Name one Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter MariaG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Mickey:
Ah, but you have forgotten passages from the Catechism such as these:

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. 86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48
I have not forgotten that, I said:

God has said everything in his word **(that subhead appears verbatim in the CCC), as your own catechism asserts, (and then further asserts that God had more to say in the form of tradition. That is a contradiction within the catechism.)
40.png
Mickey:
Excellent! Then you must also agree with this!
Cyril of Jerusalem
The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
Could it be that you now agree that scripture is the sole rule of faith, and authority? 😃
 
40.png
sandusky:
Thank you Maria.

You are, IMHumbleO, the most gracious person that I have encountered on this forum.

It is my hope that you will not leave the Catholic Church (and I am certain that you will not) because of this one discrepancy; I do understand that it is the Church you love.
Thank you:o

No, I won’t leave the Catholic Church over this, since I don’t see it as a contradiction to Scripture, just an ideal that we are exhorted to do with allowances for fallen human nature.

But I will say, I find the lack of writing on this by the Catholic Church (that I could find), Catholic Answers (that I could find), Ask the Apologist (not there specifically on 2Cor 6:14), and the other sites I looked at frustrating.

I can see where those who do not have the faith as I was given in the authority of the Catholic Church, could see this as a contradiction.

God Bless,
Maria
 
So in your mind, Paul, in 2 Thess 2:15, is giving a “command,” while in 2 Cor 6:14, Paul is giving “advice.” Interesting. IMO it is selective and inconsistent thinking, but interesting nevertheless. (Your thinking does make the catechism come more into line concerning the disparity of cult.) 👍
Wow, you’ve seriously misunderstood my post or you are deliberately manipulative. You are saying I’m selective and inconsistent yet I did not comment on whether or not I thought it was a command at all. YOU posted 45 verses that YOU claimed were commandments of the New Testament. I simply asked if you thought 2 Thess 2:15 was a commandment and if you were following it.
You are entitled to your private interpretation of language and scripture. 😉
Actually, I prefer to heed the warning in 2 Peter 3:16
I find your interpretive process fascinating.
Well, actually… the whole divine inspiration thing is from the Church. I can’t take credit for fascinating interpretive process. I was simply citing an example that would show that God was not dictating scripture to Paul.
 
40.png
Prayer_Warrior:
I simply asked if you thought 2 Thess 2:15 was a commandment and if you were following it.
Do you think that 2 Thess 2:15 is a command? Or, do you think that it is advice?
 
40.png
Prayer_Warrior:
Wow, you’ve seriously misunderstood my post or you are deliberately manipulative. You are saying I’m selective and inconsistent yet I did not comment on whether or not I thought it was a command at all. YOU posted 45 verses that YOU claimed were commandments of the New Testament. I simply asked if you thought 2 Thess 2:15 was a commandment and if you were following it.
I understand exactly what you said in your post; I posted 45 commands because they fit on one post, the other 75 I have listed would not fit on the one post.

I do follow what Paul says in 2 Thess 2:15, however, I do not share your understanding of tradition.

I believe that the traditions that Paul is speaking of are what have been directly revealed, and therefore, written down in scripture.
 
JesusHasMyHeart said:
??? Who are working on their salvation in fear and trembling ??? Are you saying that we are incomplete in Christ and not worthy to pray for others, and only those that have gone on before us have special access to the throne, so we pray to them ? That is VERY unscriptural.

St. Paul, for instance.

In Philippians 2:12 he says, “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”

If the quote of “working out your own salvation with fear and trembling” is in the Bible, how is that “VERY unscriptural”?

Seems to me your Evangelical Bible group is not doing their job, if you don’t recognize this well-known verse.
 
Here is a Protestant article on “unequally yoked”. I will take this to “Ask an Apologist” and also suggest that the CA library add a Catholic perspective on this supposed “contradiction”.

www.crivoice.org/yoked.html
 
40.png
sandusky:
I believe that the traditions that Paul is speaking of are what have been directly revealed, and therefore, written down in scripture.
Believing and knowing are two different things. As you have not been given the charism of infallibility, you are capable of making errors on matters of faith and morals. This includes your “belief” that what Paul is speaking about is what has been directly revealed and written in scripture. This is also unscriptural as the Bible itself says it does not contain everything.
 
I’m coming in late on this. It seems Catholic apologists have not done too much apologetic work on this idea of “unequally yoked”, not because it is in conflict with Catholic teaching but because most Protestants seem to agree that it is advice not a command. Apologists tend to focus on areas of contention, just as councils tended to focus on areas of contention.

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him." [1 Corinthians 7:12-13]

I just wanted to mention that “unequally yoked” is not just referring to a marital union but also things like business partnerships.
 
Like I said, I am coming in late on this so, forgive me for posting so much.

**Is Marriage to Unbelievers Prohibited? **

In fairness, we must acknowledge that Paul, in the passage before us, does not specifically or directly refer to the marriage relationship. **Nowhere will one find the command, **"Thou shalt not marry an unbeliever." Indeed, we find reference in the NT writings to such unions. Paul, in 1 Cor. 7:12-16, speaks to those who are married to unbelievers, encouraging them to stay together, working to bring their partners to a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. The apostle Peter also encourages wives of unbelievers to work to win their husbands to the Lord (1 Peter 3:1-2). Obviously, religiously mixed marriages are not the ideal situation. In fact, there are serious problems involved with such unions, and many are destined to fail. Nevertheless, they do exist, and Christians who find themselves in such circumstances should do their best to bring a positive influence to these relationships.

Very few people will argue with the premise, however, that the ideal is for believers to marry other believers. This may very well be the intent of the apostle Paul in his instruction to widows – "if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord" (1 Cor. 7:39). This is about as close to an injunction against marriage to unbelievers that one will find, but even this passage is open to various possible interpretations, thus one should not be dogmatic regarding his personal perception.

Since Paul, in 2 Cor. 6:14, does not specifically relate his charge to marital relationships, I personally would hesitate to declare dogmatically that it is sinful for Christians to marry non-Christians.** I have seen unbelievers brought to the Lord by believing spouses. Paul even alludes to such in 1 Cor. 7.** I would personally never encourage such a union, and would strongly counsel against it, but I would never condemn it as sinful. It is my conviction, based on my study and my observation in years of counseling couples in religiously mixed marriages, that believers should NOT marry unbelievers. I feel very strongly that such unions will present some difficult challenges to both spouses; it is simply asking for trouble! One of the passages I quote in every wedding ceremony I perform is from the first epistle of the apostle Peter. He charged husbands and wives to be “heirs together of the grace of life” (1 Peter 3:7). When husbands and wives journey together toward their heavenly home, that is the IDEAL in marriage. That ideal is not realized when husbands and wives are traveling separate paths spiritually. They are “unequally yoked” … they are pulling in different directions. The tragedy is that many believers are pulled down the path to destruction by the unbelievers. That is the very real danger of being “unequally yoked” with unbelievers. This is especially true in the marital relationship.

“Paul does not state in specific terms just what he means by being unequally yoked with unbelievers, but already in the earlier epistle there are indications of some of the things he must have had in mind, namely, marriages between Christians and non-Christians” (Dr. Philip Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 245). “True Christian partnership is that which exists between genuine yokefellows (Philp. 4:3), and that can apply only to those who already are one in Christ Jesus” (ibid). “There is no question that it would be better for both husband and wife to be believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, although there is no evidence in the context to show that Paul had this subject in mind” (Dr. T.R. Applebury, Studies in 2 Corinthians, p. 126).

More here: www.gracecentered.com/unequally_yoked.htm
 
40.png
Eden:
Believing and knowing are two different things. As you have not been given the charism of infallibility, you are capable of making errors on matters of faith and morals.
Thank you for your insight Eden, and it is apparent that the thought has never crossed your mind that neither have you been given the charism of infallibility, and that you, a fallible human being, are doing nothing more than fallibly believing in the infallibility of those who claim to be infallible. Bravo! 👍
 
40.png
sandusky:
Thank you for your insight Eden, and it is apparent that the thought has never crossed your mind that neither have you been given the charism of infallibility, and that you, a fallible human being, are doing nothing more than fallibly believing in the infallibility of those who claim to be infallible. Bravo! 👍
Thank you. What you fail to realize is that my Church teaches infallibly on matters of faith and morals. If I speak in harmony with Church teaching, I cannot be in error. If I answer in a way that contradicts Church teaching then* I* am in error, not the Church. See how that works? I’m not infallible but the Church teachings that I post about here are. 👍 Neither you nor your Church teachings are infallible. Neither you nor they even claim to be. Got it?
 
40.png
Eden:
Thank you. What you fail to realize is that my Church teaches infallibly on matters of faith and morals. If I speak in harmony with Church teaching, I cannot be in error. If I answer in a way that contradicts Church teaching then* I* am in error, not the Church. See how that works? I’m not infallible but the Church teachings that I post about here are. 👍 Neither you nor your Church teachings are infallible. Neither you nor they even claim to be. Got it?
I got it; but I don’t think you do.
 
40.png
sandusky:
I got it; but I don’t think you do.
The Church is infallible independent of whether or not I or anyone else believes it is. In other words, the infallibility of the Church does not depend on my believing. It exists independent of belief by the “fallible”.

The more important part of your post is that you acknowledge that you and your church make errors regarding faith and morals.
 
40.png
Eden:
The Church is infallible independent of whether or not I or anyone else believes it is. In other words, the infallibility of the Church does not depend on my believing. It exists independent of belief by the “fallible”.

The more important part of your post is that you acknowledge that you and your church make errors regarding faith and morals.
I see.

Where is found the description of that charism, or any charism for that matter?
 
40.png
sandusky:
I see.

Where is found the description of that charism, or any charism for that matter?
The description of the charism of infallibility, is that what you are asking?
 
CHARISM: A charism is a gift freely given by God to a person or community, for the good and service of others in bringing about the Kingdom of God. Religious communities seek to live the charism which is received through their founders as God’s gift to the Church.

www.vocations.ca/What_is_a_vocation/common_terms.php

“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25).

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come? - Cyprian of Carthage circa 256 A.D. (Letters 59 [55], 14).

catholic.com/library/papal_infallibility.asp
 
40.png
sandusky:
Do you think that 2 Thess 2:15 is a command? Or, do you think that it is advice?
I corrected myself on the use of the word “advice” in an earlier post. I also stated that the"commands by Paul are directing us…" 2 Thess 2:15 would certainly fit in with a command of Paul as would the others you cited. I still disagree with you about commands being the same as commandments but no need to re-hash, I understand your postition.
 
40.png
Prayer_Warrior:
I still disagree with you about commands being the same as commandments but no need to re-hash, I understand your postition.
Hi P_W! 🙂 I think I know what you mean. I am Catholic a thousand percent!

I think those “commands” are just explanations of the 10 Commandments. Just as the new commandments in Mark 12:30-33 are just a shorter and clearer explanation of the 10 Commandments. The first 3 Commandments would be the 1st new one. And the 4th to 10th Commandments would be the 2nd new commandment.

It looks as those commands would also talk about “near occasion” of sin. When Catholics have an examination of conscience we look at all the commandments but they are not all what they seem. Such as in the 5th Commandment of “Thou Shalt not Kill.” Besides the obvious it also means “Anger.” That is what the Church teaches. Anger is a no no. You can really hurt someone when you use anger with them. You kill their soul and that is a sin. Well it goes the same for all the other ones too. You really have to look at all the commandments and discern what they mean.
 
carol marie:
OK, I’m sort of afraid I’m going to get beat up here… but you asked so please be nice…

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.
Are you Catholic carol marie? If so, then it deeply saddens me that you do not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. 😦 This does not want to make me “beat you up” as you put it. But I do wish to enlighten you and the Protestants also.

The word “ALL” here has exceptions. Other wise you would have to include Jesus because He is fully human as He is fully Divine. You would also have to include innocent babies too. You would have to include mentally handicapped persons too. You see where I’m going here? The verse you stated talks about sin commited by “man,” not Original sin.

Jesus of course would NOT be included in this statement because he is “full of grace.” (Jn 1:14).

Mary is also “full of grace.” (Lk 1:28). As a matter of fact God gave her a new name just as Jesus gave Saul a new name and Simon too. Names were of great importance to the Jews. So in giving someone a new name, it meant a great deal. The angel appeared to Mary and said, “Chaïré, Kécharitôménê,…” That NAME for her means “one who has been perfected in GRACE!” or “one who has been made ‘full of grace’.” That is past tense; in more precise terms; passive participle. She was “saved” BEFORE she was even touched by original sin. Mary was “made full of grace” by God. She was “filled with grace.”

As far as “Chaïré” I have it in my RSV-CE as “Hail.” That greeting was made to Royalty! As in “Hail Ceasar!” The word itself means “rejoice.” Here is an excerpt from the book that I have called “Theotókos; Woman, Mother, Disciple,” it is a Catechesis on Mary, Mother of God;

From page 87 - The Blessed Virgin Was Filled with God’s Grace

----- In the account of the annunciation, the first word of the angel’s greeting, “rejoice,” is an invitation to joy which recalls the oracles of the Old Testament addressed to the Daughter of Zion. We pointed this out in our previous catecheses and also explained the reasons for this invitation: God’s presence among his people, the coming of the messianic king, and maternal fruitfulness. These reasons are fulfilled in Mary.
----- The angel Gabriel, addressing the Virgin of Nazareth after the greeting chaïré, “rejoice,” calls her kécharitôménê, “full of grace.” The words of the Greek text, chaïré and kécharitôménê are deeply interconnected. Mary is invited to rejoice prinarily because God loves her and has filled her with grace in view of her divine motherhood!


----- Kécharitôménê: this term addressed to Mary seems to be the proper way to describe the woman destined to become the mother of Jesus. Lumen Gentium appropriately recalls this when it affirms: “The Virgin of Nazareth is greeted, on God’s command, by an angel messenger as ‘full of grace’” (LG 56). The fact that the heavenly messenger addresses her in this way enhances the value of the angelic greeting. It is a manifestation of God’s mysterious saving plan in Mary’s regard. As I wrote in the Enyclical Redemptoris Mater; “The ‘fullness of grace’ indicates all the supernatural munificence from which Mary benefits by being chosen and destined to be the Mother of Christ” (n. 9).
----- “Full of grace” is the name Mary possesses in the eyes of God. Indeed, according to Luke’s account, the angel uses this expression even before he speakes the name “Mary,” and thus emphasizes the predominant aspect which the Lord perceived in the Virgin of Nazareth’s personality.
…​

It goes on. You can get the book at any Catholic book store or order it online at Amazon. The author? JPII!! Pope John Paul “The Great!”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top