Letter VIII: What Should Catholics Think of Protestants?
Sola Scriptura is a heresy, so are Protestants damnable heretics?
The following is a real letter written from a Catholic father to his children as a sort of “spiritual life insurance.” It is being shared here in the hopes that that God will use this imperfect letter to communicate His perfect Fatherly love to you.
+ A little background that might be helpful when reading this letter: I was baptized Episcopalian as an infant, eventually committed to truly following Christ as a non-denominational Christian during college, and then finally converted to Catholicism after that. I’ll share a link to my full conversion story at the end of this letter.
My Dear Children,
In the course of your life, you will undoubtedly encounter many Protestants. You might be confused, as I was when I became Catholic, about their relationship with the Catholic Church. After all, the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus Christ Himself established; She contains the fullness of Truth and Grace, and it is a grave sin to leave the Church. There is nothing confusing about that. What is confusing is that most of the Protestants you will meet never actually left the Church—most of them were born outside of it. Those who did leave the Church often never really understood what they were leaving due to abysmal catechesis. Not only that, but so many of them seem to be pious people who truly love Jesus and strive to conform their entire lives to His; more so even than many Catholics you may know. Nevertheless, they believe heresies such as Sola Scriptura, the denial of the True Presence of the Eucharist, and many more doctrinal errors. So what are you to think of Protestants? Are they damnable heretics, are they brothers and sisters in Christ who are just as well off as Catholics, or does their relationship with the Church fall into a different category altogether?
When I first converted to Catholicism, these questions (and more) seemed impossible for me to hold in tension, and it took me many years of prayer, study, and personal experience (replete with mistakes and missteps) to come to what I believe is the correct balance which avoids both extremes of either condemning Protestants or of ignoring the differences and dangers of Protestantism.
Before I continue, let me explain what I mean by “Protestants” when I use the term in this letter, because I’m not using it in the strictly technical sense. In this letter I am writing specifically about non-Catholic Christians who believe in the infallibility of Scripture and the Nicene Creed (generally—they probably don’t agree fully on the Communion of Saints or what is meant by the Church, obviously). I am speaking about Christians who love Jesus and are sincerely trying to conform their lives to Him will and to His teaching. I am not talking about anyone who denies the bodily Resurrection, picks-and-chooses what they believe from Scripture, or talks themselves in circles trying to explain away the clear teaching of Christ and so make Him conform to their image instead. I would classify the latter as having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power, and I believe that the non-Catholic Christians to whom I am referring to in this letter would agree with me on that. Avoid such people (2 Tim 3:5).
Are Modern Protestants Heretics?’
A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject;
Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
—Titus 3:10-11 (KJV)
Now, are modern Protestants heretics?
Let’s start with a quick definition of heresy. Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Heresy is a grave sin that the Church, the Saints, and the Scriptures are all united in condemning. There is no doubt that Martin Luther, Calvin, and the rest of their ilk were heretics in the formal sense. So if Luther is a heretic, how could Lutherans not be?
The Protestants of whom I speak are not heretics in the same way as Luther because they are missing a key ingredient: obstinance. You’ll hear some people argue that modern Protestants are obstinate because everybody today knows what the Catholic Church is. Not only that but, even if they didn’t know, once you tell them then they do know, so if they continue to persist in their errors then they are obstinately resisting. When I first converted, I held a view that somewhat resembled this line of thinking, but I was incorrect.
To illustrate why this line of thinking is incorrect: Do you believe everything you hear from a stranger? No? Well, neither do they, and rightly so. That’s simply not how the transfer of human knowledge or the pursuit of Truth works—it takes time, persuasion, and patience. Someone who believes things too easily is called “gullible,” “rash,” “naive,” and even “foolish.”
Luther was deemed a formal heretic because the spiritual formation, culture, and catechesis he had gave him every reason to know and understand the truth that he nevertheless rejected. Protestants today, however, do not share the same reasons that Luther had to trust the Church. The passage of time has distanced them from the Catholic culture, spiritual formation, and catechesis that Luther would have received. In fact, many Protestants today have never even met a devout Catholic; the Catholics they have met were probably lukewarm at best, which does not make for a very compelling witness or a clear picture of what the Church is. In light of these changing circumstances, Pope Benedict XVI , when he was still Joseph Ratzinger, wrote about this paradigm shift in 1960 (before Vatican II, mind you):
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… 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… 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.
This was actually hard for me to accept when I first read it, and I think I resisted it the first time I heard it, if memory serves me. Sadly, there was a lot of relativism to be found even in the Church at the time. As a result, I was naturally skeptical of anything that sounded relativistic to me, and so Ratzinger’s writing sounded too much like a compromise of the truth to my zealous ears. Nevertheless, in time I came to see the wisdom of Joseph Ratzinger’s words. Ironically, he was one of the most vehement critics of Relativism, so my misgivings were obviously misplaced.
As Ratzinger stated, the main sin of heresy is “the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way,” in opposition to the teaching of the Church. Protestants today are so far removed from the original heresies (which are still heresies) that they, personally, are generally not heretics. In fact, like I mentioned before, most practicing Protestants I know are most hesitant about the Catholic Church precisely because all the Catholics they actually know are either lukewarm, actual heretics, or both! As such, they have a very distorted view of what the Church actually is. Fulton Sheen summarized this phenomenon well:
There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics “adore statues”; because they “put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God”; because they say “indulgence is a permission to commit sin”… If the Church taught or believed any one of these things it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.
It is safe to say that you should not look upon your Protestant friends as heretics. The passage of time between what was a legitimate act of heresy and the manifold misunderstandings about the Church generally excuses the Protestants today who are sincerely seeking to conform their wills entirely to Christ. Yet the question remains; if Protestants aren’t heretics, then what is their relationship with the Church?
Modern Protestants Are Saint Apollos
And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
—Acts 18:24-26
I think one way to view Protestants today is the way we view Saint Apollos in the verses above. They are very much more like Apollos than any heretic insofar as they have heard many of the core tenets of the Gospel and whole heartedly accepted them. They preach zealously and sincerely, but they have an incomplete knowledge of the Faith.
Scripture doesn’t present Apollos as a heretic who converted, but as a fervent Christian who simply needed the way of God to be expounded unto him more perfectly. It’s worth noting that he is portrayed thus in Scripture even in the face of a grave error regarding Baptism. Baptism, as Christ teaches and the Church affirms, is ordinarily necessary for salvation. Apollos was preaching eloquently, but he was making a serious error that could have impacted the salvation of others. Despite this, Sts. Priscilla and Aquila patiently shared the Truth with this future Saint.
We ought to humbly imitate Sts. Priscilla and Aquila, who took Apollos under their wing (who knows for how long?) and taught him, at the very least, about the truth of the incredible Sacrament of Baptism. Invoke their intercession when humbly trying to expound the way of God more perfectly to our Protestant brothers and sisters—and don’t be afraid to learn from those you seek to teach as well. Be humble. I’m sure St. Apollos in his preaching, despite his errors, had many things to say that were inspired by the Holy Spirit and Sts. Priscilla and Aquila found edifying.
I want to take a moment to especially emphasize this point about being humble when sharing the fullness of Truth with Protestants. I am quite sure that there are many Protestants who are more pleasing in God’s eyes than even many baptized Catholics. Do you remember the story of Saint Martin? After sharing half his cloak with a poor man, Jesus appeared to him in a dream and praised him to the Angels, saying, “While Martin is yet a Catechumen, he hath clad Me in this garment.” I would not be surprised if our Lord looks at the Angels today and says of many a Protestant, “He is yet a Protestant, and he hath been a good and faithful servant.” St. Apollos spoke boldly in the synagogue, but Sts. Priscilla and Aquila did not embarrass him publicly. They “took him unto them” and expounded more fully the things of God.
What is the best way for you to imitate Priscilla and Aquila today? First of all, by your love for Jesus. The best witness to a Protestant who is seeking Christ with all their heart, is a heart that is seeking to give all to Christ. There’s a saying that, “people don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.” This is very true, and in our case I would rephrase it as “Protestants don’t care how much you know about Doctrine, until they know how much you care about Christ.” If your love for Christ is evident to them, then they will listen to what you have to say, because they are striving for Christ as well. If you rush in and try to debate them, without first establishing good will and the primacy of the love of Christ in the relationship, then no matter how sound your logic may be, they will view you as a distraction and perhaps a quibbler. Or maybe just a legalist who likes to argue about doctrine. Regardless, any point you are trying to make will be understandably dismissed.
This principle can be applied to sharing the Faith with people from all backgrounds and walks of life. Before you try to convince someone of something—especially something as life-changing and difficult as the Gospel—identify the glimmer of Truth that you already agree on (no matter how small it may be) and start from there. Your common appreciation of a shared Truth will earn respect for your opinion. We should never be so prideful as to think that others ought to immediately respect our opinions before we have earned their trust.
When expounding the way of God more fully to Protestants in particular, I would encourage you to focus on affirming what is correct in their understanding and how the Church has even more graces and gifts that you want to share with them. Attraction, not disputes, will bring more Protestants to the fullness of Truth. More flies are caught by honey than by vinegar. Attract them to the faith by your witness, then share the reasons for the hope that is within you (1 Peter 3:15). Think of it this way: they may not believe that the Church is true, but how could they argue that the Church would not be much better were it actually true? The Eucharist, Confession, the certainty and clarity of Doctrine, the Communion of Saints! These are gifts that most Protestants, especially non-denominational Christians, are missing out on.
Finally, remember not to “grumble among yourselves” at what you perceive to be the lack of unbelief or stubbornness on the part of those whom you invite into the Church. Rejection of us preaching to them is not always a sign of stubbornness. In fact, it is much more likely to be some fault on our part—not praying or sacrificing for them, our personal faults scandalizing them, our poor explanations, or our lack of credibility for whatever reason. Are we praying and sacrificing for them, or just writing them off if they don’t listen to us the first time? Do not grumble among yourselves. Remember that no one can come to Christ unless the Father draws them (cf. John 6:43-44).
Dangers of Protestantism
If it is true to say that Protestants today are generally not heretics, even though they believe heresies, it is also important to affirm that they are not in full communion with the Church, which is the Body of Christ. Sts. Priscilla and Aquila accepted Apollos as a brother in Christ, but they nevertheless thought his misunderstanding important enough to take him aside.
I believe the best way to understand Protestants not being in “full” communion (and therefore only in partial communion) is to understand it in terms of a wounded limb in the Body of Christ—a serious wound at that. The limb that is Protestants is seriously wounded, but still connected and not yet beyond repair.
It is a serious wound not only because it is dangerous for individual Protestants who might be led astray without the fullness of Truth and Grace, but also because it reduces the effectiveness of the witness of the Church as a whole. When the Church is divided, it gives a bad witness to unbelievers. It’s just like having a wounded part of the body—we are less effective. As a result, more souls are certainly in danger.
This wound should neither make us despair of their salvation, nor ignore it completely. A wound cannot heal without proper care, and we should be no more eager to amputate this limb than we would one of our own.
There are many symptoms of this wound. They manifest themselves especially in the rejection of five of the seven Sacraments (Confirmation, Holy Orders, Confession, the Eucharist, Anointing of the Sick) and many doctrinal errors. While there are many symptoms of this wound, I believe their chief cause in our time is the belief of Sola Scriptura—that is, the belief that Scripture contains all of Divine Revelation and is the sole infallible authority for Christian faith and morals.
This idea of Sola Scriptura first started to gain popularity around 1,400 years after Christ. Scripture is, indeed, infallible and has God as its primary author. As I wrote to you in my letter on “Foundational Spiritual Books,” you should love the Bible and read it often! That being said, it is a grave error to take the fact that Scripture is infallible and add on that it is the only infallible authority.
No one advocated for Sola Scriptura for 1,400 years and with good reason.
Christ nowhere even mentions passing on His doctrine and graces through Scripture. On the contrary, He establishes Apostles and a Church and declares the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her and that Peter’s faith will not fail.
Scripture itself never even claims to be the sole infallible Authority that Christians ought to adhere to. If Scripture contains the fullness of revelation, and the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is part of that revelation, shouldn’t it be in there? It is not, but instead testifies that the Church is the “pillar and bulwark of Truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) and that Christians ought to obey both the traditions and writings of the Apostles (cf. 2 Thess. 2:15).
At this point in the timeline, there is a chain-of-custody problem. Even if someone were to claim that Sola Scriptura is true, we would always have room to doubt because we would be receiving that teaching from a fallible source. Sola Scriptura cannot trace its origins to an infallible source. Indeed, you wouldn’t even be able to be certain what books belong in Scripture, because you have no infallible source to confirm them (and wouldn’t you know it, Luther ended up taking 7 books out of his version of Scripture after embracing Sola Scriptura). The Church, on the other hand, was established by Christ Himself, and therefore has no such problem.
The Early Church Fathers, starting with the very ones who sat at the feet of the first Apostles and were ordained by them, do not anywhere espouse the idea of Sola Scriptura, but do speak often of the Bishops, Sacraments, and the Church.
The rest of Christians for all of history up until the 1,400’s at the earliest never advocated for this idea. If you believed in Sola Scriptura you would have to admit that, at best, all of Christendom had something as important as this wrong for over 1,000 continuous years. If that were true, it would be arguable that the gates of Hell had indeed prevailed against the Church for at least a time, which is obviously impossible.
In a way, the Scriptures which Protestants lean on testify against them. Or rather, are a prophetic witness to the truth of the matter. Protestants love and cherish the Word of God in the Scriptures, and rightly so, but they are missing seven books. Likewise, Protestants have the Truth of the Faith, but not in its entirety. The Protestants of today are not heretics, they are brothers and sisters in Christ who are missing an important part of God’s revelation to man, and they need a Priscilla and Aquila to expound to them the way of God more accurately.
Often times Catholics debate with Protestants over this or that point of doctrine, but they are usually talking past each other because we have different sources for our doctrines.
I recently saw a Catholic and a Protestant arguing. The Protestant replied to something the Catholic said with the accusation, “your answer is always just ‘My Church is infallible.’” The Catholic in question then proceeded to back off and try to demonstrate his point about the doctrines using Scripture, saying that he always starts with Scripture, but I think he was mistaken to do so. My answer to the Protestant who said that would be, “Yes, exactly. Don’t you wish that your Church was infallible? Let’s determine the sources of Divine Revelation before we debate about what has been Divinely Revealed to us.”
Apologetics that show Catholic Doctrine from Scripture are helpful insofar as they demonstrate to Protestants that we are not so far apart as we seem, and (if done well) create good will and mutual understanding, like I recommended earlier. That being said, ultimately, if you’re trying to argue that someone should accept a specific Doctrine from Scripture alone, then you are implicitly accepting the false premise that each doctrine should be arrived at from Scripture alone.
I won’t go into detail on any apologetic questions here because there are many excellent Catholic Apologists, and I believe that once someone has good will towards the Catholic Church and is truly seeking the truth of which Church Christ established (two traits I’m taking for granted in you), then it is only a matter of time before they end up Catholic. As Saint John Henry Newman (a convert from Anglicanism) said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”
Why Do I Tell You All This?
…make straight paths for your feet,
so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed.
—Hebrews 12:13
So, why am I going to such lengths to tell you all of this? For three reasons.
First, so you’re not over anxious about the salvation of our Protestant brethren, and don’t accidentally condemn what is in reality the action of the Holy Spirit in others. To treat them like they are cut off from the Body of Christ would be like becoming an auto-immune disorder, which attacks a wounded part of its own Body instead of healing it.
Second, so that your zeal for inviting our Protestant brethren into the fullness of Truth is not quenched by presumption of their salvation. To pretend that nothing is wrong would be the opposite problem of the first point— it would be like ignoring a grievous wound that needs attention in order to heal. Pretending the wound isn’t there, and isn’t serious, will only make it worse.
Third, so that you are comfortable working together with them to defeat our common enemies of the Faith. Secularism, Materialism, Relativism, are much greater threats to the salvation of souls today than Protestantism (just to name a few). In battle, even a wounded limb must continue to be used for all it is worth. Our Protestant brethren will fight together with us to win the culture and the world for the Lord.
It took me many years of painful mistakes, imprudence, and even lost friendships to learn these lessons. I pray that any sufferings I endured from my missteps can be redeemed as wisdom for you, and that you can use that wisdom and understanding for the Glory of God, the healing of the Mystical Body of Christ, and the furtherance of His Kingdom.
With all my love in Christ,
Dad
You might also like:
I really enjoyed reading this, Stewart! May you and yours be wrapped in love and light, and be granted good health in order to continue your good work!
I would like to start by appreciating what is good and true in your writing. Your recognition of the brotherhood of all believers first and foremost. As the apostle puts it, '9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” Romans 10'
We are all in error. You and I are in different errors, though they may come from the same root, but the Church Militant is a dying person in need of resurrection. For John speaks in the plural present saying, '8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.' that is he speaks for both the apostolic college and the whole of the corporate body. I appreciate your sincerity and your humbleness. But some of your claims I either cannot agree with or cannot understand.
1. You charge Protestants with not believing in the Real Presence, or as you express it later of disbelieving in the Eucharist. While this may be true of Baptists and much of modern Western Christianity which is not in communion with Rome, it is not true of either the Reformers or historic Protestantism. The Lutheran teaching is that both bread and wine as well as the body and blood are present in the Eucharist, that the body and blood are present 'in, with, and under the elements', while Calvinistic teaching is less explicit teaching that the bread and wine is present physically while the body and blood are present spiritually, a teaching that is simply and faithfully copied whole cloth from Augustine.(Sermon 98)
2. You claim that the Church of Rome does not teach, rather require the veneration of statues, yet consider the letter which Pope Adrian sent to the Ecumenical Second Council of Nicaea(quoted in parts):
'And as I ever entreat the good offices of our immaculate Lady the holy Mother of God, and of the holy and heavenly powers, and of all Saints, so I receive, embrace, and give honorary worship to their holy and precious relics, in the confidence that I shall obtain sanctification from them; and in like manner I embrace, salute, and ascribe the worship of honour to venerable images'
'it follows that all things which, according to man's imagination, are conducive to the glory of God, are undoubtedly pleasing to God. '
I will also quote briefly the [forced] confession which that holy and ecumenical council received from Theodosius Bishop of Ammorium and which the same pope quotes approvingly:
“1. Anathema to those who worship not holy and venerable images. “
2. Anathema to those who blaspheme holy and venerable images.
“3. Anathema to those who dare to blaspheme or slander venerable images, or to call them idols.
“4. Anathema to the Christianity-slanderers — that is, the Iconoclasts.
“5. Anathema to those who teach not diligently all Christian people to worship and salute the holy, precious, and venerable images of all saints who, from the beginning of the world, have pleased God.
“6. Anathema to those who hesitate, and do not, from the heart, confess that we ought to worship holy images.”
May the transactions between a sitting pope and an Ecumenical Council be considered the teachings of the Church of Rome? They speak very differently from you, and very differently from the Prophets and Apostles.
I will also quote again the same letter(from the Vatican Archives dated to the 8th century as I recall) to demonstrate that the teaching that only the Word of God is reliable and normative for the Church has been known from the earliest days, though the image venerating bishop of Rome slanderously, and without citation, attributes it to various heretics:
'8. Anathema to those who reject the doctrine of the holy Fathers and the Traditions of the Catholic Church, taking up the pretext and the language of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus; and affirming that, further than we are taught from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, we are bound to follow neither the doctrine of the holy Fathers, nor Ecumenical Councils, nor the Traditions of the Catholic Church.'
Since you say that you are ready to learn from a brother, even one who is not in communion with Rome, I write in the hope that we can have a productive conversation on these points. Please let me know what you think. Love and peace, jc