"Separated Bretheren"

  • Thread starter Thread starter TommyWommy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TommyWommy

Guest
I’m trying to wrap my mind around this concept. It sounds like an oxymoron. How is it possible to be a brother “in Christ” and yet be “separated?” If they are separated from the Body of Christ, how can they be brothers and sisters “in Christ?”

Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t want to be divisive. I want to see them as brothers and sisters. I just can’t seem to grasp how it “works.” I want to be able to articulate how it is possible. I also want to be able to better articulate why they should consider “coming home” to Catholicism if they are already “in the Body.”

Thanks.
 
Well, if a Catholic is excommunicated, that doesn’t stop him from remaining a Catholic either. He is, however, separated from his brethren.
 
Rolltide said:
Well, if a Catholic is excommunicated, that doesn’t stop him from remaining a Catholic either. He is, however, separated from his brethren.
Click to expand...
But if he’s been kicked out, shouldn’t he be regarded as “a tax collector or a pagan” (as in Matt 18) rather than a “brother?” That’s what I don’t get. If he is separated from his bretheren, why would he still be called “bretheren?” It seems like one is either part of a body or not part of a body. Those who are of the same body are bretheren by virtue of their membership in that body. What am I missing here?
 
This is the way I understand it, please correct me if wrong. When we are baptized we are reborn by divine adoption as children of God. Other Christians are children of God by this baptism, but have separated from their elder Catholic brothers, who hold the complete deposit of the faith.
 
TommyWommy said:
I’m trying to wrap my mind around this concept. It sounds like an oxymoron. How is it possible to be a brother “in Christ” and yet be “separated?” If they are separated from the Body of Christ, how can they be brothers and sisters “in Christ?”

Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t want to be divisive. I want to see them as brothers and sisters. I just can’t seem to grasp how it “works.” I want to be able to articulate how it is possible. I also want to be able to better articulate why they should consider “coming home” to Catholicism if they are already “in the Body.”

Thanks.
Click to expand...
“Separated Brethren” refers mainly or exclusively to Protestants, I believe. As such, they are often much closer in doctrine and lineage to Catholicism than other religions, having separated from the Mother Church sometime during or after the Reformation. Some are very close in doctrine, like the Lutherans, while others are quite a ways out there doctrinally.

The Church wishes to embrace and work with our similarities and love for Christ rather than reject the whole group as if they were heretics. Since many Protestants were born into their faith, they’ve never formally denied Catholic teaching or necessarily even know what it is or how it differs.
 
Yes many protestants are unaware that they have been brought up in an excommunicated body. Some although are knowing heretics who out of their selfish pride refuse to leave their false teachings and become part of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is tasked with converting these lost souls, separated brothers. unfortunately, not everyone is going to cross the timber and be saved. Some despite their membership in a false church, yet out of a strong desire to know Christ will be saved.

II Thess 3:6​

.And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

Luke 15:7​

"I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.
 
“Separated brethren” is an inferior term to “heretic” or “schismatic” in that it is less precise, but has the advantage over them in that it is less likely to suggest the person using it is pronouncing a moral judgment on the people being referred to by the term.

Someone who is not fully, visibly, corporately a member of the Catholic Church is therefore in a real sense in schism, and likely in heresy as well. However, this objective status does not automatically imply that they are subjectively aware of and culpable for this separation and error. Here we get into distinctions like “material heresy” vs. “formal heresy.” However, many people do not possess the theological savvy to make these important distinctions, hence the prudence of using more neutral sounding terminology.

The point is, “separated brethren” is an accurate term because they are baptized Christians, and therefore in some sense brethren whether they are in a state of grace or not, and they are not in visible communion with us, and therefore are separated from us in some way whether or not this is true in an internal, moral sense. It serves well as a generic term for all the baptized outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church precisely because it is so vague, so it can describe people in a multitude of different situations without seeming to suggest a rash blanket moral judgment on all of them.
 
Thank you, these are helpful responses.

So this term is more of a “generalization,” then. Within this generalization there are individuals whose obstinant rejection of Catholicism places them in a more dangerous spiritual situation (or perhaps completely cut off) than those who are Protestant but not intentionally “protesting” anything.

Is that a good way of explaining it in a nutshell? (I’m sure the theology is much deeper and complex, but I’m looking for a brief, layman’s explanation).
 
Pope Leo XIII used the term in his encyclical on the Rosary (“Adiutricem” - The female helper). He explained that he meant anybody cut off from Communion with the Church by the various circumstances that work against unity. (He was advocating praying the Rosary for church unity, especially with the various Eastern churches not in communion with him being Mary fans, and with the Protestants not mostly being Mary fans. Getting everybody coming or going, as it were, under the theory that Mary kinda has a vested interest in her Son’s Body being in one piece.)

So yeah, it’s not some Vatican II-created term, since the man was using it in 1895. 🙂

The Latin is “fratres sejuncti”. Literally, “juncti” means joined, and “se-” means apart, aside, without.
 
TommyWommy said:
I’m trying to wrap my mind around this concept. It sounds like an oxymoron. How is it possible to be a brother “in Christ” and yet be “separated?” If they are separated from the Body of Christ, how can they be brothers and sisters “in Christ?”
Click to expand...
Baptism.
 
1ke said:
Baptism.
Click to expand...
I get that part. However, Scripture says there is a point when someone should be regarded as a tax collector or a pagan. I’m uncertain about when that point is. At that point, it seems they are no longer regarded as “bretheren.”
 
Where it becomes problematic for me, personally, is in dialogue with Protestant friends/family. If I refer to them as separated bretheren, they seem to respond with something like, “Ok, we’re brothers and sisters in Christ. Why should you care whether or not we become Catholic? We are all “in Christ” so how can anyone do better than that?”

You see, Protestants mostly come from an “either/or”, “all or nothing” perspective. They don’t get the idea about “fullness of the Faith.” To them, you are either “in Christ” or you are “out of Christ.” “How can someone possibly be more ‘fully in Christ’ than another?” they ask. “If you are calling me a ‘brother in Christ’ then what’s the problem? You be Catholic and I’ll be Protestant.”

The term almost seems to backfire in talking with them since it removes any sense of urgency for even considering Catholicism. The Protestants I’m dealing with see people as being “saved” or “unsaved.” Their sense of urgency resides there. The rest is “non-essential” stuff. So it becomes, “Relax, chill out, we’re all ‘brothers and sisters in Christ’ so don’t worry about those pesky denominational differences.”

I’ve even heard of priests that say, “Leave those Protestants alone. They’re fine where they are.”

I guess I’m really bothered by the division within Christianity, and I’m looking for some way that I can convey an appropriate sense of urgency about it beyond the word “separated.” Protestants (at least the ones I’m dealing with) really don’t care about the “separated” part. All they care about is, “Do you know Jesus?” If so, you are a brother or sister. Don’t sweat the rest. The fact that Christ wants unity doesn’t seem to phase them much. They think they are fully united by being saved and “in Christ.” The term “separated bretheren” leaves no appreciable impression on them.

If I said, “Man, you’re involved in some real heresy there! You better get right with God or you could lose your soul to eternal damnation!” it would be more along the lines of how they think: black or white, right or wrong, all or nothing, in or out.

Nevertheless, I shouldn’t say it that way because that would not be charitable or sensitive, and that’s not the way to promote unity. Right? (be wise as a serpent, harmless as a dove) Am I making sense with this? I’m not being sarcastic here. I’m really conflicted about this term “separated bretheren.” If it’s not an oxymoron to Catholics, it seems like it is to Protestants. To them, you can’t be “separated” and “bretheren” simultaneously. That’s like being saved and lost at the same time.
 
TommyWommy said:
Where it becomes problematic for me, personally, is in dialogue with Protestant friends/family. If I refer to them as separated bretheren, they seem to respond with something like, “Ok, we’re brothers and sisters in Christ. Why should you care whether or not we become Catholic? We are all “in Christ” so how can anyone do better than that?”

You see, Protestants mostly come from an “either/or”, “all or nothing” perspective. They don’t get the idea about “fullness of the Faith.” To them, you are either “in Christ” or you are “out of Christ.” “How can someone possibly be more ‘fully in Christ’ than another?” they ask. “If you are calling me a ‘brother in Christ’ then what’s the problem? You be Catholic and I’ll be Protestant.”

The term almost seems to backfire in talking with them since it removes any sense of urgency for even considering Catholicism. The Protestants I’m dealing with see people as being “saved” or “unsaved.” Their sense of urgency resides there. The rest is “non-essential” stuff. So it becomes, “Relax, chill out, we’re all ‘brothers and sisters in Christ’ so don’t worry about those pesky denominational differences.”

I’ve even heard of priests that say, “Leave those Protestants alone. They’re fine where they are.”

I guess I’m really bothered by the division within Christianity, and I’m looking for some way that I can convey an appropriate sense of urgency about it beyond the word “separated.” Protestants (at least the ones I’m dealing with) really don’t care about the “separated” part. All they care about is, “Do you know Jesus?” If so, you are a brother or sister. Don’t sweat the rest. The fact that Christ wants unity doesn’t seem to phase them much. They think they are fully united by being saved and “in Christ.” The term “separated bretheren” leaves no appreciable impression on them.

If I said, “Man, you’re involved in some real heresy there! You better get right with God or you could lose your soul to eternal damnation!” it would be more along the lines of how they think: black or white, right or wrong, all or nothing, in or out.

Nevertheless, I shouldn’t say it that way because that would not be charitable or sensitive, and that’s not the way to promote unity. Right? (be wise as a serpent, harmless as a dove) Am I making sense with this? I’m not being sarcastic here. I’m really conflicted about this term “separated bretheren.” If it’s not an oxymoron to Catholics, it seems like it is to Protestants. To them, you can’t be “separated” and “bretheren” simultaneously. That’s like being saved and lost at the same time.
Click to expand...
I don’t know that the term should necessarily lead a Protestant to a feeling of complacency. I would think it would be more challenging and maybe seem more than a bit offensive or patronizing-especially to those who already think the Pope is the Antichrist or the CC is the Beast-or at least have issues with her teachings. But in any case, by the use of that term the Church is stating that Protestants are not full members of the one true Church established by God- that their “churches” aren’t really the Church at all.

I guess some might think it’s a blessing that Momma hasn’t rejected them outright while others don’t accept the CC as Momma at all.
 
fhansen said:
I don’t know that the term should necessarily lead a Protestant to a feeling of complacency. I would think it would be more challenging and maybe more than a bit offensive-especially to those who already think the Pope is the Antichrist or the CC is the Beast-or at least have problems with her teachings. But in any case, by the use of that term the Church is stating that Protestants are not full members of the one true Church established by God- that their “churches” aren’t really the Church at all.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Maybe the real problem is me. Maybe I’m being too “black and white.” How can a person be a Christian (i.e. part of the Body of Christ) and simultaneously not be part of the Church (which is the Body of Christ)?

What comes to mind is the whole thing about drawing a line in the sand and asking “Who will you serve? As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” That seems pretty “black and white.” How can anyone be “partly” Christian? Aren’t we either on one side of the line or the other (i.e. in the Church or outside the Church)?

Maybe my confusion has something to do with the “individual person” vs the “Protestant churches.” Maybe I’m trying to apply a general term too specifically. Is that it?
 
TommyWommy said:
Hmmm. Maybe the real problem is me. Maybe I’m being too “black and white.” How can a person be a Christian (i.e. part of the Body of Christ) and simultaneously not be part of the Church (which is the Body of Christ)?

What comes to mind is the whole thing about drawing a line in the sand and asking “Who will you serve? As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” That seems pretty “black and white.” How can anyone be “partly” Christian? Aren’t we either on one side of the line or the other (i.e. in the Church or outside the Church)?

Maybe my confusion has something to do with the “individual person” vs the “Protestant churches.” Maybe I’m trying to apply a general term too specifically. Is that it?
Click to expand...
Protestants aren’t only separated physically from the CC. They’re also separated, in varying degrees, by doctrine/dogma. To this extent, unity is compromised and the full gospel isn’t being proclaimed as God wants. Why would He desire such a situation?
 
Coming from a ‘mixed’ Catholic-Protestant heritage, may I share a few thoughts which will likely suggest to readers that this heritage has had considerable influence upon my current thinking?
Code: 
Back before Vatican II, Catholics were warned to keep clear of Protestantism. It was a sin to attend a service in a Protestant church, for example, and I recall horrendous stories of Catholics who could not attend the baptisms, confirmations, weddings and funerals of Protestant kinfolk if such services were held in a Protestant church. Luther was depicted as a thoroughly evil heretic who was condemned to hell for breaking his ordination vows, even marrying a former nun, etc.

 Then came Vatican II and John XXIII (my favorite Pope). Almost overnight the attitude of Catholicism changed. Ecumenical activities were encouraged. Ecumenical services were commonplace. Priests joined what had formerly been ministerial associations. Some priests even co-officiated at weddings, sometimes if held in Protestant churches. The Protestants were no longer condemned as heretics. Suddenly they were 'separated brethren'. They were fellow Christians without the fullness of truth, mostly because they were raised as Protestants and usually not because of their own fault.

  Unfortunately - in my view - speaking honestly - there still are Catholics who hold to the pre-Vatican view. They speak pompously and piously of being part of the 'one true church'. I watch EWTN regularly, and that narrow viewpoint often comes through, on such programs as "Journey Home" and others. To me, this contradicts the spirit of Vatican II. It is one thing to believe that Catholicism is the one true religion. It is quite another to diminish the sincere faith of Lutherans or Methodists, Baptists or Presbyterians. 

 Over the years I have reached this conscensus - personally. God and the mysteries of the universe are beyond human understanding. We "know in part" (I Cor. 13), while the core of the faith is love (again, I Cor. 13). All Christians who genuinely seek to follow Christ and his call to 'love one another' are my brothers and sisters, whatever their church connection. And I would go further. Jews, Muslims and others are my brothers and sisters. too, if they live by that principle of love. I spent awhile living with a Hindu family in India years ago, and if they don't get to heaven I doubt if you and I do. I don't believe God looks at our creeds or church affiliation. God looks at our hearts. I believe it was John Wesley who said in effect: "If you love God as I do, if you wish to serve God as I do, let us join hands and walk together...."

  That is the sum and substance of the gospel and all the doctrinal details and ceremonial rites matter very little when compared to that central message of love.

  A Jehovah Witness came to my door this morning. A fine young woman I'm sure. They too believe they alone have the one true faith, as do Mormons, many Muslims, and we could go on. The true faith, as expressed by Jesus, is summed up in the Sermon on the Mount. Sadly, too many Christians claim to preach love, humility, unity and peace while they actually promote attitudes that encourage bigotry, arrogance, separation, and antipathy. 

  Most Catholics I know agree with me. And ditto for most Protestants I know, too. God bless them all. God bless the whole world and all who live in it, regardless of their religious views or connections.
 
fhansen said:
Protestants aren’t only separated physically from the CC. They’re also separated, in varying degrees, by doctrine/dogma. To this extent, unity is compromised and the full gospel isn’t being proclaimed as God wants. Why would He desire such a situation?
Click to expand...
He wouldn’t and He doesn’t. But I don’t think my Protestant friends really care. Or they ignore it because doctrinal unity seems so theologically complicated and unattainable. All they seem to care about is “have you asked Jesus into your heart?” If you have, you’re in. Everything else is “non-essential” to them. They are Christian, they “have Jesus” and there is nothing “more” that they need or want. There is no motive to pursue the “unity” Catholics talk about. One Protestant told me, “There have always been disputes among Christians. Paul said to avoid it, but it’s human nature.” Like, it’s going to happen, so don’t worry about it. Just focus on being a Christian and work within whatever church you belong to. They think being Christian (i.e. being saved, born again) is the unity Jesus prayed for since we are all “in Christ” as Christians.

This is the wall I run into with them, and by calling them “bretheren,” separated or otherwise, I seem to validate their idea as far as they are concerned. “See, we’re all brothers in Christ, so relax!”
 
Roy5 said:
Coming from a ‘mixed’ Catholic-Protestant heritage, may I share a few thoughts which will likely suggest to readers that this heritage has had considerable influence upon my current thinking?
Code: 
Back before Vatican II, Catholics were warned to keep clear of Protestantism. It was a sin to attend a service in a Protestant church, for example, and I recall horrendous stories of Catholics who could not attend the baptisms, confirmations, weddings and funerals of Protestant kinfolk if such services were held in a Protestant church. Luther was depicted as a thoroughly evil heretic who was condemned to hell for breaking his ordination vows, even marrying a former nun, etc.

 Then came Vatican II and John XXIII (my favorite Pope). Almost overnight the attitude of Catholicism changed. Ecumenical activities were encouraged. Ecumenical services were commonplace. Priests joined what had formerly been ministerial associations. Some priests even co-officiated at weddings, sometimes if held in Protestant churches. The Protestants were no longer condemned as heretics. Suddenly they were 'separated brethren'. They were fellow Christians without the fullness of truth, mostly because they were raised as Protestants and usually not because of their own fault.

  Unfortunately - in my view - speaking honestly - there still are Catholics who hold to the pre-Vatican view. They speak pompously and piously of being part of the 'one true church'. I watch EWTN regularly, and that narrow viewpoint often comes through, on such programs as "Journey Home" and others. To me, this contradicts the spirit of Vatican II. It is one thing to believe that Catholicism is the one true religion. It is quite another to diminish the sincere faith of Lutherans or Methodists, Baptists or Presbyterians. 

 Over the years I have reached this conscensus - personally. God and the mysteries of the universe are beyond human understanding. We "know in part" (I Cor. 13), while the core of the faith is love (again, I Cor. 13). All Christians who genuinely seek to follow Christ and his call to 'love one another' are my brothers and sisters, whatever their church connection. And I would go further. Jews, Muslims and others are my brothers and sisters. too, if they live by that principle of love. I spent awhile living with a Hindu family in India years ago, and if they don't get to heaven I doubt if you and I do. I don't believe God looks at our creeds or church affiliation. God looks at our hearts. I believe it was John Wesley who said in effect: "If you love God as I do, if you wish to serve God as I do, let us join hands and walk together...."

  That is the sum and substance of the gospel and all the doctrinal details and ceremonial rites matter very little when compared to that central message of love.

  A Jehovah Witness came to my door this morning. A fine young woman I'm sure. They too believe they alone have the one true faith, as do Mormons, many Muslims, and we could go on. The true faith, as expressed by Jesus, is summed up in the Sermon on the Mount. Sadly, too many Christians claim to preach love, humility, unity and peace while they actually promote attitudes that encourage bigotry, arrogance, separation, and antipathy. 

  Most Catholics I know agree with me. And ditto for most Protestants I know, too. God bless them all. God bless the whole world and all who live in it, regardless of their religious views or connections.
Click to expand...
I’m with you, mostly, I think. The question it raises in my mind is, “Why bother being Catholic?”

I am aware that the CC teaches that non-Catholics can also enter into eternal life under certain conditions by their implicit faith and acts of love. I also know that the CC teaches to watch out for the dangerous spirit of relativism that “anything goes” and that there is no absolute truth. Where is the balance between these? Why choose Catholicism?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top