Baptists aren't Protestants?

[Kelp]

You mean like nonsacerdotal, "low church" type sects? The Nestorians still exist as an Eastern heresy though they are sacerdotal/liturgical as I recall.

[technomage]

I would not consider those definitions adequate. Protestants are a unique occurrence in the western Church.

Technically speaking, Protestants are not considered "heretics" by the Catholic Church (as Protestants have not received a baptism that the RCC considers "valid"). Some of the teachings of Protestantism would be considered heretical, and most Protestant churches are considered "deficient" in at least one of several areas, but "heresy" is not (quite) an accurate term.

There are no protestant equivalents in the Eastern Church where heresies of that type do not exists.

Actually, I would point to the Nestorians, and to the confession of Cyril Loukaris, as examples of heresy "of that type."

[technomage]

Why do so many people want to distance themselves from Protestantism?

Because if you distance yourself from Protestantism, you can claim to be "the original church" or "descended from the apostolic beliefs," as some Baptists (such as J. H. Carroll) have done.

[hedrick]

>Protestants have not received a baptism that the RCC considers "valid"

This is generally not the case. There are formal agreements between the RCC and some churches (e.g. the Methodists) recognizing each other's baptism, but informally the RCC will not normally rebaptize most Protestants. Because anyone can administer baptism, the same issues don't exist with it that exist with communion.

[technomage]

>Protestants have not received a baptism that the RCC considers "valid"

This is generally not the case. There are formal agreements between the RCC and some churches (e.g. the Methodists) recognizing each other's baptism, but informally the RCC will not normally rebaptize most Protestants. Because anyone can administer baptism, the same issues don't exist with it that exist with communion.

Excuse me--you are quite correct, and thank you for your gentle correction to my error.

[one_lost_coin]

Technically speaking, Protestants are not considered "heretics" by the Catholic Church (as Protestants have not received a baptism that the RCC considers "valid"). Some of the teachings of Protestantism would be considered heretical, and most Protestant churches are considered "deficient" in at least one of several areas, but "heresy" is not (quite) an accurate term.



Actually, I would point to the Nestorians, and to the confession of Cyril Loukaris, as examples of heresy "of that type."

Actually the Catholic Church has properly identified which protestant beliefs are heretical. I would refer you to the council of Trent. Protestantism is defiecient because its foundational beliefs are heretical. The term heresy has dropped from the vocabulary only because it is no way to enter into any sort of useful dialogue with our seperated brothers and sisters.

You are also wrong about baptism Catholics recognize most protestant baptisms as valid when done with water in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit. Which is still mostly the case except with the minority of some of the pentecostal movements that do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity.

I myself am a convert from protestantism and my baptism was considered most valid.

[harmonmsp]

The term heresy has dropped from the vocabulary only because it is no way to enter into any sort of useful dialogue with our seperated brothers and sisters.

If this is true, it's a bit disturbing. What else should I be skeptical of as far as vocabulary, when/if in a meaningfully seeking conversation with a Catholic?

[one_lost_coin]

If this is true, it's a bit disturbing. What else should I be skeptical of as far as vocabulary, when/if in a meaningfully seeking conversation with a Catholic?

It is merely an observation of my own not some formal strategy. You can relax.

People have in fact stopped calling each others beliefs heresies when in fact where there are two different beliefs someone is in fact wrong and that erroneous belief/teaching is in fact a heresy. I can only imagine this was an unproductive way to begin a true dialogue in search for the truth and has been replaced by a prayerful openness to listening to what each other is saying and to the truth of what God is saying.

During my conversion to Catholicism I was most surprised that most of what I had been taught about what Catholics believe they do in fact not. Yet I grew up hearing nothing but inaccurate information about their heretical beliefs similar to the one posted above that I thought deserved clarification. Turns out some of what I believed was heretical and yet I was not able truly know what another believes until I could learn to respectfully listen and allow another truly express their beliefs as accurately as possible.

If you want to know what any Catholics believe so that you may have a more meaningful conversation try reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church as it clearly and painstaking presents the beliefs of Catholics on everything. It can be read for free online or purchased at any books a million or barnes and nobles

So that we can all know St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas". "The right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness--free choice--is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material. On the other hand the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church. The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one's own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonourable. Heresy thus willed is imputable to the subject and carries with it a varying degree of guilt; it is called formal, because to the material error it adds the informative element of "freely willed".

[RBerman]

Actually the Catholic Church has properly identified which protestant beliefs are heretical. I would refer you to the council of Trent. Protestantism is defiecient because its foundational beliefs are heretical. The term heresy has dropped from the vocabulary only because it is no way to enter into any sort of useful dialogue with our seperated brothers and sisters.

Similarly, anathema is no longer proclaimed, so Trent is effectively vitiated of its penalties, albeit not the doctrinal stance for which anathema was formerly pronounced. Trent was the product of a time where people cared whether or not they were part of the Roman church. Unfortunately, the Roman church of that day was so corrupt that large groups of people discovered that anathematization was not so bad after all. All that was being accomplished by mass excommunication was the encouragement of a religious power base separate from Rome.

So in more recent years Rome has turned the rhetoric toward reconciliation instead of punitive separation. Rome still teaches that there's no salvation outside the Church, meaning itself. But that idea is almost entirely (though not quite) sapped of its force by the simultaneous proclamation that it only applies to those who are rebelliously separated from Rome, and that Protestants on the whole are simply uneducated, not rebellious. Thus does Rome try to save face, having its cake while eating it too. The sort of "separated brothers and sisters" language that Lost Coin uses would have gotten him/her strung up on a Papal gibbet in the 16th century, though.

[anglicanformary]

Someone upstream asked about the concern with denominations when we should be worried about saving souls

The Commission is to preach the Gospel, in season and out of season, nothing more, Now, one could argue that we are to preach the Gospel unto the salvation of souls, but the focus of preaching is on Jesus, not salvation and sanctirication considered as an end in itself. The end of all preaching and witnessing is, and should bem Jesus Himself.

Now, with that said, here are my thoughts and responses:

Denominationalism (denominations and denominational spriritual traditions) how contemporary Chritstians express their committment to the Lord Jesus socially among other believers, how they express their identity as professed Chritstians in community, it serves serves as an identity-in-community for people in today's world, sort of a modern counterpart to pre-modern tribal identity (since at least the advent of the modern Nation State in the mid-seventeenth century). It fufills a sociological function: that of socializing new Christians and Christian families

QUOTING: one_lost_coin

I would not consider those definitions adequate. Protestants are a unique occurrence in the western Church. There are no protestant equivalents in the Eastern Church where heresies of that type do not exists.

Well, the definition was meant as descriptive and historical, not as a theological definition. And it is true about the Eastern Church, but the relationship between Church and State in the eastern Church under the Byzantine emperors and their successors the Ottomans was materially different than in the West, not a lot of independent mindedness if you will. On the other hand, most heresies in the early Church sprang from the Eastern portion, the patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandira being quite fruitful in that regard; very few heretics came out of the West (Pelagius and possibly the Donatists -though they were more in North Africa) excepted).

Historically a Protestant was one who agreed with the protest against the Diet of Spires and the Diet of Worm,: now this quickly veered off into "Lutheran-ism", "Reformed" (which morphed into "Calvinism") and eventually "Anglicanism" (with its own Dissenters and Nonconformists, and Remonstrants), but the principle remains the same.

QUOTING Silen Running

Technically speaking, Protestants are not considered "heretics" by the Catholic Church (as Protestants have not received a baptism that the RCC considers "valid"). Some of the teachings of Protestantism would be considered heretical, and most Protestant churches are considered "deficient" in at least one of several areas, but "heresy" is not (quite) an accurate term.

I thought it was more like the RCC accepts Bsptism in the name of Christ using the trinitarian formula as valid; it is Protestant orders-ministers- that are considered invalid (in particular Anglican Holy Orders). And I thought the RCC makes a distinction in Canon Law betwee Formal Heresy and Material Heresy, with the distinction being that, a material heretic, is not aware of the gravity of his mistake, like being born into the Protestant heresy, whereas a formal heretic is one who is aware that his holding to certain beliefs is contrary to the Catholic Faith...i.e. one who leaves the RCC for a Protestant body,

And the Eastern Church doesn't even go in for the Roman concept of 'validity' holding it as too juridical and artificial.

[Alucard]

Anabaptism has roots older than some are allowing. Remember that there was an anabaptistic controversy in the 200s due to the mass "apostasy" during periods of persecution and the original need to rebaptize covered those who had "left" the church during this time.

The controversy there was over whether or not those who had apostatized lost the sacramental grace that they received from their baptism, not the Anabaptist idea that a baptism is only valid if it's coupled with a confession of faith from an adult believer. The Anabaptists were baptized again because they believed their earlier baptism were never at all valid, not the idea of those who advocated a second baptism for those who had lapsed. On a related note, the Church rejected that idea

And another group that some Baptists claim to be descended from (also claimed in the Trail of Blood lecture) are the Novatianists, who held that nobody who apostatized during the persecutions of Diocletian could be re-admitted into the communion of the Church.

And wasn't the Donatists' only beef with anyone the fact that they believed that a clergyman's character determined the validity of the sacraments that he performed? So that meant that priests who apostatized, in their view, couldn't perform valid baptisms and Eucharists? Not that people themselves had to be baptized again...

[one_lost_coin]

Similarly, anathema is no longer proclaimed, so Trent is effectively vitiated of its penalties, albeit not the doctrinal stance for which anathema was formerly pronounced. Trent was the product of a time where people cared whether or not they were part of the Roman church. Unfortunately, the Roman church of that day was so corrupt that large groups of people discovered that anathematization was not so bad after all. All that was being accomplished by mass excommunication was the encouragement of a religious power base separate from Rome.

So in more recent years Rome has turned the rhetoric toward reconciliation instead of punitive separation. Rome still teaches that there's no salvation outside the Church, meaning itself. But that idea is almost entirely (though not quite) sapped of its force by the simultaneous proclamation that it only applies to those who are rebelliously separated from Rome, and that Protestants on the whole are simply uneducated, not rebellious. Thus does Rome try to save face, having its cake while eating it too. The sort of "separated brothers and sisters" language that Lost Coin uses would have gotten him/her strung up on a Papal gibbet in the 16th century, though.

I think it would be far more accurate to say no new anathemas have been promulgated because there are none that need to be promulgated at this time.

The anathemas of Trent are very much in force as the heresies identified in them are not tolerated within Catholicism. The teaching they properly identify and those who taught them have been removed and now the work of listening and reconciliation can begin.

Reunification will be a long road I imagine but the Holy Spirit wants this and it will be done according to God's will.

[hedrick]

The whole concept of anathema is of dubious relevance to this situation. After all, Protestants are by (Catholic) definition not in communion with the Catholic Church in the first place, so excommunication doesn't seem to have much meaning.

There are discussions on particular areas, some of which have gone further than others. One major cause of conflict was justification by faith. But the Catholic/Lutheran dialog has pretty much settled that. Now that the Catholics have a Lutheran Pope, that particular conflict seems settled in favor of Luther.

There are also a number of bilateral agreements on Baptism between Catholics and various Protestant group.

However disagreement on the nature of the Church is more difficult. This of course involves the validity of orders and by implication communion. However the agreements on Baptism typically amount to de facto recognition by both parties that the other party is a real church.

It's clear that these discussions are continuing. I think in the end we will have agreements between the Catholic Church and moderate representatives of most Protestant traditions. These agreements will probably cover most major areas of theology. But I suspect they will not settle the basic question of validity of orders. I think we'll end up with a de facto recognition by Catholics that Protestant churches are valid, and probably even that their communion is a channel of grace, but I don't see the formal position on orders changing.

[THIEF]

I've always thought that if you're an orthodox Christian but not Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Assyrian, then you're probably a Protestant.

(Are Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian considered orthodox? No one else has mentioned them in this thread and I know next to nothing about them.)

[One Bad Pig]

No, they are not. the Assyrian Church is Nestorian (disagreement with the hypostatic union), and the OO are monophysites - or miaphysites, depending on who you ask (disagreement that the Son has two explicit natures). That's a vast over-simplification, but essentially both groups are not orthodox in their Christology.