Jesus had siblings?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rien
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In following back the many posts to this forum topic, the Scriptural quotes contained in so many of the articles regarding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary are plentiful. A few reference Joseph the same way, but are lacking in number.

So, we go next to what Church Tradition has to offer, and for that, I would quote the following Saints and Church Fathers:

Saint Bernardine of Siena, a Franciscan saint who died in the year 1444 and whose feast day is May 20, says of Saint Joseph that he was a holy man, “most pure in his virginity, most profound in humility, most ardent in charity and the love of God, most exalted in contemplation, and most solicitous for the welfare of his spouse, the Virgin.”

Saint Francis de Sales, Doctor of the Church, who died in 1622 when he was 55 years old and whose feast day is January 29, says of Saint Joseph that he “surpasses all the saints, and even the angels and the cherubim, in his beautiful virtue of virginity.”

Saint John Damascene, a Doctor of the Church who died in 749 and whose feast day is March 27, tells us that God gave such a sublime dignity to Saint Joseph by making him the virginal spouse of Mary that it is impossible to express or imagine it.

Saint Peter Damian, a Doctor of the Church, who died in 1072 and whose feast day is February 23, said: “Saint Joseph was made in the image of the Virgin, his spouse.”

Saint Piux X, … who died in 1914 and whose feast day is September 3, approved the Litany of Saint Joseph in 1909. His baptismal name was Joseph and he indulgenced this prayer to his patron saint: “O Joseph, virgin father of Jesus, most pure spouse of the Virgin Mary, pray for us daily to the same Jesus, the Son of God, that armed with the weapons of His grace, we may fight as we ought during life, and be crowned by Him at the moment of our death.”

And … Saint Augustine, Doctor of the Church, who died in 430 when he was 76 years old and whose feast day is August 28, declares that Saint Joseph is “the guardian of chastity and the honor of virginity.”

Nor can I believe that God would leave the marriage of the Foster Father of His Son and the Virginal Queen of Heaven, to be determined by a game of chance, the “casting of lots”, as described in the “Protoevangelicum of James”. His Coming was long awaited through the ages, foretold by prophets, and had to meet certain conditions, among them that the Savior would be of the House of David, and that the Savior would be of a virgin birth. (I’m pretty sure one more: that 40 generations would elapse between King David and the Savior, but did not look it up.)

The following accounts from the Church Fathers tell us how carefully Joseph was Divinely selected:

Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Doctor of the Church, who died in 1787 when he was 90years old and whose feast day is August 2, says of Saint Joseph that God wanted him to be “in a certain sense a cooperator in the redemption of the world, the work which belongs properly to the three Divine Persons.”

Saint Bernard, Doctor of the Church, who was 62 years old when he died in 1153, and whose feast day is August 20, said of Saint Joseph, “If you want to form an idea of Saint Joseph’s greatness, consider that by a divine privilege he merited to bear the title, ‘father of Jesus’.”

Saint Gregory the Great, Pope and Doctor of the Church, who died when he was 64 years old in the year 604 and whose feast day is March 12, said of Saint Joseph that he was “the only one found worthy among men to be the spouse of Mary.”

And … Saint Jerome, Doctor of the Church, who died in 420 at the age of 80 and whose feast day is September 3, calls dear Saint Joseph, “the saviour of the honor of God’s Mother.” He also tells us that “Joseph was called just because of his perfect possession of all virtues.”

I am more likely to understand that the betrothal of Joseph and Mary followed the customs of the time, that the marriage was prearranged by Saint Joachim long before his and Saint Anne’s expiration, that Joseph was most likely a friend of the family, and that he literally waited for Mary to grow up. Most importantly, because Saint Joachim knew the vows his daughter had taken, he also had to find a man who was also a virgin, so that they would be equally yoked, as any loving father would do for his one, only precious daughter. That just as Saint Anne was inspired to induct their only child into the temple, as gratitude to God for their ever having conceived a child at all, that perhaps so, too, was Saint Joachim inspired by God, to “make a match” with the most chaste man he could find, with our keeping in mind (and unbeknownst to Joachim) that God had prophecies to fulfill. (Remember, the engagement was prior to the pregnancy, no one could yet suspect what was happening as to the unfolding of Scripture.)

Knowing what we now know, and following the reasoning of Saint Jerome, it does not follow that the selection process for the man who would most influence the character of Our Savior during His Youth, would have included a man who was a widower and did not want Mary, the man who “drew the shortest straw”, so to speak, in a “Town Meetin’ of Eligible Men”.

That Mary and Joseph would choose to be engaged, with the intention of living a chaste life together in a marriage, has shown to be common during that time.

But because they did, they were the perfect predestined couple to fulfill God’s Plan for the Coming of His Son. It was their Only Mission, their Role in all of Humankind, for the benefit of us all, Jesus’s brothers and sisters. They did not want nor need any other children, as the rest of us would, in our ordinary marriages. 😉
 
is, of course, John the Baptist, on Mary’s side, the only issue of the marriage of Elizabeth and Zachary, the precursor of Our Lord. He escaped mention as a living relative of Jesus at the time of the crucifixion, because he had already been beheaded, which was already noted. Elizabeth is Mary’s cousin through her mother, Anne. John and Jesus are second cousins.

:o
 
**But however “related” – though never blood-related.

The one and only blood-relationship is that of Jesus with His Mother Mary.

Remember; Jesus was long before Abraham was (John 8:58) and through the will of God, the Holy Spirit placed Jesus as Child of Mother Mary, Son of Man, into the womb of Holy Mary, who, after experiencing all divine things happening around Jesus and to be taken to our hearts of Luke 1,26-56, definitely never even thought about having other Children.

“Whoever has ears ought to hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”
**
 
If you are saying that, "the Body of Christ who IS “The Way, the Truth, and the Life…” Are you considering the words of Jesus? See Jhn 14:6,
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

Then in Eph 5:23 we are told that Christ is the head of the church.
Col 1:24 relates to us that the church is the Body of Christ.

This is the only church established by Christ. The RCC simply makes claims for itself that are unfounded.

I am able to read Scripture for myself without a degree, and the letters to the churches were written to people without degrees from a seminary college.

The plain truth is, that catholics accept what the church says, period. When it is in opposition to what the Bible says, they accept what the church says. Even though the Bible says do not add or subtract from these words. The church claims authority over that, and this authority is given to the church by the church.

Blessings to you,
6days
Only the foolish that refuse to truly seek the truth for themselves would make such a false, generalized, judgmental assertion. I can tell you that until the age of “adulthood”, I was raised in the Catholic Faith. Once I had all the answers (thought I did), I separated from the Catholic Church because I didn’t agree with some of the teachings (just as you believe) and went through the next 25 years believing based on my own opinions. After time had passed I began searching for the “true” Christian Faith and found such a variety of beliefs it seemed ridiculous so I took all those years of investigative and research experience along with all the contacts and resources I had available to learn the real Truth Historically and Theologically. What the Catholic Church teaches is what was taught since the beginning of Christianity. What I and most “Christians” of non-Catholic beliefs disagreed with was not in disagreement with the Church but with the teachings of Jesus Christ. I was wrong for years. Not any longer. I was Catholic by name, and became converted by knowledge and faith and accepting Him as He did me regardless of my past ignorance. You are wrong but apparently refuse to find out for yourself. So no, its not just taking the Catholic Churches word for it, its believing in the Word of Jesus, the complete teaching of Jesus, His apostles, and their successors.

It also amazes me as to how many posts I have entered here with supporting information as to the perpetual Virginity of Mary that those Non-believers have avoided responding to. That tells me they do not know what they are talking about but need to have something that will make their belief system seem more credible against that of the True Fullness of the Christian Faith of the CC.
 
It also amazes me as to how many posts I have entered here with supporting information as to the perpetual Virginity of Mary that those Non-believers have avoided responding to. That tells me they do not know what they are talking about but need to have something that will make their belief system seem more credible against that of the True Fullness of the Christian Faith of the CC.
I don’t continue to argue with people who sincerely believe that all physics is caused by tiny gnomes, or people who sincerely believe in government conspiracies, or people who sincerely believe that Da Vinci Code is the most amazing book ever written. However, that doesn’t mean that I’ve come to agree with them. By the same token, there’s only so much anyone can argue when your final argument comes down to “The church says so.”

I actually came to this forum because my sweetie grew up Roman Catholic, and I thought that it would be good for me to learn about the church and to consider becoming part of it. We were talking about going to mass together, and we spoke to the priest about baptizing our son.

Since being part of this forum and beginning to learn the facts about the RCC, I can tell you that two things have happened. First, I’ve realized that I could never be Roman Catholic. Second, my partner has decided that he made the right decision when he was a teenager and left the church. I’m still here because I keep hoping that I’m misunderstanding something, or that I’m missing something, but I’m becoming to doubt that.
 
I don’t continue to argue with people who sincerely believe that all physics is caused by tiny gnomes, or people who sincerely believe in government conspiracies, or people who sincerely believe that Da Vinci Code is the most amazing book ever written. However, that doesn’t mean that I’ve come to agree with them. By the same token, there’s only so much anyone can argue when your final argument comes down to “The church says so.”

I actually came to this forum because my sweetie grew up Roman Catholic, and I thought that it would be good for me to learn about the church and to consider becoming part of it. We were talking about going to mass together, and we spoke to the priest about baptizing our son.

Since being part of this forum and beginning to learn the facts about the RCC, I can tell you that two things have happened. First, I’ve realized that I could never be Roman Catholic. Second, my partner has decided that he made the right decision when he was a teenager and left the church. I’m still here because I keep hoping that I’m misunderstanding something, or that I’m missing something, but I’m becoming to doubt that.
If you really want to learn more about the Catholic Church, try to get to know some Catholics, visit a Catholic parish (including seeking opportunities they might have for adult education or service that you might be interested in), etc. Don’t base your entire appraisal of it from what you read here. Best wishes.
 
**Yes, the two of you MarieCB, misunderstand a lot, and you are tempted to walk the dangerous way away from Jesus Christ.

First of all: This forum is NOT fully Catholic, but some Catholics who write here, have no idea of Catholicism.

Secondly: You are NOT responsible to anyone here, nor any human in the world, but solely Jesus Christ.

Thirdly; you do not have to continue to argue with people, but you are asked to put things straight between God and you. God and you alone!

If you do not let your baby be baptized, you are against Jesus Christ, who Himself let him be baptized see John 1,29-36

Be aware, that you and I don’t understand a lot of things. But as we do not understand and see, let’s simply trust in God.

The word TRUST (in God) appears around 50 times in the Holy Bible.
We trust so many things we don’t fully understand and often are cheated. But if we trust God, we know we are never forsaken!
**
 
Excellent,…Excellent post! Thank you so much for your response.
I am in total agreement that it is not whether Jesus’ mother remained a virgin after His birth. That should not even be a point of contention at all. The Scriptures were fulfilled that He was born of a virgin. After that, it is a moot point.

God showed us that He was above the petty concerns of humanity by reporting in the Bible that Jesus’ bloodline contained the likes of Rahab the prostitute, and Ruth the Moabitess. A Moabite was not permitted to even set foot in the Temple, but Jesus does not allow Himself to be lowered to our standards.

He gave up an awful lot of His universal kingdom as He reduced Himself to a helpless infant that was dependent upon mortals to change His diaper. Are we to think that having blood-related brothers and sisters might reduce His glory?? He did this for our sake, not to benefit Himself. And how do we respond? By bickering over details that have no weight in the final outcome. That is the thanks He gets from us. Sinful creatures that are sinfully trying to cover their sin. And the (sinful) debates continue.

It is simply unprovable with the info that we have been given, to put to rest the argument about the perpetual virginity.

Speculation solves nothing, and to fuss over the details will produce nothing more than a fuss. And then they will have their reward, in full.

In Him,
6days
Please don’t fool yourself, or others: what you are speaking of is pure heresy.

The ‘argument’ has been put to rest long ago by the Magisterium.
 
I just remembered something one of my best seminary professors said and taught- that Jesus, being fully human and fully divine, would most certainly have had an extended family as well as a marriage and possibly a child or two. I’ve concluded he was probably correct. A Jewish bachelor of age thirty (when Jesus began his public career) was virtually unheard of in His time. it still is- even in present days!

By the way, this professor is now an Archbishop and a much admired one at that! Apparently, his thoughts on the subject of Jesus, possible siblings and extended family didn’t bother the late JPII when he made this appointment…

just a thought or two.
 
**Yes, the two of you MarieCB, misunderstand a lot, and you are tempted to walk the dangerous way away from Jesus Christ.

First of all: This forum is NOT fully Catholic, but some Catholics who write here, have no idea of Catholicism.

Secondly: You are NOT responsible to anyone here, nor any human in the world, but solely Jesus Christ.

Thirdly; you do not have to continue to argue with people, but you are asked to put things straight between God and you. God and you alone!

If you do not let your baby be baptized, you are against Jesus Christ, who Himself let him be baptized see John 1,29-36

Be aware, that you and I don’t understand a lot of things. But as we do not understand and see, let’s simply trust in God.

The word TRUST (in God) appears around 50 times in the Holy Bible.
We trust so many things we don’t fully understand and often are cheated. But if we trust God, we know we are never forsaken!
**
Wow. Yea. That convinced me. 🤷

At every point where I read something, from a Catholic, which seems a bit off, I check it in the Ask the Apologists section, or through official Catholic writing. Great thing about the internet - even the Vatican has a (pretty cool) website. I just finished reading several papal bulls. Interesting stuff.

Trust God, huh? Well, here’s the irony. Trusting God is not something I’ve ever had much of a problem with. Hey, the relationship ebbs and flows, but most of the time, He and I are on pretty decent terms.

But … infallibility of the pope? Can’t do it. Infallibility of the Roman Catholic church? Sorry. And upon that fall other things which I simply am unable to convince my brain of without a lobotomy.

Yes, many of you believe those things, and I’m certainly not trying to imply that you’re lobotomized. However, you accept the initial premise that the pope and RC church are infallible. My partner has never once lied to me in the years that we’ve known each other. (This is knowledge and not faith - I’m NOT a trusting person) If, therefore, he told me there was a tiger in our backyard, I’d call animal control before looking out the window. So I can understand. If you believe that someone is telling you the absolute truth, then you’ll believe them no matter how bizarre their words.

I’m more inclined toward Pope John XXII’s view of papal infallibility. He thought that it was a heresy sent from the Father of Lies, and I can completely understand his line of thought in that. (His writing is convoluted and hard to follow, but hey, I edit ESL papers all day so that’s nothing new for me)
 
I just remembered something one of my best seminary professors said and taught- that Jesus, being fully human and fully divine, would most certainly have had an extended family as well as a marriage and possibly a child or two. I’ve concluded he was probably correct. A Jewish bachelor of age thirty (when Jesus began his public career) was virtually unheard of in His time. it still is- even in present days!

By the way, this professor is now an Archbishop and a much admired one at that! Apparently, his thoughts on the subject of Jesus, possible siblings and extended family didn’t bother the late JPII when he made this appointment…

just a thought or two.
Yes, but if you’re coming from an initial premise that sex is bad, then, as many here have stated, you certainly can’t entertain the thought that Jesus - although fully man - could possibly have been defiled by something as base and disgusting (and human!) as sex. Or, apparently, his mother or his father. Read through the thread - that’s been stated repeatedly.

For what it’s worth, though, I agree with you completely.

But, hey, it’s church dogma, so it’s True.
 
If you really want to learn more about the Catholic Church, try to get to know some Catholics, visit a Catholic parish (including seeking opportunities they might have for adult education or service that you might be interested in), etc. Don’t base your entire appraisal of it from what you read here. Best wishes.
I am a cradle Catholic.

My Dad was one of the first married Deacons back in the 1970s.

I grew up in Catholic schools.

I married a Catholic woman who loves me and is the reason I am where I am today. My Dad performed our wedding.

I have learned the most about what it is to be Catholic by attending Mass and spending an hour each week in Eucharistic Adoration.

MarieCB, of you will not listen to Catholics or the Catholic Church, will you listen to Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

Wait, the Church is the Body of Christ. If the Church says so, it is Jesus saying so.

Eddie Mac
 
THE PROBLEM IS AUTHORITY VS. INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE
Code:
The real issue for many of us, whether dealing with the perpetual virginity of Mary or some other difficult doctrine, is whether we accept such dogmas because the Church teaches them or we go along with what our consciences tell us.

 The Church says that Mary was a perpetual virgin. That may be true, of course, but:
(1) I don’t find it important as there is nothing wrong with sexual relations in marriage - actually a great gift as it can be a beautiful expression of love; and (2) if Mary had additional children, wonderful! She certainly would have been a superb mother. Though, as you may recall, I mentioned earlier that it troubled me even as a child Mary and Joseph apparently went a considerable distance from Jerusalem when Jesus was 12 before they noticed that he was missing! Other younger children might help explain that.
Frankly, I think that God gave us a brain to use and I can't imagine him punishing us because honest contemplation and intense study leads us to disagree with some of the teachings of the Church. And that is where I am. I understand that many people want an absolute authority, that many think that those of us who think independently are somehow arrogant or disobedient, that we should simply believe this or that because the Church says to. Most Catholics I know well don't accept everything the church teaches, such as transubstantiation. I respect the Church's position but I also respect those who can't accept some doctrines even if they want to. How could a God of love and mercy condemn them to eternal punishment for their honesty?
 
THE PROBLEM IS AUTHORITY VS. INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE
Code:
The real issue for many of us, whether dealing with the perpetual virginity of Mary or some other difficult doctrine, is whether we accept such dogmas because the Church teaches them or we go along with what our consciences tell us.

 The Church says that Mary was a perpetual virgin. That may be true, of course, but:
(1) I don’t find it important as there is nothing wrong with sexual relations in marriage - actually a great gift as it can be a beautiful expression of love; and (2) if Mary had additional children, wonderful! She certainly would have been a superb mother. Though, as you may recall, I mentioned earlier that it troubled me even as a child Mary and Joseph apparently went a considerable distance from Jerusalem when Jesus was 12 before they noticed that he was missing! Other younger children might help explain that.
Code:
  Frankly, I think that God gave us a brain to use and I can't imagine him punishing us because honest contemplation and intense study leads us to disagree with some of the teachings of the Church. And that is where I am. I understand that many people want an absolute authority, that many think that those of us who think independently are somehow arrogant or disobedient, that we should simply believe this or that because the Church says to. Most Catholics I know well don't accept everything the church teaches, such as transubstantiation. I respect the Church's position but I also respect those who can't accept some doctrines even if they want to. How could a God of love and mercy condemn them to eternal punishment for their honesty?
Well, I think of it a little differently. It does take humility to be a Catholic. You have to accept that the magesterium knows more than you do. This is not such a great stretch, really, because afterall, the Church has literally millions of priests and theologians to test out each position and more importantly, it recieved the truth from Apostolic revelation and passed it on to us for 2000 years. We also of course, believe that as Jesus told us, that the Holy Spirit is guiding the church. So really, it is a very arrogant and stupid thing to believe that we as individuals can be smarter or more inspired than the Church. So I put my efforts into understanding what the church teaches and why, not to try to figure out a new way…

In the end, its a question of why people can’t accept the doctrines the church teaches. I suspect that in most cases, they are unable to distinguish their wishes or preconcieved notions from the truth. For instance, there are many that can’t accept that a merciful God would allow eternal punishment, yet it is clearly scriptural. Perhaps they are simply trying to will away Hell. Others believe that God in his infinite mercy requries only a statement of believe to gain eternal life, willing away the responsibility to stay in the state of grace. But their wishes do not change the truth, no matter how often or loudly they repeat them.

Each of us must take the responsibility for the choices we make in life. If we make a mistake in what we beleive, we are still held accountable. Good luck on your journey. I hope you find your way home.
 
Wow. Yea. That convinced me. 🤷

At every point where I read something, from a Catholic, which seems a bit off, I check it in the Ask the Apologists section, or through official Catholic writing. Great thing about the internet - even the Vatican has a (pretty cool) website. I just finished reading several papal bulls. Interesting stuff.

Trust God, huh? Well, here’s the irony. Trusting God is not something I’ve ever had much of a problem with. Hey, the relationship ebbs and flows, but most of the time, He and I are on pretty decent terms.

But … infallibility of the pope? Can’t do it. Infallibility of the Roman Catholic church? Sorry. And upon that fall other things which I simply am unable to convince my brain of without a lobotomy.
Then you are a heretic. Just please be clear about it.
 
**
But … infallibility of the pope? Can’t do it. Infallibility of the Roman Catholic church? Pope John XXII’s view of papal infallibility. He thought that it was a heresy sent from the Father of Lies
Pope John XXII. (Pope in Avignon from 1316 to 1334) had several non-Catholic nd even anti-Church views, but he revoked all of them in 1333-4. (match also papal bull “Benedictus Deus” 1336).
And besides: The infallibility of the pope (Church) was not defined at that time yet. It was defined only in 8th of July 1870 by Pope Pius IX.

It means not, that the pope is infallible in any case, but exclusively in matters concerning believe, those announced “ex cathedra” as ultimate decision, found in years of resurge and strict investigation and hearing of ALL bishops.

Such found truth, inspired of the Holy Spirit who holds and leads His Church, are not subject of doubts of people like you and me, who just accidentally come across such dogma, and then think they are entitled to say “that can’t be so”.

Let’s behold and think in deep prayers, before we say things we’ll be terribly sorry about before God one day - for then we grew into heresy and blasphemy without even knowing.
All we say - we say before God, so let’s never make statements, before we would loud and clearly say so before God too (Gal 1,10)

**
 
Jesus being the son of David is mentioned in many verses in the Bible. Everybody knows that David was born about 1,000 years before Jesus, and non-Catholics never questioned this use of “son of David.” It is very obvious that the use of “son” at that time was not in the strict sense of the word as we use it today. The very same can be said of the use of brother (brethren) during the time of Jesus. There was apparently malicious intent in the interpreatation made by non-Catholic teachers after the death of Martin Luther, as Martin Luther himself firmly believed in the “perpetual virginity” of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

In “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther’s_views_on_Mary” you will find the following:

Luther believed that Mary did not have other children, and did not have any marital relations with Joseph,[12] maintaining, that the brothers mentioned were cousins.[13] This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Jaroslav Pelikan noted that the perpetual virginity of Mary was Luther’s lifelong belief,[14] and Hartmann Grisar, a Roman Catholic biographer of Luther, concurs that “Luther always believed in the virginity of Mary, even after his excommunication, though afterwards he denied her power of intercession, as well as that of the saints in general, … and combated, as extreme and pagan, the extraordinary veneration which the [Roman] Catholic Church showed towards Mary.”[15] For this reason even a rigorously conservative Lutheran scholar like Franz Pieper (1852-1931) refuses to follow the tendency among Protestants to insist that Mary and Joseph had marital relations and children after the birth of Jesus. It is implicit in his Christian Dogmatics that belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity is the older and traditional view among Lutherans.
 
**Oh, Jesus Himself put that question to the wise, when teaching in the temple. Jesus asked them in Mark 12,35: How come, that the scribes call the Messiah; Son of David? David himself calls him ‘lord’; so how is he his son?

To be “of the house and family of David” (Luke 2:4) is not only politically for real Jews important, but also for religious reasons, for the Messiah as the Holy Scriptures of the Jews, the Old Testament tells, “is of the house and family of David”! This of course is no direct relationship – (which is anyhow clear after 1000 years).

Jesus let himself several times be called Son of David (Mark 10,47 - 11,10 and others) but this meant the title of MESSIAH and led to Jesus accusation before Pilatus and to Jesus death-penalty.
**
 
LUTHER? SO WHAT?
Code:
So, Luther believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Perhaps she was, but Luther's viewpoint is not binding. He threw an inkwell at the devil once, among other odd things. His opinion is to be considered, as are the opinions of the Church Fathers and the Popes, but none of those are binding either - well, as far as I'm concerned.

One of my joys in past years has been to be a member of a Bible study group where different verses of scripture are interpreted in different ways by different people. I find that interesting, exciting, quite refreshing. I guess I was never met to put a wall around my brain and think only as some ecclesiastical council thought I should think. For example, in the Apostles Creed it says that Jesus sits on the right hand of God the Father. Centuries ago the framers of that creed probably thought of God the Father as on some sort of celestial throne with Jesus sitting on his right hand. Those were the days when even the best scholars conceived of the universe as three- tiered. 

 Or, what about the final affirmation of that creed. "I believe in the resurrection of the body" - meaning, of course, our bodies. That was an old Christian teaching which caused the church for years to condemn cremation. But most Christians today believe in the resurrection of the soul but dismiss the notion that our bones are going to rejoin in some miraculous way and we shall rise physically from the grave. 

 You get the point. I have studied the Church Fathers and some of what they say is profound and inspiring, some of it nonsense. As I recall, even Origen and Tertullian were condemned as 'heretics'. This whole concept of heresy has caused such atrocties throughout history. I'm sure that God gave us a brain so that we could think for ourselves and not hand that brain over to anyone else. My guess is that the Lord is mighty pleased when we focus on spiritual matters whether or not we conform to this or that creed. He examines our heart and judges by what He finds there and pays little if any attention to our church affiliation. I'm sure that heaven is full of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, of other faiths - and probably quite a few agnostics and atheists, too.

 I guess it's the 'we are superior to every other church/religion' that troubles me most about Catholicism. And what suffering has resulted because of this braggadocio. Jesus said that he had other sheep 'not of this fold.' On several occasions he held up Samaritans as the good guys, members of a faith that Jews despised so much that they refused to travel through Samaria. This exclusiveness of Catholicism should be traded in for a 'big tent' approach, emphasizing the oneness of humankind rather than thinking it better than all other faiths. What a different world this would be if we appreciated other approaches to God instead of condemning them and trumpeting our own as the only valid pathway. I'm sure it makes some people feel better - superior - but it strikes me as contradicting the very core of Christian teaching.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top