Please Catholics, Avoid These Arguments

Sorry O, oga biggjoe. We have long awaited your return from exile. How was the sabbatical trip?

Okay, don't pay any attention to that salutation - I like to unwind and kid with some of my friends instead of making them fiends. 


True talk, ma broder - they proved you right on this one, because you simply ignored welborn's rejoinder. He certainly went through everything you posted, no comma or exclamation mark missing. And he certainly did not pick only on where "they said" you called them hypocrites - go back again and read it for yourself. Infact, unless you go back to edit or modify your original post, you'll find that it was not a matter of "they said" - you actually called them hypocrites.


So you agree you called them that? Good - another fact that they proved you right!


Intelligent people do not call others hypocrites and zoom off on sabbatical.


My dear, what is the Catholic Church in America if not the individuals who constitute it? The Church did not support it. . . and Bishops and other leaders were singled out as the culprits? What can you salvage from a system like that when some of the leadership are indicted like that? If the Catholic Church in America was not supporting them in one way or the other, they would not have been 'covered' for the many years that the victims suffered the scars of the abuses. True, every church has their problem, and this snivelling that it is only 'individuals' who commit/committed such acts is plastic surgery.

No vex sir, your high pontificate. We already know and have read the list of Popes in the Roman Catholic tradition and elsewhere. What is interesting to note is that several of them were antipopes - that is, against the popish/Papal system (St. Hyppolytus, 217-35 AD; Novatian, 251 AD; Felix, 355-65 AD;  Sylvester III, 1045 AD; and others). Do you care to explain why Catholic leaders elected as Popes would turn round and become antipopes?

As for your suggestion that Peter was the first Pope, the Bible that Catholics gave us Protestants shows he did not qualify as a Pope. You disagree? In humility, I ask you to give me your own understanding of the qualifications of a Pope from the Bible: your own understanding, I said - not the Catholic Tradition that you probably might recycle back and forth on Nairaland.

Bless you all the same. Hope you don't have another sabbatical scheduled so soon? 

@ Wellborn
Oooh! Child--you're absolutely brilliant!!! i trip! where and how did you come across all that information?? i'm really impressed, i enjoyed reading EVERYTHING,

@Biggjoe

Honey, i don't think we were expecting anything other than what you've written--your writing's very predictable, because we can tell your mindset and know that you're going to be very stubborn and hold on to your doctrines, so we're not surprised.

It'll do you good to dump all those misiles/ bulletins, or whatever y'all by for =N=5 (Unless the price has gone up) before going for mass, and pick up a bible and read it cover to cover. The bible's been given to us for instruction in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16), and when it was talking about "ALL" it wasn't refering to what was written outside of the bible.

So do the world, and yourself especially, a favor, go and study to show yourself approved unto God, and rightly divide that truth, not what dogma is teaching you.

@big joe

i really appreciate your pouring out of your own opinions as concerning the catholic church,

as far as i've seen you are too biased in trying to protect the image of the catholic church and even calling those who don't concur as "hypocrites"  then one can understand that you were probably born into the catholic church and u also forgot to take a look at your own church history and how they came about their doctrines.

one, the bible did not come out of catholicism, it is for you to know that the greatest crimes against humanity were committed by the Catholic church in the dark ages, and the pope admitted to that and even made a public apology.

then again, you said many misinterpretatios of the bible will surface.and you said again that  "these protestants will overlook some practices in their own church from these statements it is so obvious that u are a patriotic catholic and come what may let them say what they want to say u r still a catholic,  as far as circumstances have shown, the many misinterpretations of the bible have come from the catholic church, the bible we see today, is as a result of the many editing that has been done, by the church, then why were some books suppresssed and why in heavens name is the vatican archives restricted to anybody, obviously the catholic church is hiding something, that they don't want us know, but i'm not moved by that,  for everything that has happened has happened for a reason

and the issue of sunday worship, what events led to the change of worship from saturday to sunday, u catholics cannot even prove it and justify it, God made the laws, not man,  besides who are you to change God's laws,

in conclusion, you did not do your homework before coming to post,

@ 4getme
If u will continue  ask me about catholic church in the manner u just did, i might be tempted to be coming back at you as often as I can. When u put ur answers in antagonistic ways, thats when I go for my 'sabbatical'. Ok, u want to know what qualified Peter as a Pope. In your(?) words u said that as a married man that disqualified him.
I am suprised u don't know but I will like to tell u that catholic priests do marry in the early days. Celibacy is a practice that was introduced in catholicism and not as old as the church itself. So ur attempt to disqualify Peter as a Pope because he was married is not a strong point. Look for something else. You people always have something new to come up with. The lineage of catholic highest authority has never broken  since the time of the apostles.
@ Lordimpaq
with ur tone of reply, I may not like to reply u in the future. But I will try this time.
I cannot understand why u call my defense of my own church 'bias'. And immediately after that u reminded me that I called u hypocrites. What message r u trying to pass here?
U said that the bible did not come from the catholic church yet u cannot even support ur claim with one sentence.
Again that I did not look back at the history of my church?! Again tell me how u know that. Some bad things might have happened in the history of the catholic church. But remember that that history covered all christiandom because all other churches broke out of catholic church long after those things happened. Now, for a Pope to apologise for the deeds of some his predecessors made everything u might hold wrong against the church based on those deeds meaningless.
Again it seems u really badly want me to stop being a catholic that is why u labelled me a patriotic catholic as if that is now a crime.
Did u say that the catholic church is hiding something? You are not alone there. Somebody even listed some 'very bad' events in the history of catholic church in this forum and concluded that those things proved that catholic church is a cult. But before that, he said that the source of his write up came from the vatican website itself. I almost laughed after that. But immediately, one non catholic in this forum pointed it out to him that if the church is a cult, why would it leave those things for him to see them. Afterall its a cult.
Tone down the sarcasm in your post. we are all tempted to sound unlike us in this foum. If u put your questions correctly, I might see them as if it is just a question and come back at you. When you attack,  I go on my sabbatical, 

@4 getme:

s.e.u.n locked the topic; he always does this to me. 

 Even though all priests are not  Pope, a Pope is a priest. A pope is a high priest.

An analogy to the claim (of Peter being First Pope) is in a way like saying that Lord Lugard is the first president  of Nigeria. His position then might not be regarded as that of the presidency as it is known today in Nigeria, but he was the head of the entity that is still Nigeria today. If my political history is  right, there has been the same Nigeria since then. Even though the qualifications of people that is now elected into the office of the presidency today is no longer as it is in those days.

there are major differences in the context of the papal authority but I'm just trying to make my point clearer. Peter was the head of the apostles and the disciples in the early christian days. After him somebody else took over and so also after that person and the link continued till today with many changes in the way people qualify for that post.

Catholic priests for ages now no longer  marry and if u truly know 'a couple' of them that married, they did so in disobedience.

Dear biggjoe,

Your analogy is quite appreciated but you're overlooking a very important issue in this. Following your strain of thought, before Nigeria became independent in 1960 and had her first republic from then until 1966, there were certain titles not in use among her political leaders, such as the Prime Minister (Abubakar Tafawa Balewa) and Governor General (Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, who later became the first civilian President).

Now, in the same manner, there were no Popes in the early Christian Church such as the Catholic Church would have us believe. The inclusion of the apostle Peter as a Pope in the Papal list and Catholic tradition does not translate into Biblical fact. It is as making a case of calling Lord Luggard a civilian President of Nigeria prior to the first civilian President of our beloved country, and posterity would not know the difference.

No, I submit that Peter was not a Pope; he was rather an apostle - just as Christ made him so, and just as he wrote and acknowledged in his epistles:

               1 Pet. 1:1 - Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ. . .

               2 Pet. 1:1 - Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, . . .

He was an elder as well in the Church (1 Pet. 5:1), but nowhere do we read of the notion of a Pope in Scripture such as the Catholic Church would have us believe.

As for the Catholic priests who marry in disobedience to the Catholic tradition, I see your point; but it does not seem that in getting married such a priest would be disobeying God's Scriptural authority. One of the prerequisites for leaders in the Church is that they get married (I Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:6) - although some have a gift of celebacy from God (I Cor. 7:7). It is not a healthy practice for any Church or institution to force celebacy on others as requirement for the office of ministry among God's people. To do so would be tantamount to something else that does not come from God (I Tim. 4:1-3).

May you might want to point out a few things where you suppose I might have missed out. In the meantime, enjoy your Sunday.

@ 4get_me,
again it all goes back to titles. Yes they do not call it Pope in those days but we know that after the confessions of Peter, Christ made him the leader of the apostles. From thence he assumed that position. even though he might not be the most intellingent of them all. The events of the pentecost day said a lot about his authority.
therefore, that time changed the concept and title of the office does not make it not to have been continuous.

On the issue of celibacy of catholic priests. why would u say that any priest who got married did not disobey God? It is a covenant he made. And he is aware of all the terms and conditions. So it is no force at all. Breaking an agreement is a sin.

Your analogy is quite appreciated but you're overlooking a very important issue in this. Following your strain of thought, before Nigeria became independent in 1960 and had her first republic from then until 1966, there were certain titles not in use among her political leaders, such as the Prime Minister (Abubakar Tafawa Balewa) and Governor General (Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, who later became the first civilian President).

4Get_Me,
You talk too much, boy. Please, tell that to some uninformed nincompoops like youself. Tafawa Balewa was known as the Prime Minister, while the "Zik of Africa" was the Governor General, and thusly addressed so.

Morning biggjoe,

Kind of a weird way of defending your position.  

Every so often, our politicians over here trot out a similar line after an right royal screw-up. It goes a little something like this

 "Yes we made a right pigs ear of the situation, but if the opposition had been in power, things would have been even worse"

Is that the best you can do?

For you information, I am not a Pentecostal, and many of the teachings of that particular religion, which adopt equally bogus terms, such as "Daddy GO" Apostle "this" and Reverend "that", are every bit as unscriptural as the Papacy and all it entails.

Although I must say Catholics have better outfits. The Pentecostals have not quite got the hang of "ecclesiastical chic". Cheap suits and bad hair just don't cut the mustard against finely embroidered robes and a decent mitre.  


Wrong sir, the distinction is as clear as glass. "Catholicism (a man made religious system) is the invention.

So in summary, you are not wrong about your criticism of Pentecostalism, what you are, is every bit as bad!

God bless

TV01

U can't prove its wrong. why were there titles like deacons, disciples and even apostles in the bible.
i wasnt tryin to justify it because pentecostals do it too. I know its not wrong. i was only pointing out that even though they crictisize catholics, they do it too. which is hypocrisy as I mentioned in the begining of my thread.

@ 4get_me
Hi

Hi again biggjoe,


No I can't, but the Bible surely does.
A mediatory Priesthood is the epitomy of "religion" (I use religion in a pejorative sense here. As ritual, obligation, man-made tradition, laws etc. etc.).

A few verses from Hebrews chapter 7, one of the most wonderfully expository of Bible books should help!

Chapter 7
11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

A change of the priesthood & the attendant law (tithers take note!)

19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. 20 And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath 21 (for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him: "The Lord has sworn And will not relent, 'You are a priest forever* According to the order of Melchizedek' "),+ 22 by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant. 23 Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing. 24 But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. 26 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people's, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.


Sir, not everything is a title? What you have enumerated are a function, a name and an office. Even the word "Mr." is a title. What already?

An obsession with titles and office is a sure sign of religious obsessiveness. Isn't it startlingly clear that the "religion" of Temples, Priests & hierarchies, sacrifices & ritual, laws and such like is exactly what the Lord died for. All that stuff is nailed to the cross.

God bless

forget-me,

How are you sir?

You know I have been eagerly awaiting this promised post for some time now. I appreciate your busy work schedule and packed social diary permit little time for web posting. At your convenience sir.

Some have insinuated that your posts are overblown & wordy. I on the other hand greatly appreciate your research.

I would suggest that you apply the KISS principle. But as ever, anything less than sterling work will meet with my strenuous rebuttal.

"Faith & good sense", presumably that is the 4get_me doctrine of "No it's not a law, but we do it because it's madness not too". I said research sir, but I meant research leading to sterling not shoddy scholarship. And please non of that jumping through hoops to maintain a denominational position nonsense!

between,
As for "Tithing preceding the law", so did circumcision. Don't even!!!

God bless

4Get_Me,
Please, stop being silly! Your writings are known to be unclear, wordy, and bombastic. Instead of trying to impress with unnecessary verbosity and redundant grandiloquence, try to write in clearer terms!

Boy, you asked to be forgotten and I have forgotten about you!