Name one Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture

[Eden]

stanley123:

I guess you did not read your own post #100.

Stanley123- Do you agree that in previous posts you have expressed a desire that the Church change its positon on artificial birth control because most Catholics ignore the teaching anyway? If you agree that this accurately describes your stance on birth control, can you please show me the place in Scripture which supports the idea that “when a teaching is unpopular and commonly abused the Church should conform to the will of the people and change its teaching”?

Where in my post #100 was I condemning other churches? I asked you where in Scriptures you find support for your opinion that when a teaching is unpopular the Church should change its teaching.

 

[steve_b]

cheddarsox:

The N may stand for Natural, but that does not mean nothing has been introduced. Our smarts for outsmarting the system have been introduced. Natural, would be having intercourse…whenever.
This too is against the Church’s teaching. We are instructed to only engage in intercourse with our spouse, to share love and union and to conceive babies. Natural would be giving in to the feeling whenever it came upon us and we had the opportunity to satisfy it.

Natural would not be avoiding intercourse during the times when the woman is most likely to have urges for it. So the “Natural” argument doesn’t really hold a lot of water.

I am not arguing against NFP as a practice. Just the scriptural aspects and the reality of it. It is not truly natural, it is contraception and people often use it with the serious intent to avoid pregnancy.

People are welcome to use it, keep it and love it, but that doesn’t change the basic truths about it.

cheddar

It’s God’s design, not man’s, that a woman can get pregnant within a few hours during a months cycle. Let’s not second guess a married couple, or introduce scrupulosity into HIS design.

 

[MikeB]

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.

In the history of the world only once did the son create his mother. Would Jesus, as God, create the vessel to hold Him make it any less than sinless?

 

[MikeB]

FuzzyBunny116:

All have sinned?

How is it that some words are taken “literal” (like the word all or the word father) and other words that are more important (such as Jesus’ declaration of the Eucharist) are merely “symbols”? How many times have any of us used the word “all” and every one knows that “all” doesn’t mean everyone? Such as, “I went to the movies yesterday and all of the people loved the film!” Does this mean that everyone loved the film? No, it does not. We have to be careful how we translate or use words that are from a time period 2000 years seperated from our own time.

 

[jsussvsus]

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

Hi All
I have a few, but since you ask for ONE, I will give you one. The assumption of Mary is one I have not found in scriptures.
Thanks

P.S. I will list more later.

 

[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,

 

[jsussvsus]

MikeB.:

How is it that some words are taken “literal” (like the word all or the word father) and other words that are more important (such as Jesus’ declaration of the Eucharist) are merely “symbols”? How many times have any of us used the word “all” and every one knows that “all” doesn’t mean everyone? Such as, “I went to the movies yesterday and all of the people loved the film!” Does this mean that everyone loved the film? No, it does not. We have to be careful how we translate or use words that are from a time period 2000 years seperated from our own time.

KINDA SOUNDS LIKE BILL CLINTON, DOESN'T IT

 

[stanley123]

MariaG:

… Stanley does in fact say that he believes the archangel says it is immoral to have marital relations but try to avoid having children for any reason.
…My apologies to saying he did not answer the question.

MariaG, its Ok. Thanks for your comments here. I believe that I have said everything I wanted to say on this, and also I noticed that others have added more commentary on an interpretation of this Scriptural passage.

 

[Eden]

jsussvsus:

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

Hi All
I have a few, but since you ask for ONE, I will give you one. The assumption of Mary is one I have not found in scriptures.
Thanks

P.S. I will list more later.

The actual topic is “Show one teaching of the Catholic Church that contradicts Scripture.”

 

[Dj_Roy_Albert]

ruzz:

That is why you can’t use bible BITES. Using only 1 verse and ignoring the whole context of the chapter will get you in deep trouble. God didn’t write the bible for only one verse to be used to support a doctrine. He wrote it so the books can create a doctrine. The words in RED being extremely important.

On the contrary, you have a hard time supporting doctrines like holy water, Christmas and Easter without the NEW Traditions of men. These were certainly not taught by Jesus.

An important fact in & of itself. GOD DID NOT WRITE THE BIBLE.
Bible worship is the most disturbing of all idiotic practices of Protestantism.

Fact: “Rapture”, “personal relationship with God” & “altar calls” are also nowhere to be found in the Bible. Just thought I’d point out a little Protestant hypocracy, stooping to that level for just a second.

 

[Dj_Roy_Albert]

Eden:

jsussvsus:

The actual topic is “Show one teaching of the Catholic Chruch that contradicts Scripture.”

Not to be a stickler for exacts but the actual topic is “NAME one teaching of the Catholic Chruch that contradicts Scripture.”

FACT:
Doctrine means teachings, from the Latin doctrina = teaching.

I laugh at these fly-by-night evangelical “churches” that claim that they do not teach any doctrines - in fact saying that they do not teach any teachings.

 

[jsussvsus]

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,

Church
Here is the problem with your reply, words like, suggest and makes sence to you, does not prove anything except what you may think happend to her. second, If it was important for God to tell us that Elijah and Enoch were taken to Heaven, then He would have told us Mary was as well. As for the so called PR blitz you assume would have happend to her is a real reach. They didn’t believe Jesus was who he said he was anyway, Mary was no threat to them. You say in your last statement that you site no scripture. Thats because there arent any. I agree with you that
Mary was a unique and wonderful person. The bottom line here is that the question was Catholic tradition that contradicts scripture.
Here is one that you can’t deny.
Thanks.

 

[Eden]

jsussvsus:

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,

Church
Here is the problem with your reply, words like, suggest and makes sence to you, does not prove anything except what you may think happend to her. second, If it was important for God to tell us that Elijah and Enoch were taken to Heaven, then He would have told us Mary was as well. As for the so called PR blitz you assume would have happend to her is a real reach. They didn’t believe Jesus was who he said he was anyway, Mary was no threat to them. You say in your last statement that you site no scripture. Thats because there arent any. I agree with you that
Mary was a unique and wonderful person. The bottom line here is that the question was Catholic tradition that contradicts scripture.
Here is one that you can’t deny.
Thanks.

You are again misunderstanding the title of this thread. You say Scripture does not prove that the Virgin Mary was assumed into Heaven but your answer only tells us why you don’t believe it. What part of Scripture contradicts the Assumption?

Here is another link to the Assumption: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=56938

 

[angelfaceh]

There is NO scripture that says a woman can not masturbate. ALL that is said is about spilling seed…which refers to men and that is why Jewish men can not masturbate but Jewish women can.

 

[Church_Militant]

jsussvsus:

Church
Here is the problem with your reply, words like, suggest and makes sence to you, does not prove anything except what you may think happend to her. second, If it was important for God to tell us that Elijah and Enoch were taken to Heaven, then He would have told us Mary was as well. As for the so called PR blitz you assume would have happend to her is a real reach. They didn’t believe Jesus was who he said he was anyway, Mary was no threat to them. You say in your last statement that you site no scripture. Thats because there arent any. I agree with you that
Mary was a unique and wonderful person. The bottom line here is that the question was Catholic tradition that contradicts scripture.
Here is one that you can’t deny.
Thanks.

Yet since you can provide no scripture that proves that it did not happen, your opinion is no more valid than mine.In fact, how can you really say that there is a conflict with scripture on this when there is no scripture on it TO conflict with.

Your second point fails for the same reason that you don’t like mine doesn’t it? You suppose that God would have included the event in the Bible if it was important, why? Because it makes sense to you. How is your supposition more valid than mine?

Well gee…since the travels of all the apostles are not given then I suppose that we just blow off all the historical writings of the rest of their lives as well. This is one place where your thinking fails. So we ignore that St. Thomas died a martyr in India. (Just for one very valid example) There is non-canonical early church writings that say that she was assumed. see this newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

Given the amount and ferocity of the persecutions that the early church endured at the hands of the Jews and the Romans (I offer Saul’s rampages for example) I would say that the early church did indeed protect the Blessed Virgin. Especially since she was living with St. John. And she had to have maintained some connections with the apostles (a given?) since she had to be their source of all the infancy narratives that the Gospels recount…

I submit that there is no conflict in this case since there is no scripture to conflict with…but there is historical writings from the early church that supports it, ust like the fact that Peter was in Rome and died there and Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch. :irish1: :bible1:

 

[timothy2]

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,

This statement of yours may explain why you can’t accept the fact that Mary was a sinner in need of a Savior. Mary, did. Didn’t she herself call Christ her “Savior”? There is absolutely no argument that can be made that would support your contention that Paul’s writings to the Romans was something less than “literal” statements.

To somehow equate the “virgin birth” of Christ with the “sinlessness” of Mary doctrine is without reason and without Biblical authority.

 

[Eden]

timothy2:

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,

timothy2:

This statement of yours may explain why you can’t accept the fact that Mary was a sinner in need of a Savior. Mary, did. Didn’t she herself call Christ her “Savior”? There is absolutely no argument that can be made that would support your contention that Paul’s writings to the Romans was something less than “literal” statements.

To somehow equate the “virgin birth” of Christ with the “sinlessness” of Mary doctrine is without reason and without Biblical authority.

“Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.”

catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

 

[jsussvsus]

Church Militant:

Yet since you can provide no scripture that proves that it did not happen, your opinion is no more valid than mine.In fact, how can you really say that there is a conflict with scripture on this when there is no scripture on it TO conflict with.

Your second point fails for the same reason that you don’t like mine doesn’t it? You suppose that God would have included the event in the Bible if it was important, why? Because it makes sense to you. How is your supposition more valid than mine?

Well gee…since the travels of all the apostles are not given then I suppose that we just blow off all the historical writings of the rest of their lives as well. This is one place where your thinking fails. So we ignore that St. Thomas died a martyr in India. (Just for one very valid example) There is non-canonical early church writings that say that she was assumed. see this newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

Given the amount and ferocity of the persecutions that the early church endured at the hands of the Jews and the Romans (I offer Saul’s rampages for example) I would say that the early church did indeed protect the Blessed Virgin. Especially since she was living with St. John. And she had to have maintained some connections with the apostles (a given?) since she had to be their source of all the infancy narratives that the Gospels recount…

I submit that there is no conflict in this case since there is no scripture to conflict with…but there is historical writings from the early church that supports it, ust like the fact that Peter was in Rome and died there and Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch. :irish1: :bible1:

cHURCH
I think it’s funny that when you have no answer, you go into the same diatribe. The question was ask, I gave an answer and the only thing you have to stand on is assumption. There were witnesses to the death of Thomas.
Thanks.

 

[RyanL]

jsussvsus,

Please tell me which chapter/verse says that Mary was not assumed. This is what you have to provide to say that this teaching **contradicts **scripture. It is not a contradiction to say that it’s not found in scripture - that is neither here nor there. It would also not be a contradiction to say that Adam liked to eat carrots - it’s neither here nor there. It is not scriptural, but it is not contradicted by scripture, either. Perhaps he did - perhaps he didn’t. The thread clearly directs you to contradict a Church teaching. I suggest you start quoting.

Peace of Christ be with you always,
RyanL

 

[Church_Militant]

timothy2:

This statement of yours may explain why you can’t accept the fact that Mary was a sinner in need of a Savior. Mary, did. Didn’t she herself call Christ her “Savior”? There is absolutely no argument that can be made that would support your contention that Paul’s writings to the Romans was something less than “literal” statements.

To somehow equate the “virgin birth” of Christ with the “sinlessness” of Mary doctrine is without reason and without Biblical authority.

You err in that you don’t know Catholic teaching on this. Nowhere do we say that she did not need a saviour and Virgin Birth is nowhere attributed to her by accepted early church writings. She did indeed both need and have Christ as her saviour. But since St. John refers to Jesus as the lamb that was slain before the creation of the world it would appear that God both had access to and applied that sacrifice in a different way in her case.

Au Contrare! Since infants are incapable of actual sin as well as those who have no use of reason I would say there is plenty of reason for argument along this very line.
Pax tecum,