Did Jesus have siblings?

[Roy5]

Gosh, early this past December at a dinner I was sitting across from a key leader in an area Catholic Church (in a neighboring town). Anyway, Mary came up in our conversation and that leader had the same idea - that the Immaculate Conception is synonymous with the Virgin Birth. I don’t know whether he ever went to parochial school, but I was shocked. Maybe he forgot? I debated whether to correct him (in front of others), but decided that good manners demanded that I ignore his error. Did I also make a mistake in not correcting him? Nobody else nearby corrected him either, and I wondered if they caught his error, or if they also had the same misinformation.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Janet, if you respond to Sir Knight’s posting, it helps to know the context of the encyclical. Pope G was speaking specifically about the sin of indifferentism–the belief that one’s religion does not matter. Not about Protestants.

In fact, the subtitle is “On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism”

I got a newsflash for ya – Protestants are not Catholics and vice versa and Pope Gregory XVI points out that that difference DOES matter.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Here’s more about what the CC actually teaches about EENS, again, from your own group, the Knights of Columbus, Luke E. Hart and Peter Kreeft.

We do not how exactly *how *

"… we do know that they are saved … " – How do we know this? And the quote from John 6:14 proves nothing because in Acts, Jesus says that He and His Church are one. It does not say that He and His Churches are one. Jesus established ONE Church and salvation is from THAT one Church.

Gotta love those Knights of Columbus–the ones who know their faith, that is!

Unfortunately, this gentleman that you keep quoting is not one of them.

Again, Catholics do not make any claim as to who is in hell.

Really? And what does Pope Gregory XVI do in his Encyclical when he says “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole AND inviolate.”? He is declaring who (not specifically but under what circumstances) will not be saved.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Not true.

“If someone, without being aware of it**, commits such a sin by doing one of the things which are forbidden by some commandment of the LORD, that he incurs guilt for which he must answer” Lev 5:17

** “Without being aware of it: the case naturally presupposes that later on the offender learns of his mistake.” Cf Lev 4:13, 14. (I’ll tell you the source later, if you want to know.)

Whether he learns of his mistake or doesn’t has no bearing on the matter. Lev 5:17 couldn’t be any clearer –

"*If any one sin, and do any of the things which Jehovah hath commanded not to be done, though he knew it not, yet he IS guilty, and SHALL bear his iniquity."*

Yup. You just don’t know what it is they’re rejecting.

One person left the CC because he thought we worshipped Mary. He’s not rejecting the CC, then, is he?

You just don’t know.

It doesn’t matter what they are rejecting. They need to put in the effort to find out what they are rejecting. CCC1791 makes it very clear that those who “take little trouble” to find out ARE culpable.

Thus, one ought to keep one’s mouth shut about whether a Protestant is condemned to hell or not.

Not when a Pope has ruled on this matter … 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. – Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI (August 15, 1832).

 

[Sir_Knight]

Sir Knight

Wow! I wonder if you are 'more Catholic than the Pope' - or, at least John XXIII, my favorite. Or, maybe, are you Catholic at all? As I recall Fr. Feeney, formerly of Boston (now probably deceased) argued that 'outside the church there is no salvation' and he was admonished.

That’s rather strange that something like that would happen since Pope Benedict approved a document saying the same thing (Source).

But, okay. Let me ask you. Do you believe that God regretted that he had created humankind and decided to drown all but eight people, including young children and babies still in the womb? How does that fit in with your view on abortion? And the Ten Commandments? And the Sermon on the Mount?

 And, do you honestly believe that God commanded Joshua to kill every last person in Jericho once it had surrendered - except for a prostitute and her family? Does that fit into the just war concept?

 Oh, and King Saul. He was told (by God?) to slaughter every remaining Amalekite. Is that in accord with Catholic morality and ethics? 

 We could go on. But, try as I may, I cannot make my concept of God - the God of love who commanded that we love one another - jive with such Biblical stories of mass murder. Sounds more like Hitler than Jesus.

  But if you can believe that atrocities were the work of God, go ahead. I think it much more likely that Joshua and Saul (or the Bible scribes) wanted to justify this evil work, so why not blame God? 

  There's a lot in the Old Testament that I find thoroughly unChristian. Re-read Ex. 21, Lev. 20, and Deut. 22-23, for example. Do you approve of a father selling his daughter into slavery? What about killing a rebellious son? Think of all the sons dads would have killed over the years?

   I wonder - with all due respect - if you shouldn't reexamine your harshness and weigh it against the words of Christ. 

  But God bless you and all of us sinners. I do worry, a bit, that you may have some explaining to do once you stand before Jesus. I would much rather be that Good Samaritan.  Re-read Luke 10:25-37. That guy was going to inherit eternal life, and he wasn't a Catholic! Not even a Jew!

As I said before, as soon as you reject one part of the bible as being false because YOU can’t accept it as true, you open up ALL of it to question and doubt. What proof can you offer that the parts that you reject are to be rejected and the parts that you accept, are to be accepted? What is to stop someone from accepting some of the parts that you reject and rejecting some of the parts that you accept? Who is to say that you are right and he is wrong or vice versa?

No, we either accept the entire bible as being the infallible Word of God, or our entire faith becomes questionable and based on doubts.

 

[Roy5]

No need debating, Sir Knight. But as I recall even the Pope doesn’t insist that we take the Genesis account of creation literally. It seems to me that the church has adopted a more-or-less neutral stand when it comes to evolution. It seems to have learned lessons from Galileo and others of the past.

I feel badly that so many who claim to be Christians have such hardened hearts, quite contrary to the commandments of Christ. I wonder if they're the genuine heretics. Don't fret. I believe in freedom of belief, so no stretching on the rack or burning at the stake. The office of the Inquisition still exists, under a different name now, but those fun days when the Albigenians, Hussites, Lollards, Waldensians, Huguenots and others were tracked down and executed are in the past and I don't believe will return. Thank God we live in America, where we can dialogue without fear. 

 God bless Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, and people of every creed, color and country. May religion become a bridge and not a barrier.

 

[PRmerger]

Now I could be wrong but reading Major Tom’s posts he seems sincere and not well catechized, if, indeed, at all. So maybe maybe when he says he grew up Catholic he was Catholic nominally.

Exactly. You just don’t know the degree of a person’s ignorance.

As for Leslie Polley I have to question if this person ever knew anything about Catholicism. Her posts appear to follow the fundie evangelical line. Even you question whether he/she was Catholic. In your own post you characterized Leslie’s knowledge of the faith as, “voluminous IGNORANCE”.

Again, exactly. Just because someone calls herself Catholic, received any kind of Catholic education–parochial or CCD–does not mean she is well catechized. You just don’t know what a person knows–despite your saying that you “know they know”. Your examples are proof to the contrary. As are my examples

As for Redrum, even he admitted that he knew that the Immaculate Conception was not the Incarnation. He also said he went to an “all boys Catholic school all his life.” But in response to your post in which you said:

“There seem to be a lot of non-Catholic Christians on this forum who feel that the Truth cannot be known.”
Redrum’s response was:

“I was baptized Catholic and completed CCD so I have some street cred here bro.”

Does that strike you as odd??? It strikes me as very odd. First, why would someone who went to a Catholic school 'all my life" attend CCD??? CCD is for those who do not go to Catholic school. Second, Redrum says he was baptized Catholic and went to CCD and Catholic schools but doesn’t mention his first Holy Communion nor does he mention Confirmation.

What’s odd about it? He went to CCD and then to an all boys’ Catholic high school. Not odd at all.

Kelvinf claims he went to a Catholic boarding school for eight years and claims he knew that the Immaculate Conception referred to Jesus conception not Mary’s. That is such a grevious error of a fundamentally basic Catholic doctrine that not once in eight years at a “Catholic boarding school” was his understanding corrected. Boarding schools are very strict on academics and I image that a Catholic boarding school would be very strict on Catholic theology. So I don’t buy it.

Your examples above prove that you ought to buy it. Catholic catechesis has been abysmal in the past.

 

[PRmerger]

I got a newsflash for ya – Protestants are not Catholics and vice versa and Pope Gregory XVI points out that that difference DOES matter.

Difference between Protestantism and Catholicism does matter. When did I say it didn’t?

 

[PRmerger]

"… we do know that they are saved … " – How do we know this? And the quote from John 6:14 proves nothing because in Acts, Jesus says that He and His Church are one. It does not say that He and His Churches are one. Jesus established ONE Church and salvation is from THAT one Church.

Please read more carefully. It does not say “we do know that they are saved”. It says “We do not how exactly how God saves non-Catholics or how many are saved; but we do know who they are saved by: the One who said, “No man comes to the Father but by me” (John 6:14)…”

Really? And what does Pope Gregory XVI do in his Encyclical when he says “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole AND inviolate.”? He is declaring who (not specifically but under what circumstances) will not be saved.

Right… And you are talking “specifically”. Which puts you in contrast with Catholic teaching, which means you are not holding “whole and inviolate” the Catholic faith.

 

[PRmerger]

Whether he learns of his mistake or doesn’t has no bearing on the matter. Lev 5:17 couldn’t be any clearer –

Then you are disagreeing with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Wow. First you disagree with the Magisterium. Then you disagree with the KofC. Now you’re holding your own position above the USCCB. :bigyikes:

CCC1791 makes it very clear that those who “take little trouble” to find out ARE culpable.

Indeed.

Not when a Pope has ruled on this matter … 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. – Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI (August 15, 1832).

Amen! If it does not live from the root, it will perish. However, if it has just enough sap to keep it alive, it will not perish. The sap comes from the trunk (the CC), whose source is the root (Christ.).

 

[antoniont1]

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?

Maybe it’s been already answered many times in this thread, but let me try to answer.

The people may be referring to the disciples, who were close friends of Jesus. Even if the people are talking about family in the narrow sense (i.e., an extended family, not the nuclear family - the concept did not exist at that time), it could still be true that Jesus’ brethen could consist of his cousins, etc. Even if we grant that point that brothers as in the Holy family, it is still possible that Joseph could have had children before taking care of Mary - I think forgot where I read this, I admit - but those “brothers” are brothers-in-law, not blood-brothers.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Difference between Protestantism and Catholicism does matter. When did I say it didn’t?

You IMPLIED otherwise when you said “the encyclical Pope G was speaking specifically about the sin of indifferentism–the belief that one’s religion does not matter. Not about Protestants.”

 

[Sir_Knight]

Please read more carefully. It does not say “we do know that they are saved”. It says “We do not how exactly how God saves non-Catholics or how many are saved; but we do know who they are saved by: the One who said, “No man comes to the Father but by me” (John 6:14)…”

You are saying the same thing. You said that they ARE saved – they are saved through Christ but that they ARE saved. And Pope Gregory XVI declared that they are saved by Christ THROUGH the Catholic Church which can not happen “unless they hold the Catholic faith whole AND inviolate”.

Right… And you are talking “specifically”. Which puts you in contrast with Catholic teaching, which means you are not holding “whole and inviolate” the Catholic faith.

Where am I “specifically” saying that somebody is not saved? Pope Gregory XVI declared that “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole AND inviolate.” and I have repeatedly said that those who reject the Catholic faith are not saved.

The “those who reject the Catholic faith” refers to the “they” in Pope Gregory XVI’s declaration. How am I saying anything different from the Pope? I’m not. And if I am saying the same thing as the Pope, then how does that place me in contract with Catholic teaching?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Then you are disagreeing with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

I have found on more than one occasion where the USCCB was in disagreement with Rome. Do a search here and you’ll see what I mean. When that happens, Rome trumps the USCCB.

Wow. First you disagree with the Magisterium.

That would be incorrect. I have not disagreed with the Magisterium. On the contrary, I am in complete agreement with them and have been providing supporting references from official Vatican sources to prove it.

Then you disagree with the KofC.

No, I am disagreeing with one particular Knight – being a 4th degree Knight myself, I can tell you that the KofC is not an official teaching body of the Church and therefore one can not disagree with the KofC on matters of faith. One can disagree with specific Knights but one can not disagree with the KofC.

Now you’re holding your own position above the USCCB. :bigyikes:

As I said before, on more than one occasion, the USCCB was found to be in disagreement with Rome. When that happens, Rome trumps the USCCB.

Amen! If it does not live from the root, it will perish. However, if it has just enough sap to keep it alive, it will not perish. The sap comes from the trunk (the CC), whose source is the root (Christ.).

You’re grasping at straws. First off, the Catholic Church and Christ are one. When Pope Gregory XVI refers to seperation from the root, he is refetring to separating from the Catholic Church – which is ALSO separation from Christ. And once that separation happens, the sap will dry up.

 

[PRmerger]

You IMPLIED otherwise when you said “the encyclical Pope G was speaking specifically about the sin of indifferentism–the belief that one’s religion does not matter. Not about Protestants.”

Indifferentism–the belief that one’s religion does not matter–is not the same as Protestantism. They are not synonymous. They are not interchangeable.

 

[PRmerger]

You are saying the same thing. You said that they ARE saved – they are saved through Christ but that they ARE saved. And Pope Gregory XVI declared that they are saved by Christ THROUGH the Catholic Church which can not happen “unless they hold the Catholic faith whole AND inviolate”.

Certainly. If Protestants are saved, they are saved in the same say that Catholics are.

Where am I “specifically” saying that somebody is not saved?

ALLLELUIA!! All this dialogue has been for nought? You are now saying that Protestants can go to heaven? :extrahappy:

 

[PRmerger]

Of course.

When Pope Gregory XVI refers to seperation from the root, he is refetring to separating from the Catholic Church – which is ALSO separation from Christ. And once that separation happens, the sap will dry up.

Exactly, brother. Exactly.

But if there’s sap, there’s life, yes?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Indifferentism–the belief that one’s religion does not matter–is not the same as Protestantism. They are not synonymous. They are not interchangeable.

Indifferentism - The perverse opinion spread 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.

Protestantism - those who not hold the Catholic faith.
See the connection?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Of course.

Exactly, brother. Exactly.

But if there’s sap, there’s life, yes?

That sap quickly drys up and so does life. How long do flowers live when cut from the root? A week if you’re lucky. A cut down Christmas tree will stop drawing water in about a month showing that it is dead. How many CENTURIES have Protestants been separated from the Church? That sap is long gone and so is life.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Certainly. If Protestants are saved, they are saved in the same say that Catholics are.

And Catholics are saved THROUGH the Catholic Church but since Protestants REJECT the Catholic Church, they ALSO reject that salvation.

Jesus established ONE Church; NOT many Churches (Matt. 16:18). He said in John 13:20 that “he who receives anyone who I send, receives Me.” He who receives the apostles, receives Christ Himself. He who rejects the apostles and their successors, rejects Christ. The Protestants do not receive the successors of the Apostles and by rejecting them, they reject Christ.

ALLLELUIA!! All this dialogue has been for nought? You are now saying that Protestants can go to heaven? :extrahappy:

If Protestants accept the Catholic faith then they can go to heaven but if they accept the Catholic Faith and accept the successors of the Apostles, then they would be Catholic and not Protestant. So, no, those who reject the Catholic faith can not go to heaven.