Roman Catholics are talking of another person's double double. OK.

But here look at the Roman Catholic Church denomination's own double double, In fact let us make it double double double.

1. Mary and Jesus double-double mediatrix (something they like to deny with lies until they are caught like this)

"... in her who, with her only-begotten Son, is the most powerful Mediatrix and Conciliatrix in the whole world; in her who is the most excellent glory, ornament, and impregnable stronghold of the holy Church; in her who has destroyed all heresies and snatched the faithful people and nations from all kinds of direst calamities; in her do we hope who has delivered us from so many threatening dangers."


2. Mary and Jesus double-double end of the law

"... after Christ, we find in Mary the end of the law and the fulfillment of the figures and oracles."


The above double double double from a supposedly "infallible" "pope"! Na so!

Infallible ko, mumuness ni!

shdemidemi:

If I was bowing before an image and accept anything oga pope says from Rome, i'm sure you wouldn't have been so frivolous. The thread says defend what you do. if you wanna have a go in comedy like our friend suggested, try the A.Y show mate. For now, DEFEND YOUR CATHOLIC TEACHINGS without prevarication if you can.

That's exactly what we've been doing here, defending catholic teaching. It is you who came with your Israel is hagar's child talk here, and I exhorted you to stay focused, yet you prefer leading us into spreading your two gospel teaching than remaining on topic. We have dealt with Images using scripture, we have shown what we do, any other thing you say is your opinion. Thanks demi.

woky: ;Dshebi i don tell u make u try your talen, i swear Basketmoth nO go see your back for comedy

My broda, na Italo start the song yesterday o, since then i can't get my mind off it.

everything na double double ooo...

Syncan:

That's exactly what we've been doing here, defending catholic teaching. It is you who came with your Israel is hagar's child talk here, and I exhorted you to stay focused, yet you prefer leading us into spreading your two gospel teaching than remaining on topic. We have dealt with Images using scripture, we have shown what we do, any other thing you say is your opinion. Thanks demi.

May be I didn't get it earlier, please tell me why we need the images in the church. You might be helping a potential convert from Christ to your church, you never know.

Plus, Next time, don't try to use Israel as a leverage as to why you make images cos I will come back to these questions you evade like a plague.

Is Roman Catholic thesame as Israel?

Are they under same covenant?

italo: At least Pope Francis knows his stand. He doesn't say I'm fallible, then act infallible...or imply that anyone under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is infallible, only to question others infallibility as if his own Holy Spirit is superior to others'.

That's pope Francis.
I won't be surprised if tomorrow, he says he's fallible.

One pope declared 'all popes' infallible..
....and a number of popes have said they are not 'infallible'

Let's see the views of other popes.


Per Pope Benedict XVI
This happened in In July 2005 during an impromptu address to priests in Aosta that:
"The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know"


Per Pope John XXIII, He once remarked:
"I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible".

From Wikipedia.

Were these men speaking infallibly when they said those?

shdemidemi:

May be I didn't get it earlier, please tell me why we need the images in the church. You might be helping a potential convert from Christ to your church, you never know.

Plus, Next time, don't try to use Israel as a leverage as to why you make images cos I will come back to these questions you evade like a plague.

Is Roman Catholic thesame as Israel?

Are they under same covenant?

Demi dear, It doesn't take much to go three pages back, read all posts from, syncan to adsonstone at least, I don't need to start repeating myself.

I have answered your question about the church. Once again go back to earlier posts.

@ Syncan and Italo.

The first we talked about: Tradition concept.

We reached a compromise that all traditions whatsoever have their roots in scriptures.

The second one which is the 'graven image' concept; you indicated that they are not forbidden...and you also affirmed that it is not wrong to refuse using images in worship.

I think that's sufficient otherwise, we won't leave this topic.

Why not let's throw in a third.
'Mary as a co-mediator with Jesus' or Mary as a mediator to Jesus and Jesus to God.
We'll treat that simultaneously with the declaration of only Mary as 'mother of God' knowing fully well that the Holy Spirit says she's blessed amongst women.

adsonstone:


That's pope Francis.
I won't be surprised if tomorrow, he says he's fallible.

One pope declared 'all popes' infallible..
....and a number of popes have said they are not 'infallible'

Let's see the views of other popes.


Per Pope Benedict XVI
This happened in In July 2005 during an impromptu address to priests in Aosta that:
"The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know"


Per Pope John XXIII, He once remarked:
"I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible".

From Wikipedia.

Were these men speaking infallibly when they said those?

Adsonstone, for your sake I shall give this reply.

The pope is only Infallible when he takes up his position as shepherd of the universal church to speak on matters of "FAITH AND MORAL". There are certain conditions that has to be fulfilled as to consider it in this category and they all know it. In every other matter they are fallible. The two popes are right. Pope Benedict XVI says rightly that only in rare situation does a pope speak Infallibly. Pope John XIII is right, he does not see anything before him that will require him ...or does not want... to exercise that power. Just finish up your reading on wikipedia with a mind to know.

Syncan:


Adsonstone, for your sake I shall give this reply.

The pope is only Infallible when he takes up his position as shepherd of the universal church to speak on matters of "FAITH AND MORAL".

Do you mean the pope is only infallible in his teaching of faith and morals and fallible in all other teachings outside faith and morals.

I.e infallible within the church and fallible outside the church?

Syncan:
The two popes are right.

I suppose this means that they must have declared those things infallibly hence, they were not mistaken/confused.

Syncan:
Pope Benedict XVI says rightly that only in rare situation does a pope speak Infallibly.

ie only in teaching of faith and morals.

....but all others, he is prone to mistakes, hence, should not be trusted for other matters because he could be wrong about it.

I agree with that

Syncan:
Pope John XIII is right

since He said that infallibly, he must be right to have said he is 'not inefallible' however, he is infallible when he speaks infallibly....just as the one he said above.

Syncan:
he does not see anything before him that will require him ...or does not want... to exercise that power.

so, could he be deceiving the whole world when declared infallibly that He is 'not infallible'?


Please, correct me if I'm mistaken....because I'm not speaking infallibly on your faith just as Francis cannot speak infallibly on hinduism....he is fallible about their faith.

Syncan:
Just finish up your reading on wikipedia with a mind to know.

of course, I've read it all....even on catholic encyclopaedias.

How interesting is this 'papal infallibility matter'

adsonstone:

Do you mean the pope is only infallible in his teaching of faith and morals and fallible in all other teachings outside faith and morals.

I.e infallible within the church and fallible outside the church?




I suppose this means that they must have declared those things infallibly hence, they were not mistaken/confused.




ie only in teaching of faith and morals.

....but all others, he is prone to mistakes, hence, should not be trusted for other matters because he could be wrong about it.

I agree with that



since He said that infallibly, he must be right to have said he is 'not inefallible' however, he is infallible when he speaks infallibly....just as the one he said above.



so, could he be deceiving the whole world when declared infallibly that He is 'not infallible'?


Please, correct me if I'm mistaken....because I'm not speaking infallibly on your faith just as Francis cannot speak infallibly on hinduism....he is fallible about their faith.



of course, I've read it all....even on catholic encyclopaedias.

How interesting is this 'papal infallibility matter'

hmmm, you brought a fine logic here. Could there be an escape route? Am yet to see.

Enigma: Roman Catholics are talking of another person's double double. OK.

But here look at the Roman Catholic Church denomination's own double double, In fact let us make it double double double.

1. Mary and Jesus double-double mediatrix (something they like to deny with lies until they are caught like this)

"... in her who, with her only-begotten Son, is the most powerful Mediatrix and Conciliatrix in the whole world; in her who is the most excellent glory, ornament, and impregnable stronghold of the holy Church; in her who has destroyed all heresies and snatched the faithful people and nations from all kinds of direst calamities; in her do we hope who has delivered us from so many threatening dangers."


2. Mary and Jesus double-double end of the law

"... after Christ, we find in Mary the end of the law and the fulfillment of the figures and oracles."


The above double double double from a supposedly "infallible" "pope"! Na so!

Infallible ko, mumuness ni!

Are you sure they believe this?

adsonstone:

Do you mean the pope is only infallible in his teaching of faith and morals and fallible in all other teachings outside faith and morals.

I.e infallible within the church and fallible outside the church?

I suppose this means that they must have declared those things infallibly hence, they were not mistaken/confused.
ie only in teaching of faith and morals.

....but all others, he is prone to mistakes, hence, should not be trusted for other matters because he could be wrong about it.

I agree with that

since He said that infallibly, he must be right to have said he is 'not inefallible' however, he is infallible when he speaks infallibly....just as the one he said above.

so, could he be deceiving the whole world when declared infallibly that He is 'not infallible'?

Please, correct me if I'm mistaken....because I'm not speaking infallibly on your faith just as Francis cannot speak infallibly on hinduism....he is fallible about their faith.

of course, I've read it all....even on catholic encyclopaedias.

How interesting is this 'papal infallibility matter'

I do not like breaking of speech, it bores me. However I will clear this up now.

1.Yes. only in officially defining a doctrine about matters of faith and moral, and even then, only when he speaks to the universal church in his capacity as chief shepherd. Eg, If he is speaking on geography, this does not apply. If he is preaching in his chapel, he is only exercising his role as a shepherd, it does not apply.

2. In those statements made,at different times eg in a gathering of some priests etc, they were not defining any doctrine, they were simply stating the obvious. Any teaching in such occasions that is seemingly contrary to the articles of faith received by the church, could be challenged.

3. When a pope speaks Infallibly, there is always a definitive decree at the end. Something like "it is bound on all Christians" to believe that there are three persons in one God.

4. In every other circumstance, the pope is just a shepherd, leading the flock, most importantly, he is human.

I sense some sarcasm in your statements there about Pope Francis, it wasn't necessary at all, but I'll take it as friendly fire.

adsonstone: @ Syncan and Italo.

The first we talked about: Tradition concept.

We reached a compromise that all traditions whatsoever have their roots in scriptures.

The second one which is the 'graven image' concept; you indicated that they are not forbidden...and you also affirmed that it is not wrong to refuse using images in worship.

I think that's sufficient otherwise, we won't leave this topic.

Why not let's throw in a third.
'Mary as a co-mediator with Jesus' or Mary as a mediator to Jesus and Jesus to God.
We'll treat that simultaneously with the declaration of only Mary as 'mother of God' knowing fully well that the Holy Spirit says she's blessed amongst women.

I'm not so sure the content of your agreement with Italo on traditions, eg what you agreed to be "scriptures". I am ok with your post, however on the third, it will be better we take it one after the other. I will propose we take "mother of God" first.

Syncan:

I do not like breaking of speech, it bores me. However I will clear this up now.

1.Yes. only in officially defining a doctrine about matters of faith and moral, and even then, only when he speaks to the universal church in his capacity as chief shepherd. Eg, If he is speaking on geography, this does not apply. If he is preaching in his chapel, he is only exercising his role as a shepherd, it does not apply.

2. In those statements made,at different times eg in a gathering of some priests etc, they were not defining any doctrine, they were simply stating the obvious. Any teaching in such occasions that is seemingly contrary to the articles of faith received by the church, could be challenged.

3. When a pope speaks Infallibly, there is always a definitive decree at the end. Something like "it is bound on all Christians" to believe that there are three persons in one God.

4. In every other circumstance, the pope is just a shepherd, leading the flock, most importantly, he is human.

I sense some sarcasm in your statements there about Pope Francis, it wasn't necessary at all, but I'll take it as friendly fire.

....sarcasm?
Maybe yes.

that definitely does mean that the pope is fallible in speech/definitions in 'priestly meetings' and matters outside 'defining doctrines/matters concerning faith and morals to the whole church' eg: when He speaks to the whole church about geography, he is fallible....

I hope the above is what you mean....
...and I also want to believe these things you have said is true and I'd like to ask if this position of infallibility applies to the early apostles too.

Syncan:


I'm not so sure the content of your agreement with Italo on traditions, eg what you agreed to be "scriptures". I am ok with your post, however on the third, it will be better we take it one after the other. I will propose we take "mother of God" first.

scriptures in my post means bible.
I'm sorry if it sounded ambigous.
However, He noted that the NT canon is a tradition not in the bible.

Oh! I'd prefer if we take them simultaneously but if you prefer it this way, Its fine.
You may go on.

adsonstone:



scriptures in my post means bible.
I'm sorry if it sounded ambigous.
However, He noted that the NT canon is a tradition not in the bible.

Oh! I'd prefer if we take them simultaneously but if you prefer it this way, Its fine.
You may go on.

taking it one after the other will be ok..
Tnkx

adsonstone:



....sarcasm?
Maybe yes.

that definitely does mean that the pope is fallible in speech/definitions in 'priestly meetings' and matters outside 'defining doctrines/matters concerning faith and morals to the whole church' eg: when He speaks to the whole church about geography, he is fallible....

I hope the above is what you mean....
...and I also want to believe these things you have said is true and I'd like to ask if this position of infallibility applies to the early apostles too.

hahaha, no wahala.

Yes.

...Yes.

Yes it did.

JMAN05:

Are you sure they believe this?

Their "pope" said it in a document making an "infallible" pronouncement or "dogmatic definition" about Mary.

woky: taking it one after the other will be ok..
Tnkx

alright, lets continue.

Syncan:

hahaha, no wahala.

Yes.

...Yes.

Yes it did.

wow! So, this applied to early apostles......
......they were fallible in matters outside faith and doctrine even if they were talking to the whole church...

adsonstone:



scriptures in my post means bible.
I'm sorry if it sounded ambigous.
However, He noted that the NT canon is a tradition not in the bible.

Oh! I'd prefer if we take them simultaneously but if you prefer it this way, Its fine.
You may go on.

You see, why I made that comment is this, I do not want us to start arguing on how many books make the bible. Else, all I can agree with, is that our "traditions" do not contradict scriptures even as you have it.

adsonstone:

alright, lets continue.

ok

what is your problem with/about Mary being the Mother of God??

adsonstone:

wow! So, this applied to early apostles......
......they were fallible in matters outside faith and doctrine even if they were talking to the whole church...

Yes.
1Cor 7:12 starts with this "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:" The words in bold sends you a message immediately. It puts the next set of instructions not in the same category with the earlier ones

Well, something a little positive for a change.

"Nevertheless, besides the doctrinal differences needing to be resolved, Christians cannot underestimate the burden of long-standing misgivings inherited from the past, and of mutual misunderstandings and prejudices. Complacency, indifference and insufficient knowledge of one another often make this situation worse. Consequently, the commitment to ecumenism must be based upon the conversion of hearts and upon prayer, which will also lead to the necessary purification of past memories."


"With the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Lord's disciples, inspired by love, by the power of the truth and by a sincere desire for mutual forgiveness and reconciliation, are called to re-examine together their painful past and the hurt which that past regrettably continues to provoke even today. All together, they are invited by the ever fresh power of the Gospel to acknowledge with sincere and total objectivity the mistakes made and the contingent factors at work at the origins of their deplorable divisions."


"What is needed is a calm, clear-sighted and truthful vision of things, a vision enlivened by divine mercy and capable of freeing people's minds and of inspiring in everyone a renewed willingness, precisely with a view to proclaiming the Gospel to the men and women of every people and nation."

John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (All emphases from source text - but paragraphs added for better clarity)

Syncan:

Yes.
1Cor 7:12 starts with this "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:" The words in bold sends you a message immediately. It puts the next set of instructions not in the same category with the earlier ones

Are you trying to say those words are fallible hence they may not be what God really want.....so, those parts of the bible should not be 100% trusted?

adsonstone:


Are you trying to say those words are fallible hence they may not be what God really want.....so, those parts of the bible should not be 100% trusted?

dnt mind them lack of understanding is their problem.

woky: ok

what is your problem with/about Mary being the Mother of God??

No, that's not my problem.
Read the post I mentioned that point again.

adsonstone:


Are you trying to say those words are fallible hence they may not be what God really want.....so, those parts of the bible should not be 100% trusted?

St. Paul...not me... differentiated between his word and the lord's word to him. Why did he do that amidst his preaching, is left for I and you to think about.

Now:

Do women preach in your church? considering 1Tim2:12, 1Cor14:34.

Ukuts gp: dnt mind them lack of understanding is their problem.

O wise and understanding one hear this:

"At that time Jesus answered and said:I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children" Matt 11: 25.

No wonder it was hidden from you!

adsonstone:


No, that's not my problem.
Read the post I mentioned that point again.

I believe he wants you to start the discuss, by saying what you have against the "mother of God".

Syncan:

I believe he wants you to start the discuss, by saying what you have against the "mother of God".

exactly my point

italo:

Remember, you're talking to the man who preaches that there are 2 gospels. Jesus' gospel and Paul's.

Also that there are 2 Jesuses. The heavenly one and the earthly one.

It seems he has extended it to God. The God of Israel and the God of the Church.

Somebody sing: "Everything na double double..."

hehehehe, italo, easy!