Has the Catholic Church become the church that Jesus wanted or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rhamiel

Member of the Round Table
Nov 11, 2006
41,182
9,432
ohio
✟241,111.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
people have become enamored with the Spirit of Korah
he rebelled against Moses and Aaron
Numbers 16:3
3 They assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron and said to them, You have gone too far! For all in the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?”

God opened up the earth and killed those who rejected the authority of Moses


for those who think that the early Church had no hierarchy need to read history
it is hard to find anything more ancient then the writings of St. Ignatius

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
this man learned at the feet of St. John the Apostles who was well loved by the Lord
pay particular attention to Chapter 8
 
Upvote 0

Stabat Mater dolorosa

Jesus Christ today, yesterday and forever!
Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
17,708
8,068
Somewhere up North
✟293,971.00
Country
Norway
Faith
Traditional. Cath.
Marital Status
Single
See Post #56 for an amazing list.

Well...
- “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,010
Flyoverland
✟1,224,091.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Obviously it looks like i am trying to pull the Catholic church down but no! I am trying to 'Pull apart' sections of it that confuse me so that i can better understand them or even dismiss them.
I don't know what you are up to but using that list, which has so many problems it's not funny, is not likely to be the basis for any increase in understanding. The originators of that list have an objective of removing you from the Catholic Church, and the truth doesn't matter very much to them. What you COULD do instead of buying into that list is learn some history, some real history. Most of their one liner 'errors' has a long history and a sensible explanation in keeping with Original Christianity.

Don't you know how to refute #22? They're off by at least 1400 years.

Don't you know how to refute #15? Again, they are off by centuries.

None of this is rocket surgery, but it does take knowing more history than the originators of this list know. The list is in and of itself a lie. Individual items on this list have been answered many times. But the same list has 'helped' many a Catholic out of the Catholic Church. That list is tawdry. And I AM biased against it because I've seen it many times before. It's trotted out by low information anti-Catholic evangelists on a regular basis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rhamiel
Upvote 0

Winken

Heimat
Supporter
Sep 24, 2010
5,709
3,505
✟168,847.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I don't know what you are up to but using that list, which has so many problems it's not funny, is not likely to be the basis for any increase in understanding. The originators of that list have an objective of removing you from the Catholic Church, and the truth doesn't matter very much to them. What you COULD do instead of buying into that list is learn some history, some real history. Most of their one liner 'errors' has a long history and a sensible explanation in keeping with Original Christianity.

Don't you know how to refute #22? They're off by at least 1400 years.

Don't you know how to refute #15? Again, they are off by centuries.

None of this is rocket surgery, but it does take knowing more history than the originators of this list know. The list is in and of itself a lie. Individual items on this list have been answered many times. But the same list has 'helped' many a Catholic out of the Catholic Church. That list is tawdry. And I AM biased against it because I've seen it many times before. It's trotted out by low information anti-Catholic evangelists on a regular basis.

I've been around a long, long time, have never ever seen either of those lists, and I have never heard either preached or taught.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,010
Flyoverland
✟1,224,091.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I've been around a long, long time, have never ever seen either of those lists, and I have never heard either preached or taught.
Good for you. It gets tossed at Catholics all the time. Usually with a "come out from her" advisory. Such bigotry still shows up all too often. Well meaning Catholics and Protestants have dug into how to come to agreement on thorny issues but the originators of this list are just holy hand grenade throwers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rhamiel
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
More valuable than arguing over the specifics of any list with its obvious flaws (as all lists would have, even if the dates were closer to reality; as I've been trying to say about the epistemological assumptions behind such lists, they are no less flawed than the same assumptions made on the part of Roman Catholics that such-and-such a quote from the fathers bears out Rome's unique ecclesiology or what have you -- again, from an Orthodox POV), the Early Church Fathers left us voluminous writings dealing with virtually every topic, and certainly every topic related to these questions on church governance or proper worship.

If we take people like St. Ignatius of Antioch as being coterminous with the apostolic period (which he was, living from c. 35 to c. 108 AD; most historians I've read on the subject seem to agree that Jesus' earthly ministry ended c. 33 AD, and the apostolic churches were founded within 10-20 years of that, e.g., Alexandria c. 46-51, India 52, Armenia c. 30, and so on; St. John, the last of the twelve to die, died c. 106), then his writings can be especially illuminating. His letter to the Symrnaeans, with which I imagine most Catholics would be quite familiar, if maybe mostly in quote form (since this is the earliest recorded use of the phrase "the catholic church"), he writes a bit in how the Church in his day is organized, and it is quite familiar to those of us in hierarchical churches:

"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid."

As we can see from this, the existence of bishops, priests, and deacons in their appropriate roles was known in the earliest Christianity, and this structure still remains at the core of all churches that are hierarchical in structure. What can be argued, of course, is whether or not this means that the RCC is correct in its specific claims regarding, e.g., the Bishop of Rome. As an Orthodox person, I do not agree that they are, so I would say that is not just a question of whether or not it is right to have these things, but whether or not the right understanding is kept by whatever church you are looking at. This disagreement does not change the reality of the structure of the Church as it has existed from the earliest times after Christ (i.e., within the lifetimes of the apostles themselves).

Basically, if the apostles hadn't wanted bishops/if bishops or priests or what have you were truly against the apostolic faith (and they of all people would know), they would not have ordained men to carry on their work in organizing the Church. Yet they did. I think there is perhaps an idea in some quarters, being influenced by an attitude that is against anything that seems too "Rome-ish" (what's the phrase, ABC Christians -- Anything But Catholic?) and is hence viewed as a 'corruption' of the true faith, that these are positions of power over others that necessarily pollute the Church and cause it to need to be cleansed by this or that reformer (in Rome's case, the literal Reformers). This is a very kind of medieval notion of the power of the clergy that probably makes sense in a Western context, but isn't actually borne out in the early Church, which drafted and endorsed canons to deal with these kinds of issues that may arise via the concentration of power in a bishop's hands. I believe it was St. John Chrysostom who wrote that the road to hell was paved with the skulls of bishops, and indeed truer words were never committed to permanence. It is not a call to do away with such positions, however (as they were always present; St. John Chrysostom was himself an archbishop!), but rather a warning of the seriousness of their responsibility to look after the Church and shield it from dangers.

In the case of my own Church, the first bishop ordained by HH St. Mark the Apostle (as we call him in the Coptic Orthodox Church, though he was one of the seventy, not one of the twelve) was HH St. Anianos. He was a cobbler in Rhakotis, the Coptic (ethnic Egyptian) quarter of Alexandria. On arriving in Alexandria, St. Mark's sandal had broken when he was walking around the city, leading him go to the cobbler to repair it. According to our tradition, in the process of repairing the sandal, Anianos accidentally pierced his hand with one of his tools, and let out the exclamation "Heis O Theos!" ('God is one!' in Greek) to mask his pain. St. Mark, knowing the city was pagan, took Anianos' cry as a sign that he might be receptive to the Gospel, and began to preach to him, in addition to healing his hand. Anianos was the first convert to Christianity in all of Egypt, and was baptized together with his household by St. Mark himself. He became the second bishop in the Coptic Orthodox Church tradition, serving from c. 62 to 29 November, AD 83.

Does this sound anything like a man with a lust for power over others? Or did he receive the faith directly from the one who had been taught by the apostles and worked alongside them? And if he could be received without any such 'corruption', why is it difficult to believe that others could, whether in Rome or Antioch or Jerusalem, or wherever?

Granted, the scriptures and the witness of history show us that heresies and other threats would arise in time to challenge and test the Church, so I don't want to paint too idyllic a picture, as we were never promised such a thing in the first place (in fact, quite the opposite; see St. Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians: "For there must also be heresies among you, that those who are approved may be recognized"). But the idea that the very structure of the Church or the institution of the Episcopacy is itself some kind of deviation from what has historically been practiced is flatly contradicted by the first-century witness of the earliest disciples of the apostles. So either the apostles were great at teaching these very same people the theological tenets by which the Church is formed and terrible at everything else, or some people make an improper division between this aspect of Church life and the rest so as to set the Church against itself. If our masters the Apostles taught our fathers to worship the Holy Trinity, the One God, with perfect faith, then how is it that they could've bungled something so badly as to establish leadership out of whole cloth that the very same God who taught them from His holy mouth would've so hated?

I believe that Christ loves those who call others to Him, no matter if their calling is to be a bishop, or a priest, or a deacon, or a simple layman. Everyone has his or her place, and we are all one in Christ Jesus. Conversely, I believe that those who despise those who Christ loves are enemies of Christ, just as all heretics are enemies of God. This is a position with ample support in the writings of the very same early Church, even as today we may argue amongst ourselves what the understanding of "bishop" (or "Pope", in the case of the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church) ought to be, in light of what our fathers have left us. Let us not overlook the forest for the trees here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paidiske
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Just to clarify what/whom, in your POV, are heretics?

Men like Arius, Nestorius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Ibas, Theodoret, and so forth. Those who taught to entice people away from the common faith of the Church that they were entrusted to strengthen and preserve as presbyters and bishops.

In a more general sense, anyone who does not proclaim and adhere to the faith defended at the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

civilwarbuff

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 28, 2015
14,586
7,102
✟606,326.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Men like Arius, Nestorius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Ibas, Theodoret, and so forth. Those who taught to entice people away from the common faith of the Church that they were entrusted to strengthen and preserve as presbyters and bishops.

In a more general sense, anyone who does not proclaim and adhere to the faith defended at the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus.

And what of the later councils?
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
And what of the later councils?

What of them? They do not concern me or my Church, so I do not consider them anything. They are other people's councils, for the Romans and the Greeks and their descendants, I suppose. If they want us to accept them, we say no, and if we want them to drop them, they say no. That's less a statement of enmity on any side and more of a description of life as it is. What more does anyone need to know?

(Is this thread now about Chalcedon? Hahaha. I swear, it's like poison oak: it gets into everything if you indulge the urge to scratch it even though you shouldn't...and just like poison oak, it does nothing but irritate until you learn to leave it alone.)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

civilwarbuff

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 28, 2015
14,586
7,102
✟606,326.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
You know what I am asking but I will lay it out here:
Do you consider those who adhere to councils later than Ephesus as heretics?
I can assure you the term "heretic" is not something I take personally....My DI called me worse than that....
 
Upvote 0

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,742
2,553
PA
✟271,879.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I suspect if someone is looking at the social, political, or economic structure of the Church, disappointment is inevitable. If you focus on the human elements, you will always be disappointed.

The Church was found to save souls. It was founded to make present His one sacrifice so that we could participate in it, and unite our small sacrifices to His. It was founded to make diciples for Him. It was founded to be a beacon of light for all. It was founded to provide a path to Salvation.

Yes, I believe His Church is exactly what He wants it to be.
 
Upvote 0

Erose

Newbie
Jul 2, 2010
9,008
1,470
✟67,771.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I know but the Veneration to Mary is in all probability way outside what was first mentioned in the NT. It has grown massively in every way. I am not saying that is bad as i love Mary (Look at my sig).
Actually not really. First you need to evaluate how those who are heroes of the faith where venerated and honored by the Jews. Abraham, Moses, Elijah and David would fall under hyperdulia among the Jewish people, including during the time of Christ, and at no point did Christ reprimand His brethren for such veneration of their Saints. In fact one could easily make the case that He encouraged it, by Him also holding these men as worthy of veneration and emulation.

Then you have Elizabeth, and how she responded when the Blessed Mother came to visit her:

Lk 1: 39 In the days that followed, Mary rose up and went with all haste to a town of Juda, in the hill country 40 where Zachary dwelt; and there entering in she gave Elizabeth greeting. 41 No sooner had Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, than the child leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth herself was filled with the Holy Ghost; 42 so that she cried out with a loud voice, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43 How have I deserved to be thus visited by the mother of my Lord? 44 Why, as soon as ever the voice of thy greeting sounded in my ears, the child in my womb leaped for joy. 45 Blessed art thou for thy believing; the message that was brought to thee from the Lord shall have fulfilment.

Elizabeth gave our Mother such a high level of veneration, which we to a certain point emulate every time we say a Hail Mary, via the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Elizabeth could not have known unless she was given a divine revelation that our Lord's mother was with child by the Holy Spirit. I'm not sure how much more plain it can be.
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
You know what I am asking but I will lay it out here:
Do you consider those who adhere to councils later than Ephesus as heretics?
I can assure you the term "heretic" is not something I take personally....My DI called me worse than that....

We can say that the Tome of Leo is heretical, and that dyophysitism cannot be assumed to be Orthodox even as many of the Greeks and others take things in such a simple, equational way (the "Orthodoxy = 7, not 3" crowd). The most honest way to put it is that an extreme form of dyophysitism is held to by the Nestorians, who are rejected by every other church (EO included), while the only form of monophysitism that has ever held sway over a significant population was held to by the Eutychians, who were rejected by everyone period (the non-Chalcedonians, as well; read the works of HH St. Timothy II, HH Mor Severus, the letters of HH Catholicos Babken, etc., which are replete with condemnation of Eutyches, his error, and his followers). The EO church endorses a much more moderate form of the former, while the OO church technically endorses neither, claiming instead that -- following our father St. Cyril -- it is Orthodox to speak of Christ as being in one nature, from two (he goes into detail about this in "That Christ is One", which is sometimes titled instead "On the Unity of Christ"; I like that second title better, and it is very well reflected in our theology, as the Ethiopian and Eritrean churches in our communion even name themselves using the Ge'ez word for this, "Tewahedo", meaning "Unified" or "Being made one").

Being heretics, however...well, for one thing, that would seem to imply that the Chalcedonians were ever in the Church to begin with, which is anachronistic, as Chalcedon itself is the event that ruptured the Church. So there were no "Chalcedonians" or "Non-Chalcedonians" until after that sad event, and even then it took a while before the break was finalized (there was the failed Henotikon of Zeno in 482, the emergence of monothelitism as an attempted compromise promoted by Sergius I, the Patriarch of Constantinople from 610 to 638, etc).

More obviously, I would imagine that most Chalcedonians are born into a Chalcedonian church (as I was, and as most Westerners are) and have not studied the matter deeply and come away with a sense that Chalcedon is the thing that defines them as Orthodox or Catholic or Protestant people, because in large measure it isn't. Just as for the Non-Chalcedonians, we waste exactly zero time re-condemning the Tome as we go throughout our day. :) So these are labels of convenience for outsiders that are a shorthand of regarding this or that stance. In our own churches and the prayers we offer in those churches, we refer to our faith and our church as "Orthodox", with no additional qualifiers.

In this context, should I tar all of the Greeks and Romans with practically the worst thing you can call people? Yes, their churches have accepted heresy in accepting certain innovations. Absolutely. At the same time, St. Isaac of Nineveh, the seventh century bishop of the Church of the East (Nestorians) in what is today Qatar/Bahrain (Beth Qatraye), is venerated today by both the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox. So it is not as simple as to say "if you accept this, you are this". This is why I phrased the general part of my reply as "if you don't accept XYZ". The Romans and the Greeks both accept the first three councils, and also accept the fourth council which to the OO contradicts the faith of the first three (Ephesus especially). Of course, they do not see it as being incongruous, but that's not for me to worry about anyway. I read something once about one of their bishops who replied to a question about the heterodox (and this is the word I would use to describe the Chalcedonians instead of "heretical", though it could be argued that this is only different in terms of degree) by saying something like "Why do you worry about them? They have a God who desires their salvation, too, and He will take care of them. Worry instead about yourself"

This is also my stance on the Chalcedonians, even though the bishop would've probably included my Church and its people among those about whom the Chalcedonians need not worry. Yes, Vladyka, you too.

My own priest one said in response to a similar question from one of our parishioners (but about Protestants in general, not about Chalcedon) that the line that divides one from Christianity is not the same as the line between an Orthodox Christian and a non-Orthodox Christian. My faith and belief compels me to say that the Chalcedonians are, by their belief in the Tome and Chalcedon, non-Orthodox Christians, but they're still Christians. And that's much, much better than any non-Christian alternative.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Erose

Newbie
Jul 2, 2010
9,008
1,470
✟67,771.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Alright I have decided to tackle this list for you, which quite frankly I'm not sure why, because most of it is pure bunk if not all of it. But here you go anyway. (Please note my responses are in red, and after the accusation)

OF ALL THE HUMAN TRADITIONS taught and practiced by the Roman Catholic Church, which are contrary to the Bible, the most ancient are the prayers for the dead and the sign of the Cross. Both began 300 years after Christ.
Actually complete false. Prayers for the dead actually started well before the Christian Church, with the Jews. When they started this practice no one really knows, but we do know that it was at least before the Maccabean period as we see the practice in 2Mac. Also the Jews still use a prayer that they claim is older than dirt even today which is called the Kaddish.

The first example of the sign of the cross can be found in Ezekiel 9:4 when God had the man (probably and angel) with an ink well and pen, go through Jerusalem marking the righteous Jews with the mark of Tau, which in ancient Hebrew was written as a "t", upon the forehead.


310 Wax Candles introduced in church
Actually candles were introduced in worship again by Moses in Ex 25:31.

320
Veneration of angels and dead saints
As discussed in a previous post, veneration of the angels and Saints, is a Jewish phenomenon that was carried over into Christianity. Moses, Abraham, Elijah and David all reaching the level of hyperdulia among the Jewish people.

375 The Mass, as a daily celebration, adopted
I'm not sure why this would be an issue. I should point out that the Jews during the temple periods also worshiped daily. Why would anyone have an issue with worshiping God as often as possible? Are we not going to worship Him for all eternity? Priorities are completely strange with having an issue with this.

394 The worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the use of the term, "Mother of God", as applied to her, originated in the Council of Ephesus Not sure why the title "Mother of God" would make one assume that idolatry is being carried out by the Church. The term "Mother of God" actually says more about Jesus than it does His mother.

431 Priests began to dress differently from the laity
Again started with the Jews, way back with Moses.

500 Extreme Unction
Actually it is mention by James in his letter: Jm 5: 14 Is one of you sick? Let him send for the presbyters of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the Lord’s name.15 Prayer offered in faith will restore the sick man, and the Lord will give him relief; if he is guilty of sins, they will be pardoned.

Of course all the Church is doing is continuing to carry out the healing ministry of Christ.


526 The doctrine of Purgatory was first established by Gregory the Great

Actually wrong again. Purgatory is discussed as given fact by folks like Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and St. Augustine, all of whom lived well before 526.

593 The Latin language, as the language of prayer and worship in churches, was also imposed by Pope Gregory I. 600 years after Christ
What an idiotic comment. I guess we should all stop praying in English now and go back to what Aramaic or is it Greek? What?
The Word of God forbids praying and teaching in an unknown tongue. (1st Corinthians 14:9).
And what a stupid attempt for a proof-text. Whoever wrote this list should be disregarded and maybe needs to be check out for utter stupidity.

600 The Bible teaches that we pray to God alone. In the primitive church never were prayers directed to Mary, or to dead saints. This practice began in the Roman Church.
Again a completely false statement. There is plenty of evidence the the Roman catacombs that even the earliest Christians prayed to the Saints and especially to Mary. Others have already point this out in other posts.

600 The Papacy is of pagan origin. The title of pope or universal bishop, was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas. Another ignorant and stupid statement. Pope means "papa" and it has been used for quite some time well before 600 ad., and even if it wasn't it is a title of respect, not a doctrine.

Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion. (Luke 22:24-26; Ephesians 1:22-23;Colossians 1:18; 1st Corinthians 3:11). Yeah, the Bible says otherwise.

Note: Nor is there any mention in Scripture, nor in history, that Peter ever was in Rome, much less that he was pope there for 25 years; Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that "there is no real 1st century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome."
Ok this is really getting stupid. Clement never made any such claim. I guess he thinks that none of his readers would have read the 1st and 2nd epistles of Clement themselves.

610 The kissing of the Pope's feet

It had been a pagan custom to kiss the feet of emperors. The Word of God forbids such practices. (Read Acts 10:25-26; Revelation 19:10; 22:9). Actually it wasn't a pagan custom, but an ancient custom that lasted for several millennia, back before democracy popped up. We even see this level of honor and respect to even the Jewish monarchs. I'm not sure how often or long this custom existed if it ever did. It isn't a doctrine, and so should not be here.

709 The Temporal power of the Popes

When Pepin, the usurper of the throne of France, descended into Italy, called by Pope Stephen II, to war against the Italian Lombards, he defeated them and gave the city of Rome and surrounding territory to the pope. Jesus expressly forbade such a thing, and He himself refused worldly kingship. (Read Matthew 4:8-9; 20:25-26; John 18:38). To begin with... perhaps he really needs to spend some time reading history and the original reasons for the pope doing this.

750 Worship of the cross, images and relics was authorized

This was by order of Dowager Empress Irene of Constantinople, who first caused to pluck the eyes of her own son, Constantine VI, and then called a church council at the request of Hadrian I, pope of Rome at that time.

Such practice is called simply IDOLATRY in the Bible, and is severely condemned. (Read Exodus 20:4; 3:17; Deuteronomy 27:15; Psalm 115). I think someone else has already pointed this out, but the council was called to restore the usage of icons in the East after they were suppressed by the iconclasts.

788 Holy Water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by the priest, was authorized
Really?
850 The veneration of St. Joseph began
Come on!
890 The baptism of bells was instituted by Pope John XIV
The Church has been using holy water to bless objects and people for quite a long time, probably from the start of the Church as the belief that due to the water coming from the side of Christ that water, when blessed has a purifying power. Exorcists say that demons sure the heck don't like it, so that is good enough for me.

965 Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV
Actually he began the formalize the election of (S)aints.

Every believer and follower of Christ is called saint in the Bible. (Read Romans 1:7; 1st Colossians 1:2). True, but it doesn't take away providing a group of men and women known for their high levels of sanctity as models for all saints to follow.

995 Fasting on Fridays and during Lent were imposed So fasting is a bad thing? I guess Jesus didn't get the memo.

Imposed by popes said to be interested in the commerce of fish. (Bull, or permit to eat meat), some authorities say, began in the year 700. This is against the plain teaching of the Bible. (Read Matthew 15:10; 1st Corinthians 10:25; 1st Timothy 4:1-3). Hogwash, nothing more than a myth that has no historical foundation.

998 The Mass was developed gradually as a sacrifice; attendance made obligatory in the 11th century. It was always considered a sacrifice. I guess the uneducated person who made this list doesn't believe that Jesus' death on the cross was a sacrifice?

The Bible teaches that the sacrifice of Christ was offered once and for all, and is not to be repeated, but only commemorated in the Lord's Supper. (Read Hebrews 7:27; 9:26-28; 10:10-14). What is being repeated???



The celibacy of the priesthood was decreed by Pope Hildebrand, Boniface VII

Jesus imposed no such rule, nor did any of the apostles. On the contrary, St. Peter was a married man, and St. Paul says that bishops were to have wife and children. (Read 1st Timothy 3:2,5, and 12; Matthew 8:14-15).
I've already discussed this and won't do so again.

1079 The Rosary, or prayer beads was introduced by Peter the Hermit, in the year 1090. Copied from Hindus and Mohammedans

The counting of prayers is a pagan practice and is expressly condemned by Christ. (Matthew 6:5-13). Again hogwash. I guess meditating on the life of Christ is a pagan practice.

1090 The Inquisition of heretics was instituted by the Council of Verona in the year 1184. Jesus never taught the use of force to spread His religion Which is not what the Inquisition was for, nor did it even attempt to do such a thing.

1184 The sale of Indulgences, commonly regarded as a purchase of forgiveness and a permit to indulge in sin.

A false understanding of Indulgences. The sale of indulgences was never an official Catholic practice, and it was condemned when it occurred. Not saying that it didn't happen, but not by the authority of the Church.

1190 The dogma of Transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III, in the year

By this doctrine the priest pretends to perform a daily miracle by changing a wafer into the body of Christ, and then he pretends to eat Him alive in the presence of his people during Mass. The Bible condemns such absurdities; for the Lord's Supper is simply a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ. The spiritual presence of Christ is implied in the Lord's Supper. (Read Luke 22:19-20; John 6:35; 1st Corinthians 11:26).
Well we can argue this one until we are blue in the face, but Jesus Himself told us that THIS IS MY BODY...THIS IS MY BLOOD. The word spiritual is not found anywhere nor is it implied.

1215 Confession of sin to the priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III., in the Lateran Council

The Bible commands us to confess our sins direct to God. (Read Psalm 51:1-10; Luke 7:48; 15:21; 1st John 1:8-9). I guess Jesus gave the Apostles to the power to forgive sins, for absolutely no reason.

1215 The adoration of the wafer (Host), was decreed by Pope Honorius

So the Roman Church worships a God made by human hands. This is plain idolatry and absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Gospel. (Read John 4:24). It isn't if that wafer is really Jesus Christ, Body, Soul, Divinity.

1220 The Bible forbidden to laymen and placed in the Index of forbidden books by the Council of Valencia

Jesus commanded that the Scriptures should be read by all. (John 5:39; 1st Timothy 3:15-17). The Bible was never forbidden to lay people. Heck the Church has always encouraged the reading of Scripture. The problem was there wasn't many folks who could read, so it had to be either read to them, or taught to them in other ways, such as in paintings, images, stain glass windows, music etc. in other words through the usage of sacred art and music.

1229 The Scapular was invented by Simon Stock, and English monk

It is a piece of brown cloth, with the picture of the Virgin and supposed to contain supernatural virtue to protect from all dangers those who wear it on naked skin. This is fetishism. Poor research again on the function of the Scapular.

1287 The Roman Church forbade the cup to the laity, by instituting the communion of one kind in the Council of Constance

The Bible commands us to celebrate the Lord's Supper with unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. (Read Matthew 26:27; 1st Corinthians 11:26-29). Ok.

1414 The doctrine of Purgatory was proclaimed as a dogma of faith by Council of Florence

There is not one word in the Bible that would teach the purgatory of priests. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sins. (Read 1st John 1:7-9; 2:1-2; John 5:24; Romans 8:1). We can agree to disagree. I think 1 Corinthians 3:13-15 definitely implies the doctrine, and why would we pray for the dead if there was no help for them?

1439 The doctrine of 7 Sacraments affirmed

The Bible says that Christ instituted only two ordinances, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. (Read Matthew 28:19-20; 26:26-28). Actually the Bible doesn't make such a claim. Besides the seven Sacraments are universally accepted by the Apostolic Churches, so I doubt very seriously the OO or EO would have heeded the authority of Rome after our schisms.

1439 The Ave Maria, part of the last

It was completed 50 years afterward and finally approved by Pope Sixtus V, at the end of the 16th century. Ok.

1508

The Council of Trent, held in the year 1545, declared that Tradition is of equal authority with the Bible

By tradition is meant human teachings. The Pharisees believed the same way, and Jesus bitterly condemned them, for by teaching human tradition, they nullified the commandments of God. (Read Mark 7:7-13; Colossians 2:8; Revelation 22:18).
Considering that Sacred Tradition has always been viewed as having equal authority, and that the author of this list is ignorant of what Sacred tradition is, well...

1545 The apocryphal books were added to the Bible also by the Council of Trent

These books were not recognized as canonical by the Jewish Church. (See Revelation 22:8-9). This guy or gal doesn't even have the rudimentary knowledge of the Biblical canon. If these books were added at Trent, then how did the Protestants come to doubt their authority, before Trent?

1546 The Creed of Pope Pius IV was imposed as the official creed 1560 years after Christ and the apostles

True Christians retain the Holy Scriptures as their creed. Hence their creed is 1500 years older than the creed of Roman Catholics. (Read Galatians 1:8). Huh??? Hasn't heard of the creed of Nicaea-Constantinople?

1560 The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX

The Bible states that all men, with the sole exception of Christ, are sinners. Mary herself had need of a Savior. (Read Romans 3:23; 5:12; Psalm 51:5; Luke 1:30,46,47). Never in doubt. That isn't what the Immaculate Conception claims.

1834 In the year 1870 after Christ, Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of Papal Infallibility
I'm beginning to see a trend here. The author has made the error in believing when a doctrine is made into a dogma, it didn't exist before. That is not how dogmas work.

In the year 1950 the last dogma was proclaimed by Pope Pius XII, the Assumption of the Virgin Mary The belief in the assumption of the Blessed Mother is a whole lot earlier than this. There are writings from the 4th century and feast days even earlier in the East that dispute this dating.

Well, that may have been a waste of time, I don't know. The point being is that there is a lot of lists with a lot of false information thrown out there on the web, because the author knows that the general reader is not going to have the knowledge base to realize that that most of what is written is pure idiocy and out-right lies. Whoever came up with this list aught to be ashamed of themselves, and has made themselves look like fools. But this is one of the reasons that the internet isn't always a good thing. The devil uses it more than the angels do.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.