Protestants are heretical?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zenkai
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zenkai

Guest
I was on another thread, and several Catholics kept saying Protestants and there church services are heretical. However, I’m pretty sure Protestants are not heretical.

Heretic(noun):
  1. a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.
  2. Roman Catholic Church . a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith.
  3. anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle.
As you can see, Protestants do not fit any of these definitions. 1. Most Protestants do not hold opinions contrary to Protestant beliefs. 2. Maybe a convert from Catholicism to Protestantism would be considered a heretic, but definitely not all Protestants. 3. Protestants conform to Protestant attitude, doctrine, and principle.

What do you think?
 
Zenkai said:
I was on another thread, and several Catholics kept saying Protestants and there church services are heretical. However, I’m pretty sure Protestants are not heretical.

Heretic(noun):
  1. a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.
  2. Roman Catholic Church . a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith.
  3. anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle.
As you can see, Protestants do not fit any of these definitions. 1. Most Protestants do not hold opinions contrary to Protestant beliefs. 2. Maybe a convert from Catholicism to Protestantism would be considered a heretic, but definitely not all Protestants. 3. Protestants conform to Protestant attitude, doctrine, and principle.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
I think that some protestants are truly ‘catholics’ and many catholics are truly ‘protestants’
 
That’s right. The Church is smart enough to know the difference between the first generation of Protestants who knowingly rebuked the Church’s teachings choosing to knowingly teach others to the contrary and modern day Protestants who have been raised since birth in that understanding of Christianity without ever being convinced of the Catholic truth.
 
“We believe also in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church. For heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God; and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor” (Faith and the Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).

“I do not hesitate to put the Catholic catechumen, burning with divine love, before a baptized heretic. Even within the Catholic Church herself we put the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person . . . For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:44–48], while Simon [Magus], even after his baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit [Acts 8:13–19]” (Faith and the Creed, 4:21[28]).

“The apostle Paul said, ‘As for a man that is a heretic, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him’ [Titus 3:10]. But those who maintain their own opinion, however false and perverted, without obstinate ill will, especially those who have not originated the error of bold presumption, but have received it from parents who had been led astray and had lapsed . . . those who seek the truth with careful industry and are ready to be corrected when they have found it, are not to be rated among heretics” (Letters 43:1 [A.D. 412]).

-Augustine
 
I saw this interview on the Andrew Marr show where our ArchBishop (Vincent Nichols) was asked about the Anglican church being heretical. This was his response:

“Well I think that’s a word from the history books actually rather than from a modern lexicon. We would describe ourselves as brothers and sisters in Christ. And over the last twenty years, in a way since that great push that John Paul II gave to the relationships between our churches, we have built a pretty strong and pretty steady partnership.”
 
It’s not so much that Protestants are heretical; rather it is that Protestantism is a heresy.
 
Zenkai said:
I was on another thread, and several Catholics kept saying Protestants and there church services are heretical. However, I’m pretty sure Protestants are not heretical.

Heretic(noun):
  1. a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.
  2. Roman Catholic Church . a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith.
  3. anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle.
As you can see, Protestants do not fit any of these definitions. 1. Most Protestants do not hold opinions contrary to Protestant beliefs. 2. Maybe a convert from Catholicism to Protestantism would be considered a heretic, but definitely not all Protestants. 3. Protestants conform to Protestant attitude, doctrine, and principle.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
The Church has given direction on this.

Those who are born into these non-Catholic groups are not considered formal heretics. The founders of those groups may or may not be considered heretics, depending upon whether or not they were originally Catholics (i.e. Martin Luther, John Calvin, etc).

A Catholic who leave the Church and joins a non-Catholic ecclesial community *would *be a heretic.

Elements of Protestant theology and doctrines (as well as Protestantism as a whole) can and have been be deemed heretical vis-a-vis Catholic doctrine through the years in various pronouncements of the Church. Such a pronouncement serves as a warning to Catholics regarding the unorthodox teachings.
 
Pitcharan said:
I think that some protestants are truly ‘catholics’ and many catholics are truly ‘protestants’
Click to expand...
I agree with that.

I also believe in do time both will compromise for a united church once again
 
Some are heretics (or, if it’s more acceptable, “Christians who hold heretical beliefs”), but it’s very politically-incorrect to say so in modern Catholicism: the correct term is “separated brethren”. Some examples of heretical beliefs many Protestants hold is penal substitution, imputation of grace, denying the real presence, ordination of women and active homosexuals, commanding and allowing sin, sola scriptura, sola fide, perseverance of the saints, limited atonement, irresistible grace, double predestination-reprobation, unconditional election, “Free Grace”, etc.

I think High-Church Anglicans and Anglo-Catholics aren’t so much heretics, as just having invalid an illicit orders, possibly Episcopal Methodists (as many I have seen believe in the Real Presence, even if not defined by Transubstantiation, and follow the Wesleyan Quadrilateral), and possibly Lutherans, whose main point of difference is grace alone/faith alone/Christ alone and sola scriptura (and the Pope is the antichrist). They may fall more under “heterodox”.

That’s speaking of actual Christians, such as Methodists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc. and not new religions that have some tie to historical Christianity (such as Mormonism and WTS): the latter aren’t heretics, per se, because they’re not Christian in the first place: they are orthodox according to their own religion. This last paragraph is expressed well by the poster prior to me:
So, a Protestant would be a heretic to a Catholic, and vice versa. And the same would be for all religions. A Catholic would be a heretic to a Muslim. A Muslim would be a heretic to a Buddhist. A Mormon would be a heretic to a Muslim. And so on, and so forth.
Click to expand...
Remembering, that there are different levels of “heresy”: a Catholic who contracepts but knows that it is wrong is not a heretic, but a sinner; an Anglo-Catholic may be only heterodox, a Reformed Baptist may be an outright heretic, some churches may be schismatic (holding essentially the same beliefs but breaking communion), etc.: such as, from the point-of-view of a Muslim, a Jew is less of a heretic than a Christian (since they don’t believe in the Incarnation and the Trinity), so on and so forth.

Even more so complicated by the “doctrinal diversity” in much of half-Christendom, where people call themselves Christian and at the same time think the ideas espoused in the Da Vinci Code are plausible, or even correct, and are not excommunicated by their churches (if they ever attend).
 
In fact, there would be many Catholics who are heretics, too. The ones who use birth control and see no problem with that, for example That is more than being lapsed…that would be heretical, right? As per IKE’s definition?
Click to expand...
Depends on if they think the Church is wrong and that birth control really isn’t a sin. That would be heretical.
 
I’ve noticed on protestant radio (Bott) the attempt at defining an unwritten creed. One broadcaster will states that “these are issues which we can disagree on but don’t need to divide over.”

And he does come out and call some particular pastors heretical (many are the television evangelists).
 
Barbkw said:
I’ve noticed on protestant radio (Bott) the attempt at defining an unwritten creed. One broadcaster will states that “these are issues which we can disagree on but don’t need to divide over.”

And he does come out and call some particular pastors heretical (many are the television evangelists).
Click to expand...
Ahhh yes, the Dogmas of Protestantism. Defined by each individual member.
 
DaddyGirl said:
Right. So, a Catholic who goes to church every Sunday but uses contraception because they* disagree with church doctrine *on that…therefore, they don’t think they are doing anything wrong.…would then be considered a heretic, yes?
As in, one who commits heresy.
Click to expand...
If they have denied a dogma of the Church, yes, they have lapsed in to heresy. I’m not sure whether the teaching on contraception is regarded highly enough (e.g. as infallible through the constant teaching of the ordinary magisterium) that dissent from it is heresy. Since the teaching against contraception has been consistently proclaimed and is against the natural moral law and the teleology of God’s creation, I do believe (although I am not certain) that it is infallibly defined by the ordinary magisterium, and denying it is heresy.

That is, someone who says that married men should be able to become priests is not a heretic, as they are disagreeing with a discipline of the Church (i.e. a man-made tradition, not apostolic Tradition), not a dogma. Someone who holds that women or non-celibate unmarried men can be ordained, on the other hand, is a heretic.
 
Zenkai said:
I was on another thread, and several Catholics kept saying Protestants and there church services are heretical. However, I’m pretty sure Protestants are not heretical.

Heretic(noun):
  1. a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.
  2. Roman Catholic Church . a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith.
  3. anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle.
As you can see, Protestants do not fit any of these definitions. 1. Most Protestants do not hold opinions contrary to Protestant beliefs. 2. Maybe a convert from Catholicism to Protestantism would be considered a heretic, but definitely not all Protestants. 3. Protestants conform to Protestant attitude, doctrine, and principle.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
It really depends on how one defines “his or her own church.”
  1. From the Catholic point of view, a person who receives the sacrament of baptism is baptised into the Catholic Church whether they know it or not. Therefore, from a Catholic point of view, the Protestant is a member of the Catholic Church and maintaining religious opinions contrary to those accepted and thereby not in Communion with the Church.
  2. Of course, if by “his or her own church” you are referring to a persons denomination then of course that person is not a heretic according to their denomination.
  3. Finally even under the third definition, the improperly baptized or unbaptised i.e. gnostics, LDS, onenesss, pentacostals, etc. may also be considered heretics since they represent themselves as Christians but do not conform to the established attitudes, doctrines, or principles of Christianity in general.
 
Barbkw said:
Bott Radios’ “Bible Answer Man” tries. He’s got a good following of listeners.

Protestantisms’ radio pope.
Click to expand...
I’ve never heard him, but if he is claiming that we can agree to disagree on:
  1. Baptism
  2. The real presence
  3. Absolution from a pastor/confessor
  4. that once justified, one can fall from grace
then he is no pope of mine. There is one pope, in Rome, the Bishop of Rome.

Jon
 
Zenkai said:
I was on another thread, and several Catholics kept saying Protestants and there church services are heretical. However, I’m pretty sure Protestants are not heretical.

Heretic(noun):
  1. a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.
  2. Roman Catholic Church . a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith.
  3. anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle.
As you can see, Protestants do not fit any of these definitions. 1. Most Protestants do not hold opinions contrary to Protestant beliefs. 2. Maybe a convert from Catholicism to Protestantism would be considered a heretic, but definitely not all Protestants. 3. Protestants conform to Protestant attitude, doctrine, and principle.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
After a few Google searches, this is what I have come up with:

Protestantism is heresy, because it teaches numerous beliefs that have been infallibly condemned as false by the Council of Trent. The Catholic faith is the one, true, faith, and anything that departs from it is heresy. It’s really as simple as that.

A person who holds something contrary to the Catholic faith is materially a heretic.
Someone who holds to a heretical belief out of ignorance due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition, or if they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth, is in a state of material heresy. This means that they are not formally guilty of heresy, because of invincible ignorance. However, someone who willingly embraces something known as contrary to revealed truth, is formally guilty of heresy.

Before the Second Vatican Council, it was common for Catholics to call non-Catholic Christians ‘heretics’, because many of their beliefs are contrary to Catholic doctrine. That theological distinction remains true, but in coherence with the Second Vatican Council, today we only use the term to describe formal heretics.

Source:

  1. *]Heresy, Schism and Apostasy - by EWTN
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top