Inconsistency in our doctrine?

[Jhourlad]

For a while I tried telling myself to ignore the call of other Christian sects about their so-called true Chritianity, not to ponder too much whenever I read something in the Bible that contradicts our faith, and to just accept everything and anything our priests tell us because they are the ‘knowing’ ones on matters of morality and doctrines. But lately, I’ve been having a lot more time doing my study of the Holy Scriptures at night and it really bothers me to find so many things explicitly taught in the New testament that ‘seem’ to contradict our Catholic beliefs.

Am I being decieved? or should I stop reading the Bible because I fail to interpret it correctly?

 

[Pisio]

Jhourlad:

For a while I tried telling myself to ignore the call of other Christian sects about their so-called true Chritianity, not to ponder too much whenever I read something in the Bible that contradicts our faith, and to just accept everything and anything our priests tell us because they are the ‘knowing’ ones on matters of morality and doctrines. But lately, I’ve been having a lot more time doing my study of the Holy Scriptures at night and it really bothers me to find so many things explicitly taught in the New testament that ‘seem’ to contradict our Catholic beliefs.

Am I being decieved? or should I stop reading the Bible because I fail to interpret it correctly?

I’ve found that what appears to be a contradiction makes a lot more sense when I read the Bible with the Catechism in hand. “Inconsistencies” are cleared up pretty quickly in my tiny little brain. Keep reading them both!

In Christ, with Mary,
Pisio

P.S.= If indeed you are a Catholic, you may want to change that in your profile… “Christians” are not necessarily Catholic, but should be.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Hi jhourlad,

it really bothers me to find so many things explicitly taught in the New testament that ‘seem’ to contradict our Catholic beliefs.

What did you have in mind?

 

[davidv]

Jhourlad:

For a while I tried telling myself to ignore the call of other Christian sects about their so-called true Chritianity, not to ponder too much whenever I read something in the Bible that contradicts our faith, and to just accept everything and anything our priests tell us because they are the ‘knowing’ ones on matters of morality and doctrines. But lately, I’ve been having a lot more time doing my study of the Holy Scriptures at night and it really bothers me to find so many things explicitly taught in the New testament that ‘seem’ to contradict our Catholic beliefs.

Am I being decieved? or should I stop reading the Bible because I fail to interpret it correctly?

I would recommend the following:

1. Read articles 101-119 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church
2. Re-read the parts that seem contradictory in light of the Catechism
3. If there still seems to be “contradictions”, bring them up. It is impossible to deal with this issue in the general sense that you brought it up.
   Regards,

 

[justinmatter]

it would be wrong to stop reading the bible because we cannot understand all or parts of it. that is bound to happen because of the very nature of the bible and our incomplete understanding.

keep this principle in mind whenever you face a “contradiction” or question- just because i don’t know the answer does not mean that the answer does not exist.
pray to god that he give you understanding and refer to the CCC or other books with a “nihil obstat” and “imprimatur” on them for an idea of genuine catholic doctrine.
hope the lord clears the cobwebs and gives you and me and everyone understanding of and faith in his word
in love
justin

 

[RMP]

What in particular seems to be contradiction?

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Humans are capable of error and self deception
That is why this “every man for himself” approach to bible study is fraught with problems

A quick glance at the ever-grown number of Protestant denominations will testify that it seems to be a poor way to build a long lasting community

People can and have argued themselves blue over interpretations for centuries

the church has been at this a long time and while individual members are of course human and capable of mistake but the way I figure it, men far smarter than I have asked and answered any questions that I may have had centuries ago

while individual study is laudable…people need a reality check

 

[MrS]

this was a quick, first-and-only post, then the poster goes offline. Wassup with that?

 

[Steve_Andersen]

MrS:

this was a quick, first-and-only post, then the poster goes offline. Wassup with that?

is there a latin word for “troll”

Uncharitable I know…but most funny things are

 

[RobedWithLight]

Jhourlad:

But lately, I’ve been having a lot more time doing my study of the Holy Scriptures at night and it really bothers me to find so many things explicitly taught in the New testament that ‘seem’ to contradict our Catholic beliefs.

Am I being decieved? or should I stop reading the Bible because I fail to interpret it correctly?

You should be more specific about what teachings you are referring to which supposedly “contradicts” scripture. Vague propositions concerning unstated doctrines would lead us nowhere.

Gerry

 

[Todd_Easton]

Of all the writings available at the time, the Catholic Church discerned which were inspired by God and put them into the Bible. It is very unlikely that the Catholic Church would put anything into the Bible that contradicted its own teachings. If you read something in the Bible that appears to contradict Catholic teaching, you are probably taking it out of context. Remember what St. Peter said,"…our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15-16)

 

[puzzleannie]

When I read the bible I try to do it in the spirit in which it was written, and in union with the whole Church who has preserved it and interprets it under the guidance of the holy Spirit. I allow for the possibility that passages I do not understand may just possibly be better interpreted and applied by the combined wisdom of 2000 years of our fathers and mothers in the Church than by my unaided intellect.

 

[BayCityRickL]

I think the New Testament writings contradict the idea of separate, go-it-alone local churches. I don’t think that was the model at all. The letters were often written and widely circulated to counter the very tendency of those local churches to go-it-alone.

“Where does it say in the Bible” that every local church has to develop it’s own system of belief? And, the books of the Bible were written TO existing churches, so the churches pre-date the Bible, as a point of historical clarification.

It is recorded that Christ instituted the Church, not the Bible.

 

[kepha1]

The Bible is the fruit of the Church. The Church is not the fruit of the Bible.

The Church Fathers had to prove the inspiration of the Holy Books AFTER they proved the authority of the Church, which they proved AFTER the basic tenents like the Incarnation, death and resurrection.

The printing press was totally unthinkable, as it was 1200 years into the future. Even general litercy was totally unthinkable. Up till the turn of the 19th century, about 95% of the world population could not read.

The only reason the Bible was canonized was so they new what could legitimately be read during Mass. That’s it.

kepha1

 

[kepha1]

A Tidbit of Bible History:

The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work.
It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired.
From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels.

We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries,

We then take that and together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, teaching authority, and, as a consequence of the last, infallibility.

Christ’s Church, to do what he said it would do, had to have the character of doctrinal infallibility.

We have thus taken purely historical material and concluded that a Church exists, namely, the Catholic Church, which is divinely protected against teaching doctrinal error. Now we are at the last premise of the argument.

This Catholic Church tells us the

(3)Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the
(2)Church is infallible.
(1) because she has the same authority as Christ
Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—
(1)that is, one established by God
(2)to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith and morals—
(3)that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.
I took most of the information from catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp , and reformatted for the sake of simplicity.

 

[asteroid]

MrS:

this was a quick, first-and-only post, then the poster goes offline. Wassup with that?

Well, if the poster is anything like me then it is quite probable that they have posted this and then gone offline to get on with that odd thing called life, ready to get back online when it is convenient.

Some of us can’t stay online all day everyday so may post a question and then come back later to see what the response is. Some of us wouldn’t expect such an immediate response.

As of this moment it has only been 9 hours since the original question was posted and within only 90 minutes the poster was accused of being a “troll”.

If they are anything like me they will come back on line later, or tomorrow, or the next day and read this comment. They may then have a hard time being willing to post again or enter into this online community.

For those who immediately assume someone to be a troll, while admitting it is uncharitable, I refer you to the Catechism 1822 - 1829. “If I have not charity I am nothing”. Maybe they are a troll - but at present there is no reason whatsoever to make such an accusation.

Blessings & sorry to get grouchy about this.

Asteroid

 

[kepha1]

Dizzy? This SUMMARY of a summary of a summary should clarify:

1. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history.
2. From that we conclude that an authoritive, thus infallible Church was founded.
3. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired.
4. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable),
5. and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired).

What I have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

Which is more appealing?

Plausibility (private judgment) or the rock of reason and the facts of history?

In the end, by understanding how the bible came to be does it have an enormous effect on how it is interpreted.

The Church (which is Christ on earth) cannot present an inconsistency to Itself and if so, the bible cannot be inspired, the Church could not be infallible and have no authority, the facts of history are false, and Christ did not come in the flesh.

Does that sound far fetched? Or is it a current reality we see in the cults?

kepha

I took most of the information from catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp , and reformatted for the sake of simplicity.