Did Jesus have siblings?

[inkaneer]

I have been following the dialogie between PRmerger and Sir Knight. If Sir Knight is right re Catholicism, no wonder that for years Americans were hesitant to elect a Catholic president. It’s his attitude that help nourishes hostiility toward Catholicism even today. Sir Knight’s form of Catholicism is best described as bigotry of the most arrogant and damnable sort. I know he doesn’t care, of course, as he is so cocksure that he is right. I have added him to my prayer list, asking God to enlighten his mind and soften his heart and become more compassionate as Christ would want us all to be.

Fortunately, few Catholics today agree with him. 

May our Christian faith serve as a bridge and not a barrier. May God bless people of every creed, color and country and lead us in the paths of peace.

That is not the reason we didn’t have a Catholic president. The reason was protestants actually believed that an American Catholic President would take orders from and be suserviant to the Pope. In fact in the presidential campaign of 1960 Jack Kennedy was actually asked a question on that very subject. It is the protestants who are the bigots not the Catholics. They have been so ever since the mass immigrations to this country in the middle of the 1800’s from countries like Italy, Ireland, Poland who were predominantly Catholic. And we still see this protestant bigotry in the immigration of Hispanics today. But no protestant bigotry against Orientals and Muslims. Only against Catholics, Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, very interesting !!!

 

[PRmerger]

I do not disagree on the quality of Catechesis BUT I have seen that it is not beyond the imagination of funadmental evangelicals to lie in portraying themselves as former Catholics.

So excuse me if I don’t buy it but I have been down that road before

Ya know, inkaneer, I think I’m going to amend my comments I made to you earlier.

You are suspicious of fundamentalist evangelicals who say they’re former Catholics.

I am skeptical every single time a fundamentalist evangelical says, “I was a Catholic and I was taught _________” Each and every time they cite a Catholic “teaching”, it’s accompanied by the worst kinds of la-la wacky twaddle. And, by golly, they won’t be convinced that the Catholicism they left behind is a figment of their own screwy retention of dear Sr. Mary Josephine’s orthodoxy.

So, I think I get what you’re saying.

I just don’t believe kelvinf falls into the category you’re suspicious of.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Just like you didn’t know what “episcopal” means, Sir Knight, I think you also don’t know what the CC teaches.

The CC recognizes the baptisms (washing “in the waters of regeneration”) of our separated brethren in Christ, provided the Trinitarian form and correct matter are used.

Your statement above shows you do not accept the Catholic Church’s teaching, whole and inviolate.

Indeed. We are agreed on that.

However, what we are talking about is that you assume condemnation for Protestants.

This is where you do much harm on this forum and I must correct the misinformation you continue to proffer.

If, as you say, I have a misunderstanding of Church teaching, why don’t you clarify the meaning of the passage from the Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI that I have quoted? I have invited you, and others, a number of times to do so but no one has. The Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI represents official church teaching. If I am understanding it incorrectly, then share with us the correct interpretation of that passage and we will go from there.

 

[Sir_Knight]

So do you think my 7 yr old DD, who has not yet received the Eucharist, is condemned because the Eucharist is not offered to her?

A seven year old is just beginning to enter the age of reason and would fall under your “invincible ignorance” umbrella because what is expected of an adult is not the same thing that would be expected of a child.

You replied, to my amazement:

O course I replied. You, however, have not replied to my numerous requests to provide your interpretation of the passage from the Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI that I have quoted. No surprise there. Your failure to do so shows that I have the correct understanding of that passage and you are refusing to admit it.

:banghead:

Do you know what a footnote is, Sir Knight? I know this sounds condescending, but I think you ought to be able to read the encyclical and see the footnote.

I will cut and paste if for you, from the encyclical:

Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.”[18]

Now, if you look at the [18] footnote at the bottom, it will give you a source for that quote.

It says that the quote comes from St. Athanasius.

In the 6th century.

And what is the problem with that? What does it prove or disprove? The Pope is quoting something from Church history and tradition and saying that it applies just as one would quote scripture. Who are you to say that it invalidates his infallible ruling on the matter?

 

[Sir_Knight]

I have been following the dialogie between PRmerger and Sir Knight. If Sir Knight is right re Catholicism, no wonder that for years Americans were hesitant to elect a Catholic president. It’s his attitude that help nourishes hostiility toward Catholicism even today. Sir Knight’s form of Catholicism is best described as bigotry of the most arrogant and damnable sort. I know he doesn’t care, of course, as he is so cocksure that he is right.

When someone has no basis on which to make their argument, they accuse the other side of bigotry because that removes from them their own deficiencies and automaticly places it on the other party. The fact of the matter is that for two thousand years the Catholic Church has taught that it was the only pathway to heaven – including teachings of the Popes AFTER the reformation. It was only after the Second Vatican Council where liberal theologians began to soften this teaching in order to soften the division between the various Christian faiths. Fortunately, Pope Benedict is trying to put things back into perspective by approving a document saying non-Catholic Christian communities are either defective or not true churches, and the Roman Catholic Church provides the only true path to salvation. (Source).

He has taken much heat over this but his job is to spread the truth whether it offends or not; just as Jesus spoke the truth regardless of who it offended. Being the Vicar of Christ here on earth, he can do no less.

Jesus prayed for unity among His followers. He said that that unity would be a sign that they were His followers. The Protestants broke from that unity. The reasons for it do not matter. The Temple leaders of Christ’s time were evil and corrupt so much so that Jesus called them hypocrites and a brood of vipers but Jesus NEVER instructed the people to rebell against them and start their own temple because only God can start a religion. Instead He commanded them to OBEY those corrupt religious leaders telling them to do as they say but not as they do because their authority was valid (see Matt. 23:2-3).

The Protestants did the opposite. They broke from lawful authority. Something that they should have never done even if it was corrupted (and that point is open to debate in another topic but even if it was corrupt, they should have never broke from it according to the teachings of Christ). Breaking from the Church was an unlawful act and anything which has unlawful origins continues to remain unlawful. While Protestants of today can not be blamed for the split, it does not change the fact that they remain with an unlawful entity.

But instead of focusing on their own deficiencies that they either broke from lawful authority or remain separated from Christ because Jesus said that He and His Church were one; they instead place the blame on others accusing them of bigotry; thus, removing the deficiencies from themselves and placing it on others.

I have added him to my prayer list, asking God to enlighten his mind and soften his heart and become more compassionate as Christ would want us all to be.

While I thank you for your prayers because I am certainly in need of them, I will tell you what Jesus said to the weeping women of Jerusalem – to cry and pray for yourselves first because you are not on the path to salvation.

Fortunately, few Catholics today agree with him.

Fortunately, the Catholic Church is not a democracy and as long as I stand in agreement with the Pope (Source) that is all that I care about. The “Catholics” who disagree are doing non-Catholic Christians a dis-service by telling them what they want to hear but which will keep them off the path of salvation.

May our Christian faith serve as a bridge and not a barrier. May God bless people of every creed, color and country and lead us in the paths of peace.

May God bring all people of every creed, color and country to salvation which comes to us from Christ only THROUGH the Catholic Church (Source – “the Roman Catholic Church provides the only true path to salvation” … Pope Benedict).

 

[PRmerger]

If, as you say, I have a misunderstanding of Church teaching, why don’t you clarify the meaning of the passage from the Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI that I have quoted? I** have invited you, and others, a number of times to do so but no one has**

LOL! Only ad nauseum. You just keep hoping someone will say, “Oh, yes–it does state that Protestants are condemned to hell.”

Only thing is, if you do a word search, “Protestants” are not mentioned at all–not a single time–in the entire encyclical. Neither, BTW, is the word “hell”.

Not a single mention is made of Protestants. How peculiar is that!

It addresses the sin of indifferentism.

 

[Pete_Holter]

If anyone still reading this thread has any questions about Momma Mary remaining a virgin, I’d love to help you find answers!

If, as you say, I have a misunderstanding of Church teaching, why don’t you clarify the meaning of the passage from the Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI that I have quoted? I have invited you, and others, a number of times to do so but no one has. The Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI represents official church teaching. If I am understanding it incorrectly, then share with us the correct interpretation of that passage and we will go from there.

Greetings, my brother in the LORD!

I offer a tweak to your understanding of what constitutes schism. Your definition of a schismatic is too broad, and I think that that is what is leading to your slight misunderstanding. You wrote that a schismatic is

one who has broken away from the Catholic Church OR belongs to such a group

But the Church defines the sin of schism as “the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (, Canon 751CIC).

Thomas Aquinas elaborates:

“As Isidore says (Etym. viii, 3), schism takes its name ‘from being a scission of minds,’ and scission is opposed to unity. Wherefore the sin of schism is one that is directly and essentially opposed to unity. For in the moral, as in the physical order, the species is not constituted by that which is accidental. Now, in the moral order, the essential is that which is intended, and that which results beside the intention, is, as it were, accidental. Hence the sin of schism is, properly speaking, a special sin, for the reason that the schismatic intends to sever himself from that unity which is the effect of charity: because charity unites not only one person to another with the bond of spiritual love, but also the whole Church in unity of spirit.

“Accordingly schismatics properly so called are those who, wilfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church; for this is the chief unity, and the particular unity of several individuals among themselves is subordinate to the unity of the Church, even as the mutual adaptation of each member of a natural body is subordinate to the unity of the whole body. Now the unity of the Church consists in two things; namely, in the mutual connection or communion of the members of the Church, and again in the subordination of all the members of the Church to the one head, according to Colossians 2:18-19: ‘Puffed up by the sense of his flesh, and not holding the Head, from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God.’ Now this Head is Christ Himself, Whose viceregent in the Church is the Sovereign Pontiff. Wherefore schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy” (, Question 39Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundae Partis).

You’ll notice that the Code of Canon Law is essentially borrowing its definition from St. Thomas, so his explanation will help us understand what is being said in the Code. Because schism is something that is “willfully and intentionally” chosen, it does not apply to those who have not personally made this choice. The person born into a “schismatic group” share in the result of the original schism “accidentally” and are not culpable for this sin until they choose it for themselves by willfully and intentionally rejecting communion with the Catholic Church. Consequently, if you strike “OR belongs to such a group” from your definition, I think it will help you present our faith more effectively.

Until a baptized person commits the sin of heresy (which would include – to bring this post back around to the subject of this thread – obstinately denying or obstinately doubting Mary’s perpetual virginity) or the sin of schism, or until they are excommunicated, “it is certain that they still belong to the Church” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Article IX: “I Believe in the Holy Catholic Church; the Communion of Saints”).

I hope this helps.

Your brother in Christ,
Pete

 

[inkaneer]

Fortunately, the Catholic Church is not a democracy and as long as I stand in agreement with the Pope (Source) that is all that I care about. The “Catholics” who disagree are doing non-Catholic Christians a dis-service by telling them what they want to hear but which will keep them off the path of salvation.

May God bring all people of every creed, color and country to salvation which comes to us from Christ only THROUGH the Catholic Church (Source – “the Roman Catholic Church provides the only true path to salvation” … Pope Benedict).

But the question is do you really stand in agreement with the Pope? In the source you quoted Pope Benedict says that the Orthodox Church is wounded and goes on to say that that ‘wound’ is more profound in protestantism. It does not say that the ‘wound’ is a fatal or a mortal wound in either case. So it seems that the pope has drawn a line in the sand here but you have stepped over that line making the wound fatal.

I have done a fair amount of research on this issue. I would not classify my research as exhaustive by any means. The issue is complex for varying reasons but primarily because while many popes and councils have spoken on the issue in general, they do not use the same terminology. For instance the term “Catholic Faith” is not synonomous with the Catholic Church". While the Catholic Church does have the complete Catholic Faith other denomonations have varying shares of it also. But the two are not completely interchangeable. So how much of the Catholc Faith must one then have? Also involved is the matter of those who reject the Catholic Church. Is this done as a conscious act after proper investigation or is it done because a person was taught errors by prejudiced people? What exactly constitutes invinceable ignorance? Was Bishop Sheen correct in his often quoted statement about those who hate the Catholic Church? I don’t think that anyone can properly decide another’s situation even on a case by case basis. I do think, however, that one can properly decide their own situation. The decision to become Catholic can be very painful as it can cut family ties and social relationships cultivated over many years. But the decision not to become Catholic is even more painful, eternally so.

 

[Sir_Knight]

LOL! Only ad nauseum. You just keep hoping someone will say, “Oh, yes–it does state that Protestants are condemned to hell.”

And you keep telling me that my interpretation is incorrect but are unable or unwilling to supply a correct one. Why is that?

Only thing is, if you do a word search, “Protestants” are not mentioned at all–not a single time–in the entire encyclical. Neither, BTW, is the word “hell”.

Not a single mention is made of Protestants. How peculiar is that!

And who are “the schismatic that flatter themselves falsely that they, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration”? A schismatic is someone who rejects the Catholic faith!

What are the waters of regeneration? Baptism!

Who are people that have been baptized but reject the Catholic faith? Non-Catholic Christians. Who is the encyclical talking about? Non-Catholic Christians!

And, as far as hell not being mentioned? What do you think that it means to “perish forever”?

It addresses the sin of indifferentism.

Which is the perverse opinion spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. And what are we talking about? The concept that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Seems like we’re talking about the EXACT same thing!

 

[Sir_Knight]

But the question is do you really stand in agreement with the Pope? In the source you quoted Pope Benedict says that the Orthodox Church is wounded and goes on to say that that ‘wound’ is more profound in protestantism. It does not say that the ‘wound’ is a fatal or a mortal wound in either case. So it seems that the pope has drawn a line in the sand here but you have stepped over that line making the wound fatal.

I have done a fair amount of research on this issue. I would not classify my research as exhaustive by any means. The issue is complex for varying reasons but primarily because while many popes and councils have spoken on the issue in general, they do not use the same terminology. For instance the term “Catholic Faith” is not synonomous with the Catholic Church". While the Catholic Church does have the complete Catholic Faith other denomonations have varying shares of it also. But the two are not completely interchangeable. So how much of the Catholc Faith must one then have? Also involved is the matter of those who reject the Catholic Church. Is this done as a conscious act after proper investigation or is it done because a person was taught errors by prejudiced people? What exactly constitutes invinceable ignorance? Was Bishop Sheen correct in his often quoted statement about those who hate the Catholic Church? I don’t think that anyone can properly decide another’s situation even on a case by case basis. I do think, however, that one can properly decide their own situation. The decision to become Catholic can be very painful as it can cut family ties and social relationships cultivated over many years. But the decision not to become Catholic is even more painful, eternally so.

Salvation is not assured for any specific individual whether Catholic or non-Catholic. But only the Catholic Church provides the correct roadmap to heaven with checkposts (the sacraments) along the way to those who lose their way. Whether Catholics follow these roadmap or fail to follow either by choice or through the weakness causing one to fall into sin, is an entirely different matter.

I extend to you, the same invitation that I have done to others, and ask you to interpret the teaching of Pope Gregory XVI (which remains as valid today as the day that it was written) and tell us what you believe it teaches …

Another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism” may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,” and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.” Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: “He who is for the See of Peter is for me.” A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: “The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?”

-- Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI (August 15, 1832)​

 

[inkaneer]

This thread has gotten way off the initial topic. I guess that it is far too easy for one to get got up in the discussion and not realize how far the discussion has drifted. I suggest someone start a new thread if they want to prolong this give and take. As for me, I will no longer participate in the current discussion on this thread.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Another one who claims that my understanding of the Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI was incorrect but refused or was unable to provide us with the correct interpretation. If my interpretation is so off base, why is it so difficult for someone to provide us with the correct understanding?

 

[Pete_Holter]

So how much of the Catholic Faith must one then have?

Greetings in the LORD to you!

We must “hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate” just as Pope Gregory XVI said (Merari Vos). It is “our Catholic faith, without which it is impossible to please God” (The Council of Trent, Decree Concerning Original Sin; see also The Council of Constance, Session 8).

We approach the sacrament of baptism with a faith that is in some ways imperfect. And we individually say with Augustine that “that faith suffered me not to be at rest in regard to my past sins, which were not yet forgiven me by Your baptism” (, Bk. 9. Ch. 4Confessions; cf. Acts 22:16 & 2 Peter 1:9). But once we are validly baptized, which requires the intention of doing what the Church does, the faith “without which it is impossible to please God” is infused in us together with hope and charity to bring about right standing with God (The Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, Chapter 7). Until we embrace heresy, the faith that we received at our baptism as a gift from God will remain “whole and inviolate.”

This faith includes believing in the work of God in Mary’s having remained a virgin for the sake of the kingdom and God’s glory.

Your brother in Christ,
Pete

 

[PRmerger]

And you keep telling me that my interpretation is incorrect but are unable or unwilling to supply a correct one. Why is that?

I replied to it here.

And here.

And, again, here.

AND!! Again, here.

And……here it is again.

And…I only got to page 49 and there’s 5 more pages for me to look through, but I tire of my ad nauseum responses to your question regarding Pope G’s encyclical.

Mirari Vos does not address whether Protestants are condemned to hell. Nuh-uh. Not at all. Not even mentioned in the encyclical. It addresses the sin of indifferentism, and:

TOPICS

* Clerical Celibacy.
* Marriage
* Indifferentism
* Liberty Of Conscience
* Freedom To Publish
* Trust And Submission Due To Princes
* Separating Church And State

How peculiar that the cut and paste I did above does not mention Protestants!*

 

[PRmerger]

And who are “the schismatic that flatter themselves falsely that they, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration”? A schismatic is someone who rejects the Catholic faith!

Ok. What about someone who rejects the Catholic faith because we “worship Mary’”. Is he schismatic?

What are the waters of regeneration? Baptism!

Yes. So these, clearly are people who have NOT been baptized, Sir Knight, right? They FALSELY believe they’ve been baptized.

The Catholic church does not believe Christians who are baptized, FALSELY believe they’re baptized, do they?

And, as far as hell not being mentioned? What do you think that it means to “perish forever”?

Yes, you are correct. I stand corrected. Hell is mentioned in the encyclical.

Just not in reference to Protestants.

Which is the perverse opinion spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. And what are we talking about? The concept that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Seems like we’re talking about the EXACT same thing!

What we are talking about is whether Protestants are condemned to hell. The Catholic Church says: * we accept them with respect and affection, and we don’t know who’s in hell. *

 

[inkaneer]

Another one who claims that my understanding of the Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI was incorrect but refused or was unable to provide us with the correct interpretation. If my interpretation is so off base, why is it so difficult for someone to provide us with the correct understanding?

Okay, I’m going to respond despite my prior post that I would no longer contribute to this thread. Hereit is as simple and succinct as I can make it. You are wrong on Pope Gregory XVI and his encyclical Mirari Vos. Okay? Here is where you made your mistake. You took the words of Pope Gregory out of context. Specifically the sentence:

"Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.”

Who is this directed to? According to you it is directed to the entire world. But is that the case? Let’s let Pope Gregory XVI tell us who he directed this encyclical to shall we? In the beginning of the encyclical we see who it is addressed to. It says:

“To All Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops of the Catholic World.”

Pope Gregory is not speaking to the whole world but the heirarchy of the church. That alone brings up questions as to whether the encyclical is an infallible teaching but let’s go on. Pope Gregory then lists three evils afflicting the Catholic Church and urges the bishops to rally to combat them. The evils are:

1. a “conspiracy against clerical celibacy”
2. the "sanctity and indissolubility of christian marriage
3. indifferentism

Notice he addresses these issues as evils afflicting the Catholic Church. It is the evil of indifferentism which Pope Gregory states is the possibility “…* to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained.” * NOW COMES THE IMPORTANT PART. Pope gregory says in the very next sentence:

“**Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. **” Who are these people committed to the care of the bishops if not Catholics. Also notice another thing. In the sentence you quoted:

“Therefore ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.’”

The words, “…without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.” are in quotes indicating that they are not the words of Pope Gregory XVI. Actually Pope Gregory is quoting the Athanasian Creed which used those same words back in the fourth century. It is one of the four creeds accepted in the Catholic Church as authoritative.

Continued next post…

 

[PRmerger]

A seven year old is just beginning to enter the age of reason and would fall under your “invincible ignorance” umbrella because what is expected of an adult is not the same thing that would be expected of a child.

Firstly, I find it very, very interesting that you used the phrase “your ‘invincible ignorance’ umbrella”. It speaks volumes. I may be reading into your use of that, but the fact that you make it my umbrella seems to say that you don’t believe the “invincible ignorance umbrella” is part of your deposit of faith. Which, again, speaks to your rejection of the Catholic faith, “whole and inviolate”.

Secondly, if my DD falls into “my” “invincible ignorance” umbrella (which, BTW, is not “my” umbrella whatsoever, but the* Catholic Church’s *umbrella), then, clearly, there’s a whole lotta little baptized Catholic folks running around with “invincible ignorance”–which puts your argument that it’s the “exception rather than the rule” paradigm to rest.

Finally, your statement here:

And what did Jesus say about those who do not eat His Body and drink His blood?

cannot be applied to little 7 yr olds with invincible ignorance; it also therefore cannot be applied to Protestants who have invincible ignorance, then, right?

 

[inkaneer]

Another one who claims that my understanding of the Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI was incorrect but refused or was unable to provide us with the correct interpretation. If my interpretation is so off base, why is it so difficult for someone to provide us with the correct understanding?

Okay, I’m going to respond despite my prior post that I would no longer contribute to this thread. Hereit is as simple and succinct as I can make it. You are wrong on Pope Gregory XVI and his encyclical Mirari Vos. Okay? Here is where you made your mistake. You took the words of Pope Gregory out of context. Specifically the sentence:

"Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.”

Who is this directed to? According to you it is directed to the entire world. But is that the case? Let’s let Pope Gregory XVI tell us who he directed this encyclical to shall we? In the beginning of the encyclical we see who it is addressed to. It says:

“To All Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops of the Catholic World.”

Pope Gregory is not speaking to the whole world but the heirarchy of the church. What he calls the “Catholic World”. That alone brings up questions as to whether the encyclical is an infallible teaching but let’s go on. Pope Gregory then lists three evils afflicting the Catholic Church and urges the bishops to rally to combat them. The evils are:

1. a “conspiracy against clerical celibacy”
2. the "sanctity and indissolubility of christian marriage
3. indifferentism

Notice he addresses these issues as evils afflicting the Catholic Church. It is the evil of indifferentism which Pope Gregory states is the possibility “…* to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained.” * NOW COMES THE IMPORTANT PART. Pope gregory says in the very next sentence:

“**Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. **” Who are these people committed to the care of the bishops if not Catholics *. Also notice another thing. In the sentence you quoted:

“Therefore ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.’”

The words, “…without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.” are in quotes indicating that they are not the words of Pope Gregory XVI. Actually Pope Gregory is quoting the Athanasian Creed which used those same words back in the fourth century. It is one of the four creeds accepted in the Catholic Church as authoritative.

Continued next post…*

 

[inkaneer]

Continuing…

So let’s look at the Creed to see what it says is “the Catholic Faith”, shall we? Here it is:

"WHOEVER wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith.
For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost forever.
This is what the catholic faith teaches: we worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit. But the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have one divinity, equal glory, and coeternal majesty. What the Father is, the Son is, and the Holy Spirit is. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

The Father is boundless, the Son is boundless, and the Holy Spirit is boundless. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Spirit is eternal. Nevertheless, there are not three eternal beings, but one eternal being. So there are not three uncreated beings, nor three boundless beings, but one uncreated being and one boundless being.
Likewise, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, the Holy Spirit is omnipotent.
Yet there are not three omnipotent beings, but one omnipotent being. Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. However, there are not three gods, but one God. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord. However, there as not three lords, but one Lord. For as we are obliged by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person singly to be God and Lord, so too are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say that there are three Gods or Lords. The Father was not made, nor created, nor generated by anyone. The Son is not made, nor created, but begotten by the Father alone. The Holy Spirit is not made, nor created, nor generated, but proceeds from the Father and the Son. There is, then, one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits. In this Trinity, there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less. The entire three Persons are coeternal and coequal with one another. So that in all things, as is has been said above, the Unity is to be worshipped in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity. He, therefore, who wishes to be saved, must believe thus about the Trinity. It is also necessary for eternal salvation that he believes steadfastly in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is both God and man. As God, He was begotten of the substance of the Father before time; as man, He was born in time of the substance of His Mother. He is perfect God; and He is perfect man, with a rational soul and human flesh. He is equal to the Father in His divinity, but inferior to the Father in His humanity. Although He is God and man, He is not two, but one Christ. And He is one, not because His divinity was changed into flesh, but because His humanity was assumed unto God. He is one, not by a mingling of substances, but by unity of person. As a rational soul and flesh are one man: so God and man are one Christ. He died for our salvation, descended into hell, and rose from the dead on the third day. He ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty. From there He shall come to judge the living and the dead. At His coming, all men are to arise with their own bodies; and they are to give an account of their own deeds. Those who have done good deeds will go into eternal life; those who have done evil will go into the everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith. Everyone must believe it, firmly and steadfastly; otherwise He cannot be saved. Amen. "

So, to summarize. *Mirari Vos * was directed to the church heirahy concerning evils in the church and affecting Catholics. Among these was the evil of indifferentism which Pope Gregory said was essentially the idea that one religion was as good as another just so long one led a moral life. Pope Gegory said it was important to Catholics to maintain the Catholic faith and quoted the creed composed by St Antanasius to indicate what that "Catholic Faith was. According to Athanasius the Catholic Faith is comprised of what we would call belief in the Trinity which most protestants adhere to. Therefore, for the reasons expressed above, you cannot use Pope Gregory XVI encyclical *Mirari Vos *to support your position.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Yes. So these, clearly are people who have NOT been baptized, Sir Knight, right? They FALSELY believe they’ve been baptized.

The Catholic church does not believe Christians who are baptized, FALSELY believe they’re baptized, do they?

Greetings, my sister!

In Mirari Vos (I misspelled it above ), Pope Gregory quotes from Augustine in order to explain his meaning. In Augustine’s disputes with the Donatists, the basic point of contention relevant to this discussion was whether baptisms performed by heretics were valid and whether they should be repeated when coming back to the Catholic Church. The answer was that the baptism was valid and not to be repeated. But the baptism would not save the person in schism: not because the baptism was not valid, but because the person was in schism. Augustine’s point was that, in bringing schismatics and heretics back into the church, let us correct them where they are in the wrong and affirm them where they are in the right.

Pope Gregory is trying to make the same basic point. Let not a person who is in schism point back to his baptism and think that he’s OK with God because of that. He needs to live a life conforming to the grace received in that baptism, which grace draws us towards unity with Christ and with each other. These people were washed in the waters of regeneration, but that washing was “effaced” by the sin of schism.

Your brother in Christ,
Pete