Name one Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter MariaG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
jsussvsus:
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.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to be insulting? :rolleyes: What diatribe? :confused: I am pointing out that your position has no mmore validity than mine. Are you so thin skinned that this causes you to get defensive? There were apparently witnesses to the assumption as well, since the documents survive. Again, you have nothing more to rely upon than your own opinion, and yet if accept the death of St. Thomas, why do you reject the assumption? Isn’t this inconsistent thinking?
Pax tecum,
 
I came to this thread hoping to see some interaction on many topics regarding our beliefs. I think NFP has been beat into the ground. Can we please move on?
 
carol marie:
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.
Click to expand...
I believe Mary’s sinlessness is supported in the first instance of prophecy concerning her: Please see Genesis 3:15[Emphasis added], preface it with the 14th verse and conclude with the 16th:
3:14 Then the LORD God said to the serpent:
“Because you have done this, you shall be banned
from all the animals
and from all the wild creatures;
and dirt shall you eat
all the days of your life.
3:15 *** I will put enmity between you and the woman, **
**and between your offspring and hers; **
He will strike at your head,
while you strike at his heel.”
3:16 To the woman he said:
“I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing;
in pain shall you bring forth children.
Yet your urge shall be for your husband,
and he shall be your master.”
Woman is mentioned twice and two different women are meant. God, the Speaker, in three verses identifies the fault, the fall; the tempter, Satan; the solution, the child of Mary, her offspring, Jesus and the tempted, Eve and what the loss of Paradise portends.
Enmity is not what individuals who sin have with the devil, but God is to put enmity between Mary, Jesus and all devils.
 
40.png
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
Click to expand...

The cynic in me - who is usually right, if not always for the right reasons - thinks that your challenge is impossible to answer; for this reason:​

There is no finite set of ways in which a dogma can be presented: a dogma presented as one proposition, can always be presented as another. So instead of being able to say that the CC has defined 1000 dogmas in 1000 propositions, no fewer, and no more, one could always rephrase a dogma so as to make a 1000+n propositions; where n stands for an indefinite number.

There is a further problem - there is no way of knowing how many more definitions there will be. And when they are defined, their content will affect what is already stated as doctrine; so the number of ways of expressing a dogma as a proposition will increase for that reason too. So it is impossible to say that a dogma contradicts Scripture - there are too many ways of rephrasing it. A dogma is always far more than the meaning of the words that express it at any one time; so it is too slippery to be analysed: all one can say is that certain propositions contradict the Bible. ##
 
I have noticed at Mass that many women servers and readers are dressed in pants. Catholic teaching apparently allows them to do so? Why would this not contradict a passage from Scripture as follows:

Deuteronomy 22, 5:

5 A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God.

http://drbo.org/chapter/05022.htm
 
Stanley,

Good question, but I would raise several issues with it:
  1. I don’t know where the Catholic Church “teaches” fashion in the Catechism.
  2. This is more a question about cross-dressing and gender-bending, modesty and propriety than it is about whether there’s a seam midline in the dress or not. The Church does indeed have “teachings” about these things, but they are all in line with scripture.
  3. This is Deuteronomical law, which is the law of the Jews. We are under the law of Christ. We are no longer bound by this specific law. You may as well as why we don’t sacrifice turdledoves at the temple.
Hope that helps,
RyanL
 
RyanL said:
1. I don’t know where the Catholic Church “teaches” fashion in the Catechism.
Click to expand...

This more or less makes my point that in Catholic teaching it is not forbidden for women to wear pants. And there is no restriction in Catholicism against females wearing men’s jeans at Mass. So this contradicts the passage from Scripture which indicates that it is an abomination.
5 A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God.
 
RyanL said:
3. This is Deuteronomical law, which is the law of the Jews. We are under the law of Christ. We are no longer bound by this specific law. You may as well as why we don’t sacrifice turdledoves at the temple.
Click to expand...

A lot of people agree with that, Hollywood, for example, or a Catholic priest who writes best selling novels and who think cursing is OK and it is OK to take the name of God in vain.
 
Hi Stanley, may I ask you how you know which laws we are still bound by that were given in the OT?
 
40.png
Catholics4Life:
…how you know which laws we are still bound by that were given in the OT?
Click to expand...
Not sure, but I read this:
40.png
RyanL:
  1. This is Deuteronomical law, which is the law of the Jews. We are under the law of Christ. We are no longer bound by this specific law. You may as well as why we don’t sacrifice turdledoves at the temple.
We have the Deuteronomical Law:
Deut. 5, 11:
11 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for he shall not be unpunished that taketh his name upon a vain thing.
We see this Law violated regularly by Hollywood and a certain Catholic priest who writes best selling novels. So apparently these people don’t take this Deuteronomical Law seriously.
And we have:
5 A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God.
I don’t see where Catholic teaching says it is wrong for a woman to wear men’s clothing, such as pants for example.
So why would this not be an example of where a Catholic teaching says it is OK for women to wear men’s clothing, but Scripture says it is not OK. Wouldn’t that be a contradiction of sorts?
 
The Catholic Church does not teach that it is okay to take the Lord’s name in vain. You keep saying that a Catholic Priest does this, but the Church teaches that we must follow the 10 commandments.

Again, I have to ask why you think women wearing jeans is thus wearing men’s clothing? Or, is it only a problem if they wear men’s jeans? Men and women’s jeans button differently, so they are not exactly the same, and in fact are made differently to fit each sex appropriately.
 
40.png
Catholics4Life:
The Catholic Church does not teach that it is okay to take the Lord’s name in vain.
Click to expand...
Correct. So some of the laws in Deuteronomy must be obeyed by Christians.
For another translation: Deut 22, 5
“A woman may not wear an article of clothing proper to a man…anyone who does such things is an abomination to the Lord.”
 
Why do you consider women’s jeans to only be proper to man? Women’s jeans are specifically made to fit women. Does it say in the bible that jeans, even though made different and for women, are solely men’s clothing?

During the time of Jesus, I believe both men and women wore a type of clothing that was similiar to a robe.
 
Stanley,

You have some serious reading to do. Here are some other Levitical Laws taken in and of themselves (lifted from another site). Let me know if you wish to address these with the Catholic Church as well:
Leviticus Chapter 19, Verse 19: “Neither shall a garment mingled of different fabrics come upon thee.” Yet you can see people out on the streets every day shamelessly wearing flannel shirts with wool sweaters, acrylic blended with cotton, and all manner of other sinful combinations one could imagine in a nightmare. This sort of disrespect for the Laws of God is leading to the moral decay of our society. And what’s even worse: they flaunt their perverse mixed fabrics in front of children. (I’ve even heard that some of them like to dress children in mixed fabrics, but this sin is just too perverse for further elaboration …)…We should spend some tax dollars to study the effects of mixed fabrics on children, though I am sure it has a negative impact. Furthermore are people who eat bacon for breakfast, which is outlawed in Leviticus 11:17, and Deuteronomy 14:8; rare steak for supper, which is outlawed in Leviticus 17:10-14, and cheeseburgers for lunch, which is outlawed in Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:26, and Deuteronomy 14:21. Now there are so-called Christians who want to liberally “interpret” the Word of God or leave out certain parts of it… Next we can persecute barbers (haircuts are outlawed in Leviticus 19:27) and veterinarians (outlawed in Leviticus 22:24). Then we can enforce all the Biblical laws and directives! I can’t wait until we will be able to apply the death penalty for adultery as Leviticus 20:10 mandates.
Click to expand...
Well…how did you do? Does your church observe these? If not, why not? Could it be because we are no longer bound by a yoke too burdensome for our fathers to bear? Could it be that we are now under the Law of Christ? Could it be that God set forth certain commandments which shall remain unchanged (not 10 suggestions), and others which were replaced by a higher moral law? Could it even be that the bible talks about this, and instructs us on how we are now to act? Could it also be that the bible didn’t develope a comprehensive list, with regards to cloning, embryonic stem cell research, and any other of the myriad of moral delimas plaguing our nation? Could it be that the bible told us that there would be an authority on earth to speak on behalf of God, never contradicting the word of God but able to bind or loose with the authority of God?

I would truly like to know how you made out with these passages. Please inform us when you reply.

May God bless you and keep you,
RyanL
 
40.png
stanley123:
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.”
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.
Click to expand...
Intentionally abstaining from sex is lustful? Please elaborate…
 
40.png
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

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...
 
40.png
stanley123:
Correct. So some of the laws in Deuteronomy must be obeyed by Christians.
For another translation: Deut 22, 5
“A woman may not wear an article of clothing proper to a man…anyone who does such things is an abomination to the Lord.”
Click to expand...
Jesus came to fullfill the law, not abolish it.

Consider college, for example. In order to get one’s degree, a student has to complete certain pre-requisites. When that student graduates, it is the *fullfilment *of these former laws. Now that the student has the degree, can they leave everything they learned and all their former disciplines behind? Absolutely not! That would be a waste of their former studies. Does a graduate have to abide by all the former laws and codes of the university in order to use his degree? Absolutely not. A graduate goes out into the world, applying what they learned from their studies, and may make use of their former disciplines while not needing to obey all of them.

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, such as sacrificing animals.
 
Definition of contradict:

Main Entry: con·tra·dict [m-w.com/images/audio.gif](javascript:popWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?contra28.wav=contradict’))
Pronunciation: "kän-tr&-'dikt
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Latin *contradictus, *past participle of *contradicere, *from *contra- + dicere *to say, speak – more at DICTION
1 : to assert the contrary of : take issue with
2 : to imply the opposite or a denial of <your actions contradict your words>
synonym see DENY
  • con·tra·dict·able [m-w.com/images/audio.gif](javascript:popWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?contra29.wav=contradictable’)) /-'dik-t&-b&l/ adjective
  • con·tra·dic·tor [m-w.com/images/audio.gif](javascript:popWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?contra30.wav=contradictor’)) /-'dik-t&r/ noun
m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=contradicts&x=3&y=15

The scriptures do not contradict that Mary was assumed into Heaven. A contradiction would be a verse that proved that she was *not *assumed into Heaven.

The assumption of Mary has been a belief that has been held all along. Beliefs have to be “officially defined” by the Pope when they come into question. That is why it was only officially defined in 1950. This is where infalliability comes into play. If a belief is in question, then the truth must be defined, and the Holy Spirit guides the Church into complete truth so that believers cannot be led astray and will know God’s truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top