Questions for a paper I'm writing...

1)What do you think of 1Tim 4:1-5 and the practices of Lent and Advent? Or Col 2:16-23?

Click to expand...

1Timothy 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

This verse is speaking of people who were teaching that certain things were BAD. Unclean. 24/7/365. The Church does not teach this. The next few verses even go on to say that we should train ourselves to be godly, and that there is value in physical training, ie. fasting/abstinence. I don't think he means the the health club. The same is true in Colossians 2.


Fasting and/or abstinence is promoted by the Church as a means of helping us to draw closer to God. We don't fast or abstain because there is something wrong with the food (clean/unclean), but to practice and (hopefully) master self-discipline and self-denial.

From the Catechism:

2041 The precepts of the Church are set in the context of a moral life bound to and nourished by liturgical life. The obligatory character of these positive laws decreed by the pastoral authorities is meant to guarantee to the faithful the indispensable minimum in the spirit of prayer and moral effort, in the growth in love of God and neighbor:

Click to expand...

Romans 14:6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,
18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

Now these verses are actually talking about 'clean' and 'unclean', but I think they apply here as well. It is not for us to judge someone else's motives for fasting/abstaining. Catholics practice this as a penitential act. Self-denial, self-discipline, self-sacrifice, offered to God so that we may cooperate more fully with His Will for us. To die to self.

1Corinthians 9:25 Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. 26Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. 27No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.

Penance. Discipline. As the Apostle said, we are in strict training. And our prize is an eternal crown.

Hope this helps you. On to the next one!

Still just me? Alrighty then. Let's do #2.

2)What do you think about 1Tim 2:1-6 and the required act of confession to a priest? Or Heb 10:19-23?

Click to expand...

1Timothy 2:1 I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone--
2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.
3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior,
4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men--the testimony given in its proper time.

Hebrews 10:19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus,
20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body,
21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.
23 Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful.These verses are not about confession, but about the one-time eternal sufficiency of Christ's Sacrifice. There is one Mediator between God and Man, and that is Christ. There is One who bridged the gap, opened the gate, became the door. There is no dispute there.

The dispute arises over the nature of Sacraments. Sacraments are the external physical signs of an internal spiritual reality. They are the vehicles of Grace, instituted by Christ, by which His Church attains to Salvation. Now, mind, do not make the mistake of thinking that Catholics believe that mere ritual has anything to do with Salvation, because that is not what I said. We are saved by Grace. We access this Grace through faith (believing) and works (putting that faith into action).

Sacraments are faith in action. Tangible, real, solid, sometimes living and breathing, evidence of our faith.

Confession is a Sacrament. It is also called Reconcilliation. Because that is it's purpose, to reconcile ourselves to Christ. The authority to forgive sins was given to the Apostles in John 20:21-23.

21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." That's pretty plain. Jesus sent them out with the authority to forgive the sins of others, and (more telling) the authority to not forgive the sins of others. And did you know that there is only one other instance in the Bible that God breathed on man? It was when He breathed life into Adam. That's a pretty significant comparison, don't you think? I won't post all the verses that tell us to confess, because I'm sure you already know that we are encouraged in the NT to confess our sins.

So, we have Scriptural proof that the Apostles had the God-given Authority to forgive or retain the sins of their fellow men, just as they would be forgiven or retained in Heaven.

Now how does that translate to the Catholic priesthood? That's when we have to get into Apostolic Succession.
Did this authority die with the Apostles or were they capable of passing it on to others? Scripture tells us that the Apostles, on their own authority, selected a disciple to elevate to the place of Apostle, to fill the gap left by Judas.

Acts 1:20 "For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms,
" 'May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,' and,
" 'May another take his place of leadership.'
21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."
23 So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias.
24 Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen
25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs."
26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles. They chose him and added him to their number as a full Apostle, with the same authority, to carry on the ministry that had been entrusted to them. The Apostles also had disciples whom they taught and went about with. The history of the Church records these disciples as the successors of the Apostles, who 'inherited' the Apostolic authority and ministry.

The Church Fathers also speak of Apostolic Succession as regards the Sacrament of Confession, Penance, and Reconcilliation.

A partial list of quotes from Catholic Answers

The Didache

"Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure" (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).



The Letter of Barnabas

"You shall judge righteously. You shall not make a schism, but you shall pacify those that contend by bringing them together. You shall confess your sins. You shall not go to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of light" (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).



Ignatius of Antioch

"For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 [A.D. 110]).

"For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop" (ibid., 8).



Irenaeus

"[The Gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women. . . . Their consciences have been branded as with a hot iron. Some of these women make a public confession, but others are ashamed to do this, and in silence, as if withdrawing from themselves the hope of the life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between the two courses" (Against Heresies 1:22 [A.D. 189]).



Tertullian

"[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness" (Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]).



Hippolytus

"[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your royal Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles . . . and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest, ministering night and day to propitiate unceasingly before your face and to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command" (Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]).



Origen

"[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, ‘I said, "To the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity"’" (Homilies on Leviticus 2:4 [A.D. 248]).


Two down.

by Br. Anthony Opisso, M.D.

{from Biblical Evidence for Catholicism}


From the earliest biblical days adultery carried with it a sense of defilement, so that a woman who had know contact with another man, even if by force, was considered no longer fit to be visited by her husband (Genesis 49:4; 2 Samuel 20:3, re ibid. 16:21-22; Book of Jubilees 33:6-9; Epstein, Marriage Laws in the Biblical Talmud, p.51).

The deuteronomic code teaches that a woman who is divorced by her husband and thereafter marries another man likewise cannot return to her former husband (Dt 24:1-4). As the Lord said through the prophet Jeremiah: "If a man put away his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's wife, shall he return to her again, shall not the land (his wife's body) be greatly polluted?" (Jr 3:1; see Targum to Dt 24:1-4).

In rabbinic law a woman who has committed adultery is "defiled" and cannot remain the wife of her husband, but must be divorced (Sifre on Dt, edit. M. Friedman (1864) 270 p. 122b; Sifre on Numbers, edit. M. Friedman (1915) 7 p. 4a and 19 p. 66). Furthermore any intimate male contact by the wife with Jew or gentile, potent or impotent, natural or unnatural makes divorce compulsory (Sotha 26b; Yebamoth 55a, b, 87b; Kethuboth 9a, Babylonian Talmud; Kethuboth 25a; Sotah 27a, Yad, Sotah 2,2, Jerusalem Talmud).



Betrothed

In Jewish Law a man betrothed to a woman was considered legally married to her. The word for betrothed in Hebrew is Kiddush, a word that is derived from the Hebrew word Kadash which means "holy" "consecrated," "set apart." Because by betrothal (as in Mt 1:18; Lk 1:27) , or marriage, a woman became the peculiar property of her husband, forbidden to others.

The Oral Law of Kiddushin (Marriages and Engagements) states; "The husband prohibits his wife to the whole world like an object which is dedicated to the Sanctuary" (Kiddushin 2b, Babylonian Talmud).

We know from the Gospel of Matthew 1:14 that Joseph the husband of Mary was a righteous man, a devout law-abiding Jew. Having noticed that Mary was pregnant and that he, her betrothed, had nothing to do with the pregnancy, Joseph had either to publicly condemn her and have her put to death for adultery (Dt 22:22-29) or put her away privately.

His decision was made when an angel appeared to him in a dream, saying: "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins" (Mt. 1:20-21). The angel does not use the phrase for marital union: "go in unto" (as in Gn 30:3, 4, 16) or "come together" (Mt 1:18) but merely a word meaning leading her into the house as a wife (paralambano gunaika) but not cohabiting with her.

For when the angel revealed to him that Mary was truly the spouse of the Holy Spirit, Joseph could take Mary, his betrothed, into his house as a wife, but he could never have intercourse with her because according to the Law she was forbidden to him for all time.



Marriage to the Holy Spirit

We also have to take into consideration that when Mary was told by the archangel Gabriel "Behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus" (Lk 1:31), he also added that this was to come about because "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the Holy one to be born shall be called the Son of God" (Lk 1:35).

By stating it in those terms the archangel declared to Mary that God would enter into a marital relationship with her, causing her to conceive His Son in her womb, For "to lay one's power (reshuth) over a woman" (Targum to Dt 21:4) was a euphemism for "to have a marital relationship with her."

Likewise "to overshadow" (Lk 1:35) by spreading the "wing" or "cloak" over a woman was another euphemism for marital relations. Thus, the rabbis commented (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 39.7; Midrash Ruth Rabbah 3.9) that Ruth was chaste in her wording when she asked Boaz to have marital relations with her by saying to him "I am Ruth you handmaid, spread therefore your cloak ( literally, "wing": kanaph) over your handmaid for you are my next-of-kin" (Ruth 3:9).

Tallith, another Aramaic-Hebrew word for cloak, is derived from tellal = shadow. Thus, "to spread one's cloak (tallith) over a woman" means to cohabit with her (Kiddushin 18b, see also Mekhilta on Exodus 21:8). Did not the Lord say to His bride Israel: "I am married to you" (Jr 3:14) and "your Maker is your husband"? (Is 54-5:5; Jr 31:32)? And what is more intimate than what the Lord said to His bride: "You developed, you grew, you came to full womanhood; your breasts became firm and your hair grew... you were naked... and I saw that you were now old enough for love so I spread my cloak over you... I gave you My oath, I entered into a covenant with you and you became Mine, says the Lord God" (Ezk 16:7, 8).



Mary prohibited to Joseph

Having been enlightened by an angel in a dream regarding her pregnancy, and perhaps further by Mary concerning the words of the archangel Gabriel to her at the Annunciation, Joseph knew that God had conducted himself as a husband in regard to Mary. She was now prohibited to him for all time, and for the sake of the Child and Mary he could only live with her in an absolutely chaste relationship.

Living a celibate life within marriage was not unknown in Jewish tradition. It was told that Moses, who was married, remained continent the rest of his life after the command to abstain from sexual intercourse (Ex 19:15) given in preparation the seventy elders abstained thereafter from their wives after their call, and so did Eldad and Medad when the spirit of prophecy came upon them; indeed it was said that the prophets became celibate after the Word of the Lord communicated with them (Midrash Exodus Rabbah 19; 46.3; Sifre to Numbers 99 sect. 11; Sifre Zutta 81-82, 203-204; Aboth Rabbi Nathan 9, 39; Tanchuman 111, 46; Tanchumah Zaw 13; 3 Petirot Moshe 72; Shabbath 87a; Pesachim 87b, Babylonian Talmud).



Celibacy according to tradition

Elijah and Elisha were celibate al their lives (Zohar Hadash 2:1; Midrash Mishlei 30, 105, Pirke Rabbi Eliezer 33). When for the sake of the Torah (i.e., intense study in it), a rabbi would abstain from relations with his wife, it was deemed permissible, for he was then cohabiting with the Shekinah (the "Divine Presence") in the Torah (Zohar re Gn 1:27; 13:3 and Psalm 85:14 in the Discourse of Rabbi Phineas to Rabbis Jose, Judah, and Hiya).

It is well known that the rabbis spoke concerning the obligation of all males to be married and procreated: "He who abstains from procreation is regarded as though he had shed blood" (Rabbi Eliezer in Yebamoth 63b, Babylonian Talmud; see also Shulkhan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) section Evenhar-Ezer 1:1,3,4). According to Yebamoth 62b, B.T. a man is only half a man without a wife, citing Genesis 5:2 where it is said: "Male and female He (God) created them and blessed them, and called their name Adam (lit. "Man").

Nevertheless, "if a person cleaves to the study of the Torah (i.e., dedicates all his time to it) like Simeon ben Azzai, his refusal to marry can be condoned" (Skulkhan Arukh EH 1:4). Rabbinic scholar Simeon ben Azzai (early second century A.D.) was extraordinary in his learning: "with the passing of Ben Azzai diligent scholars passed from the earth" (Sotah 9:15). He never married and was celibate all his life so as not to be distracted from his studies, and because he considered the Torah his wife, for who he always yearned with all his soul (Yebamoth 63b). He was an outstanding scholar (Kiddushin 20a, B.T.) and also renowned for his saintliness (Berakoth 57b, B.T.).



Other celibates

Jewish tradition also mentions the celibate Zenu'im (lit. "chaste ones") to whom the secret of the Name of God was entrusted, for they were able to preserve the Holy Name in "perfect purity" (Kiddushin 71a; Midash Ecclesiastes Rabbah 3:11; Yer. yoma 39a, 40a).

Those in hope of a divine revelation consequently refrained from sexual intercourse and were strict in matters of purity (Enoch 83:2; Revelation 14:2-5).

Philo (Apol. pro Judaeis 1X, 14-17), Josephus, (Antiq. XVIII. 21) and Hipploytus (Philosophumena IX, IV, 28a) wrote on the celibacy of the Jewish Essenes hundreds of years before the discovery of their settlements in Qumran by the Dead Sea.

Philo Judaeus (c. 20 B.C.-50 A.D.), a Jewish philosopher, described Jewish women who were virgins who have kept their chastity not under compulsion, like some Greek priestesses, but of their own free will in their ardent yearning for Wisdom. "Eager to have Wisdom for their life-mate, they have spurned the pleasures of the body and desire no mortal offspring but those immortal children which only the soul that is dear to God can bring forth to birth" (Philo, Cont. 68; see also Philo, Abr. 100).

For "the chaste are rewarded by receiving illumination from the concealed heavenly light" (Zohar 11. 229b-230a). Because "if the understanding is safe and unimpaired, free from the oppression of the iniquities or passions... it will gaze clearly on all that is worthy of contemplation" (Philo, Sob. 1.5). Conversely, "the understanding of the pleasure-loving man is blind and unable to see those things that are worth seeing... the sight of which is wonderful to behold and desirable" (Philo, Q. Gen.IV.245).



Joseph as celibate caretaker

As the recipient of the great revelation that what was conceived in the womb of Mary, his betrothed, was of the Holy Spirit and that the Child to be born was destined to save His people from their sins, surely Joseph knew that he was called to take care of Mary and her Child, the Messiah, for the rest of his life, which is why the angel told him to take Mary as his wife.

We may reasonable assume that Mary herself now shared with him all that the archangel Gabriel said to her. No less a Person than "the Son of God" (Lk 1:35) was to be entrusted to his care under the shelter of his humble home, now become the Holy of Holies.

Jewish tradition mentions that, although the people had to abstain from sexual relations with their wives for only three days prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai (Ex 19:15), Moses chose to remain continent the rest of his life with the full approval of God. The rabbis explained that this was so because Moses knew that he was appointed to personally commune with God, not only at Mount Sinai but in general throughout the forty years of sojourning in the wilderness. For this reason Moses kept himself "apart from woman," remaining in the sanctity of separation to be at the beck and call of God at all times; they cited God's command to Moses in Deuteronomy 5:28 (Midrash Exodus Rabbah 19:3 and 46.3).

Again, we may be sure that Saint Joseph remained celibate all his life because throughout his married years he was in daily attendance and communication with Jesus, the incarnate Word of God.





This article was written by Brother Anthony M. Opisso, M.D., who has been a hermit for the past thirty-one years. He lives in the woods of the Cistercian Abby in Rogersville, New Brunswick. Born in Manila, in the Philippines, he is a physician-surgeon graduate of Loyola University Medical School, Chicago, Illinois (1950). A Scriptural and Rabbinic scholar, he is the author of five books: The Bread of God, The Secret Joy of Repentance, The Revelation of Bethlehem, The Revelation of the Son of Man and The Book of Understanding.

from Biblical Evidence for Catholicism:

The Genealogy of Brethren (version 12) by Bob Stanley.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


MARY HAD OTHER CHILDREN...? Or did she?
October 16, 1995
MATTHEW 13:55-56, and MARK 6:3, both say, "Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the brother of JAMES, and JO'SES (JOSEPH), and of JUDE and SIMON? And are not His sisters here with us?" (Note! Only the 'carpenter' is called 'THE Son of Mary', not 'A Son of Mary')

Some people refer to these verses as 'proof', that Mary had other children. See also: Mt 12:46, Mk 3:31, Lk 8:19, Jn 7:5.

Let us examine this more closely, using your bible...

The word: 'Brethren'...appears over 530 times in the Bible.


'Brother' - appears over 350 times.
'Brothers' - appears only once, in Num 36:11.
'Sister' - appears over 100 times.
'Sisters' - appears over 15 times.
BRETHREN: This is a plural word for 'brother' as shown in dictionaries.

BROTHER: The Hebrew word 'ACH', is ordinarily translated 'brother'. Since Hebrew, and Aramaic in which the Gospel of Matthew was written, had fewer words than our English, the Jews at that time, used it in a broader sense to expresses kinship. The Hebrew terms for different levels and degrees of relationship did not exist. 'Brother' meant the sons of the same father, and all the male members of the same clan or tribe. In Greek, in which the Gospel of Mark was written, 'brother' is Phratry, from the Greek Phrater, meaning a fellow member of a clan. Even today, the word is used in a larger meaning, so that friends, allies, fellow believers, and fellow citizens can be included in the same brotherhood. It was no different in the time of Christ. Four dictionaries I have checked list three or four classes of meanings of the word 'brother'. The first class concerns sons of the same parents. The other two or three classes say, kinsman, fellow man, a close friend, a pal, a member of a religious order, a fellow member of a Christian Church, etc. How many times have you seen T.V. Evangelists address their audiences as 'Our brothers and sisters'? Marian detracters accept the last three meanings to suit themselves, but when it comes to Mary, the mother of GOD, they always refer to the first meaning. Is this fair to her? How do you explain this?

See: Num 8:26, 1Sam 30:23, 2Sam 1:26, 1King 9:13, 2Chron 29:34.

For Example... If you will read Gen 29:15, "And Laban said to Jacob, because thou art my brother..." At first you would think Jacob and Laban are blood brothers. Now compare Gen 29:5, "..know ye Laban, the son of Nahor..." Compare Gen 25:21-26, and you will see Jacob was the son of Isaac and Rebekah. Laban was the son of Nahor. They were not blood brothers but fellow citizens. Christ tells the Multitude and His disciples in Mt 23:1-8, "AND ALL YE ARE BRETHREN." In Mt 12:50 and Mk 3:35, Jesus says, "For whosoever shall do the will of My Father which is in Heaven, the same is my 'BROTHER', and 'SISTER', and MOTHER." That verse says it all.

In 1Cor 15:6, Jesus appeared to five hundred 'brothers' at one time. Could all of these be blood brothers? Hardly. Then there is Peter speaking before one hundred and twenty brothers in Acts 1:15-16. Paul speaks of one 'called a brother', in 1Cor 5:11. The Bible has many more similar verses.

Now we have four 'brothers', JAMES, JO'SES, SIMON, and JUDE to account for as written in Mk 6:3...


Mk 15:40, "There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of JAMES the less, and of JO'SES, and Salome." These people were at the crucifixion.
Jn 19:25, "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene."
Mt 10:2-3, "...'JAMES' the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus." Alphaeus is an alternate translation of Cleophas (Clophas) and so he is the same person.
Acts 1:13, "...JAMES, the son of Alphaeus, and SIMON Zelo'tes, and JUDE the brother of JAMES."
From these four passages, we see we have another 'Mary', who was the wife of Cleophas (Alphaeus), and the mother of three of Jesus's 'brethren', JAMES (the less), and JO'SES, and JUDE. This clearly shows that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was not the mother of JAMES, JO'SES, and JUDE of Mk 6:3. To keep Mk 6:3 in harmony, since three are not children of Mary, the mother of Jesus, then SIMON is not either. SIMON is the Canaanite Mk 3:18, also called the 'Zealot' (Zelo'tes), Mt 10:4, Lk 6:15, Acts 1:13. Jude, who authored the Epistle of Jude, says he is the brother of James in Jude 1:1. Jude was also called 'Thaddeus' in Mt 10:3, and in Mk 3:18. This was to distinguish him from Judas Iscariot. Lk 6:16 further distinguishes the two by saying, "And Judas (Jude) the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor."
More on the topic of 'Mary's other children', I have another point to make...

Jn 19:26-27, "When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple standing by, whom He loved..." The disciple was John, the author of the Gospel of John. "Then He said to the disciple, BEHOLD THY MOTHER." Was John a child of Mary and blood brother of Jesus?

Read the following verses to see...


Mk 1:19, "...He saw James, the son of Zebedee, and 'JOHN', his brother."
Mk 3:17, "And James the son of Zebedee, and 'JOHN' the brother of James."
In neither of these passages is it said that Jesus saw a blood brother or even recognized them as men that He knew.

Mt 27:56, "Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James
Mt 20:20, (the less) and Jo'ses, and the mother of Zebedee's children."
Mk 15:40, "...among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James (the less), and Salome (mother of Zebedee's children)."
Lk 24:10, "It was Mary Magdalene...and Mary ('the other Mary') the mother of James (the less)..."
A comparison of Mt 27:56, and Mk 15:40, clearly shows that Zebedee had a wife whose name was Salome. She is called the 'mother of Zebedee's children' in Mt 27:56, and 'Salome' in Mk 15:40. They had two children, JOHN and JAMES, Mk 3:17. JOHN at the foot of the cross to whom Jesus gave His mother, was not a child of Mary, the mother of Jesus, but of Zebedee and Salome. If Jesus had blood brothers, why then did He not give His mother to them? Jewish law would have demanded it...
GENEALOGY:

---Zebedee-----------------------------------------------
+ >------begat------James and John----------------------
---Salome------------------------------------------------
+
---Cleophas-(Alphaeus)-----------------------------------
+ >------begat------James (the less), Jo'ses, and Jude--
---Mary---(the other Mary, Mt 27:56,61, 28:1, Jn 19:25)--
+
---THE HOLY SPIRIT---------------------------------------
+ >------begat------JESUS THE CHRIST--------------------
---Mary--------------------------------------------------

This 'Genealogy' shows who the real parents of the 'brothers' in Mark 6:3, and Matthew 13:55, are, and makes the word 'brother' a non-argument.
Additional notes...


Mt 1:25, "And knew her not till...". The old meaning of the word 'till' or 'until', meant an action did not occur up to a certain point. It does not imply the action did occur later. Gen 8:7, "He sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, 'until' the waters were dried up off the earth." 2Sam 6:23, "...the daughter of Saul had no child 'until' the day of her death." Did she have a child after she died?
Lk 1:34, "Then said Mary unto the Angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" This shows Mary had no relations with a man before and was virgin.
Lk 2:7, "And she brought forth her 'firstborn' Son and wrapped Him in swaddling clothes..." Firstborn, at the time of the writing of the Gospels, meant, 'the child that opened the womb'. See Ex 13:2 and Num 3:12. Firstborn does not imply that Mary had other children, as an ONLY son, IS a 'FIRSTBORN SON'. The author of this letter is one.
NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT MARY, THE MOTHER OF JESUS, HAD OTHER CHILDREN. WHY THEN, DO SOME INSIST THAT SHE DID?
Bible References:

Gen 8:7, Gen 25:21-26, Gen 29:5,15, Ex 13:2, Num 3:12, Num 8:26, Deut 23:7, 1Sam 30:23, 2Sam 1:26,6:23, 1King 9:13, 2King 10:13-14, 2Chron 29:34, Mt 1:25, Mt 4:21, Mt 10:2-4, Mt 12:46, Mt *12:50, Mt 13:55-56, Mt 20:20, Mt 26:26, Mt 27:56,61, Mt 28:1, Mk 1:19, Mk 2:14, Mk 3:17-21,31,35, Mk 6:3, Mk 15:40,47, Lk 1:34, Lk 2:7 Lk 2:41-51, Lk 5:10, Lk 6:16, Lk 8:19, Lk 24:10, Jn 7:2-7, Jn 19:25-27, Acts 1:13-16, Rom 8:29, 1Cor 5:11, 1Cor 9:5, 1Cor 15:6, Gal 1:19, 1Pet 5:12, Jude 1:1

I PLACE THIS FILE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. FEEL FREE TO COPY IT AND PASS IT ON, SO LONG AS NOTHING IN IT IS CHANGED


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

{from Biblical Evidence for Catholicism:}

From the Fathers of the Church:


Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary

"And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ's parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband. Again, when He is presented as an infant in the temple, who is it who receives Him into his hands? who is the first to recognise Him in spirit? A man just and circumspect,' and of course no digamist, (which is plain) even (from this consideration), lest (otherwise) Christ should presently be more worthily preached by a woman, an aged widow, and the wife of one man;' who, living devoted to the temple, was (already) giving in her own person a sufficient token what sort of persons ought to be the adherents to the spiritual temple,--that is, the Church. Such eye-witnesses the Lord in infancy found; no different ones had He in adult age."
Tertullian,On Monogamy,8(A.D. 213),in ANF,IV:65

"For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,' and not Behold you have this son also,' then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.' Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.' What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?"
Origen,Commentary on John,I:6(A.D. 232),in ANF,X:300

"Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed."
Athanasius,Orations against the Arians,II:70(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:386-387

"And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.' He hath here used the word till,' not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, till'? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.' And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou art,' not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,' it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word "till," to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference. Thus, what it was necessary for thee to learn of Him, this He Himself hath said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for thee to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home? How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, might be for a time screened. Wherefore even John so called them, saying, For neither did His brethren believe in Him.' "
John Chrysostom,Gospel of Matthew,V:5(A.D. 370),in NPNF1,X:33

"But those who by virginity have desisted from this process have drawn within themselves the boundary line of death, and by their own deed have checked his advance; they have made themselves, in fact, a frontier between life and death, and a barrier too, which thwarts him. If, then, death cannot pass beyond virginity, but finds his power checked and shattered there, it is demonstrated that virginity is a stronger thing than death; and that body is rightly named undying which does not lend its service to a dying world, nor brook to become the instrument of a succession of dying creatures. In such a body the long unbroken career of decay and death, which has intervened between the first man and the lives of virginity which have been led, is interrupted. It could not be indeed that death should cease working as long as the human race by marriage was working too; he walked the path of life with all preceding generations; he started with every new-born child and accompanied it to the end: but he found in virginity a barrier, to pass which was an impossible feat. Just as, in the age of Mary the mother of God, he who had reigned from Adam to her time found, when he came to her and dashed his forces against the fruit of her virginity as against a rock, that he was shattered to pieces upon her, so in every soul which passes through this life in the flesh under the protection of virginity, the strength of death is in a manner broken and annulled, for he does not find the places upon which he may fix his sting."
Gregory of Nyssa,On Virginity,13(A.D.371),in NPNF2,V:359-360

"[T]he Son of God...was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit..."
Epiphanius,Well Anchored Man,120(A.D. 374),in JUR,II:70

" But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord's brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin."
Jerome,The Perpetual Virginity of Mary Against Helvedius,21(A.D. 383),in NPNF2,VI:344

"The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin"
Basil,Hom. In Sanctum Christi generationem,5(ante A.D. 379),in OTT,207

" Imitate her, holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue; for neither have you sweeter children, nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son."
Ambrose,To the Christian at Vercellae,Letter 63:111(A.D. 396),in NPNF2,X:473

" Her virginity also itself was on this account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not that Christ being conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a husband who would violate it, Himself to preserve it; but, before He was conceived, chose it, already dedicated to God, as that from which to be born. This is shown by the words which Mary spake in answer to the Angel announcing to her her conception; How,' saith she, shall this be, seeing I know not a man?' Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man, who would not take from her by violence, but rather guard against violent persons, what she had already vowed. Although, even if she had said this only, How shall this take place ?' and had not added, seeing I know not a man,' certainly she would not have asked, how, being a female, she should give birth to her promised Son, if she had married with purpose of sexual intercourse. She might have been bidden also to continue a virgin, that in her by fitting miracle the Son of God should receive the form of a servant, but, being to be a pattern to holy virgins, lest it should be thought that she alone needed to be a virgin, who had obtained to conceive a child even without sexual intercourse, she dedicated her virginity to God, when as yet she knew not what she should conceive, in order that the imitation of a heavenly life in an earthly and mortal body should take place of vow, not of command; through love of choosing, not through necessity of doing service. Thus Christ by being born of a virgin, who, before she knew Who was to be born of her, had determined to continue a virgin, chose rather to approve, than to command, holy virginity. And thus, even in the female herself, in whom He took the form of a servant, He willed that virginity should be free."
Augustine,Of Holy Virginity,4(A.D. 401),in NPNF1,III:418

"Where are they who think that the Virgin's conception and giving birth to her child are to be likened to those of other woman? For, this latter case is one of the earth, and the Virgin's is one from heaven. The one case is a case of divine power; the other of human weakness. The one case occurs in a body subject to passion; the other in the tranquility of the divine Spirit and peace of the human body. The blood was still, and the flesh astonished; her members were put at rest, and her entire womb was quiescent during the visit of the Holy One, until the Author of flesh could take on His garment of flesh, and until He, who was not merely to restore the earth to man but also to give him heaven, could become a heavenly Man. The virgin conceives, the Virgin brings forth her child, and she remains a virgin."
Peter Chrysoslogus,Sermon 117,(A.D. 432),in FC,XVII,200

"And by a new nativity He was begotten, conceived by a Virgin, born of a Virgin, without paternal desire, without injury to the mother's chastity: because such a birth as knew no taint of human flesh, became One who was to be the Saviour of men, while it possessed in itself the nature of human substance. For when God was born in the flesh, God Himself was the Father, as the archangel witnessed to the Blessed Virgin Mary: because the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee: and therefore, that which shall be born of thee shall be called holy, the Son of God.' The origin is different but the nature like: not by intercourse with man but by the power of God was it brought about: for a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bare, and a Virgin she remained."
Pope Leo the Great(regn. A.D. 440-461),On the Feast of the Nativity,Sermon 22:2(ante A.D. 461),in NPNF2,XII:130

"The ever-virgin One thus remains even after the birth still virgin, having never at any time up till death consorted with a man. For although it is written, And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son, yet note that he who is first-begotten is first-born even if he is only-begotten. For the word first-born' means that he was born first but does not at all suggest the birth of others. And the word till' signifies the limit of the appointed time but does not exclude the time thereafter. For the Lord says, And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world, not meaning thereby that He will be separated from us after the completion of the age. The divine apostle, indeed, says, And so shall we ever be with the Lord, meaning after the general resurrection."
John of Damascus,Orthodox Faith,4:14(A.D. 743),in NPNF2,IX:86

from {Biblical Evidence for Catholicism:}
A portion of a debate Dave Armstrong had with a Baptist:

{Baptist Minister}:All sin leads to spiritual death (hell). All sin, mortal or venial is disallowed in heaven.

{Armstrong}How, then, do you explain 1 John 5:17 (RSV)?:

All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.
{KJV: "not unto death"}

Are you saying that a white lie or a momentary pang of jealousy or lust (especially if unrepented of) is the moral equivalent in God's eyes of a torture, rape, and murder? That's what your position - starkly put - reduces to.

{Baptist:} No, I don't say it, Christ Himself said it.

{Armstrong}:Apart from 1 John 5:16-17, I also gave numerous examples of differential reward and merit in my justification treatise, which mitigates against this view.

Everyone agrees that all sin is barred from heaven, but again, that is future for us, not present, and this is precisely why purgatory is such a merciful, necessary doctrine. If God gets "serious" about actual, real sin in heaven, why in the world would He not start now, for heaven's sake (pun half-intended - hey, that's a good one!)? We think God - in practical terms - takes sin as seriously now as He will then, and that's one reason why we think mere imputation or forensic declaration of holiness is a falsehood.

Your difficulty is that 1 John 5:16-17 expressly contradicts you. John says he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death, but you say "all sin leads to spiritual death," and that all sins are equal in God's eyes. Who am I to believe? Again, the Apostle John says, there is a sin not unto death in v.17. Thus he is clearly making the distinctions we make with regard to degrees of sin. Furthermore, it is not by any means certain from context that the "mortal sin" is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit alone. Some translations even have "there is sin," rather than "there is a sin."

Also, the fact that there is no sin whatsoever in heaven is a different proposition from saying which sins bar one from heaven, so I don't believe that helps to prove what you are trying to assert here.

Since Vatican I and II both preached sound doctrine, there is no problem

{from Biblical Evidence for Catholicism:}

By Steve Ray
An article in the soon to be published "Catholic Dictionary of Apologetics and Evangelism" by Ignatius Press

Infant Baptism is a rite by which children who have not yet attained the age of reason are initiated into the Family of God-the Church. Original sin, which destroyed the life God in soul of our first parents, has been inherited by all their descendants. Infant Baptism remits the effects and stain of Original Sin while Sanctifying Grace is infused into the infant's soul (CCC no. 1250). Even though the majority of Protestants practice Infant Baptism it is rejected by many others. The rite has a biblical foundation and can be traced back to apostolic times, though first explicitly mentioned in the 2nd century.
To grasp the background and origins of Infant Baptism we must understand the original recipients of the New Covenant. During the first years, the members of the Church were exclusively Jewish. The Jews practiced infant circumcision, as mandated to Abraham (Gn 17:12), reaffirmed in the Mosaic Law (Lv 12:3), and demonstrated by the circumcision of Jesus on his eighth day (Lu 2:21). Without circumcision no male was allowed to participate in the cultural and religious life of Israel.

The rite of circumcision as the doorway into the Old Covenant was replaced in the New Covenant with the rite of Baptism-both applied to infants. St. Paul makes this correlation: "In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism" (Co 2:11-12). The Catechism informs us that "this sign [of circumcision] prefigures that 'circumcision of Christ' which is Baptism" (CCC no. 527).

When Peter preached under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost he was speaking to a Jewish audience (Ac 2:5-35). Peter announced, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children" (Ac 2:38-39). The Jews would have been dismayed had the New Covenant not included their children, especially since it was promised to them, and the New Covenant was to be an improvement over the Old in which they were included.

The New Testament frequently implies that adults and children were included in the rite of Baptism. For example, when the head of a household converted and was baptized, his entire household was also baptized with him (Ac 16:15, 33; 1 Co 1:16). The inference of course, especially based on Jewish understanding of the family and covenants, would include the aged, the adults, the servants, and the infants. If the practice of Infant Baptism had been illicit or prohibited it would surely have been explicitly forbidden, especially to restrain the Jews from applying Baptism to their infants as they did circumcision. But we find no such prohibition in the New Testament nor in the writings of the Fathers-a silence that is very profound.

Many commentators see an allusion to Infant Baptism in the words of St. Luke, "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, 'Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God' (Lk 18:15-16). In the early Church this passage was understood as a command to bring the infants to Christ for Baptism. The very first time this passage shows up in Christian literature (c. 200), it is used in reference to Infant Baptism (Tertullian, De Baptismo 18:5). Even though Tertullian espoused a later baptism for children, he acknowledged that Infant Baptism was already the universal practice and does not try to avoid the interpretation of this verse's reference to Infant Baptism. The Apostolic Constitutions (c. 350) taught that children should receive baptism based on the words of Jesus, "Do not hinder them" (VI 15.7)

In the middle of the second century Infant Baptism is mentioned not as an innovation, but as a rite instituted by the apostles. Nowhere do we find it prohibited and everywhere we find it practiced. Early in the nascent Church we have St. Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200) who provides a very early witness to Infant Baptism, based on John 3:5. Irenaeus wrote, "For He [Jesus] came to save all through means of Himself-all, I say, who through Him are born again to God,-infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men" (Against Heresies, 2, 22, 4).

Origen (AD c. 185-c. 254) who had traveled to the extents of the Roman Empire wrote with confidence, "The Church received from the Apostles the tradition [custom] of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentary on Romans 5, 9).

St. Augustine confirmed the ubiquitous teaching of the Church when he wrote, "This [infant baptism] the Church always had, always held; this she received from the faith of our ancestors; this she perseveringly guards even to the end" (Augustine, Sermon. 11, De Verb Apost) and "Who is so impious as to wish to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven by forbidding them to be baptized and born again in Christ?" (Augustine, On Original Sin 2, 20).

Throughout Christian history, only a very few have opposed Infant Baptism. The opposition resides mainly in those of Anabaptist heritage which originated in the sixteenth century and who were strongly opposed by Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin who both taught and practiced Infant Baptism. The Anabaptists' opposition to the baptism of infants lies mainly in their belief-unsupported by Scripture and with no supporting evidence from the practice of the early Church-that one has to be of sufficient age to exercise personal faith in Christ and make a personal confession at baptism. Nowhere is this taught in Scripture that only adults can receive baptism. To hold this extreme view is to be outside the continuity of historical Christianity.

An objection is often proffered that infant baptism may likely lead to nominal Christianity or abandonment of the faith in later years since the infant was baptized into the faith without his own consent and the obvious inability to "give proper instruction". This argument can also be used against those who baptize only adults since the examples are too numerous to mention of those baptized as adults who become nominal Christians or apostatized later in life. Adult baptism is no greater guarantee of subsequent spiritual vitality. Confirmation, the rite that accompanies baptism, though usually at a later date, is intended to instruct the child or young adult in the fullness of the faith and commitment to Christ, instilling knowledge of the Gospel, spiritual vitality, and a personal commitment to the faith of their fathers.



The Catechism summarizes the Church's teaching: "Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism. . . . The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth" (CCC no. 1250).

Irenaeus's quote: The Ante-Nicene Fathers ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donald and arr. by Cleveland Coxe, D.D. (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1985), 1:391.)
Origen's quote: The Faith of the Early Fathers, William Jurgens, Liturgical Press, 1979, vol. 1, p. 209.
Augustine's first quote: The Catholic Encyclopedia, "Baptism", Charles Herbermann, ed., Robert Appleton Co., 1907, vol. 2, p. 270.
Augustine's second quote: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st series, Philip Schaff, ed., Eerdmans, 1980, vol. 5, p. 244.

Recommended Reading:
Crossing the Tiber, Steve Ray, Ignatius Press, 1987.
New Testament Doctrine of Baptism, W. F. Flemington, London: SPCK, 1957
Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, Joachim Jeremias, Westminster Press, 1960.
Baptism in the New Testament: A Symposium, A. George, ed., London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1964.
Baptism in the New Testament, Oscar Cullmann, London: SCM Press, 1956.
Infant Baptism Considered, Richard Whately, London: John W. Parker, 1850.

For Protestant denominations that practice Infant Baptism, visit the Common Ground page.



Steve Ray, http://www.catholic-convert.com

{from Biblical Evidence for Catholicism}

From the Church Fathers:


"And when a child has been born to one of them[ie Christians], they give thanks to God[ie baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins."
Aristides,Apology,15(A.D. 140),in ANF,X:277-278

"Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?"
Polycarp,Martyrdom of Polycarp,9(A.D. 156),in ANF,I:41

"And many,both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixtey or seventy years..."
Justin Martyr,First Apology,15:6(A.D. 110-165),in ANF,I:167

"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies,2,22:4 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:391

"I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixy-five years in the Lord."
Polycrates,Fragment in Eusebius' Church History, V:24:7(A.D. 190),in NPNF2,I:242

Here Tertullian comments on his preference of delaying baptism in deference to the traditional practice of baptizing infants writes:
"And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age,of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally,however, in the case of little childrem."
Tertullian,On Baptism,18(A.D. 200/206),in ANF,III:678

"And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family."
Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition,21(c. A.D. 215), in AT,33

"[T]herefore children are also baptized."
Origen,Homily on Luke,XIV(A.D. 233),in JER, 65

"For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too."
Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9(A.D. 244),in JER,65

"Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous."
Origen, Homily on Leviticus,8:3(post A.D. 244),in JUR,I:208

"But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day...And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism...we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons.."
Cyprian,To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2,6(A.D. 251),in ANF,5:353-354

"It shows no crease when infants put it on[ie the baptismal garment], it is not too scanty for young men, it fits women without alteration."
Optatus of Mileve,Against Parmenium,5:10(A.D. 365),in JER, 94

"Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature?"
Gregory Nazianzen,Oration on Holy Baptism,40:17(A.D. 381),in NPNF2,7:365

"Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitaited."
Gregory Nazianzen,Oration on Holy Baptism,40:28(A.D. 381),in NPNF2,7:370

"We do baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any sins."
Chrysostom John,Ad Neophytos,(A.D. 388),in LCF,169

" 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.' No one is expected: not the infant, not the one prevented by necessity."
Ambrose,Abraham,2,11:79(A.D. 387),in JUR,2:169

"And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God's earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized."
Augustine,On Baptism against the Donatist,4:24:31(A.D. 400),in NPNF1,IV:461

"While the son is a child and thinks as a child and until he comes to years of discretion to choose between the two roads to which the letter of Pythagoras points, his parents are responsible for his actions whether these be good or bad. But perhaps you imagine that, if they are not baptized, the children of Christians are liable for their own sins; and that no guilt attaches to parents who withhold from baptism those who by reason of their tender age can offer no objection to it. The truth is that, as baptism ensures the salvation of the child, this in turn brings advantage to the parents. Whether you would offer your child or not lay within your choice, but now that you have offered her, you neglect her at your peril."br> Jerome,To Laeta,Epistle 107:6(A.D. 403),in NPNF2,VI:191

"Now, seeing that they [Pelagians] admit the necessity of baptizing infants,--finding themselves unable to contravene that authority of the universal Church, which has been unquestionably handed down by the Lord and His apostles,--they cannot avoid the further concession, that infants require the same benefits of the Mediator, in order that, being washed by the sacrament and charity of the faithful, and thereby incorporated into the body of Christ, which is the Church, they may be reconciled to God, and so live in Him, and be saved, and delivered, and redeemed, and enlightened. But from what, if not from death, and the vices, and guilt, and thraldom, and darkness of sin? And, inasmuch as they do not commit any sin in the tender age of infancy by their actual transgression, original sin only is left."
Augustine,On forgiveness of sin, and baptism,39[26](A.D. 412),in NPNF1,V:30

"The blessed Cyprian, indeed, said, in order to correct those who thought that an infant should not be baptized before the eighth day, that it was not the body but the soul which behoved to be saved from perdition -- in which statement he was not inventing any new doctrine, but preserving the firmly established faith of the Church; and he, along with some of his colleagues in the episcopal office, held that a child may be properly baptized immediately after its birth"
Augustine,Epistle 166:8:23(A.D. 412),in NPNF1,I:531

" 'C. Tell me, pray, and rid me of all doubts, why little children are baptized.?
A. That their sins may be forgiven them in baptism."
Jerome,Against the Pelagians,3:18(A.D. 415),in NPNF2,VI:482

"Likewise, whosoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that sacrament shall be made alive in Christ, certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration, and condemns the universal Church,in which it is the practice to lose no time and run in haste to administer baptism to infant children, because it is believed, as an indubitable truth, that otherwise they cannot be made alive in Christ."
Augustine,Epistle 167,7,21(A.D. 415),in NPNF1,I:530

"Canon 2. Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers' wombs ought not to be baptized....let him be anathema."
Council of Carthage,Canon 2,(A.D. 418),in Denzinger 101

"Concerning the Donatists it seemed good that we should hold counsel with our brethren and fellow priests Siricius and Simplician concerning those infants alone who are baptized by Donatists: lest what they did not do of their own will, when they should be converted to the Church of God with a salutary determination, the error of their parents might prevent their promotion to the ministry of the holy altar."
African Code, Canon 47/51(A.D. 419), in NPNF2,XIV:463

"Believest thou this?...when a newborn child is brought forward to receive the anointing of initiation, or rather of consumation through holy baptism."
Cyril of Alexandria,Commentary on John,7(A.D. 428),in JER,95

"QUESTION XIX. Concerning those who after being baptized in infancy were captured by the Gentiles, and lived with them after the manner of the Gentiles, when they come back to Roman territory as still young men, if they seek communion, what shall be done?
REPLY. If they have only lived with Gentiles and eaten sacrificial food, they can be purged by fasting and laying on of hands, in order that for the future abstaining from things offered to idols, they may be partakers of Christ's mysteries. But if they have either worshipped idols or been polluted with manslaughter or fornication, they must not be admitted to communion, except by public penance."
Pope Leo the Great[regn A.D. 440-461],To Rusticus,Epistle 167(A.D. 459),in NPNF2,XII:112

"But with respect to trine immersion in baptism, no truer answer can be given than what you have yourself felt to be right; namely that, where there is one faith, a diversity of usage does no harm to holy Church. Now we, in immersing thrice, signify the sacraments of the three days' sepulture; so that, when the infant is a third time lifted out of the water, the resurrection after a space of three days may be expressed."
Gregory the Great[regn A.D. 590-604],To Leander,Epistle 43(A.D. 591),in NPNF2,XII:88







Way to go, bro.

More on venial versus mortal:

1472. "To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the 'eternal punishment' of sin. On the other hand every sin, even VENIAL, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the 'temporal punishment' of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.[Cf. Council of Trent (1551): DS 1712-1713; (1563): 1820.]"

To view the context, please visit http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/healing.html#INDULGENCES
1493. "One who desires to obtain reconciliation with God and with the Church, must confess to a priest all the unconfessed grave sins he remembers after having carefully examined his conscience. The confession of VENIAL faults, without being necessary in itself, is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church. "

To view the context, please visit http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/healing.html#CELEBRATION
1854. "Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and VENIAL sin, already evident in Scripture,[Cf. 1Jn 16-17 .] became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience."

To view the context, please visit http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/gravity.html#GRAVITY
1855. "Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.
VENIAL sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it. "

To view the context, please visit http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/gravity.html#GRAVITY
1856. "Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:
When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery.... But when the sinner's will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are VENIAL.[St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II, 88, 2, corp. art.] "

To view the context, please visit http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/gravity.html#GRAVITY
1862. "One commits VENIAL sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent. "

To view the context, please visit http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/gravity.html#GRAVITY
1863. "VENIAL sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented VENIAL sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However VENIAL sin does not set us in direct opposition to the will and friendship of God; it does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. 'VENIAL sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness.'[John Paul II, RP 17 # 9.]
While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call 'light': if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.[St. Augustine, In ep. Jo. 1, 6: PL 35, 1982.]"

To view the context, please visit http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/gravity.html#GRAVITY
1875. "VENIAL sin constitutes a moral disorder that is reparable by charity, which it allows to subsist in us. "

To view the context, please visit http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/gravity.html#PROLIFERATION
1876. "The repetition of sins - even VENIAL ones - engenders vices, among which are the capital sins. "

To view the context, please visit http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/gravity.html#PROLIFERATION
2480. "Every word or attitude is forbidden which by flattery, adulation, or complaisance encourages and confirms another in malicious acts and perverse conduct. Adulation is a grave fault if it makes one an accomplice in another's vices or grave sins. Neither the desire to be of service nor friendship justifies duplicitous speech. Adulation is a VENIAL sin when it only seeks to be agreeable, to avoid evil, to meet a need, or to obtain legitimate advantages. "

To view the context, please visit http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/eightnin.html#AGAINST
2484. "The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a VENIAL sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity. "

Click to expand...

So, for venial sins we have the examples of adulation, white lies, thoughtless speaking, and immoderate laughter. Which is why I never laugh at anything ever.




oh, ****

Hope this pretty much covers it Crowss. If not, let us know.

Thanks you guys. Good job!

Much more in depth than mine.

Crowss? Is that good or do you need more?

Hi, Crowss!

Catholics can fast at any time they so choose. There is no "prohibition" from someone fasting at any time during the year. However, during advent and lent, we are preparing ourselves for significant moments within the Christian faith - the birth of our Lord, and His Death and Resurrection. For lent, we have even a stronger compulsion that simply "preparing" ourselves for the celebration of the Crucifiction and Resurrection - the example of Christ when he went into the desert to prepare himself for this time. We are striving to be more Christ-like. Hope that helps!

Oh! If you want a reason as to why we "need" a priest for confession, you probably need to check with Jesus himself, because we base confession off of his command to us in John 20:21-23. The Timothy verses you provide speak of Christ's sacrifice, and how he is the only way to God. I guess I don't understand the thought that confession is seeking God through a priest. It's the loosening of sins according to the way Jesus said it should be done.

Questions for a paper I'm writing...

Click to expand...

#1 Lent not in Bible
#2 No one is ever to confess to a preist
#3 No
#4 Sin is sin
#5 Pass the salt
#6 Infant Baptism is not in or never done in the Bible

**Mod Hat On**

ed, the OP specifically asked for Catholic reasoning and justification. That has been provided. If you want to refute Catholic reasoning on these points open your own thread, as the OP also specifically stated that this thread was not for debate purposes.

Thanks.

"For question #2; I guess I need to re-word my original a little better. The 2 scriptures I posted talk of Jesus being our only mediator. Why then is there a command for confession to a priest?"

There is no contradiction between Jesus being the only mediator and the priest hearing confession, because the priest acts "in the person of Christ." For a Catholic, there is no difference between confessing your sins to a priest and confessing them to Jesus Christ. This is one of the mysteries of the faith to which you would do well to pay a lot of attention if you want to have an insight into the faith of Catholics.

To understand this better, consider what happens at a Mass. At the Consecration the priest picks up the host and says over it, "This is my body," and over the cup of wine he says, "This is my blood." The Christian then approaches the altar and receives the Body and Blood of Christ! Who has the power to change ordinary bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ except God! At his ordination the priest is conformed to Christ to such a degree by the graces of the sacrament, that he is given the power to act in the person of Christ to such an extent.

Somewhere in scripture, in the latter part of John I believe, Christ says, "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them, whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."

Here again, in the confessional the priest acts in the person of Christ when he absolves sins. He is merely carrying out what Christ commanded him to do. Moreover, the actual rite has the priest saying, "And I absolve you of your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Does he absolve sins in his own name? No, but in the name of the Trinity. Divine power is at work here, and most Catholics are very aware of it.

Not only is their no rivalry between the sacrament of Confession and the mediatorship of Jesus referred to in I Tim 3:15, but that very mediatorship is exercised in a very personal way toward the penitent in this sacrament. It is the sacrament of forgiveness and of reconcilation to God.

In other words, people should go to confession precisely because "There is one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ."

Hope this helps.