Who is My Brother?

[Eden]

Eden of Mind:

She is not a whore.

Please put down the Dave Hunt and read a counterbalance:

catholic.com/library/Whore_of_Babylon.asp

catholic.com/library/Hunting_the_Whore_of_Babylon.asp

ewtn.com/expert/answers/whore_of_babylon.htm

cin.org/users/james/files/huntwhor.htm

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Eden:

Firstly, the whole premise of the Reformation was that the true Church *had become corrupt *and needed to be reformed.

I think I see what you mean. Well, here we disagree. The Reformation was, initially, concerned with reform of an institution that the Reformers thought was the “true Church.” Nevertheless, after delving deeper into the issues, they came to the conclusion that the true Church had not been corrupted but that the Roman Catholic church they were dealing with was not the true Church of GOD but an institution that had come to power in Christ’s name and was not itself authoritative. In other words, it was not the Church of Christ. Indeed, their eschatology famously characterized Rome as the great Harlot atop the Beast.

When you grow up in a church, there is some resistance to breaking away from it altogether. That is why the process was not immediate.

If the Catholic Church (which Protestants admit was the true Church of Jesus Christ before Luther’s revolt). . .

What “Protestants” are these and why haven’t they joined with Rome and tried to help reform her from within? If Rome really were the true Church of Christ, then they would have no right to leave.

Catholics refuse to concede such a thing out of faith in Jesus Christ.

Well, thus far it seems that Roman Catholics refuse to concede such a thing out of faith in their interpretation of what Jesus Christ said and did, as well as their interpretation of history.

Christ solemnly pledged that the gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church (Matt. 16:18), and He solemnly promised that after His Ascension into Heaven He would send His Church another Paraclete . . . the spirit of truth,'' to dwell with it forever (John 14:16-17), and He inspired the Apostle Paul to describe His Church as the pillar and ground of the truth.’’ (I Tim. 3:15).

Amen.

Catholics cannot in conscience believe that [Christ] could be guilty of such deception.

No, indeed. Any “Christian” who believes Christ to have deceived anyone or to have erred is no brother of mine.

The so-called bloody Inquisitions from which of our Inquisition imagery comes today were initiated by the civil governments of France and Spain for the purpose of ferreting out Moslems and Jews who were causing social havoc by posing as faithful Catholic citizens–even as priests and bishops–were indeed approved by the Church.

This is a rather poor rewrite of history. I’m sorry but the great weight of the testimony of that time and most of current scholarship is not with you, at least not in the way you emphasize certain facts and exclude a great deal else besides. Are you really suggesting that this was the reason they were burning Protestants, because they couldn’t tell them from Muslims and they wouldn’t put it to an easy test? All that the Protestant Christian would need do is deny Allah, to deny the Jewish faith. I must say that this is really poor stuff…

I’m also quite surprised to hear you suggesting that the Church was right to sanction the burning of Jews and Muslims who were posing as Christians. Does the Church still sanction such things today? If not, would that be an admission of past error?

It should be obvious that the Catholic Church did not fall into error during the Middle Ages as some people allege, for if she had, she could not have produced those hundreds of medieval saints.

It is not the Roman church but Christ who produces such people and, if that is the basis of an argument for the legitimacy of a church, then the Protestants have quite a few lovely examples of devoted followers of our LORD. Does that make our teachings on the Church correct?

In the end, the Church believed they were dealing with the devil here. If you felt that the devil had a stronghold on the Church and on truth, would you hand the devil over to secular authorities to be dealt with even if that meant extinguishing the devil by fire?

That’s the strangest question I’ve ever received… and, indirectly, it has already been covered. You may have not had time to read the quote I gave below from the Catholic Encyclopedia online about the infallibility of the true Church. If Rome cannot distinguish between Christ’s people and the Devil, then Rome is not infallible and is not of Christ.

"Who is My Brother?"

That is a most fundamental question of doctrine.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Eden:

Please put down the Dave Hunt and read a counterbalance:

Oh, good grief. Please, put down the stereotype. I guarantee that you cannot dislike Dave Hunt’s work more than I do. I am not a Dispensationalist who thinks that the Roman Catholic church will be the whore of Babylon… and even if I did, it would hardly have to be because I read Dave Hunt.

I do not believe that Rome is the whore of Babylon. I was not even making an eschatological reference. I was making a reference to the Biblical analogy of sin and idolatry to a spiritual whoring, such as one finds in the Old Testament references to Israel’s sins.

If Rome is a false church and has sinned, then Rome cannot be the true Bride, not because Rome is some sort of “whore of Babylon” but because the Bride does not kill the children of the Father and does not betray the Bridegroom (i.e., whoring according to the OT analogy).

Sigh…

 

[esr]

Eden of Mind- my brother in Christ,

What is the true Church of Christ? Based upon your posts, it appears that you believe, and you are trying to get us to believe, that it is not the Catholic Church. If it is not, as you say, then what is?

I have read most of the posts on this thread because it did cause me to think. But, I have to thank Eden’s post #91 for making it clear to me what I knew in my heart to be true- the Catholic Church is the Church founded by our Lord. I am anxiously waiting for your response to that post.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Shiann:

Again, I apologize for jumping in again, after you quieted our discussion, but I just wished to clarify a few points which seemed to be derived from our discussion.

God speed to you on your intellectual journeys…

No, please, Shiann. I am sincerely grateful that you’ve returned and offered your reasoned response. I am getting two major perspectives in answer to this now and I want to think through both of them.

If you don’t mind, I’ve been at this for many hours and I have had a headache that won’t go away. I don’t want to make a lot of mistakes or write or reason poorly, so if you will be patient with me, I’m going to drop offline for a while… and get back to this later.

Please, anyone who wishes to contribute, I encourage you to do so. I will read i allt, just a bit later…

 

[Kristina_P]

I’m not yet a Roman Catholic, but I’ll take a stab at this one. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong.
First, your premise is in error: Protestants may now be considered “separated brethren,” because most of us have been born into this tradition and probably don’t know better. The heretics that the Church put to death in the past knowingly denied the authority of Christ’s Church and would not have then been called “brethren.”
Second, you claim that the fact they were put to death is evidence that the Church hated Her brethren. I would say that the Church officials at the time saw only two choices: “love” these heretics by allowing them to live and lead others into Hell, or “love” God’s children by putting an end to the heresies. In hindsight, were there other “loving” alternatives? It’s possible, but it isn’t for us to judge what was in the heart of someone else. Also, the New Testament speaks often of shunning heretics and even turning them over to Satan, out of love for both the heretic and the members of the Church (1 Cor. 5:5, 1 Tim. 1:20).

 

[Eden]

You ask “Who is my Brother?” I tell you that anyone who has been declared anathema by the Church is not my brother in Christ.

You ask, If the the Church cannot distinguish between Christ’s people and the devil, than can the Church be infallible and of Christ? I tell you the Church created the Inquisition for just that purpose; to distinguish the difference between a person accused by the state of heresy who was heretical and someone who was simply a lost soul. That is what the article that I gave you illustrates. The Church created the Inquisition because only the Church, not the secular authorities had the knowledge to determine true heresy.

Here are key passages from the article that posted about earlier:

"The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly. Heresy was a crime against the state.

Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw them as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath. When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig or damaged shrubbery (really, it was a serious crime in England). Yet in contrast to those crimes, it was not so easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. For starters, one needed some basic theological training — something most medieval lords sorely lacked. The result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent assessment of the validity of the charge.
The Catholic Church’s response to this problem was the Inquisition, first instituted by Pope Lucius III in 1184. It was born out of a need to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges. From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.

As this new report confirms, most people accused of heresy by the Inquisition were either acquitted or their sentences suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ. The underlying assumption of the Inquisition was that, like lost sheep, heretics had simply strayed. If, however, an inquisitor determined that a particular sheep had purposely left the flock, there was nothing more that could be done. Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to secular authorities. Despite popular myth, the Inquisition did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense, not the Church. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.

During the 13th century the Inquisition became much more formalized in its methods and practices. Highly trained Dominicans answerable to the Pope took over the institution, creating courts that represented the best legal practices in Europe. As royal authority grew during the 14th century and beyond, control over the Inquisition slipped out of papal hands and into those of kings. Instead of one Inquisition there were now many. Despite the prospect of abuse, monarchs like those in Spain and France generally did their best to make certain that their inquisitions remained both efficient and merciful. During the 16th century, when the witch craze swept Europe, it was those areas with the best-developed inquisitions that stopped the hysteria in its tracks. In Spain and Italy, trained inquisitors investigated charges of witches’ sabbaths and baby roasting and found them to be baseless. Elsewhere, particularly in Germany, secular or religious (Protestant) courts burned witches by the thousands.

nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp

 

[Eden]

You ask how a Church can be the true Church if it “murders” heretics (which I pointed out is not true). So now you ask how the Church can be true if it turns heretics over to the secular authorities to be judged and possibly sentenced to death. Yet you agree that making heretics anathema is Scriptural. St. Paul tells us "“If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that you have received, let him be anathema” (Gal.1:9).

Heretics are spiritual poison. We were warned about these false prophets in Matt. 24:11, 23-26, Luke 11:23, Matt. 28:17, Mark 16:16, Gal. 1:9, 2 Peter 2: 1-22 and 2 Cor. 10:4-6.

Do you not believe the Church should have acted against heresy at all? I disagree considering that heresy is a grave sin against our Lord.

“The role of heresy in history is that of evil generally. Its roots are in corrupted human nature. It has come over the Church as predicted by her Divine Founder. The prevalence of heresy, however, does not disprove the Divinity of the Church, any more than the existence of evil disproves the existence of an all-good God. Heresy, like other evils, is permitted as a test of faith and a trial of strength in the Church militant. The disruption and disintegration of heretical sects also furnishes a solid argument for the necessity of a strong teaching authority. The endless controversies with heretics have been indirectly the cause of most important doctrinal developments and definitions formulated in councils to the edification of the body of Christ. Thus the spurious gospels of the Gnostics prepared the way for the canon of Scripture; Patripassian, Sabellian, Arian, and Macedonian heresies drew out a clearer concept of the Trinity; the Nestorian and Eutychian errors led to definite dogmas on the nature and Person of Christ. And so down to Modernism, which has called forth a solemn assertion of the claims of the supernatural in history.” Source: defide.com/heresy.html

 

[StCsDavid]

Eden of Mind:

The answer to my initial question, “Who is my brother?” is a crucial and fundamental doctrine and matter of faith. Here the Roman church failed and for that many good people whom Christ purchased with His blood and were His perished. Also, because of this, the Name of Christ before the world was slandered (and still is today) and the cause of Christ was hindered.

This will sound harsher than I really intend, but don’t you believe it’s a little arrogant on your part to presume that man could hinder the cause of Christ? Do you believe that man could really thwart Christ’s plans? How do we know that Christ didn’t intend the Church to fail in the ways you believe so it could learn from its own mistakes?

Did not God say, “My ways are not your ways…your thoughts are not my thoughts?”

I have read most of your posts and have concluded that you want a church that conforms to YOU. Your life, my friend, is not about you. Christ said many times we had to die to ourselves. Your search for the true Church will never end until you open your heart instead of barricading it with intellectual treatises. The fact that you have set such an impossible criteria in order to accept what you believe is the true church only reveals your fear of the unknowable. You have made the church you seek so unknowable that you can live with the peace of mind that at least you’re trying to find the answer…safe in the knowlege that you tried.

I heard this analogy the other day. Do you know why Christ reveals himself to us in the bread and wine of the Eucharist? Because if he revealed himself as He is, we would be too ashamed of our selves and our failings to ever approach Him.

I pray for you and your search. I believe you are sincere…just perhaps a wee bit absorbed in the importance of your logic. Logic can only take you so far.

I hope I haven’t insulted you…I just kind of see you fighting the obvious…as you probably see me.

 

[Eden]

Regarding your response to my history of the Inquisition in post #91, where did I say in that post anything about the burning of Jews and Muslims or the Church sanctioning it?

You asked

Are you really suggesting that this was the reason they were burning Protestants, because they couldn’t tell them from Muslims and they wouldn’t put it to an easy test?

The “test” you are looking for that the Church seemingly did not perform is called the “Inquisition”. You are both condemning the “inquiry” and wondering where it was at the same time.

Again the Church did not burn anyone. The Church turned those who were determined to be heretics over to secular authorities who then tried and sentenced the person.

I don’t know how you read into my post that I was saying Protestants were sentenced to die because the Church could not tell the difference between Protestants and Muslims!?

Protestants were not the only heretics. It appears that you believe “heretic” to simply be a euphemism for “Protestant”. Heresy existed long before Luther, Hus, Calvin, et. al. Here is more from the article on the Inquisition (which is more historically accurate as the Inquisitions):

"When most people think of the Inquisition today what they are really thinking of is the Spanish Inquisition. No, not even that is correct. They are thinking of the myth of the Spanish Inquisition. Amazingly, before 1530 the Spanish Inquisition was widely hailed as the best run, most humane court in Europe. There are actually records of convicts in Spain purposely blaspheming so that they could be transferred to the prisons of the Spanish Inquisition. After 1530, however, the Spanish Inquisition began* to turn its attention to the** new** heresy of Lutheranism*. It was the Protestant Reformation and the rivalries it spawned that would give birth to the myth.
By the mid 16th century, Spain was the wealthiest and most powerful country in Europe. Europe’s Protestant areas, including the Netherlands, northern Germany, and England, may not have been as militarily mighty, but they did have a potent new weapon: the printing press. Although the Spanish defeated Protestants on the battlefield, they would lose the propaganda war. These were the years when the famous “Black Legend” of Spain was forged. Innumerable books and pamphlets poured from northern presses accusing the Spanish Empire of inhuman depravity and horrible atrocities in the New World. Opulent Spain was cast as a place of darkness, ignorance, and evil.

Protestant propaganda that took aim at the Spanish Inquisition drew liberally from the Black Legend. But it had other sources as well. From the beginning of the Reformation, Protestants had difficulty explaining the 15-century gap between Christ’s institution of His Church and the founding of the Protestant churches. Catholics naturally pointed out this problem, accusing Protestants of having created a new church separate from that of Christ. Protestants countered that their church was the one created by Christ, but that it had been forced underground by the Catholic Church. Thus, just as the Roman Empire had persecuted Christians, so its successor, the Roman Catholic Church, continued to persecute them throughout the Middle Ages. Inconveniently, there were no Protestants in the Middle Ages, yet Protestant authors found them there anyway in the guise of various medieval heretics. In this light, the medieval Inquisition was nothing more than an attempt to crush the hidden, true church. The Spanish Inquisition, still active and extremely efficient at keeping Protestants out of Spain, was for Protestant writers merely the latest version of this persecution. Mix liberally with the Black Legend and you have everything you need to produce tract after tract about the hideous and cruel Spanish Inquisition. And so they did.

In time, Spain’s empire would fade away. Wealth and power shifted to the north, in particular to France and England. By the late 17th century new ideas of religious tolerance were bubbling across the coffeehouses and salons of Europe. Inquisitions, both Catholic and Protestant, withered. The Spanish stubbornly held on to theirs, and for that they were ridiculed. French philosophes like Voltaire saw in Spain a model of the Middle Ages: weak, barbaric, superstitious. The Spanish Inquisition, already established as a bloodthirsty tool of religious persecution, was derided by Enlightenment thinkers as a brutal weapon of intolerance and ignorance.* A new, fictional Spanish Inquisition had been constructed, designed by the enemies of Spain and the Catholic Church.*

 

[Eden]

Eden of Mind:

Nevertheless, after delving deeper into the issues, they came to the conclusion that the true Church had not been corrupted but that the Roman Catholic church they were dealing with was not the true Church of GOD but an institution that had come to power in Christ’s name and was not itself authoritative. In other words, it was not the Church of Christ.

Really? I wonder why they called it the “Reformation”? I wonder why they “reformed” and “protested” rather than just joining that “underground and real” church that always existed? Then they would have been historically the “Rejoiners”. Why create Lutheranism or Calvinism or the Hutterites when you already have the true Church hidden in the shadows to resurrect?

The answer, of course, is that the idea of the “hidden, true” church is simply untrue. Since the Catholic Church was the only Christian Church in the West until the 16th century and you say that the “true church” was hidden, we have a problem. Remember this: Jesus said his Church would be “the light of the world.” He then noted that “a city set on a hill cannot be hid” (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization- always. The true church couldn’t have been hidden all those years by the big Catholic Church who was keeping the “true” Church underground for 1500 years.

What “Protestants” are these and why haven’t they joined with Rome and tried to help reform her from within?

I was referring to the original “Protestants”; Martin Luther and his followers. They were very clear that they were leaving the true Church. They were “protesting” against and “reforming” the true Church. They believed it had become corrupted. Some Lutherans today refer to themselves as “Reformed Catholic”. Martin Luther had no doubt about it:

``We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all" - Martin Luther in his commentary on St. John

It is not the Roman church but Christ who produces such people (saints)

Exactly - Christ through His Church transforms those who open themselves to His will into saints!

and, if that is the basis of an argument for the legitimacy of a church, then the Protestants have quite a few lovely examples of devoted followers of our LORD. Does that make our teachings on the Church correct?

While I believe that Protestants encounter Christ in their faiths and love him, I do not believe that they can experience His fullness anywhere but in His Church where all of the Sacraments, Tradition and Scripture are intact.

If Rome cannot distinguish between Christ’s people and the Devil, then Rome is not infallible and is not of Christ.

I never said that heretics were Christ’s people. They most assuredly have been deceived by the devil.

There was a lot to get through in these posts and I have probably missed something. But I have more questions for you. I have seen nothing to indicate that the infallibility of the Church is nullified by the existence of the Inquisition and your original argument that the Church burned heretics has been proven erroneous. These were your original arguments that the Catholic Church is not the Church established by Christ. You have not convinced me that my belief that it is is in error.

I’m wondering. What do you think* is* the Church established by Christ? When do you believe the Catholic Church was founded? What is *your *church? You did not share the name before. I assume from your statement that your church “does not have a bloody history” that you believe your church is the true church. If you believe it is the true Church it should not “be hid”.

 

[penntar]

I am Catholic. We who are believers in the One True God are the Body of Christ. All parts of the Body have their place; how can we say one who is not Catholic is not our brother?

 

[mercygate]

Kristina P.:

I’m not yet a Roman Catholic, but I’ll take a stab at this one. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong.
First, your premise is in error: Protestants may now be considered “separated brethren,” because most of us have been born into this tradition and probably don’t know better. The heretics that the Church put to death in the past knowingly denied the authority of Christ’s Church and would not have then been called “brethren.”
Second, you claim that the fact they were put to death is evidence that the Church hated Her brethren. I would say that the Church officials at the time saw only two choices: “love” these heretics by allowing them to live and lead others into Hell, or “love” God’s children by putting an end to the heresies. In hindsight, were there other “loving” alternatives? It’s possible, but it isn’t for us to judge what was in the heart of someone else. Also, the New Testament speaks often of shunning heretics and even turning them over to Satan, out of love for both the heretic and the members of the Church (1 Cor. 5:5, 1 Tim. 1:20).

Kristina! Go to the head of the class! All this lengthy thread, all this back-and-forth, and you summed it up perfectly in just 165 words. Bravissima!

 

[CorneliusBottom]

I apologize for arriving so late in the game. This is my first post at these forums, so greetings to all of you! I’ll state out front that I am not a Roman Catholic, and I sympathize with Eden of Mind’s reasoning, and that he has given such a great example of courtesy to those with whom he disagrees (as have all of you, as far as I can tell) that I can only hope to do the same. If I offend anyone with the terminology I use (I know that certain terms are thorny with Protestants and Catholics alike), please know that it is only out of ignorance, and not out of malice. I hope that I will accept correction if I err.

StCsDavid:

This will sound harsher than I really intend, but don’t you believe it’s a little arrogant on your part to presume that man could hinder the cause of Christ? Do you believe that man could really thwart Christ’s plans? How do we know that Christ didn’t intend the Church to fail in the ways you believe so it could learn from its own mistakes?

I believe that you’ve taken Eden of Mind’s question to be something it is not. I don’t think that Eden of Mind is saying that men can thwart Christ’s plans, but that if a certain institution claims to be the True Church, but does not bear the marks which are distinctive of the True Church, then its claim is false. This doesn’t mean that God has failed or that Christ is thwarted, but merely that we must look elsewhere for the True Church. I think most Roman Catholics would agree with that premise, because they would use it to say that the various Protestant denominations are not the True Church (because they do not carry the marks of the True Church). Eden of Mind sets forth the following as claims that the Roman Catholic Church claims about itself:

-That it is infallible with regard to faith and morals (1 Ti. 3:15)
-That it is the Church established by Jesus Christ (Mat. 16:18)
-That the gates of Hell shall never prevail against it (Mat. 16:18)
-That its infallibility is a necessary result of its establishment by Christ

Forgive me for my ignorance (I have not been a Roman Catholic since the age of seven), but I do believe these are all claims that Roman Catholicism makes about itself, based upon its interpretation of the Scriptures. So, beginning with these premises, and with another Scripture about the Church, Eden of Mind has attempted to ask a question about Roman Catholicism’s history. If, for example, the Roman Catholic Church, as an institution, has endorsed the execution of her “separated brethren,” then she seems to fail the test that Eden of Mind has put forth because she would be guilty of their deaths just as much as the Jews who endorsed Christ’s death are said to be guilty of that crime, and therefore it could be said that Rome was, when such capital punishment was meted out, guilty of that crime. If this is true, Eden of Mind says, then she cannot be the True Church, which would never shed the blood of a brother, separated or not.

Now, you ask the question whether he really believes men could thwart Christ’s designs, and that perhaps it is God’s will that the Church should fail in just this way so that she can learn not to do so again. I note two things: First, that your statement implicitly agrees with Eden of Mind’s evaluation of the matter, namely, that Roman Catholicism as an institution can be said to have made a mistake on the matter in question, and second, that your statement implicitly denies certain claims that Roman Catholicism makes about itself (that it cannot err in matters of faith and morals). For these two reasons, I don’t think that your answer can be seen as an answer that Roman Catholicism can possibly give. If Roman Catholicism were to answer Eden of Mind this way, she would be admitting that she is not infallible in matters of faith and morals and therefore her claims are suspect. The Roman Catholic Church must either say that she is not guilty of the blood of brothers or that she is not the True Church.

 

[CorneliusBottom]

Kristina P.:

First, your premise is in error: Protestants may now be considered “separated brethren,” because most of us have been born into this tradition and probably don’t know better. The heretics that the Church put to death in the past knowingly denied the authority of Christ’s Church and would not have then been called “brethren.”

Are you cerain that none of the heretics were less culpable for their ignorance? Are you sure that no children or others with invincible ignorance were given capital punishment for their heresy? How can you know, for sure, that no one put to death for Protestant heresies were actually separated brethren?
Kristina P.:

Second, you claim that the fact they were put to death is evidence that the Church hated Her brethren. I would say that the Church officials at the time saw only two choices: “love” these heretics by allowing them to live and lead others into Hell, or “love” God’s children by putting an end to the heresies. In hindsight, were there other “loving” alternatives? It’s possible, but it isn’t for us to judge what was in the heart of someone else.

Well, the second objection isn’t important if the prior one is true. If, as you claim, no separated brethren were put to death, then there’s no need to ask about whether the Roman Catholic Church hated her brothers by putting them to death. But the question does need to be asked with reference to the Scripture passage originally cited:
1 John 3:

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?

Verse 14 seems as clear a test as any: We know that we have passed out of death into life because we love the brothers. I once heard someone say, “He who has not the Church as mother has not God as Father.” The one who hates the brethren is not, himself, a brother. In the context of 1 John, we know that “the brothers” refers to those who are members of the Body of Christ. So, may one murder his brother and yet love his brother? Verse 15 says that no murderer has eternal life-- the murderer cannot, therefore, be among the brethren. Thus, whether he claims to do it out of “love” or not, he is still a murderer.

Once again, either the Roman Catholic Church has not killed her brothers or she is not the True Church. I don’t think that’s an unfair statement.
Kristina P.:

Also, the New Testament speaks often of shunning heretics and even turning them over to Satan, out of love for both the heretic and the members of the Church (1 Cor. 5:5, 1 Tim. 1:20).

And yet, nowhere does the New Testament speak of executing heretics out of love for the heretic. 1 Corinthians 5 and 1 Timothy 1 speak of turning the heretic over to Satan in order that they might be saved. This is, of course, a different matter than executing a man for his beliefs. Both texts are actually irrelevant, unless you want to start calling the governments which meted out such punishment, “Satan.”

 

[mercygate]

CorneliusBottom:

. . . if a certain institution claims to be the True Church, but does not bear the marks which are distinctive of the True Church, then its claim is false.

Right here we come to a snag. The Church is not “an Institution” – even the Catholic Church with her institutional aspects is not fundamentally an “institution.” It is the Mystical Body of Christ. Thank you for offering the opportunity to clarify this.

This doesn’t mean that God has failed or that Christ is thwarted, but merely that we must look elsewhere for the True Church. I think most Roman Catholics would agree with that premise, because they would use it to say that the various Protestant denominations are not the True Church (because they do not carry the marks of the True Church). Eden of Mind sets forth the following as claims that the Roman Catholic Church claims about itself:

-That it is infallible with regard to faith and morals (1 Ti. 3:15)
-That it is the Church established by Jesus Christ (Mat. 16:18)
-That the gates of Hell shall never prevail against it (Mat. 16:18)
-That its infallibility is a necessary result of its establishment by Christ

Forgive me for my ignorance (I have not been a Roman Catholic since the age of seven), but I do believe these are all claims that Roman Catholicism makes about itself, based upon its interpretation of the Scriptures. So, beginning with these premises, and with another Scripture about the Church, Eden of Mind has attempted to ask a question about Roman Catholicism’s history. If, for example, the Roman Catholic Church, as an institution, has endorsed the execution of her “separated brethren,” then she seems to fail the test that Eden of Mind has put forth because she would be guilty of their deaths just as much as the Jews who endorsed Christ’s death are said to be guilty of that crime, and therefore it could be said that Rome was, when such capital punishment was meted out, guilty of that crime. If this is true, Eden of Mind says, then she cannot be the True Church, which would never shed the blood of a brother, separated or not.

But if you looked at the posts above, there is a clear distinction between “separated brethren” and “heretics.” Eden of Mind used the sheep and shepherd image. The shepherd is responsible for keeping the sheep safe from the wolves. And Eden of Mind agrees that capital punishment is justifiable on Scriptural grounds (whether we choose to exercise the option is another thing).

Roman Catholicism as an institution can be said to have made a mistake on the matter in question, and second, that your statement implicitly denies certain claims that Roman Catholicism makes about itself (that it cannot err in matters of faith and morals).

I am not the least bit sure that the Church has made a mistake in this matter because “heretics” are certainly not “brothers.” We now judge capital punishment for heresy to be wrong-headed. But why? Only because history has taught us hard lessons about it that have nothing to do with whether heresy is an offense to Truth and to the Person of Christ.

For these two reasons, I don’t think that your answer can be seen as an answer that Roman Catholicism can possibly give. If Roman Catholicism were to answer Eden of Mind this way, she would be admitting that she is not infallible in matters of faith and morals and therefore her claims are suspect. The Roman Catholic Church must either say that she is not guilty of the blood of brothers or that she is not the True Church.

She is the True Church (there ARE no other identifiable candidates) and she is not guilty of the blood of brothers because those who promote heresy are wolves seeking the blood of the sheep.

 

[CorneliusBottom]

mercygate:

Right here we come to a snag. The Church is not “an Institution” – even the Catholic Church with her institutional aspects is not fundamentally an “institution.” It is the Mystical Body of Christ. Thank you for offering the opportunity to clarify this.

Thank you for considering my post. Perhaps one of us has missed something here. I understand that the Roman Catholic Church is believed by Roman Catholics to be the Mystical Body of Christ. However, this is exactly what is at issue here, is it not? If any body does not have the marks of the Church, then it is not the Church. Thus, when we ask the question, “Is the Roman Catholic Church the True Church?” we are asking whether or not it is truly the Mystical Body of Christ. Either it is, or it isn’t. If I ask the question, “Is this Mystical Body of Christ the True Church?” then I’m asking a rather silly question. Maybe you’d prefer if I didn’t refer to the Roman Catholic Church as an institution. That’s fine. Perhaps, “If a certain church claims to be the True Church, but does not bear the marks which are distinctive of the True Church, then its claim is false.”

mercygate:

But if you looked at the posts above, there is a clear distinction between “separated brethren” and “heretics.” Eden of Mind used the sheep and shepherd image. The shepherd is responsible for keeping the sheep safe from the wolves. And Eden of Mind agrees that capital punishment is justifiable on Scriptural grounds (whether we choose to exercise the option is another thing).

Then one must ask whether the Church has justified, endorsed, or recommended capital punishment for separated brethren thought to be heretics. What Eden of Mind agrees is that capital punishment is justifiable for those who have committed a capital crime. He was very clear to point out that he denied that heresy is a justifiable use of it. I would point out that, even if heresy were truly a capital offense, this does not nullify the question. The question was whether Rome could ever murder her brother. Is there such a thing as a heretic who is also a brother? You are making a great deal out of the distinction between the two, and I think you’re right to do so. Therefore, if heretics are to be burned and separated brothers to be loved, can the true Church kill both?

mercygate:

I am not the least bit sure that the Church has made a mistake in this matter because “heretics” are certainly not “brothers.” We now judge capital punishment for heresy to be wrong-headed. But why? Only because history has taught us hard lessons about it that have nothing to do with whether heresy is an offense to Truth and to the Person of Christ.

So capital punishment for heretics is wrong-headed but not mistaken?

Let me see if I understand you clearly. I find it useful to list things, because I think it facilitates clarity. Perhaps you can see where I’ve misunderstood you here:

1. Capital punishment for heresy is wrong-headed.
2. Capital punishment for heresy was not a mistake.
3. Heretics are not brothers.
4. Some protestants today are brothers.
5. Some protestants today are heretics.
6. All protestants who were executed for their beliefs were heretics.
7. No protestants who were executed for their beliefs were brothers.

I think there’s a disconnect somewhere, because 1 and 2 seem to be a thinly-veiled contradiction. If it was not a mistake then, it would certainly not be a mistake now. If it is wrong-headed now, then it was wrong-headed then. What is the reason to believe numbers 6 and 7?

mercygate:

She is the True Church (there ARE no other identifiable candidates) and she is not guilty of the blood of brothers because those who promote heresy are wolves seeking the blood of the sheep.

I know that you answer this way. Your declaration seems to be that those who were killed were all heretics, that none were brothers. That’s exactly what is at issue, I think. As for “identifiable candidates,” that’s only the case if you get to define eligibility according to your own terms.

 

[Mickey]

CorneliusBottom:

The question was whether Rome could ever murder her brother.

Wow! You sound exactly like Eden of Mind. Are you related? Are you one in the same person? You also refuse to name your church just like Eden of Mind. Your reasoning is also circular just like Eden of Mind and Van Til.

I find it interesting that you both come here onto a Catholic forum proposing accusations, (albeit polite accusations), that the Catholic Church is not Christ’s true Church. Yet neither of you will divulge which church you belong to and which church you believe to be the one true church. Let us start with a level playing field. You know that we are Catholic and you know what we believe. It would assist the dialogue if we knew which belief system you were borne into. Please don’t say that it is irrelevent to the dialogue. If you are going to propose thinly veiled accusations at the Catholic Church, it is only fair to know where you are coming from. I have been praying for Eden of Mind, and I will pray for you; that you may be released from this deception that has burrowed itself in your heart.

Oh and by the way, doctrine cannot sin–people do!

 

[mercygate]

CorneliusBottom:

If any body does not have the marks of the Church, then it is not the Church. Thus, when we ask the question, “Is the Roman Catholic Church the True Church?” we are asking whether or not it is truly the Mystical Body of Christ. Either it is, or it isn’t.

What Eden of Mind agrees is that capital punishment is justifiable for those who have committed a capital crime. He was very clear to point out that he denied that heresy is a justifiable use of it.

One might deny that heresy justifies capital punishment if one wishes to deny that the death of souls is serious. To my understanding, Eden of Mind did not deny the seriousness of the willful destruction of souls.

I would point out that, even if heresy were truly a capital offense, this does not nullify the question. The question was whether Rome could ever murder her brother. Is there such a thing as a heretic who is also a brother?

A heretic, by definition, has ceased to be a brother in Christ and has become a spiritual predator.

You are making a great deal out of the distinction between the two, and I think you’re right to do so. Therefore, if heretics are to be burned and separated brothers to be loved, can the true Church kill both?

No. Nor has she.

So capital punishment for heretics is wrong-headed but not mistaken?

I was not arguing that it was either wrong headed or mistaken. I maintain that it doesn’t work and all things considered, unless there is immediate danger, if you do NOT kill someone, you are usually doing a better thing than if you DO kill somone – as the late Pope John Paul emphasized in all of his teaching on capital punishment.

Let me see if I understand you clearly. I find it useful to list things, because I think it facilitates clarity. Perhaps you can see where I’ve misunderstood you here:

1. Capital punishment for heresy is wrong-headed.

Not necessarily. Heresy threatens the immortal soul.

1. Capital punishment for heresy was not a mistake.

Operating in good faith according to the best light one has is never a mistake.

1. Heretics are not brothers.

By definition that is so.

1. Some protestants today are brothers.

Insofar as they share in the Faith as taught by the Church, and insofar as they have been raised in their faith and have come by their erroneous belief innocently, that is trure.

1. Some protestants today are heretics.

Indeed. We distinguish between a person who innocently holds heretical beliefs but with the best light at his disposal is seeking Truth and the person who *willfully *denies the fullness of the faith, rejects the Church and works to corrupt the faith of those who are in the Church.

1. All protestants who were executed for their beliefs were heretics.

. . . were demonstrated to be heretics.

1. No protestants who were executed for their beliefs were brothers.

If only heretics were executed, that means they were not “brothers” – nor, I presume, did they consider themselves to be brothers, or they would not have denied the faith.

I think there’s a disconnect somewhere, because 1 and 2 seem to be a thinly-veiled contradiction. If it was not a mistake then, it would certainly not be a mistake now. If it is wrong-headed now, then it was wrong-headed then. What is the reason to believe numbers 6 and 7?

I know that you answer this way. Your declaration seems to be that those who were killed were all heretics, that none were brothers. That’s exactly what is at issue, I think. As for “identifiable candidates,” that’s only the case if you get to define eligibility according to your own terms.

 

[Eden]

I think most Roman Catholics would agree with that premise, because they would use it to say that the various Protestant denominations are not the True Church (because they do not carry the marks of the True Church).

From “Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth”

If we wish to locate the Church founded by Jesus, we need to locate the one that has the four chief marks or qualities of his Church. The Church we seek must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

**The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13, CCC 813–822) **
Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and so on). The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but *one *spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church.

His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). This is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2).

Although some Catholics dissent from officially-taught doctrines, the Church’s official teachers—the pope and the bishops united with him—have never changed any doctrine. Over the centuries, as doctrines are examined more fully, the Church comes to understand them more deeply (John 16:12–13), but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant.

**The Church Is Holy (Eph. 5:25–27, Rev. 19:7–8, CCC 823–829) **
By his grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as he is holy. This doesn’t mean that each member is always holy. Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the Church (John 6:70), and not all the members would go to heaven (Matt. 7:21–23).

But the Church itself is holy because it is the source of holiness and is the guardian of the special means of grace Jesus established, the sacraments (cf. Eph. 5:26).

**The Church Is Catholic (Matt. 28:19–20, Rev. 5:9–10, CCC 830–856) **
Jesus’ Church is called catholic (“universal” in Greek) because it is his gift to all people. He told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of “all nations” (Matt. 28:19–20).

For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and that he wants all of us to be members of his universal family (Gal. 3:28).

Nowadays the Catholic Church is found in every country of the world and is still sending out missionaries to “make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19).

The Church Jesus established was known by its most common title, “the Catholic Church,” at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded. The title apparently was old in Ignatius’s time, which means it probably went all the way back to the time of the apostles.

**The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19–20, CCC 857–865) **
The Church Jesus founded is apostolic because he appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops, and, since the first century, there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral Tradition (2 Tim. 2:2).

These beliefs include the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the forgiveness of sins through a priest, baptismal regeneration, the existence of purgatory, Mary’s special role, and much more —even the doctrine of apostolic succession itself.

Early Christian writings prove the first Christians were thoroughly Catholic in belief and practice and looked to the successors of the apostles as their leaders. What these first Christians believed is still believed by the Catholic Church. No other Church can make that claim.

catholic.com/library/pillar.asp

Could CorneliusBottom or Eden of Mind please answer these questions:

What do you think is the Church established by Christ? When do you believe the Catholic Church was founded? What is *your *church? **