Separated Bretheran

[moondweller]

OldRedleg:

The Catholic Church recognizes all those baptized in the Trinitarian Form (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) as brother Christians. It teaches that salvation is possible for those Christians not in full unity with the Catholic Church.

Yes, I understand. Recognized as having been justified by faith in baptism; emphasizing “faith in baptism.”

According to 818 of the CCC, you recognize their right to be called “Christian” and the possibility of those “separated brethren,” called “Christian,” to be saved. But since the RCC, with its system, is the “means of salvation” (according to the DCONTC), how is it at all “possible” for those outside the system to obtain salvation?

However, the Catholic Church further believes that there is an assurance of salvation for those who are in full union with the Catholic Church, participate in it’s sacramental live, and follow it’s moral teachings.

Well, there can be no true “assurance” of salvation when conditions must be met by the baptized. As stated in the DCONTC you quoted, RCs must “persevere in charity” (love, I assume to the end of one’s life), and "if they fail, moreover, to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.” So, there’s really no “assurance” of salvation under this system, is there?

Christ came to this world to save all men who would believe in him.

What does “believe in Him” mean?

He is the Church

So then it would just just as correct to say He came to save those who believe in the Church; He and the Church being one and the same.

So if one does not believe in the Church (RCC), how can that one be saved, since believing in Him and believing in the Church are synonymous, and Christ came to save all men who believe in Him/Church?

It is a mystery how he will bestow his saving grace to each individual when the time comes.

Is it a “mystery” because RC’ism is only “a way” to a “possible” (potential) salvation? If so, then how is the RC any better off than the “separated brethren?”

It seems to me the RC is no better off than the Jew who was under a covenant of Law. The major difference being that the Law served the O.T. Jew in that it was a “tutor” to lead him to Christ that, when He came, he would be “justified by faith” (Gal. 3:24). Whereas the RC is baptized in the name of Christ and justified in hopes “to be saved” by works (persevere in charity and respond to “grace” in thought, word and deed).

The Catholic Church teaches that it has the fullness of truth and how to live your life to obtain that salvation.

But if you have the “fullness of truth,” then how is it still a “mystery” as to how He will bestow His saving grace to each individual when He comes? If it remains a “mystery” then certainly you can have no assurance.

But since it is still a mystery it is not our place to judge our “separated brethren” as condemned to eternal damnation just because they are not fully united with the Catholic Church.

Yet the DCOTC states that the church is necessary for salvation. Evidently they don’t view it as much of a mystery as you.

Finally, to be a heretic you must be a practicing Catholic who has been taught the doctrine of the faith and professed your belief in it who then renounces a part of that doctrine or dogma of the faith. If you never were taught it or professed a belief in it you can’t be a heretic.

So then one can teach what you would consider heretical doctrines and yet that one cannot be labeled a heretic by the RCC. Is that correct? Only those who were baptized and confirmed RCs and subsequently taught contrary to the CCC are true heretics.

Would it be correct to say that “true” heretics (apart from reverting to RC’ism) cannot be saved, but children of a true heretic can (apart from converting to RC’ism)?

 

[Reformed]

Anyone else tired of this term. Yes the Eastern Orthodox are seperated bretheran but Protestants are heretics. They have always been called heretics. Whats is with this. I have never got it.

Great thread. I’ll be watching this one.

 

[happilycatholic]

The original protestants could qualify as heretics, but most of the present day adherants to Protestant beliefs do not qualify. A heretic is one who has embraced the truth, then willfully rejected it. Most Protestants today were never taught the truth, and to make matters worse, they were given all kinds of misinformation about Catholicism. They do embrace heretical positions, but since they don’t know any better, cannot be charged with the sin of heresy, or so says the Catholic catechism.

I’m sure you’ve expressed this to our friend Rob…

Who is curiously absent today.

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

The original protestants could qualify as heretics, but most of the present day adherants to Protestant beliefs do not qualify. A heretic is one who has embraced the truth, then willfully rejected it. Most Protestants today were never taught the truth, and to make matters worse, they were given all kinds of misinformation about Catholicism. They do embrace heretical positions, but since they don’t know any better, cannot be charged with the sin of heresy, or so says the Catholic catechism.

And for those of us who were raised Catholic and then renounced it…?

 

[ralphinal]

And for those of us who were raised Catholic and then renounced it…?

Depends…there are personal issues that may reduce culpability…or increase it.