Name one Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture

[stanley123]

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

In the recent movie about Luther, there was something brought up concerning indulgences. Also, I don;t believe that the Eastern Orthodox accept the RC teaching on indulgences and purgatory.

 

[carol_marie]

Thanks for your responses. I’m going to let this go now because I do not in any way want to disrespect our Blessed Mother. I love Mary and I’m so thankful that she’s helping me grow in my faith.

I wish that there was more support in scripture for something that almost all other Christians see differently. I don’t mind though… I believe in our Church so that’s enough for me.

Blessings,
CM

 

[stanley123]

FuzzyBunny116:

She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Was this always taught in the East, even before the split? I don’t think that the Eastern Orthodox accept the Catholic teaching on the Immaculate Conception, and they contend it was an innovation.

 

[carol_marie]

MariaG:

Hi Carol Marie,
I do understand the desire for more explicit verses. One thing that really helped me with this area was the foreshadowing of Mary and the Ark.

Although it helped me more with her perpetual virginity, it also helped me with her immaculate conception.

The Ark was used to carry Manna, bread from heaven. It was specially made with specific directions from God. Mary carried Jesus the bread of life. God also made her special.

There are some great threads on this. If you think it would help, I’ll look for them and post more.

God Bless,
Maria

Thank you… that is so sweet of you to offer. I think I will understand this whole topic more clearly when I finish a Bible study my husband & I have started. It’s from Jeff Cavins… The Bible Timeline and I’m told we’re going to get into Mary being like the Ark of the Covenent. I can’t wait…
CM

 

[MariaG]

Carol Marie!
I bookmarked this on my favorites! Maybe you will find this helpful. catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9112fea1.asp

Mary and the ark are near the bottom.

The third and most compelling type of Mary’s Immaculate Conception is the ark of the covenant…

When the ark was completed, “the cloud covered the meeting tent and the glory of the Lord filled the dwelling. Moses could not enter the meeting tent, because the cloud settled down upon it and the glory of the Lord filled the dwelling” (Ex. 40:34-38). Compare this with the words of Gabriel to Mary in Luke 1:35.

There’s another striking foreshadowing of Mary as the new ark of the covenant in 2 Samuel 6. The Israelites had lost the ark in a battle with their enemies, the Philistines, and had recently recaptured it. King David sees the ark being brought to him and, in his joy and awe, says “Who am I that the ark of the Lord should come to me?” (1 Sam. 6:9).

Compare this with Elizabeth’s nearly identical words in Luke 1:43. Just as David leapt for joy before the ark when it was brought into Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:14-16), so John the Baptist leapt for joy in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary, the ark of the new covenant, came into her presence (Luke 1:44). John’s leap was for precisely the same reason as David’s–not primarily because of the ark itself, but because of what the ark contained, the Word of God…

Granted, none of these verses “proves” Mary’s Immaculate Conception, but they all point to it. After all, the Bible nowhere says Mary committed any sin or languished under original sin. As far as explicit statements are concerned, the Bible is silent on most of the issue, yet all the biblical evidence supports the Catholic teaching.

A last thought. If you could have created your own mother, wouldn’t you have made her the most beautiful, virtuous, perfect woman possible? Jesus, being God, did create his own mother (Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2), and he did just that–he created her immaculate and, in his mercy and generosity, kept her that way.

I cut out a lot. But these are some Bible verses that helped me to understand Our Blessed Mother and the teaching of the Immaculate conception using the Whole Bible.

I hope this helps some.

Maria

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

No idea. The Orthodox have such similar theology to ours, it seems, tha I imagine they do. It was a thousand years before they split (Same amount of time from now to the split as from Jesus’ death to the split. Feels longer…). I find it hard to believe that they “came” up with this teaching a thousand years after Jesus’ death. Looking at the Early Church Fathers on the CA website, the belief in her sinlessness seems very old, so I imagine they do agree with us. I dunno, ask one of them .

 

[trailblazer]

As truth for Catholics consist of Tradition and one aspect of Tradition is the Bible, I do not believe that all truth has to be found in the Bible, but nothing the Church teaches can contradict the Bible. Tradition teaches that there were non-written traditions passed down.

 

[MariaG]

posted by Stanley 123
Was this always taught in the East, even before the split? I don’t think that the Eastern Orthodox accept the Catholic teaching on the Immaculate Conception, and they contend it was an innovation.

It depends on who you ask. I found this and article saying that they did accept it and changed their belief in the 15th century and then posts from Fr Ambrose denying it. I honestly don’t know. cin.org/imconcep.html Ahh. I lost the thread that sent me to this article. Sigh. I think I need to call it a night.

But I do know this is some of what the early church fathers said of “full of Grace” catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp

But still, the point is that the doctrine of immaculate conception does not contradict the Scripture. And can be seen implicitly. The Church believes that although there is no new revelation, there is deeper understanding of that which has been revealed. I think the Immaculate conception is a perfect example of that.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

posted by Stanley 123

In the recent movie about Luther, there was something brought up concerning indulgences. Also, I don;t believe that the Eastern Orthodox accept the RC teaching on indulgences and purgatory.

There was abuse of indulgences. No question of that. But as to whether they contradict the Bible? Do you believe they contradict or can remember what the objection was? And Purgatory? Where in Scripture does it contradict?

Anyway, I need to go for the night, but Carry on! See you all soon.

Maria

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

stanley123:

Was this always taught in the East, even before the split? I don’t think that the Eastern Orthodox accept the Catholic teaching on the Immaculate Conception, and they contend it was an innovation.

The reason for that is the Orthodox church does not believe in the concept of original sin. They believe that because of Adam’s sin we have things like death and our nature to sin, but reject that we are born with another’s sin on us. So because they don’t believe in original sin in the sense that we do, they really can’t believe in the Immaculate Conception. They do share our veneration and devotion to Mary, however.

 

[RyanL]

There’s a good thread on the Orthodox and the Immaculate Conception going on right now in the Apologetics forum:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=58873

Here’s a short thread I worked on about Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant and understanding the Communion of Saints:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=58170

Here are some links on indulgences:
Primer on Indulgences (with biblical basis)
catholic.com/library/primer_on_indulgences.asp
Myths about Indulgences
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411fea1sb2.asp

God bless,
RyanL

 

[stanley123]

MariaG:

And Purgatory? Where in Scripture does it contradict?

They can say it contradicts Matthew 25 vs31 to 46. There it is said that the just will go to heaven, while the unjust will go to hell. It is said that there will be a division into two groups, to heaven or to hell. The idea that there was a third group is not mentioned and I have heard them say that the idea of a third group, or the idea of Purgatory was an invention of the priests, and it has no backing from Matthew 25 vs31 to 46: And I don’t think that the Eastern Orthodox accept the Catholic teaching on indulgences.

 

[bkniceley]

well lets look at king david and what he says in psalm 51:5:

“Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”

hmm…

 

[stanley123]

RyanL:

Here are some links on indulgences:

Thanks for the links.
It is written there that:“The pious use of indulgences dates back into the early days of the Church, and the principles underlying indulgences extend back into the Bible itself. Catholics who are uncomfortable with indulgences do not realize how biblical they are.”
If true, then why do not the Orthodox accept the Catholic theory on indulgences? (Unless, perhaps, my information is not correct, and I am not correctly stating the position of the Eastern Church?)

 

[RyanL]

stanley123:

They can say it contradicts Matthew 25 vs31 to 46. …The idea that there was a third group is not mentioned …the idea of Purgatory was an invention of the priests, and it has no backing from Matthew 25 vs31 to 46…

(slightly editted for brevity)

Matt 25:31-46
31"When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holya]32All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34Then the King will say to those on His right hand, "Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world…"Then He will also say to those on the left hand, “Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: …46And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

True. At the end (or, rather, in eternity), there will be no Purgatory. Purgatory is a pit-stop on the way to Heaven. Once there are no “new” people, and the final judgement has occured, we will be in either Heaven or Hell - no place else. This does not negate the idea of Purgatory. You may also look into “Abraham’s Bosom” - it wasn’t Heaven, it wasn’t Hell…it was a “mysterious third place”. You may also look for when Christ went to “preach to the souls in prison” after His death, but before His resurection. The idea of a not-Heaven-not-Hell place is there, right in scripture.
Here’s a link to help explain:
catholic.com/library/purgatory.asp
Here’s a link to the Fathers’ writings about it (note: ALL before 450 A.D.):
catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp

 

[RyanL]

stanley123:

Thanks for the links.

stanley123:

It is written there that:“The pious use of indulgences dates back into the early days of the Church, and the principles underlying indulgences extend back into the Bible itself. Catholics who are uncomfortable with indulgences do not realize how biblical they are.”
If true, then why do not the Orthodox accept the Catholic theory on indulgences? (Unless, perhaps, my information is not correct, and I am not correctly stating the position of the Eastern Church?)

Unfortunately, I know precious little about the Orthodox. My specialty is the First Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, Roman Synod. I suppose someone else would be better suited to answer…

God bless,
RyanL

 

[Church_Militant]

carol marie:

OK, I’m sort of afraid I’m going to get beat up here… but you asked so please be nice…

I don’t think that Mary remaining sinless is supported biblically and I believe a good argument could be made against it w/ “ALL have sinned & fall short of the glory of God.” And I know this has been addressed in a kajillion threads already… It is my opinion that this is one of those issues that we accept because the Church says so… (which I do) but I would be hard pressed to support it using the Bible.

Hi CM! (Hey we gots the same initials! You are so cool! )

Here’s something to think about:
I believe that the non-Catholic contention that Mary could not have lived without sinning is the result of a serious lack of faith, since all the scriptures point to God’s command to live a holy life and avoid sin.
Leviticus 11 :44 For I am the Lord your God: be holy because I am holy.
Leviticus 11 :46 You shall be holy, because I am holy.
1 Peter 1 :16 Because it is written: You shall be holy, for I am holy.
Leviticus 20 :26 You shall be holy unto me, because I the Lord am holy, and I have separated you from other people, that you should be mine.
Leviticus 19 :2 Speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel, and thou shalt say to them: Be ye holy, because I the Lord your God am holy.

It makes no sense whatever for God to command us to do the impossible when the Word of God clearly says that “with God all things are possible”. Our holy lives (or lack thereof) are the direct result of our cooperation with the superabundant grace that is the gift of God. If Our Lady was indeed “full of grace” then isn’t it unbelief to say that she did not lead a sinless life? (Luke1:28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.)

The New Testament nowhere gives us any example of Mary’s sin and calls Joseph and many others “righteous” because they obeyed God and cooperated with His grace in their lives. It is clearly not their own works that have merited their salvation, but their works are the result of their full cooperation with the God’s graces so that their salvation is a tremendous example of the overwhelming power of the grace that God gives us to do his will. (James 2 :18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith.
James 2 :20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
James 2 :22 Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect?
James 2 :26 For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.)

Is it not unbelief that causes us to fall? That unbelief is why we sin…we fail to believe that God’s grace is sufficient for us, then do not cooperate with that grace and as a result fall (flat on our spiritual faces).
Romans 3 :23 For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God.
Romans 5 :12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

Also…there is no distinction made between Original sin and actual sin…newborns are without actual sin until the age of reason…Adam and Eve were sinless prior to the fall.

St. Paul’s letter to the Romans is making a de facto statement about man’s nature and unbelief in general. I don’t think it is a literal statement. This is not salvation by works at all, but our cooperation with the free gift of grace from God.
Pax tecum,

 

[stanley123]

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

NFP does not have a Scriptural basis and it contradicts the following:
Tobias 6:17 – “The holy youth Tobias approaches his bride Sara after three days of prayer, not for fleshly lust but only for the love of posterity. Having been instructed by the Archangel Saint Rapheal that to engage in the marital act he must be moved rather for love of children than for lust. For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power.”
By NFP, the couple is making a systemiatc effort to prevent God from sending a new life. The couple is going out of their way to calculate by a meticulous and organized effort, involving charts, cycles and thermometers, how to have marital relations without getting pregnant with the child. With these calculations, the married couple goes out of its way to avoid children by deliberately avoiding the fertile times and restricting the marriage act exclusively to infertile times.

 

[RyanL]

Stanley…you’re cheating. NFP is not a doctrine! If you take the class (which I have), you’ll see that if NFP is used as contraception for the sole purpose of avoiding pregnancy without grave reason, it is a sin. I recommend Humanae Vitae as required reading.

Also, abstaining from sex within marriage is perfectly scriptural: catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea2.asp

RyanL

 

[PMV]

carol marie:

I just wish that of all the thousands of verses in the Bible, just one said, "Mary remained sinless… "

In the Bible, did Jesus come right out and say “I am God”? No, but He still indicated that He is and showed us this truth in different ways.