Catholic teachings and practices that I personally believe contradict the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter gazelam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You’re a week early.

Holy week starts next week. Easter is on 4-5-15.

They’re just gearing up early…😃
Based on all the posts in my Facebook feed, Mormons are gearing up for General Conference, which is April 4-5.

I am getting excited for Holy Week! That reminds me, I need to talk to my boss about taking some time off next week. It’s a good thing he is a very devout Catholic!
 
infant baptism - in the Bible baptism always follows belief. Infants are too young to believe.
Not necessarily

Take a look at Acts 16
One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. When she and the members of her household were baptized
The only one of her household that heard Paul was Lydia. The Lord opened HER (singular) heart. Yet all her household were Baptized.

The household had not heard Paul, the Lord had not opened their hearts, yet they were all Baptized.

Thus it is so today, the family of believers are Baptized.
baptism by sprinkling - The very word comes from the greek word meaning “to immerse”.
Your understanding of Catholic teaching here is faulty. We don’t Baptize by sprinkling, we Baptize by either Immersion or by Pouring.

The validity of that we inherited from the example given by the Apostles and how they themselves Baptized.
Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html
 
CCC 1214 This sacrament is called Baptism, after the central rite by which it is carried out: to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to “plunge” or “immerse”; the “plunge” into the water symbolizes the catechumen’s burial into Christ’s death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as “a new creature.”

There’s no symbolic rising up from the grave with sprinkling.
Once again you have taken a phrase out of context. The CCC you quoted ONLY refers to the name of the sacrament. A little further reading may have served you well on this topic. From your same source:
1239 The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water.** However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate’s head.** Bolding mine
 
You’re a week early.

Holy week starts next week. Easter is on 4-5-15.

They’re just gearing up early…😃
Well they’ll all be to busy next week preparing to watch their conference on TV Easter weekend. So this week it is.
 
Well they’ll all be to busy next week preparing to watch their conference on TV Easter weekend. So this week it is.
From what I’ve heard, it’s like going to a Superbowl party, except with lots of green jello. 😃
 
Your understanding of Catholic teaching here is faulty. We don’t Baptize by sprinkling, we Baptize by either Immersion or by Pouring.

The validity of that we inherited from the example given by the Apostles and how they themselves Baptized.
Sprinkling is a valid form of baptism although the Church does so today today normatively, by either pouring or immersion. As I understand sprinkling, there still needs to be a running of water on the one being baptized. More common in ancient times when availability of water wasn’t so easy. Sprinkling too is very apostolic and scriptural (Ez 36).

See article here.
 
The Trinity - Regarding the Trinity, JND Kelly said “There is in them [the Apostolic Fathers], of course, no trinitarian doctrine and no awareness of a trinitarian problem”. (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, revised edition, (New York: Harper, 1978), 95.)
I am going to direct you to the Catholic Addis Dictionary., subject : ‘The Holy Trinity.’ This will explain it very well along with other subjects. I also recommend that you look through radio replies.
Transubstantiation
I believe that references to partaking of the flesh and blood of Jesus are figurative and meant only for us to remember Jesus’ sacrifice and atonement.
Code:
         The True Presence and the Greek Word “trogo” In John Chapter Six              
 
         “Jesus therefore said to them, Amen, amen I say to you, Unless you eat (φάγητε | phago) the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.  He that eateth (τρώγων  | trogo) my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath life everlasting: and I  will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh, is meat in deed: and my  blood is drink in deed: He that eateth (τρώγων |  trogo) my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As  the living father hath sent me, and live by the father: and he that  eateth (τρώγων | trogo) me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat (ἔφαγον | (e)phago) Manna, and died. He that eateth (τρώγων | trogo) this bread, shall live for ever.” (John 6, 53-58).     
 
         Throughout the sacred Scriptures we find many examples of where the  English does not render the complete and full meaning of the Greek. This  is especially true in the Greek word “trogo” (τρώγων) found in John Chapter six. The word trogo (τρώγων)  is translated in most English versions of the Bible as simply “eat” or  “eateth.” When we examine the Greek meaning of the word, we realize that  it is a very descriptive word, and is more accurately rendered in the  concept of aggressively and loudly munching, gnawing and chewing, as a  animal would eat.     
 
         The inspired Apostle John specifically chose to use this highly  descriptive word, rather than the generally used Greek words “esthio” (ἐσθίω,v) or “phago”(ἔφαγον)  (both of which simply mean to eat), for a reason. St. John was  attempting to drive home the thought of a very real and physical eating  of actual flesh. His inspired word usage clearly shows that Christ was  not speaking figuratively, Christ was in fact commanding his listeners  to gnaw and chew his flesh. The Jews understood that Christ was being  literal, and were disgusted at the thought (vs.52), many of Christ's own  disciples were so shocked and dismayed by his words that they left him  (v.66).     
 
              ✞References✞     
          From the Greek we see the very literal meaning of our savior's words,  The bread he was offering them is indeed the body blood soul and  divinity of Jesus Christ.         
    
    References for the Greek word “trogo”

  1. *] “# 5176 trogo: . . . through the idea of a crunching sound; to gnaw or chew” (Dictionary of the Greek Testament, By James Strong S.T.D. LL.D., p. 73)
    *] “trogo to nibble, to munch, to eat audibly, to crunch” (The Linguistic Key To The Greek New Testament by Fritz Reienecker, 1981,Vol. 1, p. 234)
    *] “trogo: . . . Originally I Munch, I eat Audibly” (A Pocket Lexicon To The Greek New Testament, by Alexander Souter M.A., 1946, p.265)
    *] “trogo: . . A hole formed by gnawing, a mouses hole” (An Intermediate Greek - English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, Oxford, impression of 1991, p. 822)
    *] “trogo: to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables or fruits (as nuts, almonds)… in other writers of animals feeding;” (New Thayer’s Greek- English Lexicon to the New Testament, By Joseph Henry Thayer D.D, 1979, p. 631)
    Code:
                  Further References     
     
         English Translation: Douay Rheims 1610a.d. Bible., Printed 1635 a.d.     
          Greek: [ΑΩ The Online Greek Bible](http://www.greekbible.com/index.php)     
     
             53εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐὰν μὴ φάγητε (phago) τὴν σάρκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πίητε αὐτοῦ τὸ αἷμα, οὐκ ἔχετε ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς. 54ὁ τρώγων (trogo) μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον, κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ: 55ἡ γὰρ σάρξ μου ἀληθής ἐστιν βρῶσις, καὶ τὸ αἷμά μου ἀληθής ἐστιν πόσις. 56ὁ τρώγων (trogo) μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μένει κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ. 57καθὼς ἀπέστειλέν με ὁ ζῶν πατὴρ κἀγὼ ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα, καὶ ὁ τρώγων (trogo) με κἀκεῖνος ζήσει δι' ἐμέ. 58οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, οὐ καθὼς ἔφαγον ([e]phago) οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἀπέθανον: ὁ τρώγων (trogo) τοῦτον τὸν ἄρτον ζήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. 59Ταῦτα εἶπεν ἐν συναγωγῇ διδάσκων ἐν Καφαρναούμ.
 
Unmarried bishops - violates 1 Timothy 3:2
Priestly celibacy has a biblical basis in the evangelical counsel of Our Lord as relayed in St. Matthew’s Gospel (19:12), in St. Luke’s Gospel (20:35), also taken up by St. Paul in his First Epistle to the Corinthians (7:8-9, 25-27, and especially 32-33), and confirmed by St. John in the Apocalypse (14:4). It is clear that once the Apostles received the call, they did not lead a married life.

The tradition of priestly celibacy was solemnly proclaimed by the Council of Nicaea, the First Ecumenical Council, in 325. Canon No. 3, unanimously approved by the Fathers, admitted of no exceptions whatsoever. The Council considered that the prohibition imposed thereby on all bishops, priests, and deacons against having a wife absolute. All subsequent councils that have addressed the subject have renewed this interdiction.

Not only would it be a violation of Sacred Tradition to blot out a custom decreed for 2,000 years to be absolutely obligatory, but also one must recognize that priestly celibacy is to be seen not merely as of ecclesiastical institution, but part of what is more broadly known in Catholic moral theology as “divine positive law,” initiated by Christ and His Apostles. That is, it is not merely disciplinary in nature.

The Council of Elvira in 304 stated that all bishops, priests, and deacons, and all other clerics should abstain completely from marrying.

The Council of Carthage in 390 stated that celibacy is of Apostolic origin.

St. Epiphanius of Salamis (ca. 315-403): “It is the Apostles themselves who decreed this law.”

St. Jerome (ca. 342-420): “Priests and deacons must be either virgins or widowers before being ordained, or at least observe perpetual continence after their ordination… If married men find this difficult to endure, they should not turn against me, but rather against Holy Writ and the entire ecclesiastical order.”

Pope St. Innocent I (401-417): “This is not a matter of imposing upon the clergy new and arbitrary obligations, but rather of reminding them of those which the tradition of the Apostles and the Fathers has transmitted to us.”

St. Peter Damian (1007-1072) wrote: “No one can be ignorant of the fact that all the Fathers of the Catholic Church unanimously imposed the inviolable rule of continence on clerics in major orders.”

The Second Lateran Council of 1139 confirmed that clergy are forbidden to marry.

There is a reason for this Tradition. The cleric in major orders, by virtue of his ordination, contracts a marriage with the Church, and he cannot be a bigamist. St. Jerome in his treatise “Adversus Jovinianum,” bases priestly celibacy on the virginity of Christ.

The universal law of priestly celibacy confirmed by the Council of Nicaea applied, and still applies, to the Eastern Church as well as the Western. It is noteworthy that at that Council, the Easterns (Greeks) made up the overwhelming majority. Previously, the Council of Neo- Caesarea (314) had reminded all Eastern clerics in major orders of the inviolability of this law under pain of deposition.

The Eastern Church began at a late date to violate its own law of celibacy. The Quinisext Council of 692, which St. Bede the Venerable (673-735) called “a reprobate synod,” breached the Apostolic Tradition concerning the celibacy of clerics by declaring that “all clerics except bishops may continue in wedlock.” The popes refused to endorse the conclusions of the Council in the mater of celibacy, and the Eastern Church planted the seeds of its schism.

The German scholar, Stefan Heid, in his book, Celibacy in the Early Church, demonstrates that continence-celibacy after ordination to the priesthood was the absolute norm from the start – even for the separated married ordinand – a triumph of grace over nature, so to speak. The Eastern practice we now see was a mitigation of the rule, not, as the Modernists like to claim, the original practice from which the Roman Catholic Church diverged.
 
No prophets and apostles - violates Ephesians 2:20
There would be no prophets after Christ (Matthew 21)

Apostle is Greek ἀπόστολος and means “one who is sent.”
infant baptism - in the Bible baptism always follows belief. Infants are too young to believe.
There is no express mention of the baptizing of infants in the New Testament, but it is at least probable that there were infants among the whole families that were baptized by St. Paul (Acts xvi. 15; 1 Cor. i. 16). The necessity of infant Baptism follows from the fact that they have contracted the guilt of original sin (Rom. xii. 5- 19), which Baptism alone can remit (John iii. 5).

The early Fathers are unanimous in insisting upon infant Baptism, basing it on the universal command of Christ to all (Matt, xxviii. 19; John iii. 5), and on its divine power to cleanse from original sin. St. Irenseus (140-205) writes: “He came to save all who through Him are born again unto God; infants, and children, boys and youths, and elders” (Adv. Hcer., Lib. ii., ch. xxii.) Origen (185-255) declares infant Baptism an Apostolic institution (Epis. ad. Rom., Lib., v… 9). and necessary to cleanse infants from their Original Sin (In Lev., viii., 3). St. Cyprian and the Bishops of the Third Council of Carthage (253) taught that children should be baptized as soon as possible after birth. Their Baptism was not to be deferred until the eighth day, as some maintained. This is (Epis., lix., 3-5), a faithful echo of the teaching of the Apostles, as St. Augustine remarked (Epis., cxliv., 23). The Council of Milevis (416) taught the necessity of infant Baptism, and this doctrine was repeated in the Councils of Fourth Lateran, Vienne, Florence and Trent.

Respondit Jesus : Amen, amen dico tibi, nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua, et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei. [Joan. iii. 5]

JESUS answered, Amen, Amen I say to thee, Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God. [John. iii. 5]

The words “unless a man” (nisi quis) allow of no distinction between young and old, they mean children and adults (nisi quis literally means “unless one is” or “unless anyone is.”). The Greek ἐὰν μή τις (eán mí̱ tis) means “if not anyone.” The term “anyone” would have no distinction between adult or child.

Where the Greek Reads :
ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ Πνεύματος, οὐ δύναται εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Ιωαν. Γʹ. 5]
Jesus answered Amen amen I say to thee, if anyone is not born again of water and the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God. [John. iii. 5]

ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ Πνεύματος, οὐ δύναται εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ.
apekríthi̱ Ii̱soús: amí̱n amí̱n légo̱ soi, eán mí̱ tis genni̱thí̱ ex ýdatos kaí Pnév̱matos, ou dýnatai eiseltheín eis tí̱n vasileían toú Theoú.
Jesus answered Amen amen I say to thee, if anyone is not born again of water and the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.
baptism by sprinkling - The very word comes from the greek word meaning “to immerse”.
According to the Didache (Διδαχή) Chapter 7 :
  1. Περὶ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσματος, οὕτω βαπτίσατε· ταῦτα πάντα πρειπόντες, βαπτίσατε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐν ὕδατι ζῶντι. 2. ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἔχῃς ὕδωρ ζῶν, εἰς ἄλλο ὕδωρ βάπτισον· εἰ δ’ οὐ δύνασαι ἐν ψυχρῷ, ἐν θερμῷ. 3. ἐὰν δὲ ἀμφότερα μὴ ἔχῃς, ἔκχεον εἰς τὴν κεφαλὴν τρὶς ὕδωρ εἰς ὄνομα πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος. 4. πρὸ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσμος προνηστευσάτω ὁ βαπτίζων καὶ ὁ βαπτιζόμενος καὶ εἴ τινες ἄλλοι δύναται· κελεύεις δὲ νηστεῦσαι τὸν βαπτιζόμενον πρὸ μιᾶς ἢ δύο.
7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water;

7:2 but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water;

7:3 but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

7:4 But before the baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is baptized fast previously, and any others who may be able. And thou shalt command him who is baptized to fast one or two days before.
 
Regarding forms of baptism
How to Baptize
Code:
      A Baptist and a Catholic were discussing the different ways their churches baptized people: total immersion or just pouring the water over the head.
    The Catholic said, "Well, just how much water do you need?   Knee  deep?"
    -- "No, more than that."
    "Waist deep?"
    -- "More."
    "Up to the chin?"
    -- "You need more water than that!"
    "Over the head?"
    -- "Yes, that's right."
    "There you go. That's where we put it!"
 
Regarding forms of baptism
How to Baptize
Code:
      A Baptist and a Catholic were discussing the different ways their churches baptized people: total immersion or just pouring the water over the head.
    The Catholic said, "Well, just how much water do you need?   Knee  deep?"
    -- "No, more than that."
    "Waist deep?"
    -- "More."
    "Up to the chin?"
    -- "You need more water than that!"
    "Over the head?"
    -- "Yes, that's right."
    "There you go. That's where we put it!"
Love it!! 👍
 
=gazelam;
Some Catholic teachings and practices that I personally believe contradict the Bible are these:
The Trinity - Regarding the Trinity, JND Kelly said “There is in them [the Apostolic Fathers], of course, no trinitarian doctrine and no awareness of a trinitarian problem”
The “Trinity” as a term in not found in the bible; neither is the term “bible” for that matter. The existence of the TRINITY: Father, Son and Holy Spirit is found is MANY passages and here all three in one place:

Mt. 3:13-17 "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him. But John stayed him, saying: I ought to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me? [And Jesus answering, said to him: Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfill all justice. And Jesus being baptized,[SON of God] forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove,[Holy Spirit of God]** and coming upon him. And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son,[God the Father] in whom I am well pleased".

Also, William J. Hill said "Thus the New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity]{QUOTE]
B]Transubstantiation
I believe that references to partaking of the flesh and blood of Jesus are figurative and meant only for us to remember Jesus’ sacrifice and atonement.{?QUOTE]

This too is a theological term of “recent” origin; however the REALITY of Christ REAL Presence is testified to i\by FIVE authors of the bible and Christ Himself.

Mt. 26:26-28
Mk. 14: 22-24
Lk. 22: 19-21
Paul 1 Cor.11: 23-29
John 6: 47-57
So not accepting GOD and these authors literally is unsupportable!

Unmarried bishops - violates 1 Timothy 3:2
This is a church PRACTICE NOT a Doctrine. And is GOD_approved by Mt. 10:1-8, Mt. 16:18-*19, John 17:11-26 and Mt. 28:16-20.
No prophets and apostles - violates Ephesians 2:20{?QUOTE]
There exist for a reason ONE Infallible RULE for RIGHT understanding og the Bible:)
Never Ever, can, may or DOES
One Passage, verse or teaching
Have the Power OR Authority
yo make Void, Invalidate, or Override
Another Passage, verse or teaching… SUCH WOULD invalidate the entire bile:shrug:
**Mt. 10: parts of 1-8 **"And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities. And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus,…These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying’.
infant baptism
  • in the Bible baptism always follows belief. Infants are too young to believe{/quote]
Indeed BUT not too YOUNG to be SAVED! John 3:5 quotes Christ/ GOD! unless YOU meaning ALL are Baptized they cannot, will NOT be saved.👍.
baptism by sprinkling
  • The very word comes from the greek word meaning “to immerse”.
AGAIN Here is John 3:5 “Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

“MAN” here means ALL of humanity:)

God Bless you!

Patrick
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top