Did Jesus have siblings?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hellopeople
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem with protestants attaining heaven is that while their baptism [Trinitarian] is valid and they die with Christ they then have no way to deal with actual sin they commit during their lives. So while their baptism makes salvation possible it is the absence of any way to remit sin committed during their lives that makes salvation problematical. Jesus delegated the power to forgive sin as one of the powers of the church. But unlike Catholicism not one of the protestant denominations claims it has that power. This is borne out in the contrasting analogies of sin and grace between Catholics and protestants. To the protestants God’s grace covers sin so that God no longer sees sin but rather His grace. The sin remains but is covered. Man is still the unclean person he was before, he just has new clothes. Catholics on the other hand say God’s grace is much more potent than that. God’s grace doesn’t just cover sin. God’s grace transforms the man so that there is no sin only grace. Man does not only have new clothes on over an unclean body but is washed clean. Revelation 21:4 says of heaven that nothing unclean shall enter it. Sin is unclean. Both baptized Catholics and protestants who die with only venial sins [sin not
unto death] will enter heaven but only after purgation. Those Catholics and protestants even though baptized but having mortal sin [sin unto death] will not enter heaven ever.

Yes. If Protestants have mortal sin on their souls (and they must know the action was sinful, it must be grave matter, and have chosen to do so anyway), they cannot enter heaven.

Incidentally, this applies to Catholics as well. 🤷
 
Keep the faith - the broad, accepting, generous, forgiving, understanding faith bequeathed to us by Christ Jesus
Amen, dear brother Roy. Amen!
much less a matter of doctrine than a matter of love.
We are called to love God with our entire hearts, MINDS, souls and strength. Doctrine is the MINDS part.

Like most Catholic answers, it’s not either/or. It’s both/and.

We must avoid love without truth, and truth without love.
One nun told me once: “Vatican II changed the church from one focusing on rules to one focusing on love.”
👍

Again: both/and.

If we love, then rules are not seen as constricting.

Just like I am free from the “constriction” of the rule: thou shalt not commit adultery. As I have love for my husband, that rule is not burdensome whatsoever to me.
 
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.
Kind of you to check in! The time was spent battling the same fever that my kids have. All better now, I’ll try and catch up…

…you joked about my poor Cathechism. After simmering in the back of my head for a few days, the details of the Immaculate Conception did finally come back to me. Along with about half of the Act of Contrition and the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel. I have Sister Marion to thank for that from fifth grade. May have been the fever!
 
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.
Intolerable! Now that I read that a second time, I chuckled at it. Technically, I’d have to say that was true. Probably not the word that I would have chosen, but the result has been the same.

And it’s not exactly the number of doctrines that I find perplexing. More the minutaie in which some of the teachings extend, plus the fact that such grave consequences are attached to them. Other than THAT, I’m cool with it!
 
Kind of you to check in! The time was spent battling the same fever that my kids have. All better now, I’ll try and catch up…
Hope you’re all better. Thank God for fevers–it makes us slow down and there’s some evidence that fevers prevent bacteria and viruses from replicating as quickly!
…you joked about my poor Cathechism. After simmering in the back of my head for a few days, the details of the Immaculate Conception did finally come back to me. Along with about half of the Act of Contrition and the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel. I have Sister Marion to thank for that from fifth grade. May have been the fever!
Very good!

Now, can you tell us why we call priests “father” even if it specifically states in Matthew “call no man father”? (No fair checking on catholic.com for the answer!)
 
BTW, where did Roy ask this? Perhaps that’s why there’s a deafening silence–no one has read nor seen his elusive question. 😃
Roy didn’t. I was commenting on the lack of any positive, supporting statements to his statements. The more I thought of this the last few days, and re-read some posts, it was very naive of me to even ask the question. The vast majority of responses indicate that Catholics have their tent, thank you very much.

Personally, I’m opting for Roy’s tent! (I’m hoping they serve beer). 🙂
 
Hope you’re all better. Thank God for fevers–it makes us slow down and there’s some evidence that fevers prevent bacteria and viruses from replicating as quickly!
Very good!

Now, can you tell us why we call priests “father” even if it specifically states in Matthew “call no man father”? (No fair checking on catholic.com for the answer!)
Dang. I can name you Noah’s sons and the three wise men, but I’m getting that one wrong!
 
The vast majority of responses indicate that Catholics have their tent, thank you very much.
'zactly! Which is why I was pointing out the hypocrisy–you won’t allow us to have our tent, yet you have your own tent (which, is not really that “big” in that it excludes White Supremacists, yes?)
Personally, I’m opting for Roy’s tent! (I’m hoping they serve beer). 🙂
Not if it includes the Baptists. 😉

(Yikes! Is that another group you’d exclude? kidding…kidding!)
 
The teachings of Christ can not be taken verse by verse. James warns us against this (apparently believers back then were coming to the same false conclusion as now that one is saved by faith ALONE) and even points out that the devil believes in God but is NOT saved by his faith proving that faith alone will not save anyone … [bibledrb]James 2:15-24[/bibledrb] … Faith is indeed the minimum requirement without which we cannot please God. But this is just the beginning of the process leading toward justification. Faith alone does not justify a person. Justification is only achieved by faith and works. This is part of OFFICIAL Church teaching according to Council of Trent, chapter 8, canon 9 – Faith alone never obtains the grace of justification.
I agree with you 100% on faith and action but my whole point is that Jesus of Nazareth did not limit his free gift of salvation only to certain believers rather he died for all of us. (Then comes the choice of accepting or rejecting his free gift of salvation.)
 
As I said earlier here & here and as inkaneer just said now, to receive the free gift of salvation, Catholics must until their last breath, maintain the righteousness that they received during the Sacrament of Baptism. Ongoing righteousness is maintained through the reception of the Sacraments of Confession and the Holy Eucharist. While belonging to the invisible Body of Christ, Catholics recognize that they absolutely need the Sacraments of the visible Body of Christ, the Catholic Church, as their assurance of righteousness and salvation. Hence, believers require the Catholic Church as the “fullness of the means of salvation.”

In the case of non-Catholic Christians, while through faith in Jesus and the Sacrament of Baptism, they are admitted into the invisible Body of Christ as their first instalment towards salvation, once they have committed mortal sins, they possess NO means of reinstating the righteousness that they had originally received during the Sacrament of Baptism. Such a status holds serious consequences, the unrighteous sinners being unable to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Within the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it states, “If (mortal sin) is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back.” (C.C.C. # 1861)

What are these mortal sins that can impede one’s entry into the Kingdom of God? In the Letter to the Galatians, we read, “Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.” (Gal. 5:19-10; C.C.C. # 1852).
Sir Knight and Inkaneer. Do you guys seem to suggest that a mortal sin committed by a Protestant cannot be forgiven (or that Protestants can’t have their mortal sins forgiven)?
 
About the debate among Catholics as to whom will get to heaven: I personally leave that up to God’s grace and don’t pretend to know or judge. “Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me…” Words Catholics sings today, written by a Protestant minister who was a repentant slave trader!*** If God is love, as the Bible states, I rather think hell is sparsely populated***. The older I become the more I admire how most people confront all sorts of trials and tribulations, yet are courageous and resilient under enormous pressure.
I disagree with your suggestion that “hell is sparsely populated”
Matt 7: 13-14
Go in through the narrow gate, because the gate of hell is wide and the road that leads to it is easy, and there are many who travel it. But the gate to life is narrow and the way that leads to it is hard, and there are few people who find it.
Also: many are called but few are chosen.
  • Not everybody who calls me Lord, Lord will inherit the kingdom of heaven.
 
I agree with you 100% on faith and action but my whole point is that Jesus of Nazareth did not limit his free gift of salvation only to certain believers rather he died for all of us. (Then comes the choice of accepting or rejecting his free gift of salvation.)
Are you sure about that? Is that what Jesus said? Did He said that His blood was being shed for “All” for for “many” …

[bibledrb]Matthew 26:28[/bibledrb]
 
Sir Knight and Inkaneer. Do you guys seem to suggest that a mortal sin committed by a Protestant cannot be forgiven (or that Protestants can’t have their mortal sins forgiven)?
I’m saying that without access to the sacrament of Confession, it is much more unlikely they some will be able to die without having at least one mortal sin on their soul and let’s not forget …

[bibledrb]John 6:54[/bibledrb]

… how many non-Catholics will receive the Eucharist?
 
I am a widower and my special friend, a Catholic widow, is at Mass every weekend. Fortunately, she is quite open to calm conversations on religion and, like millions of Catholics, doesn’t accept all the doctrines and practices of the RCC. As I have said repeatedly I come from a mixed religious background which contributes to my strong ecumenical bent.
I mean no disrespect to your friendship with this widow, Roy, when I say this: but* of course* your Catholic friend doesn’t accept all the doctrines and practices of the RCC.

It would give more credence to your “strong ecumenical bent” if your special friend was a White Supremacist. Or a strong, orthodox Catholic woman.
 
'zactly! Which is why I was pointing out the hypocrisy–you won’t allow us to have our tent, yet you have your own tent (which, is not really that “big” in that it excludes White Supremacists, yes?)

Not if it includes the Baptists. 😉

(Yikes! Is that another group you’d exclude? kidding…kidding!)
Ah, it was helpful seeing you write it that way. No one is begrudging you, that you have standards to get into your tent. Instead, I think it’s two things. One is puzzlement at some of the entry requirements (we could refer to several ongoing threads on the site). Second, perhaps instead of a tent, let’s use a club as an example. Yours is member-only. The rest are public clubs that remain open to people from surrounding cities. 🙂
 
Ah, it was helpful seeing you write it that way. No one is begrudging you, that you have standards to get into your tent. Instead, I think it’s two things. One is puzzlement at some of the entry requirements (we could refer to several ongoing threads on the site). Second, perhaps instead of a tent, let’s use a club as an example. Yours is member-only. The rest are public clubs that remain open to people from surrounding cities. 🙂
All that’s required to enter our “tent” is baptism, Tom. 🤷

I’m very interested in your response to my earlier post, repeated below:

Some questions:
  1. In your study/contemplation of the Godhead, have you ever come upon a revelation that was beyond your reason/intuition?
  2. As you understand Goodness and what is required of us a moral human beings, have you come to any conclusions which you find…distasteful?
I am certain you can see why I’ve asked these 2 questions.
If you answer yes to #1, you are self-refuting. If you answer no, then you are creating a god limited by your own finite imagination, are you not? If this god you contemplate can not be beyond your reason, then this deity is not really much of a god, correct? You are merely creating a god in your own image.

As for #2, my belief is that if you have created a morality which obligates you to nothing you find contrary, nothing you find distasteful, then, again, you are creating a deity in your own image who obligates you to only good feelings and hand-holding. Pretty lame, don’t you think?

God is love, BTW, cannot be a conclusion reached by reason/intuition/emotion. If you believe it, you believe it because the Scriptures tell you this.

No philosopher ever came up with that paradigm on his own, that’s for certain!
 
Are you sure about that? Is that what Jesus said? Did He said that His blood was being shed for “All” for for “many” …

[bibledrb]Matthew 26:28[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]1 Tim 2:4.[/bibledrb]
Paul said “all”. Jesus said “many”. And, as I said above, don’t forget … [bibledrb]John 6:54[/bibledrb] … how many non-Catholics are receiving the Eucharist?
 
Paul said “all”. Jesus said “many”.
So what are you saying? Paul is incorrect? And the Catechism, then, too?
[bibledrb]John 6:54[/bibledrb] … how many non-Catholics are receiving the Eucharist?
(I suppose you’re excluding the Orthodox in your “non-Catholic” list?)

You are correct–those that do not receive Him, body, blood, soul and divinity shall not have life within them. Many indeed will be lost that do not have the Blessed Sacrament. However, those who have supernatural faith, perfect charity and perfect contrition still have the possibility of salvation. 👍
 
So what are you saying? Paul is incorrect?
Are you saying that Jesus is incorrect?
You are correct–those that do not receive Him, body, blood, soul and divinity shall not have life within them. Many indeed will be lost that do not have the Blessed Sacrament. However, those who have supernatural faith, perfect charity and perfect contrition still have the possibility of salvation. 👍
the POSSIBILITY of salvation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top