I have read that page as well as the tract "Death Cookie". Although it appears a bit contrived - it does contain a significant basis in truth.
The Catholic Church does have a sortid history, with many unscriptural practices and traditions.
And yes, prior to printing, the scripture most believers had access to were either hand-copied epistles, and the Tora which was maintained by the Jews and thus was not really accessable to the "Gentiles".
One question - why did the "Church" fight so strongly against having a Bible in languages other than Latin? Was it because they really believed that the "unwashed masses" couldn't understand, or was it to protect their power?
Notice how things got really interesting when the Bible was made available for people other than the clergy... For that matter, how about clergy who actually opened up thier mind and took off the blinders placed by the church - who realized that not all the Church was teaching was truth - many paid with their lives.
Also note that the "Church History" the Church (Catholic) doesn't exactly line up with actual historical fact. The trouble came, as I posted before, when the Apostles were martyered - men began inserting their own ideas (actually, this wasn't new - thus the reason for the Bible to give a measure of what is true and of God). What we know now as the Catholic Church immerged - but power and strength do not equate superiority or even right.
Many martyrs came about from the power grab by the Catholic Church. The Church was further corrupted when the church and the Roman Government (and indeed most government of Europe) became basically one. Those who more closely followed the teachings and "traditions" to use your own term, were persecuted and even killed for their adherance to the Apostle's teaching - by those who claimed to be the direct successors to the Apostles...
But I don't necessarily think that this thread is an appropriate venue for a complete dissertation on theological error in the Catholic Church.
"it does contain a significant basis in truth"
What truth do you think it contains? It is an absolute joke! It has nothing to do with being Catholic and everything to do with being a tin foil hat wearer.
"The Catholic Church does have a sortid history, with many unscriptural practices and traditions."
What unscriptural practices and traditions do we have? I'm guessing you have the wrong idea about Catholicism and believe what these silly tracts say.
"One question - why did the "Church" fight so strongly against having a Bible in languages other than Latin? Was it because they really believed that the "unwashed masses" couldn't understand, or was it to protect their power?"
I think you meant to phrase that, "I'm so thankful for the Church that fought so strongly against incorrect translations of scripture that could change the Word of God. Even today we have that same battle. We sure wouldn't want anything incorrectly added or important texts taken away." There, that's better.
"Notice how things got really interesting when the Bible was made available for people other than the clergy... For that matter, how about clergy who actually opened up thier mind and took off the blinders placed by the church - who realized that not all the Church was teaching was truth - many paid with their lives."
It's comments like this that make me think of Democratic Underground. It seems so "conspiracy theory". If you want to give me specific examples of all this hogwash you are throwing out there maybe we can discuss it.
"Also note that the "Church History" the Church (Catholic) doesn't exactly line up with actual historical fact."
Again, if you want to give me something concrete I'd be more than happy to debate. I don't know what you are talking about here. I notice you use the term "power" often. Being Pope has nothing to do with being powerful. It's generally not a job many men want or compete for. Our current Pope wanted to retire and do some gardening. He is God's servant. Again, it's not about power.
Here is an excerpt I found on answer.com trying to refute the "death cookie" tract. Hope this sheds a little light for you.
This tract deals very irreverently with the Sacrament of the Eucharist that was instituted by Christ Himself.
The basic justification for the Sacrament is found throughout the Bible.
In the old testament, we have the account of the Passover where the spotless male lamb was sacrificed. In order for the Angel of Death to passover the house of the Israelites, the blood of the lamb had to be put on the doorpost and the flesh of the lamb had to be consumed. Only through this command of God would the family be spared!
In the New Testament starting at John 6:22 and running through John 6:71, we see that Jesus says, not just once but four times, that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have everlasting life. This is so difficult to accept that many walk away. But the apostles stay, even though they probably do not understand what Jesus is saying.
Finally at the last supper, Jesus gives the apostles the means to fulfill the command He gave in Chapter 6 of John's Gospel. He celebrates the last supper where He gives us His Body and Blood.
So in the New Testament, we have the sacrifice of the sinless male lamb of God to allow us to passover into Heaven. The parallel with the Old Testament is unmistakable. The flesh of the lamb must be consumed to be saved!
You may wish to walk away from this teaching like those in John's Gospel, but if you are going to walk away, be sure of what you walking away from!