Articles on "Separated Brethren"

[Bballer32]

Hi B

The thread poses a good question because rarely do you find the entire "package’’ of the theological standing of those outside of Rome. You find bits and pieces here and there, sometimes used for political (church) posturing.

I, like you I think, prefer to call an ace an ace , tell it like it is, don’t sugarcoat it etc.( like they did in the old days). I am not asking for charitable posturing or false ecumenicalism.

As an example does Vat 2 say we are heretics, even objective heretics ? I do not doubt the CC says it some where.

Finally, were there heretics in the early church who were still “brethren” ?

Ok now I see what you’re saying.

According to my studies, Vatican II supposedly declared you guys “separated brethren” (which makes me question what we call the Eastern Orthodox now )

Now, does that change the stance on whether or not Protestants are heretics? I wouldn’t think so, because that then would be countering Sacred Dogma. According to “The Formulation and Positive Foundation of the Dogma of the Trinity” under the Chapter 1 “The Antitinitarian Heresies and the Doctrinal Decisions of the Church”, Article 1 “The Heresies”:

Protestantism is listed as the 4th of the 4 big Heresies. (Along with Monarchianism, Subordinationism, and Trinitarianism)

I could go into more depth if you want me to on what the Dogma says (In summary of Course since I don’t have the Whole Document right in front of me)

But anyways, logical reasoning would still see Protestants as Heretics.

 

[Riser]

I’ll try to address a few of the things you’ve stated above. Firstly, regarding the subject of divorce, are there any Protestant churches that disallow it? The Catholic Church does not allow a Catholic to receive the sacrament of Holy Communion if they’ve been divorced. They can still attend Mass, of course. My point is that our Church does not allow it. How many Protestant churches can say the same thing? Whether there are more Protestants or Catholics who are divorced is not really the issue. People are either going to go by what their church teaches…or not. What’s important is what that church teaches, whether the rule is followed or not. Jesus did not allow for divorce.

As far as I know, Jesus did not say that he was starting a Church on St. Peter’s work. He was starting it on St. Peter, as the leader of His church on earth. A pope is a pope, regardless of what sort of work he does as a pope. There have been saintly popes, and not-so-saintly popes. We all know that, and it doesn’t change the office of the papacy one bit. Jesus is indeed the head of the Catholic Church, and the Pope is his vicar. Someone has to be in charge. As far as the promotion of succession not being given in scripture, well, not all of the Catholic faith is given in Scripture, as I’m sure you know. It is also given in tradition.

As to a church claiming perfection in faith and teaching, I don’t think that perfection is required. We are human, and therefore subject to sinfulness. The Catholic Church still stands, and still teaches basically the same thing since the early days of Christianity. The Church strives to teach what is required for our salvation, because that’s what it’s all about, really. That, and caring for others.

As far as it being presumptuous and assuming that you don’t have the fullness of the faith, I don’t presume anything on a personal level, nor do I intend to being it down to a personal level, so you’re out of luck if you hope to go there, because I’ll not engage in that sort of debate. I stick to what the Church teaches.

God bless!

I’ve been really busy with an upcoming evangelistic event, so please excuse my tardy response.

I see that, once again, the evidence is pretty clear that we see from different corners of the room. Your views emanate from what “the church” has taught you. I have a different focus. Church is valuable, and my growth as a follower of Jesus would be stymied without it. However, I don’t see all things of God via the view of the congregational church. I truly depend on a variety of sources for my understanding, but mostly I depend on what all God would have me to know. Sometimes, it comes via the church, and other times it comes from events in my life, scripture that becomes clear to me, and sometimes; it comes from posts I read.

To be fair, let me exercise a different statement and see it is helps with understanding a point I was attempting to make:

One must move to Florida in order to find the complete effect of sand, sun, and hospitality.

Now, how are all those who do not live in Florida supposed to feel when I make that statement? They don’t really have sand? The sun doesn’t shine where they are? Their friends and neighbors are not truly hospitable?

I am not attempting to create a debate. I am attempting to clarify what your statement about the fullness of faith sounds like to others. It creates a divide. It widens the gap between the Catholic church and Christians from outside the church. While it is a mental assent of the benefits you derive from your church - it is a criticism of all the other churches. I don’t think you meant it that way; but that is the way it can be taken.

If I were to say:

I enjoy Florida because I have found the sand, the sun, and the hospitality I have experienced to be better than anywhere else I have lived.

no actual criticism occurs. I am speaking of Florida through my personal experience. I am not making a critical statement about any other place directly. It is only my opinion, and therefore not as critical of other places.

By the way, I am happy for you that you do find your church so beneficial. I wish everyone could.

God bless you, too.

 

[Riser]

For the record, do you also “believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church”?

I believe in one church - the bride of Christ - in which all those who follow Him in truth, love, and obedience are members.

 

[Riser]

Jesus Himself mandated: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17). How can the Christ mandate that you listen to the Church and mere fallible mortals “disagree” with Him?

This statement comes from an instruction dealing with those who sin against you. The term used here is NOT about the RCC. It is about the congregation - but it is not denominational. That is an inferred viewpoint.

False.

“CHRISTIANITY. The religion of Jesus Christ. It is a composite of the faith he inspired, the teachings and moral practices he communicated, the spirituality he urged on his followers, and the consequent form of civilization which for two millennia have been called Christian. It is above all the objective principles of belief, worship, and human conduct that give substance to this civilization, which is only as Christian as these principles are known and put into practice.”
Modern Catholic Dictionary
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

“RELIGION. The moral virtue by which a person is disposed to render to God the worship and service he deserves. It is sometimes identified with the virtue of justice toward God, whose rights are rooted in his complete dominion over all creation. Religion is also a composite of all the virtues that arise from a human being’s relationship to God as the author of his or her being, even as love is a cluster of all the virtues arising from human response to God as the destiny of his or her being. Religion thus corresponds to the practice of piety toward God as Creator of the universe. (Etym. probably Latin religare, to tie, fasten, bind, or relegere, to gather up, treat with care.)”
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

Please permit me to clarify my point. (Your dictionaries are fine, but I don’t think they do the term justice.)

The definition of “religion” and “religious” have changed in the last fifty or so years. It has become a derogatory term and is thrown about like feathers in a breeze.

Christianity IS a lifestyle followed by those who love God with all their heart, all their minds, and all their strength. They also love their neighbors as they love themselves. It is a relationship between God and our innermost being that operates our rudders as we go through life.

That does not come from a dictionary. Dictionaries change through the years - are constantly edited and updated. Religion has changed, but Christianity is always true and valid.

The Christ gave us His Catholic Church – She authorized and gave us the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God.

To follow Christ as He wills is to assent ot the teaching of His Church.
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the twelve].

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

To whom else did Jesus give that supreme authority?

All of this is wonderful stuff, but where did our scriptures tell us that someone would gather and vote in a new Peter to whom Jesus would pass the baton to?

“That we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.” (Eph 4:14). Further, “For there will come a time when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but having itching ears, will heap up to themselves teachers according to their lusts. And they will turn away their hearing from the truth and turn aside rather to fables.” (2 Tim 4:3).

So, yes obedience is expected, but remarriage after divorce, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, IVF, cloning, lack of the priesthood – all contribute to turning away from the truth and encouraging fables in their “lifestyles”.

So, please bear with me here. Tossed to and fro and carried about - can be a condemnation of any change from the practices we read about in the book of Acts. Have any of those practices changed in the Catholic church?

Is the Catholic church identical to the assemblies of Christ’s followers depicted in those book?

Or has the church adapted and changed positions over the years?

Rather than a criticism of Protestants, I think your implication is a criticism of all churches - including the Catholic one.

Yes - there are assemblies which resemble the churches mentioned in Revelation 2 and 3. However, that wide paint brush used to color Protestant churches seems too much like gossip and false accusations. It is much the same as the paint brush used to color all Catholic priests who deal with children.

If we are to love our neighbors as ourselves, should we not put our paint brushes away?

 

[Riser]

Riser;12928359:

My Bible tells me what I am to do. I cannot find in it that I must be a member of the Catholic faith in order to obtain salvation.

I find it extremely odd that Protestants and those who follow sola-scriptura follow the bible rather than Christ himself.

For the record, I am not Catholic; but then - others would say that I am not Protestant either because I work closely with Catholic brethren doing evangelism.

Secondly, I am not an adherent of Sola Scriptura either (as meant today when people say it). I have also read the letters of the Early Church Fathers and have permitted my understanding of the Bible to be clarified in their writings. Those types of things help with my understanding, and accordingly; I don’t adhere to the doctrine-du-jour in my beliefs.

As for following Christ Himself - I do. However, as I read responses written here; it seems that largely, Catholics follow the church rather than Jesus.

 

[Bballer32]

Secondly, I am not an adherent of Sola Scriptura either (as meant today when people say it). I have also read the letters of the Early Church Fathers and have permitted my understanding of the Bible to be clarified in their writings. Those types of things help with my understanding, and accordingly; I don’t adhere to the doctrine-du-jour in my beliefs.

And so after reading the Fathers, you found out that you were wrong? I don’t know how in depth that you have read them, but you do realized that they are on a completely different level of beliefs than non-denominationals.

As for following Christ Himself - I do. However, as I read responses written here; it seems that largely, Catholics follow the church rather than Jesus.

Jesus left us a church (Mat. 16:18-19). So, if Jesus left us a Church as the sign of His Presence on Earth, then it would only make sense to follow that Church more closely because in fact one is getting closer to Jesus doing it.

 

[SyroMalankara]

It doesn’t even sound rational to me that the man would have to leave his second wife and could only be bound to the first if that marriage had long ended, he had since had a second wife for a while, and had become a Catholic later in life. I can understand annulment being granted on the basis that his new found love for Christ came well after the second marriage. Does this make sense?

the nullity of the first marriage depends on the first marriage and its covenant, not on a second attempt. One would not have to leave his second wife, however during the conversion process this is explained. Conversion does not mean the first marriage is invalid, one may convert but have the first marriage found valid and then be limited to non-marital relations with the second wife forever

 

[benhur]

Ok now I see what you’re saying.

According to my studies, Vatican II supposedly declared you guys “separated brethren” (which makes me question what we call the Eastern Orthodox now )

Now, does that change the stance on whether or not Protestants are heretics? I wouldn’t think so, because that then would be countering Sacred Dogma. According to “The Formulation and Positive Foundation of the Dogma of the Trinity” under the Chapter 1 “The Antitinitarian Heresies and the Doctrinal Decisions of the Church”, Article 1 “The Heresies”:

Protestantism is listed as the 4th of the 4 big Heresies. (Along with Monarchianism, Subordinationism, and Trinitarianism)

I could go into more depth if you want me to on what the Dogma says (In summary of Course since I don’t have the Whole Document right in front of me)

But anyways, logical reasoning would still see Protestants as Heretics.

Ok.Thanks for understanding.

It is still interesting that heretics can be expanding the kingdom and salvation and carrying on the Catholic message though not fully, as stated in Vat 2.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
For the record, do you also “believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church”?

That makes sense of course, but note that what I quoted is from the creed that was agreed upon by all Christians.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Mary,

Do you like the label of Roman Catholic ?

I’m not-Mary, but I’d like to throw in my two cents anyhow. I have found that quite a lot of posters use the term “Roman Catholic” as a shortened form of “Roman-Rite Catholic”. Therefore I tend not to call myself that.

 

[pablope]

My Bible tells me what I am to do. I cannot find in it that I must be a member of the Catholic faith in order to obtain salvation.

Just some additon to this statement of yours: The Bible does not tell you what to do…your interpretation, or your pastor’s interpretation…tells you what to do…as you yourself stated below… Those types of things help with my understanding

As for following Christ Himself - I do. However, as I read responses written here; it seems that largely, Catholics follow the church rather than Jesus.

Because that is what Jesus said He would leave us…not a Bible subject to different interpretations.

If you say you want to follow the Bible, then you should also follow the Church that finalized the list of books in the Bible.

When you say you follow Jesus and the Bible, what you are actually following is your pastor’s, or your own understanding of the Bible.

 

[Bballer32]

Ok.Thanks for understanding.

It is still interesting that heretics can be expanding the kingdom and salvation and carrying on the Catholic message though not fully, as stated in Vat 2.

Interesting indeed… That’s why I still have a few issues with the council. Not saying that it doesn’t exist, just saying that of all the things discussed, I agree with all except a select few. But I obey Mother Church

 

[Bballer32]

That makes sense of course, but note that what I quoted is from the creed that was agreed upon by all Christians.

Wow… I like the slyness of this post. Didn’t see that coming

I’m going to have to use this sometime.

 

[Denise1957]

I’ve been really busy with an upcoming evangelistic event, so please excuse my tardy response.

I see that, once again, the evidence is pretty clear that we see from different corners of the room. Your views emanate from what “the church” has taught you. I have a different focus. Church is valuable, and my growth as a follower of Jesus would be stymied without it. However, I don’t see all things of God via the view of the congregational church. I truly depend on a variety of sources for my understanding, but mostly I depend on what all God would have me to know. Sometimes, it comes via the church, and other times it comes from events in my life, scripture that becomes clear to me, and sometimes; it comes from posts I read.

To be fair, let me exercise a different statement and see it is helps with understanding a point I was attempting to make:

Now, how are all those who do not live in Florida supposed to feel when I make that statement? They don’t really have sand? The sun doesn’t shine where they are? Their friends and neighbors are not truly hospitable?

I am not attempting to create a debate. I am attempting to clarify what your statement about the fullness of faith sounds like to others. It creates a divide. It widens the gap between the Catholic church and Christians from outside the church. While it is a mental assent of the benefits you derive from your church - it is a criticism of all the other churches. I don’t think you meant it that way; but that is the way it can be taken.

If I were to say:

no actual criticism occurs. I am speaking of Florida through my personal experience. I am not making a critical statement about any other place directly. It is only my opinion, and therefore not as critical of other places.

By the way, I am happy for you that you do find your church so beneficial. I wish everyone could.

God bless you, too.

When we Catholics talk about the fullness of faith of the Catholic Church, it is not to put anyone down who are not Catholic. I can understand that non-Catholics disagree with this, but that can’t be helped. Why should they take offense when they don’t even WANT to have the fullness of the Catholic faith? How does someone who has never been to Florida know that it does not have the complete effect of sand, sun, and hospitality? Maybe it really is the best place in the world with this set of combinations. (as an aside, I was in Nevada last week, and the combination of these things was definitely lacking as compared with the same combination on other areas I’ve been to ).

Also, though I give assent to the teachings of my Church, I did not come up with any of these teachings myself, so in that sense they are not at all subjective. But not all of my views come from my Church. We aren’t slaves to the catechism. I continually look at what happens in my life, and how I’ve been directed by Providence, which includes many different things. So that we do have in common, I think.

I understand that you believe that Catholics saying that the Catholic faith alone has the fullness of the faith creates division. But we aren’t the ones who left the Church. Those who chose to leave the Catholic Church, and their descendents are the ones who allowed for division. Until the 1500’s, there was only the Catholic Christian faith (Roman and all the rites in communion with her, and the Orthodox). Though there have been quite a few debates on the forum as to whose fault it was for the reformation, of course.

 

[Riser]

And so after reading the Fathers, you found out that you were wrong? I don’t know how in depth that you have read them, but you do realized that they are on a completely different level of beliefs than non-denominationals.

Jesus left us a church (Mat. 16:18-19). So, if Jesus left us a Church as the sign of His Presence on Earth, then it would only make sense to follow that Church more closely because in fact one is getting closer to Jesus doing it.

I see. I am getting a lot of schooling here about things that the Catholic church teaches. Of course, all this help I am being provided stems from people plainly assuming that I am not aware of any of this.

The idea that the Catholic church, as we know it today, is the same as it was 2000 years ago is a bit of a leap. If it truly has not changed at all - because it had the fullness of the faith all this time - then I think it would look different than it does. I also think I would not have to worry about finding help in my evangelism efforts because the Catholic church would be out and about making disciples as they should. Sad to say that they have probably be scared off by the acidic attitudes of the plethora of Baptists in my area.

I have not connected the body of disciples that He left behind as the same as the Catholic Church of the 21st Century. However, I do see the body of believers who follow Him and put other’s needs ahead of their own as “the church that Jesus left behind.” Some of them are even Catholic.

Yet, all of them are my brethren. I do wish we would cooperate in the Great Commission more than we do.

 

[Riser]

That makes sense of course, but note that what I quoted is from the creed that was agreed upon by all Christians.

My history book reads a little different than yours. The word “all” is pretty inclusive.

 

[Riser]

When we Catholics talk about the fullness of faith of the Catholic Church, it is not to put anyone down who are not Catholic. I can understand that non-Catholics disagree with this, but that can’t be helped. Why should they take offense when they don’t even WANT to have the fullness of the Catholic faith? How does someone who has never been to Florida know that it does not have the complete effect of sand, sun, and hospitality? Maybe it really is the best place in the world with this set of combinations. (as an aside, I was in Nevada last week, and the combination of these things was definitely lacking as compared with the same combination on other areas I’ve been to ).

Also, though I give assent to the teachings of my Church, I did not come up with any of these teachings myself, so in that sense they are not at all subjective. But not all of my views come from my Church. We aren’t slaves to the catechism. I continually look at what happens in my life, and how I’ve been directed by Providence, which includes many different things. So that we do have in common, I think.

I understand that you believe that Catholics saying that the Catholic faith alone has the fullness of the faith creates division. But we aren’t the ones who left the Church. Those who chose to leave the Catholic Church, and their descendents are the ones who allowed for division. Until the 1500’s, there was only the Catholic Christian faith (Roman and all the rites in communion with her, and the Orthodox). Though there have been quite a few debates on the forum as to whose fault it was for the reformation, of course.

OK, I surrender.

My sister - I never left the Catholic church. I agree that there is much that draws me to it, but I also know that as soon as I go there, my efforts in this part of the U.S. to serve my Savior would be barred from taking place.

I would still be left with the understanding that RCC of 2015 is not the Church of the 1st Century. Then, I would get lectured all over again by those who have been taught that it is.

 

[Denise1957]

OK, I surrender.

My sister - I never left the Catholic church. I agree that there is much that draws me to it, but I also know that as soon as I go there, my efforts in this part of the U.S. to serve my Savior would be barred from taking place.

I would still be left with the understanding that RCC of 2015 is not the Church of the 1st Century. Then, I would get lectured all over again by those who have been taught that it is.

Sorry…I didn’t explain myself very well. I didn’t intend to say that you left the Catholic Church. Rather, I’m talking about those who left because of or had a hand in starting the reformation, like Luther, Calvin, Fox, King Henry, etc, and all those since then who follow their lead or example. I’m glad you are working to serve our Savior. You would make an excellent Catholic…with a few adjustments, of course. You could still serve Him as a Catholic, though!

As far as the Catholic church of the 21st century not being the Church of the 1st century, well, that’s a complicated subject, and perhaps you could start a thread on the subject, though it could get a little contentious. That shouldn’t stop you, though. God bless!

 

[benhur]

Interesting indeed… That’s why I still have a few issues with the council. Not saying that it doesn’t exist, just saying that of all the things discussed, I agree with all except a select few. But I obey Mother Church

I also understand that like many councils there are varying views, factions, conservatives, liberals, old hardliners, visionaries etc.So that in regards to this thread, some at Vat2 indeed did want ecumenism, a softer, even realistic tone towards"others’’(they were still around, and growing, and had genuine passion for the kingdom) while others insisted in preserving, “no salvation outside of CC”, hence the almost mixed message, where each faction could see their viewpoint presented. So some Catholics say “we have changed our view and they are brethren” while others say " yes, but anything they have is from us and for us in the end".

 

[benhur]

I’m not-Mary, but I’d like to throw in my two cents anyhow. I have found that quite a lot of posters use the term “Roman Catholic” as a shortened form of “Roman-Rite Catholic”. Therefore I tend not to call myself that.

Got it . Thanks. Actually I pass up a church on Sundays that has a big sign saying “St Mark’s Holy Roman Catholic Church”.