Foro de Iniciativa Atea

asimov escribió:Mentiras fundamentales de la Iglesia católica - Pepe Rodriguez
Ediciones B., Barcelona, 1997.




Muy recomendable, por la gran cantidad de datos que aporta sobre toda la historia de la ICAR.

Cuando se tradujo gehenna por infernus, no sólo se corrompió el verdadero sentido de los textos originales sino que se sentó las bases para construir la invención dogmática que más ha aterrorizado a la humanidad del último milenio... y que más beneficio le ha producido a la Iglesia católica siempre amenazante.
El primer concilio de Letrán (1123) impuso como dogma de fe la existencia del infierno, amenazando con la condena a prisión, el tormento y hasta la muerte a quienes lo negasen. Se abría así camino a uno de los negocios más saneados y descarados de la Iglesia católica cuando, obrando en consecuencia, se anunció a los aterrorizados clientes del infierno, eso es todos los creyentes católicos, que podían comprar el rescate de sus almas pecadoras si antes de morir legaban riquezas a la Iglesia y contrataban la celebración de misas de difuntos en su honor[vi].

MartiGi escribió:........ Leí con en el Foro "La Plaza Mayor" de esta misma web el tema "Análisis de la naturaleza criminal del Opus" protagonizado casi exclusivament por Ramon. El Opus Dei, otro gran monstruo a demitificar, a desenmascarar. Porque lo que habría que decir a aquellos que creen a fe juntillas en dogmas, religiones, etc. que criben un poco sus creencias, que las pongan en tela de juicio, que dudar es de humanos, que hacer afirmaciones a ciegas como si se estuviera en posesión de la verdad absoluta no lleva al progreso, a la mejora, sino al estancamiento y a la injusticia.

Y me siento identicado con vosotros porque creo que el mismo hecho que haya tantos dioses y tantas religiones ya descalifica por si mismo que uno de ellos (una de ellas) tenga que ser el "verdadero" (la "verdadera").

Os seguiré leyendo.

YoSoY escribió: En el foro anterior pude enlazar la redacción completa de los Cánones promulgados en aquel concilio , ahora no lo encuentro preo creo que con esto bastará:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Lateran_Council

Lo cierto es que en el primer Concilio de Letran no se impuso como dogma la existencia del infierno......... lo cierto es que eso es UNA MENTIRA FUNDAMENTAL de los tantos que se dispara Pepe Rodríguez en su libraco......... y muchos le creen

C A N O N S


1. Following the examples of the holy fathers and renewing them as we are bound by our office, by the authority of the apostolic see we altogether forbid anyone to be ordained or promoted in the church of God for money. If anyone indeed should have been ordained or promoted in the church in such a fashion, let him be utterly deprived of the office acquired. {15 }

2. {16 } We absolutely forbid those excommunicated by their own bishops to be received into communion by other bishops, abbots and clergy {17 }

3. {18 } No one may consecrate as a bishop someone who is not canonically elected. If anyone should presume to do this, let both consecrator and consecrated be deposed {19 } beyond hope of restoration.

4 {20 } Absolutely no archdeacon, archpriest {21 } , provost or dean {22 } may grant to anyone the care of souls or prebends in a church without the decision or consent of the bishop. Rather, as it is constituted by the holy canons, let the care of souls and the dispensing of ecclesiastical affairs remain in the decision and power of the bishop. Indeed, if anyone presumes to do something against this, or to claim for himself the power which pertains to the bishop, let him be banished from the bounds of the church

5. {23 } The ordinations made by the heresiarch Burdinus {24 }, after he was condemned by the Roman church, and whatever was afterwards done by pseudo-bishops ordained by him, we judge to be null and void.

6. {25 } No one except a priest {26 } may be ordained to the office of provost, archpriest or dean; no one except a deacon may be ordained to the office of archdeacon. {27 } {28 }

7. {29 } We absolutely forbid priests, deacons or subdeacons to live with concubines and wives, and to cohabit with other women, except those whom the council of Nicaea permitted to dwell with them solely on account of necessity, namely a mother, sister, paternal or maternal aunt, or other such persons, about whom no suspicion could justly arise

8. {30 } We further resolve, in accordance with the statute of the most blessed pope Stephen, that lay persons, however religious they may be, have no power to dispose of any ecclesiastical business; but following the apostolic canons, let the bishop have the care of all ecclesiastical matters, and let him manage them as in the sight of God. Therefore {31 } if any prince or other lay person should arrogate to himself the disposition or donation {32 } of ecclesiastical things or possessions, let him be regarded as sacrilegious.

9. {33 } We prohibit unions between blood relatives, because both the divine and secular laws prohibit them. For, the divine laws not only cast out those doing this and their progeny but also call them accursed; the secular laws call such people disreputable and deprive them of inheritance. We, therefore, following our fathers, mark them with infamy and judge them to be infamous.

[crusades]

10. {34 } To those who set out for Jerusalem and offer effective help towards the defence of the christian people and overcoming the tyranny of the infidels, we grant the remission of their sins, and we place their houses and families and all their goods under the protection of blessed Peter and the Roman church, just as has been decreed by our lord pope Urban. Whoever dares to distrain or carry off their houses, families and goods, while they are on their way, shall be punished with excommunication. {35 } Those who have put crosses on their clothes, with a view to journeying to Jerusalem or to Spain, and have later taken them off, we command by our apostolic authority to wear the crosses again and to complete the journey between this Easter and the following Easter. Otherwise, from that moment we cut them off from entry into church and forbid divine services in all their lands, apart from the baptism of infants and confessions for the dying.

11. {36 } With the advice of our brothers and of the whole curia, and also with the wish and consent of the prefect, we order the abolition of that immoral practice hitherto obtaining with respect to the dead Porticani, so that the goods of Porticani dwellers dying without heirs are not to be dispersed against the wishes of those dying. This, however, is to the extent that the Porticani remain obedient and faithful to the Roman church and to us and our successors. {37 }

12. {38 } In accordance with the canons of the holy fathers, we absolutely forbid and prohibit the laity, under the penalty of anathema, to remove the offerings from the most sacred and revered altars of blessed Peter and of the Saviour and of St Mary Rotunda and of St Nicholas of Bari, of St Giles {39 } , or from the altars or crosses of all the other churches. By {40 } apostolic authority we forbid the fortification or taking hold of churches by {41 } lay persons {42 } . {43 }

13. {44 } Whoever knowingly makes or intentionally spends counterfeit money shall be separated from the communion of the faithful as one accursed, an oppressor of the poor and a disturber of the state.

14. {45 } If anyone tries to attack pilgrims to Rome and foreigners {46 } visiting the shrines of the apostles and the oratories of other saints, or to rob them of the things they bring, or to trouble merchants {47 } with new exactions of tolls and fees, let him be deprived of christian communion until he makes reparation.

15. {48 } We confirm, with the authority of the holy Spirit, whatever has been determined by the Roman pontiffs our predecessors concerning the peace and truce of God or arson or the public highways.

Msi (as canon 14) and B (as canon 13) have a different text namely

If anyone should violate a truce, he is to be admonished up to three times by the bishop to make reparation. If he acts in contempt of the third admonition to make reparation, the bishop, either with the counsel of the metropolitan {49 } or with two or one of the neighbouring bishops, shall declare the sentence of anathema on the rebel, and denounce him in writing to the bishops all around

16. {50 } Following in the footsteps of the holy fathers, we order by general decree, that monks be subject to their own bishops {51 } with all humility, and show due obedience and devoted submission to them in all things, as if to masters and shepherds of the church of God. They may not celebrate masses in public anywhere. Moreover, let them completely abstain from public visitations of the sick, from anointings and even from hearing confessions, for these things in no way pertain to their calling. Indeed, in the churches where their ministry is recognized, they may only have priests who were ordained by their own bishop, to whom they will answer for the care of souls which they have assumed.

In Pertz there is only "We absolutely forbid anointings and visits to the sick and public masses by monks" and then : "The examples of Leo to Dioscorus, that on the day of the resurrection there may be a levitical and a sacerdotal ordination, ch 19. That on Sunday mnorning, continuing the fast of Saturday, there can be an ordination, ch 20".

Msi (as canon 18) and B (as canon 17) have a different text, namely :

We forbid abbots and monks to give public penances, to visit the sick, to perform anointings and to chant public masses. They shall receive chrism, holy oil, consecrations of altars and ordinations of clerics from the bishops in whose dioceses they reside.

17. {52 } In our desire to preserve in peace, by the grace of God, the possessions of the holy Roman church, we strictly forbid, under pain of anathema, any military {53 } person to presume to seize or hold by force Benevento, the city of blessed Peter. If anyone should dare otherwise, he shall be bound by the chain of anathema.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The remaining canons are missing in alpha, and Msi has canons 18-19 together with canon 16. The first part of this canon (Priests ... pertain to the bishop) may belong to canon 16 (B).

18. Priests are to be appointed to parish churches by the bishops, to whom they shall answer for the care of souls and for those matters which pertain to the bishop. They may not receive tithes or churches from lay persons without the consent and wish of the bishops; and if they presume to do otherwise, they shall be subject to the canonical penalty. {54 }

19. We allow the service which monasteries and their churches have paid from the time of {55 } pope Gregory VII until now. We altogether forbid abbots and monks to have the possessions of churches and bishops by a thirty {56 } years provision. {57 }

20. Having in mind the examples in the traditions of the fathers, and discharging the duty of our pastoral office, we decree that churches and what belongs to them, both persons and possessions, namely clerics, monks and their lay brothers, as well as those who come to pray and what they bring with them, are to be under protection and not be harmed. If anyone dares to act contrary to this and after recognizing his villainy, has not properly made amends within the space of thirty days, let him be banished from the bounds of the church and be smitten with the sword of anathema.

21. We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons and monks to have concubines or to contract marriages. We adjudge, as the sacred canons have laid down, that marriage contracts between such persons should be made void and the persons ought to undergo penance.

22. We condemn the alienations which have been made everywhere, especially by Otto {58 } , Jeremias, and perhaps Philip {59 } , of the property of the exarchate of Ravenna. Moreover, we declare in general to be invalid the alienations made in whatever fashion by all persons, whether they were intruded or were canonically elected in the name of a bishop or an abbot, who should be consecrated in accordance with the usage of his own church, and the ordinations conferred by them without the consent of the clergy of the church or through simony. We also forbid absolutely that any cleric should presume to alienate in any way his prebend or any ecclesiastical benefice. Any such action in the past or the future shall be invalid and subject to canonical penalty."

MartiGi escribió:YoSoY,

Agradezco tu interés por mi mensaje y ahora voy a intentar digerir toda la información que estás enviando. Piensa que no he estudiado el tema tan a fondo como para discutir contigo verdades históricas. De todos modos, voy a hacer unas consideraciones:

- Yo no quiero ahora convertirme en un creyente de Pepe Rodríguez, sería salir de un dogmatismo para caer en otro. Pepe puede equivocarse o no, y se equivocó en el tema de la Taxa Camarae al considerlo un documento auténtico cuando quizá no lo sea.

- Pero el hecho de que el autor de "Mentiras fundamentales" se equivoque voluntaria o involuntariamente no quita que a uno le haya abierto los ojos sobre las contradicciones que muestra la propia Biblia.

- Y si crees que yo soy un ateo poco maduro, estoy de acuerdo contigo, estoy solo en la fase de demitificación de unas creencias ciegas y supongo que tengo que entrar en el verdadero ateísmo (sólo creencia en lo que se puede comprender i razonar o comprobar).

- Voy a leer más cosas de las que dices en estos foros, para entender tu punto de vista. De momento, por lo que has dicho y por los adjetivos que le dedicas, se ve claramente que tus conocimientos sobre el tema desautorizan el trabajo de Pepe Rodríguez. Si se ha equivocado en lo del infierno y en lo de la Taxa Camarae, de acuerdo, y quizá también en otras muchas cosas. Pero cuando pone de manifiesto la contradicciones de los evangelios sobre la resurrección, ¿No crees que nos está diciendo: vosotros mismos, leed los evangelios y a ver qué concluís? ¿Se equivoca cuando dice que ningún historiador contemporáneo citó el hecho de la resurrección?

Tengo mucho que aprender, el tema es apasionante y le dedicaré tiempo. Y me gustaría abrirme a otros estudiosos que hayan estudiado estos temas.

mattilda escribió:Aun en el caso que no se hubiera dogmatizado el infierno en ese canon, eso no quita para que la iglesia efectivamente
haya utilizado el "infierno" para acojonar al personal, ni quita verdad al hecho de que crearon las "bulas" a cambio
de dinero, tierras, posesiones etccccc.

Los caminos que te llevan a pensar, siempre son buenos, si para el es Pepe Rodriguez, pues ya. El mismo dice
que a cambiado a una postura critica y racional, se supone que también en lo que lee.

ni quita verdad al hecho de que crearon las "bulas" a cambio de dinero, tierras, posesiones etccccc.

mattilda escribió:Es un buen principio en general no creerse todo lo que nos dicen, eso es algo que intenta enseñarnos YoSoy (El Es)
Es un buen principio el que tu dices de comparar informaciones en diversas fuentes.
Desde que tengo internete voy leyendo información a barullo, corriendo por falta de tiempo, algo aprendo, aquí también.
Cuales son las fuentes fiables y las no? como bien dices.
¿Las fuentes fiables para YS son fiables?
Las intenciones de YS pueden que sean tocar los huevos no lo sé ó puede que esté en la linea de la iglesia de maquillar el pasado.

Me es imposible descubrir yo sola una formula matemática, a lo más que llego es a aplicarla. No puedo comprobar todo
lo que otros han descubierto, me pasaría la vida y no lo lograría.


El infierno existe para la iglesia, haya documento o no. Las bulas e indulgencias existieron haya documento o no.

YoSoY escribió:
Sì seguro, recibo ademàs de mi salario como supernumerario inchapelotas del Opus Dei un bono adicional por venir a joderos al foro y una indulgencia plenaria que me tiene garantizado la salvaciòn....... que pendejada.

Estoy aquì porque me entretengo. Y me gusta poner en evidencia que quienes critican a los creyentes en un supuesto "librepensamiento" estàn muchas veces màs alienados que los mismìsimos creyentes, y algunas veces les cuesta aceptar que han venido creyendo sandeces desinformativas solo porque tal o cual tiene un tìtulo de algo y se lo van mamando como buenos borregos.

El punto que sostengo es que si tu me dices que tal o cual Concilio dice que dijo algo, hoy es muy facil recurrir al DOCUMENTO ORIGINAL, como lo hice yo......... si me hablas de que la Bula tal o cual dice que dijo, yo prefiero remitirme a la bula misma. Fìjate por ejemplo lo que venimos discutiendo en el otro tema sobre el 25 de diciembre atribuido al nacimiento de Cristo Horus Osiris y otros, cuando esto es una patraña inventada por aquellos que quieren justificaar de huevo a huevo la supuesta teorìa de la coincidencia de los mitos........

Yo he pillado en estas insensateses a Pepe Rodriguez, a Dreschner y a otros autores .....

Este tema trata del libro de Pepe: reconocen que Pepe miente cuando nos dice que en Letran se estableciò el dogma del infierno? si o no....... sin tibiezas.

MartiGi escribió:Si eso de "calladitos" va por mi, de acuerdo, no he respondido tu sencilla pregunta por una razón muy sencilla. Siguiendo tus principios, por estar ocupado en otras cosas y por cuestión de prioridades, no he podido comprobar que sea cierto que miente Pepe (he de contrastar y traducir los cánones del I Concilio, mi inglés es bastante escueto).

Pero por otra parte estoy seguro que tienes razón, que haces unos estudios serios y por lo tanto Pepe la cagó con la afirmación que el dogma del infierno se dictó en el Primer Concilio de Letrán. Queda por comprobar si se hizo en el Cuarto, y aunque así fuera esto no quitaría rotundidad al hecho de haberse equivocado diciendo que fue en el Primero.