Contradictions/UnScriptural Catholicism ??

  • Thread starter Thread starter joshua_b
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joshua_b

Guest
It appears to me, from reading various threads, that certain individuals cling to the conviction that different aspects of the Catholic faith are either unBiblical, or contradict themselves. I have also read several statements about the doctrines that have “changed” in the Catholic Church. What I’m asking for in this thread is anyone (Catholic or Protestant) holding this contention to please cite me specific examples of a) a belief of the Catholic Church that is unbiblical b) any contradictory teachings of the Church and/or c) any Church Doctrine that has changed since the earliest record of Christianity. Please, no long lists. If you have more than one example of any of these, that is fine, but I would like to try to keep the discussion focused and productive, so I would ask that we try to tackle only ONE point at a time before moving on to the next point.
 
40.png
joshua_b:
It appears to me, from reading various threads, that certain individuals cling to the conviction that different aspects of the Catholic faith are either unBiblical, or contradict themselves. I have also read several statements about the doctrines that have “changed” in the Catholic Church. What I’m asking for in this thread is anyone (Catholic or Protestant) holding this contention to please cite me specific examples of a) a belief of the Catholic Church that is unbiblical b) any contradictory teachings of the Church and/or c) any Church Doctrine that has changed since the earliest record of Christianity. Please, no long lists. If you have more than one example of any of these, that is fine, but I would like to try to keep the discussion focused and productive, so I would ask that we try to tackle only ONE point at a time before moving on to the next point.
Click to expand...
Although I know this is libel to get messy, I’m in:thumbsup:

Show one doctrine of the Catholic Church that contradicts Scripture.

Or from the silence of several hours we will have to conclude that no one here thinks there is one and you are all in RCIA:D

God Bless,
Maria
 
40.png
joshua_b:
It appears to me, from reading various threads, that certain individuals cling to the conviction that different aspects of the Catholic faith are either unBiblical, or contradict themselves. I have also read several statements about the doctrines that have “changed” in the Catholic Church. What I’m asking for in this thread is anyone (Catholic or Protestant) holding this contention to please cite me specific examples of a) a belief of the Catholic Church that is unbiblical b) any contradictory teachings of the Church and/or c) any Church Doctrine that has changed since the earliest record of Christianity. Please, no long lists. If you have more than one example of any of these, that is fine, but I would like to try to keep the discussion focused and productive, so I would ask that we try to tackle only ONE point at a time before moving on to the next point.
Click to expand...
This relates to your question about the Church ever changing it’s doctrine.

This may indeed be a anti-catholic site, but that doesn’t mean everything it says is false. Form your own opinions.

bible.ca/catholic-flip-flops.htm
 
40.png
mikew262:
This relates to your question about the Church ever changing it’s doctrine.

This may indeed be a anti-catholic site, but that doesn’t mean everything it says is false. Form your own opinions.

bible.ca/catholic-flip-flops.htm
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a load of rubbish. They are complaining that we haven’t always used latin? That the sign of the cross was done on the forehead? They misinterpret many things. Things that have “changed” were never really doctrine and many of these things have not changed but are now more fully understood. There can be a thread of truth and have it so twisted it is misleading. The original question was doctrine, you are welcome to actually point out something so that we can discuss it, instead of this shotgun approach.
 
There is a problem we nearly always encounter when a question like the OP comes up: Non-Catholics generally do not differentiate between doctrines and disciplines.

Doctrines = beliefs; what the Church teaches and believes. Doctrines can never change.

Disciplines = practices; those rules, customs, holy days, etc. which help us to live out our beliefs in a given time and place. Disciplines can and do change from place to place and as the world changes around us.

Now, can anyone tell us about a doctrine of the Catholic Church that has “flip-flopped”?
 
40.png
joshua_b:
a) a belief of the Catholic Church that is unbiblical b) any contradictory teachings of the Church and/or c)
Click to expand...
Dear joshua_b

Although I’m not a Catholic nor Protestant, but I would just like to draw your attention to this part of Catholic catechism because it appears to me that you did not understand Catholics’ view of their faith, as their Bibles DO NOT contain full deposit of Christian faith [in their mind].

Catholic Catechism: Lesson 7:
The Bible And Tradition
  1. Do we not have in the Bible books written by authors, other than the Apostles?
    We have, but these authors lived in apostolic times and merely recorded the words and deeds of the Apostles themselves.
  2. **Why does the Church not admit any books except those of Apostolic origin? **
    The Church does not accept any book not of Apostolic origin because the Deposit of Faith was completed with the death of the last Apostle (St. John).
11.** Does the Bible then, not contain all Christian revelation? **
No, and it was never intended that it should.
  1. **What proof do we have that the Bible does not contain the complete Deposit of Faith? **
    There is the fact that Christ commissioned His Apostles to “Preach and teach” (Mt. 28, 19), whereas no mention of “Writing” is found; furthermore, the Gospel was widely spread before a single word of the New Testament was ever written.
  2. **What further Scriptural proof have we that the Bible does not contain the complete Deposit of Faith? **
    The words of St. John that conclude his Gospel, “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written” (Jn. 21, 25).
  3. **What view do Protestants hold about the Deposit of Faith? **
    Protestants hold that all things necessary for salvation are found in the Bible. To quote Luther: “The Bible and the Bible only.”
  4. **Do Protestants ignore Tradition? **
    Totally, and in this they are illogical, for it is by Tradition that we know what the Bible contains.
  5. **What is the Catholic view of the Bible and Tradition? **
    That, while the Bible is the chief source, it is neither the only nor the original source of our knowledge of Revelation.
From:
[* A Catechism Of The Bible]](* A Catechism Of The Bible])

God bless you.
 
By the way, as far Saint John’s “gospel”, according to the Catholic New American Bible:

Critical analysis makes **it difficult to accept ** the idea that the gospel [of Saint John] as it now stands was written by one person.
John 21 seems to have been added after the gospel was completed; it exhibits a Greek style somewhat different from that of the rest of the work.
The prologue (John 1:1-18) apparently contains an independent hymn, subsequently adapted to serve as a preface to the gospel. Within the gospel itself there are also some inconsistencies, e.g., there are two endings of Jesus’ discourse in the upper room (John 14:31; 18:1).
To solve these problems, scholars have **proposed various rearrangements ** that would produce a smoother order. However, most have come to the conclusion that the inconsistencies were probably produced by subsequent editing in which homogeneous materials were added to a shorter original.

[usccb.org/nab/bible/john/intro.htm]](http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/intro.htm])

God Bless You All.

.
 
Can you provide any evidence that the Catholic Church has ever held any beliefs to the contrary,that it contradicts any other Catholic teaching, or provide any evidence that these beliefs are unbiblical ?
 
40.png
mikew262:
This relates to your question about the Church ever changing it’s doctrine.

This may indeed be a anti-catholic site, but that doesn’t mean everything it says is false. Form your own opinions.

bible.ca/catholic-flip-flops.htm
Click to expand...
I think they are seriously confusing customs with doctrine.
 
Qoute:

**If the Holy Spirit inspired the whole Bible, why don’t the books all possess the same style of writing?

If God never changes, why would his writing styles change so radically? Doesn’t this prove the Holy Spirit wasn’t the “principle author” of each book in Scripture? **
.
 
40.png
Justice2006:
Qoute:

**If the Holy Spirit inspired the whole Bible, why don’t the books all possess the same style of writing?

If God never changes, why would his writing styles change so radically? Doesn’t this prove the Holy Spirit wasn’t the “principle author” of each book in Scripture? **
.
Click to expand...
That’s the distinction between inspired writings, and dictation. This is - in my limited understanding - a great distinction between the Koran and the Bible. The Koran is thought to be translated word for word from the mouth of God to the Prophet to the page, while the Bible is made up of numerous authors writing during different time periods, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, but writing *in their own words. * Under these facts, one would not expect the writing styles of the biblical authors to be the same, but would instead expect each biblical writer to reflect his (or her) time and his (or her) culture.

I could ask you the same question about the Koran in reverse. Why would the (supposed) words of God - an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being - be clearly based in one cultural and linguistic context - arabic? Wouldn’t the true words of God - to the extent they are properly translated - be free of such distinctive cultural traits and instead reflect the omniscient and omnipotent nature of God?

-Peace
 
Hi Justice,

The subject of this thread is where does Catholic doctrine CONTRADICT the Bible.

What you posted was a good explanation of how Catholics do not rely on Scripture alone. Which is true and the teaching of Scripture and Tradition in no way contradicts Scripture.

2 Thess 2:15 - Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Jn 21:25 - But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

These Scripture verses indicate that we are supposed to follow Traditions, and that some of those traditions were oral and not written.

So Catholic teaching of Scripture and Tradition does not contradict the Bible but as shown above, is in complete harmony with it.

God Bless,
Maria
 
40.png
joshua_b:
It appears to me, from reading various threads, that certain individuals cling to the conviction that different aspects of the Catholic faith are either unBiblical, or contradict themselves. I have also read several statements about the doctrines that have “changed” in the Catholic Church. What I’m asking for in this thread is anyone (Catholic or Protestant) holding this contention to please cite me specific examples of a) a belief of the Catholic Church that is unbiblical b) any contradictory teachings of the Church and/or c) any Church Doctrine that has changed since the earliest record of Christianity. Please, no long lists. If you have more than one example of any of these, that is fine, but I would like to try to keep the discussion focused and productive, so I would ask that we try to tackle only ONE point at a time before moving on to the next point.
Click to expand...
I would say the most blatantly unbiblical belief is that of infant baptism. The concept is entirely absent from the scriptures. To prove this one has only to read the New Testment. No one would come away with the understanding that the Apostles baptized an unbeliever who is completely incapable of belief and repentence of sins never committed. The idea is ludicrous.
 
40.png
sparks:
I would say the most blatantly unbiblical belief is that of infant baptism. The concept is entirely absent from the scriptures. To prove this one has only to read the New Testment. No one would come away with the understanding that the Apostles baptized an unbeliever who is completely incapable of belief and repentence of sins never committed. The idea is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
Act 16:15 Then after she and her family were baptized, she kept on begging us, “If you think I really do have faith in the Lord, come stay in my home.” Finally, we accepted her invitation.

** Act 16:33** At that very hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; and he and all his family were baptized at once.

** Act 18:8** Crispus, who was the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with all his family; and many other people in Corinth heard the message, believed, and were baptized.

Help me understand: you object to infant baptism because it’s not specifically stated in scripture that infants/children were baptised? Could you provide a biblical definition of the word “family” or what biblically constitues a “family”?
 
Robert in SD:
That’s the distinction between inspired writings, and dictation. This is - in my limited understanding - a great distinction between the Koran and the Bible. The Koran is thought to be translated word for word from the mouth of God to the Prophet to the page, **while the Bible is made up of numerous authors writing during different time periods, under the inspiration ** of the same Holy Spirit, but writing *in their own words. * Under these facts, one would not expect the writing styles of the biblical authors to be the same, but would instead expect each biblical writer to reflect his (or her) time and his (or her) culture.
Click to expand...
But Jewish concept regarding their Torah is different than yours. The majority of Jews believe in direct revelation of God.

--------Qoute---------

According to Jewish tradition, these books [of Torah] were revealed to Moses by God; some of it is said to have been revealed at Mount Sinai in 1280 BC.

Classical rabbinic writings offer various ideas on when the entire Torah was revealed.

Some sources state that the entire Torah was given all at once on Mount Sinai.

In the maximalist view, this dictation included not only the “quotes” which appear in the text, but every word of the text itself, including phrases such as “And God spoke to Moses…”, ** and included God telling Moses about Moses’ own death and what would happen afterward**.

Other classical sources hold that the Torah was revealed to Moses over many years, and finished only at his death. Another school of thought holds that although Moses wrote the vast majority of the Torah, a number of sentences throughout the Torah must have been written after his death by another prophet, presumably Joshua. All classical views, nonetheless, hold that the Torah was entirely or almost entirely Mosaic and of divine origin…

The Rabbis hold that not only are the words giving a Divine message, but indicate a far greater message that extends beyond them. Thus they hold that even as small a mark as a kotzo shel yod, the serif of the Hebrew letter yod, the smallest letter, or decorative markings, or repeated words, were put there by God to teach scores of lessons. This is regardless of whether that yod appears in the phrase “I am the Lord thy God,” or whether it appears in that oft repeated “And God spoke unto Moses saying.”

In a similar vein, Rabbi Akiva, who died in 135 CE, is said to have learned a new law from every et in the Torah [Talmud, tractate Pesachim 22b]; the word et is meaningless by itself, and serves only to mark the accusative case. In other words, the Orthodox view is that even apparently contextual text “And God spoke unto Moses saying…” is no less important than the actual statement.

[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah])

So, your saying that whole Bible is “inspired by the same Holy Spirit” is not a true representation of what Jews believe about their Torah. Your doctrine/view is representation of only what you/Christian believe.

Jews have a totally different view than yours, as to the Nature of the Revelation, which is very much similar to Islamic concept.

God bless you.
 
40.png
Wildgraywolf:
Act 16:15 Then after she and her family were baptized, she kept on begging us, “If you think I really do have faith in the Lord, come stay in my home.” Finally, we accepted her invitation.

Act 16:33 At that very hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; and he and all his family were baptized at once.

Act 18:8 Crispus, who was the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with all his family; and many other people in Corinth heard the message, believed, and were baptized.
Click to expand...
None of the verses you posted show babies being baptized. We don’t even know if the families contained a single infant.

Wildgraywolf said:
“Help me understand: you object to infant baptism because it’s not specifically stated in scripture that infants/children were baptised?”
Click to expand...

Yep. They baptized believers who came, not out of force, but out of repentence – calling on the name of Jesus.

Wildgraywolf said:
“Could you provide a biblical definition of the word “family” or what biblically constitues a “family”?”
Click to expand...

“Family” was used to describe the members that entered Noah’s ark – note, there weren’t any infants. Not all families in the bible had infants. Some did, some didn’t. We have no proof that the baptized families contained infants. It is an assumption on your part. Would you assume that there were infants on Noah’s ark just because they aren’t mentioned? I wouldn’t.
 
40.png
MariaG:
Show one doctrine of the Catholic Church that contradicts Scripture.
Click to expand...
I see a tew teachings of Catholicism which contradict Scripture. Perhaps they are not doctrines, but only teachings:
  1. Matthew 23:9: “And do not call anyone on earth `father’, for you have one Father, and He is in heaven.”
    Catholic teaching contradicts this as they call their priests “Father”.
  2. Catholics teach that Mary will crush the head of Satan in contradiction to the Hebrew text which indicates that Jesus will crush the head of Satan. See the Catholic Encyclopedia
    newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm
    Genesis 3:15
    The first prophecy referring to Mary is found in the very opening chapters of the Book of Genesis (3:15): “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.” This rendering appears to differ in two respects from the original Hebrew text:
  3. The bible says that women are to pray with their head covered, but the Catholic teaching does not agree with that. 1Cor 11, 5.
  4. Also slavery is OK according to the Bible,but Catholic teaching today does not approve of slavery. 1 Timothy 6:1-3 “Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;”
 
And
According to the Bible:
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me” (John 14:6).
And
“There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
However, current Catholic teaching is that Jews, Moslems, Hindus and Buddhists can be saved, in spite of these two passages.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top