Will I go to Hell?

[JRKH]

What you just said is the reason why Protestants think that the church forbids them to read the Bible, even while paying lip-service or offering indulgences. What you said amounts to saying, “Just trust what the church has to say. Don’t question it. The Pope is much smarter than you, little boy, so kneel down and obey.” But the Bible praises those who check what church leaders say against the Scriptures (Acts 17:11). That’s essentially all I’ve done here.

So when I hear claims by Doctors and Popes that Mary obtain pardon for our sins, I check that against Scripture, and realize it can’t be found. There’s no hint of it. When I hear that we must go through Mary to get to Jesus, I check that too, and it can’t be found. I am simply following what Clement of Alexandria said about “those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits”, namely, that they “will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.”

You raise a very good point here about “proofing things”.
It makes me think.

When you say you want to check things against “Scripture” do you mean, as most do, The Bible?

Often times, when I come up against this type of an issue, I am reminded of the time, also in acts, when the Judaizers (Jewish Christians) came up to Antioch and began telling the Gentile Christians that they needed to be Circumsized. Their argument was clearly Scriptural and, since there was no NT to search and even St Paul could not resolve the issue from Scripture, they had to refer the matter to “The Church” in Jerusalem. Thus it was that The Church, which Paul calls the “Pillar and Bulwark of Truth” resolved the issue.

Maybe I am under attack, maybe not. A Baptist could have warned me of the same thing when I became Catholic.

True. My only Question I guess must be, would you leave teh Real Presence in the Eucharist, over this issue of private Marion devotion?
I hope not.

Peace
James

 

[Kawaii957]

There you all go making false assumptions again.

Look at the original post then look at to what the topic has become. Readings of the Catechism have been offered. Was the readings read?

Yes

Has the Catechism been read at all?

Yes

Does one desire to avoid the Catechism?

No.

Feelings can vary from day to day, month to month, year to year. We are not to proceed by feelings. Feelings will lead one running into the consoling arms of The Deceiver. The Love of Christ is an act of the will and that love will be tested. That test is The Cross that so many speak of – to separate the wheat from the chaff. Welcome to The Cross. Will it be accepted?

True. Feelings change. But this conversation hasn’t been about feelings. It’s been about the facts of the church’s teaching.

The discussion has expanded from concerns about Mary into “Mary Worship” and so-called contradictory teachings.

My initial concern was about Mary-worship, which is a concern about Marian teaching. Im reading a book about the Brown Scapular called “Mary in Her Scapular Promise” by John Mathias Haffert. In the preface, Bishop Fulton Sheen says, “Mr. Haffert, in writing its history, has in a masterly way laid bare the solid foundations upon which this devotion reposes. In doing this he has satisfied the mood and temper of the modern mind which wants a realistic foundation for its idealism. His case is so strikingly presented that to challenge this devotion is to challenge to some extent, the tradition and authority of the Church.”

That’s quite a leap in a day and are probably long festering obstinate doubts about Catholicism that were never fully resolved. These are old arguments. From my own experience I associate these arguments with Protestant fundamentalism that reject all but “The Word”, conveniently forgetting that the The Word was written by man, inspired by The Holy Spirit who is one part of the Holy Trinity that includes Jesus. It is that same infallible Holy Spirit that guides Christ’s Catholic church. Forums such as Catholic Answers Forum and others are a minefield of opinions, prideful grandstanding and (I am convinced) a cesspool heavily populated by the The Liar to Deceive and cause doubt and confusion.

I’m not a fundamentalist, but I do believe in the primacy of the Bible, but not to the exclusion of tradition. But I do not believe that this tradition is infallible, either.

Are there outside influences such as family or friends encouraging a rejection of Catholicism?

Nope. I am a student at a Catholic university. Most of my friends are Catholic, and those who are are serious about their faith. For me to leave the Church would be heartbreaking to them. My wife is a devout Catholic as well, and it would never settle well with her for me to leave the church. Me leaving the church would tear our family apart.

The perceived contradictions and real scandals of the Catholic Church are made public quickly for several reasons: the Catholic Church is large and an easy target to hit by whatever forces that desire to hit it, the Catholic Church has lots of money, finally The Liar toils in prideful arrogance to try to cause Christ’s Church to fail.

Protestant denominations are not insulated from these attacks and the list is long including but not limited to: embezzlement, sexual abuse, false teaching – all the sins as described in The Ten Commandments, including murder. But because there are so many denominations who may be loosely associated at best and membership relatively small in any one denomination the target is not so big, less easy to hit, makes the news less often and if problems are so bad it dissolves that church, the flock simply finds another denomination or church that suits the feelings de jour and the wandering in the desert continues.

The fact that there are sinners in the church has never bothered me.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

“You clearly haven’t studied Protestant doctrine that much. I don’t want to get in a debate with you over that.”

No, I have, used to be Protestant. What you stated was ignorant. I am curious as to the purpose of this thread though. You are obviously well versed enough in Catholic beliefs (whether from official sources or otherwise) that you can ask extremely intelligent and valid questions. So why wouldn’t you ask somebody more qualified, instead of get frustrated with people on a forum who aren’t giving you what you need? You come off as overtly hostile, and while I can understand frustration with people not responding to your main points on this and other threads, it doesn’t excuse your obvious attitude problem. It may be disillusionment or whatever on your part, who knows, I don’t so I won’t make an assumption. But you’re coming off as someone that is pretty rude, and merely want to poke a bee’s hive with a stick, rather than get real answers from qualified people, instead of “lay-apologists.”

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Much education but no or severely lacking in faith. Very sad. It is a mistake to reduce religion to a theological exercise. It is a recipe for failure. One cannot educate one’s self into heaven. Only by faith can God’s kingdom be entered.

Where to go? A church without Marian devoitions and without the Eucharist? There are plenty of Churches for that. A church with only two sacraments? Plenty of Churches for that. Why reject the only Church (established by Christ) that offers the fullness of Christ and all His gifts of the sacraments?

 

[Kawaii957]

“You clearly haven’t studied Protestant doctrine that much. I don’t want to get in a debate with you over that.”

No, I have, used to be Protestant. What you stated was ignorant. I am curious as to the purpose of this thread though. You are obviously well versed enough in Catholic beliefs (whether from official sources or otherwise) that you can ask extremely intelligent and valid questions. So why wouldn’t you ask somebody more qualified, instead of get frustrated with people on a forum who aren’t giving you what you need? You come off as overtly hostile, and while I can understand frustration with people not responding to your main points on this and other threads, it doesn’t excuse your obvious attitude problem. It may be disillusionment or whatever on your part, who knows, I don’t so I won’t make an assumption. But you’re coming off as someone that is pretty rude, and merely want to poke a bee’s hive with a stick, rather than get real answers from qualified people, instead of “lay-apologists.”

My purpose of starting this thread was to get people’s opinions over whether or not I’ll go to hell if I leave the Church. I have heard varying opinions regarding this over the years, and have never seen what can be claimed to be the “official” church teaching.

I apologize for being rude and hostile. But I do feel like I’ve been deceived, by myself and others, and hearing the same responses that I’ve given myself and others over the years has irritated me.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

I have heard varying opinions regarding this over the years, and have never seen what can be claimed to be the “official” church teaching.

You have and have claimed to have read it. It is The Catechism Of The Catholic Church. This teaching is from the official teaching arm of the The Catholic Church, the Magisterium. Anyone or anything that says otherwise is incorrect at best and Deceiving at worst.

Read The Catechism, again.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Fair enough man, I can appreciate where you’re coming from. If you want an honest answer, I think that the Catholic Church is the true Church. Hell is an objective reality for me. So in my mind, you can go there whether you subjectively believe you did something wrong or not. Christ wants unity in the Church, so I think separating yourself from the Sacraments kind of speaks for itself man. You can’t make the claim of invincible ignorance anymore. You will probably get a lot of wishy washy answers, and to my knowledge the Church has never made an official pronouncement on whether any one person is in hell. But if you truly are Catholic, you know the answer. Your questions are valid though, on this and other threads, and I want to find answers, so give me a little time. I enjoy theology, but I’m not mister master’s degree or anything.

 

[Kawaii957]

You raise a very good point here about “proofing things”.
It makes me think.

When you say you want to check things against “Scripture” do you mean, as most do, The Bible?

Often times, when I come up against this type of an issue, I am reminded of the time, also in acts, when the Judaizers (Jewish Christians) came up to Antioch and began telling the Gentile Christians that they needed to be Circumsized. Their argument was clearly Scriptural and, since there was no NT to search and even St Paul could not resolve the issue from Scripture, they had to refer the matter to “The Church” in Jerusalem. Thus it was that The Church, which Paul calls the “Pillar and Bulwark of Truth” resolved the issue.

True. My only Question I guess must be, would you leave teh Real Presence in the Eucharist, over this issue of private Marion devotion?
I hope not.

Peace
James

Of course I mean the Bible. Let’s look at the case of Acts 15. The Judaizers had a Scriptural basis for demanding circumcision. First, the charisma of the apostolic age was different than it is now, because the apostles were still writing scripture and there was still revelation to be had. Catholics admit this. The church teaches that public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle. There is no reason to believe that the same charisma of the apostolic age was present in the post-apostlic age. In fact, Catholic teaching seems to deny that. That is precisely the reason why Scripture was written and consolidated: to pass down the teachings of the apostles.

Second, you are wrong to assume that the Apostles had no recourse to scripture. James quotes Amos 9:11,12 in his argument, coupled with Peter’s experience at Pentecost, to form the basis for his judgment.

Furthermore, I remember hearing a lecture by Scott Hahn about how the requirements to abolish circumcision are all foreshadowed in the Old Testament. If we accept St. Augustine’s principle that “the New Testament is hidden in the Old and the Old is made manifest in the new” (or something to that effect), then that stands to reason.

 

[Kawaii957]

You have and have claimed to have read it. It is The Catechism Of The Catholic Church. This teaching is from the official teaching arm of the The Catholic Church, the Magisterium. Anyone or anything that says otherwise is incorrect at best and Deceiving at worst.

Read The Catechism, again.

Well, I have read differing views on it from church sources. Unam Sanctam, as well as some other church councils (I think Florence, for example) clearly states that one must be part of the Catholic Church to be saved. But all sorts of exceptions have been made in the past century that muddle that teaching.

(Note, the Catechism isn’t infallible)

 

[bookgirl32]

My purpose of starting this thread was to get people’s opinions over whether or not I’ll go to hell if I leave the Church. I have heard varying opinions regarding this over the years, and have never seen what can be claimed to be the “official” church teaching.

There is no official Church teaching on whether specific individuals are going to Hell.

I think what you are asking is for a clarification on whether or not “leaving the Church” is a sin punishable by Hell? You need to look at the Catechism on the section of mortal sin. Mortal sin is the only thing capable of taking us out of the state of sanctifying grace. The only way one goes to Hell is if they die when they are NOT in a state of sanctifying grace. The only being that knows for absolutely certain if an idividual is or isn’t is God.

God has revealed to us through the Church what acts are or are not mortal sins. Leaving the Church is one of these. The question is, are you leaving the Church, or are you leaving what you believe to be the Church because you have an understanding of the Church that is lacking? This is one example of “not knowing what you’re doing” that could make the action of “leaving the Church” not a mortal sin. Only you and God know this.

I apologize for being rude and hostile. But I do feel like I’ve been deceived, by myself and others, and hearing the same responses that I’ve given myself and others over the years has irritated me.

You cannot blame your feelings on anyone else. So just try not to be rude and hostile.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I would argue that James made the pronouncement primarily based on Church authority, and used the Scriptures to bolster his argument. The Church is declared the pillar of the truth, and while a Church teaching cannot go against Scripture, it is not necessary for every single belief we have to derive from there, if you take the power to bind and loose seriously.

 

[Kawaii957]

Fair enough man, I can appreciate where you’re coming from. If you want an honest answer, I think that the Catholic Church is the true Church. Hell is an objective reality for me. So in my mind, you can go there whether you subjectively believe you did something wrong or not. Christ wants unity in the Church, so I think separating yourself from the Sacraments kind of speaks for itself man. You can’t make the claim of invincible ignorance anymore. You will probably get a lot of wishy washy answers, and to my knowledge the Church has never made an official pronouncement on whether any one person is in hell. But if you truly are Catholic, you know the answer. Your questions are valid though, on this and other threads, and I want to find answers, so give me a little time. I enjoy theology, but I’m not mister master’s degree or anything.

Thanks for your answer. I didn’t mean to boast myself up by wearing my degree on my shoulder (though I knew that’s how it would come off). I merely wanted to show people that I’m not a random fundamentalist from off the street. Hey, after all, my degree is from Boston College for crying out loud. Peter Kreeft says BC=Barely Catholic.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

lol.

 

[bookgirl32]

Well, I have read differing views on it from church sources. Unam Sanctam, as well as some other church councils (I think Florence, for example) clearly states that one must be part of the Catholic Church to be saved. But all sorts of exceptions have been made in the past century that muddle that teaching.

(Note, the Catechism isn’t infallible)

Your use of the wording “to be saved” concerns me. Catholics are not “saved”. They were saved, they are being saved, and they will be saved. Salvation is a process, not something that is guaranteed. Do you need to be a “member” of the Catholic Church in order to even start the process? Short answer: Yes.

Being a “member of the Catholic Church” is being baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Please do research on Baptism by desire as well. These are not “all sorts of exceptions”. Anyone who has been baptised in the trinitarian form with water, or anyone who has been “baptised by fire” or “baptised by desire” is a “member” of the Catholic Church. This only starts the process. It doesn’t keep you from extracting yourself from the state of sanctifying grace.

The Catechism cannot be infallible. It does not DO anything. The Bible is not infallible either. It is inerrant. The Catechism is an authorized listing of the infallible teachings of the Church. The Church is infallible.

 

[bookgirl32]

And it sounds like you’re still having an issue with Sola Scriptura. You’re going to have to deal with that before you deal with your problems with Mary. I could be mistaken, but I thought I saw that you claimed you believed in the primacy of Scripture, as in over Tradition. I’m not telling you you have to do otherwise or trying to convince you otherwise. But – it’s going to cause a big problem for your understanding of Church teachings if your’e coming from that way of thinking.

 

[Soler]

But you would be obliged to explain how the pope’s latter pronouncement isn’t infallible. If it fit the definition of infallible, you’d have a problem there. An infallible pope cannot contradict an infallible council.

The papal pronouncement wouldn’t be infallible BECAUSE of the council’s prior pronouncement.

—Soler.

 

[Kawaii957]

And it sounds like you’re still having an issue with Sola Scriptura. You’re going to have to deal with that before you deal with your problems with Mary. I could be mistaken, but I thought I saw that you claimed you believed in the primacy of Scripture, as in over Tradition. I’m not telling you you have to do otherwise or trying to convince you otherwise. But – it’s going to cause a big problem for your understanding of Church teachings if your’e coming from that way of thinking.

I do have a problem with the church’s rejection of Sola Scriptura, but I didn’t want to get into that debate here. In short, the Church teaches that we should read the Bible ONLY in light of the Church’s teachings. But the Bible praises those who test the Apostles by looking at Scripture. If we read the Bible in light of Church teaching, or tradition, we will likely find what we’re looking for. That is the case for any denomination. We can force any theology into Scripture that we want to. Sola Scriptura teaches that, while not ignoring tradition (we must take it into consideration), we should let the Scriptures speak for themselves, because “scripture interprets scripture” (I actually remember reading this in one of Pope Benedict’s writings, but again, you’ll have to take my word on it. I don’t remember where I read it).

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Let’s get to the fundamentals:

Do you accept that The Pope is the Vicar Of Christ?

Do you accept that The Catholic Church, established by Christ is His Church?

Do you accept the real, substantial (body, soul, divinity) Presence of Christ in The Eucharist. Both species?

Do you accept that God is also Jesus and The Holy Spirit?

Do you accept that God does not deceive nor can be deceived?

Do you accept the existence Heaven?

Do you accept the existence of Hell?

Do you accept the existence of Angels?

Do you accept the existence of Satan?

Do you accept that abortion is Grave Matter?

Do you accept that euthanasia is Grave Matter?

Do you accept that it is not possible to ordinate women into the Priesthood?

Do you accept The Profession Of Faith, all of it, said at every Mass?

Do you accept that marriage is an unbreakable sacrament?

Do you accept that baptism is an unbreakable sacrament?

Do you accept that Mary was assumed into Heaven?

Do you accept the sacrament of Reconciliation?

Do you accept Faith?

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Im going to go out on a limb and guess you are referring to when Paul was preaching, and the people searched the Scriptures to see if it was so?

 

[bookgirl32]

I do have a problem with the church’s rejection of Sola Scriptura, but I didn’t want to get into that debate here. In short, the Church teaches that we should read the Bible ONLY in light of the Church’s teachings. But the Bible praises those who test the Apostles by looking at Scripture. If we read the Bible in light of Church teaching, or tradition, we will likely find what we’re looking for. That is the case for any denomination. We can force any theology into Scripture that we want to. Sola Scriptura teaches that, while not ignoring tradition (we must take it into consideration), we should let the Scriptures speak for themselves, because “scripture interprets scripture” (I actually remember reading this in one of Pope Benedict’s writings, but again, you’ll have to take my word on it. I don’t remember where I read it).

I’m not trying to start the debate either. Only pointing out that your understanding (not agreement or belief) of Marian doctrine is going to be skewed if you have yet to understand (again not necessarily agree with or believe) the Church’s teachings on Scripture and Tradition.