WHY ROME IS WRONG
Alan Clifford | 3 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBGuK9xVya4
First comment:
"it was only a tragedy in 1:23 the sense that the growing corruptions 1:26 of the medieval Church made the 1:28 Reformation 1:32 necessary"
O ... K .... "growing" ...
"conversion to the Roman 2:05 Catholic Church is a retrograde and 2:08 tragic 2:11 step"
O ... K ... "retrograde" ...
"as affirmed in the doctrinal 2:35 Declaration Dominus 2:37 Iesus in the year 2:40 2000 uh Rome claimed to be the only 2:43 correct 2:45 Church"
O ... K ... "only" ... (to my taste, you seem basically trying to pretend that "John Paul II" was actually a Catholic) ...
1) Was exclusivism part of the "growing corruptions" or do you find it in St. Irenaeus?
2) Is such an exclusivism in principle possible, and are you affirming such an exclusivism for the daughters of the Reformation? Or at least some of them, to the exclusion, very comprehensible to my mind of CoE or equally of CoS?
3) Is conversion simply "retrograde" or is it apostate?
4) Suppose the latter. At what point (if so) did the "growing corruptions" make the Church such that joining it became Apostasy?
5) When you have answered the above, or the applicable ones, how is this consistent with Matthew 28:16—20?
I'll go back a bit and speak out about your use of "popular" ... it nearly sounds as if, on your view, popular Christianity were basically debased, emasculated, incorrect Christianity.
6) If so, is this because of the nature of the case, any century? Or is it so because of the nature of our case as close to the endtimes?
7) If the former, how is this compatible with Matthew 28:16—20?
Second comment:
"the proof is as 3:15 follows first the doctrines of the Roman 3:19 Catholic Church are utterly inconsistent 3:21 with the plain teaching of the New 3:24 Testament the finality of Christ's 3:27 unique sacrifice 3:30 and His priestly intercession according 3:33 to 3:34 Hebrews chapter 9 and 10 rule out the 3:38 sacrifice of the 3:40 mass and a human 3:43 priesthood"
Sacrifice of the Mass:
A) How do you explain "habemus altare" in Hebrew 13:10, if I recall correctly?
Yes, exactly:
We have an altar, whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle
[Hebrews 13:10]
Ἔχομεν θυσιαστήριον ἐξ οὗ φαγεῖν, οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἐξουσίαν, οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες.
1) What we have is a "θυσιαστήριον", a sacrificial-tool or sacrificial-place, altar.
2) We eat from it.
How does this not teach that the act of the priest (see below) is essentially the same as, not just a memory of, the sacrifice on the Cross?
B) How do you explain "clean oblation" and its being "offered" (or sacrificed) in Malachias 1:11?
For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts
[Malachias (Malachi) 1:11]
The first part is not a temporal, but a geographic information. From East to West. It's not about day long sacrifices in the temple, of old, it's about sacrifices everywhere, from New Zealand in the East to Anchorage in the West.
Second, "my name" (the name of the true God) "is great among the Gentiles" ... so, this is about the New Covenant, about the fruits of the Great Commission.
Third, I'll not try to recite it in Hebrew, a language I don't speak, but I'll highlight two words:
| 6999 [e]
muq·ṭār מֻקְטָ֥ר incense N‑ms | 4503 [e]
ū·min·ḥāh וּמִנְחָ֣ה and offering Conj‑w | N‑fs |
6999. qatar
qatar: To burn incense, to offer a sacrifice, to smoke
The first entry in Englishman's concordance is Exodus 29:13, where the burning is not of incense, but of the fat of a sacrificial animal. I wondered why is that not after Genesis 4?
Wait, we also have the other word:
4503. minchah
minchah: Offering, gift, tribute
The first three entries are in Genesis 4, verses 3, 4 and 5.
C) How do you explain Jesus being a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedec, and Melchisedec bringing forth bread and wine because he was a sacrificer of the Most High?
If we only knew of the Eucharist and hadn't heard of the Cross, this would immediately tip everyone off that the essential sacrificial act of Jesus is the Eucharist, which makes the Mass a sacrifice.
As we do have the sacrifice of Calvary, we believe that what Abraham's sacrificing of the ram was, while believing God would provide the Lamb, identified by St. John, in relation to sacrifices in the temple, that the more perfect sacrifice of the exact same Lamb on Calvary is to each Mass, including the first one He offered on the Last Supper.
Human Priesthood:
A) If the Eucharist is a priestly action, see previous, those chosen to make it (and with the last words of Luke 22:19, Jesus did specifically among all disciples chose the twelve to make it), must be priests. Even the persons who are not Christ.
B) Jesus, as priest, is sent of the Father. But He sent men, in a similar way, therefore they are also priests.
And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me
[Luke 22:19]
He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you
[John 20:21]
Third comment:
"the theory of 3:45 transubstantiation is an absurd 3:47 philosophical fiction and utterly 3:51 detrimental to the simple symbolism of 3:54 the Lord's 3:55 Supper"
The theories of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the one person and two natures in Christ appear as absurd philosophical fictions to some who find them utterly detrimental to the simple symbolism of the Kaaba.
Or the simple message of the Shahada.
Or to the usual interpretation among Christ-rejecting Jewry of Shema Israel.
I prefer being detrimental to a symbolic only "Lord's Supper" which did not exist for the First Millennium of the Church. Precisely as I am detrimental to a Kaaba, which was idolatrous when Jesus founded His Church. Or to an interpretation of the Shema, which was that of people who call themselves Jews, but are not Jewss, but a Synagogue of Satan.
"which is a memorial of our 3:58 Saviour's once for all 4:03 sacrifice thus his blood shedding is 4:06 remembered not 4:09 repeated on a 4:11 table not an 4:14 altar"
If it is not an altar, why did St. Paul say it was?
A memorial, I agree. We Catholics agree.
Remembered. Yes, indeed. We have prooftexts for that. For that at least.
And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me
[Luke 22:19]
For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
[1 Corinthians 11:26]
Wait, St. Paul didn't say "remember" but "show"?
A memorial, but not a sacrifice? A shedding of blood remembered but not repeated?
Where is the prooftext for that?
Every prooftext you have for the shedding of blood being remembered is at least equally one for its being remembered and repeated. The shedding may be symbolic rather than factual, but the Blood and the Body, both made invisibly present, but in separate visible elements, are factual and not just symbolic.
The symbolism of "body" (visibly represented as bread) and "blood" (visibly represented as wine) being made present in separate elements (this visibly representing the separation) is by St. Paul qualified, not as remembering, but as showing, the death of the Lord.
"since ministers are pastors not 4:18 priests"
Pastor means shepherd. THE Good Shepherd is Christ:
I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.
[John 10:11]
But we know of Jesus He is equally priest, according to the order of Melchisedec, therefore the pastors or shepherds of the Church are priests.
"his real presence is 4:21 spiritual not 4:24 physical in the hearts of His people and 4:27 not in the Bread and Wine"
His Real Presence is spiritual, not physical ... in some ways this could be understood in an orthodox manner, since Jesus' Body and Blood are here not present after the manner of ordinary physical presence.
It's a miracle possible only for the Spirit of God.
In Heaven, the Blood of Christ is present in the ordinary way, inside the Body. The Body of Christ is present in the ordinary way, inside His body measures, like "six feet" being the proverbial length of a man, and those six feet height, with corresponding width and protrusion cut out six feet and corresponding of the surrounding air, except where He is stepping on ground rather than on air, or sitting in a chair, rather than in air. The substance is measured by it's normal quantity, the quantity (or in modern terms volume) is itself related to the quantity of surrounding space.
In the Eucharist, first we have Bread and Wine, each present in the same ordinary manner. The quantity or volume of the wine is surrounded by a space consisting below and on the sides of the metal of the chalice, and above, of the air above the liquid level. The substance is measured in its quantity or volume, and that is limited by surrounding material substances, like chalice, paten, air.
Then, the word of the Word, spoken by priests sent by the Word, changes things. The substance of bread is exchanged for the substance of the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is certainly six feet tall in the Eucharist too, but those six feet do not touch the surrounding space. They are here not measuring the substance. They are instead present in the substance, one could nearly say wrapped up inside it, like extra dimensions are wrapped up in atoms in string theory, which probably is a philosophical fiction, but Roger Joseph Boscovich may have some surprises there. As the quantity and the qualities of the Body are wrapped up inside its substance, the substance is present in the quantities and upholding the qualities of what was previously there the substance, namely the volume and the qualities of bread. Atomic theory doesn't change this. In microscopy one could discover molecules of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, water, starch. Each would be seen from qualities upheld within their qunatities or volumes, and under each part of the volume, the substance upholding it would no longer be the actual air, water, starch, or the actual gluten or wheat kernel fat, even molecule by molecule, but instead, the Body of Christ.
Only in this sense could "spiritual, not physical" be understood in an Orthodox sense. However, as we shall see, this is not what Alan Clifford meant. The Protestant use of the phrase is reason enough to avoid it, even if it can mirror patristic usage.
... In the hearts of His people ... thank you for "hearts" and not "heart" ... This pretence is pretty absurd coming from a Protestant. You know, the idea that even after Justification we ourselves are totally corrupt. I may enjoy some flower teas, like when black tea is flavoured with roses or green tea with jasmine, but I avoid TULIP T. Now, perhaps Clifford actually adhers to the Black TULIP from Doordrecht, sometimes shortened to Doort. I prefer to avoid that TULIP mania. But if he does, if you do, how is Christ in the hearts of the Christians there present? I thought the idea of justification was just a heap of dung clothed in snow. I thought the heart of even a Christian was "deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked:" as the King James mistranslates Jeremias 17:9 — so how can Christ be in it?
But to us Catholics, yes, we do hope to have Christ, not just on our tongues, not just descending our throats, but also in our hearts. And we do insist that those who have not prepared to receive Him in their hearts commit a sacrilege against Him by taking Him inside their bodies.
"not in the Bread and Wine"
Over clear that the connotations of "spiritual, not physical" are not those acceptable to a Catholic. I have never accepted this. Even while a Protestant, as to justification I was Arminian, as to the Eucharist, I was influenced by Catholicism, and I was Lutheran, I was rejecting Calvinism on both fronts. Martin Luther and his successors in Germany and in Sweden and in Denmark were rejecting your theology on this issue. You are very far from representing the conscience of my former beliefs, on the contrary, part of what drove me away from Church of Sweden was not just wokeness, but willingness to accomodate or be accepting about this view. The occasion on which I learned this may have involved a misunderstanding of Desmund Tutu, but one of the fellow youth in the Kyrkans Ungdom (Church Youth) was trying to "reason" with me with the argument from Zwingli. One which I found absurd, linguistically, even as a Protestant.
We say, the Body and Blood are first in the Bread and Wine or their remaining appearance, and then in the hearts of those that receive them worthily. They are in the bodies, but not the hearts, of those that receive them unworthily. And they are in their bodies too, because they are "in the bread and wine" ...
Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
[1 Corinthians 11:27]
Fourth Comment:
Justification:
Protestants seem to believe in Ephesians 2:8, 9. We believe in Ephesians 2:8—10.
Justification does not depend on previous merits, but leads to ensuing ones.
Mary Mediatrix:
The one mediator of peace between God and Man does not exclude a mediation of gifts from God to particular men, for instance, Jacob was predestined for Glory, but in order to reach that, he needed to be born, and his birth was mediated through Rebecca's prayer.
When we speak of Mary as Mediatrix, we speak of "mediatrix gratiarum" ... mediatrix of the graces that flow out from the Cross.
She started that carreere, on Calvary. She stood on the side of St. Dismas. John stood on the side of the other robber. We are only told St. Dismas was repenting and promised Paradise.
- Alan Clifford
- @alanclifford1337
- No, my friend. Proper Protestants (as opposed to antinomians) believe all the Bible, including Eph. 2:10. Good works are necessary for salvation as the necessary fruit from the root of true saving faith. While they are dutiful to be done, there is no merit in duty. Furthermore, their imperfection rules them out from justifying. Regarding Mary, there is no such role attributed to her in the NT as you claim. Our saviour is the all-sufficient and all-efficient source of all the grace we need. May God bless you.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @alanclifford1337 "While they are dutiful to be done, there is no merit in duty."
Thats' not what the NT states. The servants who did their duty in the parables were greeted with "good and faithful servant" as having merited.
"Furthermore, their imperfection rules them out from justifying."
I never said they justified someone doing them while still a sinner, nor does the Catholic Church.
You have to demonstrate that they remain imperfect even after justification.
"Regarding Mary, there is no such role attributed to her in the NT as you claim."
Two people prayed under God's Cross. One of them was Mary.
Two robbers mocked around the Cross. One of them repented.
Tradition fills in the blanks, the one he one who repented was the one whom Mary prayed for.
Furthermore, does the OT ascribe to Mary the role of averting Jesus' wrath with people who have abused His graces? Yes.
"Henceforth all generations shall call me blessed."
What women are called blessed in the OT? Only four, Jael, Ruth, Abigail and Judith.
In Abigail's case, it was for averting the wrath of King David, who was an image of Christ. Therefore Abigail, being an image of Mary, shows that Mary sometimes stops Christ from spitting a soul out, even if it were a lukewarm one.
- Alan Clifford
- @hglundahl See Luke 17:10 regarding 'duty'. We are saved by mercy not merit, as the Lord's parable makes abundantly clear (see Luke 18:9-14). Calvin also made clear that 'merit' is a pagan idea. We are never without the need of forgiveness (see 1 John 1), even in our best efforts. We are justified by the blood of Christ (Rom. 5:9), justified by his grace (Tit. 3:4-7), never by any meritorious works.
The blanks invented by tradition are fabrications, unnecessary and irrelevant. The Bible is all we need. Yet you people have always persecuted those who say so. So will I celebrate the restored Notre Dame? No. I will remember the heroic and godly nobleman scholar Louis de Berquin (1490-1529) from Artois, the early Protestant martyr who was condemned to do public penance in front of Notre Dame, then burned at the stake. Merlin, the Penitentiary of Notre Dame exclaimed that "perhaps no one for a hundred years had died a better Christian."
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @alanclifford1337 Luke 17:10, first of all, the context is what we shall do in this life, because, as with justification, as with final perseverance, we cannot have assurance in this life.
This does not take away that good deeds done in the state of grace are meritorious.
Second, Challoner, a bishop persecuted in the priests he sent to England, under the tyranny of the Penal laws, made a comment. Here is the text and his comment:
I think not. So you also, when you shall have done all these things that are commanded you, say: We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which we ought to do
[Luke 17:10]
[10] "Unprofitable servants": Because our service is of no profit to our master; and he justly claims it as our bounden duty. But though we are unprofitable to him, our serving him is not unprofitable to us; for he is pleased to give by his grace a value to our good works, which, in consequence of his promise, entitles them to an eternal reward.
You may ask, what promise? Aren't we promised eternal life simply for believing? No, while John 3:16 on its own may give that impression, the rest of John 3 makes clear that the belief is not just as intellectual assent, but also a trust to obey the commands.
Now, you misuse the example in Luke 18, which is again about how we deal with this life.
"Calvin also made clear that 'merit' is a pagan idea."
On whose authority? Was Jesus a Pagan in Matthew 25? Do we find the apostles enumerated as Peter, Andrew, James White, John Calvin and so on? No, Peter, Andrew, James of Zebedee and John of Zebedee and so on! Calvin never heard Jesus say "as the Father sent me, so I send you" (John 20:22).
1 John 1 is not stating that we are always in the state of mortal sin. The Johannine epistles speak of a sin that is unto death and one that isn't.
"We are justified by the blood of Christ (Rom. 5:9), justified by his grace (Tit. 3:4-7), never by any meritorious works."
Do you enjoy the comic cartoon Non Sequitur exceedingly? Catholics do not believe that we are justified by meritorious works. The passage from a state of sin to grace is never by the sinner's merits.
We believe, and insist, merit only begins after justification.
"The blanks invented by tradition are fabrications, unnecessary and irrelevant. The Bible is all we need."
That's contrary to the Bible. When I say "tradition fills in the blanks" I do not mean tradition came later and filled in a blank not only in the text, but also in the knowledge of all faithful. I mean that the knowledge given the Apostles (including him who got Mary for his new mother) is available in Bible and tradition. It's true for the understanding of St. Dismas' conversion. It's equally true of the extensive OT exegesis in typology that Jesus gave His disciples after Resurrection, and of which only glimpses are given in the NT text.
"Yet you people have always persecuted those who say so."
Always? In AD 1000? In AD 500? In those years there was no one who was saying that, except in a certain sense some of ourselves. William of Occam counted this as one of the schools, and it is clear from context that they did not mean what you mean by the same words.
"So will I celebrate the restored Notre Dame? No."
Neither do I. It's being inaugurated by people in communion with the wrong Pope.
Lewis of Berquin died for the wrong faith.
[Alan Clifford took away my reply from under the debate. But not from here.]
Fifth Comment:
No, Queen-Mother of Heaven very certainly corresponds to Her being Mother of Heaven's King.
If Heaven's Capital is Heavenly Jerusalem, Jesus is ruling there as a King of Judah, as a Davidic King.
But Davidic Kings systematically had, as Queens, the Mothers.
You could just as well pretend that Her being Mother of God "turns Her into a goddess."
- Alan Clifford
- Your highly-imaginative thesis has absolutely no NT evidence to validate it.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @alanclifford1337 Oh, you are into NT only? Exclusion of the OT? Exclusion of typology?
The NT is against you.
For these things were done, that the scripture might be fulfilled: You shall not break a bone of him
[John 19:36]
The "him" in the Scripture is actually "it" in the OT translations of it. St. John is referencing two laws of Moses about the paschal lamb, or one and the same law, but stated in two books.
Applying OT matters to the Christian faith in this matter pertains to the perfection of Christian theology as St. Paul tells St. Timothy in II Timothy 3.
But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work
[2 Timothy 3:14-17]
That's true of the Queen-Mothers of Judah as well; howeversomuch Jews and Protestant may dislike this imaginative exegesis.
@alanclifford1337 You also missed my rebuttal about the idiotic pretense "turns her into a goddess" ...
- Alan Clifford
- @hglundahl Voici un extrait d'un de mes livres où je cite Jean Calvin : [...]
- Shortened
- because of language calculated to shock pious ears.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @alanclifford1337 At Cana, the Blessed Virgin did not go past the limits, did not sin.
Proof? Jesus ended up doing as She said.
I prefer to have the debate in English.
I am not French, this comes to an English blog of mine.
I am shortening your own blasphemies against the Blessed Virgin.
As to Queen of Heaven being a plunder from Christ used to decorate Her, well, if He's King, His Mother is Queen. As you note, Calvin is not denying the Assumption here. So, if She is alive in Heavenly Jerusalem, where Her Son is King, it follows logically, She is Queen. This is not a blasphemy against Her Son and it does not make Her a goddess.
Calvin was over sensitive about his knowledge in Greco-Roman Paganism (when it suited him), and as such treated the crime of idolatry after similarities with Greco-Roman Idolatry.
Idolatry should be treated after the Bible. Oh, by the way, Jeremias in two chapters is treating a certain actual Pagan goddess as "Queen of Heaven" and hateful to God. The word used for Queen is there "melkit" ... the word used about the Queen-Mothers of Judah, is "geborah" ... so, Jeremias cannot be taken as prooftext against the Catholic devotion, nor as proof that we "make the Blessed Virgin a goddess" ...
I said, in a parenthesis, "when it suited him" ... in his mistranslation of Matthew 6:7, he went after his own sensibilities, not after some actual knowledge of what the then and there Heathen were doing at their prayers.
"Car elle renie et met de côté d’abord le pouvoir qu’elle pourrait sembler avoir usurpé, puis elle attribue tout pouvoir au Christ seul lorsqu’elle dit [aux serviteurs] de suivre son commandement."
The fact She did tell the servants so is proof She was expecting Her Son to do the miracle. That's the opposite of laying aside Her power as Mother. And as for usurped, no, God had given Her that power by Incarnation. It would seem as usurpation only to a soul as envious as Calvin's.
Sixth comment.
The merits of the faithful.
Where exactly are they presented as a necessary contribution?
If a baby is baptised today and dies tomorrow, he will have done little meritorious works, and none of it fully consciously, he nevertheless goes straight to heaven.
However, once someone is both justified and capable to act with the use of freewill, he will necessarily be doing something. By doing good works, he will not just keep his salvation, but also, on top of keeping it, heap up merits.
If he does no good works, he will sin, and sinning he will lose his salvation.
The idea of sanctification and justification belonging together, that there is no justification without sanctification, is not a question of a bad translation, but of the parallellisms that the NT makes incessantly and systematically between the two.
While Dimond brothers have their faults (Feeneyites, do not adher to the true Pope), they have made an excellent rebuttal against several Protestant Apologists and Theologians who have pretended to make justification and sanctification separate issues.
As to the etymology, justificare is sufficiently unspecific to mean "declare righteous" (i e make someone righteous in one's own esteem, or even someone else's) ... the three instances of justificare in the infinitive, two of them are "declare just" (and that oneself), precisely as the English "justify" ... and even more the Greek δικαιόω could mean more than one thing.
In Luke 10:29 Ὁ δὲ θέλων δικαιῶσαι ἑαυτὸν, it means "wanting to justify himself," that is, declare himself just.
But if in Romans 8:30 ἐδικαίωσεν only means "He declared just" does that mean that ἐδόξασεν only means "He declared glorious"? Obviously not.
We don't have two languages, and in each one word which has one meaning only and they do not correspond, in both, as with "justify", they have a range of meanings. In Romans 8:30 "declare just" would be very much the wrong one. You would say that Romans 4:3 means imputed justice, but ἐλογίσθη, well, impute is only one of a range of meanings.
In Mark 15:28 and Luke 22:37 one can say that being among transgressors was only imputed to Our Lord. But in John 11:50, in Acts 19:27, in Romans 2:3, it means suppose, or reckon. If God supposed or reckoned Abraham just, why would that not mean that Abraham was actually just?
You have also contradicted your view of Christ's body as present in the hearts of his people in the Eucharist by an imputed justice only.
Seventh comment.
"6:12 their imperfection rules them out from 6:15 justifying 6:18 us"
You are arguing against a position not that of the Catholic Church
"our persons and our 6:21 performances alike always require pardon"
That "always" is not in the Bible.
The canonised are a selection of the saints, and Ephesians one doesn't state that saints are only counted in this life.
All the saints that are at Ephesus excludes the saints that are in heaven. But not by the word "saints" but rather by the word "at Ephesus" that being a different location from Heaven.
You can not pretend that the souls under the altar, fifth seal, are not saints, when they are martyrs.
The specifically canonised ones are a selection of them. A selection we invoke for prayer, and a selection we imitate, but we have specifically a feast that implies that this selection is NOT what makes them saints. Precisely as saints of the Old Testament can be saints even without being enumerated in Hebrews 11, a selection of saints by St. Paul.
Eighth comment.
Prayers for the Dead.
It's immaterial whether II Maccabees is canonic or not.
If it's even a historical event in chapter 12, it means Jews were accepting the idea of praying for the dead, before Jesus arrived. And specifically in the school opposing Sadducees, like Jesus did.
We do not see Him reprehend this idea. Calvin was simply wrong in pretending it arose under Rabbi Akiba, or he was tactically and voluntarily wrong.
II Maccabees also in chapter 15 says that saints intercede for God's people, which we also find in Apocalypse 6.
Sacraments.
All seven are found in the NT. For instance, confirmation in Acts 8. Extreme unction in James.
Realignment of commandments.
You do not have textual access to the original alignment.
If there is an alignment in the Masoretic text, marked out, which I doubt, it can easily be the Jews that have realigned, you need not suppose the Catholics realigned.
As to prohibition of idolatry, it's in the first commandment, starting in Exodus 20:2. The prohibition to bow down to them refers primarily to strange gods.
Venerating relics.
An obvious consequence of the miraculous powers of relics. Which we also find in the Bible. IV Kings 13:21.
"breeds 7:49 Superstition other distortions of divine 7:52 truth"
You have no ground for this affirmation other than your prejudice.
To be continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment