Did Jesus have siblings?

[PRmerger]

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.

It does indeed matter! I would reject the CC too if I believed we were supposed to worship Mary.

[SIGN1]It absolutely does matter.[/SIGN1]

 

[Sir_Knight]

It does indeed matter! I would reject the CC too if I believed we were supposed to worship Mary.

[sign1]It absolutely does matter.[/sign1]

But, as stated above, it would be your responsibility to find out what you are rejecting.

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.

 

[PRmerger]

But, as stated above, it would be your responsibility to find out what you are rejecting.

What? If someone believes the CC worships Mary and rejects that teaching why in the world would she say, “The CC teaches Catholics to worship Mary. That’s idolatry. But I’m going to find out more about what I’m rejecting!” :whacky: You, presumably, reject Baptist doctrine–why don’t you find out more about their teaching?

Invincible ignorance of the Church is the exception, not the rule.

That’s open to discussion. I don’t believe it is.

 

[Sir_Knight]

What? If someone believes the CC worships Mary and rejects that teaching why in the world would she say, “The CC teaches Catholics to worship Mary. That’s idolatry. But I’m going to find out more about what I’m rejecting!” :whacky: You, presumably, reject Baptist doctrine–why don’t you find out more about their teaching?

That’s open to discussion. I don’t believe it is.

Show me where it applies in official church teaching other than “through no fault of their own”?

 

[kelvinf]

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 don’t need to buy it. It’s a fact. You went to a public school and got to know about it from you parents (Good for you). I went to a Catholic school for 8 years and was never told that missing Mass on Sunday is a grave sin.
In my school, going to church every morning was(is still) compulsory for the first and second years. Going to church every Sunday is compulsory for everybody. In my family, church going is also compulsory. However, I saw it a just one of the many rules and regulations in school and at home. Nobody ever told me it was a grave sin not to attend mass on Sunday. Again, you don’t need to buy it. It’s a fact that can’t be disputed.

 

[kelvinf]

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.

You are very right. I used to know that the Immaculate Conception is all about the conception of Jesus whereas it’s actually the belief in Mary being conceived and born without original sin (if I have not mistaken.)

 

[inkaneer]

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.

You seem to think that one needs only actual knowledge . But that is not so. The standard is lower than that. You also seem to think that the blame for one not knowing their faith rests with someone else and not the person himself. So where does the blame game stop if not with the individual. We all have obligations and responsibilities to others as well as to ourselves. Failure to acquire the knowledge of one’s faith rests with the individual. One is not obligated to know all the theological nuances of the faith but the basic tenets have been spelled out in written form for centuries. Get a copy of the old Baltimore Cathechism and see what it says. A copy of the Baltimore Catechism is hard to locate today having been supeceeded by the new Catechism of the Catholic Church.
And one more thing, quit trying to blame others for sins of individuals. Somehow I think that when one stands before the Lord in judgement blaming others for your sins will work as well as it did for Adam and Eve.

 

[Sir_Knight]

What? If someone believes the CC worships Mary and rejects that teaching why in the world would she say, “The CC teaches Catholics to worship Mary. That’s idolatry. But I’m going to find out more about what I’m rejecting!” :whacky: You, presumably, reject Baptist doctrine–why don’t you find out more about their teaching?

That’s open to discussion. I don’t believe it is.

Then you do not believe official church teaching. I present MIRARI VOS, the Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI (August 15, 1832) for your consideration …

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?”

Let me highlight for you … * 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. – showing that “Invincible Ignorance” is the exception and not the rule. Otherwise, explain what the above statement means?

• Referring to those who broke from the Catholic faith – "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?"
• And finally, and most important, please explain what this statement means – "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole AND inviolate."

 

[PRmerger]

Show me where it applies in official church teaching other than “through no fault of their own”?

You show me how you can tell if someone’s being a Protestant is through their own fault.

How do you know?

Answer: you don’t.

Therefore: [SIGN]one ought to keep one’s mouth shut about whether a Protestant is going to end up in heaven or hell.[/SIGN]

 

[PRmerger]

You are very right. I used to know that the Immaculate Conception is all about the conception of Jesus whereas it’s actually the belief in Mary being conceived and born without original sin (if I have not mistaken.)

Not to mention how many Catholics don’t know that there’s a 1 hour fast that’s required before receiving the Eucharist. And that one cannot receive Him with mortal sin on one’s conscience.

It would be interesting to poll random Catholics in the pews if they know about the fasting requirement and the requirement to go to Confession before receiving, if mortal sin is present. My guess: about 90% would say, “I never heard that before.”

 

[Sir_Knight]

You show me how you can tell if someone’s being a Protestant is through their own fault.

How do you know?

Answer: you don’t.

To quote Pope Gregory XVI … 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? The 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. Without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole AND inviolate.

I await your replies here.

Therefore: [sign]one ought to keep one’s mouth shut about whether a Protestant is going to end up in heaven or hell.[/sign]

Does your comment apply to Popes as well? If so, by what authority do you say this? If it doesn’t, why is it wrong to repeat their teachings?

One ought to teach the faith as given to us by Peter and his successors (Pope Gregory XVI) and NOT water it down. Otherwise we do a dis-service to them.

[sign]" … drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care … " – Pope Gregory XVI, “***MIRARI VOS ***(August 15, 1832)”[/sign]

**
EDITED TO ADD: **Note that this *Encyclical *was written AFTER the Protestant reformation and what does it say? “unless they hold the Catholic faith WHOLE and INVIOLATE”. Doesn’t say anything about misunderstanding it or rejecting something that they THINK they understand.

 

[PRmerger]

You seem to think thatone needs only actual knowledge . But that is not so. The standard is lower than that.

What is it, then, that one needs, inkaneer?

You also seem to think that the blame for one not knowing their faith rests with someone else and not the person himself.

Nope. It’s both/and. However, the CC has done an abysmal job providing catechesis for her members. Thanks to Catholic Answers, though, we are getting more educated!

You are wrong about what I think. If you’re wrong about this, I’m pretty sure we can extrapolate that you also have no idea what people know. Contrary to your statement here:

Got a secret to tell you. They know it.

So where does the blame game stop if not with the individual.

I refuse to play the blame game. In fact, that’s my point, (and, I might add, the CC’s position). We can’t know. So we ought not blame.

We all have obligations and responsibilities to others as well as to ourselves.

Amen!

 

[PRmerger]

Let me highlight for you … 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. – showing that “Invincible Ignorance” is the exception and not the rule.

Huh? Where does it say that? It doesn’t even allude to it being the “exception and not the rule”. :ehh:

Again, I don’t believe “invincible ignorance” is the exception. And I am free to believe this.

Otherwise, explain what the above statement means?

It’s referring to “indifferentism”. Since when have we been talking about that?

*]And finally, and most important, please explain what this statement means – "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole AND inviolate."

It means that without the Catholic faith, whole and inviolate, salvation cannot be achieved. To which I give a hearty “amen!”.

 

[inkaneer]

You are very right. I used to know that the Immaculate Conception is all about the conception of Jesus whereas it’s actually the belief in Mary being conceived and born without original sin (if I have not mistaken.)

How did you, “…used to know that the Immaculate Conception is all about the conception of Jesus…” when that was never true? I think what you meant was that you used to think that it pertained to Jesus but you didn’t really know. So who is to blame here, you for not knowing it, or your parents for not teaching you or not insisting that you are properly catechized? I don’t doubt that the majority of Catholics are poorly catechized but I don’t buy the idea that other people are to blame. Like I said blaming others for our own sins didn’t work for Adam and Eve and I don’t think it will work at judgement time either.

 

[PRmerger]

Does your comment apply to Popes as well? If so, by what authority do you say this? If it doesn’t, why is it wrong to repeat their teachings?

Who said it’s wrong to repeat their teachings? Again, I give a hearty “amen!” to what they’ve professed.

And, yes, my comment does apply to the Popes as well, Sir Knight. If you notice,* not a single pope* has opened his mouth to declare someone–Protestant or otherwise–as damned to hell.

[SIGN1]Not. A. Single. One.[/SIGN1]

 

[Sir_Knight]

Huh? Where does it say that? It doesn’t even allude to it being the “exception and not the rule”. :ehh:

It says that 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” is a perverse opinion spread by the wicked.

Again, I don’t believe “invincible ignorance” is the exception. And I am free to believe this.

If you believe 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, then by Pope Gregory XVI own words, you are believing a perverse opinion spread by the wicked.

It’s referring to “indifferentism”. Since when have we been talking about that?

We’ve been talking about whether or not those who reject the Catholic faith, can receive salvation. That’s what this ***Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI ***is addressing.

It means that without the Catholic faith, whole and inviolate, salvation cannot be achieved. To which I give a hearty “amen!”.

You left out the part that they need to HOLD the Catholic faith whole and inviolate which gives it a completely different meaning from you are saying …

without a doubt, they will perish forever, UNLESS THEY HOLD the Catholic faith whole AND inviolate

 

[inkaneer]

You don’t need to buy it. It’s a fact. You went to a public school and got to know about it from you parents (Good for you). I went to a Catholic school for 8 years and was never told that missing Mass on Sunday is a grave sin.
In my school, going to church every morning was(is still) compulsory for the first and second years. Going to church every Sunday is compulsory for everybody. In my family, church going is also compulsory. However, I saw it a just one of the many rules and regulations in school and at home. Nobody ever told me it was a grave sin not to attend mass on Sunday. Again, you don’t need to buy it. It’s a fact that can’t be disputed.

And it never occurred to you to ask why it was compulsory? Do you always do things without knowing why you do them? Listen, I got a bridge I can sell you real cheap…

 

[Sir_Knight]

Who said it’s wrong to repeat their teachings? Again, I give a hearty “amen!” to what they’ve professed.

Are you now saying that you are in agreement that one needs to HOLD the Catholic faith in order to be saved and that 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” is a perverse opinion spread by the wicked?

And, yes, my comment does apply to the Popes as well,

By what authority? Didn’t Jesus promise that whatever Peter and his successors bound on earth WOULD be bound in heaven?

Sir Knight. If you notice,* not a single pope* has opened his mouth to declare someone–Protestant or otherwise–as damned to hell.

[sign1]Not. A. Single. One.[/sign1]

They did not specifically but they did generally … [sign]“without a doubt, they will perish forever, UNLESS THEY HOLD the Catholic faith whole AND inviolate” – Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI[/sign]
… along with close to a dozen other Popes that I quoted earlier in this thread. Just because we do not know who specifically is in hell, does not mean that we believe is empty of human souls. Scripture is very clear on this that MANY will find themselves there and by comparison, FEW will be saved.

 

[PRmerger]

It says that 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” is a perverse opinion spread by the wicked.

Indeed.

Doesn’t say a thing about invincible ignorance being the exception. Not a thing.

Again, I am free to believe that it is NOT the exception.

If you believe 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

Good thing I don’t believe that, then, huh?

However, I do believe that there are a few good non-Catholics praying for you in heaven right now!

We’ve been talking about whether or not those who reject the Catholic faith, can receive salvation.

Yes! Not about grave sin (still not sure why you brought that up). Not about indifferentism (which is what the encyclical of Pope G was addressing).

We are talking about whether Protestants are going to hell for being Protestant.

And the resounding words from the Popes–throughout history!–is: we have not declared a single person as condemned to hell. [SIGN]Not. A. Single. Person.[/SIGN]

 

[PRmerger]

Are you now saying that you are in agreement that one needs to HOLD the Catholic faith in order to be saved and that 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” is a perverse opinion spread by the wicked?

I am not “now” saying that, Sir Knight. I have been saying that all along.

By what authority? Didn’t Jesus promise that whatever Peter and his successors bound on earth WOULD be bound in heaven?

Um…yes. What prompts this question?

They did not specifically but they did generally …

'zactly! So no specifics at all about who is invincibly ignorant, who is in hell, who is to blame for one’s lack of understanding. Just a generalized reaffirmation of “outside the church there is no salvation.”

Protestants are not going to hell simply for being Protestant.

… along with close to a dozen other Popes that I quoted earlier in this thread. Just because we do not know who specifically is in hell, does not mean that we believe is empty of human souls. Scripture is very clear on this that MANY will find themselves there and by comparison, FEW will be saved.

Yup.

Probably a few Protestants are up in heaven exulting over our popes’ (now, their popes’ ) refusal to condemn them throughout history.