Ubenedictus:
Coptic Catholics and Roman Catholic and melkite Catholic and Assyrian Catholic etc, are all part of the same Catholic Church, we observe the same laws on marriage and we have full communion with Pope Francis. There are 23 Catholic self governing church that make us the Catholic Church which Pope Francis is leading and we all share the same view of sacrament like marriage.

Eastern Orthodox do not have full communion but they also follow the same rules as Catholics on marriage, an eastern orthodox christian will not marry in an Anglican church because marriage is a sacrament for them even though they accept divorce like Anglicans. In fact some Eastern Orthodox may not even recognize the Baptism of an Anglican. They can be extreme like that.

This only highlights my earlier statement, you don't know what you are talking about. Saying every Catholic body is under the patriarch of Rome is nonsense, your knowledge of the church is incorrect and does not reflect the existing reality. The Catholic church did not begin in Rome so clear that idea of a Roman leadership of the Catholic church from your head because Rome is but one of five major patriarchate in the Catholic church with the Pope being only the patriarch of Rome.

What do you even know about Catholicism? Do you know why Catholic bodies, call themselves Catholic? Your last point about Eastern orthodox rejecting Anglican baptism is the height of hubris. There are three conditions for ones baptism to be accepted and the Anglican church still uses the same formula for baptism like any other Catholic body, so why would their baptism be rejected? Mind you, the same priests and bishops validly ordained before king Henry broke ties with Rome are the same people who validly ordained others and passed on that valid line of ordination till this day that we have in the Anglican church with the same sacraments and that's why I earlier said the Anglican church is still Catholic in nature.

partnerbizz5:


One reason, I hate arguing here.

I am teaching you for free, what it took me over 5m to learn and you are arguing.

what are you teaching?

LilMissFavvy:
Wed your girl in her church, most weddings are usually conducted in the bride's church. After wedding you can go back to your church, meaning she should become Anglican. Or better still, if she refuses to leave Catholic, then you let her be. You attend your church, she attends her own. I have seen it work. Some couples attend different churches and it works. It does not matter as long as it's same Christianity. If she possesses all the characteristics you want, why should church be an issue? This is the time both of you should make agreement on the church which your children will attend in church, to avoid future arguments.

Do not advise someone with something you cannot do personally. Am just saying. Kudos

Apination:

This only highlights my earlier statement, you don't know what you are talking about. Saying every Catholic body is under the patriarch of Rome is nonsense, your knowledge of the church is incorrect and does not reflect the existing reality. The Catholic church did not begin in Rome so clear that idea of a Roman leadership of the Catholic church from your head because Rome is but one of five major patriarchate in the Catholic church with the Pope being only the patriarch of Rome.

It is you who seem ignorant of ecclesiology and church history. 23 sui iriis churches are in communion with and under the leadership of the Pope of Rome.
The Catholic Church began in Jerusalem, it as all the church fathers agree, headship of the Apostolic college was bestowed upon the apostle Peter in Matt 16:18. All the church fathers also agree that the apostle Peter died in Rome. In fact there are 3 original patriarch according to the council of Nicea and they are all petrine see. That is Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. Of these 3 the church fathers are unanimous that Rome has the headship in the church as the church where both Peter and Paul died, so rome is the church of Primacy in the world.

When the council of Constantinople made it 5 patriarch and added Jerusalem and Constantinople among the patriarchs of the church, Rome was still the leader of the 5 patriarch. Rome always had the primacy over the church.
Unless it is you who is ignorant of church history and primacy in the early church.

What do you even know about Catholicism? Do you know why Catholic bodies, call themselves Catholic? Your last point about Eastern orthodox rejecting Anglican baptism is the height of hubris. There are three conditions for ones baptism to be accepted and the Anglican church still uses the same formula for baptism like any other Catholic body, so why would their baptism be rejected? Mind you, the same priests and bishops validly ordained before king Henry broke ties with Rome are the same people who validly ordained others and passed on that valid line of ordination till this day that we have in the Anglican church with the same sacraments and that's why I earlier said the Anglican church is still Catholic in nature.

lol.

Sometimes Orthodox church also reject Catholic baptism even if the form, the intention and the matter is adhered to. It depends on the particular orthodox Bishop of the place and his theological bent. Some moderate bishops will accept such baptism.
Others actually will reject baptism done by pouring and sprinkling as uncanonical if there is no emergency.
Other group considers all sacrament received outside the orthodox church as invalid and will only ractify such sacraments in particular cases
Take a look at these
In this diocese baptism by pouring is absolutely forbidden and won't be recognized except for emergency
http://www.saintmarysoca.org/baptism-in-the-orthodox-church.html

This is another one condemning all baptism outside the orthodox church including those some patriarchs has recognized
http://orthochristian.com/80888.html
The Triple Immersion in Water. According to the meaning of the ancient practice, absolutely there is required immersion in water and not sprinkling (or even pouring). Immersion in water signifies dying to sin and coming up out of the water signifies a resurrection for a new life in Christ, something that the Baptismal Epistle reading speaks of clearly. The obligatory formula in so doing is the recitation of the Name of the Holy Trinity:
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, just as was commanded the Apostles by the Lord Jesus Christ.
http://www.pravmir.com/holy-baptism/

In some other place, it is not about sprinkling but your entire faith that must be scrutinized before your baptism is recognized
https://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/rodzianko-acceptance.html





As for the case of Apostolic succession you are forgetting 2things,
1. The Anglicans rejected a Sacrificing priesthood, in effect they held with Calvin and Co that the Mass is NOT a sacrifice and so the priests offer and can't offer a sacrifice. no sacrificing priesthood.
2. King Edward changed the Anglican rite to reflect that theological understanding.

So there were bishops who did not believe in a sacrificing priesthood and used a rite that totally made no mention of such and they didn't intend to ordain such.

A non sacrificing priesthood is not a priesthood and cannot lay claim to Apostolic succession. That is why till today Catholics do not recognize Anglican priesthood. Because you guys lost Apostolic succession during the time of king Edward when you too on a defective rite and used a defective intent thereby producing no priests.

It's like people who don't believe that baptism was made by Jesus or is for the remission of sin and then changed the words to I baptise you in the name of the supergeti monster. That is defective form and intent. It means no baptism. That is what happened at the time of Edward and his rite, all who were ordained with it were defective and an entire generation of Anglican clergy was affected, hence no valid succession.

Meaning what? Let me give you an example. My Dad's friend was in same church with my dad. His children used to come to church. I never for once saw his wife. I heard she was in another church. That man died last year at 71, he was married for 42yrs. He married quite early in life as could be seen in the biography. Am talking about an educated enlightened man who made it big in life. In my current church I do see some married ladies who come without their husbands, there is nothing bad about compromising in marriage.

[/quote] [quote author=Eroms4life17 post=80341804]
Do not advise someone with something you cannot do personally. Am just saying. Kudos

LilMissFavvy:
Meaning what? Let me give you an example. My Dad's friend was in same church with my dad. His children used to come to church. I never for once saw his wife. I heard she was in another church. That man died last year at 71, he was married for 42yrs. He married quite early in life as could be seen in the biography. Am talking about an educated enlightened man who made it big in life. In my current church I do see some married ladies who come without their husbands, there is nothing bad about compromising in marriage.

Exactly my point. The fact that it worked for other people doesn't mean it will work for you. Can you condone it? I have seen how this different church worshipping wreak homes first hand. Not something you want to experience.

Yes I would accept it, I see nothing bad in it as long as it's same Christianity, I only kick against couples from different religious backgrounds getting married.

Eroms4life17:

Exactly my point. The fact that it worked for other people doesn't mean it will work for you. Can you condone it? I have seen how this different church worshipping wreak homes first hand. Not something you want to experience.

LilMissFavvy:
Yes I would accept it, I see nothing bad in it as long as it's same Christianity, I only kick against couples from different religious backgrounds getting married.

I respect your choice though. Maybe am reacting this way because of how this issue destroyed my colleague's marriage. He's Anglican from home. She's born into catholic family. I don't think they agreed on certain things concerning religion. Now she wants her kids to attend catholic. He's vehemently resisting it. Her family is making problems with him. She's a lawyer by the way. Your pic is really beautiful by the way

You have just mentioned that your colleague is having issues because wife wants the kids in her church, same with husband, it is clear that they did not talk about this before marriage. They should have agreed on where the kids should worship. The wife is supposed to allow kids go with husband, no big deal. Tnx fr the compliment!

Eroms4life17:

I respect your choice though. Maybe am reacting this way because of how this issue destroyed my colleague's marriage. He's Anglican from home. She's born into catholic family. I don't think they agreed on certain things concerning religion. Now she wants her kids to attend catholic. He's vehemently resisting it. Her family is making problems with him. She's a lawyer by the way. Your pic is really beautiful by the way

Ubenedictus:


It is you who seem ignorant of ecclesiology and church history. 23 sui iriis churches are in communion with and under the leadership of the Pope of Rome.
The Catholic Church began in Jerusalem, it as all the church fathers agree, headship of the Apostolic college was bestowed upon the apostle Peter in Matt 16:18. All the church fathers also agree that the apostle Peter died in Rome. In fact there are 3 original patriarch according to the council of Nicea and they are all petrine see. That is Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. Of these 3 the church fathers are unanimous that Rome has the headship in the church as the church where both Peter and Paul died, so rome is the church of Primacy in the world.

When the council of Constantinople made it 5 patriarch and added Jerusalem and Constantinople among the patriarchs of the church, Rome was still the leader of the 5 patriarch. Rome always had the primacy over the church.
Unless it is you who is ignorant of church history and primacy in the early church.

lol.

Sometimes Orthodox church also reject Catholic baptism even if the form, the intention and the matter is adhered to. It depends on the particular orthodox Bishop of the place and his theological bent. Some moderate bishops will accept such baptism.
Others actually will reject baptism done by pouring and sprinkling as uncanonical if there is no emergency.
Other group considers all sacrament received outside the orthodox church as invalid and will only ractify such sacraments in particular cases
Take a look at these
In this diocese baptism by pouring is absolutely forbidden and won't be recognized except for emergency
http://www.saintmarysoca.org/baptism-in-the-orthodox-church.html

This is another one condemning all baptism outside the orthodox church including those some patriarchs has recognized
http://orthochristian.com/80888.html
The Triple Immersion in Water. According to the meaning of the ancient practice, absolutely there is required immersion in water and not sprinkling (or even pouring). Immersion in water signifies dying to sin and coming up out of the water signifies a resurrection for a new life in Christ, something that the Baptismal Epistle reading speaks of clearly. The obligatory formula in so doing is the recitation of the Name of the Holy Trinity:
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, just as was commanded the Apostles by the Lord Jesus Christ.
http://www.pravmir.com/holy-baptism/

In some other place, it is not about sprinkling but your entire faith that must be scrutinized before your baptism is recognized
https://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/rodzianko-acceptance.html





As for the case of Apostolic succession you are forgetting 2things,
1. The Anglicans rejected a Sacrificing priesthood, in effect they held with Calvin and Co that the Mass is NOT a sacrifice and so the priests offer and can't offer a sacrifice. no sacrificing priesthood.
2. King Edward changed the Anglican rite to reflect that theological understanding.

So there were bishops who did not believe in a sacrificing priesthood and used a rite that totally made no mention of such and they didn't intend to ordain such.

A non sacrificing priesthood is not a priesthood and cannot lay claim to Apostolic succession. That is why till today Catholics do not recognize Anglican priesthood. Because you guys lost Apostolic succession during the time of king Edward when you too on a defective rite and used a defective intent thereby producing no priests.

It's like people who don't believe that baptism was made by Jesus or is for the remission of sin and then changed the words to I baptise you in the name of the supergeti monster. That is defective form and intent. It means no baptism. That is what happened at the time of Edward and his rite, all who were ordained with it were defective and an entire generation of Anglican clergy was affected, hence no valid succession.

I no just get power to type but the bolded got me laughing, like seriously! Apostolic succession started with the laying on of hands on Mathias by the apostles and not determined by whether the mass is bloodless or blood full. Moreover, there was nothing of that nature in belief about a bloodless or whatever at the time of the apostles, they are simply Theological opinions adopted by the Roman church.

Which of the church fathers are you referring to? Which of the council's was convened to determine or make the patriarch of Rome head of all Catholic bodies? If what you say is true, what brought about the schism? Rites are not divine laws, they are man made. Apostolic succession is not dependent on Roman Catholic theology, it's biblical.

My brother wed her in your church. Imagin e your prospective wife trying to manipulate you. If she can try to twist or manipulate you now, what will happen when she now becomes your wife officially? Its a big question for you to answer.
If she truly loves you, then she should wed you in your church(Anglican) bro. How are you sure more church or religious issues will not be coming up even in marriage. Its better to trash this issue completely now.
Stand firm and shine your eyes!!!

LilMissFavvy:
You have just mentioned that your colleague is having issues because wife wants the kids in her church, same with husband, it is clear that they did not talk about this before marriage. They should have agreed on where the kids should worship. The wife is supposed to allow kids go with husband, no big deal. Tnx fr the compliment!

Eh? That woman? Leave matter. But then i like your line of reasoning. Looking forward to having more conversations with you

My candid advice is if you truly love her, marry her in Catholic Church then relocate to another region far away from the privy eyes of the said uncle and then attend any church of your chosen. Let her know of this if she accepts then go ahead.

Apination:

I no just get power to type but the bolded got me laughing, like seriously! Apostolic succession started with the laying on of hands on Mathias by the apostles and not determined by whether the mass is bloodless or blood full. Moreover, there was nothing of that nature in belief about a bloodless or whatever at the time of the apostles, they are simply Theological opinions adopted by the Roman church

then you still don't get it.

First of all, sacraments have 3 important component from Apostolic time. They now have technical terms, form, matter and intention.

Laying hands on somebody doesn't necessarily confer upon him Apostolic succession. In fact I received a laying of hands during my confirmation, it increased in my soul the outpouring of the spirit but it didn't confer upon me any Apostolic succession because, the intention and the words used are all about confirmation.
The apostles did confer on Matthias Apostolic succession, they both intended to make him all that Jesus has made them and allow him a share in all the ministries that has been given to them.
What are the ministries giving to them?
Chief among them are Eucharist and the power to absolve sins.
The Eucharist is a sacrifice because Jesus Christ himself said "my body given for you, my blood shed for you" that is a sacrifice. And all the church fathers are unanimous in that teaching.

When you guys Anglicans, adopted the heresies of Calvin and Co, you started to doubt the power to forgive sin and the Eucharist as sacrifice.
If your Eucharist is not a sacrifice and your priest can't absolve sins, then what they are celebrating is not the true Eucharist that the entire church celebrate, if your priest are not ordained to offer sacrifice and absolve sins then they are not priests.

If your bishops decided to "ordain" people who can't offer a sacrificial liturgy and absolve sins, then they certainly did not really ordain priest.

When priest were ordained in the Catholic Church in England they were ordained as priests and just like the orthodox, with power to offer a sacrificing priesthood and absolve sin, that is exactly what a Catholic priest does. When Anglicans broke away they started to ordain people who can't offer sacrifice, those are not priests... They certainly didn't receive the power of the priesthood because the bishops never INTENDED to confer on them all that the Catholic Church confers in her ordination.

These issues are held by the entire Catholic Church as regards the priesthood, including the orthodox... You guys have fallen into heresy that has affected the intent of the sacrament.

Which of the church fathers are you referring to? Which of the council's was convened to determine or make the patriarch of Rome head of all Catholic bodies? If what you say is true, what brought about the schism? Rites are not divine laws, they are man made. Apostolic succession is not dependent on Roman Catholic theology, it's biblical.

I am referring to the entire corpus called the church fathers, from iraneus of Lyon, Ignatius of Antioch who were disciples of the apostles, down to St maximus in the 9th century. All acknowledge the headship of Rome.

Actually the council of Constantinople that elevated the Bishop of Constantinople into a patriarch pretty much shows that Rome has primacy without any arguments.

The schism were caused first and foremost by heresy, in the 4th century when most of the Eastern Bishop were Arians, that immediately caused a schism until they rejected their heresy and we're accepted back by Rome, the patriarch of Alexandria and the Church of Armenia were excommunicated in the council of chalcedon. This one between the Eastern church and the west isn't the first time schism has happened. Whenever the Eastern church falls into heresy it always results in schism until they repent and the Church of Rome accepts them back.
The last and current schism is based upon the doctrine of the Filioque, which the eastern church rejected using the teaching of Photius, ....that issue along with political issues caused the delegates sent to Constantinople to issue excommunication which became mutual.

That didn't finalise the schism though, in the council of Florence the Eastern church agreed that the fathers taught the filioque but they went back and changed their minds again so that the anathema of the council took over. That was cemented by the disastrous war of the Crusades against Constantinople.
The issue about primacy was hardly an issue, in fact it came up in the council of Florence and there was hardly argument.

Rites are based upon Apostolic tradition, that is why all rites express the INTENT of the sacraments, something the Edward rite failed in.

Apostolic succession is part and parcel of the sacrament of Holy orders AKA ordination. And all sacraments are bestowed upon the church to be celebrated for the community, he who does not receive orders validly, didn't receive succession.


I hope by now you realize that these issues are stuff I am familiar with, both in church history and ecclesiology.

Ubenedictus:
then you still don't get it.

First of all, sacraments have 3 important component from Apostolic time. They now have technical terms, form, matter and intention.

Laying hands on somebody doesn't necessarily confer upon him Apostolic succession. In fact I received a laying of hands during my confirmation, it increased in my soul the outpouring of the spirit but it didn't confer upon me any Apostolic succession because, the intention and the words used are all about confirmation.
The apostles did confer on Matthias Apostolic succession, they both intended to make him all that Jesus has made them and allow him a share in all the ministries that has been given to them.
What are the ministries giving to them?
Chief among them are Eucharist and the power to absolve sins.
The Eucharist is a sacrifice because Jesus Christ himself said "my body given for you, my blood shed for you" that is a sacrifice. And all the church fathers are unanimous in that teaching.

When you guys Anglicans, adopted the heresies of Calvin and Co, you started to doubt the power to forgive sin and the Eucharist as sacrifice.
If your Eucharist is not a sacrifice and your priest can't absolve sins, then what they are celebrating is not the true Eucharist that the entire church celebrate, if your priest are not ordained to offer sacrifice and absolve sins then they are not priests.

If your bishops decided to "ordain" people who can't offer a sacrificial liturgy and absolve sins, then they certainly did not really ordain priest.

When priest were ordained in the Catholic Church in England they were ordained as priests and just like the orthodox, with power to offer a sacrificing priesthood and absolve sin, that is exactly what a Catholic priest does. When Anglicans broke away they started to ordain people who can't offer sacrifice, those are not priests... They certainly didn't receive the power of the priesthood because the bishops never INTENDED to confer on them all that the Catholic Church confers in her ordination.

These issues are held by the entire Catholic Church as regards the priesthood, including the orthodox... You guys have fallen into heresy that has affected the intent of the sacrament.

I am referring to the entire corpus called the church fathers, from iraneus of Lyon, Ignatius of Antioch who were disciples of the apostles, down to St maximus in the 9th century. All acknowledge the headship of Rome.

Actually the council of Constantinople that elevated the Bishop of Constantinople into a patriarch pretty much shows that Rome has primacy without any arguments.

The schism were caused first and foremost by heresy, in the 4th century when most of the Eastern Bishop were Arians, that immediately caused a schism until they rejected their heresy and we're accepted back by Rome, the patriarch of Alexandria and the Church of Armenia were excommunicated in the council of chalcedon. This one between the Eastern church and the west isn't the first time schism has happened. Whenever the Eastern church falls into heresy it always results in schism until they repent and the Church of Rome accepts them back.
The last and current schism is based upon the doctrine of the Filioque, which the eastern church rejected using the teaching of Photius, ....that issue along with political issues caused the delegates sent to Constantinople to issue excommunication which became mutual.

That didn't finalise the schism though, in the council of Florence the Eastern church agreed that the fathers taught the filioque but they went back and changed their minds again so that the anathema of the council took over. That was cemented by the disastrous war of the Crusades against Constantinople.
The issue about primacy was hardly an issue, in fact it came up in the council of Florence and there was hardly argument.

Rites are based upon Apostolic tradition, that is why all rites express the INTENT of the sacraments, something the Edward rite failed in.

Apostolic succession is part and parcel of the sacrament of Holy orders AKA ordination. And all sacraments are bestowed upon the church to be celebrated for the community, he who does not receive orders validly, didn't receive succession.


I hope by now you realize that these issues are stuff I am familiar with, both in church history and ecclesiology.

It's incorrect and a lie to say most of the eastern bishops were Arians when the person in question was but a priest. The trinitarianism, or homoousianism viewpoint, was promulgated by Athanasius of Alexandria, who insisted that Homoousianism theology was both the true nature of God and the teaching of Jesus and mind you Alexandria is orthodox.

Arguing about the filioque clause is futile because it was never there in the initial agreement as signed in the Nicene council. And saying all the church fathers are unanimous in teaching is an error and you only mentioned a few names and tagged them church fathers., Who's a church father? What makes one to be called so?

The council of Florence was a Roman council not an ecumenical council consisting of the entire church so whatever they decided applied only to Rome. And mind you any council after 1054 is for a particular jurisdiction and does not affect the entire church.

Saying rites are based on apostolic tradition is rhombus, did they use oil of chrism on Mathias as is used today? Rites were introduced in time and even till today there are still new additions such as the formula used at mass, with the priest backing the people back then in the tridentine mass but facing the people in the post Vatican 2 mass.

Apostolic succession is the clause for Holy orders and not a part of it for its what makes it valid. The third clause is not just about intention but that of the minister who does what the church does. The Anglican communion does not fall within the Roman canon and is a church not subjected to the Roman canon and cannot be subject to it. Just as the Romans came up with their own idea of theology so does the Anglican church have it's own and we can only look into the Bible for guidance not the Theological opinions of those you call church fathers.

Apination:

It's incorrect and a lie to say most of the eastern bishops were Arians when the person in question was but a priest. The trinitarianism, or homoousianism viewpoint, was promulgated by Athanasius of Alexandria, who insisted that Homoousianism theology was both the true nature of God and the teaching of Jesus and mind you Alexandria is orthodox.

so you don't know that after the council of Nicea, the eastern church still fell back into arianism.

Arguing about the filioque clause is futile because it was never there in the initial agreement as signed in the Nicene council. And saying all the church fathers are unanimous in teaching is an error and you only mentioned a few names and tagged them church fathers., Who's a church father? What makes one to be called so?

lol
So you don't know that even after Nicea several things were added to the creed.

Come-on do some research

The council of Florence was a Roman council not an ecumenical council consisting of the entire church so whatever they decided applied only to Rome. And mind you any council after 1054 is for a particular jurisdiction and does not affect the entire church.

the council of Florence comprised of the entire church both east and west.
Read some books, the east agreed during the council and rejected it later.

Saying rites are based on apostolic tradition is rhombus, did they use oil of chrism on Mathias as is used today? Rites were introduced in time and even till today there are still new additions such as the formula used at mass, with the priest backing the people back then in the tridentine mass but facing the people in the post Vatican 2 mass.

Apostolic succession is the clause for Holy orders and not a part of it for its what makes it valid. The third clause is not just about intention but that of the minister who does what the church does. The Anglican communion does not fall within the Roman canon and is a church not subjected to the Roman canon and cannot be subject to it. Just as the Romans came up with their own idea of theology so does the Anglican church have it's own and we can only look into the Bible for guidance not the Theological opinions of those you call church fathers.

Ubenedictus:
so you don't know that after the council of Nicea, the eastern church still fell back into arianism.

lol
So you don't know that even after Nicea several things were added to the creed.

Come-on do some research

the council of Florence comprised of the entire church both east and west.
Read some books, the east agreed during the council and rejected it later.

Some bishops from the east and not the eastern church in entirety. What comprises of the Eastern church? How does Arius and his group represent the entire Eastern church? We could go back and forth with this argument but I would advise you read unbiased articles and writeup on these issues and not just what the Roman church puts out there, which would always be in it's favour. Please no need responding cos we can have this argument all year long and there would be no headway.

Kelvinsaint:
Good morning everyone on this platform.

Please I want to know why most catholic families and parents don't allow their children marry anyone outside catholic church.

I'm a young guy in my late 20s,a graduate of accounting. I'm a public servant and I work in a federal government organization and earn well via my salary.

I meet this young pretty lady during my nysc dayz and since then we have been in love with each other.

Ever since my ex girlfriend whom I love so much left me and got married to someone else probably because I was not financially buoyant enough to take care of her and she couldn't wait for me to acquire more wealth before we settle down. I decided to take my time to look for someone else I can end up with in terms of marriage.

Yesterday been Sunday I was discussing with this pretty diva (my new girlfriend) I told her my intentions that I'm getting ready for our marriage maybe by on or before Xmas this year.

To my utmost surprise she told me that we should have our wedding in catholic church.. but I was born and brought up in Angelica church. She told me she can't marry me if I will not Wed her in catholic church. We start having a very big misunderstanding about that.i ask her the reason why it must be catholic church, she said her parents died when she was 5years old and her mothers family(grand parents) took her and her other siblings, and saw them through school. My girlfriend just started her PhD program recently cause she is through with her masters and she is just 24years old. She told me that her uncle that took care of her education till this stage whom is a catholic church Rev father warned her that if she gets married or plan getting married to anyone outside catholic. That he will cut all ties with her and she don't want to go against them.

I told her what if I agree to do the wedding in catholic church and after the wedding we go back to Anglican church. She said it not going to happen, that if she can't continue with going to catholic church, maybe we shouldn't marry at all.

She just told me on phone that it's better we end our relationship and move if I can't allow her to wed and be a catholic forever...

I asked what if my own parents object to her own opinion about wedding in catholic church since we are born Anglican, her answer is that my parents should understand that am doing it for love.


But she will never and nothing will ever make her compromise to her decision of marrying outside catholic church.. And that it's better for her to be single than to marry outside catholic.

Please what is it about catholic church.?
Are we not serving the same God?
Why is religion a problem to humanity?



Below is our chat attachment.

Let her be. Even if she eventually leaves her people for you she won't be truly happy. It's easier for you to convince your parents than for her. To be trained well and brought up by people who are not your parents leaves a big burden of emotional gratitude and debt.

If you really want to have a life with her, you have to make the sacrifice. Don't see it as selfish. You can always go to your church later on. But know this, if one party is not happy in a marriage or feels cheated then you won't enjoy the marriage.

Marriage is not a must but if you marry, marry the right person and be happy.

Kelvinsaint:
Good morning everyone on this platform.

Please I want to know why most catholic families and parents don't allow their children marry anyone outside catholic church.

I'm a young guy in my late 20s,a graduate of accounting. I'm a public servant and I work in a federal government organization and earn well via my salary.

I meet this young pretty lady during my nysc dayz and since then we have been in love with each other.

Ever since my ex girlfriend whom I love so much left me and got married to someone else probably because I was not financially buoyant enough to take care of her and she couldn't wait for me to acquire more wealth before we settle down. I decided to take my time to look for someone else I can end up with in terms of marriage.

Yesterday been Sunday I was discussing with this pretty diva (my new girlfriend) I told her my intentions that I'm getting ready for our marriage maybe by on or before Xmas this year.

To my utmost surprise she told me that we should have our wedding in catholic church.. but I was born and brought up in Angelica church. She told me she can't marry me if I will not Wed her in catholic church. We start having a very big misunderstanding about that.i ask her the reason why it must be catholic church, she said her parents died when she was 5years old and her mothers family(grand parents) took her and her other siblings, and saw them through school. My girlfriend just started her PhD program recently cause she is through with her masters and she is just 24years old. She told me that her uncle that took care of her education till this stage whom is a catholic church Rev father warned her that if she gets married or plan getting married to anyone outside catholic. That he will cut all ties with her and she don't want to go against them.

I told her what if I agree to do the wedding in catholic church and after the wedding we go back to Anglican church. She said it not going to happen, that if she can't continue with going to catholic church, maybe we shouldn't marry at all.

She just told me on phone that it's better we end our relationship and move if I can't allow her to wed and be a catholic forever...

I asked what if my own parents object to her own opinion about wedding in catholic church since we are born Anglican, her answer is that my parents should understand that am doing it for love.


But she will never and nothing will ever make her compromise to her decision of marrying outside catholic church.. And that it's better for her to be single than to marry outside catholic.

Please what is it about catholic church.?
Are we not serving the same God?
Why is religion a problem to humanity?



Below is our chat attachment.

Bros. Why should this even be an issue sef....My Aunt is a Christian and she is married to a Muslim. They have been together for more than 15 years we no hear any issue at all. I am a Christian and married to a Muslim..No disturbance from anywhere too..Which one come be he wahala over Anglican and catholic.. As long as you don’t stop her from going to her Catholic Church and she doesn’t stop you from going to your own Anglican Church.

Na woman church dem do do wedding na. Haba!!

Ubenedictus:
then you still don't get it.

I hope by now you realize that these issues are stuff I am familiar with, both in church history and ecclesiology.

hm
na wa for u o.
must u argue?
u completely missed d guy's sophistry when he tried to claim Anglican pastors are the same as Catholic priests!
a king- in his carnal desire to divorce his wife and marry a younger model- declares his kingdom as separated from the Catholic body; but somehow d 'priests' who chose to obey his orders still have the same anointing as the hundreds who were killed for their refusal?!
shuo!
isok.
therefore-
all the many heretics in d new testament are still Christians.
abi, oga apination?

aloeman15:
hm
na wa for u o.
must u argue?
u completely missed d guy's sophistry when he tried to claim Anglican pastors are the same as Catholic priests!
a king- in his carnal desire to divorce his wife and marry a younger model- declares his kingdom as separated from the Catholic body; but somehow d 'priests' who chose to obey his orders still have the same anointing as the hundreds who were killed for their refusal?!
shuo!
isok.
therefore-
all the many heretics in d new testament are still Christians.
abi, oga apination?

How are they heretics? Does the pope have a monopoly of Christianity? This is not an argument you should concern yourself with

Apination:

Some bishops from the east and not the eastern church in entirety. What comprises of the Eastern church? How does Arius and his group represent the entire Eastern church? We could go back and forth with this argument but I would advise you read unbiased articles and writeup on these issues and not just what the Roman church puts out there, which would always be in it's favour. Please no need responding cos we can have this argument all year long and there would be no headway.

The total number of people who came from the east in the council of Florence were 700, they included Joasaph, the Patriarch of Constantinople; Antonius, the Metropolitan of Heraclea; Gregory Hamma, the Protosyncellus of Constantinople (the last two representing the Patriarch of Alexandria); Marcus Eugenicus of Ephesus; Isidore of Kiev (representing the Patriarch of Antioch); Dionysius, Bishop of Sardes (representing the Patriarch of Jerusalem); Bessarion, Archbishop of Nicaea; Balsamon, the chief chartophylax; Syropulos, the chief ecclesiarch, and the Bishops of Monembasia, Lacedaemon, and Anchielo.


So the head of the eastern synod, in the person of the patriach of Constantinople was there, the patriach of Antioch sent a representative, the patriach of Alexandria also sent a representative, the patriach of Jerusalem also sent a representative and the Pope of Rome equally sent a representative.

What more do you want? All the five patriach sent except that of Constantinople who was present in person sent representative. The 4 patriach of the eastern church were there.

Apination:

It's incorrect and a lie to say most of the eastern bishops were Arians when the person in question was but a priest. The trinitarianism, or homoousianism viewpoint, was promulgated by Athanasius of Alexandria, who insisted that Homoousianism theology was both the true nature of God and the teaching of Jesus and mind you Alexandria is orthodox.

actually Arius was a priest and his teaching was rejected by the council of Nicaea. after that council the Eastern church fell back to the same heresy.

Athanasuis was deposed from Alexandria and sent on exile are you not aware? It was the church of Rome that upheld him. Arius the heretic was accepted by the eastern synod that met in tyre and in Jerusalem. Between 330 and 360 atleast 14 different eastern synod accepted some form of Arianism. An antiochene councils in 341 condemned athanasuis again. This same matter caused divisions in the council of sardica where the eastern bishops were majority in heresy.
It was Rome that upheld Alexandria and Athanasuis until the matter was put to bed in the first council of Constantinople.

Arguing about the filioque clause is futile because it was never there in the initial agreement as signed in the Nicene council. And saying all the church fathers are unanimous in teaching is an error and you only mentioned a few names and tagged them church fathers., Who's a church father? What makes one to be called so?

only a Anglican will claim to Have Apostolic succession and still ask who is a church father? Come-on you guys should decide already are you part of the ancient churches or are you a protestant because no orthodox or oriental Christian will be so ignorant as to ask who is a church father, like seriously? And the names I called is just a sample, giving you the timeline from the disciples of the apostles till the 8 century. If you want names I'll happily provide them.

The council of Florence was a Roman council not an ecumenical council consisting of the entire church so whatever they decided applied only to Rome. And mind you any council after 1054 is for a particular jurisdiction and does not affect the entire church.

I have already rebutted this. The council of Florence had both east and west represented with the patriach of Constantinople present and all others sent delegation. so it wasn't regional.

Saying rites are based on apostolic tradition is rhombus, did they use oil of chrism on Mathias as is used today? Rites were introduced in time and even till today there are still new additions such as the formula used at mass, with the priest backing the people back then in the tridentine mass but facing the people in the post Vatican 2 mass.

in rites there are developments but the basic rituals are according to how that particular people were led in worship by the apostles. If you read the liturgy of Rome as witnessed by St Justin martyr in the 2nd century and match it with that of today you will arrive at the same thing. Even though specific things are changing, if you look up to liturgy of St Basil in the 5th century and that used in the east you will come out looking at the same thing. Specific things are added, some modified, others adapted but the liturgies are significantly same.

Apostolic succession is the clause for Holy orders and not a part of it for its what makes it valid. The third clause is not just about intention but that of the minister who does what the church does. The Anglican communion does not fall within the Roman canon and is a church not subjected to the Roman canon and cannot be subject to it. Just as the Romans came up with their own idea of theology so does the Anglican church have it's own and we can only look into the Bible for guidance not the Theological opinions of those you call church fathers.

when the entire churches with lines to the apostles ordain priest they ordain them to offer sacrifice and forgive sins in Jesus' name, your church has no sacrifice to offer nor are your priest into sin forgiveness, so whatever was conferred on them is not the same because your church never intended it to be the same and you changed the words during the time of Edward to emphasize that they are not receiving such ministries. They dont have the ministry of priest they certainly don't have the Apostolic succession that goes with it.

Well nowhere does the Bible allow a king to be head in the new testament church, that alone is a minus against Anglicanism.

Just for your information, the Pope of Rome is also known in matters of immediate patriarchal jurisdiction as patriach of the west which means the church of England from ancient times is part and parcel of the church of Rome and subject to the Roman synod and Pope.

Do you get it now, how your church entered schism and then heresy by placing itself under a king.

Ubenedictus:
actually Arius was a priest and his teaching was rejected by the council of Nicaea. after that council the Eastern church fell back to the same heresy.

Athanasuis was deposed from Alexandria and sent on exile are you not aware? It was the church of Rome that upheld him. Arius the heretic was accepted by the eastern synod that met in tyre and in Jerusalem. Between 330 and 360 atleast 14 different eastern synod accepted some form of Arianism. An antiochene councils in 341 condemned athanasuis again. This same matter caused divisions in the council of sardica where the eastern bishops were majority in heresy.
It was Rome that upheld Alexandria and Athanasuis until the matter was put to bed in the first council of Constantinople.

only a Anglican will claim to Have Apostolic succession and still ask who is a church father? Come-on you guys should decide already are you part of the ancient churches or are you a protestant because no orthodox or oriental Christian will be so ignorant as to ask who is a church father, like seriously? And the names I called is just a sample, giving you the timeline from the disciples of the apostles till the 8 century. If you want names I'll happily provide them.

I have already rebutted this. The council of Florence had both east and west represented with the patriach of Constantinople present and all others sent delegation. so it wasn't regional.

in rites there are developments but the basic rituals are according to how that particular people were led in worship by the apostles. If you read the liturgy of Rome as witnessed by St Justin martyr in the 2nd century and match it with that of today you will arrive at the same thing. Even though specific things are changing, if you look up to liturgy of St Basil in the 5th century and that used in the east you will come out looking at the same thing. Specific things are added, some modified, others adapted but the liturgies are significantly same.

when the entire churches with lines to the apostles ordain priest they ordain them to offer sacrifice and forgive sins in Jesus' name, your church has no sacrifice to offer nor are your priest into sin forgiveness, so whatever was conferred on them is not the same because your church never intended it to be the same and you changed the words during the time of Edward to emphasize that they are not receiving such ministries. They dont have the ministry of priest they certainly don't have the Apostolic succession that goes with it.

Well nowhere does the Bible allow a king to be head in the new testament church, that alone is a minus against Anglicanism.

Just for your information, the Pope of Rome is also known in matters of immediate patriarchal jurisdiction as patriach of the west which means the church of England from ancient times is part and parcel of the church of Rome and subject to the Roman synod and Pope.

Do you get it now, how your church entered schism and then heresy by placing itself under a king.

We would go back and forth on this argument without getting to a conclusion, please let it rest.

Ubenedictus:
then you still don't get it.

First of all, sacraments have 3 important component from Apostolic time. They now have technical terms, form, matter and intention.

Laying hands on somebody doesn't necessarily confer upon him Apostolic succession. In fact I received a laying of hands during my confirmation, it increased in my soul the outpouring of the spirit but it didn't confer upon me any Apostolic succession because, the intention and the words used are all about confirmation.
The apostles did confer on Matthias Apostolic succession, they both intended to make him all that Jesus has made them and allow him a share in all the ministries that has been given to them.
What are the ministries giving to them?
Chief among them are Eucharist and the power to absolve sins.
The Eucharist is a sacrifice because Jesus Christ himself said "my body given for you, my blood shed for you" that is a sacrifice. And all the church fathers are unanimous in that teaching.

When you guys Anglicans, adopted the heresies of Calvin and Co, you started to doubt the power to forgive sin and the Eucharist as sacrifice.
If your Eucharist is not a sacrifice and your priest can't absolve sins, then what they are celebrating is not the true Eucharist that the entire church celebrate, if your priest are not ordained to offer sacrifice and absolve sins then they are not priests.

If your bishops decided to "ordain" people who can't offer a sacrificial liturgy and absolve sins, then they certainly did not really ordain priest.

When priest were ordained in the Catholic Church in England they were ordained as priests and just like the orthodox, with power to offer a sacrificing priesthood and absolve sin, that is exactly what a Catholic priest does. When Anglicans broke away they started to ordain people who can't offer sacrifice, those are not priests... They certainly didn't receive the power of the priesthood because the bishops never INTENDED to confer on them all that the Catholic Church confers in her ordination.

These issues are held by the entire Catholic Church as regards the priesthood, including the orthodox... You guys have fallen into heresy that has affected the intent of the sacrament.

I am referring to the entire corpus called the church fathers, from iraneus of Lyon, Ignatius of Antioch who were disciples of the apostles, down to St maximus in the 9th century. All acknowledge the headship of Rome.

Actually the council of Constantinople that elevated the Bishop of Constantinople into a patriarch pretty much shows that Rome has primacy without any arguments.

The schism were caused first and foremost by heresy, in the 4th century when most of the Eastern Bishop were Arians, that immediately caused a schism until they rejected their heresy and we're accepted back by Rome, the patriarch of Alexandria and the Church of Armenia were excommunicated in the council of chalcedon. This one between the Eastern church and the west isn't the first time schism has happened. Whenever the Eastern church falls into heresy it always results in schism until they repent and the Church of Rome accepts them back.
The last and current schism is based upon the doctrine of the Filioque, which the eastern church rejected using the teaching of Photius, ....that issue along with political issues caused the delegates sent to Constantinople to issue excommunication which became mutual.

That didn't finalise the schism though, in the council of Florence the Eastern church agreed that the fathers taught the filioque but they went back and changed their minds again so that the anathema of the council took over. That was cemented by the disastrous war of the Crusades against Constantinople.
The issue about primacy was hardly an issue, in fact it came up in the council of Florence and there was hardly argument.

Rites are based upon Apostolic tradition, that is why all rites express the INTENT of the sacraments, something the Edward rite failed in.

Apostolic succession is part and parcel of the sacrament of Holy orders AKA ordination. And all sacraments are bestowed upon the church to be celebrated for the community, he who does not receive orders validly, didn't receive succession.


I hope by now you realize that these issues are stuff I am familiar with, both in church history and ecclesiology.

I don't know where you got that idea of Anglicans not believing in the Eucharist from or unable to offer the sacrifice of the mass when they believe in the real presence and offer up the body and blood. This is just to correct impressions not for the sake of arguments

aloeman15:
hm
na wa for u o.
must u argue?
u completely missed d guy's sophistry when he tried to claim Anglican pastors are the same as Catholic priests!
a king- in his carnal desire to divorce his wife and marry a younger model- declares his kingdom as separated from the Catholic body; but somehow d 'priests' who chose to obey his orders still have the same anointing as the hundreds who were killed for their refusal?!
shuo!
isok.
therefore-
all the many heretics in d new testament are still Christians.
abi, oga apination?

lol
He is trying to leverage the fact that holy orders leave a mark on the soul. And so the anointing doesn't really die.

The end point is that his church fell and the English kings took over and martyred all the faithful Christians who didn't agree with him.

Ubenedictus:
lol
He is trying to leverage the fact that holy orders leave a mark on the soul. And so the anointing doesn't really die.

The end point is that his church fell and the English kings took over and martyred all the faithful Christians who didn't agree with him.

Fell from a tree? Really hilarious! I'm not even an Anglican.

All this girl's telling you that weddings are done in the bride church are simply talking rubbish. As a man you decide where you want to wed because it is your money and you are the one marrying their daughter not the other way round. I stood my ground many occasions as yours. In some cases I have to let the girls go but the same thing came up when I was about to marry my wife. I stood my ground against all odds and after some battle with the parents, I won. To avoid manipulation, stand your ground as a man. Let her sacrifice for love not only you.

Kelvinsaint:
Brother, thanks so much for you advise but I can't do that, if her family detect our wedding choice and of church. their can still make her go against my own wish in marriage maybe tomorrow she may prefer her Rev uncle words more than my.


And she want me now to be a catholic against my wish. Cause I love her

Then you are not ready to marry her, life is all about sacrifices. Me I can't even thinking of leaving the Catholic Church, where will I get the sacraments?? Which church will give me plenary indulgence A good Catholic don't even think twice about this issue

Apination:

We would go back and forth on this argument without getting to a conclusion, please let it rest.

these are issues that can be verified, no need to go back and forth.

Did all patriach not have representatives at the council of Florence?
Did the king not take over the church of England over the issue of divorce?
Did the theology of the church not change after that?
Did you guys not abolish the belief of sacrifice in the mass?
Did king Edward not change the rite to enforce that change in belief?

...

The funny thing is that I didn't want to go into this issue at first but you decided to mention the Orthodox church and the Coptic church as though I am a child who doesn't know his history... So I decided to give you the same hand you dealt me. The Catholic Church didn't begin yesterday and our relationship to the Anglicans isn't some new issue.

Apination:

I don't know where you got that idea of Anglicans not believing in the Eucharist from or unable to offer the sacrifice of the mass when they believe in the real presence and offer up the body and blood. This is just to correct impressions not for the sake of arguments

you believe in a real presence but deny that the mass is a sacrifice.

This is clear in the article of religion

Article XXXI. "Of the one oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.

The offering of Christ once made is the perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual, and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said that the priests did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits."

Kelvinsaint:
Good morning everyone on this platform.

Please I want to know why most catholic families and parents don't allow their children marry anyone outside catholic church.

I'm a little confused by your message. Is the issue whether the marriage itself is held in the Catholic Church, or whether the groom is actually a member of the Catholic Church?

In regards to the former, to my understanding the Catholic Church does require its members to be married by a Catholic priest. But... I'm not absolutely sure about all the rules, but can't you just do both? As is my understanding, churches are free to have the religious ceremony of marriage without actually issuing a legal certificate of marriage (i.e. one recognized legally by the government), so you can just have the religious ceremony of marriage in both churches but only have one of them actually issue the legal certificate. For monetary reasons you'd presumably want one of the two ceremonies to be a simple, private affair (or maybe it's possible to have both the Catholic and Anglican priest perform the ceremony together at the same wedding--not sure though), but it seems that would be satisfactory to both of the churches in satisfying their marital requirements.