Timocrates wrote:

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 agree with you. I more mean that Protestants do, outside Catholicism what *if done on purpose with true intent and with knowledge* *inside* Catholicism would be heresy. What actually preserves Protestantism from the same? It seems to be systematic ignorance.

I was raised in a Southern US Protestant Evangelical context wherein Catholicism was regularly condemned as non-Christian and Catholics were regularly accused of being "worshipers of  the Pope *a mere man* who were going to hell.' Coupled with the madness of their exegetical practices, this obviously awful teaching about the Catholic Church, interaction with which has primarily been healing and helpful for me spiritually, has severely soured me against Protestantism. I have a hard time viewing them as genuinely good-willed at least ecumenically. I didn't even find them to dispute the issue in *good faith* let alone possess the kind of good will towards the Catholic Church that you're willing to show to them. Their good will towards other matters and baptismal grace however is not something I should ignore, but I don't think that at least the Protestantism of *my* youth should get off so lightly on the charge of obstinacy.