Protestants, Mortal Sins, Salvation!

  • Thread starter Thread starter jinc1019
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Continue
I was sent a copy of this and I cannot verify this but I was told it is from the Baltimore Catechism of 1891
  1. Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?
    A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved. Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven…
    In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.
    Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never—even in the past—had the slightest doubt of that fact—what will become of him?
    If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, **for the Protestant does not go to confession; **and if he does, his minister—not being a true priest—has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition—that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic—with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts—might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.
    If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.
    I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.
    I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.
    I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church.
 
jinc1019 said:
Hi Jon…

Is it just me, or does the Church’s position make absolutely no sense logically?
Click to expand...
No, I think the Catholic Church is responding to a couple of factors:
  1. an understanding that western non-Catholics are often in communions to which they were born, as were their parents, for generations perhaps.
  2. while we have scripture (and Tradition), God makes the determination who is and isn’t saved, even perhaps non-Christians.
Jon
 
aemcpa said:
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.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the response. The logical conclusion of your statement is that all people who do NOT believe confession with a priest is necessary don’t need to confess their mortal sins if they truly are sorry and ask God for forgiveness privately (or whatever the requirements for perfect contrition are). This group could and often does include Catholics, who don’t agree with the Church’s position on confession.

Yet, according to other statements made here and in Catholic statements, if a Catholic who is baptized disagrees with the Church’s teaching, he or she should be excommunicated and is in a state of mortal sin!

So what are you saying? That only non-Catholics can receive forgiveness for their sins by an act of perfect contrition? If a Catholic doesn’t believe in confession, he is automatically excommunicated but a Protestant is saved?
 
owensjo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ok Owensjo, So what about Catholics who DO NOT believe confession is necessary? Or don’t believe in some other required Church teaching? What happens if they don’t confess that sin?
 
porthos11 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Porthos…Thank you for answering the question directly! You targeted the issue I was looking to have answered from the Catholic perspective.

I am assuming that your argument would be extended out to those Catholics who reject certain Church teachings and don’t confess those sins because the don’t believe the Church has it right? It seems like that principle is hidden beneath the surface of your statements.
 
JonNC said:
No, I think the Catholic Church is responding to a couple of factors:
  1. an understanding that western non-Catholics are often in communions to which they were born, as were their parents, for generations perhaps.
  2. while we have scripture (and Tradition), God makes the determination who is and isn’t saved, even perhaps non-Christians.
Jon
Click to expand...
It has to take the Lutheran to make Catholic sense for the Catholics.

God bless you for your integrity Jon.
 
Third_Day said:
Continue
I was sent a copy of this and I cannot verify this but I was told it is from the Baltimore Catechism of 1891
  1. Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?
    A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved. Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven…
    In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.
    Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never—even in the past—had the slightest doubt of that fact—what will become of him?
    If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, **for the Protestant does not go to confession; **and if he does, his minister—not being a true priest—has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition—that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic—with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts—might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.
    If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.
    I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.
    I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.
    I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Both of your posts were excellent…and address the points perfectly. I am not sure this is 100% valid, as you stated, but if it is, then I think it better presents, or at least more clearly presents, the Catholic position than more modern Vatican II positions. It seems clear that in an effort to be more understanding and tolerant of other Christian denominations during Vatican II, the Catholic position on being saved outside of the Church or when not in agreement with Church teaching is far less clear.

Not that I am an advocate of such a position, I am not…But still…the Church has an obligation to be CLEAR on this subject and lately, it doesn’t seem that they have been.
 
jinc1019 said:
Porthos…Thank you for answering the question directly! You targeted the issue I was looking to have answered from the Catholic perspective.

I am assuming that your argument would be extended out to those Catholics who reject certain Church teachings and don’t confess those sins because the don’t believe the Church has it right? It seems like that principle is hidden beneath the surface of your statements.
Click to expand...
To a degree yes, but those who are Catholic or profess to be Catholic have the grave obligation to first of all assent to the teachings of the Church, then seek to understand if they wish. If one for example is canonically Catholic (that is, baptized into the Catholic Church and having been clearly received into it), then one is under the Church’s authority and is held to that higher standard. This is why the Church, which has the power to bind and loose. If one is a Catholic, and he doesn’t understand confession or agree with it, he is morally obligated to assent to it first, that is, to accept that it is true even if one does not fully understand it yet. He should also seek to study and understand why the Church teaches as she does, all the while keeping in mind, “The Church is right, and I want to find out why” rather than “Is the Church right? Let me find out” or even worse “The Church is wrong, and I’ll prove it” (although God has made powerful converts who held this last opinion).

For non-Catholics, their being born outside of the Church excuses them from this obligation (simply because in most cases, their ignorance is invincible), but even then, the Church teaches that as soon as they realize that the Catholic Church is the same one Christ founded, even if they don’t yet fully understand its doctrines, the obligation to enter the Church begins to bind.
 
JonNC said:
No, I think the Catholic Church is responding to a couple of factors:
  1. an understanding that western non-Catholics are often in communions to which they were born, as were their parents, for generations perhaps.
  2. while we have scripture (and Tradition), God makes the determination who is and isn’t saved, even perhaps non-Christians.
Jon
Click to expand...
Jon, You may very well be correct.

However, the fact remains that the official Catholic position appears to be, since VATICAN II, that a non-Catholic who truly and sincerely does not believe in any particular teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, is not condemned to hell when he dies because he didn’t have “full knowledge” that sin was a sin at all. For instance, if a Baptist believes the Pope is NOT infallible, he is not considered to have committed a mortal sin, because he didn’t have “full knowledge” that the teaching was correct…In other words, he didn’t believe it.

However, a person who was baptized in the Catholic Church, even if he never attended a single Mass in his whole life and has been Baptist since he could remember, is officially considered a heretic by the Catholic Church, is in a state of mortal sin, and will die with that mortal sin, and thus go to hell, because he will never believe the Pope is infallible.

And the only difference between the two of them is…one was baptized in the Catholic Church and the other was not.

That is the culmination of the official positions post-Vatican II put forward by the Catholic Church.
 
UNLESS…the official position of the Catholic Church is that Catholics, all those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church, are also not considered to have committed a mortal sin when they truly and sincerely do not believe a teaching of the Catholic Church after having studied it deeply. But based on what I have seen and presented here, it seems that is not the case.
 
porthos11 said:
To a degree yes, but those who are Catholic or profess to be Catholic have the grave obligation to first of all assent to the teachings of the Church, then seek to understand if they wish. If one for example is canonically Catholic (that is, baptized into the Catholic Church and having been clearly received into it), then one is under the Church’s authority and is held to that higher standard. This is why the Church, which has the power to bind and loose. If one is a Catholic, and he doesn’t understand confession or agree with it, he is morally obligated to assent to it first, that is, to accept that it is true even if one does not fully understand it yet. He should also seek to study and understand why the Church teaches as she does, all the while keeping in mind, “The Church is right, and I want to find out why” rather than “Is the Church right? Let me find out” or even worse “The Church is wrong, and I’ll prove it” (although God has made powerful converts who held this last opinion).

For non-Catholics, their being born outside of the Church excuses them from this obligation (simply because in most cases, their ignorance is invincible), but even then, the Church teaches that as soon as they realize that the Catholic Church is the same one Christ founded, even if they don’t yet fully understand its doctrines, the obligation to enter the Church begins to bind.
Click to expand...
Thank you for clearing this up and elaborating on this more. I believe you have this right. I suppose, since we didn’t cite any Church sources, this could be wrong…but it makes sense given all of the official Church teachings I have read.
 
jinc1019 said:
Both of your posts were excellent…and address the points perfectly. I am not sure this is 100% valid, as you stated, but if it is, then I think it better presents, or at least more clearly presents, the Catholic position than more modern Vatican II positions. It seems clear that in an effort to be more understanding and tolerant of other Christian denominations during Vatican II, the Catholic position on being saved outside of the Church or when not in agreement with Church teaching is far less clear.

Not that I am an advocate of such a position, I am not…But still…the Church has an obligation to be CLEAR on this subject and lately, it doesn’t seem that they have been.
Click to expand...
It’s not about the doctrines themselves; it’s about what the Church is. The Church claims to be the same one founded by Christ and its claims are lofty and to those of no faith, arrogant. The Church claims for itself an authority and power no one else does, not even the most powerful state or any other religion on earth. It claims to have infallible, binding authority from God himself. It claims its leader holds the place of God Almighty. It purports to change mere bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Almighty God himself, at the words of a man. It claims to be able to forgive sins in the name of God.

This makes the Catholic Church only one of two things: divine or diabolical. There is no middle ground. If one accepts that the Church is worth believing, then one must accept what she claims about herself. If the Catholic Church’s claims about herself are not true, she should be rejected as coming from the devil himself. The Catholic Church cannot be accepted as “just another Christian denomination”. And if her origins are true, then she demands and deserves her members’ assent, if not their full understanding.

I for one, having been through my own crisis of faith years ago (in this case, on the Eucharist) found that I could not argue against Scripture and the long-held beliefs of the earliest Christians. I had to accept the Eucharist as true. And with that, I had to accept the same Church that made that Eucharist possible, including those difficult doctrines I first had to accept before understanding because to reject the Church while accepting the Eucharist meant that I believed that it was a diabolical Church that brought the Eucharist to us, which of course made no sense.
 
jinc1019 said:
Thank you for clearing this up and elaborating on this more. I believe you have this right. I suppose, since we didn’t cite any Church sources, this could be wrong…but it makes sense given all of the official Church teachings I have read.
Click to expand...
It’s pretty much based on the current Catechism’s section on the obligation to enter the Church.
 
porthos11 said:
To a degree yes, but those who are Catholic or profess to be Catholic have the grave obligation to first of all assent to the teachings of the Church, then seek to understand if they wish. If one for example is canonically Catholic (that is, baptized into the Catholic Church and having been clearly received into it), then one is under the Church’s authority and is held to that higher standard. This is why the Church, which has the power to bind and loose. If one is a Catholic, and he doesn’t understand confession or agree with it, he is morally obligated to assent to it first, that is, to accept that it is true even if one does not fully understand it yet. He should also seek to study and understand why the Church teaches as she does, all the while keeping in mind, “The Church is right, and I want to find out why” rather than “Is the Church right? Let me find out” or even worse “The Church is wrong, and I’ll prove it” (although God has made powerful converts who held this last opinion).

For non-Catholics, their being born outside of the Church excuses them from this obligation (simply because in most cases, their ignorance is invincible), but even then, the Church teaches that as soon as they realize that the Catholic Church is the same one Christ founded, even if they don’t yet fully understand its doctrines, the obligation to enter the Church begins to bind.
Click to expand...
However, it seems strange to me that the Church would hold those who have simply been baptized into the Catholic Church as an infant to the same standard as someone who came to the Church later on in life when he actually understood the teachings. A person who was baptized in the Church but found the Church to be wrong as a teenager for instance, is at a greater risk than a person who grew up Baptist. They may both have the same level of knowledge about the Catholic Church, the same amount of experience, etc…but the Church says the one who was baptized in the Church is held to the higher standard
 
porthos11 said:
It’s not about the doctrines themselves; it’s about what the Church is. The Church claims to be the same one founded by Christ and its claims are lofty and to those of no faith, arrogant. The Church claims for itself an authority and power no one else does, not even the most powerful state or any other religion on earth. It claims to have infallible, binding authority from God himself. It claims its leader holds the place of God Almighty. It purports to change mere bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Almighty God himself, at the words of a man. It claims to be able to forgive sins in the name of God.

This makes the Catholic Church only one of two things: divine or diabolical. There is no middle ground. If one accepts that the Church is worth believing, then one must accept what she claims about herself. If one cannot accept the Catholic Church’s claims about herself, she should be rejected as coming from the devil himself. The Catholic Church cannot be accepted as “just another Christian denomination”. And if her origins are true, then she demands and deserves her members’ assent, if not their full understanding.

I for one, having been through my own crisis of faith years ago (in this case, on the Eucharist) found that I could not argue against Scripture and the long-held beliefs of the earliest Christians. I had to accept the Eucharist as true. And with that, I had to accept the same Church that made that Eucharist possible, including those difficult doctrines I first had to accept before understanding because to reject the Church while accepting the Eucharist meant that I believed that it was a diabolical Church that brought the Eucharist to us, which of course made no sense.
Click to expand...
But again, isn’t this different than a person who was baptized Catholic but was never actually a practicing Catholic? And yet, the standard for them is still just as high.
 
jinc1019 said:
But again, isn’t this different than a person who was baptized Catholic but was never actually a practicing Catholic? And yet, the standard for them is still just as high.
Click to expand...
Again, it depends on how invincible the ignorance is. If he’s never been raised Catholic despite being baptized one, then he may not be aware of his obligations and I’m sure God accounts for that. However, his parents might have to answer to God for their failure to raise him (and of course, their own level of ignorance will be accounted for as well).
 
jinc1019 said:
However, it seems strange to me that the Church would hold those who have simply been baptized into the Catholic Church as an infant to the same standard as someone who came to the Church later on in life when he actually understood the teachings. A person who was baptized in the Church but found the Church to be wrong as a teenager for instance, is at a greater risk than a person who grew up Baptist. They may both have the same level of knowledge about the Catholic Church, the same amount of experience, etc…but the Church says the one who was baptized in the Church is held to the higher standard
Click to expand...
Yes, because being Catholic, he should have at least tried to find out first what he was leaving. Then again, there’s that thorn called invincible ignorance. Each case is unique, he may not have been aware of his obligation to find out first what he was leaving, which case, he’s pretty much in the same boat (and culpability) as the Baptist.

But he could also have been aware, as a Catholic, that he was obligated to strengthen his faith and stay away from dangerous materials like Protestant tracts (this is supposed to be taught at an early age), and yet he did anyway and therefore fell into doubt. He will have to answer for that. The Baptist in your example would never have been made aware of this because of the circumstances he was born into.

Given, however the sorry state of catechesis these days, who knows what “cradle” Catholics know over “cradle” Protestants.
 
jinc1019 said:
However, it seems strange to me that the Church would hold those who have simply been baptized into the Catholic Church as an infant to the same standard as someone who came to the Church later on in life when he actually understood the teachings. A person who was baptized in the Church but found the Church to be wrong as a teenager for instance, is at a greater risk than a person who grew up Baptist. They may both have the same level of knowledge about the Catholic Church, the same amount of experience, etc…but the Church says the one who was baptized in the Church is held to the higher standard
Click to expand...
BTW, I slightly edited the post you quoted above this one; I didn’t like the way I originally worded my sentence about the Church being rejected as from the devil, but you quoted it in its unedited form, so my edit is a retraction of that particular sentence still in your quote.
 
Pathos…

Excellent responses. You have definitely cleared this up from the Catholic position…Except for one last scenario…

What about the Catholic who, on any particular topic, but let’s contraception…Studies the scriptures, studies the Catholic position, has always followed everything the Church has taught for his whole life, and comes to the honest and true belief that the Catholic Church is wrong. Again, it could be about anything. Unlike in the last example, this Catholic has always been engaged in the Church and has been devout. If he uses contraception, believing completely it is NOT a sin, but knowing the Catholic Church does think it is a mortal sin, will he receive the mark of a mortal sin on his soul according to the Catholic Church?

What I am trying to get at is…Does a sincere belief held by an informed Catholic (we have already examined this for Protestants and uninformed Catholics) allow the Catholic to escape mortal sin because he doesn’t have “full knowledge?” Or is “full knowledge” for the devout Catholic simply knowing the Church’s position, even if he doesn’t believe it?

I know we have sort of addressed this indirectly already, but just to be sure I get this straight, it would be great if you could address this last issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top