Did Jesus have siblings?

[Pete_Holter]

Hi everyone!

I put this post in another thread going on in the Apologetics Forum, but thought I’d put it here too to reach different people, in case someone finds it helpful.

The Brethren of the Lord by J. B. Lightfoot is a very instructive historical and Biblical survey on this question.

Here are some posts I’ve written on the subject for your consideration. I’ve tried to dress up the titles to make them as enticing as possible.

Origen: Denial of Perpetual Virginity is Heresy; Clement of Alexandria
The Authenticity of the Preceding Quote from Origen; Clement Again
Still Thinking It’s Authentic…
Mary Does Not Know Man and Is Uniquely Related to Joseph
Unwitting Fulfillment of Prophecy
Isaiah 7:14 Was Already Fulfilled, Justin and Trypho
More of the Same and the Vision of the Wonderworker
God Miraculously Fulfilling Isaiah 7:14 in an Unexpected Way, John’s Gospel Considered, Gregory of Nyssa, and Cyril of Alexandria
Joseph, His Kingly Ancestor, and Heos Hou
Various Correlations, Jesus in the Temple, and Brothers as Mature Adults
Mary Is the Church in Archetype
Mary Is Disciple Antitype and Virgin Bride of Christ; Quodvultdeus

If you didn’t enjoy my posts, please enjoy some music by Matt Maher!

In Christ,
Pete

 

[simspt]

Thanks for the Lightfoot resource

 

[kelvinf]

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.

What you are saying is funny. As PRmerger already mentioned, we are not here to play a blame game. If you want to look at things from that perspective, then you tell me who is to blame when one commits a grave matter without knowing?

Do you know everything? If yes, you wouldn’t be on this platform or you would have been one of the apologist. Assuming you don’t know everything,* 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?(copied and pasted*)

Could you quote the person who said that other people are to be blamed?
As already mentioned, nobody is interested in playing a blame game here.

 

[Roy5]

These postings seem to be way off topic. But let me add a thought or two.

 I am ecumenical, eager to have Christians of different faiths cooperate together to bring about a spirit of reconciliation and peace. Frankly, I would like to extend it to all faiths. As I have a habit of saying, true religion should be a bridge and not a barrier to human understanding. Tragically, it more often has worked in the opposite direction.

 When I view Protestantism, I have problems, certainly with the evangelicals who claim that every word in the Bible is sacrosanct. I simply can't believe that Eve was made from Adam's rib while he slept, that God regretted creating humanity and deliberately drowned everyone and every animal in a great flood, that Jehovah commanded Joshua to murder all the inhabitants of Jericho, that Saul was ordered to kill every Amalekite, etc. 

  My problem with Catholicism is similar. I would like to believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and was infallible in matters of faith and moral, that Mary is to be venerated as the one person ever to to be conceived and live a full life without sin, that various stories of miracles formed by saints are true (e. g., that Padre Pio levitated and bilocated), that the priest's prayer of consecration changes the substance of bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus - and much more. Catholicism has done great good in the field of education, medicine, helping the poor, etc., but how does one believe what he simply cannot believe? Posters tend to reply that one should be more humble, less rebellious, that who am I to question the church, and on and on. That only helps push me further away, As for the evidence, the Bible can be quoted to support many different positions (and is), and forget the Church Fathers. I have read many of them and, while brilliant for their era, their writings sound primitive given the knowledge we have acquired since they wrote. 

  Anyway, that's my dilemma. The question of Jesus' siblings is an example of why things are complicated. You can quote different verses to show that Jesus may have had siblings, that Mary and Joseph may have lived as a normal married couple after Jesus was born, etc. And the notion that we simply are obligated to believe what the church teaches or we're not a good Christian is alien to my personal code of honor. I know many Protestants, Jews and others who are as 'good' as Catholics I know. And I find it very difficult to believe that God in his mercy judges us by our doctrines in this huge and mysterious universe.

  God bless the whole world - no exceptions.

 

[PRmerger]

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

What, exactly, does “whole and inviolate” mean to you, Sir Knight?

I dunno–but it would seem that you’re condemning yourself by holding this quote up to besmirch Protestants. For you yourself are not holding up the Catholic faith, whole and inviolate. It seems that you are putting yourself into a category that will “perish forever.”

 

[kelvinf]

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…

Yes it never occurred to me to ask why it was compulsory (surprised? satisfied? eh?).
When I arrived boarding school at the age of 9, I was given a book with rules and regulations which I had to read and follow. Would you have started asking why the compulsory stuff in the book were compulsory? Should I have started asking why we had to do chores, manual labour on Mondays (and not Tuesdays), why the first and second years had to attend mass everyday etc? Do you always ask why?

Yes, I sometimes do things without knowing why I do them (satisfied?). Before Christmas, we used to cut down a cypress tree, decorate it and call it a Christmas tree. I got used to this tradition and never asked why. In my culture, we don’t have Easter eggs. Well, knowing the history of Easter eggs is not yet on my “To-Know-List”. However, I accept the tradition and take part in it without knowing why. So are you satisfied?

Have you ever asked why your cell phone does what it does or why your computer does what it does or would you have asked why an apple falls down from a tree?

I am interested in growing more in faith and I do have a “To-Know-List” but unfortunately I can’t ask all my questions at once and I can’t get all my questions answered at once.
E.g After reading a passage in the bible, I discovered that the sabbath was on Saturday and not Sunday. I searched for the topic on this forum and the answer from the apologist was a reference to a lengthy online article. Well, I simply bookmarked the page (increasing my “To-Visit-Pages” to 40) since I didn’t have time to read the article. So currently, I don’t why the sabbath was moved to Sunday and I believe it’s not a priority for me to know and I must not also know why. But I accept it like accepting a Gospel truth.

Well, I will leave it here. If you choose to be catholic (open-minded), then you would understand that people are different and that people are brought up differently.

Peace

 

[grndslm]

These postings seem to be way off topic. But let me add a thought or two.

 I am ecumenical, eager to have Christians of different faiths cooperate together to bring about a spirit of reconciliation and peace. Frankly, I would like to extend it to all faiths. As I have a habit of saying, true religion should be a bridge and not a barrier to human understanding. Tragically, it more often has worked in the opposite direction.

 When I view Protestantism, I have problems, certainly with the evangelicals who claim that every word in the Bible is sacrosanct. I simply can't believe that Eve was made from Adam's rib while he slept, that God regretted creating humanity and deliberately drowned everyone and every animal in a great flood, that Jehovah commanded Joshua to murder all the inhabitants of Jericho, that Saul was ordered to kill every Amalekite, etc. 

  My problem with Catholicism is similar. I would like to believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and was infallible in matters of faith and moral, that Mary is to be venerated as the one person ever to to be conceived and live a full life without sin, that various stories of miracles formed by saints are true (e. g., that Padre Pio levitated and bilocated), that the priest's prayer of consecration changes the substance of bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus - and much more. Catholicism has done great good in the field of education, medicine, helping the poor, etc., but how does one believe what he simply cannot believe? Posters tend to reply that one should be more humble, less rebellious, that who am I to question the church, and on and on. That only helps push me further away, As for the evidence, the Bible can be quoted to support many different positions (and is), and forget the Church Fathers. I have read many of them and, while brilliant for their era, their writings sound primitive given the knowledge we have acquired since they wrote. 

  Anyway, that's my dilemma. The question of Jesus' siblings is an example of why things are complicated. You can quote different verses to show that Jesus may have had siblings, that Mary and Joseph may have lived as a normal married couple after Jesus was born, etc. And the notion that we simply are obligated to believe what the church teaches or we're not a good Christian is alien to my personal code of honor. I know many Protestants, Jews and others who are as 'good' as Catholics I know. And I find it very difficult to believe that God in his mercy judges us by our doctrines in this huge and mysterious universe.

  God bless the whole world - no exceptions.

EXACTLY!!

Everything you said was perfect.

You hit the nail right on the head. I was essentially gonna write out a response that hit the key areas of your post, but yours has much more detail. I’d call this post of yours… TRUTH.

And, that is my dilemma. Even if I were to join the Catholic Church, I’m not sure I could ever place the Catholic Church above Truth. Is the Catholic Church really even on even ground with Truth?!? History would say otherwise. That’s my dilemma… Truth has been, is, and will always be above the Church… even tho the Church tries to get as close as “humanly” possible to Truth.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Scripture says that the Church is the defender of the truth. Is scripture wrong on this point? If so, how can you place your faith in anything else it teaches? If it is wrong about one thing, it MIGHT be wrong on other things and there is no way of knowing what those other things might be. Thus, placing all of it into question.

 

[Sir_Knight]

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.

It doesn’t mean “invincible ignorance” by name because the term hasn’t been coined yet but it you read what it is saying, it pretty much says that you are claiming is possible via “invincible ignorance” is not possible. Coupled with Pius IX carving out an exception for those who were ignorant of the gospel, “by no fault of their own.” – THAT makes it the exception and NOT the rule.

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!

If you don’t 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 how did those few non-Catholics get to heaven?

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 what is “indifferentism”? It 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? If those who reject the Catholic faith will obtain eternal salvation.

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]

And because not a single Pope has declared a single SPECIFIC person is in hell, are we to assume that there are no souls in hell? No. That would make Jesus out to be a liar because He taught that MANY souls would find themselves there. And while not a single Pope has declared a single SPECIFIC person to be in hell, they HAVE official declared what group of people WILL be in hell – those that through no fault of their own do not accept the Catholic faith.

 

[Roy5]

Sir Knight
Do you really believe that the merciful Lord caused all humanity plus the animal world to drown (except Noah and family), that God told Joshua to massacre all those in Joshua (except a prostitute and her family), or that the Lord ordered Saul to kill every last Amalekite? I can't even begin to believe that this God, who commanded us to love him and one another, would insist upon such atrocities. Sounds more like Hitler than our heavenly Father. No, I can't believe all the Bible, and how can any Christian who takes the Ten Commandmends and the Sermon on the Mount seriously?

 

[Sir_Knight]

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

Huh? You just said in the previous post that non-Catholics would be in heaven. Now you are saying that other faiths can not make it to heaven. Which is it?

Um…yes. What prompts this question?

Your earlier comment.

'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.

No, but if they reject Catholic teachings, they will go to hell for that according to the Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI.

Yup.

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

Uhh, they WERE condemed as a group – “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 how can you say that there will be Protestants up in heaven when you just said in the beginning of this post 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?

 

[Sir_Knight]

What, exactly, does “whole and inviolate” mean to you, Sir Knight?

I dunno–but it would seem that you’re condemning yourself by holding this quote up to besmirch Protestants. For you yourself are not holding up the Catholic faith, whole and inviolate. It seems that you are putting yourself into a category that will “perish forever.”

There is not a single Catholic teaching that I reject as being false. I may not follow them all. I may not follow most of them but I acknowledge that in those cases, I am in the wrong and not the teachings of then Church on those matters. There in, lies the difference.

Look, I have presented you with Catholic Church teaching as I understand it with supporting references from numerous official sources. Additionally, I have provided you supporting references from respected Catholic Apologists who have drawn the SAME conclusions as I have from these official Church references.

If you continue to be in disagreement, then we need to agree to disagree.

However, I will leave you with this closing thought – the fact that respected Catholic Apologists are drawing the same conclusions as I from official Church references should show that your position is not universally held. I ask you, how confident are you of your position? Are you confident enough to bet your soul or somebody else’s soul on it?

Think about this … suppose somebody comes along and reads our discussion and decides that my position is correct and adheres to accepting the holding the Catholic faith. What harm is done if I am wrong and you are correct? Little or no harm would be done. In fact, benefits would be obtained even if I was incorrect because they would be receiving the graces available from the Catholic Church.

Now, what harm would be done if they assumed that you were correct and didn’t accept the Catholic faith because they believed that they could still be saved even if they didn’t hold the Catholic faith and your position was incorrect? That person, through your misunderstanding of the faith, would have lost their soul.

What does scripture say about leading others astray? Will “invincible ignorance” be your defense?

As I said, if my position is incorrect and people follow it, there are no adverse effects. If you are wrong, there is potential for major consequences.

You don’t need to reply to this question. It is not meant to be a discussion point but merely point out the possible far reaching complications. As I said, we need to agree to disagree. I will not be returning to this topic in this thread (although I may comment on other parts of the conversation in this thread).

I pray that the Holy Spirit will guide all of us to the truth.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Sir Knight

Do you really believe that the merciful Lord caused all humanity plus the animal world to drown (except Noah and family), that God told Joshua to massacre all those in Joshua (except a prostitute and her family), or that the Lord ordered Saul to kill every last Amalekite? I can't even begin to believe that this God, who commanded us to love him and one another, would insist upon such atrocities. Sounds more like Hitler than our heavenly Father. No, I can't believe all the Bible, and how can any Christian who takes the Ten Commandmends and the Sermon on the Mount seriously?

If you do not accept the entire bible as true, how do you know which parts of the bible are true and which ones might be false?

How do you know that the parts that you accept as true are in reality false and the parts that you accept as false are in reality true? Once you take the position that some of the bible might be false, you open the door to these possibilities.

 

[PRmerger]

It doesn’t mean “invincible ignorance” by name because the term hasn’t been coined yet but it you read what it is saying, it pretty much says that you are claiming is possible via “invincible ignorance” is not possible. Coupled with Pius IX carving out an exception for those who were ignorant of the gospel, “by no fault of their own.” – THAT makes it the exception and NOT the rule.

“Invincible ignorance”–and anything alluding to “invincible ignorance”–is not even close to what’s discussed in your quote. It’s discussing indifferentism–the belief that it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you live a good life.

As a Catholic I am free to believe that invincible ignorance is not the exception but the rule. Period.

If you don’t 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 how did those few non-Catholics get to heaven?

If they are in heaven, it’s because they know Christ. If they know Christ, it’s only because of the Catholic Church. Which is why: outside the church there is no salvation.

And what is “indifferentism”? It 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? If those who reject the Catholic faith will obtain eternal salvation.

Yup. Those who reject the Catholic faith will not obtain eternal salvation.

You just don’t know who rejects the Catholic faith. And who are rejecting what they think is the Catholic faith.

And because not a single Pope has declared a single SPECIFIC person is in hell, are we to assume that there are no souls in hell?

I’m pretty sure there’s quite a few souls in hell. In fact, I’m pretty sure there are quite a few fundamentalist Catholic bigots there. :sad_yes:

And while not a single Pope has declared a single SPECIFIC person to be in hell, they HAVE official declared what group of people WILL be in hell – **those that through no fault of their own **do not accept the Catholic faith.

Did you mean: through their own fault do not accept the Catholic Church?

Regardless…my point is one ought to keep his mouth shut when condemning a specific individual to hell for his apparent rejection of the Catholic Church. For you do not know what it is he is rejecting. You simply can’t know.

 

[PRmerger]

Huh? You just said in the previous post that non-Catholics would be in heaven. Now you are saying that other faiths can not make it to heaven. Which is it?

I have never said that other faiths can not make it to heaven. That’s absurd. I believe there’s quite a few non-Catholics in heaven praying for you right now in fact!

And how can you say that there will be Protestants up in heaven when you just said in the beginning of this post 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?

Again, if they are in heaven, it’s because they know Christ. If they know Christ, it’s because of the Catholic Church. Outside the Church there is no salvation.

 

[PRmerger]

I have provided you supporting references from respected Catholic Apologists who have drawn the SAME conclusions as I have from these official Church references.

I provided you with quotes from the CCC and from Catholic Apologists supporting my point as well.

You also tried to tell me that I must believe as a Catholic that “invincible ignorance is the exception rather than the rule”–yet, clearly, that has not been taught.

However, I will leave you with this closing thought – the fact that respected Catholic Apologists are drawing the same conclusions as I from official Church references should show that your position is not universally held. I ask you, how confident are you of your position? Are you confident enough to bet your soul or somebody else’s soul on it?

Right back at 'cha, Sir Knight. Everything above I say right back to you!

Now, what harm would be done if they assumed that you were correct and didn’t accept the Catholic faith because they believed that they could still be saved even if they didn’t hold the Catholic faith and your position was incorrect? That person, through your misunderstanding of the faith, would have lost their soul.

This does not represent my position whatsoever. I have never stated that a person can not accept the Catholic faith because they believe they can still be saved even if they don’t hold the Catholic faith.

If they are saved it is because they know Jesus. If they know Jesus, it is because of the Catholic faith.

I will not be returning to this topic in this thread

As you wish.

You are mistaken in your proclamations of Catholic teaching and are doing much harm here on the CAF misrepresenting the Catholic faith. I will continue to contest any misrepresentations you propose.

I think it’s clear that the Catholic Church views our Protestant brethren with respect and affection, and, undoubtedly* their salvation is possible. *

“However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.” CCC 818

 

[Sir_Knight]

I know that I am going to regret coming back into this conversation when I said I wasn’t going to but …

This does not represent my position whatsoever. I have never stated that a person can not accept the Catholic faith because they believe they can still be saved even if they don’t hold the Catholic faith.

If they are saved it is because they know Jesus. If they know Jesus, it is because of the Catholic faith.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You are saying that there is no salvation outside of the Church …
"PRmerger:

Outside the Church there is no salvation

… and at the same time you are saying that those who are not a part of the Church may still be saved …

PRmerger:

Probably a few Protestants are up in heaven

… which is it? If they are Protestants, then they do not hold the Catholic faith and are not saved …

[sign]“without a doubt, they will perish forever, UNLESS THEY HOLD the Catholic faith whole AND inviolate” – Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI[/sign]

… kindly read that again — unless one HOLDS the Catholic faith, one will perish. That is an official Church Teaching. If someone does not know what the Catholic faith is or has a misunderstanding of what it is, then they do not “hold” the faith. Period.

You are mistaken in your proclamations of Catholic teaching and are doing much harm here on the CAF misrepresenting the Catholic faith. I will continue to contest any misrepresentations you propose.

If I am misrepresenting the faith, then be so kind as to explain to us the meaning of the following statements from the Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI (August 15, 1832):

1. 
   *]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.
   
   *]A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. 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?
   
   *]“without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole AND inviolate.”
   

   I think it’s clear that the Catholic Church views our Protestant brethren with respect and affection, and, undoubtedly* their salvation is possible. *
   
   “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.” CCC 818

   Kindly explain for us 818 in light of “A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. 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?” (from the Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI).

 

[kelvinf]

…please enjoy some music by Matt Maher!

In Christ,
Pete

Thanks:thumbsup:

 

[guanophore]

I disagree with your suggestion that “hell is sparsely populated”
Matt 7: 13-14

Also: many are called but few are chosen.

• Not everybody who calls me Lord, Lord will inherit the kingdom of heaven.

Many people make the mistake of confusing God’s love with salvation. They think that, since nothing can separate us from the love of God, then we cannot fail to attain salvation. However, God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son - while we were yet sinners. God loves us even when we are separated from Him through sin. He loves us so much, He will allow us to walk through the gates of hell if that is our choice, though He will weep to see it.

I agree with you. There are far more souls in hell than in heaven. It is not correlated with God’s love.

 

[PRmerger]

I know that I am going to regret coming back into this conversation when I said I wasn’t going to but …

Again, as you wish.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Then you are accusing the CC of talking out of both sides of her mouth, for I am merely repeating her message.

You are saying that there is no salvation outside of the Church …

Yes.

and at the same time you are saying that those who are not a part of the Church may still be saved …

Nope.

If they are Protestants, then they do not hold the Catholic faith and are not saved …

Don’t forget about the invincible ignorance thing.

… kindly read that again — unless one HOLDS the Catholic faith, one will perish. That is an official Church Teaching.

Don’t forget about invincible ignorance again.

(I’m beginning to think that yours is obstinate ignorance, though. :bigyikes: However, as I can’t see into your heart and mind I simply cannot proclaim definitively whether you are still invincibly ignorant about the Catholic Church’s teaching, or merely being obdurate.)

If someone does not know what the Catholic faith is or has a misunderstanding of what it is, then they do not “hold” the faith.

Absolutely not! Someone is going to hell because he misunderstands what the CC teaches? Your god is a monster for condemning someone for a mistake.

If I am misrepresenting the faith, then be so kind as to explain to us the meaning of the following statements from the Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI (August 15, 1832):

1. 
   *]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.

1. 
   

   *]A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. 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?

   *]“without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole AND inviolate.”
   Kindly explain for us 818 in light of “A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. 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?” (from the Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI).

   It is a re-affirmation of the CC’s teaching:* Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus*
   
   The Church is necessary for salvation. We cannot have salvation without Christ. We cannot know Christ without the Church.
   
   Thus, if someone rejects the Church, he rejects Christ and he will perish forever.
   
   As Peter Kreeft, Catholic Apologist, says at this website from the Knights of Columbus:
   

   Originally posted by the KofC:
   EENS does not mean that Protestants and others are not saved, because this formula is not an answer to the mind’s curiosity about the populations of Heaven and Hell, but an answer to the sincerely seeking heart’s questions, “Where is salvation? Where is the road? What has God done to show me how to be saved?”

   In fact, the Church explicitly teaches that many who call themselves non-Catholics are saved.

   I thought I’d just repeat that this source is a*** Knights of Columbus ***source.