See linked story:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0418_030418_jesusrelic.html#related

Let's assume that James WAS the biological brother of Jesus.

Would that fact detract from the Gospel message of Jesus?

Please take this as academic question, not a heretical statement.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), June 11, 2003

Answers

Even if Mary and Joseph had children together, such children would only have been half-brothers to Jesus, not full brothers. While it is theoretically possible to interpret James as being the son of Joseph by a previous marriage (though there is no compelling reason to think so), it is not possible to consider him Mary's son without contradicting scripture. Of course, this holds only for those who accept scripture complete and entire. Scripture (indeed, the words of Christ Himself) says that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church to ALL TRUTH. Therefore, to claim that a core doctrine of Christ's Church is false is to reject the words of Jesus Himself, as recorded in the Bible. The words of Jesus tell us that whatsoever the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven. The doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity is universally binding doctrine on earth, and thus is bound in heaven. To deny this is to refute the words of God Himself, as recorded in scripture. Therefore, such an interpretation would amount to a claim that scripture is not inerrant, and if scripture is not inerrant, we have no way of knowing whether the basic gospel message as recorded in scripture is accurate or not. If any part of scripture is false, then all parts of scripture are suspect. You can't have it both ways. If the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God, then the Church is indeed the recipient of the fullness of truth, and the sole guardian, pillar, and foundation of that truth, and therefore Mary is perpetually virgin. If Mary is not perpetually virgin, then the Church is not the foundation of truth, the Holy Spirit did not guide it to all truth, its teachings are not bound in heaven, the Bible is wrong on all these points, and therefore there is no reason to consider the Bible reliable on any doctrinal issue.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 11, 2003.

John,
Your question is academic? ''Would that fact detract from the Gospel message of Jesus?''

Nothing once being a FACT; which you premise here, would be enough to change the Gospel. If it were fact.

Using that springboard:

A great truth about Jesus Christ is His Incarnation. He is God come down from heaven, to save us from our sins. God made flesh. The Church has contemplated this mystery for ages, and calls it a ''felix culpa'' a sin, fault of humanity which brings us joy! Sin becomes a cause for our joy; since it was the sin of Adam which resulted in His Holy Incarnation. Nobody can deny it!

Does this make sin good? Palatable or worthwhile?

No; a plain no. Without it, who knows, maybe there never would have been sin and never any Christ, never a Holy Gospel. But it's a fact. And Christ was born of a Virgin who lives eternally a virgin; and that's the fact. Not academic; revealed by God forever.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 11, 2003.

The Church teaches that the word "brother" was used for relatives also, such as cousins". So, James the brother of Jesus was a relative not a son of Mary or Joseph.

-- Roseanne Sullivan (roseannesullivan@sbcglobal.net), June 11, 2003.

We must also look at this historically- it is a well-known historic fact that early Christians used the word brother or sister for people who were part of a spiritual family. I found a link, which is historically accurate in early Christian life. It also shows reasons behind the persecution of Christians by the Romans.

http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps010.shtml

God Bless!

-- Fabiola (ubuibme@nomail.com), June 11, 2003.

In fact, the word "brother" was used in a far broader sense. The same Greek word, "adelfoi" which appears in the passage about "James the 'brother' of Jesus" also appears in the passage about Jesus appearing to more than 500 of the 'brothers' at one time, after His Resurrection. We can be pretty confident that these 500+ 'brothers' were not all the children of Mary and Joseph. The word actually appears over 250 times in the New Testament, occasionally referring to actual familial siblings, other times to relatives or "extended family", but usually to the disciples or followers of Jesus - the "brethren", which of course simply means "brothers". "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers" (Romans 8:29) Anyone who thinks this passage refers to the family of Mary and Joseph is far afield from Christianity.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 11, 2003.

John, It is possible that James was not biologically linked to Jesus. It is highly possible that Joseph brought other children to the marriage with Mary. Historically this is evident. Because of the arranged marriage system most young women would not marry a young man. Many times they would have to marry an older man because of financial reasons, political reasons and so on. It is highly possible that this could be the case here even though there is not much biblical evidence for it. The problem is that the bible does not mention Joseph after Jesus is found in the temple.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), June 11, 2003.

I think we may be getting away from John's original question. "If" James was (even though we know he's not) the biological brother of Jesus would this knowlege have any impact on His Gospel message. Personally, I don't see where it would, but others here probably have a better understanding.

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), June 12, 2003.

As I attempted to say in my earlier post, John as the son of Mary would completely undermine the teaching authority of the Church, which would undermine the inerrancy of scripture, which clearly says the Church has that authority, and once you undermine the inerrancy of scripture, there is no gospel message of any authority. The gospel message then becomes what it is in Protestantism - whatever you personally interpret it to be.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 12, 2003.

That's it precisely, Jim. Paul said it well;
If God in the Holy Spirit is to declare His truth; it has to be through the one Church Jesus Christ founded. Peter's Church. The apostle's Church.

A revelation is a revelation even if it wasn't written; as long as the apostles taught us. Mary's perpetual virginity is a revelation nobody outside the Holy Spirit's influence could have known. Yet, Christ's Church has taught it so since the days of the apostles. --Ipso facto: the Holy Spirit stands behind a divine revelation.

Many non-Catholics are under a mistaken impression this and other Marian dogmatic truths are inserted by the Catholic Church into the faith, when the Church declares them officially. This is not so; she has held these and taught them from the beginning. It's usually only after a controversy or heretical idea circulates, that the dogma is defined. But it has been apostolic truth all the time. Tradition very amply proves these things.

The fact John was a close kinsman, not the sibling of Jesus is established without doubt. Jude Thaddeus and other men in the gospels were relatives of Our Lord, and they are all soken of as His brethren. Which they really are: His kin.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 12, 2003.

If James was the biological brother of Jesus, then Jesus could not have told his mother Mary that John is her son at the time before He dies on the cross. Jesus could have ask his 'brother'(James) to take care of His mother instead of John. If someone is about to die usually his families members are the first to be at his side but for the case of Jesus, where is his brothers and sisters?

-- (vincentkoh@pd.jaring.my), June 12, 2003.

As I asked, please take this as an academic question, not a heretical statement.

A lot of my time is spent on apologetics. The apologetic question of the day is:

Because od the ossuary inscription, what is the true relationship between James and Jesus and what impact does it have on Christianity?

My personal belief is that it has very little impact on the MESSAGE OF THE GOSPEL OF JESUS: Love of God, love of neighbor.

And, I believe that the heirarchy of the Church have made mistakes over the centuries, (continues to do so) and yet the Church has overcome and will, due to the presence of the Holy Spirit, always overcome.

For example, the forged donation of Constantine, could have ruined the Church but didn't.

The ossuary has been all but authenicated. It's importance is that it is another historical link.

God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), June 12, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, John P.
You wrote: "I believe that the heirarchy of the Church have made mistakes over the centuries, (continues to do so) ..."

Well, this is tangential to the subject of the thread, but could you clarify, please? I hope that you do not mean to say that the popes and bishops in union with them have taught wrongly (and "continue to do so") in matters of faith and morality. I hope that you do mean that they have sometimes sinned and have sometimes erred in matters of prudential judgment (e.g., a pope naming a bad man as bishop, the hierachy adopting an imperfect disciplinary rule, etc.).

I agree with Paul's reply to your opening question, John P -- as he understood it. But when I read your question, I took it in an entirely different way. I'd like to re-phrase it in the way I thought you meant it ... in order to see how people would then respond ...

You originally wrote: "Let's assume that James WAS the biological brother of Jesus. Would that fact detract from the Gospel message of Jesus?"

Re-phrased, this asks: "Let us assume that the Bible explicitly stated that Joseph and Mary became the biological parents of a younger half-brother of Jesus. (And of course, let us then assume that the Church had taught this "fact" through the centuries.) Would this fact detract from the Gospel message of Jesus?"

I do not concede that such a thing could ever have happened.
However, if it had happened (and had been recorded in divine revelation), then I do not see how it would have detracted from the Gospel message of Jesus.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 12, 2003.

Another (and most important) thing, John P.
You stated: "The ossuary has been all but authenicated."
I think that you have not been watching the news closely enough, John. At some point in the last few months, word came out that there is now strong skepticism about the authenticity of the inscription on the ossuary. (I saw a feature about it on TV.)

I'm sure that someone could find a better write-up on than I have, but you can get an idea of what I am talking about by reading this whole page, which seems to be from "e-letters" from the Catholic magazine called "Crisis." (The part I'm talking about is in the second half.)

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 12, 2003.

Yes, John.
The ''ossuary'' is not ''all but authenticated'' by investigating scientists & theologians. It is all but declared fraudulent and a crude falsification.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 12, 2003.

My question was clearly expressed.

Eugene, where are you getting your information?

John, your site is outdated.

Did you guys miss my link? God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), June 14, 2003.

My answer to the question was forthright. Nothing once being a FACT; which you premise here, would be enough to change the Gospel. If it were fact.

But the premise is faulty. It isn't a fact. Information on this ossuary is easy to find. A quick Google search will locate it. But the word of Christ's Church is very clear to His faithful: He had no siblings, ever. The Mother of God is a Virgin perpetually; and the error is theirs' who say otherwise. No Catholic will ever believe them, no matter their information.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 14, 2003.

John P, the site I linked is not "dated," merely because it is older than yours. Even at your site, I find the following sentiment, which will always keep the inscription from being authenticated:

"'The dealer who sold it was a man of questionable reputation who had a history of inappropriate dealings with various museums and government agencies,' said Eric Meyers, an archaeologist at Duke University.
"Meyers doesn't question whether the box is genuine and dates back to the first century. The box was originally tested in Israel by scientists at the Geological Survey Group, who judged it to be about 2,000 years old. But the inscription divides the believers and the non-believers.
'I'm more convinced than ever that the artifact has been tampered with, and that the part of the inscription that reads "brother of Jesus" is a forgery inserted at a later date,' Meyers said."

God bless you.
John
PS: John P, do you bring up this subject because you yourself have a suspicion that Mary was not "ever-virgin"? Or, if you do believe what the Church teaches ... I know that you have a strong ecumenical spirit. Are you seeking something that would help your non-Catholic friends appear reasonable when they argue that Mary gave birth to other children? Just curious.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 15, 2003.

People who speak hebrew know what Betulah and Almah are, John P.

Genesis 24

24:16 The girl was extremely good-looking, [and] she was a virgin untouched by any man. The girl went down, filled her jug, and then came up again. Vehana'arah tovat mar'eh me'od betulah ve'ish lo yeda'ah vatered ha'aynah vatemale chadah vata'al

Copyrighted material. Not my words. See link.

You can see here Betulah means virgin.

Same passage in Christian Bibles.

Betulah

As for Isaiah 7:14, Almah in Hebrew usually means young woman. Christian Bibles (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox...) use virgin because the septuagint uses parthenos.

Almah

As to who is immanuel, Isaiah doesn't say is Jesus. Isaiah 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

These are events which happened around 735-740 B.C.

Matthew's use of the same Isaiah passage Matthew 1:23

The problem is that her son's name is not Immanuel, but Jesus, the name given by the angel. I think the writer of matthew got carried away in trying to apply Isaiah 7:14 to Jesus.

My conclusio is that whether James ( Judas, Joseph

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), June 16, 2003.

and Simon) were or were not his brothers ( I believe they were) doesn't take anything away from Jesus divinity. If Jesus was in the beginning with God, then he is divine, the logos of God. God is a spirit, not flesh and spirit like us.

Jesus brothers

For the Jews sex is not as impure as it was for Augustine, the Gnostics, or the Montanists.

-- elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), June 16, 2003.

If James is a close relative of Jesus, that is, a brother, then that would explain his prominence in the early Church.

< a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/popup/1055817079- 6257.html#12">Acts 15

and

1 corinthians 15

So how does the brother situation affect Catholicism?

It will be tough to deal with this since there are already dogmas and councils which already debated this.

1) Isaiah 7:14 applies to Jesus 2) Jesus was Mary's only son, no other brothers 3) Jesus is God himself, the second person in the trinity, 4) Mary ascended to heaven 5) Mary was always a virgin

I doubt 1,2,3,and 5. I am not sure about 4.

My problem is that other than the gospels from the ist century, most patristic works come from the middle of the second century and onwards. Only possibly Clement and Ignatius, and probably Polycarp, knew some of Jesus disciples. Unfortunately, they don't deal with Jesus divinity, his family, and so on.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), June 16, 2003.

As John Placette knows, Elpidio, all your anti-Christian opinions and theories are putrid heresies -- things that no Catholic can believe in. You are wasting our time here by stating, for the umpteenth time in six months or more, that Jesus's father was St. Joseph and that he had biological brothers born to the Blessed Virgin Mary. This garbage (like your many other theological errors) is insulting to us Catholics -- as you well know. I therefore ask again that the Moderator ban you from this forum.

John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 17, 2003.

Elpidio, CAN it.
Everything you know about holy scripture can be left in the gutter and only the rain will touch it.

It's amazing how sweetness (the Catholic faith) attracts flies (looking for a place to lay fly eggs).

Our Saviour will remember these shots you took at His holy mother, little brother. You like to play with fire, and you won't live forever; you'll reach the good fire.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 18, 2003.

Dear david,

Of course I am not sure of my salvation. No-one on earth is, even though some followers of modern traditions of men think they can be sure. Saint Paul clearly was not sure of his salvation. He said so several times, and taught that we should do the same. I am sure that I WILL be saved IF I remain faithful to Him until the end. I believe this because (1) the Church teaches it, and (2) the Bible plainly states it. However, no-one can be certain that he will remain faithful until the end. Just as no-one entering marriage thinks it will end in divorce, no-one accepting Christ thinks he will later reject Christ - but it happens. Often. And rejection of Christ, at any time before one's dying breath, means rejecting salvation. "You will be hated by all because of My name, but the one who endures to the end, he will be saved" (Mark 13:13)

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 18, 2003.

When I say that I'm sure of my salvation, I meaning...say something were to happen to me and I died. I'm sure of it right now, can I be sure of it in the future? Well it depends if I remain faithful. Salvation can be lost.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 19, 2003.

Well Paul, are you basing your salvation on what you do for God, instead of what God has done for you? We can do nothing to earn our salvation.

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast."

"And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life." (1 John 5:11-13).

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned, he has crossed over from death to life." (John 5:24). I guess I misunderstand all of this. Please explain Paul, or Eugene.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 19, 2003.

D.O,
Your blessed Catholic ancestors could have told you: Only by giving in to temptation and sin will we lose the salvation Christ won for us. Our baptism gives us re-birth in Christ with all the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Those are the graces to survive in the midst of trial & temptation. If we complete the course, as Paul says; ''Fight the good fight''; --that's not --''basing your salvation on what you do for God''. You either fight the good fight, or you fall back into sin. --No free lunch in this life, D.O.

If we revert to sin, all is not lost. By the spiritual graces Christ has ordained for His Church, a sinner has the means to repent and get his security back. But where will sin get him/her? Unrepented sin? The wages of sin is death. Death of the soul; and damnation.

Certainly, you say, we won't sin, if we're truly ''born again''. Yet, Paul says be careful. ''For all of us (even believers) must be made manifest before the tribunal of Christ, so that each one may receive what he has won through the body, according to his works, whether good or evil.'' (2 Cor 5 :10)). We can fail, but we mustn't. Christ has given us the Good News. But the world leads men into temptation. Sin can overtake the Christian just as well as unbelievers. And Jesus told His followers, ''If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off! better to enter the kingdom of heaven maimed, than to be cast into hell with two hands.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 19, 2003.

Eugene, just because I might have catholic ancestors don't make anything right. They died lost, as will others.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 19, 2003.

David,

Nothing I said has anything to do with "earning" salvation. The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is a free gift of God which cannot be earned or merited. The fact remains, simply making an act of acceptance of Christ at some point in your life does not guarantee that a person will be saved. One must renew that commitment daily, remaining faithful until one's last breath. Doing so does not "earn" salvation. It simply avoids rejecting salvation, which a person can do at any point in his life, before or after he makes an initial commitment to Christ.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 19, 2003.

Dear David:
You took a big step toward showing how false your ''faith'' is. Now-- when you confess that your ancestors; maybe even your close family members are Catholics and ''died lost'';

You have to go the last step backward. You will deny it, but what you're saying is, Christ never saved anybody before the so-called ''reformation''. You will regret saying your ancestors were ''lost''.

It means the world had no Gospel before the coming of Martin Luther, Henry VIII, John Calvin, and your King James V. Bible! No Gospel; because to you, the Catholic Church wasn't saving anybody. There were no others in existence outside the schismatics, so, you mean there was no salvation, (NOT EVEN FOR YOUR FAMILY!) until it came for your foolish protestant churches. To the ones who rebelled against their Catholic faith.

Not even your ancestors were saved; because only one Church was working in the world to save souls for Christ! The Church you hate! Man, have you stepped into it this time.

There couldn't have been any Bible either; since the Bible which your ancestors were taught from and saved by, is the Catholic Church's own Bible. There were no other bibles before the 1500's, David. Either the Cathoic Church made the copies by hand out of the first manuscripts (belonging to her), or no one ever saw them.

But Thank God, you're dismally mistaken. In fact I think you're CRAZY! Our blessed ancestors depended on the Church for their salvation in Christ. Our blessed ancestors all prayed in the Church, learned in the Church, and supported the Church. They were all SAVED in the Church. Your false teachers all came from that same Church. Luther, Henry VIII, and Calvin, Knox, every one was a Catholic who betrayed the holy faith of the apostles, and then plagiarised the Holy Bible which our Church had preserved for the world over 1500 years. -- You follow the religious belief of the excommunicated Catholics who broke away from the apostle's Church. Jesus Christ's Church, D.O. We have to feel sorry for you, and for them!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 19, 2003.

Well, the "ossuary" business has been settled. Just heard it on the news channel - the experts concur - the inscription is a forgery, though the "box" is the real thing.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 19, 2003.

"A Church which pretends to be infallible will always seek the destruction of those who dissent from it..."

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 19, 2003.

"A Church which is infallible does not need to seek the destruction of those who dissent from it. Such destruction is inevitable."

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 19, 2003.

I was wondering, Paul & Eugene, is Jesus God?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 19, 2003.

Oh, your Catholic friend wasn't wondering? You have a Catholic friend???

Now the smoke clears. A Catholic friend.

You have Catholic friends here, D.O. Friends who will straighten you out. Is Jesus God? Little Man; we worship God. We worship His divine Son Our Lord. We belong to His Church.

God's Holy Church. The Church of your blessed ancestors, your own parents.

God has been asking what happened to David Ortiz. Did he come into great wisdom? Did he marry a protestant girl? Did he fall off the face of the earth???

No, --He hangs around a Catholic Internet board, asking stupid questions.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 20, 2003.

D.O., Jesus Christ is God the Son! Surely you knew that?

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 20, 2003.

David knows everything, Gail. He knows where all his blessed Catholic ancestors went. Hell; --(He said they were all lost.) That's why he got out of the Catholic Church. He doesn't want to follow his blessed ancestors. Or any of the saints. Sola Scraptura. Never fails.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 20, 2003.

Sorry, I've been gone.

I wish people would quit putting words in my mouth, and quit trying to reword questions to suit their answers.

Let me try this again:

Does the doctrine of perptetual virginity have anything at all to do with JESUS' MESSAGE OF THE GOSPEL?

IF it were not true, would it matter?

Could the Church survive saying, "We made a mistake!"?

I know it could.

The sexual abuse cases were talked about clear to the Vatican.

The curia (diocesan and above)blew it and yet the Church will survive.

I just pray they will learn from their mistakes.

I will start a new thread on this issue.

God Bless.

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), June 20, 2003.

John,
I was giving you credit for posting a real premise. Meaning, that __if__ Mary had had children besides her divine Son, would that have been be any different for His Gospel.

Instead, you were supposing a different premise. Could the Church give us His Gospel despite having to admit it had taught wrongly. Or, not infallibly.

A bad premise. If Mary had been the mother of more children, the Church would never have presented her as perpetually a Virgin. The Catholic faith would merely have known & acknowledged the truth. The Church ALWAYS knows the truth, John. She is protected from error in teaching all Christian faith by the Holy Spirit. THAT is the proper answer now that you've been understood.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 20, 2003.

As for the problems of scandal within the Church; it is nothing nearly like the Church failing. The Catholic Church is Holy, never sinful.

You apparently judge the magisterial office of the Church as proven to have failed because of the depravity and/or dishonesty of some of her clergy. That's a bad premise too. The faith is uncorrupted. No sin is ever imputed to the Church for the failings of individuals. Not even sinful Popes. The Catholic Church is in some ways divine, JP. Her Head is Jesus Christ, and she is His Mystical Body, in total communion with His divinity.

When members of the Body-- evil men in the Body (Church) sin, they are spiritually cut off, like lesions on the Body of Christ. It causes Him grief and sorrow, just as when he was scourged at the pillar by evil men. He remained infinitely HOLY during His Passion & Death. The same can be said of His Church when she is subjected to outrages by her ministers. She suffers; but her holiness isn't compromised by suffering.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 20, 2003.

I was never a catholic eugene, how could I leave something I was never part of? I know Jesus is the Son of God, and he is God. I was just shocked my catholic friend didn't think so. Yes I have catholic friends.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 21, 2003.

I don't know and I don't care if you weren't Catholic. Your friends are your own business. So is your religion. But you've intruded on a Catholic forum for the purpose of knocking the Catholic Church. That makes you unwelcome, Dear Boy.

You might not have been a Catholic. But your blessed ancestors were. They are the ''blessed'' ones in your family tree. Of course, Catholic or not, there must also be those who died in sin. They are now damned. I have ancestors likely enough damned for their sins. But I definitely have blessed Catholic ancestors who died in the True Faith and are in glory. You do too. May they always pray for your salvation.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 21, 2003.

How can one evangalize to only those with like beliefs.

Take the story of St. Peregrine, the patron saint of cancer patients:

St. Peregrine Story He was born in Forli, Italy around 1265. At the time, Forli was governed by the Pope as part of the Papal States. Peregrine grew up in a family which was actively involved in the opposition or anti- papal party. Forli was a stronghold of anti-papal party activism. Because of this anti-papal political activity, the city was under the church penalty of interdict. This meant that Mass and the Sacraments could not be celebrated in the city. St. Philip Benizi, the Prior General of the Servants of Mary was sent to Forli to preach the reconciliation of the city and the removal of the penalty. Young Peregrine was so intense in his political fervor that he heckled Philip during the preaching and at one point Peregrine struck St. Philip.

The moment of striking St. Philip seemed to drastically change Peregrine. He began to channel his energies into good works and eventually he joined the Servants of Mary and pronounced his vows in the Servite Priory in Siena, Italy. He was about 30 years old. Peregrine then returned to Forli, where he spent the rest of his life. The best information indicates that he was not a priest, but a choir brother, who undertook an apostolate among the people of Forli. He especially dedicated himself to the sick, the poor and the fringe people of society. He also imposed a special penance on himself-to stand whenever it was not necessary to sit. This led to varicose veins. The varicose veins deteriorated into an open, running sore on his leg. The open, running sore was diagnosed as cancer. The wound became so obvious, odorous and painful that the local surgeon scheduled surgery to amputate the leg.

Suddenly Peregrine was confronted with the ugliness and suffering of his own life. He had given himself to people in similar situations and then found he must lean on his own faith in the goodness of God. The night before the operation he prayed before the image of the crucified Christ in the priory chapter room. At the age of 60 he was challenged to carry a new and more difficult cross. His prayer led him into a deep trance-like sleep during which he envisioned the crucified Christ leaving the cross and touching his cancerous leg. When Peregrine awakened from the trance of prayer, he discovered the wound healed and the leg saved.

St. Peregrine lived 20 more years. He died on May 1, 1345 at the age of 80. He was canonized on December 27, 1726. He has been named the Patron Saint for those who suffer from cancer. The people of Forli chose him to be the Patron Saint of their city. His feast day is celebrated on May 4.

************************ If one banishes noncatholics, how can one stand for the Church.

Turn the other cheek, as did St. Philip Benizi.

I'm sure he had no idea what Peregrine Laziosi would become in the future.

Compassion, compassion, compassion. God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), June 21, 2003.

How can one evangalize to only those with like beliefs? Take the story of St. Peregrine,

Says John Placette.

Yes. We need patience and compassion, if ever we are to save men like David Ortiz.

And, let me remind you. Once or twice and in this thread, I invited David to remain and learn. To hear the truth. I will invite him again, now. But he thinks he has a license to preach here. That's out. He is acting as an agent of the devil, and we do only what's just telling him he's not welcome. Not if he's going to serve the devil.

Why am I judging??? It is not I, but the Holy Spirit through the Church who warns David.

Repeatedly I and the others have tried to tell him the truth according to Christ's Church. Not MY truth, the Church's doctrines. David rejects the truth. When he does that, he must be ready to take the consequences. This forum is not his platform for challenging the Catholic Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 21, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, John P.
Now that you have clarified the exact meaning of your opening question, I can say that I agree with Eugene 100%. That is the Catholic answer to your question.

You stated: "Does the doctrine of perptetual virginity have anything at all to do with JESUS' MESSAGE OF THE GOSPEL? IF it were not true, would it matter? Could the [Catholic] Church survive saying, 'We made a mistake!?' I know it could."

But then it wouldn't matter if it "could" or couldn't survive. Why not? Because, if the Catholic Church were to say, "We made a mistake," we would know that she is not the true Church of Jesus. And then, not being the true Church, her survival would be irrelevant.
But, as Gene explained, the Catholic Church is incapable of teaching error, so we will never need to face this situation. As you said originally, yours is purely an "academic" question, not having any basis in reality.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 22, 2003.

John, do you think Mr. Placette's question was really in order to point to the other, underlying theme: How the Catholic clergy weathered the storm of protest after priests were denounced for their sins.

In fairness to JP, he thinks the scandal ultimately can't ruin the Catholic faith. I seem to infer, however, JP thinks the scandal exposes the heirarchy as altogether a fallible establishment. Maybe even fraudulent.

Contrary to what we're taught; that the Church remains blameless for the depravities of this group, bishops as well as perverts.

He needs to understand the Mystical Body of Christ; with some members unworthy of the Church. The blame and sin cannot be imputed to her, even if evil bishops hold power. She is guarded by the Holy Spirit.

Hypothetical questions regarding Marian doctrines set up a blame game Re: sexual scandals, if John Placette suggests an analogy to dispute purported holiness of the hierarchy. Am I confused, or confusing you?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 22, 2003.

Although I certainly agree with what you have just said about the Church and sinners, Gene, I must say that I did not think that John P had any ulterior motive in asking the original question on this thread. I assumed that it just flowed from his interest (shown on another thread) in the "ossuary of James."
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 23, 2003.

This juxtapositioning: IF it were not true, (Marian doctrine) would it matter?
Could the Church survive saying, "We made a mistake!"?
I know it could.

WITH:

The sexual abuse cases were talked about clear to the Vatican. The curia (diocesan and above) blew it
And yet the Church will survive.

Why the analogy with dogma? I just pray they will learn from their mistakes.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 23, 2003.

Eugene, I did not intent to tie the subjects together.

The Church heirarchy has made mistakes over the years, so has every other human run institution.

Let's not confuse so called infallibility with perfection.

God Bless

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), June 23, 2003.

Please-- John,
There is no perfection in any but God in heaven. But infallible declaration of truth is alive and well in the Catholic Church. You confuse individual souls for the Church. Souls make mistakes, the Church speaks infallibly.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 23, 2003.

God loves the Church. She is HIS organisation, Little Brother. I know your blessed ancestors the saints with Ortiz for their surnames, were happy in the Holy Catholic Church. They had the truth. Those Ortizes loved one another, as Jesus commanded. They had no bad intentions toward the faithful, because we are One Body; the Mystical Body of Our Holy Saviour Jesus Christ. Your Ortiz ancestors, D.O. were simple people. They didn't get BIG HEADS reading a Bible.

The Ortizes of blessed memory are in heaven, Thank God! Saved by grace; in the Church of the holy apostles. Sins forgiven, in Baptism & the sacrament of Penance, confessing to a minister of Jesus Christ, ordained by His Church. Some of your blessed ancestors died to protect the Holy Faith against Islam. They are martyrs of Christ, and some may have even been holy priests.

But you? You are the Bible-worshipper Ortiz. The heretical Ortiz. The partisan of Satan and anti- Christ Ortiz. In love with falsehoods, unwilling to convert your poor soul. A puppet of the devil.

But you aren't necessarily damned yet. We pray for you. We teach you here in this forum, even if you haven't started to love the truth. You are hearing it now, and the truth will make you free! Yipppeeee!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 23, 2003.

Eugene, I sure hope you're praying to Jehovah. Dead saints can't hear you. Neither can Mary.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 24, 2003.

There is no such thing as dead saints. Read your Bible. John 11:26

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 24, 2003.

Listen to Paul, D.O. There's no such name as Jehovah either. You've been hanging around bad people.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 24, 2003.