Divergence in the Roman Catholic Church

[Matt14]

A couple of times on here the past fews days I’ve been told I wasn’t a Christian by a catholic. Then another catholic comes along and says it is possible to be a Christian and not a Roman Catholic.

So my question is:

Is this divergence in belief a split between the Vatican II followers and those who still hold to the Council of Trent?

It doesn’t bother me to be accused of not being a Christian, because I know in whom I have believed. But I find it interesting that if the Roman Catholic church is united in teaching and belief, there would be a split in belief on a simple topic.

 

[Genesis315]

Is this divergence in belief a split between the Vatican II followers and those who still hold to the Council of Trent?-

We hold to all the councils.The councils’ doctrinal statements never become obsolete. Basically the question you have put forth makes no sense. There’s nothing doctrinal about labels. What is doctrinal is that Protestants lack the fullness of Christian Truth and this has never changed.

 

[Lillith]

Matt14:

A couple of times on here the past fews days I’ve been told I wasn’t a Christian by a catholic. Then another catholic comes along and says it is possible to be a Christian and not a Roman Catholic.

The person who said you are not a christian is incorrect(and rude btw). All people who have a valid baptism in the name of the father, son and holy Spirit, are Christian…and the Church holds that they are Catholic…they just don’t know it.

 

[Della]

Is this divergence in belief a split between the Vatican II followers and those who still hold to the Council of Trent?

Not necessarily, it’s probably just people being people and judging what they have no business to judge.

The Catholic Church, thank God! doesn’t decide matters of faith and morals based on majority vote or the mere opinions of men but on the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals.

 

[Matt14]

But doesn’t the Council of Trent hold those reformers to be heretics, “anathema,” excommunicated?

And doesn’t Vatican II contradict that and say protestants are “separated brothers?”

Isn’t this a big difference?

I’ve heard that some catholics, like Mel Gibson, consider the papal chair to be “empty.” Why is this?

 

[Matt16_18]

Lillith:

All people who have a valid baptism in the name of the father, son and holy Spirit, are Christian…and the Church holds that they are Catholic…they just don’t know it.

The Catholic Church does not teach that Protestants are members of the Catholic Church!

 

[Lillith]

Matt16_18:

The Catholic Church does not teach that Protestants are members of the Catholic Church!

They are separated brethern whose baptism is valid. Hey…your arguing with John Martignoni now…I heard this on CA live…

 

[Matt14]

Genesis315:

What is doctrinal is that Protestants lack the fullness of Christian Truth and this has never changed.

Wouldn’t the question of whether non-Catholics are going to hell pertain to doctrine and truth, as well?

Has the idea of whether protestants are going to hell or not changed?

 

[Della]

Matt14:

Wouldn’t the question of whether non-Catholics are going to hell pertain to doctrine and truth, as well?

Certainly, but so does invincible ignorance and insurmountable obstacles, etc. It’s not so cut and dried as some folks think.

Has the idea of whether protestants are going to hell or not changed?

No, it hasn’t. But, not all Protestants are formal heretics–that’s people who, knowing full well what the Church teaches, rejects it and leaves. Most Protestants are what is known as material heretics–that’s people brought up in Protestantism who either don’t know about the teachings of the Church or believe erroneous things about what the Church teaches. It makes a difference.

 

[awfulthings9]

Matt14:

But doesn’t the Council of Trent hold those reformers to be heretics, “anathema,” excommunicated?
And doesn’t Vatican II contradict that and say protestants are “separated brothers?”
Isn’t this a big difference?​

It would be a big difference except, look at your wording. The Council of Trent did declare the “reformers” to be heretics because they broke away from what we consider to be the truth and led others astray by doing so. It is comparing apple trees to apples, however, to say there is a contradiction because Vatican II is not refering to the reformers, but to “protestants” in general, most of whom were raised that way and never actually left the church in the first place. You may disagree with either statement, but they are not contradictions of each other. A man may leave or reject his extended family, but then his children will be born apart from these relatives through no decision on their part.

 

[estesbob]

Matt14:

A couple of times on here the past fews days I’ve been told I wasn’t a Christian by a catholic. Then another catholic comes along and says it is possible to be a Christian and not a Roman Catholic.

So my question is:

Is this divergence in belief a split between the Vatican II followers and those who still hold to the Council of Trent?

It doesn’t bother me to be accused of not being a Christian, because I know in whom I have believed. But I find it interesting that if the Roman Catholic church is united in teaching and belief, there would be a split in belief on a simple topic.

With all due reprect where did you ever get the idea we didnt still hold to the Council of Kent?

 

[quasimodo]

Matt14:

But doesn’t the Council of Trent hold those reformers to be heretics, “anathema,” excommunicated?

Yes

And doesn’t Vatican II contradict that and say protestants are “separated brothers?”

Yes

Isn’t this a big difference?

No

Today’s protestants are NOT the “Reformers”.

I’ve heard that some catholics, like Mel Gibson, consider the papal chair to be “empty.” Why is this?

Not Mel but possibly his father as i understand it.

Why, you ask … Because there is a superabundance of vocations to the papacy. Every nut job has thinks he knows better than the proper authorities.

 

[quasimodo]

estesbob:

With all due reprect where did you ever get the idea we didnt still hold to the Council of Kent?

there was a council at Kent?

 

[mercygate]

Matt14:

But doesn’t the Council of Trent hold those reformers to be heretics, “anathema,” excommunicated?

And doesn’t Vatican II contradict that and say protestants are “separated brothers?”

Isn’t this a big difference?

I’ve heard that some catholics, like Mel Gibson, consider the papal chair to be “empty.” Why is this?

There is a difference between heretics and separated brethren. It is the difference between material and formal heresy.

A formal heretic willfully denies the doctrines of the Church, while a material heretic is someone (like you) who, in good faith, denies the doctrines of the Church.

Thus, YOU are a separated brother. Martin Luther was a flat-out, no-excuses, plain ol’ heretic.

As for those who believe the Papal Chair to be empty – let’s not go there on this thread (you have your hands full already). The technical term is “sedevacantism,” and it is a subject the moderators have declared “anathema” (LOL) on these forums because people try to set the house on fire over it.

 

[Matt14]

awfulthings9:

It would be a big difference except, look at your wording. The Council of Trent did declare the “reformers” to be heretics because they broke away from what we consider to be the truth and led others astray by doing so. It is comparing apple trees to apples, however, to say there is a contradiction because Vatican II is not refering to the reformers, but to “protestants” in general, most of whom were raised that way and never actually left the church in the first place. You may disagree with either statement, but they are not contradictions of each other. A man may leave or reject his extended family, but then his children will be born apart from these relatives through no decision on their part.

Aha! Good explanation! See you ain’t so awful.

 

[Matt14]

mercygate:

There is a difference between heretics and separated brethren. It is the difference between material and formal heresy.

A formal heretic willfully denies the doctrines of the Church, while a material heretic is someone (like you) who, in good faith, denies the doctrines of the Church.

Thus, YOU are a separated brother. Martin Luther was a flat-out, no-excuses, plain ol’ heretic.

As for those who believe the Papal Chair to be empty – let’s not go there on this thread (you have your hands full already). The technical term is “sedevacantism,” and it is a subject the moderators have declared “anathema” (LOL) on these forums because people try to set the house on fire over it.

Well, if it makes ya’ll feel any better, I think Luther and Calvin were heretics, too.

 

[mercygate]

Matt14:

Well, if it makes ya’ll feel any better, I think Luther and Calvin were heretics, too.

Well, it’s a start!

 

[estesbob]

quasimodo:

there was a council at Kent?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon8.gifOOOPSS!!

I think it was the one where superman rescused Lois lane from…

 

[josiecoe]

It is my understanding that we are all Catholics, not because of ANY of these “specifics,” but because we were all called.

God bless

 

[Milliardo]

Matt14:

But doesn’t the Council of Trent hold those reformers to be heretics, “anathema,” excommunicated?

That is true.

And doesn’t Vatican II contradict that and say protestants are “separated brothers?”

No it doesn’t. Let me explain: the Church has not withdrawn the fact that Protestantism is, by and large, still in heresy;inspite of this, we do profess with them that Jesus is our Lord and Saviour, and so in that case then we are brothers and sisters in Christ.

I’ve heard that some catholics, like Mel Gibson, consider the papal chair to be “empty.” Why is this?

The long and short of it is that they do not agree to some things implemented after Vatican II.