Differences between Catholic Teaching and the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter ricko
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ha. Ha. If you don’t want to believe your own eyes, then I can’t help it. The photos are there: Archbishop Alois Kothgasser of Salzburg, Austria, second from the left, joins hands with a clown at the altar during a Mass on October 16, 2004.
And there are many other pictures available, proving that there have been clown Masses.
And there have been monkey Masses, Halloween Masses, with Eucharistic servers in Satanic costumes, mariachi band Masses, cowboy Masses, dancing girl Masses, nudie Masses, Chinese dragon Masses, etc. My point is that these type of joyful Masses, not just the clown Mass, in the Catholic Church today do not support the Biblical teaching that sorrow is better than laughter, This is the question: Is there a difference between Catholic teaching and the teaching in the Bible? I submit that these type of Masses do not promote the teaching that sorrow is to be preferred over laughter.
If you really wanted to find out you will know that, that is not the Catholic church like I said before, why don’t you investigate I"m sick of people trying to attack the Holy Roman Catholic Church when you have the other protestant churches who want to be like the Catholic Church but there are not and they are the ones that are doing this thing like guy marriage, having lesbian priest, clown mases, but no one say nothing about them why? because they are not Gods real Church and the enemy of God is More interested in destroying the real Church.:mad:
 
Here’s a quote from the link:
secondexodus.com/html/catholicdefinitions/fridayabstinence.htm
This is the quote: “Since 1966, All Fridays during Lent remain obligatory days of abstinence from meat on pain of mortal sin. "
Scroll down the page to CHurch teaching and you will see:
"Church Teaching
As the centuries passed, the original requirement to fast twice a week was reduced. But, during the Church’s entire history, until 1966, all Fridays have been obligatory days of abstinence from meat on pain of mortal sin.

Since 1966, All Fridays during Lent remain obligatory days of abstinence from meat on pain of mortal sin. All other Fridays remain days of penance. "
Of course, my point still holds whether it is a mortal sin or a venial sin to eat meat in certain dioceses on Good Friday. The point is that this teaching does not agree with the Scriptural statement that it is not what goes into the mouth of the man which defiles him. In the case of eating meat on Good Friday, if you put a hot dog in your mouth, you would be committing a sin, and therefore you are being defiled by putting the meat into your mouth.
we are not in 1966!!! and any case you’re not Catholic so what do you care?
 
Out of context of the thread BibleSteve. However I see vince2paul gave you a couple of links. A few words about Purgatory which by the way is in the bible. Oh I know the NAME Purgatory is not there but don’t forget the word Trinity is not in the bible either. My Baptist friend says that if you die with any sin (even a lie) you will go to hell. He would be right since “nothing defiled can enter heaven”. If you die in God’s grace but have that little lie on your soul should you go to Hell? The bible and the Church does not teach that. Purgatory cleanses the soul from minor imperfections so the soul can then enter heaven. Just a real short description. Also, try this link…catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0511sbs.asp
Bible is another word that is not located in the bible.
 
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?
Hello biblesteve, I have a few questions for you now.

What does Second Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Thessalonians Chapter two, verse Fourteen mean?
Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. [II Thess. II, XIV DRB]
Itaque fratres, state: et tente traditiones, quas didicitis, sive per sermonem, sive per epistolam nostram. [II Thess. II, XIV Latin Vulgate]
Basically it is stating that Tradition and Scripture go hand in hand. In fact there are two tradition roots; Divine and ecclesiastical. Divine can further be branched into Dominical (from Christ Directly) and Divine Apostolic (from the Holy Ghost), The Scriptures are in all reality Divine Apostolic Tradition. Bible is a greek term which stands for the books, The Catholic Church compiled the scriptures thus creating the Bible.

Another Few verses to look at are:
“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16: 18 DRB]
&
“Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” Matthew 28: 20 DRB]
Here is my Questions now. Did not Christ establish His Church through St. Peter who is the first Pope, thus Christ founded The Roman Catholic Church?
&

Christ did not only establish His Church, but He also promised us that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” and "and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” that he will be with Her all days, so those who believe that the Roman Catholic Church is incorrect would be indirectly saying that Our Lord Lied to us would they not?

Some more Verses to take into account:
We must remember that Our Lord said, “I am the Truth." [John 14: 6] What is truth? Truth omits error, it is conformity to reality or actuality. He founded his Church and said, “And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen[Matthew 18: 17]. Again He told His Apostles, “he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me” [Luke 10: 16] and, “He that is not with me, is against me” Luke 11:23; Matth. 12:30].
Now we established that Christ did in fact found His Church through St. Peter (not Martin Luther, Nicholas Storch & Thomas Munzer, Henry VIII, etc but St. Peter), And here He states to His Apostles “And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen”.

Now why would Our Lord establish His Church, if one does not need to acknowledge it (does not need it)? Correct me if I am wrong but doesn’t Sola Scriptura & Sola Fide go completely against these passages?

If we look at:
Code:
     Saint Paul, in his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, [1 : 7–10], states:
Code:
    “And to you who are troubled, rest with us when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with the angels          of his power: In a flame of fire, giving vengeance to them who know not God, and who obey not the gospel of          our Lord Jesus Christ.   Who shall suffer eternal punishment in destruction, from the face of the Lord,          and from the glory of his power: When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be made wonderful in          all them who have believed; because our testimony was believed upon you in that day.”
Code:
                       Also, in the same Epistle [2 : 8–11] Saint Paul says:
Code:
    “And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and          shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in          all power, and signs, and lying wonders, And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they          receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore **God shall send** them the operation of error, to believe lying:          That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.”
The above is pretty self explanatory.

I am interested in your answers.

Take Care
 
If you really wanted to find out you will know that, that is not the Catholic church like I said before, why don’t you investigate :
So, Archbishop Alois Kothgasser of Salzburg, Austria, second from the left, joins hands with a clown at the altar during a Mass on October 16, 2004. is not a Catholic Archbishop?
That’s funny. the Pope thinks that he is. Should a Catholic follow the Pope on this, or should he follwo what you say is true?
 
If you actually believe that, then you deserve what you get in your life. Sheesh.
So you don;t beleive in the Sacred Scriptures. Anyway, the question is not what I or what you believe to be true. The question is the difference between Catholic teaching and the Bible. And I think that there is a difference here, especially when you consider the message given by the Barney blessing, or the message of the clown Mass.
 
Ok Bobzills, I just finished watching that clown mass you posted by Fr. Brian Joyce. Now all that was posted was the Gospel reading and the skit followed by Fr Joyce homily. I guess it is unusual and unique. But it was a skit. It was part of the homily. It was used to make a point. Maybe it worked maybe you didn’t like it. Maybe a lot who like the tradition of the church didn’t like it. Maybe Fr. Joyce got call into the office of the bishop and had a nice little chat. I believe as long as the structure of the mass and the parts appeared all there, that that is what matters to me, personally. As long as Jesus is present in the eurcharist that is what I look forward to. Homilies come and go, some effective some I tap my watch if longer than 5 minutes. (i come from the non-demonitional side and am used to 30-60 minute fire & brimstone lectures!!! - so anything under 20 now is still wonderful to me!!) So what if they used a clown to make a point, In my parish we have skits during lent, and on Holy thursday & Friday. I didn’t see the clown making any jokes, she was very serious in her talk. Give it a rest. Look at the intent of the mass.
 
So, Archbishop Alois Kothgasser of Salzburg, Austria, second from the left, joins hands with a clown at the altar during a Mass on October 16, 2004. is not a Catholic Archbishop?
That’s funny. the Pope thinks that he is. Should a Catholic follow the Pope on this, or should he follwo what you say is true?
I am sure that a single shot of the bishop holding hands with a clown says- “Oh my God!! Why is the clown performing the functions that the bishop should be during the Eurcharist” NO IT DOES NOT. IT IS A SINGLE SNAPSHOT sometime during the homily I AM SURE!!!------>>> again - give it a rest, if you were there or there is some testimony that the clown concentrated the host - then there is no issue here. So let’s move on to you next topic please Bobzills.
 
So what if they used a clown to make a point.
The question is whether there is a difference between Catholic teaching and the Bible. The Bible says that sorrow is better than laughter. The Masses which emphasize joy, the Barney dinasour Masses, the clown Masses, the mariachi band Masses, the roll on the floor charismatic Masses, the cowboy Masses, etc., all these type of Masses seem to be going contrary to the teaching that sorrow is better than laughter.
 
Bobzills - I am not sure what you mean by “clown Mass”. But they are talking about wisdom and foolishness. It is better for your heart to mourn the death than to have some foolish party ! Read on the rest of the chapter and you’ll see that wisdom does not come from foolish behavior but by sorrow and pain at times.

Come to any medium ground on your "meat on Friday " issue.?
I reference this past post…Bobzills read the full chapter in Ecclesiastes 7 , or better yet maybe read the whole book. Again I fail to see your connection with this and the mass. When you start to get excited about a verse that contradicts the churches teaching , slow down, read the full content first, pray and read again.
 
Ok Bobzills, I just finished watching that clown mass you posted by Fr. Brian Joyce. Now all that was posted was the Gospel reading and the skit followed by Fr Joyce homily. I guess it is unusual and unique. But it was a skit. It was part of the homily. It was used to make a point. Maybe it worked maybe you didn’t like it. Maybe a lot who like the tradition of the church didn’t like it. Maybe Fr. Joyce got call into the office of the bishop and had a nice little chat. I believe as long as the structure of the mass and the parts appeared all there, that that is what matters to me, personally. As long as Jesus is present in the eurcharist that is what I look forward to. Homilies come and go, some effective some I tap my watch if longer than 5 minutes. (i come from the non-demonitional side and am used to 30-60 minute fire & brimstone lectures!!! - so anything under 20 now is still wonderful to me!!) So what if they used a clown to make a point, In my parish we have skits during lent, and on Holy thursday & Friday. I didn’t see the clown making any jokes, she was very serious in her talk. Give it a rest. Look at the intent of the mass.
Spanks this is a bunch of bull, they already closed a post on it. It doesnt exist it just a way to try to bring down the church. Its better to let it go. it only exists like all of the thread in his own mind. It is in no way the RCC. Its something again he blew way out of context AGAIN.
 
I reference this past post…Bobzills read the full chapter in Ecclesiastes 7 , or better yet maybe read the whole book. Again I fail to see your connection with this and the mass. When you start to get excited about a verse that contradicts the churches teaching , slow down, read the full content first, pray and read again.
Where is the sorrow and pain shown by the Pope meeting with a clown, or by the joyful Masses that I have noted?
 
Where is the sorrow and pain shown by the Pope meeting with a clown, or by the joyful Masses that I have noted?
I recall one of our missions was titled “GET OVER IT” this is my suggestion to you - GET OVER IT. I fail to see your point at all. The mass is all inclusive - I celebrate, I am sorrowful and i am grateful…what you are referencing has nothing to do with the liturgy and celebration of the eurcharist!! Let’s move on Bobzills, next topic.
 
I recall one of our missions was titled “GET OVER IT” this is my suggestion to you - GET OVER IT. I fail to see your point at all. The mass is all inclusive - I celebrate, I am sorrowful and i am grateful…what you are referencing has nothing to do with the liturgy and celebration of the eurcharist!! Let’s move on Bobzills, next topic.
What I am referencing has to do with whether or not sorrow is better than laughter. Does the meeting of the Pope with a clown emphasize the Bible teaching that sorrow is better than laughter?
 
What I am referencing has to do with whether or not sorrow is better than laughter. Does the meeting of the Pope with a clown emphasize the Bible teaching that sorrow is better than laughter?
It has nothing to do with sorrow or laughter!!! I really don’t know how else to explain it to you… It has NOTHING to do with this. Period. Next topic.
 
Here’s another Biblical teaching: “. . . whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her” (Mk 10:1-12; Lk.16:18; 1 Cor.7:10-11). Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI spoke on the evils of divorce in their encyclicals “Arcanum,” and “Casti Connubii,” respectively. Vatican II condemns divorce in “Gaudium et Spes,” and the Catechism of the Catholic Church calls divorce “a grave offense against the natural law,” and “immoral.” But the Catholic Church in the USA promotes divorce by requiring those seeking a marriage annulment to first obtain a divorce, whereas canon 1060 stipulates, “in doubt the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.” Therefore, a tribunal must prejudge the marriage to be invalid prior to judging its validity, in order to justify a divorce preceding an annulment.
And these marriage annulments today are given for the most trivial of reasons.
 
It has nothing to do with sorrow or laughter!!!
Interesting:
Ecclesiastes 7:3:
“Sorrow is better than laughter, For when a face is sad a heart may be happy.”
So you deny the words of Scripture?
 
stick with the topic of how you were relating this to the mass. No denial of scripture. How you are relating this to the mass was your question. Again read the whole text of Ecclesiastes 7 did you do this yet?
how about verse 16Do not be excessively righteous and do not be overly wise. Why should you ruin yourself?
 
Here’s another Biblical teaching: “. . . whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her” (Mk 10:1-12; Lk.16:18; 1 Cor.7:10-11). Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI spoke on the evils of divorce in their encyclicals “Arcanum,” and “Casti Connubii,” respectively. Vatican II condemns divorce in “Gaudium et Spes,” and the Catechism of the Catholic Church calls divorce “a grave offense against the natural law,” and “immoral.” But the Catholic Church in the USA promotes divorce by requiring those seeking a marriage annulment to first obtain a divorce, whereas canon 1060 stipulates, “in doubt the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.” Therefore, a tribunal must prejudge the marriage to be invalid prior to judging its validity, in order to justify a divorce preceding an annulment.
And these marriage annulments today are given for the most trivial of reasons.
And what is your question here? Annulments are granted by the bishop is my understanding and it is not as easy as you may think. And I do know some that there is much consulting, praying and delibration involved. Again you are judging from afar.
Where does it say “remove the log from your own eye”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top