Can Protestants even judge heresy?

[CopticChristian]

Can you point me to the post in which I have denied this?

I have some difficulties with it–obviously it’s far from a simple issue, as shown by the endless disagreements among Catholics about just what counts as the Magisterium and just what level of the Magisterium has what level of authority. But I would certainly not flatly deny this proposition.

It’s not just “suggestions” (well, perhaps some members of your Communion would say so, since they seem to think anything below a certain level of authority is just a suggestion, and arguably all our teachings are at that fairly low level). The Episcopal Church has binding disciplinary authority and certainly issues teachings that are at least at the level of pastoral teachings issuing from your USCCB.

But certainly we do not claim that the Episcopal Church, or even the Anglican Communion, speaks for the Catholic Church as a whole.

What is binding on us, most fundamentally, is the Nicene Creed, which obviously was not created by Episcopalians.

Stop telling me what I believe or don’t believe.

Faith transcends reason but never contradicts it. I have frequently been told that this is Catholic teaching.

Edwin

Can you point me to the post in which I have denied this?

It is my belief that you deny that the Catholic Church has the authority they claim to have.

This is a dead end, because if you go far enough back you can ask this of Catholics as well: what makes them believe that the Catholic Church has the authority they claim for it? (Never mind that Catholics do have to engage in a lot more fallible interpretation than many conservative apologists admit.)

**What makes them believe that the Catholic Church has the authority they claim? ** To ask this question suggests that you do not accept this position. Is there some other interpretation you would like to provide for clarification professor.

Originally Posted by CopticChristian
I disagree. I believe and you deny that the Magesterium speaks for all Christendom.

I believe that the Catholic Church has the authority they claim to have. Do you accept this or deny this?

I have some difficulties with it–obviously it’s far from a simple issue, as shown by the endless disagreements among Catholics about just what counts as the Magisterium and just what level of the Magisterium has what level of authority. But I would certainly not flatly deny this proposition.

You state some difficulties. Dileneate some of them.

You state obviously, so it should be simple for you to explain to me what is not obvious. What disagreements do you speak of concerning the Magisterium as it regards the disagreements you speak of and as you say “just what level of the Magisterium has what level of authority.”

Now you say you would not flatly deny this position. Would you deny it at all? Would you accept it at some level. What does flatly deny mean to you. Help me understand you.

Take your time. Patience is one of my best virtues.

 

[Newsy]

Again what truth protestants have that was not taking from the CC?

I stated in the last post, “I agree that all truth inside the protestant churches, originates from the truth left to us by Christ.”. I have made it clear that I only take issue with your attitude. Your over the top remarks are abrasive and imply unless they become Catholic, it is a lost cause. That is why I questioned your stance on salvation outside the Catholic Church.

Out of curiosity, what is your view on salvation outside the Catholic Church?

 

[wisdomseeker]

I stated in the last post, “I agree that all truth inside the protestant churches, originates from the truth left to us by Christ.”. I have made it clear that I only take issue with your attitude. Your over the top remarks are abrasive and imply unless they become Catholic, it is a lost cause. That is why I questioned your stance on salvation outside the Catholic Church.

Out of curiosity, what is your view on salvation outside the Catholic Church?

The CC states that those who heard of the CC and refuse to enter in her, are in danger of losing their souls. The Church teaches that salvation belongs to our Lord only, she talks about the invincible ignorant and people take this is if everyone outside the Church is invincible ignorant. All we know is that disobedience to the CC is disobedience to Christ.

I dont know who God saves or does not save, it is His to know only. Perhaps you are not understanding what the Church says.

 

[CopticChristian]

The CC states that those who heard of the CC and refuse to enter in her, are in danger of losing their souls. The Church teaches that salvation belongs to our Lord only, she talks about the invincible ignorant and people take this is if everyone outside the Church is invincible ignorant. All we know is that disobedience to the CC is disobedience to Christ.

I dont know who God saves or does not save, it is His to know only. Perhaps you are not understanding what the Church says.

May I ask what the relevance of your dialogue is concerning the OP…can Protestants judge heresy?

 

[wisdomseeker]

May I ask what the relevance of your dialogue is concerning the OP…can Protestants judge heresy?

I dont think I was having this dialogue with you. didi I?
But if you want the answer to the OP, here it is. No, heresy cannot judge heresy. it is that simple.

 

[ltwin]

I dont think I was having this dialogue with you. didi I?
But if you want the answer to the OP, here it is. No, heresy cannot judge heresy. it is that simple.

Yet Protestants are certainly capable of judging non-Trinitarian groups or those that deny the divinity of Christ as heretics.

 

[CopticChristian]

I dont think I was having this dialogue with you. didi I?
But if you want the answer to the OP, here it is. No, heresy cannot judge heresy. it is that simple.

You are a Senior member with 7232 postings.

You asked a question concerning my involvement in your conversation.

This is a public forum. In answer to your question however you can rest assured that your question as to whom you were having a conversation with is accurate. That was easy.

Simplicity is always the best and to this you say heresy cannot judge heresy.

In a public forum there is no judging as to whom is speaking to whom as it regards conversations as there is no rule I am aware of that limits dialogue. Now I am a junior member and I may have missed it…

Please note that I was polite…

**May I ask **what the relevance of your dialogue is concerning the OP…can Protestants judge heresy?

I did not judge. I asked permission. Your response to my request for permission and the question were not answered as I asked. I sense that it irritated you and for that I ask forgiveness.

 

[CopticChristian]

Yet Protestants are certainly capable of judging non-Trinitarian groups or those that deny the divinity of Christ as heretics.

What you can do is relevant only to you. There is no body that speaks for all Protestants. Your judgement becomes a fallible opinion…as no Protestant claims not to be fallible. The judgement then becomes if someone does not listen then take it to the church…which church? and if you take it to a church is it binding on someone that does not adhere to your church?:bigyikes:

 

[wisdomseeker]

You are a Senior member with 7232 postings.

You asked a question concerning my involvement in your conversation.

This is a public forum. In answer to your question however you can rest assured that your question as to whom you were having a conversation with is accurate. That was easy.

Simplicity is always the best and to this you say heresy cannot judge heresy.

In a public forum there is no judging as to whom is speaking to whom as it regards conversations as there is no rule I am aware of that limits dialogue. Now I am a junior member and I may have missed it…

Please note that I was polite…
I did not judge. I asked permission. Your response to my request for permission and the question were not answered as I asked. I sense that it irritated you and for that I ask forgiveness.

I was answer someone on the topic. so it was not relevant to you but to the other poster.

that is what I meant by it.

 

[CopticChristian]

I was answer someone on the topic. so it was not relevant to you but to the other poster.

that is what I meant by it.

Is this a public forum or a private forum?

Relevance is relative.

 

[Contarini]

God does not call anyone to be rebellious against His Church. Free will, remember?

I was responding to your appeal to divine omnipotence. My point was simply that believing God could have done something isn’t the same as showing that He did.

All protestants denies the CC is the Church Jesus found

They would generally deny a simple identity between the Roman Communion and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, certainly (which is a rephrasing of what you said). Of course, so would many Catholics. . . . . The Catholic position is that the Church subsists in your Communion, and there’s some debate as to what it means. "

or they come up with some weird stories like the Church went apostate or somehow the Church got lost in space and so forth…

There are silly Protestants who think such things. Folks on this forum seem to have a lot of fun attacking such straw men:shrug:

But you also belong to a belief system taht also rebelled against the CC. it is your fault for still holding on to this system.

The only sense in which that is true is that I incline to a somewhat broader understanding of the Church than you and many conservative Catholics hold.

Edwin

 

[JustaServant]

Contarini,
can you explain why so many mainline Protestant denominations have gone “liberal” in terms of the basics of Christianity, which is the essance of heresy?

 

[Contarini]

Contarini,
can you explain why so many mainline Protestant denominations have gone “liberal” in terms of the basics of Christianity, which is the essance of heresy?

Pretty easily.

Protestantism asks questions about tradition. It has thus produced a variety of forms differing from each other in which questions they are willing to ask and how far they are willing to go. Protestantism can only maintain church discipline by endless schism, so each major Protestant tradition winds up with a “mainline” representative where there’s a lot of doctrinal latitudes, and “purer” split-off groups.

Now if you’re suggesting that most of the mainline denominations have officially adopted heretical teachings, then I think you’re under a severe misapprehension. But they certainly have a broad range of belief and are “liberal” in that sense, and that generally includes some folks who are “liberal” in the more strictly heretical sense that I think you are implying (denying a historical/dogmatic element to the Christian faith altogether, or else denying some particularly central doctrine like the bodily resurrection of Jesus).

Edwin

 

[JustaServant]

Protestantism can only maintain church discipline by endless schism, so each major Protestant tradition winds up with a “mainline” representative where there’s a lot of doctrinal latitudes, and “purer” split-off groups.

Then where does one go for that ‘pure’ Christianity if others have gone off into heresy? Do you see where I am going? Endless schism leads logically to extinction. I assume you are part of a more conservative Episcopal church. which I admire. But will that church exist in say, 100 years in same pure manner? Or will it also split into smaller and smaller groups to avoid heresy and maintain discipline?

 

[Contarini]

Then where does one go for that ‘pure’ Christianity if others have gone off into heresy? Do you see where I am going? Endless schism leads logically to extinction.

To the extinction of some groups.

I assume you are part of a more conservative Episcopal church. which I admire.

I am not and will never be part of a group that goes into schism for the sake of purity.

I am a member of the “mainline” Episcopal Church, although my bishop is very conservative by the present standards of the Episcopal Church (i.e., he’s a moderate evangelical of strongly irenic tendencies) and I very likely would not remain a member of the Episcopal Church if I were to move to a different diocese (mind you, I’ve said that before, and I’m still Episcopalian!).

Given the Protestant options, I’m solidly on the side of the “mainline.” I’d much rather share a church with liberals with whom I disagree than be part of the endless process of splitting from fellow-Christians for the sake of “purity.”

I’m not comfortable with those options, though. . . .

 

[JustaServant]

I’d much rather share a church with liberals with whom I disagree than be part of the endless process of splitting from fellow-Christians for the sake of “purity.”

I’m not comfortable with those options, though. . . .

And as Catholics we share the Church with liberals (heretics) as well. Liberal priests, Bishops, ect. Being more traditional it scares me how easy it would be for me to start attending an SSPX church. I have corrected many a Catholic by simply going the Catechism and showing them what the Church teaches. Teachings that even liberal Bishops cannot change.
Now let me ask then, what happens when the heretics take over the church? In leadership as well as rank and file?
Where is the authority? The compass to keep us from falling off into heresy?

 

[CopticChristian]

Pretty easily.

Protestantism asks questions about tradition. It has thus produced a variety of forms differing from each other in which questions they are willing to ask and how far they are willing to go. Protestantism can only maintain church discipline by endless schism, so each major Protestant tradition winds up with a **“mainline” representative where there’s a lot of doctrinal latitudes, and “purer” split-off groups.**Now if you’re suggesting that most of the mainline denominations have officially adopted heretical teachings, then I think you’re under a severe misapprehension. But they certainly have a broad range of belief and are “liberal” in that sense, and that generally includes some folks who are “liberal” in the more strictly heretical sense that I think you are implying (denying a historical/dogmatic element to the Christian faith altogether, or else denying some particularly central doctrine like the bodily resurrection of Jesus).

Edwin

This is an interesting concept. Schism produces purity. I believe and you don’t have to. I see and you may not agree. I see the opposite. I see a dilution and faulty perception as thoughts get generated in time and schism. Examples. Oneness Pentacostals, 7Day Adventists, Dispensationalists, Health and Wealth, and then of course although not claimed as Protestant…it is my belief that from Protestant thought we get Jehovah Witness, Mormons and all manner of deviations from the original Protestant thought. It is kind of like this.

Recall the party game where you tell someone something and then that person tells the next person, etc. By the time the message gets back to the originator the message is nothing like the original message. This experience is consistent with my paradigm. Give me an example of your paradigm where schism produces purity.

 

[JustaServant]

This is an interesting concept. Schism produces purity. I believe and you don’t have to. I see and you may not agree. I see the opposite. I see a dilution and faulty perception as thoughts get generated in time and schism. Examples. Oneness Pentacostals, 7Day Adventists, Dispensationalists, Health and Wealth, and then of course although not claimed as Protestant…it is my belief that from Protestant thought we get Jehovah Witness, Mormons and all manner of deviations from the original Protestant thought. It is kind of like this.

Recall the party game where you tell someone something and then that person tells the next person, etc. By the time the message gets back to the originator the message is nothing like the original message. This experience is consistent with my paradigm. Give me an example of your paradigm where schism produces purity.

Not sure he meant to say schism itself produces purity. The groups you mention do no allign themselves with any mainline denomination.
There is the liberal United Presbyterian, and the orthodox PCA.
Liberal Methodists and conservative Methodist.
Liberal Episcopal and Orthodox Episcopal.
The more ‘conservative’ split off groups still claim their origins within the denominations named, in fact they would claim they are the true representatives of said denomination.
The groups you mentioned make no such claim.

 

[Contarini]

This is an interesting concept. Schism produces purity.

The scare quotes were deliberate. It sometimes produces groups which have a narrower focus on the core texts/traditional teachings of the particular group.

Give me an example of your paradigm where schism produces purity.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church vis-a-vis the PCUSA (the latter is the mainline Presbyterian denomination). If a Presbyterian from the 17th or even the 19th century were to return today, he would almost certainly feel much more at home in the former than in the latter. The OPC holds staunchly to the Westminster Confession, while the PCUSA adheres to it in a much looser sense (indeed, it’s hard for me to see that many of them pay much attention to it at all, but they say they do).

In this case, the OPC was preserving something that was already in existence (the “Old Princeton” school of conservative Presbyterianism). The examples you gave are groups that are trying to “restore” what they would claim to be the original Biblical teaching which has been lost or seriously corrupted. That’s a much more dubious proposition, and the farther back you go the more dubious it is.

Even with regard to OPC vs. PCUSA, a good case can be made that elements of the tradition were lost in the OPC for the sake of preserving the “purity” of what they saw as key Presbyterian teachings. That’s one of the many reasons why I wholeheartedly oppose “schism for the sake of purity.”

But if you think that preserving the doctrines of the Westminster Confession is what matters (something neither you nor I do), then such a course may make sense.

Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

The scare quotes were deliberate. It sometimes produces groups which have a narrower focus on the core texts/traditional teachings of the particular group.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church vis-a-vis the PCUSA (the latter is the mainline Presbyterian denomination). If a Presbyterian from the 17th or even the 19th century were to return today, he would almost certainly feel much more at home in the former than in the latter. The OPC holds staunchly to the Westminster Confession, while the PCUSA adheres to it in a much looser sense (indeed, it’s hard for me to see that many of them pay much attention to it at all, but they say they do).

In this case, the OPC was preserving something that was already in existence (the “Old Princeton” school of conservative Presbyterianism). The examples you gave are groups that are trying to “restore” what they would claim to be the original Biblical teaching which has been lost or seriously corrupted. That’s a much more dubious proposition, and the farther back you go the more dubious it is.

Even with regard to OPC vs. PCUSA, a good case can be made that elements of the tradition were lost in the OPC for the sake of preserving the “purity” of what they saw as key Presbyterian teachings. That’s one of the many reasons why I wholeheartedly oppose “schism for the sake of purity.”

But if you think that preserving the doctrines of the Westminster Confession is what matters (something neither you nor I do), then such a course may make sense.

Edwin

So then you disagree with this statement.

so each major Protestant tradition winds up with a “mainline” representative where there’s a lot of doctrinal latitudes, and “purer” split-off groups.

Thank you…