Protestants cannot be saved?

[kaycee]

Kaycee:

“He who receives you receives me”.

And I absolutely receive the Apostles teaching from Scripture!

Receive not the successor to Peter and you receive not Peter who Jesus sent. Why? Because the same Peter that led the other disicples to choose Matthias to replace Judas–

The same Peter that decided what customs gentiles would have to follow

customs???

That same Peter who had that Loosing and Binding Authority given to him by Jesus–

And to all the Apostles as well.

Also had sense enough given to him by the Holy Spirit to prepare the church in Rome to appoint a successor with that same Binding and Loosing Authority for when he would die

As all pastors should and did if he was actually there.

When he died he would have to be replaced Just Like Judas was replaced.

Pastor yes, replacement apostle no.

The Holy Spirit wasn’t wrong in directing that replacement.

Why would it be wrong in directing the replacement of Peter?

It would’nt be, as a pastoral replacement.

If you don’t receive Linus or any of the replacements that came after Linus who were chosen not by mere men’s choices but by the direction of the Holy Spirit.

Hopefully, by the holy spirit. The deciding factor would be fidelity to the deposit of Faith, once and for all delivered to the Saints as seen in Scripture. AND not just the laying on of hands or succession.

Acts 20:29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.

Jude 1:12 These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm–shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted–twice dead.

2 Pet 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them–bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

then you don’t accept Peter. If you don’t accept Peter then you don’t accept Jesus who sent him.

It’s that simple! What’s so hard about accepting that authority?

It didn’t kill the other disciples who submitted to that authority.

If it didn’t kill them to submit to Peter–why does it you?

I have certainly accepted the Authority of Jesus, Peter, Paul and all the testimony of the God Breathed Scripture. Your right, its not hard at all.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Where do you see the Apostles forgiving sins?

From John 20:21-23

20 And when he had said this, he showed unto them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord.

21 Jesus therefore said to them again, Peace be unto you: as the Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit:

23 whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Peace,
Dante

 

[christcnection1]

Normal circumstances, no, protestants cannot be saved.

It is a Dogma of the Church “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” Outside the Church there is no Salvation.

Only through invincible ignorance, may a Protestant, or any non-Catholic be saved, and only then, if they are in a state of Grace.

Please, lets stop with the relativism which is rampant on these boards and be frank. Protestants need to know this.

In normal circumstances, I think it’s fair to say that the vast majority Protestants would happily convert to the Catholic faith if they knew the truth. As a former Evangelical Protestant, I know their love and dedication. Had I known, I would have converted much sooner. I also believe that many Protestants love our Lord more than many Catholics do. They just reject the true faith in their ignorance. I just can’t see our Lord casting into hell a person that genuinely loves Him.

Now, would you define being saved differently?
Being Saved = dying in God’s friendship vs Being Saved = being admitted into heaven

I don’t think it’s possibly that any Protestant is perfectly sanctified; therefore, admitted into heaven immediately after death. My belief is that most of them do die in God’s friendship, but spend additional time in purgatory. The only exception might be a Protestant being martyred for the love of Jesus Christ. (…which happens every day.)

I don’t see how this contradicts the Church’s teaching in any way.
This sounds like your interpretation of “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus,” and not where most of the Church stands on the issue.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Protestants do committ mortal sins.

When they committ these sins we know of no way for them to be reconciled to God other than by confession and absolution to a Catholic priest or through perfect contrition.

God is bigger than the sacraments and might act outside of the sacraments but we do not know this to be true.

God might also give a Protestant who has committed a mortal sin the grace to have perfect contrition for their sins so they can be forgiven.

We also don’t know this to be true.

Bottom line–it is hard to be perfectly contrite for one’s mortal sins and the fact is that all of us–Catholic and Protestant alike do at some times in our lives committ mortal sins.

Therefore if a Protestant will not confess to a Catholic priest his mortal sins and if it is very difficult for him to be perfectly contrite for thsoe mortal sins then Yes I’ll say it–it is very difficult for a Protestant not to go to Hell.

I didn’t say that it was impossible.

I didn’t say that a Catholic isn’t held to the same standard when it comes to mortal sin.

And you won’t hear me say that Protestants who die immediately after Baptism don’t go to heaven. Of course they do!

Just like Protestant children who die before they have the reason and capacity to committ a mortal sin or a mentally ill Protestants who do not have the capacity to committ a mortal sin.

All these Protestants do go to heaven.

All I’m saying is that it is Difficult for a Protestant who has committed a mortal sin to make it to heaven if he won’t confess to a Catholic priest and if he isn’t able to be perfectly contrite for his mortal sins.

I didn’t say impossible. I did say difficult.

And if you doubt me just remember that Jesus said that “Many are called but few are chosen” and He also said “Narrow is the path to eternal life and Few there are that find it.”

Jesus does not lie. Few doesn’t mean many and it doesn’t mean a majority.

Most people do go to Hell.

Paul told All of us Protestant and Catholic alike to “Work out our salvation with fear and trembling”.

Blessed Assurance is a sin of Presumption against the Holy Spirit and Triumphalism among Catholics without confession of mortal sins to a Catholic priest will land Catholics in the same Hell as Protestants who also don’t confess their mortal sins to a Catholic priest and who also aren’t contrite about their mortal sins.

Anyone who committs the sin of Presumption against the Holy Spirit believing that they are a sure bet to enter Heaven and dying in that state is by definition not Perfectly contrite about their sins.

Of course only Jesus is the judge and If He does save anyone outside of Confession or Perfect Contrition that is up to Him and would be perfectly just but it isn’t anything that any of us–Catholic or Protestant should bank on!

 

[kaycee]

Kaycee-
In post 32, you wrote:
I am asking what you think happens to people who die without ever hearing the Gospel but have lived morally.

Lived a moral life in your eyes or Gods? All are hell bound justifiably, God saves a remnant via the Savior. There is only one name that can Save. No one is born neutral, all are under the curse.

 

[runandsew]

However, if we are convinced by scripture that the RCC is not teaching in accordance with the scriptures, then we are obligated to remove ourselves so that we might become a part of an assembly that preaches the gospel in the proper manner. We are justified by (one the basis of) faith alone. The RCC does not teach that.

KJV - Jam 2:24 - Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
King James Version 1611, 1769

NKJV - Jam 2:24 - You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson

NLT - Jam 2:24 - So you see, we are made right with God by what we do, not by faith alone.
New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

NIV - Jam 2:24 - You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society

ESV - Jam 2:24 - You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles

NASB - Jam 2:24 - You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation

RSV - Jam 2:24 - You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.

ASV - Jam 2:24 - Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith.
American Standard Version 1901 Info

Young - Jam 2:24 - Ye see, then, that out of works is man declared righteous, and not out of faith only;
Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info

Darby - Jam 2:24 - Ye see that a man is justified on the principle of works, and not on the principle of faith only.
J.N.Darby Translation 1890 Info

Webster - Jam 2:24 - Ye see then that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Noah Webster Version 1833 Info

HNV - Jam 2:24 - You see then that by works, a man is justified, and not only by faith.
Hebrew Names Version 2000 Info

Vulgate - Jam 2:24 - videtis quoniam ex operibus iustificatur homo et non ex fide tantum
Jerome’s Latin Vulgate 405 A.D. Info

 

[Randy_Carson]

Where do you see the Apostles forgiving sins?

That you may know that the Apostles had received the authority on earth to forgive sins, consider the following dialogue:

Jesus: “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you. Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

The Apostles: “Thanks, Jesus, but we don’t plan on doing that. You may recall that some scribes once told you that ‘No one can forgive sins but God alone.’ We’ve thought it over, and we agree with them, so we’re good. Thanks anyway.”

But since you asked:

Paul Forgives Sin
5If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you, to some extent—not to put it too severely. 6The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient for him. 7Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. 8I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him. 9The reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. 10If you forgive anyone, I also forgive him. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake, 11in order that Satan might not outwit us.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

And I absolutely receive the Apostles teaching from Scripture!

Great. Now if only you had infallible interpretation of it, you could really go somewhere!

customs???

Customs, traditions, examples, sound patterns, rule of faith…do you have a preferred term?

And to all the Apostles as well.

Sure. Matthew 18. So you acknowledge that the Apostles had real authority to bind and loose…this is progress.

As all pastors should and did if he was actually there.

Great. So you acknowledge that these men would have had the responsibility for preparing for succession. My, but this exchange is going swimmingly…

Pastor yes, replacement apostle no.

Another perfect answer. Kaycee, this is your best effort yet. Of course, we call them Bishops, but you’re dead on…the Apostles were replaced by the Bishops.

It would’nt be, as a pastoral replacement.

Excellent! The Holy Spirit isn’t an “it” of course, He’s a He. But still, this is correct. The Holy Spirit guided the Church to its second head pastor, Linus. Again, we call him the Bishop of Rome, but there it is! Another correct answer!

Hopefully, by the holy spirit. The deciding factor would be fidelity to the deposit of Faith, once and for all delivered to the Saints as seen in Scripture. AND not just the laying on of hands or succession.

Beautiful! Who could argue with this! Well, said, Kaycee!

Acts 20:29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.

Jude 1:12 These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm–shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted–twice dead.

2 Pet 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them–bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

Well, yes…we know all about the Protestant Deformation…but why bring that up here?

I have certainly accepted the Authority of Jesus, Peter, Paul and all the testimony of the God Breathed Scripture. Your right, its not hard at all.

No, it really isn’t.

Once you’ve accepted the authority of the “God-Breathed” Church (cf. John 20:22) that Jesus Himself founded and to which He conveyed His own authority, you’ll have the whole package!

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Tomster]

Where do you see the Apostles forgiving sins?

Apart from the general teaching of the Gospels that Christ came to call sinners to repentance, certain texts explicitly declare that he gave to the Church this power to judge sinners effectively in God’s name. To St. Peter he made the promise first. “And I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19) Using the same words, save for the necessary change in the number of the pronoun, he later gave the same promise to all the Apostles. (Matthew 18:18) Finally, after the Resurrection, he carried out his promise and conferred this authority on them. " ’ As the Father has sent me, I also send you.’ When he had said this he breathed on them, and he said to them, ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain they are retained.’ " (John 20: 21-23)

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

Tomster

 

[Tomster]

One or 2 verses questionable verses does not a primacy make.

We dont find that argument among the church Fathers until 3 or 4 hundred years after the Cross. alas, that is another thread.

Let us recall the words of the principal Petrine text: “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter (Aramaic : Kepha), and upon this rock (kepha) I will build my Church. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth, it shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever that shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:18-19) Our Lord makes known his will in a series of three metaphors whose meaning, clear enough to us, would be still clearer to listeners familiar with Old Testament Scripture and the teaching method of the Rabbis. He first compares his Church to a building of which Peter is to be the foundation; he next employs the comparison suggested by “the keys,” which will be handed to Peter as a sign of power over Christ’s house; finally comes reference to “binding and loosing,” a symbol of the moral nature of the office, which is furthermore backed by DIVINE SANCTION!

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

Tomster

 

[THurifer2]

Well It is indeed possible for a protestant to committ a mortal sin. Contraception comes to mind. Of course many may be ignorant on the matter. However I do think that it is very easy for a protestant or anyone else for that matter to be in mortal sin. Willfully and deliberately after reflection taking the lords name in vain is a mortal sin. It violates the second commandment.

It is nearly impossible for a person with a mortal sin and remain protestant til death to escape hell…Perfect contrition is the only way. It is almost certain that protestants who do make it to heaven will be among the last souls to remain in purgatory.

 

[Tomster]

One or 2 verses questionable verses does not a primacy make.

We dont find that argument among the church Fathers until 3 or 4 hundred years after the Cross. alas, that is another thread.

The comparison of the Church to a house - that is, of Israel - is derived from the Old Testament and occurs frequently in the New. (Acts 2:36, Acts 7:42, 1Timothy 3:15, Hebrews 3:6) Equally Scriptural is the idea of a foundation to the building. (Ephesians 2:19ff, Ephesians 3:17, Colosians 1:23, 1Corinthians 3:10) To the strength of this foundation the house owes its firmness and stability, enabling it to withstand rain, wind and floods, “for it was founded upon a rock.” (Matthew 7:25 An interesting text, showing our Lord himself using “rock” in the same sense as in 16:18. Cf. Luke 6:48) Similarly it is from its foundation that the unity of the house arises, the walls, roof and whole structure being bound together in one single ediface in virtue of the rock on which it is based. All this illustrates the relation between the Church and Peter. He who was Simon is given the role of foundation to the building erected by Christ; hence he receives the name of “Peter,” which means “rock.” By him the new house of Israel to be unified and stabilised so that nothing, not even “the gates of hell,” symbol of all that is opposed to Christ’s Kingdom, can prevail against it.

Hope this helps.:tiphat:

Tomster

 

[Tomster]

One or 2 verses questionable verses does not a primacy make.

We dont find that argument among the church Fathers until 3 or 4 hundred years after the Cross. alas, that is another thread.

Matthew 16:18. See the striking corroboration of this text in Luke 22:31-32: “And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you (plural), that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee (singular), that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” We may note the parallels: Satan hath desired you - the gates of hell; I have prayed for thee - I will build upon this rock; confirm thy brethren - Peter the stabilising force in the Apostolic college.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

Tomster

 

[Tomster]

One or 2 verses questionable verses does not a primacy make.

We dont find that argument among the church Fathers until 3 or 4 hundred years after the Cross. alas, that is another thread.

“Feed my lambs . . . Feed my lambs . . . Feed my sheep.” (John 22:15-17) So the primacy was confirmed in the words of the risen Christ. He who had spoken of himself as the “good shepherd,” (John 10:11) who desired that there should be “one fold and one shepherd,” (John 10:16; cf. 11:52ff) was handing over the sheepfold to Peter’s care; for he himself was to ascend to the Father.(John 20:17; cf. 14:1ff.; 16:28; 17:4 ff.; 8:21 ff.) True, he was only withdrawing his visible presence; he would still take care of his own as their chief pastor; hence the commission: “Feed my sheep.” But Peter had become shepherd of the flock of Christ in the same way as he was the foundation of the Church. Christ remains, in the words of the selfsame Peter, “the prince of the pastors,” (1 Peter 5:4, literally “chief shepherd”; cf. 2:25) but now he acts as the Lord’s representative, his Vicar, and he, together with the rest of the apostles under his leadership, is a true pastor pf souls. (Matthew 18:18; 9:36-38) Nor can it be argued that this pastoral office was to terminate with the death of Peter. For the Kingdom of God was to endure until the end of the ages. (Matthew 28: 18-20; cf. 13:38 ff.; 13:47 ff.) Accordingly, unless the gates of hell were to prevail, there could never come a time when Christ’s sheepfold would be deprived of its shepherd, his Church of its rock foundation.

Hope this helps.:tiphat:

Tomster

 

[Tomster]

I have carefully examined the evidence, have heard the RC apologists and dont think the RCC evidence is that compelling. I am fairly familiar with RCC doctrine as I was raised Catholic for 27 years.

The RCC does not teach the biblical Gospel of Grace, unmerited favor.

The doctrinal authority, or magisterium, with which Christ has equipped his Church includes all the rights and privileges necessary for the effective teaching of divine revelation and guarding intact the deposit of faith. He has willed that the human race as a whole should acquire God’s truth, not by individual inspiration, nor by the private interpretation of Scripture, but by attending to the living voice of the Church. Hence, as a corollary, he has ensured that the voice shall not err; in other words, he has endowed his Church with the gift of infallibility. This infallibility extends, in principle, to the tradition of Christian belief (faith) and the manner of life (morals); it is concerned with what men must believe, and what they must do, if they are to be saved.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

Tomster

 

[Tomster]

I have carefully examined the evidence, have heard the RC apologists and dont think the RCC evidence is that compelling. I am fairly familiar with RCC doctrine as I was raised Catholic for 27 years.

The RCC does not teach the biblical Gospel of Grace, unmerited favor.

The most fundamental error of Protestantism is its denial of the reality or its grievous misunderstanding of the nature of grace. Protestant theologly is always hopelessly at sea and at loggerheads with itself when dealing with original sin and grace.

 

[Godfollower]

I have carefully examined the evidence, have heard the RC apologists and dont think the RCC evidence is that compelling. I am fairly familiar with RCC doctrine as I was raised Catholic for 27 years.

The RCC does not teach the biblical Gospel of Grace, unmerited favor.

Yes, it does. One of the main differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is that the Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by grace alone, while the Protestant churches teach that we are saved by faith alone (we teach that the necessary response on our part to God’s grace is faith plus works, as taught in the Bible).

Here is the official Catholic teaching that we are saved by God’s grace without any merit on our part:

Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an “adopted son” he can henceforth call God “Father,” in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.

This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God’s gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.

Catechism of the Catholic Church ¶¶ 1996-98 (emphasis added) (citing Jn 1:12-18; 17:3; Rom 8:14-17; 2 Pet 1:3-4; 1 Cor 2:7-9).

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
And you’re perfectly “saved” (guaranteed a heavenly seat), regardless of what you do, because you “believe”, right?

What is it that you “believe” again?

I do wish you’d give me a simple “yes” or “no” answer.

I’ll ask it again: Are you perfectly “saved” (guaranteed a place in heaven) regardless of what you do between now and when you die?

John 1:12,
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Do you only have to believe for an instant, or do you have to continue to believe throughout your lifetime, and does belief imply that you must act in a particular way?

John 3:16,
“For God so loved the world, [1] that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Same question as above regarding belief.

John 3:36
36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Same question as above regarding belief.

Eph 2:8-10
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

“…saved through faith”: Must you “keep having faith” throughout life, or simply have had faith at some point, and (as with “belief” as above) does having “faith” obligate you to act in a particular way?

John 10:9
I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.

How does one “enter by Jesus” without having faith in Him and believing in Him, and as above, does that oblige you to act in a particularly “Christian” way?

John 14:6
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Does “…coming to the Father through Jesus” mean that you need not act like a Christian?

Acts 4:12
And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.

See question directly above.

Rom 10:9
because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Once again, must you continue your belief in God, or can you simply have believed at some time, and does that belief (ongoing) oblige you to act like a Christian while you believe?

Acts 16:31
And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.

See above.

1 John 5:12,13
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Can one “Hath (have) the Son” for an instant, or week, or years, but not at death and be “saved”?

Again, does “Having Jesus” oblige you to act like a Christian?

There are obviously many more as well.

Your quotations are lovely, but they don’t answer that question I asked.

I’d really appreciate it if you could answer the question(s) I’ve asked.

Thanks…! Mahalo nui…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Kristopher]

Speaking for God now, eh. Just like Martin Luther. Maybe thats why you are “seeking” a Luthern Church.

It was humor. You sound like you are indulging in a personal attack. Please: stick to the topic, not myself, but the quote of Pope Innocent III, thank you, and the ability of Protestants to enter heaven, with or without the Catholic Church; people leave the Catholic Church on account of behaviors such as your own of course, Martin Luther was turned away from Catholicisim by force–he never left the Catholic Church; hence the extant nature of Protestantisim is an egregious error on the part of your papacy–Pope Leo, or do you dispute the facts? Why should denial of heaven be determined by the incompetency of a pope, that forces the extant Protestant Church as the primary node, at its origin–it is utterly stupid to fault Protestants for what clearly cannot even be regarded as moot, but a great error on the part of one of your popes. Thankfully, I do have a choice, now, to leave the Church, and unlike the appearance of others; I, a Protestant, and certainly catholic–am more than well enough aware of whom is in charge of my admittance into heaven; are you?

 

[down_under]

scarlettstara:
It means that the only “Certainty” of salvation is in the church. Outside the church you may be able to be saved by gods grace if you follow your concience digilliantly. But there is no certainty. No way of knowing for sure.