Who is My Brother?

[Eden_of_Mind]

I would like to greet all generous Roman Catholics who take the time to read this and respond in kind. I am here neither to condescend nor to stir deep cauldrons of anger nor even necessarily to pin an accusation upon the lapel of the Church you hold dear. That will, as it should, come only as the result of responsible research. At the moment, I am willing and interested to listen to what Roman Catholics themselves have to say on the matter of the following in order to understand their view in their own words…

I admit that, having some familiarity with the history of Christendom, I have been confused in the treatment I have received by Roman Catholics and in the words I have read penned by Roman Catholic authorities. Protestants, are now deemed “separated brethren” and, at the same time, known as “heretics.” I don’t know precisely how this works itself out, though I’m sure someone here could tell me. In either case, this is not the root of the problem I seek to resolve.

In I John 3:13-17 (ESV), the following is revealed:

13 Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you.
14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death.
15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
16 By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers.
17 But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?

Four things I wish to bring to the reader’s attention (to anyone who wishes to be patient with me). First, John explains that it is “the world” that hates those who are of Christ. Second, one important basis of knowing that “we have passed out of death into life” is that “we love the brothers.” Third, those that hate the brethren are counted as murderers and “no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” It is easy, from that, to make the simple logical step to the fact that those who murder the brethren have no eternal life abiding in them, are not of GOD, or any number of phrases which John uses to speak of those who are lost and of “the world” who hates the “brothers.”

Now, I am assuming that, if Protestants are “separated brethren,” today, then we always were so, for however long we’ve existed. That is to say, those men and women of the past who shared the beliefs that distinguish Protestants today were also “separated brethren.” I think it is also clear that many of these “separated brethren” were tortured and/or, finally, murdered by Roman Catholic authorities (Wycliffe, Hus, Tyndale and Cranmer come to mind).

If these men acted with the utter sanction and backing of the Roman Catholic church or its doctrines concerning the proper treatment of heretics–in other words, they were not acting purely on their own–then the Roman Catholic church itself murdered or at least sanctioned the murder of “the brothers” as part of her teaching. Is it not, then, fair to judge that the Roman Catholic church itself, at that time in its history, was not of GOD but of “the world” which hates “the brothers,” according to the Apostle John?

And is it not also a part of Roman Catholic teaching, that the true Church can never fail, even for a moment, even if certain members within it are not followers of Christ? The Church cannot cease to be the Church, even for a moment. The Church, even what we might call the institution of the Church, cannot disappear and become part of “the world” only to later reappear at some other time.

At any rate, my point is simply that it seems that the true church cannot be, as a whole, involved in sanctioning atrocities which even the Bible declares to be the clear mark of the unbelieving world.

To clear away any possible confusion, this difficulty which has pressed itself home within me does not hinge upon the separation of the actions of individuals from the Church itself. The difficulty lies not in individuals but in the sanction of the Church as a whole.

Thank you very much for your patience with me here. I am sincerely seeking to know what Roman Catholics have to say on this and to do the best that I am capable of in fairly evaluating what is given to me.

 

[Genesis315]

Well, first, human beings commit sins.

Second, Protestants, by rejectsing aspects of revealed Truth, are at least material heretics. We now call them seperated brethren because most are born into that state and are therefore not formal heretics.

The Church cannot fail in that the Magesterium cannot teach error regarding faith and morals. The death penalty was and is still not intrinsically evil. You have to put your self in the shoes of those in that time. The spreading of heresies had the potential of putting many souls in eternal danger. Was there a lack of discretion by those who put the heretics death? Now we would say yes, but hind sight is 20/20. The cost of the temporal life of one heretic was not seen as being more than the potential lost souls caused by the spreading of such errors.

The decision regarding who to put to death is not doctrinal therefore not claimed to be infallible.

You also have the wrong impression of the world and what the Church was hating. The world, of whom Satan is prince, hates Truth. The Church was hating the error (non-truth) spread by the heretics. These Protestants were not the “brothers” being mentioned in the passage, but rather they were spreading a false Gospel–we are warned of these types.

I know this all sounds very harsh, but preaching the true Gospel and the salvation of souls are infinitely serious and important matters.

 

[adnauseum]

Eden of Mind:

Wycliffe, Hus, Tyndale and Cranmer come to mind…the Roman Catholic church itself murdered or at least sanctioned the murder of “the brothers” as part of her teaching.

That’s a pretty skimpy summary of the 16th century, my friend.

There was awful bloodshed on all sides. Please, please tell me you are aware of this? You’ve heard of the peasant revolts in Germany, in which Luther personally ordered the wholesale slaughter of tens of thousands?

If any Church that engaged in war is invalid, that pretty much rules us all out.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Thank you very much, Genesis315, for providing me with the insights you have on the matter. I appreciate your time and patience in reading my post. For the sake of understanding better this response (as it does seem to be a common one), I would like to flesh out some of those things that are confusing to me.

The first principle that you laid out was that human beings are fallible, they commit sins. Indeed, they do. However, I think you might have, on this one point, missed what it was that I was concerned about. People do commit sins and I agree that this alone does not tell us whether the institution they profess to be a part of or the religion they profess to believe is right or true. Nor does it reflect well upon that institution to simply point out that many of its professed servants are saintly and righteous. Again, the institution is neither to blame nor worthy of praise for this unless… it advocates or sanctions that holiness or that sin. In that case, it would be worthy of the same praise or blame that the act or that the sinner or saint is worthy of.

It is not merely that there were individuals acting in some individual capacity that concerns me here. It is that the Roman Catholic church itself was behind this, supporting it. How does that reflect upon the church?

But, you did have other arguments. For instance…

Genesis315:

The Church cannot fail in that the Magesterium cannot teach error regarding faith and morals. The death penalty was and is still not intrinsically evil. You have to put your self in the shoes of those in that time. The spreading of heresies had the potential of putting many souls in eternal danger. Was there a lack of discretion by those who put the heretics death? Now we would say yes, but hind sight is 20/20. The cost of the temporal life of one heretic was not seen as being more than the potential lost souls caused by the spreading of such errors.

This is an important point. I do, by the way, agree that “the Church” cannot fail but I think it a little forwarrd to equate “the Church” and its incapacity to fail with “the Magisterium.” For you, I undestand, it is not too forward. It is just the way things are. However, that is the very thing at issue here and, before I can know that “the Magisterium” does, in fact, possess the authority of heaven, I must be able to reconcile the actions of that same “Magisterium” in history toward those it deems among “the brothers.”

Now, you have said that we need to put ourselves in their shoes. In order to understand their motive, I should, yes. But, then, the LORD through His Apostle does not ask us to relegate His statement to the background and decide that the people or the church that murders members of the brethren are not guilty of His accusation and censure because they believed themselves to have had the best of intentions (even if we know now that they did not).

If the Protestants are “separated brethren” today, then they always were, whether they preached material heresy or not (again, this strange conclusion is not mine but that which is currently taught by that same Magisterium). If they are among those who ought to be counted as “brethren,” then they are also included in John’s statement about “the brethren,” which does not seem to exclude certain “kinds” of brethren. To murder them, our LORD seems to be stating, is a clear sign the guilty party or institution is not of GOD for they are murderers, not merely rightful authorities carrying out just sentences of capital punishment. If these were just sentences of capital punishment, then the current Magisterium would see this as the appropriate response to the same spread of material heresy, today. It does not. By implication, the past actions were condemned as wrong. If they were wrong, does it not follow that the church sanctioning them was guilty of error and atrocity, whether they believed themselves to be serving the good or not?

But, you have more to add…

The decision regarding who to put to death is not doctrinal therefore not claimed to be infallible.

Quite right. The question of whom to put to death may not be a doctrinal matter or a matter of “faith and morals” (it would seem to be) but that is not what I am quibbling about. The question of whether the brethren, under any circumstances, should be put to death is. It must be a doctrinal matter because it is clearly addressed in Scripture as such.

I know this all sounds very harsh, but preaching the true Gospel and the salvation of souls are infinitely serious and important matters.

No, I understand. I think that discipline in the Church is extremely important. The question is simply whether murder is part of the discipline ascribed by our LORD or whether such is inconsistent with the teachings we have been given.

Again, thank you for your response and the time you’ve granted me.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

I also want to thank you adnauseum for taking the time to respond.

In answer to your statement, yes, I am familiar somewhat with the atrocities of people claiming to be on all sides. But, there are two important things to consider. First, Luther’s actions are not a reflection on any “church” or upon Protestantism because he is not a Pope nor does he represent Protestants or any Protestant church (save, perhaps, for the Lutheran church in some sense). Protestantism is not centrally located in an institution such as Roman Catholicism seems to be. The Church is Rome, it is the Magisterium, according to Roman Catholicism. Protestants have never believed that Luther is the Church.

What he did in mixing in political affairs was wrong. I can admit that just as I can admit that King David was wrong to take another man’s wife and have the husband subtly murdered. But what has that to do with me?

If Rome errs (I appreciate that you do not believe it ever has or will), that has everything to do with Roman Catholics.

 

[JimG]

Capital punishment for heresy, while objectionable to us, was not objectionable to those of prior ages, whether Catholic or Protestant. And captial punishment authorized by the state is not considered “murder,” in any case. Catholics were executed in England by the state because being Catholic was considered treasonable to the Crown. Persecution? Yes. Murder, no. Even Thomas More got due process of law. Although by our standards such episodes were entirely unjustified, they were not the equivalent of a lynch mob.

 

[TeriGator]

Eden of Mind:

If Rome errs (I appreciate that you do not believe it ever has or will), that has everything to do with Roman Catholics.

Only if that error was committed under the ostensible claim of infallibility. Since all popes are human, and not all things that they utter are guaranteed to be free of human error, you cannot make a blanket statement that when a pope (i.e. “Rome”) errs, the Church has erred. Even St. Peter made mistakes, yet Christ told him that he was to “feed my sheep” and gave him the keys of the kingdom and considerable power (binding and loosing.)

Of course, this brings up that whole sticky issue (sticky at least for non-Catholics) of what constitutes an infallible pronouncement and what does not. In other words, what rulings from Rome or the Magesterium are covered in Christ’s promise that “what you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven?”

I apologize in advance for the fact that I do not have the time to delve further into that subject at this time.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Thank you, JimG, for your thoughts on the subject. If I may, I would like to offer them the time and attention they deserve and perhaps you can help me the see what it is you are saying…

JimG:

Capital punishment for heresy, while objectionable to us, was not objectionable to those of prior ages, whether Catholic or Protestant. And captial punishment authorized by the state is not considered “murder,” in any case. Catholics were executed in England by the state because being Catholic was considered treasonable to the Crown. Persecution? Yes. Murder, no. Even Thomas More got due process of law. Although by our standards such episodes were entirely unjustified, they were not the equivalent of a lynch mob.

I want to clarify that I do not object to what the Roman Catholic sanctioned on the simple grounds that it was “capital punishment” and therefore bad. I do not object to capital punishment in itself. What I am objecting to is the sanctioning of the torture (which is not capital punishment) and killing of those whom the Magisterium now, in this day, sees fit to call “seperated brethren.”

Given the logic of I John 3 in which the brethren are to be loved in deed and not merely in word, given the LORD’s sweeping denial of those who do not love the brethren but who kill them instead, it would seem that any Church which advocated the same was not of GOD. You may suggest that the State is not to blame for exercizing capital punishment–although you would be hard pressed to defend this against the exampes of GOD’s anger against those nations who exercised “capital punishment” against His people in Scripture–but the Roman Catholic church cannot use “capital punishment” as its own defense. For the Church, to advocate the death of the saints (in a Pauline sense of the word), the brethren, is murder for, according to I John, this is not to love the brethren but to hate them. Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer.

Are there really any legitimate grounds upon which the Roman Catholic Church may rightfully sanction the killing of any member of the brethren? If for heresy, then why does it not sanction this today. The Protestants have not fundamentally changed their doctrinal perspectives and many are more hostile to the Roman Catholic church than ever. I am not aware that the Roman Catholic church sanctions their death, today. It seems that, by denying this to be right, today, they deny this to be a good thing at any time in history. Nothing has changed. Protestants are still preaching the same “heresies.”

Obviously the true Church could never cease to be the true Church at any point in history, ergo, the Roman Catholic church would not seem to be the true Church. Now, I am not arrogant enough to think that no one has thought of this objection before. I am just seeking to understand what sort of answers (particularly the strongest) have been given to this dilemma and I appreciate your offer of a possible resolution.

As for the question of what England did or the Church of England, I leave that to the Church of England to answer for. I personally think that the very atrocity you mentioned was an evil. Yet, not being part of the Church of England, I have no right to answer for her.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

This is a most important subject and I thank you for bringing it up, TeriGator. You are quite right to say that a person or even a body of authorities are representative of the whole Roman church only if they claim to be infallible. However, this is precisely my problem…

I never once mentioned a Pope or the actions of any Pope. If I tried tying all this to the activity of a single man, it would seem to have little to do with the Roman Catholic church itself. I could say, with you, that this was an atrocity, to be sure, committed by a single individual. This is just as true concerning godly men. They don’t reflect their golden rays back upon the throne of Peter, either. This is merely the activity of a single man.

On the other hand, the Roman Catholic church was involved in torturing and burning heretics, particularly heretics now said to have been “seperated brethren” and not unbelievers, for almost a thousand years. I would say that the church’s general policy of dealing with heretics for that long would be counted as infallible practice. That seems to be the foundation of more modern dogmatic proclamations… historic practice of the Roman Catholic Church.

Please, however, feel welcome to return and give me more of your thoughts on this subject, when you can.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

To all those who read my initial post, because of the responses I’ve received, I think it must be pointed out that our LORD through the Apostle John states clearly that we ought to lay our own lives down for the brethren, just as Christ laid His life down for us (I John 3:16).

In light of this bold command, what shall we say of a Church (not just individuals but an institution) that sanctions the opposite? That sanctions not sacrifice for those it calls “brethren” but the killing of them?

 

[StCsDavid]

I do believe Pope John Paul II apologized for many of the abuses in the church on behalf of the church. I do believe we have repented as I am unaware of any further abuse such as what you described. How long will you hold the sins of our fathers against us? To say you remain outside the faith because of past transgressions is counter to the mesage of Christ. What if Christ held your sins against you forever?

Why wouldn’t you want Christ to be actually present in the Eucharist? Why wouldn’t you want to live with Christ not just in the hereafter, but to be with you each and every day? Why wouldn’t you want to be able to go to Christ and confess your sins and receive His grace? Do you deny yourself these gifts because of the sins of those who lived so many hundreds of years ago? Despite some of the wrongs that did happen, the fundamental tenets of the Church Christ gave to humanity have never changed. The mass I go to every day is virtually the same mass that our first Christians attended.

Since our fathers are dead, let me ask on their behalf for your forgiveness. I ask for your forgiveness with all humilty. Forgive me, and come home. Whatever wrong you feel that has been committed against you we can work out. The beauty and the grace you can have are too important to deny yourself over these grudges. Come home, and let us rejoice together.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

StDavid, I appreciate all that you are trying to offer me. If it were simply a matter of personal forgiveness, it would not be difficult for me to give. The Roman Catholic church has not technically done me any wrong and I think it is clear that the Rome of today is not the Rome of yesterday and does not share the same convictions with the church who commanded to be burned so many countless thousands who are now called “separated brethren.”

I am told by my LORD (who is first and foremost) that His people do not have each other killed. I am told that His family does not butcher its own adopted members. Princes of the house of GOD, “separated” though they may be, as well as their wives and children, have been slaughtered, many for the pettiest of “crimes” (such as carrying a Bible in a tongue which Roman Catholics enjoy freely today) and must I submit to the claim that all this was done at the hands of Christ’s humblest representatives on earth, those whom He said should lay down their own lives in sacrifice for the very same blood they indiscriminately spilt instead?

Is Rome the church of the legacy of Cain? Rome seems to answer with the voice of Cain, asking, “Was I, back then, my brother’s keeper?” And, if the church accepts responsibility for evil, as I think John Paul II sincerely did in Rome’s stead, what then? Can it still cling to claims of being the “pillar and ground of truth,” upheld by the Spirit and prevailed not upon by the gates of hell?

All my forgiveness, even my complete submission to the service of Rome, cannot give Rome any real authority. How I feel about the Eucharist or how I feel about Christ and a relationship with Him cannot change the reality of things. All Rome can give any of us is an answer which justifies. Instead, we have had an admittance to wrongdoing. Good for John Paul II. It takes some courage to admit a wrong. Nevertheless, in light of that admittance, isn’t it clear what follows?

Perhaps you can explain to me why all this is not quite so clear as it seems.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Eden of Mind:

I am here neither to condescend nor to stir deep cauldrons of anger nor even necessarily to pin an accusation upon the lapel of the Church you hold dear.

Oh, go ahead. We’re used to it.

Seriously, though, welcome to the Forums. Stick around and one day we’ll be welcoming you to the Church!

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

To StDavid… I want to say that I’ve thought further about some things you said and I want you to know that they were important to me. Here are some of the things that struck me as I contemplated what you’ve said and I ask you to take them as they are.

I said that Rome has spoken before, even here in the mouths of others, with the voice of Cain. StDavid, if only Rome had consistently spoken instead as you have spoken to me, calling so many “separated brethren” home instead of burning them alive with their children, what a different reflection that would have cast on the waters of history… Oh, there were many who did, quite apart from the general policy, and may the LORD forever remember their higher loyalty. But, just as the shadiest of Pope’s cannot by his grossest immorality supposedly stain even the tiniest fringe of the glorious garment of the Roman church, the brilliant radiance of the brightest saint cannot raise the reputation of his church even a single inch. When both have long since passed from this world, Rome remains what it is. And is it not indicative of something shameful that you (and others) are perhaps more faithful to Christ’s people than your church itself has been in much of its past?

I do not intend to hurt you here but to speak honestly about something demanding all our honesty. Thank you for hearing me.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Eden of Mind:

But, just as the shadiest of Pope’s cannot by his grossest immorality supposedly stain even the tiniest fringe of the glorious garment of the Roman church, the brilliant radiance of the brightest saint cannot raise the reputation of his church even a single inch.

But the difference is… the sinful Pope is acting *contrary *to what the Church teaches. The Saint is acting in harmony with Church teaching. It’s odd to judge an institution by those who do NOT honor its teachings, instead of those who uphold the teachings.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

DavidFilmer:

But the difference is… the sinful Pope is acting *contrary *to what the Church teaches. The Saint is acting in harmony with Church teaching. It’s odd to judge an institution by those who do NOT honor its teachings, instead of those who uphold the teachings.

You are entirely correct, Mr. Filmer. This is surely the fairest way to evaluate the relationship between an institution or an idea or a religion and the followers of each. That is precisely why the activity for many centuries of the Roman Catholic authorities in attempting to decimate the ranks of heretics now identified as “separated brethren” is a reflection upon the Roman Catholic church itself because all this activity for so long was quite in line with her teachings for over a thousand years (from Pelagius to Giordano Bruno) and, in regards to those now known as “separated brethren” for almost a thousand years.

You have thought clearly on the matter of the right basis for evaluating the institution itself and I personally think what you have said provides good grounds for judging the Roman Catholic church and not merely a group of men to have been, in her past, guilty of standing with the enemies of certain parts of Christ’s family, which our precious LORD Himself even said was contrary to the actions of His faithful in I John 3:13-17.

If she were Christ’s Church, then she ought to have laid down her life for the brethren, as John declares, and love them in deed, not have them executed, which is the very opposite of what that blessed Apostle taught and, according to his teaching (not mine) demonstrates that the nature of such a “church” that would do this is one of worldliness and spiritual death. The church and the people involved are, according to John, not of GOD precisely because the people burning the brethren, separated though they may be, we sanctioned by the teachings of that church.

Let me give a hypothetical illustration that I think might help everyone here understand my difficulty. If historians uncovered that the Mormons once had sovereign control of a certain territory and passed a law and took it upon themselves to suddenly execute a series of Roman Catholics who had been trying to live peaceably and according to their faith and to share it with others, it might be possible to conclude, in one sense, that the Mormons were acting justly *according to the laws of their little province and their church at the time]/I], yet I don’t think a single person on this server would believe that there was anything truly just about this disgusting act. I certainly wouldn’t.

If, today, after learning of this sordid detail in Mormon history, the Mormon church apologized for this to every living Roman Catholic, the Roman Catholics (quite apart from other doctrinal differences) would have every reason, even if they accepted the apology heartily, to say that this single event alone in the history of the Mormon church of brutalizing those of the household of GOD, demonstrates that their church is false. It is not GOD’s church.

In the history of the Roman Catholic church, this event did not occur once or twice or ten times or a thousand times but countless times for a thousand years. However many times the blood of Christ’s brethren stained the ground, the Roman Catholic church itself, and not a group of renegade Roman Catholic authorities, was guilty. If I am to be consistent and fair (for I would certainly charge the same of the Mormons in the hypothetical example), should I not assujme that the Roman Catholic church has proven itself to be a false church by her deeds toward the brethren whom this church ought to have loved?

If not, then I am still more than happy to listen patiently to anyone’s attempted resolution to this problem. I don’t personally see how anyone could come to a different conclusion, but I don’t think my own reasoning is necessarily irrefutable. I will continue to seek the strongest and fairest and most thoughtful responses. Any response, however, I think must be fair to those, like John Paul II, who personally believed that there was a problem which the church itself should apologize for.*

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Perhaps there are resources that one might turn to with explanations that actually go into the particular problems I’m having? An article on Catholic Answers (which I’ve been unable to locate)?

 

[JimG]

Eden of Mind:

On the other hand, the Roman Catholic church was involved in torturing and burning heretics, particularly heretics now said to have been “seperated brethren” and not unbelievers, for almost a thousand years.

It sounds as though your problem may have to do with some serious historical misinformation as well as misunderstandings of history. You might want to start with this book:

How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, by Thomas E. Woods.
amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260387/qid=1124214379/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-2911300-4028902?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

I appreciate the resource, JimG, and I’ll see about getting a copy (probably by inter-library loan). But, in all fairness, if your basic concern is that I am in error on certain details (which is debatable), the point I’ve made does not require that there be a specific number of executions or live burnings which the Roman Catholic church sanctioned. The church did sanction them and often ordered them and this way of dealing with those now known as “separated brethren” was a widely known policy.

I’ll ask you this question. Where do we find, during that extensive period, the Roman Catholic church lifting up its voice in defense of these “separated brethren” and opposing their execution? This, for instance, would be an important fact to know. The church, in so far as I know, was in agreement with the practice and the practice of burning alive these men and women and children was not contrary to the Roman Catholic church’s teachings.

In that sense, as you have kindly directed me toward a possible resolution, that these facts are not straight, you must personally know (or have in mind) where the correction of my errors would resolve my problem. It is obvously not enough to correct a few facts irrelevant to the crux of this difficulty, facts which would not change the central issue. Something particularly important is being missed (by me).

If you know already what that is, could you at least give me a brief explanation, in part to help me know what precisely you intend and what to look for in the work you have prescribed? I don’t want to miss the answer if it’s right under my nose as I have apparently been missing it through all my own study.

 

[JimG]

You had referred to “1000 years” of torturing “separated brethern.” Since there were no “seperated brethren,” i.e. protestants, until the start of the reformation in the 1500’s, it seems to me that some historical perspective is in order.