Good fruits without the Faith?

I mistakenly posted this over at Non-Catholic Religions - maybe a moderator can delete that one?

I’ve been thinking a lot about our separated brethren, those Christians that do not share in the fullness of our Catholic faith. I have a hard time understanding how they can be so on fire for the Lord without the truths of the faith. Many of them seem to be doing much more for God’s kingdom than some Catholics.

For example I stumbled upon a Youtube video of a man that attends a Church of Christ church in the south. He was a hardened sinner that almost destroyed his family but was converted forty years ago and still to this day is extremely active in his church. He preaches about Jesus and loving Him and loving your neighbor, and baptizing people into Christ, and all of those things. I have a hard time condemning these people or even thinking they are doing wrong.

How can something that produces good fruit (drunkards and adulterers and other sinners give up their sin and coming to God) be bad. Is it? How can we be so divided and have the same goal? Someone help me out here. Thanks and God bless you.

It seems you are laboring under the mistaken notion that God only operates within the boundaries of the visible Church or within her sacraments. That’s simply not the case. :slight_smile:

What the Church says about herself is that the fullness of truth, of God’s graces necessary for salvation, subsists within her. This means that God does extends his graces beyond the Church. Indeed, St. Paul told us that every man has a “measure of God’s grace” to make it possible for us to be saved.

All the baptized are members of Christ’s body, even if they are not in full communion with the Church.

The relevant paragraphs from the Catechism:

Wounds to unity

Perhaps the man is following his conscience.

Matthew 12:50

I would think this is referring to everyone, not just Catholics today or Jews in Jesus’ day.



From Salvation Outside the Church


Protestantism no matter the stripe, is one of the [FONT=&quot]Great Heresies [/FONT]in history

Regarding one’s ignorance

*][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]1791[/FONT] ignorance isn’t always innocent[/FONT]

Of course, but most of our separated brethren are material not formal heretics, which means they are ignorant of their need to be fully united with the Church. Indeed, they are told repeatedly that there is no such need by well-meaning people inside the Church and outside it, misunderstanding that we are all to be one no matter what we’ve been taught or in which ecclesial body we’ve been brought up. In any case, we cannot judge for ourselves who is a formal heretic and who isn’t. That’s above our pay grade as ordinary lay people.

The following Bible passages come to mind:



Isn’t assuming someone is a “material” not a “formal” heretic a judgement?

Isn’t assuming one is “well meaning”, a judgement?

Why even give definitions of what is right and wrong , if one isn’t to apply the definition to anyone because that’s a judgement?

How is one to apply the following instruction from Paul?

Titus 3:10
“As for a man who is factious ( [FONT=&quot]αρετικν[/FONT] 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.”

Obviously we can and do judge actions.

I never said we couldn’t make distinctions. Indeed, I made distinctions. I only meant that we cannot always know who knows what and why. In St. Paul’s time the demarcations between those who believed the truth and who didn’t were more defined. In our day not as much. Besides, he is talking about those who did know better, but still chose to teach/preach "another gospel’, most especially the Judaizers of his day. Most Protestants are not formal heretics. In our day there aren’t many, I wouldn’t think. Most former Catholics left the Church due to personal difficulties with Church leaders or not understanding Church teachings or who had a spiritual awakening in another ecclesial community and equated that with now having the truth, etc. I will leave it to their confessors to decide if they are formal heretics or not.


For one to be a heretic by definition is

2089"*[FONT=&quot]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;[/FONT]

One can also see from that link the definition of one in schism as well.

You’re assuming “most Protestants” are innocently ignorant of the truth. All I’m saying one can’t automatically assume one is innocently ignorant. [FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]1791[/FONT][/FONT]

Information and knowledge today, has NEVER been in history, so easy to access and attain.

Again, I would suggest, one might want to, but can’t side step their own personal responsibility in finding the truth [FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]1791[/FONT][/FONT]

I’m sure the OP doesn’t need his thread taken off on tangents, Steve, old man. But have fun parsing terms if it makes you happy. :stuck_out_tongue:

I entered here #5
I was merely responding to your points (your text I was responding to I highlighted)
