Name one Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter MariaG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Church Militant:
Alfie, my friend, you really should stop believing everything that some site that you cut and paste here says.

That comparison is called “a strawman argument” because it decisively refutes something that is not Catholic teaching to begin with. The assertions are also too numerous to be dealt with all at once, but the fact is that the passages that they cite are taken (as usual) out of context and when the context is checked against the teachings of the Catholic Church you’ll find more than ample scriptural support for the points in question. There are very good refutations and explanations of most all of these things here at the CA LIbrary under Sacraments, but you’d have to really go there and read & study them so that you really understand. Christianity is far deeper than most folks are willing to dig, but they should.
Here’s the link to the Douay-Rheims Bible bear in mind that it came out 2 years ahead of the KJV. Same great English…with all the books and GREAT notes.
Pax tecum,
Click to expand...
The claim that Catholics do not believe that the Veil was not torn is a symbolic meaning rather than in actuality. The point is that Catholics do not really believe in the sufficiency of Christ to forgive sins and that all believers can go directly to God through Jesus for the forgivness of sins. They don’t need a priest.
 
40.png
Alfie:
The point is that Catholics do not really believe in the sufficiency of Christ to forgive sins and that all believers can go directly to God through Jesus for the forgivness of sins.
Click to expand...
This kind of judgement can be dangerous for the soul.
 
Church Militant:
I know of absolutely no Catholic doctrines that are contary to scripture.

As for the Assumption: Here’s a whole thread. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=43566

To me, the Assumption is easy to believe in. If you check the OT you see that it happened back then too. Enoch, Moses, and Elijah were all taken up by God because of who they were in His plan and their faithfulness to Him and though the NT gives us nothing to go on on this event, there are non-canonical early church writings that do suggest that our Lord took the Blessed Virgin as well. This makes perfect sense to me for several reasons.
  1. Mary was Jesus mother and He surely loves her just as any of us love our own and would do everything He can to display that love.
  2. Jesus would no doubt protect his mother from the terrible persecutions that followed. You will notice that there is no record of Mary’s death or where she went after the day of Pentecost, though we do know that she went home to live with St. John after Our Lord’s death right? We know that St. John was the last of the apostles to die and that at one point he was miraculously saved by God when being boiled in oil for his faith…yet he never mentions Mary in his letters but there’s just no way that he wouldn’t have known her fate…that just doesn’t make any sense.
I think that the NT is so silent about the Blessed Virgin because they all agreed to protect her. Can you imagine the PR blitz that would’ve occurred if the Jews or Romans could have found and tortured and killed the mother of this Jesus? Whew!
  1. Since God did some really amazing things with the early church, like snatching St. Stephen away to Azotus after he baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts, it seems logical to me that God did some amazing things for the woman who said yes to bearing His only Son. My friends, Mary is probably the 2nd most unique soul in all of history, behind Jesus Himself. No one else was ever called “Full of grace” like that, and I believe that that “fullness of grace” meant she was way more than what a lot of folks think she was. No…she’s not God! But I think she had to be about THE holiest person imaginable. Can ya imagine living every day of your life with the real live son of the living God as your kid? WOW! Now THAT’s “walkin’ with Jesus!”
So…the Assumption is really pretty easy for me and that is why.

(I cite no scripture because the pertinent passages should be fairly easy for anyone to find if interested.)
Pax vobiscum,
Click to expand...
The Bible was written by forty authors over a sixteen hundred year period. I would think that out of forty writers and in a span of sixteen hundred years at least one writer would have mentioned the Assumption or other details about Mary in their writings.

All scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
 
40.png
Alfie:
The Bible was written by forty authors over a sixteen hundred year period. I would think that out of forty writers and in a span of sixteen hundred years at least one writer would have mentioned the Assumption or other details about Mary in their writings.

All scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t mention the details of her death at all, does it? Are you saying she didn’t die for at least “1600” years? WHOA! There’s an idea! :eek:
 
40.png
Alfie:
The claim that Catholics do not believe that the Veil was not torn is a symbolic meaning rather than in actuality.
Click to expand...
No. That is not true. From Ask the Apologist.
originally posted by Sebaldus
When Matthew writes, “And behold, the veil of the santurary was torn in two from top to bottom,” was he speaking symbolically or literally?

It seems that if this event literally happened, it would have caused a widespread panic among the Jewish people, which is not recorded in secular histories of that time.
Click to expand...
Originally posted in Ask the Apologist by Fr. Vincent Serpa
Dear S,
Click to expand...
The fact that is doesn’t appear in secular histories does not mean that it didn’t happen. There didn’t exist at the time the means we have of preserving information and so there is much that is missing in such histories.
Click to expand...
The New Jerusalem Bible says that the veil was probably the one that hung between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies and that Christian tradition saw in this the abrogation of the old Mosaic cult and that it symbolized the opening of the new messianic sanctuary.
Click to expand...
Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
Click to expand...
Just because the Catholic Church says that there is a symbolic meaning to the event, does not mean a denial that the event was an actual historical event.

There are many teachings in the CAtholic Church that have BOTH symbolic as well as literally meanings from Scripture.
originally posted by Alfie
The point is that Catholics do not really believe in the sufficiency of Christ to forgive sins and that all believers can go directly to God through Jesus for the forgivness of sins. They don’t need a priest.
Click to expand...
Not true.

But it would be nice if these claims you keep making about the teachings of the Catholic Church were actually cited from Catholic sources.

God Bless,
Maria
 
40.png
mlchance:
God himself commanded the ancient Hebrews to make statues to decorate the Ark of the Covenant: “And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be” (Exodus 25:18–20).

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
This is true; but God never told us to build statues of Mary or of the Apostles to be used in worship or sacred prayer. Nor are we told to use prayer beads, which is taken from Babolonian paganism. The title ‘queen of heaven’ is only used in Jerimiah 44 in reference to a goddess the pagans gave burnt offerings to.

I think it’s safe to say that we are only to make images when directed to by God personally.

I mean no offense in saying this, so please don’t be too harsh in your response. The bible says to teach with loving kindness and patience after all. I feel many on this site aren’t doing that when defending thier respective faiths.
 
Chris LaRock:
The title ‘queen of heaven’ is only used in Jerimiah 44 in reference to a goddess the pagans gave burnt offerings to.
Click to expand...
Rev 12:1: And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;
 
"And you shall make two cherubim of gold ; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Ex. 25:18–20).
 
Mickey said:
Rev 12:1: And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;
Click to expand...

Much of relalation is not literal. Take into consideration the great beast that comes out of the sea, the great winepress, as well as the sword described as coming from the mouth of Christ. JWs make a similar mistake with the reference to the 144,000 in revalation 7:4.

I personally think this refers to the events of the gospels. Remember; king harod, under satan’s influence, tried to kill Jesus as an infant. But God saved both mary and Jesus by sending an angel to warn them. They fled to Eqypt.

The battle between the dragon and the angels is obviously satan’s fall, which already happened. He was hurled to earth. (Isaiah 14)

Much of revalation is poetic and much of it describes past events, along side future prophecies.
 
Mickey said:
"And you shall make two cherubim of gold ; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Ex. 25:18–20).

God ordered them to make these specific images, but never said to make statues of Mary or the saints, commonly used in Catholic worship. There is a difference between the statues God told them to build, and the ones being built according to man’s traditions.
Click to expand...
 
Chris LaRock:
God ordered them to make these specific images, but never said to make statues of Mary or the saints, commonly used in Catholic worship. There is a difference between the statues God told them to build, and the ones being built according to man’s traditions.
Click to expand...
But yet you have no problem putting a “Jesus Fish” on your car?
 
Chris LaRock:
God ordered them to make these specific images, but never said to make statues of Mary or the saints, commonly used in Catholic worship. There is a difference between the statues God told them to build, and the ones being built according to man’s traditions.
Click to expand...
Your thinking is contrary to 2000 years of Christian history and contrary to interpretations of those passages. Physical reminders, (such as icons and statues), of the holy saints and angels of the Kingdom of Heaven–assists us to keep a constant remembrance of our Lord and Savior. God smiles on this.

And you know very well that we don’t worship these images like the pagans worshiped their images of false gods.
 
40.png
Eden:
But yet you have no problem putting a “Jesus Fish” on your car?
Click to expand...
Nope, don’t have one.

The origin of the Jesus fish is interesting. The early church used the fish as a secret sign for other christians to indicate a church. The roman persecutors were lead to believe it was just a meeting of fishermen, rather than christians. It was used by the underground church.
 
40.png
Mickey:
Your thinking is contrary to 2000 years of Christian history and contrary to interpretations of those passages. Physical reminders, (such as icons and statues), of the holy saints and angels of the Kingdom of Heaven–assists us to keep a constant remembrance of our Lord and Savior. God smiles on this.

And you know very well that we don’t worship these images like the pagans worshiped their images of false gods.
Click to expand...
Did I say you worship the images? I understand this to be a popular misconception of catholicism. I wasn’t saying this. But, I actually heard one frightening story of a solid marble statue of mary turning it’s head to look at someone kneeling before it to kiss it’s feet. The demonic spirits can use images to mislead people who aren’t careful.

Good answers, BTW. You really know your stuff.
 
👋 Chris,

I am not sure exactly what you are saying.

Are you saying that the Catholic practice of making statues of Mary and the Saints is contrary to Scripture? Which Scripture in particular would that be since you admit that we do not worship the statues and therefore they cannot be then, by definition, graven images?

graven image
n.
An idol or fetish carved in wood or stone.graven image

n : a material effigy that is worshipped as a god; “thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image”; “money was his god” [syn: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=idol”]idol, god]

It seems to me that you are saying that if God did not inspire someone to write about something, that Christians are not allowed to do it? So, how come they used the fish, if God did not instruct men to specifically use this symbol of a fish? I understand the very interesting history of it. I am just trying to understand your position.

Symbol of fish okay, even though not told to do so by God specifically in Scripture?

Statue of Mary not okay, since not specifically told to by God in Scirpture?

Both okay?

Neither okay?

Note: Tone inquiring, just trying to understand your position:)

God Bless,
Maria
 
It could contradict scripture, if done improperly. The golden calf, for example.
 
40.png
Alfie:
The claim that Catholics do not believe that the Veil was not torn is a symbolic meaning rather than in actuality. The point is that Catholics do not really believe in the sufficiency of Christ to forgive sins and that all believers can go directly to God through Jesus for the forgivness of sins. They don’t need a priest.
Click to expand...
Then you should have said what you meant my friend. 🙂

This is also not true, since if you actually read the Catechism of any good book on salvation by Catholics you’ll very soon find that this is not at all what we teach.

What you describe is precisely what we Catholics DO believe.

However, you confuse the issue with confession and the Sacrament of Reconcilliation with the other issue, and you really do need to focus on the other thread on confession in order to get that clear in your mind, so that you don’t persist in trying to blend one doctrine into another one. Neither of which you as yet have a good grasp on.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that baptism is necessary for salvation? Is that what your particular church teaches? Basically I am just asking what you have been taught about baptism. We can get into that on another thread if you’d like to explore what the Bible teaches about it. (Let me know if you’d like me to open a thread on it and I’ll PM you a link. 😉 )
Pax tecum,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top