Name one Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture

[valient_Lucy]

Also, I do not believe in papal authority to begin with. Scripture (yes, even Matt. 16:18) is in no way supportive of such a … well, heresy. So call Benedict “Prime Minister” if you like … But he is certainly not worthy of “Papa,” when God is lucky to receive a distant “Father.”

So you object to calling the pope “Papa” because “Papa” sounds more intimate than “Father?”

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

The baloon as an object has not changed. Your understanding a/k/a doctrine, has. If you are adding to something you are changing it. If you are adding to your understanding, you are changing your understanding, aren’t you?

Exactly! Our doctrines don’t change, but our understanding of them does - a.k.a. they develop.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

And if you try to punch holes in this Doctrine(balloon), Satan comes out with a loud noise(balloon bursting) and scares you! Then you become scared of the Doctrine(balloon). Then unfortunately this fright gets passed on to others as horror stories at a campfire…

Don’t worry, those doctrines that come from God (e.g. Catholic doctrines) are impervious to rupture. The only ones that are full of hot air are those of heretics - and they pop so easily!

 

[adrift]

” An example comes from a teacher of mine.

As for you, do not be called ‘Rabbi.’ You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.

Matthew
Chapter 23:8

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

That’s false. The majority of roman catholics have no idea about the “graven images” part of the ten commandments. Most can’t even recite your “catechetical formula” version. Most can’t even point to the 10 commandments in the Bible.

And did I say that the majority of Catholics are properly catechized? I don’t have exact statistics, but through experience I would guesstimate that the percentage is low - a real scandal for Catholic education.

Every Catholic who receives confirmation - whether in high school, or an adult - should know the contents of the Catechism inside and out.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Hey Kujo, Nice to see you back. I too was a catholic for (36 years). My mother-in-law was going to be a nun and father-in-law was going to be a priest but had to leave because they wanted to get married. “Lies in hypocrisy” comes to mind every time I hear a catholic say that we don’t forbid marriage. The catholic church most certainly does. You’re able to marry but your priests and nuns are not.

Anyway, Paul was telling Timothy what would happen in the latter days which we’re in now. Forbidding to marry and abstaining from meat is false doctrine. Abstaining from meat is not fasting. There’s a big difference. Thanks for being a good minister for Christ by reminding us of this.

1Ti 4:1
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

1Ti 4:2
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

1Ti 4:3
Forbidding to marry, [and **commanding

]** to abstain from meats**, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

1Ti 4:4
For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

1Ti 4:5
For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

1Ti 4:6
If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

Catholics believe that not everyone is called to marriage. Some are called to remain celibate. Both Jesus and Paul addressed this. The Catholic Church chooses priests out of those people who are called to be celibate.

As for forbidding foods, the Catholic Church prescribes abstaining from meat as a form of fasting. Fasting is not contrary to the Bible. The Catholic Church does not teach that meat is bad, or that flesh is bad.

 

[adrift]

That’s false. The majority of roman catholics have no idea about the “graven images” part of the ten commandments. Most can’t even recite your “catechetical formula” version. Most can’t even point to the 10 commandments in the Bible.

Where did you get this information? Can you prove your assertion. This is not true of the Catholics I know. If you are going to say it is false do you have anything to back it up other than an opinion?

 

[adrift]

1Ti 4:3
Forbidding to marry, [and **commanding

]** to abstain from meats**, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

.

Matthew
Chapter 19

12
Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage 9 for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

 

[adrift]

Also, how many young boys’ innocense would’ve not been lost if the RCC let priests marry back then?

Who are the men who commit child abuse?

Are priests the major male sex abusers in our society? You might think so, after all the publicity given to the abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. But not only is that false, it may also divert our attention from the major male sex abusers in our midst…

Where do abusive priests fit in these statistics? Teachers, coaches, neighbors, clergy, daycare providers and youth ministers are among the remaining 12 percent of abusive males. But the horrifying fact confirmed by this study is that the greatest risk to our children still comes from those to whom we entrust them…

These are the “non-parents” — not only the stepfathers, adoptive fathers and mothers’ boyfriends, but also the teachers, coaches, neighbors, clergy, daycare providers, youth ministers, etc. Together they account for 68 percent of the incidents of sexual abuse by male perpetrators.

The truth is that a married priesthood would not have protected those boys. It did not protect those boys molested by the married protestant clergy nor the married teacher, nor the married stepparent.

 

[believers]

Catholics believe that not everyone is called to marriage. Some are called to remain celibate. Both Jesus and Paul addressed this. The Catholic Church chooses priests out of those people who are called to be celibate.

As for forbidding foods, the Catholic Church prescribes abstaining from meat as a form of fasting. Fasting is not contrary to the Bible. The Catholic Church does not teach that meat is bad, or that flesh is bad.

I have news for you. Abstaining from meat is not the same as fasting. Fasting is abstaining from ALL foods not just meat. And, no one is called to be celibate.

 

[believers]

Where did you get this information? Can you prove your assertion. This is not true of the Catholics I know. If you are going to say it is false do you have anything to back it up other than an opinion?

It’s not an opinion. I was a catholic of 36 years. Most if not all catholics I know are cradle catholics. They go to mass on sunday and that’s about it. Most are completely clueless about their own religion.

 

[LukeJ]

Hi Luke,

I am fairly caught up though it was more of a skim.

It I did not notice in the reading if you mentioned which denomination your parents left the church for? It would be helpful to know because in our explanations, it is helpful to know if one believes in OSAS or can lose their salvation. That kind of thing.

As for your question about Mass, most who make the claim that the Catholic Church was corrupted, usually believe it happened sometime before 300AD. Constantine is the usual suspect who is pointed at.

I would first address this claim. I stand on Scripture.

We see in scripture, that there will always be God’s Church. And we can see that the Church will never fail.

There are many scripture verses I could cite. Things like Matt 16:18 in which the gates of hell will not prevail; John 14:16 which tells us the Holy Spirit will be with us always.

But my favorite is this one.

1Tim 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

If the Church became corrupt in its teachings, how can it be the pillar of truth? Either something is true, or it is not. To think that the Catholic Church fell into error in teachings (not error in actions, there are plenty of sinners in the leadership of the Church throughout the Ages) but error in the what it taught as officially true, how can scripture still be true?

It was the pillar of truth, started to crumble and then God brought the reformation, and transfered His church to Protestants? In scripture we can see where Christ transferred the leadership to His new Church with the New covenant. We also see in scripture that it warns us of those who will come along teaching falsely. Where in scripture do we see the transfer of authority to Protestants and who came along Protestants or Catholics?

As for what the Mass looks like, it depends on how you mean. In early Christianity, they worshipped in houses, things were secret for fear of persecution. The Church grew. It became legal to worship as a Christian, Churches started to spring up. And glorious churches, decorated for the glory of God became the norm.

So what exactly are you referring to when you ask about what it “looked like”.

And do you believe that something can change in appearance but still be the “same”? For example, can a tree grow from a sapling into a old growth tree but still be a tree? Have the changes in the appearances of the tree changed the basic fact that it is still a tree?

God Bless,
Maria

Well, after my parents left the church when I was about 6, they went to a Lutheran church for a long time and that’s how I was prettty much raised and did confirmation. But since about a year ago we have been going to a Baptist church. But just because my parents took me to a particular church doesn’t neccisarily mean I believe what they teach. I have been doing my own research about Catholicism. So that’s why I’m asking you guys questions, because there aren’t really any Catholics for me to ask questions to.
But anyways, what I meant by what mass “looked like” is did they make the sign off the cross, pray the rosary, confess oraly to a preist, take communion every week and believe it was Jesus’ blood and body, etc.? Because according to that list of “inventions” all that stuff was “invented” later on.

And also, was the Pope the same as he is today? Because in an anti-catholic tract that I read, the author was talking about how in the Bible (after the gospels) it doesn’t show any evidence for Peter being the head of the church but it shows evidence that he probably wasn’t the leader of the church. My Dad claims that the first Pope was when Constantine came to power. And also, The DaVinci Code says that Constantine wasn’t really a Christian and that he was unwillingly baptized on his death bed. It’s all so confusing!!! So if you guys could help me out, I’d really appreciate it. Thanks.

 

[kujo313]

Hello,

Exactly! Our doctrines don’t change, but our understanding of them does - a.k.a. they develop.

Woa! Didn’t Pope JPII acknowledge evolution? I know I saw that on the front page of USA Today and there was a week’s worth of debating on Christian Radio.

Didn’t the current Pope make a decision about babies and where they go when they die?

There have been changes. The Bible does not change, but the world does. That’s why a Canadian Pastor was arrested for preaching about homosexuality and Romans Chapter 1.

 

[Mannyfit75]

It’s not an opinion. I was a catholic of 36 years. Most if not all catholics I know are cradle catholics. They go to mass on sunday and that’s about it. Most are completely clueless about their own religion.

Because many of them are poorly Catechism, my friend.

It is an opinion. Most of your bias belief of the Catholic faith are very much false.

I have been Catholic for 31 yrs and I tell you I learn more about my faith. 10 yrs ago, I did not know about much about my faith until I read what the Church really teaches. I did not ask former Catholics, I ask Priests. I further went to look at the Church Councils, and finally in 1992 I read the Catechism of Catholic Church… It open my eyes what the Catholic Church. It is Apostolic, and these teachings are both Apostolic and Patristic in nature. It is reveal truth.

The beliefs we held are not made up. They have been handed down to us from the Apostles.

So far most of your objection have been explained here by those within the faith. But you refuse to listen. My friend, I not only read the CCC I also read the Bible in light of the teachings of the Church.

Second, I see no historical belief that support Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura and Faith Alone. Those did not came about until the Reformation.

Those doctrines my friend are alien to the Early Christians. They didn’t even have Alter Calls. In Scripture, we see Christian Bread Bread weekly, and read Liturgy. Just as the Catholic Mass does today.

Though certain rites differ then since the Mass was held at home due to the persecution of the Church by the Jewish leaders.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Well, after my parents left the church when I was about 6, they went to a Lutheran church for a long time and that’s how I was prettty much raised and did confirmation. But since about a year ago we have been going to a Baptist church. But just because my parents took me to a particular church doesn’t neccisarily mean I believe what they teach. I have been doing my own research about Catholicism. So that’s why I’m asking you guys questions, because there aren’t really any Catholics for me to ask questions to.
But anyways, what I meant by what mass “looked like” is did they make the sign off the cross, pray the rosary, confess oraly to a preist, take communion every week and believe it was Jesus’ blood and body, etc.? Because according to that list of “inventions” all that stuff was “invented” later on.

These aren’t invention. Those list are not even historically proven. The beliefs of the Catholic Church from the Trinity, Petrine Authority (Papacy), Apostolic Succesion, Purgatory, Marian doctrine, praying to the dead are all based in Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterial Authority.

The sign of the cross is very ancient. Pray the rosary was actually Psalm reading using beads, which later Change by using Gabriel’s greeting to Mary, “Hail, Full of Grace” from the Gospel itself. The history of the rosary can be found in New Advent.org.

And also, was the Pope the same as he is today? Because in an anti-catholic tract that I read, the author was talking about how in the Bible (after the gospels) it doesn’t show any evidence for Peter being the head of the church but it shows evidence that he probably wasn’t the leader of the church. My Dad claims that the first Pope was when Constantine came to power. And also, The DaVinci Code says that Constantine wasn’t really a Christian and that he was unwillingly baptized on his death bed. It’s all so confusing!!! So if you guys could help me out, I’d really appreciate it. Thanks.

Jesus said that he will build his Church upon Peter Matthew 16:18, after the resurrection, he told Peter to feed his sheep. In Acts, Peter is the first to speak, the first to raise the dead, the first to precede in the Council of Jerusalem, the Disciple is often referred to Peter’s campanions.

Your dad is wrong. The line of Papacy started with Peter (32-67 AD), St. Linus (67-76 AD), Anacletus (76-88 AD), St. Clement of Rome (88-97 AD)…

List of the Popes.

Constantine did not became Christian until his death which is true. Constantine did not found the Catholic Church.

St. Ignatius of Antioch in 107 AD wrote that, “where the bishops are gather, where there is Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” St. Ignatius is the disciple of St. John…

 

[adrift]

It’s not an opinion. I was a catholic of 36 years. Most if not all catholics I know are cradle catholics. They go to mass on sunday and that’s about it. Most are completely clueless about their own religion.

Your using your personnel experience and claim it is not opinion. I have been a Catholic for longer than that I know both cradle Catholics and converts and most are knowledgeable about their faith. Unless you have some study all you have is an opinion.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Woa! Didn’t Pope JPII acknowledge evolution? I know I saw that on the front page of USA Today and there was a week’s worth of debating on Christian Radio.

Didn’t the current Pope make a decision about babies and where they go when they die?

In its recent document on unbaptized children, the Vatican’s International Theological Commission demonstrated how church teaching can be responsive to changes in theological thought, Christian beliefs and the “signs of the times.”

The document, published April 20, critiqued the traditional understanding of limbo, arguing instead that there was good reason to hope unbaptized babies who die go to heaven.

catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=23885

It was the Theological Commision that decided which the Pope ok it.

The Church have never fully declare Limbo as part of the Deposit of Faith (unchanging).

There have been changes. The Bible does not change, but the world does. That’s why a Canadian Pastor was arrested for preaching about homosexuality and Romans Chapter 1.

No there hasn’t. You just misunderstand Catholic doctrine like other Ex-Catholics and Non-Catholic Christians.

Homosexuality is strongly oppose to the Catholic Church.

The CCC states,

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under **no circumstances **can they be approved.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2357.htm

 

[cor]

Does the Church allow for divorce when a spouse sleeps with someone else?

Divorce in the sense of dissolution of the bond is only possible in special circumstances (for example the two parties are unbaptized or the marriage has not yet been consummated). See Code of Canon Law:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P44.HTM

In ordinary cases, divorce in this sense is not possible (and this is of course what we really mean by “divorce”)

Divorce in the sense of separation without the ability to marry another (i.e. with the bond still remaining) is allowed for proportionate reasons, including adultery. This is what the Code of Canon Law says about it:

Can. 1151 Spouses have the duty and right to preserve conjugal living unless a legitimate cause excuses them.

Can. 1152 §1. Although it is earnestly recommended that a spouse, moved by Christian charity and concerned for the good of the family, not refuse forgiveness to an adulterous partner and not disrupt conjugal life, nevertheless, if the spouse did not condone the fault of the other expressly or tacitly, the spouse has the right to sever conjugal living unless the spouse consented to the adultery, gave cause for it, or also committed adultery.

§2. Tacit condonation exists if the innocent spouse has had marital relations voluntarily with the other spouse after having become certain of the adultery. It is presumed, moreover, if the spouse observed conjugal living for six months and did not make recourse to the ecclesiastical or civil authority.

§3. If the innocent spouse has severed conjugal living voluntarily, the spouse is to introduce a cause for separation within six months to the competent ecclesiastical authority which, after having investigated all the circumstances, is to consider carefully whether the innocent spouse can be moved to forgive the fault and not to prolong the separation permanently.

Can. 1153 §1. If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too difficult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay.

§2. In all cases, when the cause for the separation ceases, conjugal living must be restored unless ecclesiastical authority has established otherwise.

Can. 1154 After the separation of the spouses has taken place, the adequate support and education of the children must always be suitably provided.

Can. 1155 The innocent spouse laudably can readmit the other spouse to conjugal life; in this case the innocent spouse renounces the right to separate.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P45.HTM

“Civil divorce” is allowed for proportionate reasons in harmony with the above Code of Canon Law teaching on separation. Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.177

If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

So to answer your question, the Code of Canon Law per above gives the wronged spouse the right of separation. If a civil divorce is necessary for practical purposes such as those listed in the Catechism above, then it can be alright. However the bond still remains and one is not free to marry another.

If on the other hand the adulterer never intended fidelity as part of his marriage, then the marriage would have been null from the beginning.

 

[adrift]

I have news for you. Abstaining from meat is not the same as fasting. Fasting is abstaining from ALL foods not just meat. And, no one is called to be celibate.

Merriam-Webster

Main Entry: 3fast
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English fæstan
1 : to abstain from food
2 : to eat sparingly or abstain from some foods

I don’t see that is says “all” foods. So abstaining from meat is a fast.

 

[Valke2]

To go back to the issue of calling preists “Father.” Matthew seems pretty clear on this prohibition. As silly as it sounds not to call your father “Father”, according Matthew makes it clear that only God is your father.

The use of Rosary beads. Mathew 6:7 “…do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do…”

There is only one mediator between God and man. 1 Timothy 2:5

Jesus discouraged praying to or blessing of Mary. Luke 11:27-28

1 Timothy 3:2-5 states that a bishop must be married.

THere are others, according to obviously anti-catholic websites.
But, as an outsider, it looks as if you have to do a lot of imaginative reasoning to believe the Church is completely in line with the bible.