What in Catholic Tradition contradicts the Bible?

[Tom]

I’m not quite sure how to answer. The references are from an anti-Catholic book, written by an anti-Catholic author, claiming unsupported “facts” which we’re simply to accept? If they were in fact forgeries, and a person were to believe they were not in fact legitimate, why would that person quote them as a source? I’ve read about the supposed forgeries and don’t put any credence in them, sorry. The fact that I can’t find any reference to this in the Vatican library makes me feel the “forgeries” are forgeries.

 

[Shibboleth]

Here I found more on the issue.

I suppose they go hand in hand with the Forgery of the Donation of Constantine.

newadvent.org/cathen/05773a.htm

Its unfortunate that thise was done.

 

[jeffreedy789]

i’m a convert to catholicism, and have a degree in theology from a baptist university. in the past 5 years of being catholic (and having numerous discussions with protestants about the church), i’ve found nothing that contradicts scripture. the thing that protestants don’t accept about the church is not stuff that contradicts scripture, but stuff that just isn’t in the Bible at all. in most cases the catholic teaching IS touched on in scripture, but not fleshed out (heh heh… didn’t mean that particular pun).

for instance, confession. the Bible DOES say ‘confess your sins to one another and pray for each other, that you might be healed.’ and it says that Jesus gave His disciples the ability to forgive sins. but it doesn’t come right out and say ‘you should go to your priest and confess your mortal sins at least once a year, and anytime before you receive the eucharist’.

so protestants say ‘well, that must mean something ELSE, or the Bible would say it.’

another example is the eucharist. Jesus, i think, was pretty clear in John 6 and at the last supper that He really meant that the bread and wine become His flesh and blood, and that we are to eat them in order to have eternal life. but since He didn’t sit down and actually say ‘look, you’re going to meet at least once a week, and you’re going to bless the bread and wine, and when you DO, they’re going to transubstantiate into my body and blood, and they’ll still appear to be bread and wine (so you can eat them) but their essences (to borrow a word from our friend plato) will have changed into my body and blood, which fulfills the sacrificial system of the scriptures (which will be called the old testament once you get the new testament written), and which will really literally give you eternal life by eating them. so do that. all the time. even every day is good. at least once a week. don’t forget. write this down or something.’ and then it was written down and canonized. if that had happened, protestants would… well, they’d either be catholic, or they’d still practice, and believe in, the eucharist.

as it is, they say that john 6 is metaphorical, and the last supper is symbolic.

that’s the idea - nothing in catholic teaching contradicts scripture - but alot of it is just not in the Bible at all - or is not obviously literal.

 

[Malachi4U]

I forgot to add:

Nothing I have found in the Catholic Tradition conflicts with Scripture. In fact, the Church could be said to be the purist fullfillment of Scripture (Aside from God of course ).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

AlanFromWichita:

Whoa! (Puff! Puff!)

That threw me for a loop. That is so opposite what it sounded like every time I listened to or read Jesus talking about sending a Helper. Is this for real, and if so where can I find out more about it?

Alan

This was a surprise to me as well.

Jesus does send the Holy Spirit to each and every individual Christian. This is the whole teaching regarding baptism.

However, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the charisms, are not equally sent to each and every individual. I think St. Paul describes this.

 

[Tom]

itsjustdave1988:

This was a surprise to me as well.

Jesus does send the Holy Spirit to each and every individual Christian. This is the whole teaching regarding baptism.

However, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the charisms, are not equally sent to each and every individual. I think St. Paul describes this.

thank you for saying what i meant to say… lol. I tried to highlight the “guiding” of the Church.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

the Pope can also mislead people to hell.

Certainly. The pope is not impeccable, and he can endanger the faithfulness of others by his unfaithfulness, just like any other Christian. The charism of papal infallibility, however, ensures we can follow Heb 13:17 and know with absolute certainty that the Pope’s school of thought, as formally and universally promulgated by him and binding upon the faithful, is God’s own.

Heb 13:17 states: “Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

Can this directive be implemented without fear of damnation? Heb 13:17 doesn’t say obey unless you think they are wrong, does it? And whose to say when a subordinate’s fallible judgement is objectively orthodox or heterodox?

Surely in all things lawful, we are bound to obey our superiors. But who is the infallible judge of things lawful? Papal Infallibility is a charism that ensures that we can follow Heb 13:17 by obedience to the pope in all those things he makes formally binding. Without it, Heb 13:17 has a certain element of uncertainty to it, no? Can one be faithfully following Heb 13:17 and find themselves damned for it? I hope not.

I agree with Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman (see below), otherwise Heb 13:17 is made meaningless.

I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biassed. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore **the Pope’s word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience.
**[John Henry Newman, “'The Oratory, Novr. 10, 1867”, The Genius of Newman (1914), by Wilfrid Ward, Vol II, Ch. 26, http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume2/chapter26.html”]http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume2/chapter26.html

]

 

[Tom]

Shibboleth:

Here I found more on the issue. I suppose they go hand in hand with the Forgery of the Donation of Constantine.
newadvent.org/cathen/05773a.htm
Its unfortunate that thise was done.

Shibboleth, thanks for that link. It contains some interesting info. From what I read the forgeries had little affect, they were a commentary on the then current system. Fortunately they did not lead the Church to teach in error. They easily could have.

 

[Maccabees]

Given the extreme doubts to any thing Catholic protestants and secular historians have dug up all the falsehood like the aformentioned donation of Constantine. Yes it was false.
Look the church was looking to further its authority in the state and the world. BIg mistake! All truths can be and have substantated by objective secular historians and relgious historians mainly the catholic church was the church founded by Christ and Peter as its head and the vatican altar is right oover the bones of Saint Pete right now.
The majority of the church fathers have been researched as authentic by protestant authors and secular historians thus the claims of the catholic church as being the authority of Christ Church remains supported. The only thing false is not relgious at all. Mainly that the church is in charge of secular and state matters as well. These things have been forgeries but do not affect the authentic apostloic traditions handed down to the church.

 

[Steve_M]

jeffreedy789:

so protestants say ‘well, that must mean something ELSE, or the Bible would say it.’

As a recent convert myself, I think what you’ve put here is how they have to explaine about a quarter of the New Testament. I don’t say that as a sarcastic number either. There are big chunks that they explain away with, “well it relly means…” When I finally realized that, I decided I might be in the wrong place.

 

[mayra_hart]

the bible actually commands following apostolic traditions. st. paul commends the corinthians for following apostolic traditions(1cor11:2). st paul commands thessalonians to keep them: “so then,brethren,stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us,either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2thess2:15;see also 2thess 3:6). obeying st paul,the church bases its doctrines on sacred scripture and apostolic tradition.

 

[rarndt01]

Purgatory and the assumption of Mary. Neither dogmas are explicitly revealed in the bible.

 

[MariaG]

They are not explicit in the Bible, but neither is the Trinity. The question was not where is it explicit in the Bible, (although I can show you verses for both that refer to those things) but where does Catholic Tradition contradict the Bible.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Good MariaG,

This is Dave Armstrong quote that I think should be taped on everyone’s computer and referred to whenever we get into these show-me-in-Scripture conversations:

Catholicism needs only to show the harmony of a doctrine with the Bible. It is not our view that every doctrine of Christianity must appear whole, explicit, and often, in the pages of the Bible. We have also Sacred Tradition, Church Authority, and an acceptance of the development of understanding of essentially unchanging Christian truths. A belief implicitly biblical is not “anti-biblical” or “unbiblical,” as many Protestants would have us believe. In fact, many Protestant doctrines are either not found in the Bible at all (e.g., “Bible alone” and the Canon of the Bible), are based on only a very few direct passages (e.g., the Virgin Birth), or are indirectly deduced from many implicit passages (e.g., the Trinity, the two natures of Jesus Christ). Likewise with the Immaculate Conception and other Catholic Marian beliefs.

Scott

 

[rarndt01]

What I meant to say was that there is NOTHING in the New Testament that implies that Mary was bodily assumed to heaven outside of church traditional writings. Also the doctrine of purgatory seems to run counter with Paul’s statements that a Christian’s citizenship resides in heaven and to be absent from the body(death of the body) is to be present with the Lord. II Cor 5:9-10

I personally believe the pull of sin resides within our flesh and when we die we become free of our sinful tendencies because we shed our bodies and our spirit is all that remains .I also believe all faithful Catholics go immediately to heaven to be with the Lord and with their relatives who passed on before them. When I read Paul’s epistles I do not come away with the idea that there is any kind of a delay for Christians to be with the Lord at death. That is just my personal take. I know the church teaches otherwise.

                                              Ron from Ohio

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I personally believe the pull of sin resides within our flesh and when we die we become free of our sinful tendencies because we shed our bodies and our spirit is all that remains

So even the wicked, when they die, are automatically holy because they leave their flesh behind? Do the wicked abide in God’s presence too, merely because their flesh is left behind? Or is there something about a wicked soul, even away from it’s sinful flesh that keeps it from abiding in the presence of God? Kinda like the rich man who went to a place of torment, while Lazuras abided in Abraham’s bosom (neither of which were in God’s presence, yet both left their bodies behind).

 

[Maccabees]

Saint Athnasius thought the Assumption was in the Bible.

So that’s not a crazy theory its the same guy who gave us the modern formula for the trinity another alluded to dogma of the church.

There are many things that evangelicals do that aren’t in the Bible yet they don’t question it. Considering they are the ones claiming Sola Scriptura their dogmas supposedly are of absolute suffiency demonstrated in the Bible.
The sinners prayer is not in the Bible to me it doesn’t contradict the Bible so I don’t make a big deal about it.
That’s the way catholics think about their own traditions if it doesn’t contradict divine revelation and their are clues or allusions to it in scripture then its ok.
But we have two different standards of proof absolute proof supposedly the protestant can show us for his church practice . Many times this is not the case.
The catholic does not require this just that it doesn’t contradict revelation and there is somewhere some type or antitype mentioned in the Bible.
The worship on Sunday is alluded to in the Bible but nowehere is this explicitly taught in fact there is far more evidence on worship on Saturday than SUnday but since Catholics just don’t rely on scripture and it absolute prooftext nature catholics don’t have a problem with accepting the Sunday tradition. However Protestants either ignore the obvious nature of the weak scrioptural proof or honestly say that Saturday has a stronger proof text proof. Of course your denying 2000 years of church tradition but since when does that matter when you seperate yourelf form church tradition and rely only on the Bible.

 

[MariaG]

posted by rarndt
What I meant to say was that there is NOTHING in the New Testament that implies that Mary was bodily assumed to heaven outside of church traditional writings.

Nothing that implies assumption of Mary? See Rev 11:19-12:1

posted by rarndt
Also the doctrine of purgatory seems to run counter with Paul’s statements that a Christian’s citizenship resides in heaven and to be absent from the body(death of the body) is to be present with the Lord. II Cor 5:9-10

But what about:

Mt 5:48 be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect
Heb 12:14 strive for that holiness without which cannot see God
Jam 3:2 we all fall short in many respects
Rev 21:27 nothing unclean shall enter heaven
Mt 12:32 sin against Holy Spirit unforgiven in this age or next (implying some sin gets forgiven in the next)

The assumption of Mary is much more rooted in Tradition, but there is the one verse implying assumption. However, as I pointed out, I asked for a Tradition that contradicts Scripture. As Scripture does talk about at least 2 others being assumed into heaven, Assumption is a concept that is Biblical.

As for purgatory, there are a bunch more I did not even post. Personally for me, the one about nothing unclean and without holiness we won’t be seeing God pretty much cinch the deal for me. We won’t simply be covered by the blood of Jesus, but cleansed by the blood.

The verse you cite does not run counter to the teaching of purgatory. I know you are not saying that everyone who dies will go to heaven. But this verse says nothing about those who die going to Hell. Does that mean there is not a hell? Of course not. But those in hell are still absent from the body. If you use this verse to say there can not be a purgatory, you have to use it to say there is no hell, in my opinion.

If you disagree, please tell me more in depth how this verse (2 Cor 5:8-10) runs counter to the teaching of purgatory because I can’t see that. (As I said, it would seem to me to also mean there is no hell if what you are saying is correct.) *Help me see what you see in this verse that means purgatory is not only not explicit in the Bible but runs counter to Scripture. *

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[rarndt01]

You do not understand what Paul said. When Paul said that to be absent from the body and be present with the Lord, he was speaking of what IMMEDIATELY happens for the faithful believer at death. There is NO DELAY. No interim stopping off place, such as purgatory. Paul’s hope and glory was to be with Christ. Also in Romans 8 Paul again asks what can separate us from the love of God? Can death? No. For all those who love Christ and are faithful will indeed be with our Savior when they become absent from their bodies.

Personally, if you want to believe you are going to do time in purgatory, then so be it. I have no axe to grind with you on that. But my hope is heaven and looking for my Savior and my deceased loved ones there, is what I believe what Jesus promises. John 14:1-3

 

[MariaG]

Scripture tells us that Paul’s letters can be difficult to grasp and interpret 2 Pet 3:15- 16. Are you sure you are not the one that doesn’t understand?

What about Scripture that Luther threw out of the Protestant Bible because he did not believe in Purgatory?

2 Macc 12:44 -46 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. but if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin.

This fits with Mt 12:32 which talks about sin being forgiven in the next age.

or 1 Cor 3:15 which tells us that some will suffer loss, but saved as through fire?

The Bible must be interpreted as a whole. The concept of purgatory fits all the verses. Once again, I gave you Multiple verses showing the concept of purgatory, and you have given me one verse with your interpretation of Scripture and one verse talking about heaven. I still don’t see it.

Where does it say we IMMEDIATELY go to heaven?

2 Cor 5:8-10 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. 9Therefore we make it our aim, whether present or absent, to be well pleasing to Him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the thingts done in the body, according to what hea has done, whether good or bad.

And what about this is counter to the concept of Purgatory?

John 14:1-3 "Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. 2In My Father’s house are many mansions, if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.

I am not trying to be augumentative, I am just trying to understand. Immediately is not in the translations I have. Do you have a different translation?