Is Protestantism Heresy?

[TrentCath]

No that is what the Church has always taught, as the Archbishop said 'The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion.  They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God.  As priests we must state the truth.'

This was not invented by Pope Paul VI, I personally have books over a century old and approved to the church that speak of it, completely aside from the encyclicals and fathers that speak of it.

TrentCath, I know what you're saying, but that's not what the post-conciliar teachings are saying. They aren't merely teaching that a person in another faith can err in good conscience yet be attached to the Catholic Church via baptism (perhaps of desire), faith in the truths necessary for salvation, and a sincere desire to do the will of God. The post-conciliar teachings are saying the the false creeds themselves are used by God as a means of salvation. They are attached to the Catholic Church in a most fundamental way and derive their efficacy from it. Collectively, this plurality of Churches makes up the "Church of Christ," which is distinct from the Catholic Church in a processional relationship. The new teaching is saying that a person isn't just saved in another religion but by it.

I'm 

I don't agree with the new teaching, I am pointing out that the Cardinal is wrong, the correct term is heretic, most likely material heretic. I certainly do not believe people in other faiths are saved by them or in any plurality of churches.

I'm sorry, I thought you said "No, that's what the Church has always taught."

I then thought you were using Abp. Lefebvre to justify this. I was trying to point out the distinction. I must have misunderstood you. I apologize. I will try to be more careful.

No, No it was my fault for not being clear enough.

[Doce Me]

[Remember the man whom the apostles questioned about, and Jesus said. "For he that is not against you, is for you."

But also remember the other quote in Luke "He that is not with me, is against me". [Luke 11:23]

Weak support for someone (only "not being against them") is, as Christ says, enough in some cases, but Christ speaks more strongly about Himself.  We must be for Him, and in the Church He founded for His glory and for us; how can we be for Him if we are not with Him there?  The Catholic Church is not only "best", it is the one and only Church Christ gave us.  The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, and has Christ as its Head.

I think it could be said that Baptism of desire comes when a non-Catholic has a desire that in God's eyes amounts to wanting to be a good Catholic, to such a degree that he would do so if there were no impediments (physical or mental).  Christ can baptize such a man without water, forgiving his sins and putting him IN the Church, although not as a member of the Church.  Christ acts as the Head of His own Mystical Body (the Church) when He baptizes;  He does not need a false religion as a means.  God can attract a man to the Church by any means He chooses, but only the Church, His Mystical Body,  is the means to salvation.

[alphonsusjr]

"Is Protestantism Heresy?"

Isn't it amazing that it would ever occur to a Catholic to ask this question? Such is the V2 cancer. We've been bamboozled.

[JayneK]

It seems that if we face the uncomfortable reality, rather than engage in back-breaking mental gymnastics to contort these teachings into conformity with the Catholic Church's perennial magisterium, then there are only two camps: either a person "may" be saved through false religions, which contradicts the previous teachings of the Church (meaning, as you indicated, that Catholicism is just one option [though admittedly still the "best"] out of many), or we deny that this post-conciliar magisterium is authentic at all.

I really do think that Catholics need to take a side. They can't waffle in the middle forever and have any faith left at the end.

The Church does not teach that a person may be saved through a false religion.  If a person of a false religion is saved it can only be through the Catholic Church.

How is presenting this false dichotomy not promoting sedevacantism?

I did not accuse the pope of heresy or say that the seat is vacant, which is what sedevacantism proposes. I am not aware of any rule that says we are forbidden from questioning the authenticity of the post-conciliar magisterium. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Is it possible to believe that we do not have an authentic Magisterium while believing we have a pope?  I do not see how.  I think that promoting ideas that necessarily imply sedevantism is a way of promoting sedevacantism.

[TrentCath]

It seems that if we face the uncomfortable reality, rather than engage in back-breaking mental gymnastics to contort these teachings into conformity with the Catholic Church's perennial magisterium, then there are only two camps: either a person "may" be saved through false religions, which contradicts the previous teachings of the Church (meaning, as you indicated, that Catholicism is just one option [though admittedly still the "best"] out of many), or we deny that this post-conciliar magisterium is authentic at all.

I really do think that Catholics need to take a side. They can't waffle in the middle forever and have any faith left at the end.

The Church does not teach that a person may be saved through a false religion.  If a person of a false religion is saved it can only be through the Catholic Church.

How is presenting this false dichotomy not promoting sedevacantism?

I did not accuse the pope of heresy or say that the seat is vacant, which is what sedevacantism proposes. I am not aware of any rule that says we are forbidden from questioning the authenticity of the post-conciliar magisterium. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Is it possible to believe that we do not have an authentic Magisterium while believing we have a pope?  I do not see how.  I think that promoting ideas that necessarily imply sedevantism is a way of promoting sedevacantism.

 

Now I see why you're not so popular.

[UnamSanctam]

"Is Protestantism Heresy?"

Isn't it amazing that it would ever occur to a Catholic to ask this question? Such is the V2 cancer. We've been bamboozled.

Yes. But I am afraid it goes much deeper than that. The virus of modernism has made some even question if Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God.

Pure and simple, the conciliar church denies Christ and His redemption, by extending salvation to those who do not beleive in Him.

"Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son."
1 John 2:22

Last time I looked, Muslims and Jews denied that Jesus was the Christ.

Maybe the architects of the robber council of the Vatican II have a different version of the Bible. One where Jesus says "I am a way, a truth, a life"

[INPEFESS]

It seems that if we face the uncomfortable reality, rather than engage in back-breaking mental gymnastics to contort these teachings into conformity with the Catholic Church's perennial magisterium, then there are only two camps: either a person "may" be saved through false religions, which contradicts the previous teachings of the Church (meaning, as you indicated, that Catholicism is just one option [though admittedly still the "best"] out of many), or we deny that this post-conciliar magisterium is authentic at all.

I really do think that Catholics need to take a side. They can't waffle in the middle forever and have any faith left at the end.

The Church does not teach that a person may be saved through a false religion.  If a person of a false religion is saved it can only be through the Catholic Church.

How is presenting this false dichotomy not promoting sedevacantism?

I did not accuse the pope of heresy or say that the seat is vacant, which is what sedevacantism proposes. I am not aware of any rule that says we are forbidden from questioning the authenticity of the post-conciliar magisterium. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Is it possible to believe that we do not have an authentic Magisterium while believing we have a pope?  I do not see how.  I think that promoting ideas that necessarily imply sedevantism is a way of promoting sedevacantism.

Many of the ideas thrown around here actually have very serious theological consequences that their proponents themselves don't want to acknowledge. They'll propose the premises but refuse to acknowledge what those premises imply per the teachings of the Catholic Church. If I believe the new mass is invalid, well that also implies sedevacantism, yet there are some here who argue that on the forum and they are not banned.

I believe these discussions are tolerated because the forum owners really that not everyone thinks logically. That is why we are allowed to interact and discuss these matters. To my knowledge, it is the conclusion of sedevacantism that can't be promoted.

[INPEFESS]

It seems that if we face the uncomfortable reality, rather than engage in back-breaking mental gymnastics to contort these teachings into conformity with the Catholic Church's perennial magisterium, then there are only two camps: either a person "may" be saved through false religions, which contradicts the previous teachings of the Church (meaning, as you indicated, that Catholicism is just one option [though admittedly still the "best"] out of many), or we deny that this post-conciliar magisterium is authentic at all.

I really do think that Catholics need to take a side. They can't waffle in the middle forever and have any faith left at the end.

The Church does not teach that a person may be saved through a false religion.  If a person of a false religion is saved it can only be through the Catholic Church.

How is presenting this false dichotomy not promoting sedevacantism?

I did not accuse the pope of heresy or say that the seat is vacant, which is what sedevacantism proposes. I am not aware of any rule that says we are forbidden from questioning the authenticity of the post-conciliar magisterium. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Is it possible to believe that we do not have an authentic Magisterium while believing we have a pope?  I do not see how.  I think that promoting ideas that necessarily imply sedevantism is a way of promoting sedevacantism.

 

Now I see why you're not so popular.

Without the fish factor, how do you know? 

In all seriousness, though, this is not a popularity contest.

[Tapatio]

It seems that if we face the uncomfortable reality, rather than engage in back-breaking mental gymnastics to contort these teachings into conformity with the Catholic Church's perennial magisterium, then there are only two camps: either a person "may" be saved through false religions, which contradicts the previous teachings of the Church (meaning, as you indicated, that Catholicism is just one option [though admittedly still the "best"] out of many), or we deny that this post-conciliar magisterium is authentic at all.

I really do think that Catholics need to take a side. They can't waffle in the middle forever and have any faith left at the end.

The Church does not teach that a person may be saved through a false religion.  If a person of a false religion is saved it can only be through the Catholic Church.

How is presenting this false dichotomy not promoting sedevacantism?

I did not accuse the pope of heresy or say that the seat is vacant, which is what sedevacantism proposes. I am not aware of any rule that says we are forbidden from questioning the authenticity of the post-conciliar magisterium. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Is it possible to believe that we do not have an authentic Magisterium while believing we have a pope?  I do not see how.  I think that promoting ideas that necessarily imply sedevantism is a way of promoting sedevacantism.

 

Now I see why you're not so popular.

Without the fish factor, how do you know? 

In all seriousness, though, this is not a popularity contest.

JayneK has a point. This time a valid one.
(yours too TrentCath, but that's for another thread)

[SPB]

It seems that if we face the uncomfortable reality, rather than engage in back-breaking mental gymnastics to contort these teachings into conformity with the Catholic Church's perennial magisterium, then there are only two camps: either a person "may" be saved through false religions, which contradicts the previous teachings of the Church (meaning, as you indicated, that Catholicism is just one option [though admittedly still the "best"] out of many), or we deny that this post-conciliar magisterium is authentic at all.

I really do think that Catholics need to take a side. They can't waffle in the middle forever and have any faith left at the end.

The Church does not teach that a person may be saved through a false religion.  If a person of a false religion is saved it can only be through the Catholic Church.

How is presenting this false dichotomy not promoting sedevacantism?

I did not accuse the pope of heresy or say that the seat is vacant, which is what sedevacantism proposes. I am not aware of any rule that says we are forbidden from questioning the authenticity of the post-conciliar magisterium. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Is it possible to believe that we do not have an authentic Magisterium while believing we have a pope?  I do not see how.  I think that promoting ideas that necessarily imply sedevantism is a way of promoting sedevacantism.

Many of the ideas thrown around here actually have very serious theological consequences that their proponents themselves don't want to acknowledge. They'll propose the premises but refuse to acknowledge what those premises imply per the teachings of the Catholic Church. If I believe the new mass is invalid, well that also implies sedevacantism, yet there are some here who argue that on the forum and they are not banned.

I believe these discussions are tolerated because the forum owners really that not everyone thinks logically. That is why we are allowed to interact and discuss these matters. To my knowledge, it is the conclusion of sedevacantism that can't be promoted.

Very well said, and I agree. Of course, it is just my own opinion and estimation, based off my own thoughts, ideas and reading, but as far as I see it I think that many do not in fact understand the consequences of what they often take for granted as something that is compatible with non-sedevacantism. Which is why, I think, this site is so 'noisy' at times and perhaps so often in a crisis of faith (individually and collectively). There is a cognitive dissonance (which we all experience on some level thanks to the crisis of the 21st century) that so often becomes apparent here. I think it's particularly the case when Fr. Cekada gets involved - a priest who is trained theologically usually wipes the floor with many of the SSPX arguments using sound theology and Canon Law (though I do not believe his overall position correct of course but that isn't for this post).

One of these cases is, as you say, claiming that the Novus Ordo is invalid/doesn't fulfill your Sunday obligation. This can only ever lead to sedevacantism (in my opinion)- whether a "hard" sedevacantism or a "soft" sedevacantism which may also be called 'practical sedevacantism' (where everything from the 'modern' magisterium is treated with suspicion and/or rejected and/or ripped to shreds publically and/or quietly ignored in favour of SSPX judgment). There are probably a handful of other cases where this applies.

For this reason, and for others, I try as much as I can to stay away from endorsing theological opinions because (a) it is outside my authority, (b) I am not educated enough, (c) I may not realize the consequences of what I am saying and (d) I wouldn't want to mislead anybody. Of course at times it is necessary to endorse certain things, as I have done in this post, but sometimes it's best to just keep quiet.