Name one Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture

[RCCDefender]

Mat 23

8"But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ.** 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

***Oh don’t tell me you are going to try to pull this card because it won’t work. As the Scripture Catholic site so eloquently puts it, “This is an example of “eisegesis” (imposing one’s views upon a passage) as opposed to “exegesis” (drawing out the meaning of the passage from its context).”

So, tell me what are the men who founded this country called? The founding fathers. What does a birth certificate say the titles of a baby’s parents are? The mother and father. Want to carry on? Okay, what does Paul say in 1 Cor. 4:15? “Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” Well, what about John? 1 John 2:13 and 14, "I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have conquered the evil one. I write to you, children, [guess this would also make John a father] because you know the Father. I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. More? Well, let’s listen to Stephen. Act 7:1-2 “Then the high priest asked, ‘Is this so?’ And he replied, 'My brothers and fathers, listen. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was in Mesopotamia, before he had settled in Haran” Not enough? What is it that Jesus says in a story? Oh, yeah, “And he cried out, Father Abraham, have pity on me.” (Lk 16:24). Oh, and, “honor your father and mother” (Lk. 18:20). I guess Jesus didn’t mean that you must not ever use the name “father” ever, ever. What He was really telling us in that instance was that we should not give men honor that belongs to God alone. Again, I quote Scripture Catholic, “Jesus warns us not to elevate anyone to the level of our heavenly Father.”
rbarcia;1491569:

These quotes do not prove that the early church believed this, many of these quotes are much later. As these quotes get later in history you see this thought emerge. The earilier the quote you show, the less it shows that the early church believed it. Do you have any quote before the year 235?

Do you have any quote from before the year 235 that lays out a definitive list of the canon of the New Testament?

Secondly, you claim to know what a man believed 1800 years ago based on a sentence.

You claim to know what a man believed 2000 years ago based on a verse…

 

[RCCDefender]

These quotes do not prove that the early church believed this, many of these quotes are much later. As these quotes get later in history you see this thought emerge. The earilier the quote you show, the less it shows that the early church believed it. Do you have any quote before the year 235?

I think these might be a little earlier than that 235 A.D.

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the “woman” clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I think these might be a little earlier than that 235 A.D.

Well said, rcbarcia’s belief can never been proven. he can quote Scripture but like many Protestants, he take the verse out of Context.

He thinks he knows Catholicism but he doesn’t. I don’t believe Former Catholics have any good credit about knowing Catholicism.

He is just a typical Protestant who tries to prove the Catholic Church teaches error. I don’t see the verse disprove Mary’s is sinless.

rcbarcia,

where in the Scripture where Mary committed actual sin in the Bible.

Well there isn’t one. Through the Scripture, Mary said yes to God to become the Mother of God, Jesus, 2nd Person from the Trinity. She intercede in behalf of the guest to turn water to wine, which is Jesus first miracle. You will probably cite “All have sin” This is not the case since infants cannot commit actual sin. You may might as well say that Jesus sin if you use the verse “all have sin”

In Luke, the Gospel writter use the writings from the Old Testament describing the Mary as the New Ark, since Mary carried Jesus in her womb. I have repeated these time and time again as well as other Catholic Apologetics on this cite.

It is also a held belief by the ECF. Your way of thinking is in the context of today’s modern society rather than at context the Bible itself was written.

 

[rbarcia]

Oh don’t tell me you are going to try to pull this card because it won’t work. As the Scripture Catholic site so eloquently puts it, “This is an example of “eisegesis” (imposing one’s views upon a passage) as opposed to “exegesis” (drawing out the meaning of the passage from its context).”

Am I? What claims have I made of this verse? I just posted it. You are practicing eisgesis (I hope I spelled it right) yourself.

So, tell me what are the men who founded this country called? The founding fathers. What does a birth certificate say the titles of a baby’s parents are? The mother and father. Want to carry on? Okay, what does Paul say in 1 Cor. 4:15? “Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” Well, what about John? 1 John 2:13 and 14, "I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have conquered the evil one. I write to you, children, [guess this would also make John a father] because you know the Father. I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. More? Well, let’s listen to Stephen. Act 7:1-2 “Then the high priest asked, ‘Is this so?’ And he replied, 'My brothers and fathers, listen. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was in Mesopotamia, before he had settled in Haran” Not enough? What is it that Jesus says in a story? Oh, yeah, “And he cried out, Father Abraham, have pity on me.” (Lk 16:24). Oh, and, “honor your father and mother” (Lk. 18:20). I guess Jesus didn’t mean that you must not ever use the name “father” ever, ever. What He was really telling us in that instance was that we should not give men honor that belongs to God alone. Again, I quote Scripture Catholic, “Jesus warns us not to elevate anyone to the level of our heavenly Father.”

I call my dad father all the time, and my daughters call me dad. Again, I just posted the verse.

Do you have any quote from before the year 235 that lays out a definitive list of the canon of the New Testament?

You claim to know what a man believed 2000 years ago based on a verse…

What do you mean? What claim did I make? I just posted the verse?

You are elevating early writings of church members to that of scripture? Does not the RCC say that the Bible is Inspired by God?

Does the RCC teach that the writings of early church members to be on the same level as that of the Bible?

 

[rbarcia]

I think these might be a little earlier than that 235 A.D.

I asked for quotes before 235 where church members believed that Mary was sinless, the ark, the queen of heaven, etc… Not for your interpretation of Bible verses. It seems you are practicing “eisegesis” (Thanks for teaching me a new word)

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

Te above is an interpretation but the verse does not talk about Mary.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

Yes the Jews did hold the Ark in awe because it contained the law of God written by His own hand. The Law never came out of the ark.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

This is again “eisegesis”

Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

These are all “eisegesis.” Moses also remained in his house for 3 months.

Acts 7

20"At that time Moses was born, and he was no ordinary child.For three months he was cared for in his father’s house.

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the “woman” clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

The women in Rev 11 and 12 is Israel.

Gen 37:9
9 Then he had another dream, and he told it to his brothers. “Listen,” he said, “I had another dream, and this time the sun and moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me.”

Rev 12

1A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.

Show me quotes before the year 200 or 300 showing that early church members interpreted Mary to be a “The Queen of Heaven”?

Or the new “Ark of the covenant,” Or “co-mediatrix”

 

[E.E.N.S]

Rbarcia, do you think that the Holy Spirit stopped leading the Church after the apostles died?

 

[rbarcia]

I think these might be a little earlier than that 235 A.D.

Well said, rcbarcia’s belief can never been proven. he can quote Scripture but like many Protestants, he take the verse out of Context.

He thinks he knows Catholicism but he doesn’t. I don’t believe Former Catholics have any good credit about knowing Catholicism.

He is just a typical Protestant who tries to prove the Catholic Church teaches error. I don’t see the verse disprove Mary’s is sinless.

I am not a Protestant.

rcbarcia,

What is the c for? it is rbarcia

where in the Scripture where Mary committed actual sin in the Bible.

Mary called God her Savior. Why would she need saving? Mary is a model of faith and good woman, but there is no proof that she was sinless.

Well there isn’t one. Through the Scripture, Mary said yes to God to become the Mother of God, Jesus, 2nd Person from the Trinity. She intercede in behalf of the guest to turn water to wine, which is Jesus first miracle. You will probably cite “All have sin” This is not the case since infants cannot commit actual sin. You may might as well say that Jesus sin if you use the verse “all have sin”

In Luke, the Gospel writter use the writings from the Old Testament describing the Mary as the New Ark, since Mary carried Jesus in her womb. I have repeated these time and time again as well as other Catholic Apologetics on this cite.

Luke does not describe Mary as this, you are practicing eisegesis.

It is also a held belief by the ECF. Your way of thinking is in the context of today’s modern society rather than at context the Bible itself was written.

My way of thinking? Are you a mind reader? Context is very important, I have not neglected any context, you are just saying that.

 

[rbarcia]

Rbarcia, do you think that the Holy Spirit stopped leading the Church after the apostles died?

No, I do not think the Holy Spirit stopped leading the church. THis question is not relevant to the discussion.

 

[E.E.N.S]

No, I do not think the Holy Spirit stopped leading the church. THis question is not relevant to the discussion.

Oh but it is! It is a leading question. You are asking for proofs before the ones given in the 200’s (which so happens to be long before the Bible was compiled and codified by the Church)…you are asking for proofs from Scripture, well the best answer that Sacred Scripture gives us is that Scripture is not the pillar and foundation of truth - the Church is! (c.f. 1 Tim 3:15) You want to know the truth on a matter, turn to the Church (She alone has the right to interpret Scripture anyway, as it is She that is lead by the Holy Spirit to safegaurd, support, uphold, and teach the truth.) Does this elevate the Church above Scripture? Not in the least!

We have ourselves a disagreement on interpretation, so who is it that we are supposed to turn to? I concede, with the Holy Scripture, that it is the Church to whom we find the truth, (especially when we have a difference in opinion.)

 

[M_Oliver]

I don’t think she was targeting you as a whole but the man-made doctrines of Protestantism that was made in 1517 A.D. You are making a judgement upon her.

Oliver, you are not subject to place judge on another. I think it would be best if you keep your hostility to yourself.

That is a lie manny that I cannot let you get away with. I did not judge Maria in any way, shape or form in my post and I am calling you on it. Please DO NOT twist my words because you are unable to dispute what I said.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Yes the Jews did hold the Ark in awe because it contained the law of God written by His own hand. The Law never came out of the ark.

Not true. The frist set of tablets were wrought by God. Moses wrought the second set, which then placed in the Ark.

 

[rbarcia]

Oh but it is! It is a leading question. You are asking for proofs before the ones given in the 200’s (which so happens to be long before the Bible was compiled and codified by the Church)…you are asking for proofs from Scripture, well the best answer that Sacred Scripture gives us is that Scripture is not the pillar and foundation of truth - the Church is! (c.f. 1 Tim 3:15)

So the Scripture is not Truth? I am part of the Christian Church.

You want to know the truth on a matter, turn to the Church (She alone has the right to interpret Scripture anyway, as it is She that is lead by the Holy Spirit to safegaurd, support, uphold, and teach the truth.) Does this elevate the Church above Scripture? Not in the least!

We have ourselves a disagreement on interpretation, so who is it that we are supposed to turn to? I concede, with the Holy Scripture, that it is the Church to whom we find the truth, (especially when we have a difference in opinion.)

The Church is the collective true believers of Christ. Made up of many members. Are you outside of the the rcc church that you have to turn to it?

You mean the magesterium, an organization that did not exist until much later in history.

 

[M_Oliver]

Oliver,

Lastly, there are no Catholic teachings that contradict Scripure at all.

Even the Church Fathers themselves believe that Mary remain sinless.

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).

“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.” Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446).

“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.” Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 (A.D. 449).

“[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.” Jacob of Sarug (ante A.D. 521).

“She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay.” Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650).

“Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God… The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation.” Andrew of Crete, Sermon I, On the Birth of Mary (A.D. 733).

“[T]ruly elect, and superior to all, not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as excelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever.” Germanus of Constantinople, Marracci in S. Germani Mariali (ante A.D. 733).

“O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew.” John of Damascus, Homily I (ante A.D. 749).

You have one HUGE problem. Not one single word in your post is of Scripture. It is all of men. Do you want me to believe a mortal over it’s Creator manny? Is that what you expect me to do?

 

[rbarcia]

Not true. The frist set of tablets were wrought by God. Moses wrought the second set, which then placed in the Ark.

Hi Joey,
Exodus 34

1And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: **and I **will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.
Exodus 34 shows that God wrote the Law, Moses only shaped the tablets.

 

[JoeyWarren]

homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ct_mary.html

 

[Image_of_God]

You have one HUGE problem. Not one single word in your post is of Scripture. It is all of men. Do you want me to believe a mortal over it’s Creator manny? Is that what you expect me to do?

These men were in fact closer to Jesus’ time than you and I are. There teachings are fully orthodox. So you are saying that we should not listen to the apostles [or there succesors] because they are mere men? Well I think that Jesus greatly differs.

John 13:20
Very truly, I tell you, whoever recieves one whom I send, recieves me and whoever recieves me recieves the one who sent him.

If you do not listen to the people God has given to you to show you the truth, you cannot say you except him. Their beliefs are clearly orthodox and true. If you do not accept the orthodox teachings of men, how can you except that of Christ or the one who sent him?

You already know that the most of the letters of the Bible were written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit. These men I think are also inspired by God to preach the good news just post biblical.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Hi Joey,*
Exodus 34
1And the LORD* said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: **and I **will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.
Exodus 34 shows that God wrote the Law, Moses only shaped the tablets.

God wrote the Law on the Tablets thru Moses. It took Moses 40 days to carve and write upon the tablets. You have to skip down into the Chapter to see this.

Exodus 34: 27 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

The first set was written by God, but Moses did not have proper respect toward what God created. So God Made Moses do Penance by fasting and making him carve the tablets himself and write the words himself. I believe this was done, so Moses would take more care in not letting this second set be destroyed.

Rbarcia, you just demonstrated the same point that most anti-catholics lean toward. CATHOLICS MUST BE WRONG, SO YOU MUST FIND AN ALTERNATE MEANING OR TOTALLY DISREGARD OTHER VERSES ENTIRELY TO JUSTIFY YOUR OWN STANCE THRU IGNORANCE.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I am not a Protestant.

Are you not oppose to Catholic Church’s doctrine? A Protestant is someone not in union with the Catholic Church, and protest its doctrine.

In these threads, you have show your opposition to the Catholic Church and thereby makes you, a Protestant. You may disagree but rbarcia, from the views of the Catholic here, you are Protestant PERIOD.

 

[Mannyfit75]

You have one HUGE problem. Not one single word in your post is of Scripture. It is all of men. Do you want me to believe a mortal over it’s Creator manny? Is that what you expect me to do?

They are from ECF and many are disciples of the apostles. ECF were taught by the Apostles, the Apostles were sent by Jesus. We Catholics believe in Apostolic Succession, which means literally “from the apostles”

They are also devote Christian who were persecuted by the Pagan Rome and died for Jesus. So are you belief different from the Early Christians?

These Christians knows the Scripture more than you do. Do you know better than they do? I doubt it.

 

[Mannyfit75]

You have one HUGE problem. Not one single word in your post is of Scripture. It is all of men. Do you want me to believe a mortal over it’s Creator manny? Is that what you expect me to do?

Lastly I don’t think it is a problem. It is you who is the problem who lacks the Bible and Apostolic history…