The subject of whether Protestants and Orthodox are Christians and their religions are part of the Church of Christ comes up frequently on “Catholic” Relevant Radio, youtube, etc.
According to the religion of Vatican 2, which falls in line with some Protestants, membership in the Church includes all who are baptized and profess Christ while rejecting dogmas of the Catholic Church.
The Vatican 2 religion has gone out of its way to say that the Eastern Orthodox religion is part of the one Church of Christ in the Balamand statement. [1] It also implied that the Lutheran churches are part of the Church of Christ. [2]
Vatican 2 apologists such as Msgr. Stuart W. Swetland, S.T.D., and Patrick Madrid don’t hesitate for a second to say that the Church has never changed a doctrine while in the same breath saying Protestants and Orthodox are Christians but without the fullness of truth.
To the contrary, the great Pope Leo XIII reiterated in Satis Cognitum what the Church has always taught and practiced. Below are the relevant parts.
“4 Jesus Christ did not, in point of fact, institute a Church to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lacking those bonds which render the Church unique and indivisible after that manner in which in the symbol of our faith we profess: ‘I believe in one Church.’ ‘The Church in respect of its unity belongs to the category of things indivisible by nature, though heretics try to divide it into many parts… And so dispersed members, separated one from the other, cannot be united with one and the same head. ‘There is one God, and one Christ; and His Church is one and the faith is one; and one the people, joined together in the solid unity of the body in the bond of concord. This unity cannot be broken, nor the one body divided by the separation of its constituent parts’….
5 So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic – the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member. …
9 The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a tertian portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos)….
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium….
St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88)…
And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: “One Lord, one faith,” and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: “that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only – “but until we all meet in the unity of faith…unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ” (13). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that – “He gave some Apostles – and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (11-12). …
In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others…
Pope Pius XI continued with the subject and declared in Mortalium animos:
11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.
For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.
Since the Second Vatican Council, Rome now calls heretics and schismatics Christians or separated brethren, and even denies that they are heretics and schismatics.
For instance, Vatican II states:
“The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection…. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” (Second Vatican Council, Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, Chapter 1, para. 3)
Children born and raised in false churches would be accused of the sin of separation if they come to know or should know better and remain separated. We don’t presume that everybody remains invincibly ignorant. Regardless, only God can read hearts. We don’t presume to know if one is truly guilty or innocent. To say they all “are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian” is a reversal in Church teaching.
We demonstrated that Pope Leo XIII taught exactly the opposite in Satis Cognitum.
Pope Pius XII declared: “To be Christian one must be Roman. One must recognize the oneness of Christ’s Church that is governed by one successor of the Prince of the Apostles who is the Bishop of Rome, Christ’s Vicar on earth” (Allocution to the Irish pilgrims of October 8, 1957).
The terms heretics and schismatics are canonical and doctrinal Catholic terminology referring to the baptized some of whom were justified by faith at one time. Non-baptized persons aren’t called heretics and schismatics, but rather infidels, heathens, pagans, etc. We have long standing and official Catholic terminology which the Vatican 2 religion deems inappropriate, inaccurate, and counterfactual.
We might call heretics “Christians” in conventional language, but to claim they have a “right” to the Christian name would make calling them heretics and schismatics wrong and hateful. Yet, Popes have called Protestants and Orthodox heretics in official documents. Just a few examples include Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo (On the Euchologion – 1756), Pope Pius VI in Charitas (In the Civil Oath in France – 1791), Pope Gregory XVI in Summo Iugiter Studio (On Mixed Marriages – 1832) and Probe Nostis (On the Propogation of the Faith – 1840), and Pope Pius IX in Omnem Sollicitudinem (On the Greek-Ruthenian Rite – 1874). Pope Leo XIII used it the most in several documents.
Pope Leo XIII also declared in Satis Cognitum: “Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man… but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See.”
Footnotes:
[1] The 1993 Balamand Statement approved by John Paul II on May 25, 1995, in Ut Unum Sint, n. 59, declared:
- In fact, especially since the panorthodox Conferences and the Second Vatican Council, the re- discovery and the giving again of proper value to the Church as communion, both on the part of Orthodox and of Catholics, has radically altered perspectives and thus attitudes. On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to his Church – profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops – cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches.
- It is in this perspective that the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognize each other as Sister Churches, responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose, most especially in what concerns unity. According to the words of Pope John Paul II, the ecumenical endeavour of the Sister Churches of East and West, grounded in dialogue and prayer, is the search for perfect and total communion which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love (cf. Slavorum Apostoli, n. 27).
[2] JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION
by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church Nov. 1, 1999
- We give thanks to the Lord for this decisive step forward on the way to overcoming the division of the church. We ask the Holy Spirit to lead us further toward that visible unity which is Christ’s will.
John Paul II approved and blessed the Joint Declaration as seen below.
PRESENTATION OF THE JOINT STATEMENT
Edward Cardinal Cassidy
President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
- On the Catholic side, the Official Common Statement and the Annex have been approved by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. His Holiness Pope John Paul II has been informed accordingly and has given his blessing for the signing of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, together with the Official Common Statement with its attached Annex on the date and in the place to be decided by the two partners.
The protestants and orthodox are not “Christian” (in the sense of not being Catholic, as to be Christian is to be Catholic) and not members of the Church of Christ, they are legally non-Catholic, however their heresy or schism may be material and not formal and may not in itself prevent them from being saved, provided they are invincibly ignorant that Catholicism is true.
Although this is a Vatican 2 site, it makes some points that seem correct on this topic: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3444
BetrayedCatholics argues for a stricter interpretation I don’t personally agree with: https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/free-content/reference-links/4-heresy/what-constiutes-material-heresy-and-schism/
I guess I think this is important to note because many only seem to mention formal heretics/schismatics vs. Catholics as categories (material heretics/schismatics may be in the Catholic category in spirit/morally but not legally).
The internal forum is something only God sees. We don’t judge the internal forum. We don’t recognize truly innocent baptized non-Catholics as members of the Church. Therefore, they don’t have right to be called “Christian.”
The Vatican 2 popes go further and teach that non-Catholic religions are part of the one Church of Christ which is heretical. I point that out with Balamand statement. You have asked to see an outright unambiguous heresy from the Vatican 2 popes. There it is.
Please use a valid and true email when commenting in the future. All fake emails will be sent to spam. Thank you!
We can’t be cafeteria Catholics.
Choosing what we like and don’t want
The Truth is Beautiful!
Indeed!
“We might call heretics “Christians” in conventional language, (…)”
It is a real devilry !
Do you think that a heresy is a common language and that is why one can use it ?
It is probably possible that in this way one can justify professing many, if not most, or all heresies and create a new false religion.
Today I sent a comment entitled “The heresy of Christianity of heretics (protestantism and orthodoxy) by bp. Pivarunas (CMRI)” here https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/why-sedevacantism/ and I donot know if it came because of its length (it was long).
Calling heretics “Christians” in conventional language is done by many popes including Pope Pius IX in Iam Vos Omnes. Do you claim that Pope Pius IX was a heretic?
I can see only one example. I am asking for a reliable source of this Encyclical.
I still would like to mention that in so-called the Polish translation of the Catechism of Saint Pope Pius X (Warszawa 1908, “Imprimatur” from 1906) is a heresy regarding the definition of usury.
Larger Catechism, at the bottom of the page 106 (111 on the bar)
http://www.ultramontes.pl/sw_pius_x_katechizmy.htm
– so-called Polish
“P. Kiedy popełnia się lichwa ?
O. Popełnia się lichwa, kiedy kto, korzystając z trudnego położenia lub niewiadomości bliźniego, wymaga od niego wbrew prawu i słuszności wysokiego zysku od wypożyczonych mu pieniędzy.
– English, if this language can be called like that because of possible changes made by jews analogously to the Polish language, England has not existed since December 11, 1688.
Q. When is usury committed?
A. Usury is committed when someone, taking advantage of a difficult situation or ignorance of a neighbor, requires from him against the law and the rightness of a high profit from lent him money.
As we know, this is contrary to God’s Law the Gospel according to St. Luke [6:35] and with the teaching of the Catholic Church because one can not lend at any interest even low (not only high profit as above heresy proclaims) and regardless of the financial status of the borrower.
But there is no heresy in below English translation of the Catechism of Saint Pope Pius X (page 96, 94 on the bar, question 11)
https://archive.org/details/CatechismOfSaintPopePiuxXTheSt.PiusX/page/n93
“11 Q. How is usury committed ?
A. Usury is committed by exacting, without just title, an unlawful interest for money lent, thus taking an unfair advantage of another’s need or ignorance.”
– English, if this language can be called like that because of possible changes made by jews analogously to the Polish language, England has not existed since December 11, 1688.
Q. When is usury committed?
A. Usury is committed when someone, taking advantage of a difficult situation or ignorance of a neighbor, requires from him against the law and the rightness of a high profit from lent him money.
As we know, this is contrary to God’s Law the Gospel according to St. Luke [6:35] and with the teaching of the Catholic Church because one can not lend at any interest even low (not only high profit as above heresy proclaims) and regardless of the financial status of the borrower.
But there is no heresy in below English translation of the Catechism of Saint Pope Pius X (page 96, 94 on the bar, question 11)
https://archive.org/details/CatechismOfSaintPopePiuxXTheSt.PiusX/page/n93
“11 Q. How is usury committed ?
A. Usury is committed by exacting, without just title, an unlawful interest for money lent, thus taking an unfair advantage of another’s need or ignorance.”
What’s your question?
I don’t know what’s going on with these comments, it’s impossible to talk.
You didn’t answer my question. Pope Pius IX called heretics “Christians” in an official document. What say you? You seem to think that this is heresy. Does that make Pius IX a heretic?
Because I can’t put the first part of the answer. I do not know why. It’s short.
“We therefore address this Our Letter to all Christians separated from Us, (…)”
Maybe it is about Christians who were them in the past and “seperated from Us” and all Christians separated from Us in the past are not Christians.
Or maybe it lacks a word “former” before “Christians”. Do you have a reliable source of this Encyclical ?
No, he’s writing to Protestants. It’s a letter to them. All sources say the same thing.
Do you have any other examples ?
Yes, the Eastern Orthodox are referred to as Christians during the Crusades against the Muslims. I’ll have to look up the sources, but there’s no problem in it under certain circumstances. That’s the point you seem to reject. If you like, I’ll give you many more examples later when I have more time. I’m afraid you’re going down the slippery slope of thinking your understanding trumps even the popes. This is the problem of the R&R movement and with Feeneyites.
I see no obstacles in my two interpretations despite that the Pope writes to heretics.
“All sources say the same thing.”
So give some other example.
You must first explain why Pius IX said what you claim is heretical.
Alright I will wait for other examples.
“I’m afraid you’re going down the slippery slope of thinking your understanding trumps even the popes. This is the problem of the R&R movement and with Feeneyites.”
But I interpret and not reject.
And how do you reconcile your interpretation with the following ?
Benedict XV, Encycl. Ad beatissimi, Nov. I, 1914
“There is no need then, for qualifying words wherewith to signify one’s profession of the Catholic faith ; it is quite sufficient for a person to say: “Christian is my name, Catholic my surname” (St. Pacian, Ep. i, P.L., xiii, 1055) ; a man has only to strive to be in reality what these names signify.” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vi, 577.)”
Can a protestant reading this Encyclical say: “That is great I am in this reality because I am a Christian.” ?
I’m not sure what interpretation you are talking about? You just need to make proper distinctions between internal and external forum, etc. A Protestant doesn’t claim that Catholic is his surname. Therefore, he is not in reality a Christian IN THE EXTERNAL FORUM.
I can see only one example. I am asking for a reliable source of this Encyclical.
I still would like to mention that in so-called the Polish translation of the Catechism of Saint Pope Pius X (Warszawa 1908, “Imprimatur” from 1906) is a heresy regarding the definition of usury.
Larger Catechism, at the bottom of the page 106 (111 on the bar)
http://www.ultramontes.pl/sw_pius_x_katechizmy.htm
– so-called Polish
“P. Kiedy popełnia się lichwa ?
O. Popełnia się lichwa, kiedy kto, korzystając z trudnego położenia lub niewiadomości bliźniego, wymaga od niego wbrew prawu i słuszności wysokiego zysku od wypożyczonych mu pieniędzy.
to be continued
I can see only one example. I am asking for a reliable source of this Encyclical.
I still would like to mention that in so-called the Polish translation of the Catechism of Saint Pope Pius X (Warszawa 1908, “Imprimatur” from 1906) is a heresy regarding the definition of usury.
Larger Catechism, at the bottom of the page 106 (111 on the bar)
http://www.ultramontes.pl/sw_pius_x_katechizmy.htm
– so-called Polish
“P. Kiedy popełnia się lichwa ?
O. Popełnia się lichwa, kiedy kto, korzystając z trudnego położenia lub niewiadomości bliźniego, wymaga od niego wbrew prawu i słuszności wysokiego zysku od wypożyczonych mu pieniędzy.
This is the beginning the above comment.
I still would like to mention that in so-called the Polish translation of the Catechism of Saint Pope Pius X (Warszawa 1908, “Imprimatur” from 1906) is a heresy regarding the definition of usury.
Larger Catechism, at the bottom of the page 106 (111 on the bar)
http://www.ultramontes.pl/sw_pius_x_katechizmy.htm
This is the beginnig of my above comment.
It’s not heresy. You’re missing a key distinction.
Such technical difficulties are very bad.
I don’t think it’s difficult to understand at all.
I have not mean interpretations but placing comments – they disappear. Unless you delete them or do not insert them.
I have not deleted or fail to insert any comments. What has happened is that your comments were sent to spam. I see now, that you’re sending lots of comments. I’ll approve them but I have not the time to read all of them much less answer them.
If you like, send one question at a time and it would make it easier for both of us.
I have never met a Protestant that believes they are part of the Catholic Church. But I have spoken to many of them that believe Catholics are not Christians. Invincible Ignorance has to be a rare affliction. The question is a Christian who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ in part is he still a Christian? Before the Vatican II heresy, I believe the Church would say no. Pope Eugene IV as have other Popes declared those holding opposing views to be outside of the Body of Christ. But then again many call Joe Biden a Catholic.