Scott wrote:

Aquinas wrote:

There are many problems with then New 1992 CCC and without listing them all, one will suffice to explain my reservations: The Protestant and like sects are ordinary means of salvation (§819) 

That isn't a quotation from §819 of the CCC. In fact, a Google search for that exact sentence returns precisely one result.

Care to clarify?

I was reading the article on the link you correctly post to. Obviously it is an interpretation (a correct one in my opinion) of #819 ...are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church:


 

Aquinas wrote:

Scott wrote:

Aquinas wrote:

There are many problems with then New 1992 CCC and without listing them all, one will suffice to explain my reservations: The Protestant and like sects are ordinary means of salvation (§819) 

That isn't a quotation from §819 of the CCC. In fact, a Google search for that exact sentence returns precisely one result.

Care to clarify?

I was reading the article on the link you correctly post to. Obviously it is an interpretation (a correct one in my opinion) of #819 ...are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church:


 

 
"An element of truth" =/= salvation in the Catholic sense.

I hate to step in on a battle I have no investment in but Benedict says of it in The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood

Benedict XVI wrote:

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 heretical status of Protestantism is a nuanced matter due to the passage of time, but it certainly was *once* rightly called "heresy". Certainly, within Catholicism, if one espoused sola scriptura & sola fide you would rightly be called a heretic. As I read that, though I don't put it so judiciously, the protestant community basically now has a kind of ignorance that saves them from true obstinacy because of their longevity.

Last edited by iwpoe (7/14/2015 9:20 pm)

iwpoe wrote:

I hate to step in on a battle I have no investment in but Benedict says of it in The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood

Benedict XVI wrote:

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 heretical status of Protestantism is a nuanced matter due to the passage of time, but it certainly was *once* rightly called "heresy". Certainly, within Catholicism, if one espoused sola scriptura & sola fide you would rightly be called a heretic. As I read that, though I don't put it so judiciously, the protestant community basically now has a kind of ignorance that saves them from true obstinacy because of their longevity.

But that is the crucial word, "espoused." If we understand "espoused" to mean "to say or claim based on necessary meaning of the words said" then, yes, one would theoretically be a heretic for saying "by faith alone we are saved," for example. But heresy is not merely the appearance of faithlessness. It is an ontological (if I am using that word correctly) lack - arguably not even that - an actual defect of Faith. Heresy is a sin against Faith - for the Catholic, at least. A Catholic may very well say things (presumably badly from a philosophical point of view) that are, technically, heretical. What is important, however, is his meaning or understanding. Many true Christians, I am sure, have said things (lied) to spare their necks (quite literally) but didn't believe them, for example. Such as these were and are not heretics.

I am going to move this thread to the religious forum. It seems to me that it better belongs there.

Aquinas: I'm confused how you can consider this a partcularly unwelcoming forum. Certainly, many Catholics are not going to welcome what you are implying and are going to express the dislike of your perspective. You really will have to put up with that sort of thing.