Are only Catholics destined for Heaven?


I personally believe that Christians originally did not have to be baptised to follow Christ. They simply had to be Jews and profess faith in Jesus. Christianity after all was just one of many Jewish sects attending Temple and Synagogues.

When the Sanhedran eventually ruled that the sect were heretics (because so many adult Gentiles were joining and not fully following Jewish practises like circumcision and dietary practises) then Christians simply kept using the old Jewish Mikveh with a Trinitarian formula as the rite of passage for joining adults.

As the sect had so many ex followers of John the Baptists sect this was entirely natural. It also gained the extra theology of a Divine forgiveness of all sin accordingly.

Infant baptism was not originally an issue because most converts early on seem to be adults. However as babies were born increasingly to Catholic parents, who were now considered sinful due to Baptist theology (unlike Judaism?) an early Mikveh was eventually necessitated and replaced the infant circumcision/presentation ceremonies no longer practised with Gentile Christians even when formerly a Jewish sect.


Not quite accurate…Protestants who believe only in immersion do not baptize babies because they do not believe in infant baptism itself. Technically I don’t think baptism for Catholics is a requirement for salvation as much as it is the thing that gives you salvation. It is required therefore, but it is actually the vehicle. Infant baptism is not directly mentioned in scripture and indications are it was not practiced as a requirement for several hundred years .


No…that’s not it. Full immersion protestants believe in “believer’s baptism”, which means one must reach an age of reason and publicly profess they have accepted Jesus Christ as their savior in order to be baptized.


That’s right, largely because believing that Christ died for your sins is seen as primary.


Thanks. I remember from my Protestant friends from school now. And, I have a Lutheran aunt. Or maybe she’s Methodist. I can’t remember.

Jews do not believe in original sin, so baptism is not an essential for us.


Fauken, for some reason people just aren’t understanding what your saying in this chat and yet all your doing is repeating Church teaching.
Let me try and help those who are confused.
Yes all those in heaven are Catholic. For example let’s say I die a Baptist and go to heaven. When I’m in heaven I enter the Church Triumphant thereby becoming a member of the Catholic Church.
I think, with the spread of relativism and modernism, people forget what the Catholic Church is. Other than it was founded by Christ with Peter and his successors as his rock (which has already been stated) the Catholic Church is the fulfillment of the Jewish religion.
If one studies the Old Testament you can see that the whole thing is made up of covenants. Christ came to establish the everlasting covenant.
Also when a Jewish king would leave for one reason or another, a prime-minister-like figure would take his place to govern the people. It’s the same way with the Catholic Church. The Pope steps in as the vicar of Christ, ruler of all Christians (no matter the denomination) whose job is to preserve the faith and the Church’s teachings until Christ comes again.
There can be no, “I personally believe this.” Or “I disagree with your truth because…” there is only one truth in Jesus Christ upheld by his Church.
What Fauken isnt saying is only Catholics go to heaven. He is saying that when one dies (no matter their faith) if they go to heaven they enter into the Church Triumphant and become part of it, so they therefore become Catholic.
Correct me if I got anything wrong?


I think your history is a little off. I completely understand what your saying and where your coming from. But I’d say just read Acts of the Apostles. Also if we look at early Christian records (other than scripture but some of St. Paul’s writings come to mind from scripture) they completely submitted to Christianity. Christianity is the fulfillment of the Jewish religion. If you look at the Old Testament God continually makes covenants and Christ came to establish a Church (the new and everlasting covenant). The early Christians certainly weren’t half Jews. Many Jews were against Christians. Many Jews converted to Christianity. The old law is no longer held but we have the new law.
The 12 apostles represent the 12 tribes of Israel and Christ brought all people to himself under the Church he established. I really suggest praying over the New Testement. It will help explain a lot about the first Christians.
Also infant baptism wasn’t an issue. When people would convert they had babies with them. Just as parents provide for their child so they don’t die, wouldn’t we also do the same in the spiritual life? I’m not sure what you mean by the “Baptist theology” but Christians for all time have believed in original sin. Baptist’s just think baptism is a symbol. However Baptism is necessary. I’m not sure I responded to everything you said? I’m not a historien, just a young guy repeating what the Church says, so someone please correct me if I didn’t represent properly the Church teaching somewhere in this text.


what is the ‘usual’ one?


Sophie111 you misunderstand history and the purpose of Vatican II. Have you read the documents? Majority of them just restate truths upheld by the Church from the beginning. Yes some of them seem a little off and have been interpreted horribly. Vatican II IS NOT an infallible council. It was to find a new expression that the Church present her truths to the world. In 2018 it’s obvious we haven’t found this “new” way they wanted. But please know, whatever your view on Vatican II is, it’s not infallible or bound on any Catholic. Now most restated truths in the documents are infallible truths, so you must believe those. But it’s not the councel that made those truths infallible, they just restated truths in many parts.


Jesus Christ told us that some will make mistakes about Him;
and that could be forgiven; but if someone blasphemes The Holy Spirit;
they will not be forgiven in this life or the next.
Someone has to reject The Universal Church of Jesus Christ;
which is what ‘Catholic’ means; with full knowledge;
and only God has an impartial view of human hearts.
He also spoke of sins of ignorance receiving less stripes but to whom
much is given much is required.
But being Catholic; we strongly desire unity of faith; so this does not
mean, at all, complacency in being an instrument of conversion by The Holy Spirit;
by prayer, example, and peaceful words with sincere concern for the other;
certainly not argumentative, judgmental, or berating a point.
We must overcome divisions with patience; compassion and willing to non-judgmentally let go and let God.


OK, can you explain why with something a little more specific.
Perhaps quote a phrase from my contribution and say a little more than “Acts of the Apostles”.

I’m not a historien, just a young guy repeating what the Church says,

May I politely suggest that perhaps it behoves you to check the works of Catholic historians or Biblical scholars before contributing on a forum likely to be home to anonymous Catholics who may be well trained in Catholic history or Sacramental theology.

Simply re-iterating the remembered impressions of lay-teachers or parents from our childhood as if that actually was the mainstream position or related well to the more subtle issues we are discussing here I suggest is quite unlikely to be the only acceptable Catholic position. It may not necessarily even be the mainstream scholarly Catholic position.


What is it I said that you believe contradicts infallible teaching?


By Acts I mean the book in the New Testement “Acts of the Apostles” which should clearly show that Christians aren’t half Jews following Christ.
I understand what someone said earlier that “Christ is a Catholic” but I would say more accurately Christ is the head of the Catholic Church. I recommend the Baltimore Catechism.
I won’t give a quote from Acts of the Apostles because I’m suggesting the whole book. There’s not gonna be a specific verse which gives you the answer. That logic puts one in danger of taking things out of context.
Teachers in my childhood only went through the basics, and my parents aren’t Catholic. My sources are from approved books especially Benedict XVI and Fulton Sheen. Also I’d recommend the footnotes of any Catholic approved bible. I find them brilliant.

Because I’m not a historian or theologian, just a lay person waiting to go to the seminary, I asked at the end of my reply, “…someone please correct me if I didn’t represent properly the Church teaching in this text.”
I don’t need to be a historian to repeat the teachings of the Church. If you are unsure that what I’ve said is Church teaching then I suggest diving straight into the writings of the Church. Also the local Catholic priest can help. I understand many people have so many different opinions that all contradict each other. This is due to reletivism, and we all have to be very careful where we get our answers. I just come on here to try and help shed a little light.


I’m not sure, I’m getting lost in all these comments. I was just saying Vatican II isn’t infallible in its policies. It does restate truths already held by the Catholic Church. I ask you to keep me in your prayers!


You must certainly can fully immerse a baby, it is the norm for Baptism in fact in many places:-


So when you can quote me in short sentences where my history of the Church must be mistaken do come back and we will take this further.


What “policy” (do you mean “discipline”) are you talking about?
I have been talking about Vatican and Magisterial post Vatican interpretation of the quoted texts from St John’s Gospel.

Sure, they may not be proclaimed as Dogma just yet.
But given they are Magisterial why would you object to me holding them and discussing them here?

This is “Catholic Answers” not “my invented personal theology” :grinning:.

I don’t need to be a historian to repeat the teachings of the Church.

You may not understand that:
(a) perhaps because you havent yet engaged in tertiary theological studies you may be mistaken and your views are not wholly what the Church teaches despite your personal feelings you are right.
(b) the Church does not have final answers on many issues and Catholics may legitimately hold a range of opinions on matters you are not as familiar with as you might think.
(e.g. you are free to believe Mary did die or did not die; the human soul enters an embryo at conception or up to some weeks later).
[c] That even if you are correct - that does not means others are wrong or mistaken. If there is no final answer yet contrary views by different Catholics are both acceptable.


I have heard that exorcists say that by the time a soul gets out of purgatory, if it wasn’t Catholic when it got there, it was by the time it got out. However, that is probably a moot point, as the vast majority of souls never even get to purgatory in the first place:


Goodness! It looks scary! Had no idea that was ever done. Thanks for the video.


That’s just one person’s idea. Even the Church teaches that no one really knows. And why would anyone need to follow any faith creed after death?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit