Is Protestantism , in it's nature, a heresy?

Today I had a deep discussion with an Anglican friend of mine and we spoke about many topics. It further led to the core doctrines of Protestantism ; the 5 Solas. And various others.

I managed to point out how some of the core doctrines and various others are false and thus, are heretical doctrines. He admitted that these doctrines were clearly unorthodox and contradictory to Biblical and early church teachings.

My question is : If the core doctrines of Protestantism like Sola Scriptura are false, ergo in heresy, then is not Protestantism in its nature a heresy?:confused:

The nineteenth ecumenical council opened at Trent on 13 December, 1545, and closed there on 4 December, 1563. Its main object was the definitive determination of the doctrines of the Church** in answer to the heresies of the Protestants**; a further object was the execution of a thorough reform of the inner life of the Church by removing the numerous abuses that had developed in it.

The Ecumenical Council of Trent has proved to be of the greatest importance for the development of the inner life of the Church. No council has ever had to accomplish its task under more serious difficulties, none has had so many questions of the greatest importance to decide. The assembly proved to the world that notwithstanding repeated apostasy in church life there still existed in it an abundance of religious force and of loyal championship of the unchanging principles of Christianity. Although unfortunately the council, through no fault of the fathers assembled, was not able to heal the religious differences of western Europe, yet the infallible Divine truth was clearly proclaimed in opposition to the false doctrines of the day, and in this way** a firm foundation was laid for the overthrow of heresy** and the carrying out of genuine internal reform in the Church.

newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm

XIX. COUNCIL OF TRENT
Years: 1545-1563
Summary: The Council of Trent lasted eighteen years (1545-1563) under five popes: Paul III, Julius III, Marcellus II, Paul IV and Pius IV, and under the Emperors Charles V and Ferdinand. There were present 5 cardinal legates of the Holy See, 3 patriarchs, 33 archbishops, 235 bishops, 7 abbots, 7 generals of monastic orders, and 160 doctors of divinity. It was convoked to examine and condemn the errors promulgated by Luther and other Reformers, and to reform the discipline of the Church. Of all councils it lasted longest, issued the largest number of dogmatic and reformatory decrees, and produced the most beneficial results.
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm

newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm

Yes of course, but protestants would dispute the “if” there. It is a big “if”. Since heresy is a conscious rejection of true things (with apostasy being rejection of the faith entirely), then pretty much every belief system that is not orthodox Catholicism could be called heresy (or heretical, rather, with the people who hold it committing heresy). However, in this age where the Christians are not united and people are born into other sects, the label and its negative connotations are much less useful.

That is, a born and raised devout baptist is wrong, but calling him a heretic implies (in connotation if not necessarily in strict meaning) that he consciously chose to ignore something which he at least at some point believed to be authoritative, or that he is not only wrong but is rebelliously so. But no rebellion in fact happened, as this person never believed the Catholic Church to be correct and so does not see himself (probably) as going contrary to anything he ever believed was true.

So I question whether or not such a characterization is useful, even if it is technically accurate, simply because of the connotation of explicitly rejecting something you once believed or rejecting an authority you once considered to bind you. (This connotation thing would not be a problem, for example, with the women who try to get themselves ordained as priests.)

Or in short, I am not sure that what most people mean by the word is in fact what the word means, so we should at least be very careful with it.

Interesting question. :ouch:

Yes

Yes, it is. That’s never been in doubt.

However, as to the status of members of Protestant sects, the answer is more nuanced. Since St. Augustine’s time the Church has given a certain benefit of the doubt to Christians raised in heretical sects. That is, while they are material heretics (that means they hold heretical beliefs) they may not by formal heretics (that means, they may never have received the correct doctrines in the first place and then rejected them). While holding a heresy is a sin and has damaging effects besides, they may not be at fault and their sin is less serious if they are less culpable. They are still outside the sheepfold with the wolves though, a dangerous place for souls, and we if we want the best for them we should pray for their conversions.

Yes. Protestantism in its nature is a heresy. It contradicts the teaching of the Catholic Church and distorts the bible by the removal of certain books declared valid by the Catholic Church. They never had any right or authority to do this. Their heresies have spread errors and evils throughout the world. We must pray for them to see their errors and return to the Catholic Apostolic Church of our Founder and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Only God can decide whether Protestants have never heard the teachings of the True Church. It is simply not for us to decide. Most Protestants I know have heard what we Catholics have to say and quite simply reject it. This has very serious repercussions for their immortal souls.

In a word, yes. But as others have pointed out, Someone would have to have a full knowledge and understanding of Catholic Doctrine and then outright reject it in favor of protestant doctrine. Sadly, there are many such people out here in the world.

I would say that many Protestants have heard what their religious leaders teach that the Catholic Church says - which is usually nothing at all like what the doctrines and practices actually are. Why would a Baptist, who has grown up believing that Catholics worship idols, even consider converting through their reason alone?

wandile,

Have no idea what doctrines you are talkiing about other than sola scrptura which is subject to definition but any that violate scripture are wrong and any that support scripture are right.

I define sola scriptura as scripture alone is sufficient information for what it takes for salvation and church practice.

Why dont you tell us so we can debate it. I know of no protestant docriines that are heretical. Peace, JohnR

mike,

why?

Peace, JohnR

Why?

Its doubted by me.

Peace, JohnR

=BenedictFTW;9221369]Yes. Protestantism in its nature is a heresy. It contradicts the teaching of the Catholic Church and distorts the bible by the removal of certain books declared valid by the Catholic Church. They never had any right or authority to do this. Their heresies have spread errors and evils throughout the world. We must pray for them to see their errors and return to the Catholic Apostolic Church of our Founder and Lord, Jesus Christ…

Only in your opinion. No books were removed. What exactly are our errors?

Only God can decide whether Protestants have never heard the teachings of the True Church. It is simply not for us to decide. Most Protestants I know have heard what we Catholics have to say and quite simply reject it. This has very serious repercussions for their immortal souls.

We think our immortal souls are fine. Why not?

Peace, JohnR

highrigger1,

is the bible written tradition?

coach,

Is that offical Catholic teaching or is it just your made up presumption?

Is it wrong to make up official Catholic teachings that are not true?

Peace, JohnR

Ok let’s take it this way. Is the Bible or the Church the pillar and foundation of truth?

or,

did the Early Church had a bible? then how did they proceed without scripture?

Is the bible WRITTEN TRADITION?

pat,

Of course. .

Peace, JohnR

highrigger1,

How did written tradition come from then?

How did written tradition come from then?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.