"Separated Bretheren"

[fhansen]

  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.

But this is the point. We can all think were in the right, no matter how disparate our beliefs. JWs are generally quite sincere people, but sincerely wrong IMO. But this in no way means that there is no true belief-or that there can be no one true Church. A JW can be looked upon as just another separated brethren, although much farther removed than the average Protestant. But they, too, believe in God and have gleaned their beliefs from the same bible, albeit somewhat modified now of course with their new translation. But they’re sincere. But we still have to have unity somewhere. There must be a place where the buck stops, or there can be no faith.

So the CC now defends her position more diplomatically, more lovingly. But read Vat II documents on these matters, such as Unitatis Redintegratio, the Decree on Ecumenism, or Nostra Aetate, which is also relevant to this discussion, to get the words from her own mouth. Nothing’s changed. The CC still confidently knows herself to be the one true Church-she cannot, even with the greatest humility, do otherwise- but her position now is to reach out to the world with genuine love, respect, and acceptance.

 

[TommyWommy]

A JW can be looked upon as just another separated brethren, although much farther removed than the average Protestant. But they, too, believe in God and have gleaned their beliefs from the same bible, albeit somewhat modified now of course with their new translation. But they’re sincere. But we still have to have unity somewhere. There must be a place where the buck stops, or there can be no faith.

This dovetails with my original concern which is, "How far removed can any individual or “denomination” be before they are no longer considered “separated bretheren?” What line has to be crossed? Diplomacy only goes so far, and then (regrettably so) a line has to be drawn in the sand, doesn’t it? I’m wondering where the line is.

 

[fhansen]

This dovetails with my original concern which is, "How far removed can any individual or “denomination” be before they are no longer considered “separated bretheren?” What line has to be crossed? Diplomacy only goes so far, and then (regrettably so) a line has to be drawn in the sand, doesn’t it? I’m wondering where the line is.

Belief in the deity of Jesus, is essential, of course, and the JWs fall short on that one.

 

[Roy5]

I agree. The Jehovah Witnesses are wrong. So are the Mormons. So are most Muslims. So are any people who believe that they alone have the true faith. As I indicated, I have become convinced over the years that our understanding of this magnificent, mammoth and mysterious world is akin to a cat understanding a piano. We are human beings who are severely limited when it comes to comprehending this universe in which we live. As a result, humankind has sought to navigate his earthly existence by developing different explanations.

 Take the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Creation. Adam and Eve. The Tower of Babel. Factual? Certainly not. These were earnest efforts by early theologians to explain the origin of the earth, the first man and women, and the beginnings of different languages. Throw in a legend (based on some fact) about a great flood, a man who built and ark, etc. Sadly, these stories became hallowed and millions/billions of Christians feel compelled to believe them literally, even today. This is not the place to go into detail, but to me it is obvious that with our knowledge now these myths/legends/parables/whatever need not be believed. In fact, I find them unbelievable. Like many others, I need a reasonable religion.

 Back to the thread. I try my best to respect all religions that teach love, mutual respect, 'think and let think', and dwelling together in peace. How much suffering has been caused over the centuries by those who have insisted that their beliefs alone were true, that their religion alone was the one true faith. Think back to those shameful religious wars which pitted Catholic against Protestant. What a scandal - Christian killing Christian in the name of God! There is still a strong residue of this 'trumpeting' among Catholics, evangelical Protestants, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Jews who still insist that they have special privileges because they are the 'Chosen People' and those crazy Muslims who are ready and eager to kill 'infidels'. 

 Frankly, I find that most Catholics I know reject the notion that they alone have the true religion. They remain Catholic because it meets their spiritual needs, or often because of beloved traditions or important family ties. And certainly this is true of mainline Protestants who tend to be especially 'big tent Christians', quick to respect other faiths, going easily from one denomination to another (when they move to another community, for example). 

  Again, I'm convinced that God isn't the least bit interested in our doctrines about things we really don't understand. Take Mariology, for example. Was Mary a perpetual virgin? Did Jesus have siblings born of Mary? Is Mary properly regarded as the Queen of Heaven? Does she intervene on our behalf and gain blessings for us when we invoke her favor through prayers directed to her? Was she the only human born without sin, a doctrine defined in 1864? Did she avoid death as indicated by the doctrine of the Assumption defined in 1950? And so many more questions. Personally, I don't think it matters what answers we give to those questions. All Christians I know honor Mary, and that (to me) is sufficient. Even the Muslims believe that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. Indeed, there is more about Mary in the Quran than in the Bible.

  We could go on and on - but I believe I've made my point. Different strokes for different folks. Some love ritual; some prefer simplicity in worship. Some believe creeds; others want to avoid what they views as limitations on their independent thinking. Some want a church that tells them what to believe in considerable detail; others treasure the right to explore, and even change their minds on this or that spiritual matter now and then.

  I have great admiration for priests, nuns and others who devote their lives to serving God by serving humankind. However, I am not all that impressed when those of any faith insist that their religion alone is the one true religion.    

 God bless Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims and everybody else.

 

[TommyWommy]

I agree. The Jehovah Witnesses are wrong. So are the Mormons. So are most Muslims. So are any people who believe that they alone have the true faith. As I indicated, I have become convinced over the years that our understanding of this magnificent, mammoth and mysterious world is akin to a cat understanding a piano. We are human beings who are severely limited when it comes to comprehending this universe in which we live. As a result, humankind has sought to navigate his earthly existence by developing different explanations.

 Take the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Creation. Adam and Eve. The Tower of Babel. Factual? Certainly not. These were earnest efforts by early theologians to explain the origin of the earth, the first man and women, and the beginnings of different languages. Throw in a legend (based on some fact) about a great flood, a man who built and ark, etc. Sadly, these stories became hallowed and millions/billions of Christians feel compelled to believe them literally, even today. This is not the place to go into detail, but to me it is obvious that with our knowledge now these myths/legends/parables/whatever need not be believed. In fact, I find them unbelievable. Like many others, I need a reasonable religion.

 Back to the thread. I try my best to respect all religions that teach love, mutual respect, 'think and let think', and dwelling together in peace. How much suffering has been caused over the centuries by those who have insisted that their beliefs alone were true, that their religion alone was the one true faith. Think back to those shameful religious wars which pitted Catholic against Protestant. What a scandal - Christian killing Christian in the name of God! There is still a strong residue of this 'trumpeting' among Catholics, evangelical Protestants, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Jews who still insist that they have special privileges because they are the 'Chosen People' and those crazy Muslims who are ready and eager to kill 'infidels'. 

 Frankly, I find that most Catholics I know reject the notion that they alone have the true religion. They remain Catholic because it meets their spiritual needs, or often because of beloved traditions or important family ties. And certainly this is true of mainline Protestants who tend to be especially 'big tent Christians', quick to respect other faiths, going easily from one denomination to another (when they move to another community, for example). 

  Again, I'm convinced that God isn't the least bit interested in our doctrines about things we really don't understand. Take Mariology, for example. Was Mary a perpetual virgin? Did Jesus have siblings born of Mary? Is Mary properly regarded as the Queen of Heaven? Does she intervene on our behalf and gain blessings for us when we invoke her favor through prayers directed to her? Was she the only human born without sin, a doctrine defined in 1864? Did she avoid death as indicated by the doctrine of the Assumption defined in 1950? And so many more questions. Personally, I don't think it matters what answers we give to those questions. All Christians I know honor Mary, and that (to me) is sufficient. Even the Muslims believe that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. Indeed, there is more about Mary in the Quran than in the Bible.

  We could go on and on - but I believe I've made my point. Different strokes for different folks. Some love ritual; some prefer simplicity in worship. Some believe creeds; others want to avoid what they views as limitations on their independent thinking. Some want a church that tells them what to believe in considerable detail; others treasure the right to explore, and even change their minds on this or that spiritual matter now and then.

  I have great admiration for priests, nuns and others who devote their lives to serving God by serving humankind. However, I am not all that impressed when those of any faith insist that their religion alone is the one true religion.    

 God bless Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims and everybody else.

Why can’t you believe that there is one true religion (i.e. the Church Jesus Himself said He would build), but that there may be a variety of ways of being drawn to that Church, that one Truth?

 

[fhansen]

I agree. The Jehovah Witnesses are wrong. So are the Mormons. So are most Muslims. So are any people who believe that they alone have the true faith. As I indicated, I have become convinced over the years that our understanding of this magnificent, mammoth and mysterious world is akin to a cat understanding a piano. We are human beings who are severely limited when it comes to comprehending this universe in which we live. As a result, humankind has sought to navigate his earthly existence by developing different explanations.

 Take the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Creation. Adam and Eve. The Tower of Babel. Factual? Certainly not. These were earnest efforts by early theologians to explain the origin of the earth, the first man and women, and the beginnings of different languages. Throw in a legend (based on some fact) about a great flood, a man who built and ark, etc. Sadly, these stories became hallowed and millions/billions of Christians feel compelled to believe them literally, even today. This is not the place to go into detail, but to me it is obvious that with our knowledge now these myths/legends/parables/whatever need not be believed. In fact, I find them unbelievable. Like many others, I need a reasonable religion.

 Back to the thread. I try my best to respect all religions that teach love, mutual respect, 'think and let think', and dwelling together in peace. How much suffering has been caused over the centuries by those who have insisted that their beliefs alone were true, that their religion alone was the one true faith. Think back to those shameful religious wars which pitted Catholic against Protestant. What a scandal - Christian killing Christian in the name of God! There is still a strong residue of this 'trumpeting' among Catholics, evangelical Protestants, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Jews who still insist that they have special privileges because they are the 'Chosen People' and those crazy Muslims who are ready and eager to kill 'infidels'. 

 Frankly, I find that most Catholics I know reject the notion that they alone have the true religion. They remain Catholic because it meets their spiritual needs, or often because of beloved traditions or important family ties. And certainly this is true of mainline Protestants who tend to be especially 'big tent Christians', quick to respect other faiths, going easily from one denomination to another (when they move to another community, for example). 

  Again, I'm convinced that God isn't the least bit interested in our doctrines about things we really don't understand. Take Mariology, for example. Was Mary a perpetual virgin? Did Jesus have siblings born of Mary? Is Mary properly regarded as the Queen of Heaven? Does she intervene on our behalf and gain blessings for us when we invoke her favor through prayers directed to her? Was she the only human born without sin, a doctrine defined in 1864? Did she avoid death as indicated by the doctrine of the Assumption defined in 1950? And so many more questions. Personally, I don't think it matters what answers we give to those questions. All Christians I know honor Mary, and that (to me) is sufficient. Even the Muslims believe that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. Indeed, there is more about Mary in the Quran than in the Bible.

  We could go on and on - but I believe I've made my point. Different strokes for different folks. Some love ritual; some prefer simplicity in worship. Some believe creeds; others want to avoid what they views as limitations on their independent thinking. Some want a church that tells them what to believe in considerable detail; others treasure the right to explore, and even change their minds on this or that spiritual matter now and then.

  I have great admiration for priests, nuns and others who devote their lives to serving God by serving humankind. However, I am not all that impressed when those of any faith insist that their religion alone is the one true religion.    

 God bless Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims and everybody else.

I guess I’d respond with these thoughts. We have to believe that our faith is true to at least some extent, or why bother? But some people will still think that the tenet, “God exists”, let alone, “God is Love”, or “Jesus is God” is too dogmatic. But there’s nothing wrong…with being right, of course. And I believe that the knowledge of God as not merely existing but of God as love, which Jesus revealed through His life and death most clearly, is the most important knowledge that humankind can possess, regardless of whether or not it’s proponents and proclaimers are heeding the message very well themselves-IOW regardless of how well it may or may not be lived out by believers at any point in history. The message is important, and the message-the revelation, the light which has entered the world- must be preserved intact and I believe that is Gods’ purpose through the Church. To the extent that the Church, herself, as well as the rest of the world including us as individuals, has become aligned with this standard-His standard of love, then the world is made righteous-we couldn’t help but be at that point, in fact, and harm to one’s neighbor is excluded by that fact. But even those sparse beliefs will find their opponents-they can be controversial even within Christianity.

 

[Nita]

(One is “in the Body of Christ” because of the presence of Sanctifying Grace in their souls - either thru their Baptism or some extraordinary means chosen by God.)

There are a couple of analogiies that I find helpful in seeing how non-Catholic Christians can be both in the Body of Christ and yet separated brethren.

You might compare it to a couple having a child and then for some reason having to place the child in an adoptive or foster care home. The child is still a member or part of your family, but he is “separated” from it - unable to partake of what it offers.

The other comparison that has the most meaning for me is marriage. For me, I compare non-Catholics to those who have gone thru the ceremony, said the vows and been pronounced man and wife, but the marriage has not yet been consummated. Catholicism is a marriage that has been fully consummated - marriage in it’s full expression.
(I see belief in, and reception of the Eucharist especially as the “consummation”. It is full union, body and soul, with Our Lord.)

Comparing Catholicism to other Christian denominations is, for me, like comparing a marriage as yet unconsummated to a marriage that has been consummated.

 

[Atemi]

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?”

Your suspicions are correct.

Brethren in the Lord, by definition, cannot be "separated." They are bound by a familial bond beyond that of any in the flesh.

There are no lesser members in the Body.

Now if the claim is that such brethren are merely not a member of your particular denom, that would make you no less “separated” than they are.

The term “separated brethren” is an oxymoron.

In actuality, if we think about it, many Evangelicals are more the brethren of faithful Catholics than many average Catholics are.

I also want to be able to better articulate why they should consider “coming home” to Catholicism if they are already “in the Body.”

Yes.

One cannot come home if they are already home.

To tell someone to “come home” to the Body of Christ is to judge them outside of the Body of Christ.

This is a major problem. Not discerning the Body is a serious offence.

So much divisiveness in the Body of Christ can be avoided by not alienating recognized brothers and sisters in Christ.

…

 

[fhansen]

Was not the Prodigal Son a separated brethren-still related but not in line with the fathers will? In this case he was way out of line, of course, but the point is that we can recognize a familial relationship while acknowledging the bonds aren’t as strong as they should be.

 

[wisdomseeker]

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.

good point. I am with you on this. At the time of the Apostles, if anyone left the Church they are outside and probably would not be saved.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Was not the Prodigal Son a separated brethren-still related but not in line with the fathers will? In this case he was way out of line, of course, but the point is that we can recognize a familial relationship while acknowledging the bonds aren’t as strong as they should be.

No, he was dead.

 

[Nita]

Was not the Prodigal Son a separated brethren-still related but not in line with the fathers will? In this case he was way out of line, of course, but the point is that we can recognize a familial relationship while acknowledging the bonds aren’t as strong as they should be.

Even tho the brother had left - physically and spiritually - he is still referred to as “brother” when the father speaks of him to his other son.
And the father refers to him as his “son” when he was separated from the family. He may have been dead, but he was still “son”.

Luke 15:32 15:32 It was fitting to make merry and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.’"

Luke 15:24 for this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to make merry.

 

[Califman831]

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

Pope Saint Gregory the Great (A.D. 590 – 604): “Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved.”

Pope Leo XII (A.D. 1823 – 1829): “We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. …For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.’” (Encyclical, Ubi Primum )

 

[Nita]

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

Pope Saint Gregory the Great (A.D. 590 – 604): “Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved.”

Pope Leo XII (A.D. 1823 – 1829): “We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. …For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.’” (Encyclical, Ubi Primum )

That’s why it’s very important to understand what the Church means by being “outside the Catholic Church”. For that we need to check the Catechism and Vatican II documents.

We know the Church doesn’t teach that only members of institutional Catholic Church here on earth can go to heaven. For example, the Church teaches that the water Baptism of other Christian faiths is a valid baptism; it removes the stain of original sin and the life of sanctifying grace is infused into their soul. Now, if they do not commit a mortal sin before they die that would mean they died in the state of sanctifying grace - and the Church teaches that those who die in that state are saved, they are not condemned to hell.

 

[Califman831]

That’s why it’s very important to understand what the Church means by being “outside the Catholic Church”. For that we need to check the Catechism and Vatican II documents.

You can keep the Vatican II documents

 

[Nita]

You can keep the Vatican II documents

I will because they were put forth by the Catholic Church headed by Peter’s successor.

I edited and added another paragraph to my previous post, but not quick enough I guess. I’ll repeat it. Do you agree with what it contains? If not, which parts do you dispute?

We know the Church doesn’t teach that only members of the institutional Catholic Church here on earth can go to heaven. For example, the Church teaches that the water Baptism of other Christian faiths is a valid baptism; it removes the stain of original sin and the life of sanctifying grace is infused into their soul. Now, if they do not commit a mortal sin before they die that would mean they died in the state of sanctifying grace - and the Church teaches that those who die in that state are saved, they are not condemned to hell.

 

[Qoeleth]

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?

Most Catholics did not really ‘choose’ Catholicism- they were born into Catholic families or Catholic countries. It is not really a ‘bother’ to be Catholic, if you already are one. The fact is, the Church is the entire people of God.

 

[Steadfast_love]

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?

I chose Catholicism. I was attracted by the humble piety of those old church ladies who pray silently before mass. I like that Catholic theology is consistant, comprehensive and rigourous, and speaking only for myself, I think that if I had failed to enter into full communion I would have been condemned to hell, rightly, for rejecting God’s grace. I don’t think that’s the case for everyone nor do I think it was the case for me at every point of my life, but I do think that for myself in my current circumstances owe it to God to accept his graces, including the grace of entering into full communion with his Church.

I think the relativism thing should be understood as a caution against rash judgement. You really don’t know what’s going on inside someone’s soul (unless you’re Padre Pio) so you can’t judge when someone has crossed that line.

 

[Atemi]

We know the Church doesn’t teach that only members of institutional Catholic Church here on earth can go to heaven.

This is an important comment.

Is there another Catholic Church which is spoken of in the dogma “outside of the Church there is no salvation”?

…

 

[Rogare]

This is an important comment.

Is there another Catholic Church which is spoken of in the dogma “outside of the Church there is no salvation”?

…

Yes, or how about:

**Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”**

As well as

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:

“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:

“Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:

“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity."

This must be a different Catholic Church than today’s.