Name one Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter MariaG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Chris LaRock:
It could contradict scripture, if done improperly. The golden calf, for example.
But, respectfully, we are not talking about doing it improperly. We are talking about the official teachings of the Catholic Church and whether or not they contradict Scripture.

And by your own admission, you say that you do not make the mistake of thinking having statues equals the worship of that statue.

Anything can be misused. Scripture, can be twisted to mean things that God never intended but that does not mean that men should not try to use Scripture to enlighten people.

And this is supposed to be teachings that contradict Scripture. Not teachings that if done improperly contradict Scripture.

God Bless,
Maria
 
This whole Iconoclastic debate has been had before HERE and the fact is that it’s not even of Christian origin, but the result of fundamentalist Islamic influences in the 9th century.

Read the graven image part of the first commandment here:
Exodus 20:1-5

“1 And the Lord spoke all these words: 2 I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me:”

It is clear that the prohibition is not iconoclastic as you preach, but based upon the intent of the one making and using the image. Since NO CATHOLIC EVER kneels down before any image to worship it we are not idolators at all. We are not stupid enough to confuse a mass of rock, plaster, metal, or any other created thing with the almighty and ever living God of the Universe.

Here’s New Advent’s entry on Iconoclasm, Scholars.
newadvent.org/cathen/07620a.htm
Pax vobiscum,
 
Church Militant:
This whole Iconoclastic debate has been had before HERE and the fact is that it’s not even of Christian origin, but the result of fundamentalist Islamic influences in the 9th century.
How could I have forgotten about that great thread!:bigyikes:

Thanks for the link.

God Bless,
Maria
 
Chris LaRock:
It could contradict scripture, if done improperly. The golden calf, for example.
Peace.

But wasn’t the golden calf from Exodus made by the Israelites when Moses was on the Mount Sinia an attempt by the Israelites to carve an image of what God resembled? They were not worshipping the golden calf itself, but using the golden calf as the represented image of God.

I don’t worship statues anymore than I worship the photographs in my home or at my work of my family and pets.

For me, how I define it to others, since cameras did not exist, we rely on statues and paintings to connect with our ancestral brethren. Art has always been used to connect the faithful. Remember, not everyone was literate (and some still are illiterate).

I don’t know how many times I have seen decals on cars of the character Calvin (from Calvin and Hobbes) kneeling before a Cross. Is Calvin representing the owners of the cars who are worshipping a Cross?

Just some thoughts.

Peace.
 
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?
The Sabbath being spoken of was not the 7th day Sabbath. John 19:31 tells us that the Preparation Day being spoken of was for a HIGH DAY Sabbath. The weekly Sabbath is not the only Sabbath commanded by God to be observed by His people.

Leviticus 23 lists 7 Annual Holy Days. Each of these Days is considered a Sabbath. All annual Sabbaths or “High Days” except Pentecost fall on particular “set dates” rather than “set days” of the week.

We know Christ obeyed God and kept the Passover(14 Abib or Nisan on God’s calendar) with His disciples the night before His death, Luke 22:15. He died on the cross the next afternoon which was still the Passover AND the Preparation Day for what?

The first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread 15 Nisan, an ANNUAL SABBATH, Leviticus 23:6.

So the fact is they were rushing to get Christ in the tomb before sunset so as to not violate the commanded annual Sabbath of Unleavened Bread.

After the Sabbath(Unleavened Bread) Mary Magdalene and her companions bought spices with which to annoint Christ’s body, Mark 16:1. Before the Sabbath they prepared the spices, Luke 23:56. Contradiction? No, just more proof of two Sabbaths being referred to.

The Sabbath that they prepared the spices before would have been the weekly 7th day Sabbath. This means they bought and prepared them on our Friday(the Preparation Day of the weekly
Sabbath). By this time Christ had been dead for 2 days.

After preparing the spices they rested on the weekly Sabbath, Luke 23:56. Mark 16:2 does not include this fact but that doesn’t mean it didn’t occur. Christ just didn’t inspire him to write it as He did Luke.

So on the first day of the week while it was still dark they went to annoint Christ but found that He was already risen, John 20:1. Mark 16:2 states they came as the sun was rising. Don’t be fooled. He didn’t say it was light. Certainly noone can argue that the sun is not rising prior to dawn while it is still dark.

The reason Christ was already gone is because he had fullfilled THE ONLY SIGN that He was the true Messiah. That sign as told by Christ Himself was that He would be in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights, Matthew 12:39-40. Christ Himself said that there are 12 hours in “the day” not in “a day”, John 11:9-10. 12 hours of light, 12 hours of darkness, roughly. This makes 3 days and 3 nights equal 72 hours.

By Christ’s own words we see that 3 days and 3 nights cannot be crammed into a Friday afternoon to Sunday morning timeline.

Since we know Christ was put into the tomb just before sunset He would have to have been resurrected just before sunset 3 days and 3 nights later. The Bible says he wasn’t there the first day of the week. He was clearly resurrected on the 7th day Sabbath just before it ended.

How does this translate into man’s calendar?

Passover meal 31 AD would have been Tuesday evening. By Wednesday morning He had been turned over to Pilate and was being crucified. He died Wednesday afternoon and was put in the
tomb before sunset. Wednesday night, Thursday night, Friday night…Thursday day, Friday day, Saturday day. Christ’s prophecy of 3 days and 3 nights is fullfilled.

Why all the confusion? Satan is deceiving all but the very elect. You can read about it in the pages of your Bible.

God bless.
 
And your source for this unsupported assertation that has been somehow kept from all but the “select few” is. . .what?

And that 31 AD date comes from. . .?

For some 2000 years Christians have taught exactly what I said to you. . .for some 2000 years, unbroken, Christians have celebrated Good Friday and the Pasch (Easter) Sunday. . .

But somehow a “select few” have determined that we’ve been all wrong for 2000 years. . .based on some anonymous pseudodata and unsupported guesstimation (that 31 AD date just sticks in my craw, friend) that ignores not just the written Biblical tradition but the oral tradition of Jesus, the apostles, and the earliest members of Christianity? Because I don’t see “primary sources”, sir. I don’t even see secondary sources. I see someone throwing out a date picked seemingly from thin air and arguing a fallacy based on that assumption.

You’re perfectly free to believe as you will. But don’t try to tell me that the Catholic Church contradicts Scripture. What the Church contradicts is your unsupported and erroneous modern argument of an incorrect belief. . . not Scripture.
 
40.png
M_Oliver:
The teaching of an immortal soul.
👋

Where in Scripture does it tell us that there is no immortal soul?

Or where in Catholic teaching do we say that there is no immortal soul?

Not sure exactly which argument you are trying to make, but documentation of either would be appreciated.

God Bless,
Maria

ps

And no further comment on Tantum Ergo?
 
40.png
M_Oliver:
The teaching of an immortal soul.
The soul is not immortal was what I meant. Many mainstream Christians including catholics insist on this false teaching.
 
40.png
M_Oliver:
The soul is not immortal was what I meant. Many mainstream Christians including catholics insist on this false teaching.
Christ inspired Ezekiel to write that all souls belong to God and the soul that sins will die, Ezekiel 18:4 and 20. If it can die it isn’t immortal. Only God is currently immortal, 1 Timothy 6:16. God can’t die but the soul can, and many will, during the phrophesied resurrections from the dead.
 
Mind telling us how we can have eternal life with Jesus if we have no immortal soul? Our bodies die, and decay. They will be raised up as immortal and glorified (like Jesus), but apparently you think that people die in the body and just “disappear”, until the last day? .And that soul has to be immortal, otherwise it cannot go on to either “everlasting life” or “everlasting punishment” as stated in the Bible. . .

Oh and if you please, chapter and verse of the Bible that says that there is no immortal soul. If there is no immortal soul, then there can be no everlasting life, friend. . .
 
This is what happens when people take phrases out of context. . . :rolleyes:

So you believe God creates some people with immortal souls (because we are told many times what to do to gain everlasting life or immortality), and some without?

Or He creates everybody with an immortal soul but some don’t do the right thing and He kills them?

Just what are you trying to say?

You can’t have it both ways.

If we aren’t created with immortal souls we cannot have everlasting life. And if some souls can be killed and some can’t, then they were immortal to begin with and had that immortality taken away by God. Of course, most Christians (thanks for noticing) hold to 2000 years of Christian teaching that God created us, mortal body and immortal soul.

You know, Paul tells us that we are dead to sin and alive in Christ. Does that make Christians into ZOMBIES?

It would be wise of you to read ALL of Ezechiel, not just one or two disparate chapters, and as well to explore what his writing style was, in order to know what he meant by “soul” and by “death”. Otherwise you are going to be very, very confused by what looks like contradictions in the Bible when the only contradiction is engendered because you just didn’t understand what was said. . .
 
“Name one Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture”
There is a teaching of the Catholic Church that women do not have to wear headcovering and are allowed to read and to lead the entire Communion service in Church. This contradicts passages in Scripture as written by St. Paul.
 
“Name one Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture”
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. according to Scripture.
However, according to Catholic teaching, a man can enter the kingdom of heaven if he has not been born again of water and the Holy Spirit, for example, a Jew or a Moslem.
 
40.png
Kirane:
However, according to Catholic teaching, a man can enter the kingdom of heaven if he has not been born again of water and the Holy Spirit, for example, a Jew or a Moslem.
Catholics do not make judgement calls on who “can” or “cannot” enter the kingdom of heaven. Do you?
 
40.png
Mickey:
Catholics do not make judgement calls on who “can” or “cannot” enter the kingdom of heaven. Do you?
This is not relevant to the question of the thread which is whether or not there is a Catholic teaching which contradicts a passage from Scripture. According to current Catholic teaching a Jew may be saved even if he is not born again of water and the Holy Spirit.
 
40.png
Mickey:
Catholics do not make judgement calls on who “can” or “cannot” enter the kingdom of heaven. Do you?
If you do not agree, or practice, 100% of the Catholic religion, are you Heaven-bound?
 
40.png
Kirane:
This is not relevant to the question of the thread which is whether or not there is a Catholic teaching which contradicts a passage from Scripture. According to current Catholic teaching a Jew may be saved even if he is not born again of water and the Holy Spirit.
It is completely relevant. Catholics use the entire Bible.

Matt 19:26
But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
 
does anyone know spanish here??

i know that in spanish the Hail Mary prayer starts off

dios te salve maria, llena eres de gracia…

which translates: god save you maria, full grace…

if she needs salvation, why is she sinless. of course the hail mary prayer isn’t in the bible, but that’s a whole other matter.

sonia
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top