Differences between Catholic Teaching and the Bible

[The_GreyPilgrim]

On the filioque:

John 14:[26] “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

So the Lord says that the Spirit comes from the Father. But we also have this:

John 15:[26] “But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me…”

Now Jesus is stating that He sends the Spirit from the Father.

Yet Paul writes:
1 Cor 2:[12] “Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God.”

And…

2 Cor 3:[17] Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

And…

Gal 4:[6] And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”

So is the Spirit the Spirit of the Father alone? Or is the Spirit the Spirit of Both the Father and the Son?

 

[matheo]

So is the Spirit the Spirit of the Father alone? Or is the Spirit the Spirit of Both the Father and the Son?

John 9:25

25 “I do not know …,” the man replied. “One thing I do know: I was blind, and now I see.”
TEV

I have been taught – The Father and Son are inseperable, If you have seen me you have seen the father… Christ was/is God in human form

Mankind recieved and lost the Spirit in the garden… and what was once lost has now been restored

 

[bobzills]

On the filioque:

John 14:[26] “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

So the Lord says that the Spirit comes from the Father. But we also have this:

John 15:[26] “But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me…”

Now Jesus is stating that He sends the Spirit from the Father.

Yet Paul writes:
1 Cor 2:[12] “Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God.”

And…

2 Cor 3:[17] Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

And…

Gal 4:[6] And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”

So is the Spirit the Spirit of the Father alone? Or is the Spirit the Spirit of Both the Father and the Son?

According to the Scriptural text and according to the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. And this is also how the creed is recited in most of the Byzantine Eastern Catholic Churches, and it is how the Nicene Creed read in both the Eastern and Western Churches before 600 or 700 AD. This then, would be a difference with the Western Roman Catholic teaching which is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.

 

[rinnie]

According to the Scriptural text and according to the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. And this is also how the creed is recited in most of the Byzantine Eastern Catholic Churches, and it is how the Nicene Creed read in both the Eastern and Western Churches before 600 or 700 AD. This then, would be a difference with the Western Roman Catholic teaching which is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.

Yes that is correct, The reason the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is because like i said before they are all the same Person. The Trinity. The Father, Son, Holy Spirit, the 3 person in One = the Trinity. I think what you are trying to say is that you dont believe that the Father and the Son is the same. Am i correct.

 

[bobzills]

Yes that is correct, The reason the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is because like i said before they are all the same Person. The Trinity. The Father, Son, Holy Spirit, the 3 person in One = the Trinity. I think what you are trying to say is that you dont believe that the Father and the Son is the same. Am i correct.

I thought that the Trinity consisted of three Divine Persons, not one and the same Person as you claim here.

 

[rinnie]

I thought that the Trinity consisted of three Divine Persons, not one and the same Person as you claim here.

no we believe that the Father, Son, And Holy Spirit are one. At least that is what i was taught. It is the Divine Being. That is why the bible says you cant not go through the Father without going through the Son, See its impossible they are the Same Person.

 

[swariffin]

I thought that the Trinity consisted of three Divine Persons, not one and the same Person as you claim here.

Dear Bob,

The term Person used in the Trinity is an incorrect english translation from the word “Persona”. The term Persona does not equal to one entity/one person. Persona is Expothasis (if i spell it correctly, I’ll get back to it to find out). Expothasis is more or less like a tangible revelation. So, trinity is not three devine persons. In Trinity, God the Father is not the same as The Word of God and is not the same as the Holy Spirit. But, God the Father, The Word (as incarnated to human flesh, and called Jesus), and The Holy Spirit is One Single God.

 

[bobzills]

So, trinity is not three devine persons.

I thought that the Trinity was the term used to signify the truth of the Catholic doctrine that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Divine Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that these Three Persons are truly distinct one from another. I thought that according to Catholic teaching, it was wrong to say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are “all the same Person.” as was claimed above by another poster.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

Bobzills, question, are you being serious or just having fun giving posters the run around ?

Hisalone:

God
Catholics who lay claim to the bible as if it is their doing are greatly decieved.
The Jews pefore them and the Protestants who put the bible back in its rightfull place have as much do to about the bible as Catholics claim.

The New Testament is our doing, we have never claimed right over the Old Testament. The writers of the New Testament were Catholics, to say otherwise is blasphemy.

The protestants put the bible back in it’s rightful place? You mean by tearing out books and muddling translations so that it read like they wanted it to? Case and point, Luke 1:28.

 

[swariffin]

I thought that the Trinity was the term used to signify the truth of the Catholic doctrine that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Divine Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that these Three Persons are truly distinct one from another. I thought that according to Catholic teaching, it was wrong to say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are “all the same Person.” as was claimed above by another poster.

Dear Bob,

Basically I agree with you as well as with the other poster you mentioned. I also agree that we broadly used the term “Person” instead of “Persona”. What I am trying to say, is that the term “Person” as a matter of fact is not an exact translation of the word “Persona”. In my language, we used the term “Pribadi” which literally means “Private” in English (we do not distinguish between prular and singular noun). I find myself am not quite satisfy either with that translation. It still does not match the exact meaning of Persona or Expothasis. I guess, the problem lies to the difference and the limitation of human languages we have.

 

[vocatio]

The Synod of Jamnia setting the canon theory is pretty well discounted now. It was popularized in the 1800’s basically by one man. I don’t know why people keep looking to it. There’s really no evidence it even really considered the question of canon for most of the Bible. Get some recent references and you will find that it really looks like the canon was set back in Jeremiah’s day.

I don’t know what you base your idea that the Jewish canon included the intertestimental books. I know of no evidence they were ever used in the synagogs.

As far as Luther, he gave an explanation of the word only a long time ago. It had to do with the way German was spoken at the time, you don’t need it in most languages.

As for the books Luther included, what he did was follow with the Roman Catholic Church of the day. It is true he questioned books, though if you read him instead of those who write about him, he clearly states that it was a personal thing. His bible follows the order of a Latin transaltion that came out between the time of his New Testament and complete Bibles, and treats the books like the Vulgate, the Glossa ordinaria and really the learned among the Catholic Church treated them at the time. That’s why you don’t see the canon of scripture as a big debate with Luther, there really was no disagreement. The Catholic Church even agrees with the questioning, if they did not, they would not call so many books the Deuterocanon, which really is a statement that those books were questioned.

As for the King James Bible, the Apocrypha was always in a separate section, I don’t have a clue where you got the idea that at first it didn’t. Even if it followed the Vulgate’s order, it still would have had the separate section since the Vulgate had three books in an appendix. But in any case, it never did follow the Vulgate in order, though it did agree with the Vulgate as to what was and what wasn’t authoritative scripture.

You can hunt and there’s a 1611 KJV “He” Bible, the absolute first edition available for viewing online. You can see it exactly as it was produced, complete with the Apocrypha in a separate section.

JJ

Sorry, but you’ve been misinformed. The first KJV, like you said as I did contains the Deuterocanon [protestant: apocripha]. The first KJV contained them in the exact location as the Catholic bibles. I verified this through 2 sources so far. I even listened to this in length on Catholic Answers by a former protestant preacher, which means nothing to me since I was going to be a preacher and my 2 brother-in-laws are preachers,not to mention my father-in-law was a bishop/elder. I’ve been around the block too long to jump at every claim out their. The Septuitgint should be enough to slam your proposal out the window, but the historical context is what’s important. It’s interesting how everone keeps trying to prove something not to be true even though historically its there.

The 2 people that saw what I’ve said I spoke to in person. One is a Catholic, and the other was Protestant, sounded Baptist, that attended a local Batpist college and told me she saw it with her own eyes. Sounded pretty cool. I have a copy of the 1611 KJV…it is as you said. But do you not understand that Luther want to delete James and Revelations not to mention several others. He even went so far as to add a word to emphasis something that is not true to justify what he pushed as his own belief. Well, 33,000 ecclesial communities later voila…there you have it.

My new mission is to follow up with hard copies of what I’ve learned and heard. I keep finding that these arguments always wash out form the non-Catholic stance. My mission is to disprove Catholic teaching. But it keeps floating to the top as the most likely and viable choice. I am Catholic. I intend to keep my family Catholic and away from the anti-Catholics that keep teaching and pushing there heresy around us. I have an entire family of anti-Catholics on both sides between my wife and me. Our children’s faith will require much defending from the likes of many on this board, which is why I’m fairly assertive in my attention to false beliefs. Especially thosse fallen away Catholics that say they are evangelicals or fundamentalists especally. I was one of those at one time and I’m a very trained evangelical and not afraid to jump in the middle of an arguement dealing with religion. God’s given me a gift and my online vocation analysis said that it’s not mine to keep. I must share it with others. I just pray that God keeps my head screwed on straight in doing so. It can become a source of false pride.

By the way , I said a rosary for all of you non-Catholics and anti-Catholics and fallen away Catholics…yeap…you’re still Catholic…can’t wash that indelible mark off. I pray for your wounded hearts to heal. I know a lot of people out there have fallen into a trap. Oh…there are absolutely NO discrepancies with Catholic teaching and the Bible. I’ve read and studied it so much and just can’t find it. I tried to prove it…can’t. It’s one and the same…why? Because it was provided by the Church. It is part of the deposit of faith and no doctrine can ever depart from Sacred Scripture, but the entire deposit of faith is not solely contained within the sacred scriptures.

 

[rinnie]

Sorry, but you’ve been misinformed. The first KJV, like you said as I did contains the Deuterocanon [protestant: apocripha]. The first KJV contained them in the exact location as the Catholic bibles. I verified this through 2 sources so far. I even listened to this in length on Catholic Answers by a former protestant preacher, which means nothing to me since I was going to be a preacher and my 2 brother-in-laws are preachers,not to mention my father-in-law was a bishop/elder. I’ve been around the block too long to jump at every claim out their. The Septuitgint should be enough to slam your proposal out the window, but the historical context is what’s important. It’s interesting how everone keeps trying to prove something not to be true even though historically its there.

The 2 people that saw what I’ve said I spoke to in person. One is a Catholic, and the other was Protestant, sounded Baptist, that attended a local Batpist college and told me she saw it with her own eyes. Sounded pretty cool. I have a copy of the 1611 KJV…it is as you said. But do you not understand that Luther want to delete James and Revelations not to mention several others. He even went so far as to add a word to emphasis something that is not true to justify what he pushed as his own belief. Well, 33,000 ecclesial communities later voila…there you have it.

My new mission is to follow up with hard copies of what I’ve learned and heard. I keep finding that these arguments always wash out form the non-Catholic stance. My mission is to disprove Catholic teaching. But it keeps floating to the top as the most likely and viable choice. I am Catholic. I intend to keep my family Catholic and away from the anti-Catholics that keep teaching and pushing there heresy around us. I have an entire family of anti-Catholics on both sides between my wife and me. Our children’s faith will require much defending from the likes of many on this board, which is why I’m fairly assertive in my attention to false beliefs. Especially thosse fallen away Catholics that say they are evangelicals or fundamentalists especally. I was one of those at one time and I’m a very trained evangelical and not afraid to jump in the middle of an arguement dealing with religion. God’s given me a gift and my online vocation analysis said that it’s not mine to keep. I must share it with others. I just pray that God keeps my head screwed on straight in doing so. It can become a source of false pride.

By the way , I said a rosary for all of you non-Catholics and anti-Catholics and fallen away Catholics…yeap…you’re still Catholic…can’t wash that indelible mark off. I pray for your wounded hearts to heal. I know a lot of people out there have fallen into a trap. Oh…there are absolutely NO discrepancies with Catholic teaching and the Bible. I’ve read and studied it so much and just can’t find it. I tried to prove it…can’t. It’s one and the same…why? Because it was provided by the Church. It is part of the deposit of faith and no doctrine can ever depart from Sacred Scripture, but the entire deposit of faith is not solely contained within the sacred scriptures.

Wow someone who really knows what they are talking about! I dont know alot about the books and history , I was born RC all of my life. We just never questioned our Religion, BUt i like you have learned that we are not to teach our faith, but we must defend it. I am not qualified to teach anyone anything, but i do know enough to defend. That actually is why I got on these sights, To share what i know, and try to help. But like you hope that by the Grace of God i am doing it right. But ever time someone says something that the Church has done wrong or is wrong about the truth is always there. Always, IT may take awhile to find it but its always there.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Sorry, but you’ve been misinformed. The first KJV, like you said as I did contains the Deuterocanon [protestant: apocripha]. The first KJV contained them in the exact location as the Catholic bibles.

I don’t know where you got the idea the order of books in the original KJV was the same as that used by Catholic Bibles, it wasn’t. Maybe someone spoke or wrote carelessly and they were trying to say it contained all the books, which it does, even the three normally found in an appendix to the Vulgate which aren’t contained in Catholic Bibles today. That would be 1 and 2 Esdras (called 3 and 4 Esdras by the Vulgate) and the prayer of Manasses.

That is easily verifiable, a facsimile of the original 1611 “He” Bible is available online at dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?textID=kjbible&PagePosition=1

It is called the “He” bible because of a mistake contained by the very first edition in Ruth 3:15 which was corrected in the second edition called the “She” bible.

You could go for instance to the Apocryphal section which starts with 1 Esdras (called 3 Esdras in the Vulgate) and page through and see the order. dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1005

It’s all there.

JJ

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Luther gave an explanation of his use of the word “only” which for those who do not care to read it just boils down to it was necessary in the German language of the day to correctly translate the meaning.

Luther’s letter on translating which addresses this issue is at: bible-researcher.com/luther01.html

JJ

 

[planter654]

Luther gave an explanation of his use of the word “only” which for those who do not care to read it just boils down to it was necessary in the German language of the day to correctly translate the meaning.

Luther’s letter on translating which addresses this issue is at: bible-researcher.com/luther01.html

JJ

Thank You! God Bless you always

 

[qui_est_ce]

Luther gave an explanation of his use of the word “only” which for those who do not care to read it just boils down to it was necessary in the German language of the day to correctly translate the meaning.

Luther’s letter on translating which addresses this issue is at: bible-researcher.com/luther01.html

JJ

This is what the link reads:
ML:

*But I will return to the subject at hand. If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he says that a papist and a donkey are the same thing.” Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas… I will go even further with my boasting: I can expound the psalms and the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and they cannot. I can read the Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray, they cannot…Let this be the answer to your first question. Please do not give these donkeys any other answer to their useless braying about that word sola than simply this: “Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the doctors of the pope.” …I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there…For example, we say “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money”; or “No, I really have nicht money, but allein grain”; I have allein eaten and nicht yet drunk"; “Did you write it allein and nicht read it over?” There are countless cases like this in daily usage.
*"

This is what you choose substantiate your argument? The argument for allein and kein is so convoluted. Allein means alone or only. Nich-not. By his own admission, he added a word to change the meaning of the text to what HE decided it should mean. Then he declared all doctors of the Church before him donkeys, this would include St. Augustine and St. Thomas Acquin.
Romans 3:28:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

No matter which way you cut it, faith (allein) and (nicht) works read man is justified by faith alone and not by works. This changes the whole meaning of the verse, especially in context of James. Now you know why ML calls James “Strawey.” Because Dr. Luther will have it so.

 

[Anthony02]

I’m actually surprised at the question. And let me say emphatically, I mean absolutely no disrespect to you or your faith.

The context is that someone asked when I was going to join the Catholic Church.

I responded that when I compare the Bible vs. the Teachings of the Catholic Church I see huge differences.

RickO spun out this thread to discuss the topic.

Since Catholics don’t believe in Sola Scriptura, why would you question this position?

But to begin a discussion, the list is so very long.

Where can I read about “Holy Water” with people dipping their fingers into it and making the sign of the cross in the Bible?

where can I read that the bible is the only source of authority?

 

[rinnie]

where can I read that the bible is the only source of authority?

You wont. Long before the bible was THE CHURCH. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. The one that was left to Peter. The bible tells us, which i know you agree with too that the whole world could not be big enough to contain the books. People just dont want to believe in the Church. But they believe in the Church scriptures. GO FIGURE.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Another difference:
the Bible commands us to keep holy the Sabbath day. The Catholic teaching is to keep holy the first day of the week, Sunday, not the Sabbath day.

Resurrection=Sunday, Pentecost=Sunday,
Romans 14:5-7:

5
(For) one person considers one day more important than another, while another person considers all days alike. Let everyone be fully persuaded in his own mind. 2
6
Whoever observes the day, observes it for the Lord. Also whoever eats, eats for the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while whoever abstains, abstains for the Lord and gives thanks to God.
7
None of us lives for oneself, and no one dies for oneself.

The old covenant was fulfilled and the new covenant was established

Luke:

Luke 22:20
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

1 Corinthians 11:25:

In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the **new covenant **in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

''I have repeatedly offered $1,000 to anyone who can prove to me from the Bible alone that I am bound to keep Sunday holy.

“… you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.”

The challenge was given to find a teaching which contradicts the Bible.

In fact, the Bible seems to conradict itself, especially when verses are cited out of context.
"Romans7:6:

But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code

I have tried to answer the question and now after I attempt an answer, you start calling names, saying I am crying wolf.
Perhaps we should say what is meant by the term contradict?

I’m sure the OP was referring to Doctrine and not to cultural traditions.

1. Further, Father Kunkel says that Deut 22:5 implies that women should not wear pants;
   See lffa-ollmpc.com/standards.htm
   The Catholic teaching in our local Church is that women can wear pants in Church.
2. The Bible says that women should wear headcovering in Church 1Cor 11. The Catholic teaching is that women are not obligated to wear headcovering in Church.

1. The Bible says: “Thou shalt not kill” It does not give the exception that if you are in a war with Japan, then you can forget about it and it is all right to drop a couple of A-Bombs and kill innocent children.

Does that apply to all the wars in which the Isrealites engaged at God’s command? Jericho? What about if a rapist were assaulting your child and about to push a knife through it’s heart?

 

[bobzills]

What about if a rapist were assaulting your child and about to push a knife through it’s heart?

You are allowed to kill the rapist in self-defense, or in defense of your family, according to Catholic teaching.
It is different to drop an A-Bomb and target for murder thousands of innocent children. Where is the outrage against this obvious disregard of the commandment: “Thou shalt not kill”? It is true, though, that there are Catholic groups and members of the Catholic clergy who very much oppose nuclear war, such as pax christi. The sad part is that some Catholics see pax christi as a dissenting group of Catholics.