Not to mention the Council of Trent, a few hundred papal bulls . . . And yet the current pope regards people of all religions to have a part in the kingdom of heaven. Most curious, that . . .
Would you PLEASE bother to cite any of these things, not that you can because it's false, but so that your inaccuracies can be clearly outlined and explained.
And please don't bring forward anything that has the word anathema, as the correct understanding and use of that term has already been explained here by another poster very nicely, so if you try to say that an anathema condemns Protestants to hell or some-such, the people following this thread will know you are clueless.
So, with that caveat in mind, go ahead and bring forward your evidences,if you can.
As I pointed out, an anathema, in Catholic usage, is a formal excommunication. You can't excommunicate a non-Catholic, because they aren't able to communicate in the first place.
None of those anathemas apply to you or to HarleyD.
It's possible to argue about whether they applied to e.g., Luther or Calvin personally, however.
The "Papists condemn all Protestants to hell but think Hindus are saved" line is getting kind of old. It comes from a rather willful and selective reading of various things. Protestants have more of the means of salvation at their disposal (especially valid baptism and the Scriptures) than do Hindus. You start out ahead, therefore, you ought to finish ahead.