How do protestants get to heaven without the Eucharist?

[DavidFilmer]

I’ve never herd of baptism by invincible ignorance. Could you explain referencing canon or doctrine?

Generically, invincible ignorance means that you can’t commit a sin without knowing or intending it, no matter how bad it is (CCC 1793). The term is often applied to those who are saved even though they have no knowledge of the Church:

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.[sup]337[/sup]
337 LG 16; cf. DS 3866-3872.

CCC 847

I should add that the Church has “hope” for the salvation of unbaptized babies (CCC 1261)

The state of grace wasn’t in question, it was about abiding in Christ as well as Christ abiding in us. How does one so abide without the Eucharist which is required for ‘eternal life’? “Eternal life” refers to a state of grace in this world as well as the next in which one is sufficiently perfected in Christ. No one is ‘already’ saved (or for that matter lost) in this world.

When I say “saved,” I mean that if you die right now, you go to heaven (perhaps with a layover in purgatory, but heaven is assured). This is the same thing as being in a “State of Grace.”

We are either in a State of Grace, or we are not. Once we have received saving Grace through Baptism, the ONLY way to loose it is through mortal sin. And the only way to get it back is through Sacramental Confession.

It is not sinful to not receive Eucharist if it is not available to you. And it’s not available to protestants. If they receive Christian Baptism and avoid subsequent mortal sin, they are saved (when they die they will go to heaven). Not receiving Eucharist is not sinful.

Just to say Eucharist = grace doesn’t seem to fit a Catholic form of ‘once saved always saved’ - a form that doesn’t exist in Catholicism to my knowledge.

Catholics believe that once saved (ie, placed in a State of Grace, either through Baptism or Confession) you remain saved until you commit mortal sin (which you might not do). You may only receive Eucharist while you are in a State of Grace, so salvation cannot be contingent on Eucharist (because you have to be saved to receive, so if you die just before you receive, you still go to heaven).

 

[twoshoes]

We have the Eucharist, but I know it is not the same (not apostolic succession, etc.). Also, at least where I come from, it is mostly believed that through baptism and faith alone, one is saved.

I wouldn’t want to bet my soul on baptism and faith alone for my salvation . A great priest I know once said when as if we can be save on baptism and faith alone, "I’m a work in progress,’ as we all are.

 

[twoshoes]

If only a Catholic priest can change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ at the mass, and I know that only a Catholic priest can, and didn’t Christ say in the bible that if we do not eat of his flesh and drink of his blood we cannot enter into His Kingdom? Then how are protestants suppose to get to Heaven? I know that other people of other denominations do go to heaven. Does Jesus simply excuse them because of their ignorance? I’m speaking of those who really don’t understand or know that. This is probably an ignorant question. lol sorry if it is. I am just trying to learn since I had been away from the catholic church for probably 50 yrs. until about 5 yrs. ago. I had forgotten almost everything I learned in Catholic school. I’m catching up pretty quick though.

I don’t know if a protestant can go to heaven or not by not receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus, but as a Catholic who is able to go to Mass daily I would have a very difficult time getting through a day without receiving Jesus and becoming one with him. The value of the Consecrated Bread and Wine can never be under estimated. Jesus has never left us, he is with us at the Consecration, and communion. I feel very sorry for anyone who cannot receive Jesus.

 

[JoeT777]

Generically, invincible ignorance means that you can’t commit a sin without knowing or intending it, no matter how bad it is (CCC 1793).

I couldn’t agree more. Sin is a voluntary immoral act of thought, word, or deed. And there can be no sin in for those invincibly ignorant, with that I agree. Sin however is one thing and baptism another; it is rejuvenation, regeneration, forgiveness of sin both original and actual, and joining one’s self to the Body of Christ. The graces conferred at Baptism, those removing portions of the privation of original justice, cannot be reinstated in a state of invincible ignorance. These graces imply a knowledge of the Trinity, Christ, and His sacraments - which is not an invincible ignorance.

The term is often applied to those who are saved even though they have no knowledge of the Church:
I should add that the Church has “hope” for the salvation of unbaptized babies (CCC 1261)

I’ve never heard of baptism by invincible ignorance. Again, not being judged and punished for an act one had no knowledge was immoral is a far cry different than baptism. We can hope God shows mercy on all those not baptized whether or not they are children.

When I say “saved,” I mean that if you die right now, you go to heaven (perhaps with a layover in purgatory, but heaven is assured). This is the same thing as being in a “State of Grace.”

I thought we persevered in faith? Unlike the Protestant, I don’t believe the Catholic faith holds to the doctrine of ‘once Baptized always saved’. It’s my recollection Trent says no man can say he is ‘saved’ in this world.

We are either in a State of Grace, or we are not. Once we have received saving Grace through Baptism, the ONLY way to loose it is through mortal sin. And the only way to get it back is through Sacramental Confession.

I disagree; we are in a constant state of being perfected in faith through grace. I know we don’t receive Grace solely in Baptism, because we need the grace of faith to move us to Baptism. Baptism follows first grace.

It is not sinful to not receive Eucharist if it is not available to you. And it’s not available to protestants. If they receive Christian Baptism and avoid subsequent mortal sin, they are saved (when they die they will go to heaven). Not receiving Eucharist is not sinful.

The Eucharist is available to all the faithful who are a part of the Body of Christ. Protestants choose not to participate because they’ve decided there is no reality in the Eucharist. The choice is ‘not to believe’. Not only is the Eucharist a symbol for them so too is Baptism, it has no redemptive properties because it is mere religiosity, i.e. mere ritual without spiritual meaning outside of themselves. Furthermore, to carry the name “Christian” means there is indeed a vincible ignorance.

Catholics believe that once saved (ie, placed in a State of Grace, either through Baptism or Confession) you remain saved until you commit mortal sin (which you might not do). You may only receive Eucharist while you are in a State of Grace, so salvation cannot be contingent on Eucharist (because you have to be saved to receive, so if you die just before you receive, you still go to heaven).

Trent teaches that the beginning of salvation is by grace leading to justification, e.g. the forgiveness of all sins in Baptism. One freely assents in cooperating with grace. “Turn ye to me,” cites Trent, “and I will turn to you” [Zacharias 1:3]. Continuing Trent reminds us to “prepare your hearts unto the Lord”. Now, explain to me how one can prepare their hearts for Christ and reject Him at the Communion rail?

We can’t avoid of the unpleasantries of reality like the Protestants do in relativistic logic, there is an objective reality. One must be baptized, so says John 3:5 and for life there must be participation in the Eucharist so says John 6:51-59 to obtain life.

Help me see your point by showing were any of the ECFs or Popes have taught “Baptism by invincible ignorance.” In my readings I’ve never run across the concept although I have read such things outside the Church regarding Universalism.

JoeT

 

[DavidFilmer]

I’ve never heard of baptism by invincible ignorance. Again, not being judged and punished for an act one had no knowledge was immoral is a far cry different than baptism. We can hope God shows mercy on all those not baptized whether or not they are children.

I never said Baptism. I said that non-Christians (those who have never received Baptism) can yet be saved (it’s possible, but nobody knows if it’s actually happened). It’s possible that the mechanism for this salvation is that the Grace of water Baptism is imparted without actual water Baptism (as it is in Baptism of Desire). I cited the relevant passage from the Catechism, which itself cites Lumen Gentium (LG) from Vatican-2. If you want to disagree with the Catechism or V-2, you will need to be more specific.

I thought we persevered in faith?

We are preserved by Grace, not by faith.

Unlike the Protestant, I don’t believe the Catholic faith holds to the doctrine of ‘once Baptized always saved’. It’s my recollection Trent says no man can say he is ‘saved’ in this world.

Trent says that we cannot know FOR SURE if we are in a State of Grace:

…No one can know with the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God. Council of Trent, Sixth Session, #9]

But, just because we cannot know if we are saved, does not mean that we are not saved. We are either saved (in a State of Grace), or we are not saved. There’s no in-between. You can’t be kinda saved. You can’t be a little bit saved, or a lot saved. You can’t be mostly saved. You are either saved, or you are not saved.

I disagree; we are in a constant state of being perfected in faith through grace. I know we don’t receive Grace solely in Baptism, because we need the grace of faith to move us to Baptism. Baptism follows first grace.

The Grace that moves us (as adults) to Baptism is called Prevenient grace. Per Trent:

The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace. Council of Trent, Session #6]

Prevenient Grace is poured out on everyone. This is not the same thing as Sanctifying Grace, which saves us (or Actual Grace - the Grace of Eucharist - which enables us).

The Eucharist is available to all the faithful who are a part of the Body of Christ.

Well, now I know that you are an American (or a Latinized Westerner). An African or Chinese Catholic would never say such a thing.

Protestants choose not to participate because they’ve decided there is no reality in the Eucharist.

Have they decided that? Have they been fairly presented with both sides of the issue and made a conscious and informed decision to reject Eucharist?

Because you cannot sin without a conscious and informed decision (knowledge and intent).

Not only is the Eucharist a symbol for them so too is Baptism, it has no redemptive properties because it is mere religiosity, i.e. mere ritual without spiritual meaning outside of themselves.

Waitaminute - are you saying that protestant Baptism, using water and the Trinitarian Form, is invalid? I don’t think you really want to say that. Because it’s heresy. The Church has LONG taught that Baptism by heretics is valid. It was really the very first really big p***ing contest among the Early Church Fathers, with St. Cyprian of Carthage (my favorite ECF) arguing that “those made wet by heretics” (I think that’s funny) were not validly Baptized, only to be overruled by Pope St. Damascus-1. This is a very ancient and long settled point of Catholic doctrine.

Now, explain to me how one can prepare their hearts for Christ and reject Him at the Communion rail?

Do protestants do that? Do they have communion rails? Are they welcome at Catholic communion rails?

We can’t avoid of the unpleasantries of reality like the Protestants do in relativistic logic, there is an objective reality. One must be baptized, so says John 3:5 and for life there must be participation in the Eucharist so says John 6:51-59 to obtain life.

But I’ve given you three examples of Catholic Doctrine which says we don’t actually need to receive water Baptism for salvation, and I’ve cited them all. It would be FOUR examples if you consider Baptism of Blood separate from Baptism of Desire (I don’t separate them). If there are three (or four) exceptions to John 3:5, can you be so sure that there are not exceptions to John 6?

Or, more to the point, if the Catholic Church teaches that reception of Eucharist is a condition of salvation, can you actually cite something that makes this clear? I have cited everything I have said, and linked to it from official sources. Can you spare me the same courtesy?

Help me see your point by showing were any of the ECFs or Popes have taught “Baptism by invincible ignorance.” In my readings I’ve never run across the concept although I have read such things outside the Church regarding Universalism.

Dude, I cited the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which cites an Ecumenical Council (V-2). I even quoted it, and linked the quote back to the Vatican website. Now you want me to cite ECFs and Popes as well? I can do that, but I think you are being unreasonable.

 

[JoeT777]

I never said Baptism. I said that non-Christians (those who have never received Baptism) can yet be saved (it’s possible, but nobody knows if it’s actually happened). It’s possible that the mechanism for this salvation is that the Grace of water Baptism is imparted without actual water Baptism (as it is in Baptism of Desire). I cited the relevant passage from the Catechism, which itself cites Lumen Gentium (LG) from Vatican-2. If you want to disagree with the Catechism or V-2, you will need to be more specific.

We are preserved by Grace, not by faith.

Trent says that we cannot know FOR SURE if we are in a State of Grace:
But, just because we cannot know if we are saved, does not mean that we are not saved. We are either saved (in a State of Grace), or we are not saved. There’s no in-between. You can’t be kinda saved. You can’t be a little bit saved, or a lot saved. You can’t be mostly saved. You are either saved, or you are not saved.

The Grace that moves us (as adults) to Baptism is called Prevenient grace. Per Trent:

Prevenient Grace is poured out on everyone. This is not the same thing as Sanctifying Grace, which saves us (or Actual Grace - the Grace of Eucharist - which enables us).

Well, now I know that you are an American (or a Latinized Westerner). An African or Chinese Catholic would never say such a thing.

Have they decided that? Have they been fairly presented with both sides of the issue and made a conscious and informed decision to reject Eucharist?

Because you cannot sin without a conscious and informed decision (knowledge and intent).

Waitaminute - are you saying that protestant Baptism, using water and the Trinitarian Form, is invalid? I don’t think you really want to say that. Because it’s heresy. The Church has LONG taught that Baptism by heretics is valid. It was really the very first really big p***ing contest among the Early Church Fathers, with St. Cyprian of Carthage (my favorite ECF) arguing that “those made wet by heretics” (I think that’s funny) were not validly Baptized, only to be overruled by Pope St. Damascus-1. This is a very ancient and long settled point of Catholic doctrine.

Do protestants do that? Do they have communion rails? Are they welcome at Catholic communion rails?

But I’ve given you three examples of Catholic Doctrine which says we don’t actually need to receive water Baptism for salvation, and I’ve cited them all. It would be FOUR examples if you consider Baptism of Blood separate from Baptism of Desire (I don’t separate them). If there are three (or four) exceptions to John 3:5, can you be so sure that there are not exceptions to John 6?

Or, more to the point, if the Catholic Church teaches that reception of Eucharist is a condition of salvation, can you actually cite something that makes this clear? I have cited everything I have said, and linked to it from official sources. Can you spare me the same courtesy?

Dude, I cited the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which cites an Ecumenical Council (V-2). I even quoted it, and linked the quote back to the Vatican website. Now you want me to cite ECFs and Popes as well? I can do that, but I think you are being unreasonable.

I think you’ve misidentified me somehow, I’m not ‘Dude’. I’ll pass your comments along to him if I can figure out who he is…

It seemed to me that you were arguing that there is a thing called Baptism by desire saying, " Water Baptism is the ordinary means of salvation, but the Church also teaches that we can be saved without water Baptism (ie, Baptism of Desire/Blood or invincible ignorance). "[see http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12919842&postcount=40]. Further the implications seemed to be Catholicism held a OSAS view in the sacrament of Baptism.

Lumen Gentium does not imply, or state, that those ‘not knowing’ the Gospel or the Church (the invincibly ignorant) are saved. It says Divine Providence is not denied for help in being saved; a help for which we pray for. Furthermore, should one remain invincibly ignorant of the Gospel and the Church the implication is that if it indeed were to be known, those who are invincibly ignorant would indeed become Catholic. This is far from the norm and in my estimation a difficult thing. Yet, failing this knowledge doesn’t make the invincibly ignorant ‘saved’ (by any definition of being ‘saved’). An individual who is invincibly ignorant and yet has a formed conscience equivalent to the faithful partakes in the sacraments by the desire found in a love of God, not by the rights imparted ignorance. [Cf 1 Corinthians 3:13-14]

As to the Protestants we can’t say they don’t know the Gospel. There is no ignorance of God’s Truth that can be claimed. They cite scripture first and take names later. The name ‘Protestant’ is derived from protest and schism. You can’t be a Protestant and not know that you protest God’s Holy Institution, the Catholic Church; after all it is part of their founding principles, in some cases coming before faith itself. And, with few exceptions the sacraments are understood in Protestantism as mere symbols, there is no real grace imparted, no real change of heart or mind. The Protestant does not believe that there is a ‘real presence’ of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist - if he were to ever come to that realization he couldn’t remain Protestant in good conscience.

JoeT (not Mr. Dude)

 

[DavidFilmer]

It seemed to me that you were arguing that there is a thing called Baptism by desire saying, " Water Baptism is the ordinary means of salvation, but the Church also teaches that we can be saved without water Baptism (ie, Baptism of Desire/Blood or invincible ignorance)."

Yeah, that’s what I said. I further said that the Church does not preclude the possibility of salvation for unbaptized babies.

Further the implications seemed to be Catholicism held a OSAS view in the sacrament of Baptism.

Baptism is an indelible Sacrament. It can never be undone. We cannot be re-Baptized. Once Baptized, always Baptized (OBAB).

The effect of Baptism (salvation) can be lost, but ONLY through mortal sin, which requires deliberate knowledge and intent. We are “always saved” unless and until we knowingly and willfully commit mortal sin.

While we are in a State of Grace, we may receive Eucharist.

If we commit mortal sin, we may not receive Eucharist. We (as Catholics) can avail ourselves of Sacramental Confession, which restores our salvation as if no sin had ever been committed, and we are then again welcome to receive Eucharist.

Lumen Gentium does not imply, or state, that those ‘not knowing’ the Gospel or the Church (the invincibly ignorant) are saved.

Agreed. LG says it’s possible. We don’t know if it’s ever actually happened.

Furthermore, should one remain invincibly ignorant of the Gospel and the Church the implication is that if it indeed were to be known, those who are invincibly ignorant would indeed become Catholic.

Agreed.

As to the Protestants we can’t say they don’t know the Gospel. There is no ignorance of God’s Truth that can be claimed.

Agreed. But, if you are trying to say that personal knowledge and interpretation of the Gospel should lead one to the Catholic Church then you are getting really close to a sola Scriptura argument. If you charter an airplane and drop Bibles on non-Christians (and protestants have actually done this), and they read those Bibles, do you think they will be somehow compelled to convert? To Catholicism? If I give you a Koran to study, do you think you will become a Muslim? If so, would you become a Sunni or a Shiite?

They cite scripture first and take names later. The name ‘Protestant’ is derived from protest and schism. You can’t be a Protestant and not know that you protest God’s Holy Institution, the Catholic Church

Really? Do you think that protestants really know this?

In American English, we don’t even pronounce the word “protestant” correctly. We do pronounce the word “protestor” properly - PROTEST-er. But we say PROD-e-stent, not PROTEST-ant. Where did the “D” come from? There’s no “D” in the word protestant.

Besides, protestants don’t really think of themselves as protestant - they call themselves Baptists or Methodists or whatever denomination they belong to.

after all it is part of their founding principles

Agreed, but few protestants know their history. More often than not, when I talk to protestants about Martin Luther, they think I’m talking about the civil rights guy. I’ve talked to Presbyterians who have never heard of John Calvin or read his Institutes. And, to be fair, I’ve talked to Catholics who know nothing about St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas.

And, with few exceptions the sacraments are understood in Protestantism as mere symbols, there is no real grace imparted, no real change of heart or mind.

Agreed, but the Catholic Church accepts protestant Baptisms as valid (I was Baptized as a protestant - I was never “re-Baptized” in the Catholic Church). The Church also accepts protestant marriage as sacramentally valid until proven otherwise.

If you follow some instructions and make a bomb without realizing what you’re doing, it’s still a bomb. Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t make it any less real.

The Protestant does not believe that there is a ‘real presence’ of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist - if he were to ever come to that realization he couldn’t remain Protestant in good conscience.

Dude, I completely agree. And so does the Catholic Church:

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?[sup]335[/sup] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.[sup]336[/sup]
*[sup]335[/sup] Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 73.21: PL 3, 1169; De unit.: PL 4, 509-536.
[sup]336[/sup] LG 14; cf. ⇒ Mk 16:16; ⇒ Jn 3:5[ETML:C/].
*
CCC 845/846]

Do you think that protestants realize the truth of the Catholic Church and Her Sacraments, yet deliberately refuse to become Catholic?

 

[Nelka]

Do you think that protestants realize the truth of the Catholic Church and Her Sacraments, yet deliberately refuse to become Catholic?

I think some do and some don’t realise.

 

[JoeT777]

Do you think that protestants realize the truth of the Catholic Church and Her Sacraments, yet deliberately refuse to become Catholic?
Nelka;12922921:

I think some do and some don’t reseal.

I believe that once the Protestant/reformer becomes a rational adult there is a conscientious choice. You can’t erase Catholic history from every secular book, and nearly all people want to know their roots of their faith. Finding that they come from a revolt against the Church, they, as it were, choose sides.

So, yes, I do think there is a deliberate refusal to reject anything Catholic. They fear a ‘loss of freedom’ to believe anything they want. Yet, there is a uniform doctrine of faith (a thing they reject - an authoritative body of knowledge) that uses peer pressure to re-define God’s truth.

JoeT

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

The Eucharist is available to all the faithful who are a part of the Body of Christ. Protestants choose not to participate because they’ve decided there is no reality in the Eucharist. The choice is ‘not to believe’. Not only is the Eucharist a symbol for them so too is Baptism, it has no redemptive properties because it is mere religiosity, i.e. mere ritual without spiritual meaning outside of themselves. Furthermore, to carry

The Catholic church believes in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins (I have recitedthe Apostles’ Creed many times at local RC church). I know in my church, the Trintitarian formula is used for baptism, just as the Catholic church does. I have been to both Episcopal and Catholic baptisms. My church also believes in the Real Presence, but we do not have holy orders. apostolic succession, etc.

 

[DavidFilmer]

The Catholic church believes in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins (I have recitedthe Apostles’ Creed many times at local RC church). I know in my church, the Trintitarian formula is used for baptism, just as the Catholic church does.

This is true. The Church accepts ALL Baptisms from the Episcopal Church. I was Baptized in the Episcopal Church, and the Catholic Church readily and easily accepted my Baptism as valid.

My church also believes in the Real Presence

It’s hard to say what your church believes. In your Book of Common Prayer (1928 or 1979 edition - it doesn’t matter) you will find the 39 Articles of the Anglican Faith. Article 28 says,

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the means whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

This sounds a lot like receptionism to me. Receptionism is the idea that Communion has the “real presence” if we believe it does. A believer receives the Body and Blood (somehow), but a non-believer receives only bread and wine. There’s nothing particularly “real” about that.

but we do not have holy orders. apostolic succession, etc.

Actually, you have Apostolic succession, at least as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. Each of your bishops was ordained by a bishop, who was ordained by a bishop, (etc, etc) who was ordained by an Apostle. This is not in dispute.

When Henry-8 broke away from the Catholic Church and formed the Anglican Church in 1538, he took his Catholic Bishops with him - all of whom (obviously) had valid Apostolic Succession (and remained valid Bishops, despite their schism). The Anglican Church had 100% valid Bishops until 1552, when the Anglican Church adopted a defective form in ordination (and likely defective intent). For any Sacrament to be valid, five conditions must be present: valid minister, recipient, form, matter, and intent. If any one of the five is defective, the Sacrament is invalid.

The Anglican Church introduced a defective form in 1552 and began “ordaining” “bishops” who were not really valid (despite the fact that their consecrators were valid Bishops). Even though the ministers (Bishops) were valid, the form was invalid, and thus no actual ordination took place.

The Anglican Church could have recovered from this situation if it had acted promptly to correct the problem. But it took more than a century to fix the problem, after which there were no valid Bishops left. So, now, the Anglican Church has valid form, but no valid Bishops (ministers of the Sacrament of Holy Orders).

Anglican/Episcopal bishops retain valid Apostolic Succession - each bishop can trace his lineage back to one of the original Catholic Bishops who formed the early Anglican Church. But, without valid form for so long, the Anglican Church has forfeited the validity of its Orders. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, Anglican bishops and priests are merely laypeople wearing clerical clothing.

But you realize that the Episcopal Church does not have valid Orders. So, how can Episcopal priests impart any form of “real presence” to ordinary bread and wine? Could you do this?

 

[icamhif]

I’ve studied Catholic teaching and apologetics for years, but am not convinced that it’s true. I have no idea whether I am in “invincible ignorance” or not. Pray for me.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I’ve studied Catholic teaching and apologetics for years, but am not convinced that it’s true. I have no idea whether I am in “invincible ignorance” or not. Pray for me.

We will be happy to pray for you, but we also wish to enlighten you.

You identify yourself as a “Christian Inquirer.” To a Catholic, the term “Christian” applies to ANYONE who has received valid Christian Baptism. This includes most protestants.

Have you received Christian Baptism (meaning, were you Baptized with water “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” regardless of the denomination of your minister)?

If so, then you have ALREADY received Sanctifying (saving) Grace. The Catholic Church regards and accepts your Baptism as completely valid. If you decide to become Catholic, you will NOT be “re-Baptized.”

I’ve studied Catholic teaching and apologetics for years, but am not convinced that it’s true. I have no idea whether I am in “invincible ignorance” or not.

If you truly are “not convinced” even after an honest and genuine open-minded consideration of the Church then you are not condemned by your refusal to accept it. But you are not “saved” by your honest rejection. Your salvation is in jeopardy, but only God knows if you are truly guilty of mortal sin (which requires full knowledge and complete freewill consent).

 

[icamhif]

We will be happy to pray for you, but we also wish to enlighten you.

Thank you.

You identify yourself as a “Christian Inquirer.” To a Catholic, the term “Christian” applies to ANYONE who has received valid Christian Baptism. This includes most protestants.

Have you received Christian Baptism (meaning, were you Baptized with water “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” regardless of the denomination of your minister)?

If so, then you have ALREADY received Sanctifying (saving) Grace. The Catholic Church regards and accepts your Baptism as completely valid. If you decide to become Catholic, you will NOT be “re-Baptized.”

Yes, I was baptized by immersion in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in a non-denominational Evangelical Church.

If you truly are “not convinced” even after an honest and genuine open-minded consideration of the Church then you are not condemned by your refusal to accept it.

It’s very difficult, if not impossible, to know even my own heart. I am open-minded, but I don’t think I can know for sure whether my rejection of something is primarily willful, making me culpable of mortal sin. How can I examine my motives?

But you are not “saved” by your honest rejection.

True. Salvation is a process. I like to call it theosis.

Your salvation is in jeopardy, but only God knows if you are truly guilty of mortal sin (which requires full knowledge and complete freewill consent).

When you say that my salvation is “in jeopardy,” are you merely saying that there’s a high probability that I am in mortal sin? I agree that my salvation is in jeopardy in the sense that I’m missing the sacraments that are not available to me, because I am not yet a member of any of the Church that offers the Eucharist as the Real Presence of Christ.

 

[thenobes]

If only a Catholic priest can change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ at the mass, and I know that only a Catholic priest can, and didn’t Christ say in the bible that if we do not eat of his flesh and drink of his blood we cannot enter into His Kingdom? Then how are protestants suppose to get to Heaven? I know that other people of other denominations do go to heaven. Does Jesus simply excuse them because of their ignorance? I’m speaking of those who really don’t understand or know that. This is probably an ignorant question. lol sorry if it is. I am just trying to learn since I had been away from the catholic church for probably 50 yrs. until about 5 yrs. ago. I had forgotten almost everything I learned in Catholic school. I’m catching up pretty quick though.

An interesting answer to this might be that when Jesus said “unless you eat…” to the Pharisees, He meant it only for those current listeners, who knew exactly what He meant. He did not say it with the meaning of “unless one eats…” but " unless YOU eat…".

This would thus not refer to those current readers of John 6 who could not verify Jesus’s words directly, and who still have an invincible ignorance in the matter of understanding His statement of the need to eat His actual Body and Blood.

peace,
steve

 

[DavidFilmer]

When you say that my salvation is “in jeopardy,” are you merely saying that there’s a high probability that I am in mortal sin?

No, that’s not for me to speculate.

I’m saying that if you are in mortal sin, you don’t have options outside of the Church.

 

[icamhif]

Lord have mercy

My God, I pray that if Catholicism is true, and that my bias, rationale, or spiritual blindness is keeping me away, then sanctify my heart and lead me to the Catholic Church.

 

[DavidFilmer]

My God, I pray that if Catholicism is true, and that my bias, rationale, or spiritual blindness is keeping me away, then sanctify my heart and lead me to the Catholic Church.

Amen.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Returning to the original question:

A person can enter the state of grace without the formal Sacrament of Baptism, by a baptism of desire or of blood. And a person who does not have access to the Sacrament of Confession, either because he is not Catholic or is a Catholic who has no priest available at the time, can be forgiven by perfect contrition along with the desire (at least implicitly) for the Sacrament.

In fact the Council of Trent says the same about the entire set of Seven Sacraments:

“CANON IV. If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification; – though all [the sacraments] are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.”

The desire thereof, at least, is sufficient for salvation. So when we interpret Jesus’ saying that we must receive eat and drink (the Eucharist) to have salvation, we can say that it is true also for non-Catholics – by implicit desire.

It is often said that God is not bound by His Sacraments, and that is true, in a certain sense. But we cannot use that saying to nullify any infallible teaching of God’s Church on salvation. For God is truth so He is in a sense bound by truth (for He cannot deny himself).

So Protestants, in knowing and loving Christ, implicitly desire to receive Him in the Eucharist, thereby fulfilling the saying of Jesus in John chapter 6: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you.”

 

[JoeT777]

Returning to the original question:

A person can enter the state of grace without the formal Sacrament of Baptism, by a baptism of desire or of blood. And a person who does not have access to the Sacrament of Confession, either because he is not Catholic or is a Catholic who has no priest available at the time, can be forgiven by perfect contrition along with the desire (at least implicitly) for the Sacrament.

In fact the Council of Trent says the same about the entire set of Seven Sacraments:

“CANON IV. If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification; – though all [the sacraments] are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.”

The desire thereof, at least, is sufficient for salvation. So when we interpret Jesus’ saying that we must receive eat and drink (the Eucharist) to have salvation, we can say that it is true also for non-Catholics – by implicit desire.

It is often said that God is not bound by His Sacraments, and that is true, in a certain sense. But we cannot use that saying to nullify any infallible teaching of God’s Church on salvation. For God is truth so He is in a sense bound by truth (for He cannot deny himself).

So Protestants, in knowing and loving Christ, implicitly desire to receive Him in the Eucharist, thereby fulfilling the saying of Jesus in John chapter 6: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you.”

Then we can truly say ‘one church is as good as another’, can we not? Desire is in part a passion, if we have a fleeting passion are we saved under your universalism?

JoeT