Catholic Church Contradictions

[Earth_is-]

Luke 6:46
Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?

Lord Jesus is the Word - John 1:1. The Catholic Hierarchy claims they came up with the Bible. If this statement is true, then their Catholic Traditions should 100% match up with the Word - King Jesus Christ.

1. Eucharist

13th Session of Council of Trent - Year 1551
Canon 1
If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema.

22nd Session of Council of Trent - Year 1562

Canon 3
If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one; or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema.


Lord Jesus says I am the bread. If anyone does not eat my flesh and drink my blood will not have eternal life. However, Lord Jesus uses figurative language often in his teachings. He called himself the true vine. The door of the sheep. The light of the world. The bread of life. Thankfully, Lord Jesus explains himself what he means by eating his flesh and drinking his blood:

John 6:35
Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

John 6:63
The Spirit alone gives eternal life. Human effort accomplishes nothing. And the very words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Also, we receive Peter's interpterion of what Jesus meant by eating his flesh and drinking his blood:

John 6:68
68 Simon Peter replied, “Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words that give eternal life. 69 We believe, and we know you are the Holy One of God.”

Acts 15:20
Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from ............... consuming blood.

Another massive contradiction against the WORD - is that their Eucharist becomes a daily sacrifice for sins. Not just for the living, but also for the dead. However, the WORD says something completely different:

Hebrews 7:27
Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

So this clearly shows MASSIVE contradiction versus what Lord Jesus Christ says, and what the Catholic religion says. If they came up with the Bible - why do their beliefs not align with the WORD?

There are other topics I can deep dive into. Such as forbidding marriage and eating meat, peter not being the rock, and praying to the dead. Feel free to share this with catholics. You can revise it with your own words if you'd like - or just copy and paste.

 

[FollowingHim]

So this clearly shows MASSIVE contradiction versus what Lord Jesus Christ says, and what the Catholic religion says. If they came up with the Bible - why do their beliefs not align with the WORD?

There are major contradictions, but you seem to be coming up with a strange explanation of why those contradictions exist. Historically, it is very clear how the books of the Bible were chosen, through a succession of published lists followed by recorded church councils. Technically, as these occurred prior to either the Great Schism or the Protestant Reformation, you can say that the unified at the time Catholic/Orthodox church "came up with" the Bible.

Why would contradictions mean jumping to the wacky conclusion that the Catholic church had nothing to do with the Bible, and it was compiled by someone else, despite a complete lack of any historical evidence for that and an abundance of historical evidence for them actually being involved?

Isn't a far simpler explanation just that they're not following it?

 

[MeganC]

So this clearly shows MASSIVE contradiction versus what Lord Jesus Christ says, and what the Catholic religion says. If they came up with the Bible - why do their beliefs not align with the WORD?

Because Catholicism strayed from the First Century church when Peter moved the center of the church to Rome.

The Romans were accustomed to having a god for every purpose. Each kitchen had its very own set of gods! The Roman mind saw the realm of the gods with Jupiter in charge and all sorts of lesser gods performing the jobs that were too much for Jupiter to do on his own.

So the people who came after Peter adapted the pagan Roman mindset and projected it onto their church.

Demigods became saints. People prayed to specialized saints for various needs instead of various gods.

This made Christianity more palatable to the pagan Romans.

The Heavenly bureaucracy and hierarchies of angels and saints also created and inculcated a culture of people who saw big government with departments in control of every human activity as natural.

Which is why socialism and Marxism tend to flourish in places where Catholicism had once reigned. Russia, Italy, Greece, Spain, Mexico, Brazil, etc.,

People like their government to resemble their church. I suppose it gives them comfort.

 

[Earth_is-]

There are major contradictions, but you seem to be coming up with a strange explanation of why those contradictions exist. Historically, it is very clear how the books of the Bible were chosen, through recorded church councils. Technically, as these occurred prior to either the Great Schism or the Protestant Reformation, you can say that the unified at the time Catholic/Orthodox church "came up with" the Bible.

Why would contradictions mean jumping to the wacky conclusion that the Catholic church had nothing to do with the Bible, and it was compiled by someone else, despite a complete lack of any historical evidence for that and an abundance of historical evidence for them actually being involved?

Isn't a far simpler explanation just that they're not following it?

They are also not following it - correct. However, through indoctrination, Catholics teach their members that their church is the one true church, and the very first church. As the one true church - they came up with the Bible. It is my belief that the Catholic Church was never the one true church or the first church. Peter never identified himself as a pope or a leader among the apostles. In fact - he simply identified himself as a servant/slave to Christ and an elder among many elders. He did not elevate himself above the other elders.

From Scripture - the Holy Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. So God gave us the Holy Bible - his Word. So who was the instrument that God used to compile it all together? I do not know, since I wasn’t there. I just know it’s inspired by God.

 

[FollowingHim]

They are also not following it - correct. However, through indoctrination, Catholics teach their members that their church is the one true church, and the very first church. As the one true church - they came up with the Bible. It is my belief that the Catholic Church was never the one true church or the first church. Peter never identified himself as a pope or a leader among the apostles. In fact - he simply identified himself as a servant/slave to Christ and an elder among many elders. He did not elevate himself above the other elders.

I agree. The universal church of the first few centuries had several major centres - Antioch, Rome, Alexandria etc. Rome became ascendent for political reasons (as Rome was the centre of the Roman empire), then Constantinople also became ascendent for other political reasons (as the capital of the Empire shifted to Constantinople), then the great schism occurred. Rome was never the head of the church, this was a title they claimed in retrospect, and the other major centres disagreed and left over it, forming the Orthodox church.

From Scripture - the Holy Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. So God gave us the Holy Bible - his Word. So who was the instrument that God used to compile it all together? I do not know, since I wasn’t there. I just know it’s inspired by God.

But history is clear that scripture was compiled by church elders prior to Rome's rise and prior to the schism, back when the church was functioning more truly as a universal body of believers without a central head. The Bible was compiled by the elders of this early church. This is well documented. These Godly men were the instrument God used to compile it all together.

Why would you reject clear historical documentation in favour of just deciding that you don't know - rejecting knowledge in favour of ignorance?

Furthermore, if you reject this historical documentation, that outlines which books are considered scripture and which are not, what list of books do you consider to be the Bible? The Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox lists, or another list that you've come up with yourself? On what grounds do you think that list is correct, and those books are inspired by God and the others are not?

Unless we accept that the church fathers actually knew what they were doing when they chose the books they considered authoritative - in other words, accept a modicum of early church tradition - then we are on shaky ground when it comes to scripture as we no longer know what scripture we can trust.

 

[Earth_is-]

Furthermore, if you reject this historical documentation, that outlines which books are considered scripture and which are not, what list of books do you consider to be the Bible? The Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox lists, or another list that you've come up with yourself? On what grounds do you think that list is correct, and those books are inspired by God and the others are not?

Unless we accept that the church fathers actually knew what they were doing when they chose the books they considered authoritative - in other words, accept a modicum of early church tradition - then we are on shaky ground when it comes to scripture as we no longer know what scripture we can trust.

I judge by the fruit - as Christ himself commands us. If the fruit of the Catholic Church is false teachings, the mixing of paganism, murdering Christian brothers and sisters - among other bad fruits - why would I trust a single claim they make?

It’s my own personal belief that the early church elders compiled the Scriptures through the Holy Spirit. Who they were exactly - I do not know their names, because I do not take time studying this type of history. But I’m pretty certain it was not the Catholic Church, because of their bad fruit. I do know that God the Father, YAH, is the God of all things. And he placed his Son - Lord Jesus Christ - to have authority over all of heaven and earth. Therefore - who was the instrument that the Son used to compile the Bible - I do not know. But the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob is in full control.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

I find it interesting how Catholics such as Doug Beaumont, agree that the Bible never condemns polygamy. Of course they only do this for their own purpose of trying to discredit the idea of Sola-Scriptura!

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

There are other topics I can deep dive into. Such as forbidding marriage and eating meat, peter not being the rock, and praying to the dead. Feel free to share this with catholics. You can revise it with your own words if you'd like - or just copy and paste.

Simon was called Πέτρος (masculine), whereas it was upon this πέτρᾳ (feminine) that Jesus said He would build His church.

 

[FollowingHim]

It’s my own personal belief that the early church elders compiled the Scriptures through the Holy Spirit. Who they were exactly - I do not know their names, because I do not take time studying this type of history. But I’m pretty certain it was not the Catholic Church, because of their bad fruit.

Well, their names are recorded, and they were leaders in the church, which at the time was universal and had not fragmented into different denominations. It is wrong for the Catholic church to claim they themselves did this, if anyone has a sound historical claim to be the original church the Orthodox have a stronger one. But the history is very clear and we really don't need to speculate.

 

[Michael Moon]

But history is clear that scripture was compiled by church elders prior to Rome's rise and prior to the schism, back when the church was functioning more truly as a universal body of believers without a central head. The Bible was compiled by the elders of this early church. This is well documented. These Godly men were the instrument God used to compile it all together.

Why would you reject clear historical documentation in favour of just deciding that you don't know - rejecting knowledge in favour of ignorance?

Furthermore, if you reject this historical documentation, that outlines which books are considered scripture and which are not, what list of books do you consider to be the Bible? The Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox lists, or another list that you've come up with yourself? On what grounds do you think that list is correct, and those books are inspired by God and the others are not?

Unless we accept that the church fathers actually knew what they were doing when they chose the books they considered authoritative - in other words, accept a modicum of early church tradition - then we are on shaky ground when it comes to scripture as we no longer know what scripture we can trust.

The accurate list would be the 73-book catholic canon in your view then, correct?

 

[FollowingHim]

The accurate list would be the 73-book catholic canon in your view then, correct?

The books everyone agrees on we can be certain are God-breathed scripture - being the Protestant canon.

The books that are disputed and appear in some bibles but not others (including everything in the Orthodox bible and the Protestant Apocrypha, not just the Catholic scriptures) I would also believe to be at least inspired by God, well worth reading and far more reliable than the writings of any modern Christian teacher - but given they are not universally accepted they should be held a little more loosely as they may not be entirely inerrant, the church has had reasons to list consider these separately. Even the Catholics hold these more loosely. But they contain much of great merit - Tobit in particular is valuable when understanding marriage. I would use these scriptures to further flesh out and explain matters that are raised in the Protestant canon, but not for wholly new doctrine.

 

[Michael Moon]

The books everyone agrees on we can be certain are God-breathed scripture - being the Protestant canon.

The books that are disputed and appear in some bibles but not others (including everything in the Orthodox bible and the Protestant Apocrypha, not just the Catholic scriptures) I would also believe to be at least inspired by God, well worth reading and far more reliable than the writings of any modern Christian teacher - but given they are not universally accepted they should be held a little more loosely as they may not be entirely inerrant, the church has had reasons to list consider these separately. Even the Catholics hold these more loosely. But they contain much of great merit - Tobit in particular is valuable when understanding marriage. I would use these scriptures to further flesh out and explain matters that are raised in the Protestant canon, but not for wholly new doctrine.

Would you consider the period of "inspiration" over?

 

[MemeFan]

I judge by the fruit - as Christ himself commands us. If the fruit of the Catholic Church is false teachings, the mixing of paganism, murdering Christian brothers and sisters - among other bad fruits - why would I trust a single claim they make?

And when exactly did this bad fruit started? Before or after Bible book determination?

You can't judge current organization for today's sin and blame them for something done centuries ago. Not the same people.

 

[frederick]

Perhaps it is appropriate to remind all those reading this thread now or in the future that we have the Bible; all 66 books which are agreed upon by most who claim to be Christians, and it is the Word of Truth (cf. John 17:17).

It is by faith that comes through hearing the Word of Truth, the gospel, that sinners are called to life in Christ (cf. Rom. 10:17). Those sinners may have been atheists, involved in a false religion, or they may have been pew sitters in sound churches but no one is saved from eternal condemnation except by grace, through faith, in Jesus Christ.

I myself was an active Roaman Catholic and it was through the truth of the gospel God saved me, so I know God even saves Roman Catholics. All praise to Him for the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation. Shalom

 

[Earth_is-]

And when exactly did this bad fruit started? Before or after Bible book determination?

You can't judge current organization for today's sin and blame them for something done centuries ago. Not the same people.

The bad fruit is ongoing. Pedophile priests are being protected. Pagan symbolism is being used. False doctrines are being mandated. They refuse to remove the serpent inside the Vatican. The current pope has not repented of this. But the book of revelation doesn’t foretell this church repents. But instead it says God’s people should leave it behind, because this church will answer for their sins.

 

[Mark C]

Some here know that I take a firm position that "not one yod or tiddle" of His Word has ever been done away with.

Yet I tend to not argue Scripture with professed 'Catholics.'

The reason is easy. They don't really accept it. The thesis that the 'pope' is the 'vicar of christ', utterly infallible (under their proper conditions), and - as I then put it - has the authority to "call God up on the Red Phone" and tell Him what He got wrong today - means there is no common basis for a discussion.

I.e., what the Bible says about 'polygyny' - or any other subject - is ultimately irrelevant to the roman religion. Like Sabbath, Holy Days, and even what is food (fish on Friday?), it's subject to change.

If His Word isn't the basis for Authority, there IS no basis for discussion.


PS> Yes, romanism is inherently pagan. That is the subject of the Torah parsha for this week.

PPS> It's very much like arguing about the "Constitution" with a statist/RepubliCrat - it's irrelevant. If it's a 'living document', the actual words don't matter. As Prof. Walter Williams used to say, "would you play poker with 'living rules'?"

 

[NBTX11]

Regarding canonicity, I recommend you watch this video by Bill Mounce, who was a translator for both the ESV and NIV.

Canonicity: Why We Have the Books We Do - Bill Mounce | Free

Canonization is the process by which the church determined what books belonged in the Bible (and here we are focusing on the New Testament). Despite the

www.biblicaltraining.org

Bill states that most of what we consider the New Testament canon was recognized instantly by the early church as authoritative scripture. There was no question for these books, and they were instantly recognized as scripture. He cites 20 of the 27 books as instantly authoritative. A few books struggled for a while to get into the canon, but were also eventually recognized as scripture by the church, and that is the 27 books we have today.

He also states, and I agree with, that the church did not confer canonicity on the books, they simply recognized their inherent authority. They were canonical as soon as they were written, but the church took a while to recognize what had already happened.

Bill shows that there are 3 basic tests the church used to determine which books were scripture. First was the authorship test. Who wrote them. Scripture was written by apostles, eyewitnesses, or friends of these. Books written in the second century such as the Gospel of Thomas were not scripture, nor ever considered scripture. Secondly, did the church accept them as scripture. Of the 27 books, 20 were recognized instantly as authoritative, and the other seven were recognized eventually. But all 27 were recognized as canon by the church. Thirdly, do these books agree with in tone with the rest of known scripture. Were they accepted or rejected by the church as scripture. The New Testament apocryphal books were never widely accepted by the church as scripture, nor were the Old Testament apocryphal books accepted by the Jews as scripture. So these are the 3 tests Bill says the early church applied to recognize what God had already done when the books were penned down.

 

[RonHiggins]

wow some people have way way too much time on their hands also why have plenty arguments about this when truly the NFL season is less than 3 weeks away come on dudes

 

[MemeFan]

The bad fruit is ongoing. Pedophile priests are being protected. Pagan symbolism is being used. False doctrines are being mandated. They refuse to remove the serpent inside the Vatican. The current pope has not repented of this. But the book of revelation doesn’t foretell this church repents. But instead it says God’s people should leave it behind, because this church will answer for their sins.

You didn't answer question.

If there wasn't bad fruit when decision what books belong to Bible was made, then choice is valid.

I didn't ask you status of current fruit.

 

[Earth_is-]

You didn't answer question.

If there wasn't bad fruit when decision what books belong to Bible was made, then choice is valid.

I didn't ask you status of current fruit.

I think the catholic church came along after the Bible was already compiled - in one way shape or form. I think all the claims of the catholic church should be questioned due to their bad fruit. Including how old they are. Why trust someone that's known to be deceptive?