Oh, not again. I have personally refuted this list way toooooo many times!
The earliest version of such a list I know of is on page 210 (unpaginated page actually) in Zacchello’s Secrets of Romanism, 1948 [1958]. I actually have a collection of anti-Catholic books including Zacchello’s. This list has several incarnations and has been refuted hundreds of times online. Here are just a few examples of errors:
“1. Prayer for the dead and the sign of the cross. 310 AD.”
This shows up in Zacchello’s list as “Prayers for the dead. 300”
In any case, both lists are wrong. Prayers for the dead date back to BEFORE Christ as PROVEN by the second book of Maccabees 12. Also, the mindless twit, whoever he was, who compiled this list apparently never heard of the tombstone of The tomb of Abercius of Hieropolis in Phrygia from well before the year 300 which reads, “Let every friend who observes this pray for me.”
But why let Jewish and Christian scripture and Christian archeology get in the way of a good smear against Christ’s Church, right?
“4. The mass adopted as a daily celebration. 394 AD”
Huh? Anyone ever read Acts 2:46? And St. Cyprian mentions daily communion and he was dead almost a century and a half BEFORE 394.
“5. The worship of Mary and use of the term “mother of god”, originated at the council of Ephesus. 431 AD”
No worship of Mary, and the term Theotokos was already used in the third century by Dionysios of Alexandria in a letter around 250.
“6. Priests began dressing differently than the laity. 500 AD”
You mean priests never dressed differently in the Old Testament? Sheesh!
“8. The Latin language to be used for worship and prayer in church imposed by Pope Gregory I. 600 AD”
Fascinating. Zacchello says “Worship in Latin Language 600” Notice that now the list says “church imposed”? Imposed on whom exactly? Was anyone in the Western world offering Mass in any other language than Latin in the Catholic Church in 600? And on whom did Gregory “impose” this exactly?
Anyway, you get the idea. The list is bogus. It is filled with errors and distortions and quite frankly is only believed in by twits who know so little about history or the use of BOOKS that they are easily fooled into believing this claptrap.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Catholic_Inventions.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/More_Catholic_Inventions.asp
the list destroyed!: http://hometown.aol.com/philvaz/articles/num4.htm
and again, destroyed here: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/traditions.html
Thanks for the links.
See there really are useful idiots in the world. I didn’t know about the list before and now I will study your links and use my intellect and reasoning to compare and contrast and I will learn more about my faith.
Oops, I really shouldn’t have said idiots. Let me rephrase. Malicious ignorance can be useful.
1. I don’t consider the Roman Edifice “Christ’s Church” any MORE than I consider The First Baptist of Hootenholler “Christ’s Church.”
2. Methinks there’s a lot of slippin N sliden about the list.
3. Macabee’s prayers for the dead justifies the RC edifice’s? LOL! ROTFLOL! GTTM! What other Pre-Christian stuff is going to be used to justify all manner of silliness on the part of the political RELIGIOUS power-mongering committees in Rome?
Confession time for me . . . I’ve been privately taken to task by a dear sister who rightly enough shredded me up one side and down the other for my flipant catty mention of XX and XY impoverishments of Parochial educationi as I was tweaking back some tweaky RC posts . . . The dear sister noted that men also make estrogen etc. etc. etc.
She’s right enough I’ll just say I’m sorry for using overblown/wrong biology to justfy being catty, flipant and tweaky.
I repent and will endeavor to be more kosher next time . . . at least about the facts!
Thanks for the links!
1. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit. 2. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. 3. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration. 4. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord. 5. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church. 6. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places. 7. The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection...
Etc...
Frankly, any time I see a list as long as that whether a list of "proofs" published by "Catholic Answers" that Peter was the first Pope or this list I am immediately skeptical and can be certain there are distortions and misstatements in the list.
Of course, that doesn't mean the entire list is incorrect. Perhaps you would care to refute it point by point. Or, do you believe the entire list is worthless because there are demonstrable untruths contained in it? Are you one "twits" who believes in the "Unbroken Line of Popes? If so, please name the Pope, and a little history of that Pope, who reigned between 304 and 308.