Anti-Catholics rarely cite where they get their information about what Catholics 'believe'. Like you'll see below, they'll say that Catholics worship Mary in 431, but what document does this come from? What council or saint declared that Mary should be worshipped?
CE 300 Baptism by immersion changed to affusion (sprinkle).
It was never 'changed'. People can still be baptized by immersion, and the Catechism even says that this is the method by which the symbolism is best drawn out. "Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate's head." (CCC 1239)
It was never changed, the preference just changed. Notice, however, that sprinkling is not mentioned.
Let's also look at the date, 300. This is ridiculous, when chapter 7 of the Didache (late 1st/early 2nd century) mentions baptism by pouring.
All-in-all, there are about 3 lies going on here, the fact that the Church changed anything, that it endorsed sprinkling as opposed to immersion, and the date.
CE 300 Prayers for the dead. (Against Deut. 18 & Yesha Yahu 8).
Let's get this straight, prayers for the dead came first from the Jews. It was a pious tradition to pray for the dead on the day of their death. In some Jewish circles, this is still a tradition.
Deuteronomy 18:10-11 mentions the following as wrong: "Let there not be found among you anyone who immolates his son or daughter in the fire, nor a fortune-teller, soothsayer, charmer, diviner, or caster of spells, nor one who consults ghosts and spirits or seeks oracles from the dead." But what does a Catholic do when they pray to the 'dead' (let's remember that they're not actually dead, but are alive in Christ Jesus in Heaven)? They are not 'consulting ghosts and spirits or [seeking] oracles from the dead'. They are asking those that are in Heaven to pray for them (see Revelation 8:4). Now, if a Catholic asked a saint for secret information, like what will happen in the future, then we might have an issue. This is another example of an anti-Catholic not knowing what Catholics actually believe.
The same applies to Isaiah 8 (Yesha Yahu).
CE 310 Making the "sign" of the CROSS.
What?! When was this made a dogma? Furthermore, Tertullian in 200 spoke of the Sign of the Cross as something that had been established for a while (as if it was common). This indicates an even earlier date for the origin of making the Sign of the Cross.
So, there are two lies here: 1. That the date of origin is 310, when it is much earlier than that; 2. It is a dogma (it's only a pious tradition/practice).
CE 325 Anathema (death) decreed to anyone who adds or changes the creed of faith of Nice. (See years 1586 & 1560).
Again, this ain't dogma! Just a little research would have shown this.
Anathema does not mean death (here's a crazy idea, use a dictionary!). It's more excommunication, or calling someone accursed.
If the author is suggesting that anathema is a creation of the Church, then they'll be surprised to learn that St. Paul does this in Galatians 1:8-9.
I am also assuming that Nice. stands for Nicaea. I have no clue what the dates refer to (possibly the Filioque? If this is so, then the author needs to take a history lesson to find out that the date is incorrect).
CE 370 Council of Laodicea rejects Apocrypha, calls Sabbath observers "Judaizers", worthy of death.
Wrong date again. It's more like 363 (but close enough, I guess).
It's a debated point of what books were included in the decree (Canon 60). Many people believe it was added later as it is missing from some manuscripts. Furthermore, it is only shortly thereafter that two other councils included the apocrypha/dueterocannonical books.
The author hasn't read the canon in question (29), apparently, in regards to the Sabbath. "Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ." What the anti-Catholic thinks is being discussed with the 'Sabbath' is Sunday. But Sunday is NOT the Sabbath. It is never referred to in that way. What the Council is trying to do is raise up and glorify Sunday, the day Christ rose from the dead. However, death is NOT EMPLOYED. Anathema, again, is excommunication.
One can also look at it from a practical point-of-view. Any church has a right to regulate when people celebrate in their buildings. I don't know of a single Protestant Church that would like it if their members started to celebrate on Tuesdays instead of Sundays. Why? Because we worship on Sunday because Christ rose on Sunday. Would this anti-Catholic really object to this?
CE 375 Veneration of angels and dead saints.
What is wrong with venerating angels and 'dead saints' (remembering, of course, that one's soul never dies)? We venerate George Washington and the other Founding Fathers. We venerate our pastor or preacher when we tell him that he gave a good sermon.
But what does it say in Scripture? Well, if we look at Genesis 37:7–9, we see the word worship (shakhah) used to describe what Joseph's brothers, father, and mother do in his dream to him. Is the word used referring to the worship due to G-d alone? No, it is referring to veneration. We say "Your Honor" to a judge, and in most wedding vows we promise to "love, honor, and obey".
Let's review: 1. The anti-Catholic tells us nothing about what the heck he or she is talking about, or where this information comes from; 2. There is nothing wrong with venerating angels and saints, and it is at least biblical to venerate those living on earth (so why not those living in Heaven?).
CE 394 The Sacrament of the Mass
There is no Sacrament of the Mass, unless one means the Eucharist. But the Eucharist was first done by Christ when he said "this is my body" and "this is my blood". For more information about the Biblical basis for the Eucharist, check this out.
CE 431 The worship of Miryam (Mary).
Oh, wait, Catholics don't worship Mary.
CE 431 Miryam "Queen of Heaven" (against Yerme Yahu 7:18, 44:17, 44:25).
Jeremiah 7:18 refers to a goddess Queen of Heaven. Mary is totally human, completely in need of G-d for salvation, and in no way is a goddess. For example, this would be like if someone condemned the current state of Israel because of what G-d said about the past state of Israel in the Old Testament prophets. It's not the same Israel. Just like not everyone named Brett is the same, so too it does not relate that G-d's condemnation of the Queen of Heaven is the same person as Mary.
But that's not all. What these verses are referring to are worshipping the Queen of Heaven. The Catholic Church would condemn anyone if they worshipped Mary.
But what does Scripture ACTUALLY say? Well, we look at 1 Kings 2: 13-21. We see that ancient Israel had a queen mother. She was a queen mother only because her son was the king. What does this tells us about Mary? Well, Heaven is referred to as the New Jerusalem. Christ will sit as the king... why wouldn't His mother sit as queen? It is only because of Christ that Mary is Queen of Heaven. But this isn't a post about the Queen Mother... we'll save that for another one.
CE 431 Miryam "ever virgin" (against Matt. 1:25, Mark. C3, Yn. 22-4).
See here.
CE 431 Miryam "Mediatrix" (against 1 Tim. 2:5, Matt. 11:28, Eccl. 9:6).
Wow... there are a lot of problems here. For example, this isn't dogma. There are only four dogmas in reference to Mary (theotokos, Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virgin, and Assumption).
Priest craft began to dress in "priestly garb".
The garb that the priest dresses in for Mass is based upon Roman cloaks. Therefore, priests have be wearing this since the early Church began.
Also... THIS ISN'T A DOGMA! The Church can change whatever a priest wears at any time. And what does it even matter? This is another thing about anti-Catholics, they come up with pointless attacks that have nothing to do with the Christian Faith.
CE 526 Sacrament of "Extreme Unction".
Funny, because James 5:14-15 mentions the Anointing of the Sick. I guess this anti-Catholic took James out of their Bible.
CE 593 Doctrine of "Purgatory" - by Gregory (against John 5:24, l John 1:7-9, 2:1,2, Romans 8:1).
If one is looking for extra-Biblical quotes about Purgatory, one can look in 160 in Acts of Paul and Thecla, Epitaph of Abercius in 190, or The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity in the year 202 (to name a few).
But as a Catholic, I also look to Scripture: 1 Corinthians 3:11–15 and Matthew 5:25–26, 12:31–32 are just two books.
The two verses used by this anti-Catholic show the misunderstanding of Purgatory. When someone dies, it is forever decided if they are going to Heaven or Hell. No one that goes to Purgatory is going to Hell, and they are all going to Heaven. So the first verse does not contradict Purgatory. The second verse also does not contradict Purgatory, because anyone that is totally clean goes straight to Heaven. The verse in Romans also shows that the anti-Catholic doesn't know what Purgatory is, because Purgatory is not condemnation.
CE 600 Latin language only language permitted for prayer (against 1 Cor. 14:9).
Well, this is a lie. People can pray in their own tongues. Mass was said in Latin for centuries, but then again most people understood what was going on (Latin was a popular language).
CE 709 Kissing the feet of pope is ordered (against Acts 10:25,26, Rev. 19:10).
Date wrong again. There is a reference as late as 523.
It's also funny because the verses don't reference kissing the feet of the person. These verses talk about worship of the person at whose feet someone fell. The kissing of the Pope's feet was not about worship, it was about power.
The kissing of the Pope's feet was not as odd at the time that it would be now. It was not uncommon for people to kiss the feet of the king or other leaders. The Pope's feet were kissed as a sign of his earthly power. Anti-Catholics and (most) Catholics can agree that it is no longer as relevant to kiss the feet of the Pope, as there are other ways to show the Pope honor.
CE 750 Temporal Power of pope declared (against Matt. 4:8,9, 20:25,26, John 18:38).
The temporal power of the Pope is a matter of land, not Faith. It is, as most of these have been, not a matter of dogma.
But let's look at the stupidity of the verses provided. The first, Matthew 4:8-9, speaks of Satan tempting Christ. My question is... so what? What does this have to do with temporal power? The President has temporal power, does this make him evil (I guess that one would depend upon who you asked)?
Matthew 20:25-26 would simply show that the Pope should have relinquished his temporal power in order to better show the humility of Christ. But, again, this is not a matter of dogma. I'll be the first to admit that there have been bad and evil Popes in the past. Even Popes are sinners. But this does not contradict the Catholic Church.
John 18:38 has nothing to do with temporal power, besides showing that Pilate abused his in order to crucify Christ. Again, though, the U.S. senators have temporal power... this doesn't make them evil.
CE 754 Council of Constantinople ordered removal of all images and abolition of image worship.
What's funny is that this isn't a legitimate council. Therefore whatever they had to say does NOT reflect the Catholic Church.
CE 785 Miryam "co-redemptorist" (against Acts 4:12, Ps. 14:7, Israelites/Hebrews 7:25).
Not a Catholic dogma.
CE 788 Miriam "worship" (against Romans1:25, Yesha Yah u 42:8, John 7:10).
Catholics don't worship Mary.
Well, that's the first of 4 posts. I hope you have already seen the stupidity of these anti-Catholic arguments, the lies that are given.
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
No comments:
Post a Comment