Protestants, Mortal Sins, Salvation!

[owensjo]

Thank you very much for posting this…It gets to the heart of my question!

I am not sure I fully understand though. Do you have some kind of official source that presents this material? Or even something from an apologist?

This seems like a confusing position to have. Essentially, from what I can gather, you are saying that if I actually believe the Catholic Church is the one true church but disagree with one of their positions on an issue, that is worse than believing the Catholic Church is NOT the one true church and they are wrong on a particular issue? That doesn’t seem very logical to me. I am not saying you are wrong, I just don’t understand how that could be the position of the Church.

In the teaching of the Church, a baptized Catholic who refuses to believe one or more truths of the Catholic Church is a heretic and therefore in mortal sin. And yes, this is worse than a Protestant such as I described earlier, who, although he/she may believe in a heresy, is not technically a heretic according to this definition. Confusing, I know, but that is the teaching of the Church. There are some things, however, that are intrinsically wrong that we all have an innate knowledge of; anyone who commits one of these wrongs in a grave manner, Protestant, Catholic, Jew, etc. is in a state of mortal sin and cannot be saved without repentance and contrition, with or without confession depending on their faith background. At least that is my understanding of the teaching of the Church.

 

[jinc1019]

In the teaching of the Church, a baptized Catholic who refuses to believe one or more truths of the Catholic Church is a heretic and therefore in mortal sin. And yes, this is worse than a Protestant such as I described earlier, who, although he/she may believe in a heresy, is not technically a heretic according to this definition. Confusing, I know, but that is the teaching of the Church. There are some things, however, that are intrinsically wrong that we all have an innate knowledge of; anyone who commits one of these wrongs in a grave manner, Protestant, Catholic, Jew, etc. is in a state of mortal sin and cannot be saved without repentance and contrition, with or without confession depending on their faith background. At least that is my understanding of the teaching of the Church.

Ok…so it is based on whether someone is baptized in the Catholic Church or not? That seems completely illogical. I thought the Catholic understanding of baptism was that baptism was the same across all denominations. I didn’t think you had to be baptized in the Church?

 

[owensjo]

Ok…so it is based on whether someone is baptized in the Catholic Church or not? That seems completely illogical. I thought the Catholic understanding of baptism was that baptism was the same across all denominations. I didn’t think you had to be baptized in the Church?

Baptism makes you a member of the universal church (“small c”) and reaches across denominations; to be a heretic you have to be baptized in the Catholic Church (“capital c”). The Catechism describes “outside the Church there is no salvation” in CCCaragraphs 846 - 848. This all goes back to what the Church teaches about itself, i.e. it alone has the fullness of truth and it alone has all the marks of the one true faith: it is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

 

[jinc1019]

Baptism makes you a member of the universal church (“small c”) and reaches across denominations; to be a heretic you have to be baptized in the Catholic Church (“capital c”). The Catechism describes “outside the Church there is no salvation” in CCCaragraphs 846 - 848.

Thanks for elaborating.

However, after reading CCC 846-848, I don’t see the point you are making here. According to those paragraphs, if you don’t “know” the Church was founded by Christ and is necessary for salvation, you can still be saved if you are not in the Catholic Church of Rome. But again, this is virtually all people who reject the Church…Virtually no one rejects the Church KNOWING it is the one true church.

You said earlier that if a person is baptized in the Catholic Church, then if they reject the teachings of the Church they are committing a mortal sin. But above, CCC 846-848 tell us that it is “knowledge” of the necessity of the Church for our salvation that is the measuring stick, not where you were baptized.

Why did you say that baptism was the measure?

 

[JonNC]

It’s best to know that for a mortal sin it requires:

• Grave Matter
• Full Knowledge
• Full Consent of the Will

So, protestants committing sin are probably falling under all of those categories except Full knowledge. Now, i know that most of them believe in the 10 commandments and believe that anyone who goes against them are in sin. They do not have different levels of sin which means (and i’m getting this from my Lutheran relatives) that all sin is grave and is evil. So, we can make a semi-solid conclusion that Protestants aware of the 10 commandments but still break them are committing a sort of, shall we say, unnamed version of mortal sin.

Without speaking for protestants, only for Lutheranism, this is essentially correct. Luther commented something to the effect that in some ways, sins that are not considered mortal can be the most dangerous, since they may not be taken seriously.
It is also true that Lutherans do understand the concept of mortal sin. For the unregenerate, all sins are mortal. For the regenerate, repeated and unrepented sins can be mortal.

Jon

 

[snarflemike]

Sorry if I wasn’t specific enough before…This is what I meant…

Based on your statement, the only people who could be classified as having “full knowledge” are those who agree with the Catholic Church’s position but choose to disobey. For instance, a Catholic believes murder is a mortal sin, the Church teaches murder is a mortal sin, a Catholic murders…the Catholic committed a mortal sin.

But, if a person who doesn’t accept the Church’s teaching, on contraception for instance, uses contraception, that is not a mortal sin because they don’t believe it and thus don’t have “full knowledge.” Follow so far?

I understand your position on those kinds of issues.

However, when you start to deal with issues directly relating to authority, then this formula begins to make less sense.

For instance, the Church says rejecting papal infallibility is a grave matter that could constitute a mortal sin. But EVERYONE who rejects papal infallibility does so because they don’t believe the Church is right about it. So then, how can anyone who believes papal infallibility is wrong commit a mortal sin?

Then I would say the issue becomes one of the responsibility for a properly formed conscience and understanding. We can’t claim ignorance as a defense if we choose to remain ignorant. Every person who rejects some aspect of Christ’s Church (and that would be all of us) will have to account for that rejection. Was it truly invincible ignorance, or was it willful ignorance?

 

[jinc1019]

Without speaking for protestants, only for Lutheranism, this is essentially correct. Luther commented something to the effect that in some ways, sins that are not considered mortal can be the most dangerous, since they may not be taken seriously.
It is also true that Lutherans do understand the concept of mortal sin. For the unregenerate, all sins are mortal. For the regenerate, repeated and unrepented sins can be mortal.

Jon

So based on this then, aren’t all Lutherans going to hell according to the Catholic Church? Because they know what mortal sins are and their confessions are not to priests with valid apostolic succession? This is, of course, all from the perspective of the Catholic Church.

 

[owensjo]

Thanks for elaborating.

However, after reading CCC 846-848, I don’t see the point you are making here. According to those paragraphs, if you don’t “know” the Church was founded by Christ and is necessary for salvation, you can still be saved if you are not in the Catholic Church of Rome. But again, this is virtually all people who reject the Church…Virtually no one rejects the Church KNOWING it is the one true church.

You said earlier that if a person is baptized in the Catholic Church, then if they reject the teachings of the Church they are committing a mortal sin. But above, CCC 846-848 tell us that it is “knowledge” of the necessity of the Church for our salvation that is the measuring stick, not where you were baptized.

Why did you say that baptism was the measure?

It is not true that virtually no one rejects the Church knowing it is the one true church. Actually many people reject it for a variety of reasons; it is not easy to be a faithful Catholic and eschew contraception when we live in a contraceptive culture, for example. The church forbids remarriage of divorced Catholics but some people find this too much of a burden to bear. Confession is a stumbling block for some, and so on.

Baptism in the Catholic Church specifically is the measure because that is the way the Church defines a heretic.

 

[jinc1019]

Then I would say the issue becomes one of the responsibility for a properly formed conscience and understanding. We can’t claim ignorance as a defense if we choose to remain ignorant. Every person who rejects some aspect of Christ’s Church (and that would be all of us) will have to account for that rejection. Was it truly invincible ignorance, or was it willful ignorance?

Ok. I think I understand what you are saying then. Good point about ignorance, but this then seems to suggest that if a person truly studies an issue carefully regarding the Church and comes to a different conclusion, that person is not committing a mortal sin because they don’t have “full knowledge.” But, if a person doesn’t understand a Church teaching and chooses not to try to understand it and then disagrees with the Church, that can be a mortal sin. Is this right?

 

[jinc1019]

It is not true that virtually no one rejects the Church knowing it is the one true church. Actually many people reject it for a variety of reasons; it is not easy to be a faithful Catholic and eschew contraception when we live in a contraceptive culture, for example. The church forbids remarriage of divorced Catholics but some people find this too much of a burden to bear. Confession is a stumbling block for some, and so on.

Baptism in the Catholic Church specifically is the measure because that is the way the Church defines a heretic.

You are assuming then that in all of those cases, the people involved know the Church is the one true Church yet decide they are going to disobey it in order to remarry or use contraception or whatever. But would anyone who really believes they are going to hell for using a condom actually use one? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Secondly, I understand your point about baptism, but it conflicts with the CCC’s explanation of salvation outside of the Church because in the CCC, it says that “knowledge” is the standard, not baptism.

 

[JonNC]

So based on this then, aren’t all Lutherans going to hell according to the Catholic Church? Because they know what mortal sins are and their confessions are not to priests with valid apostolic succession? This is, of course, all from the perspective of the Catholic Church.

The CC Catechism seems to teach otherwise

**Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, **whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Additionally, Cardinal Ratzinger said about Lutheran Eucharist:

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.

In both cases, the term salvation is used. Salvation is not condemnation.

Jon

 

[jinc1019]

Hi Jon…

Is it just me, or does the Church’s position make absolutely no sense logically?

 

[owensjo]

You are assuming then that in all of those cases, the people involved know the Church is the one true Church yet decide they are going to disobey it in order to remarry or use contraception or whatever. But would anyone who really believes they are going to hell for using a condom actually use one? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Secondly, I understand your point about baptism, but it conflicts with the CCC’s explanation of salvation outside of the Church because in the CCC, it says that “knowledge” is the standard, not baptism.

The key here is do they really believe they are going to hell. Here we are delving into the realm of the “cafeteria Catholics” who believe they have a right to pick and choose which tenets of the faith they are going to follow, according to their own conscience. They have a misunderstanding of what the Church teaches when it encourages people to follow their own conscience. It is actually an “informed conscience” the Church is talking about, i.e. one in conformity with the teachings of the Church. There is an element of the terrible catechesis many Catholics have had over the past 40 years or so, and this is where ignorance of the faith comes into play. I grew up with the Baltimore Catechism (the one we used before the newer catechism came out) and it was more explicit about the sin of heresy being applied to baptized Catholics (you have to be baptized to be a Catholic) who refuse to accept one or more teachings of the Catholic Church. The bottom line, I think, is that an absence of knowledge is different from a refusal fully knowing the consequences. If you think about it, why would anyone commit a mortal sin knowing damnation would be the result unless they repent. Yet more people do it then don’t.

 

[jinc1019]

I appreciate the comment Owen…but the way it is currently being described, is incredibly confusing, ambiguous, and makes absolutely no sense. I am not saying it is your fault, I am saying it is the sources the Catholic Church provides on this issue. They constantly contradict themselves. In one case (Lumen Gentium), they say Protestants can be saved…Then they say you can’t go to heaven if you haven’t confessed a mortal sin. But Protestants rarely have their mortal sins forgiven by a priest. So the Catholic Church says they can be forgiven without a priest if they truly are sorry. But then why do Catholics need to confess their sins to a priest? Then they say heretics can only be baptized Catholics…but if you are a baptized Baptist, that doesn’t count…But at the same time, they say that they recognize the baptisms of Protestants.

This is just ridiculous.

 

[aemcpa]

So based on this then, aren’t all Lutherans going to hell according to the Catholic Church? Because they know what mortal sins are and their confessions are not to priests with valid apostolic succession? This is, of course, all from the perspective of the Catholic Church.

One goes to hell for not REPENTING of a mortal sin. Canon law allows for the absolution of mortal sin by means of an act of perfect contrition in the case of a person who is impeded from making a sacramental confession. One could extend this logically to the case of a person who is sincerely unaware of the existence of or need for sacramental confession, and thus the apparent contradiction is removed.

 

[owensjo]

I appreciate the comment Owen…but the way it is currently being described, is incredibly confusing, ambiguous, and makes absolutely no sense. I am not saying it is your fault, I am saying it is the sources the Catholic Church provides on this issue. They constantly contradict themselves. In one case (Lumen Gentium), they say Protestants can be saved…Then they say you can’t go to heaven if you haven’t confessed a mortal sin. But Protestants rarely have their mortal sins forgiven by a priest. So the Catholic Church says they can be forgiven without a priest if they truly are sorry. But then why do Catholics need to confess their sins to a priest? Then they say heretics can only be baptized Catholics…but if you are a baptized Baptist, that doesn’t count…But at the same time, they say that they recognize the baptisms of Protestants.

This is just ridiculous.

You’ll only go to hell because of unconfessed mortal sin if you believe confession is the only way to obtain forgiveness and get back into a state of grace, which is why Catholics need to confess their sins to a priest while Protestants, who believe they only need to confess to God, do not. There is such a thing as “invincible ignorance” as well, which is why the term “heretic” does not apply to a Baptist who was raised with Protestant theology and doesn’t know and/or believe anything else. The reason the Church recognizes Protestant baptism is because it believes the purpose of the sacrament is to wash away the stain of original sin and infuse the soul with sanctifying grace, which happens whether you subscribe to Catholic theology or not.

 

[Mike_SoCal]

Non Catholics are not relying on the salvation teaching of the Catholic Church for their salvation. The word Protestant mean: “Not in agreement”.

Evangelicals rely on the New Testament teachings, such as, Rom 10:9, Mark 16:15,16, Rom 10:13, John 3:3, and John 3:16.

Some Protestant churches rely on the New Testament teaching literally or their own interpretations.

If there is ever to be a consensus of Christian thought on Salvation we should look to the Gospel.

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

[porthos11]

I only quickly skimmed the thread but it seems that the OP’s question was that how could Protestants be forgiven of mortal sin (which they can indeed commit), but the thread somehow skewed into membership in the Church as necessary for salvation (or the question of EENS).

I’ll stick to the OP’s question on how Protestants can be saved with mortal sin on their souls. The answer is the same for them as for everyone. They can’t.

So how can they be forgiven? As with everyone: ordinarily, by confession and absolution from a priest, so this normally means, entering the Church and her jurisdiction. Barring that, through an act of perfect contrition, to the best of their ability and trusting in God’s mercy.

That said, the question raises a very valid point. The Church affirms that Protestants and even non-Christians can be saved, etc. etc. But clearly without Confession and the Eucharist (which the Lord has clearly stated as being necessary to eternal life), it has to be very, very difficult. We do not despair for the salvation of those outside the visible confines of the Church but God’s Word makes it clear that our evangelization efforts cannot stop, because while their salvation is not impossible, it has got to be very difficult indeed.

One can hope though that the Lord’s principle of “to whom much is given, much is expected” allows non-Catholics some leeway for as long as they remain in good faith and live a virtuous life to the best of their knowledge. We Catholics have the fullness of faith and sacrament, and are therefore held to a higher standard and obligation.

 

[JonNC]

Non Catholics are not relying on the salvation teaching of the Catholic Church for their salvation. The word Protestant mean: “Not in agreement”.

Evangelicals rely on the New Testament teachings, such as, Rom 10:9, Mark 16:15,16, Rom 10:13, John 3:3, and John 3:16.

Some Protestant churches rely on the New Testament teaching literally or their own interpretations.

If there is ever to be a consensus of Christian thought on Salvation we should look to the Gospel.

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

I think the OP made it clear that he was speaking from a Catholic POV.

Jon

 

[Third_Day]

I appreciate the comment Owen…but the way it is currently being described, is incredibly confusing, ambiguous, and makes absolutely no sense…

This is just ridiculous.

I am right there with you because if we interpret the text as written it means that basically only a well-informed Catholic would meet all the qualification for hell under all the restrictions. Everyone else would go scott free.

However, Protestants believe that ALL sin sends one to hell therefore I believe that they do have full knowledge. They know that adultery is forbidden in the Ten Commandments. They know that sex outside of marriage is a sin and let’s not forget that they believe that ALL sin sends one to hell. They do have full knowledge
They have been deceived into believing that once they are saved they are saved but that doesn’t reduce culpability. God has written on their hearts what is right and wrong so they have little excuse. They also have to make a perfect confession which means they must have sorrow that they have offended God and NOT just the fear of hell

The Catechism also states:
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience

“Invincible” and “not responsible” is, in my opinion, not the case for the majority. "Not"responsible and “invincible” are strong words. It means an ignorance that cannot be penetrated when presented with the truth. I don’t see where Protestants are invincibly ignorant when it comes to what sin is. I believe they are culpable and therefore we must evangelize them.

Continue