Sacred Traditions That Supposedly Contradict The Bible

[Unitas]

Papal Infallibility-error

So the Church cannot make infallible decisions, yet you accept the infallibility of Luther?

You accept sola scriptura as truth–created by Luther

You accept sola fide as truth–created by Luther

You reject the greek old testament on the whim of–you guessed it–Luther

Your bible is seven books short because Luther didn’t like them. The bible was the same since 382AD until the 16th century when Luther to it upon himself to change it. He took away, and even added to the scriptures. He almost tossed out hebrews and revelation too.

I you’re going to reject the authority of the Church then why do you accept the infallible authority of Luther?

By default you’re accepting the authority of “sola Luther” since you accept whatever he thought was and was not inspired scripture.

Hypocritical?

 

[Chancellare]

That teaching of infallibility is false.
Do you have any bible verses that say that the church is infallible in its interpretation of the bible.

The practical way to answer this is to trace how the Bible came about. From the CA Tract on this subject, I say this.

The fact is, the only reason you and I have, say, the New Testament canon is because of the trustworthy teaching authority of the Catholic Church. As Augustine put it, ‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church’ (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5:6). Any Christian accepting the authority of the New Testament does so, whether or not he admits it, because he has implicit trust that the Catholic Church made the right decision in determining the canon.

The fact is that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church over time to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419). You, my friend, accept exactly the same books of the New Testament that Pope Damasus decreed were canonical, and no others.

Furthermore, the reason you accept the books you do is that they were in the Bible someone gave you when you first became a Christian. You accept them because they were handed on to you. This means you accept the canon of the New Testament that you do because of tradition, because tradition is simply what is handed on to us from those who were in the faith before us. So your knowledge of the exact books that belong in the Bible, such as Philemon and 3 John, rests on tradition rather than on Scripture itself!

The question you have to ask yourself is this: ‘Where did we get the Bible?’ Until you can give a satisfactory answer, you aren’t in much of a position to rely on the authority of Scripture or to claim that you can be certain that you know how to accurately interpret it.

If the Bible, which we received from the Catholic Church, is our sole rule of faith, who’s to do the interpreting?
Why are there so many conflicting understandings among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists even on central doctrines that pertain to salvation?

 

[Chancellare]

Have you ever done any research into all the corrupt popes over the last two thousand years?
Look up Boniface viii. Read some comments he made about the church. He was accused of being a sodomite a sorcerer and a heretic.
Clement V Nepotism
Sergius III illegitimate son
BenedictIX
The list goes on and on and on and on
And you say the church cannot teach error?
What about the great schism?
Ever research how many popes have been murdered?
There were some EXTREMELY dark times in the Holy Roman Catholic Church in the last two thousand years.
Do some research and then ask me if the church can teach in error.

They say ad hominem remarks are the last resort for those logically challenged.

You can cite all the rotten personalities among the people within the church. But that is not the subject we are arguing about. Did you understand the definition of Infallibiity? It only concerns with pronouncements on doctrinal issues, not the personal accidents of the magisterium.

St Peter was the most irrational and disloyal of all the Apostles yet he was entrusted with the keys of the first Catholic Church (pun not intended) and against which no high water or hell or Martin Luther can prevail. That is still true today I believe.

 

[NotWorthy]

Have you ever done any research into all the corrupt popes over the last two thousand years?
Look up Boniface viii. Read some comments he made about the church. He was accused of being a sodomite a sorcerer and a heretic.
Clement V Nepotism
Sergius III illegitimate son
BenedictIX
The list goes on and on and on and on
And you say the church cannot teach error?
What about the great schism?
Ever research how many popes have been murdered?
There were some EXTREMELY dark times in the Holy Roman Catholic Church in the last two thousand years.
Do some research and then ask me if the church can teach in error.

OK, Newbie, you opened the door. Show us anythng Boniface TAUGHT. Sodomy is not teaching. No one claimed the Pope was impeccable, or Lord knows we’d have egg all over our face.

 

[NotWorthy]

NotWorthy;1904260:

Notworthy,
The one you quoted was a quote from Newbie1234 which I was refuting. That’s what I was trying to say: that the Bible actually DOES NOT SAY THAT. The software did not work properly.

Friendly fire. It’s ok, my mistake.

Ha! I was wondering where that came from!

 

[NotWorthy]

Originally Posted by newbie1234 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Have you ever done any research into all the corrupt popes over the last two thousand years?
Look up Boniface viii. Read some comments he made about the church. He was accused of being a sodomite a sorcerer and a heretic.
Clement V Nepotism
Sergius III illegitimate son
BenedictIX
The list goes on and on and on and on
And you say the church cannot teach error?
What about the great schism?
Ever research how many popes have been murdered?
There were some EXTREMELY dark times in the Holy Roman Catholic Church in the last two thousand years.
Do some research and then ask me if the church can teach in error.

Newbie, what you brought up (in a very un-christian kind of way, I might add - remember my comment about boasting?) is proof of the Church’s Spiritual truth, not her error.

Did Judas make Jesus Apostles invalid? Or Peter’s wavering in any way harm the spread of the Church? Even when acting hypocritically, and having Paul chastise him, Peter never taught in error.

Christ Himself prophecied that there would be evil people among the Church, but He would never separate the wheat from the chaff until the time of judgement.

The fact that the Church has had foul creatures like that, and never CHANGED A TEACHING since the time of the Apostles is proof that this is Christ’s Church. (this would be a great challenge for you to prove that they have, for if so, you’d win!)

Christ wouldn’t let the chaff run His beloved bride into error.

BTW, by teachings, I mean dogma’s (Eucharist has the Real Presence and all that) and not disciplines (priests can marry, meat on Friday, etc.). After all, your women don’t still wear veils now do they?

.
*

 

[Church_Militant]

Immaculate Conception -ERROR
Papal Infallibility-error

Wrong on both counts.

Immaculate Conception…taught in Luke 1, especially in the meaning of the Greek, not to mention the consistent teaching of the Church (especially the eastern Church) which is verifiable in history.

Papal infallibility… taught in the commission to feed my lambs and feed my sheep and the promise that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church that Christ founded.

You have yet to provide anything that cannot be supported from the Bible as well as Sacred Tradition and the verifiable history of the Christian faith.

 

[Tomster]

Immaculate Conception -ERROR
Papal Infallibility-error

In case you missed it on the other thread.

Gabriel saluted Mary, 'Hail, full of grace," using that form of greeting in place of her name. As Solomon is called the Wise Man and the Messias the Just One, so Mary is named Full of Grace. Since the sanctifying grace in a soul is proportioned to the love God bears that soul, the grace of Mary, even at the beginning of her existence, surpassed that of any man or angel except the fullness of grace which was in the human soul of Christ.

 

[patrick457]

Have you ever done any research into all the corrupt popes over the last two thousand years?
Look up Boniface viii. Read some comments he made about the church. He was accused of being a sodomite a sorcerer and a heretic.
Clement V Nepotism
Sergius III illegitimate son
BenedictIX
The list goes on and on and on and on
And you say the church cannot teach error?
What about the great schism?
Ever research how many popes have been murdered?
There were some EXTREMELY dark times in the Holy Roman Catholic Church in the last two thousand years.
Do some research and then ask me if the church can teach in error.

Actually just as the other posters have pointed out (and sorry if I repeat the points they have already addressed), you seem to confuse ‘Infalliblity’ with ‘Impeccability’ here.

We say that the Popes are infallible in terms of faith and morals (since they are guided by the Holy Spirit), but we DO NOT say they could not sin. The only one who is without sin is God Himself.

It’s very much like a mango tree. Mangoes grow in a bunch. Let’s say you try to pick a bunch of mangoes and then saw that there are rotten and inedible mangoes in the bunch. Does that make the whole bunch rotten and inedible?

The Apostles usually didn’t understand what Jesus say. One of them betrayed Him for a price. All of them forsook Him when He was arrested. One of them denied Him. When He rose from the dead, they first doubted the bringers of these Good News and dismissed it as nonsense!

 

[newbie1234]

Since you jumped to OT, let me jump with you: Is OT part of your Bible? Who told you it’s part of Inspired writings?

Jesus quoted them often. That is good enough for me.
He also fulfilled them prophetically.

 

[newbie1234]

So the Church cannot make infallible decisions, yet you accept the infallibility of Luther?

You accept sola scriptura as truth–created by Luther

You accept sola fide as truth–created by Luther

You reject the greek old testament on the whim of–you guessed it–Luther

Your bible is seven books short because Luther didn’t like them. The bible was the same since 382AD until the 16th century when Luther to it upon himself to change it. He took away, and even added to the scriptures. He almost tossed out hebrews and revelation too.

I you’re going to reject the authority of the Church then why do you accept the infallible authority of Luther?

By default you’re accepting the authority of “sola Luther” since you accept whatever he thought was and was not inspired scripture.

Hypocritical?

I never said Luther was infallible.
No man is infallible except Jesus.
The Jews don’t include the Apocrypha in their scriptures either.
They are not historically correct.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I never said Luther was infallible.
No man is infallible except Jesus.
The Jews don’t include the Apocrypha in their scriptures either.
They are not historically correct.

They are. In fact, do you know the story behind the Jewish holiday Hanukah? It’s story involve Judas Maccabees… The only account of the of this event is written in the first and second Maccabees.

In fact, the NT quote Septuagint text 2/3.

For reference check out this site.

geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm

The Jews in fact used the Septugint or the Deutro-Books for a long time until the Council of Jamnia which rejected the Septugaint. At the time, the Christians had used those OT texts.

You need to read the history of how we got the Bible. Second the Jews rejected jesus, and the one who reject the Septugint DO not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah.

If you follow those Jews, you might as well reject Jesus.

 

[newbie1234]

The practical way to answer this is to trace how the Bible came about. From the CA Tract on this subject, I say this.

The fact is, the only reason you and I have, say, the New Testament canon is because of the trustworthy teaching authority of the Catholic Church. As Augustine put it, ‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church’ (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5:6). Any Christian accepting the authority of the New Testament does so, whether or not he admits it, because he has implicit trust that the Catholic Church made the right decision in determining the canon.

The fact is that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church over time to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419). You, my friend, accept exactly the same books of the New Testament that Pope Damasus decreed were canonical, and no others.

Furthermore, the reason you accept the books you do is that they were in the Bible someone gave you when you first became a Christian. You accept them because they were handed on to you. This means you accept the canon of the New Testament that you do because of tradition, because tradition is simply what is handed on to us from those who were in the faith before us. So your knowledge of the exact books that belong in the Bible, such as Philemon and 3 John, rests on tradition rather than on Scripture itself!

The question you have to ask yourself is this: ‘Where did we get the Bible?’ Until you can give a satisfactory answer, you aren’t in much of a position to rely on the authority of Scripture or to claim that you can be certain that you know how to accurately interpret it.

If the Bible, which we received from the Catholic Church, is our sole rule of faith, who’s to do the interpreting?
Why are there so many conflicting understandings among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists even on central doctrines that pertain to salvation?

The bible came from God. It is His Word. It would be complete no matter who decided on it’s content.
Since the Roman empire was in power the Holy Spirit used them. A couple of hundred years earlier the Holy Spirit used the Greeks to give us the Septuagint. It is not from man. It is from God.

 

[newbie1234]

OK, Newbie, you opened the door. Show us anythng Boniface TAUGHT. Sodomy is not teaching. No one claimed the Pope was impeccable, or Lord knows we’d have egg all over our face.

Unam Sanctum. No salvation except through the Catholic church.
Proof- The thief on the cross was with Jesus in paradise 300 years before the catholic church was even created.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The bible came from God. It is His Word. It would be complete no matter who decided on it’s content.
Since the Roman empire was in power the Holy Spirit used them. A couple of hundred years earlier the Holy Spirit used the Greeks to give us the Septuagint. It is not from man. It is from God.

The Bible is a collection of Books written by men inspired by God. These books include the OT and NT.

There was no list of what is inspired. It was the Church in the Council of Rome (382 AD), Council of Hippo (392 AD), and Council of Carthage (396) that made a list of the books that was to be in the Bible. They added the 27 NT text. The Church made it final, and this Church was given authority by God to finalized the issue.

Indeed the Bible is the Word of God.

We Catholics believe that the Bible and the Sacred Tradition is the Word of God. These two are part of the deposit of faith that remains unchanged today.

 

[Mannyfit75]

newbie1234:

Unam Sanctum. No salvation except through the Catholic church.

You always use that claim.

Let’s see what the Catechism says.

Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

Proof- The thief on the cross was with Jesus in paradise 300 years before the catholic church was even created.

The Catholic Church was created on the Penecost Sunday when the Holy Spirit came upon the Apostles. The Catholic Church is ancient.

Your Church have no apostolic origin.

That isn’t proof. When the thief died he didn’t directly went to heaven. He said paradise. The gates of heaven was still closed, until Jesus expired on the cross.

Through Jesus’ death, the gates open. For three days remain went to the Bosom of Abraham and preached to the dead. He told them to rise up, and the tombs of the saints open and they became alive. Jesus then took all the saints into heaven, and finally into heaven.

He didn’t say that in that moment.

 

[newbie1234]

In case you missed it on the other thread.

Gabriel saluted Mary, 'Hail, full of grace," using that form of greeting in place of her name. As Solomon is called the Wise Man and the Messias the Just One, so Mary is named Full of Grace. Since the sanctifying grace in a soul is proportioned to the love God bears that soul, the grace of Mary, even at the beginning of her existence, surpassed that of any man or angel except the fullness of grace which was in the human soul of Christ.

The ‘full of grace’ part Lk1:28 was misinterpreted in the Vulgate translation. My three bibles and concordance use ‘highly favored one.’ The term ‘full of grace’ suggests she was sinless.
There is the error. She is not sinless. She needed a savior Lk1:47

 

[newbie1234]

You always use that claim.

Let’s see what the Catechism says.

Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

The Catholic Church was created on the Penecost Sunday when the Holy Spirit came upon the Apostles. The Catholic Church is ancient.

Your Church have no apostolic origin.

That isn’t proof. When the thief died he didn’t directly went to heaven. He said paradise. The gates of heaven was still closed, until Jesus expired on the cross.

Through Jesus’ death, the gates open. For three days remain went to the Bosom of Abraham and preached to the dead. He told them to rise up, and the tombs of the saints open and they became alive. Jesus then took all the saints into heaven, and finally into heaven.

He didn’t say that in that moment.

The OT saints never knew the Catholic church either.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The ‘full of grace’ part Lk1:28 was misinterpreted in the Vulgate translation. My three bibles and concordance use ‘highly favored one.’ The term ‘full of grace’ suggests she was sinless.
There is the error. She is not sinless. She needed a savior Lk1:47

no it isn;t.

Chartoo can mean to Grace as in Luke 1:28 and Eph. 1:6, provided we understand that this grace is endowed by God…" [The Pocket Word Study of the New Testament, Atlanta Ga., Bernard & Brothers publishing, 1982, pg 348]

“Chartoo…Highly favored as in Luke 1:28 meaning to bestow grace upon…it really does not mean to show favor, but to give grace to” [Lexicon To The Old and New Testaments, edited by Spiros Zodhiates, TH.D, 1988 Iowa Falls, Iowa, World Bible Publications Inc.Pg. 1739]

"The fifth century scholar Jerome was correct in translating the Greek to gratiae plena ‘full of grace’, even the translators of 1611 King James Version show there approval of this in the Margin with “Much Graced” [A Look at the Greek Scriptures, 1984, New York, Garretson Cox & Company Pg. 123 ]

“Chartoo: Grace. To Grace… as to the virgin Mary in Luke 1:28,… as in Eph. 1:6 were believers are said to be “accepted in the beloved” i.e., objects of Grace” [The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament, copyright 1992, printed by AMG International, Inc. Pg. 1471]

“Luke 1:28 This is all one word in Greek kecharitomene a perfect passive participle of the verb Chartoo (only here and Eph. 1:6)… Abbott- Smith defines Chartoo as follows endow with charis i.e. 1. (a.) to make graceful; (b.) to endure with Grace (i.e. Devine favor)” [Word Meaning in the New Testament, copyright 1986, printed by Henndrickson Publishing, edited by Ralph Earle Pg. 52]

“0 favored one (kecharitomene). angel’s address of Mary marks her out recipient of God’s special grace (BAG BDAG, 1081). For Luke, she is a model beneficiary of God’s grace (1:48). The: other use of this verb in the NT Ephesians 1:6. [charitoo]” [The Bible Knowledge Key Word Study, copyright 2002, printed Victor Publishing, edited by Darrell L. Bock, Pg. 180]

“…Highly favored as in Luke 1:28 meaning to bestow grace upon…it really does not mean to show favor, but to give grace to” [Lexical Aides To the New Testament, copyright 1992, printed by AMG International, Inc., p. 966]

"Chartoo. . . kecharitomene, full of grace, Luke, i. 28 (RV. in margin, endued with grace) "[Greek- English Lexicon to the New Testament, by W.J. Hickie M.A, 1945, p. 208]

“Chartoo to bestow grace upon, Lk 1:28 Ep 1:6”[The New Englishman’s Greek Concordance and Lexicon, by Wigram - Green, 1982, p. 915]

“28. kecharitomene… to bestow grace” [A Linguistic Key To The New Testament, copyright 1970, printed by Zondervan Publishing House, edited by Cleon L. Rogers, Jr. Vol. 1, Pg. 140]

“endue with grace” [A Pocket Lexicon To The Greek New Testament, by Alexander Souter M.A., 1946, P. 281]

“28. kecharitomene… to bestow grace” " [The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key To The New Testament, copyright 1998, printed by Zondervan Publishing House, edited by Cleon L. Rogers III , Pg. 108]

“Chartoo. . . to endue with grace… : Lk 1:28, Eph 1:6” [A Manual Lexicon of the New Testament, by G Abbott- Smith D.D, D.C.L., 1929, p. 480]

“Chartoo: akin to A., to endow with charis, primarily signified to make graceful or gracious… Luke I:28 ‘Highly favoured’ (Marg., ‘endued with grace’)” [Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, [unabridged edition], by W. E. VINE, printed by Riverside Book and Bible House, Pg. 424]

 

[Mannyfit75]

The OT saints never knew the Catholic church either.

Jesus established the Catholic Church. They knew Jesus, and they would establish a New Kingdom. “Upon this Rock, I will build My Church.” Those are Jesus’ Word.

The OT contains hidden truths about the Coming Messiah. The NT fulfilled the OT. The Church is the One Church that Jesus build.

He is also the head of the Catholic Church. It is truth, they didn’t know the Catholic Church because Jesus had not yet come yet.

Jesus left us the Apostles to build his Church, and when the Apostles died they pass their authority to the bishops, we have today which is found in the Orthodox as well as Catholic Church.