Name one Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter MariaG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hello,
believers said:
Actually the term is believe on Him.

I believe on the finished work of Jesus on the cross. In other words, I believe that Jesus Christ paid for my sins in full on the cross with His own blood. He died and was resurrected by the power of God. I place all of my faith in Jesus Christ that I may be found in him. According to His promise, I believe and repent, I am baptized with the Holy Spirit. I have eternal life.
Click to expand...
What about baptism with water? What about the Eucharist? What about listening to the Church? What about all the other eternal truths?

What do you consider to be the pillar and foundation of truth?
 
JMJ_coder said:
Hello,

What about baptism with water? What about the Eucharist? What about listening to the Church? What about all the other eternal truths?

What do you consider to be the pillar and foundation of truth?
Click to expand...
According to God, here’s what He said to do to join His church.

I joined by believing the Gospel and placing ALL of my faith in Jesus. I believe that Jesus is the Son of God who paid for all my sins with His blood on the cross. I believe in His resurrection. And, I repented of my sins.

Unless you did the same, you haven’t joined the true church.

The questions you asked above regarding water baptism and the eucharist are irrelevant and unnecessary to joining the church.
 
kellie said:
How can you say so surely that you are saved?
Click to expand...
Don’t you believe God?

Jhn 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
kellie said:
And that you only have to believe in Jesus, that He died for our sins, and that gives you salvation?
Click to expand...
No, you can’t just believe. Notice in John 3:16 it says should not perish. You Must repent.

Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
kellie said:
What about doing all the things that Jesus asked us to do? E.G feeding the poor, clothing the naked, etc.
Click to expand...
Jam 2:14
What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

Jam 2:15
If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

Jam 2:16
And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit?

Jam 2:17
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
kellie said:
Do you feel you don’t have to do them too?
Click to expand...
Yes,

I help whenever I can
kellie said:
What if you go out tomorrow and commit murder? Are you still saved as you still believe?
Click to expand...
I won’t be committing murder any time soon. A true believer repents from their sins. But even murderers are forgiven. Whosoever means whosoever.
 
I hold that the more fruitful question to ask is not
name a Catholic teaching that “contradicts” scripture,
but, rather, what Catholic teachings add to that which
is conveyed in Scripture, e.g. the filioque and
Marian dogmas.

These may or may not be the reality, but they surely
are not “in” the scriptures.

And I consider it a theological “dodge” to maintain
that the Roman Catholic Church teaches infallibly
in terms of issues of faith and morals.
The Church may like to think that this is the reality
yet this is simply a logical “loop.” We teach infallibly.
Oh really? How do you know that? Because we
are infallible.

It is, in the final analysis, a mattter of faith.
Those who hold that the Roman Catholic Church
teaches infallibly will tend to accept non-Scriptural
teaching, such as the filioque.

Yet I think that the Eastern Church was correct -
in claiming that there is no warrant, whatsoever,
for such a teaching as the filioque. That the
*filioque *is solely a matter of assertion.

To reiterate.
I hold that the more fruitful question to ask is not
name a Catholic teaching that “contradicts” scripture,
but, rather, what Catholic teachings add to that which
is conveyed in Scripture…

For once infalliblity is claimed, it is a “win-win” scenario.
For to say “That is not in Scripture” is immediatley met
with “The Church teaches infallibly, in matters of faith
and morals.” An exquisite logical loop. And syllogistically,
if one starts with a flawed premise, one cannot hope to
arrive at the “true.”

reen
 
EDUCE_1 said:
Babies are innocent but not sinless, for we are all children of the fallen; Adam.
Click to expand...
Babies have the stains of original sin in them. However, they do not have actual sins. For they lack the reason to sin.
 
Hello,
believers said:
The questions you asked above regarding water baptism and the eucharist are irrelevant and unnecessary to joining the church.
Click to expand...
How is it irrelevant? Baptism in the name of the Trinity with water is essential to come into the Church - Christ said so. He also said that without the Eucharist that we do not have eternal life.

Again I ask you, what is the pillar and foundation of truth?
 
reen12 said:
I hold that the more fruitful question to ask is not
name a Catholic teaching that “contradicts” scripture,
but, rather, what Catholic teachings add to that which
is conveyed in Scripture, e.g. the filioque and
Marian dogmas.

These may or may not be the reality, but they surely
are not “in” the scriptures.

And I consider it a theological “dodge” to maintain
that the Roman Catholic Church teaches infallibly
in terms of issues of faith and morals.
The Church may like to think that this is the reality
yet this is simply a logical “loop.” We teach infallibly.
Oh really? How do you know that? Because we
are infallible.

It is, in the final analysis, a mattter of faith.
Those who hold that the Roman Catholic Church
teaches infallibly will tend to accept non-Scriptural
teaching, such as the filioque.

Yet I think that the Eastern Church was correct -
in claiming that there is no warrant, whatsoever,
for such a teaching as the filioque. That the
*filioque *is solely a matter of assertion.

To reiterate.
I hold that the more fruitful question to ask is not
name a Catholic teaching that “contradicts” scripture,
but, rather, what Catholic teachings add to that which
is conveyed in Scripture…

For once infalliblity is claimed, it is a “win-win” scenario.
For to say “That is not in Scripture” is immediatley met
with “The Church teaches infallibly, in matters of faith
and morals.” An exquisite logical loop. And syllogistically,
if one starts with a flawed premise, one cannot hope to
arrive at the “true.”

reen
Click to expand...
I agree with you completely. Your observation is exactly what goes on here. The win-win scenerio comes into play on these boards quite frequently.
 
believers said:
Yea but that was for the Jews.

Mat 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

The 12 apostles judge the 12 tribes of Israel BUT Paul was the apostle to the gentiles. The church was called out of the gentiles… not the Jews. Paul is the masterbuilder of the faith.
Click to expand...
believers said:
Yes they most definitely are related. They are all sitting on thrones and they will be judging the 12 tribes of Israel.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, I disagree with you. While I cannot say if those two verses are not related as firmly as others, I can tell you that you are incorrect that it ONLY refers to the second verse.

God Bless,
Maria
 
reen12 said:
I hold that the more fruitful question to ask is not
name a Catholic teaching that “contradicts” scripture,
but, rather, what Catholic teachings add to that which
is conveyed in Scripture, e.g. the filioque and
Marian dogmas.

These may or may not be the reality, but they surely
are not “in” the scriptures.

And I consider it a theological “dodge” to maintain
that the Roman Catholic Church teaches infallibly
in terms of issues of faith and morals.
The Church may like to think that this is the reality
yet this is simply a logical “loop.” We teach infallibly.
Oh really? How do you know that? Because we
are infallible.

It is, in the final analysis, a mattter of faith.
Those who hold that the Roman Catholic Church
teaches infallibly will tend to accept non-Scriptural
teaching, such as the filioque.

Yet I think that the Eastern Church was correct -
in claiming that there is no warrant, whatsoever,
for such a teaching as the filioque. That the
*filioque *is solely a matter of assertion.

To reiterate.
I hold that the more fruitful question to ask is not
name a Catholic teaching that “contradicts” scripture,
but, rather, what Catholic teachings add to that which
is conveyed in Scripture…

For once infalliblity is claimed, it is a “win-win” scenario.
For to say “That is not in Scripture” is immediatley met
with “The Church teaches infallibly, in matters of faith
and morals.” An exquisite logical loop. And syllogistically,
if one starts with a flawed premise, one cannot hope to
arrive at the “true.”

reen
Click to expand...
Hi reen,

Haven’t seen you post for awhile. Good to hear/see you.

And yet scripture itself tells us to hold fast to the written as well as the oral traditions and the Catholic Church holds that these further written statements embody the oral tradtion of the Church, thereby not only not contradicting but not adding either.

God bless,
Maria
 
Hi reen,

Haven’t seen you post for awhile. Good to hear/see you.

And yet scripture itself tells us to hold fast to the written as well as the oral traditions and the Catholic Church holds that these further written statements embody the oral tradtion of the Church, thereby not only not contradicting but not adding either.

God bless,
Maria
Click to expand...
Hi, Maria. Thank you for your kind words. 🙂

I haven’t posted much at all since Christmas time
and here it is Easter.

I surely understand what you are stating, yet my
difficulty is even more pronounced than the issue
of infallibility. Please understand that I say the following
as a simple statement of fact, and not as any sort of challenge.
It was like waking up from a trance for me.
My conclusion? The Scriptures are not “inerrant.”
I have no idea what part of the New Testament
accurately reflects what Jesus of Nazareth said and
did.
I understand that the Scriptures are, and will always be
considered inerrant by Christians.

I am not at all convinced that Jesus ever intended to
found a separate religion. For those who accept
that that was His intention, 2.1 billion people, there
is no question whatsoever that that was His intent.
I purchased a copy of an old Judaic prayer book and
find far more of a home praying to the God of Israel,
and not a triune God, one God in Three Persons.
And, no, I do not consider the Old Testament
scriptures inerrant either. That God created all that
is makes sense to me. To thank Him and bless and
praise Him for His creation flows from gratitude that
He created all. Anything further than this is, to me,
a creation of human beings. Sheer assertions.
Matters of belief.

No intellectual “hoops” to jump through, no conundrums
need be engaged. And natural law is lovely. Lovely of
God to place same in human hearts. No Canon Law, no
theological speculation declared dogma. The filioque.
“God is in His heaven, and all is right with the world.”

Kindest regards, Maria,

reen
 
reen12 said:
Hi, Maria. Thank you for your kind words. 🙂

I haven’t posted much at all since Christmas time
and here it is Easter.

I surely understand what you are stating, yet my
difficulty is even more pronounced than the issue
of infallibility. Please understand that I say the following
as a simple statement of fact, and not as any sort of challenge.
It was like waking up from a trance for me.
My conclusion? The Scriptures are not “inerrant.”
I have no idea what part of the New Testament
accurately reflects what Jesus of Nazareth said and
did.
I understand that the Scriptures are, and will always be
considered inerrant by Christians.

I am not at all convinced that Jesus ever intended to
found a separate religion. For those who accept
that that was His intention, 2.1 billion people, there
is no question whatsoever that that was His intent.
I purchased a copy of an old Judaic prayer book and
find far more of a home praying to the God of Israel,
and not a triune God, one God in Three Persons.
And, no, I do not consider the Old Testament
scriptures inerrant either. That God created all that
is makes sense to me. To thank Him and bless and
praise Him for His creation flows from gratitude that
He created all. Anything further than this is, to me,
a creation of human beings. Sheer assertions.
Matters of belief.

No intellectual “hoops” to jump through, no conundrums
need be engaged. And natural law is lovely. Lovely of
God to place same in human hearts. No Canon Law, no
theological speculation declared dogma. The filioque.
“God is in His heaven, and all is right with the world.”

Kindest regards, Maria,

reen
Click to expand...
I do understand your difficulties, and some great minds reflect your same belief. Which Saint was it who said something like, “If it were not for the authority of the Catholic Church, I could not accept scripture” or some such sentiment? Basically, as one who has lost their belief in the authority of the Catholic Church, it is easy to see why you doubt the authenticity of what is inspired in the New Testament. (Conversely, I find it very interesting that those who reject the authority of the Catholic Church, but accept the divine inspiration of scripture, including the New Testament. I find your position more logical.)

Interesting thing you might want to research. It was way back in highschool, so the details are a little fuzzy, but a girl did a research paper on the New Testament. In history, historians accept as fact if an incident has two separate recorded incidents. The New Testament had over 63.

If you accept as historical fact things that have only 2 separate references, you may want to consider why you choose to doubt the New Testament when there were much more than two separate references.

But I do believe that this issue has come up for you before and in fact is rather central to all your issues, the authority of the Catholic church. I believe the spirit of all the declarations of the Church are to draw us closer to Him, but also see that some like you get so focused on the rules, that the intent of them is completely covered up.

But I am glad to hear that you are still worshipping the God of your childhood and will continue to pray for you. The simple faith of a child. I have found that within the Catholic church, and yes, even within the rules (for isn’t a child’s life filled with love as well as rules?). I pray that someday you may also.

But until then, May the God of your childhood Bless you and guide you,
Maria
 
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
Click to expand...
THOU, MOTE, THY, THINE

I used to teach English. But I confess to struggling with archaic English. I used to advise my students to ‘dump’ and ignore old archaic English as it was ‘out of date’ with the modern understanding and modern tongue.

It was my conjecture as an English Teacher that archaic language like its interpratation may have been syntactically correct but the semantics were next to useless: we simply do not know what is meant as we no longer understand the meanings of how archaic ancient language related to now dead cultures.

So why do we still use these terms?

What is Mote? Please do not anser me. I really do not want to know. If someone wishes to communicate to me in a meaningful way then they need use the mother language of the current culture.

I have no interest in learning Hebrew or ancient English.

Mote is dead. May it rest in peace. Please refrain from digging up decaying corpses
 
Sixtus said:
THOU, MOTE, THY, THINE

I used to teach English. But I confess to struggling with archaic English. I used to advise my students to ‘dump’ and ignore old archaic English as it was ‘out of date’ with the modern understanding and modern tongue.

It was my conjecture as an English Teacher that archaic language like its interpratation may have been syntactically correct but the semantics were next to useless: we simply do not know what is meant as we no longer understand the meanings of how archaic ancient language related to now dead cultures.

So why do we still use these terms?

What is Mote? Please do not anser me. I really do not want to know. If someone wishes to communicate to me in a meaningful way then they need use the mother language of the current culture.

I have no interest in learning Hebrew or ancient English.

Mote is dead. May it rest in peace. Please refrain from digging up decaying corpses
Click to expand...
First, 👋 .

Second, :ehh: .

Maybe if you had the link to who you were quoting in this thread, it would help?

Or are you just quoting scripture and if so, what does your post have to do with the subject of the thread? That it is hard to know whether or not a teaching contradicts scripture since the language used is so archaic?

Respectfully,
Maria
 
Does the Church allow for divorce when a spouse sleeps with someone else?
 
Does the Church allow for divorce when a spouse sleeps with someone else?
Click to expand...
So far as I am aware the church does not cite grounds for civil divorce. She does not interfere with civil matters.

However adultery is grounds for an annulment. Of course to have a marriage annulled it must first be dissolved.

In reality she would like to think that a couple would try to work at the marriage, encourage forgiveness by the agrieved party and reconciliation. But if the infidelity continued then there would be grounds to ask about the sincerety of the intentions of the adulterous marriage partner. If there is solid grounds to doubt their sincerety ‘to forsake all others till death’ then it may be that the vow was not sincere and therefore, invalid, giving grounds to apply for an annulment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top