Why do Protestants say Catholicism leads to hell?

[Church_Militant]

Hi,

Jesus Himself in Matthew 6 warns us not to pray using vain repetition and gives us the Lord’s prayer as a pattern or model prayer.

In Matthew 23 He rebukes the Pharisees for binding men with heavy burdens, enlarging the borders of their garments to be seen of men, making long prayers for a pretence, loving the greetings of Rabbi, Rabbi, (or Master or Father), paying tithes scrupulously yet forgetting the weightier matters such as judgement, mercy and faith, cleaning the outside of the cup but leaving the inside filthy, building tombs of the prophets and garnishing the sepulchres of the righteous, for claiming that they would not have killed the prophets.

Certain rituals can show faith in Christ if the heart is right with God first. Justification and salvation can never be obtained by them. I concede that good deeds can show faith in Christ.

If repetitious prayer is condemned by Our Lord then why did He Himself do it in the garden of Gethsemane? Why do n-Cs say the Lord’s prayer more than once ever?

 

[Church_Militant]

The more Evangelical and Fundementalist Christians always insist that Christianity is personal. For some reason they are unable to comprehend that Catholics can have a personal relation with Jesus (and many Catholics don’t). They think that all the rituals and liturgical whatnot detracts from this personal relationship. Therefore many of them say that a person cant have a personal relation with Jesus and be a Catholic at the same time.

All of which kinda displays some seriously flawed logic doesn’t it?

 

[LaSalle]

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.

How about addressing the fact that your definition of Church is untenable rather than shifting the focus on the RCC?

Let’s put it this way - EVEN if what you say about the RCC is correct … it still won’t explain the fact that your definition of church is untenable.

 

[jmtosh]

Sorry, I meant the Assumption of Mary into heaven (1950) that of the Immaculate Conception 1854.

Quoting from the The Catholic Encyclopeadia Revised and Updated Edition 1987:

Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary:

…On Nov. 1 1950, Pope Pius XII declared the Assumption of the the Blessed Mother of God a doctrine of faith…

…The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception was defined for the Universal Church’s belief by Pius IX, December 8, 1854 …

Now come on! How can you put these doctrines over what is revealed in Holy Scripture?

Now who’s claiming they do not preach another gospel that was once delivered?

What’s next?

Talking of flawed logic…

God’s revelation of Himself is in His Son, the living Word of God. The written Word of God was completed by 300 AD.

The doctrine of the Papacy stands or falls on the interpretation of Matthew 16.

Christ has already said that those who hear His sayings and do them is like a man building his house on a Rock. The kjeys given to Peter did not entitle him to temporal power but to preach the revelation of God in the Holy Spirit.

There was no Roman Supremacy before 440 to 590 AD and the Catholic Church referred to in the Councils of Nicea, etc prior to this meant the Universal Church not the **Roman **Catholic Church.
This Council of Nicea in 325 consisted of Bishops from all over the known world of which none was regarded as supreme pontiff. In fact the Council was presided over by Constantine (who in reality did claim the title Pontifex Maximus as leader of the pagan State religion and retained it after Christianity became the State religion) Constantine was not a Christian as he still observed the rites of Mithras and executed his own kin.

The only prominence at this time of Rome was as the Capital city not as the Supreme bishopric of the Catholic Church. (See Oxford Church Text Books - History of the Church to AD 325 Rev. H.N.BATE , M.A.1949).

It was around this time that pagan deities and shrines were incorporated into the Church as saints and chapels. Those that saw the danger of the Church fusing with the State, the Donatists were mercilessly persecuted as heretics.

In 440 - 461 AD Leo the Great asserted Roman supremacy as did Gregory the great 590 - 604 AD.

To claim that there were popes prior to this is to have a retrospective view of history naming those that were officers of the Church in Rome as popes and linking them up to Peter, very deft.

 

[Thing]

Now come on! How can you put these doctrines over what is revealed in Holy Scripture?

Now who’s claiming they do not preach another gospel that was once delivered?

What is revealed in Sacred Scripture about this thing?

How is the original Gospel about this different to the ‘another Gospel’ you mention?

If you can follow that…

 

[hawkeye]

Hi
I am Catholic and I get annoyed when I see on other forums other Christians saying Catholicism leads to hell.
Why do they say this?
Please reassure me because sometimes I get worried about it,.

Where does it say that in the Bible ?

 

[Gamera]

Quoting from the The Catholic Encyclopeadia Revised and Updated Edition 1987:

Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary:

…On Nov. 1 1950, Pope Pius XII declared the Assumption of the the Blessed Mother of God a doctrine of faith…

…The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception was defined for the Universal Church’s belief by Pius IX, December 8, 1854 …

Now come on! How can you put these doctrines over what is revealed in Holy Scripture?

Now who’s claiming they do not preach another gospel that was once delivered?

What’s next?

Talking of flawed logic…

God’s revelation of Himself is in His Son, the living Word of God. The written Word of God was completed by 300 AD.

Ah. I see. You are taking the year in which a doctrine was infallibly defined and assuming that means the doctrine was “introduced” in that year. It doesn’t work that way. Both doctrines existed in ancient times, only the theological language has developed. Churches named after the Assumption of Mary date back to about the Third Century.

God’s revelation to humanity closed at the death of the last Apostle (long before 300 AD). God’s revelation to humanity consists of only two things (1) Scripture and (2) the preaching of the Apostles (Apostolic Tradition). Everything Catholics believe as doctrine – including the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary – comes from those two sources alone, and dates back to the First Century Apostles. Nothing new has been or could be added to our deposit of faith.

You’ve got many incorrect historical claims going, but each deserves its own thread. For now, let’s stick to salvation, which is this thread’s topic. Why would a Protestant think Catholics are doomed to hell? According to Protestant theology, we’re doing exactly what we need to do – relying on Jesus to forgive our sins. So what’s the problem?

 

[jmtosh]

Hi,

Moreover brethren I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures… 1 Cor 15:1-3

Grace be to you and peace from God the Father and from our Lord Jesus Christ.
Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: to whom be glory forever and ever, Amen.
I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you , and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. …Gal 1:3-8

The gospel is the death, burial and ressurrection of Christ.

Period.

Why?

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1 Cor 15:22

For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
Romans 3:23, 24

ALL have sinned and need redemption. Including Mary who, unlike her Son had both a human Father and Mother.

And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God My Saviour. Luke 1:46,47.

Only a sinner needs a Saviour.

And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;… And to offer a sacrifice acording to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtle doves, or two young pigeons. Luke 2:22, 24

What, Mary offering a sin offering? (See Leviticus 12:8)

Yes, this child was set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel,for a sword will pierce your own heart also.

 

[Thing]

Moreover brethren I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures… 1 Cor 15:1-3

Where does he say Mary was not assumed into heaven, and where does he deny the Immaculate Conception?

To return to the thread, do you think Catholicism leads to hell?

 

[Lampo]

The doctrine of the Papacy stands or falls on the interpretation of Matthew 16.

Why is your interpretation of Matthew 16 correct and mine incorrect? Don’t you believe as Christians we all have the right to interpret the Bible for ourselves as long as we are guided by the Holy Spirit? When I read the Bible, the Holy Spirit guides me to understand and to the realization that the “doctrine of the Papacy” is true. If you say my interpretation is wrong, then you are going against one of your core doctrines - sola scriptura. How does the Holy Spirit guide me to see the Papacy to be true and guide you to think it is false?

 

[Contarini]

Neat is why it is from God. **
**

Oh good heavens! I’m basically on your side against this poster (I certainly do not think that Catholicism teaches “another gospel”–that charge could be much more easily leveled against fundamentalist or liberal Protestants). But statements like this make me wonder what universe you live in. The one I live in is not neat at all. Why would divine revelation be neater than creation? It’s rich, complex, beautiful–but not neat.

Nor, should I add, is Catholicism (neat). Apologists do it a great disservice when they present it in this way.

I mean, we worship a God who is three Persons but only one God. That is anything but neat. You want neatness, become a Muslim.

Edwin

 

[Lampo]

Oh good heavens! I’m basically on your side against this poster (I certainly do not think that Catholicism teaches “another gospel”–that charge could be much more easily leveled against fundamentalist or liberal Protestants). But statements like this make me wonder what universe you live in. The one I live in is not neat at all. Why would divine revelation be neater than creation? It’s rich, complex, beautiful–but not neat.

Nor, should I add, is Catholicism (neat). Apologists do it a great disservice when they present it in this way.

I mean, we worship a God who is three Persons but only one God. That is anything but neat. You want neatness, become a Muslim.

Edwin

Perhaps you misinterpreted CM’s tone? Just a hunch.

 

[Teflon93]

The more I encounter these sort of Protestants, the more I hate them, and the more I hate Protestants in general. That’s not good for my soul, or for theirs, I don’t think. :dts:

No, no, no!

We may hate them no more than we may hate St Paul, who did a lot more than insult Christians.

If it helps, these people didn’t make up the anti-Catholic bigotry they peddle. It was fed to them by wicked and ignorant men who (for the most part) are long dead and have been judged by God already.

Many of these will eventually see the light and repent. For their sake, as well as for our own souls, we must not hate them now.

 

[Teflon93]

Well maybe they realised that because they weren’t subject to the pope according to your church they were heretics and outside of salvation according to your church and just wanted to return the doctrinal sentiment.

In which case they wracked up several more mortal sins without access to the sacrament of penance which would cleanse them.

 

[guanophore]

Teflon NOWHERE does it say that the sheep are sheep because of their own meritorious work…NOWHERE…

NOWHERE does scripture ever separate the meritorious work of the saints from the grace of their justification, either.

We are saved for the work.

We are, that we may…

“But **you are **a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, **that you may **declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” 1 Peter 2:9

It is the same grace that produces both the being and the doing.

It talks of good work yes…It does NOT attach it to salvation.

If you think that being blessed of the Father, and entering into the joy of the Lord has nothing to do with salvation, then you must have a VERY strange notion of what it means to be saved. Catholics believe that salvation is equivalent to eternal life, begins now, continues throughout our life, so long as we remain in a state of grace, and lasts forever.

 

[Teflon93]

Everybody knows we Catholics are going to heaven. After all, the fix is in – our guy has the keys.

LOL—okay, that’s pretty good.

 

[jmtosh]

Where does he say Mary was not assumed into heaven, and where does he deny the Immaculate Conception?

To return to the thread, do you think Catholicism leads to hell?

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man that is in heaven.

John 3:13

Only if one relies on the doctrines of men, religious works and the intercession of anybody other than Jesus Christ to get into heaven. Protestents, Catholics, whoever - membership of a Church cannot save a person, Jesus Christ’s blood can.

Lets face it we are all going to stand before God one day and only those found written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth will be accepted, i.e. those who are covered by the blood of Christ. For they overcame him (the devil) by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony and they loved not their lives unto death. Rev 12

 

[Teflon93]

As I read through this thread, I am amazed, sadden, flabbergasted, and disgusted. But mainly sad for you MFM. You just does not get it. Why are you here on this Catholic forum? It is not to learn what we as Catholics believe that is for sure. You all ready have that figured out. Even though we keep explaining that is not what we believe. It is not what the Catholic Church teaches. You just keep on building and fighting that straw man. Just like Don Quixote fighting windmills. Fighting the Catholic boogie man of your own creation. I must say you are really good at it. I have been out there in non-Catholic land. And believe me it was murky. The only thing I could figure out that they were united in was that they were not Catholic. The theology of “I’m not Catholic” All other “essentials” were up for grabs. Like shifting sands changing with the wind. I am also so grateful that I no longer have my faith in Christ built on shifting sand. I am home. Thank you MFM every time I read your posts, it just reminds me of how grateful I am that I have found my way back home. And out of that train wreck of “I am not Catholic” and this is why theology.

It is what I call “theology by subtraction”. The non-Catholics, lacking the fullness of Truth, and representing heretical offshoots of the Church founded by Christ and in which he abides, can only justify their existence by subtracting pillars of the Church as “unnecessary”.

The first which must be subtracted is the office of the Pope, which undermines the very notion of obedience to the Church and is the source of the relativism so prevalent today.

The second which must be subtracted from are the sacraments. You’ll note that only the Catholic and the Orthodox recognize all seven, although in the case of the Orthodox have invalidated Holy Orders on account of disobedience. (Not looking to start a new thread; please try to follow the logic). Protestants have never agreed on which sacraments to subtract.

Lacking authority and the full complement of sacraments, these communities are effectively crippled. Some replace what they’ve subtracted in altered form, replacing Pope with Patriarch or King or Pastor; replacing baptism with christening or dedication ceremonies, etc. This warping of the faith requires justification; therefore Scripture is referred to where Magisterium no longer can be. But not all of Scripture can be referred to; too much of it is inconsistent with the novelties. Therefore that gets subtracted from as well; only the same handful of verses, jerked from context, are referenced. In some cases, whole books of the Bible are considered verboten; in others, radically reinterpreted to remove the contradiction to the new doctrines.

Theology by subtraction.

 

[guanophore]

** Keep in mind He had already taught at some length that He that believed on Him would be saved**… He has already taught that he that is taught by the Father come to him and are saved… So to interpret this as other than a metaphor of being saved by His soon to be broken body and his shed blood, by internalizing the fact of the atonement in faith is not a good reading and not the one understood by the new church

It was not a metaphor. Jesus did not give his “metaphorical” flesh and blood on the cross. And the early church understood this passage through the lens of the Eucharist. I don’t see how anyone can read the early fathers and think otherwise.

** The discussion on the bread WAS FINISHED in verse 59.**
Jesus continued with a harder teaching

60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”

61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?

62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?

THIS IS A CLAIM OF DIVINITY, that was blasphemy to the Jews . Now see their reaction to this as Jesus continues

63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Sorry, mfm, but your artificial placement of the “end” of the passage will not work. Perhaps you have forgotten that there were no verse numbers in the early text? Catholics added those, and none of them ever noted that the discussion of what has been historically called the Bread of Life Discourse “ends at verse 59”. When he says that the flesh is of no avail, He means that the carnal mind cannot grasp what He is teaching. It requires faith to grasp it, and Divine Revelation. Jesus provided this Divine Revelation at the last supper, when he revealed what he meant by eating His Body, and drinking His blood.

** But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.

65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

The message was one that the legalist Jews did not want to hear. Men can not save themselves GOD has to grant it to them**

**NOW they LEFT **

66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

It was not the discourse on bread that made them leave , that they understood that as an analogy, Jesus was saying He was like the manna that fed their ancestors.
But then He made it clear that He had come from the Father and would return there. that was a claim of divinity and blasphemy to observant Jews

I agree that they were scandalized by His claim to divinity, but:

" The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” John 6:52

One must admit they were also scandalized that He wanted them to eat his flesh and drink HIs blood.

** THEN

67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”
68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;

69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."
**Now does Peter talk about the bread?

NO,

He addresses what the others left over, the divinity of Christ, Peter heard the message that one would be saved by BELIEVING in Christ as He had taught in this discourse****

.

Peter knows that whatever mysterious sayings come from the Lord’s mouth He will explain in due time. And so He does, at the Last supper. This passage, like all of them, cannot be understood in isolation from other passages that also refer to the same subject matter.

** **This episode opened because the crowd wanted PROOF, a SIGN, and so they asked for food.
Jesus made the transition to the manna because of the demand of the crowd for food to prove what he said.
This discourse is on faith without signs , it is on being saved by faith. ****

I agree. One who is saved by faith in Christ will follow all of HIs commandments. This passage includes HIs commandment to eat His flesh, and drink His blood.

But, you did answer the topic question. Protestants don’t believe Catholics go to heaven because, among other things, Catholics take these words of Jesus literally, and strictly follow His commandment of faith in this matter.

 

[Teflon93]

Pillars of the church does not give them primacy as the Lord did with St. Peter.This is the most irrelevant argument you could make. Paul rebuked him for a personal action, and not as one in equal or greater authority, nor on a doctrinal matter. Has happened several times throughout history, because Popes are still human.Better check your sources again. Someones feeding you a line there. Those same churches have surviving verifiable writings that support what you have denied.Never get an argument from faithful Catholics about that, just that you are arguing against Our Lord Himself about a choice that He made. Nice rhetoric…poor theology and history though. Not so at all.

Moreover, Paul was being a hypocrite. He criticized Peter for the very behavior he engaged in himself by having Timothy circumcised.