Communion of other faiths

[jmcrae]

My histories point to the James mentioned being Jesus’ brother.

What histories would those be? Those historians of early Christianity who were living at the time of Christ and shortly after His death make no mention of brothers or sisters of Christ, and show that Mary was indeed a perpetual virgin.

We believe this because it is true - it is theologically necessary to believe things that are true.

If Mary had had other children, there would have been no sin in that, since she was a married woman - if she had done so, then the early Church would have taught so, but she did not, and to say that she did when she didn’t contaminates the truth of the Gospel.

We cannot believe lies and yet consider ourselves to be people of the truth - that simply doesn’t work.

Even in modern day English, the terms “brother” and “sister” can be vague - I have two sisters who are not related to me by blood at all -they are the daughters of my step-father by his previous wife - and in religious communities, people are always referring to each other as “brother” and “sister” including people of completely different races, and who have never lived together at all - what I think is that the custom of calling each other “brother” and “sister” in religious communities actually dates back to the time of Christ, when those who were members of Christ’s community were called His “brothers” and “sisters” even though obviously, as in the case of Jesus’ “brother” James, it is not possible for them to have been physically related to Him. There were two Jameses in the New Testament, and neither of them is a son of Joseph - one of them is the brother of John the Evangelist, and their father was Zebedee, and the other was the brother of Jude, and their father was Alphaeus. This is most likely the man who was the Bishop of Jerusalem.

 

[Markway]

Why create mystery where there is none? The philosophy of economy popularly known as “Occam’s Razor”, suggests that it is wisest to follow the simplest of possible answers, or solutions to a problem.

So why invent cousins, eternal virginity, Immaculate Conception and so forth, when most evidence points to a contrary and indeed simpler solution? I could point you to scripture; John 2:12, Acts1:14, Matthew 12:46, etc, all pointing to real brothers and sisters. What could be more natural and honorable? Mary contracts to marry a man and lives up to her marriage promises?
.
In each case, scripture states “brothers” and not “cousins”, the Greeks DO have a word for cousins, so whence the confusion? This question is disingenuous on my part because I realize that the whole point of RCC theological misinterpretation in this area is not due to stupidity, hey your scholars are often better than the Protestant ones. No, the reason for this intentional misinterpretation to bolster outrageous claims for Mary that the Church picked up from contact with pagan groups and found it politic to accept.

I was less than anxious to find in your Catechism what I found, but it’s there. Besides the perpetual virginity thing, your church teaches Immaculate Conception. I thought that this referred to Christ’s virgin birth, but no it’s MARY’s sinless nature that this doctrine is about! Paragraphs 490-492 in the Catechism. How do you guys buy this? Mary herself in Luke calls God “her Saviour”. Maybe she just didn’t believe that she was sinless? Paul writes that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and that no one at all is righteous. Why work towards some weird complicated apologetic in which Mary is sinless but doesn’t know it and a virgin even though her kids and the neighbors don’t realize it?

Still looking I found the Mother of God thing that I’d had a number of exchanges here over. In the Catechism P 963, 971, 2677 the logic is drawn that since she’s the mother of Jesus and Jesus is God , that that makes Mary “The Mother of God.”. I got myself in trouble before here by not saying this properly, but the Bible is very plain that everything except God was created through Jesus, and Mary was not born at the time.

I was horrified to read in Par 968-970 that the RCConsiders Mary to be Co-Mediator with Christ! The Bible could not be more clear on this. In first Timothy Paul writes that there is one mediator between God and Man, and it’s Christ Jesus. That’s not quite a quote, but close. How can Church theologians deal with this level of contradiction?

There was other strange stuff like Mary being Denmother of the early Church, but if she was she wasn’t teaching, if we’re to believe Paul, and came late to it as she and her other sons showed up at the temple to drag Him off believing that He’d gone around the bend.

Lastly we come to the Assumption. Wasn’t Mary handed off to the disciple John during the crucifixion? John is supposed, by your own scholars to be the last gospel writer writing around AD 90, and ther is no mention of any such assumption. If Mary had been “assumed” it is safe to say that it would have happened before this. I assume that John was about the same age as Jesus the man. So, it’s safe to say that Mary would have left this earthly coil by AD 90 unless she was VERY long lived, or gave birth at 3 or something.

What does the RCC have to say about this? It became official Church doctrine in 1950, but Pope Gelasius writing in the 5th Century decreed that this doctrine was heresy as did Pope Hormisdas. This would seem to say something about Papal infallibility on Doctrine and Morals, but none of the current crop of Catholics have much of a problem with it.

I attended a Catholic service conducted by two priests indoctrinated in some wild variation of Christianity based on the Mary of Guadalupe or some such. I wouldn’t have known it for a Christian meeting had it not been for the cross above the altar. It was not unlike a Wiccan proceeding I attended witha Wiccan acquaintance. I wad to wonder how he and his wife could be both Wiccans and Catholics, but after attending this guadalupe business it made some sort of strange sense. Some of the pictures of the Mother Goddess were very like those of Mary: standing on a crescent moon, crown of stars etc.

This Marian Heresy, needs to be cleansed from your church. I had thought that this sort of thing was an abberation carried on by crazy South American indians without access to Bibles, or ignorant Italian peasants or something, (a sheltered Scandinavian upbringing), but I find instead that these beliefs are doctrines of the RCC. Very disturbing.

 

[Greg27]

Logically speaking, you are begging the question with your assumptions. If you assume the CC is the only true Christian church with valid apostolic succession and the only church which validly dispenses the saving sacraments (which I think it is clear you do from your assumptions stated here), then the answer to your own question is obvious.

 

[Markway]

Logically speaking, you are begging the question with your assumptions. If you assume the CC is the only true Christian church with valid apostolic succession and the only church which validly dispenses the saving sacraments (which I think it is clear you do from your assumptions stated here), then the answer to your own question is obvious.

You can’t mean me.

 

[Ceil-1]

Alpheus is believed to be another name for Joseph. It is unclear whether or not he is a different man. I have heard that Joseph was an older man who was betrothed to Mary by lottery- that the temple servants (of which Mary was one) served until they were of age and then were married off. In any case, I think Anne and Joachim had already passed on.

Anyway, I am told the information contained in the Protoevangelium of James is accurate, if not inspired. James would have been the half-brother of Jesus, then. I hear the Eastern rites consider these things historic fact. They do not contradict the Faith in any way.

 

[jmcrae]

Alpheus is believed to be another name for Joseph.

And I suppose “Susanna” is another name for Mary?

It is unclear whether or not he is a different man. I have heard that Joseph was an older man who was betrothed to Mary by lottery- that the temple servants (of which Mary was one) served until they were of age and then were married off. In any case, I think Anne and Joachim had already passed on.

If the Protoevangelium of James is historical, then this would indeed be the case. (I have no way of knowing whether it is, or not.)

Anyway, I am told the information contained in the Protoevangelium of James is accurate, if not inspired. James would have been the half-brother of Jesus, then.

How so? The Protoevangelium of James shows that Mary remained a virgin her whole life because Joseph had no interest in a sexual relationship with her, due to the fact that she was too young for him.

I hear the Eastern rites consider these things historic fact. They do not contradict the Faith in any way.

Of course, the Eastern rites also hold to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. It is only the Protestants who have ever believed that Mary and Joseph had other children.

 

[jmcrae]

So why invent cousins, eternal virginity, Immaculate Conception and so forth …

These are not “inventions” - these are the facts that were presented to us by the Apostles themselves, who knew Jesus and Mary in person. (If the Apostles were blood kin to Christ and sons of Mary, why would they have claimed her to be a perpetual virgin?)

The only “inventing” going on is that of the Protestants.

 

[Ceil-1]

And I suppose “Susanna” is another name for Mary?

Hey, I’m just passing on what I have heard. It is possible, you know. I understand Jesus had several step-siblings. If Joseph were elderly, his children would have been grown already, for the most part. If we look at things from the ancient point of view, of the culture of the time, and not our own, it is a feasible situation.

Some of these things have been corroborated by saints by way of visions throughout the ages. St. Mary Alocoque is one, I can’t think of who else, but St. Catherine comes to mind. There is a book that compiles these visons, separated by hundreds of years that are remarkably similar in content. I beleive it is called The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is quite a book, and emphasizes the careful upbringing and grooming of Mary and her family in preparation for this singular event. The holiness involved is very inspiring, and a bit scary knowing how short I fall from this perfection.

Mary is a model of Christian perfection. She is an example of how it’s supposed to be. It culminated in her becoming a living tabernacle of the Lord which the Scriptures call us to be as well. There is more to this than meets the eye.

We are not bound to believe all those details, and who knows how it actually was, but I am content to take on trust what the Church has passed on to me. I can’t go wrong doing that.

 

[dad94513]

Woe to those who lead my sheep astray, for thier punishment is great. It is not necessary to “just pass on what you hear”. First, it can be construed as gossip. Secondly and most important, for those who have little or no faith, you could be held responsible for leading them away from the truth. Don’t you understand that Satan is very real and will say and promote anything to discredit, slander, destroy Christ, our Blessed Mother, the Church. How does he do this? Through those that are willing to do his work. Please use the common sense God gave you and think about what you say and do and contemplate the consequences of your actions, not only how it affects you but those around you. A simple standard to apply is…does it promote the Glory and truth that has been revealed in scripture and by the wisdom of the true Church? If it doen’t, then why promote it? Love, dad.

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae;2612509:

And I suppose “Susanna” is another name for Mary?

Hey, I’m just passing on what I have heard. It is possible, you know. I understand Jesus had several step-siblings. If Joseph were elderly, his children would have been grown already, for the most part. If we look at things from the ancient point of view, of the culture of the time, and not our own, it is a feasible situation.

That’s true, but those children of Joseph’s from a previous union would have been older than Jesus; not younger. The Apostles were all younger than Jesus; that’s why He was the “Master” and they were the “disciples.”

Again, there is nothing anywhere to support the idea that Mary had other children, other than a misinterpretation of some verses of the Bible - these misinterpretations are easily cleared up using the Bible itself, though, since when you investigate the parentage of these “brothers” you find that their parents were not Mary and Joseph, but other people - Alphaeus, Zebedee, Susanna, Johanna, the other Mary, etc. - it’s only those who don’t investigate and dig deeper who remain confused about this.

 

[Ceil-1]

Uh… huh?

I don’t understand what the difficulty is. What is so terrible about being a tabernacle for Christ when the Scriptures indicate a requirement for it? How is that a bad thing? What is so bad about Joseph being an older man? Is there some cut off age to marry I don’t know about? What is so terrible about Jesus having step-siblings? I truly do not understand. Why would you react so negatively?

 

[Ceil-1]

Ceil-1;2620113:

That’s true, but those children of Joseph’s from a previous union would have been older

than Jesus; not younger. The Apostles were all younger than Jesus; that’s why He was the “Master” and they were the “disciples.”

I am not indicating that these particular people were Jesus’ siblings, and it is not probable. I mean just that it is possible, maybe even likely he had step-siblings based on the writings, etc. As far as the age of these particular disciples, I would not agree that age would be indicated by this. I have to call our newly ordained priests “father”, and I’m old enough to be their mother. (good gracious). If it is indicated they were younger, I would have to go back and read more carefully.

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae;2620576:

Ceil-1;2620113:

That’s true, but those children of Joseph’s from a previous union would have been older

than Jesus; not younger. The Apostles were all younger than Jesus; that’s why He was the “Master” and they were the “disciples.”

I am not indicating that these particular people were Jesus’ siblings, and it is not probable. I mean just that it is possible, maybe even likely he had step-siblings based on the writings, etc. As far as the age of these particular disciples, I would not agree that age would be indicated by this. I have to call our newly ordained priests “father”, and I’m old enough to be their mother. (good gracious). If it is indicated they were younger, I would have to go back and read more carefully.

Back in those days, joining with a spiritual master (Jesus wasn’t the only one - there were hundreds of them) was the equivalent of our high school and University - it wasn’t something that established adults normally would do - it was for young men from about age 14 to 24. Of course they would also be apprenticing in their careers at the same time, normally.

The idea that Joseph had other children from a previous marriage is allowable, but the idea that Mary had other children is not, since we are taught that she was a perpetual virgin.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

The idea that Joseph had other children from a previous marriage is allowable, but the idea that Mary had other children is not, since we are taught that she was a perpetual virgin.

So, if you were not taught that, then it would be allowable? This makes the teaching diictate how one is to think about and ultimately understand the meaning of scripture vs. coming to an understanding of what scripture is saying and then basing one’s teaching on it. This is a major difference between the Catholic faith of today and what I believe was the practice of the Catholic faith at earlier times in its history.

Present day Catholicism
Tradition and the church’s teaching → impacts the way one reads and interprets scripture.

Catholicism as originally practiced
The kerygma message → produced scripture → informed the teaching and traditions of the church.

 

[Ceil-1]

From what I understand, it is not essential that we know all the details of all the holy peoples’ life to live the Gospel. However, I think it helps to meditate on what the saints tell us have gone on between them. Things such as Mary and Joseph outdoing each other in humility and respect for each other: Joseph bowing down to her, and her not making a move without asking his permission. What a Biblical model for the way a husband and wife should treat each other.

It is heartwarming, too, the descriptions of the relationship between Jesus and Mary, how He would defer to her limits on His fasting at a level that was sustainable for a child. Of course, Joseph was in awe of both of them.

I just try to meditate on these examples of holiness as often as possible and it helps to bring me into the proper frame of mind, that is, what behavior is pleasing to God. This is why I have such a devotion to the Holy Family. If only I could make some headway in imitation of it.

Those who do not share our faith tradition would have difficulty with these things because they cannot conceive of anything not explicitly narrated in the Bible. I suppose they think it’s better to be safe than sorry. I just hope it is enough to bring them to the holiness required by God. Meanwhile, I struggle, struggle, struggle.

 

[jmcrae]

So, if you were not taught that, then it would be allowable?

How would it not be taught, unless it were not true? The teaching comes from the Apostles; it’s not something invented out of thin air later on. Why should anyone believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin, if she had not been? That makes absolutely no sense. There is no advantage in believing it, if it isn’t true.

This makes the teaching diictate how one is to think about and ultimately understand the meaning of scripture vs. coming to an understanding of what scripture is saying and then basing one’s teaching on it. This is a major difference between the Catholic faith of today and what I believe was the practice of the Catholic faith at earlier times in its history.

Present day Catholicism
Tradition and the church’s teaching → impacts the way one reads and interprets scripture.

Catholicism as originally practiced
The kerygma message → produced scripture → informed the teaching and traditions of the church.

The teachings came first - these are the same teachings that we are still taught today.

The Apostles taught the perpetual virginity of Mary, and we know that because when she departed this earth, they gave her the title “Virgin Mary” - this title of “Virgin” is never given to anyone who did not actually die in the state of virginity, as I am sure you know if you have ever read any book of the Lives of the Saints. Yet, in the Apostles’ Creed and in other early teaching documents of the Church, the Apostles and/or their direct successors refer to her as “The Virgin Mary.”

Scripture came out of the teachings of the Church, but it does not contain everything that was taught. It is not a Catechism; it is a recounting of events - a memory book, if you will, of the doings and sayings of Christ and His followers, the letters they received from each other, etc.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

The teachings came first - these are the same teachings that we are still taught today.

The Apostles taught the perpetual virginity of Mary, and we know that because when she departed this earth, they gave her the title “Virgin Mary” - this title of “Virgin” is never given to anyone who did not actually die in the state of virginity, as I am sure you know if you have ever read any book of the Lives of the Saints. Yet, in the Apostles’ Creed and in other early teaching documents of the Church, the Apostles and/or their direct successors refer to her as “The Virgin Mary.”

Scripture came out of the teachings of the Church, but it does not contain everything that was taught. It is not a Catechism; it is a recounting of events - a memory book, if you will, of the doings and sayings of Christ and His followers, the letters they received from each other, etc.

Yeah, I think I got it right. You and I simply have different views with regard to the origin of teaching in the early church. Probably nearly a billion people agree with you too. The kerygma was of course a teaching, but what you are speaking of is doctrine, and I think that came later, and developed out of scripture.

Today, I think the Catholic church has its dotrine and dogma and today (and for more than a thousand years) has engaged in isogesis to find substantiation for those beliefs in scripture. But, they’ve begun with what they wanted to find, rather than just looking to discover what was there.

The Catholic church is hardly alone in this, I think we all do it from time to time, I just happen to think that doing so has become institutionalized tradition in the Catholic church, so that it is impossible to read the scripture without that particular lens effecting what one finds. But such is life. Because of that, we’re going to continue to disagee about the primacy of Peter and the Immaculate conception of Mary. But other than the view of the Catholic church as the only true Church, the rest of thos differences aren’t enough for me to get worked up about. And even this one won’t prevent me from calling you brother (or is it sister?).

 

[Steve40]

Does this mean that other faiths (not Roman Catholic) are not receiving thebody and blood of Christ when they celebrate their “communion”?

I think you mean just Catholic not Roman Catholic. There are other Catholic rites besides the Roman rite that are in communion with the Pope and have the same faith and doctrine as the Rome rite within the Catholic Church.

 

[happygal]

So, then, can anybody confect the Eucharist, in your view?

For example, if my mother or my sister decides that it would be a good idea to include the Eucharist at family prayer time, and provides bread and wine for this purpose, and speaks the words over them that we find in I Corinthians 11, is she capable of confecting the Eucharist? (Assume that she sincerely intends to do so.)

Hi Jmcrae

You got to take faith in believing of the Holy Communion. God misery is too profound for anyone on earth to understand by words. Anyone can be a Catholic and simply partake the HC on a daily basic, and yet there are some Catholic who doesn’t/truly understand the misery of Eucharist, what they know is , the priest have transform the wine and bread into the blood and body of Christ that it, DONE…

And if you tell the non believers you drink the blood and eat flesh of Christ, the presence of Christ…etc…etc…
there think you’re crazy people talking rubbish, they will in return ask you to prove the wine will become blood, the bread become flesh, don’t even need to talk about proving the real presence where they can’t even see it…!!! So how do you justify this point right!! We can’t. The ony reason why we Christian understand, becoz we believes and understand the misery of Eucharist.

Everyone can spend tonnes of time writing and explaining the eucharist…blar…blar…however if one does not have any faith/believe…it is as good as nothing…

So Christian teaching on the communion are very profound and not 1,2,3 you will understand by just a few words

 

[jmcrae]

Yeah, I think I got it right. You and I simply have different views with regard to the origin of teaching in the early church. Probably nearly a billion people agree with you too. The kerygma was of course a teaching, but what you are speaking of is doctrine, and I think that came later, and developed out of scripture.

We didn’t have a New Testament until 405 AD.

We did, however, have all of the doctrines that the Church continues to teach well before then. (Indeed, many Protestants say that the Church began to “go astray” in the early 300s, because they recognize that the teachings of the Council of Nicea in 325 AD are so very Catholic.) These doctrines came out of the oral teachings of the Apostles; not from the Scriptures, since we didn’t have the Scriptures (meaning, all of the books in one place, translated into one language), as such, yet.

In fact, the reason it took so long to develop the New Testament was because they first needed to figure out what the doctrine of the Church actually was, in a systematic way, so that they would be able to discern which books actually belonged in the New Testament, and which ones did not belong there.

Doctrine came first - then the Bible. Not the other way around.