If Mary the mother of Jesus had other children, then the writers would have addressed it the way the addressed the others. E.g James and John sons of Zebedee (Matt 10:2/Mk 10:35); Mary (i.e the other Mary) the mother of the younger James and of Joseph and Salome (Mk 15:40, Mk 16:1). Likewise Mary the mother of Jesus. Not Mary the mother of Jesus and…
This has been my position all along. Check #356 & #317 and perhaps even earlier – I don’t have the time to go through this entire thread looking for when I first said that. I didn’t think that it needed to be clarified in every single post.
They can be forgiven but without them seeking that forgiveness via confession, it makes it more unlikely of it happening.
And what about those that reject Catholic doctrine – the forgiveness of sins via confession, the true presence of our Lord in the Eucharist, etc.? How can you say someone is a member of the Catholic Church if they reject Catholic teachings? Canon Law (which I quoted that the very start of this thread) clearly says those who reject Catholic teachings are automaticly excommunicated from the church – i.e., removed from the Church. If they are removed from the Church, they can not be part of the Church.Because the fullness of Truth is found only in the Catholic Church. Any Truth that is found in other denomintations has been preserved from Catholic Teaching. For example, the Church recognizes Protestant Trinitarian Baptism because this has been preserved from the Catholic Church.
The Church likewise affirms the ferver of our separated brethren for Scripture, because she has declared indulgences for those who read and pray it.
Everyone is subject to the Successor of Peter, whether they know it, or not.
Everyone who has truth, has that which came from the Catholic Church.
How do you figure that? Since all persons have heads, they all qualify!
If their heads have been severed, then they will have no desire or need for your meeting.
that is exactly the point. They are joined to the Church (allbeit imperfectly) in baptism, and whatever truth they have comes from the Church. That means, to the extent they accept the Christian doctrines, they accept Catholic doctrines. Most of them don’t know it.
So where do we apply the teaching of Matthew 10:14? Or, do we just ignore it?
Not if they reject a Catholic Church teaching. That automaticly excommunicates them from the Church and they are no longer a part of it AND, as you said, there is “there is no salvation outside the Church”.
Please share with us your take on that statement so that we can compare and contract the different understandings.He is ignoring the context of the statements so that he can apply them differently. It is a Protesatant tactic for changing the meaning.
Say a person was taught that it is a mortal sin to miss mass on Sunday without just cause but they decide not to believe it and don’t go to mass. Are you saying that if they don’t THINK that they are committing a grave sin, then they are not committing a grave sin? I disagree and so do my confessor. And how do you square that with Leviticus 5:17 …
Fine. You don’t believe that only Catholics are up in heaven. You are in alignment with the CC’s teaching, then.
The point is, Sir Knight, that *we have no idea *to what degree a Protestant is culpable for his apparent rejection of Catholic teaching. That’s not for us to determine. We simply must provide to them a reason for the hope that is in us, but always with gentleness and respect.
He is guilty of a mortal sin? I don’t think it says that.
Notice, I didn’t say “mortal”. I said “grave”.He is guilty of a mortal sin? I don’t think it says that.
But I noted the exception in the CCC with regards to those who through no fault of their own …Fine. You don’t believe that only Catholics are up in heaven. You are in alignment with the CC’s teaching, then.
You certainly had a lot of us confused about your position, though!
It certainly sounded like you were saying that only Catholics can be saved when you stated this:
Got a secret to tell you. They know it. There is a difference between not knowing something and not caring what the church teaches. And they do know what the church teaches. When was the last time you asked someone why they don’t go to church and they answered, “I didn’t know we had to.”
One cannot be guilty of a mortal sin if one does not know it’s a mortal sin. Are we agreed on this?
Can you share with us how you know what someone knows?
Of course.
Agreed but one can be guilty of a grave sin without being aware of it.
Not quite. Rather one cannot be guilty of a mortal sin if one either actually does not know it’s a mortal sin or should know its a mortal sin. One may accept that murder is a mortal sin but may think that abortion is not murder and just a part of family planning.
The point is, Sir Knight, that *we have no idea *to what degree a Protestant is culpable for his apparent rejection of Catholic teaching. That’s not for us to determine. We simply must provide to them a reason for the hope that is in us, but always with gentleness and respect.
I know many Protestants who “reject” our teachings on Mary. If you ask them if we worship her, they’ll respond affirmatively. What, then, exactly, are they culpable for? I dunno-- not for me to determine. However, it would seem pretty clear that they’re rejecting something we reject as well.
Let’s back it up a little bit. When Jesus sent His disciples out two by two, He told them that if they encounter any town that does not accept their message, they are to shake the dust from that town from their feet as a testimony against them promising that it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. He didn’t say: “Well, you know, the scribes and pharisees have been spreading false stories about us saying that we are leading the people astray with false teaching and the people should not be listening to us. If that is the reason they reject you, then it’ll still be okay for them.”
