Name one Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture

[Church_Militant]

**843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332

844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:

Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333

845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. the Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. the Church is “the world reconciled.” She is that bark which “in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world.” According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood.334

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338**

325 LG 16.

326 Cf. NA 4.

327 Roman Missal, Good Friday 13: General Intercessions, VI.

328 ⇒ Rom 9:4-5.

329 ⇒ Rom 11:29.

330 LG 16; cf. NA 3.

331 NA 1.

332 LG 16; cf. NA 2; EN 53.

333 LG 16; cf. ⇒ Rom 1:21, ⇒ 25.

334 St. Augustine, Serm. 96, 7, 9: PL 38, 588; St. Ambrose, De virg. 18, 118: PL 16, 297B; cf. already ⇒ 1 Pet 3:20-21.

335 Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 73.21: PL 3, 1169; De unit.: PL 4, 509-536.

336 LG 14; cf. ⇒ Mk 16:16; ⇒ Jn 3:5[ETML:C/].

337 LG 16; cf. DS 3866-3872.

338 AG 7; cf. ⇒ Heb 11:6; ⇒ 1 Cor 9:16.

Pax tecum,

 

[jsussvsus]

Church Militant:

jsussvsus ,
I completely disagree and I think you could’ve chosen a far better analogy and one that doesn’t insult us by implying that the CCC is dog droppings. You didn’t think about that did you?

Church
I think you know that I wasn’t refuring to the CCC as dog droppings. You reach for things far to often. My point was that you can cover things over with as much sweetness as you want but the bottom line is, the heart of it is still sour. I know you’ve been tought all sweet little responces to questions from those outside the Catholic church, but at the heart of it there are many sour things. This just happends to be one of them.
I’m sorry if I’m a little harsh but it’s how I feel and I’m very compassionate about our Lord and Savior. I am now and will always continue to give Jesus all the glory.
Thanks.

 

[Church_Militant]

jsussvsus:

Church
I think you know that I wasn’t refuring to the CCC as dog droppings. You reach for things far to often. My point was that you can cover things over with as much sweetness as you want but the bottom line is, the heart of it is still sour. I know you’ve been tought all sweet little responces to questions from those outside the Catholic church, but at the heart of it there are many sour things. This just happends to be one of them.
I’m sorry if I’m a little harsh but it’s how I feel and I’m very compassionate about our Lord and Savior. I am now and will always continue to give Jesus all the glory.
Thanks.

Hey, I don’t think I or anyone else here will have to reach very far to get that implication. If that’s not what you meant, then why use the analogy on this forum?

Sweetness? That’s a long cry from what you said to me in your private messages. Lemme go ahead and make your whole day and give you the answers that you need.

There is nothing sour about this at all, aside from your misportrayal of what the CCC actually says…which I note that you fail to address in any way. You can choose to ignore the factual answer that I gave you, but that just makes you look less than honest. If you take something out of context and make an allegation against the Catholic Church and I then turn around and display for you the error of your allegation then it behooves an honest man to either admit that you were wrong to allege what you did, or else show me the error in my answer. It’s not that hard.

One thing that you fail to do is point out that all your posts are just your opinion based on what you have been taught about the Catholic Church. I suspect that is so because only someone who has never actually read the CCC would attempt the allegation that you made based on an out-of-context passage.
Pax tecum,

BTW if you click the quote box on the bottom right of the post you are answering, you won’t have to mess with the bad copy and paste jobs…

 

[Eden]

jsussvsus:

In spite of the passage stated by jsussvsus, there are other passages that leave the path of salvation open to those who do not know Christ.

I have a saying, ''you can take a pile of dog doo doo and if you put enough frosting on it, it will look like a cake. But all you still have is a pile of dog doo doo.
841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.

Here is the entire entry on Islam from my Catechism - “The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults” (1995). Out of 588 pages on the Catholic faith, Islam has only one paragraph! Here is exactly what my catechism says:

Other Religions and Cultures

A large part of the world’s population does not know or has had minimal exposure to the Gospel of Christ and His Church, and looks to various religions for answers to the profound questions about good and evil, about the origins of humankind and our ultimate fate.

Islam

The Second Vatican Council spoke in a special way about the Moslems. They, “professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind” (LG 16). Though the Islamic faith does not acknowledge Jesus as God, it does revere Him as prophet, and also honors His virgin mother. Moslems “prize the moral life, and give worship to God especially through prayer, almsgiving, and fasting” (NA 3). Noting that there have been many quarrels and hostilities between Christians and Moslems, the council urged that all “forget the past and strive sincerely for mutual understanding, and , on behalf of all mankind, make common cause of safeguarding and fostering social justice, moral values, peace and freedom” (NA 3).

As a Catholic, I see nothing objectionable to the only paragraph on Islam in my Catechism.

The Chapter concludes with** Words to Remember…**

- The Catholic faith thanks God for that fullness of truth and spiritual gifts that He has given her, but she respects also what is good and true in other religions.

- Judaism holds a unique place in the history of salvation; God chose the Jews and revealed Himself to them, and of them was born Jesus.

- Since divisions among Christians are a scandal to the world and Christ wishes all who believe in Him to be one in Him, we should share in that task of ecumenism that seeks earnestly ‘that they all may be one’ (John 17.21)

- The Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in the non-Christian religions, which ‘often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men’ (NA 2).

- The Church is ‘missionary by her very nature’ (AG 2) and knows she has a duty ‘to proclaim the Gospel to all’. (AG1)

It should be very clear to an unbiased reader, that the point of reflecting on what the Church has in common with Islam in the Catechism is not for the sake of equalizing the faiths but for Catholics to gain perspective into the common features in order to make dialogue between the faiths respectful. This background is useful in bringing Muslims to Truth through evangelization.

 

[stanley123]

Name one doctrine of the Catholic Church that contradicts Scripture.

Deut 16:
22 Neither shalt thou make nor set up to thyself a statue: which things the Lord thy God hateth.

 

[mlchance]

stanley123:

Deut 16:22 Neither shalt thou make nor set up to thyself a statue: which things the Lord thy God hateth.

How original. http://home.houston.rr.com/mchance3/rolleyes.gif

Let’s look at that verse in context. Context is a wonderful thing:

“21 Do not set up any wooden Asherah pole beside the altar you build to the LORD your God, 22 and do not erect a sacred stone, for these the LORD your God hates.”

“Asherah” is an Ancient West Semitic goddess, consort of the supreme god. The word asherah in the Old Testament was used not only in reference to the goddess herself but also to a wooden cult object associated with her worship. The use of sacred stones was a practice adopted from the Canaanites, and was rejected in Deuteronomy due to concerns about religious purity.

IOW, Deuteronomy 16:21-22 forbid idolatry, not making statues. The Catholic Church also forbids idolatry: “Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.”

God himself commanded the ancient Hebrews to make statues to decorate the Ark of the Covenant: “And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be” (Exodus 25:18–20).

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Church_Militant]

Also, Iconoclasm is a late heresy that developed under the influence of Islam. See the whole discussion at: Dave’s contention that Catholics are idolators

 

[stanley123]

MariaG:

Name one doctrine of the Catholic Church that contradicts Scripture.

John 14:
28 You have heard that I said to you: I go away, and I come unto you. If you loved me, you would indeed be glad, because I go to the Father: for the Father is greater than I.

 

[Church_Militant]

stanley123:

John 14:
28 You have heard that I said to you: I go away, and I come unto you. If you loved me, you would indeed be glad, because I go to the Father: for the Father is greater than I.

There’s nothing in this one that contradicts…

 

[Alfie]

MariaG:

Although I know this has been discussed at length before, there are several new people who have said this recently. I think it is time to start a new thread again. Shall we make a list here that you wish to discuss and then start a new thread for each doctrine that a person believes is unscriptural?

Name one doctrine of the Catholic Church that contradicts Scripture. One that in fact does not have an implicit teaching in Scripture.

I am a Catholic that loves to “find it in the Bible”. If anyone can show me one doctrine of the Catholic Church that contradicts scripture, I’ll leave today.

Maria

** What the Bible says about the Vail. ** 1) Only God could have torn it from top to bottom.
2) God no longer dwells in a tabernacle made with hands (Heb. 9:11).
3) Everyone may now enter into the presence of the Lord (Heb. 4:16; Rom. 5:1,2).
4) Sin is no longer a barrier between man and God (2 Cor. 5:19).
5) There is no need for sacrifices for sins (Heb. 10:18).
6) There is no need for a sacrificing priesthood (Heb. 7:11-28).

** What the Catholic Church says about the Vail.**1) The Vail was not torn. (This is taught by practice.)
2) The sin debt was NOT paid for. (Everyone must expiate his or her sins in purgatory.)
3) Jesus does dwell in tabernacles made by men. (The Tabernacle on every altar.)
4) There must still be priests to offer sacrifices for sins (Sacrament of the Mass).
5) The priest is the path of approach to receive Christ (Sacrament of Holy Orders).
6) Priests are needed for the forgiveness of sins (Sacrament of Confession).

 

[Tantum_ergo]

What the Catholic Church says about the Vail.1) The Vail was not torn. (This is taught by practice.)

Funny, this is what my Douay-Rheims says about the VEIL of the temple. . .

Matthew 27:51 And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent.

Mark 15: 38 And the veil of the temple was rent in two, from the top to the bottom.

Luke 23:45 And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.

Looks as though our Bible teaches that the Veil was torn.

So, just how do you think the Catholic Church teaches that the Veil was NOT TORN “by practice?” Please find the relevant written teaching that corroborates your statement. If it exists, it should be in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Here’s a link so you can search. christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html

 

[Alfie]

Tantum ergo:

Funny, this is what my Douay-Rheims says about the VEIL of the temple. . .

Looks as though our Bible teaches that the Veil was torn.

So, just how do you think the Catholic Church teaches that the Veil was NOT TORN “by practice?” Please find the relevant written teaching that corroborates your statement. If it exists, it should be in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Here’s a link so you can search. christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html

Could you help me out a little and tell me where I can find information about the Veil in the Douay-Rheims. Which catagory is it under?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Go to drbo.org, and type in the search mode, 'the veil of the temple" and it will come up with all passages in the Bible that include those words. You will see the New Testament passages first which I quoted, then Old Testament passages which include other remarks, such as Maccabees.

As for the Catechism of the Catholic Church, what I am saying is that IF the Catholic Church teaches that the Veil was NOT torn, it would be a matter found in the Catechism. When I enter “The Veil of the Temple not torn” in the “search string”, it comes up with “no documents are found”. Thus, there is no church teaching that the “veil of the temple is not torn”.

So that means that if you are trying to tell us that the Catholic Church teaches us that the Veil was NOT torn, when our Bible specifically states that it WAS torn, and when our catechism says nothing about the Veil being NOT torn, we want to know by what authority you make your statement.

 

[Church_Militant]

** What the Bible says about the Vail. **

1. Only God could have torn it from top to bottom.
2. God no longer dwells in a tabernacle made with hands (Heb. 9:11).
3. Everyone may now enter into the presence of the Lord (Heb. 4:16; Rom. 5:1,2).
4. Sin is no longer a barrier between man and God (2 Cor. 5:19).
5. There is no need for sacrifices for sins (Heb. 10:18).
6. There is no need for a sacrificing priesthood (Heb. 7:11-28).

** What the Catholic Church says about the Vail.**1) The Vail was not torn. (This is taught by practice.)
2) The sin debt was NOT paid for. (Everyone must expiate his or her sins in purgatory.)
3) Jesus does dwell in tabernacles made by men. (The Tabernacle on every altar.)
4) There must still be priests to offer sacrifices for sins (Sacrament of the Mass).
5) The priest is the path of approach to receive Christ (Sacrament of Holy Orders).
6) Priests are needed for the forgiveness of sins (Sacrament of Confession).Alfie, my friend, you really should stop believing everything that some site that you cut and paste here says.

That comparison is called “a strawman argument” because it decisively refutes something that is not Catholic teaching to begin with. The assertions are also too numerous to be dealt with all at once, but the fact is that the passages that they cite are taken (as usual) out of context and when the context is checked against the teachings of the Catholic Church you’ll find more than ample scriptural support for the points in question. There are very good refutations and explanations of most all of these things here at the CA LIbrary under Sacraments, but you’d have to really go there and read & study them so that you really understand. Christianity is far deeper than most folks are willing to dig, but they should.
Here’s the link to the Douay-Rheims Bible bear in mind that it came out 2 years ahead of the KJV. Same great English…with all the books and GREAT notes.
Pax tecum,

 

[MariaG]

** What the Bible says about the Vail. **1) Only God could have torn it from top to bottom.
2) God no longer dwells in a tabernacle made with hands (Heb. 9:11).
3) Everyone may now enter into the presence of the Lord (Heb. 4:16; Rom. 5:1,2).
4) Sin is no longer a barrier between man and God (2 Cor. 5:19).
5) There is no need for sacrifices for sins (Heb. 10:18).
6) There is no need for a sacrificing priesthood (Heb. 7:11-28).

**What the Catholic Church says about the Vail.**1) The Vail was not torn. (This is taught by practice.)
2) The sin debt was NOT paid for. (Everyone must expiate his or her sins in purgatory.)
3) Jesus does dwell in tabernacles made by men. (The Tabernacle on every altar.)
4) There must still be priests to offer sacrifices for sins (Sacrament of the Mass).
5) The priest is the path of approach to receive Christ (Sacrament of Holy Orders).
6) Priests are needed for the forgiveness of sins (Sacrament of Confession).

Church Militant is right, these can all be there own thread. I just can never seem to resist trying to help people see that the Catholic Church in no way shape or form contradicts Scripture.

So, here is a link to a new thread about number 2.

The first one has already been dealt with. The Catholic Church does not teach in practice or doctrine that the veil was not torn. That is just false testimony against Christ’s Church.

1. The sin debt was NOT paid for. (Everyone must expiate his or her sins in purgatory.)

Okay, I see the numbers do not match. Number 2 of Scripture and number 3 of “Catholic teachings”. Link here

I may do links for the rest, however, there is so much in what the “Catholic Church teaches” that is so wrong, I do not wish to spend anymore time first citing what the Catholic Church actually teaches to show the lies and misstatements in the post.

I truly apologize, but would encourage Alfie or anyone else to start a new thread on the one of the other ones if you truly believe it is a teaching of the Catholic Church.

A PBJ (peanut butter and jelly sandwich) must be made now for a 4 year old who “can’t do it well, it takes too long for me to do it mom”.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[cestusdei]

Alfie,

1. I don’t understand what alf is meant about the veil not being torn. The temple one was I believe.
2. We were redeemed by the sacrifice on the cross, but that redemptive work still needs to be applied. Hence the sacraments. Sin carries with it an eternal and a temporal punishment. The temporal punishment can remain even after the eternal punishment is remitted. The temporal punishment is dealt with here by penance or by being purified after death. See II Mac. 12. Most people die with some imperfections and those can’t get into heaven. They must be left behind. But purgatory is a grace. It is God at work in us. All merit comes from the passion and death of Christ.
3. Jesus said he would always remain with us. He does in a special way in the tabernacle. Thank you Jesus for keeping your word.
4. The Mass is the same sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, not another one, offered in the here and now. Jesus uses the priest to offer it in an unbloody manner. It is no longer I but Christ who lives in me.
5. We all receive Christ from someone else. Through a pastor, friend, evangelist, the Bible etc. Do we baptize ourselves or does someone do it to us? Unless Alf receives inner locutions.
6. John 20:21-23 where Jesus gives the Apostles the power to forgive sins. If Alf has a problem with that then he needs to talk to Jesus.

 

[M_Oliver]

MariaG:

Although I know this has been discussed at length before, there are several new people who have said this recently. I think it is time to start a new thread again. Shall we make a list here that you wish to discuss and then start a new thread for each doctrine that a person believes is unscriptural?

Name one doctrine of the Catholic Church that contradicts Scripture. One that in fact does not have an implicit teaching in Scripture.

I am a Catholic that loves to “find it in the Bible”. If anyone can show me one doctrine of the Catholic Church that contradicts scripture, I’ll leave today.

Maria

The teaching of:

Christ was crucified on Friday and resurrected on Sunday.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Please tell me where in the Bible that it says that Christ was NOT crucified on a Friday and resurrected on Sunday. I believe that the Bible says that, after Jesus died at 3 p.m. (which is before sundown) he was buried immediately because the next day was the SABBATH. The Sabbath is a Saturday, is it not? Then obviously Jesus was crucified on a Friday.

And since Jews count their days from sundown to sundown, the Friday that Jesus died was day 1. The Saturday He lay in the tomb was day 2. The Sunday that he arose (the scripture states, “very early on the morning AFTER the Sabbath–which is Sunday”) is day 3.

Perfectly Biblical. What’s the problem?

 

[Church_Militant]

Alfie:

Could you help me out a little and tell me where I can find information about the Veil in the Douay-Rheims. Which catagory is it under?

Since you bring it up, I have a point that can be made from this passage about the tearing of that temple veil and the apparition of saints among us.

Matthew 27:51 And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent. 52 And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose, 53 And coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, came into the holy city, and appeared to many. 54 Now the centurion and they that were with him watching Jesus, having seen the earthquake, and the things that were done, were sore afraid, saying: Indeed this was the Son of God.

Jesus was only just then dead! Yet look at the power of the resurrection! I don’t see how anyone can deny that the same is possible today when holy people appear to encourage the church. Does this passage not offer us some insight into the intercession of saints?

It appears to me that there is much more to real New Testament Christianity than many people are willing to realize. :ehh: Yet it’s right there in the Word of God!
Pax tecum,

 

[Alfie]

Church Militant:

I know of absolutely no Catholic doctrines that are contary to scripture.

As for the Assumption: Here’s a whole thread. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=43566

To me, the Assumption is easy to believe in. If you check the OT you see that it happened back then too. Enoch, Moses, and Elijah were all taken up by God because of who they were in His plan and their faithfulness to Him and though the NT gives us nothing to go on on this event, there are non-canonical early church writings that do suggest that our Lord took the Blessed Virgin as well. This makes perfect sense to me for several reasons.

1. Mary was Jesus mother and He surely loves her just as any of us love our own and would do everything He can to display that love.
2. Jesus would no doubt protect his mother from the terrible persecutions that followed. You will notice that there is no record of Mary’s death or where she went after the day of Pentecost, though we do know that she went home to live with St. John after Our Lord’s death right? We know that St. John was the last of the apostles to die and that at one point he was miraculously saved by God when being boiled in oil for his faith…yet he never mentions Mary in his letters but there’s just no way that he wouldn’t have known her fate…that just doesn’t make any sense.

I think that the NT is so silent about the Blessed Virgin because they all agreed to protect her. Can you imagine the PR blitz that would’ve occurred if the Jews or Romans could have found and tortured and killed the mother of this Jesus? Whew!

1. Since God did some really amazing things with the early church, like snatching St. Stephen away to Azotus after he baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts, it seems logical to me that God did some amazing things for the woman who said yes to bearing His only Son. My friends, Mary is probably the 2nd most unique soul in all of history, behind Jesus Himself. No one else was ever called “Full of grace” like that, and I believe that that “fullness of grace” meant she was way more than what a lot of folks think she was. No…she’s not God! But I think she had to be about THE holiest person imaginable. Can ya imagine living every day of your life with the real live son of the living God as your kid? WOW! Now THAT’s “walkin’ with Jesus!”

So…the Assumption is really pretty easy for me and that is why.

(I cite no scripture because the pertinent passages should be fairly easy for anyone to find if interested.)
Pax vobiscum,

Everything you wrote in this post was based on your personal opinions and speculation. You have no documented proof of anything you wrote. I could say Mary was transported to heaven on a space ship, but I can’t prove it.