I find it difficult to believe that Protestants will be sent to Hell.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bohm_Bawerk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the problem with Protestantism is that it’s cafeteria Christianity. The problem for a Protestant is if he hears of a Catholic doctrine which his conscience knows is right but his pride rejects.

Then there’s the wider problem of belonging to a religion which is defined by what you don’t believe in. After God has gone to the trouble of the Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection and still there are men and bodies of men who turn away: must be very vexing.
 
Q. 13. What, then, is to be said of those, who, being brought up in a false religion, have no opportunity of hearing about the true Church and Faith of Christ? or, of hearing of it only in a false and odious light? Can such as these be saved if they live and die in their invincible ignorance of the Truth?

A. The learned author of the book called Charity And Truth, who seems willing to go as far as possible in favor of those who are not joined in the communion of the Church of Christ,candidly owns, that it is quite uncertain if any such will be saved, even though in invincible ignorance; for in laying down the true state of the question, he says, “The meaning is, that no one is saved unless he be in the Catholic communion, either actually or virtually, either in fact or desire; and that we are not sure, generally speaking, that anyone is saved out of the Catholic Church, who is invincibly ignorant of the true Religion,” (Ch. I.Q.3) The fact is, there is not one single testimony of the Holy Scripture which gives reason to think that anyone will be saved out of that communion, but there are great numbers, as we have seen above, which very strongly declare the contrary. So that all the reasons which are brought in favor of those who are out of the Church, are taken from the supposition of cases that perhaps never exist, and from our imperfect notions of the goodness of God, or from the idea which some frame for themselves of what is meant by being a member of the True Church; and those people of whom we speak in the present question afford the principal grounds of these reasonings. For it is argued in this manner: Suppose a man born and baptized in an heretical sect, and afterwards, when he comes of age, to be in such circumstances as never to have an opportunity of hearing about the True Religion, or, if he does, it is always in such a false and odious colors as serve only to make him detest it, and to make him more and more attached to his own way; and, on this account, to be in invincibly ignorance of the Truth. It is acknowledged by all, that this man, by his baptism, is made a member of the Church of Christ, and that if he die before coming to the age of reason, he will certainly be saved in his baptismal innocence. **Let us now suppose further, that, when he comes to age, and continues to live an innocent life, and by co-operating with the graces which God bestows upon him, perseveres in his innocence and does his best, according to the knowledge he has, and would do better if he knew it; is it not inconsistent with the goodness of God to suppose that such a man, living and dying in that state, would be lost? Is he not always in the sight of God, a real member of the Church of Christ, though not joined in her communion? And, if he die in his innocence, must he not then be saved? **Such is the argument proposed on this subject; and, to be sure, it has a dazzling appearance.

But it must be observed, that there is the strongest reason to doubt that such a case as is there supposed ever was, or ever will be; for (1) There is not the smallest ground in scripture to suppose it. (2) As it is impossible for man, in his present fallen state, to persevere in it to the end of his life, without a special and extraordinary grace from God; and, as a grace of this kind is justly esteemed one of the most singular favors given by God to His Faithful servants, who are members of His Church and enjoy all the powerful helps that are only to be found in Her communion, to enable them to persevere in their baptismal innocence to their deaths; ***is it to be supposed that God will bestow this so singular a favor upon anyone who is not in her communion, and is deprived of her helps? And if it be supposed that he loses his baptismal innocence by committing a mortal sin, but recovers the grace of justification by a sincere repentance, the difficulty still increases. For a repentance without the help of the sacraments sufficient to obtain the grace of justification, includes a perfect contrition, founded in a perfect love of God above all things; a favor so seldom granted to sinners, even in the Church itself, that the sacrament of penance is appointed by Jesus Christ as the standing means of supplying for our deficiency in that respect. Now, what likelihood is there that Almighty God will bestow so very singular a favor upon one who has lost his innocence, and is not in the communion of His Church, and deprived of the helps she affords for recovering it? ***

But, (3) Let us suppose the case to happen as it is proposed, and that Almighty God gives this man these extraordinary graces by which he preserves his baptismal innocence to the last, dies in the grace of God, and goes to heaven; would not this be making God contradict Himself, and act directly contrary to His revealed Will? All the testimonies of the scripture above displayed concur to prove, that God has appointed True Faith in Jesus Christ, and the being in communion with the Church of Christ, as necessary conditions of salvation; and yet, in the present case, the person would be saved who had not the True Faith in Jesus Christ, and was not in communion with His Church, but lived and died in an heretical congregation. There is therefore the greatest reason to believe that such as case will never happen, but that a person brought up in heresy, and invincibly ignorant of the Truth, being by that means deprived of all the helps and graces which are the consequences of the True Faith, and which are only found in the True Church, will not preserve his innocence but continuing in his heresy, and dying in his sins, will be lost; not precisely because he had not the True Faith, of which he is supposed to be invincibly ignorant, and therefore not culpable in wanting it, but his other sins in which he dies guilty.
 
Objectively speaking, Protestants are material heretics. No, we cannot charge those of good will and invincible ignorance of pertinacity, and thus formal heresy, but it remains true that they hold heretical doctrines.
The point that Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict are trying to drum through our thick heads is, “What good is served by such a label?” These people have not committed heresy. They may subscribe to heretical teachings. This is not being denied. However, if we’re looking for unity, we must begin with that which is also true. They are not the cause of the problem. Their anscestors and our own are the cause. Material heretic is not a very helpful term to throw at them.
Are not all validly baptized people subject to the Church’s jurisdiction? In the past, theologians wrote
The Church does now say that there are “numerous ‘spheres’ of belonging to the Church as People of God and of the bond which exists with it” (Pope John Paul II).
Canon Law is written with a target population in mind. It only applies to that population. For example, if you read the Code of Canon Law, it is very careful to distinguish between what applies to Roman Catholics alone and what applies to all Catholics. There are codes that apply only to Oriental Catholics. When speaking of jurisdiction, we go by what Canon Law defines as its jurisdiction. This can change with the pope, because he is the Law-Giver.
I admit that Protestant sects profess some doctrines correctly, but other than their baptism of children, and any actual grace that God grants to them, their sects are not means of sanctification (i.e. sanctifying grace) or salvation.
That is not what the popes are saying. They are saying that Christ uses whatever Catholic truths are found in these communities in order to save. It’s not the ecclesial community that is a means of salvation, but the Catholic truth to which they faithfully subscribe.
Pope St. Leo the Great (Serm. CXXIX) and Ven. Pius IX (Holy Office, 16 September 1864) both stated that there was no communion between the Apostolic See and the schismatic sects, whereas Pope John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint now recognizes a “partial” communion between the Catholic Church and the other communities.
There was no communion because there was a mutual excommunication. That is no longer the case. Pope Paul VI began lifting all of the excommunications and today there are none.

We co-exist in an imperfect communion. We have a communion in sacris, which cannot be denied. We also have a communion in origin, that cannot be denied.
I agree to their validity, but not their licitity.
That is not up to us to decide. The Holy See has decided that since they are no longer excommunicated, since their priesthood is valid, since their bishops have apostolic succession and since their priests act with faculties given to them by bishops who have the authority to grant faculties, their sacraments are valid and licit.

We, the faithful, cannot make laws for the Church. We go with the law. The current law is that their celebration of the sacraments are valid and licit. This was decreed by Popes Paul, John Paul and Benedict.
“The schismatic dares to set up an altar and to profane the truth of the divine Victim by means of false sacrifices” (St. Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiæ, c. 17: P.L. 4:513).
The Divine Liturgy celebrated by an Orthodox Chaldean is no less valid than that celebrated by a Catholic Chaldean. This does not apply in this case. It was not written for this situation.
“Elsewhere * there is neither a legitimate priesthood nor true sacrifices” (St. Leo the Great*, Ep. LXXX, Ad Anatolium, cap. 2).
This still holds true. However, the Orthodox are not outside the Church. They are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, but they are real Churches. Pope Leo is speaking about ecclesial communities, not churches. We have always had many churches.
The problem is that Roman Catholics, because we are so big, tend to think of ourselves as THE Church. This often creates problems between us and our Oriental Catholics They are not inside the Roman Catholic Church nor do they want to be. They exist side by side. The question regarding the Orthodox is not whether or not they are real Churches. We know that they are. It’s one of communion with the Bishop of Rome.
“For what is the sin of schism, committed by the intruded priest, if it is not to usurp by his own action the pastoral ministry, without any authorization, and even in contempt of the authority of the bishop whom he rejects?” (Pope Pius VI
, Instruction Laudabilem majorum to the French bishops, 26 September 1791).

This applies to those who reject the autority of a bishop who has jurisdiction over them. Roman Catholic bishops have no jurisdiction over Oriental priests. As long as the priest is in communion with his bishop, he can validly and licitly celebrate the sacraments.
 
“He who leaves this [Roman] See cannot hope to remain within the Church; he who eats of the lamb outside of it has no part with God” (Ven. Pius IX, Amantissimus, n. 3; quoting St. Jerome, epistle 15 to Damasus).
This was not written for those who were never part of the Roman See. Remember, the Eastern Catholics or Oriental Catholics have never been part of the Roman See. This was written for those who struck out on their own, leaving the Roman See., not for those who never belonged to it. Try telling the Church that Ukranian Catholics are part of the Roman See. You’ll get a slap on the wrist for that one. Yet, they are as Catholic and any Roman Catholc.
“Priests who are separated from the Church, although they validly sacrifice in the name of Christ, nevertheless do not offer the sacrifice as ministers of the Church and in the person of the Church itself. For the priest is commissioned by the Church to pray to intercede, and to offer in its name, and in regard to this, the Church can take away from a separated priest the ability to sacrifice in its name” (Fr. Felix M. Cappello, S.J., Tractatus Canonico-moralis de Sacramentis, I, p. 462).
I will reply to your second post later on. 🙂
Again, Orthodox priests are not separated from the Church, since the Orthodox Churches are real churches. They are not ecclesial communities. Pope Benedict uses an analogy that explains this very well. He speaks of the two lungs of the Church, East and West.
Well, here’s the thing. If the Protestant leads a good life and is very faithful to his/her faith than they will go to Heaven. We’ve been talking about hell/heaven/purgatory in school and the sister who is my teacher said that.
This is true. The key word here is “faithful”. One must be faithful to the truths that one knows. God does not punish one for what one does not know or does not understand. It’s very important to remember that because a person is told everything there is to say about the Catholic faith, that’s not enough to convict that person of rejecting truth. There are very honest people who just don’t get it. This happens not only in matters of faith. We have all kinds of conversations with people and we walk away realizing that the other person just does not get it. It’s not that he or she has an agenda. The inability to grasp and to make a teaching one’s own is a legitimate form of ignorance.

If a person rejects a teaching of the Church because they have a bone to pick with the Church or they have an agenda of their own, that is not invincible ignorance. That is willful and has moral culpability. One has a moral duty to embrace what one understands to be true. The key is “understands.”

Common, not everything is as easy to understand and to accept as we want to make it. We must give people the benefit of the doubt. It’s not always easy to distinguish between the person of good will who doesn’t get it and the person who has a perjudice rooted in pride, rather than faith. Some people will not accept certain Catholic doctrines, because they truly beleive that they would be sinning. God has compassion on that person, because he can read hearts that we cannot read.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top