Separated Bretheran

[Hammerofheresy]

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.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

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.

Dunno. I guess that one can be both. Do many distictively Protestent belief meet the Catholic standards of “heresy”? So I gather–don’t quote me. On the other hand, is a Protestant also your brother? And do you, in fact, consider yourselves separated by errors or misunderstandings? So maybe each term is technically adequate. If you are interested in winning over your brother, though, and in gaining his attention and consideration, the latter term may be the more reasonable choice.

 

[OldRedleg]

Lets look at what the Church says on this issue.

First, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church in regards to people who are brought up in what are commonly called “protestant” Christian religions:

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

Second, we are called to charity and love as Catholics. We can loose our salvation if we do not have charity for our fellow man.

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH, LUMEN GENTIUM, NOVEMBER 21, 1964

“Basing itself on scripture and tradition, it [the Council] teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in the body which is the Church…

“They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical governance and communion. **He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. **He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a ‘bodily’ manner and not ‘in his heart.’ All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. 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.”

Basically, “Judge not, that ye shall not be judged.”

 

[brigid12]

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.

EO has kept valid apostolic succession and valid Sacraments - erego they have not fully left the Church/God - only (essentially) in their understanding of St. Peter’s role/authority. Old Catholics are in the same position. Protestants have rejected both apostolic succession (at least at some point in their history, eg. Anglicans) and have kept only baptism and marriage as valid Sacraments (if they even recognize them as Sacraments and baptize using the Trinitarian formula that Jesus gave us).

 

[DixitDominus]

Calling Protestants Separated Brethren does not imply that they are not heretics.

 

[OldRedleg]

Heresy is defined by Thomas Aquinas as “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas.” Heresy is both the non-orthodox belief itself, and the act of holding to that belief.

According to Aquinas, then, a Protestant who never held or knew a specifically Catholic dogma is not a heretic against it.

The Catholic Church, in the spirit of ecumenism, tends not to refer to Protestantism as a heresy nowadays, even if the teachings of Protestantism are indeed heretical from a Catholic perspective. Modern usage favors referring to Protestants as "separated brethren" rather than "heretics", although the latter is still sadly used on occasion .

In my view, to use the term “heretic” is uncharitable (see my earlier post).

 

[guanophore]

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.

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.

 

[Genesis315]

It bears pointing out that the phrase is not all that knew. Pope Leo XIII called them separated brethren as did Pope Pius XII (those are the two I know off the top of my head, there could be more examples).

 

[Ruthie]

I have taken to saying “Non-Catholic Christians.” If we want to be able to have charitable discourse with them, we need to use terms they are not hurt or insulted by. Many do not consider themselves Protestants, because they are not members of the classic Protestant churches. Many also take “separated brethren” as unfriendly. As for calling them heretics - that’s not the way to get a discussion started, even if it’s true.

Remember 1 Cor 13!

Ruthie

 

[Santoku]

Calling Protestants Separated Brethren does not imply that they are not heretics.

That’s correct. Combine that with the fact that “heretic” is a highly inflammatory word and there is good reason not to use it.

I suspect some enjoy using labels like “heretic” not because it’s accurate but because it’s inflammatory and that’s horribly wrong. In most situations it reflects very poorly on the user.

Some of the Orthodox for example enjoy referring to Eastern Catholics as “uniates.” While that too is an accurate label, it’s also very inflammatory. It’s used largely today to be offensive and it shouldn’t be.

 

[Santoku]

I have taken to saying “Non-Catholic Christians.” If we want to be able to have charitable discourse with them, we need to use terms they are not hurt or insulted by. Many do not consider themselves Protestants, because they are not members of the classic Protestant churches. Many also take “separated brethren” as unfriendly. As for calling them heretics - that’s not the way to get a discussion started, even if it’s true.

Remember 1 Cor 13!

Ruthie

Very well said. Sadly your elegant diplomacy is lost on many. The worst excuse I hear for using offensive words like “heretic” is that by using them we don’t sugar-coat the truth and that it might wake some people up. Rubbish – it offends them and ultimately turns them off to the message.

 

[mark_a]

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.

“Separated bretheren” does not bug me half as much as “Catholic Christian”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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.

No, this is a respectful, yet truthful way of describing our fellow Christians not in communion with the Holy Father.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

“Separated bretheren” does not bug me half as much as “Catholic Christian”

I’ve always felt that this was an appropriate designation. While I’m bugged by people who’ve asked me “Are you a Catholic or a Christian?,” I’m equally disturbed by Catholics that I have personally heard say, “We’re Catholics, not Christians, and we don’t do things like they do.” Consider that Catholic simply means “universal,” which Holy Mother Church certainly is, but “Christian” means “follower of Christ.” The latter term is older, as well, in its application to the Church, since the Book of Acts tells us that the followers of Jesus were first called Christians in Antioch (the Church at Antioch was established by Saint Peter).

I feel that it is perfectly legitimate to state that I am a Roman (in communion with Rome, since Orthodoxy claims also to be Catholic and is in its orders and sacraments) Catholic (of the original universal Church) Christian (follower of Jesus Christ).

 

[maurin]

“Separated bretheren” does not bug me half as much as “Catholic Christian”

I’ve always felt that this was an appropriate designation. While I’m bugged by people who’ve asked me “Are you a Catholic or a Christian?,” I’m equally disturbed by Catholics that I have personally heard say, “We’re Catholics, not Christians, and we don’t do things like they do.”

Consider this, though, JKirk: doesn’t this ‘designation’ reduce Jesus’ Church to just another denomination?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Consider this, though, JKirk: doesn’t this ‘designation’ reduce Jesus’ Church to just another denomination?

I think it offers clarity, which I hope I demonstrated in my prior post Iie, Roman Catholic Christian).

 

[otjm]

Consider this, though, JKirk: doesn’t this ‘designation’ reduce Jesus’ Church to just another denomination?

that might depend on who is doing the reducing, or if anything is being reduced at all. Kirk’s designation is not reducing; it is simpl an accurate description. If someone takes it as a reduction (which I kind of doubt most will), that is a personal problem to that individual, as it is not in and of itself indicative that the Catholic Church (which is not Roman - that is ony a rite) is “just another” anything.

What it does do is challenge those who are not Catholic with a fact - we are Christian - which a goodly number of them don’t beleive. So that is not a reduction; if anything, it is a challenge.

 

[maurin]

that might depend on who is doing the reducing, or if anything is being reduced at all. Kirk’s designation is not reducing; it is simpl an accurate description. If someone takes it as a reduction (which I kind of doubt most will), that is a personal problem to that individual, as it is not in and of itself indicative that the Catholic Church (which is not Roman - that is ony a rite) is “just another” anything.

What it does do is challenge those who are not Catholic with a fact - we are Christian - which a goodly number of them don’t beleive. So that is not a reduction; if anything, it is a challenge.

I’m not quite sure I understand. Could I ask you to explain?

 

[brigid12]

that might depend on who is doing the reducing, or if anything is being reduced at all. Kirk’s designation is not reducing; it is simpl an accurate description. If someone takes it as a reduction (which I kind of doubt most will), that is a personal problem to that individual, as it is not in and of itself indicative that the Catholic Church (which is not Roman - that is ony a rite) is “just another” anything.

What it does do is challenge those who are not Catholic with a fact - we are Christian - which a goodly number of them don’t beleive. So that is not a reduction; if anything, it is a challenge.

Agreed. In the west there are so many that are completely unchurched (or practically) that saying “Catholic Christian” is simply helping others to understand what a Catholic is.

 

[maurin]

I think it offers clarity, which I hope I demonstrated in my prior post Iie, Roman Catholic Christian).

Mind you, I’m not offering an argument here…but no, it isn’t clear to me how this ‘designation’ offers clarity.