the way.

This is kind of the sticking point. They haven’t. Neither have they received a valid communion, and for the same reason–no valid priesthood. And the Bible says baptism and communion are both required for salvation. I’d also question whether they’re saved to begin with in any case where they’ve attempted to obtain salvation through the utterance of one phrase which doesn’t appear anywhere in scripture, and then continued to sin at will because they’ve been told they can do so. It’s the case with any kind of contract–alter the terms or conditions of a contract in such a way that has not been agreed upon by both parties, and the contract is broken. Null and void. Hate to put it into legalistic terms, but the analogy is sound. You can’t change the stated terms of any agreement and expect to hold the other party accountable.

I think God will forgive confusion to some degree–He’s got to know about the tens of thousands of doctrines floating around out there, but direct defiance of clearly stated scripture? I don’t know about that. Scripture says baptism and communion contribute to salvation–they reject that. Can it be blamed on confusion?

 

[jmcrae]

This is kind of the sticking point. They haven’t. Neither have they received a valid communion, and for the same reason–no valid priesthood. And the Bible says baptism and communion are both required for salvation.

That’s a good point.

I’d also question whether they’re saved to begin with in any case where they’ve attempted to obtain salvation through the utterance of one phrase which doesn’t appear anywhere in scripture, and then continued to sin at will because they’ve been told they can do so. It’s the case with any kind of contract–alter the terms or conditions of a contract in such a way that has not been agreed upon by both parties, and the contract is broken. Null and void. Hate to put it into legalistic terms, but the analogy is sound. You can’t change the stated terms of any agreement and expect to hold the other party accountable.

An excellent observation - which is why I sometimes say that Protestants believe in a completely different Jesus than we do. (This always causes a firestorm for some reason … )

I think God will forgive confusion to some degree–He’s got to know about the tens of thousands of doctrines floating around out there, but direct defiance of clearly stated scripture? I don’t know about that. Scripture says baptism and communion contribute to salvation–they reject that. Can it be blamed on confusion?

There are so many who don’t actually read their Bibles, but just believe what they are told at Church. These could potentially be “not damned” due to a lack of information, and not realizing that they didn’t have the information that they needed to have.

But you are right - the Bible is absolutely clear on these points. How someone who claims to be a Bible scholar could miss them so completely is beyond comprehension.

 

[steve_b]

This is kind of the sticking point. They haven’t. Neither have they received a valid communion, and for the same reason–no valid priesthood. And the Bible says baptism and communion are both required for salvation. I’d also question whether they’re saved to begin with in any case where they’ve attempted to obtain salvation through the utterance of one phrase which doesn’t appear anywhere in scripture, and then continued to sin at will because they’ve been told they can do so. It’s the case with any kind of contract–alter the terms or conditions of a contract in such a way that has not been agreed upon by both parties, and the contract is broken. Null and void. Hate to put it into legalistic terms, but the analogy is sound. You can’t change the stated terms of any agreement and expect to hold the other party accountable.

I think God will forgive confusion to some degree–He’s got to know about the tens of thousands of doctrines floating around out there, but direct defiance of clearly stated scripture? I don’t know about that. Scripture says baptism and communion contribute to salvation–they reject that. Can it be blamed on confusion?

A reasonable question

I think the idea is to give the possibility for wiggle room for one who is truly ignorant of what they need to know providing important information is NOT so readily available, or completely unavailable to them. THEN I think it perfectly reasonable if one is found to be truly ignorant of important knowledge.

 

[steve_b]

Yes! “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Romans 10:9-10, 13

“He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loved me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.” John 14:21

These are summary statements. They pressume one is already living all the prerequisites BEFORE those summaries take place.

 

[NorthernAdams]

There are so many who don’t actually read their Bibles, but just believe what they are told at Church.

I had to comment on this one thing. This is very true. I had a friend who was the wife of a pastor–protestant sect, I won’t say which one because it’s not my intent to single out any particular one. She called herself a ‘biblicist’ and yet didn’t know scripture without googling it or pulling it up on her Bible app. The only one she could cite without being at her computer screen was John 3:16.

First, how can you be a biblicist if you subscribe to the notion of sola scriptura? Isn’t then every one a biblicist? And they’re not all interpreting the same, so who’s deciding which of all these conflicting interpretations are biblicistical? (rofl)

So, getting back to my point, I gave her ‘church’ a chance. Three chances. They had some kind of thing where one person after another got up to ‘testify,’ and every single one was a testament of the shameless and utter wrongness (lol) of the Catholic Church. One woman got up with her two young daughters and proceeded to make fun of the name of the Catholic church that was across the street and diagonal from this ‘church.’ I felt like I was in grammar school all over again.

So anyway, everyone’s sitting in the pews listening to the service, and the pastor cites a verse of scripture by chapter and verse. Everyone thumbed through their Bibles. What happened next is the thing that had me feeling like I was in that scene in Rosemary’s Baby.

After they found the page, they all looked up.

Okay, now they’re listening to the pastor, but I’m scratching my head. Sound fills a room. You can hear it from any angle. Turn around, turn left, turn right, stand on your head–as long as you don’t leave the room, you can hear someone speaking into a microphone, right?

But how do books work? You have to look at them, right?

This is what struck me: this means that the only thing any of these people read was the page number.

Why did they bother opening their Bibles at all?

I can look down at a book and read along with someone who’s reading it aloud. What happened to sola scriptura when they all in unison took their eyes off scripture, raised their heads, and waited for that pastor to tell them what that particular verse meant? Does sola scriptura mean the Pope can’t tell you what the verses mean but anyone else can? I’m confused.

They might as well have closed their Bibles right back up and just listened to the pastor. Why go through the pretense of opening them and then immediately looking away from the page??

All they read was the page number. “They don’t actually read their Bibles” is right dead on. You nailed it.

 

[jmcrae]

But how do books work? You have to look at them, right?

This is what struck me: this means that the only thing any of these people read was the page number.

Why did they bother opening their Bibles at all?

So that they can think they read the Bible. At some level, they know they’re deceiving themselves, but at the end of the sermon, each and every one of those people will tell you that they “read the Bible” at Church that morning - even though, as you say, they read nothing more than the page number at the top of the page.

I can look down at a book and read along with someone who’s reading it aloud. What happened to sola scriptura when they all in unison took their eyes off scripture, raised their heads, and waited for that pastor to tell them what that particular verse meant? Does sola scriptura mean the Pope can’t tell you what the verses mean but anyone else can? I’m confused.

I know, right?

They might as well have closed their Bibles right back up and just listened to the pastor. Why go through the pretense of opening them and then immediately looking away from the page??

All they read was the page number. “They don’t actually read their Bibles” is right dead on. You nailed it.

Here’s what else I figured out. The pastor has never read the Bible, either. He’s using a set of notes that were prepared for him by someone else. He assumes they’re “Biblically sound” because of the sprinkling of Bible verses throughout the text of the notes. He’s relying on his congregation to be following along in their Bibles, and to raise their hands when they find a contradiction - but they’ll never do that, because they aren’t reading along.

It’s like the parable of the blind leading the blind - each one assuming that the other one can see, and will warn them if there is a pit up ahead.

 

[Church_Militant]

Hang on a second here guys.

I think we http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/emo-epicfail.png whenever we generalize like this.

I spent about 35 years outside the Catholic Church among a couple of different n-C communities, and even becoming a deacon in one, so I know what I’m talking about.

You misrepresent n-C Bible practice in this discussion. There are some individuals who read very little of their Bibles on their own, (even as there are also some Catholics who do likewise), but there are many many more who spend time every day, some, twice a day or more, reading their Bibles for themselves. If you could look at these people’s Bibles, you’d see much underlining, highlighting, and notes written in the margins which is indicative of their serious study of the Word of God.

These serious individuals love the Bible and are not solely dependent upon what comes from their particular preacher’s pulpit. You’d find that they check what he says against what they read and will contend with him if they disagree. Sometimes it may even come about that they leave that congregation because of it.

Sola Scriptura does pretty much make each person their own pope, which creates pandemonium in all the varied interpretations that come from it, but it’s inaccurate to assert that all, or even most, n-Cs do not actually read and study the Bible for themselves or that they put more credence on their preachers than the Word of God.

Granted, there are some who do, and we see that often in those who follow the various anti-Catholic teachers and preachers, but, again, that is not everyone. It’s not even close really. Many n-Cs would reject those teachers much the same as we Catholics do, and those are the folks who will always be the welcome breath of fresh air when we are blessed to dialog with them.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Presumably they are not Catholic, which means any mortal sin they commit remains in their soul forever. But if they never commit any mortal sin, then they would go to Heaven, as long as they had received a valid Baptism at some point along the way.

My thoughts exactly. This is a very clear and simple answer, yet so many other answers are flying around. So I opened another thread to discuss this line of reasoning specifically.

 

[Doxiemom]

Yes

because they are Christians

if they continually search their hearts and repent of their sins

They are covered under the shed Blood of Jesus Christ.

If a practicing catholic were stuck in a place where he had no access to his priest and no access to Holy Communion and death was a surety, would not a prayer to God to forgive his sins, no matter how bad they may have been, be acceptable??

I would say yes, because they are covered under the shed Blood of Jesus Christ.

Your catechism must clarify such things for you.

 

[Tony_the_mad]

Your catechism must clarify such things for you.

Just for curiosity who is the ‘you’ and ‘your’ you are talking about?

 

[DavidFilmer]

If a practicing catholic were stuck in a place where he had no access to his priest and no access to Holy Communion and death was a surety, would not a prayer to God to forgive his sins, no matter how bad they may have been, be acceptable??

I would say yes, because they are covered under the shed Blood of Jesus Christ.

Your catechism must clarify such things for you.

You are mostly correct in both respects (though it would have been more accurate to say “Confession” rather than “Communion”).

The Catechism does, indeed, support (but does not teach) what you say:

1451 Among the penitent’s acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is “sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again.”

1452 When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called “perfect” (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.

A Catholic who is facing imminent death, and who is not in a State of Grace (because of mortal sin - the ONLY thing that can remove a Catholic from a State of Grace) can make a prayerful act of contrition and be forgiven, assuming he intends to avail himself of the earliest opportunity to attend Sacramental Confession (even if he does not believe any such opportunity will ever present itself).

HOWEVER, the contrition must be “perfect.” That means that he is sorry that offended God, and is not sorry because he fears God’s just punishment. If there is any measure of “selfish” contrition, he is not assured of forgiveness or salvation.

That does not mean he cannot be saved - it only means that he cannot be assured of salvation.

 

[Paul_Fekete]

If the teaching that abosultion is required for the forgiveness of sins is based on the Bible and protestants say they follow the Bible, then there is no way for them to obtain eternal life unless they live a life absent of mortal sin. Since mortal sin is defined as willfully breaking a ten commandment in your heart/mind or with your physical body with full consent, there is not one protestant that will be able to avoid mortal sin for a lifetime. All protestants will commit idoloatry, covet, dishonor their mother/father, or bear false witness over the course of their life. Since all protestants willfully break a ten commandement over the course of their life and all protestants, even though they have access to the Bible, willfully reject the need for absoltuion by a Catholic priest for their mortal sins can we not conclude that all protestants will go to hell in a state of mortal sin? If we do not make this conclusion have we not undermined the Catholic doctrine that teaches the need for absolution for our mortal sins? How can protestants claim to be ignorant of the need for absoultion by a priest if they have access to the verses (John 20:21-23 and 1 John 5:16-17) about the need for absolution in the Bible?

And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. (1 John 2:3-5)

Is receiving absolution by a Catholic priest for your mortal sins part of keeping God’s commandments? If yes, then are you not saying at that all protestants will go to hell since they reject the doctrine of absolution even though they have read the Bible verses (John 20: 21-23 and 1 John 5: 16-7) the teach us about the need for absolution by a Catholic priest?

My thoughts exactly. This is a very clear and simple answer, yet so many other answers are flying around. So I opened another thread to discuss this line of reasoning specifically.

Can you explain how it is possible for a protestant not to commit a mortal sin over the course of their life since the definition of a mortal sin is to willfully break a ten commandment with full consent? Protestants may not commit murder, but will they not covet, bear false witness, commit idolatry (worship money, power, love, etc.), dishonor their father and mother, commit adultery in their mind, hate someone in their mind, etc. over the course of their entire life? Even if it is possible, what percentage of protestants will live a mortal sinless life? 0.1%?

Over the years, the Church made allowances for those born into divisions who at the individual personal level, was not a personal decision to divide 818. Providing that person remains ignorant of their division, they remain innocent of division. However, once they know for example, that Protestantism broke from the Catholic Church, and the result of that scripturally and personally, (provided above) and don’t return to the Church, and instead remain Protestant, THEN they are no longer ignorant nor innocent of the choice to remain seperated from Our Lord’s Church. 846 then, applies to them.

Ther percentage of protestants that do not know that protestantism broke from the Catholic church is very small so for all intensive purposes you are saying that all protestants are going to hell once they die since they can not claim to be ignorant. Protestants also can not claim to be ignorant of the need for absoultion for their mortal sins by a Catholic priest since they have access to read John 20:21-23 and 1 John 5:16-17. Correct?

But you are right - the Bible is absolutely clear on these points. How someone who claims to be a Bible scholar could miss them so completely is beyond comprehension.

Where does the Bible directly teach that the ONLY way your mortal sins can be forgiven is by absolution of a priest? The Bible offers absolution as ONE method to obtain the forgiveness of your mortal sins, but I am struggling with finding a verse that says it is the ONLY way. I know the catechism says it is the only way, but where does it say that in the Bible? If there is a verse I can show it to my protestant friends and help them understand.

Because Protestants are in an imperfect communion with the Church, their communion with Christ isn’t perfect either. A Protestant innocent of sin would clearly be ignorant of what it means to “believe” according to the Catholic faith, or what it means to receive Christ in his fullness, or else he would be guilty of rejecting Christ by rejecting the Church (unless there was the desire to join His Church but some serious impediment that prevented him from joining). God could still give his sanctifying grace and the theological virtues in his mysterious way, but the recipient’s knowledge or understanding of their gifts would have to not be clear.

How can protestants be ignorant when they have access to read the Bible? Does not the Bible clearly teach that you need absolution for the mortal sins you commit? How can they claim to be ignorant when so many of them have read John 20:21-23 and 1 John 5:16-17?

 

[SoMissCatholic]

If the teaching that abosultion is required for the forgiveness of sins is based on the Bible and protestants say they follow the Bible, then there is no way for them to obtain eternal life unless they live a life absent of mortal sin. Since mortal sin is defined as willfully breaking a ten commandment in your heart/mind or with your physical body with full consent, there is not one protestant that will be able to avoid mortal sin for a lifetime. All protestants will commit idoloatry, covet, dishonor their mother/father, or bear false witness over the course of their life. Since all protestants willfully break a ten commandement over the course of their life and all protestants, even though they have access to the Bible, willfully reject the need for absoltuion by a Catholic priest for their mortal sins can we not conclude that all protestants will go to hell in a state of mortal sin? If we do not make this conclusion have we not undermined the Catholic doctrine that teaches the need for absolution for our mortal sins? How can protestants claim to be ignorant of the need for absoultion by a priest if they have access to the verses (John 20:21-23 and 1 John 5:16-17) about the need for absolution in the Bible?

No, we can’t conclude that. Judgment of the hearts of men is reserved for God, and God alone.

 

[NorthernAdams]

How can protestants claim to be ignorant of the need for absolution by a priest if they have access to the verses (John 20:21-23 and 1 John 5:16-17) about the need for absolution in the Bible?

Their Bibles contain corrupted scripture. The scripture that is not corrupted is misinterpreted by their clergy and that teaching is passed on to them. And that sort of thing is extremely dangerous, which I think is the reason we were warned to beware of false teachings. Some church crops up 1,500 years or more after Christ, you’d think that would be a red flag right there, a huge sign blinking “false church, false church.” But no, they conclude that the false church was the first church, that was already there and running, what, 300 years, give or take, before Christianity even had a Bible? The first one was the false one? How impaired do you have to be in order to fall for that?