Man, that “once saved, always saved” doctrine was so comforting—right up until the moment I finally realized it is neither biblical nor logical. I’ll always be grateful to some dear Southern Baptist friends for re-introducing me to Jesus back when I had drifted WAY off the reservation, but much of what they teach as the “gospel” just ain’t so.
Thanks, Mark, for an interesting and informative post.
“Be of good cheer!” (John 16:33)
www.MerryCatholic.com

A blog post with a title such as the above can go in any of several directions, depending on what topics the blogger chooses to bring up. I’m gratified that Mr. Shea has chosen to explain how we *were* saved, *are being* saved, and *will be* saved; and to point out that some of those canonized have had serious character or mental defects.

If a person is canonized a Saint, then are we 100% positive they are in heaven?  Is the canonization process infallible?

Thanks,
Michael

@Mark Shea:  [So we were saved (by Christ through his death and resurrection); we are being saved (by his ongoing work through the sacraments and our cooperation with grace); and we will be saved (when we pass this probationary period, die in a state of grace, and are safely in heaven (or purgatory, which finishes the job of readying us for heaven if we did not finish it here).  First you say we “were” saved.  This means a past event.  How did step #1 become undone?

Most here are aware of newadvent.org, with its excellent copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia (of about a century ago). To point out that “some of those canonized have had serious character or mental defects” is an understatement.
Since Adam there has been no man except Jesus who was perfect in mind and body. But the standard for being considered ‘one of the holy ones’ is in God’s word, not man’s. John 13:34,35 comes to mind, in the [many] cases of those who used torture and murder to advance their particular “holy” cause. Others joined hands with governors of nations, forgetting that there is only one government that can be called holy: Mt 6:9,10. And so on.
Is it still allowed and reasonable to pray for that government to come, “on earth as it is in heaven”?

A clarification: By “serious character ... defects” in my comment above, I was not meaning any interior state of mortal sin at the moment of the death of the person canonized, but simply a lack in certain moral or intellectual virtues and/or the presence of certain moral or intellectual vices. In spite of such a deficient state of character, we’re all so discombobulated, IMO, that the *theological* virtue of charity/caritas/agapê is able to coexist with that deficiant character state.

Doug:

I assume you are, of course, referring to Henry VIII, Luther (who urged violence against the peasants), and John Calvin, who attempt to erect a Calvinist Police State of Heaven in Geneva?  If your point is that saints are sinners then allow me to be the first to say, “Duh”.  If your point is that there is something uniquely wicked about Catholic saints, may I suggest you get the log out of your eye?  Would you allow David into the kingdom of heaven?  Pretty brutal fellow at times.

The game of judging ancestors because they did not the benefits of the civilizing influence of your upbringing is a favorite of bourgeois suburbanites who snooze through atomic bombings, abortion holocausts and the starvation of millions of their fellow human beings while patting themselves on the backs for their own sanctity and their right to pass judgment on their fathers.

First you say we “were” saved.  This means a past event.  How did step #1 become undone?

It didn’t.  Did you read the rest of the piece?  Or are you simply ignoring the rest of it?  It’s difficult to carry on a conversation with people who ask disingenuous question and then complain that you are “rude” for pointing out that they are disingenuous.  Pearls.  Swine.  You know the drill.

@Mark Shea:  I read your article in full, thank you.  I am not promoting the idea event #1 grants you license to sin to your heart’s delight.  Would a true follower of Christ ever adopt such a perspective?  No.  That view would either be very disingenous at worst or naive at best.  Moreover, sanctification is a processs occurring during the entire lifetime of the believer.  The Sacraments of the church provide help in that walk.  However, for you to advocate we cannot trust in the security Jesus teaches in the gospel is problematic.  Indeed, Scripture provides many passages in which Jesus does provide His assurance.  And if someone disagrees with you, why must you deteriorate the discussion with hostility by calling them “swine.”

This is the type of article that I love.  It is so informative and in my opinion full of God’s grace which to me means God’s Holy Influence.  I continue to learn about the beloved Church after 46 years and this type of literature written so well will continue to help me grow along my journey.  Thank you.

A thoughtful and interesting discussion,Mark.  There are many things we do agree on, in spite of past communication difficulties.

why cant you just have christ as the only example?is he not enough?

Casting:

No.  Scripture does not teach “eternal security” in the sense you mean it.  It tells us to “work out your salvation with fear” and trembling.  Jesus tells us to “abide” in him and warn us of what will happen if we do not (a pointless warning if it is impossible to lose your salvation).  I discuss all this in the blog entry, but you ignore it because it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.  Hence, pearls and swine.

John Smith:

“Is he not enough” is one of those questions that are asked by minds who conceive of the gospel in terms of minimum daily adult requirements: “What’s the absolute least I need to do and believe in order to fulfil God’s requirements?”  The gospel however is not about minimum daily adult requirements.  It’s about God giving us all sort of ridiculously generous stuff out of love: including saints.  Hebrews 11 gives us a bunch of OT saints as models.  Paul tells us to imitate him as he imitates Christ and tells us God has given us the “riches of his inheritance in the saints”.  So what’s wrong with following that pattern and learning from the ways Christ has revealed himself in and through his saints?

People change throughout their lives, including their beliefs and loyalty to God’s commandments. It seems like one would need a time machine to be “once saved, always saved.” The state your soul is when you die is the state at which you enter God’s judgment, for good or ill. Furthermore, “once saved, always saved” implies that it is more or less a license to sin with impunity from then on, as if God no longer holds you responsible for any sin you commit from then on. The teaching is ludicrous and requires a certain spiritual laziness and irresponsibility on the part of an individual to embrace it.

@Mark Shea:  Whatever we do for the Lord through “works” is to be done joyfully and in thanksgiving.  Your interpretation (if you want to call it that) presents Paul’s image like that of an anvil hanging over the believer’s head if you fail to perform.  Since you agree salvation has already been accomplished, my selfish performance is not substitutionary nor in addition to what Christ has previously done at Calvary.  Paul’s referring to your fear and trembling is that of recognizing the awesome power and grace of Christ acting through you.  That aspect alone should make you fall on your face before Him.  Do we not recognize His power in Philippians 4:13 and tremble when He becomes manifest in our lives?

Does Jesus teach security of salvation in the gospel? Well, even the hard-boiled Thomas Aquinas taught in his Summa that “Christian hope [for salvation] is certain.” Absolutely certain—on God’s part. But what if, even though I stand saved and in the state of grace now, I myself don’t want to remain there? What if, even at my earthly life’s last moment, I prefer decisively to be my own man in hell rather than God’s man in heaven? God longs (“unto madness”, said St. Therese of Lisieux) for me to be utterly happy in heaven. But the choice is mine whether or not to keep on letting Him bring me there, n’est-ce pas?

“Religion is for people afraid of going to hell, Spirituality is for those who have been there.”
In a homily that he gave on 25 March 2007, Pope Benedict XVI stated: “Jesus came to tell us that he wants us all in heaven and that hell, of which so little is said in our time, exists and is eternal for those who close their hearts to his love.”  What Benedict failed to add regarding closed hearts is that these individuals probably obviously never experienced the true power of God’s unconditional love = otherwise they most assuredly would have chosen otherwise.     
The topic of heaven and hell are among the most visited in my blog:

http://whenreligionfails.blogspot.ca/2010/08/will-everyone-go-to-heaven.html

http://whenreligionfails.blogspot.ca/2012/02/will-everyone-go-to-heaven-part-2.html

Aquinas’s actual statement on hope’s certainty in his Summa (in II-II, q. 18, art. 4) was, “hope tends to its end [heaven] with certainty”, in his agreeing with Peter Lombard’s assertion that “hope is the certain expectation of future happiness”.

“I find the crabby saints a great help since they give me hope that a jerk like me can be saved too.”

I like that…sounds kinda like myself.  hehe.  Thanks for another fruitful post!

When any educated Catholic says or writes that a “once saved, always saved” outlook implies presumption and/or laziness and/or complacency, he’s thinking of the inner logic of that outlook; he doesn’t mean that a person embracing that outlook is necessarily guilty in his heart of a sin of presumption, laziness, or complacency.

“Others, such as St. Benedict Joseph Labre, have been afflicted with mental illness such as schizophrenia.”
**********************************************
My kids always enjoyed dressing up as St.Benedict Joseph Labre for All Saints Day because it was an excuse to wear raggedy clothes & skip a bath.
:)
He’s actually in my “favorite saints” category along with St. Joseph of Cupertino who may have suffered from some other disability & never quite fit in with society, either.

@john smith:
Well, yes, Christ is our model. On the other hand, is it to no purpose that St. Paul says, ‘imitate me as I imitate Christ’? Was Elizabeth mistaken to measure her unworthiness against, not ‘my Lord’ but ‘the mother of my Lord’? If we are shown how much honor God bestows on the saints in Heaven (read the Apocalypse), should we not show honor here on earth to some of them that we know of?

“I find the crabby saints a great help since they give me hope that a jerk like me can be saved too.” - I feel the same way.

Good article, Mark.

Love the content, but am a little more concerned about the tone; particularly in the comments section.  Casting does not appear to me to be a classic troll, rather someone (probably from a different faith background) who has yet to arrive at the full truth of the Catholic faith.  He may fall behind you theologically, but he gains ground in comity points.  I would encourage you not to lump him in with the swine (serious trolls), but rather welcome him to the dialog.  Although the apostles had to occasionally shake the dust off their sandals, St. Paul seems to have taken the scepticism of people like Festus and Agrippa, and the Areopagists with a grain of salt and good humor.  Didn’t you yourself take your sweet time to arrive at the Truth that the Catholic Church embodies?  I am ever convinced that civility will advance the argument much more efficaciously than snark.

Casting Crowns does not, in my experience, write to dialogue.  He writes to sound off about how dumb the Church is for not conforming to his Evangelical Protestant vision of what the gospel is supposed to be.  I am too busy to talk to brick walls.  So I point out that he asks “questions” not to find things out, but to keep from finding things out.  My hope is that this will get his attention and make him reconsider his approach since it boils down to saying of any point of Catholic practice or belief he doesn’t understand, “Gee this is dumb!”

Okay, there was more background to the comments than was immediately apparent to the occasional reader.  But for the occasional reader, you still might want to consider increasing the civility level lest they be misimpressed like I was.  It won’t serve your interests if readers end up taking him more seriously than they do you because they don’t understand the background for your brusqueness.

@Mark Shea:  You have a propensity to typically denigrate those who offer an alternative or disagreement.  Questions and alternative understanding of the gospel are commonly viewed as a threat to official church teaching.  Why are people (not necessarily yourself, though) threatened?  Is their faith that weak?  Questions or comments typically go unanswered or the responder will drag out the old refrain:  “You hate the church” or “You hate Catholics” which is far from the truth.  The problem is that people are highly ill equipped to defend the faith.  You will find no insults or disparagement coming from myself.  Since you are a convert, Mark, I know you are able.  Pew Catholics, however,—many rely upon the “I was raised Catholic” or “The church teaches x, y or z.”  At some point, one must claim the faith for themself not relying on “I was raised ‘x’”.  Moreover, the faith must become not my parents faith,—but my own, and not simply because the church says THIS is the faith.  That’s hardly true conviction of the Holy Spirit.  It’s not enough to say “I believe” without knowing “why.”  Clearly, readers can tell when trolls enter in since they always distract from the discussion.  Other the hand, don’t always assume you know the motives of everyone who comments.  In my case, you have judged me unfairly.  If you prefer to take genuine dialog off-line, invite me to reach you by your NCR e-mail and I will be happy to do so.  I hope we have better understanding now.  Thank you.

I did not say you hate Catholics.  I did not say you hate the Church.  I did not say “I was raised Catholic” (because I wasn’t).  I don’t feel threatened by your obstinate insistence on trying to whittle Catholic faith down to fit you Evangelical Protestant worldview, nor by your disinterest in listening to explanations that challenge you to step outside that worldview and take seriously Catholic teaching.  I simply don’t have endless time, due to work commitments, to try to engage somebody who gives no evidence that he listens.  I realize it’s not enough to just say “I believe” without knowing why.  That’s why I write pieces like this one, to explain the rationale for the Church’s belief and practice.  When you then respond by totally ignoring the piece and simply re-asserting your reflexive Evangelical Protestant prejudices and dismissing anything outside your cramped theology as dumb, I do a quick cost/benefit analysis on whether it is worth casting my pearls and conclude it is not.  If you want a different outcome to that analysis, give me some reason to think you are actually listening.  So far I have none.

Mark, I’m referring to all those who violate God’s law while their partisans exalt them in the popular memory, including Catholic canonization. (Henry, Luther and Calvin are noted in religious history for having left your church, not for staying in it.) The only “saints” (holy ones of the Israel of God) I can be sure of are named in the Bible. There are more, “until the full number of people of the nations has come in”. (Rom 11:25; Rev 7:3,4) 144,000 of them as we Witnesses believe, as I’m sure you know. They are chosen at the invitation of Jehovah (Ro 8:14-17; “For all who are led by God’s spirit, these are God’s sons…”) They are not chosen by other men, but prove themselves by meeting God’s standards, one of which I cited above. Perhaps it’s well to quote it here.
John 13:34,35, “I am giving YOU a new commandment, that YOU love one another; just as I have loved YOU, that YOU also love one another. By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love among yourselves.” Consider that in the light of mainstream Christendom warring with itself e.g. in the Thirty Years’ War and in both “World Wars”, always supported by chaplains.
To return to the OP directly, your initial answer is correct: “Yep. All in heaven are saints.” But not all those approved by Jehovah are in heaven or were meant to go there, and his son does the choosing, not men.

Subsistent (on Monday, Jan 7), I understood your comment. What you meant was that these people were not perfect, with which the Bible agrees. (Ps 14:3) But it’s one thing to be plagued by original sin, and quite another to go inventing sins, as it were. The record of the mainstream churches is a poor one in that regard, yet they go on insisting that they can detect “sainthood” in people like Alexander VI, Luther and Calvin (these two not Catholic saints of course), and many others whose misdeeds I come across while researching things in the Catholic Encyclopedia. And, if the one mentioned was schizophrenic I doubt very much if God considers him fit to be made ‘to our God a kingdom and priests, and we shall reign on the earth’ over those living on it. (Ps 37:29) That “saint” does though have a ‘Plan B’: Rev 21:3,4- no more craziness. Isn’t that a nice enough thought for him?

Michael, I don’t see an answer to your question of Jan 7. Does my reply to Mr Shea answer it?

Doug:

Your rants come down to two points.

1. “I don’t know all that much about Catholic teaching, because I only ransack it for ammo” (which is what your ignorant claim that Alexander VI is a saint screams.  In other words, you are an Accuser of the brethren.  Enjoy your the biblical company you keep.

2. You, Doug Pruner, decree that Catholics have no right to say to one another, “That guy was a really good disciple of Jesus, we should try to be good disciples like that guy was.”  Since Paul says “Imitate me as I imitate Christ” and the book of Hebrews commends us for looking at an imitating the lives of good disciples” you set yourself against an obvious biblical pattern, while meddling in the internal affairs of a communion to which you do not belong, all while acting as Accuser of the Brethren.  Don’t be too surprised if you don’t persuade many people.

@Mark Shea:  Your point is taken, still greater understanding could be achieved if your tone was not so terse and accusatory.  I understand the article completely and agree with some,—but not all of your comments.  Perhaps that may surprise you.  My ommission, though, not to specify such points earlier was only by implied commentary and no doubt is likely the cause of your reaction.  Certainly you have enough people playing cat and mouse with you over the years without sincerity.  That is not my intention as I, too, do not wish to waste valuable time on nonsense.  I will address where there is agreement as well as disagreement (and why) in my next post.

Thanks, CC.  I appreciate that.

In view of a commenter’s remark above that the only “saints” (holy ones of the Israel of God) he can be sure of are named in the Bible, I found interesting a recent post (Jan. 8) by Register blogger Jimmy Akin on such a person biblically praised, namely Jephthah the Gileadite, in Hebrews 11 . But the story on Jephthah (in Judges 11) relates that he deliberately (if reluctantly) murdered his own daughter. Similarly, the Church canonizes someone for the faith-living-by-charity which they had at the moment of death, not endorsing thereby any previous crimes of theirs.

@Mark Shea:  Weekend tasks kept me from responding earlier so I am sorry for the delay.  First, there is agreement as I understand much of Catholicism—so yes, canonized saints are those whom the church recognizes publicly of what a disciple of Jesus Christ is.  And yes, too, all believers are saints.  Still it’s also possible that someone privately has led a life even greater in example than someone officially canonized.  Thank the Lord, though, that He does not compare us to someone else in terms of serving to further the Kingdom.  It seems, though, the key comment in your response rests in the abiding.  You are correct that being holy and set apart is not entitlement to a place in Heaven.  While Moses led the Hebrews from bondage in Egypt to be set apart and holy, we know it’s likely very few worshipped the Lord in deference and humility as did Moses, Aaron and Joshua.  Indeed, the OT is replete with examples of Israel’s disinterest and disobedience in spite of Jehovah Jireh.  They knew His name, His character, but failed in their humility and deference.  Likewise, you example of Adolph Hitler is relevant as well since he was Baptized Catholic but clearly his baptism had no impact in his life.  This is why I said at some point we must claim the faith as “our faith” rather than it being the faith of parents who have infants baptized.  Baptism seems to have more relevance and importance when a child of age (or adult) comes forward out of personal desire.  The infant is incapable of such a decision.
.
.
John 6:37 and 39 tie to your point regarding “abiding.”  “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.”  “And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.”  Man on his own is not inclined nor capable toward relationship with Christ.  Moreover, His Spirit must descend upon a man or woman for that person to first recognize His presence.  But here’s a problem which is typical with most every Catholic I encounter raised and trained from childhood.  The emphasis is that of relationship with Christ through His church.  Granted the church has much to offer in terms of worship, fellowship and sacraments, but this must come second to relationship with Christ personally.  If you wish to say worship, fellowship and the sacraments provide the abiding, I understand that, but they cannot substitute for personal intimacy one has before the Lord when it’s just you and Him alone.
.
.
You wrote:  “Catholics therefore do not believe in a “once saved, always saved” gospel nor in the notion of “the eternal security of the believer.”  In my view, many Protestants and Evangelicals alike who are incorrectly taught the context very likely misunderstand what this means and are probably in for a surprise.  What is missing is what you said—the abiding.  I understand why Catholics would discount this due to the sin of “presumption.”  But taken in proper context, one who believes and knows he/she is saved knows the difference and indeed does abide daily with Christ, minute by minute.  The true follower of Christ Jesus is consumed by His presence and has a passion for Him —to know Him, love Him and serve Him.  He owns us.  As Paul writes “You are not your own, you have been bought with a price.”  The saved person is highly aware of the price Jesus paid on Calvary to deliver him/her from sin.  This thought is not to be taken cavalierly.  However, until the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost, the apostles were of similar uncertainty despite having walked with Christ for three years.  It is only when the Spirit of God comes upon a man that you can have security in Christ.  Such a dramatic event does indeed provide security for the believer.  Doubt is erased with certainty.  But the idea that one can now rest and not bother serving Christ and “abiding” in Him is dishonest and demonstrates a fraudulent life in Christ.  The positive of His having saved you should result in a burning passion within the believer to serve and obey —not out of fear but of love and gratitude.  This goes to your point of “abiding.”  Indeed, does the Lord not then provide peace and rest for your soul in this life?
.
.
I’ll have a few further comments, but will stop here for now.  I take all these things quite seriously.

Subsistent—God longs (“unto madness”, said St. Thérèse of Lisieux)—I think a better translation of her words, more fitting with the way the [removed]”à la folie”) is used, is “like crazy.”
(I love her writings.  À la folie!)

And the French stem *fol-/fou* is then the same as in Jacques Maritain’s expression in writing somewhere of the *mad love*, l’amour fou, that God has for each of us.

Casting Crowns:

You write:

First, there is agreement as I understand much of Catholicism—so yes, canonized saints are those whom the church recognizes publicly of what a disciple of Jesus Christ is.  And yes, too, all believers are saints.  Still it’s also possible that someone privately has led a life even greater in example than someone officially canonized.

Which is, of course, something the Church never denies and so is not germane to this discussion. Canonization is not a “holier the everybody else” award.  Nor is it a denial that the countless anonymous saints out there have led profoundly holy lives too.

Likewise, you example of Adolph Hitler is relevant as well since he was Baptized Catholic but clearly his baptism had no impact in his life.

Here is where you err.  Baptism did have an impact. What it did not, in the end, do is save him (most likely, though we can’t really know that till the Judgment).  Baptism is grace, not magic.  Grace requires a response in order for it to save us.  But our failure to respond does not mean that grace was not given.

This is why I said at some point we must claim the faith as “our faith” rather than it being the faith of parents who have infants baptized.

Your mistake here is to say “rather than” instead of “building upon”.  Grace *can* be given through the faith of another.  It was when Jesus saw the faith of the paralytic’s friends that he healed the paralytic.  Every act of intercessory prayer is someone’s faith being extended on behalf of another.  Yes, we have to make the faith our own at some point.  But no, God does not have to wait around until you are smart enough to understand justification by faith before he can extend you grace.  The irony of your position is that it is the Church that believes in salvation by grace without works when it practices infant baptism.  You are arguing for salvation through works of intellect when you say, “Baptism seems to have more relevance and importance when a child of age (or adult) comes forward out of personal desire.  The infant is incapable of such a decision.”

But here’s a problem which is typical with most every Catholic I encounter raised and trained from childhood.  The emphasis is that of relationship with Christ through His church.  Granted the church has much to offer in terms of worship, fellowship and sacraments, but this must come second to relationship with Christ personally.

No.  It must come *in union with* relationship with Christ personally.  The fundamental Protestant mistake is to assume that, sooner or later, you have to choose between Christ and his Church—that at the end of the day Christ and his Church are somehow opposites.  Absolutely discipleship to Jesus Christ is vital and if you are not a disciple, the graces he offers through the Church will be of no avail.  But it is *not* the case that being a disciple means having to choose between Christ and his Church.

If you wish to say worship, fellowship and the sacraments provide the abiding, I understand that, but they cannot substitute for personal intimacy one has before the Lord when it’s just you and Him alone.

It is *never* you and him alone.  Ever.  To be in union with Christ is to be in union with his body the Church.

In my view, many Protestants and Evangelicals alike who are incorrectly taught the context very likely misunderstand what this means and are probably in for a surprise.

The context of this false doctrine is precisely to attack and deny the traditional Catholic and Christian doctrine which warns that, because grace is grace and not magic, it is possible to “receive the grace of God in vain” by committing mortal sin.  It is an assertion of presumption in place of faith and hope and the claim that, no matter what you do, you *cannot* lose your salvation.  That’s what once saved, always saved means.

What is missing is what you said—the abiding.  I understand why Catholics would discount this due to the sin of “presumption.”  But taken in proper context, one who believes and knows he/she is saved knows the difference and indeed does abide daily with Christ, minute by minute.  The true follower of Christ Jesus is consumed by His presence and has a passion for Him —to know Him, love Him and serve Him.  He owns us.  As Paul writes “You are not your own, you have been bought with a price.”  The saved person is highly aware of the price Jesus paid on Calvary to deliver him/her from sin.  This thought is not to be taken cavalierly.

What you are describing is Catholic practice of steady day to day obedience, not Protestant “once saved, always saved” doctrine.  It’s a common phenomenon to see Protestants actually living in ways which are better described by Catholic doctrine than by their own.  That’s a good thing, I think.  But it’s not an argument for “once saved always saved” or doctrine of “eternal security”.  What you describe is not the notion that you can be saved even if you live in total, gross disobedience after “asking Jesus in to your heart”, but that real conversion means real lifelong struggle to obey Him.

<i>However, until the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost, the apostles were of similar uncertainty despite having walked with Christ for three years.  It is only when the Spirit of God comes upon a man that you can have security in Christ.  Such a dramatic event does indeed provide security for the believer.  Doubt is erased with certainty.  But the idea that one can now rest and not bother serving Christ and “abiding” in Him is dishonest and demonstrates a fraudulent life in Christ.  The positive of His having saved you should result in a burning passion within the believer to serve and obey —not out of fear but of love and gratitude.  This goes to your point of “abiding.”  Indeed, does the Lord not then provide peace and rest for your soul in this life?<>

Again, what you describe is not the Protestant notion of “Once saved, always saved” but the Catholic insistence that grace must be enfleshed in obedience or it will not save.  There is no point in the biblical warning against receiving the grace of God in vain if it is not possible to do it.

@Mark Shea:  You make some well reasoned points from the Catholic perspective, however you have advanced some of my positions to a conclusion not of my intent. Nevertheless, this is a worthwhile dialog.  I’m pleased to see engagement can occur.  I will respond later for further comment.  Thanks for your discussion.

Mr Shea, you’ll notice my Alexander VI remark was to another poster on another topic. But I did make it look as if I said AlexVI was a saint in the Church. Not so. Understatement. Sorry.
“Accuser of wrongdoers”, I may be, but by holding them up to two standards in their religious wars, neither one mine: The Bible and Nuremburg. Both say a war is not an excuse for killing civilians, even if “I was only following orders.” (If the orders came from God, then were you Catholics guilty of murder, or your Protestant counterparts? History says, “The winners decide.” Jehovah, “the judge of all the earth” says , ‘For I am your Judge, your Statute-giver, your King’. (Gen 18:25; Isa 33:22) Jesus understood that to mean no killing for Christians: John 13:34,35. Paul also: Rom 12:19.
I don’t decree anything to Catholics; I compare their public decrees to themselves, with the decrees of Jesus and his father to Christians. Example: In your Church it is your Church that decrees its “saints”, no doubt about it. As to the “saints” [holy ones; cleansed ones] in Jehovah’s Heaven, it is Jehovah who decides. Confirmed, unrepentant war criminals need not apply. Nor need many of those listed as Saints in the Catholic Encyclopedia, as I noted to Subsistence.
At least we’re back to the OP. My brief answer to which is, ‘All those in heaven were invited there by Jesus, with Jehovah’s approval.’

@Mark Shea:  I apologize for the delay.  I had thought regarding how best to approach your comments.  Every two or three days other thoughts entered the value equation concerning grace and baptism.  Perhaps it’s best for me to do an overview perspective and see where that takes you in the discussion.
.
The bottom line is that there is one Lord, one faith and one baptism (Eph4:5).  Catholics and Evangelicals certainly agree with Paul.
.
Catholics often use the word “faith” in different ways.  On the one hand, they speak of “the faith” meaning the Catholic faith.  On the other hand, they talk about people of other faiths.  At other times, they speak of people who are of the Christian faith, referring to people outside the RCC.
.
Are Lutheran’s part of the faith Paul mentions in Eph.4?  If so, why?  If not, why not?
.
If so, why was Luther in such hot water with the Church to the point of death? 
.
If not, why does the RCC embrace Lutherans, Episcopalians and Anglicans even allowning some non-Catholic priests to affiliate with the RCC?
.
It appears the RCC wants to have it all ways, but the Scripture doesn’t permit it all ways.  There is one faith.
.
Within the range of meaning for the word “faith” is the idea of adherence to a system of religious belief.  The RCC is a faith in that sense, and the Catechism expresses that system.  Thus, it is helpful to realize there is often a bit of equivocation taking place with respect to the word “faith.”
.
Non-Catholics are sort of in, but they’re not.  They’re Christians, but they’re separated.  We like them, even thought the Council of Trent says they are an anathema.  They’re part of the body of Christ, but they better not try to partake of His body at Mass.
.
Your one comment regarding choosing between Christ and His church bears much further thought and discussion.  I think I know where you are going with that, but I will appreciate your expansion of understanding regarding this comment.
.
Thanks