Following The Truth: Ten Facts Most Catholics Don’t Know (But Should!) (Catholic or Open)

CE.cpm ^ | July 9th, 2010 | Gary Zimak

[Salvation]

Ten Facts Most Catholics Don’t Know (But Should!)

July 9th, 2010 by Gary Zimak

Every time I hear someone claim to be an “ex-Catholic”, a sense of sadness comes over me.  In just about every case, people leave the Catholic Faith due to a lack of understanding.  After all, if Catholics truly believed that they were members of the one, true Church founded by Christ (and necessary for their salvation), nobody would ever leave!  In an effort to help clarify what the Catholic Church teaches, I have compiled a list of 10 important facts that every Catholic should know.  More than simply Catholic trivia, these are important concepts that can help us to better understand and defend our beliefs.  In no particular order, these items have been compiled based upon my work at Following The Truth and my own study of the Catholic Faith.

1. Women Will Never Be Priests – Often incorrectly lumped in with the subject of married priests, this is a doctrine that has been infallibly decided and will not change.  In 1994, Pope John Paul II issued an Apostolic Letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in which he declared once and for all that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”  Unlike the issue of married priests (which could possibly change), women’s ordination is an impossibility that will not happen.  It is not a “glass ceiling” or the Church’s attempt to hold back women.  Instead, it is an infallible recognition that men and women have different roles and that Christ instituted a male priesthood.

2. Fridays Are Still Days Of Penance – Ask almost anyone and they will tell you that Catholics are no longer required to abstain from meat on Fridays throughout the year.  However, the current Code of Canon Law (CIC) states that, with the exception of solemnities, “All Fridays through the year and the time of Lent are penitential days and times throughout the entire Church.” (CIC 1250)  Furthermore, “Abstinence from eating meat or another food according to the prescriptions of the conference of bishops is to be observed on Fridays throughout the year unless they are solemnities.” (CIC 1251)  In the United States, the bishops have declared that it is permissible to substitute some other form of penance, but we are still urged to fast from “something” in remembrance of the Lord’s death on the cross.

3. The Bible Is A Catholic Book – Did you ever wonder how the Bible came into being?  A little known, but easily documented fact is that the books of the Bible were compiled by the Catholic Church.  For many years after Christ ascended into Heaven, there was debate about which scriptural writings were inspired by God.  The canon of Scripture (the books of the Bible) was first formally decided at the Synod of Rome in 382.  This decision was upheld at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397).  At these Catholic Church councils, the same 46 Old Testament and 27 New Testament books that appear in today’s Catholic Bibles were declared to be inspired by God.  As a side note, approximately 1200 years after this decision was made, Martin Luther and the Protestant reformers removed 7 books from the Old Testament.  As a result, most Protestant Bibles are still missing these 7 books.

4. The Mass Is The Same Sacrifice As Calvary – The biggest mistake that many Catholics make is treating the Holy Mass as “just another church service”, similar to those held by other religions.  In the Mass, Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross is made present, its memory is celebrated and its saving power is applied.  The Council of Trent teaches that Christ left a visible sacrifice to His Church “in which that bloody sacrifice which was once offered on the Cross should be made present, its memory preserved to the end of the world, and its salvation-bringing power applied to the forgiveness of the sins which are daily committed by us.”  When we attend Mass, we are mystically transported to Calvary, where we can unite ourselves with the Lord’s Sacrifice to the Father!

5. Annulments Are Not Catholic Divorces – Unlike the legal process known as “divorce” (in which a marriage is terminated), a declaration of nullity (annulment) states that a valid marriage never existed.  This decision is based upon the finding that on the day that marriage vows were exchanged, some essential elements were lacking.  This process is completely in conformity with the Catholic teaching regarding the indissolubility of marriage.  Incidentally, the granting of an annulment does not render children illegitimate.

6. In Vitro Fertilization Is Morally Unacceptable – Many Catholics suffering from infertility utilize this process in the hopes of conceiving children, while remaining unaware that the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) declares it “morally unacceptable”(CCC 2377).  In the Vatican Instruction, Donum Vitae, the Church states “…in conformity with the traditional doctrine relating to the goods of marriage and the dignity of the person, the Church remains opposed from the moral point of view to homologous ‘in vitro’ fertilization. Such fertilization is in itself illicit and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union, even when everything is done to avoid the death of the human embryo.”

7. There Is No Salvation Outside Of The Catholic Church – Originally stated by St. Cyprian, the Latin axiom “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” reminds us that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.  This dogma was declared at the Fourth Lateran Council and is a source of confusion for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.  According to the Catechism, all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is His Body.  It does not mean that non-Catholics cannot achieve salvation.  Individuals who are unaware that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church may still achieve salvation through the merits of the Church, despite their lack of knowledge.

8. In An Emergency, Anyone Can Baptize – Although the ordinary ministers of Baptism are bishops, priests and deacons, anyone can baptize in an emergency, even a non-baptized person.  This extraordinary decision can be attributed to the necessity of Baptism for salvation and the Church’s desire to make it readily available to all.

9. Hell And Purgatory Still Exist –  Contrary to the belief of many Catholics, the Church still teaches that “the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin, descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, eternal fire” (CCC 1035)  Furthermore, “all who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation, but after death they undergo purification, so to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.” (CCC 1030)  This purification process, formally declared by the Church at the Councils of Florence and Trent, is known as Purgatory.

10. Catholics Don’t Worship Mary And The Saints – Many Catholics are confused about the role of the Blessed Mother and the Saints.  Should we pray to Mary and the Saints or should we go “right to the top” and pray to God?  In a nutshell, the Catholic Faith teaches that we must worship God alone.  Mary and the Saints are to be honored, not worshipped.  However, their intercession can be extremely powerful and emulating their virtues can put us on the road to Heaven.

While the above list only scratches the surface of the robust Catholic Faith, it provides a glimpse into the depth of Catholic teaching.  Further explanation on these and other topics can be found by examining the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, both of which can be found online at the Vatican website (www.vatican.va).  Not only will studying the teachings of the Catholic Church enable us to better defend her when challenged, it will help us to become closer to Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, who founded our Church 2,000 years ago.

[boatbums]

I realize that because Webster is a former Roman Catholics that his writings are suspect, but I do think he proves his points. Obviously, he is not the only Christian writer who holds these same views. This site also quotes many of those church fathers http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Eucharist.html#Presence

and this site http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/04/wobbly-evolution-of-romes-doctrine-of.html.

Thanks for the discussion. Have a good night.

[johngrace]

Good night Sister!-God Bless you and keep you! It is an honor to discuss with fellow Freepers! Remember its a Christian belief on both of us. God will always guide us.

[boatbums]

By what right do you assume that Mary was a fallen creature when God himself had chosen her as his own? The Bible Tells us that it was because of her disobedience that Eve was to suffer in childbirth. You say you believe in the Virgin Birth. Why then deny a miracle of much less consequence.? Mary was no spirit, but the second Eve, and unlike the first God’s obedient servant. The same Christ who passed through closed doors, who could command the spirits of Elijah and Moses to the top of the mountain, could not come into the world as he pleased and without harm to his mother?

I don't claim any special "right" but spoke about what I believe. I read in Scripture that we have ALL sinned and fall short of the perfection of God. That is why Christ came for us and only he was born, lived and died without sin. If he had even one sin he could not have paid the penalty for anyone else's sin. I do not believe that God made Mary sinless from her conception because that would contradict Scripture. There are no exceptions in that "all" but Christ and that is because he was fully God while fully man. The argument often used is that God cannot look upon sin so he had to have a perfect womb in which to be conceived. That is NOT said anywhere in Scripture, it is NOT logical because God became a man and was surrounded by fallible, sinful people his whole life here on earth. Don't you think there would at least be a few prophecies that addressed the issue? As it stands, the early Christians did not hold to that doctrine and the Catholic Church made no definitive statements about the varying thoughts until 1800 years after Mary had died.

I don't understand the ferocity that comes out of some people when this subject is discussed. Nobody is disrespecting Mary. It isn't disrespectful to see her as a very blessed and faithful woman who in spite of her own sinful nature was chosen by God to bring the Messiah into the world. Did you know that every Jewish woman hoped that her child would be the Messiah? I read that even Eve, when she gave birth to her first child, Cain, she said, "I have gotten a man from the LORD" (Gen. 4:1) The Hebrew words say she said "I have gotten a man EVEN Jehovah". She had already been told that God would provide a Savior and, of course, Isaiah hadn't been written yet, but she thought her son was the one to crush the head of the serpent, Satan.

Finally, like I said, to proclaim that Jesus "passed through the door of Mary's womb" like he did through the doors of the upper room after his resurrection, shows two errors. First, Jesus in his resurrection body was changed from his human, physical one. He was in his "glorified" body. But while he was still in the one that could tire, feel pain and die, he was as solid and human as you and I. There is no Scriptural warrant for saying Mary did not give birth the way all women do. Secondly, it DOES play into the Gnostic mindset to imply that Jesus was spirit only and that he did not inhabit real, human flesh, bones and blood.

God choose Mary, but not for the reasons your church says he did. Plus, think about this, if Mary was without sin from the moment of her natural conception and remained so until the announcement of the angel, then you must also admit that Mary did not have free will to accept the will of God. What would have happened if she said no? If she couldn't say no, then where is her sacrifice, her faith, her reasons for honor? She was just a robot? No, I don't think so either.

[RobbyS]

Your assumption is that Paul meant something more than the simply statement than that men are sinful and cannot be brought to perfection except by through God’s grace. The “contradiction” is only a contradiction of your interpretation of that verse.

I think you are running away from the singularity of the Virgin Birth. God could have chosen to come among men as he perhaps did to Abraham, as an angelic being. He could have been born, as John the Baptist was, to a mother and a father. That would have made him more like us. But Matthew and Luke tells us this was not the case. Mark says nothing about the matter, and John , like Paul, only tells us that he was born of a woman. John does tell us that he was divine, something that Luke tells us only by implication. Luke, however, tells us far more about Mary than any other Evangelist, and we are left with no doubt about her holiness and the most extraordinary nature of the conception of Jesus. Mary was the first Christian, and we believe with the poet, “our tainted natures’ solitary boast.” Calvin, whose harsh doctrine of the utter depravity of man, did not doubt that Mary remained Virgin throughout her life nor her sinlessness.

As to the argument that her immaculate conception derived her of free will, we argue that it made her that much more capable of a free choice. Eve was born without sin. How then could God justly punish her for sinning if she had no free will.

As to the distinction between Jesus before and after the Resurrection:
Whatever weakness he had was a matter of his choice. From time to time, he revealed himself, as when he calmed the story seas, and when he stood on the mount of the transfiguration when the glory of the Lord was shown.

[Quix]

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

[Quix]

EVIDENTLY

you are of the sterile, mundane, lock-step, narrow, rigid, stereo-typical, strictly slavishly conventional, ducks-in-a-row, cookie-cutter, uncreative . . .

style of posting, writing, speaking, being in the world.

Tyrants love that mentality.

Lemmings march over the cliff much more compliantly with such a mentality and existential style.

I have a different style and perspective, in case you haven't sufficiently noticed. . . . from an earlier long locked thread:

To: Tax-chick; Amityschild; Brad's Gramma; Captain Beyond; Cvengr; DvdMom; firebrand; ...

Good advice by the Pastor.

However . . . Dear Heart . . .

some of my fiercest writing is when I’m exceedingly calm—no raised heart beat or increased breathing rate etc.

Most of my writing—95%?—is when I’m quite calm.

I love playing with words. I love saying things in emphatic, startling, memorable ways.

Maybe I sat through too many boring lectures and read too many boring text books on the way to the PhD.

Maybe I got what few rewards I got growing up by writing vivid, even startling things in English and Social Studies classes.

Besides all that, the instense exchanges are much more alive, authentic, real, to me. I hate shallow discourse more than I hate a LOT of other things. Actually, I don’t hate many things, at all—that is, I hate very few things, total. Hate is just not a familiar feeling to me.

And, I have been the brunt of a lot of ridicule my whole life.

And, I have seen how effective the disinformation psy-ops folks have been using ridicule against UFO disclosures.

I suspect all of that has had some part to play in my ‘Quixicated style.’

It’s rarely personal—except to highlight some folks pontifications who seem to delight in making abjectly foolish, outrageous, HYPOCRITICAL assertions. I enjoy the fray—rather collegially, actually.

I mean . . . if folks are going to BEG for such a response, who am I to refuse to be generous!

Of course, there are a few who seem to ENJOY being just personally harsh, mean and personally assaultive as though they were Saul putting to death Proddys—or wishing they could. Those can be particularly fun highlighting their absurdities, double standards and hypocrisies.

Of course, I realize that I can be absurd as well. I sure earnestly endeavor to be well beyond double standards and hypocrisies. By God’s Grace, He helps me usually succeed on those scores.

If one is going to be silly, brash, fiesty, startling in communications, one has to be a pretty good capacity to see their own clay feet.

33 posted on Tue Jul 06 2010 09:07:54 GMT-0600 (Mountain Daylight Time) by Quix (THE PLAN of the Bosses: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2519352/posts?page=2#2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2547599/posts?page=33#33

[stonehouse01]

I was being ironic - obviously we are not screwed because as you said Mary is fully alive in heaven - that is the point I was making because another poster stated that Mary is dead.

The Immaculate Conception is the feast day when we celebrate that Mary was conceived without original sin. Her grace is different from ours because we all have original sin and Mary did not.

How do we know? Mary is the ark of the new covenenant - the “ark” where Jesus lived for ninth months.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

not universally held by the early Church?

Ignatius, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus all EXPLICITLY SAY THE EUCHARIST IS THE BODY OF CHRIST, all late 1st century to mid 2nd century writers.

NO FATHER SAYS IT IS SYMBOLIC.

DID YOU READ #108?

iF it was “developed” over time, there would have been disagreements between respected orthodox theologians.

find the disagreement in history, IT DOESN’T EXIST!!

for example, suppose this Sunday a Baptist minister taught in a sermon that the Eucharist IS THE BODY OF CHRIST.

how quickly would it be until he was defrocked and fired?? i’d say 5 minutes.

find this type controversy in Church history before the 16th century, it doesn’t exist.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

LOL, please everyone read Daniel’s post and see if he tells us where the following are contained in the Bible:

1. where baptism is ever called “water baptism”?
CORRECT ANSWER - NO WHERE

2. where baptism is ever referred to as a symbol?
CORRECT ANSWER - NO WHERE

3. where anyone was ever told to be baptized as a testimony to others?
CORRECT ANSWER - NO WHERE

4. where anyone was ever told to be baptized as a first act of obedience?
CORRECT ANSWER - NO WHERE

indeed, the Bible doesn’t “GO THERE”.

THAT’S WHY NO ONE BELIEVED THESE HERESIES BEFORE THE 16TH CENTURY. EVEN MOST REFORMERS REJECTED THESE DOCTRINES!

[Judith Anne]

1 Cor 10:16 “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the Blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the Body of Christ?” St. Paul continued, 1 Cor 11:27 “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord.” St. Paul in these words confirmed Catholic teaching that the “bread … of the Lord” is truly Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, and that the “cup of the Lord” is the same substance: “Whoever … eats the bread or drinks the cup … will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord.”

1 Cor 11:29 “For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the Body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”

If we receive the Holy Eucharist without acknowledging, at least in our hearts, that it is His true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, we send ourselves to hell.

What do you call this from St. Paul, besides scriptural teaching of the real presence? And of course you are throwing away Christ’s teaching recorded in John 6.

It is false to continue to assert that the unbiblical teaching against the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is unbiblical, when it has been shown many times to be clearly the teaching of both Christ and St. Paul.

[boatbums]

Your assumption is that Paul meant something more than the simply statement than that men are sinful and cannot be brought to perfection except by through God’s grace. The “contradiction” is only a contradiction of your interpretation of that verse.

But the FACT of the universal sin nature of ALL mankind is not just stated in the book of Romans. My "interpretation" is not at issue since Scripture clearly states repeatedly that no human is without sin. Both the Old and New Testaments speak to this. In fact at the very start when Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden, God spoke about the inherited sin nature. To state that Mary was born without a sin nature AND that she never sinned until the day she died is NOT verified anywhere in Scripture. It was a doctrine that developed over many centuries but was NOT held by the Apostles. Not even John, who took care of her, ever mentioned what would HAVE to have been an extraordinary and miraculous thing.

I think you are running away from the singularity of the Virgin Birth. God could have chosen to come among men as he perhaps did to Abraham, as an angelic being. He could have been born, as John the Baptist was, to a mother and a father. That would have made him more like us. But Matthew and Luke tells us this was not the case. Mark says nothing about the matter, and John , like Paul, only tells us that he was born of a woman. John does tell us that he was divine, something that Luke tells us only by implication. Luke, however, tells us far more about Mary than any other Evangelist, and we are left with no doubt about her holiness and the most extraordinary nature of the conception of Jesus.

I am not "running away" from anything at all. I have no doubts about the very fitting and proper fulfillment of Messianic prophecy. That God would become man, by a miracle of a virgin, is a major prophecy that set apart the true Messiah from all other pretended ones - and, yes, there were false Messiahs then and still. His place of birth, means of conception, his lineage, his town of origin, his trip to Egypt as a baby and many more events were fulfilled exactly in Jesus Christ. But there was not ONE mention of his mother's sinlessness nor her continued virginity after Christ's birth, not in the Old Testament nor anywhere in the New Testament, nor why it would have been necessary. In fact, the New Testament speaks of the brothers and sisters of Jesus multiple times, so why is that ignored?

As to the argument that her immaculate conception derived her of free will, we argue that it made her that much more capable of a free choice. Eve was born without sin. How then could God justly punish her for sinning if she had no free will.

I wasn't the one who said she was deprived of a free will in order to have been the mother of the Messiah. My point was that IF she really was free from sin from her own birth, then that would mean she was NOT given a choice in her bearing the Lord. God could certainly chosen another Jewish virgin, I'm pretty sure Mary was not the only one around those times. My contention is that she did not NEED to be sinless in order to be the mother of Jesus, only that she was a virgin - so that the paternity of Jesus would not be doubted - and that she was from the lineage of David and living in the "right" area of the world. But, as I have said many times, if you want to believe this go ahead. I don't and for salient reasons. I think the Roman Catholic Church erred in making this a part of the faith that MUST be held by all who will be saved.

As to the distinction between Jesus before and after the Resurrection: Whatever weakness he had was a matter of his choice. From time to time, he revealed himself, as when he calmed the story seas, and when he stood on the mount of the transfiguration when the glory of the Lord was shown.

My point for mentioning that was simply to dispute that when he was born, he did not "wisp" through Mary's body like a "spirit" but that he was born fully human with a real flesh and blood and bones body. It was the Gnostics that would declare Jesus was not in a physical body. They would have gladly accepted his birth being so miraculous that Mary remained a virgin after the birth. If we're talking about physical virginity, then she could not possibly have continued to be after giving birth. That is not humanly possible. But it does not make sense to insist she did especially since such was not part of any prophecy. I'm not telling you or anyone else to stop believing what you want, just that if we are discussing the subject, I have a different viewpoint and I give my reasons. At no time am I disrespecting Mary or ascribing disrepute to her. She was truly amazing in her depth of faith that at such a young age she could trust that God would provide for her and protect her. Back then, if you aren't aware, women who were betrothed - for a whole year - could not show up pregnant before the marriage is consummated. To do so would prove adultery and the woman could be stoned to death. If you remember, Joseph, when he found out she was with child, sought to "put her away privately" - meaning spare her life by getting her out of town - but the angel appeared to him in a dream to tell him what was going on and to NOT fear to take Mary as his wife. It took a lot of courage and faith for both of them to continue to honor God and proceed with the birth. Here was Joseph, an innocent man, faced with what looked like a woman who was sexually impure that he was engaged to. What would YOU have done? But he was also a man of faith and he trusted that God would provide and protect them both. They are BOTH wonderful examples of faith for us all. They are BOTH to be honored. And I DO.

[daniel1212]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=2866#2866

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=2935#2935

We are still waiting for you to admit that were wrong in contending that forgiveness and regeneration did not precede baptism when it clearly did [(Acts 10:43-47), and thus this a first formal act of obedience was “an outward display of something that has happened inwardly already,” that being the baptism with the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:16; 1Cor. 12:13; cf. Heb. 6:2) which was testimony to others of their acceptance with God] and further exampling your blindness is only another testimony against Romanism and your desperate sophistry.

And once again, until you can at least admit your blindness than you yourself are not worthy of further attempts to dialog. Maybe another RC would like to argue that Acts 10 is not showing regeneration occurring before baptism, and actually argue against what i hold, as stated.

[boatbums]

All else I am going to say on this subject with you, is:

1. If the substances of bread and wine do not physically change into physical human flesh and blood, then IT IS SPIRITUAL. If it is spiritual, then you cannot INSIST that the elements ARE the flesh and blood of Jesus. As Tertullian said: "Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)

2. When Jesus said whoever "ate his flesh and drank his blood" would have eternal life/never die, then either he meant eating his actual, physical flesh and blood or he was speaking of spiritually receiving him by faith. Augustine said: "To believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again." (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, St Augustin, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Tractate XXVI.I (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), p. 168.) So, I would ask you again, if you REALLY believe that one must receive the Eucharist as the flesh and blood of Christ in order to be saved, then why is that not enough? Why is this not a "one-time deal"? Why must it be repeated if eating his flesh and drinking his blood GIVES us eternal life? Doesn't "eternal" mean forever?

I'm expressing these points not to get in another purposeless back and forth dialog that has already been repeated ad nauseum, but to perhaps make people think about what specifically they believe and why. I certainly believe we should know WHY we believe what we believe, and saying "because that's what we believe" doesn't cut it with me. I'm surprised that it would be for anyone else.

[Judith Anne]

Back then, if you aren't aware, women who were betrothed - for a whole year - could not show up pregnant before the marriage is consummated. To do so would prove adultery and the woman could be stoned to death.

Wrong. Back then, a pregnant woman betrothed to a man was presumed to be carrying that man's child. Joseph knew Christ was not his child, and did not know He was the Son of God until the angel told him in a dream. That's why he considered putting her away privately. Tradition, which you laugh at, says that Joseph was very old, and not expected to be a father by anyone.

[presently no screen name]

indeed, the Bible doesn’t “GO THERE”.

What would natural man who is without the HOLY SPIRIT know about God's Word? NOTHING!! Because It Is Written..

"But the natural man receiveth not the THINGS OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD: for they are foolishness unto him: NEITHER CAN HE KNOW THEM, because they are spiritually discerned". 1 Cor 2:14

Stick with your man-made teachings because WITHOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT - you speak foolishness and you can NEVER KNOW the things of God without the HOLY SPIRIT.

THAT’S WHY NO ONE BELIEVED THESE HERESIES BEFORE THE 16TH CENTURY. EVEN MOST REFORMERS REJECTED THESE DOCTRINES!

They are only considered heresies from the gates of hell and the prophesy I will build my church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. was fulfilled by the obedience of Martin Luther. And the gates of hell are STILL WHINING about it.

Praise GOD for His HOLY Spirit inspired WORD which IS the FINAL AUTHORITY for HIS CHURCH.

[presently no screen name]

"You abandon the commandments of God to follow human traditions."

Tradition, which you laugh at,

You betcha!

[Judith Anne]

Why?

[presently no screen name]

Because Jesus says so..."See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ". Col 2:8

"Thus you nullify the Word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that." Mark 7:13

[boatbums]

Wrong. Back then, a pregnant woman betrothed to a man was presumed to be carrying that man's child. Joseph knew Christ was not his child, and did not know He was the Son of God until the angel told him in a dream. That's why he considered putting her away privately. Tradition, which you laugh at, says that Joseph was very old, and not expected to be a father by anyone.

What is your source for this? The betrothal period of one year was PRECISELY for the reason of ensuring a woman was not carrying another man's child. It WAS custom. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrothal#Betrothal:

In Jewish weddings during Talmudic times (c.1st century BCE - 6th century CE), the two ceremonies of betrothal (erusin) and wedding usually took place up to a year apart; the bride lived with her parents until the actual marriage ceremony (nissuin), which would take place in a room or tent that the groom had set up for her. Since the Middle Ages the two ceremonies have taken place as a combined ceremony performed in public. The betrothal is now generally part of the Jewish wedding ceremony, accomplished when the groom gives the bride the ring or another object of at least nominal value.[5] As mentioned above, betrothal in Judaism is separate from engagement; breaking a betrothal requires a formal divorce, and violation of betrothal is considered adultery."

"After the marriage covenant had been established, the groom would leave the home of the bride and return to his father's house. There he would remain separate from his bride for a period of twelve months.7 This period of separation afforded the bride time to gather her trousseau and to prepare for married life.8 The groom occupied himself with the preparation of living accommodations in his father's house to which he could bring his bride." http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/jewish_marriage_customs.htm

Joseph, of course, knew the child was not his, but it took the angel in his dream to convince him why he should proceed with the marriage. As far as Joseph being an "old" man - that is NOT based upon anything but legend, myth, conjecture. He was obviously spry and strong enough to travel with a very pregnant Mary on a donkey the entire distance to Bethlehem, wasn't he?

I don't know why you accuse me of "laughing" at tradition. I certainly don't. As to Joseph being too old to father children, that is NOT a tradition in the true sense of the word. Besides, wasn't Abraham a hundred years old when Sarah conceived Isaac? And wasn't Jesus referred to many times as the "son of the carpenter"? Obviously, other people back then didn't think Joseph couldn't be his father. Poor arguments, JA.

[presently no screen name]

The groom occupied himself with the preparation of living accommodations in his father's house to which he could bring his bride

Amazing - isn't it? "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with Me that you also may be where I am".John 14:3

As to Joseph being too old to father children, that is NOT a tradition in the true sense of the word.

I never heard that before but I could see how the CC would teach it - to discount any thought of Joseph and Mary having other children. The CC makes up tradition as they go along to discount the TRUTH. In this case, the Truth is Mary and Joseph did have children together.