S
- Status
R
RBK
Guest
This is my first post on this forum, although I have been reading here for quite awhile. I have just finished reading all 37 pages of this particular thread. My initial reaction to it all is that I am incredibly grateful to have been received into the Catholic Church three years ago. Previously, I was a member of various Protestant denominations and have been involved in Bible studies for 19 years. If there is one thing that was consistent in my pre-Catholic Bible studies it is that although we had a great love for Christ and our neighbor, there was little agreement on much else.
There is a popular saying in many Protestant pulpits: “In essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things charity.” This was used as an excuse for many of the doctrinal disagreements that occur among various denominations. The problem is, there is no agreement on “essentials” either. Are you Once Saved, Always Saved or can you lose your salvation? Is Baptism necessary for salvation or not? Should this Baptism, if you are so inclined to receive it, be done as an infant or at the age of accountability? Is the Bible alone your only source of authority or must you adhere to various creeds? Etc., etc., etc…
Is this how Christ desired to leave us? It is not a position that squares with Scripture. What did Jesus pray for in John 17? “that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.” Is there doctrinal chaos between Christ and the Father? Ephesians 4:5 says that there is one Lord, ONE faith, one baptism…
St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians, "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.
If by “Big Tent” Christianity it is meant that truth is no longer important, that we should just come together and love Jesus, then that is not a message grounded in Scripture. “Can’t we just get along?” was not the answer Jesus was looking for when He asked His disciples “Who do you say that I am?”
Regarding the original question of Jesus’ siblings, more than enough evidence has been presented to at least cast significant doubt on the assertion that He did. The same objections are raised, then answered, then raised again. The Catechism says, “What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.” You do not realize that when you deny the Marian doctrines, you in turn cast doubt on doctrines related to the nature of Christ.
I became a Catholic, in part, because of the testimony of the Early Church Fathers. If the Bible wasn’t compiled until the end of the 4th century then isn’t it relevant, no necessary, for us to know what Christians believed and how they practiced their faith prior to that? Wouldn’t we want to consult men who knew the Apostles or knew people who did? And when you do, you find plenty of evidence - which has been cited several times in this thread, that Mary had no other children.
Why is this important? Because God’s Word tells us that there is ONE faith, that we should be speaking the SAME thing, and that there should be NO divisions among us. Truth matters and Christ, Who loved us “while we were yet sinners,” became man and suffered an unimaginable death to redeem mankind. That kind of love would not leave us to ourselves. No, He established His Church - “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).
Praise be to Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
There is a popular saying in many Protestant pulpits: “In essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things charity.” This was used as an excuse for many of the doctrinal disagreements that occur among various denominations. The problem is, there is no agreement on “essentials” either. Are you Once Saved, Always Saved or can you lose your salvation? Is Baptism necessary for salvation or not? Should this Baptism, if you are so inclined to receive it, be done as an infant or at the age of accountability? Is the Bible alone your only source of authority or must you adhere to various creeds? Etc., etc., etc…
Is this how Christ desired to leave us? It is not a position that squares with Scripture. What did Jesus pray for in John 17? “that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.” Is there doctrinal chaos between Christ and the Father? Ephesians 4:5 says that there is one Lord, ONE faith, one baptism…
St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians, "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.
If by “Big Tent” Christianity it is meant that truth is no longer important, that we should just come together and love Jesus, then that is not a message grounded in Scripture. “Can’t we just get along?” was not the answer Jesus was looking for when He asked His disciples “Who do you say that I am?”
Regarding the original question of Jesus’ siblings, more than enough evidence has been presented to at least cast significant doubt on the assertion that He did. The same objections are raised, then answered, then raised again. The Catechism says, “What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.” You do not realize that when you deny the Marian doctrines, you in turn cast doubt on doctrines related to the nature of Christ.
I became a Catholic, in part, because of the testimony of the Early Church Fathers. If the Bible wasn’t compiled until the end of the 4th century then isn’t it relevant, no necessary, for us to know what Christians believed and how they practiced their faith prior to that? Wouldn’t we want to consult men who knew the Apostles or knew people who did? And when you do, you find plenty of evidence - which has been cited several times in this thread, that Mary had no other children.
Why is this important? Because God’s Word tells us that there is ONE faith, that we should be speaking the SAME thing, and that there should be NO divisions among us. Truth matters and Christ, Who loved us “while we were yet sinners,” became man and suffered an unimaginable death to redeem mankind. That kind of love would not leave us to ourselves. No, He established His Church - “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).
Praise be to Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
P
PRmerger
Guest
'zactly!
I have been on this forum a long time, and have asked this question over and over again to Protestants who object to Catholicism’s insistence on doctrinal truth.
No one has ever given a clear response as to what, exactly, is “essential”, and, more importantly, how one knows these are “essential.”
C
catechuman
Guest
According to an article from the Early Church Fathers by Harmony Media. Joseph had four sons and two daughters by his first wife. Mary only had one child.
-Judas, Justus, James, and Simon. The names of the two daughters were Assia and Lydia.
I am not tring to say this correct but the early church writtings has given us this information.
William
-Judas, Justus, James, and Simon. The names of the two daughters were Assia and Lydia.
I am not tring to say this correct but the early church writtings has given us this information.
William
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
They did. Apparently you didn’t read what you quoted from me …
“…we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they, by necessity for salvation, are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (SOURCE: D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 469)
The devil and his fallen angels BELIEVE (scripture tells us so) but they are not saved. Recall Jesus telling us that not all who cry out “Lord, Lord” will be saved.
G
guanophore
Guest
These are not separate “churches” but Rites. They differ in language and culture, but not in doctrine.
No, but Jesus only founded one Church. Therefore, all who are saved are members of it. That is why there is no salvation outside the Church.
Yes. The Papal declarations must be understood within their context. Prior to the Reformation, all who were not subject to the Pontiff were considered heretics.
Indeed, they must be placed in context. However, the teaching of the Church has never changed. The Apostles taught that there is no salvation outside, so that is what w have received.
It is not contradictory. Both things are true. I think what makes the distinctive difference is “mortal sin”. For an act to be a mortal sin, one must commit it knowingly and willingly. It must be a grave matter in which the person deliberately broke the law of God. Those who are not properly catechized often do not even know what they are doing is grave.
G
guanophore
Guest
This statement needs to be taken in context. In 1302 A.D.,Pope Boniface VIII was reacting to heresies (as all infallibly stated dogmas do). Jesus gave to Peter the responsibility to feed and care for His sheep. Peter passed this responsibility to his successor. It is the duty of the successor of Peter to be the pastor of the whole flock. Therefore, everyone in the flock is a subject of his, whether they know it, or not. Most are rebellious subjects, especially “cafeteria catholics”, who I think are really either heretics or Protestants and don’t realize they have left the Church.
Most Protestants also do not know anything about the Petrine gifts or the successor of Peter, or that they are subjects of him. One is not held responsible for what one does not know.
Then there is the question of what does it mean to “believe in” Christ. Can it be said that one believes who is disobedient?
He is acknowledging what is taught in the Catechism, that the HS does use these ecclesial communities to draw people to Himself.
God can save whoever He wants, however He likes. They may not be a visible member of the Catholic Church.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
That is exactly what I have been saying – those who do not know can not be held responsible but those that reject the faith are in a different boat.
I
inkaneer
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by kelvinf
In a nutshell, those Papal declarations did not explicitly state that one must be a member of one of the rites of the Catholic Church to be saved.
Originally Posted by kelvinf
In a nutshell, those Papal declarations did not explicitly state that one must be a member of one of the rites of the Catholic Church to be saved.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Major Tom! I am hoping that your absence over the past few days is due to busy-ness in life and not due to your doing research on that Middle Ages crossing yourself reference! 
After you have acknowledged that you have doctrines, and that you have no objection to the Catholic church teaching doctrines (rather, it’s the* number* of Catholic doctrines which you find intolerable), there is no need to provide a source for me about the above referenced teaching.
After you have acknowledged that you have doctrines, and that you have no objection to the Catholic church teaching doctrines (rather, it’s the* number* of Catholic doctrines which you find intolerable), there is no need to provide a source for me about the above referenced teaching.
R
Roy5
Guest
Have been busy doing other things in line with my Christian commitment. However, I don’t want anyone out there to think that I am alienated or that I have been convinced by those who are firmly committed to the idea that there is only one true church which is infallible when it comes to matters of faith.
Code:
Obviously, there is a need among many Catholics, fundamentalist Protestants and others to feel that they embrace the full truth and others do not. Many of us, Catholics and Protestants alike, enjoy amiable dialogue, but our point would be that we are pilgrims, trying our best to understand the great mysteries of life and this universe, but not claiming to have succeeded in doing so. We live with many questions and much marvel as we contemplate matters involved in religion and philosophy. I am a strong theist, but certainly don't pretend to begin to fathom the nature of God. As for various Christians beliefs, I am not sure that - for example - Jesus put demons in pigs and sent them over a cliff to their death. I'm not altogether convinced that he took a boy's meager luncheon and fed at least 5000 people with a lot left over. I don't disrespect those whjo can believe such things - many of my beloved kinfolk do - but I need a reasonable religious faith. Nor can I believe that St. Pade Pio levitated and bilocated. Well, we could go on, but I've made my point.
My problem is with intolerant dogmatism of any variety, whether of Muslim crazies or Hindu extremists or militant Jews who think God is in the real estate business or Christians who believe only one path is the correct path and they're the only ones on it.
Meanwhile, God bless the whole world - no exceptions.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yet you don’t see yourself as having “intolerant dogmatism” with White Supremacists? You don’t feel that you truly have it correct and they are incorrect in their beliefs that the White race is superior?
Are you really open to the idea that the White Supremacists may have it right, and that you may be wrong?
P
PRmerger
Guest
As an addendum:
I make reference to White Supremacists frequently when dialoguing with those who object to the CC’s “fundamentalism”. Clearly, Unitarians et al are fundamentalists (as they should be) with regard to the truth regarding the error of racial bigotry.
I simply love to show the hypocrisy in their “Big Tent” systemology, which “includes all”, except all they exclude, of course.
Never has any Unitarian been able to address this hypocrisy; hence, I will continue to offer this example of “we accept all except those who find objectionable” contradiction.
D
Deacon_JAR
Guest
I’m not going to second guess what he meant but if he is implying that other other non-Catholic Christian faiths are also a true way to Jesus, then he is in direct contradiction to infallible church teachings as I have referenced earlier.
Sir Knight, the message of Msgr. Barr comes from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockford, in IL. I provided you with e-mail addresses, telephone and fax numbers for this diocesan office. If you are a true defendant of the Catholic Faith, as you claim, and you believe that “he is in direct contradiction to infallible church teachings” (see your quote), then you have the MORAL OBLIGATION to contact Msgr. Barr or Most Reverend Tomas Doran, bishop of that diocese, and demand a clarification. The Lord has blessed me, His sinful servant, with the gift of BOLDNESS. I don’t hesitate to use that gift, whenever is required, as far as I do it with a spirit of love and compassion. I have not sent any communications to this diocesan office because I believe the message concurs with the teachings of the church.
Concerning this topic, I AM DONE WITH YOU, Sir Knight. My late father, God bless his soul, always said to me, “MY SON, THERE IS NOT WORSE BLIND MAN THAN THE ONE WHO DOESN’T WANT TO SEE” or we may say “Walking with your head in the clouds”. May the Lord bless you and I will continue to pray for you!
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
It is not my job to go around cyber-space correcting mis-spoken words or incorrect teachings. I have my hands full in my own parish where the pastor is instructing EMHC to give blessings to folks in the communion line and telling EMHCs to purify the vessels after mass even though Rome has spoken on this matter saying that is not permitted. I have my hands full with that “moral obligation” right now.
I have presented you with the opinions, teachings and official declarations of multiple Popes on this matter. What they said is pretty clear and to the point and it supports the point that I am trying to make. I have invited you to provide me with your interpretations of those statements. Since you haven’t taken me up on that, I can only conclude that you feel that my understanding of those statements is correct. Which makes me wonder why you are arguing a different position.
Are you of the opinion that the declaration of past Popes becomes weaker as time goes by? I assure you that it does not. Official speaking, no future Pope can change or disagree with an official teaching of a previous Pope.
As you wish.
And what did he have to say about people who were presented with supporting references from multiple official sources but refused to acknowledge them?
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
That’s really pushing it. If “everyone” subject to the Pope and thus can be saved, why add the extra step that one has to be Catholic in order to be saved?
That would be like me saying that only people with heads are allowed to attend my meeting. Since all living people have heads, that means that everyone can attend my meeting. The extra part about needing heads is not needed. The same with this. If all people are part of the Catholic Church even if they reject the Catholic Church, then it is not needed to say that one must be a member of the Catholic Church.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I think that’s where all of this confusion lies–not all agree that the statements/quotes you provided state that “one has to be Catholic in order to be saved.”
Unless I’m mistaken, I did not see one quote from the Magisterium that states that “one has to be Catholic in order to be saved.”
I
inkaneer
Guest
All people are not part of the Catholic Church. But all people have a share in the deposit of faith that exists in it’s fullest in the Catholic. If some stone age tribesman in the mountain of Boeneo maintains that to kill another human being is morally wrong then he has a share in the deposit of faith. Now it may not be much of a share but then as the parable of the talents tells us God will judge everyone according to what was given them, And if you, as a Catholic,were given the full deposit of truth then you will be judged by the strictest standard while that stone age tribesman will only need to meet a lower standard. And please don’t ask me what those standards are because Jesus didn’t reveal them. But He did reveal the principle by which we will be judged. NOW, all of the above changes if a person does not have invinceable ignorance. If a person becomes convinced that the Catholic Church is the true church then he is compelled to join himself to it. Failure, for any reason, to not join it removes the possibility of salvation until such time as they decide to join.
R
Roy5
Guest
PRmerger
Code:
You seem hung up on white supremacists. As far as I'm concerned, white supremacists read themselves out of the Christian community by denying and defying the second of Christ's two great commandments: love one another.
When we speak of a 'big tent' you must be aware that there are limits. We do not say that it's a tent that is wide enough to include everyone. Personally, I would welcome all fellow Christians that agree on the two commandments 'on which rest all the law and the prophets' - or some such quote from scripture. I (and people like me, of whom there are millions) would be happy to engage in an ongoing dialogue on issues that may divide us, whether papal infallibility in faith and morals or predestination (I don't happen to believe either). However, a 'big tent' doesn't mean that it would include militant members of the KKK, Muslim terrorists, etc. At the same time, I might be willing and even eager to talk with them as well, but only in a situation where I may be able to influence them away from their warped views. I would regard that as rather urgent 'mission work', more important than conversations with fellow Christians with whom I disagree.
There is no hypocrisy in any of this and for you to keep pressing that point is either for you to misunderstand or to try hard for a quite irresponsible 'gotcha'. I hope it's the former.
But God bless you and everyone else.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, I guess I could have chosen Transvestites. Or Animists. Or Wiccans.
But I’m pretty sure that you’d welcome a Transvestite Wiccan Priestess to preach at your church before you’d have a White Supremacist gathering.
Am I right? Is a Transvestite more worthy of your love and acceptance than a White Supremacist?
Yet, you keep ignoring my question: would you invite a White Supremacist to preach at your church?
- Status