Your Beef with Catholicism

Popeye (and anyone else interested):

I'm happy that I kept looking into it as it seems that I was wrong and it is the RCC that veers from the Septuagint. Here is some more info.

More on the Ten Commandments:

10commandments.biz...

“We know there are Ten Commandments, because the Bible tells us so in three places, He proclaimed to you his covenant, which he commanded you to keep: the Ten Commandments, which he wrote on two tablets of stone (Deut.4:13, 10:4, Ex.34:28).
But there are at least 14 statements of God in the Decalogue, and experts count up to 25 statements of God as it was just shown... So, how do you come out with just "Ten"?...because their division is not fixed in the Bible, so some have to be joined together in order to make a list with the traditional number Ten.
Textually, there may be twelve commandments if one observes only the sentence structure: vv.2-7 show the formula 'you shall not' four times; vv.8-12 are easily divided into two: "remember to keep holy..." and "honor your father..."; vv.13-17 show 6 more "you shall nots."
But they are obviously "ten" in number, hence different methods of numbering them have been adopted, and they have been traditionally sorted into ten groups... and various faiths sort them differently.
The Septuagint is the oldest Old Testament we have. It is a Greek version of the Old Testament that was beginning to be translated around 285 BC. The Masoretic Text was not published until around 1050 AD. The Septuagint predates the Judean Masoretic Text by at least 1000 years. There are manuscripts of the Septuagint from the 4th century AD. Most Bibles today, such as the KJV, NASB, and NIV, translate the Old Testament from the Judean Masoretic text. However, the Septuagint is superior to the Masoretic text. It lists the Ten Commandments in a slightly different order than the Masoretic.”


A Catholic explanation:

“The system of numeration found in Catholic Bibles, based on the Hebrew text, was made by St. Augustine (fifth century) in his book of "Questions of Exodus" ("Quæstionum in Heptateuchum libri VII", Bk. II, Question lxxi), and was adopted by the Council of Trent. It is followed also by the German Lutherans, except those of the school of Bucer. This arrangement makes the First Commandment relate to false worship and to the worship of false gods as to a single subject and a single class of sins to be guarded against -- the reference to idols being regarded as mere application of the precept to adore but one God and the prohibition as directed against the particular offense of idolatry alone. According to this manner of reckoning, the injunction forbidding the use of the Lord's Name in vain comes second in order; and the decimal number is safeguarded by making a division of the final precept on concupiscence--the Ninth pointing to sins of the flesh and the Tenth to desires for unlawful possession of goods.
Another division has been adopted by the English and Helvetian Protestant churches on the authority of Philo Judæus, Josephus, Origen, and others, whereby two Commandments are made to cover the matter of worship, and thus the numbering of the rest is advanced one higher; and the Tenth embraces both the Ninth and Tenth of the Catholic division. It seems, however, as logical to separate at the end as to group at the beginning, for while one single object is aimed at under worship, two specifically different sins are forbidden under covetousness; if adultery and theft belong to two distinct species of moral wrong, the same must be said of the desire to commit these evils. “

Eric - I found the following ccat.sas.upenn.edu...


It shows the different order in which the commandments are grouped. I wasn't aware of the fact that the commandments were so confusing. My question would be about Exodus 20:4 and Leviticus 26:1. By grouping together the first and second commandment, how does that do away with the idea of making images of things in heaven?

Eric - I am trying to understand vicarious or vicar. When I look it up it , there is a big difference in the two. Vicar would be like what you are saying, empowered by God. Vicarious uses the word substitute.

I am thinking that all of the confusion revolves around Simon-Peter. When Christ said that ? was the rock that he would build his church on. I believe Jesus was speaking of the faith that Simon-Peter was given by God, and not Simon-Peter himself. Is this the bases for Vicar of Christ?

I am also having a hard time resolving the begining of the church. Is it considered 300 AD when the first pope was elected or was Simon-Peter the church as soon as Jesus died?

I would like to hear your opinion about the beasts in revelations. I just don't want to argue about opinions. Its just not constructive. I am glad that we can discuss ideas calmly and in a way that should be beneficial.

Popeye,

--Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them (Exodus 20:3-5)--

I believe that the text needs to be understood in it’s entirety, especially when considering how often in the Old Testament we find graven images, including Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant, the very conveyance of the 10 Commandments that we are discussing.

I believe that the message culminates and is encapsulated in ‘Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them’

Eric

Reply to Popeye:

I am trying to understand vicarious or vicar. When I look it up it , there is a big difference in the two. Vicar would be like what you are saying, empowered by God. Vicarious uses the word substitute.

**My answer was in consideration of your asking for a definition referring to the Pope as the Vicar of Christ.

Quote from your question “What is the definition of Vicar or Vicarious? In reference to the Pope being the Vicar of Christ.”

Were you asking do Catholics feel that the Pope is a substitute for Jesus? The answer to that would be no. Please let me know if I’m not understanding you properly.**



I am thinking that all of the confusion revolves around Simon-Peter. When Christ said that ? was the rock that he would build his church on. I believe Jesus was speaking of the faith that Simon-Peter was given by God, and not Simon-Peter himself. Is this the bases for Vicar of Christ?

**Catholics believe that Simon-Peter was the first Vicar of Christ and that position has been passed down to each successive Pope. Catholics believe that Jesus was creating a steward for his Church. Again, please let me know if that does not answer your question.**

I am also having a hard time resolving the begining of the church. Is it considered 300 AD when the first pope was elected or was Simon-Peter the church as soon as Jesus died?

**I’m not sure on the answer to this. I believe that it works out that Peter was the first Pope, but the Church started at Pentecost, but I am absolutely not sure on that and I will check.**

I would like to hear your opinion about the beasts in revelations.

**Eschatology and religious symbolism are not my forte, but I will try to gather my opinions in a cohesive form and get back to you asap.**

I just don't want to argue about opinions. Its just not constructive. I am glad that we can discuss ideas calmly and in a way that should be beneficial.

**I agree whole heartedly.**


Eric

Eric - I understand what you are saying about context. I guess it is just a matter of individual interpratation.

With the same idea in mind. Talking about the mark of the beast. Do you believe that it is O.K. to accept the mark as long as you don't also at the same time worship the beast?

No, absolutely not. That would be making an accommodation with evil. I don't know what the ramifications would be if someone took it unknowingly or against their will (if it is a physical marking), but to willingly and knowingly take the mark would be unacceptable.

Eric

Originally posted by EricD
dbrandt,

Hello and thanks for posting! Can you please let me know what you consider that truth about salvation and how that differs from Catholic teaching?

Salvation is by faith/trust/acceptance in Jesus completed work on the cross for the forgiveness of sin. It is an individual decision each must choose to accept or reject, to receive the forgiveness found only in Jesus Christ. It is a decision of the mind and will to receive Him by faith.

The catholic church teaches that a person "receives" Jesus by eating Him at the mass in the eucharist. That wafer doesn't become Jesus, it's flour that is being eaten, and does nothing to save a person. No one gets saved this way and millions are and have been deceived into believing this.

I was born and baptised into Catholicism, went to parochial school where Atilla the Nun tutored me in the finer points of that system of error. When I reached "the age of reason" I rebelled and studied the religion comparing it to what the bible actually says (even allowing for incorrect translations) only to finally present many uncomfortable and well-documented facts about Catholicism. While I have nothing whatsoever against Catholics, I have a great deal against the system of Catholicism. It is the whore of Babylon (making all denominations "daughters of the whore").

1) The well-known Roman Catholic, Monsignor Capel listed 62 titles for the pope: Most Divine of all Heads/Holy Father of Fathers/Pontiff Supreme over all Prelates/Christ by Unction!/Key-Bearer of the Kingdom of Heaven/Vicar of Christ/ Head of all the Holy Churches/Chief of the Universal Church/Ruler of the House of the Lord/Apostolic Lord and Father of Fathers/Infallible Pope, etc. (No pope has chastised or shyed away from accepting these blasphemous titles)

2) Pope Boniface VIII gave a decree: "We declare, say, define, pronounce it necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff."

3) Pope Gregory VII (year 1063) said (referring to Gen. 1:16): "God made 2 great lights in the firmament of heaven; the greater light to rule the day and the less to rule the night; both great, but one the greater. 'In the firmament of heaven', that is, the universal church, 'God made 2 great lights'; that is, he instituted 2 dignitaries, which are the pontifical authority and the regal power; but that which presides over the day, that is, the spiritual, is the greater; but that which presides over carnal things is the less; for as the sun differs from the moon, so do popes differ from kings."

4) Referring to the reign of Leo X, the fifth session of the Council of Lateran said: "Weep not, daughter of Zion, for behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David: behold, God hath raised thee up a savior."

5) The Ferraris' Ecclesiastical Dictionary, the word "papa" (pope) is described: "The pope is of such dignity and highness that he is not simply a man but, as it were, God, and the vicar [representative] of God....He is of such great dignity and power that he occupies one and the same tribunal with Christ; so that whatsoever the pope does seems to proceed from the mouth of God...The pope is, as it were, God on earth, the only prince of the faithful of Christ...The pope is of so great authority and power that he can modify, declare or interpret the divine law. The pope can sometimes counteract the divine law by limiting, explaining, etc."
(He shall think to change times and laws."-Dan. 7:25)

These and many, many more examples of just the blasphemy that popes throughout the ages have wallowed in with egomaniacal narcissism could be shown but I'll let these suffice for now and move on to the other aspects of "my beef with Catholicism".

1) Catholicism is responsible for that horrible, injurious and patently false doctrine of hell and purgatory. Antonius wrote: "In regard to the fishes in the sea (psalm 8), because, as the fishes are continually agitated by the waves of the sea, so those in purgatory are continually exercised by the afflictions of punishment, God hath subjected to the pope also the fishes of the sea, that is, those who are in purgatory, to relieve them by indulgences." (Indulgences were a form of revenue gathering).

2) Pope Nicholas: "It is to be presumed that the bishop of that church (the pope himself) is always good and holy. Yea, though he fall into homicide or adultery, he may sin, but yet he canot be accused, but rather excused by the nurders of Samson, the thefts of the Hebrews, etc. ..I am able to do almost all that God can do. In all things that I list my will is to stand for reason, for I am able by the law to dispense above the law, and of wrong to make justice in correcting laws and changing them. Wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of man, but of God, What can you make me but God? (!!!)...It is in my power to...dispense with all things, yea, with the precepts of Christ;..."

3) Pope Martin: Do not I, Pope Martin, in my distinction, inhibit the spiritual clergy to be present at marriage-feasts, and also to marry? ....What should I speak of nurder, making it to be no murder or homicide to slay them that be excommunicated?...Also against the canons of the apostles, I can and do dispense; for where they, in their canon, command a priest for fornication to be disposed, I through the authority of Sylvester, do alter the rigor of that constitution, considering the minds and bodies also of men now to be weaker than they were then. (btw, this is when the "F" word was invented. It was an acronym for Fornication Under Catholic something or another.)

If you think these boastful blasphemies are from some long past era and that things are different now, keep in mind the constant claim of Papacy is that its doctrines are unchangeable and that the decrees of its popes and councils are infallible.

4) When a new pope is installed, part of the ceremony is "The Adoration". During the adoration, the newly elected pope, dressed in white, decked out with beautiful and multitudinous precious stones is brought to the altar, he kneels, then with his mitre on his head rises and is physically hoisted up by the aging cardinals and placed on the altar-throne to sit. A bishop kneels singing "Te Deum" (We praise thee, O God). The other cardinals kiss the popes' feet, hands, and face, put a Papal minted coin with the words, "Whom they create, they adore" before the pope.

5) Infallibility of the pope (Ecumenical Council in Rome, 1870). Other popes before this time, boasted of their infallibility but it did not become "official" until 1870.

6) Infallibility of the "church". This error has placed the decrees of church councils beyond contradiction of questioning, either by reason or Scripture, and has made human ignorance and superstition the standards of faith in place of God's word.

7) Proscription of the Bible. Possession or reading of the Bible by the people was considered and treated as a criminal offense. The 16th century and its' advent of the printing press resurrected the Bible from the grave in which Papacy had buried it. Bible burnings by the RCC were common. When Leo X issued a papal bull against Luther's translation something had to be done. The people were waking up, damnit! The RCC allowed modern language translations to be done BY CATHOLIC TRANSLATORS with Catholic notes which were not for the common people unless there was a chance of PROTESTants leaking the info. The Rhemish translation flatly admits this. A note with Mat. 3: "heretics may be punished and suppressed; and may, and ought, by public authority, either spirital of temporal, to be chastised or executed." A note on Gal. 1:8 says: "Catholics should not spare their own parents, if heretics." A note on Heb. 5:7: "The translators of the Protestant Bible ought to be translated to the depths of hell." (Actually, that one's kind of funny. Probably wasn't at the time, though.)

*pauses to suck in a large breath before beginning again* (All the above condensed research and credit goes to Paul S. L. Johnson)

Eric- Link to website with a copy of the Sunday Visitor. Is there proof that the "vicarious fili dei" is a false title?

www.aloha.net...

The above is about the "Dagon Hat". I know there is a lot of controversy on this, but the statement "The Pope holds power over the heavens, the earth, and the underworld" is just way to hard to leave alone.
Is this refuted and denied by the Church?

I thought I would try taking one arguement and, being as factual as possible. Please let me know how to resolve this. To me it is a conflict, and I would be interested to understand the justification.



The Sabbath day is the seventh day.

Exodus 20:8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Exodus 16:26 Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, in it there shall be none.

Exodus 31:15 Six days may work be done; but on the seventh is the Sabbath of Rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall Surely be put to death

Exodus 31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

Encyclopedia Britannica: Saturday – seventh day of the week.

Encyclopedia Encarta : 7th day of week: the day of the week after Friday and Before Sunday.

The Antichrist will change times and laws.

Daniel 7:25 He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, shall persecute the saints of the Most High, and shall intend to change times and law.
Then the saints shall be given into his hand for a time and times and half a time.

The Catholic Church changed the Sabbath
(A time and a law)
"Question: Which is the Sabbath day?
Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
Answer: We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday."
Peter Geiermann, The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine (1946 ed.), p.50. Geiermann received the "apostolic blessing" of Pope Pius X on his labors, January 25, 1910. www.abcog.org...

www.godssabbathtruth.com... additional support.
www.abcog.org... additional support.

If I understand correctly, the whole justification for the church being able to do is based on the following.


13. When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14. And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16. And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

"thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church;"

Isn't thou the same as saying "you Peter" and then he says "this rock". So he is talking directly to Peter, and in keeping with the direct conversation with Peter, he says "upon this rock. This would seem to identify an object or idea that Jesus is showing Peter. Jesus goes on to say that "the gates of hell will not prevail against it." If he were talking about Peter wouldn't he refer to him as an animate object like "you" or "him"?

Wouldn't it make more since if the inanimate object or thought that Jesus was refering to was the "it". "for flesh and blood have not revealed it unto thee" Isn't this faith that Jesus is refering? Isn't God given faith that is the gift God has given his people?

I am trying to make since of why the Catholic Church believes that Simon-Peter was the first Pope. I hope that made some sense.

The doctrine of man's innate immortality. Catholicism, having no originality, "borrowed" this philosophy from the Greeks. If man does not die but lives some other kind of existence after he quits breathing then in what sort of condition is man when he's buried?

Which leads us to another doctrinal error stemming from the RCC-the doctrine of eternal damnation/hell. The writings of Josephus tell us that the Greeks taught of a punishment for evil doers after death. The Greeks were mild in their misguided doctrine compared to what the RCC blew it up to. The whole concept of hell maligns the Creator's character and makes the gospel of a savior seem more like a duty than a precious gift.

Masses for the dead (a fine way to keep the people opening their purse-kill them for heresy and then make the survivors pay for relief in purgatory).

Indulgences as a sort of bribe or bounty to entice volunteers for the Crusades. Not only were your past sins forgiven but any future sins would be offset so that your time in purgatory could be almost bearable. It was sort of a spiritual account book. If you commited sins that were worth 1000 years in purgatory but paid money or served in the "Holy Wars", or served the Papacy in some way, they'd knock so much off your tab. Depending on how much you paid, how much you served, etc. you might get 700 years knocked off your sentence, leaving you only 300 years of unimaginable torment which your survivors might be willing to pay off for you with masses for the dead. If you "overpaid", you could be canonized and become a saint. That's how the king of France became venerated as "Saint Louis". Even today, saying "Hail, Holy Queen" is worth 40 days of indulgence and saying the Litany of the Blessed Virgin is good for 200 days. Have you been particularly naughty? Say the Blessed be the Holy, Immaculate and Most Pure Conception of the Virgin Mary and you get 100 years subtracted from your sentence. Marrying your first cousin was an offense that cost you about $5 grand. Murdering your wife or parent(s) would only cost around $20. Of course, the popes needed some way to support all their bastard children.

Purgatory, image-worship, invocation of saints, worship of the Virgin Mary, prayer for the dead, transubstantiation, celibacy of the clergy, indulgences, mass, pilgrimages, burning of incense, sacred burial, the use of holy water, massacre of Christians, papal mint medals ordered by Gregory XIII to commemorate the slaughter of the Huguenots in 1572. Authorized curses published in the Romish Pontifical for use against PROTESTants, the heretical doctrine of the trinity, infant baptism (which is of no use to the infant and not even scriptural), "confirmation", superstitious "sign of the cross", superstitious "bless you" when someone sneezes, celebration of pagan holydays, confessional, excommunication.

I could write pages on any one or all of these subjects but you didn't ask for a doctoral thesis. Actually, there's quite a bit more (rulers across the knuckles, lol) but I have to get up in a few hours so I'll leave you with a little ditty that cost me about 50 demerits and 2 hours worth of "Hail Mary's".

Get down on your bended knee
Rattle off your rosary
Smell the incense til you sneeze
Genuflect, genuflect, genuflect.

The children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath. Doesn't say anything about Christians keeping the Sabbath.

Petra (Peter) means "stone", not "rock". Fine point of distinction, I know but remember that Peter was not even the head of the church in Jerusalem in his own day. HE knew that Christ didn't mean him when He said, "You are a stone and upon this rock (Christ) will I build my church." And the gates of sheol (death) apparently did prevail against Peter as he was crucified/martyred. Obviously, Peter was not the rock Christ was referring to.

reply to post by EricD


The scripture references given by Eric to Popeye from Exodus also goes on to give an example of what God means by His statement, Exodus 20: 5.
"you shall not bow down to them or serve them;"...
The people were begging Aaron to make them Gods. Exodus 32: 1-5(snip)make us gods, who shall go before us; (snip) ... So all the people took off the rings of gold which were in their ears, and brought them to Aaron. And he received the gold at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, and made a molten calf: and they said, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!"

Quite plainly the molten calf is presented as God. Exodus 32: 8.....they have made for themselves a molten calf, and have worshiped it and sacrificed to it, and said, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!"

To back up a bit to the place in Exodus where God is giving instructions to Moses about building the ark...Exodus 25: 18-22, He requires them to make cherubs and cherubim as decoration for the ark.

Catholics do not believe that the image of Jesus, whether fashioned from stone, wood or a painting is Jesus. We do not know what Jesus really looked like, although most probably he resembled the people of His time and area. The image of Jesus serves to concentrate our thoughts and prayers. The image of Jesus on the cross helps us to remember the great sacrifice of pain and humiliation that Jesus undertook to bring us the glory of Easter Sunday and the resurrection.

Mahree - Just a quick post. I understand what you are saying about conjunctions. My question about that would be about the rules that govern the use of conjunctions and other connecting words. For instance, the words (and) and (nor) are used to make double qualifiers for sinful activity. It's o.k. to make a graven image, as long as you don't pray to it. I hope I have understood correctly. My conflict occurs when you apply this thinking to other parts of the bible. Is it O.K. to accept the mark of the beast as long as you do not worship the beast? It does use the word and. (Accept the mark and worship the beast). I haven't done a complete study, but it seems that because the bible is insprired by God, it would be consistant.

reply to post by popeye0314


Popeye,

I think that I was trying to make the point that it is OK to make an image if you do not believe this image is God or Jesus.

An image being decorations on the ark or statues and paintings of Jesus. Another thought is that Jesus became one of us in all but sin. In other words human nature. My mother has passed, but I love to look at her pictures and remember our life together. I don't worship her picture. I know that the picture is not her. Her picture brings back all of the wonderful years of our life.

In the story related in Exedus, they did believe that the calf WAS God.

Mahree - I understand what you are saying. I am not trying to question your belief or the way you choose to live your belief. If it is your opinion that graven images are O.K. as long as they are not a pillar of worship, that is totaly your choice and right. I am actually trying to figure this whole thing out. Until a few days ago I thought the ten commandments were easy. Everyday I learn something new about what I thought I had already known. Mine are purely of a learning nature. When I read something that doesn't make sense to me, I want to understand how it does make sense to someone else. It seems there is not much black and white in religion.

reply to post by popeye0314


Popeye,

I admire you for searching and asking questions. Once I was in the same place doing the same thing. Then I became a convert to Catholicism. So, yes, I do believe.

I also believe that God gave us an example, the golden calf, to explain what he meant by the statement that we are not to worship idols.

Please feel free to ask any other questions that you have and I will try to answer you as I have come to believe.

Mahree

Originally posted by dbrandt


Salvation is by faith/trust/acceptance in Jesus completed work on the cross for the forgiveness of sin. It is an individual decision each must choose to accept or reject, to receive the forgiveness found only in Jesus Christ. It is a decision of the mind and will to receive Him by faith.

The catholic church teaches that a person "receives" Jesus by eating Him at the mass in the eucharist. That wafer doesn't become Jesus, it's flour that is being eaten, and does nothing to save a person. No one gets saved this way and millions are and have been deceived into believing this.

Wow. I don't visit ATS for one day and this thread is inundated! Cool. I'll try to get to everyones points, but please give me a day or so. I do appreciate the interaction!

Dbrandt,

I'm afraid I'm still a bit confused. Are you under the impression that the consumption of the Eucharist is required for salvation? Or was that a separate point?

Thanks,

Eric

I've had a problem with Catholocism since the ptb iced jp1. 31 days of service and the vatican fire dept gathering a huge 'enlightenment' dumped out of window. Killed by digitoxin. Didn't go with the flow. Vatican bank scandal exposed a year later. Coincidence, I thing not. Then the kiddy violations. Please. How could I continue my allegiance and faith to such a messed up organisation. And I was president of servers at St. Mel in Cleveland Ohio. I just want to puke. I long for the days we attended Latin Mass daily and sang 'Santa Maria'. The dear Lord exists, and he aint happy. Enough said.

Wow, my thread was threatened with expulsion. No foul language of any sort. I must have struck a nerve.