Name one Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture

[Mannyfit75]

Good works and faiths works side by side. Faith alone is dead.

1 Pet 2:12
Maintain good conduct among the Gentiles, so that if they speak of you as evildoers, they may observe your good works and glorify God on the day of visitation.
Rev 2:2
I know your works, your labor, and your endurance …
Mt 5:16
Just so, your light must shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father.
Mt 16:27
For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father’s glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct.
Mt 25:34-36

Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’

((continue))

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Bible makes it clear that there must be a balanced relationship between our faith and its expression in good works.

James 2:14-18
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
1 Cor 15:58
Therefore, my beloved brothers, be firm, steadfast, always fully devoted to the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.
Heb 6:10
For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love you have demonstrated for his name by having served and continuing to serve the holy ones.
James 2:20-22
Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.
Mt 16:27
For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father’s glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct.
1 Cor 3:8
The one who plants and the one who waters are equal, and each will receive wages in proportion to his labor.
Col 3:23-24
Whatever you do, do from the heart, as for the Lord and not for others, knowing that you will receive from the Lord the due payment of the inheritance.
The Bible indicates that it is wrong to disturb the balance of works expressing a life of faith. Man is not saved by faith alone.

James 2:24
See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
James 2:26
For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

 

[Mannyfit75]

**Nor is man saved by works alone. **

Rom 9:31-32
Israel, who pursued the law of righteousness, did not attain to that law … because they did it not by faith, but as if it could be done by works.
Gal 3:11
And that no one is justified before God by the law is clear, for “the one who is righteous by faith will live.”
The Bible declares that salvation is a gift of God alone and constantly reaffirms that faith has a primary role in that salvation.

Eph 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast.
Heb 6:1
Therefore, let us leave behind the basic teaching about Christ and advance to maturity, without laying the foundation all over again: repentance from dead works and faith in God,
Heb 9:14
… how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to worship the living God.
2 Tim 1:9
He saved us and called us to a holy life, not according to our works but according to his own design and the grace bestowed on us in Christ Jesus before time began,
Titus 3:4-5
… the kindness and generous love of God our savior appeared, not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy.
Rom 3:27-28
What occasion is there then for boasting? It is ruled out. On what principle, that of works? No, rather on the principle of faith. For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Gal 2:16
(We) know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The constant teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on these Scriptures was clearly restated on January 13, 1547.

Council of Trent, On Justification, Ch. VIII
When the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, “without which it is impossible to please God” and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification. For, “if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise,” as the Apostle says, “grace is no more grace.”
The Council also reiterated the relationship of good works to man justified by faith.

Council of Trent, On Justification, Ch. XVI
Therefore, to men justified in this manner, whether they have preserved uninterruptedly the grace received or recovered it when lost, are to be pointed out the words of the Apostle: “Abound in every good work, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord. For God is not unjust, that he should forget your work, and the love which you have shown in his name”; and “Do not lose confidence, which hath a great reward.” Hence, to those who work well “unto the end” and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, and as a reward promised by God himself, to be faithfully given to their good works and merits.

 

[sara888]

Good works are the result, not the cause of salvation.

**

Eph 2:8-10

8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

**

Salvation is by grace.

**

Romans 11:6

6And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace

**

And we can know we have eternal life

**

1 John 5

11And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

12He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

13These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

**

And Good Works, Suffering Accompnay Salvation, they do not cause it.

**

Hebrews 6

4For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

7For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:

8But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.

9But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.**

10For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.

11And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end:

No man or woman deserves salvation or can earn it. No man or woman can fool God with false faith either. But it is Grace, through Faith, and unto Good Works.

**We are judged by our Faith which includes our works. You cannot seperate them as you would like to do.

If Commandments are essential to Faith, then we are being judged according to our faith which includes Gods commandments…

We dont earn grace, we trust, hope, believe. abide, obey and endure to the end… Any doctrine that does not preach a doctrine of Holiness is not of Christ.

Jan**(AngelJan)

 

[rbarcia]

I am not the one decieved here. I have encounter Non-Catholic Christians like you who are claim that the CC teaches false doctrine. I ask you a question early asking you if the St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, and St. Clement were taught by error by the Apostle John and Peter.

If you say yes. You just reject Jesus.

Jesus said to his apostles. “He who hears you, hears me. He who rejects you, rejects me. He who rejects me, rejects who sent me.”

Luckly we are not bound by Manny’s claim that we reject Jesus. Early church members were not the apostles, for to ba an apostle, one had to be a witness to Christ’s resurrection.

**

Acts 1

21Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

**

It is ok to study early church writings, but they are not to be taken as infallible, as they were not inspired by God as the Bible was, or else, some of the writings would have been in the Bible itself. But only the Bible is inspired, and anything that contradicts the Bible cannot be true.

The RCC of today, nonetheless also draw meaning out of early church members that is not there as well.

1. Justin Martyr (150 AD):

Justin Martyr would reject transubstantiation because he referred to the unleavened bread as a “remembrance of His being made flesh”, not that the bread was the literal body. He also referred to the unleavened juice as “in remembrance of His own blood” not that the juice was the literal blood of Christ:

"Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [Isa 33:13-19] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch 70)

1. Irenaeus (180 AD):

Irenaeus refutes the Gnostics on the basis that the Lord would not use “evil material things” like bread and juice in the Lord’s Supper. Had Irenaeus argued that the bread and juice Transubstantiated (changed) into something different from what they appear, the Gnostics would have agreed, saying this change was essential because Jesus did not have physical flesh either!

"Irenaeus has the realist terminology but not the realist thought. There is no conversion of the elements. Indeed, if there were any change in the substance of the elements, his argument that our bodies-in reality, not in appearance-are raised would be subverted." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 114)

1. Tertullian (200 AD):

Tertullian comes right out and states that the bread is a mere symbol of the body of Christ and specifically refutes the Gnostics on this basis:

"Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)

cont…

 

[rbarcia]

cont…

1. Cyprian (200 AD):

Augustine as late at 400 AD, quotes Cyprian as saying that the juice is offered in remembrance as a type and foreshadow of the blood of Christ:

""Observe" he (Cyprian) says, in presenting the cup, to maintain the custom handed down to us from the Lord, and to do nothing that our Lord has not first done for us: so that the cup which is offered in remembrance of Him should be mixed with wine. For, as Christ says, 'I am the true vine,' it follows that the blood of Christ is wine, not water; and the cup cannot appear to contain His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened, if the wine be absent; for by the wine is the blood of Christ typified, that blood which is foreshadowed and proclaimed in all the types and declarations of Scripture." (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, book 4, ch 21, quoting Cyprian)

The same situation prevails in the writings of Tertullian and Cyprian: ... both men when they speak with precision distinguish the symbol from what it represents. The bread was a "figure" of the body. But Tertullian turns the word figura against the Docetism of Marcion (IX.6). The language of symbolism does not help those who deny a real body to Jesus. The bread would not be a figure unless there was first a true body of which it was a figure. There is no shadow without a substance to cast the shadow. Similarly, for Cyprian, literal language about drinking Christ's blood is balanced by language of "remembrance" (X.5) and "representation" (IX.7). Both symbolism and realism are present in the thought of Cyprian and Tertullian. The symbolism concerns bread and wine as signs. (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 115)

1. Hippolytus (200 AD):

Hippolytus speaking of the Lord’s Supper as an antitype based upon Prov 9:1:

"And she hath furnished her table: "that denotes the promised knowledge of the Holy Trinity; it also refers to His honoured and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper. (Hippolytus, Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs 9:1)

For Hippolytus, too, the bread and wine are the antitypes or likenesses of the reality portrayed. His consecration prayer (VIII.5) contains both the words of institution and petition for the Holy Spirit. But there is no suggestion of a change in the elements. (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 115)

 

[Image_of_God]

You are so decieved manny, and in such denial, that it is laughable to read what you post in an attempt to refute Scripture.

Look my friend. Scriptural truth ALWAYS triumphs over the doctrines of satan. That in a nutshell is why you can never truly prove me wrong.

“The” New Covenant “church” was born on Pentecost. What name does Scripture assign to it again?

We are not decieved. You have started to believe 500 year old doctines that are completely modern. You choose 500 year old beliefs over beliefs that we have clearly shown you have lasted since the time of Jesus. We have gone to documents nearly 2,000 years old and you do not believe.

Are you calling the truth a lie?

Luke 16:15
And he said to them, Go out into the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation.

So my question is, did the proclaiming stop after the Apostilic Age(you must also consider that today, there are areas that have still not recieved the good news)?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Luckly we are not bound by Manny’s claim that we reject Jesus. Early church members were not the apostles, for to ba an apostle, one had to be a witness to Christ’s resurrection.

I did not said that they were apostles. I said they are successors. In the Epistles, they are commonly called, teachers, elders, bishops.

The Apostles are witnesses and in order to spread the Gospel by word of mouth, they pass it on. When Paul pass he passed his authority to Timothy… and so forth…

 

[M_Oliver]

We are not decieved. You have started to believe 500 year old doctines that are completely modern. You choose 500 year old beliefs over beliefs that we have clearly shown you have lasted since the time of Jesus. We have gone to documents nearly 2,000 years old and you do not believe.

Are you calling the truth a lie?

Luke 16:15
And he said to them, Go out into the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation.

So my question is, did the proclaiming stop after the Apostilic Age(you must also consider that today, there are areas that have still not recieved the good news)?

What 500 year old doctrines are you talking about? I need to ask you a serious question. Is it really that natural for your kind to MAKE THINGS UP IN ORDER TO SMEAR SOMEBODY? Why do you attack me over and over again with MAKE BELIEVE STUFF?

I could care less if you are quoting 2,000 year old documents. If they are not the correct translation of Scripture they are a lie.

As for the rest of your post. Why do you expect me to assume that the Romans were given the duty to preach the Gospel? Where is it commanded that the Roman Empire was to preach the Gospel?

 

[Mannyfit75]

What 500 year old doctrines are you talking about? I need to ask you a serious question. Is it really that natural for your kind to MAKE THINGS UP IN ORDER TO SMEAR SOMEBODY? Why do you attack me over and over again with MAKE BELIEVE STUFF?

I could care less if you are quoting 2,000 year old documents. If they are not the correct translation of Scripture they are a lie.

As for the rest of your post. Why do you expect me to assume that the Romans were given the duty to preach the Gospel? Where is it commanded that the Roman Empire was to preach the Gospel?

Did you not make up that Purgatory is Egyptian, which is not historically accurate.

I have read early Church history and it was foundly Catholic in its beginnings.

Find any historical writings that Christianity started with Bible Only Christians. If you can find it to prove your case.

Since the Church was before the entire Bible was formalized. The only source we use was the Septuagint.

The Bible as we know contains OT and NT. During Jesus time the Septuagint was commonly used by Hebrews.

Septuagint - Influence on Christianity
The Septuagint was also a source of the Old Testament for early Christians during the first few centuries AD. Many early Christians spoke and read Greek, thus they relied on the Septuagint translation for most of their understanding of the Old Testament. The New Testament writers also relied heavily on the Septuagint, as a majority of Old Testament quotes cited in the New Testament are quoted directly from the Septuagint (others are quoted from the Hebrew texts). Greek church fathers are also known to have quoted from the Septuagint. Even today, the Eastern Orthodox Church relies on the Septuagint for its Old Testament teachings. Some modern Bible translations also use the Septuagint along side Hebrew manuscripts as their source text.

 

[believers]

I left the “quote” there so others can easily refer to your post but due to the length of my response I needed to delete your post.

1. As to the strange Gods, I have to admit that I “missed” that part of your argument until now.
   The Translation the Catholic Church bases the words no strange gods on is, I am guessing, the Douay Rhiems Version, since those are the exact words listed in the DRV text.
   Exd 20:3
   Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.

So in fact, if you want to be technical, the KJV “changed” the word of God if you want to say that changing any word automatically changes the meaning. Since the DRV predates the KJV.

1. That is a bold faced lie. I have said repeatedly said and pointed out to you that in the link YOU provided, you can see that Exodus 20:4-6 are in fact right there and shows that the words used to summarize this, include this teaching.

Exodus 20 2-17

I am the LORD your God,
who brought you out
of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage.
You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself a graven image,
or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,
or that is in the earth beneath,
or that is in the water under the earth;
you shall not bow down to them or serve them;
for I the LORD your God am a jealous God,
visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children to the third and the fourth
generation of those who hate me,
but showing steadfast love to thousands of those
who love me and keep my commandments.

Deuteronomy 5:6-21
I am the LORD your God,
who brought you out
of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage.

A Traditional Catechetical Formula

1. I am the LORD your God:
   you shall not have
   strange Gods before me.

As one can clearly see in the Red highlighted above, the claim that the Catholic Church has “omitted” Exodus 20:4-6 is completely false as it is, in fact, the red text above showing that exudus 20:4-6 is intended to included in the summary used by the Catholic Church.

1. As to fact three being taught to millions, I say AMEN!

But if you again declare that the Catholic Church has omitted Exodus 20:4-6, which is clearly highlighted in red above from the chart you provided, you will only continue to be shown for what you are, an anti-Catholic who is so far gone in their prejudice that they are unable to admit they are wrong about anything they THINK the Catholic Church teaches.

I have little hope of you admitting that you did not see that Exodus 20:4-6 is not omitted from Catholic teaching of the ten commandments (even though it is clearly highlighted in read above), nor that there may be an alternative translation that the Catholic version was based on that came before the KJV, but at least I know I have given this information to any lurkers out there.

But ask yourself, why is it that former Protestants can acknowledge the basic Christianity of Protestants yet ex-Catholics like you seemingly unable to do the same?

Just because you never opened the door to Christ and wasted 36 years being a pew warmer in the Catholic Church does not mean that Christ is not there.

Here is another question, off topic but you don’t even have to answer.

How many times did you actually pick up a bible and read it for yourself while attending The Catholic Church? And how often do you do it now? Maybe you are a rare ex-Catholic who actually read scripture alot with other Catholics and Catholic bible studies, but most likely you were ignorant of Scripture while in the Catholic Church. And ignorance of the Scripture is ignorance of Christ.

God Bless,
Maria

Maria,

You’re just in denial. First off, we took the direct translation from Hebrew text which PREDATES Douay Rhiems Version. So your DRV argument doesn’t hold. Face it… The RCC changed the Commandments and teaches men so. Jesus said those who do that will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven. I suppose you’re just going to agree with the strange gods version… so are “not so strange gods” ok?

If you want to talk about Douay Rhiems Version,
Douay Rhiems in Genesis 3:15 says “SHE shall crush thy head”
King James says “it shall bruise thy head,”

But then in Romans 16:20
DRV says “And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily”
KJV says "And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.
So is the Douay Rhiems saying that God is a female?

 

[believers]

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

Hi Maria,

Here’s another teaching that contradicts scripture.
The RCC teaches that Paul is THE Rock that Jesus is referring to.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Hi Maria,

Here’s another teaching that contradicts scripture.
Paul is taught to be the rock. Well, he isn’t.

Paul the Rock nope. Where did you get that false idea? Paul being the Rock is not taught in Catholicism.

 

[Image_of_God]

What 500 year old doctrines are you talking about? I need to ask you a serious question. Is it really that natural for your kind to MAKE THINGS UP IN ORDER TO SMEAR SOMEBODY? Why do you attack me over and over again with MAKE BELIEVE STUFF?
Make believe? Your doctrines of using the Bible alone for interpretations are 500 years old! Are you telling me, that from the time of Christ until the 1500’s, all stuff was make believe? I am NOT making things up. If you believe these letters and sermons are made up, ask everybody where the Bible came from. The Bible was given by God through the Catholic Church.

I could care less if you are quoting 2,000 year old documents. If they are not the correct translation of Scripture they are a lie.

Because all Christians are given the duty to evangelize.

 

[believers]

Paul the Rock nope. Where did you get that false idea? Paul being the Rock is not taught in Catholicism.

Sorry, I meant Peter not Paul.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Paul the rock?
No.
Peter the rock? Yes. . .he is. AND so is faith the rock. The two do not contradict, in fact they more fully explain.

Read Revelation if you want more Biblical examples of things with more than one reading. Read the O.T. if you want typology and prefiguring.

But please don’t cherry pick the Bible for chapter and verse (which, BTW did not exist until the Middle Ages) in order to try to present some ‘proof’ that Catholic teaching contradicts Scripture. You just won’t do it, twist and turn as you might. Because the Church PREDATED the Scripture. The Church GAVE US Scripture. And the Church, like Scripture, is God-breathed, eternal, and everlasting. It presents authentic and authoritative Scriptural teaching and it always will. Christ Himself promised this.

Now, non Catholic churches in the last 500 years HAVE contradicted Scripture REPEATEDLY. I’ll name two instances for starters:

1. Non Catholic churches contradict John 6 by making their ‘communion’ symbolic. For 1500 years CHRISTIAN communion was literal. In the Catholic and Orthodox churches it remains so. But the other nonCatholic Christians have for the most part CONTRADICTED SCRIPTURE and ‘changed’ the Bible teaching.
2. Non Catholic churches contradict the words of Christ Himself by permitting divorce and remarriage. Christ only permitted a divorce–in the sense of those separate cases where there had never been a valid marriage to begin with! Think of the woman at the well, who had several ‘husbands’ and the man she was with was NOT her husband (as Christ told her). THAT woman would most CERTAINLY be required to ‘divorce’ under Jewish law as she was NOT legally married to BEGIN with. . .that is why these invalid marriages are a ‘separate’ case. But nonCatholic churches permit endless ‘marriage-divorce-marriage-divorce’ even though the majority of those seeking divorce ARE validly married.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg, for once one starts interpreting the Bible privately (something which Peter condemned), it’s a quick slide into making the Scriptures say what “we” want them to say, not what God Himself really SAID. . .

 

[Mannyfit75]

Sorry that was supposed to be Peter.

Peter comes from the word petro from Greek. The Greek got that from Aramaic text, the word Rock for Aramaic is Kepha, or Cephas. Aramaic is the language of Jesus.

I like to quote a article from Catholic Answers website.

Origins of Peter as Pope

The New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14). One metaphor that has been disputed is Jesus Christ’s calling the apostle Peter “rock”: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).

Some have tried to argue that Jesus did not mean that his Church would be built on Peter but on something else.

Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.

These critics also neglect the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: “You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church.”

The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as the following passages show.

It is not error. It is Biblical. It is only in Matthew 16:18 that Peter is Rock.

If you want take a look at the website I cited here it is;

catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp

 

[believers]

Make believe? Your doctrines of using the Bible alone for interpretations are 500 years old! Are you telling me, that from the time of Christ until the 1500’s, all stuff was make believe? I am NOT making things up. If you believe these letters and sermons are made up, ask everybody where the Bible came from. The Bible was given by God through the Catholic Church.

How do you know the Correct tanslation of Scriptures. You are competing translations with the Church of Christ? Unless you can except the Church Fathers as true, you will never agree with anyone.

Because all Christians are given the duty to evangelize.

How could the Catholics give us the Bible when the Word is over 6000 years old?

 

[believers]

Paul the rock?
No.
Peter the rock? Yes. . .he is. AND so is faith the rock. The two do not contradict, in fact they more fully explain.

Read Revelation if you want more Biblical examples of things with more than one reading. Read the O.T. if you want typology and prefiguring.

But please don’t cherry pick the Bible for chapter and verse (which, BTW did not exist until the Middle Ages) in order to try to present some ‘proof’ that Catholic teaching contradicts Scripture. You just won’t do it, twist and turn as you might. Because the Church PREDATED the Scripture. The Church GAVE US Scripture. And the Church, like Scripture, is God-breathed, eternal, and everlasting. It presents authentic and authoritative Scriptural teaching and it always will. Christ Himself promised this.

Now, non Catholic churches in the last 500 years HAVE contradicted Scripture REPEATEDLY. I’ll name two instances for starters:

1. Non Catholic churches contradict John 6 by making their ‘communion’ symbolic. For 1500 years CHRISTIAN communion was literal. In the Catholic and Orthodox churches it remains so. But the other nonCatholic Christians have for the most part CONTRADICTED SCRIPTURE and ‘changed’ the Bible teaching.
2. Non Catholic churches contradict the words of Christ Himself by permitting divorce and remarriage. Christ only permitted a divorce–in the sense of those separate cases where there had never been a valid marriage to begin with! Think of the woman at the well, who had several ‘husbands’ and the man she was with was NOT her husband (as Christ told her). THAT woman would most CERTAINLY be required to ‘divorce’ under Jewish law as she was NOT legally married to BEGIN with. . .that is why these invalid marriages are a ‘separate’ case. But nonCatholic churches permit endless ‘marriage-divorce-marriage-divorce’ even though the majority of those seeking divorce ARE validly married.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg, for once one starts interpreting the Bible privately (something which Peter condemned), it’s a quick slide into making the Scriptures say what “we” want them to say, not what God Himself really SAID. . .

Jhn 1:1 ¶
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.