Differences between Catholic Teaching and the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter ricko
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by rinnie
Now i am sorry but eating a hotdog on lent is not turning you away from God and going to send you to hell.

So, please explain to us who set you up as your own authority to be church, priest and pope to come to that conclusion****
 
Really? Eating meat on a Friday which is a day of abstinence is not a mortal sin? I did not know that.
Dear Bobzills,
Many here have given you intelligent insights on why Catholics do what they do, and you choose to comment on hot dogs. Are you really trying to understand? Focus on the positive. You seem intent on gathering ammunition for attacks, rather than graces for understanding.
 
Originally Posted by rinnie
Now i am sorry but eating a hotdog on lent is not turning you away from God and going to send you to hell.

So, please explain to us who set you up as your own authority to be church, priest and pope to come to that conclusion****
 
This is off topic. The topic, as I understand it to be, is whether or not there are differences between Catholic teaching and the teaching of the Bible,. not what my personal religion is? My understanding of the rules of CAF is that posters are supposed to remain on the topic of the thread and not to discuss unrelated personal issues.
I have quoted the good Catholic Father Kunkel here, in support of my understanding of the Scriptures that women are not to wear pants. Why is this not contrary to the current Catholic teaching that it is OK for women to wear pants ? Why is it wrong for me to cite the Catholic priest Father Kunkel. Instead of these personal comments directed against me, why don;t people follow the rules of CAF and simply try to answer the question as it is posed?

Further, the Bible says that women are to wear headcovering in Church. However, this is a big difference with the present Catholic teaching which says that it is not required.
so if I wear pants to church I’ll go to hell?
 
40.png
rinnie:
I read to you the CCC on what a mortal sin is, and if you go back and read what i quoted you will see that eating a hotdog on friday is not a mortal sin. Where did i say i had authority? But you dont have to be a Pope, the CC or a rocket scientist to figure out that eating a hotdog is not a mortal sin by the teachings of the CCC.
 
Your aunt probably was a member of the Secular Franciscan Order (SFO) which is comprised of men and women follow the way of Francis, but are not vowed religious living in community. If her habit (garb) was brown, then that is what she belonged to, in which case, she belonged to an actual religious order.By the way, the robe is optional. 🙂
You are right on it was brown, But now remember this was just what she was laid out in, and buried in.
 
Originally Posted by bobzills
*This is off topic. The topic, as I understand it to be, is whether or not there are differences between Catholic teaching and the teaching of the Bible,. not what my personal religion is? My understanding of the rules of CAF is that posters are supposed to remain on the topic of the thread and not to discuss unrelated personal issues.
I have quoted the good Catholic Father Kunkel here, in support of my understanding of the Scriptures that women are not to wear pants. Why is this not contrary to the current Catholic teaching that it is OK for women to wear pants ? Why is it wrong for me to cite the Catholic priest Father Kunkel. Instead of these personal comments directed against me, why don;t people follow the rules of CAF and simply try to answer the question as it is posed?

Further, the Bible says that women are to wear headcovering in Church. However, this is a big difference with the present Catholic teaching which says that it is not required.*

**From the CCC:

2521 Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.

2522 Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet.

2523 There is a modesty of the feelings as well as of the body. It protests, for example, against the voyeuristic explorations of the human body in certain advertisements, or against the solicitations of certain media that go too far in the exhibition of intimate things. *Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies. *

2524 The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.

2525 Christian purity requires a purification of the social climate. It requires of the communications media that their presentations show concern for respect and restraint. Purity of heart brings freedom from widespread eroticism and avoids entertainment inclined to voyeurism and illusion.

2526 So called moral permissiveness rests on an erroneous conception of human freedom; the necessary precondition for the development of true freedom is to let oneself be educated in the moral law. Those in charge of education can reasonably be expected to give young people instruction respectful of the truth, the qualities of the heart, and the moral and spiritual dignity of man.

2527 "The Good News of Christ continually renews the life and culture of fallen man; it combats and removes the error and evil which flow from the ever-present attraction of sin. It never ceases to purify and elevate the morality of peoples. It takes the spiritual qualities and endowments of every age and nation, and with supernatural riches it causes them to blossom, as it were, from within; it fortifies, completes, and restores them in Christ."315 **
 
I read to you the CCC on what a mortal sin is, and if you go back and read what i quoted you will see that eating a hotdog on friday is not a mortal sin. Where did i say i had authority? But you dont have to be a Pope, the CC or a rocket scientist to figure out that eating a hotdog is not a mortal sin by the teachings of the CCC.
Sorry, Rinnie, the post never came through.
Can you post it again? Thanks.
 
**Meat on FridaysMost Catholics think that Vatican II did away with the requirement of not eating meat on any Friday of the year. Most think it is now just Ash Wednesday and the Fridays of Lent that we cannot eat meat.

This is what the new Code of Canon Law brought out in 1983 says about the matter:

Canon 1251
Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.
Canon Law still requires that Catholics not eat meat on Fridays!

Of course, most Episcopal Conferences have determined that, instead of abstaining from meat, Catholics may perform an act of penance of their choosing. But, do you ever remember to abstain from a particular food or do some other penance on Fridays? And, at any rate, the main rule is still to abstain from meat on Fridays, the performance of another penance instead is an optional alternative.

It’s very interesting to note that the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (the United States’ Episcopal Conference) is currently debating whether to rescind the determination and require all Catholics to abstain from meat on all Fridays of the year. The Bishops are considering that a return to meatless Fridays for all Catholics would be of benefit because:

It is an expression of one’s Catholicity; and
In reparation for the grave sin of abortion. **
 
**Canon 1249 “All Christ’s faithful are obliged by divine law, each in his or her own way, to do penance. However, so that all may be joined together in a certain common practice of penance, days of penance are prescribed. On these days the faithful are in a special manner to devote themselves to prayer, to engage in works of piety and charity, and to deny themselves, by fulfilling their obligations more faithfully and especially by observing the fast and abstinence which the following canons prescribe.”

Canon 1250 “All Fridays throughout the year and the time of Lent are penitential days and times throughout the universal Church.”

Canon 1251 “Abstinence from eating meat or another food according to the prescriptions of the conference of bishops is to be observed on Fridays throughout the year unless they are solemnities; abstinence and fast are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and on the Friday of the Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Canon 1252 “The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year.”

Canon 1253 “The Episcopal Conference can determine more particular ways in which fasting and abstinence are to be observed. In place of abstinence or fasting it can substitute, in whole or in part, other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety.”**

**The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) , then known as the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated in its Pastoral Statement On Penance and Abstinence, November 18, 1966, stated regarding non-Lenten Fridays:

“… the Catholic bishops of the United States, far from downgrading the traditional penitential observance of Friday, and motivated precisely by the desire to give the spirit of penance greater vitality, especially on Fridays, the day that Jesus died, urge our Catholic people henceforth to be guided by the following norms:
  1. Friday itself remains a special day of penitential observance throughout the year, a time when those who seek perfection will be mindful of their personal sins and the sins of mankind which they are called upon to help expiate in union with Christ Crucified;
  2. Friday should be in each week something of what Lent is in the entire year. For this reason we urge all to prepare for that weekly Easter that comes with each Sunday be freely making of every Friday a day of self-denial and mortification in prayerful remembrance of the passion of Jesus Christ;
  3. Among the works of voluntary self-denial and personal penance which we especially commend to our people for the future observance of Friday, even though we hereby terminate the traditional law of abstinence as binding under pain of sin, as the sole prescribed means of observing Friday, we give first place to abstinence from flesh meat. We do so in the hope that the Catholic community will ordinarily continue to abstain from meat by free choice as formerly we did in obedience to Church law. Our expectation is based on the following considerations;
a. We shall thus freely and out of love for Christ Crucified show our solidarity with the generations of believers to whom this practice frequently became, especially in times of persecution and of great poverty, no mean evidence of fidelity in Christ and his Church.

b. We shall thus also remind ourselves that as Christians, although immersed in the world and sharing its life, we must preserve a saving and necessary difference from the spirit of the world. Our deliberate, personal abstinence from meat, more especially because no longer required by law, will be an outward sign of inward spiritual values that we cherish.”

For more detail see the complete Pastoral Statement On Penance and Abstinence.

For Catholics who prefer to substitute a penance other than Friday abstinence from meat, Canon 1253 suggests that other appropriate penances are works of charity or exercises of piety. The USCCB offers more detailed suggestions for Penitential Practices for Today’s Catholics.**

Rinnie - I guess you may be correct on that point.
 
Dear Bobzills,
Many here have given you intelligent insights on why Catholics do what they do, and you choose to comment on hot dogs. Are you really trying to understand? Focus on the positive. You seem intent on gathering ammunition for attacks, rather than graces for understanding.
I am focusing in on the Biblical teaching that it is not what goes into the mouth that makes a person unclean, but what comes out of the mouth. Instead of a personal attack on me, why don’t we try to understand this Biblical teaching as it relates to the Catholic teaching on fasting and abstinence. The question on this thread is whether or not there is a difference between Catholic teaching and what is taught by the Bible. Here is a possible difference:
  1. Catholic teaching - it is a mortal sin to eat a hot dog on a day of abstinence. Someone takes exception and says it is not a mortal sin, but in any case it is still wrong according to Catholic teaching. You are puttting meat into your mouth on a day of abstinence and this is wrong to do so.
  2. Scriptural teaching: It is not what goes into your mouth which defiles a man, it is what comes out of your mouth.
 
so if I wear pants to church I’ll go to hell?
I think that according to Father Kunkel, Scripture advises women not to wear pants. I gave the link and the quotation from Scripture. How serious a command that would be in today’s cultural environment is something that can be discussed and debated.
 
I am focusing in on the Biblical teaching that it is not what goes into the mouth that makes a person unclean, but what comes out of the mouth. Instead of a personal attack on me, why don’t we try to understand this Biblical teaching as it relates to the Catholic teaching on fasting and abstinence. The question on this thread is whether or not there is a difference between Catholic teaching and what is taught by the Bible. Here is a possible difference:
  1. Catholic teaching - it is a mortal sin to eat a hot dog on a day of abstinence. Someone takes exception and says it is not a mortal sin, but in any case it is still wrong according to Catholic teaching. You are puttting meat into your mouth on a day of abstinence and this is wrong to do so.
  2. Scriptural teaching: It is not what goes into your mouth which defiles a man, it is what comes out of your mouth.
Bobzilla, you’re confused.

It is true that scriptural teaching says: It is not what goes into your mouth defiles a man, it is what comes out of your mouth.

This teaching is in context about the Jewish dietary laws in the OT, no? like eating pork and shellfish…

Abstinence is something completely different and has to due with prayer and fasting. Do you believe in fasting? it scriptural…

You’re mixing apples and oranges…
 
  1. Catholic teaching - it is a mortal sin to eat a hot dog on a day of abstinence. Someone takes exception and says it is not a mortal sin, but in any case it is still wrong according to Catholic teaching. You are puttting meat into your mouth on a day of abstinence and this is wrong to do so.
  2. Scriptural teaching: It is not what goes into your mouth which defiles a man, it is what comes out of your mouth.
Why don’t you read the whole Bible, like eat my flesh, WHAT GOES INTO THE MOUTH makes you holy. Or the Lord’s supper, this is my body, this is my blood. It’s not the HOT DOG that’s bad, it’s defying Teaching that’s bad. Do you understand the whole Bible? Do you understand the Trinity? I don’t, I accept it on faith.
 
Why don’t you read the whole Bible, like eat my flesh, WHAT GOES INTO THE MOUTH makes you holy. Or the Lord’s supper, this is my body, this is my blood. It’s not the HOT DOG that’s bad, it’s defying Teaching that’s bad. Do you understand the whole Bible? Do you understand the Trinity? I don’t, I accept it on faith.
Bobzilla, you’re confused.

It is true that scriptural teaching says: It is not what goes into your mouth defiles a man, it is what comes out of your mouth.

This teaching is in context about the Jewish dietary laws in the OT, no? like eating pork and shellfish…

Abstinence is something completely different and has to due with prayer and fasting. Do you believe in fasting? it scriptural…

You’re mixing apples and oranges…
Well, wait. The saying is supposed to be applied to Jewish dietary laws, which restrict the use of pork, etc. The Catholic rules of abstinence, while not the same of course, are related in that they prohibit the use of meat on Fridays of Lent or days of abstinence?
Anyway, you can say the same thing about the Jewish law prohibiting the use of pork as you say here: It is not the putting of pork into your mouth which is wrong, but it is the violation of a commandment given in the Old Testament, or the defying of the teaching which is wrong?
 
Bobzilla, you’re confused.

It is true that scriptural teaching says: It is not what goes into your mouth defiles a man, it is what comes out of your mouth.

This teaching is in context about the Jewish dietary laws in the OT, no? like eating pork and shellfish…

Abstinence is something completely different and has to due with prayer and fasting. Do you believe in fasting? it scriptural…

You’re mixing apples and oranges…
That’s good too! But Bob wants to go back to the OT teachings. He forgets that hen Christ said:
Luke 22:20:
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.
john 13:
After this, aware that everything was now finished, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I thirst.”
29
There was a vessel filled with common wine. So they put a sponge soaked in wine on a sprig of hyssop and put it up to his mouth.
30
When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, “It is finished.” And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.
The Old Covenant has been replaced by the New Covenant.
Mathew26:29-30:
I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father."
30
Then, after singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
 
Well, wait. The saying is supposed to be applied to Jewish dietary laws, which restrict the use of pork, etc. The Catholic rules of abstinence, while not the same of course, are related in that they prohibit the use of meat on Fridays of Lent or days of abstinence?
Anyway, you can say the same thing about the Jewish law prohibiting the use of pork as you say here: It is not the putting of pork into your mouth which is wrong, but it is the violation of a commandment given in the Old Testament, or the defying of the teaching which is wrong?
DUDE are you for real?? Or do you seriously not get it?
 
The Old Covenant has been replaced by the New Covenant.
Yes, but the teaching of the Church is that it is wrong to put meat into your mouth on a day of abstinence. This is what may defile you by so doing, just as it defiled the Jews when they were not observing their rules and regulations on dietary restrictions.
 
Well, wait. The saying is supposed to be applied to Jewish dietary laws, which restrict the use of pork, etc. The Catholic rules of abstinence, while not the same of course, are related in that they prohibit the use of meat on Fridays of Lent or days of abstinence?
Anyway, you can say the same thing about the Jewish law prohibiting the use of pork as you say here: It is not the putting of pork into your mouth which is wrong, but it is the violation of a commandment given in the Old Testament, or the defying of the teaching which is wrong?
Does the Bible mention fasting? [Hint: the answer is yes]

The practice of abstinence is related to the Biblical teachings of fasting (or denying yourself) (or dying to self) …

Abstaining from meat from Fridays during Lent is considered a sacrifice as Lent is a time of sacrifice and repentance.

The rules for abstinence (which I believe is regulated by each diocese and is not dogma) are related to sacrifice and NOT dietary law… 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top