# Help Me Prove I'm Destined For Hell (according to...)



## blhowes (Mar 25, 2006)

*Help Me Prove I\'m Destined For Hell (according to...)*

Its mind boggling how prevalent the ecumenical movement is. Protestant and evangelical churches that purport to preach and teach the doctrines of grace and salvation through faith in Christ alone, lay that aside at Easter, and a few key times during the year, and join with the catholic church in an ecumenical 'worship' service. Educated elders and pastors, some with advanced theological degrees, lead their congregations to join with father whoever and his local parish in joint worship. Can anybody tell me what's wrong with this scenario?

After listening to Greg Bahnsen's sermon _The Road to Rome_, I was mindful of just how different the reformed teachings, or many other evangelical churches for that matter, are from the teachings of the catholic church. Its not like we're just brothers in Christ with different opinions, but Rome has drawn a line in the sand through its decrees and dogma and declared those who don't believe as they do to be anathama. That's pretty heavy stuff there.

There are many reasons not to join or fellowship with the catholic church, but I'd like to focus on just one of them - their attitude towards me, or what their attitude should be towards me, because of my beliefs and their dogma. This may sound like a strange request, but I'd like you to help me prove, if its true, that I'm destined for hell...that is, according to the catholic church. 

I dusted off a book I got from a local catholic bookstore years ago called_ "Dogmatic Canons and Decrees of The Council of Trent and Vatican Council I plus The Decree on the Immaculate Conception and The Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX" _(catchy title). Here are a couple of quotes:



> If anyone saith that a man who is born again and justified is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.





> If anyone denieth that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.





> If anyone saith either that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or that the effects do not result therefrom; let him be anathema.





> If anyone saith that God always remits the whole punishment together with the guilt, and that the satisfaction of penitents is no other than the faith whereby they apprehend that Christ has satisfied for them; let him be anathema.





> (regarding the Immaculate Conception):
> ...We pronounce, declare nad dfine, unto the glory of the holy and indivisible Trinity, the honour and ornament of the holy virgin, the Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith and the increase of the Christian religion by the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and in Our own authority, that the doctrine which holds the Blessed Virgin Mary to have been, from the first moment of hier conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Saviour of mankind, preserved free from all stain of original sin, was revealed by God, and is, therefore, to be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful. Therefore, if some should presume to think in their hearts otherwisethan We have defined (which God forbid), they shall know and throughly understand that they are by their own judgment condemned, have made shipwreck concerning the Faith, and fallen away from the unity of the Church...



I could of course have posted so many more dogmatic canons and decrees, but I think I've posted enough to officially to show that, according to the catholic church, I'm condemned and anathema.

I don't know (care) loads about the catholic church, but my understanding is that these canons and decrees are the official position of the catholic church that cannot be changed (apart from repentance, etc). Are these considered to be 'infallible' decrees? If I fit the bill for these or so many other anathamatic (that's probably not a word) dogmatic canons and decrees, am I in jeopardy of spending eternity in hell? 

Some have said that the catholic church has changed and doesn't believe these things anymore. Due to the infallible nature of the decrees, do they have the option of changing?

[Edited on 3-25-2006 by blhowes]


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 25, 2006)

Most liberal catholics will cop out and say that the modern pope(s) nuances them in a way that you do go to heaven, maybe, if you are good enough. Same with Muslims.


----------



## blhowes (Mar 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Most liberal catholics will cop out and say that the modern pope(s) nuances them in a way that you do go to heaven, maybe, if you are good enough. Same with Muslims.


You'd have to do some pretty heavy nuancing to get around such clear dogma.

If the catholic church were to be consistent with their teachings, and the authority with which these teachings came, wouldn't they have to say that I'm condemned,?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 25, 2006)

The Pope is Gods mouthpiece here on Earth; he can do whatever he pleases. Can you say inconsistency. Rome's church is nothing more than a wax nose and we should not elbow up to their heresies. Those people and churches who are, are not reformed and need a primer in biblical theology. 

Get a copy of the Roman Catholic Church's catechism and you will see _innumerable_ attacks on Gods word.

[Edited on 3-25-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## turmeric (Mar 25, 2006)

What one guy who was trying to convert me said was; the RCC is the only way to heaven but invincibly ignorant Protestants (and yes, Muslims) can be saved, they just don't realize they're being saved by the RCC. (I didn't say it made sense!)


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 25, 2006)

I used to have a link where I showed that Catholics, given their claim to infallibility, yet having contradictory councils, necessarily believed the moon was made of green cheese (logical deduction. really cool). But myfriend shut down his old site (lots of protestant catholic debates) and I shut down my xanga site (i feared the powers that be were monitoring it), so I will have to redo the argument later.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> What's left to prove, Bob? You're hell bound...I mean...according to the RC Decrees. :bigsmile:


<-------------------Anathema

[Edited on 3--25-06 by Draught Horse]


----------



## blhowes (Mar 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> What's left to prove, Bob? You're hell bound...I mean...according to the RC Decrees. :bigsmile:


:bigsmile: I'm so glad you added that last phrase to your post.

It'd be nice to be able to use this line of thought when witnessing to some catholic relatives, or maybe some coworkers, but I want to first be sure I have it right what they teach, or maybe I should say what those who originally wrote them meant and how the reformers understood what they said.

A couple of questions for anybody:
1. To the catholic church, were these dogmatic canons and decrees given with the same infallible authority that they claim their pope has?

2. Do the writings of the catholic church since the time they were written view these as authoritative declarations and interpret these declarations as they would naturally be understood?

[Edited on 3-25-2006 by blhowes]


----------



## blhowes (Mar 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I used to have a link where I showed that Catholics, given their claim to infallibility, yet having contradictory councils, necessarily believed the moon was made of green cheese (logical deduction. really cool). But myfriend shut down his old site (lots of protestant catholic debates) and I shut down my xanga site (i feared the powers that be were monitoring it), so I will have to redo the argument later.


That'd be interesting to read if you can dig it up.


----------



## blhowes (Mar 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> What one guy who was trying to convert me said was; the RCC is the only way to heaven but invincibly ignorant Protestants (and yes, Muslims) can be saved, they just don't realize they're being saved by the RCC. (I didn't say it made sense!)


With such convincing reasoning, what kept you from converting?


----------



## Augusta (Mar 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> What one guy who was trying to convert me said was; the RCC is the only way to heaven but invincibly ignorant Protestants (and yes, Muslims) can be saved, they just don't realize they're being saved by the RCC. (I didn't say it made sense!)



I have heard a similar thing that I think appears in one of the ecumenical ECT documents. That we are separated brethren of the Catholic church we just don't know it. 

My husband commented that if that is true then Trent, in essence, anathematizes nobody. They aren't very inconsistent.


----------



## blhowes (Mar 25, 2006)

Another question, perhaps for ex-catholics:

Would your average catholic be aware of these anathamas? Are they taught them in catechism class or CCD or something of the like?


----------



## JohnV (Mar 25, 2006)

> I shut down my xanga site (i feared the powers that be were monitoring it)


Those would be the Super Duper ( Super Douper, that is ) Moderators, right?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> > I shut down my xanga site (i feared the powers that be were monitoring it)
> ...



Think Federal Agents. I usually joke around, but not now. Dead serious.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 25, 2006)

There are reasons for why I assumed they would have looked at my stuff, but I won't go into them now.


----------



## turmeric (Mar 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> There are reasons for why I assumed they would have looked at my stuff, but I won't go into them now.



Think we should split these last posts off and put it in the prayer forum?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



No. I am fine. The most they did was slap on the wrist a loose acquaintance of mine (granted, he deserved it; but they would (consistent with the Patriot Act) link me via guilt by association. For the moment everything is good.


----------



## SRoper (Mar 26, 2006)

You are being too Protestant in interpreting the Romanist Councils yourself. A Romanist would let the Pope do the interpreting, and the Pope says that the anathemas do not apply to present day Protestants.

838 "'The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.' Those 'who believe in Christ and have been properly baptised are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.'"
-_The Catechism of the Catholic Church_

One thing I'm curious about is whether Trent still anathematizes those who leave the Roman church for a Protestant church.


----------



## turmeric (Mar 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> You are being too Protestant in interpreting the Romanist Councils yourself. A Romanist would let the Pope do the interpreting, and the Pope says that the anathemas do not apply to present day Protestants.
> 
> 838 "'The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.' Those 'who believe in Christ and have been properly baptised are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.'"
> ...



See, Bob, you're just a carnal Christian!


----------



## blhowes (Mar 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> You are being too Protestant in interpreting the Romanist Councils yourself. A Romanist would let the Pope do the interpreting, and the Pope says that the anathemas do not apply to present day Protestants.


...so, the canons and decrees are infallible declarations that cannot be changed...until another infallible declaration is given that cannot be changed...until...


----------



## blhowes (Mar 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> See, Bob, you're just a carnal Christian!


Thanks, Meg, I feel much better now knowing that.


----------

