Did Jesus have siblings?

[inkaneer]

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

Nor do you know the degree of a person’s truthfulness.

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

Yeah, but saying they are Catholic also doesn’t mean they are Catholic or were ever Catholic. Also, I don’t recall saying that I “know they know”. Might have but don’t recall saying it. Can you point out where I did?

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

I disagree. It is very odd. First of all Redrum did not say that he went to an all boys Catholic high school. He said he went to an all boys school all his life. His exact words were: " I went to all boys catholic school my whole life. . . " So he goes to a Catholic school all his life not just high school and CCD to boot. Like I said, I don’t buy it.

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

I do not disagree on the quality of Catechesis BUT I have seen that it is not beyond the imagination of funadmental evangelicals to lie in portraying themselves as former Catholics. After all it is a page out of the book from their darling, Jack Chick. Do you remember him and his alleged former Jesuit priest Alberto Rivera who was nothing more than a fraud and a criminal wanted in two countries. And who can forget the Maria Monk allegations of her experiences in a ‘nunnery’ that were not only proven false back in the 19th century but has been proved that the time she alleges to have spent in a convent was actually spent in a home for wayward women. But her sordid fantasy tale concocted by an anti Catholic named William Hoyte is still pedalled by the fundamentalists today. Her book despite the near-unanimous conclusion that the tales were fabrications, and despite Monk’s ill repute, is still pedalled today by some anti-Catholic groups, particularly fundamentalist Protestants. Some of whom such as Loraine Boettner and Jack Chick, still cite Monk’s story as if it were true. So excuse me if I don’t buy it but I have been down that road before

 

[PRmerger]

So, no, those who reject the Catholic faith can not go to heaven.

And what of those who “reject the Catholic faith” because “we worship Mary”? What about them?

 

[Sir_Knight]

And what of those who “reject the Catholic faith” because “we worship Mary”? What about them?

They “took little trouble” to learn about the faith are “ARE culpable” (CCC1791).

 

[PRmerger]

They “took little trouble” to learn about the faith are “ARE culpable” (CCC1791).

There’s a big problem with that, Sir Knight. You have no idea about this. How in the world can you know how much trouble someone has undertaken to reject Catholicism?

The degree to which someone is culpable–which you are claiming to know–is unfathomable to the human mind. You claim for yourself what only God claims.

 

[PRmerger]

Nor do you know the degree of a person’s truthfulness.

It’s the Catholic thing to do to accept their truthfulness regarding the story of their own life, don’t you think? Since, as you admit, we don’t really know.

Also, I don’t recall saying that I “know they know”. Might have but don’t recall saying it. Can you point out where I did?

Right here!

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.”

How in the world can you know what someone knows?

 

[Sir_Knight]

There’s a big problem with that, Sir Knight. You have no idea about this. How in the world can you know how much trouble someone has undertaken to reject Catholicism?

It doesn’t take much effort to learn about the Catholic faith especially if it is being presented to someone. When that happens, the person does not fall under your “invincible ignorance” umbrella because they had a duty to understand the teaching (CCC1791) and refusing to listen also does not excuse them either (CCC 1859). Remember …

1. 
   *][bibledrb]John 13:20[/bibledrb]
   *][bibledrb]Luke 10:16 [/bibledrb]
   
   … those who reject the teachings of the Church – for whatever reason – reject our Lord and the salvation that He offers. This is based on both scripture and official Church teaching.
   

   The degree to which someone is culpable–which you are claiming to know–is unfathomable to the human mind. You claim for yourself what only God claims.

   I don’t claim to know the degree that someone is culpable but the Church does claim under what conditions culpability exists and that is what I am repeating.

 

[inkaneer]

It’s the Catholic thing to do to accept their truthfulness regarding the story of their own life, don’t you think?

Of course right up to the point where they start making stupid protestant errors about things about Catholicism. Stuff which any Catholic would know like being baptized and then going to CCD and Catholic school together. That is when the charade ends.

Right here! Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
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.”

Did I say, “I knew that they knew”? No, I didn’t. All I said was there is a difference in not knowing something and not caring. We’re talking of Catholics now, not protestants. Ever see the amount of people at Mass at Christmas and Easter? Where are they the next Sunday? You can’t tell me they know enough to go to Mass at Christmas and Easter and not the other Sundays of the year. They know.

How in the world can you know what someone knows?

See above answer. Maybe you haven’t done this but I have. I have actually asked people why they don’t go to Mass and not one of them ever said that they never knew they had to. Ususally they women will say something like, “I should but…”. The men use a variety of excuses but not one says, “Do we have to?” or “I didn’t know we had to.” The only exception that I can think of people that can claim ignorance of the sin of missing Mass is someone who was baptized Catholic but never was raised in the faith. But then one can argue that they were never Catholic at all. But everyone who makes their first communion is taught that missing Mass is a sin whether it be in Catholic school or CCD. I know because I was taught that in CCD as were my children and my oldest grandson is making his first Communion in about eight days and he was taught that in CCD also.

 

[PRmerger]

How many CENTURIES have Protestants been separated from the Church? That sap is long gone and so is life.

OhmyGOSH, Sir Knight! AGAIN you are going against the “whole and inviolable” teachings of the Catholic faith!

“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.

Protestants today cannot be charged “with the sin of the separation”. You must accept them with respect and affection as brothers.

[SIGN1]You must accept them with respect and affection as brothers. [/SIGN1]

You are rejecting part of your Catholic faith, Sir Knight. Not holding it up “whole and inviolable.”

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t claim to know the degree that someone is culpable…

Excellent.

Then one ought to keep his mouth shut about Protestants’ culpability.

[SIGN]Instead, you MUST accept them with respect and affection as brothers.[/SIGN]

 

[Sir_Knight]

Excellent.

Then one ought to keep his mouth shut about Protestants’ culpability.

[sign]Instead, you MUST accept them with respect and affection as brothers.[/sign]

OhmyGOSH, Sir Knight! AGAIN you are going against the “whole and inviolable” teachings of the Catholic faith!

“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.

Protestants today cannot be charged “with the sin of the separation”. You must accept them with respect and affection as brothers.

[sign1]You must accept them with respect and affection as brothers. [/sign1]

You are rejecting part of your Catholic faith, Sir Knight. Not holding it up “whole and inviolable.”

And how do you reconcile that Church teaching with the Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI which is ALSO official Church teaching?

I am most interested in your reply.

 

[PRmerger]

I do not disagree on the quality of Catechesis BUT I have seen that it is not beyond the imagination of funadmental evangelicals to lie in portraying themselves as former Catholics.

Of course. Some lie about it.

And, some former Catholics really do believe they knew the faith they left. (Like Redrum and Lesley P.)

And some Catholics really do believe they know their faith, yet have never heard that missing Mass is a mortal sin. They’ve never heard of the 1 hour fast prior to communion. They’ve never heard that one can’t receive communion in the state of mortal sin…

After all it is a page out of the book from their darling, Jack Chick. Do you remember him and his alleged former Jesuit priest Alberto Rivera who was nothing more than a fraud and a criminal wanted in two countries. And who can forget the Maria Monk allegations of her experiences in a ‘nunnery’ that were not only proven false back in the 19th century but has been proved that the time she alleges to have spent in a convent was actually spent in a home for wayward women. But her sordid fantasy tale concocted by an anti Catholic named William Hoyte is still pedalled by the fundamentalists today. Her book despite the near-unanimous conclusion that the tales were fabrications, and despite Monk’s ill repute, is still pedalled today by some anti-Catholic groups, particularly fundamentalist Protestants. Some of whom such as Loraine Boettner and Jack Chick, still cite Monk’s story as if it were true. So excuse me if I don’t buy it but I have been down that road before

That’s just a :whacky: nonsequitor musing you’ve just made above.

 

[PRmerger]

And how do you reconcile that Church teaching with the Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI which is ALSO official Church teaching?

I am most interested in your reply.

As I’ve said, ad nauseum, it addresses the sin of INDIFFERENTISM, which is NOT the same thing as Protestantism, whose members we MUST accept with respect and affection.

Respect and affection, Sir Knight! Remember that!

 

[Sir_Knight]

As I’ve said, ad nauseum, it addresses the sin of INDIFFERENTISM, which is NOT the same thing as Protestantism, whose members we MUST accept with respect and affection.

It addresses those of different faiths – which is what Protestantism is and 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 fraud of the wicked”. It also says that “A schismatic” (one who has broken away from the Catholic Church OR belongs to such a group) “flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration” (baptism).

Again, that is OFFICIAL Church teaching.

Respect and affection, Sir Knight! Remember that!

Right back at ya

 

[PRmerger]

It addresses those of different faiths –

Nope. The subtitle is: On Liberalism and Indifferentism.

In fact, it specifically says that “those who are not with Christ are against him.” Clearly, Protestants are Christians–even you would admit that, yes?

And did you see what the paragraph specifically addresses: again, indifferentism.

Finally, as the “whole and inviolable” quote was, again, from the pre-reformation days, there was no other Christian faith except Catholicism. It could not apply to Protestants, who didn’t even exist.

 

[PRmerger]

Right back at ya

So you will start calling Protestants your brethren in Christ, Sir Knight?

I am very interested in your answer. Yes, or no?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Nope. The subtitle is: On Liberalism and Indifferentism.

And what does the CONTENT say? That all religions are not equal to the Catholic faith and those of different faith can not assume salvation. Isn’t that what we are talking about? Those of different faiths and salvation.

In fact, it specifically says that “those who are not with Christ are against him.” Clearly, Protestants are Christians–even you would admit that, yes?

They are indeed Christians but they are SEPARATED brothers to such an extent that we can not offer them the Eucharist. And what did Jesus say about those who do not eat His Body and drink His blood?John 6:53 - So Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you.”

And did you see what the paragraph specifically addresses: again, indifferentism.

And again, did you read the CONTENTS?

Finally, as the “whole and inviolable” quote was, again, from the pre-reformation days, there was no other Christian faith except Catholicism. It could not apply to Protestants, who didn’t even exist.

No, the Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI was written on August 15, 1832 and the reformation happened CENTURIES earlier and Protestants definitely existed. It is actually the Protestants that the Pope is referring to when he says …“A schismatic” (one who has broken away from the Catholic Church OR belongs to such a group) “flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration” (baptism)

 

[Sir_Knight]

So you will start calling Protestants your brethren in Christ, Sir Knight?

I am very interested in your answer. Yes, or no?

SEPARATED brothers in Christ who FALSELY flatter themselves if they assert that, they too, have been washed in the waters of regeneration – that is the teaching of Pope Gregory XVI and Church teaching can not be changed or modified.

 

[PRmerger]

SEPARATED brothers in Christ who FALSELY flatter themselves if they assert that, they too, have been washed in the waters of regeneration – that is the teaching of Pope Gregory XVI and Church teaching can not be changed or modified.

Just like you didn’t know what “episcopal” means, Sir Knight, I think you also don’t know what the CC teaches.

The CC recognizes the baptisms (washing “in the waters of regeneration”) of our separated brethren in Christ, provided the Trinitarian form and correct matter are used.

Your statement above shows you do not accept the Catholic Church’s teaching, whole and inviolate.

 

[PRmerger]

And what does the CONTENT say? That all religions are not equal to the Catholic faith and those of different faith can not assume salvation.

Indeed. We are agreed on that.

However, what we are talking about is that you assume condemnation for Protestants.

This is where you do much harm on this forum and I must correct the misinformation you continue to proffer.

And what did Jesus say about those who do not eat His Body and drink His blood?

John 6:53 - So Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you.”
​

So do you think my 7 yr old DD, who has not yet received the Eucharist, is condemned because the Eucharist is not offered to her?

**Originally Posted by PRmerger **
Finally, as the “whole and inviolable” quote was, again, from the pre-reformation days, there was no other Christian faith except Catholicism. It could not apply to Protestants, who didn’t even exist.

You replied, to my amazement:

No, the Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI was written on August 15, 1832 and the reformation happened CENTURIES earlier and Protestants definitely existed.

:banghead:

Do you know what a footnote is, Sir Knight? I know this sounds condescending, but I think you ought to be able to read the encyclical and see the footnote.

I will cut and paste if for you, from the encyclical:

Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.”[18]

Now, if you look at the [18] footnote at the bottom, it will give you a source for that quote.

It says that the quote comes from St. Athanasius.

In the 6th century.​

 

[Roy5]

I have been following the dialogie between PRmerger and Sir Knight. If Sir Knight is right re Catholicism, no wonder that for years Americans were hesitant to elect a Catholic president. It’s his attitude that help nourishes hostiility toward Catholicism even today. Sir Knight’s form of Catholicism is best described as bigotry of the most arrogant and damnable sort. I know he doesn’t care, of course, as he is so cocksure that he is right. I have added him to my prayer list, asking God to enlighten his mind and soften his heart and become more compassionate as Christ would want us all to be.

Fortunately, few Catholics today agree with him. 

May our Christian faith serve as a bridge and not a barrier. May God bless people of every creed, color and country and lead us in the paths of peace.