Protestants in Heaven without Confession?

  • Thread starter Thread starter katholikos12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
I am curious. Is there any scriptural basis for the requirement of confession?
 
What you are saaying I agree with, and I have not explained anything contrary to it. What I am saying and have been saying is that if there is a Baptism of desire for those exceptions of ignorance and lack of opportunity, then it seems like that exception can be applied to confession. Some Protestants have not been fairly introduced to Catholicism but would follow the truth if given an opportunity. Between the lack of Catholic zeal to evangelize and the indoctrination of many Protestant sects, some people just dont have a fair introduction.
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.
 
Avoid avoid avoid.

I noticed you didn’t try to answer a single one of my questions.
I didn’t avoid anything. This isn’t a new disagreement between Catholics and Lutherans.
Rehashing it won’t change it. Clearly, however, Cardinal Ratzinger holds a different view than you do.

Jon
 
Sounds like a cop out. I would have to ask you what your point is? I also have to ask you if you believe the body and blood of Jesus is present in communion. If so then by what authority? If ordinary people (Lacking Valid Holy Orders) can just make Jesus present then why can’t I make Jesus present in a piece of bread at my house? Why can’t a devil worshiper make Jesus present? What is there to differentiate between who can actually do a valid communion (Making the Body and Blood of Jesus be Present) and who can not do a valid communion? If you say a Minister then I would have to ask you where did this minister get his Authority? Did someone just proclaim him a minister one day… If that’s the case then why can’t I proclaim myself a minister so that I can be authorized to make Jesus present. If you say a Church. Then what does it take to make a valid Church. Can I just establish my own Church and make the Body and Blood present?

John 6:53
53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
I didn’t say your Church was a complete failure did I. If you want me to agree that it’s lacking in deficiency then I can do that. You still avoided my questions and your still maintaining avoidance of my questions. You can call it rehashing past dilemmas if you want but I’m new to this. So why don’t you sell me on being a Lutheran. You obviously believe it’s more beneficial to be a Lutheran or else you would be in a different church. Just humor me and answer my questions… They are honest uneducated questions that really baffle me… 🙂
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holly3278
Lutheran sacraments are not valid because Lutheran priests/ministers are not validly ordained.
This, of course, is the Catholic position, and of course, Lutherans disagree. And, its an issue that won’t be resolved unty reconciliation between us.

Thoughtfully, however, this:

Quote:
107. Catholic judgment on the authenticity of Lutheran ministry need not be of an all-or-nothing nature. The Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican II distinguished between relationships of full ecclesiastical communion and those of imperfect communion to reflect the varying degrees of differences with the Catholic Church.(164) The communion of these separated communities with the Catholic Church is real, even though it is imperfect. Furthermore, the decree positively affirmed:

Our separated brothers and sisters also celebrate many sacred actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each church or community, and must be held capable of giving access to that communion in which is salvation.(165)

Commenting on this point, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote in 1993 to Bavarian Lutheran bishop Johannes Hanselmann:

I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.(166)
If the actions of Lutheran pastors can be described by Catholics as “sacred actions” that “can truly engender a life of grace,” if communities served by such ministers give “access to that communion in which is salvation,” and if at a eucharist at which a Lutheran pastor presides is to be found “the salvation-granting presence of the Lord,” then Lutheran churches cannot be said simply to lack the ministry given to the church by Christ and the Spirit. In acknowledging the imperfect koinonia between our communities and the access to grace through the ministries of these communities, we also acknowledge a real although imperfect koinonia between our ministries.
  1. Ecumenical understanding would be furthered if in official Roman Catholic documents Vatican II’s reference to defectus in the sacrament of Order among “ecclesial communities” were translated by such words as “defect” or “deficiency.”(167) As Walter Cardinal Kasper has stated: “On material grounds [aus der Sachlogik], and not merely on the basis of the word usage of the Council, it becomes clear that defectus ordinis does not signify a complete absence, but rather a deficiency [Mangel] in the full form of the office.”(168) Translations of defectus as “lack” misleadingly imply the simple absence of the reality of ordination. Translation as “defect” or “deficiency” would be consistent with the sort of real but imperfect recognition of ministries proposed above. While short of full recognition, such partial recognition would provide the basis for first steps toward a reconciliation of ministries as envisioned, e.g., in the international Roman Catholic-Lutheran statement Facing Unity.(169)
  2. We recommend that Roman Catholic criteria for assessing authentic ministry include attention to a ministry’s faithfulness to the gospel and its service to the communion of the church, and that defectus ordinis as applied to Lutheran ministries be translated as “deficiency” rather than “lack.”
The POV of the USCCB.

Jon
Yes but I think you read too much into it. For instance in para 107 we find this sentence:

"Our separated brothers and sisters also celebrate many sacred actions of the Christian religion."

Do not confuse the words “sacred actions” for valid sacraments or valid liturgy. Also, even if “defectus ordinis” is translated as deficiency that does not provide you with any grounds to assume the “I’m okay, you’re okay” That is prevalent in protestantism. A deficiency is still a deficiency. The statement makes no reference to the severity of the deficiency as being major or minor. I would think that a denial of Catholic dogma such as the insistence that the Written Tradition is somehow superior to the Oral Tradition of the church is a major deficiency. So in a nutshell it comes down to this. We will not compromise and meet you half way. You left us, we did not leave you. If you want unity then it has to be complete unity. Complete unity is only possible by the acceptance of the full deposit of faith that resides in the Catholic Church alone. If you look at the history of the church there never was a time when the church compromised with heretical teachings. The Holy Spirit did not allow it then and will not allow it now. So what makes you think the Holy Spirit will suddenly change and allow the church to compromise this time?
 
Okay, first off, if you commit a mortal sin and die, you will go to Hell unless you have perfect contrition, which is when you are sorry for your sins because you love God. Perfect contrition also includes a desire to go to confession as soon as possible. However, you don’t know if you have perfect contrition, which is why you MUST go to confession whenever you commit a mortal sin.

Now, about the Protestant thing, it is possible for Protestants to go to heaven without going to confession if they either have perfect contrition OR if they had invincible ignorance and lived their lives as best they could. Invincible ignorance is when someone does not know the Catholic Church is the true church through no fault of their own.

Oh, and another thing. If someone who commits a mortal sin doesn’t have perfect contrition, but imperfect contrition, which is being sorry for your sins because you fear the punishment or you are disgusted by the sin, and they intended to confess their mortal sins but dies before they had a chance to confess, then we can only hope that since God isn’t bound by the sacraments, in his great mercy he will forgive the person.
Heaven with invincible ignorance? So if the heretic did all the research in the world and thru no fault of his own, decided that the Catholic church is not the true church (ie. Their conscience doesnt allow them to think of it as the true church), then the heretic can reach Heaven?? So all the schismatic and heretic apologists whose conscience tells them that the Catholic church is not true church, they can go to Heaven while they outrightly reject the true church and even attack it?
 
Heaven with invincible ignorance? So if the heretic did all the research in the world and thru no fault of his own, decided that the Catholic church is not the true church (ie. Their conscience doesnt allow them to think of it as the true church), then the heretic can reach Heaven?? So all the schismatic and heretic apologists whose conscience tells them that the Catholic church is not true church, they can go to Heaven while they outrightly reject the true church and even attack it?
No one but God knows the hearts of mankind.

Invincible ignorance seems like its the Church’s official term for God’s grace being extended in circumstances in which people cannot surely know if someone is truly ignorant of the truth.

Therefore yes, God can forgive even those who attack His church; because He is God and He loves us that much.
 
Heaven with invincible ignorance? So if the heretic did all the research in the world and thru no fault of his own, decided that the Catholic church is not the true church (ie. Their conscience doesnt allow them to think of it as the true church), then the heretic can reach Heaven?? So all the schismatic and heretic apologists whose conscience tells them that the Catholic church is not true church, they can go to Heaven while they outrightly reject the true church and even attack it?
It’s sad to say but most people are not invincibly ignorant… Most people suppress the truth and run from it because they don’t like its consequences. Now if a heretic was brought up a heretic through no fault of his own then I imagine some ignorance would apply. If this same heretic did the research and rejected the truth because he didn’t like it then that would obviously take away that invincible ignorance. A lot of people reject the truth and run from common sense while willingly accepting absurdity. It’s a choice just like Atheism and after a while you have to ask at what point are people accountable for their ignorance…
 
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.
 
But isn’t sin an abuse as regardless if it is venial or mortal? How does one determine what a mortal sin is? I’m still fresh out of the sola scriptura mindset, and I understand that the Church has determined what mortals sins are, but has the Church based their decision on scriptures? If so, which ones?
The only sure list I know of of mortal sins are willful disobedience to the Ten Commandments, and the Seven deadly sins. I think HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory added drunk driving to the list (probably a subset of “Thou shalt not murder,” though).

There is no list of Venial Sins. Venial sins are defined simply as those sins that are not mortal, and Scripture tells us that there are sins that are unto death (mortal) and sins that are not. The “Venial Sin” category is very amorphous.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Dear brother JonNC,
This, of course, is the Catholic position, and of course, Lutherans disagree. And, its an issue that won’t be resolved unty reconciliation between us.

Thoughtfully, however, this:
nccbuscc.org/seia/koinonia.shtml

The POV of the USCCB.

Jon
I actually agree with your reading of the text. But I also agree with brother Inkaneer that a ministry that is capable of granting a life of Grace must be othodox in Faith. “Sola scriptura” (for one) is not orthodox. I know that Lutherans have a greater appreciation for Sacred Tradition than most Protestants, but the orthodox position of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches understands Sacred Tradition as a whole to be the rule of Faith, not just Scripture. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches consider Scripture as simply part of Sacred Tradition (the most important part, to be sure, but still a part).

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Besides everything we are talking about is just another reason to try to show them the Truth. As I fear God and worry about my own soul. I really worry about those souls outside the Church including protestants. I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes and since I know what it is to fear God then I will try to remove some of those roadblocks to Catholicism. Whenever I get a chance of course.
If you truly want to help, pray for us. The Holy Spirit is most effective at removing roadblocks in His own time.
 
=inkaneer;10149980]
Yes but I think you read too much into it. For instance in para 107 we find this sentence:
"Our separated brothers and sisters also celebrate many sacred actions of the Christian religion."
I’m not reading anything into it. I’m reading what Catholic bishops said.
Do not confuse the words “sacred actions” for valid sacraments or valid liturgy. Also, even if “defectus ordinis” is translated as deficiency that does not provide you with any grounds to assume the “I’m okay, you’re okay”
I never implied that this was the Catholic position. That said, I am willing to accept the validity of Catholic ordination.
That is prevalent in protestantism. A deficiency is still a deficiency. The statement makes no reference to the severity of the deficiency as being major or minor.
And that is the Catholic position, at least according to the bishops.
I would think that a denial of Catholic dogma such as the insistence that the Written Tradition is somehow superior to the Oral Tradition of the church is a major deficiency. So in a nutshell it comes down to this. We will not compromise and meet you half way.
I’m not asking you to. I leave the dialogue regarding this up to our leaders.
You left us, we did not leave you. If you want unity then it has to be complete unity.
I didn’t leave anyone. I’m a life-long Lutheran.
Complete unity is only possible by the acceptance of the full deposit of faith that resides in the Catholic Church alone. If you look at the history of the church there never was a time when the church compromised with heretical teachings. The Holy Spirit did not allow it then and will not allow it now. So what makes you think the Holy Spirit will suddenly change and allow the church to compromise this time?
Find the word compromise in anything I’ve said. Real reconciliation will come, led by the Spirit (essentially Pope Benedict’s words when he visited the Lutheran Church in Rome) not through compromise, but through agreement.

Jon
 
Dear brother JonNC,

I actually agree with your reading of the text. But I also agree with brother Inkaneer that a ministry that is capable of granting a life of Grace must be othodox in Faith. “Sola scriptura” (for one) is not orthodox. I know that Lutherans have a greater appreciation for Sacred Tradition than most Protestants, but the orthodox position of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches understands Sacred Tradition as a whole to be the rule of Faith, not just Scripture. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches consider Scripture as simply part of Sacred Tradition (the most important part, to be sure, but still a part).

Blessings,
Marduk
Thank you, Marduk. I agree that this is the Catholic and Orthodox position.

Jon
 
=Azygos;10149111]
I also have to ask you if you believe the body and blood of Jesus is present in communion. If so then by what authority?
Of course it is, by the authority of the verba, the words of Christ Himself.
If ordinary people (Lacking Valid Holy Orders) can just make Jesus present then why can’t I make Jesus present in a piece of bread at my house?
You can’t. Neither can I. But the Sprit can, through His power at the verba spoekn by your priest and my pastor. Both have valid ordination.
Why can’t a devil worshiper make Jesus present?
He could were it at one time ordained.
What is there to differentiate between who can actually do a valid communion (Making the Body and Blood of Jesus be Present) and who can not do a valid communion?
The Church, because Christ said so. Those who are of the ordained priesthood.
If you say a Minister then I would have to ask you where did this minister get his Authority?
The Church.
Did someone just proclaim him a minister one day…
No. He was ordained. I was there.
If that’s the case then why can’t I proclaim myself a minister so that I can be authorized to make Jesus present. If you say a Church. Then what does it take to make a valid Church. Can I just establish my own Church and make the Body and Blood present?
You can try, though without ordination within the Church (and we are most assuredly within the Church), it seems a fruitless exercise.
John 6:53
53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Amen.

Jon
 
Venial sins are defined simply as those sins that are not mortal, and Scripture tells us that there are sins that are unto death (mortal) and sins that are not.
Where can I find the scriptures that say differentiate between sins unto death and sins that are not?
 
Where can I find the scriptures that say differentiate between sins unto death and sins that are not?
“There is such a thing as deadly sin…All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.”
-1 John 5:16-17
 
Quote:
Did someone just proclaim him a minister one day…
No. He was ordained. I was there.
Jon
But protestant ordination is not the same as Catholic ordination. Case in point is the Anglicans. When Henry VIII broke from Catholicism there were validly ordained bishops who sided with him. These bishops had valid Apostolic Succession and as such could ordain priests and consecrate other bishops. However, the Catholic Church does not recognize the ordination of any Anglican priest or bishop today as being valid. Why? Because the Anglicans changed their ordination liturgy to the effect that ministers ordained under the new liturgy were not empowered as priests. Their ordination was therefore invalid and there was no valid Apostolic Succession. Over a hundred years passed and during that time all of the validly ordained bishops and priests died. It was only then that the Anglican Church changed its ordination liturgy back to the former form. But it was too late as the remaining bishops, lacking valid Apostolic Succession could not transfer what they themselves did not have.

Similarly with Lutheranism it becomes a matter of valid Apostolic Succession only the Lutheran case is much simpler than the Anglican. Unlike with the Anglicans, there were no bishops who left the Church for Lutheranism. 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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top