Please explain "separated" bretheren

[TommyWommy]

If a Protestant and a Catholic are bretheren by virtue of baptism, what, then, “separates” them from each other? If there is one Lord, one faith and one baptism, where is the “separation” exactly and how does it pertain to eternal salvation? How can one be a living member of the Body and be “separated” from it at the same time? For example, if I separate my arm from my body, it will die. If the branch separates from the vine, it will wither and die.

What is this term “separated bretheren” really getting at?

This is weighing on my heart, as I have many close to me who are Christian but not Catholic. Thank you.

 

[Joe_5859]

You might want to take a look at Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism:

Unitatis Redintegratio

Ecumenism is basically that work towards bringing about unity with other Christians. This document explains things better than I could.

 

[Mark77]

One key issue is the Eucharist!

**From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC);

"Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, “have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.” It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, “when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory.” (CCC 1400)

Search the Catechism here: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1400.htm
**
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[Just_Lurking]

Prior to Vatican II, Protestants were “heretics”. Separated brethren is at least one step up from that.

 

[chris_molter]

Prior to Vatican II, Protestants were “heretics”. Separated brethren is at least one step up from that.

You should read up on the difference between a material heretic and a formal heretic. It will help illuminate the Church’s stance on non-Catholic Christians and why we refer to them as separated brethren rather than heretics. It’s also related to why Bishops don’t run around with the excommunication hammer whacking looney Catholic politicians and other public figures as often as some would like.

 

[Joe_5859]

Prior to Vatican II, Protestants were “heretics”. Separated brethren is at least one step up from that.

That’s not entirely true. Pope Leo XIII used the term “separated brethren” on more than one occassion, and this was well before Vatican II (see here and here, for example). It has become much more heavily used since the Council, though.

 

[TommyWommy]

One key issue is the Eucharist!

**From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC);

"Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, “have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.**” It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, “when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory.” (CCC 1400)

Search the Catechism here: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1400.htm

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

Actually, this dovetails with an earlier post of mine regarding Christ’s words in John 6 stating that those who do not eat His flesh and drink His blood have no life in them. CCC 1400 seems to be saying that these ecclesial communities have a “Holy Supper” that apparently does provide them some life(?)

I don’t get it. I can usually deal with “grey” areas, but Christ sounds so “absolute” in John 6. How can anyone outside the Eucharist of the Catholic Church “eat His flesh and drink His blood?” I thought the Eucharist was an objective truth and reality. It seems like a pretty clear line of distinction, like a spiritual or natural law.

Like I said in my earlier post, there was not a “third group” of believers in John 6. There were two groups: those who accepted that his flesh was real food and life, and those who rejected it. There was not a third group that had some other “Holy Supper.” So that’s why this confuses me.

If the Eucharist “separates” us, why does it not separate us like it separated the believers in John 6 (i.e. those who stayed - life - and those who left - no life)?

Is this about the “implicit” faith of those who, through no fault of their own, are doing the best they can to follow Christ? If so, what about those who know and understand the Catholic teaching yet reject it outright?

 

[TommyWommy]

Like I said in my earlier post,

I should have said “my earlier thread,” not “my earlier post.” Two of my forum questions have sort of dovetailed together here, one about John 6 and one about separated bretheren.

 

[NHInsider]

Actually, this dovetails with an earlier post of mine regarding Christ’s words in John 6 stating that those who do not eat His flesh and drink His blood have no life in them. CCC 1400 seems to be saying that these ecclesial communities have a “Holy Supper” that apparently does provide them some life(?)

I don’t get it. I can usually deal with “grey” areas, but Christ sounds so “absolute” in John 6. How can anyone outside the Eucharist of the Catholic Church “eat His flesh and drink His blood?” I thought the Eucharist was an objective truth and reality. It seems like a pretty clear line of distinction, like a spiritual or natural law.

Like I said in my earlier post, there was not a “third group” of believers in John 6. There were two groups: those who accepted that his flesh was real food and life, and those who rejected it. There was not a third group that had some other “Holy Supper.” So that’s why this confuses me.

If the Eucharist “separates” us, why does it not separate us like it separated the believers in John 6 (i.e. those who stayed - life - and those who left - no life)?

Is this about the “implicit” faith of those who, through no fault of their own, are doing the best they can to follow Christ? If so, what about those who know and understand the Catholic teaching yet reject it outright?

Given that the only true answer is “we don’t know.”

But beyond that - because we understand that there is “One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism” we believe that those who believe in the Lord and accept Baptism are incorporated into His Body. Even though they have materially separated from the Body they must somehow still be part of it.

In addition, we recognize the value of a “Spiritual Communion” which essentially says “I cannot receive You sacramentally but ask you to come to me spiritually” - even for Catholics. And we recognize that God is not limited by the Sacraments and if He chooses to give graces to those who receive a symbolic Communion, that is His perogative as God and those graces are real. So we simultaneously beg those who know and love Him to enter into full Communion, while we recognize that all who are baptised into Christ are members of His Body. . . . .