Really having issues with this...do Protestants go to hell..Catholic view on this?

[guanophore]

Are jmacrae, forum elder, 36,084 posts and guanophore forum elder, 29,074 posts
saying the same thing in different ways;
or are they contradicting each other?

No, jmcrae and I are Catholic - Baptized and Confirmed. We have been well catechized in the faith. In fact, I think that jmcrae teaches catechism.

Having been brought up in the One Faith, Catholics have a greater moral obligation to obedience in that faith. To those whom much is given, much will be required.

 

[jmcrae]

No, jmcrae and I are Catholic - Baptized and Confirmed. We have been well catechized in the faith. In fact, I think that jmcrae teaches catechism.

Having been brought up in the One Faith, Catholics have a greater moral obligation to obedience in that faith. To those whom much is given, much will be required.

Precisely.

 

[Abu]

Well, with* Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus* (literally, “outside the Church, there is no salvation”), some people have wished to understand this saying in the most literal sense: that is, that the person who is not formally a practicing Catholic cannot be saved. The Church has condemned such an interpretation (cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 3870-3873).

Vatican II did NOT teach that “it doesn’t matter”. Vatican II, Lumen Gentium:
16. “Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.”

This is not to say that the maxim is false. Properly understood, it is quite true. The Latin word extra can mean either “without” or “outside.” **The correct interpretation and sense of the maxim is that we cannot be saved without the Church. It is through the Church, which carries on and makes present the salvific work of Jesus Christ in the world, that all who are saved reach heaven (even if it is perhaps only there that they realize it). Those who, through no fault of their own, have never known Christ or his Church can still be saved. But their salvation, too, is the effect of Jesus working through his Church. In a positive sense, this theological principle “means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body” (CCC 846). **[My emphasis]
Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, OSV].

 

[steve_b]

No, jmcrae and I are Catholic - Baptized and Confirmed. We have been well catechized in the faith. In fact, I think that jmcrae teaches catechism.

Having been brought up in the One Faith, Catholics have a greater moral obligation to obedience in that faith. To those whom much is given, much will be required.

That can be said for all people who have been baptized … as well.

They have been given a very powerful sacrament.

 

[guanophore]

That can be said for all people who have been baptized … as well.

They have been given a very powerful sacrament.

Yes, of course, but for those who have been erroneously informed that there is no such thing as the Real Presence, they cannot be expected to understand that they will have no life in them.

 

[clem456]

People usually disagree with me, so I’m used to it.

We may think a Protestant is worthy of Heaven, but God may very well know otherwise since only He can see the true state of their soul.

The very same applies to those who are explicitly members of the Catholic Church now. In fact, it is suggested that for those who are given much, more is expected.
Consider that it is possible it might more difficult for Catholics to be “worthy”, despite the fullness of faith that is offered us in the Church.
As for me, I am going to assume that Christ expects more from me, so I am not at the dock watching the boat pull away.

I believe it is rare for an adult Protestant to go to Heaven.

As long as we are talking what we as individuals think…I do not believe it is rare.
More importantly, I don’t concern myself with something that is not my business and over which I have no control whatsoever.
In the end, what you and I surmise about the population of heaven means nothing.
We are called to simply spread the Gospel in hope of salvation.

It is quite difficult to be inculpably ignorant and innocent of all mortal sin as a Protestant, especially when they lack the Sacraments. It happens, but it isn’t common.

I would not presume on the relative ease or difficulty of attaining life for any person. The sacraments are given to us as helps and sources of saving grace, but there are also legions of Catholics who give them superstitious lip service and never participate in the grace they offer.

 

[clem456]

The Church disagrees with you.

If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression “the Mystical Body of Christ” (Mystici Corporis 13)

Clearly he’s emphasizing the Church’s visible organization in the world; and since this is the part of the Church we are in, there is nothing wrong with identifying it in that manner.

The origination of the term “Roman Catholic Church” is somewhat interesting.
I don’t particularly care for it. It was not always a congenial term. I personally am part of the Latin Catholic Church. Someone correct me if I state this incorrectly.

Catholic say it all, nothing more is really needed.
“One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic…”

 

[steve_b]

Yes, of course, but for those who have been erroneously informed that there is no such thing as the Real Presence, they cannot be expected to understand that they will have no life in them.

And since baptism is the powerful sacrament that it is, with the Holy Spirit working in us through baptism, it predisposes the baptized to hearing and responding favorably to, the full truth when instructed and/or corrected in a particular understanding of faith … true?

As a result, an unbaptized person for example, can’t be called a heretic

The CCC states
2089"*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

Baptism therefore, is the condition. And that goes for ALL baptized… NOT just Catholics but non Catholic as well.

Therefore, when Paul says the following to Titus, he’s talking about an already baptized person

Titus 3:10
“As for a man who is factious ( αἱρετικὸν heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

Baptism is a powerful sacrament. We can show Protestants, who for the most part don’t recognize it as a sacrament, that besides bestowing grace and the HS on us, It therefore predisposes us to ALL the truth not just some of it, and without a lot of push back to the truth either. After all, the HS we receive in baptism, leads us into all truth. If one fights this grace given them in and through baptism, they fight against the HS as well.

That’s why Catholics should always be ready to instruct, correct, and defend the faith to any and everyone .

 

[clem456]

And since baptism is the powerful sacrament that it is, with the Holy Spirit working in us through baptism, it predisposes the baptized to hearing and responding favorably to, the full truth when instructed and/or corrected in a particular understanding of faith … true?

As a result, an unbaptized person for example, can’t be called a heretic

The CCC states
2089"*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

Baptism therefore, is the condition. And that goes for ALL baptized… NOT just Catholics but non Catholic as well.

Therefore, when Paul says the following to Titus, he’s talking about an already baptized person

Titus 3:10
“As for a man who is factious ( αἱρετικὸ****ν heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

Baptism is a powerful sacrament. We can show Protestants, who for the most part don’t recognize it as a sacrament, that besides bestowing grace and the HS on us, It therefore predisposes us to ALL the truth not just some of it, and without a lot of push back to the truth either. After all, the HS we receive in baptism, leads us into all truth. If one fights this grace given them in and through baptism, they fight against the HS as well.

That’s why Catholics should always be ready to instruct, correct, and defend the faith to any and everyone .

We can talk about heresy, which is a subject matter, and we can talk about heretics.
Modern day Protestants are not properly called heretics. (and maybe you aren’t saying that, I’m not sure, but it’s important because the word is abused incorrectly and is not part of instructing in the faith.)

 

[steve_b]

We can talk about heresy, which is a subject matter, and we can talk about heretics.
Modern day Protestants are not properly called heretics. (and maybe you aren’t saying that, I’m not sure, but it’s important because the word is abused incorrectly and is not part of instructing in the faith.)

As I pointed out

The CCC states
2089"*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

Baptism therefore, is the condition. And that goes for ALL baptized… NOT just Catholics but non Catholic as well.

therefore if a Protestant is validly baptized, and has been shown the truth, but denies it, or obstinately doubts it, they qualify as a heretic, just as much as a Catholic would qualify.

 

[clem456]

As I pointed out

therefore if a Protestant is validly baptized, and has been shown the truth, but denies it, or obstinately doubts it, they qualify as a heretic, just as much as a Catholic would qualify.

Do you know the “process” for being deemed a heretic? The CCC talks about what heresy is.
Where is it stipulated how one can be a heretic?
Is it by the statements of individuals who interpret the CCC?

Observing what qualifies as heresy is a different matter from some being a heretic.

 

[steve_b]

Do you know the “process” for being deemed a heretic? The CCC talks about what heresy is.
Where is it stipulated how one can be a heretic?
Is it by the statements of individuals who interpret the CCC?
Observing what qualifies as heresy is a different matter from some being a heretic.

I gave the “process”

post baptism + knowledge of truth + denial or persistent doubt of said truth = requisites for heresy / heretic

Have you read The Great Heresies**
**
Protestantism is listed. Which means baptized Protestants (WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE KNOWLEDGE of the TRUTH and Deny it or persistently doubt it) qualify as heretics.

that’s why Paul taught

Titus 3:10
“As for a man who is factious ( αἱρετικὸ****ν heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

There’s no mystery here, any more than there is mystery to determining committing mortal sin…

Here’s the real problem. Relativism

Then, Pope Benedict XVI said, relativism is the biggest problem of our day.

 

[clem456]

I gave the “process”

post baptism + knowledge of truth + denial or persistent doubt of said truth = requisites for heresy / heretic

Have you read The Great Heresies**
**
Protestantism is listed. Which means baptized Protestants (WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE KNOWLEDGE of the TRUTH and Deny it or persistently doubt it) qualify as heretics.

that’s why Paul taught

Titus 3:10
“As for a man who is factious ( αἱρετικὸ****ν heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

There’s no mystery here, any more than there is mystery to determining committing mortal sin…

Here’s the real problem. Relativism

Then, Pope Benedict XVI said, relativism is the biggest problem of our day.

I know what relativism is.

You gave the definition of heresy which is fine. You did not go into what is required for a person to be considered “a heretic”. Where would you find such information? If you were making the official determination, where would you turn?
It’s a point to be addressed, because the term is abused incorrectly and carries a charge with it that is inappropriate and counterproductive.
I’ll simply repeat my question, which you stepped around:

Originally Posted by clem456 View Post
Do you know the “process” for being deemed a heretic? The CCC talks about what heresy is.
Where is it stipulated how one can be a heretic?
Is it by the statements of individuals who interpret the CCC?
Observing what qualifies as heresy is a different matter from some being a heretic.

 

[steve_b]

I know what relativism is.

You gave the definition of heresy which is fine. You did not go into what is required for a person to be considered “a heretic”.

Yes I did.

2089"*Heresy *is the obstinatepost-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

Therefore

1. • post baptism ( a person must be baptized)
   • • knowledge of truth (they’ve been given knowledge of the truth )
   • • they deny or have persistent doubt of that truth
   • THEN that = requisites for heresy / heretic is there
   Therefore they are a heretic
   
   BTW,[** 1791** (Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 1791) , one’s ignorance isn’t always innocent
   c:
   

   Where would you find such information?
   If you were making the official determination, where would you turn?

   The
   • CCC scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
   • Catholic Encyclopedia newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm
   • scripture, (I quoted Paul)
     [Titus 3:10 (Titus 3:10 RSVCE - As for a man who is factious, after - Bible Gateway)
     “As for a man who is factious ( [α (http://bibleapps.com/greek/141.htm)ἱρετικὸ****ν heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”
   Given Paul’s direction, it’s presumed one understand heresy and the person in it. Using the CCC definition for Paul’s direction
   
   1. • the factious man ( [α (http://bibleapps.com/greek/141.htm)ἱρετικὸ****ν heretic ) that’s the Greek word for that word. The link is operational.
      • admonishing means to correct, i.e. educate one who is in error.
      • After 2 attempts, and no change, Paul would consider that person as persistent in their error .
      • After that leave them.
      c:
      

      It’s a point to be addressed, because the term is abused incorrectly and carries a charge with it that is inappropriate and counter productive.

      If one knows the requisites, and one meets those requisites, then the label fits. THEN one won’t be abusing the term, or using it inappropriately.
      c:
      

      I’ll simply repeat my question, which you stepped around:

      I answered your question.

 

[clem456]

Yes I did.

2089"*Heresy *is the obstinatepost-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

Therefore

1. • post baptism ( a person must be baptized)
   • • knowledge of truth (they’ve been given knowledge of the truth )
   • • they deny or have persistent doubt of that truth
   • THEN that = requisites for heresy / heretic is there
   Therefore they are a heretic
   
   BTW,[** 1791** (Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 1791) , one’s ignorance isn’t always innocent
   
   The
   • CCC scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
   • Catholic Encyclopedia newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm
   • scripture, (I quoted Paul)
   If one knows the requisites, and one meets those requisites, then the label fits. THEN one won’t be abusing the term, or using it inappropriately.
   
   I answered your question.

1. 
   No, you did not.
   Here is a well rounded response to the issue from another thread:
   forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10252408&postcount=254

 

[PRmerger]

therefore if a Protestant is validly baptized, and has been shown the truth, but denies it, or obstinately doubts it, they qualify as a heretic, just as much as a Catholic would qualify.

No.

One must be a Catholic in order to be a heretic.

And I would be very, very careful about calling someone a heretic without the authority of the CC to back you up.

One should tremble at the thought of accusing someone of being a heretic, when the Church has not done so.

The idea that one could be wrong about claiming someone is a heretic, well, that should make one very, very wary.

Rather, when the Church discerns someone to be a heretic, then I do so as well.

When the Church has remained silent on a particular person, best to remain silent as well.

 

[PRmerger]

No, you did not.
Here is a well rounded response to the issue from another thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10252408&postcount=254

You are correct, clem, and steveb has been asserting, ironically, in his zeal to declare some folks heretics, some ideas which are NOT consonant with Catholicism.

The Catechism is very, very clear about what we are to think about Protestantism today:

“However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/818.htm

 

[Gorgias]

steve b:

therefore if a Protestant is validly baptized, and has been shown the truth, but denies it, or obstinately doubts it, they qualify as a heretic, just as much as a Catholic would qualify.

No.

One must be a Catholic in order to be a heretic.

Indeed. Heresy is defined in canon law; it applies to Catholics.

 

[karennascargo3]

I understand what the catechism says and I mean no disrespect nor questioning the catechism or any other doctrine of the church — however, shouldn’t our biggest authority on questions such as this be what the Bible itself says?

According to scripture, the only per-requisites to get into Heaven is:
1.Faith and belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God; our Savior.
2. Confession of that faith.
3. Baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
4. Live a lives in a manner pleasing to God with a heart of love for our fellow mankind.
5. Realize that God, and only God, makes the decision who goes where? Notice, it’s not the catechism, not our opinions, or anything else. But God who is the only one who sees the heart and knows that person’s relationship with Him at the time of his death. (ie: Judge not lest you be judged)!

Even in matters of sin, our own Catholic faith teaches that our sins are forgiven by God through our confessions and repentance to Christ. We’re already forgiven before the priest absolves us. It’s just extra assurance and for our own good that we go to our priest; but the forgiving is already done. Furthermore, scripture tells us that at the point of forgiveness, God remembers our sins no more.

So if a Protestant has done 1-5 plus repented and earnestly sought forgiveness, he is no longer in sin. It is only sin that separates us from God. Therefore, the Protestant would “qualify” for heaven (according to scripture). It would then be up to God who sees if his heart was right when he did those things and judge him accordingly.

But either way, we can argue the point until the end of time; but it’s still up to God and God could choose to let Hitler into heaven if He wanted to. I doubt He would, but God can do whatever He wants with what He sees in someone’s heart.

Therefore, there is hope for everyone. It isn’t an excuse to avoid the Catholic faith, but in matters where we have loved ones who waiver, there is hope and to destroy that hope for someone who’s heart is breaking in worry that they will see their non-Catholic loved ones in heaven, is not loving. It also would be untruthful to tell them their loved ones won’t be there because they are not Catholic. We should tell them to work toward having the assurance they will be there by leading them to the Church, but we shouldn’t be telling them there’s not much hope for them if they are not Catholic.

 

[PRmerger]

I understand what the catechism says and I mean no disrespect nor questioning the catechism or any other doctrine of the church — however, shouldn’t our biggest authority on questions such as this be what the Bible itself says?

According to scripture, the only per-requisites to get into Heaven is:
1.Faith and belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God; our Savior.
2. Confession of that faith.
3. Baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
4. Live a lives in a manner pleasing to God with a heart of love for our fellow mankind.
5. Realize that God, and only God, makes the decision who goes where? Notice, it’s not the catechism, not our opinions, or anything else. But God who is the only one who sees the heart and knows that person’s relationship with Him at the time of his death. (ie: Judge not lest you be judged)!

What about eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood?

Doesn’t the Bible state that this is a “pre-requisite” to getting into heaven?