Author Topic: Separated Brethren (Read 878 times)

Cathedra · « **on:** July 18, 2013, 01:05:21 AM »

I have heard that the whole idea of calling heretics and schismatics "separated brethren" came only after Vatican II, or that it was put into use only after Vatican II and that supposedly one should never use such a term.

Well, i have read several things against Protestants from the 1800's, like, "The Church or the Bible", "Where we got the Bible: the debt we owe to the Catholic Church" and other such works against Protestantism, and they all use "separated brethren"!

I myself was very surprised when i first saw that.

So what's going on here?

poche · « **Reply #1 on:** July 18, 2013, 02:17:59 AM »

This whole issue is one of evangelization. The true home of all Christian peoples is within the Catholic Church. So how do we evangelize them? Do we constantly call them derogatory names that cause situations of mutual hostility? Is there a way that we can address someone that recognizes the situation and at the same time won't bring out a lot of hostility? We call them "seperated" because that is what schism and heresy does to us. It seperates us. We call them brothers because that is also what our relation is with them. They are our brothers. This is done so that we can create an ambiance where we can present the fullness of the Catholic Faith in an atmosphere of mutual friendship and mutual trust. Ergo the term "Seperated Brothers"

Nadir · « **Reply #2 on:** July 18, 2013, 03:15:14 AM »

Quote

Do we constantly call them derogatory names that cause situations of mutual hostility?

The expression "seperated brethren" is hardly derogatory. They are called separated because they are not in union with the Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. They are called protestant because they protest against Her. They are by their very nature a negative force against Her.

Ambrose · « **Reply #3 on:** July 18, 2013, 03:35:08 AM »

Pope Pius XI:

Quote

12. Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is "the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,"[27] not with the intention and the hope that "the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth"[28] will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. Would that it were Our happy lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us We now bewail. Would that God our Savior, "Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,"[29] would hear us when We humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray to the unity of the Church! In this most important undertaking We ask and wish that others should ask the prayers of Blessed Mary the Virgin, Mother of divine grace, victorious over all heresies and Help of Christians, that She may implore for Us the speedy coming of the much hoped-for day, when all men shall hear the voice of Her divine Son, and shall be "careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."[30]

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM

Cathedra · « **Reply #4 on:** July 18, 2013, 03:39:33 AM »

Quote from: Nadir

The expression "seperated brethren" is hardly derogatory. They are called separated because they are not in union with the Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. They are called protestant because they protest against Her. They are by their very nature a negative force against Her.

I think he meant calling them heretics and schismatics etc.

TKGS · « **Reply #5 on:** July 18, 2013, 06:22:41 AM »

Quote from: Cathedra

I have heard that the whole idea of calling heretics and schismatics "separated brethren" came only after Vatican II, or that it was put into use only after Vatican II and that supposedly one should never use such a term.

You heard wrong. I have never heard that this term was an invention of the Vatican II church, though I confess that I would have believed it had I not really thought through the statement and remembered that I have read the term in pre-Conciliar writings.

In any event, I don't really see a problem with the term. "Separated brethren" makes a lot more sense that "partial communion" for schismatics or "elder brethren" for Jєωs.

Jehanne · « **Reply #6 on:** July 18, 2013, 09:53:04 AM »

Quote from: Cathedra

I have heard that the whole idea of calling heretics and schismatics "separated brethren" came only after Vatican II, or that it was put into use only after Vatican II and that supposedly one should never use such a term.

Well, i have read several things against Protestants from the 1800's, like, "The Church or the Bible", "Where we got the Bible: the debt we owe to the Catholic Church" and other such works against Protestantism, and they all use "separated brethren"!

I myself was very surprised when i first saw that.

So what's going on here?

Here's a quote from 1911:

Quote

The Catholic Church of the twentieth century is vastly in advance of that of the sixteenth. She has made up her loss in political power and worldly wealth by increased spiritual influences and efficiency; her adherents are more widespread, more numerous, more fervent than at any time in her history, and they are bound to the central Government at Rome by a more filial affection and a clearer sense of duty. Religious education is abundantly provided for clergy and laity; religious practice, morality, and works of charity are flourishing; the Catholic mission-field is world-wide and rich in harvest. The hierarchy was never so united, never so devoted to the pope. The Roman unity is successfully resisting the inroads of sects, of philosophies, of politics. Can our separated brethren tell a similar tale of their many Churches, even in lands where they are ruled and backed by the secular power? We do not rejoice at their disintegration, at their falling into religious indifference, or returning into political parties. No, for any shred of Christianity is better than blank worldliness. But we do draw this conclusion: that after four centuries the Catholic principle of authority is still working out the salvation of the Church, whereas among Protestants the principle of Subjectivism is destroying what remains of their former faith and driving multitudes into religious indifference and estrangement from the supernatural.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #7 on:** July 18, 2013, 10:44:13 AM »

I'm glad to hear that the term "separated brethren" isn't a bastard child of Vatican II.

However, what lies beneath?

Other than the benevolent term, what else has happened?

With Vatican II and it's spirit, it won't be long before the novus ordo is outdoing the protestants in their protestantism.

The OP is inaccurate in identifying the term "separated brethrn" as the culprit but the OP is very much on the right trail in thinking something is very wrong because some foundational changes were instituted by the Second Vatican Council and these implementations post-Vatican II.

I hope Cathedra is already assisting at an SSPX chapel or some sede chapel and not hoping the novus ordo will return to Catholicism.