Did Jesus have siblings?

[PRmerger]

Agreed but one can be guilty of a grave sin without being aware of it.

So what? If they don’t know it’s grave, then they’re not committing a mortal sin. They won’t go to hell just because they committed a grave sin–that’s for certain!

 

[PRmerger]

There is a difference between not knowing something and not caring what the church teaches.

Clearly.

You just don’t know if someone “doesn’t care what the church teaches” or is rejecting it, or was misinformed, or thought the teaching “changed” or heard from a renegade priest, “It’s really ok as long as you offer a prayer while you’re contemplating nature”

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.”

I have heard that quite a few times indeed!

When was the last time you heard from the pulpit a priest say that missing Mass is a mortal sin? I can tell you my own personal experience: never.

There’s quite a few ex-Catholics here on this very thread who don’t even know where Scripture is in the Mass.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Huh?

One may accept that murder is a mortal sin but may think that abortion is not murder and just a part of family planning.

Exactly! If a teenage girl has an abortion but does not know that it’s a teeny human life she’s just killed, then how culpable could she be? No matter how objectively evil the act is, she has not committed a mortal sin. Period.

 

[inkaneer]

Clearly.

You just don’t know if someone “doesn’t care what the church teaches” or is rejecting it, or was misinformed, or thought the teaching “changed” or heard from a renegade priest, “It’s really ok as long as you offer a prayer while you’re contemplating nature”

I have heard that quite a few times indeed!

When was the last time you heard from the pulpit a priest say that missing Mass is a mortal sin? I can tell you my own personal experience: never.

There’s quite a few ex-Catholics here on this very thread who don’t even know where Scripture is in the Mass.

 

[PRmerger]

No, Jesus didn’t say that. He promised to His followers that whoever rejected the message that they brought to them, they were to shake the dust from their feet and it would be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for them.

Yup.

And, just so we’re clear, we’re NOT talking about those, who do not accept a church teaching because through no fault of their own, they are not aware of it.We’re specifically talking about those that reject a Church teaching.

Yup. Reject a Church teaching. You just don’t know exactly what it is they’re rejecting. See my comment on Marian doctrines.

 

[Sir_Knight]

So what? If they don’t know it’s grave, then they’re not committing a mortal sin. They won’t go to hell just because they committed a grave sin–that’s for certain!

While it may not land one in hell, a grave sin is nothing to sneeze at.

 

[PRmerger]

While it may not land one in hell, a grave sin is nothing to sneeze at.

Clearly.

But isn’t that the topic we’re discussing–salvation of those outside the Church? Why bring up “grave sins” anyway?

Mortal sin–which one must be aware is gravely sinful–affects one’s salvation.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Yup. Reject a Church teaching. You just don’t know exactly what it is they’re rejecting. See my comment on Marian doctrines.

Does it really matter? Did it matter in Matt 10:14 why the people rejected the disciples? No special cases were listed as to why the message was rejected. All that mattered was that it was rejected and we are told what the consequences of that rejection was – that it would be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for those that rejected them.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Clearly.

But isn’t that the topic we’re discussing–salvation of those outside the Church? Why bring up “grave sins” anyway?

Mortal sin–which one must be aware is gravely sinful–affects one’s salvation.

There is no salvation outside of the Church. We all seem to be in agreement on that. Canon Law says that if one rejects an official teaching of the Church, you are automaticly thrown out of the Church and if you are outside of the Church, you are out of reach of salvation. It doesn’t say anywhere, that I am aware of, in th Canon as to why one rejects a Church teaching. So, where does that leave us?

 

[PRmerger]

Does it really matter? Did it matter in Matt 10:14 why the people rejected the disciples? No special cases were listed as to why the message was rejected. All that mattered was that it was rejected and we are told what the consequences of that rejection was – that it would be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for those that rejected them.

Of course it matters! If one rejects the CC because he believes we worship Mary, then he is not truly rejecting the CC, is he?

And, since you cannot tell exactly what each Protestant is rejecting when he “rejects” Catholicism, it’s best you keep your mouth shut about whether he’s going to end up in heaven or hell.

 

[bluelake]

Mathew 13:55 states:

55"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

Knowing that the church has stated that Mary was a perpetual virgin, where do these brothers come into place?

Jesus is God robed in flesh. Mt.1;23
does God have brothers and sisters?
I don’t think so.

bluelake

 

[bluelake]

There is no salvation outside of the Church. We all seem to be in agreement on that. Canon Law says that if one rejects an official teaching of the Church, you are automaticly thrown out of the Church and if you are outside of the Church, you are out of reach of salvation. It doesn’t say anywhere, that I am aware of, in th Canon as to why one rejects a Church teaching. So, where does that leave us?

Do you read the Bible?

 

[kelvinf]

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.”

Well, I only got to know that missing mass is an issue just a couple of months ago (I guess via this forum). Comparing my little knowledge about the church teachings with that of the many Catholics I know, I can fairly conclude that a lot of Catholics are blank when it comes to what the church teaches.

Apart from the doctrine one learned (during childhood) before taking or receiving (not quite sure of the correct term ) first holy communion, most Catholics are later only exposed to homilies during mass and one can’t or doesn’t get to learn the church teachings during homilies.

NB: I first heard about NFL about a year ago

 

[inkaneer]

Well, I only got to know that missing mass is an issue just a couple of months ago (I guess via this forum). Comparing my little knowledge about the church teachings with that of the many Catholics I know, I can fairly conclude that a lot of Catholics are blank when it comes to what the church teaches.

Apart from the doctrine one learned (during childhood) before taking or receiving (not quite sure of the correct term ) first holy communion, most Catholics are later only exposed to homilies during mass and one can’t or doesn’t get to learn the church teachings during homilies.

NB: I first heard about NFL about a year ago

Sorry pal, I don’t buy it. I knew missing Mass was a mortal sin before I received my first communion and I went to public school and catechism on Saturday morning. And I didn’t first hear about it in catechism class either. I learned it from my parents.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Of course it matters! If one rejects the CC because he believes we worship Mary, then he is not truly rejecting the CC, is he?

And, since you cannot tell exactly what each Protestant is rejecting when he “rejects” Catholicism, it’s best you keep your mouth shut about whether he’s going to end up in heaven or hell.

Canon Law does not specify that. It merely says that those that reject official Church teaching. The CCC also says that once coming to the age of reason, one has a responsibility to be know the faith.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Do you read the Bible?

Yes, regularily.

 

[Sir_Knight]

" … it is not accurate to say that “informal membership in the Catholic Church are just as expedient to salvation as formal membership in Her.” That is not true. If it were, then one religion would just be as good as another. This is a heresy called indifferentism which the Church has repeatedly condemned. Objectively speaking, there is no possible way of salvation outside Christ and His Church. Those who will be saved will be saved by Christ through the Catholic Church. It is true that, non-Catholic Christians, by virtue of their baptism, are imperfectly united to the Church. But this does not mean that salvation is equally expedient for them. To the contrary, it is because they do not have the fullness of the sacramental life of the Church, which brings about the very salvation at issue. If you study what the Church has said on this, you will see the nearly 2,000-year tradition on this teaching. It was only after the Second Vatican Council where liberal theologians began to challenge the age-old teaching of no salvation outside the Church. They began to say that invincible ignorance was a reason that everyone, or at least most people, would be saved. This is not true, and it does not comport with the Tradition of the Church. Invincible ignorance of the Church is the exception, not the rule. Pius IX, the pope that first introduced the teaching “invincible ignorance,” was writing in an age where there were not the forms of mass communication we have today. Certainly, in our era, most people should know about Jesus Christ and what He teaches regarding salvation. In addition, Pius IX was directing his teaching toward certain sects that were proclaiming the Church was no longer necessary for salvation. In affirming that the Church was necessary for salvation, Pius IX carved out an exception for those who were ignorant of the gospel, “by no fault of their own.” Again, this is an exception, not the rule. Moreover, the exception has not risen to the level of a dogmatic teaching like EENS is. In today’s world of secularism and materialism, the Church needs all the more to implore people to repent of their false gods and come to Christ to be saved. This makes the false ecumenism and irenicism in the Church so harmful. We need to preach the gospel, not water it down. It is a matter of salvation, because, outside the Church, there is none … "

Source.​

 

[PRmerger]

Canon Law does not specify that. It merely says that those that reject official Church teaching. The CCC also says that once coming to the age of reason, one has a responsibility to be know the faith.

Is it official Catholic teaching that we worship Mary? Certainly not! So when a person–however misguided and uninformed–“rejects” the CC because of this misunderstanding, ***he is not culpable. ***

And, since you cannot know exactly what each and every Protestant understands about the CC’s teaching, and how much he understands correctly, one ought not make any judgments about his eternal salvation.

To borrow from Peter Kreeft, explaining the CC’s teaching “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”: Protestantism broke off from the Catholic tree; yet there may be just enough sap (eternal Truth) in those Protestant limbs to give life. If they do have sap, it is only because it received it from the Trunk (the Catholic Church), which received it from the Root (Jesus Christ).

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry pal, I don’t buy it. I knew missing Mass was a mortal sin before I received my first communion and I went to public school and catechism on Saturday morning. And I didn’t first hear about it in catechism class either. I learned it from my parents.

You still haven’t shared with us how you know what someone knows. Do tell!

You learned that missing Mass is a mortal sin. Good for you! Not every Catholic has been told that, esp since the 1980’s to our current times.

I bet a random Catholic in the pews cannot even tell you where Scripture is in the Mass. Nor can he tell you what the Immaculate Conception is.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Is it official Catholic teaching that we worship Mary? Certainly not! So when a person–however misguided and uninformed–“rejects” the CC because of this misunderstanding, ***he is not culpable. ***

And I am sure that there were some people who rejected the message of the Apostles because of false information that they received from the Temple religious leaders. It didn’t matter. Jesus didn’t tell them to find out why the message was being rejected. The disciples still shook the dust from their feet.

And, since you cannot know exactly what each and every Protestant understands about the CC’s teaching, and how much he understands correctly, one ought not make any judgments about his eternal salvation.

To borrow from Peter Kreeft, explaining the CC’s teaching “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”: Protestantism broke off from the Catholic tree; yet there may be just enough sap (eternal Truth) in those Protestant limbs to give life. If they do have sap, it is only because it received it from the Trunk (the Catholic Church), which received it from the Root (Jesus Christ).

See above what Catholic Apologists have to say about this matter.