Are protestants brothers and sisters in Christ?

[Erikzen]

No, I’m not saying that Catholics don’t practice exorcism. I’m saying that it isn’t exclusive to Catholicism.

Thank you for the clarification. So I guess this get’s more to the idea of if Catholics claim exclusivity to the Holy Spirit. Am I understanding that correctly?

I will say that in modern America there are many forgeries of Charismatic gifts. Mainly by TV preachers trying to get folks to send them money. However, that doesn’t preclude real instances of exorcism and manifestations of the other charismatic gifts.

I agree.

 

[Debbie_Kono]

Glad to see you’re loving RCIA

Yeah…guess I should go in and change that. Entered the RCC Easter Vigil 2015. Alleluia Alleluia!

 

[lanman87]

What do you mean by “Brother’s and Sister’s?” When I hear this, I think of the term “communion,” and if this is the case, I would say that the answer is probably “no,” much like many Protestants don’t consider themselves in communion with other’s. Which I believe has been previously spoken to in this thread.

I have found (to my own frustrations) that often my heavily Protestant influenced terminology is foreign and misunderstood by Catholics and Orthodox alike, they simply understand terms differently and will often answer in a way that is confusing to me. This is of course because they understand the terminology differently, as a result I have found that defining things or asking for definition helps a lot. So perhaps some clear definitions here would help facilitate the answer you’re looking for here.

To both the Protestants and Catholics here: What is your understanding of the phrase “Brothers and sisters in Christ?”

I agree that Protestants and Catholics use the same words but have different meanings. By brothers and sisters I meant fellow Christians, fellow followers of Christ, joint Heirs in the Kingdom of God and so on.

 

[steve_b]

Yeah…guess I should go in and change that. Entered the RCC Easter Vigil 2015. Alleluia Alleluia!

VERY

 

[steve_b]

I agree that Protestants and Catholics use the same words but have different meanings. By brothers and sisters I meant fellow Christians, fellow followers of Christ, joint Heirs in the Kingdom of God and so on.

Keep in mind Ianman,

These ALL are “Christians” due to them being baptized… but they ALSO are
catholic.com/tract/the-great-heresies

Which means THEY didn’t remain ***faithful ***“Christians” by definition, and embraced errors

 

[Erikzen]

I agree that Protestants and Catholics use the same words but have different meanings. By brothers and sisters I meant fellow Christians, fellow followers of Christ, joint Heirs in the Kingdom of God and so on.

I follow you now! Thank you! I have been told that the answer is a soft “yes.” The qualifier being so long as they have a valid baptism. Just that they are either in schism or not in communion. If they don’t have a valid Baptism, then I understand that the answer would be a “no.”

I see it as siblings who disagree, with a valid baptism being the qualifying factor of what makes a person family.

I could be very wrong, but this is my understanding.

Keep in mind Ianman,

These ALL are “Christians” due to them being baptized… but they ALSO are
catholic.com/tract/the-great-heresies

Which means THEY didn’t remain ***faithful ***“Christians” by definition, and embraced errors

Does this invalidate their claim to Christianity? Or are they seen as “Christians in error?” A seemingly small, but I think an important distinction.

 

[steve_b]

Does this invalidate their claim to Christianity?

No

Erikzen:

Or are they seen as “Christians in error?”

Yes

Erikzen:

A seemingly small, but I think an important distinction.

It’s an important distinction, but it is not small. Not my words, But from.

Paul instructing Bishop Titus (links are operational)

Tit 3:
10 As for a man who is factious, αἱρετικὸν ] after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.

Look at that English translation “factious” for that word in Greek . English doesn’t always give us the best wording. The link is operational.

Definition: of ** αἱρετικὸν **] , disposed to form sects, sectarian, heretical, factious, schism .

as one can see, ** αἱρετικὸν **] is condemned activity. So being condemned activity it’s not a small matter.

 

[MichaelP3]

My understanding (and I don’t presume to speak on behalf of the Catholics here) is that they believe the successors to the Apostles are the Bishops - they hold the authority and gifts. The Presbyter is an agent of that Bishop and doesn’t hold the same authority or gifts, except those that a Bishop confers. Anointing and absolution have been conferred to Presbyter as part of his Ministerial duties on behalf of the Bishop, however, exorcism is considered to be outside of the “normal” ministerial duties.

I’m not sure that this separation or allocations of duties/responsibilities speaks to an inability, rather perhaps speaks to the desire to have the time of the Presbyters more focused according to what they have been tasked.

That’s my impression and that’s why the statement is confusing to me.

Hi there

Yes I agree that the CC teaches that on the Bishops. That is why originally I referred to " todays Apostles (Bishops)".

What I was getting to was that the bind on earth and in heaven verse gets thrown around a lot here as proof. But the Apostles not only got that power but these other 2 as well. So now Apostolic succession gets discussed and its argued that the Apostles today have the same power as the Apostles from then and it seems like its by default. So now my question is whether they do have these powers by default as well which is clearly not the case.

So if the bind and loose verse gets thrown around as proof for today well the healing of sick and driving out demons were also said and done. But that is a bit easier to prove and seemingly a bit harder to do and now its all of a sudden “something else”.

Regards

 

[Erikzen]

No

Yes

It’s an important distinction, but it is not small. Not my words, But from.

Paul instructing Bishop Titus (links are operational)

Tit 3:
10 As for a man who is factious, αἱρετικὸν ] after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.

Look at that English translation “factious” for that word in Greek . English doesn’t always give us the best wording. The link is operational.

Definition: of ** αἱρετικὸν** ] , disposed to form sects, sectarian, heretical, factious, schism .

as one can see, ** αἱρετικὸν** ] is condemned activity. So being condemned activity it’s not a small matter.

That’s why I said it was “seemingly small,” I agree that it’s not I have come to find that English is, for myself, a very difficult theological language. I love the links, thank you for that!

 

[Erikzen]

Hi there

Yes I agree that the CC teaches that on the Bishops. That is why originally I referred to " todays Apostles (Bishops)".

What I was getting to was that the bind on earth and in heaven verse gets thrown around a lot here as proof. But the Apostles not only got that power but these other 2 as well. So now Apostolic succession gets discussed and its argued that the Apostles today have the same power as the Apostles from then and it seems like its by default. So now my question is whether they do have these powers by default as well which is clearly not the case.

So if the bind and loose verse gets thrown around as proof for today well the healing of sick and driving out demons were also said and done. But that is a bit easier to prove and seemingly a bit harder to do and now its all of a sudden “something else”.

Regards

I see where you are coming from now! Thank you for explaining!

 

[steve_b]

That’s why I said it was “seemingly small,” I agree that it’s not I have come to find that English is, for myself, a very difficult theological language. I love the links, thank you for that!

:tiphat: you’re welcome

 

[Peter_J]

He also gave His Apostles the power to heal the sick and drive out demons. However it seems the Apostles (Bishops) today have a very hard time doing these things?

I fell a little behind on this thread.

Interesting point, I don’t think I ever thought of it like that before.

I would just say, I don’t think an exact parallel can be drawn there, wrt Jesus saying “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven” etc.

 

[Peter_J]

Well, the Catholic church agrees with me that personal confession to a priest didn’t happen until the 7th Century. It even mentions the Irish part.

During the seventh century Irish missionaries, inspired by the Eastern monastic tradition, took to continental Europe the ‘private’ practice of penance, which does not require public and prolonged completion of penitential works before reconciliation with the Church. From that time on, the sacrament has been performed in secret between penitent and priest. This new practice envisioned the possibility of repetition and so opened the way to a regular frequenting of this sacrament. It allowed the forgiveness of grave sins and venial sins to be integrated into one sacramental celebration. In its main lines this is the form of penance that the Church has practiced down to our day” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1447).

What are you, Catholic or something?

 

[Nicea325]

I’m not talking about denominations. I’m talking about non-Catholics who have a genuine faith in Christ and seek to serve Him. Would you consider them brothers and sisters in Christ?

Yes and No. If their baptism is valid, yes. If they are JW’s, Mormons, Quakers, Freemasons, etc, etc-then no.

 

[MichaelP3]

I fell a little behind on this thread.

Interesting point, I don’t think I ever thought of it like that before.

I would just say, I don’t think an exact parallel can be drawn there, wrt Jesus saying “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven” etc.

Maybe… and I think I know why. It is just a thought among my numerous others!.