The Brothers of Jesus. Really?

In the Septuagint, the primary Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as the Greek word for brother, 'adelphos'. Brethren, the plural of brother or close relative or even spiritual brother is often used. Brother meant much more than our current, narrow definition.

The Old Testament shows that brother and brethren had a wide range of meaning and could refer to any male relative other than father or grandfather.

Below, the word brethren is being used to describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot.

Genesis 13:8 And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren.

But Abraham was Lot's uncle, as shown here.

Genesis 14:12 And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.

Below, Laban calls Jacob his brother. Laban is actually Jacob's uncle.

Genesis 29:15 And Laban said unto Jacob, Because thou art my brother, shouldest thou therefore serve me for nought? tell me, what shall thy wages be?

Also to show that brethren can also mean cousin.

1 Chronicles 23:21 The sons of Merari; Mahli, and Mushi. The sons of Mahli; Eleazar, and Kish. 22 And Eleazar died, and had no sons, but daughters: and their brethren the sons of Kish took them.

Eleazar and Kish were brothers.  Eleazar's daughters married the sons of Kish, his brother.

For other OT examples, see (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9),   (2 Kgs. 10:13–14, the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah).

Since the early Church,  theologians have interpreted Mary’s confusion about how she would conceive Jesus, as an indication she had taken a vow of virginity. It was very common that young girls raised in the temple and consecrated to God take a vow of virginity. At maturity they could no longer live in the temple because their menstrual cycle made them "unclean". (They had primitive ideas back then.) The girl would be betrothed to an older man for her protection. This older man would live with her as a brother or uncle and ensure she did not break her vow and remained pure.

Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

If she had planned to have children that would have been a silly question. She said "I know not a man", so she knew where babies came from. She would have thought or said something like "yeah, of course I am going to have a child, that's why I got married." What had her confused was her vow of virginity. How could she, a virgin, conceive a child.

OK, now to Jesus. St. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:6 “After that, He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once”. Does that mean Mary gave birth to over 500 children? Of course not!

Matthew 12:49 And He stretched forth His hand toward his disciples, and said, "Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother."

Above, Jesus uses the word brethren to describe His disciples and brother as whoever does the will of His father. Jesus, Himself is giving us the Biblical definition of brother.

At the Resurrection Jesus tells Mary Magdalene to go tell His brethren:

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”

Who does Mary go to? His disciples.

John 20:18 Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.

Don't you think that if Jesus had biological brothers that with such amazing news, Mary would tell them first, not the disciples? Jesus Himself clearly meant "brethren" as people close to him, not siblings.

John 19:25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

Compare that with:
Matthew 27:56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children.

This shows that this James and Joses were sons of Mary the wife of Cleophas. They were Jesus's cousins. Another James, below is the son of Alphaeus.

Acts 1:13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.

Above James is the brother of Simon and Judas. So, this shows that the word brother mentioned below does not indicate biological brothers.

Mark 6:3 "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?" And they were offended at him.

Also, the above calls Jesus "the son of Mary", singular, not 'a' son, meaning there are others.

When He was dying on the Cross, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John.

John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple standing by, whom He loved, He saith unto His mother, "Woman, behold thy son!" 27 Then saith He to the disciple, "Behold thy mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

Now if the previously mentioned "brethren": James, Joses, Simon, Juda, etc. were really His biological brothers, Jesus would have entrusted Mary to the oldest of them. To do otherwise would be a slap in the face of His, if they actually existed, "blood" brothers.

A historical document called The Protoevangelium of James, written around A.D. 150, while not Biblically inspired, speaks of Mary as a consecrated virgin since her youth, and of St. Joseph as an elderly widower with children who was chosen to be Mary’s spouse for the purposes of guarding and protecting her while respecting her vow of virginity.

There are more examples that show there is no evidence that Mary had other children. Trying to show so called "proof text" because it uses the words brother or brethren is fruitless as I have shown. There are many more that I did not show. But you can find them if you really want to.

Bonus section:
Famous Protestant leaders that believed Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ.

Martin Luther. "Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. […] Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers."
(Sermons on John)

John Calvin. John Calvin started what is now known as the Reformed theological tradition, which reject many key Catholic dogmas. Though he argued that those who reject Mary’s perpetual virginity based on Scriptural passages that mention Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” show “excessive ignorance.”

Huldrych Zwingli. Zwingli was a Swiss Reformer during the lifetime of Martin Luther. On the topic of Mary’s perpetual virgin, he wrote: "I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin."

Thomas Cranmer. Cranmer was the Archbishop of Canterbury during Henry VIII’s schism from Rome and thereafter and was a major figure in building Anglicanism. Yet he and other major Anglican leaders maintained the perpetual virginity of Mary “on the basis of ancient Christian authority.”

John Wesley.  Wesley’s teachings and ministry led to the worldwide Methodist movement. In his Letter to a Roman Catholic, he wrote: "I believe that He [Jesus]... being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin."

P.S.
Something that really baffles me, is how so many people are fixated on Mary being sexually active.

+JMJ+

I Can't Lose My Salvation... Can I ?

So, the Catholic Church teaches that you can lose your salvation but according to the Bible we are assured that salvation if we only believe accept Jesus in our heart and believe in Him, we are saved because believing in Him is all you need... Aren't we? 

Let's look at what I have found on this matter. In the Bible the Apostles explicitly teach this. Here I will give examples to show that we must work through our salvation until the end if we want to remain in God’s grace. Are you saved? The correct answer should be “I am saved, I am being saved, and I have the hope that I will continue to be saved.” Salvation is a process that you must be diligent in the struggle to resist temptation and the near occasion of sin.

Matthew 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Here we see Jesus Himself saying that you must endure to the end to be saved. He did not say “just believe and we’re cool”.

John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. 6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. 11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.

“These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you.” It cannot remain if was not already there and it would be a useless statement if there was not a chance of losing it.

Galatians 5:5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. 9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

In his letter to the Galatians, Paul says not to get tired of doing the right thing because your reward will come in time, unless you stop sowing for the Spirit. If you stop sowing for the Spirit, you will have no reward because you will lose what you had.

Matthew 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. 29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Jesus does not say these words are only for those who are not followers of Him. This is a blanket statement that is intended for everyone. We still have our free will, we still have the ability to sin, and if we do sin we suffer the consequences unless we repent. If we die without repenting for our sins we are subject to the same punishment whether you are saved or unsaved.

Matthew 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. 6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! 8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. 9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. 10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

“Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is speaking to the Apostles, telling them what they need to do to enter Heaven. Then Jesus repeats what He had previously said to the crowd but this time He is speaking directly to His Apostles. He said to them;“it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.” Jesus used the pronoun ‘Thee’, a direct reference to the people he was speaking to, the Apostles. Had He meant only those that do not follow Him, He would have used the word ‘They’. So, if Jesus is telling His Apostles that they can fall away from His grace, how much more is it that we can fall away?

Romans 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

Paul says that if you continue in goodness (belief) you will remain in goodness otherwise you shall be cut off. You will be severed from the goodness of God. Fortunately, he also says that you are able to return to God’s goodness if you discontinue your unbelief.

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. 7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: 8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.

Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Hebrews 10:36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. 37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. 38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. 39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

In these sections from Paul’s letter to the Hebrews he uses the terms“If they shall fall away”, “if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth”, and “them who draw back unto perdition”. Again Paul emphasizes that even if you are in God’s favour there is still the possibility of falling from His grace.

Philippians 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. 14 Do all things without murmurings and disputings: 15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world; 16 Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain.

“Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” Wow! those are some strong words. If you cannot lose your salvation why would you need to work it out? You do not need to work on something that is permanent and cannot be lost?

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

“some shall depart from the faith”, Yeah, I think this is pretty self-explanatory.

1 Corinthians 9:24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. 25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. 26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: 27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

Paul says he runs and fights in pursuit of the incorruptible crown (salvation, the Heavenly reward). He runs and fights. Not sitting around singing 'la, la, la I am saved and you can't stop me'. He must keep his body into subjection because even after he has preached to others he can become a castaway. He fights for his salvation for he knows it can be lost.

Ezekiel 18:21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. 22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. 23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? 24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

If a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and behaves as the wicked man does, his previous righteous righteousness is of no concern to God. God will focus on his trespasses and his sins and “in them shall he die.”

Ezekiel 33:12 Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his righteousness in the day that he sinneth. 13 When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it. 14 Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right; 15 If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die. 16 None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live. 17 Yet the children of thy people say, The way of the Lord is not equal: but as for them, their way is not equal. 18 When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby.

Again, the former righteousness of a man means nothing if he turns away from that righteousness. “but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.” Even if you were a good man you can die because of your sins if you turn away from goodness therefore you are not in God’s Grace. If you lose God’s Grace you have lost salvation. But the good news is that a wicked man can turn away from his wickedness and receive salvation.

In closing, these few of many passages from both the Old and New Testaments show very clearly that it does not matter how good or righteous you are, you are at risk of losing your salvation. Even the Apostle Paul feared the loss of his salvation.

Are you so bold that you think your salvation is 

superior to and safer from loss than the salvation 

of the original followers of Jesus Christ? 

+JMJ+

Reject Faith Alone and Work for Salvation

The argument used is that the Catholic Church teaches that faith is not enough for salvation, that you have to work for it. The Bible proves that the Catholic Church is wrong. You cannot earn your salvation with works, in fact Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches that all you need is faith. What part of Sola Fide don't you understand? 

First, Catholics do not think that you have to work your way into Heaven. We do not think you can earn your salvation by working for it. We know that salvation is a gift freely given to us that we cannot earn. Works come through faith, because of faith. Loving God, loving your neighbour, praying, feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, these are all things that a person does. They are not apart from faith, they are because of faith. However, the Bible actually says that works are what we must do.

What about Ephesians 2:8-9 mentioned earlier? We will look at that in just a little bit. First I need to answer the big question; what are works? Works are something that you do. When you pray you are doing a work. Then there is feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick, giving drink to the thirsty. Hmm, that sounds familiar, where have I heard that before? Let’s find out from Matthew exactly what Jesus said about it.

Matthew 25:35 For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

I thought you might recognize it. Jesus says that if you do not do these things for those that need it, you have not done these things for Him. You will be judged likewise.

What are other examples of works? Remember, works are things that you do. So, what are things that you do within the context of your faith? You pray, you read the Bible, you say your Rosary, you help teach RCIA classes, you go to church, you invite others to church, you tell people about Jesus, maybe you sing or play an instrument in the choir, maybe you read during the Mass, maybe you help with charity events, maybe you participate in the Walk for Life by walking or donating money. These are all good works that you do because of your faith. If you say “I believe in Jesus and no one or nothing else matters”, your faith means nothing because Jesus says you must love your neighbour.

Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Loving God and loving your neighbour are things that you do (works). Keeping the Commandments are things that you do (more works). What does the Bible say about keeping the Commandments?

1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. 3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

Pretty strong words there. If you say you know God but do not keep His commandments, you are a liar and the love of God is not in you. I would read that as, if you say that you have faith and you are going to do nothing other than believe then your faith is useless and you are a liar. We all know what God thinks about liars...

So now we get to Ephesians 2:8-9, the go to verse used to 'prove' "faith alone", let's look at what it says.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Looks pretty convincing right? It says you are not saved by works, however, it does not say you are saved by “faith alone.”

The Catholic Church does teach that faith is a grace that we cannot earn. We received that grace because Jesus died on the cross for our sins. But back to Ephesians 2:8-9. You cannot stop at verse 9 and use that as ‘Proof Text’ because that only gives part of the meaning. You must go further to get the context of what was really said. So, let’s look at the next two verses.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. 11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

“…created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” We are created unto good works that we should walk in them. What are the works spoken of in verse 9? “…the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands.” Circumcision is the works being spoken of here, Paul is saying you are not saved by works of the old law. This is because there was some conflict on whether followers of Jesus needed to be circumcised. Paul is clearing up this confusion with this statement. Works of the old law are not required but as Paul said in verse 10, “good works” are.

Want more? You got it, more Bible!

1 Corinthians 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

This verse puts charity above faith because if you do not have charity, your faith is useless.

1 Corinthians 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

Again charity is placed above faith. It is also put above prophecy, understanding, and knowledge.

Charity is an example of the good works that are required. Good works alone do not merit salvation faith is important and it is the death and resurrection of Jesus on the cross that gives us the chance of eternal life. If you have real faith and know that Jesus is the reason for your salvation, these good works will come as a result of that faith.

James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

Faith without works is dead. You can know a man’s faith by his works. You can see that with Abraham in the Old Testament works were an important part of faith. Abraham was justified by his works.

James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

So, according to James; "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." Not by faith only is the same as not by faith alone. So, "as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also". This cannot be reasonably explained away no matter how hard anyone tries. Again in the Old Testament Rahab was justified by her works.

So if you go by the teaching of the "Bible alone", which is not in the Bible, you cannot go by the teaching of "faith alone" because not only is it not in the Bible, it is actually contradicted in the Bible.

What are yo going to do now? 

+JMJ+

Cannibalistic Catholicism

So here's the accusation that began in the early days of Christianity. It was also a charge the Romans made during their persecution of Christians. Maybe you have heard it yourself.

Cannibalism! That’s right, Catholics are cannibalistic at the Mass. What?

Well, Catholics do say that when they receive communion that they are receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus. If this is true doesn't that make them cannibals? It must because eating human flesh is cannibalism, right?

Pretty strong accusation especially since most people don't believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

OK, so let's look at this...

The first thing to point out is that a cannibal is a human that eats human flesh.
Jesus came to Earth in human form so He could live among us, suffer, and die for our sins. On Earth Jesus had two natures, He was fully human and fully divine. He was God and man. Jesus, in His human nature died on the cross. But it was His Divine nature that rose from the dead. After His resurrection He ascended into Heaven in His glorified and divine form. So, when we receive the Eucharist (communion) we are receiving Jesus in His Divine form, the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. We do not receive the human Jesus. The amount of human flesh is finite and therefore would be quickly exhausted. The Divine Body of Jesus is infinite and can never be exhausted. So, there is a never-ending supply of Jesus for all-time.

Why do we do this, why do we say that we eat the Body and drink the Blood of Jesus? The easy, first answer is because He told the Apostles to do it at the Last Supper.

Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark 14:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. 23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Luke 22:17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. 19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

1 Corinthians 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

There we have five examples where Jesus is telling the Apostles to eat His Body and drink His Blood in remembrance of Him. The Apostles were, from that moment commissioned as priests to spread the Word, make disciples, and share with the world, His Blood and His Body. Now for more direct and even more convincing words from Jesus, let’s go to John Chapter six, where we find Jesus again commands us to eat His Body and drink His Blood. Jesus commanded that for someone to enter Heaven and have eternal life they MUST eat His Body and drink His Blood.

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Jesus said that He IS the Bread of Life. He did not say he was a symbol of bread. He said “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” He did not say that unless you pretend that you are eating my flesh and drinking my blood you have no life in you. No, He stated several times that you must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Do you really think He would allow over five thousand of His followers to leave over a simple misunderstanding? Of course not! They knew exactly what he was saying and it was too much for them to accept. Jewish law strictly forbade the consumption of blood. That is why they left, plus I expect some of them were a bit shocked and possibly even grossed out because of the words Jesus used. Seeing that His followers had left because they could not accept what He was saying Jesus asked the Apostles if they would leave Him as well. Peter replied, that there was nowhere else to go because Jesus had the words of eternal life. What were these words? One good example of those words is; “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Here we must also look at verse 53; Then Jesus said unto them, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” Anytime Jesus started something with ‘Verily, verily’ or ‘Amen, amen’ that statement was to be taken very seriously. He means for you to listen and understand the importance of whatever follows.

Six times Jesus says we must eat His body at first He uses the word ‘phago’ that simply means ‘to eat’, and can sometimes be used symbolically, but as the people started to complain He got more graphic and used the word ‘trogo’ which means ‘chew’ or ‘gnaw’ like an animal tearing into its prey. Trogo is literal, it is never used symbolically anywhere in the Bible, or in ancient literature.

From the Old Testament: When the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt, to prevent the angel of death from killing their first-born child, they were told to kill a lamb and put its blood on their doors and then they had to eat the lamb. They had to eat the lamb because God commanded them to eat it. They could not eat a symbol of a lamb or pretend to eat lamb. As Scott Hahn said in his book The Lamb’s Supper; if they did not like the taste of lamb, they could not bake cookies in the shape of a lamb and eat it instead.

Therefore we must eat the real Jesus. This is not make-believe, this is straight from the words of Jesus.

Whenever the Apostles did not understand something that Jesus said He would explain it to them. But this time He did not explain it because there was no misunderstanding. Here is one example from Matthew, Jesus is explaining something that the Apostles misunderstood.

Matthew 16:5 And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. 6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. 8 Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? 9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? 12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

The Apostles thought Jesus was scolding them because they forgot to bring something for them to eat. He was in fact warning them about the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees was not bread, it was their doctrine. They understood the law and they taught the law but thought they were above the law. Their doctrine was pretty much “do as I say, not as I do”. Jesus explained this to the Apostles because they did not understand what He was saying. So, for something that had so much impact on the followers of Jesus, and was so disturbing to all that heard it, He would have cleared up any misunderstanding if there had been a misunderstanding. But there wasn’t, so He didn’t.

In the fourth chapter of the Gospel of St. Mark it says:

33 - And with many such parables, he spoke to them [the crowds] the word, according as they were able to hear.

34 - And without parable he did not speak unto them; but apart, he explained all things to his disciples.

Jesus spoke to the the people who followed him in parables, but apart from the crowds He explained everything He said to the Apostles. Again this shows that Jesus would explain what He meant. "Eat my Body" and "Drink my Blood" needed no explanation because everyone there knew exactly what He was saying.

Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians had some pretty strong words if the Eucharist is only a symbol.

1 Corinthians 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

Paul says anyone that eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily “shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” What would it matter if it were only symbolic? Could you be guilty of a cracker and grape juice? What would you have to examine about yourself to determine if you are worthy a simple cracker or a piece of bread and a little cup of grape juice. That would actually be silly if Paul had meant that you must determine if you are worthy of a cracker. No, it has to mean so much more than that. I would venture to say that it has to mean exactly what it says; “the Body and Blood of the Lord”.

Nowhere in the Bible can it be found that Jesus or His Apostles were talking symbolically when they spoke of eating His Body and drinking his Blood. In fact, to the contrary, each instance confirms the meaning of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in relation to the bread and the wine. Through the power of the Holy Ghost the bread and wine become the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
Of course the accusation of cannibalism can actually work in our favour, because of the obvious contradiction in the words of the accusers. If it were only a cracker and grape juice there could be nothing for them to call cannibalistic. So, are those that make the accusation that we are cannibals acknowledging that there really is something more to this Eucharist than they are willing to admit?

Even if we are not accused of cannibalism, there are still unbelievers. It is more common to be told that it is only a symbol.

Using logic and reason it is clear that there are only two reasonable conclusions we can take from this.

1. He is the Son of God who gave us His Body and Blood to consume so that we can have everlasting life.

2. He is insane and should have been locked for His own safety and the                safety of others.

As a Catholic I have made my choice, how about you?

I, however do not understand something. Try a simple Q&A with some of the nonbelievers of Jesus in the Eucharist and maybe you see what I mean.

Q: How many days did it take God to complete the heavens and the Earth?

A: Six, and then He rested on the seventh day.

Q: Was that seven literal 24 hour days?

A: Yes, everything in the Bible is literal.

Q: How many days was Jonah in the belly of the fish?

A: Three.

Q: Was that three literal 24 hour days?

A: Yes, everything in the Bible is literal

Q: How long was Noah on the Ark?

A: Forty days and forty nights.

Q: Actual forty calendar days and nights?

A: Yes, everything in the Bible is literal

Q: What did Jesus mean by “Eat My flesh and drink My blood”?

A: He meant that we are to remember Him at the Last Supper.

Q: I thought everything in the Bible was literal?

A: It is, that’s literally how He meant it.

Q: But He literally said “Eat My flesh and drink My blood”?

A: Yeah, but He did not actually mean it literally.

Wow! These responses, this (logic?) has always left me baffled. 

+JMJ+

Fish Eaters and Meatless Fridays

So what was with all of these 'fish eaters' remarks people used you use when referring to Catholics? Depending on who said it, it could have been meant quite rudely. President Kennedy was derogatorily called a 'mackerel snapper'. It is of course because Catholics abstained from eating meat on Fridays. Abstinence from meat is more than just going without it serves as a reminder that Christ offered His flesh for us when he died on the cross.

Before the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) we abstained from meat on Fridays year-round, not just during the Fridays of Lent. But since the Second Vatican Council said we could now eat meat on all Fridays except during Lent, it doesn't really matter. Right?

Why did the Church eliminate abstinence and penance on the Fridays outside of Lent? This was a practice that goes way back to the early days of Christianity. What happened?

In 1966 the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) realized that many people were no longer eating that much meat and some eating no meat at all with vegetarianism gaining in popularity. For these people, no meat on Fridays is no sacrifice. So the USCCB issued its Pastoral Statement on Penance and Abstinence which stated the practice of abstaining from meat on Fridays throughout the year would no longer be mandatory.

So is that it? We are off the hook on Fridays outside of Lent. Freedom at last! Not so fast! Don't pick up that steak knife just yet. What many people fail to do is read the rest of the statement after the see bit that says no longer mandatory. The statement continues with "American Catholics are to either continue to abstain from meat, or find an alternative form of personal penance on all Fridays throughout the year."

The Church's Code of Canon Law states:

1250 All Fridays through the year and the time of Lent are penitential days and times throughout the entire Church.

1251 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; abstinence and fast are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and on the Friday of the Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

1252 All persons who have completed their fourteenth year are bound by the law of abstinence; all adults are bound by the law of fast up to the beginning of their sixtieth year. Nevertheless, pastors and parents are to see to it that minors who are not bound by the law of fast and abstinence are educated in an authentic sense of penance.

1253 It is for the conference of bishops to determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence and to substitute in whole or in part for fast and abstinence other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety.

So yes, you can have that bacon cheeseburger but you must give up something else, something that you REALLY like or as Canon 1253 says, "other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety."

In addition, Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, and Fridays in Lent are obligatory days of fasting and abstinence. Anyone from the age of 18 to 59 are obliged to fast and anyone 14 and older are obliged to abstain from meat. When fasting, a person is permitted to eat one full meal. Or two smaller meals may also be taken, but should not equal a full meal.

So, there's the real story. I still give up meat on all Fridays. What will you do for the Fridays outside of Lent?

As a side note, here's a little history that is related to Friday abstinence.

If you are like many Catholics, you might head to McDonald's and get a Filet-O-Fish sandwich for your Friday meal. Did you know that it was for meatless Fridays that it was created? It started in Monfort Heights, Ohio. Lou Groen bought a McDonald's franchise in 1959 and struggled to survive as a new unknown business, especially on Fridays since Monfort Heights was about 87 percent Catholic. After noticing that the competition was selling fish on Fridays he decided that was his only chance for survival. He experimented with several inexpensive fish sandwich recipes. McDonald's founder, Ray Kroc, originally told Groen, he didn’t want his stores "stunk up with the smell of fish.” Kroc eventually relented, and the rest is history.

So if you are a fan of the Filet-O-Fish, you have the Catholic tradition of meatless Fridays to thank.

+JMJ+

Did the Catholic Church add Books to the Bible?

So who's telling the truth, the Protestants that accuse or the Catholics that deny? Let's look at some of the history of the Bible for the answer.

Jesus, and the Apostles did not have the New Testament, they were Jews, they had the Jewish texts called the Tanakh which consisted of three parts, the Torah "Teaching" (the Five Books of Moses); Nevi'im "Prophets"; and Ketuvim "Writings".

When Paul, in his second letter to Timothy verse 16 said "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." Contrary to what some try to say, the scripture Paul was speaking of was not the New Testament since it did not exist, it was the Jewish texts that Jesus taught from and were read in the synagogues.

Jesus never told His Apostles to write a book. He told them to build His Church, (singular) and to preach to all the nations.

For more than 300 years after the Apostles there was still no New Testament, there were only the shared oral traditions, (ooh, tradition, the terrible "T" word) the writings, and the letters of the Apostles and others. But not everyone had access to the writings of the Apostles since they had to be hand-written. All most people had is what was what was handed down from the Apostles by word of mouth and tradition. (there it is again)

OK now let's back up a bit.

In A.D. 70 the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans and a lot of the original texts were destroyed. At that time Christians were seen as a threat so around A.D. 100, the Jewish leaders met at the Council of Jamnia. They decided to officially list the books that were to compose their Scriptures. They rejected the seven Deuterocanonical books because they were being used to help spread Christianity. Many of the Jewish leaders originally used the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX, for the 70 men who translated it from Hebrew into Greek). The Septuagint included the seven Deuterocanonical books. They also rejected them because they believed that they had only been written in Greek and not written in Hebrew. (Although in 1947 fragments in Hebrew of Tobit and Sirach were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Most Scripture scholars believe that 1 Maccabees, Judith, Baruch and parts of Wisdom were also originally written in Hebrew.)

So, the seven books were used during the time of the Apostles. Jesus even taught from them. Not inspired? Really?

What we now know as our modern Bible had not been gathered, combined, and chosen as an official canon of inspired Scripture until it was identified by Pope Damasus and the Synod of Rome in A.D. 382 and reaffirmed at the local Councils of Hippo in A.D. 393 and Carthage in A.D. 397, and by Pope Innocent I in A.D. 405 at the Ecumenical Council of Florence. St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate in A.D. 420 contained the full canon of Scripture including the seven Deuterocanonical books. In 1442, the Catholic list was again restated, against those who wanted to include even more books. In 1570, in response to Martin Luther's revolt, at the Ecumenical Council of Trent it was decreed infallibly that the list of 46 books of the O.T. including the Deuterocanonical books and 26 books of the N.T. was the official canon of books and were approved for reading in the Church.

There it is, over 1,600 years ago the 72 books of the Bible were approved by the Church that Jesus started. But one man decided that he knew better than Jesus' Church and on his own decided that he had the authority to say what books were and were not inspired.

In 1534, Martin Luther, rejecting the Greek, translated the Hebrew text of the Old Testament into German and grouped the 7 Deuterocanonical books, (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and l & ll Maccabees) under the title, "Apocrypha", declaring, "These books which are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures, yet are useful and good for reading". Martin Luther also had problems with Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation and grouped them as non canonical. He wanted to remove Hebrews because it supports the existence of the priesthood, and James because it contradicted his claim of sola fide (faith alone).

The canon of Scripture including the seven Deuterocanonical books was determined back in A.D. 393. However, most Protestant Bibles either place them as having lesser value in an appendix or completely omit them because Martin Luther decided that he did not like them.

So, history show us that Jews and Christians, including the Apostles and Jesus did in fact use the Deuterocanonical books as early as the first century. The Jews used them before the time of Christ. Therefore, the answer is no, the Catholic Church did not add seven extra books to the Bible. The original printings of the Bible had the Deuterocanonical books. It was Protestants that removed them despite the fact that they were used by Jesus and the Apostles, because Martin Luther decided that they were not inspired.

For those that reject these books, do you not understand just how much information in the timeline of salvation history you are missing?

+JMJ+

Are Catholics Christian?

This is such a common question raised by non-Catholics. More often they put it in the form of what they consider a definitive statement; "Catholics are not Christians. "We have all either heard someone say or maybe even you have said that Catholics are not Christians. I have even heard a Catholic say "No, I'm Catholic." when asked if he was a Christian. So even some Catholics unfortunately have trouble answering this question because Catholics never ask each other if they are Christian. It is never addressed. The truth is something that we assume everyone should know. So, what is the answer? What is the truth? Are Catholics Christian?

The simple answer is “Yes, Catholics are Christians.” 

This is a false teaching that so many people believe; and many preachers, out of ignorance of (and some with malice against) Catholicism proclaim this from their pulpit. Their congregations believe this because they believe their preacher would never mislead them. 

I could stop there but that would not be a good enough answer for some people so I will go further and show actual Church teaching to disprove this, ummm, out of Christian charity I will call it a misunderstanding. 

At every Mass we say the Nicene Creed. This is a concise statement of what Catholics believe.

The Nicene Creed

I believe in one God,

the Father almighty,

maker of heaven and earth,

of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,

the Only Begotten Son of God,

born of the Father before all ages.

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God,

begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;

through Him all things were made.

For us men and for our salvation

He came down from Heaven,

and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,

and became man.

For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate,

He suffered death and was buried,

and rose again on the third day

in accordance with the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven

and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory

to judge the living and the dead

and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son,

who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,

who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins

and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead

and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The key statements in this creed that support that Catholics are Christians are "I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God" and "by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate, He suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures." This shows that Catholics believe that:

1. Jesus is the Son of the One True God.
2. Jesus was born of a virgin.
3. Jesus was crucified and died for our sins.
4. Jesus rose from the dead on the third day.

We acknowledge all these things and that He is our Saviour and it is through Him and His grace alone that we receive Eternal Life.

The Nicene Creed got it's name because it was originally adopted in the city of Nicaea (now Turkey) by the First Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. In A.D. 381, at the Second Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople it was modified with the addition of "And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver-of-Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. And [we believe] in one, holy, Universal and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins, [and] we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

On a side note, the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, and some of the major Protestant denominations accept the Nicene Creed as an authoritative statement of the Christian faith. Although some have altered it a bit. Some have even removed the word 'catholic' not realizing the lower case 'c' makes the word catholic a synonym for 'universal'. If it meant the Catholic Church proper, it would start with a capital 'C'. This is one of the rare occasions that some Protestants actually accept something that has a 100% Catholic origin. Another example of Protestants accepting something that has a 100% Catholic origin is the canon of the 27 books of the New Testament that was adopted at the Synod of Hippo, in A.D. 393; reaffirmed at the Third Council of Carthage in A.D. 397; and again at Carthage in A.D. 419. But that's for another post...

What is the official Church teaching on the Christianity of Catholicism?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a book that describes everything the Catholic Church teaches and believes. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church it states:

422   “But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.” This is “the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God”: God has visited his people. He has fulfilled the promise he made to Abraham and his descendants. He acted far beyond all expectation—he has sent his own “beloved Son.”

423   We believe and confess that Jesus of Nazareth, born a Jew of a daughter of Israel at Bethlehem at the time of King Herod the Great and the emperor Caesar Augustus, a carpenter by trade, who died crucified in Jerusalem under the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of the emperor Tiberius, is the eternal Son of God made man. He “came from God,” “descended from heaven,” and “came in the flesh.” For “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.... And from his fullness have we all received, grace upon grace.”

424   Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

These three paragraphs from the official teaching of the Catholic Church state clearly and without a doubt that Catholics are indeed Christians. If you walk into any Catholic Church you will see a Crucifix. Most Catholics have Crucifixes some are on necklaces, on the rear view mirror of their cars, and in their homes. What is a Crucifix? A Crucifix is a cross that has the Body of the crucified Jesus Christ on it. A Crucifix is a symbol of what Jesus did for us so that we may have salvation.

As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness

Many other Christians have problems with a crucifix. They say "My Jesus is not on the cross anymore!" How can you follow Paul's example and preach Christ crucified if your cross is empty?

If you are someone that believed that Catholics are not Christians; I hope this helps you know the truth. If so, maybe you could share this new understanding with your friends that are misinformed. God bless. 

+JMJ+