And then quotes a comedian and/turned politician..

.... saying the truth!

Even a broken clock can be correct at least twice a day.

And alas I and my posts are not being ignored!

Time up!

*clicks ignore button*

Excellent! Good riddance; well, ok depart in peace!

Mr iBU

italo:
So does the Catholic Church see all those "churches" you mentioned.

Hope you don't mean Roman Catholic Church.....

italo:
That is exactly what you preach when you say that those people who preached compulsory circumcision had fallen out of Christ's Church. They didn't submit to Peter, the leader of the apostles. A man/men like them. That is what Jesus preached when he gave the keys to the kingdom to God to a man/leader/pope/peter/his successors/francis (just like you and I), and Christ said whatever that man binds/looses in heaven/on earth is effected.

No, that's off our discussion, don't divert our point of discussion.

These men did not preach submission to Peter to be saved [they preached an unnecessary process for salvation (circumcision)]....neither did the Apostles preach 'submission to Peter' to be saved.....

.....and that's what the RCC preach today (submission to the Pope to be saved).

In the Apostles' messages (including Peter), submission to Peter wasn't necessary for salvation.

italo:
A question for you: do/did you really think that only people who confess Jesus as personal Lord and saviour will go to heaven?...those who dont for whatever reason have no chance of heaven?

Do I really think?
Of course not.

God may save others too (perhaps, those who never heard the Gospel) in ways known to Him alone.

italo:

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

No, your reference points back to you.

You know I won't take references from the Roman Catholic Church.

chukwudi44:

You don't go to an orthodox website to quote lies for me.The orthodox church did not exist during the canonisation of the canon.The bishops themselves who compiled these canons described themselves as catholics.
canons 22,36,57,68,69 and so many other canons of the council of carthage explicitly stated that these bisops are catholics.it is too late for you to change history.They did not reason along with you that Methodists,orthodox,Anglicans,JWs donatists etc are also members of these catholic church

Canon 57. (Greek lxi.)

That persons baptized when children by the Donatists may be ordained clergymen in the Catholic Church

Since in the former council it was decreed, as your unanimity remembers as well as I do, that those who as children were baptized by the Donatists, and not yet being able to know the pernicious character of their error, and afterward when they had come to the use of reason, had received the knowledge of the truth, abhorred their former error, and were received, (in accordance with the ancient order) by the imposition of the hand, into the Catholic Church of God spread throughout the world, that to such the remembrance of the error ought to be no impediment to the reception of the clerical office. For in coming to faith they thought the true Church to be their own and there they believed in Christ, and received the sacraments of the Trinity. And that all these sacraments are altogether true and holy and divine is most certain, and in them the whole hope of the soul is placed, although the presumptuous audacity of heretics, taking to itself the name of the truth, dares to administer them. They are but one after all, as the blessed Apostle tells us, saying: “One God, one faith, one baptism,” and it is not lawful to reiterate what once only ought to be administered. [Those therefore who have been so baptized] having anathematized their error may be received by the imposition of the hand into the one Church, the pillar as it is called, and the one mother of all Christians, where all these Sacraments are received unto salvation and everlasting life; even the same sacraments which obtain for those persevering in heresy the heavy penalty of damnation. So that which to those who are in the truth lightens to the obtaining of eternal life, the same to them who are in error tends but to darkness and damnation. With regard then to those who, having fled from error, acknowledge the breasts of their mother the Catholic Church, who believe and receive all these holy mysteries with the love of the truth, and besides the Sacraments have the testimony of a good life, there is no one who would not grant that without doubt such persons may be raised to the clerical office, especially in such necessity as the present. But there are others of this sect, who being already clergymen, desire to pass to us with their peoples and also with their honours, such as for the sake of office are converts to life, and that they may retain them seek for salvation [i.e., enter the Church]. I think that the question concerning such may be left to the graver consideration of our aforesaid brothers, and that when they have considered by their more prudent counsel the matter referred to them, they may vouchsafe to advise us what approves itself to them with regard to this question. Only concerning those who as children were baptized by heretics we decree that they consent, if it seems good, to our decision concerning the ordination of the same. All things, therefore, which we have set forth above with the holy bishops, let your honourable fraternity with me adjudge to be done.

Canon 22. (Greek xxv.)

That bishops or other clergymen shall give nothing to those who are not Catholics

And that to those who are not Catholic Christians, even if they be blood relations, neither bishops nor clergymen shall give anything at all by way of donation of their possessions.


Canon 36. (Greek xxxix.)

That bishops or clergymen are not to be ordained unless they have made all their family Christians

None shall be ordained bishop, presbyters, or deacons before all the inmates of their houses shall have become Catholic Christians.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm

The orthodox church came into existence after the east-west schism.oriental orthodoxy came into existence after the council of chalcedon while the major orthodox churches became schismatic with the catholic church in 1054AD.The canon been used by some orthodoz churches use are at variance with the canons agreed at the synod of hippo and council of carthages which you claim they were part of.

The orthodox wasn't existing as part of the Catholic Church when the canon was made??

I leave you in your ignorance.

adsonstone: I agree that Christians/The Church compiled the Bible.The same Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists... etc you strictly said are not part of Christ's Church were all in one Church when these canons were made and accepted as inspired by the Church.

If these people use and put faith/interpret what they have compiled, that's no 'gross hypocrisy' as you declared earlier, they are using what they made.

I don't see why you should give all the credit to the Roman Catholic Church and say others are hypocrites afterall, these Churches were all one when the canon was agreed on and accepted.

All these "churches" were not one then. They simply didnt exist. The One Church was and is still ONE.

E.g before the Schism, there was only The Catholic Church, nothing like "Orthodox Church." "The Orthodox Church" was created at the Schism.

Before Luther broke off, there was nothing like "Lutheran Church." It was created at the "Reformation."

Before King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn... ...lets not even go there.

It was just The Catholic Church under the authority of the Pope that made the Canon.

Also, let us compare the case of those early Judizers with that of these "churches" you mentioned. If Peter would have relied upon the Scriptures, he would have concluded that Gentiles had to be circumcised, since all the Patriarchs and prophets were, the apostles were, and even Jesus was. But Peter, by virtue of his authority, decides the issue as the chief shepherd of the Church (and the decision was not based on the Scriptures). If the Judaizers were to go on preaching their opinion, claiming it was scriptural, it would still be heresy. "Peter has spoken, it is finished!"

adsonstone: No, "us" and "our" cannot mean church there....the letter is being written to the Church by an Apostle and that's exactly why I said "Apostle"

...being written by one of the leaders of the Universal Church to the Church of the Thessalonians. Wouldn't Paul have also taught them the Acts 15 Church council declaration by Peter, the head of the Church? Of course he would.

The beginning of that letter goes: 1 - "Paul, and Sylvanus, and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ."

If you insist that "us" and our means "Apostles" but not "Church," show me where Sylvanus and Timothy were referred to as Apostles.

adsonstone: Who/What do you mean by 'unknown Christians'?
Is it the same people the Bible refer to as Apostles?

If the Bible refers to them as Apostles then, they are and yes, Paul tells the Church to follow the tradition(s) of these 'unknown Christians'.

if we take the verse to mean "Apostles"...

...Do you not know that apostleship is an office that needs and has successors? That is why Judas had to be replaced. That is why we have apostolic succession to this day. That is why Archbishop Adewale Martins, in union with the Pope and the Bishops is the one who transmits this Church/Apostolic tradition to us in Lagos today.

adsonstone: No, the bible does not say we should follow 'Catholic tradition'.

Neither does it say that we should not follow Catholic tradition, according to you.

And it doesn't say anything it doesn't contain should not be a doctrine.

Also, it is you who believes the Bible must state everything that Christians should do. I believe the interpretation tradition gives the Bible: that the Bible supports adherence to Catholic Tradition.

Still you have nothing to refute my position.

adsonstone: Instead, it says we should 'Study' and 'we may understand'

Understand what is taught by the Church leadership (including by tradition); not "interpret" for yourself what you want the scripture to say.

adsonstone: it also makes us (Christians, not only the pope) know that we have the Holy Spirit who will surely guide us into 'All Truth'

Jesus said that to the Church leadership. Not every individual.

The Judaizers read scriptures and understood...but the Pope - Peter was right.

adsonstone:


The bold is correct because I have (and will always have) the Holy Spirit who guides me.

If you claim to be always correct because you have the Holy Spirit,

What are you doing trying to prove Catholic doctrine?

The Church has the Holy Spirit too so it is always right.

That is the big FAIL in your effort to disprove Catholic doctrine. My work is done.

EXCEPT you also claim to be the sole custodian of the Holy Spirit in the world?

adsonstone:


The orthodox wasn't existing as part of the Catholic Church when the canon was made??

I leave you in your ignorance.

l put it to you to prove to me that the orthodox church existed before the east-west schism.Did you not read the canons I listed from the council of carthage? were those canons not explicit enough about the identities of the church to which those bishops belonged?

italo: All these "churches" were not one then. They simply didnt exist. The One Church was and is still ONE.

E.g before the Schism, there was only The Catholic Church, nothing like "Orthodox Church." "The Orthodox Church" was created at the Schism.

Before Luther broke off, there was nothing like "Lutheran Church." It was created at the "Reformation."

Before King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn... ...lets not even go there.

It was just The Catholic Church under the authority of the Pope that made the Canon.

italo:
Also, let us compare the case of those early Judizers with that of these "churches" you mentioned. If Peter would have relied upon the Scriptures, he would have concluded that Gentiles had to be circumcised, since all the Patriarchs and prophets were, the apostles were, and even Jesus was. But Peter, by virtue of his authority, decides the issue as the chief shepherd of the Church (and the decision was not based on the Scriptures). If the Judaizers were to go on preaching their opinion, claiming it was scriptural, it would still be heresy. "Peter has spoken, it is finished!"

So, do you mean that Peter nullified the circumcision of the law of Moses?

There you fail.

Peter did not nullify it.
By virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, circumcision became 'irrelevant'.

This the Apostles understood including Peter so they declared it because that was the truth.

Peter did not nullify circumcision by his own opinion.....Circumcision became nullified by virtue of Christ's death and Resurrection which Peter and other Apostles declared.

italo:
...being written by one of the leaders of the Universal Church to the Church of the Thessalonians. Wouldn't Paul have also taught them the Acts 15 Church council declaration by Peter, the head of the Church? Of course he would.

The beginning of that letter goes: 1 - "Paul, and Sylvanus, and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ."

If you insist that "us" and our means "Apostles" but not "Church," show me where Sylvanus and Timothy were referred to as Apostles.

So, do Paul, Timothy and Sylvanus make up the church?

That should be answered first.

italo:
if we take the verse to mean "Apostles"...

...Do you not know that apostleship is an office that needs and has successors? That is why Judas had to be replaced. That is why we have apostolic succession to this day. That is why Archbishop Adewale Martins, in union with the Pope and the Bishops is the one who transmits this Church/Apostolic tradition to us in Lagos today.

Then what happens to the Orthodox bishops and other bishops who claim to be successors?

italo:
Neither does it say that we should not follow Catholic tradition, according to you.

And it doesn't say anything it doesn't contain should not be a doctrine.

Also, it is you who believes the Bible must state everything that Christians should do. I believe the interpretation tradition gives the Bible: that the Bible supports adherence to Catholic Tradition.

Still you have nothing to refute my position.

....and my position is no way invalid too.

italo:
Understand what is taught by the Church leadership (including by tradition); not "interpret" for yourself what you want the scripture to say.


Jesus said that to the Church leadership. Not every individual.

The Judaizers read scriptures and understood...but the Pope - Peter was right.

So, do you mean the Holy Spirit is only available to Church Leaders....and not every member of the church?

.....and the rcc is right when it says men should submit to Francis to be saved....is that what you mean?

[/quote]
Then what happens to the Orthodox bishops and other bishops who claim to be successors? [quote]

bros even JWS Claim to be 6000 years old,the church of christ also makes a similar claim.The fact is that here is no historical evidence to back it up.Can you adduce any historical evidence to prove the existence of the orthodox church before the east-west schism?

italo:

If you claim to be always correct because you have the Holy Spirit,

What are you doing trying to prove Catholic doctrine?

The Church has the Holy Spirit too so it is always right.

That is the big FAIL in your effort to disprove Catholic doctrine. My work is done.

EXCEPT you also claim to be the sole custodian of the Holy Spirit in the world?

That's no problem at all.

I'm not claiming to be the sole custodian of the Holy Spirit....you seem to be the one doing that saying the Holy Spirit is given to the church (leadership) as if it wasn't given to individuals.

chukwudi44:
bros even JWS Claim to be 6000 years old,the church of christ also makes a similar claim.The fact is that here is no historical evidence to back it up.Can you adduce any historical evidence to prove the existence of the orthodox church before the east-west schism?

All I've said is that the orthodox existed as part of the catholic church (so as the Roman Catholic)....

chukwudi44:
bros even JWS Claim to be 6000 years old,the church of christ also makes a similar claim.The fact is that here is no historical evidence to back it up.Can you adduce any historical evidence to prove the existence of the orthodox church before the east-west schism?

All I've said is that the orthodox existed as part of the catholic church (so as the Roman Catholic)....(Before the east-west schism)

adsonstone:

All I've said is that the orthodox existed as part of the catholic church (so as the Roman Catholic)....

bros back it up please.BTW THE catholic church=The Catholic church=The Roman catholic church

The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the world's largest Christian church, with 1.2 billion members.[note 1] The Catholic hierarchy includes cardinals and bishops and is led by the Bishop of Rome, known as the Pope.[note 2] The Church teaches that it is the one true church divinely founded by Jesus Christ.[note 3] It also teaches that its bishops are the successors of Christ's apostles and that the Bishop of Rome, as the successor to the head of the apostles, Saint Peter, has supreme authority over the Church.[note 4] The Church maintains that the doctrine on faith and morals that it presents as definitive is infallible.[note 5] Within the Church there are a variety of doctrinal and theological traditions, including the Eastern Catholic Churches, the personal ordinariates and religious communities.

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


The terms "Romish Catholic" and "Roman Catholic", along with "Popish Catholic", were brought into use in the English language chiefly by adherents of the Church of England, which saw itself as the Catholic Church in England, so that they were not willing to concede the term Catholic to their opponents without qualification.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_(term)

The Eastern Orthodox actually have a stronger case to be called "the Catholic Church" (even more than the Roman Catholics) -- if anyone today can be truly called that. But in fact there is no longer "the Catholic Church" strictly speaking; that one became kaput in 1054AD.

The reason people at Carthage in the 5th century and people elsewhere referred to themselves as "Catholic" is largely because they wanted to identify with what the emperor Theodosius declared to be "Catholic" in 380 AD.

These matters were discussed extensively on a number of threads and especially these two short ones.

https://www.nairaland.com/1254965/eastern-orthodox-church-orthodox-catholic

https://www.nairaland.com/1257440/catholic-catholic-back-catholic

And on the different appellations and names of the Roman Catholic Church, here is one I made earlier.


For a start, the Roman Catholic church denomination calls itself ---- the Roman Catholic Church, or even simply the Roman Church.

The last two or three "popes" all did it. Their Church documents do it; and even when they announced the current "pope" they did it.

Of course it is fair for other knowledgeable people to call them what they are ---- no matter their Wikipedia propaganda. So whether it is Roman, Roman Catholic, Romish or even papist --- they are all these things. They are especially "papist" because they place their "popes" above Jesus Christ and agree with their "popes" when the "popes" say only those who submit to the "pope" can be saved! What Jesus Christ said ---- does not matter to them of course. Common idolaters!

@ Adsonstone, Pls take a moment to clear me on this, What is your answer to this? Your own thought.

Italo:
Were those who refused to follow the dictates of the Jerusalem council in acts 15, but still followed christ, yet preaching and demanding circumcision as contained in the sacred books, as pre-requisite for God's people....a part of Christ's Church?

@adsonstone

unless you provide a pre-schismatic proof about the existence of the orthodox church inside the catholic church your claims hold no water.The bishops at the council of carthage clarly identified the church to which they belonged.They even had harsh words for the Donatists and other non-catholic christians of their time

Syncan: @ Adsonstone, Pls take a moment to clear me on this, What is your answer to this? Your own thought.

you are right.That was actually the first ecumenical church council

Whenever Roman Catholics try to confuse others and to mix up the Roman Catholic Church with "the Catholic Church", it is helpful to point out the following!

When they say or imply that "they" are "the Catholic Church", they are simply engaging in wuruwuru Mathematics. According to their fraudulent mathematics 5-4=5 (five minus four = five)

The Catholic Church = Alexandria + Antioch + Constantinople + Jerusalem + Rome!

The Roman Catholic Church = Rome

So, they are simply trying to pass off only Rome i.e. the Roman Catholic Church as "the Catholic Church".

In any event, whether it is the Roman Catholic church denomination or even "the Catholic Church", the Bible had been written and "compiled" before either of them came into existence --- by Christians! Hallelujah.

If you want to catch them out, when they say "the Catholic Church", ask them which one e.g. the Orthodox Catholic Church aka Eastern Orthodox who even have a better claim to be called "the Catholic Church" than the Roman Catholic church denomination?

adsonstone:

Hope you don't mean Roman Catholic Church.....

When I say "Catholic Church," I mean just that.

adsonstone: No, that's off our discussion, don't divert our point of discussion.

These men did not preach submission to Peter to be saved [they preached an unnecessary process for salvation (circumcision)]....neither did the Apostles preach 'submission to Peter' to be saved.....

I didnt say those men preached submission to Peter. I said you preach submission to Peter if you say those men (if they continued their preaching of compulsory circumcision) were out of Christ's Church. Because it was Peter that declared that their teaching was wrong.

adsonstone: .....and that's what the RCC preach today (submission to the Pope to be saved).

In the Apostles' messages (including Peter), submission to Peter wasn't necessary for salvation.

That's what the Catholic Church - Jesus preached in Matt 16:

18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock[e] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

adsonstone: Do I really think?
Of course not.

God may save others too (perhaps, those who never heard the Gospel) in ways known to Him alone.

Aha! See your earlier statement:

and saying that some people can be saved outside Christ/somewhere outside the Church when the bible has confirmed that salvation is only by one name/from one source?

Have these ones not fallen out of Christ's Church also?

You are contradicting yourself. Abi does it only become wrong when the Catholic Church holds a belief but when Adsonstone holds the same belief it becomes right?

I think you believed the Church was wrong about that until I showed you Romans 2, then you suddenly changed you position. Am I wrong?


And everything the Catholic Church teaches is true...because we are Guided by the Holy Spirit.

lol lol lol

The Roman Catholic Church that talks a lot of bull --- whether in papal bulls and elsewhere!

An example of utter rubbish talked by the Roman Catholic Church from one I made earlier:


Them even dey swear for us sake say we no accept the fraudulently claimed "authority" and "infallibility" (both rubbish!) of them Roman Catholic "popes"!

One I made earlier!

4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48].

5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

Oh and the other nonsensical claim of "papal infallibilty"

. . . we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility . . .

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

Let me add one more.

Considering that some people were talking yada about Acts 15 earlier, here now see the Roman Catholic church denomination basically declare that it does not believe in Acts 15!

"Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

That is another of those things technically known as --- utter rubbish.

Oh sorry, I forgot; how could I! Of course they top the rubbish by again swearing for us!

"So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema."

Vatican I is not only one of the most idiotic things, it is even satanic!

italo: When I say "Catholic Church," I mean just that.

I didnt say those men preached submission to Peter. I said you preach submission to Peter if you say those men (if they continued their preaching of compulsory circumcision) were out of Christ's Church. Because it was Peter that declared that their teaching was wrong.

That's what the Catholic Church - Jesus preached in Matt 16:

18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock[e] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”


Aha! See your earlier statement:


You are contradicting yourself. Abi does it only become wrong when the Catholic Church holds a belief but when Adsonstone holds the same belief it becomes right?

I think you believed the Church was wrong about that until I showed you Romans 2, then you suddenly changed you position. Am I wrong?


And everything the Catholic Church teaches is true...because we are Guided by the Holy Spirit.

omg!!
What happened to my post?
I was wondering why I got no reply.

adsonstone:

All I've said is that the orthodox existed as part of the catholic church (so as the Roman Catholic)....(Before the east-west schism)

what a blatant lie , are you that shameless? Even after what chukwudi posted? , I feel sad for you. Okay at least educate yourself on the Roman empire

@ Enigma, I notice how these 'papist' have avoided your posts like a plague! Lol. Well done. Oh, if only my pentecostal friends could see how the Pope is so incredibly similar to their General Overseers and how papal infallibility has been replaced with ,thus saith the Lord" or "leading of the Spirit", they will take heed. Well done.

DrummaBoy: @ Enigma, I notice how these 'papist' have avoided your posts like a plague! Lol. .

They have said unto themselves - "Let him be anathema!"