To Be in Heaven, You Must Be Catholic

[jmcrae]

So because a dead person, say a 1 month old baby who dies of SIDS, who doesn’t have the ability to logic to get to the point of #2, you are confident that person does not get to heaven?

Perhaps his parents’ desire to baptise him suffices … ? But since we don’t know, it reminds us to ensure that our children are baptized as early as possible, without unnecessary delay.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So you are saying Joseph divorced Mary and married again to have other children?

No, Joseph was much older than Mary and was probably married previously with children by his first wife who are called “brothers and sisters” of Jesus.

Notice that Joseph disappears from scripture after Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve whereas Mary continues to appear occasionally. This is because he died before she did due to the difference in their ages.

 

[Randy_Carson]

:yup: and in addition to that, this, from Merriam Webster:

“Roman Catholic: * of, relating to, or being a Christian church having a hierarchy of priests and bishops under the pope, a liturgy centered in the Mass, veneration of the Virgin Mary and saints, clerical celibacy, and a body of dogma including transubstantiation and papal infallibility *”

Webster was a Calvinist.

 

[Rob03]

No, Joseph was much older than Mary and was probably married previously with children by his first wife who are called “brothers and sisters” of Jesus.

Notice that Joseph disappears from scripture after Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve whereas Mary continues to appear occasionally. This is because he died before she did due to the difference in their ages.

Does it say anywhere that Joseph was married prior to Mary? I understand their age difference and knew that Joseph died leaving Mary a widow. But this scripture shows the Joseph and Mary did have sexual relations, “But he had no union with her as her husband until she had borne her firstborn Son; and he called His name Jesus.” Union is referring to sex. So she’s not the “ever virgin”

 

[eddie_too]

that verse says nothing about the relationship between Joseph and Mary after the Lord’s birth.

 

[clem456]

No, Joseph was much older than Mary and was probably married previously with children by his first wife who are called “brothers and sisters” of Jesus.

Notice that Joseph disappears from scripture after Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve whereas Mary continues to appear occasionally. This is because he died before she did due to the difference in their ages.

Totally off topic but our pastor is also a scripture scholar. The original language (not sure) for “brothers” etc could be used in an extended familial context, and this apparently is the most accepted usage, according to him. “Cousins, nephews, etc”

 

[clem456]

Does it say anywhere that Joseph was married prior to Mary? I understand their age difference and knew that Joseph died leaving Mary a widow. But this scripture shows the Joseph and Mary did have sexual relations, “But he had no union with her as her husband until she had borne her firstborn Son; and he called His name Jesus.” Union is referring to sex. So she’s not the “ever virgin”

This is a common overreach in interpretation.

Ok, so your betrothed conceives by the Holy Spirit. The angel tells you such, -and- it comes to pass. So as her husband, now caring for the young Messiah, ruler of the universe, who your wife gave birth to by super-natural means…you are now going to have relations with this blessed woman? I doubt it. Reverence and awe would be more like it. Think about it.

 

[ffg]

Perhaps his parents’ desire to baptise him suffices … ? But since we don’t know, it reminds us to ensure that our children are baptized as early as possible, without unnecessary delay.

Nobody is debating if baptism should be delayed or is not a good thing to do.

Filling holes is always a positive thing to do.

We must consider and teach God’s mercy on the soul that did not for whatever reason get baptised before death.

Until such an event (baptism) happens to someone who had the ability to decide to go through with it, the ability to know the importance of the event might be hampered.

Considering the tears that flow after the event, and the many “why didn’t I do this sooner” comments, one could argue it takes the event to understand the importance.

Previous to the event, a rejection of doing it is obviously out of a lack of understanding, but also might be out of fear or many reasons.

I would think it would be rare cases that it is out of understanding what they are doing in rejecting God’s good graces.

In which case, as with the other cases, Father forgive them, they know not what they do.

In short, we are not at the pay grade to tell others they are in for hell. We absolutely should inform about the great benefits of what we have as Christians and invite others to consider listening.

 

[SteveVH]

Does it say anywhere that Joseph was married prior to Mary? I understand their age difference and knew that Joseph died leaving Mary a widow. But this scripture shows the Joseph and Mary did have sexual relations, “But he had no union with her as her husband until she had borne her firstborn Son; and he called His name Jesus.” Union is referring to sex. So she’s not the “ever virgin”

While your conclusion is understandable, it is not correct. You are using the modern meaning of the word “until” rather than the meaning understood when the sacred text was written.

Karl Keating has addressed this issue in his book “Catholicism and Fundamentalism”:

**"The problem… is that they are trying to use the modern meaning of the word “till” (or “until”) instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.

Consider this line: ‘Michal the daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death’ (2 Sam 6:23) Are we to assume she had children after her death? How about the raven that Noah released from the ark? The bird ‘went forth and did not return till the waters were dried up upon the earth.’ (Gen 8:17) In fact, we know the raven never returned at all. Then there was the burial of Moses. About the location of his grave it was said that no man knows ‘until this present day’ (Dt 34:6) - but we know that no one has known since that day either. Or how about this: ‘And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain till they had returned in peace’ (1 Macc 5:54) Does this mean the soldiers were slain after they returned from battle?"**

Mary remained a virgin all of her life.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Does it say anywhere that Joseph was married prior to Mary? I understand their age difference and knew that Joseph died leaving Mary a widow. But this scripture shows the Joseph and Mary did have sexual relations, “But he had no union with her as her husband until she had borne her firstborn Son; and he called His name Jesus.” Union is referring to sex. So she’s not the “ever virgin”

Nope. You miss the significance of the word “until”. It’s off-topic, but I’ll get you started in the right direction.

Matthew 1:25 does not imply that Joseph knew Mary after she had borne Jesus.

The Greek heôs, “until,” does not necessarily contrast “before” to “after.” It means that up to a certain moment, something happened or not, without considering what happened after that moment. For instance, the Greek text of the Septuagint says, in 2 Samuel 6:23, that “Mikal, daughter of Saul, had no children until (heôs) the days of her death.” This obviously does not suggest that she had children after her death. Matthew is interested in underlining that Jesus’ birth and conception were carried out without the intervention of any man.

Remove the word “until” from the verse, and you have the following:

“Joseph had no relations with her…she brought forth her firstborn”

Two simple statements. Protestants really disagree with the first of these two; therefore, the word “until” is the whole argument.

Either Joseph held off “until” and then proceeded to have relations (the Protestant position) OR Joseph had no relations with her. Period. (the Catholic position).

Naturally, Protestants argue for a simple reading of the text, but Catholics counter that “until” doesn’t actually imply the cessation of past action (namely, holding off). Although things look intuitively obvious for the Protestant point of view, in actual fact, the Catholic position is not harmed at all by the word “until” because that word implies nothing…and other verses in scripture PROVE that point.

Consequently, Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to disprove the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Genesis 8:7
The raven “did not return TILL the waters were dried up…” Did the raven ever return?

Deuteronomy 34:6 (Knox)
No one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” But we know that no one has known it since that day either.

1 Maccabees 5:54
“…not one of them was slain TILL they had returned in peace.” Were Judas Maccabeus and his troops killed when they returned?

Luke 1:80
“And the child grew and became strong in spirit; and he lived in the desert until he appeared publicly to Israel.” The Greek word translated “until” in this passage is heos, the same word used in Matthew 1:25. The child spoken of is John the Baptist who, after as well as before he appeared in public, resided in the desert (cf. Matt. 3:1, Mark 1:3,4; Luke 3:2).

Romans 8:22
“…the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together UNTIL now.” Is it still groaning?

1 Corinthians 15:25
“For He must reign TILL He has put all enemies under His feet.” After all enemies are put away, will Christ be reigning?

 

[PRmerger]

here is paragraph 27 from pius XII’s encyclical humani generis:

1. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith.

Fair enough.

One has to wonder how the Greek Byzantines, Maronite Catholics, Chaldeans felt about this.

so, rightly speaking, only it can claim to be the catholic church.

Egg-zactly.

 

[PRmerger]

They died under the Old Covenant, though. Under the New Covenant, baptism (in one of its three forms) is required.

The question arising is “Does a person who has no idea that baptism even exists have the ability to desire baptism?” and we can answer that with an analogy - suppose a person has a terrible allergy, and they go to the pharmacy and they say, “I need aspirin for my allergy.” The pharmacist tells her, “No, you need an antihistamine; you don’t need aspirin.”

So the person has the desire for an antihistamine, but doesn’t realize it.

In the same way, a person who doesn’t know about baptism might say, “I need something to renew my soul and put me in the state of grace in order to know God - but I don’t know what it is that I need.” The person might try every kind of religion, looking for this thing that they don’t know what it is. That person may well have Baptism of Desire, without realizing it.

But without Baptism of Blood (martyrdom), Baptism of Desire (catechumenate) or actual Baptism, no one can be saved.

While we are bound by the Sacraments for salvation, God is not. And thus God may save whom He desires…even the unbaptized.

…and thus it is not an absolute necessity for entering heaven…

 

[PRmerger]

So you are saying Joseph divorced Mary and married again to have other children?

I am saying that you are professing a man-made tradition when you say that Mary had other children.

You may search the Bible from Genesis through Revelation and will not find a single verse that declares that there was any other soul ensconced in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary…except for Jesus.

So to say that Mary had other children is a man-made tradition you’ve been duped into believing. You heard someone say it, who heard another person say it, who heard another person say it…but no one ever read, “Mary, the mother of Jesus, birthed other children” in a single verse of the Bible.

That Jesus had brothers and sisters, the Catholic Church has no arguments there.

 

[PRmerger]

Does it say anywhere that Joseph was married prior to Mary? I understand their age difference and knew that Joseph died leaving Mary a widow. But this scripture shows the Joseph and Mary did have sexual relations, “But he had no union with her as her husband until she had borne her firstborn Son; and he called His name Jesus.” Union is referring to sex. So she’s not the “ever virgin”

Were you aware that the Bible speaks of Michal, the daughter of Saul, not having a child “until the day she died.”

Do you think that Michal had children after her death? :whacky:

Of course not. We understand that in some contexts the word “until” only indicates an action that occurred prior to.

It is not an indication that anything occurred subsequently.

 

[jmcrae]

Totally off topic but our pastor is also a scripture scholar. The original language (not sure) for “brothers” etc could be used in an extended familial context, and this apparently is the most accepted usage, according to him. “Cousins, nephews, etc”

This is very common in tribal cultures world-wide. For example, I am “sister” to my Inuit nieces and nephews, because there is no Inuit word for “Aunt,” and “Mother” would be inappropriate, since I don’t actually live with them. (I could be called either “mother” or “sister” depending on my actual day-to-day dealings with them, and since I live far away, they call me “sister.” If I lived in the same community, they would call me “mother.” They have many “mothers,” including women who don’t have any familial relationship with them at all, but who are there for them on a day to day basis.)

It makes perfect sense that Judaism in the time of Christ, which was a tribal culture in those days, would follow the same pattern.

 

[jmcrae]

Does it say anywhere that Joseph was married prior to Mary? I understand their age difference and knew that Joseph died leaving Mary a widow. But this scripture shows the Joseph and Mary did have sexual relations, “But he had no union with her as her husband until she had borne her firstborn Son; and he called His name Jesus.” Union is referring to sex. So she’s not the “ever virgin”

We actually find the account of Mary’s relationship with Joseph in a work called the Protoevangelium of James.

It was not included in the canon of Scripture because it contains doubtful elements, but the Fathers of the early centuries referred to that portion of it when speaking of Mary, and it seems as if that portion of the work, at least, aligns with the Holy Tradition. They lived close enough to the time of her death that it seems reasonable to conclude that they knew her, and knew something of her life, so as to know one way or the other whether the account in the Protoevangelium was at least reasonable to believe.

 

[ufamtobie]

Does it say anywhere that Joseph was married prior to Mary? I understand their age difference and knew that Joseph died leaving Mary a widow. But this scripture shows the Joseph and Mary did have sexual relations, “But he had no union with her as her husband until she had borne her firstborn Son; and he called His name Jesus.” Union is referring to sex. So she’s not the “ever virgin”

Rob03

Sexual Relations? No! Joseph never had sexual relations with Virgin Mary, heres is why in Matt 1: 20 below:

Matt 1: 20But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost.

Rob03, the angel Gabriel, told Joseph, that Virgin Mary was having a baby by the Holy Ghost. Now after that do you believe that Joseph would want to have sexual relations with Mary? NO! NO! NO!

Rob03, put yourself in Josephs shoes, angel appeared to you in your sleep, saying: Rob03 son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost Rob03,Now would you want to have sexual relationship with the Mother of God (Jesus is God) I f you are a Good God Fearing man like Joseph was, no man would. Amen

Rob03, now be honest, if you were Joseph would you want to have sexual relations with the Mother of God?

Rob03, The Word “Until” does not mean what you think it means. This why only One Church, the Catholic Church can be the only one, that can interpret the Bible.

The protestant churches as many as they are, they read the word “until” and they go with it, because they want to “TRY” to hurt, the Catholic Church even by defaming Virgin Mary, Joseph, and the blessed Trinity, but actually they are only hurting themselves.

Ufam Tobie

 

[Miguelmdza]

Provocative title, eh?

I hoped to get your attention, because I’m floating this argument which I put together this morning.

1. Jesus only has one body.
2. To be in heaven, one must be a member of the body of Christ
3. The body of Christ is the Church.
4. The Church instituted by Christ has a name – the Catholic Church.
   Therefore, to be in heaven, one must be a member of the Catholic Church.

I anticipate some possible objection to 1 and much rejection to 4, but let’s see how it unfolds.

I look forward to reading your thoughts for and against.

In order to receive salvation, one must be a member of the Body of Christ, which you have stated already is the Holy Roman Catholic Church. There is no slavation outside the Church.
We can see that Our Lord in Matthew 16:18 states, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
We see here that St. Peter is the rock in which the Church was built. The successor is then, as all us catholics know, the Holy Father in Rome.

In Matthew 18:18, Our Lord states, “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Here, it is easy to understand what Our Lord said to the Apostles. Whatever they bind on earth will also be bound in heaven, authority that Christ gave to the Apostles, which can be seen in the Catholic Church.

In John 6:53, Our Lord states, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.”
Catholics all over the world eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of Our Saviour.

In 1 Timothy 3:15, St. Paul states, "… the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

2 Timothy 4:3-4,
" For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

 

[Church_Militant]

Doesn’t the Catechism answer this question?

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?
836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation."320

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’"321

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

 

[I_am_a_believer]

Well…(gulp) here we go! Actually I am only joking. I have no problem answering this question because, although I am not Catholic, but rather a protestant “I am a Believer”! I am not well versed on all books of the bible but have been studying it for just a few years.

For me, and I am speaking from my heart, I KNOW that I will meet our precious father in heaven. How do I know? Because, I believe Christ to be my Savior. He died for my sins…and those who have faith and believe in the Father and the Son will not die but have everlasting life. Obviously, not a direct quote–I’m NOT trying to quote scripture I just have to let you know that I have no qualms about being on that narrow path one day.

Presently I am part of a Spiritual Ministry at a Catholic Hospital…every week I visit patients who like me are either Christian/non-Catholics or people of other faiths. And, every week the Lord gives me words to help those in need. I have to give great Kudos to Sister Emily who has helped bridge this division between our denomination–for me. She shows me the Love of Christ in her every word, her every prayer-- God has put her in my life and I am forever blessed to have known her.

So, being one of the few protestants on this site, I can only state with all confidence and strength of His light within me that, “Yes, believers in the trinity go to Heaven”.

In Christ,

I’m a Believer