Does the New Testament contradict Catholic teaching?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sidbrown
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sidbrown

Guest
Some of what Jesus has said appears to contradict what the Church teaches today, unless His words are somehow reinterpreted to mean something other than what is commonly understood by the phrases and words that He uttered. But why would Jesus try to confuse us with ambiguous statements that do not mean what they clearly say?
Should we not take Him at His word and listen carefully to what He has said?
For example:
  1. Matthew5: [33] Again you have heard that it was said to them of old, Thou shalt not forswear thyself: but thou shalt perform thy oaths to the Lord. [34] But I say to you not to swear at all, neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God: [35] Nor by the earth, for it is his footstool: nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king.
But the Catholic Church says that it is not wrong to swear on the Bible when sitting on a jury. However, Jesus says here that we are not to swear at all. I do not see where He allows for any exceptions.
2. Matthew 5: [38] You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. [39] But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other: [40] And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him.
But the Catholic Church says that it is OK to resist evil and that there are just wars where it is moral to fight evil. But Jesus says here not to resist evil and if someone strikes you on the cheek, you must turn the other cheek. How does this fit in with some (but not all) theologians telling us it was OK to drop an atomic bomb on Japan killing thousands of innocent civilians? Or that it was OK to resist the evil of Nazism? Doesn’t Jesus say not to resist evil?
  1. Matthew 6: [6] But thou when thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber, and having shut the door, pray to thy Father in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee.
But the Catholic Church says that we must pray in public at Mass every Sunday under pain of mortal sin. But Jesus says here that we are supposed to pray in secret, not in public.
4. Matthew 10: [34] Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. [35] For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
But the Catholic Church teaches that the family is the foundation of society, and that it is a major commandment to honor one’s father and mother. But here Jesus says that he has come to set people at variance against their father and mother.

So is it true that the Church does not follow these teachings which are found in the New Testament? Should Catholics follow these teachings or not?
 
About number three, perhaps it is helpful to look at verse 1 of that chapter of Matthew: Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them… It is fine to pray before meals as a family or pray while at mass. The problem is if you are praying as a display to others. That is why the passages mention that they have already received their reward if they are doing it to be seen or praised by others, because they got what they really wanted - to be seen by other men.
 
  1. Most courts allow for one to affirm and none I have seen use a Bible.
  2. Yet Our Lord had this to say to soldiers of His day.
    **Luke 3: 14] Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.” **
Further:
Matthew 2: 6] And you will hear of wars** and rumors of** wars**; see that you are not alarmed; for this must take place, but the end is not yet. **

Apparently He did not condemn them. In fact, he even said,
Matthew 5:9] "Blessed are the peacemakers**, for they shall be called sons of God. **
 
  1. Most courts allow for one to affirm and none I have seen use a Bible.
  2. Yet Our Lord had this to say to soldiers of His day.
    **Luke 3: 14] Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.” **
Further:
Matthew 2: 6] And you will hear of wars** and rumors of** wars**; see that you are not alarmed; for this must take place, but the end is not yet. **

Apparently He did not condemn them. In fact, he even said,
Matthew 5:9] "Blessed are the peacemakers**, for they shall be called sons of God. **
 
Almighty Father wants all to understand this very fact HIS WORD ENDURES FOREVER: read Matthew 5:18 verily I(Messiah) say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

The Holy Scripture(OT + NT) which comprised 66 different books written by 40 authors over a period of about 2000 years.

The shortest chapter found in Psalm 117 and The longest chapter found in Psalm 119.

The between the shortest and longest chapter is found in Psalm 118:9

There are 1189 chapter in the Holy Scripture which correspond with Psalm 118:9

Guess what Psalm 118:9 reads? [It is] better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes.

who are prince refer to men who live in vain with this worldly authorities, that I shall not dwell further the word is there you can easy understand.

John 1:1 the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Holy scripture has 66 books that is the WORD and was GOD.

Open your mind and understand it so simple.

Regards
 
sidbrown said:
Some of what Jesus has said appears to contradict what the Church teaches today, unless His words are somehow reinterpreted to mean something other than what is commonly understood by the phrases and words that He uttered. But why would Jesus try to confuse us with ambiguous statements that do not mean what they clearly say?
Click to expand...
These are good questions and deserve thoughtful answers. The first thing to remembr is that Christ was speaking, and the Gospels were recorded,in a vastly different cultural setting than today. Also, Jesus did not speak English but aramaic, which was then tranlated to Greek and then to other languages such as latin, Engish etc…Many times words in one language do not translate directly into another language so there are connotations that can become confusing over time.
This is why Christ did not leave us a written testimony, but a Church.
Should we not take Him at His word and listen carefully to what He has said?
Click to expand...
Most certainly we should take Him at his word and we should listen carefully to what He said and one of the things He said was to "tell it to The Church and to “Listen to The Church”. (Mt 18:15-18) The Church has the authority from Christ to “Bind and loose”
For example:
  1. Matthew5: [33] Again you have heard that it was said to them of old, Thou shalt not forswear thyself: but thou shalt perform thy oaths to the Lord. [34] But I say to you not to swear at all, neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God: [35] Nor by the earth, for it is his footstool: nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king.
Click to expand...
But the Catholic Church says that it is not wrong to swear on the Bible when sitting on a jury. However, Jesus says here that we are not to swear at all. I do not see where He allows for any exceptions.
Click to expand...
There are a couple of things here. As someone else pointed out many/most courtrooms no longer “swear on the bible”. I’m not even sure that most include the phrase, “so help me God” anymore.
But to answer your specific question - The purpose of the oath is to demonstrate that you will tell the truth before the court. Something that, as a Christian, you are bound to do anyway - oath or not. Another thing to note is the wording of the oath. Most say, “I swear to tell the truth…” and might include, "…So help me God. So one is not swearing to God, but imploring his help.
Finally - If you have concern about swearing such an oath, I would simply suggest this. Point out to the court the follow on verse from Matthew (Mt 5:37) where Jesus says, “Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.” Affirm that, as a Christian you will answer truthfully. I suspect that most any court would accept this.
  1. Code: 
    Matthew 5: [38] You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. [39] But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other: [40] And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him.
But the Catholic Church says that it is OK to resist evil and that there are just wars where it is moral to fight evil. But Jesus says here not to resist evil and if someone strikes you on the cheek, you must turn the other cheek. How does this fit in with some (but not all) theologians telling us it was OK to drop an atomic bomb on Japan killing thousands of innocent civilians? Or that it was OK to resist the evil of Nazism? Doesn’t Jesus say not to resist evil?
Click to expand...
First, one must recognize that the passage you quote above is specifically pointed toward personal insults between individuals. It speaks to the issue of “revenge” and justice(eye for an eye). It’s application in the larger “international” sense is not as clear.
Second, one must be careful in confusing what “some theologens say” with what the Church teaches. The Church teaches that we must forbear and that war needs to be the final recourse. She works tirelessly to promote dialog and justice. Yet, given the fallen state of the world, the Holy Spirit has giuded her to provide parameters where war can be seen as necessary to resist evil where the evil cannot be defeated in any other way.
Your reference to the Nazi’s is a good example. The nations that resisted the Nazi’s by force of arms did so only after they were directly attacked, or a neighbor was attacked. Even the U.S. after Pearl Harbor, did not declare war on Germany until Germany declared war on the U.S.
In the end though, it was not the evil of Nazism that was defeated by WWII. It was only the particular manifestation of it in Germany. The true evil of Nazism still exists in the spirits of some people and can only be fought and defeated by spiritual means.

(Cont below)
 
(Cont)
  1. Matthew 6: [6] But thou when thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber, and having shut the door, pray to thy Father in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee.
Click to expand...
But the Catholic Church says that we must pray in public at Mass every Sunday under pain of mortal sin. But Jesus says here that we are supposed to pray in secret, not in public.
Click to expand...
Consider the verse preceding this one:
"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
He is speaking of hypocrites, who pray for the attention and public approval they get.
Do you think that Jesus comment in Mt 6:6 is telling His disciples to abandon the synagogues? To ONLY pray in private little rooms? Jesus Himself prayed “publically”, one example being at the raising of Lazarus.
Our “Sunday Obligation” is not an arbitrary “rule” but rather an expression of what we as Faithful Christians should desire with all of our hearts. That is to come together in Praise and thanksgiving to God, on the first day of the Week. Not to be “seen by others” but to pray together, give strength to eadh other, and to participate together in the great and Holy Eucharistic gift of God.
  1. Matthew 10: [34] Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. [35] For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
    But the Catholic Church teaches that the family is the foundation of society, and that it is a major commandment to honor one’s father and mother. But here Jesus says that he has come to set people at variance against their father and mother.
Click to expand...
When one considers the context of this, as well as the other, passage(s) instead of trying to look at each one individually, one can get a greater appreciation for their meaning.
Yes Christ was ushering in a “revolution” of sorts. The Passage of the OT covenent to the NT covenent. This would necessitate great changes in how people thought (something we still struggle with today). This change would mean that those who accepted Christ would be at odds with those who did not and this would cause strife even within families. But God must be served first and above all.
Dos this mean that we reject our parents, siblings etc? of course not, but at the same time, “honoring” them does not mean obeying them to the point where we disobey God. In this we must obey God and then respect our fellows in christian charity.
So is it true that the Church does not follow these teachings which are found in the New Testament? Should Catholics follow these teachings or not?
Click to expand...
No - I would say that it is NOT true that the Church does not follow these teachings. What I would say is that the Church expounds on such teachings by prayerfully interpreting and understanding them within, the context of the whole of revelation.
Catholics should follow these teachings as explained interpreted and expounded upon by The Church, just as Christ told us to when he told us to “Listen to The Church” (Mt 18:18)

Pulling things from the Gospels that seem contradictory can be confusing and you have asked good questions. The thing to do is to a) look at the churches teachings for the reasoning behind them and b) look at the Gospels, the NT and the Bible, as a whole and not a series of “verses” that can be used “out of context”.

Keep studying and reading.

Peace
James
 
NHInsider said:
Originally Posted by josiah lawrence
The Holy scripture has 66 books that is the WORD and was GOD.
Click to expand...
I noted this as well, but if you look at the entirety of his post, it’s obvious that this is just a prostalitizing (sp?) broadside. Nothing in the post addresses the specific questions of the OP. It’s basically just “trolling”.
As to his profile affiliation, there are those outside of the RC church, who insist that they are also “Catholic”, just not “Roman Catholic”. In short it’s better to just ignore these types of tangential postings.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
 
You’re probably right - but I run into a scarey number of practicing Catholics who read popular Protestant literature and don’t know enough to recognize the canon issue.
 
But the hour is coming, and now is when the** true worshipers**

will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, indeed. For the Father,

He seeks worshipers as these. For God is Spirit, and those who worship, they must worship Him in spirit and in truth.”

John 4:23-24
 
JRKH said:
(Cont)

Consider the verse preceding this one:
"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
He is speaking of hypocrites, who pray for the attention and public approval they get.
Do you think that Jesus comment in Mt 6:6 is telling His disciples to abandon the synagogues? To ONLY pray in private little rooms?
Click to expand...
The preceding verse referring to hypocrites, uses “you”. The next verse uses “thou”, so it is not at all clear that if refers to the same people.
 
JRKH said:
(Cont) This would necessitate great changes in how people thought (something we still struggle with today). This change would mean that those who accepted Christ would be at odds with those who did not and this would cause strife even within families. But God must be served first and above all.
Dos this mean that we reject our parents, siblings etc? of course not, but at the same time, “honoring” them does not mean obeying them to the point where we disobey God. In this we must obey God and then respect our fellows in christian charity.
Click to expand...
It is two different things:
  1. As a result of His teachings, there might be the unfortunate result of strife in some families.
  2. The reason that Christ came was to cause strife in the families.
    You appear to be opting for 1), but the verse quoted indicates 2).
 
JRKH said:
Finally - If you have concern about swearing such an oath, I would simply suggest this. Point out to the court the follow on verse from Matthew (Mt 5:37) where Jesus says, “Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.” Affirm that, as a Christian you will answer truthfully. )
Click to expand...
That is a workaround, and avoids answering directly the difference in the two teachings:
  1. Do not swear or take oaths.
  2. The Church says it is OK to swear or take oaths under some serious conditions.
 
JRKH said:
First, one must recognize that the passage you quote above is specifically pointed toward personal insults between individuals.
Click to expand...
I don’t see that because it mentions striking on the cheek. Striking someone on the cheek goes beyond the realm of a verbal personal insult.
 
sidbrown said:
The preceding verse referring to hypocrites, uses “you”. The next verse uses “thou”, so it is not at all clear that if refers to the same people.
Click to expand...
I think that you are confusing translations here. I have looked at a couple of translations and have not seen a difference in “you/thou” betweent he two verses.
This is from the RSV
5 "And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. 6 But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
And this is from the KJV
5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly
Do you have a translation that actually uses different terms in the two verses?

Peace
James
 
sidbrown said:
It is two different things:
  1. As a result of His teachings, there might be the unfortunate result of strife in some families.
  2. The reason that Christ came was to cause strife in the families.
    You appear to be opting for 1), but the verse quoted indicates 2).
Click to expand...
OK, let us take Christ at His word…
Then it is your belief that The church should teach that children should NOT respect their parents. That they should contend against their parents (no matter what) because Christ came to bring “Strife” in families?

Christ also said that if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out. Should we take that literally as well?

The method of preaching that Christ used, was not always “literal”. The Church recognizes this and teaches appropriate to the the intent of the verses.

Peace
James
 
Jesus Christ also said, “If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)

This teaching seems as plain as those examples you shared, doesn’t it? Here Jesus is commanding us to hate our own lives and to hate our families, right? But the Catholic Church seems to teach the opposite when it tells us to love others as we love ourselves. Is it best to follow the plain teaching of Jesus in this case or to follow the Catholic Church?

This teaching of Jesus about hating one’s own life and hating your family really only makes sense if it is taken as hyperbole. And, if Jesus used hyperbole in this instance, it is possible that he used hyperbole in his other teachings as well.

Now, if his teachings might not be as plain as they appear in the New Testament, how are we to know what Jesus really meant? Until such time as we can meet with Jesus face-to-face and ask him about his teachings, the best interpreter of his teachings is his Church, the Church that was there with him when he first presented his teachings and that had the opportunity to ask him about them, the Church that has remained continuously in the world from then until today, the Catholic Church.
 
sidbrown said:
That is a workaround, and avoids answering directly the difference in the two teachings:
  1. Do not swear or take oaths.
  2. The Church says it is OK to swear or take oaths under some serious conditions.
Click to expand...
OK, perhaps we should let the Church teaching and teh Bible itself speak to the matter.

The Catachism in the section on the second commandment covers this by actually referencing the Bible istelf in two places where St Paul Himself calls on God to witness the truth of a statement Paul has made. (2 Cor 1:23; Gal 1:20). If St Paul, an Apostle of Christ and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, uses God’s name in this manner, as a witness to truth, then the teaching of the Church is not contrary to the Will of God.

Peace
James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top