Why do Protestants say Catholicism leads to hell?

[Teflon93]

That is not the point here. I have some problems with Catholic attempts to harmonize Unam Sanctam with modern Catholic teaching. (Here is one of the more convincing of such attempts.) But that’s only an issue when discussing the Catholic claim to infallibility. Why are you giving Unam Sanctam priority over Vatican II and other recent teaching when discussing what the Catholic Church teaches today? This makes no sense, if you are seriously interested in understanding what Catholics believe. Whether or not what they believe has changed doesn’t make a difference in the fact that this *is *what they believe today (except for the traditionalist fringe).

Edwin

This is a key point. Argue with Catholic teaching as you like, but first understand what that teaching is. It’s much easier to attack Catholic teaching because we write it down. It’s all referenced in the Catechism, which is why the Catechism exists.

Since the Catechism is a huge compendium, surely there’s something to offend MFM or any other non-Catholic in it. So long as you quote it accurately before departing on your line of attack, we can get onto the more satisfying ground of arguing why this teaching is correct or not.

 

[ufamtobie]

Hi,

I have listened to the lecture “One Church” on this site. As our dear friend says above I cannot believe what Catholics believe about the One Church! It sounds so neat and wrapped up, no problem.

Yes, Protestants think about Catholics what Catholics think about them!

But which Church is as arrogant and intolerant as that of Rome?!

They teach there is One Catholic Church of which the Roman or Latin rite is a part, I am with them up to this point say about 440 AD (please check your history). Note that what was then known as the Catholic Church was not governed from a pope in Rome.

In the same breath they say the Roman Catholic Church is the One true Church ordained by Jesus Christ on the authority of Matthew 16.

The scriptures know no supremacy of Peter amongst the Apostles. John was that disciple that Jesus loved and Peter, James and John were part of the inner circle. In fact in the early Church in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:9) Peter, James the Lord’s brother (cousin?!) and John were pillars in the Church (see also Acts 12:17). Paul rebuked Peter to the face once over the truth of God’s grace did this mean he was being spiteful or mean to Peter.
Even if Peter was in some way over the other Apostles what does that have to do with Rome that doesn’t apply to Alexandria or Antioch?
Christ is the Rock, Christ will build His Church.

The truth is all the Church is One (the Lord knoweth those that are His) and sadly it is divided today as explained in 1 Corinthians 1:12. I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas (Peter) I am of Christ, I am of Paul. Thank God that there are Apostles in the Church today - their names are Peter, Paul, John.

The Roman Catholic Church has departed to another gospel, what would Paul or Peter say about images, rosaries, Mariolatry, crucifixes, celibacy of the priesthood, Nuns and monks, and so on not to mention the blasphemous teachings about Mary.

Yes, Mary was blessed, she had the honour of bringing the Messiah into the world but calling Mary blessed and praying to her and the saints is a completely different ball game like the children of Israel worshipping the brazen serpent!

Rome is PART of that One Catholic Church and has became an Apostate church trying to laud it over the rest of the body. It can only appeal to Church tradition and try to claim temporal power as these strange doctrines cannot be borne out by the Holy Scriptures.

Yes the Protestant Church can be thankful that God in His providence chose the Roman Catholic Church to preserve the scriptures. But we all know that until the Reformation they shut up the Word of God and kept it from the people claiming that only the clergy could interpret it and then only in Latin!!!

The truth is like many cultists they are not allowed to read the Bible without the supervision of Roman Catholic Dogma and Church tradition thereby foisting a biased viewpoint upon the Word of God.

Hi Jmtosh,

First of all, I know why you are here at this Catholic forum site, you may think you are trying to presecute the Catholic Church but that is not it. Truth is you are here because Jesus is telling you to become Catholic. Yes, you a laughing at this perhaps even saying vulgar language but thats why you are here,Jesus wants you to return home like the prodigal son.

Jmtosh, you are absolutely correct, in stating:Yes the Protestant Church can be thankful that God in His providence who chose the Roman Catholic Church to preserve the scriptures. Jmtosh you are perhaps the first Protestant who believes this tue be true and so it is.

Since You have been given the grace to know that the Catholic Church perserved the Bible, tell me this why did You protestants, well, not you but your late surely not the early church fathers your church fathers Martin Luther Calvin ect…change and DELETED some of the gospels? THATS A NO NO!

jmtosh, your statement above is confusing is mary BLESSED OR NOT?
Jmtosh, You don’t make sense above you say: "
Yes, Mary was blessed, she had the honour of bringing the Messiah into the world but calling Mary blessed and praying to her and the saints is a completely different ball game like the children of Israel worshipping the brazen serpent!"

Jmtosh, you above statement shows how disframented your church is about Virgin Mary. The Bible states that Virgin Mary IS
BLESSED IF THE BIBLE CALLS VIRGIN MARY BLESSED THEN SHE IS BLESSED.

Also, that proves that you need the Catholic Church for guidence
regarding Bible scripture cause without guidence one falls into a hole like you just did and many other Protestants about Virgin Mary ect… who come up with their own definition about 30,000definitions thats how many protestant churches in the USA THAT DON’T AGREE WITH ONE ANOTHER.

Ufamtobie

 

[qui_est_ce]

MTM, could you please tell me what Colossians 1:24 means?

24
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church,
myfavoritmartin;3660362:

I think you’ve asked this exact question before, in other words he says, "Look, the suffering of the ministry is this: I’m going to have to suffer because the world isn’t through persecuting Christ. Since the world can’t physically get to Christ anymore, they’re going to persecute me instead. "

Yes, and I am still waiting for the answer. If Christ paid the price, what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ?

 

[Teflon93]

So protestantism is heresy but protestants aren’t heretics?
catholic.com/library/Great_Heresies.asp

Yes and yes.

Per the Catechism (oh, that inconvenient compendium of Catholic teaching!):

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

Heresy was your birthright (and mine), I’m afraid. The Church does not hold it against you.

Those Catholics who leave the Church to create brand new schismatic communities they find to be more palatable, however, are heretics.

As were Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, and many, many more.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Hi Jmtosh,

First of all, I know why you are here at this Catholic forum site, you may think you are trying to presecute the Catholic Church but that is not it. Truth is you are here because Jesus is telling you to become Catholic. Yes, you a laughing at this perhaps even saying vulgar language but thats why you are here,Jesus wants you to return home like the prodigal son.

Also, that proves that you need the Catholic Church for guidence
regarding Bible scripture cause without guidence one falls into a hole like you just did and many other Protestants about Virgin Mary ect… who come up with their own definition about 30,000definitions thats how many protestant churches in the USA THAT DON’T AGREE WITH ONE ANOTHER.

Ufamtobie

What gracious and wonderful you have

Fulton Sheen said it.

 

[Teflon93]

I think you’ve asked this exact question before, in other words he says, “Look, the suffering of the ministry is this: I’m going to have to suffer because the world isn’t through persecuting Christ. Since the world can’t physically get to Christ anymore, they’re going to persecute me instead. But that’s all right. If I suffer getting the gospel to you, it’s worth it. I’m willing to suffer or die for the work of the Lord.”

That’s an awful lot of interpretation of men loaded up on top of a simple verse.

Context, man, context!

Colossians 1:

1: Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,

2: To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
3: We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,
4: Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints,
5: For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;
6: Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:
7: As ye also learned of Epaphras our dear fellowservant, who is for you a faithful minister of Christ;
8: Who also declared unto us your love in the Spirit.
9: For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;
**10: That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; **
11: Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness;
12: Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18: And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19: For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell;
20: And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
21: And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
**22: In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:
23: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; **
24: Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church:
25: Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God;
26: Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
27: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
28: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:
**29: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily. **

St Paul is simply saying he is finishing the work of Christ in the world, seeking to do God’s will just as Christ sought to do.

This is an introduction.

Note also the rather inconvenient spectacle in the preceding verse (23) where St Paul limits the good news that we will be unblameable and unreprovable in the eyes of God IF we continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and not move away from the hope of the Gospel.

Doesn’t sound like OSAS, does it?

Thus the need for all the traditions and interpretation of men to pound this square peg into the round hole of OSAS.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Now if only your fellow evangelicals would grant us the same and stop with the malicious slander about Catholics worshipping Mary.

Yeah cuz I call you Mary worshippers…
While I may think you attach a lil to much of a diestic identity to her I have never that I can recall said you “worshipped” her.

 

[Teflon93]

Yeah cuz I call you Mary worshippers…
While I may think you attach a lil to much of a diestic identity to her I have never that I can recall said you “worshipped” her.

Which is why I said “your fellow evangelicals” and not “you and your fellow evangelicals”, although I probably need to rethink that depending on what you mean by “lil too much of a deistic identity.”

I know of no Catholic who thinks Mary is a demigod, nor God.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I know of no Catholic who thinks Mary is a demigod, nor God.

Me neither and I did not say any did.

 

[Lampo]

I know of no Catholic who thinks Mary is a demigod, nor God.

If there is one, he/she would be going against Catholic teaching.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Heresy was your birthright (and mine), I’m afraid. The Church does not hold it against you.

Just a sidenote…
If you were an evangelic fundamentalist I’d be interested in hearing how and in what manner you acted/worked out your faith.
Because based on discussions i’ve had with you you really don’t have an understanding of the Evangelic fundamentalist scriptural view at least not the calvinistic end of it.

 

[Teflon93]

Me neither and I did not say any did.

As noted, it depends on what you mean by “lil too deistic”. Demigod is part deity, part human, right?

We do not worship Mary in any capacity. She is a saint, and a particularly good example of a saint, having been deemed so worthy and full of grace by God that He chose her to bear Christ. Christ loved her; we love her too.

Some of us do, anyway.

 

[Teflon93]

Just a sidenote…
If you were an evangelic fundamentalist I’d be interested in hearing how and in what manner you acted/worked out your faith.
Because based on discussions i’ve had with you you really don’t have an understanding of the Evangelic fundamentalist scriptural view at least not the calvinistic end of it.

I was not an evangelical fundamentalist, my wife was.

I certainly do not hold the evangelical fundamentalist view of Scripture, which to me is nothing more than Jean Calvin trying to make sense of Martin Luther by erecting a completely alien theological construct of his own which he then sought to justify by torturing Scripture.

I find the Catholic teaching on free will and predestination to be complete, and not result in the warping of human nature and dignity that Calvin’s philosophy invariably drove.

I also find that very few evangelical fundamentalists believe understanding Calvin to be of paramount importance; your mileage may very. The only people to have lectured me on Calvin have been Presbyterians, which makes a certain amount of sense given the history.

My wife, on the other hand, grew up Presbyterian and Methodist and got “saved” by the Pentecostals. They’re not too big on theology, and still maintain some distrust of it, although that may change over the next couple of decades given current trends.

 

[jmtosh]

Christ took the Pharisees to task for what they did, not what they said. He instructed the disciples to do as the Pharisees said, not as they did for that reason.

It was not the “doctrines of men” that were the Pharisees’ problem, but their lack of charity and righteousness in obeying God.

What then of those who do not do as Christ bid them do, but invent invisible churches and the like?

In Matthew 15:9 the Pharisees are rebuked for teaching as doctrines the commandments of men see also Mark 7:7 and Colossians 2:22.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

In Matthew 15:9 the Pharisees are rebuked for teaching as doctrines the commandments of men see also Mark 7:7 and Colossians 2:22.

The Catholic Church teaches the Traditions of Christ which He gave to His Apostles, not all of which was preserved in writing.

All of the Word of God was at one time passed on orally…Sacred Tradition. Eventually, some of Sacred Tradition was written down…this became Sacred Scripture, which is written tradition. However, Scripture itself tells us that not all of the things that Jesus said and did were written down. And listen to what Paul says about “tradition”:

2 Thes 2:15, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” Traditions! Traditions taught by word of mouth, in other words, oral tradition, and traditions taught by letter. Traditions which they are being told to “stand firm and hold to”. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

1 Cor 11:2, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.” The Corinthians are being commended by Paul because they maintain the traditions that he passed on to them. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

2 Tim 2:2: “and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”

What we have here in 2 Timothy is an instance, in Scripture, of Paul commanding the passing on of oral tradition.

1 Thes 2:13, “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the Word of God, which is at work in you believers.” So, they received as the Word of God that which they heard, not simply that which they read in Scripture.

In other words, the Bible clearly supports the Catholic Church’s teaching that the Word of God is contained in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.BCS

 

[qui_est_ce]

In Matthew 15:9 the Pharisees are rebuked for teaching as doctrines the commandments of men see also Mark 7:7 and Colossians 2:22.

Yes, and in verse 8 he calls them hypocrites for 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; What does that mean? They are sayers of the law and not doers.

If you continue, to verses 19 and 20:

*19
For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, unchastity, theft, false witness, blasphemy.
20
These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile."
*DEEDS can defile, make unworthy.

CONTEXT MAN!

 

[jmcrae]

Aha, I see what you’re after! Notice that I said the Word of God was before the RCC not the actual Bible, the written Word of God.

Right - Christ, the Word of God, is from eternity.

The Torah as we know was written by Moses circa 1500 BC.

Yes. He learned to write from the Egyptians.

Moses could have used cuneiform toledeth handed down from Adam via Melchizedek, Noah, Shem, Terah, Abraham, etc.

Uh - no, he couldn’t. Writing was invented in 2600 BC by the Sumerians, which makes it possible for Abraham to have kept a diary (though not likely), but it is not possible for Noah to have kept a written diary, nor for Adam to have done so.

The book of Job could be older than that.

It could be as old as 2600 BC, yes, assuming Job was Sumerian.

This book of the law later included Joshua and Judges and Ruth written by Joshua (except postscript) and possibly Samuel.

Thereafter 1 and 2 Samuel, Samuel, David and Nathan?
1 and 2 Kings by Isaiah / Jeremiah?
1 and 2 Chronicles possibly by Isaiah or Ezra?
Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. 500s.
Psalms by David circa 1000 BC, also by Asaph, Moses, etc.
Proverbs / Ecclesiates by Solomon, Lemuel. Circa 960 BC.
The Major and Minor Prophets up to Malachi circa 400 BC (who said God would send Elijah the prophet before the day of the LORD).

The Old Testament was and is the Word of God. Isaiah referred to this word as the word of our God that abideth forever.

By the time of Christ the OT Canon was settled.

It was universally established, but “settled” by the Jews, no, since the Council of Jamnia removed seven books from it in 90 AD.

Of course, by 90 AD, the Church was no longer under the authority of the Jews, and retained the 46-book Old Testament by its own authority, citing the fact that the 46-book canon was the Old Testament that was used by Christ and the Apostles.

Christ and the Apostles quoted it.

Yes, they did.

By the way the OT church was called the church (congregation ) in the wilderness.

That’s true, and in fact some Catholic Catechisms set the beginning of the Church to coincide with the creation of Adam.

The Catholic Church was founded by Christ in 30 AD. If by the Catholic Church you mean the Universal invisible mystical body of Christ you are right. The Roman Catholic Church was NOT founded then!

The Catholic Church was established by Christ in a visible manner, with Peter as “chief shepherd” (Matthew 16:18-19, John 21:15-19) and the Apostles as its leading authorities (Matthew 18:18, Acts 15, and others)

In Matthew 16 Simon Peter answered Christ’s question as to who he was as Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God. Jesus answered Blessed are you Simon son of John for flesh and blood did not reveal this unto you but My Father in Heaven. And I say unto thee Thou art** Kephas** and upon this Kephas I will build my chuch and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you will bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Jesus was not speaking Greek to Peter - I have bolded the appropriate corrections in your citation, above.

This is certainly not the inauguration of the first papa.

Good point: Jesus is only prophesying that Peter will be the head of the Church, at this point. Peter actually became Head of the Church in John 21:15-19.

Question: If Jesus did not intend for Peter to be “the rock,” why did He name him “Rock,” at that moment?

Christ is the Rock not Peter!

Peter gets his “rockness” from Christ. Christ is not stingy; He shares His attributes with His Church, which is why we are called His body.

 

[jmcrae]

The Roman church began after Pentecost when believers returned home from Jerusalem with the gospel. See Acts 2 and Romans 16. Paul later wrote to them.

That’s true, yes. Rome became the seat of Church authority when Peter (who was already the Head of the Church) was brought there from Antioch in 64 AD and became its Bishop. He died there as a martyr, thus passing two things on to his successor in Rome: his Bishopric, and his authority as Chief Shepherd of the Church.

(He passed only his Bishopric to his successor in Antioch, and retained his headship of the Church in himself and took it in his person to Rome with him, since he was not yet dead.)

In the New Testament Church the Apostles preached the gospel of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. The New Testament was being compiled at this time.

Peter refers to Paul’s writings as scripture in 2 Peter 3 : 15,16.

John wrote the last NT books being his Epistles and finally Revelation about 96 AD.

All true, yes.

The NT Canon was compiled by the Apostles, then collated by the Church Fathers.

Elaborate? The writers of the New Testament are, first, six Apostles: Matthew, John, Peter, Jude, Paul, and James, and second, two of their close followers: Mark and Luke.There may also be a ninth New Testament writer; some modern scholars believe that Barnabas is the author of the Letter to the Hebrews. Traditionally it has been thought to be a Pauline epistle, though.

At first 20 of the 27 books were accepted universally (there was no central authority in the Church at this time)

Yes, there was.

some books like Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, Jude, James and Revelation were questioned.

By whom, if there was no central authority in the Church?

By start of 4th Century the Canon was accepted and was deliberated at Nice in 325, Hippo 394 AD and at Carthage in 397 AD.

The subject of the Council of Nicea was the Divinity of Christ and the right administration of the Sacraments. It produced the Nicene Creed, and gave instructions regarding the baptism of heretics and viaticum to the dying (aka the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, aka Last Rites, and known today as “The Sacrament of the Sick”), but I’m not seeing any references to a canon of Scripture at Nicea. (I’m using The Sources of Catholic Dogma by Denzinger, and I’m looking at pages 26-27.)

Rome was the capital of the civilised world and in every metropolitan centre the Bishops of the Church were to be found such as Alexandria, Antioch, Ephesus, Carthage, etc. Note - the catholic church not the Roman Catholic Church!

As it continues to be, even today. We have a great many Rites in the Catholic Church; the Roman Rite (aka the Latin Rite) is the most common one here in the West, but it is by no means the only one, nor ever has been.

In the fifth century when barbarian invasions was breaking up the empire, a series of powerful bishops known as popes succeeded in laying claim to supreme ecclesiatical supremacy. Leo the Great (440 - 461) and Gregory the Great (590 - 604) the founders of the modern papacy.

Uh - no.

Obviously the custody of some of the scriptures passed to the Roman Church. There was also the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Donatists that rejected Sacral society and the Coptic church, inter alia.

Not at that time, yet, no - the schism didn’t occur until the 11th century.

For the Roman Catholic Church to lay claim to authoring the scriptures and claiming to be the sole and only Church that Christ founded is as ludicrous as the Jehovah’s Witnesses claiming that the first Jehovah’s Witness was Abel!!!

Not really, no, since we have objective, secular history on our side; the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not.

 

[qui_est_ce]

In Matthew 15:9 the Pharisees are rebuked for teaching as doctrines the commandments of men see also Mark 7:7 and Colossians 2:22.

Are you saying Baptism, Eucharist, the Ten Commandments are false doctrine?

 

[qui_est_ce]

In Matthew 16 Simon Peter answered Christ’s question as to who he was as Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God. Jesus answered Blessed are you Simon son of John for flesh and blood did not reveal this unto you but My Father in Heaven. And I say unto thee Thou art Petros (a stone) and upon this Petra (Rock) I will build my chuch and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

Jesus said "thou art Rock, 'not “thou are a rock.” The French name for Peter is Pierre, Rock.
I’m seeing a lot of tortuous interpretation here.