Is it easier to get to heaven as a Catholic than a Protestant?

[Lenten_ashes]

Does the Church say anything on this point re easier or harder to get into heaven? So, becoming Catholic adds extra rules you must follow, but correspondingly gives you access to the Sacraments and the graces they provide.

Is it the teaching of the Church that this definitely makes it easier to get into Heaven or is it silent on that matter? Note, of course, I don’t mean to ask whether the Church says you should or shouldn’t become Catholic (it’s pretty clear that you should), just the more limited question of if it has doctrinal teaching about becoming Catholic making Heaven easier or harder to enter.

Greetings

Well, it does teach that people can get to heaven if they are invincibly ignorant. That’s why i said once you are informed you are on the hook for the rest of your life.

And it also talks about how sacraments can transform us with either sacramental or sanctifying grace. The Church believes in infused righteousness. Unlike imputed righteousness belief in protestantism, it is a gradual process. If one is not living a life of sin and they are receiving the sacraments with the proper disposition of the heart, he or she is slowly becoming more righteous… which, not only does it help them avoid hell, it helps them avoid purgatory or shorten their stay there. This is why i believe it is better to be Catholic. Since salvation is a process, you want the Church with the most tools to help you mature as a Christian and become as Holy as possible…

I don’t know if there is a black and white verse from the CCC on that. Often times there is not, you just have to take it as a totality and do the math.

 

[Padres1969]

That is not true. Some Protestants (e.g. Lutherans) believe in the Real Presence in a consubstantial manner, meaning they believe the Real Presence coexists with the bread and wine after consecration which is a heresy. They deny transubstantiation.

Not all Protestants deny transubstantiation though

And just for full disclosure, the Orthodox don’t profess Transubstantiation either

 

[PRmerger]

Not all Protestants deny transubstantiation though

And just for full disclosure, the Orthodox don’t profess Transubstantiation either

The Orthodox don’t deny Transubstantiation. They simply say, “Why try to explain what happens? First there’s bread and wine. Then there’s the Body/Blood/Soul and Divinity of Christ. Who know how it occurred?”

 

[PJM]

What you have written is egregiously wrong. Your position on the matter is directly contrary to Church teaching.

Non-Catholic Christians, when both are baptised, can in fact have sacramental marriages…presuming they are capable of contracting marriage.

The Church is very clear on this point…and it is an elementary point, actually.

You’re right,

I’m wrong!

Thanks for the correction

God Bless you

Patrick

 

[GKC]

The Orthodox don’t deny Transubstantiation. They simply say, “Why try to explain what happens? First there’s bread and wine. Then there’s the Body/Blood/Soul and Divinity of Christ. Who know how it occurred?”

Sounds like my flavor of Anglican

 

[PJM]

Does the Church say anything on this point re easier or harder to get into heaven? So, becoming Catholic adds extra rules you must follow, but correspondingly gives you access to the Sacraments and the graces they provide.

Is it the teaching of the Church that this definitely makes it easier to get into Heaven or is it silent on that matter? Note, of course, I don’t mean to ask whether the Church says you should or shouldn’t become Catholic (it’s pretty clear that you should), just the more limited question of if it has doctrinal teaching about becoming Catholic making Heaven easier or harder to enter.

REPLY:from the catechism of the RCC

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? 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.

847 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 salvatio"

God Bless you

Patrick

 

[PRmerger]

Sounds like my flavor of Anglican

I don’t have a problem with that.

But it’s a bit too heavy on the “faith” at the expense of the “reason” to embrace the “I don’t know how it happens. It just does”.

Catholicism is so rich in its use of our human reason, and that is to be commended, IMHO.

 

[GKC]

I don’t have a problem with that.

But it’s a bit too heavy on the “faith” at the expense of the “reason” to embrace the “I don’t know how it happens. It just does”.

Catholicism is so rich in its use of our human reason, and that is to be commended, IMHO.

If you’re looking for an explication of the how, as opposed to the what, transub is as noble an effort as one could hope for. I have no trouble with it, nor with any who hold it. But it seems too much language of accommodation to be a de fide requirement. Keeping in mind Lewis’ observation, in LETTERS TO MALCOLM.

Personal opinion.

 

[PRmerger]

If you’re looking for an explication of the how, as opposed to the what, transub is as noble an effort as one could hope for. I have no trouble with it, nor with any who hold it. But it seems too much language of accommodation to be a de fide requirement. Keeping in mind Lewis’ observation, in LETTERS TO MALCOLM.

Personal opinion.

What’s the exact amount of complexity vs simplicity that should be required for a teaching to be de fide?

(Rhetorical question, of course, but comments are welcome).

 

[GKC]

What’s the exact amount of complexity vs simplicity that should be required for a teaching to be de fide?

(Rhetorical question, of course, but comments are welcome).

 

[carefullytread]

Keeping in mind Lewis’ observation, in LETTERS TO MALCOLM

What observation is that? A causal googling does not reveal it.

 

[GKC]

What observation is that? A causal googling does not reveal it.

That the command was " Take, eat: not Take, understand". It is found in the 1st edition, chap. 19, p. 136. The chapter is focused on the Eucharist.

It should be remembered, though that it is not necessarily Lewis speaking in his own voice in the book, but a series of imaginary letters to an imaginary friend. Some points are left ambiguous. For all that, it does convey, generally, what Lewis himself believed.

 

[steve_b]

Here is how I see it.

If a Catholic loves the Lord with all his heart, soul, and ,mind as mentioned in Matthew 22:37-39 and loves his neighbor as himself, and follows God to the best of his ability, he should have a good shot at entering heaven. I assume that the Catholic sacraments are very helpful in that regard. In fact, I trust that they are, which is one of the reasons I came to CAF was to learn more about them.

If a non-Catholic Christian loves the Lord with all his heart, soul, and ,mind as mentioned in Matthew 22:37-39 and loves his neighbor as himself, and follows God to the best of his ability,he should likewise have a good shot at entering heaven, provided he repents of his sins and serves God and his fellow man as best he knows how, spending time in God’s Word studying and meditating on it to become closer to Jesus and practicing it in service to mankind. The bottom line is that none of us are God and we’ll find out when we pass away and meet our maker.

I personally don’t know if there is a Purgatory or not, but if there is one and if I am sent there, I’m ok with it, because that means I will be eventually be in heaven, if I understand the concept correctly.

I find it hard to believe that someone like evangelist **Billy Graham **would have a harder time entering heaven just because he is Protestant – even though he has led millions of souls to Christ – than a garden-variety Catholic for whom a relationship with God is to legalistically follow all the Catholic rules and obligations like a checklist but whose faith otherwise has no bearing on their decision-making in life than the man on the moon.

Just a few thoughts

Jesus qualified love for Him.

He starts out with IF John 14:15

therefore, consider this

Heb 10: (all emphasis mine)
“23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful; 24 and let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. 26 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27* but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. 28* A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29* How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?”

Dissecting that reading, and words in red.

• We are to meet on Sunday, and celebrate the Eucharist when we meet
• Notice it’s already considered a grave sin to deliberately not meet on Sunday and celebrate the Eucharist.
• Notice that to deliberately miss the Eucharist,
• brings judgement and terrible consequences for those who do it.
• there is no sacrifice for sins who deliberately don’t receive the Eucharist
• THEY spurn the Son of God by deliberately not meeting?
• THEY profane the blood of the covenant by deliberately not meeting?
• THEY outrage the spirit of grace by deliberately no meeting?

You ask, where does it say Eucharist?

When Hebrews mentions the sacrifice for sin and blood of the covenant when they meet, THAT refers to the celebration of the Eucharist. The summit of our faith.

• Jesus used that language In Context when instituting the Eucharist at the last supper. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins (sacrifice for sin) when instituting the Eucharist.
• Also we see Jesus words about the Eucharist in the Bread of Life Discourse Jn 6:53 unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day…

Does any of that sound like a suggestion or a command? It’s a command

When Jesus says “unless you” that’s NOT a suggestion but a command

a Quick history of the 1st 4 centuries. #34

Re:Billy Graham. Is Billy keeping the commands mentioned? No

 

[FractalFire]

Greetings

Well, it does teach that people can get to heaven if they are invincibly ignorant. That’s why i said once you are informed you are on the hook for the rest of your life.

Out of curiosity, on this view, would an informed person (ie. C. S. Lewis, William Lane Craig, and probably all major Protestant theologians and apologists, who are of course fully aware of what the Catholic Church teaches) not be able to go to heaven? What about Protestants on *this *forum, who are presumably aware? Are we thereby damned?

 

[PRmerger]

Out of curiosity, on this view, would an informed person (ie. C. S. Lewis, William Lane Craig, and probably all major Protestant theologians and apologists, who are of course fully aware of what the Catholic Church teaches) not be able to go to heaven? What about Protestants on *this *forum, who are presumably aware? Are we thereby damned?

Sorry, that’s out of our paygrade, Fractal.

We can’t even be assured of our own salvation, so how is it that we could claim knowledge of yours?

 

[PJM]

quote: Originally Posted by FractalFire View Post
Out of curiosity, on this view, would an informed person (ie. C. S. Lewis, William Lane Craig, and probably all major Protestant theologians and apologists, who are of course fully aware of what the Catholic Church teaches) not be able to go to heaven? What about Protestants on this forum, who are presumably aware? Are we thereby damned? end quote

Sorry, that’s out of our paygrade, Fractal.

We can’t even be assured of our own salvation, so how is it that we could claim knowledge of yours?

FROM THE CATECHISM OF THE RCC

**1260 **“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? 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.

847 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.

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who,** through no fault of their own,** are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

**THEN FACTOR IN THE FOLLOWING:

GOD WILL, BECAUSE GOD MUST PASS JUDGMENT [TO BE FAIR AND JUST] NOT ON WHAT WE CHOOSE TO BELIEVE, CHOOSE TO ACCEPT, RATHER IT WILL BE ON WHAT HE, GOD HAS MADE POSSIBLE FOR EACH OF US TO KNOW, BELIEVE AND ACCEPT. AMEN!**

 

[Wesrock]

However when it comes to sacramental Grace it is WE {God approved} who initiate the flow of these graces which God commits to offer us who partake of the Sacraments worthily.

I just wanted to comment on the quoted part, as I do not believe it is correct. God is always the initiator in providing grace or in efficacious works. This initiation can actually be completely efficacious and move us. However, it can also just be sufficient, in which God then waits for our free response to this movement, and we can either cooperate or not. But to say that we must initiate is itself wrong, so far as I understand it. We respond to God’s first action.

 

[PRmerger]

I just wanted to comment on the quoted part, as I do not believe it is correct. God is always the initiator in providing grace or in efficacious works. This initiation can actually be completely efficacious and move us. However, it can also just be sufficient, in which God then waits for our free response to this movement, and we can either cooperate or not. But to say that we must initiate is itself wrong, so far as I understand it. We respond to God’s first action.

Yes. You are correct, Wes. What PJM posted was misinformed.

 

[Katherine438]

Here is how I see it.

If a Catholic loves the Lord with all his heart, soul, and ,mind as mentioned in Matthew 22:37-39 and loves his neighbor as himself, and follows God to the best of his ability, he should have a good shot at entering heaven. I assume that the Catholic sacraments are very helpful in that regard. In fact, I trust that they are, which is one of the reasons I came to CAF was to learn more about them.

If a non-Catholic Christian loves the Lord with all his heart, soul, and ,mind as mentioned in Matthew 22:37-39 and loves his neighbor as himself, and follows God to the best of his ability,he should likewise have a good shot at entering heaven, provided he repents of his sins and serves God and his fellow man as best he knows how, spending time in God’s Word studying and meditating on it to become closer to Jesus and practicing it in service to mankind. The bottom line is that none of us are God and we’ll find out when we pass away and meet our maker.

I personally don’t know if there is a Purgatory or not, but if there is one and if I am sent there, I’m ok with it, because that means I will be eventually be in heaven, if I understand the concept correctly.

I find it hard to believe that someone like evangelist Billy Graham would have a harder time entering heaven just because he is Protestant – even though he has led millions of souls to Christ – than a garden-variety Catholic for whom a relationship with God is to legalistically follow all the Catholic rules and obligations like a checklist but whose faith otherwise has no bearing on their decision-making in life than the man on the moon. I am referring to those people who have been sacramentalized but not evangelized.

In short, being a Catholic may have its advantages in terms of the sacraments, but to make Protestants out to be like a bunch of disadvantaged and confused souls meandering around aimlessly in life is condescending, inaccurate, and distasteful, in my opinion.

After all, Catholic leaders like Tim Staples and Scott Hahn obviously benefited from becoming Catholic, but they weren’t ignorant of the things of God before they converted and then became holy and wise all of a sudden when they became Catholic. Much of who they are that is admired by Catholics today came from their Protestant upbringing.

I feel the same way about Purgatory … and pray all the time that I at least merit purgatory when I pass on, as I know I will eventually be with our Lord.

Otherwise, regarding the question of the thread, I really was impressed with your post and your answers to the question. I would add that I also believe that people who do not know the Lord, but are otherwise very good people, must go somewhere when they pass to learn of the Lord and to eventually merit the Kingdom of God … I cannot believe that people who were raised ignorant to the teachings of Christ cannot eventually obtain the graces in the afterlife to merit being saved. I think we do not know ALL the ways of our Lord … He is, after all, a God of Mercy.

 

[Trying2overcome]

The Catholic Church is the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation or sanctifying grace, without which one cannot enter heaven. The Catholic Church is only way to get to heaven. If a protestant is truly ignorant about the Church, then maybe he might go to purgatory to languish for a long time. If he knows about the Church and still rejects it, he is most likely damned.