1. Sorry for the long time between posts. I haven't been feeling my best, and I've been pretty busy. Dealing with the illogic, lies, and basic stupidity of Fundamentalists is taxing.
2. This series of posts shows something lying under the surface. If you Google these questions, you will find the exact same list, or one very similar to it. You see, one Fundamentalist writes it, and without checking the facts another Fundamentalist simply pastes it to their website. It goes on and on, a lie believed and perpetuated by people. They never check to see if it's correct, and most of the time they don't even read it (as shown in the many misspellings).
CE 1190 Sale of indulgences (against Eph. 2:6-10). For those of you who don't know, this was a practice of people actually paying the clergy money to have punishment time taken oft from burning in "Purgatory" after their death. They probably weren't swimming in their own gene pool to be swindled so easily, but they were just kept uneducated.
The sale of indulgences is not a dogma. It is an abuse. It is ridiculous, however, to use the abuse of indulgences as a reason not to believe in the Catholic Church. Show me ONE church that has NEVER had any abuses. The answer is you can't. It's unfortunate that it has occurred in the past, but you don't leave Jesus because of the sins of Judas!
That said, the sale of indulgences has NEVER been approved by the Church. It has been condemned, though some (I emphasize some) priests did.
The fact that the questioner uses Ephesians 2:6-10 to try and prove indulgences wrong shows the misunderstanding of what indulgences are. Indulgences assume that forgiveness has already been forgive. All an indulgence does is help relieve the temporal punishment due to sin.
For example, we see David having adultery with Bathsheba and having Uzziah murdered. Even though G-d forgives David, David's son still dies. Even though David was forgiven, there was still a punishment for the sin. So, for the sake of the example, if David had been granted an indulgence then the punishment might have been remitted (all simplistic of course. It's more complicated than that).
Now, this thing about the people being uneducated... that's not really something the Catholic Church could help, is it? We are, however, the ones to first come up with universities and to translate the entire Bible into English first (yes, before the King James Bible).
CE 1215 Dogma of "trans-substantiation" declared (against Luke 22:19,20, Mark 13:21, John 6:35, Mt. 24:23-28, 1 Cor. 11:26 ~ this was truly a case of the idiot looking at the finger!).
This is HILARIOUS!!! At least they actually found a dogma!
All of the verses (except for Mt. 24:23-28 and Mark 13:21) help prove transubstantiation. Fundamentalists love to take the Bible literally and at face value. So let's do that: This IS my body, this IS my blood. This IS a participation in the death of Christ, etc. The burden is on the Fundamentalist to show why this is not True! Silly Fundamentalists...
However, we have early accounts of the Church believing in transubstantiation (that the bread and wine turn into the literal body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ). The earliest (though there are many) was written by Ignatius of Antioch in 110: "I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3). So within the life span of the first Christians! Wouldn't someone have raised a flag that what Ignatius was saying was wrong if it wasn't popular belief?
Now, in regards to the other two verses, we read "then if anyone says to you, 'Behold, here is the Christ,' or 'There He is,' do not believe him. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect—if that were possible." Here's the thing... what does this have to do with the Eucharist? If we are supposed to take this in a similar meaning, then does that mean that Protestants shouldn't point to Heaven and say the same thing, or point to the Bible and say "here's Christ"? No... because that's not what this verse is about.
Even a quick look will see that a specific person or persons are being referenced. That is, it is not pointing to something like the Eucharist and saying here's Christ, but rather a person that says "I am the Christ". As far as I know, the Eucharist has never talked and said "I'm Christ", so the verse isn't even in reference to the Eucharist (regardless of if the Eucharist is really Christ or not).
CE 1215 Confession of sins to priest ordered (against Ps. 51:1-10, Luke 7:48 & 15:21, 1 John 1:8,9).
No surprise, the date is off. A reference is given in the Didache in 70 (yeah, that's right. Within the same century of Christ... also known as 1145 years before the idiot questioner says it was): "Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure" (Didache 4:14, 14:1).
The debate with Confession is not who forgives the sins, because it is always G-d. Instead, it is whether G-d forgives sins through different means. The verses used do not contradict Confession. Again, G-d is the one that forgives us in the Confessional.
But let's look at the verses in support of Confession. John 20:23 "If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven". Hmm, so Christ gave the power to forgive sins to... men? To human men? Wow.
CE 1220 Adoration of the wafer "host" (matzah adoration! Against John 4:24).
Adoration began the moment the Eucharist was consecrated, because adoration can be given even when the Eucharist isn't in the monstrance. John 4:24 refers to G-d, who is spirit. Christ, however, is physical. Furthermore, the verse tells us to worship "in spirit and in truth". Well, the Eucharist is true, so that's check mark one. Furthermore, to give adoration is a matter of the spirit... so that's check #2. Fundamentalists are morons.
CE 1229 Scriptures forbidden to "laymen" (against John 5:39, 8:31, 2 Tim. 3:15-17).
Never. Never ever have the Scriptures been forbidden to laypersons. Catholics must attend Mass every Sunday, where we hear Scripture read. No Catholic, then, is forbidden from Scripture.
What WAS forbidden for a long time were unauthorized translations. Was it for evil purposes or to keep the laypeople in the dark? No, it was because most translations sucked. Would a Protestant was one of their members reading a Mormon translation of the Bible or a JW's translation? Of course not. So, too, inaccurate translations were being passed around at this time that the Church wanted to protect the Faithful from. It is important to note, however, that the first complete translation into English was a Catholic version, not a Protestant version.
What was the main reason that most laypeople were Bible illiterate? Was it because of the Catholic Church? Wrong again! In fact, the Catholic Church actually had some Bibles that worked similar to phone books, where people could go and read them whenever they wanted. Rather, the culprit in this entire affair was illiteracy. What is the point in taking hundreds of tedious hours to translate the Bible when most laypeople couldn't read English (and if they could, they could read Latin... so there was NO POINT!) But, of course, I wouldn't expect a Fundamentalist to know any of that.
CE 1265 Miryam's house moved by angel to Loren to Italy.
How about we get something straight. Apparitions and devotions are not dogmas. In fact, a Catholic can still be a Catholic in good standing and not believe in Fatima or Lourdes. In the same way, one can be a Catholic and not believe in this. Basically, the story goes that Constantine built a church around the home of St. Mary (as Constantine was apt to do with religious sites). Anyway, it was eventually moved, as the story goes, by angels to Italy. The entire thing is moot, however, by the fact that it's not a dogma and is simply a devotion.
CE 1287 Scapular protection decreed (brown cloth talisman with picture of virgin packed with tea leaves proclaimed to contain supernatural powers or 'virtues" to protect wearer.
What? Tea leaves aren't used, and they contain NO SUPERNATURAL POWERS! The Catholic Church has never said otherwise. It is the faith that saves us, not the item itself. Try reading a Catholic book sometime, eh?
CE 1414 "Chalice" forbidden to laity at "communion" (a radical distortion of the Passover Seder, the annual remembrance of Jesus' death).
The chalice was 'forbidden' because of incorrect beliefs about the Eucharist. I have no clue why the Fundamentalist thinks the Passover Seder is the annual remembrance of Jesus' death... it's not. The Passover is Jewish, not Christian.
Of course, this is just another of the many non-dogmas that the Fundamentalist thinks is a dogma.
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
No comments:
Post a Comment