Communion of other faiths

[Markway]

I am quite certain that the Pope does not think that Protestants have a valid Eucharist, in the sense meant by the Catholic Church.

Many Protestants view it as only an ordinance, and even those who call it a Sacrament would freely tell you that the bread and wine are only symbols of Christ, and not really Him in person.

Watch how they treat the remaining bread and wine after their services of Holy Communion to see what I mean - a lot of them actually throw it in the garbage, and those that don’t do that do things like make turkey stuffing out of it, or give it to the children to eat, etc. They certainly don’t reserve it carefully in a Tabernacle, or anything like that.

Hard to disagree with the zealot appelation, but do Catholics believe that the Eucharist PHYSICALLY transforms into the body of Christ or is this thought to happen in a metaphysical sense?

Not to seem irreverent, but I have no problem with a metaphysical Eucharist, but a physical could be cleared up once and for all by a simple DNA test.

Can’t agree that the Protestants have no authority. Christ did say that where one or two are together “Shazaam!” there’s my Church. Martin Luther could have easily claimed that HE representedthe true church as the RCC had veered so far off track, and that whatever authority they may once have had had been rejected. Heck, they were electing Borgias Pope! Orgies in the Vatican, come on! Papal infallibility?!

 

[jmcrae]

Hard to disagree with the zealot appelation, but do Catholics believe that the Eucharist PHYSICALLY transforms into the body of Christ or is this thought to happen in a metaphysical sense?

Not to seem irreverent, but I have no problem with a metaphysical Eucharist, but a physical could be cleared up once and for all by a simple DNA test.

This has been done; check out the Miracle at Lanciano. Jesus is AB Positive.

Can’t agree that the Protestants have no authority. Christ did say that where one or two are together “Shazaam!” there’s my Church.

Not quite. Jesus did not say “There is My Church;” He said, “There am I in the midst of them.” Referring to people who are honestly trying their best to follow His will, regardless of whether or not they are formal members of His Church.

Martin Luther could have easily claimed that HE represented the true church as the RCC had veered so far off track, and that whatever authority they may once have had had been rejected.

If Martin Luther were meant to replace the Pope, then Jesus would have caused him to have the ability to walk on water, and to cure the sick merely by causing his shadow to pass over them, as He did with Peter. Yet, this did not happen.

Heck, they were electing Borgias Pope! Orgies in the Vatican, come on! Papal infallibility?!

Infallibility is not the inability to sin; it is the inability to teach incorrectly. The Pope can sin his little brains out; there is nothing stopping him - but (and some people think that this has actually happened) he would keel over dead if he even thought of promulgating something as Doctrine which is actually a heresy.

You will notice that not even the Borgia Popes ever publicly denied the divinity of Christ or the motherhood of Mary.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

How can one say, “we didn’t add any extra information to the raw data that we were given by the Apostles” and still speak against the idea of “sola Scriptura”?

Because the Scriptures are actually a prime example of development of doctrine. (You do realize that most of the Apostles never saw or knew about the New Testament, right?)

Most of the Apostles had already been martyred before the first word of it was ever written down, and all except one of them were already dead when the last word of it was written down.

The books of the New Testament were gathered together at the Councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo in the late 300s AD.

The “data set” (so to speak) that the Apostles gave us was the Oral Tradition - out of which we get such things as the Nicene Creed (325 AD) and the Scriptures (405 AD), together with the concept of the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, the Marian dogmas, the Catechism, etc.

So the “raw data” you spoke of isn’t the scriptures – I take that would be “compiled data” – but this oral tradition?

Yes.

So do you believe in sola “raw data”?

 

[jmcrae]

So do you believe in sola “raw data”?

What I believe is that anything that can’t be traced back to the raw data isn’t authentic, and everything that can be, is.

Obviously, the raw data doesn’t stand by itself - it is interpreted through rituals, writings, hymns, and various bits of lore, some of which (like the Bible, the doctrine of the Trinity, or the Nicene Creed) didn’t come into existence until centuries later - but they can be traced back in an authentically organic manner to the Holy Tradition.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

What I believe is that anything that can’t be traced back to the raw data isn’t authentic, and everything that can be, is.

Obviously, the raw data doesn’t stand by itself - it is interpreted through rituals, writings, hymns, and various bits of lore, some of which (like the Bible, the doctrine of the Trinity, or the Nicene Creed) didn’t come into existence until centuries later - but they can be traced back in an authentically organic manner to the Holy Tradition.

Which by the way is exactly the view I take toward all of that as well.

What you and I disagree on is whether the present interpretations of the Catholic church with regard to itself can be truly traced back to the “raw data” or are only able to be traced back to mistaken interpretations and misapplications of the data set.

 

[jmcrae]

Which by the way is exactly the view I take toward all of that as well.

What you and I disagree on is whether the present interpretations of the Catholic church with regard to itself can be truly traced back to the “raw data” or are only able to be traced back to mistaken interpretations and misapplications of the data set.

Well, neither of us is an authority in the matter, are we?

The only legitimate authority in the matter is the Magesterium of the Church, which Christ Himself established - this part is abundantly clear in the New Testament and in the writings of the earliest Fathers - “Where the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church,” said St. Ignatius of Antioch, as he was being taken away to the Colloseum, in 110 AD. None of us can interpret by ourselves, and this was recognized right from the very start.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Well, neither of us is an authority in the matter, are we?

The only legitimate authority in the matter is the Magesterium of the Church, which Christ Himself established - this part is abundantly clear in the New Testament and in the writings of the earliest Fathers - “Where the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church,” said St. Ignatius of Antioch, as he was being taken away to the Colloseum, in 110 AD. None of us can interpret by ourselves, and this was recognized right from the very start.

Interesting. You assert that none of us can interpret by ourselves, and yet you lend credence to the interpretation of one man named Ignatius.

I appreciate the writings of Ignatius, but I don’t think he had any greater ability to understand the ways of God than any other human being. Why does his understanding of the role of bishop carry such great weight with you that other Christian thinkers do not?

 

[Cecilia_Selby]

The Pope’s words were a crushing blow to me, because the whole time I was an Episcopalian (40 some years),I belived we had Apostolic succession and that all seven sacraments were valid.I had belived that I was receiving JeusChrist body and blood soul and Divinity in the Holy scrafice of the Mass.Even though I am safely In the Catholic Church since Dec. it makes me ill to think that I was that Separated from Jesus for so long.

I truly thought our position was more like that of the Orthodox.
While the Episcopal Church has sadly lost it’s way, I have hopes
that a stonger Anglican Communion will work it’s way back to a be
tter relationship with Rome.

Cecilia

 

[Markway]

This has been done; check out the Miracle at Lanciano. Jesus is AB Positive.

Not quite. Jesus did not say “There is My Church;” He said, “There am I in the midst of them.” Referring to people who are honestly trying their best to follow His will, regardless of whether or not they are formal members of His Church.

If Martin Luther were meant to replace the Pope, then Jesus would have caused him to have the ability to walk on water, and to cure the sick merely by causing his shadow to pass over them, as He did with Peter. Yet, this did not happen.

Infallibility is not the inability to sin; it is the inability to teach incorrectly. The Pope can sin his little brains out; there is nothing stopping him - but (and some people think that this has actually happened) he would keel over dead if he even thought of promulgating something as Doctrine which is actually a heresy.

You will notice that not even the Borgia Popes ever publicly denied the divinity of Christ or the motherhood of Mary.

I’m going to have to ask you to answer the question. Do Catholics believe in a Physical Eucharist, i.e. physical blood and physical flesh, or in a metaphysical Eucharist? I am interested in Truth and in Catholic Doctrine. If I can’t find out what Catholics believe here perhaps CRI might be more helpful.

That the Borgias and other slimy popes believed in solid Catholic Doctrine while comitting atrocities of the worst sort is not something that I would be tempted to advertise.

Catholic Doctrine hasn’t changed it’s “evolved”. Right. That’s called semantics.

Perhaps the Church “Evolved” to where it no longer need a Pope, if it ever did. If I recall correctly the major practice that set that crazy little German off, was the practice of selling indulgences. Is it really plausable that the Christ of the Bible would have approved of such a thing? Rich perverts, murderers, etc etc of the worst stripe to buy their way into Heaven?

The reference that I gave for the establishment or de facto existence of a Christian Church, “there am I among them” etc, is as much proof as the “Rock” reference provides for the institution of the Papacy. Heck, insofar as I can tell there was no Pope in the early church. Peter was one of or perhaps THE bishop of Rome, and when the Church became a state religion Rome was the convenient center for the emperor’s control. Peter and Paul’s presence there during the early years added luster, and then the Rock business was wound up to give force to the idea.

After the fall of Jerusalem the center of the Church moved to the South of France as I recall, Marseilles? due to the emigration of many jewish Christians to that spot. Directly after the resurrection, Jesus’ half brother James was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. The most active evangelist was Paul. Why pick Peter?

 

[jmcrae]

I’m going to have to ask you to answer the question. Do Catholics believe in a Physical Eucharist, i.e. physical blood and physical flesh, or in a metaphysical Eucharist? I am interested in Truth and in Catholic Doctrine. If I can’t find out what Catholics believe here perhaps CRI might be more helpful.

We believe in Transubstantiation - there is no longer bread and wine, but there is the appearance of bread and wine - right down to the molecular level - but it is really Jesus - Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, whole and entire.

I can’t really say whether that is a "physical’ or a “metaphysical” presence, but it is definitely much more than just a spiritual presence or symbol. Jesus is really present in the Eucharist, and this is why we can bow down to it and worship it.

Catholic Doctrine hasn’t changed it’s “evolved”. Right. That’s called semantics.

It has developed; not evolved. Nothing from outside has ever accrued to it, but it has become better understood over time. Just as in mathematics, nothing from outside has ever accrued to the numerical system, but mathemeticians today understand it better today than they did before, and we say that Mathematics has “developed,” even though obviously no numbers have ever been added to or subtracted from the total quantity of numbers that exist - we are just more aware of them, and more aware of what they can do.

In the same way, Catholic theology has developed. Nothing has been added or taken away, but it is better understood now that it was before.

Perhaps the Church “Evolved” to where it no longer need a Pope, if it ever did. If I recall correctly the major practice that set that crazy little German off, was the practice of selling indulgences.

It is not possible to buy or sell an indulgence - only you and God know for certain whether you even have one. There was the practice of giving indulgences for donations of money to various good causes, and this could be construed as “buying” an indulgence, I suppose, and because it was construed that way, this is no longer possible - giving money to the poor or to good causes is no longer considered meritorious to the point of being able to atone for sins.

Is it really plausable that the Christ of the Bible would have approved of such a thing? Rich perverts, murderers, etc etc of the worst stripe to buy their way into Heaven?

It has never been possible for an unrepentant sinner to “buy his way” into Heaven - all an indulgence can do is reduce the amount of penance required for sins repented of, confessed, and forgiven. But first, the sins must be repented of, confessed and forgiven in the Confessional. That’s the first step, and without that, no indulgence can be given. The second step is to do the action for which an indulgence may be granted while in a state of grace (it doesn’t work if you are not in a state of grace), and then after the action is completed, go to Mass the same day and receive Holy Communion, and then (or at any time on the same day while in a state of grace) pray one Our Father, one Hail Mary, and one Glory Be for the intentions of the Pope. Without all of these steps being completed, there is no indulgence. Notice that no one except you would ever be aware that you had actually done all these things. It is God who gives the indulgence; not any person. The Pope has the authority to decide which actions merit indulgences, though, and this is by the power of the Keys that were given to Peter in Matthew 16:18-19.

Directly after the resurrection, Jesus’ half brother James was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem.

James the Bishop of Jerusalem was one of the two Apostles by that name; I’ve forgotten which, but the elder James was the son of Zebedee, not Joseph, and the younger one’s father was called Alphaeus, so there is no way that he could have been Jesus’ “half-brother” - Jesus was an only child, anyway. He had older cousins who bossed him around, and who were thought by the Nazarenes to be his brothers, but there was no one younger than him in his household growing up. Scripture is clear that Mary was a virgin at the time of His birth, and there is no record anywhere of her having had any other children.

The most active evangelist was Paul. Why pick Peter?

Because Christ did. (John 21:15-19) Who are we, to disagree with Christ?

 

[jmcrae]

Interesting. You assert that none of us can interpret by ourselves, and yet you lend credence to the interpretation of one man named Ignatius.

He was a Bishop - a member of the Magesterium of the Church, and he was speaking in his capacity as a teacher.

I appreciate the writings of Ignatius, but I don’t think he had any greater ability to understand the ways of God than any other human being. Why does his understanding of the role of bishop carry such great weight with you that other Christian thinkers do not?

Because he was a student and successor of the Apostles, directly. He knew them in person, so yes, he had a greater ability to know what he was talking about than anyone living in the 1500s, or anyone living today.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

It [Catholic theology] has developed; not evolved. Nothing from outside has ever accrued to it, but it has become better understood over time. Just as in mathematics, nothing from outside has ever accrued to the numerical system, but mathemeticians today understand it better today than they did before, and we say that Mathematics has “developed,” even though obviously no numbers have ever been added to or subtracted from the total quantity of numbers that exist - we are just more aware of them, and more aware of what they can do.

In the same way, Catholic theology has developed. Nothing has been added or taken away, but it is better understood now that it was before.

You know. That’s actually a very good way to present it. I have to give credit where credit is due, and that is a most helpful answer to that question.

We believe in Transubstantiation - there is no longer bread and wine, but there is the appearance of bread and wine - right down to the molecular level - but it is really Jesus - Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, whole and entire.

I can’t really say whether that is a "physical’ or a “metaphysical” presence, but it is definitely much more than just a spiritual presence or symbol. Jesus is really present in the Eucharist, and this is why we can bow down to it and worship it.

Now, this one doesn’t “work” for me quite as well. It isn’t that I want to argue with the accepted Catholic understanding regarding the “Real Presence”. But what I don’t understand is the implication that I see in your post in in many others from Catholics when talking about the real presence of the body of Christ in the elements of Holy Commuion, is that the statement is made similar to what you have said: “It (i.e. Christ’s presence) is definitely much more than jut a spiritual presence… Jesus is really present in the Eucharist.” Now, what I hear implied in that statement is not only that you believe in some sort of “real” presence, but that a spiritual presence could NOT be “real”. And I just cannot agree with that implication.

Maybe you don’t mean to actually imply that, but when “real” is set as the opposite of “spiritual” it is really hard (pun intended) to see that the spiritual plane as being understood as real, and I object to that concept as one who believes in a God who is Spirit.

In my understanding a spiritual presence is a real presence. If you mean that Christ is present in something other than being not just spiritually present, then say by what other means Christ is present, be it physically or metaphysically, or whatever. But please don’t deny that Christ being spiritual present is not a real presence. When Christ says that wherever two or three are gave in his name, there he is in the midst of them, I infer two things from that statement: (1) that Christ is talking about being spiritually present in our midst, and (2) that he is really present when he is spiritually present.

So, tell me that you believe that Christ’s body is physically present in the elements of the Catholic mass. Tell me that you believe that the bread and wine are really transformed into the body and blood of Jesus. But, please don’t deny that Christ is really present if he is only spiritually present.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Grace

nicely put

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Grace

nicely put

Thanks. Though it would be more nicely put if I could see my typos, spelling mistakes and errors of grammatical syntax at the time that I type my post, rather after it’s too late to edit it.

 

[jmcrae]

Now, this one doesn’t “work” for me quite as well. It isn’t that I want to argue with the accepted Catholic understanding regarding the “Real Presence”. But what I don’t understand is the implication that I see in your post in in many others from Catholics when talking about the real presence of the body of Christ in the elements of Holy Commuion, is that the statement is made similar to what you have said: “It (i.e. Christ’s presence) is definitely much more than jut a spiritual presence… Jesus is really present in the Eucharist.” Now, what I hear implied in that statement is not only that you believe in some sort of “real” presence, but that a spiritual presence could NOT be “real”. And I just cannot agree with that implication.

A spiritual presence is certainly real, but in a different way and in a less tangible way than when both body and spirit are present.

For example, my husband is spiritually present with me at all times in my wedding ring, and this is a reality that has dimension and effect, just as Christ’s spiritual presence among all who pray has dimension and effect - when men see my wedding ring, they “see” my husband, even though he isn’t physically present -and those who pray “see” Jesus, even though He is not physically present with them.

My husband’s spiritual presence in my wedding ring provides me with his protection and gives me emotional comfort, even though he may be off doing something else in his body. But this is qualitatively different than when he is both physically and spiritually present - I myself derive greater joy when my husband is fully with me in his body than when he is only spiritually present, and he also (I hope) derives greater joy from being physically present with me than otherwise.

It is the same with the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist - He and we derive greater joy in one another, and have deeper concord than when He is only present spiritually - even though His spiritual presence is also very important and very effective - certainly, He hears and is aware of our prayers even outside of the Mass - but going to Mass and being in His real presence is greater still, just as a husband and wife are happiest when they are together in the flesh as well as in the spirit.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

A spiritual presence is certainly real, but in a different way and in a less tangible way than when both body and spirit are present.

For example, my husband is spiritually present with me at all times in my wedding ring, and this is a reality that has dimension and effect, just as Christ’s spiritual presence among all who pray has dimension and effect - when men see my wedding ring, they “see” my husband, even though he isn’t physically present -and those who pray “see” Jesus, even though He is not physically present with them.

My husband’s spiritual presence in my wedding ring provides me with his protection and gives me emotional comfort, even though he may be off doing something else in his body. But this is qualitatively different than when he is both physically and spiritually present - I myself derive greater joy when my husband is fully with me in his body than when he is only spiritually present, and he also (I hope) derives greater joy from being physically present with me than otherwise.

It is the same with the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist - He and we derive greater joy in one another, and have deeper concord than when He is only present spiritually - even though His spiritual presence is also very important and very effective - certainly, He hears and is aware of our prayers even outside of the Mass - but going to Mass and being in His real presence is greater still, just as a husband and wife are happiest when they are together in the flesh as well as in the spirit.

Do you get that my complaint is not with the concept, but with the terminology used? I understand that a Catholic may experience Jesus’ presence in a different manner in the Eucharist than you do at other times, but I think it is sloppy language to only speak of Jesus as being really present in Holy Communion when in fact he is really present with Christians all the time. It also comes across as a denial of the reality of that very real presence of Jesus that is available to us, even when the Eucharist may not be. We need to never forget that Jesus is really present in the hear and now of our everyday lives. To think that his real presence can only be found in the Eucharist is to, in effect, tell Jesus that he lied to us in Matthew 28:20.

Or maybe the only person that Jesus is really with always is that guy named, Lo.

 

[jmcrae]

Do you get that my complaint is not with the concept, but with the terminology used? I understand that a Catholic may experience Jesus’ presence in a different manner in the Eucharist than you do at other times, but I think it is sloppy language to only speak of Jesus as being really present in Holy Communion when in fact he is really present with Christians all the time.

Not physically, though. Mentally and emotionally, in a spiritual manner, yes (and yes, that’s important, too) - but not in person.

It’s the difference between the kind of interaction we are having here on the Forum, and a face-to-face conversation.

It also comes across as a denial of the reality of that very real presence of Jesus that is available to us, even when the Eucharist may not be. We need to never forget that Jesus is really present in the hear and now of our everyday lives. To think that his real presence can only be found in the Eucharist is to, in effect, tell Jesus that he lied to us in Matthew 28:20.

Matthew 28:20 is referring to the Tabernacle of the Catholic Church. Jesus is always physically present with us in the Tabernacle and at Mass. “With you” is referring to the Church; not just to any random individuals who happen to be reading those words. The Gospels were written for and to the Church; they were intended to be read out to the people at Mass - Jesus was speaking to the Apostles; the leadership of His Catholic Church.

Or maybe the only person that Jesus is really with always is that guy named, Lo.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Not physically, though. Mentally and emotionally, in a spiritual manner, yes (and yes, that’s important, too) - but not in person.

It’s the difference between the kind of interaction we are having here on the Forum, and a face-to-face conversation.

Agreed. So, call it Christ’s “physical” presence rather than Christ’s real presence, because the Eucharist would be the only occassion of Christ’s physical presence among us, but NOT the only occassion of his real presence among us.

Matthew 28:20 is referring to the Tabernacle of the Catholic Church. Jesus is always physically present with us in the Tabernacle and at Mass. “With you” is referring to the Church; not just to any random individuals who happen to be reading those words. The Gospels were written for and to the Church; they were intended to be read out to the people at Mass - Jesus was speaking to the Apostles; the leadership of His Catholic Church.

Hmmm??? Once again we read the same verse and see its application in different ways. I believe this speaks of Christ’s presence with individual disciples, not just in the Tabernacle or the Mass.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Agreed. So, call it Christ’s “physical” presence rather than Christ’s real presence, because the Eucharist would be the only occassion of Christ’s physical presence among us, but NOT the only occassion of his real presence among us.

Hmmm??? Once again we read the same verse and see its application in different ways. I believe this speaks of Christ’s presence with individual disciples, not just in the Tabernacle or the Mass.

*Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen. *

I find it interesting that Jesus is speaking to the disciples but says you which is a single thing. But when someone addresses a group or a crowd, they say you.

*Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. *

So it isnt logical to say Jesus was referring to 1 of the 11. You meant all of them. But the instructions are to teach all nations. It would obviously start with the 11. So if jm understands that the Catholic church is the only group entitled to teach, shes natually going to think it would be only those.

But if one understands the priesthood of all believers then the verse would mean the teaching would be more like I told 2 friends and they told 2 friends and so on and so on.

The thing I get from this that I find interesting is why would God allow His ways to be found out from Protestant sources, even non church ones, if He intended it only to be from the Catholic source?? Just as Hes bigger than we imagine, certainly confining Him to one church is not logical.

On the “other” side of things satan had one church at babylon, and he didnt repeat that.

We all come from different backgrounds and ideas, what reaches one will not reach another, the message while the same, needs different delivery to different people.

 

[Markway]

We believe in Transubstantiation - there is no longer bread and wine, but there is the appearance of bread and wine - right down to the molecular level - but it is really Jesus - Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, whole and entire.

I can’t really say whether that is a "physical’ or a “metaphysical” presence, but it is definitely much more than just a spiritual presence or symbol. Jesus is really present in the Eucharist, and this is why we can bow down to it and worship it.

It has developed; not evolved. Nothing from outside has ever accrued to it, but it has become better understood over time. Just as in mathematics, nothing from outside has ever accrued to the numerical system, but mathemeticians today understand it better today than they did before, and we say that Mathematics has “developed,” even though obviously no numbers have ever been added to or subtracted from the total quantity of numbers that exist - we are just more aware of them, and more aware of what they can do.

In the same way, Catholic theology has developed. Nothing has been added or taken away, but it is better understood now that it was before.

It is not possible to buy or sell an indulgence - only you and God know for certain whether you even have one. There was the practice of giving indulgences for donations of money to various good causes, and this could be construed as “buying” an indulgence, I suppose, and because it was construed that way, this is no longer possible - giving money to the poor or to good causes is no longer considered meritorious to the point of being able to atone for sins.

It has never been possible for an unrepentant sinner to “buy his way” into Heaven - all an indulgence can do is reduce the amount of penance required for sins repented of, confessed, and forgiven. But first, the sins must be repented of, confessed and forgiven in the Confessional. That’s the first step, and without that, no indulgence can be given. The second step is to do the action for which an indulgence may be granted while in a state of grace (it doesn’t work if you are not in a state of grace), and then after the action is completed, go to Mass the same day and receive Holy Communion, and then (or at any time on the same day while in a state of grace) pray one Our Father, one Hail Mary, and one Glory Be for the intentions of the Pope. Without all of these steps being completed, there is no indulgence. Notice that no one except you would ever be aware that you had actually done all these things. It is God who gives the indulgence; not any person. The Pope has the authority to decide which actions merit indulgences, though, and this is by the power of the Keys that were given to Peter in Matthew 16:18-19.

James the Bishop of Jerusalem was one of the two Apostles by that name; I’ve forgotten which, but the elder James was the son of Zebedee, not Joseph, and the younger one’s father was called Alphaeus, so there is no way that he could have been Jesus’ “half-brother” - Jesus was an only child, anyway. He had older cousins who bossed him around, and who were thought by the Nazarenes to be his brothers, but there was no one younger than him in his household growing up. Scripture is clear that Mary was a virgin at the time of His birth, and there is no record anywhere of her having had any other children. End Quote

I thank and congratulate you for a reasoned and gentlemanly response. I wasn’t getting very far a few weeks ago and just went ahead and bought a copy of your Catechism, and a book on the history of Catholic Doctrine, (not an RCC approved publication).

Your description of the Eucharist is very close to mine and is what I would consider a Metaphysical transformation.

My histories point to the James mentioned being Jesus’ brother. I have to disagree with your church that Jesus was an only child. The words for brother, cousin etc in Hebrew are rather vague, but not so in Greek, the language of the New Testament. The greek language has very exact words to describe kinship, and they definitely state that Jesus had brothers and sisters. This in no way threatens the virgin birth, so this would not seem to be a problem, unless someone wanted to claim Mary’s perpetual virginity.

I have always found it hard to understand why Catholics find it interesting to emphasize Mary’s contribution out all proportion. We are after all a Christian Church. Scripture teaches Christ and His salvation and intervention. Where’s the theological necessity?