Why do Protestants say Catholicism leads to hell?

[qui_est_ce]

I have, like yourself, not lived in a spiritual leather bubble. I have been to many different Churches and read many different works but I adhere to the teachings of those who encourage that God’s Word is exalted above all his name (see Psalm 138) and is the final appeal.

I

That’s interesting, your story sounds like Tef’s. Tef, we’re begging you for your story!

 

[guanophore]

This is all about linking the evidence of good works to hearing the word and believing…

I agree with you here. This is why Catholics see the justifying grace linked with sanctifying grace.

 

[qui_est_ce]

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).

Could you tell him Catholics are allowed to read the Bible. Could you tell him that the reason the Latin Bible was called the “Vulgate” is because it was written in the common language of the people, so they could read it. Could you tell him the reason Bibles were chained to churches was so they would not be stolen, (like telephone books) after all they were handwritten. Could you tell him that they were often chained near a window so passerby’s could read it? Also, anyone coming to Church had free access to read it.

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

 

[guanophore]

I never SAID they were the whole thing but those are paragraphs as a whole that I am COMMENTING on.

Your lack of charity is par for the course, the OP asks a question I am trying fully to explain and help in the understanding why we fail to see your doctrine as being saved and you attack the explainer instead of the information supplied.
Whatever Teflon! I thought you and I were beyond this.

Doctrine does not get saved, people do. Doctrine does not save, either, only the blood of the Lamb.

What faithful Catholics here will never “get beyond” mfm is the misrepresentation of Catholic teaches that you pander here on CAF. The purpose for this forum is not a venue for you to promote falsehoods about what the Church teaches. You have your ingrained ideas about what you believe Catholicism teaches, and some of your ideas do not square with the facts.

 

[guanophore]

adding (justifying grace+ works + sanctifying grace) to FAITH to butress it shows a total LACK of faith…from the evangelical POV

Yes, this makes sense. Once a person separates the grace into “parts” it would appear that way. For Catholics, Christ is “all in all”, and the grace He gives us to put us in right relationship with HImself is no different than the outworking of that grace in holy deeds.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Sure she’s read it. You apparently haven’t read Lumen Gentium or Dominus Iesus. We as non-Catholics may believe that Catholic doctrine has changed more than they admit, but the modern teaching is what it is. Jmcrae is paraphrasing very accurately the contemporary teaching of her Church.

Edwin

Dominus jesus I am unfamiliar with but have read LG though I must admit the only thing I’ve seemed to retain from it was the acknowledgement that Catholics accept Moslem “allah” and Almighty God as one in the same something I find very troubling …That being said then the ending of Unam sanctum doesn’t really mean what it says? because it seems quite clear.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Doctrine does not get saved, people do. Doctrine does not save, either, only the blood of the Lamb.

What faithful Catholics here will never “get beyond” mfm is the misrepresentation of Catholic teaches that you pander here on CAF. The purpose for this forum is not a venue for you to promote falsehoods about what the Church teaches. You have your ingrained ideas about what you believe Catholicism teaches, and some of your ideas do not square with the facts.

 

[Contarini]

Dominus jesus I am unfamiliar with but have read LG though I must admit the only thing I’ve seemed to retain from it was the acknowledgement that Catholics accept Moslem “allah” and Almighty God as one in the same something I find very troubling …

That’s very telling. All you can see is the things that confirm your prejudices. (Of course, “Allah” is the word used by Arabic Christians for Almighty God, and one cannot say that the Islamic God is a “different God” without falling into absurdity, but that’s another debate. . . . )

I recommend that you read Dominus Iesus, since the main purpose of that document was precisely to clear up misunderstandings of Lumen Gentium that were being promulgated among liberal Catholics. (At least, the document treats them as misunderstandings, and I find that approach convincing–others would disagree with me and say that Dominus Iesus contradicts Lumen Gentium, which I cannot see to be true.)

That being said then the ending of Unam sanctum doesn’t really mean what it says? because it seems quite clear.

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

 

[guanophore]

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.

No, mfm. A heretic is one who has embraced the Truth and then chosen to depart from it. The persons she describes here clearly never learned the Apostolic doctrine of the Church. They cannot qualify for the term “heretic”. They are the fruit and offspring of heretics, but through no fault of their own, they have been misled. Most likely this has happened by persons such as yourself, who willfully misrepresent Catholicsim to them. It is the one who deliberately misleads who has the greater sin.

 

[guanophore]

The only works that aid salvaation is CHRISTS work on the cross…PERIOD.
He did the work for all of us, PRAISE HIM! you don’t add to it. If you love Him then you’ll keep His commandments.

I agree that one who loves HIm will keep His commandments. It may be that we only have a semantics problem. Catholics don’t presume that we are “saved” until the Last day, where it seems that most evangelicals believe that salvation happens at one single point in time when a person asks Jesus into their heart to be their personal Lord and Savior.

2 Tim 2:9-10
10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect,** that they also may** obtain salvation in Christ Jesus with its eternal glory.

The suffering of this life, and our conduct here is an integral part of obtaining the salvation we have entered at the moment of justificdation.

“Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. 13 Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let those of us who are mature be thus minded; and if in anything you are otherwise minded, God will reveal that also to you. 16 Only let us hold true to what we have attained.” Phil 3:12-16

Even Paul, upon whom evangelicals rely for the doctrine that salvation is completed action in the past, does not reflect that view.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

That’s very telling. All you can see is the things that confirm your prejudices. (Of course, “Allah” is the word used by Arabic Christians for Almighty God, and one cannot say that the Islamic God is a “different God” without falling into absurdity, but that’s another debate. . . . )

I didn’t say it is all I saw just the only thing I retained…Once I go back and review the article headings i’ll recall more though in regards to allah/almighty God I could NOT disagree with you more and it may be a fun debate to delve into.

I recommend that you read Dominus Iesus, since the main purpose of that document was precisely to clear up misunderstandings of Lumen Gentium that were being promulgated among liberal Catholics. (At least, the document treats them as misunderstandings, and I find that approach convincing–others would disagree with me and say that Dominus Iesus contradicts Lumen Gentium, which I cannot see to be true.)

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

Thanks for the link. You know that bit in Unam Sanctum about the greeks not being sheeps of Christ is quite telling I don’t see how that can be explained away.

 

[guanophore]

By the time of Christ the OT Canon was settled. Christ and the Apostles quoted it. In Jamnia in 90 AD it was settled again and closed.

You should take this over to the new thread. Your information is not correct.

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 Church Christ founded was indeed visible. However, I agree about the Roman Rite.

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.
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.

This is certainly not the inauguration of the first papa. Christ is the Rock not Peter! For who is a Rock save our God? And that Rock was Christ. 1 Cor 10:4. The Rock of our Salvation. Peter himself calls Christ a Rock in 1 Peter. The Church was to be built by Christ on the revelation of the Father to His salvation.

Yes, and Jesus grafted Peter into HImself,and gave him a share of His own “rockness”, changing his name to reflect that. He also built His church upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, whom He also grafted into Himself, the chief cornerstone. None of the foundation stones are separate from the rockness that is Christ.

The Keys were the authority of Apostolic preaching based on this revelation of Christ indeed Peter was influential in bringing the gospel to Gentiles.

Yes, but there is a bit more to the Keys than that!

The NT Canon was compiled by the Apostles, then collated by the Church Fathers. At first 20 of the 27 books were accepted universally (there was no central authority in the Church at this time) some books like Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, Jude, James and Revelation were questioned. 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.

Most of the Apostles were deceased when the last books were being written, so the Apostles could not have “compled” it. However, I do agree that the books were canonized by the successors of the Apostles the bishops. All of them were Catholic.

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!

No argurment here.

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.

Well, this is true to an extent, but it was not the bishops that were seeking temporal power. When Rome was overrun, and the imperial center was moved to Constantinople, there was no other structure left to organize civil affairs in Rome so the Emperor gave this to the Bishop of Rome.

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!!!

There was no separate “Eastern Orthodox” at that time, and the Syrian, Coptic, Roman, and Antioch etc, churches were all Catholic and in communion with one another.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

No, mfm. A heretic is one who has embraced the Truth and then chosen to depart from it.

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

 

[guanophore]

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.

I think this is a projection. Why is it arrogant to preserve the teachings of Christ as they were delivered?

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?

I agree. This secular notion of “supremacy” accused by Protestants has nothing to do with Jesus’ method of leadership.
In scripture, we see the primacy of Peter, not “supremacy”.

The truth is all the Church is One (the Lord knoweth those that are His)

I agree. I realize that there are members of the One Church who are not recognizeable as members of the visible manifestation of the Church.

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.

What do images have to do with the gospel?

Peter and Paul would say, as the Catholic Church does, that worship of anyone other than God is idolatry.

Peter and Paul would commend the cross, on which the prince of glory died for our sins, foolishness to the world,but the power of God unto salvation for all who believe.

Celibacy is a discipline that was commended by Jesus as well as Paul, and Peter would no doubt say that one should follow the teaching of Jesus on that point.

Please cite a blasphemous teaching 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!

Mary is called blessed by the Word of God,and there is nothing wrong with asking others to pray for us. The children of Israel looked at the brazen serpent for healing, not for worship. You have been reading too many Chick Tracts!

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.

Well, since ALL of the Catholic teachings preceeded the bible of course none of them are “borne out” of it! On the contrary, the Bible reflects the Catholic teaching that preceeded it.

Yes the Protestant Church can be thankful that God in His providence chose the Roman Catholic Church to preserve the scriptures.

I will admit that some of the scriptures were preserved by the Latin Rite, but there are even much older copies preserved by the other Rites and the Eastern Church, which preceeded the establishment of that in Rome.

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!!!

I am glad that you are here, jmtosh, so that you can get some of this misinformation you have received corrected. The Latin Bible was called the “Vulgate” because it was in the common (vulgar) language. I think we should address the remainder of you other misinformation over on the scripture thread.

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.

It is true that the Scripture should be read in the light of the Sacred Tradition that produced it, but that is not a “Roman” tradition as you have been told. Catholicism is much larger that “Rome”.

 

[qui_est_ce]

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

What is your question? Your link confirms what Guanophore posted.

 

[qui_est_ce]

The only works that aid salvaation is CHRISTS work on the cross…PERIOD.
He did the work for all of us, PRAISE HIM! you don’t add to it. If you love Him then you’ll keep His commandments.

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, *

 

[Teflon93]

I have, like yourself, not lived in a spiritual leather bubble. I have been to many different Churches and read many different works but I adhere to the teachings of those who encourage that God’s Word is exalted above all his name (see Psalm 138) and is the final appeal.

When I say doctrines of men I obviously mean it in the same sense that Christ upbraided the Pharisees for. (Please note that I am upbraiding nobody I said then that one cannot rely on the extra biblical doctrines of Men as opposed to the word of God.

I

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?

 

[Teflon93]

Fantastic! You have assumed that I am a Charismatic / Pentecostal who attends big rallies and engages in teaching the sinners prayer and altar calls just because I questioned the teachings of the Holy See?

Neither is true!

You don’t attend church, then?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

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,

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.”

 

[Teflon93]

Dominus jesus I am unfamiliar with but have read LG though I must admit the only thing I’ve seemed to retain from it was the acknowledgement that Catholics accept **Moslem “allah” and Almighty God as one in the same something I find very troubling **…That being said then the ending of Unam sanctum doesn’t really mean what it says? because it seems quite clear.

Well, that’s another thread, where you can provide your evidence that Allah is not God. For Catholics, it’s not troubling since the Jews and Protestants both worship God, by their own accounts, and we take them at their word on it, as we do the Muslims.

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