The Catholic Church.

[Fastfredy0]

Summary ... if you are a protestant according to OFFICIAL doctrine, you are going to HELL.​

Partial Particulars

The Council of Trent https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/43371​

The Council of Trent (Latin: Concilium Tridentinum), held between 1545 and 1563 in Trento (Trent) and Bologna, northern Italy, was one of the Roman Catholic Church's most important ecumenical councils. Prompted by the Protestant Reformation, it has been described as the embodiment of the Counter-Reformation. (FN 2).

Trent placed several "anathemas" upon Protestants. This means that those who disagree with the doctrines of the Catholic Church are "cursed" (cf. Gal. 1:8-9). Catholics excommunicate those under anathema. In other words, excommunication means being outside the "Church." Being outside the "Church" (specifically meaning the Roman Catholic Church [RCC]) means one is are not saved according to RCC doctrine.

The declarations and anathemas of the Council of Trent have never been revoked! The decrees of the Council of Trent are still confirmed today:

• (1) The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) is an authority for doctrinal statements in the RCC. In 1962, at the opening of Vatican II in Rome, Pope John XXIII affirmed, "I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent."
  
  
  
• (2) The "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church," says that the Second Vatican Council "proposes again the decrees of" three previous councils, one of which is the Council of Trent

• (3) The "Decree on the Training of Priests" states that the Second Vatican Council was "continuing the work begun by the Council of Trent."

• (4) "The Catechism of the Catholic Church" (CCC) is a summary of basic Catholic doctrine. The CCC was approved by Pope John Paul II in 1992 and printed in English in 1992 and again in 2000. The CCC mentions Trent over one-hundred (100) times in an authoritative and positive way.

• (5) On December 31, 1995, honoring the 450th anniversary of the opening of Trent, Pope John Paul II declared, "Its [Trent's] conclusions maintain all their value."

• (6) On July 10, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI said, "one church in Christ . . . subsists in the Catholic Church . . ." He added, Protestant communities "cannot be called 'churches in the proper sense," because they lack apostolic succession, that is, the ability to trace their leadership back to Christ's original disciples (FN 1). Since Protestants are not part of "the church" (RCC) according to Trent they are "anathema."

Thus, though many Catholics are not aware of it, Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that Protestants are Hell bound, eternally condemned, and cursed.

If 'free will' be true, you best study R.C. theology (and Mormomism and Islam, etc.). It is up to you to save yourself via your self-determination. Your eternity is in the balance. Good luck, or is that 'predestination' ... whatever.

 

[Barbarian]

Thus, though many Catholics are not aware of it, Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that Protestants are Hell bound, eternally condemned, and cursed.

Let's check on that assumption...
The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood.
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

No, turns out that's not true. As wondering pointed out, this doctrine of The Church has been in the Catechism since 1992.
CCC 1271
1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."

Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1992

But I suppose that there are those on both sides of the divide who would like it if The Church didn't regard Protestants as our brothers in Christ.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Let's check on that assumption...

I am not an expert on Roman Catholicism. I stand by my quotation of the Council of Trent and those afterwards that to this day uphold the Council of Trent as INFALLIBLE that I presented. The R.C.s council of Trent has been declared INFALLIBLE DOCTRINE. That makes anything contrary to the decisions of the Council of Trent incorrect according to the R.C.s

Aside: I don't know what to say if the R.C.s have two or more INFALLIBLE DOCTRINES that contradict each other.

According to https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/council-of-trent the decisions of the Council of Trent are INFALLIBLE DOCTRINE.
The Ecumenical Council of Trent has proved to be of the greatest importance for the development of the inner life of the Church. No council has ever had to accomplish its task under more serious difficulties, none has had so many questions of the greatest importance to decide. The assembly proved to the world that notwithstanding repeated apostasy in church life there still existed in it an abundance of religious force and of loyal championship of the unchanging principles of Christianity. Although unfortunately the council, through no fault of the fathers assembled, was not able to heal the religious differences of western Europe, yet the infallible Divine truth was clearly proclaimed in opposition to the false doctrines of the day, and in this way a firm foundation was laid for the overthrow of heresy and the carrying out of genuine internal reform in the Church.

Aside: Not that I care much .... I thought I'd present a contrary INFALLIBLE opinion of the Church

 

[Barbarian]

As

I am not an expert on Roman Catholicism. I stand by my quotation of the Council of Trent and those afterwards that to this day uphold the Council of Trent as INFALLIBLE that I presented. The R.C.s council of Trent has been declared INFALLIBLE DOCTRINE. That makes anything contrary to the decisions of the Council of Trent incorrect according to the R.C.s

Aside: I don't know what to say if the R.C.s have two or more INFALLIBLE DOCTRINES that contradict each other.

It's just that the Church's understanding of the doctrines from the Council of Trent are different than yours. And the Church gets to decide.

The statement making it clear that Protestants are our brothers in Christ came from a Council, Vatican II. And was affirmed ex cathedra by Pope Paul VI.

It may be hard for some to accept that The Church regards other Christians as valid Christians and our brothers. But that's the reality.

 

[GodsGrace]

I am not an expert on Roman Catholicism. I stand by my quotation of the Council of Trent and those afterwards that to this day uphold the Council of Trent as INFALLIBLE that I presented. The R.C.s council of Trent has been declared INFALLIBLE DOCTRINE. That makes anything contrary to the decisions of the Council of Trent incorrect according to the R.C.s

Aside: I don't know what to say if the R.C.s have two or more INFALLIBLE DOCTRINES that contradict each other.

According to https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/council-of-trent the decisions of the Council of Trent are INFALLIBLE DOCTRINE.
The Ecumenical Council of Trent has proved to be of the greatest importance for the development of the inner life of the Church. No council has ever had to accomplish its task under more serious difficulties, none has had so many questions of the greatest importance to decide. The assembly proved to the world that notwithstanding repeated apostasy in church life there still existed in it an abundance of religious force and of loyal championship of the unchanging principles of Christianity. Although unfortunately the council, through no fault of the fathers assembled, was not able to heal the religious differences of western Europe, yet the infallible Divine truth was clearly proclaimed in opposition to the false doctrines of the day, and in this way a firm foundation was laid for the overthrow of heresy and the carrying out of genuine internal reform in the Church.

Aside: Not that I care much .... I thought I'd present a contrary INFALLIBLE opinion of the Church

You're right .... you are not an expert on Catholicism.

But Pope John XXIII in the 60's, and all those that came after him, including Pope John Paul who commissioned and signed the work I quoted to you ARE experts of the Catholic faith and They Do Not Agree with you.

 

[Fastfredy0]

It's just that the Church's understanding of the doctrines from the Council of Trent are different than yours. And the Church gets to decide.

Agreed. The websites I looked up indicated the church decided that protestants are going to hell. I documented it. We will have to agree to disagree.

Let's try this another way ....
If you commit a MORTAL SIN you go to hell.

Re: https://stmaryofthesevendolors.com/prayers-2/list-of-mortal-sins-every-catholic-should-know/
Deliberate failure of the Sunday obligation—The Christian Sunday (the Lord’s Day) celebrates the new life of the world born in Christ’s Resurrection. All humans have a duty, to praise God and give him thanks. Thus all Christians are bound to participate in the Mass, and must partake of the Eucharist at least on holy days of obligation. Deliberate failure to do this constitutes a grave sin (CCC 2181).

Since protestants who do not celebrate mass have committed a mortal sin and thus are going to hell unless "a person who repents of their sin, intends to live a new life of grace, and receives the Sacrament of Reconciliation will be forgiven of all their sins (mortal sins in particular must be confessed in the Sacrament)." Since protestants don't participate in the Sacrament of Reconciliation they are doomed.

Irony
The same website says "Idolatry—Idolatry is the worship, veneration or belief in false gods. Because it is a direct rejection of God, it is a grave sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Idolatry includes worship of images (This does not mean that we cannot venerate religious images. Veneration of images such as a crucifix is veneration of the person depicted, and not the actual image in and of itself.)"
Now the irony ... educated protestants believe the mass is idolatry. The mass believes in transubstantiation which is "the idea that during Mass, the bread and wine used for Communion become the body and blood of Jesus Christ". Thus, in order for a protestant to avoid hell via a mortal sin they must take the mass. The mass is a service of idolatry in protestants eyes for they do not believe the bread and wine are the actual body and blood of Christ and to treat the bread and water as GOD is idolatry.
So, to avoid going to hell the protestant must commit idolatry which which sends them to hell ... unless the protestant believes as the Catholic, in which case he is no longer a protestant, but has become a Catholic.

Aside: Walpole is the expert though in catholic affairs IMO. He would know better than I.

 

[jaybo]

So what is the big deal about Mary? She was a teenager chosen by God to be impregnated by the Holy Spirit and be the mother of Jesus. She and Joseph raised Him for a number of years until He began to function on His own -- as a teenager in those days. The Catholic church has elevated her way beyond this to, in some way, a pseudo-divine status as an advisor to the resurrected Lord.

Personally I think that this is an extension of some modern cultural idea of the exaltation of the mother of the family, minimizing the role of the father. (What was Joseph's role as His father? In the culture of the time, the father was the key figure in the family.) It is a false idealization of the woman. In Latino culture, it's known as marianismo: It is the veneration for feminine virtues like purity and moral strength. For example, it represents the "virgin" aspect of the dichotomy. Evelyn Stevens states: t teaches that women are semi-divine, morally superior to and spiritually stronger than men." (wikipedia -- their emphases)

There is no doubt in my mind that this concept goes way beyond Scripture, adding a erroneous value to the Biblical culture of the time that simply wasn't there.

BTW, I am not a "male chauvinist", but a Christian who goes by what the Bible clearly says about men and women.

 

[Barbarian]

Agreed. The websites I looked up indicated the church decided that protestants are going to hell. I documented it. We will have to agree to disagree.

You disagree with The Church on this matter. They not only say that being Protestant will not send you to hell, they say that Protestants are our brothers in Christ.

Now the irony ... educated protestants believe the mass is idolatry.

No. There may be some who do. Some Protestants, like Anglicans, actually have masses.

You see, Roman Catholics, following Jesus, do not assume mortal sins by those in error. This is what St. Paul is telling you:

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves:

This is obviously a very important issue for you. But understand that The Church determines what it teaches; you do not.

 

[Barbarian]

There is no doubt in my mind that this concept goes way beyond Scripture, adding a erroneous value to the Biblical culture of the time that simply wasn't there.

Martin Luther disagreed:
[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures.
(Sermon, Christmas, 1531)

No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity.
(Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537)

 

[Fastfredy0]

This is obviously a very important issue for you.

Not really. Mild interest. If it was important I would delve into it deeply to try to identify truth as I would be deeply troubled by the potential of a heaven or hell mistake.
I do know there are authorities on both the protestant and R.C. side that say the other side is hell bound. Granted, there are also authorities on both sides that disagree with the previously mentioned authorities of the previous sentence. (What is Truth)

But understand that The Church determines what it teaches; you do not.

Agreed. We are disagreed as to what the church of Rome is teaching. I gave quotes from what would seem to me to be reliable sources like the Council of Rome. Maybe my experts are wrong, maybe your experts are wrong. (What is Truth)

 

[jaybo]

Martin Luther disagreed:
[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures.
(Sermon, Christmas, 1531)

No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity.
(Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537)

Martin Luther was a Catholic and didn't write a single word of the Bible. So what's your point?

 

[GodsGrace]

Agreed. The websites I looked up indicated the church decided that protestants are going to hell. I documented it. We will have to agree to disagree.

Let's try this another way ....
If you commit a MORTAL SIN you go to hell.

Re: https://stmaryofthesevendolors.com/prayers-2/list-of-mortal-sins-every-catholic-should-know/
Deliberate failure of the Sunday obligation—The Christian Sunday (the Lord’s Day) celebrates the new life of the world born in Christ’s Resurrection. All humans have a duty, to praise God and give him thanks. Thus all Christians are bound to participate in the Mass, and must partake of the Eucharist at least on holy days of obligation. Deliberate failure to do this constitutes a grave sin (CCC 2181).

Since protestants who do not celebrate mass have committed a mortal sin and thus are going to hell unless "a person who repents of their sin, intends to live a new life of grace, and receives the Sacrament of Reconciliation will be forgiven of all their sins (mortal sins in particular must be confessed in the Sacrament)." Since protestants don't participate in the Sacrament of Reconciliation they are doomed.

Irony
The same website says "Idolatry—Idolatry is the worship, veneration or belief in false gods. Because it is a direct rejection of God, it is a grave sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Idolatry includes worship of images (This does not mean that we cannot venerate religious images. Veneration of images such as a crucifix is veneration of the person depicted, and not the actual image in and of itself.)"
Now the irony ... educated protestants believe the mass is idolatry. The mass believes in transubstantiation which is "the idea that during Mass, the bread and wine used for Communion become the body and blood of Jesus Christ". Thus, in order for a protestant to avoid hell via a mortal sin they must take the mass. The mass is a service of idolatry in protestants eyes for they do not believe the bread and wine are the actual body and blood of Christ and to treat the bread and water as GOD is idolatry.
So, to avoid going to hell the protestant must commit idolatry which which sends them to hell ... unless the protestant believes as the Catholic, in which case he is no longer a protestant, but has become a Catholic.

Aside: Walpole is the expert though in catholic affairs IMO. He would know better than I.

Walpole is the expert - agreed.

But allow me to say that many Protestants, such as yourself, do NOT understand what the CC teaches...
just as some Catholics do not understand what Protestants believe.

But now you're trying to use the Mass routine, maybe because the Second Vatican Council routine didn't quite work for you.
This is rather sad....to think that you believe you know more about the Catholic Church than an informed Catholic does, or one that taught in the CC,
and so must surely know what it is that the church teaches so as to pass it on.

I hope you read somewhere that in the early church persons were excommunicated from being a member because they sinned against another or against society in general. This IS spoken of also in Corinthians 1 and 2. This practice was soon ended because a deeper understanding of sinning was attained in time.

Do YOU believe you should be excommunicated from your church because you commit a sin?
If the answer is No....then you agree that the church does not have NEW revelation, however it does come to better understandings of past practices.

If you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, please refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[GodsGrace]

Martin Luther was a Catholic and didn't write a single word of the Bible. So what's your point?

That Mary is MORE than just a normal teenager that had a baby.
We've been through this before...believe what you will,
Just remember that Jesus is God and Mary is His mother and maybe it would be a good idea
to give her some honor....

 

[GodsGrace]

Not really. Mild interest. If it was important I would delve into it deeply to try to identify truth as I would be deeply troubled by the potential of a heaven or hell mistake.
I do know there are authorities on both the protestant and R.C. side that say the other side is hell bound. Granted, there are also authorities on both sides that disagree with the previously mentioned authorities of the previous sentence. (What is Truth)


Agreed. We are disagreed as to what the church of Rome is teaching. I gave quotes from what would seem to me to be reliable sources like the Council of Rome. Maybe my experts are wrong, maybe your experts are wrong. (What is Truth)

Maybe your experts are wrong about many issues, since they're clearly wrong on this one.
I'd look into this a bit....

 

[jaybo]

That Mary is MORE than just a normal teenager that had a baby.
We've been through this before...believe what you will,
Just remember that Jesus is God and Mary is His mother and maybe it would be a good idea
to give her some honor....

Appropriate honor. She should be honored as His mother (and Joseph should be equally honored for raising Him) but that is way short of the exalted status given her by the Catholic church. My point is that she is elevated far beyond the status given her in the Bible. The Godhead is composed of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Nobody else.

 

[GodsGrace]

Appropriate honor. She should be honored as His mother (and Joseph should be equally honored for raising Him) but that is way short of the exalted status given her by the Catholic church. My point is that she is elevated far beyond the status given her in the Bible. The Godhead is composed of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Nobody else.

Joseph most probably was dead by the time Jesus began His ministry - he is hardly mentioned in scripture.
You should also remember that God is the Father of Jesus...not Joseph.
Mary is the Mother of Jesus....
No church that I know of teaches that she is part of the Godhead.
The mother of the King was always very respected...and Mary is the mother of the King.
But, like I said, I'm not here to convince you of anything...if you think she is too highly exalted, then so be it.

 

[Barbarian]

This is obviously a very important issue for you.

Not really. Mild interest.

You've spent a lot of time telling us that no matter what the Catholic Church says, you know what they really mean. Sounds pretty invested to me.

Agreed. We are disagreed as to what the church of Rome is teaching.

As you learned, the Church teaches this:
CCC 1271
1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."

Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1992

Really no point in saying that it doesn't. You disagree with what the Catholic Church teaches. Which is up to you. But it's not up to you to decide what they do teach.

Martin Luther was a Catholic

[/QUOTE]

He left the Church and founded the Lutheran denomination. I figured you knew that.

and didn't write a single word of the Bible.

He did edit out some parts of it, but that has nothing to do with the fact that like most Christians, he revered Mary as the mother of God.

 

[Barbarian]

Agreed. The websites I looked up indicated the church decided that protestants are going to hell. I documented it. We will have to agree to disagree.

Sorry, those websites don't get to decide, either. Only the Church gets to decide what they teach. And as you learned, the Church doesn't teach that Protestants are going to hell. In fact, they teach that Protestants are our brothers in God.

 

[Barbarian]

Maybe my experts are wrong, maybe your experts are wrong. (What is Truth)

The truth is what the Church teaches. The Catechism is the authority on this. And as you see, it doesn't teach what some non-Catholics would want it to teach. I don't doubt that there are Catholics out there, who would also like it that way. But they don't get to decide, either.

 

[jaybo]

This is obviously a very important issue for you.



You've spent a lot of time telling us that no matter what the Catholic Church says, you know what they really mean. Sounds pretty invested to me.


As you learned, the Church teaches this:
CCC 1271
1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."

Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1992

Really no point in saying that it doesn't. You disagree with what the Catholic Church teaches. Which is up to you. But it's not up to you to decide what they do teach.

He left the Church and founded the Lutheran denomination. I figured you knew that.



He did edit out some parts of it, but that has nothing to do with the fact that like most Christians, he revered Mary as the mother of God.
[/QUOTE]

There is no date given for your quote from Martin Luther; his attitude toward Mary is distinctly Catholic and has nothing to do with his objections to Catholic indulgences.

Most Catholics revere Mary as the mother of God but to Protestants her importance in Christianity is way overstated. Catholicism elevates Mary far above the descriptions given her in the Bible. As I said earlier, IMHO it is a manufactured non-Biblical position, based on a need to exalt the importance of the mother in the modern family structure.