Articles on "Separated Brethren"

[SyroMalankara]

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.

Barred? What exactly are you claiming is ‘service’? Seems like the only actions ‘barred’ are attempts to convert another out of the church, something criminal and/or misstating Catholic/Apostolic/True/Christian teaching.

 

[PJM]

=Bballer32;12918963]Hello everyone,

Does anyone have a good article(s) about Catholic views of Protestants before OR after Vatican II? I’m studying and trying to understand why Catholics went from seeing Protestants as Heretics to seeing them as Separated brethren.

God Bless,

Bballer32

The Catholic Church has always taught that both defined Doctrine and Doctrines are “unchangeable”

However this does not mean that the understanding of Thee Church cannot be expanded; guided by the Holy Spirit. And that is exactly what took place here.

From the Catholic Catechism:

**846 **How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

**847 **This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: “For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” “Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn.”
So the Doctrine has not changed; only our understanding of it has, guided by the Holy Spirit.

Behind this fuller understanding lies the fact that the Reformation did not really take HOLD until Luther in the late 16th. Century and early 17th Century. So our early Church Fathers did not have to factor in this present day issue of great magnitude.

God Bless you and thanks for asking,

Patrick

 

[Bballer32]

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.

First off, the fact that you are non-denominational already says that Protestantism isn’t the same in 2015 as in the 16th century. There are certain things that exist in the human experience. Sin, mistakes, success, humility, etc. all transform things, churches included. So making this claim “I would still be left with the understanding that RCC of 2015 is not the Church of the 1st Century” is faulty logic in the sense of similarity rather than in the sense of development.

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.

Secondly, I have two points I want to make regarding this post. First, there will be about as much barring as an open prison cell. Second, I do appreciate your longing to serve Jesus Christ. However, your efforts (whatever they may be) are actually barring Jesus’ and his teachings on unity. By going out and preaching a different Gospel than that of Jesus Christ, you are causing confusion and indifferentism among the people who listen and follow the advice.

In order for someone to serve God, one must first find the Truth. One cannot give what they don’t already have.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I’m not sure how this came up, but the story is the same over and over where Protestantism (especially of the Bible-alone variety) takes hold:

Here’s a good recent example:
Korea there are ~15 million Protestants, ~9 million are Presbyterians in more than 100 denominations. – crcna.org/news-and-views/touched-devotion-south-korea

The first Korean Presbyterian minister was Suh Sang-Ryun, who founded a church in Hwanghae province in 1884 – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_Church_of_Korea

It’s only been 131 years and 100+ divisions of the SAME denomination with no unity! Bible alone?!
It is scandalous to Christians and even worse to non-Christians.

Papal Visit That Thrills Catholics Is Unsettling to Protestants in South Korea
By CHOE SANG-HUNAUG. 16, 2014
nytimes.com/2014/08/17/world/asia/huge-crowds-watch-in-seoul-as-pope-francis-beatifies-korean-catholics.html

“The enemy king has appeared at the center of our nation!” the Rev. Song Choon-gil, a Presbyterian pastor, shouted during a rally of hundreds of Protestants who gathered a few blocks from the papal Mass on Saturday. Accompanied by a band, the evangelical Protestants sang hymns and danced, shouting that they were sounding “the trumpets of spiritual war” against the “idol worship” and “satanic forces” they said Roman Catholicism represents.
…
Competitive proselytizing, however, also created some of the problems now dogging South Korea’s Protestant churches. Some non-Christians are offended by Protestants who seek converts on Seoul’s streets and subways, sometimes shouting through megaphones that nonbelievers will be relegated to hell.
…
In a widely cited annual survey conducted in December by the Christian Ethics Movement of Korea, South Koreans selected Catholicism as the most trustworthy religion, followed by Buddhism and then Protestantism.

**** Sure, surveys are fickle and no indicator of long term sustainability, however, the reason is important ** (My note)**

The Catholic Church has suffered its own problems, mainly criticism that it has focused less attention on the poor in a country already troubled by a growing wealth gap.

Still, the church is more often associated with the downtrodden than are Protestant groups, which generally embrace capitalism wholeheartedly and are aligned with some of the country’s wealthiest citizens and most powerful political leaders. That alliance was especially pronounced under the former president, Lee Myung-bak, a Presbyterian elder and a former business leader; when he was the mayor of Seoul, he vowed to “consecrate” the capital to the Christian god. Catholic leaders, on the other hand, often played a visible role in left-leaning causes, some of which resonated with a public that is generally enthusiastic about capitalism but increasingly concerned about social inequality.

Choo Chin-woo, a local newsmagazine reporter who has specialized in covering the country’s churches, said Francis’s comments expressing concern for the poor and his criticism of capitalist greed had made clear the difference between the pope and the Korean leadership of both Protestant and Catholic churches.

“In the standard of the mainstream Korean churches today,” Mr. Choo said, “the pope is clearly a ‘commie.’ ”

 

[Peter_J]

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

You mean you don’t change your route to avoid possible contamination?

 

[Peter_J]

Sorry, couldn’t resist.

 

[Peter_J]

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

Right, and so were the councils in question (i.e. Nicea, 325, and Constantinople, 381).

Edit: Note that I’m not just talking about the “undivided church of the first millennium” (really a misnomer, since it excludes the so-called “Monophysites” and “Nestorians”).

 

[benhur]

You mean you don’t change your route to avoid possible contamination?

I cross my fingers when approaching.

Hey, it works for cooties.

 

[Abu]

Riser #106
as I read responses written here; it seems that largely, Catholics follow the church rather than Jesus.

What a strange misconception! Those who don’t follow Christ’s Church have lost the fullness of His Truth.

Since the Catholic Church is the only Church founded exclusively by the Christ on St Peter and the Twelve with His exclusive mandate to teach, sanctify and rule, that is precisely what Jesus requires of all who come to know His unfailingly holy Church.

She gave us the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God and only She teaches the fullness of His Truth. No one can follow Jesus as He requires while rejecting any of Her dogma or doctrine.

 

[PJM]

=Riser;12933486]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.

REALLY?

What God wants is bionically clear IF we are willing to subject our prideful understanding.

Mt 16:18 very clearly sates “MY CHURCH” singular which follows OT “One Chosen People”

Mt. 10: 1-8 shows Christ extending to His Apostles some of His Godly Powers

John 17: 11-26 Shows God “sending THEM [the Apostles” as the Father sent ME, I ALSO send **YOU [again in Jn. 20:21] Also in this passage Christ offers Him Self as the warranty of the Apostles teaching ONLY in God’s truth on ALL matters of Faith beliefs and Morals.

Mk. 16:14-15 & Mt. 28:16-20 with extreme clarity commands “them” [YOU] only to go forth and teach the WORLD what I [taught] and Commanded "YOU?

The God of the OT is the same God of the NT; is it any surprise that BOTH choose only “one?” WHY?
,
Because God KNOWS that because truth is as it has to be singular; One option for truth makes it evident when one is following God HIS WAY; or following God in manners that they wish to dictate God to accept. Which of course God cannot in fullness of truth do.

The history accepted and lived for more than 1,000 years before the Reformation also affirms the understanding of:
One True God
Who can only have One true set of faith beliefs
And desired exactly what He did accomplish: One Church
Eph. 4:1-7

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[SyCarl]

REALLY?

What God wants is bionically clear IF we are willing to subject our prideful understanding.

Mt 16:18 very clearly sates “MY CHURCH” singular which follows OT “One Chosen People”

God only had one chosen people in the Old Testament but they were not doctrinally unified. The Pharisees and the Sadducees clearly had different doctrines from the the contents of Scripture to the resurrection. Is there any suggestion that either of these two groups did not belong to the one people?

God also held the Jews accountable for obeying Him even though they did not have an infallible interpreter of Scripture, or even, apparently, a agreed upon canon of Scripture.

 

[SyroMalankara]

God only had one chosen people in the Old Testament but they were not doctrinally unified. The Pharisees and the Sadducees clearly had different doctrines from the the contents of Scripture to the resurrection. Is there any suggestion that either of these two groups did not belong to the one people?

Clearly, Christ rectified that woeful situation by instituting One Church. By the way, there were way more than 2 groups, there were hundreds.

God also held the Jews accountable for obeying Him even though they did not have an infallible interpreter of Scripture, or even, apparently, a agreed upon canon of Scripture.

The Canon argument, while interesting, is of no merit in Christianity, since the differences in Canon are acceptable as long as unity and faith are maintained. See the differences in Canon between Greek/Slav/Syriac/Armenian/Malankara/Copt etc. It’s only a problem when one takes the Canon and derives “sola scriptura” without unity or anyone to turn to for clear teaching.

 

[pablope]

God only had one chosen people in the Old Testament but they were not doctrinally unified. The Pharisees and the Sadducees clearly had different doctrines from the the contents of Scripture to the resurrection. Is there any suggestion that either of these two groups did not belong to the one people?

God also held the Jews accountable for obeying Him even though they did not have an infallible interpreter of Scripture, or even, apparently, a agreed upon canon of Scripture.

But the teachings of judaism did not depend on a canon of Scripture…

 

[Peter_J]

God only had one chosen people in the Old Testament but they were not doctrinally unified. The Pharisees and the Sadducees clearly had different doctrines from the the contents of Scripture to the resurrection. Is there any suggestion that either of these two groups did not belong to the one people?

Hi SyCarl. The phrase “not doctrinally unified” seems a bit loaded to me, but certainly I agree with you that the Pharisees and the Sadducees had different answers to certain questions. But having agree with that let me add that, reading Acts 23:6 and others scriptures, it seems clear to me that St. Paul believed that the time had come to put those questions to rest, in favor of the Pharisees. Wouldn’t you say?

 

[Erich]

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?

Jesus Himself tells the Eleven that He “will be with [them] always, to the very end of the age” (Matthew 28:20). Peter himself quotes the book of Psalms when Matthias was chosen to replace Judas: “May another take his place of leadership” (Acts 1:20). And Paul spoke of the first four generations of apostolic succession when he told Timothy, “[W]hat **you **have heard from **me **before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach **others **also” (2 Tim. 2:2).

Since “the very end of the age” did not accompany the martyrdom of Peter, how could there not have been a passing of the baton?

 

[Riser]

Barred? What exactly are you claiming is ‘service’? Seems like the only actions ‘barred’ are attempts to convert another out of the church, something criminal and/or misstating Catholic/Apostolic/True/Christian teaching.

We are not an area when Catholicism is a major denomination, and the prideful ones in this area will do anything they can to prevent Catholic organizations from presenting “their Gospel message.”

However, as a Protestant, the opportunities to hold evangelistic activities finds little hindrance.

 

[Riser]

First off, the fact that you are non-denominational already says that Protestantism isn’t the same in 2015 as in the 16th century. There are certain things that exist in the human experience. Sin, mistakes, success, humility, etc. all transform things, churches included. So making this claim “I would still be left with the understanding that RCC of 2015 is not the Church of the 1st Century” is faulty logic in the sense of similarity rather than in the sense of development.

Secondly, I have two points I want to make regarding this post. First, there will be about as much barring as an open prison cell. Second, I do appreciate your longing to serve Jesus Christ. However, your efforts (whatever they may be) are actually barring Jesus’ and his teachings on unity. By going out and preaching a different Gospel than that of Jesus Christ, you are causing confusion and indifferentism among the people who listen and follow the advice.

In order for someone to serve God, one must first find the Truth. One cannot give what they don’t already have.

Wow! You have determined that I preach a “different Gospel?”

Tell me, just what Gospel am I preaching than that of Jesus Christ? What truth don’t I have?

 

[Riser]

What a strange misconception! Those who don’t follow Christ’s Church have lost the fullness of His Truth.

Since the Catholic Church is the only Church founded exclusively by the Christ on St Peter and the Twelve with His exclusive mandate to teach, sanctify and rule, that is precisely what Jesus requires of all who come to know His unfailingly holy Church.

She gave us the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God and only She teaches the fullness of His Truth. No one can follow Jesus as He requires while rejecting any of Her dogma or doctrine.

Who is the chief cornerstone?

1Pe 2:

Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good. As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
** For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” **
So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

(English Standard Version)

Be all that as it may, the bottom line is always the question of “Whom do you follow?” For the Catholic and the Protestant, the answer should be the same. He who is our salvation does not change between those two divisions. We all should be preaching Christ and the coming Kingdom of Heaven.

As for my not being able to know the fullness of His truth; just how do you know that? Aren’t you making a huge assumption in that statement?

 

[Riser]

REALLY?

What God wants is bionically clear IF we are willing to subject our prideful understanding.

Mt 16:18 very clearly sates “MY CHURCH” singular which follows OT “One Chosen People”

Mt. 10: 1-8 shows Christ extending to His Apostles some of His Godly Powers

John 17: 11-26 Shows God “sending THEM [the Apostles” as the Father sent ME, I ALSO send **YOU

[again in Jn. 20:21] Also in this passage Christ offers Him Self as the warranty of the Apostles teaching ONLY in God’s truth on ALL matters of Faith beliefs and Morals.

Mk. 16:14-15 & Mt. 28:16-20 with extreme clarity commands “them” [YOU] only to go forth and teach the WORLD what I [taught] and Commanded "YOU?

The God of the OT is the same God of the NT; is it any surprise that BOTH choose only “one?” WHY?
,
Because God KNOWS that because truth is as it has to be singular; One option for truth makes it evident when one is following God HIS WAY; or following God in manners that they wish to dictate God to accept. Which of course God cannot in fullness of truth do.

The history accepted and lived for more than 1,000 years before the Reformation also affirms the understanding of:
One True God
Who can only have One true set of faith beliefs
And desired exactly what He did accomplish: One Church
Eph. 4:1-7

God Bless you,
Patrick

God has blessed me, and I thank you for your desire for continued blessing for me.

My brother, do you realize that your post assumes that you know what I believe and what I don’t?

I find it really interesting that so many posts directed at me ALL assume that I don’t know “the truth” due to the absence of my name on the membership roster of a Catholic church.

While I understand that it is likely that all of those writers have been taught that I cannot possibly have “the truth,” it is a false idea of believe that when you don’t know what I believe beyond what I have stated. These differences between our beliefs have nothing to do with God and have everything to do with the organization of man called The Catholic Church.

Jesus built His church, and that is the one I belong to. He is the cornerstone - the Rock. He built His church on the rock of faith in Him as revealed to us by the Father. That is the same faith that Peter displayed in the book of Matthew.

For some reason, it is assumed by some that God does not speak to non-Catholics and that the Holy Spirit does not guide non-Catholics, and lastly that God does not call any non-Catholics His children.

Please, until the day comes that everyone can see my heart the same way that God does, I think it is a great idea to not jump to those conclusions. Wouldn’t you agree?

May God bless your day, too!

 

[SyroMalankara]

We are not an area when Catholicism is a major denomination, and the prideful ones in this area will do anything they can to prevent Catholic organizations from presenting “their Gospel message.”

Wouldn’t it then make more sense to strengthen a Catholic organization, rather than assisting a “non-denominational” (aka evangelical/calvinist) one?

However, as a Protestant, the opportunities to hold evangelistic activities finds little hindrance.

Hindrance? Jesus was hindered everywhere he went, didn’t stop him. Neither did it stop the Apostles.

Jesus built His church, and that is the one I belong to. He is the cornerstone - the Rock. He built His church on the rock of faith in Him as revealed to us by the Father. That is the same faith that Peter displayed in the book of Matthew.

Here’s where the Truth is being obscured by your man-made interpretation. Peter (Kepha) is Aramaic (my church uses Aramaic/Syriac every Sunday) for “Rock”. Jesus is definitively passing on his Rock characteristics to Simon renamed Rock. The wordplay Jesus uses is more evident in Aramaic - I am the solid CornerStone, you have the rock of Faith and because you are so, I call you Rock. You will be Rock for your brethren.

For some reason, it is assumed by some that God does not speak to non-Catholics and that the Holy Spirit does not guide non-Catholics, and lastly that God does not call any non-Catholics His children.

Not by Catholics. We call you separated brothers. We are brothers by baptism.

Please, until the day comes that everyone can see my heart the same way that God does, I think it is a great idea to not jump to those conclusions. Wouldn’t you agree?

We can only go by what Christ revealed not by our own conclusions, whether they are niceties or seem mean.