Salvation for Protestants?

[twf]

JKirkLVNV: I do not know what sort of site it is, but I looked at it and I’m pretty sure it is written by a loyal son of the Church. If you go down, the author quotes both Pope John Paul I and the current Holy Father. The article, after showing all of these hardline quotes, explains that there is still that possibility of salvation outside the visible Church. I think that many Catholics are much too liberal in this. It is our responsibility to evangelize Protestants as well…because we do not know that any particular Protestant shall be saved. We are saved by Christ’s grace—yes…but I do not think as many outside the visible Church will be saved as some have supposed in the present day. Is it likely that our Fathers were so wrong for so long and we suddenly have learned the Truth? Sure, there is development of doctrine…but we can not go so far as to say viritually every ‘good’ person shall be saved. That would basically be salvation by our own merits. Many ‘good’ people, I believe, have not actually accepted God’s grace. Does not the Catechism say that they must sincerely seek God? Look at CCC#847. I do not see how an atheist, for example, could be saved. How could you argue that such a person is sincerely seeking God? (Of course, an atheist could have a sudden, even imperfect, conversion on his or her deathbed).

Dave Armstrong (a former Protestant himself, like myself) has a comprehensive orthodox and balanced (as I recall) section of his website on this issue. ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ419.HTM

God bless.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

twf:

JKirkLVNV: I do not know what sort of site it is, but I looked at it and I’m pretty sure it is written by a loyal son of the Church. If you go down, the author quotes both Pope John Paul I and the current Holy Father. The article, after showing all of these hardline quotes, explains that there is still that possibility of salvation outside the visible Church. I think that many Catholics are much too liberal in this. It is our responsibility to evangelize Protestants as well…because we do not know that any particular Protestant shall be saved. We are saved by Christ’s grace—yes…but I do not think as many outside the visible Church will be saved as some have supposed in the present day. Is it likely that our Fathers were so wrong for so long and we suddenly have learned the Truth? Sure, there is development of doctrine…but we can not go so far as to say viritually every ‘good’ person shall be saved. That would basically be salvation by our own merits. Many ‘good’ people, I believe, have not actually accepted God’s grace. Does not the Catechism say that they must sincerely seek God? Look at CCC#847. I do not see how an atheist, for example, could be saved. How could you argue that such a person is sincerely seeking God? (Of course, an atheist could have a sudden, even imperfect, conversion on his or her deathbed).

Dave Armstrong (a former Protestant himself, like myself) has a comprehensive orthodox and balanced (as I recall) section of his website on this issue. ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ419.HTM

God bless.

I never said atheists would go to Heaven, nor yet again, “good”
people, and I cannot imagine where you find that I do. I refer you to CCC#838. I haven’t got time to type the whole thing, so you can look it up if you wish. As for “sincerity,” I know that my grandparents (I mentioned them as an example) faithfully and sincerely sought to do God’s will. They followed Jesus very faithfully. And there is no development of doctrine. There is only the development of our understanding of doctrine. As for the site, I couldn’t even get from the link to a home page. If you cannot get to a home or faq page in order to read an agenda or creed or statement of purpose, it’s dangerous to make an assumption about fidelity. The SSPX believes in the Real Presence, for example. They are hardly faithful. Finally, I’m not suggesting that we ought not to evangelize or hold up truth. I’m just saying what I believe the CCC to be saying.

 

[twf]

JKirkLVNV: Sorry, I forget I had addressed the post to you. Only the first two or three sentences were meant specifically for you. The rest was for the thread in general. .

I don’t know their agenda, and I didn’t supply the link, but just looking at it, they do acknowledge the possibility of salvation outside the visible Church…and clearly recognize the authority of the current pope (at least on paper), as they do quote from him. That’s all I was saying.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

twf:

JKirkLVNV: Sorry, I forget I had addressed the post to you. Only the first two or three sentences were meant specifically for you. The rest was for the thread in general. .

I don’t know their agenda, and I didn’t supply the link, but just looking at it, they do acknowledge the possibility of salvation outside the visible Church…and clearly recognize the authority of the current pope (at least on paper), as they do quote from him. That’s all I was saying.

Yes, I quite understood what you meant. My point would be, however, that if you go to the webpages of the SSPX, they, too, acknowledge the authority of the current pope. Sedevacanteists are not the only schismatics.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

One other point that bothers me is this: We sometimes wield EENS as if we believe that if we didn’t, the overwhelming majority of Catholics would bolt from the Church like a horse from a barn that was on fire. I find that difficult to believe. Even when I’m confronted with abuses, of the Mass or by priests of children, or by the laxity and seeming lack of concern for souls by our national hierarchy, or by rad trads who think my grandparents are in hell because their Protestant and that I’m on the fast track myself because I worship at the NO Mass, or merely by the fact that it’s 7:30 in the AM on a Sunday and I’d really like a lie in, but get up and drag myself to Mass anyway, there is never a moment when I would cease to be a Catholic. I would never revert back to the Southern Baptist church of my youth, certainly not to the Episcopal church of my early 20’s, nor to any other, not even the Orthodox. I cannot imagine wanting to get out of the barque of Peter. I think if we evangelize by lifting up Christ and Him Crucified (something that SOME of our Protestant brethren do a better job at than we do!), I firmly believe that we could pull all the world into the loving embrace of Holy Mother Church. Triumphalism won’t do it, though.

 

[stanley123]

To me, the question of who set up that particualr website is not really relevant to the question of how to reconcile the teaching of the past with the teaching of today. Why should it matter if the Feeneyites were the ones who set up this site? We can beat up the Feeneyites, but after beating them up, the question still remains how to reconcile these preVatican II statements with the present teaching of the Catholic Church? Has the teaching of the Catholic Church changed from what it was before on this issue. It seems to me like it has changed. I don’t think you are going to find too many Catholics today who hold the follwoing view:
“The holy Roman Church believes, professes, and preaches that no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the ‘everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church. For the union with the body of the Church is of such importance that the sacraments of the Church are helpful to salvation only for those remaining in it; and fasts, almsgiving, other works of piety, and the exercise of Christian warfare bear eternal rewards for them alone. And no one can be saved, no matter how much alms he has given, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1438-45, From the Bull “Cantate Domino”, February 4, 1441 (Florentine style) Decree for the Jacobites, Denz. 165.)

 

[JKirkLVNV]

stanley123:

To me, the question of who set up that particualr website is not really relevant to the question of how to reconcile the teaching of the past with the teaching of today. Why should it matter if the Feeneyites were the ones who set up this site? We can beat up the Feeneyites, but after beating them up, the question still remains how to reconcile these preVatican II statements with the present teaching of the Catholic Church? Has the teaching of the Catholic Church changed from what it was before on this issue. It seems to me like it has changed. I don’t think you are going to find too many Catholics today who hold the follwoing view:
“The holy Roman Church believes, professes, and preaches that no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the ‘everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church. For the union with the body of the Church is of such importance that the sacraments of the Church are helpful to salvation only for those remaining in it; and fasts, almsgiving, other works of piety, and the exercise of Christian warfare bear eternal rewards for them alone. And no one can be saved, no matter how much alms he has given, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1438-45, From the Bull “Cantate Domino”, February 4, 1441 (Florentine style) Decree for the Jacobites, Denz. 165.)

It is the Pope’s to bind and loose. He cannot change what has come before, but he can expand upon it. I guess I would summarize the CCC by saying that the boundaries of the Church are reckoned to be larger than they were before (that passage about “certain, though imperfect union,” for example). Ultimately, can the Pope reconcile the statements? I believe he can, because I believe he cannot lead the Church into error. Look upon it as loosening (one of the Pope’s powers) the binding without pitching it away. And the genesis of the website matters to ME. It may not to you. I always want to know what the agenda is, esp. if it turns out that the progenitor is a rad trad. Look through these forums and you will see that rad trads (not traditional Catholics) have a great deal of difficulty in presenting whole truths in context sometimes.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Asimis,

following yoru conscience does not saves you, neither doing what you think that pleases God.

The following quote from Lumen Gentium applies specifically to non-Christians, but a fortiori to non-Catholic Christians:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience–those too may achieve eternal salvation.[19] Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is considered by the Church to be a preparation for the Gospel[20] and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.

Full text can be found at rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/lumen.gen

Verbum

 

[stanley123]

JKirkLVNV:

It is the Pope’s to bind and loose. He cannot change what has come before, but he can expand upon it.

If you expand upon something, so that in the end it does not mean what it meant in the first place, are you not changing it?
At one point in time, Baptism by blood was not admitted, but at another point in time it is admitted, then why would not this be a change? I don;t see how you can say that this Pontifical statement admits Baptism by blood?
“The holy Roman Church believes, professes, and preaches that no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the ‘everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church. For the union with the body of the Church is of such importance that the sacraments of the Church are helpful to salvation only for those remaining in it; and fasts, almsgiving, other works of piety, and the exercise of Christian warfare bear eternal rewards for them alone. And no one can be saved, no matter how much alms he has given, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1438-45, From the Bull “Cantate Domino”, February 4, 1441 (Florentine style) Decree for the Jacobites, Denz. 165.)

 

[JKirkLVNV]

stanley123:

If you expand upon something, so that in the end it does not mean what it meant in the first place, are you not changing it?
At one point in time, Baptism by blood was not admitted, but at another point in time it is admitted, then why would not this be a change? I don;t see how you can say that this Pontifical statement admits Baptism by blood?
“The holy Roman Church believes, professes, and preaches that no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the ‘everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church. For the union with the body of the Church is of such importance that the sacraments of the Church are helpful to salvation only for those remaining in it; and fasts, almsgiving, other works of piety, and the exercise of Christian warfare bear eternal rewards for them alone. And no one can be saved, no matter how much alms he has given, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1438-45, From the Bull “Cantate Domino”, February 4, 1441 (Florentine style) Decree for the Jacobites, Denz. 165.)

You keep posting the same quotes. Got it. I refer YOU to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It illuminates these quotations that you’ve provided. Otherwise, the entire Church is being lead into error, by the very one that isn’t supposed to be ABLE to lead us into error. That’s the difference between expansion and negation. He can do the former, not the latter. If this is not the case, then is not the Church’s indefectability breached? In promulgating the CCC, PJPII said it was a “sure norm” for teaching the Faith.

 

[Skyron]

Reading through the posts I did make one observation that should be noted.

All of the quotes were made before the 1500s… meaning before the schism Christianity that we have now. With a world full of different churches from large organization to small 50 family communities. When the popes made those quotes, they didn’t have the same circumstances and issues that we have now. So they must be taken in context. They definately weren’t telling Lutherans/Anglicans/Evangelicals etc… that they weren’t in the church, because there wasn’t Any Around!

This doesn’t close or finalize any one point, but it’s a point I think was being left out.

 

[stanley123]

Skyron:

Reading through the posts I did make one observation that should be noted.

All of the quotes were made before the 1500s… meaning before the schism Christianity that we have now.
…
They definately weren’t telling Lutherans/Anglicans/Evangelicals etc… that they weren’t in the church, because there wasn’t Any Around!

This doesn’t close or finalize any one point, but it’s a point I think was being left out.

Right. Of course, there were the Hussites, or followers of Jan Hus 1371-1415, and there were the Wycliffites or followers of Wycliffe who died in1384.
Still, the quote looks like it rules out Baptism of Blood, which is currently accepted by the Church today as a valid Baptism.

 

[laadan]

Guy Daniels:

Is there any salvation for Prots if they do not convert to Catholicism? I am asking simply for clarification, not to justify staying Protestant. Do they barely get in, or not at all? Thank you. This will help in my future efforts to evangelize Prots.

Guy

“And there is salvation in **no one else [Christ]; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”

%between%No other name, not Rome, or Prots, as you like to call them, or Mary, or sacraments. Christ, no other name.

 

[JGC]

JKirkLVNV:

. I always want to know what the agenda is, esp. if it turns out that the progenitor is a rad trad. Look through these forums and you will see that rad trads (not traditional Catholics) have a great deal of difficulty in presenting whole truths in context sometimes.

I groan when I see anything EENS related come up now. It usually means I, or others have to post the relevant CCC sections and then endure a tirade of abuse from the rad trads.:banghead:

As I’ve said before, I now just post the CCC section, note it’s link to what is usually an ecumenical council document ( knowing the ‘It’s only the CCC, it can be wrong’ whining is only a post away…)

 

[JGC]

On Salvation Outside the Catholic Church **Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
**

**is well worth reading.
**

**ic.net
**

 

[versatile]

I am not catholic, although I attend the church. I believe in Jesus Christ the only Son of God and the He died on the Cross for my sins. This and only this is my ticket to Heaven. I do believe in living my life in accordance to his teachings that are printed in His holy book. The church or denomination of which I call myself is irrelivent. If my belief is misled please show me in the Holy book the “Bible” where I am wrong.

 

[jimmy]

Guy Daniels:

Is there any salvation for Prots if they do not convert to Catholicism? I am asking simply for clarification, not to justify staying Protestant. Do they barely get in, or not at all? Thank you. This will help in my future efforts to evangelize Prots.

Guy

It depends. If they are sincere in there ignorance of the truth, then they may be saved. But, if they know the truth, or if they are so obstinate and unaccepting that they are unable to see the truth then they can not be saved.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Guy Daniels:

Is there any salvation for Prots if they do not convert to Catholicism? I am asking simply for clarification, not to justify staying Protestant. Do they barely get in, or not at all? Thank you. This will help in my future efforts to evangelize Prots.

Guy

Dietrich Bonhoeffer never “poped” - but it is hard to think of anyone who is more clearly a Christian martyr. Many Protestants have preferred years of torture, and cruel death to denying Christ by accepting totalitarian atheism. Many still die for this reason.​

Don’t tell me that nominal Catholics are saved, and that Protestant martyrs for Christ, who sole offence is their failure to turn atheist, cannot be.

C.S. Lewis was Anglican to his dying day - yet many Catholics are glad to profit by his writings. ##

 

[jahutch]

I am a protestant myself, so let me chime in here . First, an advance warning - this is my first post (and its a doozy of a first post haha!). Thus, if I offend anyone please accept my apology in advance. Know that I hold the Roman Catholic faith in the highest regard, and consider all of you brothers in Christ .

Now to the matter at hand:

First, as to the quotes form early popes, one must realize that there were no protestants until the 1500s. Thus, someone outside the Catholic Chuch was almost invariably not a Christian at all, or was someone deeply schismatic who denied something basic like the trinity. This, I think, mostly explains the early quotations.

Next, I think it is of importance to distinguish the term “catholic Church,” meaning universal church, from the term “Catholic Church” as a shorthand for “Roman Catholic Church.” Most protestant denominations use the nicene creed and the apostolic creed as the basis of their faith. Indeed, these two creeds embody the “basics” of Christianity - that Christ is our savior, that he died for our sins, and that he rose again - “mere Christianity” as C.S. Lewis put it. Both of these creeds refer to the “catholic Church.” Further, the bible in numerous places refers to “the Church.” Both the bible and these creeds, again, were written at a time when the Church as a formal entity was still in formation, and certainly before there were any protestants - in effect, the “early Church.” Thus, most Protestants will tell you (as I am about to) that these terms all refer to the entire universe of followers of Christ. Thus, the “catholic Church” or the “universal church” or simply “the Church” as used in these sources, properly interpreted today, refers to all true Christian believers - Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants - for I suspect in God’s eyes, despite occasional bickering in the past (which I for one detest - theological debate, yes, bickering, no) we ARE all one church .

Third, sort of related, is confession - someone mentioned this above. While Protestants do not practice confession as a sacrament, we certainly do practice confession. We don’t walk around, ignoring our sin - we pray to God, and ask forgiveness. Occasionally we may share our sin with another - a pastor, a spouse, or a close friend in the faith. This sharing is only for support and advice in facing the sin in the future - for us, praying to God for fogiveness (and, of course, actually MEANING it) is all that is required. I believe Roman Catholics would call what we protestants do a pure “act of contrition,” which I believe is, while not the normative way for a Roman Catholic to confess sins, acceptable in some circumstances (for example, if a priest is unavailable). So, while we do not practice the sacrement of confession in the same way Roman Catholics do, we do indeed confess our sins.