Everyone should just ignore this heretic, who goes around deposing Popes based upon his own extraordinary intellect ...

Of course, he never bothered to look at the Latin of the time Leo XIII used what has been translated as "separated brethren" (I'm sure rather deliberately by the Modernists, possibly even the Americanists he had been at odds with).

But this intellectual giant here, who may possibly be able to decline a simple first declension noun, if he were looking for truth, would see that the Latin is ...

fratres dissidentes

... which better translates to dissidents, as it's an active departure, using a verbal (gerund) form with an active voice, where the activity was the result of their volition ... and not a term like "separated", which is more passive and could be something entirely unintentional -- so like the difference between a child who got separated from his parents (say, in a crowd) vs. a child who rebelled form his parents and broke away from them (which is more the term "dissidentes", very similar to the English word we have that derives from it).

As for the term "brothers", as already been explained, we can be "brothers" in a natural sense, since we have the same Father, the same Creator, and this does not mean that they are fellow "Christians" in the theological sense (vs. the natural sense in which these groups might be called Christians ... as opposed to something else, like Muslims or Jews), or somehow still members of the Church, as this heretic here would slander the Pope as teaching.

In fact, Pope Leo quite emphatically teaches the EXACT OPPOSITE, spending nearly the entirety of Satis Cognitum on the subject:

Satis Cognitum:
Contrary to the Vatican II teaching of a "Church of Christ" which is not co-extensive with the Catholic Church, Leo XIII teaches Traditional Catholic doctrine.

Now, one MIGHT use the term "brothers" or the term "Christian" in the natural sense, brothers being children of the same Father and Creater, according to nature, and "Christian" as referring to a natural classification rather than a theological one, but the actual ecclesiology of Pope Leo XIII that transcends semantics, especially as interpreted by someone who either is not able to or else is too lazy to actually look at the Latin, and then properly understand the meanings of terms.


At no point does Leo XIII state that heretics are somehow within the same Church as Catholics nor that they belong to the same body.

Thanks for the clarification on the mistranslation Lad, much appreciated. I can certainly see why modernists would deliberately mistranslate it

saying prots are "separated brethren" cannot conclude "also Christian", and it's a dangerous sentiment. 

Prots get mad when you call them prots, and counter that they are Christian, because that's what they falsely believe.

"The natural man, therefore, before he is brought under the grace of divine birth, can but inquire, reason, argue, and conclude about religious truth, but he does not, cannot see it." (Cardinal Newman, on Grace). He does not and he cannot have such faith in Christ as is necessary for salvation. Hence we said that they (Protestants) never had any divine faith in Christ. "He who does not believe all that Christ has taught," says St. Ambrose, "denies Christ himself." (In Luc. 100:9.) "It is ab- surd for a heretic," says St. Thomas Aquinas, "to assert that he believes in Jesus Christ. To believe in a man is to give our full assent to his word and to all he teaches. True faith, therefore, is absolute belief in Jesus Christ and in all he has taught. Hence he who does not adhere to all that Jesus Christ has prescribed for our salvation has no more the doctrine of Jesus Christ and of his Church, than the Pagans, Jews and Turk's have." "He is" says Jesus Christ, "a heathen and publican." As S. O. [S.O.= the heretic priest Fr. Müller is responding to in this work] has impudently asserted that we have misrepresented Protestant doctrine, no doubt, he would not feel in the least ashamed even to tell St. Thomas Aquinas in his face, that he misrepresents Protestant faith, when he says that it is absurd for a heretic to say he believes in Jesus Christ, etc

S.O.  tells again the readers of the C. U. and T. [Catholic Union and Times] that "They (Protestants) say with us, in the language and meaning of the Apostle: 'There is no other name under heaven given to to men, whereby we must be saved."

This applies only to Catholics who have the true religion of Christ, and do the will of his heavenly Father; for Christ has solemnly declared: "Not every one who saith to me Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 7:21.)

As Protestants have no absolute faith in Jesus Christ, neither can they have any absolute faith in these words of Christ. We say these words in truth, because we have divine faith, and a Protestant has only human faith in them. Here is the difference between Protestant and Catholic belief, as we shall soon more clearly explain.

"This," he says, "being the undeniable truth," (that is, the faith of Catholics and Protestants in Christ is the same) "what must we think of the reason given why they said never to have had any faith in Christ! Let us hear it again: 'Q. Why not? Ans. Because there never lived such a Christ as they imagine and believe in.' This answer put into the Cath- olic's mouth is false, for Protestants do believe in just such a Christ as did live and die for us all, just such a Christ as we believe and know to have lived, suffered, and died.""


Let S. O. read over again the above answer of St. Thomas and St. Ambrose. We repeat again, that Protestants have no absolute or di- vine faith in Christ, and therefore the above answer put in a Catho- lic's mouth is perfectly true. But, as it is a good work to instruct the ignorant, let us dwell for a few moments on the words of S. O. He is not ashamed to tell us Catholics "that Protestants believe in just such a Christ as we Catholics believe and know to have lived, suffered. and died." Now we Catholics believe in a Christ in whom we have absolute, divine faith; and this absolute, divine faith we have not only in Christ himself, but also in all he has done for our salvation, and teaches through his one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Now a Protestant can have no divine faith in Christ nor in his teaching. For, "to reject but one article of faith taught by the Church," says St. Thom- as Aquinas, "is enough to destroy faith, as one mortal sin is enough to destroy charity; for the virtue of faith does not consist in merely adher- ing to the holy Scriptures, and in revering them as the Word of God: it consists principally in submitting our intellect and will to the divine authority of the true Church charged by Jesus Christ to expound them. 'I would not believe the Holy Scriptures,' says St. Augustine, were it not for the divine authority of the Church.' 'He, therefore, who despis- es and rejects this authority, cannot have true faith. If he admits some supernatural truths, they are but simple opinions, as he makes them (the truths) depend on his private judgment." (De Fide, q. v., art. 3.)

Fr. Michael Müller, The Catholic Dogma

By proper Catholic definition, no.
By the common definition as used in the world, yes.
By the definition of most Protestants, yes, and some would even say Catholics are not Christians.
Most of what we are exposed to in the world considers Protestants Christians.

Exactly.

Sometimes terms are not technical theological words but can be used in different contexts.

If you're not a Muslim, not a Jew, not a Hindu, not an atheist, than, what are you?  Typically you say "Christian" in a looser, more colloquial sense to mean ... NOT one of these other things.  If you just keep saying ... "a non-Christian heretic who nevertheless self identifies as a Christian", it would get rather tedious, and people can infer your meaning from context.

But as a theological definition, no.

As I said, though, in the early Church "catechumen" was consider "Christian" already even if not a formal member of the Church, whereas then "Christian" was divided between "faithful" and "catechumens".  So there's yet a third meaning where it's not co-extensive with a member of the Church, but its just a bit broader, to include catechumens who have a least professed their belief in the Catholic Church.

Yeah, you're a heretic alright ... and I have no idea why you're not banned

Everyone should just ignore this heretic, who goes around deposing Popes based upon his own extraordinary intellect ...

Of course, he never bothered to look at the Latin of the time Leo XIII used what has been translated as "separated brethren" (I'm sure rather deliberately by the Modernists, possibly even the Americanists he had been at odds with).

I am a Tridentine Catholic who accepts all 20 Ecuмenical Councils. Since you deny Baptism of Desire/Baptism of Blood (even though the fact that the Council of Trent and other popes have used the specific word "desire" to validate BOD/BOB) one can call you a heretic as well. However, I am way above name-calling and calumnizing strangers even though they are fellow Traditional Catholics.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have not "thoroughly" read certain canons and decrees of the Council of Trent and/or certain encyclicals which specifically use the word "desire" when speaking of baptism. I recommend to you a "Lectio Divina" approach that is not merely limited to Scriptural writings.

 Since you deny Baptism of Desire/Baptism of Blood (even though the fact that the Council of Trent and other popes have used the specific word "desire" to validate BOD/BOB) one can call you a heretic as well. However, I am way above name-calling and calumnizing strangers even though they are fellow Traditional Catholics.

Regarding Trent, if one does not desire Baptism they will not be justified. I posted Pope St. Leo's dogmatic letter in the thread linked below. He teaches that justification and the waters of baptism are inseparable.

If denying BOD is heresy then those who deny it are heretics. That's not "name-calling" and certain not "calumny", as they would in fact be heretics 

Fortunately, denying BOD is not heretical..because BOD is not a teaching of the Church, but an opinion of fallible men

If you're willing you can accept my challenge posted here:

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/miraculous-baptisms/msg1006856/#msg1006856

If BOD is Church teaching it should be very easy to win the challenge

I will exercise my right to use The Ladislaus Defense: The English translation of The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent that specifically uses the term "desire" concerning the baptism sacrament along with the English translation of Pope Pius IX's encyclical which also uses the term "desire" concerning the baptism sacrament are (deliberately?) faulty translations. Checkmate.

Trent uses the word "desire" in its decree on Justification. Justification cannot be effected with the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof. Pope St Leo the Great dogmatically teaches that justification and the waters of baptism are inseparable. So, you must both receive the sacrament and desire it in order to be justified. If you don't desire it you're not justified..that's a given.

Pope Pius IX never taught BOD. If you'd like, you can provide the text where you think he does