Is it really part of contemporary Catholicism to acknowledge Protestants as truly on a "path to holiness"? That would seem to more or less give away the farm.

I see Cardinal George is paraphrasing the arch-conservative head of Opus Dei, the Rev. C. John McCloskey 3d who said: "There's a name for Catholics who dissent from church teachings -- they're called Protestants."

All these great Conservative Catholic Crusaders get misty-eyed dreaming of a Church without dissent, where the faithful obey them without question.

But for every Cardinal George and John McCloskey there's a Richard A. McCormick (a Jesuit, of course) who says about dissent: “a community without it is a community in comfortable stagnation” or a Frances A. Sullivan (another Jesuit!) who says that one of the ways a noninfallible teaching is found to be not quite noninfallible is when the Holy Spirit leads the faithful to reject it.

Paraphrasing can't be the right word for it. Rev. McCloskey's quote seems meant to have the implication that dissenting Catholics lie outside the scope of grace and salvation. Cardinal George's quote seems to have nothing like that implication at all, and indeed seems to imply that Protestants can find their own paths to the Lord. I see how the former is consistent with Catholic teaching (if not a version of it that I would endorse); the latter I find unrecognizable as Catholicism.

Phil, the idea that there is no salvation outside the Church has been invoked once historically, in Boniface's Unam Sanctam (1302). More recently, Rev. Feeney, who was condemned by the Curia in 1949, took such a strict view of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I would suggest you look at Unitatis Redintegratio with regard to how the Church views operative grace outside the Communion. In the light of the historic setting of Unam Sanctam, and its subsequent misinterpretation by many in and outside the Church, along with the condemnation of Feeneyism and promulgation of Unitatis Redintegratio, George's statement is consistent with doctrine.

It is impossible for us to know whether George is quoting McCloskey - maybe he is or maybe he isn't. I do think, however, we often look beyond the logical, common-sensical basis of the conclusion that "people who dissent from Catholic doctrine are called Protestants." Millions of people who claim Christ as Savior define themselves against Catholicism every Sunday morning. They are proud to be Protestants. For more than a few, save for an inability to harmonize certain doctrinal issues, they would gladly return home to Rome. But, as it is, they do no accept the Church for what she proclaims herself to be and remain outside Communion.

Of course, this hits too close to home for dissenting Catholics, many of whom are unwilling to do what "dissenting" Protestants have had the honesty to do: Acknowledge that ideas do have consequences (God bless you, Richard Weaver), and that, in dissent, they are part of a church that does not actually exist outside their mind. When that which you claim to be a part of states unequivocally that X is binding on your conscience and you reject this, where does it leave you? Oh well...

John, with regard to Sullivan's quote, as you'll notice reading the Cardinal's statement, at least four of the issues to be addressed by the diocesan priests have been dogmatically defined via the extraordinary magisterium (Assumpt BVM) or the ordinary magisterium (male presbyteriate).

I think that's EXACTLY what Cardinal George is implying Philosopher: "Many writers who claim to be Catholic make names for themselves by attacking truths basic to our faith. Without the personal integrity that would bring them to admit they have simply lost the faith that comes to us from the Apostles, they reconstruct it on a purely subjective, individualistic basis and call it renewal. The Second Vatican Council wasn’t called to turn Catholics into Protestants. It was called to ask God to bring all Christ’s followers into unity of faith so that the world would believe who Christ is and live with him in his Body, the Church."

Seth
Sullivan says that Catholics are faithful to the Magisterium when they dissent as long as they give it the proper respect.

Seth, I stand corrected on the matter of Church doctrine concerning Protestants and grace.

I never understood the concept of a dissenting catholic. Isn't a large point of being a Catholic (as opposed the another version of Christianity) is that you're part of 2,000 year old community instuted by Christ himself which he designated, blessed, and gave the authority to shepherd his followers on earth and which has been guided by the Holy Spirit to discern and teach the infallible truth about God and man's relation to him? And now it's ok, or in some circles a badge of honor, to become some kind "dissenter."

The whole reason I'm not a Catholic is because I dont' buy into the whole Christ set up the Catholic Church to represent him on earth deal, but if you do claim to accept this, then rejecting the authority of the church is akin to rejecting the authority of Christ. No?