To a Roman Catholic are Protestants good Christians?

[mom2three]

I would guess that a vast majority of “protestants” are not really protesting anything (except for their common belief that the Catholic Church is wrong, and one of them is right)

This is quite true in my experience. I never knew I was “protesting” anything. I didn’t know anything about Christian history. I didn’t even know what a Protestant WAS. I was completely ignorant. I eventually learned that I wasn’t against Catholicism at all. I was against what I thought Catholicism was… If Catholicism as I previously understood it was a true account, even most Catholics wouldn’t be Catholics!

Most Protestants are ignorant to Church history… They truly love and seek God within the understanding that’s been taught to them. When they evangelize Catholics, most do this within this state of ignorance based on the falsehoods of Catholicism they’ve been taught. Many have the best of intentions.

I truly believe that many Protestants, though not experiencing the fullness that Christ gave us in His Church, are heaven-bound. God is merciful and He knows their hearts.

 

[mrs_abbott]

Hmn…So you disagreed with Caesar when he claimed that people were throwing insults. Then you call somone a right-wing radical Catholic traditionalist.

Tell me which one of my statements (or Caesar’s) goes against Catholic Truth.

There is no Salvation outside of the Church.

And for some reason I’m a radical now who distorts truth just because I want to agree with that Dogma?

Your profile says you are. I wouldn’t make that stuff up about someone I don’t personally know.
You bolded the dogma and I don’t agree with that statement alone. You are leaving out KEY INGREDIENTS that follow that statement. It’s a false statement without the last half accompanying it.

 

[Caesar]

Unbelievable!!! BTW, if they are spared where do you think they go? I think it’s called Heaven. Sounds like Saved to me.

Spared is the word. Being saved implies that one has recieved the Grace which comes to us through the Church and repentance for sins- which non-Catholics cannot fully have.

And it might be that they dont go to Heaven. While it is not Dogma, it was until very recently an almost univeral belief (even endorsed by Popes) that those who were spared might go to Limbo.

 

[mikew262]

Spared is the word. Being saved implies that one has recieved the Grace which comes to us through the Church and repentance for sins- which non-Catholics cannot fully have.

And it might be that they dont go to Heaven. While it is not Dogma, it was until very recently an almost univeral belief (even endorsed by Popes) that those who were spared might go to Limbo.

Please go talk to your priest on this issue, and make sure you mention the catechism I quoted you.

 

[Michael_Francis]

		 				Participants are strongly reminded that [Charity](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=132852) is essential to our discussions here. If you need to review CAF rules on the subject, please click [here](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=132852).

MF

 

[Caesar]

Please go talk to your priest on this issue, and make sure you mention the catechism I quoted you.

And where exactly do you think I learned my faith?

I have enjoyed my conversations with various priests on the issue, and they all seem to agree that a) Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is Dogma; b) Dogma cannot change; c) Catechisms are not infallible documents; and d) older Catechisms are pefectly acceptable especialy since they are usualy more straightforward then the 1984 Catechism which is amiguous on many issues.

Your posts stum me because they hardly resemble what should be coming from a Catholic. A disregard for Doctrine, Sacred Tradition, and a complete misundering of infallibility and the purpose of a Catechism.

 

[mrs_abbott]

Spared is the word. Being saved implies that one has recieved the Grace which comes to us through the Church and repentance for sins- which non-Catholics cannot fully have.

And it might be that they dont go to Heaven. While it is not Dogma, it was until very recently an almost univeral belief (even endorsed by Popes) that those who were spared might go to Limbo.

You’re denying the Catechism by saying that non-Catholics can’t be saved because they can’t receive the Grace from the CC???
Read you Catechism!!!
Read what the CA library has to say about it, for Heaven’s sake.
catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp

 

[Church_Militant]

Spared is the word. Being saved implies that one has recieved the Grace which comes to us through the Church and repentance for sins- which non-Catholics cannot fully

have.

And it might be that they dont go to Heaven. While it is not Dogma, it was until very recently an almost univeral belief (even endorsed by Popes) that those who were spared might go to Limbo.The bad news is that in espousing this you set yourself in opposition to the Magisterial teaching of the Church and (apparently) choose to willfully ignore that the Church has always taught that Dogma develops as we grow in grace and understanding.

If you disagree and others seek to correct you on that then you should consider whether whoever taught you the errant view is worthy of your loyalty and further consideration.

Personally, I think that the position that you have taken is more fueled by rebellion and bigotry than faith and love for the truth.

Tell me, Caesar & MS. Is the seat of Peter vacant?
Don’t waffle around…tell us straight up.

 

[Church_Militant]

And where exactly do you think I learned my faith?

I have enjoyed my conversations with various priests on the issue, and they all seem to agree that a) Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

is Dogma; b) Dogma cannot change; c) Catechisms are not infallible documents; and d) older Catechisms are pefectly acceptable especialy since they are usualy more straightforward then the 1984 Catechism which is amiguous on many issues.

Your posts stum me because they hardly resemble what should be coming from a Catholic. A disregard for Doctrine, Sacred Tradition, and a complete misundering of infallibility and the purpose of a Catechism.I beg to differ.

It is clear that it is your opinions that are the ones in error here. There is no ambiguity in the CCC on this issue. It states plainly what it means and since it shows a development of dogma that you disagree with then who is in error?

Not the Church because they are are promised the protection of the Holy Spirit.

Who is the authority?
Not you…
Not radical traditionalist Catholics…
Not older catechisms…

If you make statements that are in opposition to the magisterial teachings of the catholic Church while calling yourself Catholic then (IMO) you are little different than Martin Luther. Just as rebellious and just as willful.

 

[Resurrexit]

The bad news is that in espousing this you set yourself in opposition to the Magisterial teaching of the Church and (apparently) choose to willfully ignore that the Church has always taught that Dogma develops as we grow in grace and understanding.

Our understanding of the truths of our holy faith can develop, but that which has been defined infallibly by the Pope or a Council (Dogma) can NEVER EVER change. This is not “radical-traditionalism”, but pure basic stuff.

Tell me, Caesar & MS. Is the seat of Peter vacant? Don’t waffle around…tell us straight up.

I know both of them, and they are in full communion and acknowledge and are obedient to H.H. Pope Benedict XVI (not Pope Michael or Pope Peter II).

 

[Resurrexit]

From the Baltimore Catechism.

• 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.

Why do people make this so damn complicated - it’s not!!!

Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven. If one not a Catholic doubts whether the church to which he belongs is the true Church, he must settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and enter it; for if he continues to live in doubt, he becomes like the one who knows the true Church and is deterred by worldly considerations from entering it.

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.

 

[lak611]

Spared is the word. Being saved implies that one has recieved the Grace which comes to us through the Church and repentance for sins- which non-Catholics cannot fully have.

And it might be that they dont go to Heaven. While it is not Dogma, it was until very recently an almost univeral belief (even endorsed by Popes) that those who were spared might go to Limbo.

I was under the impression that limbo does not even exist. There are no official Church documents about it. That’s what I was told by my priest.

 

[rr1213]

I guess after eight pages of this discussion I am totally dissuaded of any misconceptions I might have had that there is clarity of doctrine among Catholics due to the teaching charism of the Magisterium.

 

[Church_Militant]

Our understanding of the truths of our holy faith can develop, but that which has been defined infallibly by the Pope or a Council (Dogma) can NEVER EVER change. This is not “radical-traditionalism”, but pure basic stuff.

I know both of them, and they are in full communion and acknowledge and are obedient to H.H. Pope Benedict XVI (not Pope Michael or Pope Peter II).

Agreed…it is “pure basic stuff” and that is my point. The dogma has been explained as it is .There is no justification in making a case that it is ambiguous (because it’s not!). If you are in obedience to the Pope and the magisterium then you don’t assert things that are in error…and they are in error.

If this is not radical traditionalism, then why is it that they are they only ones that I hear espousing this opinion?

As always, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and behaves like a duck…it’s a duck. (With “radical traditionalist” written all over it).

 

[Church_Militant]

I was under the impression that limbo does not even exist. There are no official Church documents about it. That’s what I was told by my priest.

And (off topic point) you’re right.

 

[Caesar]

I was under the impression that limbo does not even exist. There are no official Church documents about it. That’s what I was told by my priest.

The belief in limbo was almost universal until quite recently. The older Catechisms will even mention it and there were several Church documents from the Middle Ages that are in favor of the idea of limbo. It was never defined as a Dogma, like purgatory, and it’s actual nature is quite disputed, but the fact remains that it was once a very widely-held belief and the Church has not officialy denounced, even recently.

 

[Church_Militant]

I guess after eight pages of this discussion I am totally dissuaded of any misconceptions I might have had that there is clarity of doctrine among Catholics due to the teaching charism of the Magisterium.

And in that you’d be dead wrong.

 

[Church_Militant]

The belief in limbo was almost universal until quite recently. The older Catechisms will even mention it and there were several Church documents from the Middle Ages that are in favor of the idea of limbo. It was never defined as a Dogma, like purgatory, and it’s actual nature is quite disputed, but the fact remains that it was once a very widely-held belief and the Church has not officialy denounced, even recently.

Irrelevant.

 

[kaycee]

Spared is the word. Being saved implies that one has recieved the Grace which comes to us through the Church and repentance for sins- which non-Catholics cannot fully have.

And it might be that they dont go to Heaven. While it is not Dogma, it was until very recently an almost univeral belief (even endorsed by Popes) that those who were spared might go to Limbo.

I guess limbo was just little t tradition

 

[mikew262]

And where exactly do you think I learned my faith?

I have enjoyed my conversations with various priests on the issue, and they all seem to agree that a) Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is Dogma; b) Dogma cannot change; c) Catechisms are not infallible documents; and d) older Catechisms are pefectly acceptable especialy since they are usualy more straightforward then the 1984 Catechism which is amiguous on many issues.

Your posts stum me because they hardly resemble what should be coming from a Catholic. A disregard for Doctrine, Sacred Tradition, and a complete misundering of infallibility and the purpose of a Catechism.

Since we just got a warning on charity, I’ll just say young man, don’t lecture me on whether you approve or don’t approve of what I say as a Catholic. Whether you think I misunderstand a Church teaching or not is strictly your opinion. End of discussion.