Topic: Protestantism came from Catholicism

[Peter J]

Hi all. I'm starting this thread as per Kerdy's suggestion.

Protestants came around very late in Church history and as a result of things the Roman Catholic Church was doing wrong at the time. 

On the other hand, they wouldn't be Christians at all if not for [Roman] Catholicism. Are they worse off being protestant than being non-Christian?

A topic for another thread perhaps? 

Well yes ... if the answer isn't as simple as "No, they're better off being protestant than being non-Christian."

I agree with Kerdy on this one. Let's keep this thread on topic.

(boldface added to question)

[primuspilus]

I think its painting with too broad a brush. Anglicans are protestants, but then again, so are Oneness Pentecostals. One is not so bad, just off the beaten trail on stuff, the other are nutbags.

Clarification would be better, however I'll say for the trinitarian Protestants, it is obviously better for that then not being Christians. IMHO if they die not knowing the complete truth, at least there is something there.

PP

[Peter J]

P.S. Just to clarify, I'm not completely disagreeing with Kerdy's point. Certainly, protestants would still be Catholic if Catholics had handled things better in the 16th century.

I'm just trying to point out the other side of the coin: that  Catholicism should also get credit for protestants being Christian at all.

[Kerdy]

This is a tough question to answer.  I think it depends on the type of Protestant and the individual.  We all know there will be many people who think they will make it to heaven only to find out they will not.  I believe a very large portion of those will be Protestant.  Believing a false teaching or heresy is just as bad as being an atheist, if it keeps you from heaven.  I think there are also many Protestants who have found their spiritual path, so to speak, regardless of the incompleteness or incorrect teachings of Protestantism as a whole.  In other words, will there be Protestants in heaven, yes.  Will there be Orthodox who are not in heaven, yes.  I think it better to never hear the message of Jesus than to hear the wrong message, because then it leads people in the wrong direction.  A false belief and hope; however, I know many people I am confident will be in the presence of God when they pass from this world, who are Protestant.

So, to answer your question as best as I can…it depends.

[Cyrillic]

IMHO if they die not knowing the complete truth, at least there is something there.

What do you mean with that?

[Peter J]

I think it better to never hear the message of Jesus than to hear the wrong message,

That seems to be the thinking of many EOs (and OOs) on this forum.

[ZealousZeal]

I think it's better to be Protestant than nothing at all (taking PP's point about "what kind of Protestant" into consideration). I think having some truth is better than having none. The more you have, the better. I think a Protestant who believes in the Trinity, sincerely believes the faith they were brought up in and tries to serve God the best way they know how is certainly better than being a non-Christian. I have a hard time imagining God being like, "Well, you helped the poor and needy, took care of the widow and orphan, but believed in Sola Scriptura so... doom on you."

[Asteriktos]

I'm not sure whether I go along with this or not, but a more traditional stance might be:

If they are to be evangelized by the Orthodox, it's better that they are not Protestant.
If they are not to be evangelized by the Orthodox, it's better that they are sane Protestants.

[Shanghaiski]

As much as labels help make generalizations about beliefs and religious culture, people are still individuals. To me, it's impossible to say who is worse or better of than others based on a label. We may be called Orthodox Christians, but are we living up to the name?

[Opus118]

I think it better to never hear the message of Jesus than to hear the wrong message,

That seems to be the thinking of many EOs (and OOs) on this forum.

For some reason Kerdy's comment struck me as being a Roman Catholic position. If you had to choose between being anti-Catholic (all Catholics in this case), vincibly ignorant, or invincibly ignorant, which would you choose?

Just a thought.

[Peter J]

I think it better to never hear the message of Jesus than to hear the wrong message,

That seems to be the thinking of many EOs (and OOs) on this forum.

For some reason Kerdy's comment struck me as being a Roman Catholic position.

Really? I'm surprised.

[JamesR]

I think that Protestants would be better off being non-Christians, the reason being that I believe Protestants are harder to convert to Orthodoxy because we would have to solve all of their doctrinal doubts and hang-ups for them, whereas if a non-Christian came to Orthodoxy, they would probably be more likely to accept Orthodoxy at face value opposed to having inner-doctrinal doubts. I just honestly believe that non-Christians are actually more likely to give Orthodoxy a fair swing than Protestants are because the American Protestant media has demonized liturgical Christianity so much.

[dzheremi]

As much as labels help make generalizations about beliefs and religious culture, people are still individuals. To me, it's impossible to say who is worse or better of than others based on a label. We may be called Orthodox Christians, but are we living up to the name?

^ This. My mother, despite being Presbyterian, was 1000% better at being Christian than I am. I know I cannot rest on my laurels, so to speak, hoping that I can depend on my "Orthodox" label to save me (cf. Matthew 3:9).

[Kerdy]

I think it better to never hear the message of Jesus than to hear the wrong message,

That seems to be the thinking of many EOs (and OOs) on this forum.

For some reason Kerdy's comment struck me as being a Roman Catholic position.

Really? I'm surprised.

All I meant to say is if you never heard the truth, most likely this will be considered when one stands before God.  If you hear part of the truth, but not enough to live a proper Christian life and accept whatever twisted version is presented, I'm so sure this will be taken into consideration.  At that point it may be expected for one to seek out the rest rather than be lazy and accept anything.  Of course, I can't speak for God and this doesn't apply to every person (as I eluded in my previous post).

[Opus118]

I think it better to never hear the message of Jesus than to hear the wrong message,

That seems to be the thinking of many EOs (and OOs) on this forum.

For some reason Kerdy's comment struck me as being a Roman Catholic position.

Really? I'm surprised.

I am not sure how to interpret your comment. Perhaps I have spent too many years reading posts at CAF.

There is not much about "invincible ignorance" on this forum, but there are a couple of posts that hark back to what I read at CAF:

Probably the last really explicit expression is stated in Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos in 1928:

"The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. ... Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors."

This does not nullify our belief in the concept of invincible ignornance and you know it.

Ah yes!  The 8th Sacrament of Invincible Ignorance which has saved more people globally than Baptism.  It had slipped my mind. 

This is a truly the epitome of "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise."

Those who labour in the mental darkness of Invincible Ignorance are unable to commit a mortal sin since their darkened mind, deprived of grace, is not able to comprehend fully the nature of a mortal sin nor to formulate an intentional desire to commit one.  Without these two requisites of full understanding and full intention there can be no mortal sin.  They are mortal-sin free.

 The concept of invincible ignorance is no different than the EO teaching that salvation is possible outside the bounds of your church.

I think that Khomiakov says it nicely, without blurring the boundaries of the Church, and without resorting to theories of Invincible Ignorance.  Among the Russian Orthodox this is considered an accurate way of describing the salvation of those outside the Church:

'Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and ... does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day'

~ From "The Church is One"

From my perspective, the commonality between CAF and here is Fr. Ambrose. Kerdy's notion coincides more with the Roman Catholic position, in this regard.

Personally I hope the "invincible ignorance" theory is true.

[Opus118]

I think it better to never hear the message of Jesus than to hear the wrong message,

That seems to be the thinking of many EOs (and OOs) on this forum.

For some reason Kerdy's comment struck me as being a Roman Catholic position.

Really? I'm surprised.

All I meant to say is if you never heard the truth, most likely this will be considered when one stands before God.  If you hear part of the truth, but not enough to live a proper Christian life and accept whatever twisted version is presented, I'm so sure this will be taken into consideration.  At that point it may be expected for one to seek out the rest rather than be lazy and accept anything.  Of course, I can't speak for God and this doesn't apply to every person (as I eluded in my previous post).

Thanks Kerdy, this is more or less the we do not know position which I have to live by. I apologize for needlessly making you post again on this matter. I posted because you raised an issue of concern to me.

[Ashman618]

Not that this is really on topic but I often ask myself if I absolutely knew that there was no punishment and no reward after this earthly life and God simply asked me to live a life of repentance and sacrifice just cuz it's what I was made to do, if I could do it. I think honestly being able to  say yes is truely what salvation is.

[Sinful Hypocrite]

The first person to go to paradise with Jesus was on the Cross next to his , was he Orthodox or Protestant? Catholic? Is that what the Gospel teaches?

 Love one another and have mercy.

Luke 23

39One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!”

40But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

42Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.f”

43Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”

[Ashman618]

Yes of course the good theif was Orthdox, why? Because He recognized the Truth and uttermost Beauty when it was staring Him in the face

[Sinful Hypocrite]

Orthodox Jew maybe. But we will be judged the same as him.
It is not what you call yourself , anyone who has faith in Jesus as God and professes it is the same as that man on the Cross with Jesus.No matter what denomination they are.

[Peter J]

I think it better to never hear the message of Jesus than to hear the wrong message,

That seems to be the thinking of many EOs (and OOs) on this forum.

For some reason Kerdy's comment struck me as being a Roman Catholic position.

Really? I'm surprised.

I am not sure how to interpret your comment. Perhaps I have spent too many years reading posts at CAF.

There is not much about "invincible ignorance" on this forum, but there are a couple of posts that hark back to what I read at CAF:

While reading my response keep in mind that I was basing my comment just on what Kerdy said, without any additional knowledge concerning what he meant to say.

Concerning those quotes from Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos, frankly I'm not certain how worthwhile they are to discuss ... but even assuming they are for the sake of discussion, I don't see anything in there that implies that it's worse to hear the Christian message from a non-Catholic source than not to hear it at all.

[Asteriktos]

Consider the throughts in the following passage, which I can remember reading in a number of Fathers...

Accordingly, to impress the truth upon a soul when it is still fresh, like wax not yet subjected to the seal, is an easier task than inscribing pious doctrine on the top of inscriptions— I mean wrong doctrines and dogmas — with the result that the former are confused and thrown into disorder by the latter. It is better indeed to tread a road which is smooth and well trodden than one which is untrodden and rough, or to plough land which has often been cleft and broken up by the plough: but a soul to be written upon should be free from the inscription of harmful doctrines, or the deeply cut marks of vice: otherwise the pious inscriber would have a twofold task, the erasure of the former impressions and the substitution of others which are more excellent, and more worthy to abide.

-- St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 2.43

[Opus118]

I think it better to never hear the message of Jesus than to hear the wrong message,

That seems to be the thinking of many EOs (and OOs) on this forum.

For some reason Kerdy's comment struck me as being a Roman Catholic position.

Really? I'm surprised.

I am not sure how to interpret your comment. Perhaps I have spent too many years reading posts at CAF.

There is not much about "invincible ignorance" on this forum, but there are a couple of posts that hark back to what I read at CAF:

While reading my response keep in mind that I was basing my comment just on what Kerdy said, without any additional knowledge concerning what he meant to say.

Concerning those quotes from Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos, frankly I'm not certain how worthwhile they are to discuss ... but even assuming they are for the sake of discussion, I don't see anything in there that implies that it's worse to hear the Christian message from a non-Catholic source than not to hear it at all.

While reading my response keep in mind that I was basing my comment just on what Kerdy said, without any additional knowledge concerning what he meant to say.

When you questioned my statement I honestly gave you my reason for that statement. It had nothing to do with any pope, the notion of invincible ignorance did not start with Pope Pius XI. Once again, I am having difficulty in following what you are trying to say. You seem to have a very specific situation in mind and I do not.

[primuspilus]

IMHO if they die not knowing the complete truth, at least there is something there.

What do you mean with that?

Just that if you're a trinitarian, but protestant, say a Baptist or a Methodist, there is something there. Unlike a complete non-believer, where there is very little to work with. Sorry if it doesn't make sense.....really sleepy.

PP

[Ashman618]

Orthodox Jew maybe.

 Come now my dear, the last thing an Orthodox Jew would recognize as precious is the Messiah hanging on a cross savagely beaten.

[Peter J]

I think it better to never hear the message of Jesus than to hear the wrong message,

That seems to be the thinking of many EOs (and OOs) on this forum.

For some reason Kerdy's comment struck me as being a Roman Catholic position.

Really? I'm surprised.

I am not sure how to interpret your comment. Perhaps I have spent too many years reading posts at CAF.

There is not much about "invincible ignorance" on this forum, but there are a couple of posts that hark back to what I read at CAF:

While reading my response keep in mind that I was basing my comment just on what Kerdy said, without any additional knowledge concerning what he meant to say.

Concerning those quotes from Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos, frankly I'm not certain how worthwhile they are to discuss ... but even assuming they are for the sake of discussion, I don't see anything in there that implies that it's worse to hear the Christian message from a non-Catholic source than not to hear it at all.

While reading my response keep in mind that I was basing my comment just on what Kerdy said, without any additional knowledge concerning what he meant to say.

When you questioned my statement I honestly gave you my reason for that statement. It had nothing to do with any pope, the notion of invincible ignorance did not start with Pope Pius XI.

This ^^ just makes me even more confused about your posts.

Once again, I am having difficulty in following what you are trying to say.

You mean when I said, "I'm surprised [that you regard "I think it better to never hear the message of Jesus than to hear the wrong message," as a Roman Catholic position]"?

I think you're trying much too had to pick "I'm surprised" apart and discover some hidden meaning (or "very specific situation") behind it.