I would go much further than that! :) But I would add that they also apply what I'm going to say to their own people.
From what I've learned here, my understanding is that the RC view is that anyone with "sufficient" disagreement with the Church has the PRESUMPTION of damnation, UNLESS, God grants a special dispensation, which is fully within His rights to grant. For example, if anyone dies under guilt of mortal sin (i.e. without absolution) then he is presumed damned, without special dispensation. Or, if someone dies without having taken the Eucharist (a certain number of times?) under Catholic beliefs then he is presumed damned, without special dispensation. Or, if someone dies without having been acceptably baptized by Catholic standards, then he is presumed damned, without etc.
Obviously, for us Protestants, things must actually look extremely bleak in their eyes. :) It seems that all we have is the doctrine of Invincible Ignorance to rely upon, and from what I understand, it's not a good bet. As I think about it specifically now, I know it's a fact that some of whatever negative "feelings" I have toward the RCC is based on the fact that I know that most of them believe I am doomed to hell, barring an unusual miracle. Knowing for certain my love for Christ and His gift of my faith, I have a natural reaction. :)
Thanks for the ping.
FK: From what I've learned here, my understanding is that the RC view is that anyone with "sufficient" disagreement with the Church has the PRESUMPTION of damnation, UNLESS, God grants a special dispensation, which is fully within His rights to grant.
You cannot "lose" your salvation (as far as the RCC or EOC is concerned) because our definition and understanding of salvation is not, never was, and never will be a "moment" here on earth. Salvation is a process, not a moment.
According to pretty much the 2,000 year-old Church teaching on salvation, one is either saved or condemned after he is dead. The life we lead in belief or disbelief is the road that leads us to that end. That's what judgment is all about. It is onyl after we are dead that we are either in a state of torment or bliss.
What Protestants consider as "saved" is something like: God gives the "saved" a divine ticket. Those who have it (i.e. the believers) are therefore "saved," for God's ticket is always valid. It goes neatly with the pseudo-Paulean theology of redemption that Luther invented.
Obviously, for us Protestants, things must actually look extremely bleak in their eyes
I wouldn't worry too much. If we are the condemned, it will be all our doing (of rejecting God). Do no harm. Be pure in heart. Be poor in spirit. Be merciful.
God's message is clear.
The problem is "how much disagreement" is "necessary"? The Bible clearly states that those who are false teachers are in danger of eternal damnation. The NT condemnations all apply to heretics and those who refuse to convert to Christ - not those who are ignorant. How much do we press the issue regarding the question of heretics? How much do we cling to "he who hears you hears Me and he who rejects you rejects Me and the One who sent Me"? I don't think the Church has answered that decisively.
if anyone dies under guilt of mortal sin (i.e. without absolution) then he is presumed damned, without special dispensation
That is Biblical. But a mortal sin is a willful separation and ending of the relationship between God and the individual. Doesn't it go without saying that such an individual is damning himself?
Or, if someone dies without having taken the Eucharist (a certain number of times?) under Catholic beliefs then he is presumed damned, without special dispensation.
Naturally, that is not an absolute rule, because we don't believe that men who never heard of the Eucharist are automatically condemned, unlike our Calvinist friends who believe people are condemned before they were born...(what a disgusting idea) Again, if one is fully aware of the teaching of the Eucharist and refuses it, what is the level of relationship that exists between God and the individual? Refusing God's revelation is treading on dangerous ground.
As I think about it specifically now, I know it's a fact that some of whatever negative "feelings" I have toward the RCC is based on the fact that I know that most of them believe I am doomed to hell, barring an unusual miracle. Knowing for certain my love for Christ and His gift of my faith, I have a natural reaction. :)
A person has eternal life if Christ abides within them. This occurs, we know, when they are obeying the commandments. All the rest leads us to better improve this relationship. I believe Jesus said that the Spirit will blow where HE wills and if Gentiles can obey the law written on their heart without the Eucharist, then obviously, this is not an absolute LAW. But if one refuses to receive what God has made available, one can only wonder what is going on regarding their "relationship".
What we all need to remember is that such rules are made to lead us to God. But in the end, we cannot subject God to any laws.
Regards
The scripture tells us that unless you are baptised and take the Eucharist, you are damned (John 3:5, John 6:54). We understand that the reality is a bit less harsh, and one who does not partake of the sacraments through no personal fault of his own is judged according to his works based on the light that he has been given. To put it a bit differently, mortal sin is rejection of God that is wilful. When a Muslim or a Protestant rejects the sacraments of the Church because this is how he was brought up to believe, there is no wilful personal rejection of the will of God, and hence no sin. This doctrine is called invincible ignorance.
Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or of the fact, is always a valid excuse and excludes sin. The evident reason is that neither this state nor the act resulting therefrom is voluntary. It is undeniable that a man cannot be invincibly ignorant of the natural law, so far as its first principles are concerned, and the inferences easily drawn therefrom. This, however, according to the teaching of St. Thomas, is not true of those remoter conclusions, which are deducible only by a process of laborious and sometimes intricate reasoning. Of these a person may be invincibly ignorant. Even when the invincible ignorance is concomitant, it prevents the act which it accompanies from being regarded as sinful. The perverse temper of soul, which in this case is supposed, retains, of course, such malice as it had. Vincible ignorance, being in some way voluntary, does not permit a man to escape responsibility for the moral deformity of his deeds; he is held to be guilty and in general the more guilty in proportion as his ignorance is more voluntary. Hence, the essential thing to remember is that the guilt of an act performed or omitted in vincible ignorance is not to be measured by the intrinsic malice of the thing done or omitted so much as by the degree of negligence discernible in the act.