Did Mother Mary have other children?

[Randy_Carson]

Let me try to understand this post … Are you telling me I caused Mommamia to stubble and as a result, if would be better for me if I had a millstone tied around my neck and thrown in the sea?

Well, perhaps I spoke too strongly, but on the other hand, what is your interpretation of what Jesus meant?

Are you saying Mommamia isn’t able to look for herself and read what you say (and others) and read what I say (and others) and come up with her own understanding? Are you saying she’s not smart enough?

It’s not a question of intelligence. It’s a matter of education. If mommamia has not been taught the basics concerning a doctrine, and you ask a bunch of questions that cause her to doubt, who has done wrong? Me, mommamia, or you?

Let’s put this in a different context. Let’s suppose that someone in your family is a new Christian who is just starting to walk with Christ. Then some atheist co-worker starts raising a lot of objections about the contradictions in the Bible and what have you to the point that your family member concludes that Christianity is not true. The seeds of doubt planted by the atheist have caused your loved one to stumble. Would you have any problem with that?

I believe the questions I’ve asked, when the CC teaching is made known and I have read in the Bible different things than the CC teaching, where is it in the Bible? I’ve asked to discuss what and why.

Sure, but sometimes even honest questions can be a stumbling block for those who are not prepared to answer complex questions. Of course, it’s not your fault if someone is scandalized by your posts, but the plain fact is that there are consequences of our actions.

 

[jericho777]

We don’t rely on Mary for our salvation, but we do rely on her for her prayers so that through them we may receive all the graces necessary for our salvation. Likewise, we rely on her fiat which resulted in the coming of the Saviour into the world. God is just, as well as merciful, so he honours our free will for his own sake and his good pleasure.By attempting to deprive Mary of her free will, you deny her the virtues of faith, hope, and charity.

“Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”
Luke 1, 45

Again, by praying to Mary, we do not worship her but entreat her to pray for us and thereby join her prayers to God with ours. Because of her closeness to God, by virtue of her divine maternity and purity, Mary’s prayers are more efficacious than ours. Thus we vitally rely on them. St.Paul himself relied on the prayers of other righteous people, and so he asked them for their prayers. There is no explicit record of the apostle supplicating the departed saints, but there are enough passages in his letters that implicitly indicate he believed in the Communion of Saints in heaven and orally taught this doctrine in more length. This is another topic altogether, so I won’t get into any details by citing Scripture. In any event, the teachings of the early Church Fathers reveal that this doctrine was universally held in the Church by the end of the 2nd century. And it was never disputed until modern Protestants appeared. The saints in heaven are more alive than we are in God’s presence as living members of the mystical body of Christ, priests of God and of Christ (Rev 20:6) who intercede for us by their prayers.

Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host.
Psalm 148, 1-2

The saints are alive in heaven!

And they are praying for us!

An angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer, and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of the saints upon the golden altar before the throne [in heaven]; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.
Revelation 8, 3-4

“Under your mercy we take refuge, O Mother of God. Do not reject our supplications in necessity, but deliver us from danger, O you alone pure and blessed.”
Sub Tuum Praesidium (c. A.D. 250)

Nothing declared in contravention of Sacred Tradition and the teachings of the Magisterium is biblically true nor infallible.

“He who hears you hears me.”

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
2 Thessalonians 2, 15

PAX :heaven:

The bible says Jesus intercedes for us to the Father. Now through Jesus’ death we can go to the throne of grace boldly. We can go directly to the throne ourselves. The prayers in Rev are like incense to the Lord and offered on the alter before Him. We don’t need any other special merit we already have it in Jesus.

No where in scripture are we told to pray to or through any person or being that is in heaven.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Just because the “infallible” Catholic church says so doesn’t make it true.{Not talking about the Bible but the dogmas because I asked how do you know the dogmas are true}
I don’t believe the Catholic church is infallible, I believe it is fallible. I believe it makes mistakes.
So how can I believe the dogmas to be true when I believe the Catholic church to be fallible?
Now I ask you, show me in the Bible where it says that Mary was ever-virgin?{not in dogmas or tradition}
Who came up with this ever-virgin and when?{Other than dogmas and traditions}
Show me where in the Bible it says Mary never had other children?{Not in dogmas or traditions}
{Please don’t answer these questions with questions}

Calvin
Wesley
Zwingi Are just some of the reformer that believe what the Cathloic Church has to say and this was !800 years ago ,

Do you know whey we say the Church is infallibie

 

[rev_kevin]

Calvin
Wesley
Zwingi Are just some of the reformer that believe what the Cathloic Church has to say and this was !800 years ago ,

Do you know whey we say the Church is infallibie

Ignore

 

[jericho777]

Agreed, if what you mean is that only Christ can merit for us our salvation in strict justice (meritum de condigno). For the graces we receive in order to be saved are themselves unmerited by us and are the effects of Christ’s death on the cross. But we can merit for ourselves our eternal salvation as a reward by being obedient to God out of love for him through our cooperation with the unmerited gift of grace we have received by virtue of the redemptive merits of Christ’s death.

The principle of merit is the state of grace, which in itself is an unmerited free gift on our part. Not even our obedience to God can merit for us the graces we receive up to the moment of a penitent death. Preservation from mortal sin by grace is unmerited on our part, although we can receive the graces we need to help preserve us from sin through prayer. In strict justice, we can only merit for ourselves an eternal reward by persevering in grace until we depart from this life. Hence, what Mary has merited for us by her fiat (the hope of an eternal reward) is by congruous merit (meritum de congruo), which is based on the rights of her friendship with God in union with him in mutual love and still rests on the principle of the state of grace and the divine initiative. But in this case, it is through God’s mercy - not justice - that the grace of salvation (our eternal reward) has been offered to us by Mary’s free consent to be the mother of our Lord as an act of charity in God’s grace.

Think of Mary’s *fiat * as a from of prayer to God, similar in principle to a prayer of ours for the graces we ask for that will help us get to heaven provided we persevere to the end. It is God’s mercy, not His justice, that places us in a state of grace, for we cannot justly merit for ourselves what Christ alone has merited for us. But in His mercy, God will bestow his grace on the just who sincerely long for it in all humility and ask for it through prayer. He will not deny His grace to anyone who desires it perfectly knowing that without Him we can do nothing. Seek and you shall find. Knock and the door will be open to you. Our heavenly Father listened to Mary’s prayer and he received it as a pleasing offering. God looked with favour on the lowliness of his handmaid. Thus unto us a child was born, unto us a son was given. Mary’s prayer would have been imperfect if she had not remained a virgin, for it’s completion required a total renunciation on her part of the natural rights of motherhood, an oblation to God: the offering of her only beloved Son and firstborn back to God for the salvation of the world.

By grace and charity, Mary made perfect satisfaction for the sins of the world in union with her Son, who freely offered his life to the Father as an act of oblation. The consolation Mary would have found in her other offspring by Joseph would have spoiled the sublimity and merit of her prayer and marred her association with Jesus in the redemption of mankind. She had to deny herself the temporal blessing of consolation any mother would find in her surviving children after the loss of one of them or else her oblation would have been unfulfilled on our behalf. Mary’s prayer would have proved imperfect and thereby unacceptable to the Father. The angel Gabriel answered the question of the vow of chastity she had made to God while serving in the temple as a young girl. Our Lady’s charity towards God had to measure up in proportion to the uncharity of Eve in order for her to be a worthy helper of the new Adam. He alone was meant to be the sole focus of her life in their intimate association in the redemption.

“Hail, Mary, you are the most precious creature in the whole world; hail, Mary, uncorrupt dove; hail, Mary, inextinguishable lamp; for from you was born the Sun of Justice…through you every faithful soul achieves salvation.”
Cyril of Alexandria (A.D. 431)

PAX :heaven:

We only have salvation in the person of Jesus. There is no need for any other to assist in that process. It is the sole ability of Jesus to save us to Himself for His glory. There is no one else even able to fullfill that role.

 

[jericho777]

Calvin
Wesley
Zwingi Are just some of the reformer that believe what the Cathloic Church has to say and this was !800 years ago ,

Do you know whey we say the Church is infallibie

Wow Bill does that mean you agree with the rest of what they taught too! Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide There IS hope for you yet.

 

[rev_kevin]

Okay. I’ll do that below. Let me mop up these other questions first.

Really? You try to witness to someone who says, “Prove it!” You pull out your King James and they say, “I don’t believe that book is inspired.” Now what do you do?

This is how you reacted to TEPO earlier. Weird.

If your Protestant arguments were so compelling, no one would still be Catholic after 500 years of Rebellion.

Now, regarding the infallibility of the Church, there are several ways we could go. I’ll start with this:

The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

An Accurate Text

Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that “For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600.” Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned.

Not only are the biblical manuscripts that we have older than those for classical authors, we have in sheer numbers far more manuscripts from which to work. Some are whole books of the Bible, others fragments of just a few words, but there are literally thousands of manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other languages. This means that we can be sure we have an authentic text, and we can work from it with confidence.

The Bible as Historical Truth

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as *merely a historical *book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

If the Church is teaching in the name of Jesus Christ, then it must teach infallibly. “He who hears you, hears me.”

One other point I’ll throw in as a bonus so that you can win your argument with the non-believer you’re trying to witness to…

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

Hope that helps. :tiphat:

Nothing. I just ask them to read the Bible. Even if you don’t believe its inspired it has a good message for all to live by.

???

Your answer does not back up your statement, now does it?

Didn’t show me the CC is infallible.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Ignore

Thank You and is very nice to see a feak put me on ignore May Our Lord bless and have a great life

IGNORE

 

[Dokimas]

Originally Posted by Randy
[SIGN]Doki: Let me try to understand this post … Are you telling me I caused Mommamia to stubble and as a result, if would be better for me if I had a millstone tied around my neck and thrown in the sea?

Randy: Well, perhaps I spoke too strongly, but on the other hand, what is your interpretation of what Jesus meant?[/SIGN]​

If a person has the God given ability to decide for self, they are not the ‘littleones’ IMO.​

[SIGN]Doki: Are you saying Mommamia isn’t able to look for herself and read what you say (and others) and read what I say (and others) and come up with her own understanding? Are you saying she’s not smart enough?

Randy: It’s not a question of intelligence. It’s a matter of education. If mommamia has not been taught the basics concerning a doctrine, and you ask a bunch of questions that cause her to doubt, who has done wrong? Me, mommamia, or you?[/SIGN]​

I had a professor of Philosophy of Education (I’d guess he was not a believer) that after a semester with him my guess is that my children (then in elementary school) knew more truth than he knew.​

[SIGN]Randy: Let’s put this in a different context. Let’s suppose that someone in your family is a new Christian who is just starting to walk with Christ. Then some atheist co-worker starts raising a lot of objections about the contradictions in the Bible and what have you to the point that your family member concludes that Christianity is not true. The seeds of doubt planted by the atheist have caused your loved one to stumble. Would you have any problem with that?[/SIGN]​

I’d say it was a good learning situation. I’d pray a lot. I’d get answers. I’d trust the Holy Spirit to do His job. I’d hope I wouldn’t attack the personhood of the atheist. It wouldn’t look like I was skillful in the Bible.​

[SIGN]
Doki: I believe the questions I’ve asked, when the CC teaching is made known and I have read in the Bible different things than the CC teaching, where is it in the Bible? I’ve asked to discuss what and why.

Randy: Sure, but sometimes even honest questions can be a stumbling block for those who are not prepared to answer complex questions. Of course, it’s not your fault if someone is scandalized by your posts, but the plain fact is that there are consequences of our actions. [/SIGN]​

Seems you don’t give Mommamia her due. Why don’t you ask her if she’s been scandalized by my posts? In the mean time, do you best to answer her doubts. I’ll bet she’s got a keen mind and will be able to decide for herself.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Nothing. I just ask them to read the Bible. Even if you don’t believe its inspired it has a good message for all to live by.

Jesus claimed to be God. If He was a liar then the Bible is a terrible book to live by because it is full of lies. CS Lewis made this argument long ago.

Your answer does not back up your statement, now does it?

Didn’t show me the CC is infallible.

Sure it did. Read the red-letter stuff. If the Church speaks for Christ, then the Church cannot teach error on behalf of Christ.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Originally Posted by Randy
[sign]Doki: Let me try to understand this post … Are you telling me I caused Mommamia to stubble and as a result, if would be better for me if I had a millstone tied around my neck and thrown in the sea?

Randy: Well, perhaps I spoke too strongly, but on the other hand, what is your interpretation of what Jesus meant?[/sign]​

If a person has the God given ability to decide for self, they are not the ‘littleones’ IMO.​

[sign]Doki: Are you saying Mommamia isn’t able to look for herself and read what you say (and others) and read what I say (and others) and come up with her own understanding? Are you saying she’s not smart enough?

Randy: It’s not a question of intelligence. It’s a matter of education. If mommamia has not been taught the basics concerning a doctrine, and you ask a bunch of questions that cause her to doubt, who has done wrong? Me, mommamia, or you?[/sign]​

I had a professor of Philosophy of Education (I’d guess he was not a believer) that after a semester with him my guess is that my children (then in elementary school) knew more truth than he knew.​

[sign]Randy: Let’s put this in a different context. Let’s suppose that someone in your family is a new Christian who is just starting to walk with Christ. Then some atheist co-worker starts raising a lot of objections about the contradictions in the Bible and what have you to the point that your family member concludes that Christianity is not true. The seeds of doubt planted by the atheist have caused your loved one to stumble. Would you have any problem with that?[/sign]​

I’d say it was a good learning situation. I’d pray a lot. I’d get answers. I’d trust the Holy Spirit to do His job. I’d hope I wouldn’t attack the personhood of the atheist. It wouldn’t look like I was skillful in the Bible.​

[sign]
Doki: I believe the questions I’ve asked, when the CC teaching is made known and I have read in the Bible different things than the CC teaching, where is it in the Bible? I’ve asked to discuss what and why.

Randy: Sure, but sometimes even honest questions can be a stumbling block for those who are not prepared to answer complex questions. Of course, it’s not your fault if someone is scandalized by your posts, but the plain fact is that there are consequences of our actions. [/sign]​

Seems you don’t give Mommamia her due. Why don’t you ask her if she’s been scandalized by my posts? In the mean time, do you best to answer her doubts. I’ll bet she’s got a keen mind and will be able to decide for herself.

I see.

 

[Bill_Pick]

This verse is showing the level of grief and bitterness the Jewish people will exhibit when Messiah appears. How extreme and total the devastation will be to their being. It will be the mourning equivalent of the death for an only son and the manner of grief for the death of the first born son

 

[Dokimas]

This verse is showing the level of grief and bitterness the Jewish people will exhibit when Messiah appears. How extreme and total the devastation will be to their being. It will be the mourning equivalent of the death for an only son and the manner of grief for the death of the first born son

Seems correct to me.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Seems correct to me.

DoKmis, you have the wrong interretatation
10 And I will pour out upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace, and of prayers: and they shall look upon me, whom they have pierced: and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for an only son, and they shall grieve over him, as the manner is to grieve for the death of the firstborn.

 

[rev_kevin]

Jesus claimed to be God. If He was a liar then the Bible is a terrible book to live by because it is full of lies. CS Lewis made this argument long ago.

Sure it did. Read the red-letter stuff. If the Church speaks for Christ, then the Church cannot teach error on behalf of Christ.

I don’t think we were talking about Jesus being a liar. I answered your question on what would I do. Do you not agree that the Bible is a good message for all to live by?

All the red letters say is what I’ve heard time and time again. Jesus started the CC which I disagree with. And the the CC has the only authority to teach in his name, which I disagree with.

So the CC is the only church that can speak for Christ? Not buying it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I don’t think we were talking about Jesus being a liar. I answered your question on what would I do. Do you not agree that the Bible is a good message for all to live by? Well, remember our discussion on John 6? Now, remember, both groups of Christians are reading the very same Scripture passages and are living their lives in accordance with those passages and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But one group is interpreting Scripture ‘wrongly’. . .so if the prospective reader of the Bible is among the group who interprets differently from you, is the Bible a good message?

Catholics live by the Bible (And tradition and the Magesterium) and the whole point is that tradition and the Magesterium do not contradict the Bible (or vice versa). But you might say that because they don’t live by the Bible 'alone" (although the Bible itself does not ever tell us that it is the authority, nor that it ‘alone’ is all, and only, what is required), that they are wrong. But you yourself don’t live by the Bible ‘alone’ in that, in accepting the canon of the Bible (which is not itself in the Bible) you accepted the authority of something ‘outside’ the Bible. . .in fact, you accepted the authority of the Catholic Church.

All the red letters say is what I’ve heard time and time again. Jesus started the CC which I disagree with. And if you do, you must be able to tell us which Church He did start. . .as Scripture is quite clear that He in fact started one. And the the CC has the only authority to teach in his name, which I disagree with. The Catholic Church has the fullness of truth. Obviously there are many points where all Christian churches, Catholic and non, are in agreement, and thus obviously when you in your Protestant Church are teaching about God being Father, Son, and Spirit, you teach truth. But here again, if you don’t accept the Catholic Church as authority, then you must accept one “Church”. . .and please, what is its name? You see, every single church in the Protestant denominations differs in some way from other protestant churches. . .so while Sonny Southern Baptist is perfectly fine with his brother Protestants on most issues, he gets upset when Ed Episcopalian insists that infant baptism is fine. And Nancy Nondenom is fine with all the other Bible believing churches. . . provided their interpretations jibe with her. If Nancy’s group is into headcovering based on St. Paul’s admonitions, but Martha Methodist insists that this is an outmoded teaching, the fur will fly. So, which of their churches–or one I have not listed–has the fullness of truth and how can you show it?

So the CC is the only church that can speak for Christ? Not buying it.

Not selling it, not in those words. I don’t think that we claimed that in so many words, did we? We are the One True Church and the Bride, yes, but all the other Christian Churches have some truth. . .in many cases a great deal of the truth. But when it comes down to matters of faith and morals. . .

Well, let’s just look at the Lambeth Conference of 1930. Before that conference, virtually all Protestant churches taught that contraception was wrong, biblically speaking. Some of them may not have put it down as outright doctrine, but if you examine the sermons, the writings of prominent Protestant theologians, etc., you see that this is pretty much a universal teaching.

But then first the Anglicans decided contraception might be ‘necessary’ under certain conditions (being swayed by the rhetoric etc. of Ms. Sanger and her PP crowd). . .and within a generation, a ‘rare and grave situation’ became a ‘norm’ and today in fact is seen as a positive good in many cases.

That kind of change casts doubt on much more than the issue of contraception. . .and the fruits it has realized are horrific (abortion, divorce, objectification of women, brutalization of men, child abuse).

 

[rev_kevin]

Not selling it, not in those words. I don’t think that we claimed that in so many words, did we? We are the One True Church and the Bride, yes, but all the other Christian Churches have some truth. . .in many cases a great deal of the truth. But when it comes down to matters of faith and morals. . .

Well, let’s just look at the Lambeth Conference of 1930. Before that conference, virtually all Protestant churches taught that contraception was wrong, biblically speaking. Some of them may not have put it down as outright doctrine, but if you examine the sermons, the writings of prominent Protestant theologians, etc., you see that this is pretty much a universal teaching.

But then first the Anglicans decided contraception might be ‘necessary’ under certain conditions (being swayed by the rhetoric etc. of Ms. Sanger and her PP crowd). . .and within a generation, a ‘rare and grave situation’ became a ‘norm’ and today in fact is seen as a positive good in many cases.

That kind of change casts doubt on much more than the issue of contraception. . .and the fruits it has realized are horrific (abortion, divorce, objectification of women, brutalization of men, child abuse).

It was a simple yes the Bible a good message to live by or No it isn’t. I didn’t ask for all the other mumbo jumbo.

Which church did Jesus start you ask, well it didn’t have a “name” but he started Christianity. Right now I can’t remember who gave it the name Catholic but it wasn’t Jesus or Peter. The name came some time way after them.

Thats what I got out of the red words.

And now you go on about contraception which is not even the subject and I never brought up.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t think we were talking about Jesus being a liar. I answered your question on what would I do. Do you not agree that the Bible is a good message for all to live by?

Rev.,

Seriously…try to follow the argument here, okay?

CS Lewis made the case that Jesus was either a lunatic, a liar or Lord.

If he wasn’t God, but he thought he was, then he was a lunatic. Lunatics don’t deserve to be listened to or followed.

If he wasn’t God, and he KNEW he wasn’t God, then he was a liar. Liars don’t deserve to be listened to or followed.

If he was Lord, then he is more than simply a good teacher and the Bible is more than just a good book to live by.

THEREFORE, until you prove to a non-believer that Jesus is GOD and that the BIBLE is the Word of God, the non-believer must conclude that Jesus is a loon or a liar. Consequently, the Bible is anything BUT a good message for all to live by. Of course, once you make your case, then the Bible is a VERY GOOD BOOK.

Now, having said all of that, I say again:

How can you, a non-Catholic, prove that the Bible is the inspired Word of God apart from an appeal to an infallible (Catholic) Church?

I don’t believe you can do this.

Tying all of this back to the topic of the thread: an infallible Church has declared the Bible to be the inspired Word of God AND that Mary was ever-virgin. You accept the former but not the latter while I accept both. And THAT was the point of my argument which led to all of this.

All the red letters say is what I’ve heard time and time again. Jesus started the CC which I disagree with. And the the CC has the only authority to teach in his name, which I disagree with.

So the CC is the only church that can speak for Christ? Not buying it.

So, your unbelief is similar to that of the non-believer. It’s simply a matter of degree.

You say that someone must be a Christian to be saved, and this offends non-believers. I say that someone must normatively* be a Catholic to be saved. We’re both offending others; I’m simply offending a slightly larger group than you are.

*Normatively here means that under normal circumstances, one must be a formal member of the Catholic Church to be saved. However, it is not an absolute requirement.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It was a simple yes the Bible a good message to live by or No it isn’t. I didn’t ask for all the other mumbo jumbo. I think ‘commentary’ is a nicer word than mumbo-jumbo, don’t you?
You see, if you assume that your interpretations of Scripture are accurate, of course you’re going to see them as a good message. BUT. . .if somebody else comes along and uses the same Scripture and gives messages that go completely against yours and claims "it’s Scripture’. . .well, you’re not going to shrug your shoulders and say, “Ok, as long as it’s in the Bible, it’s a good message.” At least, I hope you won’t!

That’s why when you interpret Scripture as saying “Absolutely Mary had more children” (which is not true), and then expound it as a ‘good teaching’ (which, since you believe it, you obviously accept it as good, right?), and it is a false teaching. . .well, that is NOT good.

Of course, you can (and you will) say the same thing about us. You’ll say that our teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity isn’t true, so it’s not good. . .but you know, we’re both using Scripture and the Holy Spirit. As you noted earlier, I have faith in my teaching, and you have faith in yours. . .one of us is right and one is wrong. . . but I have an authority on my side that you do not. You can ‘sense’ the Spirit (and your senses can be mistaken). I can actually ASK the Catholic Church and get authoritative teaching that I know is from the Spirit because Christ Himself has assured it. We both seek the Spirit but only I (in the CC) have the outside (and scripturally mandated) assurance that I’m hearing the REAL Spirit.

So I’m not going to say, “Yes of COURSE the Bible message is good” UNLESS I can add, "so long as it agrees with the true, complete and accurate Bible messages found in the Catholic Church.

Which church did Jesus start you ask, well it didn’t have a “name” but he started Christianity. Right now I can’t remember who gave it the name Catholic but it wasn’t Jesus or Peter. The name came some time way after them.

Um, so? Suppose in, we’ll say, 1810, we have a group of 10 men who meet down at the local town hall every week. They read a little Scripture, talk about town projects that they can help with, that kind of thing. Over the next 50 years, the numbers go up a bit as the town goes, but the group is still doing the same thing. Some of the original members die, their sons take their place; also new folks moving to town join in. Around about 1930 or so, that group. . .now up to about 100 men, decide to call themselves the Sons of Thunder.

Now you tell me. Are those men in 1930 (now calling themselves the Sons of Thunder) the direct ‘descendants’ of those men who started the group in 1810? The group grew in size but the works and format stayed exactly the same. It’s just that about 100 years on, they decided to give themselves a name.

Are you saying that in 1930, then, these men. . .some of whom had been in the group since 1880 or so. . .somehow, just by coining the name “Sons of Thunder” suddenly became SEPARATED from that original group?

I don’t think so.

The Christians who had ‘started out’ under the apostles in AD 33 grew in number but their church did not change in its mission or its teachings. And when in acknowledgement of their UNIVERSALITY they took on the name of Catholic, they were still the same people who had been in the Church since it started in AD 33.

Thats what I got out of the red words.

And now you go on about contraception which is not even the subject and I never brought up.

Using it as an illustration but I’ll be glad to discuss the above then instead.

 

[rev_kevin]

Rev.,

Seriously…try to follow the argument here, okay?

CS Lewis made the case that Jesus was either a lunatic, a liar or Lord.

If he wasn’t God, but he thought he was, then he was a lunatic. Lunatics don’t deserve to be listened to or followed.

If he wasn’t God, and he KNEW he wasn’t God, then he was a liar. Liars don’t deserve to be listened to or followed.

If he was Lord, then he is more than simply a good teacher and the Bible is more than just a good book to live by.

THEREFORE, until you prove to a non-believer that Jesus is GOD and that the BIBLE is the Word of God, the non-believer must conclude that Jesus is a loon or a liar. Consequently, the Bible is anything BUT a good message for all to live by. Of course, once you make your case, then the Bible is a VERY GOOD BOOK.

Now, having said all of that, I say again:

How can you, a non-Catholic, prove that the Bible is the inspired Word of God apart from an appeal to an infallible (Catholic) Church?

I don’t believe you can do this.

So, your unbelief is similar to that of the non-believer. It’s simply a matter of degree.

You say that someone must be a Christian to be saved, and this offends non-believers. I say that someone must normatively* be a Catholic to be saved. We’re both offending others; I’m simply offending a slightly larger group than you are.

*Normatively here means that under normal circumstances, one must be a formal member of the Catholic Church to be saved. However, it is not an absolute requirement.

What does this have to do with the yes or no question?
What does this have to do with my answer?

I must disagree with you, no matter if they believe its true or not its still a good book to live by.

I’m not Catholic so I don’t speak of the “infallible” church which I don’t believe it is.

Just because I don’t believe the all the teachings of the CC don’t mean that I’m the same as a non-believer.

You can’t have it both ways by saying one must be a formal member of the Catholic church to be saved, then you say however its not a absolute requirement. Don’t you think that will confuse them. How are you offending a slightly larger group?

What do you need to be saved?