Differences between Catholic Teaching and the Bible

[peary]

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?

**Steve -
Once you understand that the Church predates the Bible you will have a clearer understanding of the Church’s authority. Read Acts. It records the birth of the Church PRIOR TO THE WRITTEN GOSPEL. The New Testament Scriptures are the early memoirs of the Church and reflects what the Church had been teaching ALREADY prior to Scripture being written down. To say otherwise is just silly and historically inaccurate.

If you are truly honest with yourself, consult a good website, such as www.catholic.com which will answer most if not all of your questions about the Catholic Faith.**

 

[bobzills]

I started this thread at the request of BibleSteve who stated that there were differences between Catholic teaching and the Bible. So if anyone knows of any such difference, please list them here. Please be brief and clear on each point.

The Bible says: “By their fruits you shall know them.” Matthew 7:16 and 20. .
The Catholic Church teaches that Vatican II was a good and excellent council, even though some have questioned the fruits of Vatican II.
stas.org/apologetics/crisis/Vatican_II/statistics.shtml
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=123805&highlight=Vatican

 

[qui_est_ce]

The Bible says: “By their fruits you shall know them.” Matthew 7:16 and 20. .
The Catholic Church teaches that Vatican II was a good and excellent council, even though some have questioned the fruits of Vatican II.
stas.org/apologetics/crisis/Vatican_II/statistics.shtml
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=123805&highlight=Vatican

You need to separate what people say from what the Church actually teaches. There are many who claim to be Catholic, claim they can disagree with the Church on abortion, women priests, etc. and still be Catholics in good standing. WRONG! The links you provide are people in schism with Rome.

 

[qui_est_ce]

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.

Last I looked, it was the US who did the bombing and not the Vatican. The Pope was too busy rasing money to pay ransom for the Jews to the Germans.

 

[peary]

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

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? We can look up the word in the dictionary and what do we find:
Contradict: to state the opposite of what someone else has said.
Well, let’s look at it:

1. The Bible says: Call no man Father.
   The Catholic Church says: Call the priest: Father.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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. The contradiction comes in since there are Catholics on CAF who say that it was all right to drop the A-Bombs on Japan and kill these innocent children. Anyway, this is a question: does the Church teach unequivocally and without reservation that it is wrong to drop the A-Bomb and kill innocent civilian children as was done by the USA in WWII?

**Bob - you CAN’T be serious on this stuff!!
Half of the things you point out are cultural, NOT CHURCH TEACHING. The Church reflects the culture wherever She finds Herself.

1. The Church does NOT command that we call priests ‘Father’!
   Priests are also called ‘Reverend,’ ‘Pastor,’ and even by their first names by adults who know them. ‘Father’ is a title for one who shepherds his flock (the parish). Even St. Paul called himself *father *of those he ministered to, and referred to them as his spiritual children. You are way-off base on this.
2. People can wear whatever they want in Church to worship God as long as it isn’t provacative or an occasion of sin. If we limit what women and men can wear to worship to the Bible, then why aren’t we getting dressed up in the type of clothing that was specific at the time of biblical writing; i.e., similar to what conservative Muslims and middle-eastern Christians wear today?

During St. Paul’s time it was considered modest for a woman to cover her head, and he was underscoring this point for their presence in the liturgical assembly.

This custom was considered normative and was enshrined in Canon 1262.2 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law alongside the recommendation that men and women be separated in Church and that men go bareheaded. This canon was dropped from the new Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1983, but the practice had already begun to fall into disuse from about the beginning of the 1970s. Even though no longer legally binding, the custom is still widely practiced in some countries, especially in Asia. It has been generally abandoned in most Western countries even though women, unlike men, may still wear hats and veils to Mass if they choose.

Likewise, for the first time in centuries, not donning a hat outdoors, especially for men, ceased being considered as bad manners, whereas up to a few years beforehand it was deemed unseemly to go around hatless.

1. The Church did not drop the A-bomb on Japan. The United States did!**

 

[bobzills]

**.

1. The Church did not drop the A-bomb on Japan. The United States did!**

Yes. And there are many Catholics who opposed it. And there are Catholics today, such as the pax christi group, who oppose the use of nuclear weapons. I am talking here about the absence of an official Church statement, condemning the use of the A-Bomb on Japan.

 

[bobzills]

1. The Church does NOT command that we call priests 'Father’

In catechism class and in Catholic schools, we are taught to address the priest as Father.

 

[bobzills]

2. People can wear whatever they want in Church to worship God as long as it isn’t provacative or an occasion of sin.

That is the teaching today of the Church. But according to Father Kunkel, that is not what the Bible says. According to Father Kunkel, Scripture says that women are not allowed to wear pants. This is where the difference comes in.

 

[peary]

Originally Posted by bobzills:

''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.

**Isaiah 1:13 - God begins to reveal His displeasure with the Sabbath.

Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2,9; John 20:1,19- the Gospel writers purposely reveal Jesus’ resurrection and appearances were on Sunday. This is because Sunday had now become the most important day in the life of the Church.

Acts 20:7 - this text shows the apostolic tradition of gathering together to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday, the “first day of the week.” Luke documents the principle worship was on Sunday because this was one of the departures from the Jewish form of worship.

1 Cor. 16:2 - Paul instructs the Corinthians to make contributions to the churches “on the first day of the week,” which is Sunday. This is because the primary day of Christian worship is Sunday.

Col. 2:16-17 - Paul teaches that the Sabbath was only a shadow of what was fulfilled in Christ, and says “let no one pass judgment any more over a Sabbath.”

2 Thess. 2:15 - we are to hold fast to apostolic tradition, whether it is oral or written. The 2,000 year-old tradition of the Church is that the apostles changed the Sabbath day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.

Heb. 4:8-9 - regarding the day of rest, if Joshua had given rest, God would not later speak of “another day,” which is Sunday, the new Sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week and the first day of the new creation brought about by our Lord’s resurrection, which was on Sunday.

Heb. 7:12 - when there is a change in the priesthood, there is a change in the law as well. Because we have a new Priest and a new sacrifice, we also have a new day of worship, which is Sunday.

Rev 1:10 - John specifically points out that he witnesses the heavenly Eucharistic liturgy on Sunday, the Lord’s day, the new day of rest in Christ.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - whatever the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven. Since the resurrection, Mass has been principally celebrated on Sunday. **

**I’ll expect my check shortly **

 

[qui_est_ce]

That is the teaching today of the Church. But according to Father Kunkel, that is not what the Bible says. According to Father Kunkel, Scripture says that women are not allowed to wear pants. This is where the difference comes in.

First of all, Father Kunkel is not the Pope. Second of all wearing pants in the '50’s is not the same as wearing pants in the 21st century. Should men still wear yarmulkes? Where in the Bible does it say that they don’t have to wear yarmulkes any more?

 

[peary]

First of all, Father Kunkel is not the Pope. Second of all wearing pants in the '50’s is not the same as wearing pants in the 21st century. Should men still wear yarmulkes? Where in the Bible does it say that they don’t have to wear yarmulkes any more?

WHO is this Kunkel character, anyway??

 

[qui_est_ce]

1 Corinthians 16:1:

Now about the collection for God’s people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. 2On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.

Where did the take up the collection?

 

[qui_est_ce]

WHO is this Kunkel character, anyway??

I don’t know, some guy Bob found and quotes.

 

[bobzills]

Originally Posted by bobzills:

''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.

**Isaiah 1:13 - God begins to reveal His displeasure with the Sabbath.

Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2,9; John 20:1,19- the Gospel writers purposely reveal Jesus’ resurrection and appearances were on Sunday. This is because Sunday had now become the most important day in the life of the Church.

Acts 20:7 - this text shows the apostolic tradition of gathering together to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday, the “first day of the week.” Luke documents the principle worship was on Sunday because this was one of the departures from the Jewish form of worship.

1 Cor. 16:2 - Paul instructs the Corinthians to make contributions to the churches “on the first day of the week,” which is Sunday. This is because the primary day of Christian worship is Sunday.

Col. 2:16-17 - Paul teaches that the Sabbath was only a shadow of what was fulfilled in Christ, and says “let no one pass judgment any more over a Sabbath.”

2 Thess. 2:15 - we are to hold fast to apostolic tradition, whether it is oral or written. The 2,000 year-old tradition of the Church is that the apostles changed the Sabbath day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.

Heb. 4:8-9 - regarding the day of rest, if Joshua had given rest, God would not later speak of “another day,” which is Sunday, the new Sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week and the first day of the new creation brought about by our Lord’s resurrection, which was on Sunday.

Heb. 7:12 - when there is a change in the priesthood, there is a change in the law as well. Because we have a new Priest and a new sacrifice, we also have a new day of worship, which is Sunday.

Rev 1:10 - John specifically points out that he witnesses the heavenly Eucharistic liturgy on Sunday, the Lord’s day, the new day of rest in Christ.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - whatever the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven. Since the resurrection, Mass has been principally celebrated on Sunday. **

**I’ll expect my check shortly **

As far as the $1000 check goes, you can contact the heirs of Father Thomas Enright, C.S.S.R., who made the bet as recorded as follows:’'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. There is no such law in the Bible. It is a law of the holy Catholic Church alone. The Bible says ‘Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.’ The Catholic Church says, No. By my divine power I abolish the Sabbath day and command you to keep holy the first day of the week. And lo! The entire civilized world bows down in reverent obedience to the command of the Holy Catholic Church." Father Thomas Enright, C.S.S.R., February 18, 1884, Printed in the American Sentinel, a New York Roman Catholic journal in June 1893, p. 173.

Please notice that I was also quoting James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore: “… 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 Faith of Our Fathers, by James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, 88th edition, page 89. Originally published in 1876, republished and Copyright 1980 by TAN Books and Publishers, Inc., pages 72-73.
And as well, I gave several other Catholic sources in post #129

 

[bobzills]

WHO is this Kunkel character, anyway??

I don’t think that it shows proper respect to refer to a Catholic priest as “this Kunkel character.” A Catholic priest serves his Church as a man of Christ and has the power to confer Sacraments. To show such disrespect to a Catholic priest as has been done here, is really shameful. It shows a lack of good manners.

 

[peary]

I don’t think that it shows proper respect to refer to a Catholic priest as “this Kunkel character.” A Catholic priest serves his Church as a man of Christ and has the power to confer Sacraments. To show such disrespect to a Catholic priest as has been done here, is really shameful. It shows a lack of good manners.

I never heard of him before. How do I know that he is a legitimate priest just because somebody quotes him in forum? Is he still alive?

 

[bobzills]

I never heard of him before. How do I know that he is a legitimate priest just because somebody quotes him in forum? Is he still alive?

Still, in my personal opinion, whether or not someone has heard of a particular Catholic priest or not, the Catholic priest deserves a certain amount of respect. He has gone through a seminary education and has received the Sacrament of priestly ordination. As such, he has the power to confer many Catholic Sacraments and is therefore deserving of respect. In my personal opinion, it is not respectful to refer to a Catholic priest as “this Kunkel character.”
See:
lffa-ollmpc.com/standards.htm

 

[He_lives]

I wish people would come to the realization that just because something is not specifically named within Scripture does not mean that it is not a reality. My question to you is which came first, the Bible or the Church. I hope that you understand and accept the fact that the Bible was not “put together” until some 300 years after Christ (at least the Bible that we use today). Therefore, it was THE CHURCH that taught, it was THE CHURCH that was recognized as the “Pillar of Truth.” It was even THE CHURCH that compiled and established the Bible. Today, we have so many that look at that same CHURCH and speak ill of its teachings simply because some of those teachings are not specifically mentioned in the same Bible that the same CHURCH established. How illogical is that?!
Incidentally, show me where in the Bible it says that we are to use only scripture to determine Truth.

Hi. Forgive me but this is my first time responding so I hope that I did this correctly. I am a Catholic, but did not come to know the Lord until the last three years. I would like to answer the question you posted obove, then I would like to ask you a question that I can’t seem to get a answer too. So here goes: When Jesus was tempted (even the Son of God) He said to all three recorded temptations by Satan himself: " It is written etc…" When He was later questioned He said “haven and earth will pass away but my words will by no means pass away”, " In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God" God spoke and created the heavens and the earth. The Bible is the Word of God written for us as all scripture was written" All scriptue is God breathed" I don’t want to keep quoting out of the bible, but there are several instances where the Saint Paul referes to the existing scripture and when he states something that was not covered he mentions that this was his opinion on the subject, but the scripture that blatenly tells us that we should not add or take away from the bible is in the last couple of paragraphs in the book of revalations. Also the scriptues existed well before the Catholic church or even the opostles existed. I wlecome any responce that you may have.

Now for my question. I will start off by giving you the same question I have sent to the oplologetics twice now and have not recieved a responce to:

3/21/2008

I have been with the Catholic Church for many years, but have only become a believer in the last 3 years. As I learn more and more about the Word of God and the teaching of the Catholic Church I am more and more bothered by one part of my experience. Out of all of the Masses that I have attended I can only remember 2 times where I have heard the Priest inform us that we should be reading scripture on our own or involved with one of the many bible studies that are offered by the church, once in Mexico and once here in the U.S. I have been asking friends and relatives that are Catholic also and the answers I am hearing are making me very uncomfortable. For the exception of one young man that I met while serving at the Missionary Brothers in LA who was contemplating the Priesthood, everyone else that I have spoken to in the US has told me that they have either never heard or only heard once or twice in there entire life in the Catholic church that they should be in the bible. I know from my relative that their Priest in Mexico does tell them and remind them of the importance of being in the Word of God, but I can’t help but wonder why we are not all being told the same thing. As I have read different parts of the (Catechism of the Catholic Church) and the (The Basic Sixteen Documents of the Vatican Council II) I see that the doctrine is sound and that it requires us to stay in the Word of God. I guess what I am looking for is how I go about notifying the appropriate leaders in the Church that this issue exists either locally or as a issue for the majority of the Church in the U.S.

I would love any and all comments on this as it is of deep concern to me.

In Christ.

I have asked Priests, and Monks, and all I get is silence. Maybe you can answer the the question above or at least why everyone I speak to is silent?

 

[peary]

Still, in my personal opinion, whether or not someone has heard of a particular Catholic priest or not, the Catholic priest deserves a certain amount of respect. He has gone through a seminary education and has received the Sacrament of priestly ordination. As such, he has the power to confer many Catholic Sacraments and is therefore deserving of respect. In my personal opinion, it is not respectful to refer to a Catholic priest as “this Kunkel character.”

Whatever

 

[qui_est_ce]

The Bible is the Word of God written for us as all scripture was written" All scriptue is God breathed" there are several instances where the Saint Paul referes to the existing scripture and when he states something that was not covered he mentions that this was his opinion on the subject, but the scripture that blatenly tells us that we should not add or take away from the bible is in the last couple of paragraphs in the book of revalations. Also the scriptues existed well before the Catholic church or even the opostles existed. I wlecome any responce that you may have.

My dates are all approximations of 5-10 years:

Was John referring to the Book of Revelation or to the Bible? Remember, New Testament Scripture had not yet been determined at the time Revelations was finalized - approximately 80-90 AD. Also, the content of the Old Testament was in dispute. The Jews met at Jamia at that time and rejected 7 books in the Septuagint because there were no Hebrew texts, also possibly in retaliation to Christians, because these books were universally accepted by Christian converts. Hebrew Texts of these 7 books have subsequently been discovered at Qumran in the 1940’s.

The New Testament texts had not yet been codified. There were disputes over which writings were Sacred, and should there be only one Gospel, because some of the writings seemed to contradict each other.

It was only in 380, that St. Jerome compiled the Latin Vulgate at the request of Pope St. Damasius. Even Jerome disputed the 7 books, but finally submitted to the authority of Rome. The Pope wanted Scripture in the common language of the day in the Western Empire so all could read it. So he asked St. Jerome to translate from the original Greek and Hebrew texts. This version of the Vulgate was affirmed at three church coucils in 390-410, and then at Trent in response to the Martin Luther’s removing 7 OT books, and disputing James and Revelations as the inspired word of God.

I have been with the Catholic Church for many years, but have only become a believer in the last 3 years.

how can you claim to be Catholic, yet not believe? What did you not believe that you believe now?

Out of all of the Masses that I have attended I can only remember 2 times where I have heard the Priest inform us that we should be reading scripture on our own or involved with one of the many bible studies that are offered by the church, once in Mexico and once here in the U.S. I have been asking friends and relatives that are Catholic also and the answers I am hearing are making me very uncomfortable.

What are they telling you that makes you feel uncomfortable?

I have asked Priests, and Monks, and all I get is silence. Maybe you can answer the the question above or at least why everyone I speak to is silent?

I find this very difficult to believe. First of all, the priest proclaims the Gospel from the pulpit, along with two other reading by lectors, these usually include one OT and one Espistle, plus singing of Psalms and Gospel Acclamation. AT EVERY SUNDAY MASS. In a three year cycle, we will have read from EVERY book in the Bible, not just those personal passages some preachers like to rant on. The Catholic Church provides much opportunity for Scripture Study with in parishes, we have two going right now.