But you are not putting this in the context of THIS thread about the Pope. In it, we are told that total unbelievers are acceptable and saved.
Can someone seriously propose, after that, that protestants, who are surely serious believers in our Lord, are lost?
Is it truly better for protestants to be unbelievers?
This clearly falls under the advice of Jesus in Mark 9. If they aren't against us, then they're with us.
Since protestants are believers in Jesus the Christ, there is no hint of universalism in the position that these believers, too, within the church. Universalism would suggest that every man, without regard to his faith in Jesus, is saved.
"But you are not putting this in the context of THIS thread about the Pope. In it, we are told that total unbelievers are acceptable and saved."
I didn't get the impression His Holiness was saying that. Perhaps I have misunderstood him.
"Can someone seriously propose, after that, that protestants, who are surely serious believers in our Lord, are lost?"
Oh I certainly think one can say it. In fact, perhaps with far more assurance than about those who know nothing of Christ and The Church. If The Truth is there to be seen and it is nevertheless rejected, thus preventing one from being in The Church, then The Church has always taught that anathemazation is to be expected. The Fathers are quite clear, and harsh, on this.
"As for all those who pretend to confess the sound Orthodox Faith, but are in communion with people who hold a different opinion, if they are forewarned and still remain stubborn, you must not only not be in communion with them, but you must not even call them brothers." +Basil the Great
"Contentions," he means, with heretics, in which he would not have us labor to no purpose, where nothing is to be gained, for they end in nothing. For when a man is perverted and predetermined not to change his mind, whatever may happen, why shouldest thou labor in vain, sowing upon a rock, when thou shouldest spend thy honorable toil upon thy own people, in discoursing with them upon almsgiving and every other virtue?
How then does he elsewhere say, "If God peradventure will give them repentance" (2 Tim. ii.25); but here, "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"? In the former passage he speaks of the correction of those of whom he had hope, and who had simply made opposition. But when he is known and manifest to all, why dost thou contend in vain? why dost thou beat the air? What means, "being condemned of himself"? Because he cannot say that no one has told him, no one admonished him; since therefore after admonition he continues the same, he is self-condemned." +John Chrysostomos
"Even if one should give away all his possessions in the world, and yet be in communion with heresy, he cannot be a friend of God, but is rather an enemy." +Theodore the Studite
It is quite another thing entirely to observe pagans who haven't even the opportunity to reject The Truth and then collectively anathemize them. I do think it is important to note that +John Chrysostomos in his Sermon on Titus, quoted above, does in fact address "...those who had simply made opposition." Is that what Protestants do? I don't know the answer to that, Padre.
I stand corrected on my use of the word "universalism". Remember, I'm just the grandson of simple Greek peasants.