Protestants in Heaven without Confession?

[Azygos]

No. He was ordained. I was there.

Jon

He was ordained that is great. What about the person ordaining him… Where did this person get his authority? And then look back to the person that ordained the ordainer, where did he get his authority? And then what about the person before that where did he get his authority? And then where did the person before that get his authority?

Do that until you get to the beginning of the whole thing and you will find out they never had authority to ordain priest. You would find out that they simply declared themselves valid.

 

[Azygos]

Quote: (One of my questions)
If you say a Minister then I would have to ask you where did this minister get his Authority?

(Your answer)
The Church.

Where did your Church get its authority? You might be inclined to say Jesus but I don’t recall Jesus giving your Church authority (The only Church around was Catholic). If authority is given to all churches then why can’t I go make my own Church and start ordaining priest? Wouldn’t it be just as valid as your Church?

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
But Baptism of desire is applied to those who have not been baptized by water and who, because of circumstances cannot be baptized with water prior to entering eternity. Dismas, the good thief, who was crucified with Jesus is a good example. But can baptism of desire be applied to those already validly baptized with water? I don’t think so.

I believe that God, when judging a devoted and holy Christian of a Protestant denomination who has never discovered Catholicism in a positive manner either by it being suppressed from them or some circumstance that hinders them as a truth seeker, and then judges a Catholic who has been given great teachings and all the freedom to exercise their faith, I cannot imagine God sending that Protestant to Hell who dearly loves the Lord because Catholicism did not fall into their lap. I see God’s great mercy and willingness to accept exceptions under unfortunate circumstances, such as permitting a baptism of desire for some, and I see that same mercy given especially to a humble servant of a misguided teaching of the Gospel. That means an honest ignorance, not a hard-headed defiant ignorance. There are plenty of holy Protestants who sacrifice so much more for their faith than simply taking 20 minutes out of their schedule to go to the confessional. If those misguided Protestants understood Catholicism then they would be enjoying the Sacrament of Confession themselves, and I think God knows that and judges that fairly.

Well that is great that you believe that but believing it to be true and it actually being true are not the same. While I fully agree that to those that are given much then much will be expected and to those who are given little, a lesser standard will be employed. I once posed this question of protestant salvation to the EWTN forum and received a reply from them. The question was about “invinceable ignorance” and the modern protestant. The question was about the probability of protestants entering heaven because of “invinceable ignorance”. The answer was that while the possibility was there the probability was far less. “Invinceable ignorance” may have worked to a far greater extent in times past when communications were less developed but not today. Also, let us not forget that “invinceable ignorance” was originally applied to those cultures who never had the word of God preached to them. That is not the case with protestants. In fact some think that invinceable ignorance cannot be applied to protestants because, as they say, anyone discerning the scriptures could seen that protestantism, in any of its many forms, was not the true church. After all, in the parable of the talents, even the servant who was given the smallest amount was expected to do something with it and not bury it. And his reward for burying it was that he was cast outside into the darkness where, Matthew 25:30 tells us; “’…there men will weep and gnash their teeth.’”

 

[wondrousgnat]

We accept non-Catholic baptisms and weddings as sacramental. But not confessions? I admit to having a problem with that. Yes, as posted earlier, in my wife’s church the pastor stands before the congregation and announces that all are forgiven. Since nobody confessed and maybe don’t even feel guilty I find that unacceptable.
But as stated by another in the LCMS people go to the minister to confess. That says to me that a person is trying to assume responsibility for sins and attempting to do the right thing by taking the time to go directly to the minister. Is it that unacceptable to God?

 

[inkaneer]

We accept non-Catholic baptisms and weddings as sacramental. But not confessions? I admit to having a problem with that. Yes, as posted earlier, in my wife’s church the pastor stands before the congregation and announces that all are forgiven. Since nobody confessed and maybe don’t even feel guilty I find that unacceptable.
But as stated by another in the LCMS people go to the minister to confess. That says to me that a person is trying to assume responsibility for sins and attempting to do the right thing by taking the time to go directly to the minister. Is it that unacceptable to God?

It comes down to the matter of authority. When Jesus delegated the authority to forgive sins it was only to the eleven Apostles present. Jesus certainly had more disciples than just those eleven but only the Apostles received that authority. That authority was then passed down through the centuries to bishops through the process that we call Apostolic Succession. This was [and still is] the pedigree of the church. It is much the same as the line of succession to the British monarchy. When Queen Elizabeth II dies then her son Prince Charles in first in line of succession. Neither I nor you nor anyone else can claim that right. Same is therefore true of Apostolic Succession. You either have it or you don’t and no protestant denomination has it and therefore lacking it they also lack the authority conveyed by it. So their ritual of confession is a mere hollow shell with no substance.

To put it another way Jesus established a church with authority. The binding and loosening powers of Mt 16 is a prime example. Protestants deny church authority. To protestants the only authority is the scriptures. Thus sola scriptura (scripture alone) is their basic doctrine. So how can they claim to have something which they deny their denomination has??? Tell me how that works.

By the way we accept their baptisms as sacramental because anyone can baptize even a total pagan can administer baptism provided the form matter and intent are valid. The reason for this is because baptism is a fundamental necessity. As for weddings the sacrament is conveyed by the two spouses and not by the minister or priest. Also I will point out here that all seven sacraments can be administered by a bishop [with valid Apostolic Succession] but a Catholic priest [under usual circumstances] is only authorized by his bishop to convey five. They being Baptism, Pennance, Eucharist, Matrimony and Annointing of the Sick. They do not have authority to administer Confirmation or Holy Orders. These reside with the bishop.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
But Baptism of desire is applied to those who have not been baptized by water and who, because of circumstances cannot be baptized with water prior to entering eternity. Dismas, the good thief, who was crucified with Jesus is a good example. But can baptism of desire be applied to those already validly baptized with water? I don’t think so.

Well that is great that you believe that but believing it to be true and it actually being true are not the same. While I fully agree that to those that are given much then much will be expected and to those who are given little, a lesser standard will be employed. I once posed this question of protestant salvation to the EWTN forum and received a reply from them. The question was about “invinceable ignorance” and the modern protestant. The question was about the probability of protestants entering heaven because of “invinceable ignorance”. The answer was that while the possibility was there the probability was far less. “Invinceable ignorance” may have worked to a far greater extent in times past when communications were less developed but not today. Also, let us not forget that “invinceable ignorance” was originally applied to those cultures who never had the word of God preached to them. That is not the case with protestants. In fact some think that invinceable ignorance cannot be applied to protestants because, as they say, anyone discerning the scriptures could seen that protestantism, in any of its many forms, was not the true church. After all, in the parable of the talents, even the servant who was given the smallest amount was expected to do something with it and not bury it. And his reward for burying it was that he was cast outside into the darkness where, Matthew 25:30 tells us; “’…there men will weep and gnash their teeth.’”

I am a former Southern Baptist myself, and I’m here to tell you that humble honest ignorance of Catholic doctrine is a reality. For one, Catholics are only just beginning to scratch the surface of evangelizing, but we have much more to go. Fortunately we are seeing Protestants convert to Catholicism and bringing an evangelic zeal with them that will help Catholic and Protestant dialogue. Another thing, where there has been such neglect in the past from Catholics to evangelize, many Protestant have a very inaccurate perception of the Church that makes them think that the Church is something that its not, and if they are believing that the Church is teaching horrible things then no wonder they steer clear of it until they can be convinced otherwise.

Just because the information is out there, we still need to continue to spread it, explain and articulate it, and repeat it over and over. We are doing great things as Catholics, and I do see some progress, but I honestly feel, by experience, that there are many Protestants who have no idea that their version of the Gospel is lacking some major ingredients. That’s why I devote my time and efforts to provide Catholic commentaries for not only to provide Catholics with resources to learn and defend Scripture, but to also show our separated brethren that we have plenty of great Bible study tools and that we are as devoted and serious about learning the Bible as they are, probably even more so!

 

[JonNC]

But protestant ordination is not the same as Catholic ordination.

 

[JonNC]

=Azygos;10153777]He was ordained that is great. What about the person ordaining him… Where did this person get his authority? And then look back to the person that ordained the ordainer, where did he get his authority? And then what about the person before that where did he get his authority? And then where did the person before that get his authority?

In our synod, our pastors are ordained by other pastors - presbyter ordination - and it is valid, just as the Cistercianaboots who were ordained by priests in the 1400’s were validly ordained.

Do that until you get to the beginning of the whole thing and you will find out they never had authority to ordain priest. You would find out that they simply declared themselves valid.

By divine law. When there have been times in history when no bishop was available to ordain, presbyter ordination is valid.

From the Lutheran Confession:

[In our Confession and the Apology we have in general recounted what we have had to say concerning ecclesiastical power. For] The Gospel assigns to those who preside over churches the command to teach the Gospel to remit sins, to administer the Sacraments and besides jurisdiction, namely, the command to excommunicate those whose crimes are known, and again to absolve those who repent.

61] And by the confession of all, even of the adversaries, it is clear that this power by divine right is common to all who preside over churches, whether they are called pastors, or elders, or bishops. 62] And accordingly Jerome openly teaches in the apostolic letters that all who preside over churches are both bishops and elders, and cites from Titus 1:5f : For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest ordain elders in every city [and afterwards calls these persons bishops]. Then he adds: A bishop must be the husband of one wife. Likewise Peter and John call themselves elders [or priests] 1 Pet. 5:1; 2 John 1. And he then adds: But that afterwards one was chosen to be placed over the rest, this was done as a remedy for schism, lest each one by attracting [a congregation here or there] to himself might rend the Church of Christ. For at Alexandria, from Mark the evangelist to the bishops Heracles and Dionysius, the elders always elected one from among themselves, and placed him in a higher station, whom they called bishop; just as an army would make a commander for itself. The deacons, moreover, may elect from among themselves one whom they know to be active, and name him archdeacon. For with the exception of ordination, what does the bishop that the elder does not?

63] Jerome, therefore, teaches that it is by human authority that the grades of bishop and elder or pastor are distinct. And the subject itself declares this, because the power [the office and command] is the same, as he has said above. 64] But one matter afterwards made a distinction between bishops and pastors namely, ordination, because it was [so] arranged that one bishop should ordain ministers in a number of churches.

65] But since by divine authority the grades of bishop and pastor are not diverse, it is manifest that ordination administered by a pastor in his own church is valid by divine law [if a pastor in his own church ordains certain suitable persons to the ministry, such ordination is, according to divine law, undoubtedly effective and right].

66] Therefore, when the regular bishops become enemies of the Church, or are unwilling to administer ordination, the churches retain their own right. [Because the regular bishops persecute the Gospel and refuse to ordain suitable persons, every church has in this case full authority to ordain its own ministers.]

67] For wherever the Church is, there is the authority [command] to administer the Gospel. Therefore it is necessary for the Church to retain the authority to call, elect, and ordain ministers. And this authority is a gift which in reality is given to the Church, which no human power can wrest from the Church, as Paul also testifies to the Ephesians when he says, Eph 4:8: He ascended, He gave gifts to men. And he enumerates among the gifts specially belonging to the Church pastors and teachers, and adds that such are given for the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. Hence, wherever there is a true church, the right to elect and ordain ministers necessarily exists. Just as in a case of necessity even a layman absolves, and becomes the minister and pastor of another; as Augustine narrates the story of two Christians in a ship, one of whom baptized the catechumen, who after Baptism then absolved the baptizer.

Now, I know that the CC disputes this today, as it did then. The issue will not be resloved by laymen here debating it, but instead by leaders of our respective communions. as it stands, Lutherans accept the validity of Catholic priests and bishops, by the same divine law that we confess the validity of our own, and we pray for the day when the ministry of Christ’s word and sacraments will be again one.

Jon

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
But protestant ordination is not the same as Catholic ordination.

I wasn’t speaking of protestant , but Lutheran. That it isn’t the same is not equivalent to isn’t valid. In fact, the Catholic Church has, in the past, practiced presbyter ordination - the Cistercian Attobts in the 1400’s for example.

Got proof? Show us the Apostolic Succession.

Quote:
So Lutheranism never had valid Apostolic Succession like the Anglicans did. True there were priests who became Lutheran but no priest possesses Apostolic Succession. That rests only in the office of bishop. So what you call an ordination in Lutheranism lacks validity because there is no Apostolic Succession present in Lutheranism. When a Lutheran minister converts to Catholicism he does not automatically become a Catholic priest. He becomes a layman. He can apply for the priesthood and if accepted and he completes the required course of training, he can be then validly ordained as a priest empowered to offer the sacrifice of the Divine Liturgy. But until then his Lutheran ordination, while Lutherans may respect it, is invalid in the Catholic Church.

As I said earlier, I know this is the Catholic position. I know it is invalid in the CC. But that doesn’t necessarily make it invalid.

Yes it does. When and if unity does come about it will be in complete conformity with Catholic doctrine. So if it is invalid in Catholicism then it is invalid.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer View Post
That is alll well and good but you did not mention sin and its remission. Without remission of sin no one gets to heaven. So how do protestants have their sins remitted without sacramental confession?

This really isn’t the teaching of the church. Here it is in a nutshell:

You go to heaven if you die in the state of grace.

You get in the state of grace through baptism. This grace is freely given to those who desire it, regardless of past sins.

Once in the state of grace, you must do the will of God, loving Him and your neighbors.

If you commit mortal sin, you fall from grace and will be condemned unless you contritely confess your sins to a priest and do the required penance to gain absolution. There are three criteria that make a sin “mortal”

1. it must be of grave (serious) matter
2. it must be done with the knowledge that it is a sin that will separate you from God
3. it must be intentionally done.

There will be no sin in heaven so if you die in the state of grace, but still harbor the tendency to sin, you will be purged of that sin in purgatory. Those that are not in the state of grace will go directly to Hell. There is no purgatory for them.

So can you get to heaven without being baptized or freed from sin through confession. Yes, in exceptional conditions:

1. baptism of blood: if you are a martyr for the faith but were never baptized, your martyrdom will suffice.
2. baptism of desire: if you are a catachumen and died before baptism, your desire for baptism will be sufficient
3. invincible ignorance: if you never heard the gospel but lived according to its principles as best you can by following your conscience, you could enter heaven
4. perfect contrition: if you died without sacramental confession, but were truly sorry for your sins because they offend God (and not just out of fear of punishment), then God will forgive you.

In the end, its worth noting that Jesus gave us these sacraments to share his Grace with us and he gave the Church a missionary role for a reason - to save souls. We should take Him at His word that these things are required. It is also worth noting that the Church teaches the obvious other point: God is not bound by His sacraments and will judge rightly in every case by reading the individuals heart.

 

[paul_c]

We accept non-Catholic baptisms and weddings as sacramental. But not confessions? I admit to having a problem with that. Yes, as posted earlier, in my wife’s church the pastor stands before the congregation and announces that all are forgiven. Since nobody confessed and maybe don’t even feel guilty I find that unacceptable.
But as stated by another in the LCMS people go to the minister to confess. That says to me that a person is trying to assume responsibility for sins and attempting to do the right thing by taking the time to go directly to the minister. Is it that unacceptable to God?

The reason that confession and the eucharist must be done by ordained priests are that they are acting as Persona Christi in this capacity.

In sacramental weddings, the celebrants are actually the couple. The priest or deacon are the Church’s witnesses to the sacrament. That said, we recognize a non-Catholic wedding as valid and binding but not sacramental.

Baptism can be administered by anyone as long as they follow the correct formula: pouring water over them or dunking them three times in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

As for the efficacy of confession to someone not ordained, Jesus did not give the right of absolving sins to everyone for a reason - they all don’t speak for him as a preist is qualified to do.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Can Protestants go to Heaven without Confession?

If so, then what is the purpose of having confession if justification can be accomplished without Confession?

Especially so with Mortal Sins… If I commit a Mortal sin, feel remorse and decide I need to go to confession ASAP, and then die before getting there, I would still go to Heaven because I had every intention of heart change and confession before the priest.

Therefore it seems only necessary to have a heart change and not confession/absolution from a priest of ones sins?

Obviously if my third paragraphs assumption is incorrect then what I’m saying falls apart.

Also how is a protestant justified if he/she commits a mortal sin? Or are they not? If that is so it makes me feel like a lot of Protestants are going to Hell…

Confused… Help.

From some of the Bible Study I have listened to (and this is from the Orthodox priest), what Christ requires is repentance, not really forgiveness. We can be forgiven many numbers of ways, but we can only be saved by repentance. That is a change in our hearts and minds and orient it towards Christ. Even if God forgives us all our since at the moment of our death, we still cannot come into full communion with Him if our minds and hearts are still oriented towards sin.

Confession really facilitates repentance. It is not just about forgiveness of sins, but also helping us overcome them. That is why a good confessor is important. It is not enough that we are sorry for our sins, but we shold also be resolved not to commit them again. And a good confessor can give us the advice we need.

 

[ConstantineTG]

By divine law. When there have been times in history when no bishop was available to ordain, presbyter ordination is valid.

I believe you! In Acts there was no difference between bishop and priest. St. James was called a presbyter by St. Luke even though we all know (as well as those there in First Century Jerusalem) that he was the bishop. But the bishop really is a “chief elder” or “head elder”. The differentiation only appeared later in the First Century.

 

[JonNC]

=inkaneer;10160554]
Let me clear up any ambiguity. It is not the same nor is it valid. As far as abbots of religious orders are concerned some are empowered as bishops. In fact we just had an abbot administer Confirmation to children in a neighboring parish.

I’m not being ambiguous. By your statement here, it seems the laying on of hands by a bishop isn’t necessary, the fact is that Lutheran ordination is valid, whether or not Rome accepts it or not. So, the point is, we won’t agree. You and I knew that from the start.

Got proof? Show us the Apostolic Succession.

I think you can find it online.

Yes it does. When and if unity does come about it will be in complete conformity with Catholic doctrine. So if it is invalid in Catholicism then it is invalid.

I guess we’ll have to wait and see, won’t we?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I believe you! In Acts there was no difference between bishop and priest. St. James was called a presbyter by St. Luke even though we all know (as well as those there in First Century Jerusalem) that he was the bishop. But the bishop really is a “chief elder” or “head elder”. The differentiation only appeared later in the First Century.

Exactly. And that’s the thing, though. The Lutheran confessions state without doubt the support of and desire for the continuing of orders of the Church, and for good reason.

The Apology of the Augsburg Confession

Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention.

Jon

 

[RyanBlack]

That said, we recognize a non-Catholic wedding as valid and binding but not sacramental.

That is only partially correct. Valid marriages in which both parties are baptized are also sacramental marriages, regardless of whether the parties are Catholic, and regardless of whether the wedding took place in a Catholic Church (of course, if either spouse is Catholic and the wedding does not take place in a Catholic Church, permission must be obtained from the Church if the marriage is to be valid).

 

[Slaney]

Can Protestants go to Heaven without Confession?

If so, then what is the purpose of having confession if justification can be accomplished without Confession?

Especially so with Mortal Sins… If I commit a Mortal sin, feel remorse and decide I need to go to confession ASAP, and then die before getting there, I would still go to Heaven because I had every intention of heart change and confession before the priest.

Therefore it seems only necessary to have a heart change and not confession/absolution from a priest of ones sins?

Obviously if my third paragraphs assumption is incorrect then what I’m saying falls apart.

Also how is a protestant justified if he/she commits a mortal sin? Or are they not? If that is so it makes me feel like a lot of Protestants are going to Hell…

Confused… Help.

Seems so !

 

[paul_c]

I’m not being ambiguous. By your statement here, it seems the laying on of hands by a bishop isn’t necessary, the fact is that Lutheran ordination is valid, whether or not Rome accepts it or not. So, the point is, we won’t agree. You and I knew that from the start.

Jon

The Catholic Church clearly teaches that only bishops ordain. Some Abbots have been ordained as bishops and hence have that faculty.

The problem with the validity of Lutheran ordination is that Lutheran’s separated themselves from the Catholic Church. I know that some will claim that the Catholic church was the one that strayed from the Truth, but that’s not a very credible claim since Luther himself was so proud of his innovations.

By the way, when Pope Benedict said that Lutheran Eucharist was deficient not lacking in grace, he was being very consistent with Catholic teaching that there is some truth in all Protestant religions but where they deviate from Catholic teaching, they deviate from the Truth.

You know, Jon, my mother-in-law was a Lutheran and I loved her and I hope she died in the state of grace and is now in heaven. But I worry about her as well, just as I worry about all our disconnected brothers-in- Christ. Like you, she knew all about the Catholic teaching on grace and the need for sacramental confession and like you, she chose to believe the teachings of Luther over the teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Why you chose to accept the teaching of a man who never claimed to be inspired by God over a Church that was commissioned by God incarnate, Jesus Christ, to administer the sacraments and teach the truth about salvation I will never understand. For my mother in law’s sake, I hope that God will not hold that against her now that she has passed from this life. For your own sake, I hope that you will convert and share in the life saving grace the Catholic Church offers on behalf of its founder, Jesus so that we can stop worrying about your soul.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ConstantineTG
I believe you! In Acts there was no difference between bishop and priest. St. James was called a presbyter by St. Luke even though we all know (as well as those there in First Century Jerusalem) that he was the bishop. But the bishop really is a “chief elder” or “head elder”. The differentiation only appeared later in the First Century.

Exactly. And that’s the thing, though. The Lutheran confessions state without doubt the support of and desire for the continuing of orders of the Church, and for good reason.

The Apology of the Augsburg Confession

Quote:
Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention.

Well a bishop is a priest. How else could he pass on the authority to administer the sacraments if he didn’t have that authority to begin with? Priests and deacons were employed to aid the bishop in the life of the church. The priests were to aid in the sacramental life and the deacons in the charitable life.

As far as the Augsburg Confession goes, wishing and hoping doesn’t get you there and it is very telling that the authors only speak of “human authority”. This then is the difference between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran denomination. In Lutheranism there is no real church authority given by God. Mt 16:18-19 and Mt 18:18 are not applicable to Lutherans. It is only by human authority that governs the Lutheran Church. But in Catholicism, when a Bishop ordains a priest or consecrates another bishop, he is not wielding mere “human authority” but rather is imparting [delegating] divine authority. But this is exactly what Lutherans deny. To them there is no divine authority in the church despite what Jesus said. So here is the situation in Lutheranism. They say they have bishops with valid Apostolic Succession but deny that these bishops have any Apostolic authority. They only have, as the Augsburg Confessions state, “human authority”.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Paul

=paul c;10161040]The Catholic Church clearly teaches that only bishops ordain. Some Abbots have been ordained as bishops and hence have that faculty.

The case of the Cistercian Abbots, AFAIK, is that they employed presbyter ordination.

The problem with the validity of Lutheran ordination is that Lutheran’s separated themselves from the Catholic Church. I know that some will claim that the Catholic church was the one that strayed from the Truth, but that’s not a very credible claim since Luther himself was so proud of his innovations.

The problem with Lutheran validity is the same problem with all others - the fact that our ministry (singular on purpose) is wounded by our division. That we don’t offer the world a united Church Militant.

By the way, when Pope Benedict said that Lutheran Eucharist was deficient not lacking in grace, he was being very consistent with Catholic teaching that there is some truth in all Protestant religions but where they deviate from Catholic teaching, they deviate from the Truth.

I expect you are correct. Obviously, the Cardinal was not making an equation, but what he did say ought to give you comfort regarding your mother-in-law.

You know, Jon, my mother-in-law was a Lutheran and I loved her and I hope she died in the state of grace and is now in heaven. But I worry about her as well, just as I worry about all our disconnected brothers-in- Christ. Like you, she knew all about the Catholic teaching on grace and the need for sacramental confession and like you, she chose to believe the teachings of Luther over the teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Why you chose to accept the teaching of a man who never claimed to be inspired by God over a Church that was commissioned by God incarnate, Jesus Christ, to administer the sacraments and teach the truth about salvation I will never understand. For my mother in law’s sake, I hope that God will not hold that against her now that she has passed from this life. For your own sake, I hope that you will convert and share in the life saving grace the Catholic Church offers on behalf of its founder, Jesus so that we can stop worrying about your soul.

If Baptism now saves you, and if, he that believes and is baptized shall be saved, and if in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper is the salvation granting presence of Christ, why would there be doubt that she with our Savior in Heaven? If the doubt is based simply on the fact that she was not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, then I do not share with you this doubt. OTOH, I also reject the claim by some non-Catholics, and frankly some Orthodox, that being in communion with the Bishop of Rome also lends doubt to your salvation, and I base it on the same.

Jon