that in Roman Catholicism’s view of the Ten Commandments, they split one into
two commands and took one completely out making again, ten commandments.
According to Deuteronomy the fifth chapter, the second commandment is:
Deu 5:8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:
Deu 5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,
Deu 5:10 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.
This commandment is missing in Roman Catholicism’s list. By splitting one of the commandments making two, they end up again with ten. No doubt doing this, many do not know one of the original commandments is missing. If you didn't know that before, you know it now.
another bit of irony. The very definition of ‘iconoclast’ is suited to the
defense of… veneration of icons.
: a person who criticizes or opposes beliefs and practices that are widely accepted
: a person who destroys religious images or opposes their veneration
So an iconoclast is a person who ‘criticizes or opposes beliefs and practices that are widely accepted’, not just those who oppose the veneration of religious images. In other words, if you oppose veneration of images, as the 2nd commandment, the one omitted by Roman Catholicism declares, then you are out of step with ‘widely accepted beliefs and practices’. Who defined this? I see religio-politics at work. Do you think possibly the fingerprints of the RC Magisterium could be on this issue?
The irony increases, the more you read and study scripture.
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
That word ‘rudiments’ means ‘widely accepted’ or ‘the order of things’. As I have mentioned in other studies, there's no real virtue in being "orthodox", as that really only means 'following the crowd'. So Jesus himself... was not 'orthodox' in his day.
Let’s continue with the irony.
In Acts the 19th chapter, the Apostle Paul ran head long in a hornet’s nest when he went to Ephesus, because of the big business selling idols of the goddess Diana. It’s worth it to read the entire part of this chapter that tells us about this great stir:
Act 19:24 For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain unto the craftsmen;
(in other words, big bucks.)
Act 19:25 Whom he called together with the workmen of like occupation, and said, Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth.
Act 19:26 Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands:
Act 19:27 So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.
Act 19:28 And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.
In our modern vernacular, this is called ‘dollar signs’.
Act 19:29 And the whole city was filled with confusion: and having caught Gaius and Aristarchus, men of Macedonia, Paul's companions in travel, they rushed with one accord into the theatre.
Act 19:30 And when Paul would have entered in unto the people, the disciples suffered him not.
Act 19:31 And certain of the chief of Asia, which were his friends, sent unto him, desiring him that he would not adventure himself into the theatre.
Act 19:32 Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was confused; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together.
Act 19:33 And they drew Alexander out of the multitude, the Jews putting him forward. And Alexander beckoned with the hand, and would have made his defence unto the people.
Act 19:34 But when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.
Act 19:35 And when the townclerk had appeased the people, he said, Ye men of Ephesus, what man is there that knoweth not how that the city of the Ephesians is a worshipper of the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Jupiter?
Act 19:36 Seeing then that these things cannot be spoken against, ye ought to be quiet, and to do nothing rashly.
Act 19:37 For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.
Act 19:38 Wherefore if Demetrius, and the craftsmen which are with him, have a matter against any man, the law is open, and there are deputies: let them implead one another.
Act 19:39 But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.
Act 19:40 For we are in danger to be called in question for this day's uproar, there being no cause whereby we may give an account of this concourse.
Act 19:41 And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.
So without dissecting this entire passage, it is clear that the issue regarding this Greek god was a commercial one. Demetrius was afraid it was going to affect his livelihood if it is preached to the people that “they be no gods, which are made with hands”.
Fast forward 370+- years, to 431 AD; the Council of Ephesus.
In the same city of Ephesus, a council of the puppets of the state sponsored religion, together with the emperor who put his stamp of approval upon all dogmas, declared that the Mary, mother of Jesus, was not just the mother of Christ (Christokos) but the mother of God (theokotos), and if indeed she is the ‘mother’ of God, she is queen of heaven. So the ancestors of our dear Demetrius of Paul’s day, carrying on the icon trade, need only to change her name. Mary, instead of Diana. Easy peesy; except for one thing…
The irony continues. I have nothing against this amazing woman whom the Lord chose for such a crucial role in the plan of God for humanity. But she is NOT a co-redemptress or co-mediatoress with Jesus. She indeed was ‘highly favored’ among women, but not to be venerated. If anyone denies that Roman Catholicism claims this, read the collection of quotes of Roman Catholics of the ages that have venerated her as such in 'The Glories of Mary" by ‘SAINT’ Alphonsus Liguori, a doctor of Catholic dogma (online texts can be easily found by google. Here is one of many links.) As long as he remains a saint (can a saint be ‘unsainted’?) this dogma is official. Anyone who has been to a site venerated by Roman Catholics, such as Lourdes France, knows there’s big business in selling icons. It’s more than just a souvenir..
… even though in 305-306, the Synod of Elvira forbade icons. Canon 36 states, "Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration”…. Much more, statues.
So as it snowballed into the gargantuan fable that it is today, if Mary was the ‘mother of God’, she had to have been sinless herself. Those other ‘sons and daughters’ of hers mentioned in the bible must have been step children from another marriage Joseph had, since she remained a virgin and sinless, despite the admission she needed a savior, defrauding her poor husband of a normal conjugal relationship (not quite the example of a faithful wife). And then of course, if Mary was indeed this sinless, she couldn’t have died like every other normal human. Since no one witnessed her ascension into heaven, it is ‘assumed’ it happened. So it’s called ‘the assumption’. Sheeeze. It gets hairier. There’s the sightings of Mary that the infallibles put their ‘yea and amen’ upon. Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, etc. etc. Now we have MESSAGES from the dead … uh, ah, Mary, despite the command against necromancy (Deut. 18:11).
And if you don’t believe all this tommy rot, you too can be anathematized (sent to hell), because, in order to go to heaven, you must believe this, because….
… the irony continues… the ones who made all this up are infallible. These dogmas were pronounced ‘ex cathedra’ which means, there is no error. But of course, we know it is just medieval superstitions and there is no truth to it.
… and here’s the biggie:
… if Roman Catholicism admits these dogmas as error and plain medieval superstition, they have to admit their ‘successors to Peter and the apostles’ were not infallible, and that blows the whole thing. The whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Because it’s the doctrine of papal succession and infallibility that brought reality to the fable of ‘transubstantiation’ – and the mass… that the priest has the power to invoke Jesus to come and inhabit the Eucharist so he can be crucified again and again and again……. (even though the scripture explicitly says that Jesus was crucified once for all!)
Well I don’t expect RC to admit to any error. There are legions of people who will defend it to the death, and legions more… who won’t bother to check the facts, or who just don’t care.