Pope Declares-Non Catholics Do Not Possess the Full Truth

[Allweather]

If GOD declares the soul clean, who are we to gainsay Him?

True! That’s what confession, repentence, and after death, Purgatory, are for.

Personally, I think Protestants worry too much about Purgatory. Purgatory is a good place. When you die, if you find yourself there, rejoice, because it means you’re on the way to Heaven! Most of us will go to Purgatory enroute. I HOPE I go to Purgatory. I certainly am not pure enough to behold God in my present sinful state. I don’t fear Purgatory, or anything else that God has in store for me, because I’m leaning on Him and trusting Him alone.

 

[Sixtus]

The Orange Order of Northern Ireland have done a big posting on this very subject, in which they condemn both the Catholic Church and the Pope, which is rather disheartening as it suggests they unlike the Catholic community, are not serious about laying down the hatchet of prejudice and discrimination and giving peace a real chance

 

[Robert902]

Yes, the Bible, let’s focus on that.
Two of those called “brothers” of Jesus, James and Joseph, are identified as sons of another Mary, the wife of Clopas. Compare these three verses.

Matthew 13:55. Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:

John 19:25. Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.

Matthew 27:56. Among whom was Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

How can this be? Could it be that James and Joseph were his cousins, not brothers? Could it be that “brother” meant the same as"near relative" in ancient writing?

Also, why would Jesus give His mother to John at the foot of the cross instead of one of his siblings?

I think it’s hysterical that there are STILL people who attack the Church on her belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Brother means brother in the Bible, not cousin or relative. And the fact remains…Jesus had brothers. And I don’t find it hysterical at all. This is a serious problem. If someone tells you that Mary died a virgin “the truth is not in them.” This Mary as virgin is a private interpretation!
Gal 1:6-12 “But even if we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than that what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.”

God Bless,
Robert

 

[Robert902]

Jesus established a Church, not a Bible.

Nothing in the Catholic Church “contradicts” anything in the Bible, and nothing in the Bible “contradicts” anything in the Catholic Church.

I agree that our God is not a God of confusion, but oftentimes people do get confused, for a variety of reasons. One sure pathway to confusion is to assume that what appears to be a contradiction between Church and Bible is actually a contradiction, rather than a misperception, or more likely, a misinterpretation.

Most so-called contradictions are between rival interpretations of Scripture.

Interpretations are inevitable, and necessary. In many doctrinal cases, only one interpretation is possible, since to admit of several would lead to confusion, which couldn’t be from God, as we’ve already established.

Catholics believe that the Church alone is the rightful interpreter of Scripture. Private interpretations are permitted, but not to the extent that they deviate from the teaching of the Church. The opening sentence of your post, bolded above, are indicative that you adhere to personal, private interpretations of Scripture and Tradition rather than submitting to what the authoritative Church teaches.

The Holy Bible was written by more than 40 human authors inspired by The Holy Spirit over a period of about 14 to 18 centuries. According to 2 Tim 3:16-17 all of the Bible was inspired by The Holy Spirit. The word “inspired” in Greek is Theopneustos which means “God breathed.” The apostle Peter wrote that holy men composed the books of the Bible as they were “moved” by The Holy Spirit. Also the apostle Paul wrote to his student Timothy that all scripture was given by inspiration of God. The authors of the Bible wrote spontaneously using their own minds while influenced and directed by God.
The Bible came first, as any rational thinker will acknowledge. So if what you hear in [any] church contradicts what God has told us in His word, then that church is a false prophet.

God Bless,
Robert

 

[Robert902]

Do you worship on Sundays. That’s not in the Bible. Can you tell us where did you get the notion we should worship on Sundays then?

Resurrection day was Sunday. The apostle Paul worshipped on Sunday. But guess what …you can worship on any day you want to!

God Bless,
Robert

 

[Robert902]

Check out where the Bible came from.

The New Testament writings came from the oral Traditions.

Where in the world did you come up with “oral traditions?”

God Bless,
Robert

 

[murtad]

I guess that is what I would expect this Pope to say considering his personal history, being a fan of Hitler

That’s false. The current Pope was never a fan of Adolf Hitler who was a convert to Islam. Adolf Hitler may have been born a Roman Catholic but he converted to Islam. He did that after he learnt that Muhammad hated the Jewish race but the Catholic Church was founded by a Jew.

In this article, Adolf Hitler he converted from Roman Catholicism to Islam as he was angry the then Pope rejected White supremacy and mono culturalism.

Adolf Hitler wanted all Whites to be united by speaking German and confessing “La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad rasoolu Allah”

 

[Allweather]

The Bible came first, as any rational thinker will acknowledge. So if what you hear in [any] church contradicts what God has told us in His word, then that church is a false prophet.

God Bless,
Robert

Depends on what you mean by “Bible.” The OT was the Bible of Jesus’ day, but the NT was yet to come. The Gospels weren’t set to writing until quite a few years after Jesus’ ascension. Therefore, it is more accurate to say the OT “came first” but the NT came later. That is what is meant by the saying, Jesus established a Church rather than a Bible, the word Bible meaning the NT, which, along with the Sacred Tradition which preceded it, is the primary source of Christian doctrine.

Apart from all of that, I agree that if anything [any] church teaches is contradicted by anything in the Bible, meaning in particular the NT, then that church is a false prophet. And I stand by my statement that nothing in the Catholic Church contradicts anything in the Bible, and nothing in the Bible contradicts anything in the Catholic Church. Interpretations may disagree, but the Bible when properly interpreted is in full accord with Catholic doctrine.

 

[Robert902]

Could you give us some examples of where the Church teaches something that contradicts the Bible?

Thanks!

1. Who is the head of the church? (Jesus, not the Pope)
2. Purgatory (“to be absent from the body, is to be present with The Lord”)
3. Statues (graven images)

4.The rosary (vain repetitions)

1. Mary died a virgin (Jesus had brothers)
2. Works based salvation (“it is a gift from God, and not of works, lest any man boast”)

7.Confessional ( “There is one mediator between man and God, and that is the man Jesus”). We can now confess our sins directly to God, because of the work on the cross by Jesus.

1. Belief in Catholic dogma and tradition comes first, and in second place; belief in The Bible as the infallible inspired word of God. They can’t both be right!
2. Calling priests “father.” The Bible tells you and me to “call no man father.” Obviously calling your biological parent father is not the point here.
3. Transubstantiation. The elements become the actual body and blood of Jesus. If this were true the elements would taste like blood and human flesh, but at least to me they don’t.
4. The Mass. The continual crucification of Jesus on the cross. The Bible says that “Jesus died [once] and for all for all our sins.”

There is so much more that I could list, but frankly I have done this so many times before, that it is getting a little repititious. I’m not trying to offend anyone, just think about what you are told to believe in light of what The Bible wants you to believe.

God Bless,
Robert

 

[Allweather]

This Mary as virgin is a private interpretation! Robert

No, it is not a private interpretation, it is the authoritative teaching of the Catholic (and most Protestant) Churches.

A private interpretation could lead one to believe that Mary was not a virgin, or that Jesus had siblings the additional children of Mary, as yours evidently does.

But, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that this is a case of your interpretation up against ours. Why is your interpretation more valid than ours? Who gives you the infallible authority as interpreter of Scripture?

 

[Allweather]

1. Who is the head of the church? (Jesus, not the Pope)
2. Purgatory (“to be absent from the body, is to be present with The Lord”)
3. Statues (graven images)

4.The rosary (vain repetitions)

1. Mary died a virgin (Jesus had brothers)
2. Works based salvation (“it is a gift from God, and not of works, lest any man boast”)

7.Confessional ( “There is one mediator between man and God, and that is the man Jesus”). We can now confess our sins directly to God, because of the work on the cross by Jesus.

1. Belief in Catholic dogma and tradition comes first, and in second place; belief in The Bible as the infallible inspired word of God. They can’t both be right!
2. Calling priests “father.” The Bible tells you and me to “call no man father.” Obviously calling your biological parent father is not the point here.

There is so much more that I could list, but frankly I have done this so many times before, that it is getting a little repititious.

God Bless,
Robert

All of these are interpretive, and your interpretations are all wrong. Of course, none of these are really yours. These are all boilerplate fundamentalist. If you’re getting fatigued at vain repetition of fundamentalist cliche, you might try expanding your library. I’d suggest you start by spending some time reading the short articles found on the homepage here at Catholic Answers.

 

[Robert902]

No, it is not a private interpretation, it is the authoritative teaching of the Catholic (and most Protestant) Churches.

A private interpretation could lead one to believe that Mary was not a virgin, or that Jesus had siblings the additional children of Mary, as yours evidently does.

But, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that this is a case of your interpretation up against ours. Why is your interpretation more valid than ours? Who gives you the infallible authority as interpreter of Scripture?

Protestant churches acknowledge the existence of the brothers of Jesus, not only because of Biblical references, but also because of historical ones. And this is why my interpretation is not private. And it’s not my interpretaion up against yours, it’s your interpretation up against everyone else. I know of no other denomination that teaches that Mary died a virgin.

God Bless,
Robert

 

[Allweather]

Protestant churches acknowledge the existence of the brothers of Jesus, not only because of Biblical references, but also because of historical ones. And this is why my interpretation is not private. And it’s not my interpretaion up against yours, it’s your interpretation up against everyone else. I know of no other denomination that teaches that Mary died a virgin.

God Bless,
Robert

Your Biblical references to siblings of Jesus are misinterpreted.

But I’m curious about your “historical” references to this. Are you going to share them with us?

You may know of no other denomination that teaches that Mary died a virgin, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any… just that you don’t know of them.

When I was a fundamentalist I had a very clear notion that Mary was ever-virgin. It wasn’t something that I spent any time pondering, to tell the truth. I accepted that Mary was the virgin spouse of the Holy Spirit, and it seemed perfectly logical to me that she remained a virgin thereafter.

Frankly, I’ve always been curious why some (not all) fundamentalists go to such lengths to assert such a thing as this. Why does it matter to you? Mary’s perpetual virginity is simply a fact, which we accept at face value. But some fundamentalists take this on as a cause. Why do you feel the urge to attack Mary? Any ideas?

 

[Proletarian]

Protestant churches acknowledge the existence of the brothers of Jesus, not only because of Biblical references,** but also because of historical ones**.

Could you please provide us with some historical evidence?

And just a warning, anything written after the reformation doesn’t count

 

[inJESUS]

1. Mary died a virgin (Jesus had brothers)

 

[murtad]

in my outlook yes. we should have elected a black, or a pope from south america. that would show the world we truly are the universal church. We seem to always pick a pope from a western country. that is my thoughts, i know the holy spirit plays a roll i picking the pope, but a lot of politics are involved too.

Your use of the words “a black” is very very very rude. Not all Africans are “black” and not all Europeans are “white”. There are many Indian Catholics who are “black” such as ethnic Tamils!

The Church elected Pope Benedict XVI not out of politics but because Jesus our Lord decreed that a German will be chosen as a sign of forgiveness to the German race. Only God can decide who becomes Pope and we must accept the papal election as God’s work.

You should ask the Lord’s mother, Saint Mary to interceed for you so you will be guided towards the truth.

 

[Dulcimer]

Robert902;2509220:

because you read the word “brothers”? ever tought that words back then did not have same meaning?

I’ve actually done some study on this; the word “brother” in Greek (the Septuagint) can mean brother, cousin, kinsman, or close relative.

This doesn’t prove one way or another whether James and Jesus were closer than cousins.

My faith in Jesus does not rise and fall on whether or not Mary had additional children with Joseph. I personally think it likely that she did, but I’m not God and I really don’t know.

Peace to you all!

–D <><

 

[Dulcimer]

Your use of the words “a black” is very very very rude. Not all Africans are “black” and not all Europeans are “white”. There are many Indian Catholics who are “black” such as ethnic Tamils!

Lets not be quick to take offense…Many of my “black” friends refer to themselves as…“black”.

While not all africans are as black as my friends in Mississippi, the majority of the ethnic Africans (i.e., not transplanted dutch, english etc.) are, especially south of the Sahara. Those north of the Sahara have always been lighter-skinned. This is shown in the art of ancient Egypt, depicting those on the lower end of the nile (closer to Chad) as darker skinned than those at the delta.

–D <><

P.S. Having lived briefly (2 years) in a north african country, and having visited a large portion of southern africa, I know of which I speak.

 

[Robert902]

All of these are interpretive, and your interpretations are all wrong. Of course, none of these are really yours. These are all boilerplate fundamentalist. If you’re getting fatigued at vain repetition of fundamentalist cliche, you might try expanding your library. I’d suggest you start by spending some time reading the short articles found on the homepage here at Catholic Answers.

I know Catholic doctrine most likely better than many practicing Catholics here. I have spent many years studying Catholicism. And I have spent many years studying the Bible. And I know one thing for sure, the Bible is the inspired word of God, and tells me not to participate in many of the teachings of the Catholic church. So I made a choice. I know I probably haven’t said anything original here that hasn’t been said before, but that’s irrelevant. The Bible is God’s love letter to His children.
Facts are facts, words have meanings, and if we dismiss what God say’s in His word, The Bible, then we really shouldn’t call ourselves His children.

God Bless,
Robert

 

[Robert902]

Your Biblical references to siblings of Jesus are misinterpreted.

But I’m curious about your “historical” references to this. Are you going to share them with us?

You may know of no other denomination that teaches that Mary died a virgin, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any… just that you don’t know of them.

When I was a fundamentalist I had a very clear notion that Mary was ever-virgin. It wasn’t something that I spent any time pondering, to tell the truth. I accepted that Mary was the virgin spouse of the Holy Spirit, and it seemed perfectly logical to me that she remained a virgin thereafter.

Frankly, I’ve always been curious why some (not all) fundamentalists go to such lengths to assert such a thing as this. Why does it matter to you? Mary’s perpetual virginity is simply a fact, which we accept at face value. But some fundamentalists take this on as a cause. Why do you feel the urge to attack Mary? Any ideas?

The Bible say’s that Mary is “blessed among women.” And indeed she was. What I am “attacking” as you have put it, is a false teaching. And Mary just happens to be the center of this false teaching. Jesus had 2 brothers, consequently Mary was not a virgin when she died.
You ask why does it matter to me? It should matter to every Christian.

God Bless,
Robert