Protestants in Heaven without Confession?

[JonNC]

=inkaneer;10190126]
Canon 6 places no restriction or limitations on the authority of the church at Rome

Of course it does. It compares the jurisdiction of Alexandria, etc. in its area to that of Rome’s in its.

And what dispute are you referring to? What history are you reading that says there was a dispute with the authority of the Church at Rome? If you can recall, the Council was called to address the issue of Arianism, so named after Arius, a priest of Alexandria Egypt. But the council also addressed the issue of Meletius, bishop of Lycopolis in Egypt. The council declared that those ordained by Meletius were to receive again the Laying on of hands, the ordinations performed by Meletius being therefore regarded as invalid. Clergy ordained by Meletius were ordered to yield precedence to those ordained by Alexander, and they were not to do anything without the consent of Bishop Alexander [bishop of Alexandria, Egypt]. It is against that backdrop that Canon 6 was adopted

Canon 6 therefore provided the bishop of Alexandria oversight of Meletius and the diocese of Lycopolis. This is what it meant when it said, "the ancient customs of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places, since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved.

…and Rome its jurisdiction in the west.

In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made a bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however, two or three, by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church’s rule (regula), the vote of the majority shall prevail.

Correct, no mention of Rome having a supreme decision in any matter.

The authority of the Bishop of Rome is not conciliar. The pope is dependant on no council for his authority. Rather his authority comes directly from God and is attested to by scripture. Peter is told by Christ to “Rule my flock” in John 21:16. Councils, on the other hand, are not authoritative unless the pope is in agreement with them or parts of them. There are parts of councils which the pope did not agree with and these portions are not authoritative. The Council of Florence is one that comes to mind.

Florence was in 1439, after the Schism.

Rule my flock?
From the DRB.
John 21:16 *When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep. *

Where does it say “rule”?

Jon

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
The question isn’t what the Patriarchs think, its what God thinks.

Indeed, and I would include Rome as one of those Patriarchs. How is one to know which is right?

Jon

The way the church has always known which is right. Apostolic Succession. Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom. Those keys have been handed down to his successors who are the popes of Rome. That is not a new concept formulated in the last 500 or 1,000 years. That goes back to the Apostles. The first century Corinthians went to Rome because they knew where the authority lay not because Rome was closer [which it wasn’t]. They knew that Clement had authority that the apostle John did not.

 

[JonNC]

Quote:
The question isn’t what the Patriarchs think, its what God thinks.

The way the church has always known which is right. Apostolic Succession. Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom. Those keys have been handed down to his successors who are the popes of Rome. That is not a new concept formulated in the last 500 or 1,000 years. That goes back to the Apostles. The first century Corinthians went to Rome because they knew where the authority lay not because Rome was closer [which it wasn’t]. They knew that Clement had authority that the apostle John did not.

Your argument is not with me in that matter, but with Orthodoxy. Where do the Corinthians say they had an understanding of Rome’s jurisdiction as it is now understood?
If this is so cut and dried, why has a 1,000 years past with no resolution? Even your (Catholic) understanding of the Keys is disputed, as many Orthodox here will tell you.

Jon

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
The authority of the Bishop of Rome is not conciliar. The pope is dependant on no council for his authority. Rather his authority comes directly from God and is attested to by scripture. Peter is told by Christ to “Rule my flock” in John 21:16. Councils, on the other hand, are not authoritative unless the pope is in agreement with them or parts of them. There are parts of councils which the pope did not agree with and these portions are not authoritative. The Council of Florence is one that comes to mind.

Florence was in 1439, after the Schism.

So what? The Orthodox were there and agreed to it.

Rule my flock?
From the DRB.
John 21:16 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

Where does it say “rule”?

Jon

In the Greek. In verses 15 and 17 of John 21 Jesus tells Peter to “feed my sheep.” The Greek word that is translated as “feed” is bosko. In verse 16 however a different word is used. That verse is usually rendered, “tend my flock” and the word that is translated as ‘tend’ is the Greek word poimaino. It has a different meaning than to just “feed” . It means to rule, to govern, to furnish pasture for food. Here in John 21:15-17 Jesus, the Good Shepherd is entrusting his flock to Peter. Peter is now the shepherd of God’s flock. There is no limitations placed on Peter. The other apostles aren’t even mentioned although they are present and are witness to this event. [By the way, the translation I used is the KJV Greek Lexicon with Strong’s numbers.] This, along with the events of Mt 16:18-19 and Luke 22: 31-32 which the other apostles also witnessed made it abundantly clear to the other Apostles who was in charge so that when in the council of Jerusalem when Peter rose to speak everyone became quiet.

 

[JonNC]

=inkaneer;10190348]
So what? The Orthodox were there and agreed to it.

Which Orthodox patriarchate accepts Florence?

In the Greek. In verses 15 and 17 of John 21 Jesus tells Peter to “feed my sheep.” The Greek word that is translated as “feed” is bosko. In verse 16 however a different word is used. That verse is usually rendered, “tend my flock” and the word that is translated as ‘tend’ is the Greek word poimaino. It has a different meaning than to just “feed” . It means to rule, to govern, to furnish pasture for food. Here in John 21:15-17 Jesus, the Good Shepherd is entrusting his flock to Peter. Peter is now the shepherd of God’s flock. There is no limitations placed on Peter.

You seem here to have a problem with the DRB, but that’s ok. Let’s then be specific on what “rule” means. There is no doubt that in the 1st millenium that the Bishop of Rome held a primacy. That is not in dispute, then or now. But that is not a supremacy, a universal jurisdiction, and none of the 7 councils provide said for the Bishop of Rome.
That said, if the Pope can convince the others of this, who am I to dispute it? I would not.

The other apostles aren’t even mentioned although they are present and are witness to this event. [By the way, the translation I used is the KJV Greek Lexicon with Strong’s numbers.] This, along with the events of Mt 16:18-19 and Luke 22: 31-32 which the other apostles also witnessed made it abundantly clear to the other Apostles who was in charge so that when in the council of Jerusalem when Peter rose to speak everyone became quiet.

Maybe they all agreed with him. Where they do not agree with him, if he in fact believed it (and doesn’t say so), is universal jurisdiction.

Jon

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer

The way the church has always known which is right. Apostolic Succession. Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom. Those keys have been handed down to his successors who are the popes of Rome. That is not a new concept formulated in the last 500 or 1,000 years. That goes back to the Apostles. The first century Corinthians went to Rome because they knew where the authority lay not because Rome was closer [which it wasn’t]. They knew that Clement had authority that the apostle John did not.

Your argument is not with me in that matter, but with Orthodoxy. Where do the Corinthians say they had an understanding of Rome’s jurisdiction as it is now understood?
If this is so cut and dried, why has a 1,000 years past with no resolution? Even your (Catholic) understanding of the Keys is disputed, as many Orthodox here will tell you.

Jon

The Orthodox, like the Lutherans, have their own problems. Their problem is one of pride and knowing their position is completely untenable. 1000 years ago they wraped themselves in the glory of the Roman emperor while the Western Church suffered through the Dark Ages. They looked down their noses at the West and got big headed and confused secular glory for God’s favoritism. But all that ended when they rejected reuninification and Islam toppled their world. Like I said before the fall of Constantinople came only about 15 years after the Orthodox rejected reunification. To this day the Orthodox still kowtow to secular government whether it be the Islamists in Turkey or the Communists in Russia or the Eastern European states.

The proof of who left who is the fact that the Orthodox share the very same doctrinal basis as do the Byzantine Catholics who are reunited to the Pope. In fact the Orthodox coined a derogatory term to refer to them. They call then “Uniates” and it refers to the 21 Eastern Churches [Rites] that are united to the Western Rite to form the Catholic Church. They like Lutherans will have to come back to us just as the other Eastern Churches did but as long as their pride remains an obstacle they will continue to be .

 

[mlz]

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!

I agree with this as a convert. What seems clearly"out there" to you is Not clear to so very many sincere Christian brothers and sisters in Christ. ( and sadly even many Catholics) I was just reading the Catechism of the Catholic Chirch pg 216 #818 and pg224 #846-856

Mlz

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
=inkaneer;10190348]
So what? The Orthodox were there and agreed to it.

Which Orthodox patriarchate accepts Florence?

Well at the time all the Eastern bishops did. It was only after they returned when they were coerced into rejecting reunification. They were coerced not by anything theological but rather by secular politics. You see they had not consulted the emperor and agreeing to Roman authority undermined the emperor’s authority. So once more they kowtowed to the emperor and as a result God punished them as he did the Jews when they rejected His shepherd.

You seem here to have a problem with the DRB, but that’s ok. Let’s then be specific on what “rule” means. There is no doubt that in the 1st millenium that the Bishop of Rome held a primacy. That is not in dispute, then or now. But that is not a supremacy, a universal jurisdiction, and none of the 7 councils provide said for the Bishop of Rome.
That said, if the Pope can convince the others of this, who am I to dispute it? I would not.

Maybe they all agreed with him. Where they do not agree with him, if he in fact believed it (and doesn’t say so), is universal jurisdiction.

Jon

Tell me something. If, as you say, the Bishop of Rome held a “primacy” then what is that “primacy” based on? And why isn’t it a supremacy if there are no other primacies? You know in Luke 22:31-32 we read where Jesus tells Peter:

"31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

Notice the two 2nd person pronouns [you] I emboldened. Something is lost in the translation here because in Greek two different pronouns are used. The first one in verse 31 the pronoun is second person plural. Satan demanded not only to have Peter but you meaning all of the Apostles. In verse 32 the pronoun is second person singular. Jesus says He has prayed for you singular meaning Peter, not the others. It is then Peter’s job to strengthen the others. Apparently Jeus held Peter in much higher regard than the rest of the Apostles that He would pray for Peter and Peter alone. But then Peter held the keys, didn’t he? Peter was told to lead the flock, wasn’t he. Peter was told he would bind and loose on earth as well as in heaven, wasn’t he? No other apostle received these promises from Jesus did they? Yet you don’t see a universality here? You don’t see a supremacy here? You are truly blind.

Now as for those seven councils [There are really a lot more] but I would like you to read something from one of them, that being the Council of Chalcedron in 431 AD. This was about 100 years after Nicea. Here is the quote from the Acts of the council:

“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’” (ibid., session 2).

Weeeeellllllllllllllllllll It seems that the Pope [Pope Leo I] wielded considerable authority at the council even to the point of ousting another bishop. And who was this bishop? It was Dioscorus. And what was Dioscorus bishop of? Alexandria, Egypt Yep the very same Alexandria, Egypt that was referred to back in canon 6 of Nicea. Now, here is the pope having authority over another bishop [and a Patriarchial one to boot] and the other bishops to include the Orthodox not only are in complete agreement but assert that the authority wielded by Leo is 'the faith of the Apostles" !!! And what was Dioscorus problem? The Council declared Dioscorus deposed, because of his violations of canon law, rather than any perceived heresy. He violated canon law as administered by the Church at Rome.

 

[RyanBlack]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
But that is not correct. As early as the first century we find churches in various parts appealing to Rome for guidance in theological and church matters. Corinth comes to mind as does Antioch. Eusebius of Caesarea relates how, in about 190 AD, the Church at Rome involved itself in settling the issue in Asia Minor of when Easter was to be celebrated. In fact there is no question in the early church as the universality of the authority of the church at Rome. Now if you should happen to have some concrete evidence to support your allegations then please do present it. But thus far all you have presented is your own biased opinion.

Canon 6 places no restriction or limitations on the authority of the church at Rome. And what dispute are you referring to? What history are you reading that says there was a dispute with the authority of the Church at Rome? If you can recall, the Council was called to address the issue of Arianism, so named after Arius, a priest of Alexandria Egypt. But the council also addressed the issue of Meletius, bishop of Lycopolis in Egypt. The council declared that those ordained by Meletius were to receive again the Laying on of hands, the ordinations performed by Meletius being therefore regarded as invalid. Clergy ordained by Meletius were ordered to yield precedence to those ordained by Alexander, and they were not to do anything without the consent of Bishop Alexander [bishop of Alexandria, Egypt]. It is against that backdrop that Canon 6 was adopted

Canon 6 therefore provided the bishop of Alexandria oversight of Meletius and the diocese of Lycopolis. This is what it meant when it said, "the ancient customs of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places, since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved.

In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made a bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however, two or three, by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church’s rule (regula), the vote of the majority shall prevail.

The authority of the Bishop of Rome is not conciliar. The pope is dependant on no council for his authority. Rather his authority comes directly from God and is attested to by scripture. Peter is told by Christ to “Rule my flock” in John 21:16. Councils, on the other hand, are not authoritative unless the pope is in agreement with them or parts of them. There are parts of councils which the pope did not agree with and these portions are not authoritative. The Council of Florence is one that comes to mind.

As far as the Orthodox go they have their own problems with Caesaropapism. They had been kissing up to the emperor for so long they forgot who was the rock on which the church was built. They had a chance at reuniting with Rome at the council of Florence but they rejected it and, reminescent of the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD, the Orthodox lived to see the great Church of the Haggia Sophia desecrated and turned into an Islamic mosque which it remains to this day. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

Utter and complete garbage, inspired by anti-Orthodox bigotry and hatred-nothing more, nothing less, nothing else, and not worthy of being stated by a Catholic Christian. BTW, you’re not even correct on the facts–the Hagia Sophia has not served as a mosque since 1931.

 

[JonNC]

Utter and complete garbage, inspired by anti-Orthodox bigotry and hatred-nothing more, nothing less, nothing else, and not worthy of being stated by a Catholic Christian. BTW, you’re not even correct on the facts–the Hagia Sophia has not served as a mosque since 1931.

Better coming from you than me.

Instead, and this is my final post along this line in this thread, I offer another document from USCCB regarding Catholic/Lutheran Dialogue on the issue of Papal primacy.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/dialogue-with-others/ecumenical/lutheran/attitudes-papal-primacy.cfm

Jon

 

[RyanBlack]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer

The way the church has always known which is right. Apostolic Succession. Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom. Those keys have been handed down to his successors who are the popes of Rome. That is not a new concept formulated in the last 500 or 1,000 years. That goes back to the Apostles. The first century Corinthians went to Rome because they knew where the authority lay not because Rome was closer [which it wasn’t]. They knew that Clement had authority that the apostle John did not.

The Orthodox, like the Lutherans, have their own problems. Their problem is one of pride and knowing their position is completely untenable. 1000 years ago they wraped themselves in the glory of the Roman emperor while the Western Church suffered through the Dark Ages. They looked down their noses at the West and got big headed and confused secular glory for God’s favoritism. But all that ended when they rejected reuninification and Islam toppled their world. Like I said before the fall of Constantinople came only about 15 years after the Orthodox rejected reunification. To this day the Orthodox still kowtow to secular government whether it be the Islamists in Turkey or the Communists in Russia or the Eastern European states.

The proof of who left who is the fact that the Orthodox share the very same doctrinal basis as do the Byzantine Catholics who are reunited to the Pope. In fact the Orthodox coined a derogatory term to refer to them. They call then “Uniates” and it refers to the 21 Eastern Churches [Rites] that are united to the Western Rite to form the Catholic Church. They like Lutherans will have to come back to us just as the other Eastern Churches did but as long as their pride remains an obstacle they will continue to be .

And we Catholics don’t have our own history of problems too?

This post is so filled with arrogance, triumphalism, and hypocrisy that it’s nauseating, and reflects very poorly on the Catholic Church. I don’t know how any intellectually and historically honest Catholic can make these sort of accusations, given our own history of the conduct of a number of our own hierarchs (including several popes), as well as the history of our own relationships with secular powers.

Inkaneer, some of the things that you say about non-Catholic Christians are nothing short of shameful and scandalous. Furthemore, they do not reflect what the Catechism has to say about the Orthodox Churches and Protestant communions; neither do they reflect the leadership of our Church.

 

[wondrousgnat]

If you believe that Protestants have as good a chance at heaven as Catholics aren’t you in effect saying:

1. the sacraments are meaningless in the economy of salvation
2. that all Christian religions teach the truth equally

Do you really believe this?

Are you saying that Protestants are doomed to hell?
I also believe in purgatory. And I do not want to spend a long time there and thus want somebody to pray for me to leave. Those who don’t believe in purgatory may be there longer because nobody is praying for them.

Are any priests commenting on this thread?

 

[katholikos12]

Are you saying that Protestants are doomed to hell?
I also believe in purgatory. And I do not want to spend a long time there and thus want somebody to pray for me to leave. Those who don’t believe in purgatory may be there longer because nobody is praying for them.

Are any priests commenting on this thread?

Why does praying for someone in purgatory get them out of it early?

How does the prayers of one person remove the consequence of sin from purgatory?

 

[catholic1seeks]

katholikos12:

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.

God desires all people to be saved. He gives the graces necessary to assist everyone in his or her state of life. Now, what is ultimately required for salvation is ‘‘that holiness, without which no one will see God.’’ What makes us holy (i.e., set apart and like God) is Love of God. What is essential is that we desire God above all else and that we make Him the center of our lives. If we do this, we will naturally want to do His will and follow what we know his commandments to be in our state of life. When someone abandons love for God and makes something else the center of his life and commits a mortal sin, He know longer is compatible with salvation in the next life. But by God’s grace, He can help any fallen person turn to God again and make Him the center of His life. Repentance and Forgiveness are by God’s grace. As soon as one turns to God out of love for Him, he is made holy and is justified. The great sacrament of Penance is a great help and was designed by the Savior to be an even larger source of grace. Often, we are not sorry for the Love of God. This is what confession is for.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[mitex]

The Catholic Church believes protestants are Christians because they preserved the sacraments of Baptism and Marriage. It would be a bit counter productive to label us Christians but then say we can’t go to heaven.

My own personal belief is that I am saved by grace through faith ( Ephesians 2:8) by accepting Jesus Christ as my personal savior in payment for my sins as a gift offered by God. Once you’re saved and provided you don’t blasphemy the Holy Spirit or commit apostasy eternal salvation is yours.

In Catholic terms this translate to living a good and Christian life with that ignorance thingy mijig. But we also recognize infant baptism as an important part of this.

 

[benjohnson]

This isn’t a new disagreement between Catholics and Lutherans.
Rehashing it won’t change it. Clearly, however, Cardinal Ratzinger holds a different view…

Cardinal Ratzinger is wise. I hope that the Catholic church treasures him. What’s he doing now?

 

[benjohnson]

But it seems to me that some here do not believe that God will accept an honest attempt of a Lutheran to go to his pastor and confess his sins.

Thant’s kind of you - but rest easy, in that the LCMS absolution is a little different than the Catholic form.

As I understand it, in the Catholic form, the priest acts in the place of Christ to absolve. In the Lutheran form, the pastor helps the penitent confess to God, and with reflection, the pastor then announces the absolution and grace that Christ gives to each of us when we repent our sins.

So even if we Lutherans don’t have valid orders per Catholic teaching, our confession is more directly tied to God directly rather than through his ministers. So when a Catholic tells us we don’t have valid orders, it doesn’t really bother us too much as we know in our hearts that it’s God’s grace we receive even as we sin and repent.

 

[benjohnson]

To this day the Orthodox still kowtow to secular government whether it be the Islamists in Turkey or the Communists in Russia or the Eastern European states.

The fact that the Orthodox survived the most murderous regimes the world has ever seen is a testament that “the gates of hell will not prevail.”

I rejoice in them and their survival. I am in awe of their generations of steadfast faith.

 

[JonNC]

The fact that the Orthodox survived the most murderous regimes the world has ever seen is a testament that “the gates of hell will not prevail.”

I rejoice in them and their survival. I am in awe of their generations of steadfast faith.

Ben,
What a wonderful statement about the faith of our Orthodox siblings and the power of the Spirit in the history of the Church.

Thank you for this.

Jon

 

[wondrousgnat]

After I retired in 2005 I picketed a locak abortion clinic on a weekly basis until it closed. Many of the fellow picketers were non-Catholics who were also . in my opinion, serving the Lord. The abortionist, on the other hand, was a practicing Catholic who sent his daughter to an all girls Catholic school. Now who will and who will not get to Heaven.

I had heard that the eucharistic ministers were instructed to not give him communion.