According to this Pope “hell really exists”

Erik Raymond —  March 28, 2007

pope-with-hand-over-mouth.jpg

FoxNews reported today that while addressing a parish in a suburb of Rome, Pope Benedict XVI clarified his view of hell. The Pope said concerning hell, [it] “really exists and is eternal, even if nobody talks about it much any more,”

According to reports from the Vatican this “straightforward” language is in effort to eliminate confusion pending an upcoming release of the new Catholic catechism. One might wonder about confusion from a church that proposes that its doctrine does not change.

However, even the casual Catholic should remember the last Pontiff’s less literal view of hell. Speaking of hell, Pope John Paul II said that it is “the ultimate consequence of sin itself . . . Rather than a place, Hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy”.

According to Catholic dogma the Pope is infallible and exists as the functional head of the body of Christ on earth. So how can we have such divergent views on the reality of hell?

Hell is not the only issue with which we seem to see some contemporary doctrinal progression from Rome. In October the Pope indicated that limbo, supposed since medieval times to be a “halfway house” between Heaven and Hell, inhabited by unbaptized infants and holy men and women who lived before Christ, was “only a theological hypothesis” and not a “definitive truth of the faith”.

pope-with-hair-up.jpg

It is a real shame that millions and millions of folks are walking lock step with the Pope as their authority rather than Scripture. In order to be a good Catholic your theology must progress with the evolution of Papal theology, even at the expense of former Pontiffs. How dangerous it is to be blown about by Papal winds. Not so for Christians who reject Rome’s magisterial view of authority and embrace the doctrine of Sola Scriptura where God’s unchanging, inerrant, infallible divine Word is the ultimate authority in the church.

For more Pope pictures and thoughtful, biblical writing on evangelicals and Catholics see this series on TeamPyro.

Erik Raymond

Posts Twitter Facebook

Erik has been writing at Ordinary Pastor since 2006. He lives in Omaha with his wife and kids while pastoring at Emmaus Bible Church. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/erikraymond

39 responses to According to this Pope “hell really exists”

  1. Well, actually according to roman catholic doctrine the pope is not infallible. he is not infallibale in all statements that he makes, only when he speaks “ex cathedra” and the last time a pope has spoken infallible has been in 1950. so… get to know your catholic theology better, then it makes us evangelicals not look so uninformed.

    greetings from Germany

  2. While I’m no way in agreement with popery, I am encouraged to see this movement back to the reality of the Scripture. It’s discouraging to see the media always seek the RC view on any religious or theological question when I know that Protestants especially Reformed have an equal if not stronger position.

  3. Danny, your clarification is correct. I have reread the post and can see where this could be misleading.

    The view by Catholics in the pews (everyday Catholics) day in and day out is that whatever the Pope says goes, this was my view as a Catholic and what is held by practicing Catholics within my family and friends today. So the implications of the Pope saying something in his chair vs. out of his chair are not as distinct to the everyday Catholic. His office carries with it a certain weight of infallibility to the Catholic.

    Just for clarification I did not say that this statement was infallible but that the pope is…however, I can see how the connection could be easily made.

    I appreciate the thoughtful feedback.

  4. erik…I am sure you know this but I find it interesting that when they voted on the ex cathedra it wasn’t unanimous…

    hmmmmm….

    by the way…did you get my email?

  5. “According to reports from the Vatican this “straightforward” language is in effort to eliminate confusion pending an upcoming release of the new Catholic catechism. One might wonder about confusion from a church that proposes that its doctrine does not change.”

    If you have links I would like to see those reports. Regardless I am pretty sure the Doctrine is not going to “change”

    For those “casual Catholics” that just happen to beebop along and ended up by the use of google take a look at what actually the Pope John Paul the II said here
    http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM

    “According to Catholic dogma the Pope is infallible and exists as the functional head of the body of Christ on earth. So how can we have such divergent views on the reality of hell?”
    First it is clear to me that you are not aware of what an infalliable statement is. (2) as a Christian you must know that the secualr media gets this stuff wrong or missess the point all the time. I would not be jumping to big conclusions that these views are divergent till I saw a full text. From what I am reading I cant see how they are divergent

    “Hell is not the only issue with which we seem to see some contemporary doctrinal progression from Rome. In October the Pope indicated that limbo, supposed since medieval times to be a “halfway house” between Heaven and Hell, inhabited by unbaptized infants and holy men and women who lived before Christ, was “only a theological hypothesis” and not a “definitive truth of the faith”.”
    Limbo was never a defined Dogma of the Catholic Church. He was offered as an possible explaination of where for instance the unbaptixes babaies go.

    [quote]It is a real shame that millions and millions of folks are walking lock step with the Pope as their authority rather than Scripture. In order to be a good Catholic your theology must progress with the evolution of Papal theology, even at the expense of former Pontiffs. How dangerous it is to be blown about by Papal winds. Not so for Christians who reject Rome’s magisterial view of authority and embrace the doctrine of Sola Scriptura where God’s unchanging, inerrant, infallible divine Word is the ultimate authority in the church.[/quote]

    Good Grief. You know I respect your views as a Non Catholic. But the Body of Christ is not helped by either willful distortions or just ignorance about your fellow brothers in Christ.Sola Scriptoria? Wow every man a Pope that has worked out well.

    I do think it is a tad dishonest of you and not charitable to be making such leaps here as to benedicts statement in a Parish Church and Pope John Paul’ II statement

    JH
    Louisiana

  6. Sorry that email I gave was incorrect this one has the correct one blogmaster lol

    Further lets be clear what is going on here. The Pope is talking to a immigrant Congregation in his Diocese. He is not making sweeping Theological statements. HE is being their pastor.
    Please go here to see more
    http://www.cathnews.com/news/703/149.php

  7. TO Seth Mcbee

    You said
    “erik…I am sure you know this but I find it interesting that when they voted on the ex cathedra it wasn’t unanimous…

    hmmmmm….”

    The vote on tr Trinty at the Council of Nicaea was not unanimous either. HMMMM. Thank God for the Holy Spirit that protects the council One finds that when the successors of the Apostles met in Councils especially in early years there was disagreement and mediatation. SO what

  8. Although the infallibility of the pope may not be continuous, it might as well be. If one assumes the position of God on earth, then what he says must be obeyed and honoured.

    I recently preached a message on the pope as antichrist. If you’re interested, it can be downloaded from my blog.

  9. JH, I think you articulate much of the problem with the Roman system. You have successive Pope’s with different views on essential matters such as the literal nature of hell and then you have them saying things as they are going without any real accountability. After all, he is The Pope. What are “sweeping theological statements” and how are they to be distinquished with Catholic positions. By the way, I understand what the Catechism says about dogma, but practically speaking the tension has to be troubling for a Catholic.

    As far as your tongue and cheek sola scriptura remark, hop on over to the Pyromaniacs site that I linked to…i think Phil does a fair job of interacting with that issue. I do not have time to restate it here.

    My aim is not to be dishonest or uncharitable. I am just working with what the Popes have said. Even you have to admit there is a difference.

    erik

  10. Ok , I will engage this again in a bit. I ahve calmed down a tad and must realize I came to your blog after again seeing how the secular media portrays these statements. I have to admit being a little annoyed that instead of joining forces in proclaiming something we can all agree on some blogs are using this to make a very weak attack on the Sucessor of Peter. Let me finish my work because I would like to clarify and expand my thought on this as well as continue a productive dialouge on this with you. I suspect we will still diagree about the Papacy but perhaps as to the what the two Popes and The Catholic Church teaches we can come to an agreement on that. That is at least ome progress. By the way My Protestant breathen that might not be Calvanist let me leave you with the words of American Evanglist Billy Graham who I believed was from the Sola Scriptoria position

    ____________________
    “The only thing I could say for sure is that hell means separation from God. We are separated from his light, from his fellowship. That is going to be hell. When it comes to a literal fire, I don’t preach it because I’m not sure about it. When the Scripture uses fire concerning hell, that is possibly an illustration of how terrible it’s going to be – not fire but something worse, a thirst for God that cannot be quenched.”
    Time Magazine (November 15, 1993)

    Whatever Hell may be, and there are many mysteries, and I don’t intend to solve them all – whatever Hell may mean, it is separation from God.

    Now there are three words that Jesus used constantly to describe it. One is called “Fire.” Now we know that God has a fire that burns and doesn’t consume like the burning bush that Moses experienced. We know that James said, ‘The tongue is set on fire of hell.” We know that that wasn’t combustion – that actual literal fire isn’t down in your throat and in your tongue. It is symbolic language. And theologians through the centuries have argued and debated over what fire means.

    The Bible said, “For our God is a consuming fire.”

    Jesus told the story about the rich man who went to Hell and he asked that Lazarus may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool his tongue.

    Could it be that the fire Jesus talked about is an eternal search for God that is never quenched? Is that what it means? That, indeed, would be hell. To be away from God forever, separated from His Presence. (p. 74-75, italics in original)
    The Challenge, Sermons from Madison Square Garden

    Oh well. I am sure the Rev Graham knows what the Popes are getting at and what is the true horros of hell.

  11. JH,

    Billy Graham would not be an ardent apologist of Sola Scriptura, but rather a dangerous underminer of it, regrettably:

    “I’m not a literalist in the sense that every single jot and tittle is from the Lord. This is a little difference in my thinking through the years.”

    Here is an article on this blog relative to Graham.

  12. erik,
    I admire you for trying to explain spiritual things to the mind of the natural man (ex. catholic apologist). It just goes to show you that the church defined by Rome after the reformation is not compatible with evangelical christianity (or more precisely Christianity as defined by “together for the gospel”). It bothers me to hear so-called evangelical Christians that can’t see that Roman Catholicism isn’t a hybrid of evangelical Christianity (or vise-a-versa). We are talking about two different religions.

    On a lighter note, I laughed at the picture of the Pope’s hair blowing in the wind. Then, I thought… I sure hope I have that much hair, if the Lord grants me that many years on the earth. In fact, I may only have 10 strands sticking up in the air by that time.

    -steve-

  13. I read your psot on Billy Graham and thought it interesting. I shall respond to it on that thread later as to one thoguht I had.

    Now lets look at the two Pope’s statements. THere is a charge it is different. Like I said before I think people who wish to attack the Papacy using this should do some prayful soul searching. What Benedict and the Pope are saying should be yelled from the mountaintops. That is Hell Exists!! IT is Eternal!! WAKE UP!! However if people think they are called to do something elese well whatever.

    Pope Benedict
    First lets be clear that we are not sure of exactly what was ALL said. I have not seen a text of the FULL remarks. I think in Christian Charity perhaps that should give my fellow Christians a little pause before they all go half cocked.

    The Pope here was speaking in a homily in a immigrant based Church in Rome. In fact he commenting on the Gospel of the day. That is the stoning of the adulterous woman who was to be stoned to death.

    From the quotes that have been reported this first part should be mediatated on

    “”Jesus does not start a theological debate about the law of Moses; he is not interested in winning an academic dispute on an interpretation of the Mosaic laws. His objective is to save a soul and reveal that salvation can be found only in the love of God.

    “Jesus came to tell us that he wants us all in heaven and that hell, of which so little is said in our time, exists and is eternal for those who close their hearts to his love.

    “Therefore even in this episode, we understand that our true enemy is our attachment to sin, which can lead us to failing our existence.”

    I love that part about an academic dispute. Something to mediate on huh?

    Now lets get to the nitty gritty that has got all you heirs of Calvin all excited. First again we are not sure what he said?
    This Paper has a quote
    “Hell really exists. It is the place where big fires burn and evil doers and deniers go and burn in the end.”
    http://english.sabah.com.tr/72892E984CF343C985693B761AD69451.html

    I keep seeing this bantered about but
    I find it interesting the is no quotes-
    HELL is a place where sinners really do burn in an everlasting fire, and not just a religious symbol designed to galvanise the faithful, Pope Benedict XVI has said.

    What is interesting is this Guardian Post
    “The 79-year old pontiff used a Mass in the gritty Fidene suburb of Rome to put damnation back on the agenda. “Jesus came to tell us everyone is wanted in paradise, and that hell, about which little gets said today, exists and is eternal for those who shut their hearts to his love,” Pope Benedict warned the congregation on Sunday.The talk of fire and brimstone stopped there, as Pope Benedict failed to elaborate on what lay ahead for the sinner in the afterlife, adding only that “our real enemy is the attachment to sin, which can bring about the failure of our existence”.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2043457,00.html

    What? Wait I just read on Irish Calvanist or some Internet Paper that Pope said that is where the “where big fires burn”. What do you mean he stopped lol.

    Now does the Hell have actual Fire? Well it might. Will ther be oxygen in HEll to feed it? Is this fire like the fire here? Is it a special fire that affects souls? How is it different? Who knows? It really isn’t the point is it. The Pope is not contradicting any Catholic or Christian Teaching.

    John Paul II Teaching-
    I think it is safe to say that John Paul encouraged alot of devotion such as TO Our Lady of Fatima and Especially as to the Divine Mercy that seems to indicate that fires are hell exist. John Paul II seemed to be a believer in Hell

    In the link I posted above I linked to
    some thoughts John Paul had on this. He said in part “the ultimate consequence of sin itself. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy”.

    This is a tad deeper. John Paul the II is trying to get us to think here. He is saying we must be careful of human concepts of Time and space and other things associated witht the human temporal order. He is saying this is what the real horror of hell is. The total absense of God!!! That also means his attributes

    Right now I am thinking that Hell is trying to debate the Pope’s theology from reports from the AP or Reuters.:)

    As one comment I saw as to the Pope’s talk about Heaven said
    “Interesting discussion. It seems to me that Heaven must be more than a state of being, such as being “in love,” precisely because of the resurrection of the body. And yet, because those resurrected bodies will be glorified rather than corrupted, the word “place,” which itself implies “not another place” seems too limiting.

    Behold, I show you a mystery.”

    Well goodness well said . So perhaps I am an ignorant Catholic but nothing either of these Popes have said confuses me.

    JH
    Homer Louisiana

  14. I owe my soul not to rock and roll but to the Catholic Church. As a Born again Christian in the vein of Rev. Paul Washer, I am a saved Lutheran (yes a rare one) Years ago as a pew sitter and a major sinner I went to a Cursillo weekend sponsored by the Catholic Church for Non-Catholics. That weekend put me on the narrow path, and prepared me for Keryx Prison Ministry. So yeah, I love the Catholic Church that the Holy Spirit used as a instrument for Cursillo to train Disciples of all faiths.

    Eric is right in his statement, we have our eye on Jesus and are fed by the Scripture, Not of man who taints all he touches.

    God Bless Eric
    and Thanks

  15. Eric,
    Thank you for your post. For several weeks now I have returned almost daily to read your weekly updates. I have found them to be encouraging (particularly the post on the character of God in light of the Cross)

    I believe you point out a crucial flaw in the Roman theological system. I read Dr. Mathison’s book on “Sola Scriptura” and found it very helpful on the subject.

    May the Lord continue to grant you discernment and wisdom as your blog and minister to your flock.
    I look forward to meeting you one day, this side of heaven or the next.)
    Robbie

  16. Robbie, good to hear from you, I am so glad that you are encouraged. That post on the attributes of God in light of the cross is one of my favorite things to think about. It has greatly impacted my thinking and so my worship. I am going to be teaching on it this summer and cannot wait.

    I see you are in Pittsburgh…a great town. Keep in touch.

    erik

  17. Pleeez…the Catholic Church has always held the literal existence of hell, the Pope is simply trying to remind a fallen world of that fact and the fact that sin can lead a person to hell.

  18. I just want to clarify a couple of things here:

    I do not believe that my theology and a Catholic theology are compatible. In fact I think they are worlds apart on the fundamental issue of salvation. I believe that as a fully depraved sinner I am born completely estranged from God this matter is further exacerbated and demonstrated by my own willful rebellion (Eph. 2.1-3; Col. 1.21). Therefore there is nothing that I (or anyone) can do to extricate me from this seemingly hopeless predicament.

    But thanks be to God, according to his abundant mercy he has sent his Son who took on flesh, lived a perfect life in my place and died to fully satisfy the death penalty in my place. This offering for my sin, and all of the others who will place their faith in Jesus, was entirely sufficient as it was a propitiatory sacrifice (Rom. 3.21-27).

    I receive this merit from Jesus by grace through faith and not of myself, for I am spiritually bankrupt (Eph. 2.8-9). Further, no institution on earth, or individual on earth is able to impute, infuse, or otherwise apply the grace of God, this is done wholly via the sovereign will, pleasure and grace of God.

    This God does when he imputes the righteousness of Jesus Christ, earned by him, to my bankrupt account. I am then seen to be fully covered in the righteousness of my Savior, this without a strand of personal merit. This justification is forensic, a legal declaration, whereby I am declared righteous not by works but by grace (Rom. 4.1-5; 2 Cor. 5.21).

    My authority is the Bible for by its very nature it is the Word of God (2 Tim. 3.16-17). It supersedes fallible men, traditions and personal preferences. It trumps churches and people, for it is the sole authority for the Christian. The leaders in the church are subject to the Scripture for the Scripture is the very word of God.

    I believe that to add to the gospel is to take away from the value of the cross. Paul warned the Galatians about those who might tamper with the gospel by adding such outwardly religious things as circumcision, these things he called works of the law, and are to be rejected as items which bring about, aid in or otherwise accomplish salvation (Gal.2.16; 2.21).

    I believe that Rome preaches a false gospel, that is really not a gospel. I believe that the mass is idolatry and insults the Savior who died to fully satisfy divine wrath. To say that the Mass is propitiatory, as the Catechism does, is to insult the one whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation for our sins (Rom. 3.25).

    Therefore I do not find a brotherhood with Catholics but rather a brokenness for them. I do believe that there can be saved Catholics, but I do not believe that you can believe what Rome teaches and be saved, for it is another gospel, which is not a gospel. Rick, with all due respect, your statement about owing your salvation to the Catholic Church is troubling to say the least.

  19. Erik,

    First, you are not even close to understand the Catholic view of salvation.

    Second, all Catholics accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior and no true Catholic thinks they can do anything to merit salvation.

    Third, the Catholic Church teaches that it is Grace alone that saves.

  20. “I believe that Rome preaches a false gospel, that is really not a gospel. I believe that the mass is idolatry and insults the Savior who died to fully satisfy divine wrath. To say that the Mass is propitiatory, as the Catechism does, is to insult the one whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation for our sins (Rom. 3.25).

    Therefore I do not find a brotherhood with Catholics but rather a brokenness for them. I do believe that there can be saved Catholics, but I do not believe that you can believe what Rome teaches and be saved, for it is another gospel, which is not a gospel. Rick, with all due respect, your statement about owing your salvation to the Catholic Church is troubling to say the least.”

    Don’t hold back there ;)
    ROme Rome Rome Rome Rome. Well I guess it would be worse to be ignored.

    THe Catholic Church is more than Rome. We believas the scriptures say and witnessed by the early Christians that one must be union with the Successor of Blessed Peter. But the Chruch is far more than Rome. Just pointing that out.

    I knpw you have you belirfs. But at some point one must move beyond the man in the pointy hat on Rome and confront other things. What about Eastern Christians? What about the Orthodox? That about the Copts? What even about the heretical sects that are ancient that we see in the far East such as Iraq and other errors that are NEstorians. These are look very similar to Roman Catholcism in belief and practice than any sort of Calvinism.

    I came home because I realized that the early Christians thousand of miles aprt were practicing a faith that was different than my Southern Baptist roots. At some point the Early Christians interpretation of the Gospel has got to be considered.

  21. Assuming you are Catholic then Tom, would you do this and be a good Catholic?

    -believe that their is no salvific merit or value in your baptism or any of the sacraments?

    -believe that the sacrifice of the mass is not propitiatory?

    -believe that you are forever secure in this grace, having been given eternal redemption?

    -believe that the church is completely subject to Scripture?

  22. JH- I did write Rome a lot…no offense intended. It is even more interesting to consider you saying it over and over again with a Cajun accent down there in Louisiana.

    On the Calvinism thing…I am a calvinist because I believe it to be a biblical understanding and articulation of the gospel, not because I like Swiss guys who have long beards. I believe, like C.H. Spurgeon said, “Calvinism is the gospel”.

    There are a lot of religions around the world doing a lot of things that reformed folks are not…that does not necessarily lend itself to credibility. Further, there were a lot of problems in the first century…cf. Galatians, Corinthians, Colossians, etc…so what other Christians are doing does not carry the day for me. Instead give me the Bible and tell me what God says…call me a simpleton, but it really is that simple to me.

  23. Erik,

    -believe that their is no salvific merit or value in your baptism or any of the sacraments?

    ==> Nope, but the Bible and Christ told us there is great salvific signifcance.
    -believe that the sacrifice of the mass is not propitiatory?

    -believe that you are forever secure in this grace, having been given eternal redemption?

    ==> Nope, but Christ and St. Paul told us we are not secure, that we must endure to the end. Salvation is not a onetime event, it is a life journey that must be “worked out with fear and trembling” every day.

    -believe that the church is completely subject to Scripture?

    ==> Nope, because Christ gave the Church authority long before the NT Scriptures were even written.

  24. Erik,

    Sorry, I missed this one:

    -believe that the sacrifice of the mass is not propitiatory?

    ==> No. Because Christ told us we have no life in us unless we eat His Flesh…He freaked out His follower so much that most of them left. He did not call them back to say He was just kidding. The Mass has two major parts, the Liturgy of the Word, during which we hear the Word of God; then the Liturgy of the Eucharist, during which we recieve the Word of God, Jesus’ Real Body andd Blood–as our Lord commanded us to do.

    The early Christians understood this all too well and you can see that revealed in the Dicache.

  25. Thanks for answering my questions Tom.
    Concerning the mass: from the Catholic Catechism:

    1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.” (Council of Trent (1562) Doctrina de ss. Missae sacrificio)

    Your answers do help to draw the line from the other side as far as the vast difference between the Catholic and Protestant position.

    I have to go underground here for several hours so my interaction will be quite limited. Just want you guys to know that I am not ignoring you.

    erik

  26. Erik,

    Putting aside our clear disagreements. Let me ask a couple questions:

    Are we saved by Grace alone?

    Does, in your view, accepting Christ as our personal Lord and Savior mean we are saved?

    If yes to both of those questions, how could you doubt that Catholics are saved? In other words, Catholics say yes to both of those things, and in the world of Once Saved, Always Saved, all it takes is a converted heart to Christ…so you really should take no issue with Catholics because we do in fact accept Christ as our Lord and Savior, we do not think we can earn salvation and we do believe that it is by Grace alone that we are saved.

  27. Erik,

    Yes the Mass is propiatory.

    However, a misunderstanding of the Eucharist often abounds in non-Catholic circles. The Church does not “re-sacrifice” Christ, for Christ died once for all. Rather, the Church offers the one sacrifice of Christ that is present through all eternity. In other words, Christ died once, and we share in that sacrifice by eating His flesh during Mass, a sacrifice that is once for all and through eternity.

    I too have much to do. I will try to pop back in a later time.

    Thanks for the chat. :)

  28. Wow, I’m surprised Erik is allowing Catholics to comment!

  29. Eric
    Brother :)
    The Beauty of knowing that religious institutions are not good for the souls ( sometimes Evil) frees one to follow only the Christ.The Son of the most High God. Sure I owe my salvation to the Catholic Church, A Priest realized there Cursillo led I believe by the Holy Spirit ( Short course in Christianity) and now Protestants adopted it.

    I like to say I am a Christian who goes to a Lutheran Church, I feel comfortable in Baptist, Assembly of God, and Non -Denominational.

    I know of many Lutheran pastors who worship Luther. Do not put your church first.
    I say, give your allegiance to no man and no church!
    We give it unto the Lord.
    But you know that already

    God Bless your a pretty wise guy, I enjoy your writing.

    From Michigan, Sworn to follow the Cross of Christ.
    Rick Weiss

  30. In 1 Cor 11:24-25 we read that Jesus said, “This is my body” but afterwards he called it “bread” on three occasions (1 Cor 11:26-28). Obviously then either the bread or the body was symbolic.
    The wine is also called “fruit of the vine” AFTER the point in which Catholicism claims it became blood (Mark 14:25).
    The disciples were told to take the sacrament “in remembrance” of Christ, they weren’t told to offer his body again (1 Cor 11: 24-25).

  31. They were told to eat His fleash or they would have no life in them. St. Paul said that we are to partake of eating the boyd worthily, which means we must have confessed our sins before partaking. How can it be required to doing partake in a symbol worthily?

  32. I ask again, is the ‘body’ symbolic or the ‘bread’? It has to be one or the other.

  33. a: the roman catholic church never claimed its doctrine doesn’t develop – only that it never contradicts itself. at least take issue with the real issue.

    b: the two papal quotations regarding hell are not really in contradiction with each other. so one says “hell really exists” and the other says “hell is a state.” essentially those claims can coalesce.

    c: your tone and polemic posting style really demonstrates that christian unity which paul’s letter to ephesians touts. and by “really” i mean “doesn’t.” and by “demonstrates” i mean “look anything like.”

    :\

  34. Neither.

    The bread is bread until it is consecrated, then it becomes the Body of Christ with only the outward appearance of bread.

  35. Hello,

    Just a note: No one from Homer Louisiana would have a Cajun accent. The northern part of Louisiana is typical Southern (Anglo-Celtic)and Baptist. Southern Louisiana is mostly French and Catholic.

    I am a Cajun Calvinist and a former Roman Catholic.

    I stumbled on your site and hope to visit now and then to see what is up.

    Coram Deo,
    Kenith

Trackbacks and Pingbacks:

  1. Words - » Blogs in Review 3/28/07 - March 28, 2007

    [...] Erik Raymond (http://www.irishcalvinist.com) discusses the Pope and his view of hell. [...]

  2. Papal Winds « Forever Reformed - March 28, 2007

    [...] Papal Winds I think Erik got this one dead on right! Check out his short blog on the Pope’s comments regarding hell. [...]