Apparently not wanted by the Church

[eagle_55]

(This section first posted 7/02/07)
I was raised Catholic, I left the church some years ago because I had/have questions that nobody would/could answer.
I still have questions, but I cannot find a church that meets my needs. I need to know if there is place for me in the church.
Some of the problems I have are these:

1. I believe that the Bible is the word of God and what is in the Bible is the only truth.
2. I do not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, I do believe she was a Virgin at the time of Jesus’ birth and I believe in the Immaculate Conception.
3. I also believe that Jesus had siblings. Not the churches view that they where “other relatives”.

Just because some scholar comes along many years later and professes the perpetual virginity of Mary, does not make it so. If this where the case why was it not mentioned in the Bible?

I believe that Mary found favor with God and he chose her to conceive his son, he also sent an angel to intercede with Joseph and explain her pregnancy. Because Mary was such a good Jewish girl, she would have followed Jewish doctrine and consummated her marriage to Joseph, after Jesus’ birth. If this where not the case, one of the Gospels would have mentioned it.
I still have other questions but I will stop here for now.

So is there still a place for me in the Church?Hi,I suggest that you read “St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in the Scriptures and Early Church” (Ignatius, 1999) by Steve Ray. To come back to the Catholic Church it is necessary to recognize the divine authority it received from Jesus. We don’t dictate to the Church what we will believe. He founded the Church; we didn’t. We accept what it teaches because He teaches through it. What we don’t understand, we accept and pray for the grace of understanding. Is there still a place for you in the Church? You tell me. You are in my prayers.Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.NEW SECTION
Let me first and foremost, thank you for your response to my inquiry. Your response ended with the question upon a question of “you tell me"

I read with great interest the article you recommended (St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in the Scriptures and Early Church), However, I could not find within the article any Biblical reference to support Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Just to be clear I do believe Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, by the power of the Holy Spirit, and is the only begotten son of God. (Mary’s oldest) ref: Luke 2:7, not however the only child of Mary, if Mary did not have other children why didn’t Luke state ‘she gave birth to her only child, a son’?

Luke was a physician, has a physician he would and did concentrate on the facts, his gospel is more detailed than the others, he interviewed eyewitnesses to his gospel; he also researched writings of other apostles.

If Mary’s perpetual virginity was widely known (as some claim), why didn’t he include this in his gospel? As I stated previously I believe that the Bible is the word of God, and what it says is literal truth.

I did come across this article while doing further research:

The Lateran Council of 649 convened by Pope Martin I issued an important statement affirming Mary’s lifelong virginity: “If anyone does not, according to the Holy Fathers, confess truly and properly that holy Mary, ever virgin and immaculate, is Mother of God, since in this latter age she conceived in true reality without human seed from the Holy Spirit, God the Word Himself, who before the ages was born of God the Father, and gave birth to Him without corruption, her virginity remaining equally inviolate after the birth, let him be condemned. “One note for the record; I agree to the following statement listed above:

*“She conceived in true reality without human seed from the Holy Spirit, God the Word Himself, who before the ages was born of God the Father, and gave birth to Him without corruption.”*However, I also believe she had children with Joseph AFTER Jesus’ birth.

If the Lateran Council statement is still in effect, this I guess as far as the church is concerned I am to be condemned and there is no place for me.

P.S.
I posted this same comment to the Apologetic Forum a week ago with no response. I can only surmise they agree

Comments?

 

[kquinn]

Comments?

I am wondering what your knowledge of Greek and Aramaic is? Are you currently only questioning if Mary had other children? Thanks for the clarification!

Also, in response to your post heading…The Church always wants you, and desires all people to be reconciled to the full truth. The question more correctly, in the case of most is: do you want the Church? God bless!

 

[fix]

1. I believe that the Bible is the word of God and what is in the Bible is the only truth.

That is the basis of your problem. Why do you accept the bible is true? How do you know the books that compose the bible are the only inspired books? What did Christians do before the bible existed as it does today?

 

[eagle_55]

I have no training in Greek or Aramaic: (other that footnotes in the Bible)
My Question centers on Mary having other children AFTER the birth of Jesus.
It is clear, she had no children (or knew any man) before she conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[jrabs]

I also agree that Christ’s church is open for everyone. Christ wants all to seek Him out. Though your beliefs do not jive with the Catholic church.

Are you open to the church? You are the one that either let the church into your heart or keep it distant.

 

[eagle_55]

Fix:

If the Bible is not true, then the entire Christian religion is not true.
As far has what did early Christian do before the bible was created? They relied on eyewitness accounts and the written word of the apostles that were there.

 

[anon49823460]

eagle_55,

Let me commend you for seeking our Lord. He is drawing you closer to Him and you are answering the call. Have you read this answer from CAF?

catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

The more you seek the truth, the more you will find that you’ll love your Catholic faith

 

[st_lucy]

Fix:

If the Bible is not true, then the entire Christian religion is not true.
As far has what did early Christian do before the bible was created? They relied on eyewitness accounts and the written word of the apostles that were there.

They relied on tradition as is stated in 1tim.

You also need to remember that the bible was put together by the Catholic Church and is the Catholic Church that truly uses the Bible. Can you point to me where you feel the Church has strayed from the bible?

Also can you name to me Jesus siblings?

You stated that if it were true than why was it not written in the bible. At the end of St John it states that not all is written for there would be no room for it. So there is a lot that you believe that is not in the bible. You can not pick and chose what you want to believe that is not in the bible.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Fix:

If the Bible is not true, then the entire Christian religion is not true.
As far has what did early Christian do before the bible was created? They relied on eyewitness accounts and the written word of the apostles that were there.

The Bible is true when understood in the historical and traditional context from which it was written. Literal interpretation of the Bible
without the other understanding, is what leads to error.

As far as Mary having other children, they would’ve shown up in writings by the early Church fathers like Ignatius and Polycarp. However, no word is ever mentioned about Jesus siblings.

Peace
Jim

 

[kquinn]

Fix:
Christian do before the bible was created? They relied on eyewitness accounts and the written word of the apostles that were there.

This could not always be the case…for instance consider the only remaining eye witness to the conception and birth of our Lord when the gospels were beginning to be written: Mary. And remember that even after the writting of the gospels, the written form would have been available to very few. Simarly, the other books of the new testament (even the letters of Paul) would have been readily available to only those towns that they were written to. Is this to say that Timothy, etc. had nothing to say when he/they arrived to spread the gospel? No…it would have been relayed orally. Simply put, early Christians could not have relied solely on written word.

 

[DJgang]

Also can you name to me Jesus siblings?

You stated that if it were true than why was it not written in the bible. At the end of St John it states that not all is written for there would be no room for it. So there is a lot that you believe that is not in the bible. You can not pick and chose what you want to believe that is not in the bible.

Good point.

I believe the Church.

I’m sorry, eagle 55, that you are struggling about all of this. I’ll pray for you. Peace.

I, too, really, really think that Jesus’ siblings would have been listed somewhere, someone would have mentioned them, early church father’s, etc…but there is no mention of them.

 

[bankerdavid]

(This section first posted 7/02/07)

1. I believe that the Bible is the word of God and what is in the Bible is the only truth.

As someone else has said, while the Bible is the inerrant word of God, the meaning of said Word must have the Holy Spirit’s guidance for interpretation, which has been given to the Magesterium. We also use Sacred Tradition for biblical interpretation.

**2. I do not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, I do believe she was a Virgin at the time of Jesus’ birth and I believe in the Immaculate Conception.**3. I also believe that Jesus had siblings. Not the churches view that they where “other relatives”.

What is the Immaculate Conception? It’s our belief that Mary was born without sin. Regarding perpetual virginity, and Jesus ‘siblings’, if there were other siblings, why would Christ state from the Cross to Mary ‘Mother behold your son’, then to John ‘Son, behold your Mother’??? If there were other siblings, Mary would have been entrusted to them, not John.

Just because some scholar comes along many years later and professes the perpetual virginity of Mary, does not make it so. If this where the case why was it not mentioned in the Bible?

I believe that Mary found favor with God and he chose her to conceive his son, he also sent an angel to intercede with Joseph and explain her pregnancy. Because Mary was such a good Jewish girl, she would have followed Jewish doctrine and consummated her marriage to Joseph, after Jesus’ birth. If this where not the case, one of the Gospels would have mentioned it.
I still have other questions but I will stop here for now.
…

If Mary’s perpetual virginity was widely known (as some claim), why didn’t he include this in his gospel? As I stated previously I believe that the Bible is the word of God, and what it says is literal truth.

If you take the Bible as the literal church, how do you take the Gospel of John chapter 6, where he writes:

51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
59
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60
20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
62
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21
63
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64
But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65
And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
66
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
67
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
68
Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”

What other church would you become a member of that offers this to us daily??

You have to know that the Church wants you, but to be in communion with the body of Christ, you must believe her teachings, lock, stock and barrel. So it follows that, if you do not believe some of her teachings, you are not in communion, but have, in effect, excommunicated yourself. That doesn’t mean you cannot come back, but you must do so, as Fr. Serpa said, with prayer for the grace of understanding.

 

[Nevarlander]

About Mary and Joseph having other children: When the Bible does refer to Jesus’ brothers, it’s obvious they’re not Mary’s children. If they were, Jesus would be the eldest son, and they would be treating him respectfully (as in many cultures throughout Asia). Instead, they go up to him when he comes to Nazareth to preach and basically tell him “You’re talking crazy talk, son”, as if he’s the baby of the family. If they were his brothers, they’d have to be Joseph’s children from a different marriage or something like that. And they might not even be his literal brothers - the word we translate as “brother” had a wider meaning in Aramaic - something more like “close male relative”. They could have been his cousins or something like that.

Also, think of the absolute weirdness that it would have been for Joseph … God made your wife pregnant… with His own child. Out of a mix of fear of the Lord and awkwardness, I don’t think he would have touched her, because from what little we see of Saint Joseph, he was holy, and wasn’t stupid.

 

[mainusch]

The Church certainly does have a place for you, even if not some of your stated doctrine.

The job of the Church, as commissioned by Jesus Himself, is to go out and teach. To guide us to salvation. Are you allowing the Church to guide you? If you’re saying “I’ll join this Church, but only if they believe what I believe,” that is strong indication that you have no intention to being guided. Why do you want to be a part of this Church? What’s in it for you, if not to be guided to Jesus?

Jesus is the gate. But it’s a difficult gate to find. He sent His Church out to guide people to the gate. If you won’t be guided, how do you expect to find it?