For Catholics - Who Is Saved?

[MrPolo]

4. So, then the anathemas and bulls of the Popes are utterly without meaning because they were not God and could not state with the least bit of certainty that those individuals were bound for an eternity in hell?

Although there are errors in 1-3, I wanted to clarify this one...a person excommunicated is not declared in hell upon death. The Catholic Church has never declared anyone in hell. Not even Judas.

 

[calluna]

Although there are errors in 1-3, I wanted to clarify this one...a person excommunicated is not declared in hell upon death. The Catholic Church has never declared anyone in hell. Not even Judas.

What does 'anathema' mean?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Apparently, anathema no longer means what the Koine Greek meant - accursed (I Corinthians 16:22). It probably means something on the order of gosh dang!

 

[MrPolo]

What does 'anathema' mean?

Anathema

 

[calluna]

Anathema

It means 'cursed'. The cursed go to hell.

 

[calluna]

Apparently, anathema no longer means what the Koine Greek meant - accursed (I Corinthians 16:22). It probably means something on the order of gosh dang!

That's the great advantage of catholicism. We have as many meanings for words as required.

 

[MrPolo]

It means 'cursed'. The cursed go to hell.

What can I say that I haven't already said...the Church does not curse anyone to hell, nor declare anyone there. The term is not used by the Church in that way.

 

[calluna]

What can I say that I haven't already said.

You can deal with this:

If Protestants, keen ones who know the gospels (often far better than the average Catholic, it might be said), who also know the teachings and nature of Roman papacy, refuse to recognise Herr Ratzinger as Christ's vicar, just as the original Reformers did of contemporary popes, they cannot be categorised any differently from those Reformers.

 

[Technocrat2010]

So is the average Catholic not a Catholic?

You implied that the average Catholic is not as "keen" in the gospels as the "keen" Protestants were. Why not compare the "keen" Protestants to the "keen" Catholics?

Prove it's wrong.

Negative proof fallacy. You made the assertion; now back it up.

Please answer my question. Since when did the public eye determine truth?

 

[calluna]

You implied that the average Catholic is not as "keen" in the gospels as the "keen" Protestants were. Why not compare the "keen" Protestants to the "keen" Catholics?

Why do so?

Negative proof fallacy.

Negative proof fallacy fallacy.

Please answer my question. Since when did the public eye determine truth?

Why should I?

 

[MrPolo]

You can deal with this:

If Protestants, keen ones who know the gospels (often far better than the average Catholic, it might be said), who also know the teachings and nature of Roman papacy, refuse to recognise Herr Ratzinger as Christ's vicar, just as the original Reformers did of contemporary popes, they cannot be categorised any differently from those Reformers.

There's nothing to "deal with" here. But it is entertainment of sorts to see some non-Catholics try soooo hard to insist the Catholic Church has condemned them to hell. You're not the first on these forums to have that strange desire.

 

[Technocrat2010]

Why do so?

An improper match leads to skewed results and thus skewed conclusions. There are "keen" Catholics who fully know the teachings of the Church and stay with the Church, yet you have not taken them into consideration.

Negative proof fallacy fallacy.

Do you plan on supporting your statements anytime soon, or are you just trolling for lulz?

Please demonstrate the validity of your claims.

Why should I?

You made the claim. Please back it up.

 

[calluna]

An improper match leads to skewed results and thus skewed conclusions.

Quite so. But what is improper?

Do you plan on supporting your statements anytime soon

What statements?

You made the claim.

What claim?

 

[calluna]

There's nothing to "deal with" here.

Run away!

 

[Technocrat2010]

Quite so. But what is improper?

You suggest that because these so-called Neo-Reformers know more than the average Catholic, they are in the same position as Martin Luther and the other Reformation Fathers. But the match is more strongly supported by comparing them - properly - to knowledgeable Catholics. (Of course there's still the question of whether they really are Reformers but anyhow...)

What statements?

You stated that these Neo-Reformers know more about the Church's teachings than the average Catholic. Please demonstrate its validity.

What claim?

You said:

The Vatican merely applies its standard double standards. The symbol of papacy should not be keys, but a wet finger raised into the wind. The Vatican has no choice but to admit born again people as Christians, because if it came to a contest, the born agains would win, hands down, in the public eye.

(Emphasis mine)

To which I am asking you, since when does the public eye determine truth?

 

[calluna]

You said:

You can quote, then. I was wondering if you have mouse manipulation issues.

To which I am asking you, since when does the public eye determine truth?

No, you're not. Read properly.

 

[Technocrat2010]

No, you're not. Read properly.

Yes, I did. Please see:

Since when did the public eye determine the truth?

You have still not answered my other question.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Okay, if the Catholic Church has never stated that anyone is going to hell, although Jesus Christ was rather prone to do that and the Bible makes some very specific statements to that effect, then are we to assume that the Catholic Church is now universalistic and believes that all of humanity is going to heaven?

 

[Technocrat2010]

Okay, if the Catholic Church has never stated that anyone is going to hell, although Jesus Christ was rather prone to do that and the Bible makes some very specific statements to that effect,

Can you give me a specific instance in the Bible where Jesus condemned any specific person to Hell?

then are we to assume that the Catholic Church is now universalistic and believes that all of humanity is going to heaven?

Argument from Silence. Logical fallacy.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Can you give me a specific instance in the Bible where Jesus condemned any specific person to Hell?

Certainly. Revelation 20, especially verses 11-15. That is about as explicit as it could possibly be. Matthew 23 also is an excellent example.

Argument from Silence. Logical fallacy.

That is the modern Catholic argument - that no Pope has ever anathematized anyone, that is, condemned or cursed, anyone. Thus the yawning silence has been invented, eradicating centuries of papal bulls and anathemas. In doing so, however, it leaves open to debate whether or not the Catholic church teaches and believes its doctrine that there is no salvation outside of the Church.