Name one Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter MariaG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
mike182d:
The establishment of the Jewish covenant was the establishment of a “university” that prepared humanity for their “graduation” in Christ.

This is why some laws are still pertinent while others are unnecessary…
Click to expand...
First, the topic was to name a Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture. I give a teaching from Deuteronomy,
“A woman may not wear an article of clothing proper to a man…anyone who does such things is an abomination to the Lord.”
and now it is said that this is not applicable, because it does not apply to Christians. But originally, there was not any indication that the Scriptural reference had to be from the New Testament. So after I give the example that fulfills the original rules, you then change the rules…
If you want something from the New Testament that contradicts Catholic teaching consider:
1Cor11, 5:

5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head

But according to Catholic teaching, a woman can pray or read from the Epistles with her head uncovered, contrary to what is written in Scripture.
 
Here is what 1 Cor. 11:5 says:

5 But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved. and the very next verse says:

6 For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil.

The Church certainly approves and encourages the wearing of the veil to those who are inclined to wear one. The teaching of the Church does not say that one should not wear the veil. If they did, that would be a contradiction.
 
40.png
Catholics4Life:
The Church certainly approves and encourages the wearing of the veil to those who are inclined to wear one. The teaching of the Church does not say that one should not wear the veil. If they did, that would be a contradiction.
Click to expand...
Scripture teaches that if a woman prays with her head unveiled it brings shame upon her head. The Church teaches that a woman may pray with her head unveiled without bringing shame upon her head. Why is this not a contradiction?
 
Okay Stanley… so from the context of the passage, a man with long hair is a shame and according to St. Paul nature itself teaches this and yet (and I intend to take up this issue with St. Paul when I see him!) it is the male lion that has the mane. :eek:

I note that you chose to take up only the issue with the ladies, as opposed to both sexes as the context of the passage does. What’s up with that? :rolleyes:

I think the clarifying point is actually here:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the church of God. It was a custom… a discipline, and therefore could change. This is not a case of conflict in doctrine, but a discipline that has changed. 👍
Pax vobiscum,
 
Church Militant:
I note that you chose to take up only the issue with the ladies, as opposed to both sexes as the context of the passage does. What’s up with that?
Click to expand...
I was only bringing up one at a time. You have now brought up one that applies to men. For another one that applies to men consider Matthew 23, 9. I’ll give you a Catholic response to this in advance:
staycatholic.com/call_no_man_father.htm
But there might be something to this Biblical injunction, if we consider the fact that we are reading about priests who are abusing their positions.
 
40.png
stanley123:
I was only bringing up one at a time. You have now brought up one that applies to men. For another one that applies to men consider Matthew 23, 9. I’ll give you a Catholic response to this in advance:
staycatholic.com/call_no_man_father.htm
But there might be something to this Biblical injunction, if we consider the fact that we are reading about priests who are abusing their positions.
Click to expand...
Where are you reading “about priests who are abusing their positions”?

There is nothing in this passage about any priests “abusing their positions” and this whole issue has been alleged by n-Cs and answered by Catholics many times and here is the tract from the CA ma(name removed by moderator)age library that deals with it. (Are you sure you’re a Catholic? If so why play the devil’s advocate?) catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.aspWhere
 
40.png
stanley123:
I was reading about it here on this Catholic Answers forum:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=59644
Anyway, Catholics teach to call priests “Father”, but Scripture says to call no man Father. This is a contradiction of sorts, but I have referenced for you an answer in advance.
Click to expand...
I think the final paragraph from the article that Stanley posted from “staycatholic.com” is useful in this thread:

Isolating and grabbing hold of one scripture verse is risky. It can be misleading or even dangerous. Even an honest and well-intentioned Christian can subconsciously bend a verse to suit his or her own needs. It is vitally important to understand the Bible as God intended. St. Augustine once said, “Not what one scripture says, but what all of Scripture says.” We can take it a step further and say, not what Scripture says but what Scripture means.
 
40.png
jsussvsus:
Hi Ryan
The question does not ask where I contradict church teaching, it ask’s where church teaching contrdicts scripture. It says nowhere in scripture that Mary was assumed. It was 1950 when pope pius XII proclaimed in his munificentissimus dues that Mary was assumed to Heaven. Why would it take until 1950 for the church to proclaim this?
Thanks.
Click to expand...
jsussvsus,

Your objection to the Assumption of Mary is not based upon a contradiction, but to a lack of information. Scripture does not say that Mary was assumed into heaven… *neither does it say that she was not. *

The teaching of the Assumption would be a contradiction if we could quote a passage in scripture that says something akin to: “Mary was not assumed into heaven.”
 
Here’s another quote from Scripture that is somewhat bothersome. First of all, I want to say that I am glad that the Church has moved toward good relations with our Jewish friends. But the question which was asked was whether or not there is a Church teaching that contradicts Scripture. According to present Church teaching:

Delegations of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and of the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews met for the fourth time from 17-19 October [2004] in Grottaferrata, Italy and declared: "3. The bilateral Committee reiterated its commitment to the principal declarations of the previous meetings, which included a call for mutual respect of our different religious identities, and affirmed a common rejection of any attempts to persuade people to reject their own heritage… .” (L’Osservatore* Romano*, Nov. 17, 2004, p. 8.)
However, according to Scripture, are we not called to make disciples of all nations? I don’t see where Scripture makes an exception to this for any one particular religious group or nation.
Matthew 28, 19:
"19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: … "
 
Stanley,

Could you please tell me where in Matt 28:19 it says we should make disciples of all nations using disrespect, forced conversions, bigottry, or anti-Semitism? That would do wonders for helping me identify the contradiction…

Prayerfully,
RyanL

P.S.,
You never replied to the Deuteronomical citation I quoted about wearing mixed fabrics. Don’t you think that that the poly-wool vestiments of most clergy contradicts Scripture?

…
Romans 7:4
Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of **Christ

**Romans 8:2
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.

1 Corinthians 9:21
to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ ), that I might win those who are without **law

…And basically the whole book of Galatians…
**
 
Hi Stanley, I was trying to think of a tactful way to say that it says we should preach the gospel to all nations (thus sharing our faith) but it doesn’t say we should be disrespectful about it nor does it say we should beat them over the head with it. I found this that you posted on another thread though and I hope you don’t mind me posting it here as well:
40.png
stanley123:
Anyway, I am generally in favor of improving relations with other religions. The way I see it, is that we have a choice here to either wage a bloody argumentative war with people of other faiths over the points where we differ, and where their religion falls into error, or we can accentuate those beliefs and values that we hold in common (while at the same time holding fast to our Catholic beliefs and not accepting errors in other religions).
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Catholics4Life:
Hi Stanley, I was trying to think of a tactful way to say that it says we should preach the gospel to all nations :
Click to expand...
Does preaching the gospel involve trying to get people to be baptised?
And yes, my personal opinion is in favor of better relations and and cooperation with various religious groups. For example, I was in favor of the use of the LA RC cathedral by the various religous groups. But as I read the title of the thread, it was not about my personal opinion on it.
Here is what I see as a bit problematical:
  1. The committee “affirmed a common rejection of any attempts to persuade people (Jews or Catholics) to reject their own heritage…”
  2. The Scripture asks us to make disciples of all nations.
    How does one make disciples of Israel, while at the same time embrace the affirmation of this committee? Doesn’t the committee essentially say that we reject any effort to convert the Jews to Christianity, while the Gospel recommends that we be baptised?
 
40.png
stanley123:
First, the topic was to name a Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture.

But according to Catholic teaching, a woman can pray or read from the Epistles with her head uncovered, contrary to what is written in Scripture.
Click to expand...
The only thing that has “changed” about the question seems to be your understanding of what it means to “contradict Scripture.”

You do understand the difference between doctrine and practice, right?

A doctrine is a revealed Truth about God and a practice is our response to it, which can - and does throughout the whole of Scripture itself - vary. Doctrine does not change, and that is what is being claimed by the initial poster. Scripture tells Jesus not to work on the Sabbath, and yet He does. Is Jesus “contradicting” Scripture? God tells the Jews that He demands sacrifice. Then, God tells the Jews that he doesn’t want sacrifice, but a contrite heart. Which is it? When Jesus says that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds, is He proclaiming an eternal Truth? I would certainly hope not, as science demonstrates that the mustard seed is *clearly *not the smallest seed.

If what you are stating is true, it is not really the Catholic Church that contradicts Scripture, but rather Scripture itself that contradicts Scripture and we should be much more concerned about that. But such a proposition is nonsense, and thus, as it is the logical end of your argument, your argument needs to be modified in order to be relevant to the discussion.
 
40.png
mike182d:
The topic says to name a Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture. Aren’t Catholics taught that it is OK for women to pray or read in Church without covering their head?
Click to expand...
 
40.png
stanley123:
The topic says to name a Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture. Aren’t Catholics taught that it is OK for women to pray or read in Church without covering their head?
Click to expand...
Catholic teaching meaning Catholic **doctrine. **

It would be a useless conversation to discuss every practice that is different now from antiquity as the differences would be too numerous to count and it is intellectual dishonesty to assume such a ludicrous proposition in order to challenge the initial request.

Paul says that women shouldn’t speak at services. Is it a Christian “teaching,” then, that women have no place in religious services? Does it follow then that every single Christian “teaching” today contradict Scripture?

You can’t honestly think that was the question being asked. We’re talking about points of doctrine/dogma.
 
40.png
mike182d:
Catholic teaching meaning Catholic **doctrine. **
Click to expand...
The original title did not mention doctrine. But if you insist,
would it be a doctrine concerning whether or not Catholicism is the true religion and if Catholics should try to convert members of other religions to Catholicism? It looks like the Church has abandoned an attempt to convert the nation of Israel? Would this contradict Matthew 28, 19?
 
I don’t think the Church has abandoned any attempts to convert them. The key is respect and that we cannot force the issue. Can you imagine if we went in and said “Look, I’m tired of your Jewish heritage and I command that you be baptised and that you convert to Catholicism this instant, or we will never speak to any of you again!” I don’t think that would go over too well. Even St. Francis said “Preach the gospel where ever you go, and use words if you have too”. People will be more open and there will be more room for the possiblility of conversion when we are respectful, yet firm about what we believe. The quote you have about this doesn’t seem to say that we should abandon all attempts at conversion, but perhaps you have a link to it so that we can read it?

Do you believe the Scriptures teach that we should force everyone to convert? Living the faith and being an example is the best way to convert in my opinion. Non-Catholics can observe and learn about our faith by observing practicing Catholics and by asking questions etc., but it is the Holy Spirit who will lead the soul to conversion, and I don’t think we can ever force it on anyone. Everyone has free will.

I anticipate your response will be “But it says we should abandon attempts etc.” but again, I think perhaps you are misunderstanding the teaching expressed in this tract that you are quoting from.
 
40.png
Catholics4Life:
I don’t think the Church has abandoned any attempts to convert them. …
I anticipate your response will be “But it says we should abandon attempts etc.” but again, I think perhaps you are misunderstanding the teaching expressed in this tract that you are quoting from.
Click to expand...
OK. Please see the following article:
"Catholics reject efforts to convert Jews - Brief Article
Christian Century, August 28, 2002
A joint task force of Roman Catholic bishops and Jewish rabbis has concluded that targeting Jews for conversion is “no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church” because Jews “already dwell in a saving covenant with God.” So says a 12-page statement released August 12 by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Council of Synagogues, which represents Reform and Conservative Judaism.

The outgrowth of a March meeting, the document–one section authored by Jews, the other by Catholics–reflects the latest thaw in Catholic-Jewish relations that was begun by the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). “A deepening Catholic appreciation of the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people, together with a recognition of a divinely given mission to Jews to witness to God’s faithful love, leads to the conclusion that campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church,” the document said."
Why then does this not contradict Matthew 28, 19 ?
 
Okay Stanley, I get now where you are coming from with this, but it is not in agreement with the official teachings of the Church as a whole. Here is something I found in regards to it:

“…the document-which has not been approved by the bishops as a whole and which has no binding force…”

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0210fr.asp
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top