Protestantism is Heresy.

[Ziggamafu]

Protestantism gets a very sugar-coated treatment by us - especially when we have friends or family that are Protestant. They want to feel assured that we believe that they are "Christian" and that they can have a relationship with Christ and get to heaven without being Catholic. So we give them the "loopholes" in Catholic Teaching that allow some kind of bridge to exist.

But Protestantism is Heresy. It is heresy first of all because of the very definition of the word, "heresy", which means [i]"An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member."[/i] It is heresy second of all because of the very definition of the word, "Protestant", which means protest or rebellion against something that existed before the protest or rebellion - in this case, the organized and visible Church, as well as its doctrines. "Nondenominationalism" does not avoid the term "Protestant" because the only Christian who is not Protestant is the Christian who is Catholic, for Catholicism necessatates full communion with the Church of Rome and all the teachings of the bishops, under the authority of the Pope.

Also, Protestantism is fundamentally flawed. It does not merely scrape off a few minor doctrines (are any doctrines minor?) but undermines Christ himself, whose Body is the Church. It (by and large) denies Christ is "come in the flesh" and thus shares in at least some of the spirit of anti-Christ (1 John 4:2-3); it makes Jesus a liar when he said "this generation will not pass away before I come again". It attempts to erase the lines, the contours, that give shape and form to Christ's visible Body; that is, the doctrines and dogmas of the Church. Protestantism is heresy.

I just wish I could somehow tell my mother-in-law that so she understands why she can't be god-mother to my child.

[Nathan]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Protestantism is a note-perfect example of what heresy is. I don't think we should shy away from calling a spade a spade -- we certainly don't when it comes to liberal Catholics who deny teachings of the Church.

[Paphnutius]

Just be careful because while Protestantism is indeed a heresy, its members vary on what type of heretics they may be. You have the formal heretic (one who has the "form" of one) like Luther who was once a Catholic and has since rejected the faith. The you have the material heretic (one who has the "matter" of one) who believes in a heresy but without first rejecting the Catholic faith. Those are crude definitions, but there is a difference.

[Era Might]

What a coincidence. I just posted something from Benedict XVI in another thread dealing with this question.

As he explains, Protestantism is not heresy in the traditional sense:

[quote]“The difficulty in the way of giving an answer is a profound one.  Ultimately it is due to the fact that there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East).  It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value.  Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way.  This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian.  In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy.  Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy.  The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one.  Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic.  This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole.  The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”

--The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pgs. 87-88[/quote]

He's careful to note that an error "cannot simply become true". Protestantism, as a Christian entity, has not simply been purified of all error. But it does not have the "obstinacy" that characterized its originators. Heresy is traditionally understood as an obstinate opposition to Catholicism. Protestantism today is not a new obstinate break from the Church. Rather, Protestant believers have received their faith, inherited it, and they do not live as obstinate enemies of the Church, but, as Ratzinger notes, their existence is a "positive ecclesial nature". So while individual points of doctrine Protestants hold may be materially heretical, Protestantism as a living structure is not heresy, but an incomplete, although still positive, Christian body. This means that the average Christian who has been brought up in a Protestant ecclesial community "lives as a believer, not as a heretic". As I said, he is not an obstinate enemy of the Church in the traditional sense. He is a fellow Christian, with whom patient dialogue is key.

Edited November 14, 2005 by Era Might

[thessalonian]

You are correct in theory but in practice as was mentioned above we must be careful. It is good to look at how Paul handled the pagans in the Aeropogus in Acts 17. There he did not come strolling in calling them a bunch of pagan heretics. It would have done him little good and needlessly got the h-e-double toothpicks beat out of him. Instead he looked to what they believed and pulled something out of it that was good and that he could use to help them understand Christ. He transformed their thinking. That is what you must do with your mother rather than just tell her she is a heretic. There is truth in Protestantism. Use that as a springboard to help her understand all truth. As was said above you cannot judge whether she is a material or formal heretic so don't. Pray as if she is a formal heretic but hope as if she is a material one. Only God can open her heart to the truth so let him. Only he can judge her, so don't.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Nov 14 2005, 10:30 AM']What a coincidence. I just posted something from Benedict XVI in another thread dealing with this question.

As he explains, Protestantism is not heresy in the traditional sense:
He's careful to note that an error "cannot simply become true".  Protestantism, as a Christian entity, has not simply been purified of all error. But it does not have the "obstinacy" that characterized its originators. Heresy is traditionally understood as an obstinate opposition to Catholicism. Protestantism today is not a new obstinate break from the Church. Rather, Protestant believers have received their faith, inherited it, and they do not live as obstinate enemies of the Church, but, as Ratzinger notes, their existence is a "positive ecclesial nature". So while individual points of doctrine Protestants hold may be materially heretical, Protestantism as a living structure is not heresy, but an incomplete, although still positive, Christian body. This means that the average Christian who has been brought up in a Protestant ecclesial community "lives as a believer, not as a heretic". As I said, he is not an obstinate enemy of the Church in the traditional sense. He is a fellow Christian, with whom patient dialogue is key.
[right][snapback]788280[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That is an excellent answer and I wish we count PERMANENTLY post it somewhere.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Nov 14 2005, 09:30 AM']What a coincidence. I just posted something from Benedict XVI in another thread dealing with this question.

As he explains, Protestantism is not heresy in the traditional sense:
He's careful to note that an error "cannot simply become true".  Protestantism, as a Christian entity, has not simply been purified of all error. But it does not have the "obstinacy" that characterized its originators. Heresy is traditionally understood as an obstinate opposition to Catholicism. Protestantism today is not a new obstinate break from the Church. Rather, Protestant believers have received their faith, inherited it, and they do not live as obstinate enemies of the Church, but, as Ratzinger notes, their existence is a "positive ecclesial nature". So while individual points of doctrine Protestants hold may be materially heretical, Protestantism as a living structure is not heresy, but an incomplete, although still positive, Christian body. This means that the average Christian who has been brought up in a Protestant ecclesial community "lives as a believer, not as a heretic". As I said, he is not an obstinate enemy of the Church in the traditional sense. He is a fellow Christian, with whom patient dialogue is key.
[right][snapback]788280[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Aloysius]

of course there have been heresies in the past that got so well established. we had a whole crusade against one that was established for centuries with an entire society of people and schools and churches very far removed from the original founders of the heresy-- they were called Albigensians.

so it's not that Protestantism is a heresy completely without precedent, albigensians lasted 2 or 3 centuries if I recall... Protestantism has lasted 5.

not that there isn't still a good point in all that, it just seems odd to make protestantism out to be so unique. the only uniqueness, I suppose, is its massive size.

[thessalonian]

Here is something from Augustine that is worthwhile to consider in this discussion. Keep in mind while you are reading that in other places Augustine does make a distinction between formal and material herectics.

The gist of the following is that the heretics (in politically incorrect Augustinian language) are for our benefit to test us. In a somewhat morbid sense we can be thankful for them because they challenge us to go deeper in our understanding of the Catholic faith and also shed light on it by there errors. The darkness makes the light visible and the stars shine brightly in the dark of night. : They motivate us to study, preventing complacency and just waiting around for the day or our salvation. However compassion must motivate us to convert them from the darkness they are in and actually provide.

It is interesting that he sees a prefigurment of heretics in Ham, who has been so often used by Protestants to prefigure the African race.

Book 16, Chapter 2
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120116.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120116.htm[/url]

And Ham (i.e., hot), who was the middle son of Noah, and, as it were, separated himself from both, and remained between them, neither belonging to the first-fruits of Israel nor to the fullness of the Gentiles, what does he signify but the tribe of heretics, hot with the spirit, not of patience, but of impatience, with which the breasts of heretics are wont to blaze, and with which they disturb the peace of the saints? But even the heretics yield an advantage to those that make proficiency, according to the apostle's saying, "There must also be heresies, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." Whence, too, it is elsewhere said, "The son that receives instruction will be wise, and he uses the foolish as his servant." For while the hot restlessness of heretics stirs questions about many articles of the catholic faith, the necessity of defending them forces us both to investigate them more accurately, to understand them more clearly, and to proclaim them more earnestly; and the question mooted by an adversary becomes the occasion of instruction. However, not only those who are openly separated from the church, but also all who glory in the Christian name, and at the same time lead abandoned lives, may without absurdity seem to be figured by Noah's middle son: for the passion of Christ, which was signified by that man's nakedness, is at once proclaimed by their profession, and dishonored by their wicked conduct. Of such, therefore, it has been said, "By their fruits ye shall know them." And therefore was Ham cursed in his son, he being, as it were, his fruit. So, too, this son of his, Canaan, is fitly interpreted "their movement," which is nothing else than their work. But Shem and Japheth, that is to say, the circumcision and uncircumcision, or, as the apostle otherwise calls them, the Jews and Greeks, but called and justified, having somehow discovered the nakedness of their father (which signifies the Saviour's passion), took a garment and laid it upon their backs, and entered backwards and covered their father's nakedness, without their seeing what their reverence hid. For we both honor the passion of Christ as accomplished for us, and we hate the crime of the Jews who crucified Him. The garment signifies the sacrament, their backs the memory of things past: for the church celebrates the passion of Christ as already accomplished, and no longer to be looked forward to, now that Japheth already dwells in the habitations of Shem, and their wicked brother between them.

Edited November 16, 2005 by thessalonian

[Aloysius]

"And thank the Lord
For the temporal sword,
And howling heretics too
And all good things
Great Christendom brings
especially barley brew
with my ro-ti-to-ti-oodly-o
especially barley brew"
-Hilaire Belloc

[phatcatholic]

haha, hilaire beloc is awesome
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/313"]http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/313[/url]

[thessalonian]

Zigg,

I was thinking about your thread when I got up this morning. Your mother will be in my prayers on my way to work. Family situations are difficult when it comes to religion. The Gospels say that children will be divided against parents over it. That is a trial but not one that is impossible to heal with God's help. Yet we must be patient with them as he is. The Apostles wish to cast fire down upon some men who are not of them casting out demons in Jesus name. Jesus says "whoever is not against us is with us" so be careful.

Might I suggest you read Patrick Madrid's "Search and Rescue". It is excellent with regard to converting people to the faith, especially within families. There has to be a certain amont of detachment which is difficult especially in the family situation. Letting go and letting God. Augustines mother went to confession and complained to the priest about her son. How she presented the faith to him and he would not submit. The priest told her "talk less, pray more". We need to speak but we need to give smaller chuncks and have long term goals of years rather than days or weeks (scott hahn took 10 years, my Mother In Law 3) for them to ruminate on and we need to pray alot for only God can get through a closed door.

God bless

Edited November 17, 2005 by thessalonian

[sweetpea316]

Oh wow, thanks for this thread guys. It's something I can definitely relate to at this time in my life. Especially the family aspect of it... I really want to be able to share the greatness of the Catholic Church that I'm now finding with my family too. It's just very hard because of our Protestant background... but who knows. It's a work in progress, (both my converting and sharing with them) and like thessalonian said, might take some time. I dunno what the intent of this thread was meant to be, but it really encouraged me!

Oh, and thessalonian, what is the verse you referred to about children being divided against parents? I'm definitely interested in reading that...

Thanks so much y'all... God bless.

[Paphnutius]

I believe the passage that he is referring to is Luke 12:53.

[thessalonian]

Matt.10
[35] For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
[37] He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;


Luke.12
[53] they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."