Catholic practices that have no biblical basis

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pai_Nosso
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The first one is biblical, Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me (John 6:54-57).

Notice the straightforwardness of his language. Even when the apostles are confused he insists that his the bread is his flesh and the wine is his blood.
 
And Peter passed the running of the church to others, right?
 
Not sure how anyone can read John 6 and not believe the first one.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
A partial listing of reasons and questions for bible Christians.
  1. The bible does not teach that it is:
    a. Complete.
    b. a sole rule for Christians.
    c. To be consulted when disputes arise.
  2. Even more so, Jesus Christ referenced the Old Testament scriptures, but never taught that the Apostles were to use scrolls (or any writing) to teach.
  3. Christ never wrote any scripture.
  4. Christ did not command the writing of any scripture.
  5. Christ, being the very Word of God, is infinitely greater than all scripture. Not merely a written word, but a living, eternal and divine Word.
  6. The “sole” reason we have a New Testament is because Christ gave that authority (“Whatever you hold bound”) to the Apostles as the heads of His Church.
  7. Christ clearly and taught that the Church was final in all decisions regarding faith and morals.
  8. Saint Paul taught that both his letters and what he taught verbally - in person - were to be followed.
  9. Saint Paul wrote - without error - that the Church was the “pillar and foundation” of the truth.
  10. The Apostles followed Jesus’s command to make disciples of every nation “Teaching them to observe all that I have taught you” No mention of writing in there.
  11. Christ, Who must be imitated, used strictly oral teaching, not reading.
  12. Every reference in the bible points believers to the Church.
  13. Where did our lord teach that revelation comes only through writing? He did not.
  14. Where does the bible say that God reveals truth only in writing? It does not.
  15. The only reason we have the bible as we know it is because the Church which Christ founded (pillar and foundation of truth) held a council (as in Acts 15), examined the hundreds of writings that claimed to be inspired, and determined that only the 27 books/letters we have now were genuine writings of the New Testament.
  16. “Bible alone” “sola scriptura” etc. is not from Christ. He never taught anything like that.
Man did.

In Germany.

1,500 years after Christ.

Without any authority to teach what was not in the bible.
  1. The Church which Christ founded has authority in all matters of faith and morals, even to rule on what the bible contains or does not, and what the bible is and is not.
  2. The proper question might be: Why does bible Christianity lack so much that the early Christians believed and practiced?
  3. Why does bible Christianity dismiss 5, 6 or even all 7 Sacraments as instituted by Christ? By what authority?
  4. Why does bible Christianity ignore seven books of scripture that were in use even before Christ?
  5. Why do bible Christians disagree on so many things? Christ taught that all should be of one mind.
Point to remember: Christ founded a Church, not a bible. This takes nothing away from the incredible value of scripture. It realizes that scripture is only a part of the picture, not the entire picture.
 
Last edited:
Pai_Nosso said:
Without a strong biblical connection isn’t the introduction of new practices simply the will of humans instead of God?
Click to expand...
Well, then we would not have a Bible, would we…
It was the Catholic Church that assembled a bunch of individual writings to make up a Bible, a collection of writings, and their authority for “making up a Bible” was that they were apostolic successors to the original Apostles, who were given all authority for such by Jesus.

The Catholic Church “made up the Bible”, the Bible did not make up the Church.

If you think a doctrine can come from the Bible, then you are admitting that the Catholic Church alone can define doctrine, since the Catholic Church defined the Bible, and even Protestants try to define the Bible by pulling out 6 books to throw away as if they were apostolic successors.
 
Pai_Nosso said:
For example this whole pachamama fiasco. Where did this come from?
If the church decides to introduce this pachamama as “Our lady of the Amazon” then Catholics will just have to accept it. How can such heresies be avoided?
Click to expand...
OK… so, out of everything in the world, the thing that confuses you the most is Pachamama. 😛

Basically, Mother Earth = Pachamama.

Certain people said, “Mother Earth = Pachamama = Virgin Mary.”

Some people said, “Well, if it helps you understand the Virgin Mary by drawing parallels to your own culture…”

And other people said, “No. That’s totally wrong.” And they dumped it in the river.

And other people said, “Oh, it’s totally not a goddess figure. It was just, um, art statues. That represent fertility. And life. Because it’s the Amazon. Which is full of fertility. And life.”

And some people said, “Good! They were idols! That was stupid, for someone to bring them into the Vatican!”

And other people said, “Oh! We’re so barbaric and not-understanding! We ought to be more openminded!”

And other people said, “Oops! That was theft and destruction of private property! We could be legally liable, hm? The attorneys are not happy!”

So, everyone has their own perspective, but you see that there’s not an Official Church Stance saying, “Pachamama is cool!” vs “Pachamama is demonic!”
“As bishop of this diocese,” Pope Francis, who is Bishop of Rome, said, “I ask forgiveness from those who have been offended by this gesture.”

Pope Francis also reported that the statues had been recovered from the river, are not damaged, and are being kept in the offices of the head of Italy’s national police.

The statues, which were identical carved images of a naked pregnant Amazonian woman, had been displayed in the Carmelite church of Santa Maria in Traspontina, close to the Vatican, and used in several events, rituals, and expression of spirituality taking place during the Oct. 6-27 Amazonian synod.

The pope said they had been displayed in the church “without idolatrous intentions,” according to a transcript provided by the Vatican press office.
Click to expand...
So, while “blessing and displaying statues of naked pregnant Amazonian women who may or may not be idols/demons in church without idolatrous intentions” is foolish and disrespectful, it happened. And the apology is a pretty normal apology-- “If you were offended, I’m sorry.” And he’s speaking as the local bishop of the local diocese where it happened, rather than as Pope. And they’re locked away in a closet, and when the time comes to go home, they’ll get freighted back to the Amazon.

But you’ll also notice that (at the Mass that concluded the Synod? Other Masses as well?) they were careful to note that there was traditional Marian imagery prominently present.

But in general, I’d say the whole Pachamama thing depends more on your personal Venn diagram of how much Faith and Culture are allowed to intermix, vs how much they need to be kept distinct from each other.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Pai_Nosso said:
Please excuse my ignorance on this matter but why does the Catholic church bring in such things that aren’t supported by scripture?
Click to expand...
Excuse me, but why do Protestants think that Scripture is the source of the Church’s authority and teaching, rather than realizing that Scripture exists as an exercise of that Apostolic Authority?

Without that Authority, there is no scripture.

hawk
 
Let me give you one example of why tradition is just as important as sacred Scripture. Protestants take it for granted that we worship one God in three co-equal persons.

If you look back to the history of the early church, believers faced baffling, competing teachings about the nature of God. Among these teachings:
  • Gnosticism: An unknowable God reveals knowledge. A subordinate God rules the material world.
  • Marcionism: The God of the Old Testament differs from the God of the New Testament.
  • Adoptionism: Jesus was not born as the Son of God; rather. He was adopted at His Baptism.
  • Docetism: Jesus was pure spirit; his physical form is an illusion.
To end this confusion, bishops gathered in councils. Through the revelation of Holy Spirit, the bishops formulated clear statements about the Holy Trinity.
 
JoeShlabotnik said:
God gave the Apostles the keys to the church
Click to expand...
To add to that, God gave us the Apostles, the foundation of His Church. His Church gave us the Bible. It is through the tradition of the Apostles that we can fully understand the Church & through that Church that we can fully understand the Bible.
 
Pai_Nosso said:
For example this whole pachamama fiasco. Where did this come from?
Click to expand...
Well, on the “pachamama” business I am firmly in the “the Vatican know what they do, let’s trust them” camp, but even then, I can’t see how a one-off ceremony can be considered as a Catholic practice. Please, do not judge the Church, her faithfulness Christ and her spiritual life on a single event.
 
You have to be more specific. As far as I know, everything is there, even in subtle ways.
 
Last edited:
Vatican ii is here and is aimed towards the people to be more engaging with the Liturgy. Embrace it because it is scripture and tradition that allows for a better prayer. Participation is Gods Will.

Waiting on the Holy Father to do things is graceful. Victor of Christ and trust go hand in hand. Body , Blood, Soul and Divinity in the beginning, is now and will be forever!! Jesus Christ himself is running the Church.
 
Last edited:
I’d suggest going through the Compendium question by question, have your Bible in hand to look up the Scripture citations in the footnotes:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

Start with Q/A 1:

1. What is the plan of God for man?

1-25

God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. In the fullness of time, God the Father sent his Son as the Redeemer and Savior of mankind, fallen into sin, thus calling all into his Church and, through the work of the Holy Spirit, making them adopted children and heirs of his eternal happiness .
 
Pai_Nosso said:
I just want to honor God through Jesus without the rest of the baggage.
Click to expand...
Honoring Jesus is always a good start, but it’s also good to know what “the rest of the baggage” is before you discard it.

So, what’s the #1 important thing? Jesus. Right.

What’s the #1 important thing that Jesus said, if we want to follow him? Love God, and Love Your Neighbor As Yourself, and everything else hinges on that. Good.

What’s the #2 important thing that Jesus said? Openhanded charity. Not just generosity, but sacrificial generosity. Whether it’s your time, talent, or treasure, give generously.

Jesus’ death redeemed us, right? If he had wanted to be efficient about it, he could have just let Herod kill him as a baby, and be done with it. But he didn’t do that. He chose to spend three years in public ministry, cultivated disciples, and left them to spread his work throughout the world. The Church is the framework in which that happened— because God tends to give structure to the things he creates, right? We’re not a world full of amoeba trees and amoeba mountains and amoeba people and amoeba planets and everything’s just kind of blobbing around randomly?

So, who’s the Church? We’re the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ. We all share in the priesthood of Jesus. There’s the Common Priesthood of the Faithful-- all us normal, ordinary people-- and the Ordained Priesthood-- the people that Jesus authorizes to act on his behalf. Our priesthood is important, because it’s why we assemble in public, rather than letting a priestly class take care of all that religious stuff where we can’t see it, and we just show up for a couple of festivals every year.

But the Ordained Priesthood is important, because it’s how the Sacraments are administered. What are the Sacraments? The Sacraments are an outward/physical sign of an inner/spiritual reality/grace. Unless we’ve got special soul superpowers given to us by God, we’re generally limited by our senses. But because something is a Sacrament, we take it on faith that it does what it’s supposed to do.

If you want to go from Los Angeles to New York, it’s not impossible to walk it. But it’s way faster and more comfortable to fly from LAX to JFK. And you don’t have to worry about making a wrong turn in Albuquerque along the way. 😉 That’s kind of how Catholicism is-- making use of the Sacraments allows us to grow closer to God and improve ourselves in a way that’s far easier than if we tried doing it in the absence of the Sacraments. For example, compare how you would conduct yourself if you went to weekly Confession, rather than going once every year, or maybe once every five years. 😉

So-- the baggage has a purpose, because they’re the tools God left us. I need to be smarter than I am in order to say, “God, thanks for the tools and stuff, but I’m okay just doing my thing with my bare hands.”
 
Last edited:
This reminds me of a paper my son wrote while in college. It was a state university and I don’t recall the nature of the class, but it was probably history or something.

He took a bit of a chance. He wrote a well-documented treatise establishing that most things protestants believe are not actually in their doctrinal statements but were taken from the “cultural background” in western societies created by Catholicism.

His closing line which I love was (and I’m paraphrasing) “the Catholic Church is like a pole star at sea. Mariners might not said toward it, but they always sail by reference to it.”

The professor, who was also a Baptist minister, gave him an A+ and wrote on the paper that it gave him much to think about.

And it’s true of things being biblical as well. Much of what protestants believe is not from the bible, but from Catholic tradition.
 
The only one of those that isn’t biblical is the 5th, and seems to be made under an assumption that the Bible is the one and only infallible source of revelation, which the Bible itself never asserts.
 
The Catholic Church does have a biblical basis; however, the bible itself does not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top