Really having issues with this...do Protestants go to hell..Catholic view on this?

[PRmerger]

I understand what the catechism says and I mean no disrespect nor questioning the catechism or any other doctrine of the church — however, shouldn’t our biggest authority on questions such as this be what the Bible itself says?

This is actually a man-made tradition, karen.

We don’t look to the Bible as our “biggest authority on questions such as this”.

For the Bible doesn’t tell us to do this.

The Bible tells us to look to the Church as our “biggest authority on questions such as this”.

It is the Church, not the Bible, which is the “pillar and bulwark of truth”–1 Tim 3:15

 

[anon67074017]

This is actually a man-made tradition, karen.

We don’t look to the Bible as our “biggest authority on questions such as this”.

For the Bible doesn’t tell us to do this.

The Bible tells us to look to the Church as our “biggest authority on questions such as this”.

It is the Church, not the Bible, which is the “pillar and bulwark of truth”–1 Tim 3:15

This sounds very wrong.

 

[Gorgias]

This sounds very wrong.

Why?

Yes, we honor the Scriptures. But, we affirm that the Deposit of Faith consists both of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (i.e., Apostolic Teaching of the apostles and their successors).

It’s a “man-made tradition” to say that only the Bible matters; this perspective only arose during the Protestant Reformation.

It’s not that we denigrate the Scriptures; it’s that we hold both Scripture and Apostolic Teaching as the Deposit of Faith.

 

[Abu]

Joseph3 #102
This sounds very wrong.

Then heed the Church:
**DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION DEI VERBUM [Vatican II]
**“10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

“But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.
**
“It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”**
[My emphasis].
POPE PAUL VI, NOVEMBER 18, 1965
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

 

[anon67074017]

Why?

Yes, we honor the Scriptures. But, we affirm that the Deposit of Faith consists both of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (i.e., Apostolic Teaching of the apostles and their successors).

It’s a “man-made tradition” to say that only the Bible matters; this perspective only arose during the Protestant Reformation.

It’s not that we denigrate the Scriptures; it’s that we hold both Scripture and Apostolic Teaching as the Deposit of Faith.

It sounds wrong to say that Sacred Tradition by men is superior to the word of God Himself.

 

[Gorgias]

It sounds wrong to say that Sacred Tradition by men is superior to the word of God Himself.

Remember that ‘sacred tradition’ means ‘apostolic preaching’ – and therefore, it means the teaching on faith and morals that is protected by the Holy Spirit. It begins with the preaching heard of Christ heard by the apostles, and continues in the preaching of their successors.

Moreover, it’s not a discussion of it being ‘superior’, but being an equally valid expression of God’s revelation to humanity as is Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

Do you know the “process” for being deemed a heretic? The CCC talks about what heresy is.
Where is it stipulated how one can be a heretic?
Is it by the statements of individuals who interpret the CCC?

Observing what qualifies as heresy is a different matter from some being a heretic.

Yes it is very different. The overwhelming majority of Protestants do not realize they have espoused heretical doctrines.

There is a formal process, but it is rarely used. Laypersons can simply compare the doctrine to what is taught in the catechism. Persons may hold heretical ideas (including “Catholics”) without even realizing they are doing so.

The church is swift to identify heresies and define doctrine to prevent the faithful from falling into error, but slow to condemn anyone as a “heretic”. The Church prefers to clarify what is deemed heretical, then use anathemas to apply to those who espouse the heretical ideas.

You did not go into what is required for a person to be considered “a heretic”. Where would you find such information? If you were making the official determination, where would you turn?
It’s a point to be addressed, because the term is abused incorrectly and carries a charge with it that is inappropriate and counterproductive.

Yes, it is very important to talk about heretical doctrines, rather than lableling or “charging” people. In fact, I would say it is even more important to guide those in the Tradition of Apollos into a fuller knowledge of the Truth, rather than to begin with “heresies”.

No, you did not.
Here is a well rounded response to the issue from another thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10252408&postcount=254

If you had an answer you like, why do you keep pressing for one here?

 

[PRmerger]

This sounds very wrong.

What part? The part where Scripture says that the Church is the pillar of truth?

 

[PRmerger]

It sounds wrong to say that Sacred Tradition by men is superior to the word of God Himself.

There is no such thing as “Sacred Tradition by men”.

There are traditions by men, such as: altar calls, Tuesday evening Bible studies, folding one’s hands in prayer…

and then there is Sacred Tradition, by the Holy Spirit.

 

[PRmerger]

The church is swift to identify heresies and define doctrine to prevent the faithful from falling into error, but slow to condemn anyone as a “heretic”. The Church prefers to clarify what is deemed heretical, then use anathemas to apply to those who espouse the heretical ideas.

Yes. It is proper to say: The Church is at war with heresy, not with heretics.

 

[guanophore]

It sounds wrong to say that Sacred Tradition by men is superior to the word of God Himself.

Joseph3, your affiliation describes you as Catholic. If this is true,how is it that you do not know the origin of Sacred Tradition?

 

[clem456]

…
If you had an answer you like, why do you keep pressing for one here?

Because the answer is rather easily available for a knowledgeable poster. And so, if it is easily available, and the poster continues to use the term inappropriately, what good is it for me to make an assertion that’s going to be debated as my opinion, when a good answer is out there?

And it’s not an answer because I like it, it’s simply the answer of the Church, and so yea, I do like it, because I try to be faithful to the Church, and speak in a consistent way with our authority.

And my last observation is, it’s inappropriate to label modern day Protestants “heretics”, unless you are in a position to use it with some authority and competence, and I am not sure anyone here is. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[guanophore]

Because the answer is rather easily available for a knowledgeable poster. And so, if it is easily available, and the poster continues to use the term inappropriately, what good is it for me to make an assertion that’s going to be debated as my opinion, when a good answer is out there?

And it’s not an answer because I like it, it’s simply the answer of the Church, and so yea, I do like it, because I try to be faithful to the Church, and speak in a consistent way with our authority.

And my last observation is, it’s inappropriate to label modern day Protestants “heretics”, unless you are in a position to use it with some authority and competence, and I am not sure anyone here is. Correct me if I am wrong.

None of us are in a position to judge the soul of another, and personally I think the use of the word is not helpful in a discussion to bring our separated brethren into the fullness of Truth.

Thanks for the link, I love JR’s posts, he has taught me a lot since I came to CAF.

 

[fhansen]

This is a good point, and I’m not sure how to reconcile it with St. Gregory cited above. I find it much harder, however, to reconcile the reception of schismatics into the Church with the view that they already belong to it.

Just thought I’d bring up some relevant and interesting teachings from the catechism on this. Some may’ve already been posted:

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not 'in heart.'

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323* With the Orthodox Churches*, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

 

[karennascargo3]

This is actually a man-made tradition, karen.

We don’t look to the Bible as our “biggest authority on questions such as this”.

For the Bible doesn’t tell us to do this.

The Bible tells us to look to the Church as our “biggest authority on questions such as this”.

It is the Church, not the Bible, which is the “pillar and bulwark of truth”–1 Tim 3:15

You need to read 1 Tim 3:25 over again. That isn’t at all what it says. Timothy is speaking about how if he does not return as expected, then the church will tell the people how to conduct themselves. It’s regarding “internal” affairs of the church – not a suggestion for everyone. In fact, not even a commandment.

 

[PRmerger]

You need to read 1 Tim 3:25 over again. That isn’t at all what it says. Timothy is speaking about how if he does not return as expected, then the church will tell the people how to conduct themselves. It’s regarding “internal” affairs of the church – not a suggestion for everyone. In fact, not even a commandment.

Then you stand in contrast to 2000 years of the constant teaching of the Church on what is the pillar and foundation of truth.

If it is indeed the Bible, then you’ll need to show where the Bible says that it is the authority.

Now, “All Scripture is inspired by God”, 'tis true…but that’s NOT the same thing as saying that the Bible is the authority for where we go when we have questions.

 

[karennascargo3]

Fair enough.

However, it’s curious that you would come to a forum, a Catholic forum, post something that is a bit off regarding the Faith, and then not expect a refutation.

The entire point of coming to a forum is so we can discuss, debate, discourse and dialogue.

And if one’s views cannot stand up to scrutiny, then perhaps it is a good time for someone to re-evaluate one’s position.

It isn’t that I didn’t expect a refutation, rather that I don’t think it becomes helpful to the OP when it turns into an argument or can easily pass into the potential to get a thread locked. I don’t believe it’s beneficial to the body of Christ and it can cause our brothers and sister to become confused and discouraged. Discussing is one thing, but heated debating isn’t showing love nor respect for each other. I’m not speaking about anyone other than myself. When I get frustrated about my words being twisted, then I have to bow out to avoid anger entering into the conversation.

I’m trying hard lately to show the love of Christ and His message in bring others to the Catholic faith. Debate and argument only turn away those who are either not in the faith or are very weak in the faith. You never know who is reading here.

 

[PRmerger]

It isn’t that I didn’t expect a refutation, rather that I don’t think it becomes helpful to the OP when it turns into an argument or can easily pass into the potential to get a thread locked. I don’t believe it’s beneficial to the body of Christ and it can cause our brothers and sister to become confused and discouraged. Discussing is one thing, but heated debating isn’t showing love nor respect for each other. I’m not speaking about anyone other than myself. When I get frustrated about my words being twisted, then I have to bow out to avoid anger entering into the conversation.

I’m trying hard lately to show the love of Christ and His message in bring others to the Catholic faith. Debate and argument only turn away those who are either not in the faith or are very weak in the faith. You never know who is reading here.

I find that being able to defend one’s beliefs and refute that which is wrong to be a very, very good thing.

In fact, it is what we are commanded to do. In Scripture.

Imagine if someone comes to a forum and says, “I believe that the Bible says women are inferior to men.”

And when folks start to refute and respond to him, he says, “Hey, there’s no reason to argue with me. And it’s not beneficial to Christianity to disagree with each other.”

How would you respond?

Wouldn’t you try to correct this person’s very, very wrong interpretation?

NB: I am NOT saying your position is similar to the above. Simply take the example on its own merit.

 

[clem456]

It sounds wrong to say that Sacred Tradition by men is superior to the word of God Himself.

All good stools have three legs.
It takes a heckuva balancing act to make one or two work.
I prefer a good foundation.

Jesus Christ is the foundation. He is a person.
He lived, he taught, he is the head of a body of believers.
Believers write the word, the written word does not create the believers.
That is why Jesus is called The Word, to distinguish his person from the written word which breathes forth his good news.

Now, if it were just me and God, none of this would matter. God would just give me a manual and I would follow it. But, I have the blessing of others who are also searching for God.

God forms a covenant with a people, not just with you, or not just with I.
Our faith is always in the context of a community, not just a book.

If it were other than that, why would Jesus have come to us in the flesh and lived among us?
He could have just given us a book.

 

[steve_b]

No, you did not.
Here is a well rounded response to the issue from another thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10252408&postcount=254

Re: that person’s post, I would just respond with

“The Church’s moral theology has always distinguished between objective or *material *sin and formal sin. The person who holds something contrary to the Catholic faith is materially a heretic. They possess the matter of heresy, theological error. Thus, prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy. Thus, the person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if 1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God.”

ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm

That only Catholics and no one else is guilty of heresy, is false.