Name one Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture

[carol_marie]

I would apologize for hijacking the thread but there have already been several posts about NFP so may I please just ask… Suppose you have been “open to life” and as evidence you’ve been pregnant 11 times in 13 years but you’ve miscarried ALOT and you are praying that this current pregancy (7 weeks) will “stick” but the emotional roller coaster is just too much so at almost 38 years old & already four kids, you’re ready to call it a day. ABC is out of the question but honestly, you’re just not in mood at the middle of the month and neither is your spouse one bit. Is that really a sin???

 

[stanley123]

MariaG:
Stanley, I did not say I did not like scripture quotes.
First the question was to find a Scriptural passage that contradicts Catholic teaching. I find a passage and then I get the following answer (not from MariaG):

I once heard someone state that using clips from the bible, they could prove that aliens are coming to pick us all up in 50 years.

Also, I am not opposed to abstinence.

MariaG:
NFP is the practice of abstinence, or virtuous continence which church law permits.
The Archangel says that to engage in the marital act you must be moved for love of children. I don’t see any discussion of abstinence by the Archangel.

ruzz:

Isn’t a calendar or thermometer an Artifical Birth Control device?

I am afraid that it may be used as such, which looks like it may be contrary to the instructions given by the Archangel in Scripture.

… I am with Stanley on this one (not about it being non scriptural, I haven’t done my homework, but about it not really being all that different from ABC…

…there are many who use it exactly the way they would use ABC, and I agree with Stanley, there is no difference there.

Thank you.

 

[stanley123]

… you’re just not in mood at the middle of the month and neither is your spouse one bit. Is that really a sin???

I’m sorry about it. I’m only discussing a Scriptural passage here and my personal interpretation of it.
Wouldn’t the best person to consult on sin be your local priest?

 

[carol_marie]

stanley123:

I’m sorry about it. I’m only discussing a Scriptural passage here and my personal interpretation of it.
Wouldn’t the best person to consult on sin be your local priest?

Yes, perhaps you are right.

 

[RyanL]

ruzz,
I think you are mistaken the level of scriptural support these things have…

ruzz:

Infant baptism

scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#baptism-III

ruzz:

Priest Celebacy

scripturecatholic.com/the_priesthood.html#priesthood-IV

ruzz:

Wine (His blood) not being served during communion

I assume you’re speaking of the laity receiving under only one species; the priest always receives under both. Where is it promised that everyone present gets everything possible?

ruzz:

Purgatory

scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html

ruzz:

Mary’s immaculate conception

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-II

ruzz:

Lent

scripturecatholic.com/fasting.html

ruzz:

Easter

…what part of this? The Resurection? If you don’t think this is biblical…I suggest you open a bible!

ruzz:

Last Rites

scripturecatholic.com/anointing_of_the_sick.html

To imply that the Catholic Church teaches simply “presto-chango and Tradition makes up the rest” is bogus, intellectually dishonest, and downright offensive to those who take the faith seriously. It’s a slanderous accusation without any merit, and I believe you know it. I have given you this post as a free gift in return for a cheap shot - next time bring a specific topic and explain why you think it contradicts Scripture. If you cannot be mature, civil, and rational - please don’t post.

Prayerfully,
RyanL

 

[bkniceley]

PMV:

In the Bible, did Jesus come right out and say “I am God”? No, but He still indicated that He is and showed us this truth in different ways.

Jesus did say he was god what r u talkin about…

Mark 14:61-62 Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One? “I am” said Jesus.

Matthew 27:43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, `I am the Son of God.’

John 10:33We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

Lets look at the very words of Jesus…

Mark 14:61 Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” “I am,” said Jesus.

 

[RyanL]

bkniceley:

Jesus did say he was god what r u talkin about…

bk,
Could you please tell me where Christ said “Son of God” = God, or Christ = God? A great many powerful heresies sprouted out of the clear lack of a statement by Jesus saying, “I AM GOD”.

If you don’t believe me, I can give you a link to the great heresies (and how the Catholic Church has been there to refute them for the last 2000 years)…

RyanL

 

[Eden]

ruzz:

However there are many teachings that are hard to fully support biblically. This is where “TRADITION” fills the void.

Such as:

Infant baptism
Priest Celebacy
Wine (His blood) not being served during communion
Purgatory
Mary’s immaculate conception
Lent
Easter
Last Rites

Like RyanL, I don’t understand what you mean when you say that “Easter” is hard to fully support biblically. This is where Tradition fills the void." - This is the most important holy day of the Christian calendar. The Resurrection is the foundation of Christianity. What do you mean it’s hard to fully support Easter biblically?

 

[cheddarsox]

MariaG:

That’s a pretty significant exception. Murder, not murder.

Alcohol can be used too, but it is often abused. Should the Church not allow alcohol because some abuse it?

But why just because someone abuses something, using it not the way God intended, it make the actual act itself sinful? For example, some has sex outside of marriage. Does that make sex sinful inside of Marriage? No. You have to judge the act itself. And no one here is saying that NFP is always used in a way that conforms to all the teaching of the church and Scripture.

We are just saying that NFP, the actual teaching of NFP is completely in line with Scripture and Church teachings.

Perhaps it would have been useful for you to actually read my post rather than just search for things in it to argue with. I began by stating that I did not argue that NFP was non scriptural. I did argue that people often use it in a manner that makes it NO different than ABC. I never implied that because of this the church should not teach it. I do think however that many people wear blinders in this area and say “the church says it’s OK, so it’s OK” even when they use it in such a manner that it does not meet the spirit or intent of the teaching.

I am not against NFP. I think it has many benefits, but I also know that it is and can be abused, and that is something worth staying aware of.

cheddar

 

[cheddarsox]

Eden:

Here is one reference which addresses this:

newadvent.org/summa/402502.htm

and another: newadvent.org/summa/402500.htm

I appreciate the links, I do not really understand what “latria” is, even though I also checked the definition/explanation on that site.

I feel, after reading the links, that this is exactly the type of mental and theological gymnastics that caused me to flee the church. The sort of arguments, bordering on ridiculous, that even though a practice looks, smells, feels, and tastes like something, it actually isn’t because some theologian somewhere wrote endless words explaining why when Catholics do it, it is not what it is when everyone else does it.

Sorry. I know Catholics don’t “worship” the saints and Mary, I was Catholic and it has all been explained to me, but I know that when growing up, what I was doing was worshipping those things. There was no distinction, no matter what learned men before me had decided with all their tangles of words. I don’t think most people do, or are capable of drawing that fine line, in their personal practice.

I feel the church has mislead many in this manner. It is not the actual practices that bother me, as much as the crazy doctrine and the labrynthine reasoning that the church uses to support things.

No matter how many words it uses to say “We are not actually worshipping Christ, but the Father that is incarnate in Christ” people are worshipping Christ. The church calling green, red, doesn’t make the green any more red.

cheddar

 

[ruzz]

RyanL:

ruzz,
I think you are mistaken the level of scriptural support these things have…

To imply that the Catholic Church teaches simply “presto-chango and Tradition makes up the rest” is bogus, intellectually dishonest, and downright offensive to those who take the faith seriously. It’s a slanderous accusation without any merit, and I believe you know it. I have given you this post as a free gift in return for a cheap shot - next time bring a specific topic and explain why you think it contradicts Scripture. If you cannot be mature, civil, and rational - please don’t post.

Prayerfully,
RyanL

I find the flavor of your post extremely offensive. The title of this thread is “Name one teaching that contradicts scripture.” If the original poster didn’t want to hear other opinions, then they shouldn’t have opened the discussion this way.

Your “free gift” is generous. However, I wasn’t trying a “cheap shot”. I understand that each of the topics is a thread unto itself. I was merely responding to the thread topic. Your response appears to be either a threat or intimiation factor intended to silence me. There was nothing to indicate my original post was not “mature, civil, and rational”. However, my post did only list “teachings” without any explaination. These can’t be fairly discussed this way. I appologize for appearing to be using “cheap shots”. This is not my intent.

I totally realize that ALL these concepts are controversial as I’m sure you and the original poster are both aware. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the RCC doesn’t make stuff up out of thin air. They do find some biblical basis. However, as I also posted, using scripture bites, I can prove aliens are coming. Now if you don’t want to discuss them, fine, I will leave you alone so that only your opinion can be heard. I thought in a forum titled “other religions” and a thread title like this, my comments would be heard without implying I am immature, irrational and not civil. I was hoping this forum was open to discussion of other religions rather than a venue to bash them.

The point I was trying to make is that there are many disputed teachings.

You left off “LENT” in your biblical defense. Do you have a link to a catholic site that demonstrates how it’s biblical? Can I provide a link to the opposite without being labeled anti-catholic? I’ve read about Lent and a case CAN be made for it. However, it was not observed by the early Christians. Holy Water was not either. These are new traditions. I’m not saying they are wrong, but they are not biblical.

We can discuss these things or I can go away if you wish. I realize it may not be fair just “listing” disputed teachings. Perhaps I should have picked just one and discussed it.

Let’s try:

I assume you’re speaking of the laity receiving under only one species; the priest always receives under both. Where is it promised that everyone present gets everything possible?

Here is where I got confused. I am told we are commanded to eat His body and drink His blood. But you say that doesn’t mean we are promised both. I’ve heard other explainations, but frankly this one is new and doesn’t make sense. Using that logic, we aren’t “promised” anything. If we (all) are commanded to eat and drink why don’t we all get to drink? Sanitary reasons can be overcome using small disposable cups like some churches use.

Again, I appoligize if I appear offensive or have offended anyone.

In Christ

 

[Eden]

cheddarsox:

I appreciate the links, I do not really understand what “latria” is, even though I also checked the definition/explanation on that site.

I feel, after reading the links, that this is exactly the type of mental and theological gymnastics that caused me to flee the church. The sort of arguments, bordering on ridiculous, that even though a practice looks, smells, feels, and tastes like something, it actually isn’t because some theologian somewhere wrote endless words explaining why when Catholics do it, it is not what it is when everyone else does it.

Sorry. I know Catholics don’t “worship” the saints and Mary, I was Catholic and it has all been explained to me, but I know that when growing up, what I was doing was worshipping those things. There was no distinction, no matter what learned men before me had decided with all their tangles of words. I don’t think most people do, or are capable of drawing that fine line, in their personal practice.

I feel the church has mislead many in this manner. It is not the actual practices that bother me, as much as the crazy doctrine and the labrynthine reasoning that the church uses to support things.

No matter how many words it uses to say “We are not actually worshipping Christ, but the Father that is incarnate in Christ” people are worshipping Christ. The church calling green, red, doesn’t make the green any more red.

cheddar

I don’t see how pantheism is the answer to “mental gymnastics”. I’ve only seen this belief in the context of “New Age” religions.

In response to the last quote "“We are not actually worshipping Christ, but the Father that is incarnate in Christ” My understanding is that Christ did not wish to be worshipped as a man. After He was resurrected He became one with God the Father. The resurrected Christ is not the same as the man Jesus Christ whose mission was not yet complete. Are you saying that a disciple fell down at Christ’s feet after the resurrection and He said, "“None but the Father is good” and instructed the man NOT to worship him. If it was after the Resurrection, could you please give me a link with this reference for me to see it in the larger context. Thanks.

 

[MariaG]

Hi Stanley:wave:

I am really confused. So let us start over here.

You said hereost #38

NFP does not have a Scriptural basis and it contradicts the following:

Tobias 6:17 – “The holy youth Tobias approaches his bride Sara after three days of prayer, not for fleshly lust but only for the love of posterity. Having been instructed by the Archangel Saint Rapheal that to engage in the marital act he must be moved rather for love of children than for lust. For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power.”

NFP is the practice of abstinence. One certainly is not giving over to thier lust by being abstinent.

By NFP, the couple is making a systemiatc effort to prevent God from sending a new life. The couple is going out of their way to calculate by a meticulous and organized effort, involving charts, cycles and thermometers, how to have marital relations without getting pregnant with the child. With these calculations, the married couple goes out of its way to avoid children by deliberately avoiding the fertile times and restricting the marriage act exclusively to infertile times.

While very accurate, to say people who practice NFP restrict the marriage act to exclusively infertile times is inaccurate. It restricts it from the highly fertile periods. But pregnancy is always possibility with NFP.

**Is it your contention that NFP is not abstinence or virtuous continence due to the science used behind deciding when to be abstinent? **

Do you think there is any form of periodic abstinence that is acceptable if the reason behind it is to not have children?

 

[Saint_Andrew]

Hello Maria G

Keep up the good work.

God Bless
Saint Andrew.

 

[cheddarsox]

Your explanation of worshipping the risen Christ as opposed to Christ in the flesh makes some sense. I had never thought of it that way.

Makes much more sense than that link you provided earlier! They should make you a theologian. Your straightforward manner is refreshing.

For me pantheism is an answer to the mental gymnastics. Things are what they are, not what somebody twists them into. My faith is not a New Age type of faith, though I know some pantheists who practice that sort of stuff.

cheddar

 

[MariaG]

posted by Carol MarieI would apologize for hijacking the thread but there have already been several posts about NFP so may I please just ask… Suppose you have been “open to life” and as evidence you’ve been pregnant 11 times in 13 years but you’ve miscarried ALOT and you are praying that this current pregancy (7 weeks) will “stick” but the emotional roller coaster is just too much so at almost 38 years old & already four kids, you’re ready to call it a day. ABC is out of the question but honestly, you’re just not in mood at the middle of the month and neither is your spouse one bit. Is that really a sin???

No. It would certainly fall under virtuous continence and grave reasons. It is hard on a body physically and emotionally to go through so many miscarriages.

 

[MariaG]

posted by Ruzz #74Isn’t a calendar or thermometer an Artifical Birth Control device?

If NFP is as effective as ABC, then ABC ALSO has the possibility for pregnancy.

The difference is that one birth control device prevents the sperm from meeting the egg after the marital act has taken place or during. (Like withdrawal or condoms) so one gives over to their lust whenever they want.

But calendars and thermometers just allow a couple to prayfully refrain from the marital act in the first place.

 

[stanley123]

MariaG:

The difference is that one birth control device prevents the sperm from meeting the egg after the marital act has taken place or during. (Like withdrawal or condoms) so one gives over to their lust whenever they want.

But calendars and thermometers just allow a couple to prayfully refrain from the marital act in the first place.

With both methods, your purpose is to try to avoid having children. In one case you are putting on a hat (condom) and in the other case you are making detailed calcuclations involving charts, cycles, thermometers, and calendars to avoid having children. The purpose is the same in both cases. Also, with either method you can have failure and the wife can get pregnant.

 

[stanley123]

**Is it your contention that NFP is not abstinence or virtuous continence due to the science used behind deciding when to be abstinent? **

Do you think there is any form of periodic abstinence that is acceptable if the reason behind it is to not have children?

I thought that the topic was to give a Scriptural reference which might contradict some aspect of Catholic teaching. I am only referring here to the Scriptural passage in which the Archangel Raphael says that to engage in the marital act you must be moved rather for love of children than for lust. In other words, according to the Archangel, you are not supposed to be trying to avoid having children while having marital relations, isn’t that what the Archangel is saying?

 

[Eden]

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”?