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

[TMC]

I agree with you that many Muslims do not hold this view and many Christians hold the view that Hell in inevitable for unbelievers. It is my guess we me disagree on where the preponderance of formal Muslim belief is held. It’s my position that the majority of Muslims (and associated sects) have the systematic view the “kafir” are doomed to Hell.

You may be right, I don’t know.

 

[Holly3278]

I definitely believe that there will be some Protestants in Heaven. Indeed, there may be many Protestants in Heaven. Nobody really knows for sure. However, since Catholics have access to the Sacraments, I think that a devout Catholic would have a better chance of getting to Heaven than would a Protestant. And I don’t say that out of bigotry either. If a Protestant commits a mortal sin, they can’t go to Confession to have their sins absolved. Instead, they’d have to make an Act of Perfect Contrition to get their sins forgiven. But for a devout Catholic, we have the Sacrament of Reconciliation and perfect contrition is not required for it. As long as you are contrite, whether the contrition is perfect or imperfect, it is sufficient to be absolved of your sins in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Also, I think the belief that both Protestantism and Catholicism leads to the truth is sort of a form of universalism which is definitely not true.

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
(Php 2:12-13 RSV)

Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest remains, let us fear lest any of you be judged to have failed to reach it. For good news came to us just as to them; but the message which they heard did not benefit them, because it did not meet with faith in the hearers.
(Heb 4:1-2 RSV)

If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.
(1Jn 5:16-17 RSV)

For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt. For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned.
(Heb 6:4-8 RSV)

“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
(Luk 10:16 RSV)

I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
(1Ti 3:14-15 RSV)

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

You may be right, I don’t know.

I can agree it is difficult to accurately assess this as there are a number of Islamic schools and branches (over 150 as it stands). It appears that the mainline branches, however, do formally adopt the tenets that indicate condemnation of ‘kafir’ (unbelievers) to Hell.

 

[mark_a]

My own personal view as of now is that God doesn’t distinguish much between a devout Catholic and a devout Protestant, than say a devout Catholic and a devout Hindu… . . . . . .Do not get me wrong. But I find it difficult to believe that God will send a “good” Protestant to Hell.

Do you believe that a good Hindu is more likely than a good Protestant or good Catholic to go to hell?

 

[meltzerboy]

But what “intrinsic worth” can any good work have if God has nothing to do with it? I hope that’s not what you are saying. Catholics don’t believe in doing good works for any other reason than that it pleases God. God doesn’t care what good works we do only that we do them with love–his love. Human affection is fine, but it fails. Look at mothers/fathers who murder their own children (an extreme example, but still appropriate). They had human affection for their children but when their own needs/egos were crossed by their children or the responsibility of caring for them they had nothing else to call upon to save their children or themselves because there was no love of God by which they could love sacrificially. It’s the major cause of abortion and others such evils. Human love only goes so far and then it fails. Only God’s love is eternal and is certain.

I think you may have misinterpreted what I said. I did not mean to suggest that our good works have no relation to G-d. As in Catholicism, I believe, Judaism states that the good works we do toward others are in response to G-d’s grace within us (though we don’t name it the Holy Spirit person of G-d). In other words, one cannot truly love G-d without also loving others. That’s not the issue here. Rather, the disagreement is about salvation and what importance it plays in Christianity and the Church. My claim is that even though I realize it is very important, equally important is the moral precept of caring for and loving our neighbors (and enemies) since Jesus in His human form taught and commanded this. Therefore, I believe that the Church would still be worthwhile even without the promise of salvation.

 

[meltzerboy]

Do you believe that a good Hindu is more likely than a good Protestant or good Catholic to go to hell?

I understand your question; and, though it is interesting, it takes us into the speculative task of ranking which religious group is more likely or less likely to go to heaven. I’m willing to play the game and try to do it according to the Catholic perspective: devout Catholics first since they not only worship Jesus but also follow the dogma and doctrines of His one, true Church; then devout Protestants since they also, for the most part, believe in the divinity of Jesus and the Triune G-d despite not following the Catholic Church; then the Jews, more shaky because they believe in neither the divinity of Jesus, nor the Trinity, nor do they adopt the Church’s dogmas and doctrines, but were at least given G-d’s Law through Moses; nearly tied with the Muslims, who, though disliked by some members of this forum, are still part of the seed of Abraham and accept Jesus as a wise rabbi and prophet (as do the Jews), if not divine; and then the Hindus, very much in jeopardy, since they are not a monotheistic religion; followed by the Buddhists, who do not even believe in a personal G-d. So there you have the rankings! A few things are lacking, however. One, the rankings change (or disappear) if we change the religion that is doing the evaluation. Two, how do we define “devout”? Three, there are many other religions and branches of religions to rank. Four, we have not factored in G-d’s infinite grace and mercy. And five, who are we to speculate about the salvation of others in the first place?

 

[mark_a]

And five, who are we to speculate about the salvation of others in the first place?

I’ll agree with you and believe Purgatory is chock full of good Protestants.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

I definitely believe that there will be some Protestants in Heaven. Indeed, there may be many Protestants in Heaven. Nobody really knows for sure. However, since Catholics have access to the Sacraments, I think that a devout Catholic would have a better chance of getting to Heaven than would a Protestant. And I don’t say that out of bigotry either. If a Protestant commits a mortal sin, they can’t go to Confession to have their sins absolved. Instead, they’d have to make an Act of Perfect Contrition to get their sins forgiven. But for a devout Catholic, we have the Sacrament of Reconciliation and perfect contrition is not required for it. As long as you are contrite, whether the contrition is perfect or imperfect, it is sufficient to be absolved of your sins in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Also, I think the belief that both Protestantism and Catholicism leads to the truth is sort of a form of universalism which is definitely not true.

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
(Php 2:12-13 RSV)

Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest remains, let us fear lest any of you be judged to have failed to reach it. For good news came to us just as to them; but the message which they heard did not benefit them, because it did not meet with faith in the hearers.
(Heb 4:1-2 RSV)

If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.
(1Jn 5:16-17 RSV)

For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt. For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned.
(Heb 6:4-8 RSV)

“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
(Luk 10:16 RSV)

I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
(1Ti 3:14-15 RSV)

Yes, I definitely agree with everything you have written. Thanks for the rationality

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

I think you may have misinterpreted what I said. I did not mean to suggest that our good works have no relation to G-d. As in Catholicism, I believe, Judaism states that the good works we do toward others are in response to G-d’s grace within us (though we don’t name it the Holy Spirit person of G-d). In other words, one cannot truly love G-d without also loving others. That’s not the issue here. Rather, the disagreement is about salvation and what importance it plays in Christianity and the Church. My claim is that even though I realize it is very important, equally important is the moral precept of caring for and loving our neighbors (and enemies) since Jesus in His human form taught and commanded this. Therefore, I believe that the Church would still be worthwhile even without the promise of salvation.

What you are concerned about is something called “deontology” which is a philosophical area where we are to act out out of a sense of duty. Namely, that we should do good for good’s sake; we should not do good for the purpose of “buying our way into Heaven”.

You might be interested in a philosopher called Immanuel Kant

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[Gregory_I]

We must remember, that those are saved are saved as Catholics, not as Protestants. THeir protestantism is what damns them, because it is material heresy.

If a child were baptized in the Lutheran CHurch, and if this CHild reached say the age of 12, and then he died, without ever having rejecting any belief of the Catholic faith, he would be saved, but AS A CATHOLIC, for baptism appropriates people into the CATHOLIC church, until otherwise declared by the individual. IF that same boy, hearing of the Catholic faith, rejected it as the whore of babylon, and died at 13, the Boy would go to hell.
WHy? Because in his heart he has rejected the good way, and has officially become PROTESTANT, that is, heretical. And the punishment for heresy is damnation.

“There is but one church of the faithful, outside of which it is absolutely impossible that any should be saved.”

Absolutely.

Pope Innocent III.

 

[SouthpawLink]

Thank you for the information, but I respectfully disagree, perhaps because I’m interpreting Catholicism “from the outside, looking in.” I believe that Jesus’ humanity (as I understand, He is thought of as completely human as well as completely divine according to the Church) is meant to be an example to emulate, and this humanity encompasses caring, compassion, humility, and mercy. Therefore, I do not think Jesus’ moral teachings alone as interpreted by His Church render the Church’s existence vain. At the same time, I understand that the hope of personal salvation (as well as leading others to salvation) is a bedrock of Christianity. Raised in Judaism, however, I was taught that we humans should not concern ourselves with G-d’s judgment and instead concentrate on doing good deeds, for their intrinsic worth, during our earthly lives.

Jesus became man to die for our sins and found the Kingdom of God, which is the Church; secondarily, yes, He taught us how we are to live.

What does Judaism believe to be the purpose of man’s creation? Catholicism believes man to have been created to glorify God and attain eternal beatitude. Doing good deeds for the love of God is a way to glorify Him, but there’s also the added benefit that He’ll reward us for them.

 

[mark_avery]

You seem to have many replies, i suppose one could also state that its very hard to find our lord, the father that is, (as in the bible its stated) which would usually if not always be through our Lord, Jesus.

You would have to give your all,total submission and absolute dedication to i.e prayers and without deceit of thy neighbour and their intentions.

Jesus did not pick the best of the group when choosing they apostles,they omission of Nathen who our lord approved of having a pure heart would go along way in the understanding of they authorization of evangelizing.

Do not stop them Jesu said, for to us they might have authorisation to do so.

so in answer to the question, i would think, or at least hope, not all would no.

 

[SouthpawLink]

TheOldMedic:

Regardless of what some people on this forum try to claim, the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church is that a good Protestant, a Good Hindu, a Good Buddist, a Good Muslim, etc. can go to heaven.

“Some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life” (Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, n. 2).

“Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained” (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, n. 13).

“Not without sorrow we have learned that another error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world, and has taken up its abode in the souls of many Catholics who think that one should have good hope of the eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of Christ. Therefore, they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot and condition after death of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic faith, and, by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response favorable to their false opinion” (Ven. Pius IX, Singulari Quadem, 9 December 1854).

Without divine faith and perfect charity (and invincible ignorance about their errors), no one can belong to the Catholic Church (at least in voto) and thus be saved.

JReducation:

I think that Pope John Paul’s and Pope Benedict’s summary explains the meaning of the above statements very succinctly and in a way that is easier for most people to understand.

I respectfully disagree with you. I think Vatican II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have blurred the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. It is now asserted that all Protestants (heretics) without distinction are quasi-members of the Church (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio*), and that the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church together are somehow the one Church of Christ (cf. CDF, Some Aspects of… Communion); the Catholic Church is also said to exist in the Protestant communities, contrary to previous Church teaching (cf. UR):

“Whoever thus gives proper attention and reflection to the situation which surrounds the various religious societies, divided amongst themselves and separated from the Catholic Church - which, without interruption, from the time of Christ the Lord and of His Apostles, by means of her legitimate sacred Shepherds, has always exercised, and exercises still, the divine power conferred upon Her by the Lord - it will be easy to convince [them] that in none of these societies, and not even in all of them taken together, can in some way be seen the one and Catholic Church which Christ the Lord built, constituted, and willed to exist. Neither will it ever be able to be said that they are members and part of that Church as long as they remain visibly separated from Catholic unity” (Ven. Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, 13 September 1868).

Popes Gregory XVI, Ven. Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius XI and Ven. Pius XII were much clearer in their teaching on the constitution of the Church and in their explanation of the dogma, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.

• See also Pope John Paul II’s 28 June 1981 Discourse to the Roman Curia.

 

[Gregory_I]

And the fundamental reason for the blurring of extra ecclesia nulla salva, is because people deny the doctrinew of original sin as it was fully explicated and set forth at Trent.

THe majority of the Church’s theologians are semi-pelagians.

THe fullest proof of this claim is seen in Fr. Karl Rahner. Talk about pelagianism…yikes. Reserach this heresy and compare it to church “approved” theologians today. Uncanny resemblances sprout up like weeds.

 

[JReducation]

I respectfully disagree with you. I think Vatican II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have blurred the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. It is now asserted that all Protestants (heretics) without distinction are quasi-members of the Church (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio*), and that the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church together are somehow the one Church of Christ (cf. CDF, Some Aspects of… Communion); the Catholic Church is also said to exist in the Protestant communities, contrary to previous Church teaching (cf. UR):

We have to understand that the Church does not consider Protestants to be heretics. In fact, in one of his letters, Ut Unum Sint, Pope John Paul discourages the application of this term to Protestants. A person born into the Protestant tradition is not a heretic. The heretics were those who broke away from and left the Catholic Church. These people have not committed such a crime.

Second, the Church also recognizes that she does not have the jurisdiction to pass a judgment over those who are not physical members of the Catholic Church. These terms, which are part of canonical disciplines do not apply to those who are outside of the reach of Canon Law.

The term heretic is used for a Catholic who embraces error and denies the truth of the faith into which he is born.

The Church does not say that Protestants, Orthodox and others are quasi Catholics. What she says is a great truth. There are Catholic truths found in other ecclesial communities. We cannot deny this.

As far as the Orthodox Catholics and the Oriental Catholics, which is what the Magisterium is referring to when she speaks about the Orthodox, she says that there is a Communion in Sacris. That too is a truth that cannot be denied. The Orthodox Christians and the Oriental Catholics are in schism with each other. This is true. However, the Orthodox have legitimate Apostolic Succession. Therefore, they have legitimate sacraments. The celebration of the sacraments by the Orthodox is both valid and licit. It’s valid, because they have Apostolic succession which is unbroken. It’s licit, because they do not need the approval of a Catholic bishop to celebrate them. They are outside of the reach of Canon Law. Canon Law only applies to Catholics. Even the Oriental Catholics have their own Code of Law.

It’s not a matter of being 1/4 Catholic or some other goofy thing like that. It’s a matter of admitting that there is Catholic truth in other ecclesial communities and even in non-ecclesial communities, such as Judaism and Islam.

We have to remember that most of these documents that came before us were addressing the issue of heresy inside the Church. They were also addressing apostasy inside the Church. In a nutshell, they were statements made for Catholics warning them of the consequences if they separated themselves from the Church.

 

[JReducation]

What the popes, from John XXIII to Benedict XVI have said about other faiths does not apply to Catholics. They are not speaking to Catholics who are leaving the Church or denying their faith. They are speaking about people who are born outside of the Catholic Church.

While it may sound as if the older documents and the newer ones are contradicting each other, they are not. The older ones were addressing one situation and the newer ones are addressing another situation. The confusion for the average person comes in because there is a repetition of terms. They are talking about different issues.

In the past, the popes and councils wrote about those who would follow such errors. In the present, they are writing about those who are born into those communities and about those elements of truth that are clearly visible in those communities. These are two different topics.

The older documents do not address the presence of truth in other faiths, because they were not looking for that. They were trying to help Catholics remain Catholic. The objective of the statement is going to drive the wording. The goal of the statements made by the current Magisterium is to clarify that there is truth in other faiths, even though it is not the fullness of truth. That’s how the Church adopts an ancient term that was introduced by St. Francis in 1224, “imperfect communion”. Francis introduced it in speaking to his brothers before sending them on mission to the Holy Land. He was speaking about the importance of acknowledging and respecting those points on which Catholics, Jews and Muslims conquer.

No one is saying that everything is the same. Observe the writings of Pope Benedict. He wrote the statement that we find in the CCC. Yet, in other places, when he is asked if all faiths are equal, he speaks about relativism. The position remains the same. Not all faiths are equal. However, all faiths have shadows of the truth and those may never be denied.

That’s why Pope Benedict wrote that the separation between Catholics and Protestants is the fault of those people, at that time. On the one side, you had heresies being embraced as truths. On the other side, you had an intransigent hierarchy that refused to acknowledge legitimate concerns and complaints. The result was disastrous, because the debates escalated into a battle between egos. It was as if two bull-headed men were staring each other in the eye determined to win the battle rather than solve a problem.

The situation to which the modern Church is speaking is not one of conflict or one of Catholics absconding. That has been properly addressed. There is no need to rehash it. Today’s situation presents another question. “Is there any truth in other ecclesial communities, in Churches that are not in communion with Rome and in non-Christian communities?” The answer is “Yes. anything that is Catholic, which may be found in these other communities, continues to be truth and God uses that to save.”

No one is saying that one should settle for half of the truth if they can have the whole. What is being said is that we cannot deny the half that is there.

Finally, the Church calls on Catholics to be the first to put down their swords and admit that our ancestors made grave mistakes in dealing with the heretics. Those mistakes aggravated the situation. Hopefully, the descendants of the heretics will also admit that their ancestors made grave mistakes. We can’t force them to admit that. We can only encourage by our example.

I hope this helps at least a little bit.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TomD123]

2 comments and some quotes:

1. Protestants are tecnically heretics, but the term may not be the best one to use for them
2. The Church does teach that a protestant can get into heaven and this is nothing new however they must be invincibly ignorant (see quotes below) and this makes sense b/c I could not imagine some of these super-devout born again Christians who are “on fire for the Lord” and make God the center of their life burning in hell, that would make God a monster.

Quotes:
“The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition. Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God. Should he die in these dispositions, he will assuredly attain heaven. It is true such acts could not possibly be elicited by one who was aware that God has commanded all to join the Church, and who nevertheless should willfully remain outside her fold”- Catholic Encyclopedia

1. What do we mean when we say, “Outside the Church there is no salvation?”

When we say, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” we mean that Christ made the Catholic Church a necessary means of salvation and commanded all to enter it, so that a person must be connected with the Church in some way to be saved.
168. How can persons who are not members of the Catholic Church be saved?

Persons who are not members of the Catholic Church can be saved if, through no fault of their own, they do not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, but they love God and try to do His will, for in this way they are connected with the Church by desire.
-Baltimore Catechism 1941

29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation- Catechism of Pius X

Also, see Baltimore Catechism 4 detailed explanation of the salvation of a protestant: cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/baltimore/bcreed09.htm

There are more, these were just the first that came to mind when I have more time I will find more
NOTE: all quotes are before Vatican II because afterwards this dogma has been really misunderstood

 

[SouthpawLink]

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.

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).

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.

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.

JReducation:

The celebration of the sacraments by the Orthodox is both valid and licit.

I agree to their validity, but not their licitity.

“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).

“Elsewhere * there is neither a legitimate priesthood nor true sacrifices” (St. Leo the Great, Ep. LXXX, Ad Anatolium, cap. 2).

“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).

“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).

“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. *

 

[Maybeasister]

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.

 

[Gregory_I]

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.

Wrong.

So faithfulness to objectively heretical matter is sufficient for salvation, if it is done with “good will”?

Nope. Not on this side of Heaven.
COnsider what was written by the Right Rev. Abp. George Hay, a bishop of the 19th century in Scotland writing on this very topic: from “Questions and Answers Regarding the Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation”
Q. 8. What judgement does the scripture make of all those various sects of “Christians” who are separated from the True Church by heresy? Can they be saved if they be in invincible ignorance and live and die in their state of separation from the True Church of Christ?

A. These are certainly in a very different state from the Turks, Jews, and heathens, provided they have true baptism among them; for if they either have no baptism at all, or have altered the way in giving it from what Christ ordained, then they are in no better state as to their possibility of salvation than the Turks, Jews, Heathens themselves, however much they may boast of the name of “Christians.” But if they have true baptism among them, then they are, by baptism, made true members of the Church of Christ, and as many of them die young, in their baptismal innocence, will undoubtedly be saved [as they are in fact INSIDE the Church and have not been excluded by heresy or schism, they being below the age of reason]. But as for those among them who come to the years of discretion (i.e., age of reason), and being educated in a false Faith, live and die in a state of separation from the communion of the Church of Christ, to give a clear and distinct answer to the question with regard to them, we must also distinguish two different cases; the first is of those who either live among Catholics, or have Catholics living in the same country as them, who know there are such people, and often hear about them: the second regards those who have no such acquaintance of Catholics, who have no opportunity of such acquaintance, and who seldom or ever hear about them, except in a false and odious light.

Q. 9. What is to be said of those who live among Catholics? If they be in invincible ignorance, and die in their
state of separation, can they be saved?

A. It is next to impossible for any one in this class to be in invincible ignorance; for, to be in invincible ignorance, three things are necessarily required: first, that a person have a real and sincere desire of knowing the Truth. for if he be cold and indifferent about an affair of so great concern as that of his eternal salvation; if he be careless whether he be in a right way or not; if being enslaved to this present life, he takes no concern about the next, it is manifest, that an ignorance arising from this disposition is a voluntary ignorance, and therefore highly culpable in the sight of God. It will be still worse, if a person be positively
unwilling to seek after the Truth, from the fear of worldly inconveniences, and, therefore, industriously avoid every opportunity he may have of knowing it; of such as these the scripture says, “They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment they go down to hell; who have said to God, Depart from us, we desire not the knowledge of Thy ways,” (Job xxi. 13) secondly, for one to be in invincible ignorance, it is required, that he be
sincerely resolved to embrace the Truth wherever he may find it, and whatever it may cost him. For if he be not fully resolved to follow the will of God, wherever it shall appear to him, in all things necessary to salvation; if, on the contrary, he be so disposed, that he would rather neglect his duty, and hazard his soul, than correct an ill custom, or disoblige his friends, or expose himself for some temporal loss or disadvantage, such a disposition must be highly displeasing to God, and an ignorance arising from it, can never excuse him before his Creator; of this Our Savior says: “He that loveth father or mother, or son or daughter, more than me, is not worthy of me,” (Mat. x. 37) The third thing necessary for a person to be in invincible ignorance, is, that he sincerely use his best endeavors to know his duty, and particularly, that he recommend the matter earnestly to Almighty God, and pray for light and direction from Him.** For whatever desire he may pretend to have of
knowing the Truth, if he does not use the proper means for finding it, it is manifest that his ignorance is not invincible, but voluntary; for ignorance is only there invincible, when a person has a sincere desire to know the Truth, with a full resolution to embrace it, but either has no possible means for knowing it, or after using his best endeavors to know it, yet cannot find it.** And, therefore, if a person be deficient in using his endeavors to know his duty, his ignorance is not invincible, it is by his own fault that he does not see it; and, if inattention, indifference, unconcernedness, worldly motives, or unjust prejudices influence his judgement, and suffer it to yield to the bias of a perverse education, he has neither invincible ignorance nor the fear of God. Now it is inconsistent with the goodness and promises of God, that a person brought up in a false religion, but who is disposed as these three conditions require, and use his best endeavors to know the Truth, should be left in an invincible ignorance of it; and if, from his attachment to the world, and to sensual or other selfish objects, he be not so disposed, and neglect to use the proper means for coming at the Truth, then his ignorance is voluntary and culpable, and therefore not invincible.