Name one Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter MariaG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by Sixtus
THOU, MOTE, THY, THINE
Maria G replied:
Maybe if you had the link to who you were quoting in this thread, it would help?
Sorry MariaG for both being unable to find the link and for being pedantic!

I came across ‘so mote it be’! I have not the foggiest what is being [or not being] said here.

I am aware that ‘so mote it be’ is a freemasonry term and seeings they use the King James Bible, is probably from where it comes.

Just that I think this is an excellent thread. Shame some folk are quoting archaic language as a critique as we do not know [least I do not know] what is being argued.

Verily I saith unto thee that thou art not arguing squarathly and fairthly as thou art spaketh words thy hundral doeth not understandth.

Sorry 😛
 
Does the Church allow for divorce when a spouse sleeps with someone else?
Although already answered, I would say this. The reason divorce was allowed in the old testament, was because of the hardness of the people’s hearts. When, as we believe, Jesus gave Peter and His New Church with the New Covenant the power to make and change the rules, this is one of the rules that was changed. No divorce,

Annulment is not a “Catholic divorce”, but rather a ruling (made by those who we believe have been given the authority to do so) that a sacramental marriage, that is a marriage that God put together, never existed.
 
Maria G replied:

Sorry MariaG for both being unable to find the link and for being pedantic!

I came across ‘so mote it be’! I have not the foggiest what is being [or not being] said here.

I am aware that ‘so mote it be’ is a freemasonry term and seeings they use the King James Bible, is probably from where it comes.

Just that I think this is an excellent thread. Shame some folk are quoting archaic language as a critique as we do not know [least I do not know] what is being argued.

Verily I saith unto thee that thou art not arguing squarathly and fairthly as thou art spaketh words thy hundral doeth not understandth.

Sorry 😛
Don’t worry about it, but I doth argue to thee that thou art not as slow of thought as thou words doth suggest!😉

God Blesseth,
Maria
 
Withholding the cup from the laity.

In Matthew 26:26-28 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-28 Christ and Paul commanded every Christian to drink of the communion cup.Two early popes condemned withholding the cup, (Pope Leo l) and Pope Gelasius. However, in the 12th century the practice was begun, and formally approved by the Catholic Council of Constance in 1415 AD.
 
Hello,
Withholding the cup from the laity.

In Matthew 26:26-28 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-28 Christ and Paul commanded every Christian to drink of the communion cup.Two early popes condemned withholding the cup, (Pope Leo l) and Pope Gelasius. However, in the 12th century the practice was begun, and formally approved by the Catholic Council of Constance in 1415 AD.
In the synoptic Gospels, Jesus is commanding His Apostles to drink of the cup in rememberance of Him. This is done at every Mass, where the priest always has partaken of both species. That is the essential aspect there, where the Priest acts on behalf of both Christ for us and us for Christ.

Paul does not explicitly say to drink from the cup, only to partake of the Body and Blood of Jesus. Every particle of the consecrated host is the entire Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. And every drop of the cup is the entire Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Thus those who only commune with the host, receive it all Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, and profaning one will profane all.

Also, withholding the cup from the laity was a discipline and not a doctrine (two different things).
 
However adultery is grounds for an annulment.
Really? I’ve heard that it isn’t. Could you please cite your source for this?

Here is what I found at the EWTN forums:

Adultery - is it grounds for annulment
Question from Patty on 3/6/2007:

A friend was married for over 10 years (in the catholic church)and has children from that marriage. Her partner committed adultery and left the marriage to be with a new partner. Can my friend obtain an annulment of that marriage? Is adultery grounds for an annulment?

Answer by David Gregson on 4/2/2007:
Annulment is a declaration that a marriage never existed, that it was invalid from the start. However bad a marriage may become, if it was genuine to begin with, it can’t be annulled. So, **no, adultery isn’t grounds for an annulment. **However, it wouldn’t hurt for your friend to speak to a priest about it. There may be grounds she hasn’t thought of, for example, if her husband wasn’t sincere in the vows he took when he married her.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum12&recnu=12&number=496224
 
Really? I’ve heard that it isn’t. Could you please cite your source for this?

Here is what I found at the EWTN forums:

Adultery - is it grounds for annulment
Question from Patty on 3/6/2007:

A friend was married for over 10 years (in the catholic church)and has children from that marriage. Her partner committed adultery and left the marriage to be with a new partner. Can my friend obtain an annulment of that marriage? Is adultery grounds for an annulment?

Answer by David Gregson on 4/2/2007:
Annulment is a declaration that a marriage never existed, that it was invalid from the start. However bad a marriage may become, if it was genuine to begin with, it can’t be annulled. So, **no, adultery isn’t grounds for an annulment. **However, it wouldn’t hurt for your friend to speak to a priest about it. There may be grounds she hasn’t thought of, for example, if her husband wasn’t sincere in the vows he took when he married her.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum12&recnu=12&number=496224
I see that there is a distinction there but ultimately if someone commits adultery, can’t the argument be made that they were not sincere in their vows in forsaking all others?
 
I see that there is a distinction there but ultimately if someone commits adultery, can’t the argument be made that they were not sincere in their vows in forsaking all others?
Unfortunately that would follow an OSAS analogy. It someone sins after being saved, they were not really saved in the first place…
 
Re: Annulment, it is my understanding that Sacramental marriage is supposed to be an image of Christ in the world, so that when we vow “for better or for worse” we really mean it. Think about how many times we ask Christ to forgive us. He never gives up on us, so we shouldn’t give up on each other, right?

In cases where someone is being abused however, they must for their own safety get away from the situation, definitely. I think there are probably a number of Catholics around the globe who stay married, but apart, for reasons such as these.
 
Hi! I accept the challenge. Nice post, by the way, whoever started this! 🙂
  1. Transubstantiation is refuted when Christ declared the metaphor in John 6:35. If he was talking about the bread physically becoming his body, then this verse would imply that those who’ve partaken in the Eucharist will never become either physically hungry or thirsty again, which is, needless to say, quite deceptive. (Also, he wasn’t even speaking about the Eucharist in this passage. In its proper context, we see that Yeshua is speaking to a crowd of people who can’t get it in their minds that it’s not about the food he’s providing, but it’s about his spiritual sufficiency for them … During the Last Supper, Christ is participating in Jewish matzah tosh ceremony, where three pieces of unleavened bread are placed in a single bag (representing God’s Triunity), the second piece is taken out, broken, burried, and resurrected, in a sense. Christ was stating that this ceremony was pointing to him and his death and resurrection. Likewise, the Communion cup was the third cup taken in the ceremony, the Cup of Redemption. By taking this cup, the Messiah declared that through his blood, symbolized by the wine, redemption and reconciliation would be brought.)
  2. Mary is most likely not the Immaculate Conception, as it is illogical to say that she was simply preserved from Original Sin while Anna was a perfect sinner, just like us; if this were the case, why wouldn’t God simply preserve Christ, and leave Mary to receive redemption in the same glorious way we did? Anyway, the Scripture is Luke 1:35:
“The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
Therefore] the baby to be born will be holy …”
  1. The Catholic Church is fond of quoting 1 Timothy 2:1-4 in support of the doctrine calling for the intercession of the saints but often leaves out the important verse 5:
“For there is only one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity–the man Christ Jesus.”

Thus the Apostle professes the futility of prayer to another. Likewise spake the psalmist, so exemplary in his conduct:

“I pray to no one but you [my God and King].” --Psalm 5:2
  1. Also strange is that belief that faith plus works equals salvation. Quite an erroneous equation, when one considers:
"This Good News tells us how God makes us right in his sight. This is accomplished from start to finish by faith [lit. ‘from faith to faith’]. As the Scriptures say, “It is through faith that a righteous person has life.” --Rom. 1:17

And,

“We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ.” --Rom. 3:22

“People are made right with God when they **believe **that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood.” --Rom. 3:25

“What good is it, dear brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but don’t **show **it by your actions?.. I will show you my faith by my good deeds…” James 2:14, 18

You see, his [Abraham’s] faith and his actions worked together. His actions made his faith complete. And so it happened just as the Scriptures say: 'Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of his faith.’ He was even called the friend of God.” --James 2:22, 23

James and Paul seem very much in agreeance about the nature of salvation. It is a “free gift, not a reward for the good things we’ve done.” To James, in his situation, it had to be made clear to a lazy, stubborn people that faith resulted in fruit, and one who had true, living faith was bound to perform good works, but only as a by-product of that same faith.

The fact that so many instances the Scriptures declare God will take these works into account on Judgement Day would imply little more than that he looks at our fruit to see if there is that real, living faith in us … that faith that is productive to his Church.

That will suffice for now. I’m very tired.
 
Hi! I accept the challenge. Nice post, by the way, whoever started this! 🙂
  1. Transubstantiation is refuted when Christ declared the metaphor in John 6:35. If he was talking about the bread physically becoming his body, then this verse would imply that those who’ve partaken in the Eucharist will never become either physically hungry or thirsty again, which is, needless to say, quite deceptive. (Also, he wasn’t even speaking about the Eucharist in this passage. In its proper context, we see that Yeshua is speaking to a crowd of people who can’t get it in their minds that it’s not about the food he’s providing, but it’s about his spiritual sufficiency for them … During the Last Supper, Christ is participating in Jewish matzah tosh ceremony, where three pieces of unleavened bread are placed in a single bag (representing God’s Triunity), the second piece is taken out, broken, burried, and resurrected, in a sense. Christ was stating that this ceremony was pointing to him and his death and resurrection. Likewise, the Communion cup was the third cup taken in the ceremony, the Cup of Redemption. By taking this cup, the Messiah declared that through his blood, symbolized by the wine, redemption and reconciliation would be brought.)
catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp
  1. Mary is most likely not the Immaculate Conception, as it is illogical to say that she was simply preserved from Original Sin while Anna was a perfect sinner, just like us; if this were the case, why wouldn’t God simply preserve Christ, and leave Mary to receive redemption in the same glorious way we did? Anyway, the Scripture is Luke 1:35:
Refuted.
catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
Therefore] the baby to be born will be holy …”
  1. The Catholic Church is fond of quoting 1 Timothy 2:1-4 in support of the doctrine calling for the intercession of the saints but often leaves out the important verse 5:
“For there is only one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity–the man Christ Jesus.”

Thus the Apostle professes the futility of prayer to another. Likewise spake the psalmist, so exemplary in his conduct:

“I pray to no one but you [my God and King].” --Psalm 5:2
  1. Also strange is that belief that faith plus works equals salvation. Quite an erroneous equation, when one considers:
"This Good News tells us how God makes us right in his sight. This is accomplished from start to finish by faith [lit. ‘from faith to faith’]. As the Scriptures say, “It is through faith that a righteous person has life.” --Rom. 1:17

Refuted.

catholic.com/library/Intercession_of_the_Saints.asp
“We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ.” --Rom. 3:22
“People are made right with God when they **believe **that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood.” --Rom. 3:25
“What good is it, dear brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but don’t **show **it by your actions?.. I will show you my faith by my good deeds…” James 2:14, 18
You see, his [Abraham’s] faith and his actions worked together. His actions made his faith complete. And so it happened just as the Scriptures say: ‘Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of his faith.’ He was even called the friend of God.” --James 2:22, 23
James and Paul seem very much in agreeance about the nature of salvation. It is a “free gift, not a reward for the good things we’ve done.” To James, in his situation, it had to be made clear to a lazy, stubborn people that faith resulted in fruit, and one who had true, living faith was bound to perform good works, but only as a by-product of that same faith.
The fact that so many instances the Scriptures declare God will take these works into account on Judgement Day would imply little more than that he looks at our fruit to see if there is that real, living faith in us … that faith that is productive to his Church.
That will suffice for now. I’m very tired.
Faith Alone also refuted.

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0303sbs.asp

Conclusion; Catholic Church teachings have No Contradiction, only Protestants do.
 
Hi! I accept the challenge. Nice post, by the way, whoever started this! 🙂
  1. Transubstantiation is refuted when Christ declared the metaphor in John 6:35. If he was talking about the bread physically becoming his body, then this verse would imply that those who’ve partaken in the Eucharist will never become either physically hungry or thirsty again, which is, needless to say, quite deceptive. (Also, he wasn’t even speaking about the Eucharist in this passage. In its proper context, we see that Yeshua is speaking to a crowd of people who can’t get it in their minds that it’s not about the food he’s providing, but it’s about his spiritual sufficiency for them … During the Last Supper, Christ is participating in Jewish matzah tosh ceremony, where three pieces of unleavened bread are placed in a single bag (representing God’s Triunity), the second piece is taken out, broken, burried, and resurrected, in a sense. Christ was stating that this ceremony was pointing to him and his death and resurrection. Likewise, the Communion cup was the third cup taken in the ceremony, the Cup of Redemption. By taking this cup, the Messiah declared that through his blood, symbolized by the wine, redemption and reconciliation would be brought.)
  2. Mary is most likely not the Immaculate Conception, as it is illogical to say that she was simply preserved from Original Sin while Anna was a perfect sinner, just like us; if this were the case, why wouldn’t God simply preserve Christ, and leave Mary to receive redemption in the same glorious way we did? Anyway, the Scripture is Luke 1:35:
“The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
Therefore] the baby to be born will be holy …”
  1. The Catholic Church is fond of quoting 1 Timothy 2:1-4 in support of the doctrine calling for the intercession of the saints but often leaves out the important verse 5:
“For there is only one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity–the man Christ Jesus.”

Thus the Apostle professes the futility of prayer to another. Likewise spake the psalmist, so exemplary in his conduct:

“I pray to no one but you [my God and King].” --Psalm 5:2
  1. Also strange is that belief that faith plus works equals salvation. Quite an erroneous equation, when one considers:
"This Good News tells us how God makes us right in his sight. This is accomplished from start to finish by faith [lit. ‘from faith to faith’]. As the Scriptures say, “It is through faith that a righteous person has life.” --Rom. 1:17

And,

“We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ.” --Rom. 3:22

“People are made right with God when they **believe **that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood.” --Rom. 3:25

“What good is it, dear brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but don’t **show **it by your actions?.. I will show you my faith by my good deeds…” James 2:14, 18

You see, his [Abraham’s] faith and his actions worked together. His actions made his faith complete. And so it happened just as the Scriptures say: ‘Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of his faith.’ He was even called the friend of God.” --James 2:22, 23

James and Paul seem very much in agreeance about the nature of salvation. It is a “free gift, not a reward for the good things we’ve done.” To James, in his situation, it had to be made clear to a lazy, stubborn people that faith resulted in fruit, and one who had true, living faith was bound to perform good works, but only as a by-product of that same faith.

The fact that so many instances the Scriptures declare God will take these works into account on Judgement Day would imply little more than that he looks at our fruit to see if there is that real, living faith in us … that faith that is productive to his Church.

That will suffice for now. I’m very tired.
Amen brother
 
Hello,

withholding the cup from the laity was a discipline and not a doctrine (two different things).
What about divorce? Is that also a discipline? There is an Orthodox priest on this forum who stated in a thread that divorce was permitted by the Catholic Church for a period of five hundred years.
 
However adultery is grounds for an annulment.
Really? I’ve heard that it isn’t. Could you please cite your source for this?
Here is what I found at the EWTN forums:
Adultery - is it grounds for annulment
Question from Patty on 3/6/2007:
A friend was married for over 10 years (in the catholic church)and has children from that marriage. Her partner committed adultery and left the marriage to be with a new partner. Can my friend obtain an annulment of that marriage? Is adultery grounds for an annulment?
Maria G you are of course right. If there is a case to argue that the sincerity of a partner within marriage was not sincere about their marriage vow ‘to forsake all others till death us do part’ then there is grounds for application for annulment.

There is not absolutes. Each case must be tried on its merits. So, it is not strictly true to say that 'adultery is grounds for annulment but it may contain elements which justify an appliciation.

I would certainly recommend anyone in such a situation to make an appointment to see a canon lawyer. See your parish Ordo, that will tell you the contact telephone number of a canon lawyer.

If you cannot find an ordo ask your sacristan as they usually have a copy.
 
Maria G you are of course right. If there is a case to argue that the sincerity of a partner within marriage was not sincere about their marriage vow ‘to forsake all others till death us do part’ then there is grounds for application for annulment.

There is not absolutes. Each case must be tried on its merits. So, it is not strictly true to say that 'adultery is grounds for annulment but it may contain elements which justify an appliciation.

I would certainly recommend anyone in such a situation to make an appointment to see a canon lawyer. See your parish Ordo, that will tell you the contact telephone number of a canon lawyer.

If you cannot find an ordo ask your sacristan as they usually have a copy.
Fifty percent of all Catholic marriages end in divorce.
 
I can name several Catholic practices that are not supported by scripture and a couple that are contrary to scripture. That was the reason for the Reformation and thank God for it.
 
Fifty percent of all Catholic marriages end in divorce.
and many of them are non-practicing. Woe to them for their disobedience to Christ’s Church.

Those Catholics who practice their faith faithly are a minority.
 
I can name several Catholic practices that are not supported by scripture and a couple that are contrary to scripture. That was the reason for the Reformation and thank God for it.
and all of them can be refuted here. Many of the Catholics here can refute all claims that you have.

Plus Catholic Answers Live has tract to refute your so called claims.

scripturecatholic.com has biblical citation which support Catholic doctrine.

biblechristiansociety.com has Free MP3 downloads that refute any claims you have.

Like I said there is no Catholic belief that contrary to the Bible. Besides, the Bible was preserved, compelled, and defended by the Catholic Church. It was the Catholic Church who listed 27 NT into the Canon of Scripture to be added along with the 73 Books of the OT…
 
What about divorce? Is that also a discipline? There is an Orthodox priest on this forum who stated in a thread that divorce was permitted by the Catholic Church for a period of five hundred years.
No. It is never permitted in the Catholic Church. The Orthodox doesn’t know what he is talking about. Divorce is a moral issue, and it was NEVER permitted by the Catholic Church.

Second cite what Church document that the Church did permit divorce. For I tell you there is none.

Only Annulments can be permitted which is not a divorce. A Canon Lawyer reviews whether the marriage was valid or not. Both divorce and annulment are not the same.

So no. The divorce is not allowed.

Catechism of the Catholic Church states,
2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:
If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.
Annulment is defined as followings:
An annulment of a marriage might result from the appearance of only one of the married couple who desired freedom to enter upon a new marriage, while the other was apathetic and conniving at the annulment, or at times unable or indisposed to incur expense to uphold the marriage-tie, especially if it implied an appeal to a higher court
newadvent.org/cathen/04675a.htm
 
I can name several Catholic practices that are not supported by scripture and a couple that are contrary to scripture. That was the reason for the Reformation and thank God for it.
You mean not supported by the modified Scripture of Martin Luther, who removed the books of the Bible that support them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top