Why do Protestants say Catholicism leads to hell?

[Teflon93]

In the thread above one of your colleaugues states this - the scripture that is adduced to justify this is Col 1:24. Look for yourself.

**That’s the trouble, you haven’t read half of what your colleagues have stated and then you go on to state the complete opposite. **

As in the second point, one of your colleagues had already stated that no Catholic doctrine is based on scripture and you vehemently denied this statement later.

Just like the Church Fathers huh?

If that happened to be directed to me, you should quote one of my posts or say so.

I have read every post in this thread, and indeed posted Colossians 1 to lend the full context. Perhaps your trouble is you make unfounded accusations?

You clearly don’t understand the relationship between Scripture and doctrine in the true Church.

Scripture itself is the product of Tradition, the experiences of the apostles recorded after (in some cases long after) the events they record.

Catholic doctrine, while reflected in Scripture, does not derive from it. We do not worship a book.

Moreover, yours doesn’t either. The only thing Protestants agree upon, as we have seen, is the Nicene Creed. The doctrine of the Trinity, a core part of the Creed, while consistent with Scripture, is not articulated within it.

So unless you’re one of the new fundamentalists who reject the Trinity, you’re relying on extra-Scriptural Catholic Tradition.

On behalf of the Catholic Church (and my “colleagues”), you’re welcome.

 

[Teflon93]

By the way I said EVASIVELY pedantic. Pedantry is a good trait. Evasiveness isn’t.

And spouting off without evidence is a negative trait.

You will soon learn that no one will pay you any serious heed until you learn to make an argument, proceed logically from premise to conclusion, and support your argument with evidence.

You continue to be corrected out of charity, and for the benefit of any lurkers who may otherwise be led astray by your misrepresentation of Catholic teaching.

And since you’re anything but evasive yourself, why does your profile list your religion as “Protestant”?

It is a haughty thing to demand a response to your particular set of doctrinal beliefs while clinging to an umbrella label of which the only commonality is the Nicene Creed.

 

[jmtosh]

My congratulations on your discovery of Roget’s Thesaurus—next you’ll be telling us you have a “valid hermeneutic”, all the while inveighing against pedantry.

I haven’t seen one bit of evidence you have the skill to construct an argument, much less one worthy of a court of law.

I do see that your knowledge of history is weak, as your paraphrase of Wycliffe and Lollardy demonstrates.

Do feel free to open a separate thread on those topics, and prepare to be educated.

You seem to have the misapprehension many anti-Catholics have, which is that an open discussion thread means that everyone need to respond to you in the way you wish to be responded to.

Given that you and your fellow Protestants have not yet been able to articulate a single, unified body of theological doctrine and written it down, you can hardly expect us to keep a running list of the beliefs of the individual heresiarchs which comprise the Atomic Church of Me. If you can’t sort it out yourselves, how do you expect us to?

The Eucharist is on point because some of you claim that Catholics are going to hell because we don’t follow Scripture, nor obey Christ. John 6 shows Christ commanding the disciples to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood, which is the basis of the Catholic Mass. It is devastating to “Bible-believing church” arguments that you reject the Eucharist. It is of a piece with the rejection of apostolic succession. It is theology by subtraction.

You do not raise the question because you cannot answer it in any satisfactory manner.

Similarly, you cannot follow the logical conclusion of OSAS and the “fruits” the faithful must demonstrate—namely, that you’ve done nothing more than rename “works” without admitting as such.

With a twist, however—fundamentalists lack the sacrament of penance, and have a marked tendency to drive out of the flock those who have. After all, they can’t “really” have been saved, right?

This lack of charity toward your own—this cruel mistreatment of people at the very nadir of their spiritual lives—has driven many into the arms of the true Church. I have two dear friends from my RCIA class who are now devoted Catholics as a result, with a beautiful baby girl who had the blessing of being a cradle Catholic as a result.

This is what happens when you mess around with the sacraments—nothing good comes of it. They were instituted by Christ, are well-attested in Scripture, and the Church exists to adminster them to the faithful.

The Church continues Christ’s ministry, as St Paul did. For what was lacking in Christ’s sacrifice? What he told Peter: “Feed my sheep.” The Bride of Christ faithfully tends to Christ’s flock.

All of which may be lost on you at the moment, but keep reading Scripture and it will come.

May I say that I neither have I seen a shred of evidence that you can produce a counter argument!!!?

I thought that I was in a forum where my enquiries would be seriously contemplated before they were answered. Some of your colleagues to their credit did so.

I have not set out to try and persuade you of anything. I have read how you have incisively and arrogantly dismissed any objection or question of MFM from your Handbook on the Evasion of Heretical Questions by Cardinal Pacelli.

Who do you think you are, pontificating on the motives of others?

You come across as insulting and arrogant and have not set forth any cogent argument yourself , neither have you cited any evidence.

For the record let me remind you that it wasn’t the Protestant Church that has persecuted and harassed millions of believers.

 

[Stephen_C]

For the record let me remind you that it wasn’t the Protestant Church that has persecuted and harassed millions of believers.

Now where did that come from? There are a lot of threads about this already. I think it is safe to say that there was blood spilt on both sides. I guess you don’t live in the south

 

[jmtosh]

*This lack of charity toward your own—this cruel mistreatment of people at the very nadir of their spiritual lives—has driven many into the arms of the true Church. I have two dear friends from my RCIA class who are now devoted Catholics as a result, with a beautiful baby girl who had the blessing of being a cradle Catholic as a result. *

Hence my comment above.

 

[Gamera]

For the record let me remind you that it wasn’t the Protestant Church that has persecuted and harassed millions of believers.

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Dude, our Catholic faith has been outlawed by Protestant regimes in many countries over the centuries. In Anglican England I couldn’t have practiced my own profession (law) without standing before a judge and swearing under oath that I denied the doctrine of transubstantiation. Attending Mass was punishable by jail and for the priest saying Mass was punishable by death. You don’t want to start comparing records on religious oppression.

 

[jmtosh]

Now where did that come from? There are a lot of threads about this already. I think it is safe to say that there was blood spilt on both sides. I guess you don’t live in the south

Very good, very good.

 

[Gamera]

In the thread above one of your colleaugues states this - the scripture that is adduced to justify this is Col 1:24. Look for yourself.

That’s the trouble, you haven’t read half of what your colleagues have stated and then you go on to state the complete opposite.

As in the second point, one of your colleagues had already stated that no Catholic doctrine is based on scripture and you vehemently denied this statement later.

Just like the Church Fathers huh?

All Catholic Doctrine is supported by Scripture. The poster to whom you referred explained that Catholic doctrine was fundamentally in place before the Bible was even completed. Apostolic Tradition was available to the First Century Christians; the New Testament wasn’t. Scripture is a vital part of the deposit of faith, but Scripture itself tells us that the Apostle’s preaching also constituted the word of God (2 Thes 2:13).

 

[jmcrae]

For the record let me remind you that it wasn’t the Protestant Church that has persecuted and harassed millions of believers.

St. Teresa of Avila, writing about the early Lutherans, said, “Our greatest defense against the Protestants is our poverty - we have nothing of value for them to steal, and no great buildings for them to burn down.” The Way of Perfection, Teresa of Avila, Penguin Press.

 

[Gamera]

May I say that I neither have I seen a shred of evidence that you can produce a counter argument!!!?

I thought that I was in a forum where my enquiries would be seriously contemplated before they were answered. Some of your colleagues to their credit did so…

One problem is that you’ve raised multiple issues within a single thread. When you address the Immaculate Conception, Sola Scriptura, priestly celibacy, and all these other topics (each deserving its own thread) in “laundry lists” of supposed Catholic “errors,” you can’t help but for the thread to be all over the map. As I posted before, you may wish to open separate threads for each topic where you’d like to challenge Catholicism. I’ll be happy to show you the Biblical support for the Catholic position on any issue you wish.

 

[Teflon93]

May I say that I neither have I seen a shred of evidence that you can produce a counter argument!!!?

Okay—make an argument and I’ll produce the counter-argument.

Do I need to make your argument for you, too?

I thought that I was in a forum where my enquiries would be seriously contemplated before they were answered. Some of your colleagues to their credit did so.

What inquiries have you made? You simply assert that “Catholics teach…” and provide no evidence.

I have not set out to try and persuade you of anything. I have read how you have incisively and arrogantly dismissed any objection or question of MFM from your Handbook on the Evasion of Heretical Questions by Cardinal Pacelli.

I don’t think you meant to use “incisively”, which is usually a compliment. I have no idea what the latter portion refers to.

Who do you think you are, pontificating on the motives of others?

I have no idea what your motives may be. I simply noted that for someone accusing others of evasiveness, while simultaneously demanding a response to whatever doctrine you hew to, you have a profile listing your religion as Protestant. If you’ve stated openly which community you belong to, I’ve missed it. So correct me. My “colleagues” can then address more specific arguments to you.

You come across as insulting and arrogant and have not set forth any cogent argument yourself , neither have you cited any evidence.

You might want to pan up to those long passages of Catechism and Scripture I’ve quoted.

I’ve made a number of arguments and counterarguments in this thread.

Here’s one:

1. You and MFM keep misstating Catholic teaching on salvation and works.
2. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the official compendium of Catholic teaching.
3. I posted the complete and relevant Catechism passages which clearly refute your and MFM’s claims as to what the Church teaches (e.g., that grace is a prerequisite for good works)
4. Therefore, you and MFM have misstated Catholic teaching on salvation and works.

For the record let me remind you that it wasn’t the Protestant Church that has persecuted and harassed millions of believers.

There are plenty of dead Germans who’d argue that point if they could.

Calvin himself burned Michael Servetus at the stake in a display of Reformer tolerance.

Luther called for the annihilation of 100,000 German peasants in the Peasants War, and followed up with “On the Jews and Their Lies”, a pamphlet which directly led to anti-Jewish pogroms and proved so vile and persistent William L. Shirer referenced its influence in “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”.

Of course, “Puritan” has become synonymous with intolerance, violence, and fanaticism for good historical reasons as well, one example of which is the Salem Witch Trials.

Etc, etc.

Read Eamon Duffy’s “The Stripping of the Altars” if you’d like some examples of Protestant intolerance and persecution.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

Catholicism teaches that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross was insufficient to purchase eternal redemption for his people. (See the responses in the thread above where it is explicitly stated)

The short answer is you are incorrect.

CCC 1992
“Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men.”

I recommend you read the Catholic doctrine of justification.

It also does not recognise the Bible as the complete revelation of God (again, see the responses in the thread above).

You got us. Instead of listening to would-be prophets claim “scripture alone”, we prefer to listen to the Bible which tells us to listen to the Church too.

1 Tim. 3:15
“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

Sorry. :blushing:

If there are any reasons why Catholicism leads to hell it is these!

Like I said, Protestants insist on the manmade & unbiblical doctrines of “faith alone” & “scripture alone”, & since the Catholic Church, which was actually taught by Christ, disagrees, we are going to hell.

Bummer.


Cheers,

Chris

 

[Teflon93]

*This lack of charity toward your own—this cruel mistreatment of people at the very nadir of their spiritual lives—has driven many into the arms of the true Church. I have two dear friends from my RCIA class who are now devoted Catholics as a result, with a beautiful baby girl who had the blessing of being a cradle Catholic as a result. *

Hence my comment above.

Yes, and there are converts from fundamentalist communities on this board who can testify to this.

I live in the Bible Belt, and it is no secret down here. Feel free to come to Charlotte and I’ll introduce you to my RCIA friends, along with others who’ve had similar experience.

May I also recommend Jeff Vanvonderen’s excellent “The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse”, which addresses such things in a very useful way.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

Obviously.

The how do we know what Christ said?Sacred Scripture & Sacred Tradition.

Sacred Scripture & Sacred Tradition.

I accept the Bible as it is - The Word of God.

I’d be willing to bet that you don’t accept the entire Bible – specifically 6 books that were taken out on a single man’s authority - 1,500 years after the death of Christ.

Peter says after relating the experience of the Transfiguration and hearing the audible voice of the Father:

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the daystar arise in your hearts.
Knowing this first that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation .
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man : but holy men of God spake moved by the Holy Ghost.
2 Pet 1: 19 - 21

Amen. But since not all scripture was written, or even completely known, it is quite an assumption to claim that Peter is talking about “scripture” as the “more sure word of prophecy”, rather than the complete gift of the Holy Spirit which the apostles had been given at Pentecost, as promised by Christ.

Joseph’s dream was of the Sun and the moon and the 11 stars (he himself being the twelth star) which are shown to be Israel (Jacob) Leah (Rachel his actual mother was dead but Jacob’s living wife was Leah) and his 11 brothers.

Joseph’s dream appears to be missing something.

Oh, yeah, the woman!

Who Rev. 12:1 shows is surrounded by the Sun, the Moon & the 12 stars.

So then the Woman is Israel from whom was born the Man Child Messiah (Jesus) according to the flesh and was caught up to heaven (ascended / asumption?) the dragon was obviously Satan.

Quite a stretch, to claim that because the Sun represented Israel/Jacob in Josephs dream, that the symbol for Israel suddenly changes from the sun to a woman who wasn’t even in Joseph’s dream.

Beside, you seem to ignore that while Israel is where Jesus was born, Israel didn’t give birth to Him. Mary actually did.

I haven’t seen anyplace the Church teaches this, but I have often wondered, since Satan often works by proxy, if Herod wasn’t doing Satan’s work in parallel with the events that Revelation shows the dragon performing.

In Rev., the dragon tried to “devour” (kill) the child as soon as He was born, as Herod tried to kill Jesus as soon as He was born.

In Rev., the woman fled from the dragon to a place in the desert, as Mary fled from Herod to Egypt.

Regards,

Chris

 

[jmcrae]

When I said “you” I was implying the RCC as an institution. Are you saying that one cannot apply the sayings of Jesus to the Pharisees to our own lives or draw parallels today?

It doesn’t apply to the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church doesn’t do what the Pharisees were doing in those days. In fact, the Church bends over backwards the other way, making God’s rules to be as easy as possible to follow.

For example, did you know that, in the Catholic Church, God’s law of fasting is interpreted to mean two small meals and one large meal in a day, plus as much as you want to drink? I don’t even know anyone who eats that much ordinarily, let alone anyone who would consider that to be “fasting.”

But I suppose that a Protestant would get all panicky looking at all the fasting that is required in the Church, and start yelping about “hard rules,” if he never actually investigated what the Church means by “fasting,” which is why we always tend to suspect that Protestants haven’t actually investigated what’s really going on, when they make all these claims about “hard rules” etc. The rules are actually the easiest part of being Catholic.

In view of your own comments about Protestant exegesis the whole point of Exegesis is to bring out what the passage is saying.

It helps a great deal if you know what Tradition the writer is referring to, or quoting from.

Read Luke chapters 1 and 2 and then tell me how you arrive at the conclusion that Mary was an Immaculate Conception and from thenceforth may be not only be called blessed but may be prayed to and approached as a Mediatrix. By pulling two verses completely out of context - Luke 1: 28 and Luke1: 48.

We know these things from the Holy Tradition (hymns, litanies, etc., that come down to us from the Early Church) and we see them being referred to in these passages; we don’t actually derive doctrine from Scripture. Doctrine came first; Pope Innocent I knew which books were Scripture, by looking at which ones made reference to the already-existing Doctrine of the Church. He knew to omit the ones that were not, by looking at the fact that what was in those books went contrary to Doctrine, which already existed.

Completely ignore Luke 1:30 where Mary finds favour or grace with God (as did Noah).

Noah and his family also did not sin before they were rescued in the Ark - those who had sinned were washed away in the Flood.

Ignore also the fact that Mary brught a sin offering in Luke 2: 24.

That was not a sin offering; it was an offering for ritual purity. It is not a sin to give birth.

In fact the whole of Catholic doctrine is selective and leans more on Chuch tradition to interpret scripture than the proper way of using scripture to formulate Church doctrine.

Doctrine comes down to us by means of the Holy Tradition of the Church. We know what Scripture is, because first, we know what the doctrines are. Not the other way around. Scripture is a witness to the doctrines; it is not their source. Jesus is the source of our doctrines, and His teaching (which is the Holy Tradition) was passed down orally; not in writing.

 

[Teflon93]

Lurking behind the OP is an additional question:

Why does ANYBODY get sent to Hell?

Here’s the Catechism on the subject:

IV. HELL

1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."612 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.613 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”

1034 Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.614 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"615 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"616

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity.** Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."617 **The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."618

Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth."619

**1037 God predestines no one to go to hell;620 for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”:621 **

Father, accept this offering
from your whole family.
Grant us your peace in this life,
save us from final damnation,
and count us among those you have chosen.622

 

[jmtosh]

Okay—make an argument and I’ll produce the counter-argument.
**I will, but at a later time - I have a headache!**Do I need to make your argument for you, too?

**Arrogance. **What inquiries have you made? You simply assert that “Catholics teach…” and provide no evidence.

**I have only opened with that line after Catholics have told me that Catholics teach that, or to state what I believe Catholics have told me that they believe. **
I don’t think you meant to use “incisively”, which is usually a compliment. I have no idea what the latter portion refers to.

Hey Pal, that arrogance surfacing again. Yes, I did mean to say incisive - cutting! I did n’t say lucid or insightful.

I have no idea what your motives may be. I simply noted that for someone accusing others of evasiveness, while simultaneously demanding a response to whatever doctrine you hew to, you have a profile listing your religion as Protestant. If you’ve stated openly which community you belong to, I’ve missed it. So correct me. My “colleagues” can then address more specific arguments to you.

I’m the one that you had already decided was a Charismatic Rally attending Protestant. The reason I wrote Protestant on my profile was that I was being honest. I am an Evangelical and attend a small church in Coventry England. We are privileged to enjoy fellowship with Calvinist and Arminian brethren, Congregationists and Methodists as well as Independent Baptists and Anglican.

You might want to pan up to those long passages of Catechism and Scripture I’ve quoted.

I will try.
I’ve made a number of arguments and counterarguments in this thread.

**Not one without your .50 cal scathing attacks on the person venturing to question Catholic doctrine. **
Here’s one:

1. You and MFM keep misstating Catholic teaching on salvation and works.

Possibly yes, deliberately No.
2. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the official compendium of Catholic teaching.
**Thank you for pointing this out.**3. I posted the complete and relevant Catechism passages which clearly refute your and MFM’s claims as to what the Church teaches (e.g., that grace is a prerequisite for good works)
**Claiming what the church teaches or what scripture teaches?**4. Therefore, you and MFM have misstated Catholic teaching on salvation and works.
Thank you for clarifying it.

There are plenty of dead Germans who’d argue that point if they could.
I don’t doubt it.
Calvin himself burned Michael Servetus at the stake in a display of Reformer tolerance.
**Yes, thats right. Calvin did have a hand in his murder. I sympathise strongly with the Step children of the Reformation. Those that the Protestant Reformers also called heretics and persecuted. They lent great impetus to the Reformation and were extremely disappointed when the Sacralist Reformers joined with the civil powers. I am a Non - Conformist, in your mind I’m probably a double heretic. **** I do however believe in the Trinity, Nicene Creed remember.**Luther called for the annihilation of 100,000 German peasants in the Peasants War, and followed up with “On the Jews and Their Lies”, a pamphlet which directly led to anti-Jewish pogroms and proved so vile and persistent William L. Shirer referenced its influence in “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”.

Yes, sadly Luther was at one stage Anti - Semitic. I believe characteristically he also tried to protect them at another stage.
Martin Gilbert in his epic Holocaust also cites Luther’s pamphlet. The Vatican itself apologised for its passive role in the holocaust a la Cardinal Pacelli / Pius XIIOf course, “Puritan” has become synonymous with intolerance, violence, and fanaticism for good historical reasons as well, one example of which is the Salem Witch Trials.

Etc, etc.

**I did not mean to mention the persecutions and only did so in anger after you had accused me and my forefathers (incidentally my Grandad is Catholic) of cruelly oppressing my brethren. It seems the same tealeaves that told you I was a Charismatic also said I am a ruthless oppressor of the weak. I apologise unreservedly for my lack of self control. **

Read Eamon Duffy’s “The Stripping of the Altars” if you’d like some examples of Protestant intolerance and persecution.

 

[Teflon93]

No need to apologize to me, jmtosh, as I didn’t take offense.

Things get heated when discussing topics of great import, and salvation has the greatest import of all.

Thank you for clarifying your doctrinal disposition somewhat; I’m afraid I still can’t make head nor tail of it sufficiently to tailor responses.

It helps to clearly articulate your argument; otherwise, there is a whole slew of intertwined assumptions for we poor Catholics to untangle.

As for heresy, I’ve quoted the CCC passage above a couple of times on that. Unless you yourself were Catholic and instituted a novel heresy (a teaching in contradiction of Catholic dogma) and consequently further wounded the unity of the Body of Christ, you are not a heretic in the eyes of the Church. Moreover, I as a Catholic layman lack the authority to brand you a heretic even if you had met the criteria.

We take heresy very seriously, because in its wake war, death, and damnation follow.

 

[Teflon93]

That said, jmtosh, I do owe you an apology for using “your community” when speaking of the “backslider” issue in some fundamentalist communities. That is not only not your community, but may be a phenomenon limited to the States or to the Bible Belt in particular. I was wrong to so state and apologize for doing so.

It was also so tangentially related to the topic that it derailed this thread, and so I apologize to all following the thread: mea culpa.

 

[jmtosh]

Teflon93,

No problem Sport, no problem.

You are right, I should present my point more cogently.

Thanks