The Catholic Church.

[GodsGrace]

Debate: Did Mary Have Other Children? (White vs Matatics)​

Aside1: In case someone is interested in both sides of the argument
Aside2: How one can postulate that one can self-determine what is truth given the enormity of contrary argumentation and apparent evidences and the limitation of individual's intelligence, time and access to all proposed truths is beyond me.

I think we agree on something.

As I stated previously...I tried studying up on this some years ago, but found it too difficult to follow through to arrive at any conclusion.
The CC must have its reasons as to why Mary should/could not have had any other children. I must say that this is an obstacle for many Catholics that I know.
It's just inconceivable to them that the marriage between Mary and Joseph was not consumated.

I've read comments by the ECFs -
Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and also Josephus, but it was of no help.

For instance: Origen states that Paul regarded James as a brother of the Lord.
What does that mean?
In Galatians 1:19 Paul states:
But I did not see another one of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.

I really don't believe this is a salvation issue....so I think anyone could believe what their heart tells them.

 

[GodsGrace]

Ah, never did Mary's blood flow into the Messiah (unless God changed how Christ as a fetus matured). Various assets are carried to the fetus by the blood of the mother, but the actual mother's blood is not. The blood of the female does not pass through the placenta although other assets of the blood make it to the baby. This is why you can AO blood type for the mother and a OO type for the fetus and not have the conflicting blood types cause the death of the baby. Similarly, you cannot give type B blood to and type O person.

Aside: There is no scripture that says the EGG of Mary was used; that is just an assumption as that is the usual way these things work, this being a unique situation. It is possible for females today to deliver babies and not use their egg. We do know the sperm of a male was not used in Mary's case.

A woman today could use any egg...but one must be used.

As to Mary's blood entering the baby pre-birth....
I used to believe what you posted....but have since learned that blood does get into the baby....

Try this...

Blood Circulation in the Fetus and Newborn - Health Encyclopedia - University of Rochester Medical Center

www.urmc.rochester.edu

 

[WIP]

I think we agree on something.

As I stated previously...I tried studying up on this some years ago, but found it too difficult to follow through to arrive at any conclusion.
The CC must have its reasons as to why Mary should/could not have had any other children. I must say that this is an obstacle for many Catholics that I know.
It's just inconceivable to them that the marriage between Mary and Joseph was not consumated.

I've read comments by the ECFs -
Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and also Josephus, but it was of no help.

For instance: Origen states that Paul regarded James as a brother of the Lord.
What does that mean?
In Galatians 1:19 Paul states:
But I did not see another one of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.

I really don't believe this is a salvation issue....so I think anyone could believe what their heart tells them.

To me, this verse is the most compelling example of Jesus having uterine siblings. Notice that this verse makes a distinction between His brothers and His disciples indicating they are not the same. The only other way that Mary could have remained a virgin is if Joseph had children with another woman but Scripture also tells us that he was "a just man" (Matthew 1:19 NKJV) therefore he would not be guilty of adultery.

This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee (changing water into wine), and manifested His glory; and His disciples believed in Him. After this He went down to Capernaum, He, His mother, His brothers, and His disciples; and they did not stay there many days.
John 2:11-12 NKJV

 

[GodsGrace]

To me, this verse is the most compelling example of Jesus having uterine siblings. Notice that this verse makes a distinction between His brothers and His disciples indicating they are not the same. The only other way that Mary could have remained a virgin is if Joseph had children with another woman but Scripture also tells us that he was "a just man" (Matthew 1:19 NKJV) therefore he would not be guilty of adultery.

This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee (changing water into wine), and manifested His glory; and His disciples believed in Him. After this He went down to Capernaum, He, His mother, His brothers, and His disciples; and they did not stay there many days.
John 2:11-12 NKJV

Right.
Also Luke tells us that Jesus was presented at the Temple at the 8th day after birth to be presented to God. Luke 2:22
They also completed the ritual of purification as prescribed in Leviticus 12:6....
They also offered a sacrifice according to the Law of the Lord...Luke 2:24
IOW,,,they seemed to do everything two normal parents would have done.

I also read with interest Matthew 1:25 - Joseph did not have relations with her until her Son was born.
That word UNTIL is difficult to explain away.

 

[GodsGrace]

I'm not going to go round and round about this. You can rationalize however you want but lineage is always through the male line in the Bible. The Bible says what it says. Period. I'm done discussing this.

Jaybo, you can end it here if you want to, but here's the problem that for_his_glory is presenting to you:

Jesus had to come from the line of David.
But Joseph was not His father....
Only Mary was His mother.

So how is Mary connected to David - since Jesus has to come from that line.

We just have to agree that those Jews that accepted Jesus as the Messiah, were satisfied that He came form the line of David - somehow.

 

[GodsGrace]

To me, this verse is the most compelling example of Jesus having uterine siblings. Notice that this verse makes a distinction between His brothers and His disciples indicating they are not the same. The only other way that Mary could have remained a virgin is if Joseph had children with another woman but Scripture also tells us that he was "a just man" (Matthew 1:19 NKJV) therefore he would not be guilty of adultery.

This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee (changing water into wine), and manifested His glory; and His disciples believed in Him. After this He went down to Capernaum, He, His mother, His brothers, and His disciples; and they did not stay there many days.
John 2:11-12 NKJV

P.S. This is also for Fastfredy0

I forgot to mention that Clement of Alexandria (195AD) stated that Jude was the brother of Jesus through Joseph.
It can be that Jesus had siblings, but through Joseph...not through adultery, but through a former wife. (He was much older than Mary).

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Jaybo, you can end it here if you want to, but here's the problem that for_his_glory is presenting to you:

Jesus had to come from the line of David.
But Joseph was not His father....
Only Mary was His mother.

So how is Mary connected to David - since Jesus has to come from that line.

We just have to agree that those Jews that accepted Jesus as the Messiah, were satisfied that He came form the line of David - somehow.

Was Mary a Roman Catholic?

 

[GodsGrace]

All the types, prophesies and genealogies would have been wrong.

Right.
My point is that Mary had Jesus.
It COULD have been someone else, but that someone also would have fulfilled the prophesies....
and THAT WOMAN would also be the Mother of our Lord and thus would deserve some type of veneration.....

Someone had to birth the baby Jesus.
That woman should be considered highly favored by God and very special indeed.

 

[GodsGrace]

He would have been born with a different mother. God's will is just that; He alone can determine what happens according to His will.

And would not that different mother have deserved our veneration (not worship) for being the Mother, the woman, that God CHOSE to be the Mother of our Savior?

Can you really say she was JUST ANOTHER TEENAGER?

Doesn't being the Mother of Jesus mean anything to us Protestants?

 

[GodsGrace]

Was Mary a Roman Catholic?

You know the answer to that.

She was a Jewish woman.

So was Jesus Protestant?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

You know the answer to that.

She was a Jewish woman.

So was Jesus Protestant?

Most definitely
He wrote The Apocalypse, didn't he?

 

[GodsGrace]

Agreed.

A presupposition is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse.

My presupposition is: the only source of infallible knowledge of God is the 66 books. Aside: from nature there is a modicum of God's glory that is evident and our corrupted conscience provides a corrupted (not to be trusted) knowledge of God and his laws.

Been busy...didn't forget you.

I had stated that the one , true church is the Body of Christ.
But the original church, if we want to be honest, has to be the Catholic (universal) church - whether we agree with its doctrines or not.

As for presupposition...I'd have to agree that we all come to God with some kind of presupposition....
I learned as a child that God loves His best creation - people.
I was told that we could be with Him forever, IF we WANT to and live a life according to His Commandments.

When I came to meet Jesus many years ago, this is what I had in my mind.

But my point with you, and which we never got to discuss, is that unless a person is raised in a reformed home, he cannot come away from the bible with the idea that God chooses whom He will based on nothing. I just don't see this anywhere in scripture,

As to conscience....I also agree that our conscience cannot really be trusted UNLESS it has been formed by learning the Word of God and how to be a disciple of Jesus.

But here you're referring to Romans 1 and Romans 2.

If Paul clearly states that God has revealed Himself to mankind from the beginning of creation and that THIS is the reason that when standing before God no one will have an excuse because EVERYONE will have had an opportunity to believe or not believe - are we not to trust what Paul is saying?
God has revealed Himself .... it's up to each person to accept Him or reject Him.

Romans 2:6 God will render to each man according to his deeds. For those that seek doing good and persevering and wanting to have eternal life...they will achieve this. To those that do not obey the truth, they will find wrath and indignation....
The truth is that God exists and must be believed to exist.
Then His commandments must be obeyed.

You can not believe this if you so choose...
But it's Paul saying this...I'm just repeating what he stated.

The R.C. churches presupposition as to the source of infallible knowledge of God varies from mine.

I don't know how since we all use the same bible.

Conclusion: Someone's presupposition is wrong. Assuming one presupposition is correct one can proffer that God's wrath will be upon the offending group and groups are made up of individuals. Many individuals from either camp have postulated upon the eternal consequences for individuals whose presupposition is incorrect. Therefore, use your God given powers to make this important choice.

Cannot agree.
You're saying that our doctrine saves us.
This cannot be true.
If God wants to reveal Himself to us...shouldn't we be agreeing on His character and His will for us?
But we don't.
So if God is a just God,,, would He not reveal the same qualities to all of us?

God will judge us on the light we have received....
On the love we show Him and our neighbor,
And our desire to dwell with Him.

Aside: the choice, according to statistics, is made by your birth parents in a majority of cases as converting to a presupposition different than your parents is the exception to the rule. In other words, your parents free will :neutral usually determines your presupposition as to what God's instructions are.

Most parents these days are either agnostic or atheist.
Lucky are the churches that are filled with real believers and parents that teach their children the way of the Lord.

Also, most teenagers and into the early 20's are leaving both the CC and the Protestant churches.
Parents don't have the effect on their children that they used to in the past.
(or maybe school has more of an effect).

I don't know. I wonder which presupposition Augustine used as to his source of revelation. Seems like he changed his mind when he got older. Aside: I like Augustine's writings (the stuff I've read).

Augustine taught variants of these five points of Augustinian Calvinism the last eighteen years of his life. Previously he had taught traditional Christian views defending humanity's free choice to believe against the deterministic Manichaeans, to which he had belonged for a decade before converting to Christianity. Google

In Roman Catholicism, [Augustine] is formally recognized as a doctor of the church. Google

Correct on all.
Augustine was an intellectual giant....but I think his gnosticism got the better of him in the end.
I like to call myself "an early augustinian".
JK

He changed his mind....so it's difficult to use him as an example of a proper presupposition.
Also, as I've stated many times....he's from about 400AD...
NO OTHER CHURCH FATHER had any of the ideas he did (within the universal, or catholic, church).

Calvin picked a person to admire and respect and follow that was DIFFERENT from every other church father.

 

[GodsGrace]

Most definitely
He wrote The Apocalypse, didn't he?

You're funny R.
God doesn't have a denomination.....
We just think He does.

Didn't John write The Apocalypse?

 

[for_his_glory]

There is a difference between venerating Mary and bowing down and worshipping her in breaking the second commandment. And what is up with worshiping a skull!!!

 

[jaybo]

When I was in Siena Italy I saw the actual head of "saint" Catherine in the Basilica Cateriniana di San Domenico. Talk about gruesome!!

 

[Fastfredy0]

Premise 1: The Bible is God's infallible revelation
Premise 2: Tradition of the Roman Catholic church reveals God's infallible revelation
Conclusion: Protestants are going to hell

Expansion of Premise 2:
Theology of Roman Catholic Church (https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/43371)
A cry of the Roman Catholic Church is often heard. It says, "Outside the Church there is no salvation" (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus). The Protestant Church(s) according to Roman Catholics are anathema - that is condemned or cursed.

According to their doctrine, Protestants are lacking the fullness of the means of salvation seeing it lacks the Church (meaning the Roman Catholic Church) which is necessary for salvation, seeing she (meaning the Roman Catholic Church) and she alone bears in herself and administers the totality of the means of salvation. Indeed the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

• "It is in the Church that 'the fullness of the means of salvation' has been deposited" (824).
  
  
• "Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation" (846).
  
  
• "The Church is catholic: she proclaims the fullness of the faith. She bears in herself and administers the totality of the means of salvation" (868).

Pope Benedict XVI re-emphasized this false doctrine on July 10, 2007 when he said, "one church in Christ . . . subsists in the Catholic Church . . . Protestant communities "cannot be called '"churches in the proper sense," because they lack apostolic succession, that is, the ability to trace their leadership back to Christ's original disciples (FN 1, below under References). See "Pre-Apostolic Succession ???" below.

The Council of Trent​

The Council of Trent (Latin: Concilium Tridentinum), held between 1545 and 1563 in Trento (Trent) and Bologna, northern Italy, was one of the Roman Catholic Church's most important ecumenical councils. Prompted by the Protestant Reformation, it has been described as the embodiment of the Counter-Reformation. (FN 2).

Trent placed several "anathemas" upon Protestants. This means that those who disagree with the doctrines of the Catholic Church are "cursed" (cf. Gal. 1:8-9). Catholics excommunicate those under anathema. In other words, excommunication means being outside the "Church." Being outside the "Church" (specifically meaning the Roman Catholic Church [RCC]) means one is are not saved according to RCC doctrine.


Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the poster.

 

[Fastfredy0]

When I was in Siena Italy I saw the actual head of "saint" Catherine in the Basilica Cateriniana di San Domenico. Talk about gruesome!!

I find human skulls fascinating.
I use to pick thru dead bodies once a week for 3ish months. Problem was, it was just before lunch and I did want to get my hands 'yucky'.

 

[Walpole]

I didn't want to go there, but I am going to in full context.

Enoch, Moses, Abraham and Elijah were not taken up to the third Heaven as some teach as when they were seen (not Enoch or Abraham) of Peter, James and John in Matthew 17:1-9 it was only a transfiguration like a vision that they saw Jesus transfigured as was Moses and Elijah. There is no one in the third heaven except God, Jesus and the angels, John 3:13. Everyone that has ever died is asleep in their grave and when Christ returns they will hear His voice as He calls all of them to come forth. They that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation, Matthew 24:29-31; John 5:28, 29; 6:40 It is only our spirit/breath/soul that goes back to God who gave it, Genesis 2:7; Ecc 12:7.

Gen 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

Does not say Enoch was taken up to heaven, but that he was only translated that he should not see death at that particular time being he was 365 years old. Should not see death means since Enoch walked with God he would not see the second death, Rev 20:6, but only that of the first death, Hebrews 9:27, as all his days were three hundred and sixty as he died, but no one knows where.

Genesis 49: 30 In the cave that is in the field of Machpelah, which is before Mamre, in the land of Canaan, which Abraham bought with the field of Ephron the Hittite for a possession of a burying place. 31 There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife; there they buried Isaac and Rebekah his wife; and there I buried Leah.

Deuteronomy 34:5 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. 6 and he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth-peor: but no man knoweth of his sepulcher unto this day.

2 Kings 2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. (Heaven here means atmosphere, first heaven)

Elijah, having ascended into the air (First heaven) by a whirlwind was carried away out of sight beyond the horizon. Several years after he was taken away King Jehoram received a letter from him. How long after? There are some difficulties in figuring the exact chronology as it varies from 2 to 10 years or more. A note in Josephus (a Jewish historian of the first century A.D.) says 4 years, while the JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA figures it at 7 years.

Regardless of the exact number of years there came writing to Jehoram from Elijah the prophet, saying..." (2Chron 21:12). Now the wickedness of Jehoram, for which he was being rebuked in the letter, took place after Elijah was taken away, yet the letter speaks of these things as past events, and the punishment to come upon him as yet future. So the idea of some, that Elijah wrote the letter before he was removed by the whirlwind, is proved wrong.

Elijah was taken up by the whirlwind into the first heaven and transported to another location on Earth. God did not see fit in His purpose to reveal his whereabouts. Chariot of fire is used at times figuratively for host (angels) like in 2 Kings 2:11, 12: 6:17; Psalms 68:17; 104:1-4. Elijah, by his prayers and his counsel was the "chariot of Israel and the horseman thereof", meaning Elijah was the stronghold of Israel, the driving force of God. The Israelite's never used chariots till the time of David.

When you compare 2 Kings 2:11-15 with 2 Kings 6:17 you see that God sent the host/angels down to Elijah who caught him up in a whirlwind and translated him to parts unknown. Several years after he was taken away King Jehoram received a letter from him.​

What what you have posted is an apologia for the belief in soul sleep. This is not a belief Christians hold. Jesus refutes this throughout the Gospels, particularly here in St. Luke's Gospel when He describes the scene in heaven when a sinner repents...

"I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it? And when she hath found it, she calleth her friends and her neighbours together, saying, 'Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost.' Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth." - Luke 15:7-10

Our Blessed Lord states there is joy by those "in the presence of the angels of God." Those in the presence of the angels of God are those who have died and gone to heaven. No soul sleep.

It is at the eschaton where our souls will be reunited with our resurrected bodies. This is Christianity 101.

 

[Walpole]

Premise 1: The Bible is God's infallible revelation
Premise 2: Tradition of the Roman Catholic church reveals God's infallible revelation
Conclusion: Protestants are going to hell

Expansion of Premise 2:
Theology of Roman Catholic Church (https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/43371)
A cry of the Roman Catholic Church is often heard. It says, "Outside the Church there is no salvation" (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus). The Protestant Church(s) according to Roman Catholics are anathema - that is condemned or cursed.

According to their doctrine, Protestants are lacking the fullness of the means of salvation seeing it lacks the Church (meaning the Roman Catholic Church) which is necessary for salvation, seeing she (meaning the Roman Catholic Church) and she alone bears in herself and administers the totality of the means of salvation. Indeed the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

Pope Benedict XVI re-emphasized this false doctrine on July 10, 2007 when he said, "one church in Christ . . . subsists in the Catholic Church . . . Protestant communities "cannot be called '"churches in the proper sense," because they lack apostolic succession, that is, the ability to trace their leadership back to Christ's original disciples (FN 1, below under References). See "Pre-Apostolic Succession ???" below.

The Council of Trent​

The Council of Trent (Latin: Concilium Tridentinum), held between 1545 and 1563 in Trento (Trent) and Bologna, northern Italy, was one of the Roman Catholic Church's most important ecumenical councils. Prompted by the Protestant Reformation, it has been described as the embodiment of the Counter-Reformation. (FN 2).

Trent placed several "anathemas" upon Protestants. This means that those who disagree with the doctrines of the Catholic Church are "cursed" (cf. Gal. 1:8-9). Catholics excommunicate those under anathema. In other words, excommunication means being outside the "Church." Being outside the "Church" (specifically meaning the Roman Catholic Church [RCC]) means one is are not saved according to RCC doctrine.


Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the poster.

Perhaps you are not aware but the progenitors of Protestantism also were adherents of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus...


Luther ---> "For outside the Christian Church, there is no truth, no Christ, and no salvation. (Sermon for the Early Christmas Service; Luke 2:15-20 (1521-1522). Luther's Works, American Ed., Hans J. Hillerbrand, Helmut T. Lehmann ed., Philadelphia, Concordia Publishing House/Fortress Press, 1974, ISBN 0-8006-0352-4 (Sermons II), vol. 52:39-40)


Calvin ---> "...beyond the pale of the Church, no forgiveness of sins, no salvation can be hoped for." (Institutes, Book IV, Ch 1:4)

 

[Walpole]

There is a difference between venerating Mary and bowing down and worshipping her in breaking the second commandment. And what is up with worshiping a skull!!!

View attachment 12331 View attachment 12332 View attachment 12333 View attachment 12334

In Christianity there is an old axiom which states lex orandi, lex credendi. The proper understanding of the communion of saints, by those whose doctrine it is, is evidenced by simply looking at the early Church's liturgies and architecture. The Church's earliest altars were built over the tombs of her saints. The Church's earliest liturgies invoke the saints to pray for us. The Church's earliest liturgical calendars included commemoration of the saints and martyrs.

"...I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held." (Rev. 6:9)






Communio is in our nature. This is the reason why the families of those lost in war cannot find peace themselves until the remains of their loved ones are found. Talk to anyone who has a family member still missing from past wars or look at the recent building collapse in Miami Beach. Families cannot find peace until they have their loved one's body.

Even Protestants implicitly acknowledge this. They do this in a couple of ways. One, they may have their loved one's cremated remains on their mantle in their home. Secondly, for those who still bury their dead, they used to write R.I.P. on their tombstones. There is a reason for that, which is implicitly contained in the very meaning of the abbreviation, R.I.P.