Your take here on celibacy appears balanced; but I'D doubt this is the "mainstream" opinion within the Catholic Church; several others appear to understand differently.

What do you mean? The celibate priesthood is a Catholic Tradition and not a dogma.

Omenuko:

I'm not understanding you. . . .are you saying the Catholic Church should not have embassies, visas, and elections?

no one said anything of the sort . . . that was brought up to counter ~Lady~'s penchant for half-truths when she made this false claim -

~Lady~:

[size=14pt]One the Vatican in not a political entity.[/size]

Omenuko:

 Did not Pontius Pilot (Governor at the time) have Jesus scourged and crucified for his preaching of the kingdom of God.

Easy there, Pontius Pilate did not scourge and crucify Christ for preaching the gospel, infact Pontius Pilate said this - John 18:38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all

Pilate merely crucified Jesus to pacify the jews who accused Christ of blasphemy.

Omenuko:

Jesus' preaching by dafualt is political in a sense.

It was never political.

Omenuko:

What he was preaching is totally contrary to the interest of earthly authorities.

It was contrary to the strongly held belief system of the old testament jews. If you paid any attention to the bible at all you'd notice Christ had trouble SOLELY with the religious leaders of His time - pharisees, saducees and the temple priesthood . . . nowhere are we told of Pilate of Herod trying to kill Him.

Omenuko:

Did not the leaders of the Jews feel threatened by Jesus and his followers.

Neither Herod nor Pilate felt threatened at all. Read through the gospels, neither of them were remotely interested in crucifying Christ because they found no fault in Him. It was the religious leaders who felt threatened by a new theology they couldnt understand.

Omenuko:

Did not John the Baptiste call out Herod for his immorality.  Did not Herod imprison and execute John?

how is this related to politics or are you just plucking anything from the air?

Omenuko:

The Pope is the leader of almost a billion Catholics, anything he says can be seen as political.  By him preaching out against certain things his words will be seen as political regardless of how he delivers it.

The presence of embassies, papal consuls, visa requirements . . . is a strong indication that the catholic church sees itself as a political entity. Neither Christ nor the apostles had any of these.

Omenuko:

Just as multitudes begin accompanying Jesus he speaks a severe word of warning that 'If anyone does not hate father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.'  The point of this warning is not how literally we should take 'hate'.  No - the point is that in a society of very stable family ties, Jesus is calling into being a community of voluntary commitment, willing to take the hostility of the rest of society.

You again misquote the bible . . . the point of Christ's warning was to tell the people that putting God first was the more paramount.

Omenuko:

Maybe I should ask you a question.  What do you mean by political?  In other words, what are some of the political things the Catholic Church is doing that is, according to you, wrong?

Very simple - Rev 2:12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;
  13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.
  14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
  15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.

There is something really scary about the message to the church of pergamos (which is relevant today) . . .

The bible says these people "holdest fast my name and hast not denied my faith" then goes on to tell us that this same church dwellest "even where satan's seat is"?  

He that thinketh he standeth . . . let him take heed lest he fall.

Omenuko:

So I take it, your church has bishops and they meet all of the above standards?

that is the standard for every man who is called of the Holy Ghost.

Omenuko:

Every Catholic doctrine is rooted in scripture.

that is not true.

Omenuko:

What do you mean? The celibate priesthood is a Catholic Tradition and not a dogma.

catholic doctrine, tradition, dogma . . . what is the meaning of all three? Which of them is "rooted in scripture"? You seem confused by bogus names.

Very simple - Rev 2:12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;
13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.
14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.

There is something really scary about the message to the church of pergamos (which is relevant today) . . .

Your hatred will by your downfall. . . .I will pray for you, and I ask others to pray for me.

Omenuko:

Your hatred will by your downfall. . . .I will pray for you, and I ask others to pray for me.

Does that mean God is hateful? I mean i didnt put that into Revelations 2 . . .

My brother, open your bible and read it line by line, precept upon precept . . . asking God to open your eyes to His word INDEPENDENT of your church affiliation. I dont hate your church, that is a waste of my time and is ungodly.

The default position is to claim that the other "hates" your church when you run into brickwalls of church hubris that has no basis in the bible. It is sad but until you learn to start understanding the gospel urself you wont get beyond repeating catholic dogma by rote.

David and co.

It is quite obvious that the Catholic Church does not take the Bible as the word of God.

Or maybe it is the word of God but it is fallibe and not complete.

They see it as their compilation of historical events that Martin Luther deleted seven books out of.

It is the piece of Literature they compiled that we are now defiantly referring to on every occassion.

That's why I stopped getting involved in all these kind of arguments.

Referring them to scripture does not achieve much.

Peace and love to everyone anyways.

A_K_O:

David and co.

It is quite obvious that the Catholic Church does not take the Bible as the word of God.

Or maybe it is the word of God but it is fallibe and not complete.

They see it as their compilation of historical events that Martin Luther deleted seven books out of.

It is the piece of Literature they compiled that we are now defiantly referring to on every occassion.

I was trying so hard not to come to that same conclusion. Sad but true.
to us it is the living word of truth, to them it is but a work of literature. No wonder we hear "sola scriptura" so often.

Phew, is the war finally over,

@davidylan,

Does that mean God is hateful? I mean i didnt put that into Revelations 2 . . .

My brother, open your bible and read it line by line, precept upon precept . . . asking God to open your eyes to His word INDEPENDENT of your church affiliation. I don't hate your church, that is a waste of my time and is ungodly.

The default position is to claim that the other "hates" your church when you run into brickwalls of church hubris that has no basis in the bible. It is sad but until you learn to start understanding the gospel yourself you wont get beyond repeating catholic dogma by rote.

For you to sit there and castigate every little thing the Catholic Church teaches without holding yourself and your church to the same standards is hypocrisy.  Not once have you stated or acknowledge anything positive the Church has done.  Not once have you acknowledged the Catholic Churches contribution towards propagating Christianity.  But yet, you use your simple minded approach and some how convince yourself that the Bible fell from the sky and authentic Christianity was not being practiced in the early centuries.  That's why protestant Christianity is so non-intellectual.  And in many respects, anti-intellectual.  Try to be more objective in your arguments.  Being humble and respectful is not a sin.  Using historical records outside the Bible (e.g., writings of saints, historical records, etc.) is ok.  All we get from your post is menial drivel of how the Catholic Church is the LovePeddler of Babylon and blah blah blah.  My friend, go and read the history of the Church.  My advice to you. . . read some of the writings of the early Christians (post apostolic age) and you will find that they were indeed Catholic.  The early Church did not end with the Bible (which was definitively compiled in the 4th century - that's 300 to 400 years after the crucifixion).  Even if you disagree with what they taught and preached at least try to gain a more holistic picture of the origins of the Catholic Church.  The bible is a Catholic Book.  Every thing the Catholic Church teaches is rooted in scripture.  If you disagree with it fine.  If you have questions ask.


May the peace of Christ be with you and your family. . . .

Omenuko:

For you to sit there and castigate every little thing the Catholic Church teaches without holding yourself and your church to the same standards is hypocrisy.

I think you're confused. Because i dont see anywhere i claimed that my own church does not uphold the standards of the bible.

Omenuko:

Not once have you stated or acknowledge anything positive the Church has done.

Doing "positive things" does not matter . . . i'm sure you've read your bible well and not just as a work of history. Once you've broken one commandment you've broken all. Remember our "righteousness/positive things" are as filthy rags before the Lord.

Omenuko:

Not once have you acknowledged the Catholic Churches contribution towards propagating Christianity.

Remember this - the propagation of christianity is not something we shld glory in. It is of the Lord's doing. You are the first "christian" i have read from glorying in your "contribution towards propagating the gospel". Even Paul the apostle dared not utter such blasphemy.

Omenuko:

But yet, you use your simple minded approach and some how convince yourself that the Bible fell from the sky and authentic Christianity was not being practiced in the early centuries.

the bible didnt fall from the sky, it was penned by men inspired of the holy Ghost so that we may have examples to follow. Examples you disregard in favour of "tradition and dogma". Christianity as practiced by the apostles is what i have tried to show you in the epistles of the apostles . . . where is your own from?

Omenuko:

That's why protestant Christianity is so non-intellectual. And in many respects, anti-intellectual.

guess what the bible says about the "seemingly wise in their own conceit"? - 1 Corinthians 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 [size=14pt]That no flesh should glory in his presence[/size].

Omenuko:

Using historical records outside the Bible (e.g., writings of saints, historical records, etc.) is ok.

It seems your entire religion is based on everything OUTSIDE THE BIBLE. What really is the bible to you as an individual?

Omenuko:

All we get from your post is menial drivel of how the Catholic Church is the LovePeddler of Babylon and blah blah blah.

I didnt even say that at all today or yesterday or last week . . .

Omenuko:

My friend, go and read the history of the Church.

Since when did the "history of the church" become more important than the precious words of Christ?

Omenuko:

My advice to you. . . read some of the writings of the early Christians (post apostolic age) and you will find that they were indeed Catholic.

I've read the writings of Paul, Peter, James, John, titus, Luke . . . none of them were catholic. Whence did your own "early christians" come from?

Omenuko:

Every thing the Catholic Church teaches is rooted in scripture.

but you just agreed celibacy wasnt rooted in scripture . . . but we know the use of the rosary isnt, but we know Mary as the "queen of heaven" isnt.

Everything?

Omenuko:

If you disagree with it fine. If you have questions ask.

I've been asking questions all day, all i get is a whole load of abuse.

Omenuko:

May the peace of Christ be with you and your family. . . .

And urs too amen. Even though you hardly ever read the words of Christ rather prefering church history which Solomon describes as a weariness to the soul.

@davidylan,

Ok, lets bring the tone of the discussion a few notches down. Bros, I love reading the Bible. . . .I try to read it every day and try to apply it to my life. Reading the Bible is good. I love talking about Christianity and about Jesus. I'm sure you will agree with the above. I have a question for you (I guess its a general question to non-catholic christians too), do you read the writings of early Christians (say 70AD and forward)? In other words, in addition to the Bible, do you read historical records and writings of some of the great saints (e.g., St. Augustine, St. Ignatius, St. Thomas, etc.)? Do you read historical accounts and records (in addition to the Bible) of how the early Christians lived?

Just when we thought the war was over another air strike. Let me ask though, does the fact the Catholics practice these things doom them?

Omenuko:

@davidylan,

Ok, lets bring the tone of the discussion a few notches down. Bros, I love reading the Bible. . . .I try to read it every day and try to apply it to my life. Reading the Bible is good. I love talking about Christianity and about Jesus. I'm sure you will agree with the above. I have a question for you (I guess its a general question to non-catholic christians too), do you read the writings of early Christians (say 70AD and forward)? In other words, in addition to the Bible, do you read historical records and writings of some of the great saints (e.g., St. Augustine, St. Ignatius, St. Thomas, etc.)? Do you read historical accounts and records (in addition to the Bible) of how the early Christians lived?

No and i'll tell you why.
Again i return to my bible - 2 Corinthians 13:13 All the saints salute you.

Now i read through my entire bible and consistently every single apostle refers to the brethren (mere men like you and me) as saints. Who therefore are the "saints" that you mention? When did sainthood become a title that men confered on men?

I think that will be a good place to start.

[size=14pt]1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:[/size]

Omenuko . . . the bible couldnt be more clear. 2 things cannot be right at the same time . . .

No and i'll tell you why.
Again i return to my bible - 2 Corinthians 13:13 All the saints salute you.

Now i read through my entire bible and consistently every single apostle refers to the brethren (mere men like you and me) as saints. Who therefore are the "saints" that you mention? When did sainthood become a title that men confered on men?

I think that will be a good place to start.

1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

Omenuko . . . the bible couldnt be more clear. 2 things cannot be right at the same time . . .

I agree with you that all those who are in Christ are (in a sense) saints, but I'm talking about some of the wittings of the christian bishops, and leaders. Those who came after the apostles. Those who succeeded the apostles; those who were taught by the apostles. Do you read there writings at all?

Omenuko:

I agree with you that all those who are in Christ are (in a sense) saints, but I'm talking about some of the wittings of the christian bishops, and leaders. Those who came after the apostles. Those who succeeded the apostles; those who were taught by the apostles. Do you read there writings at all?

Omenuko, we cannot glance over a fundamental problem here.
It is either your church is right and the early biblical apostles were wrong or the biblical apostles were right and your church is wrong.

Pls re-read this - 1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

It doesnt say we are called to be saints "in a sense", it says as those of us who are sanctified in Christ Jesus are automatically called (by Christ Himself not the church) to be saints. The word "saints" in reference to the entire living body of Christ (in the early church) occurs so many times in the bible that it is impossible to just assume it as an error.

Now when your own church confers "sainthood" on a select few dead church members by the pope (clearly a fundamental biblical difference), you can expect that i'd have second thots about reading the writings of these men who seem to differ so markedly from apostle Paul and his brethren.

This is an important issue that shld not be swept under the carpet if we are to have an honest tete-a-tete.

Omenuko, we cannot glance over a fundamental problem here.
It is either your church is right and the early biblical apostles were wrong or the biblical apostles were right and your church is wrong.

please re-read this - 1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

It doesnt say we are called to be saints "in a sense", it says as those of us who are sanctified in Christ Jesus are automatically called (by Christ Himself not the church) to be saints. The word "saints" in reference to the entire living body of Christ (in the early church) occurs so many times in the bible that it is impossible to just assume it as an error.

Now when your own church confers "sainthood" on a select few dead church members by the pope (clearly a fundamental biblical difference), you can expect that i'D have second Thoughts about reading the writings of these men who seem to differ so markedly from apostle Paul and his brethren.

This is an important issue that shld not be swept under the carpet if we are to have an honest tete-a-tete.

So, because they were declared saints by the Catholic Church you do no read there writings?  Am I understanding you correctly? 

I totally agree with what you are saying about saints, but I think we Catholics use the term 'saints' in two ways.  We agree that those who are followers of Christ are saints in the sense of, yes, they are being made holy by God.  So, yes we call them saints.  But we also call those who are in heaven, those who have past away and are with God Saints also.  They are saints because they have already been made holy, because they are in heaven. 

But, back to my question, do you read the accounts of early christians (post apostolic age)?

Omenuko:

So, because they were declared saints by the Catholic Church you do no read there writings?  Am I understanding you correctly? 

I totally agree with what you are saying about saints, but I think we Catholics use the term 'saints' in two ways.  We agree that those who are followers of Christ are saints in the sense of, yes, they are being made holy by God.  So, yes we call them saints.  But we also call those who are in heaven, those who have past away and are with God Saints also.  They are saints because they have already been made holy, because they are in heaven. 

But, back to my question, do you read the accounts of early christians (post apostolic age)?

To start with there is already a fundamental problem which you seem keen to sweep under the carpet.
Where in your bible do you read of Peter (allegedly your first pope) confering "sainthood" on a select few dead apostles? 

Look again at the portion in bold . . . it doesnt seem you know much about the bible. You say these dead men are "saints because they have already been made holy because they are in heaven" . . . but that sir, is biblically wrong!

Read again - 1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

1. "Unto the church of God which is at corinth" - indicates Paul was speaking to people who were here on earth not in heaven.

2. It says these brethren have been sanctified (made Holy) in Christ Jesus - you don't need to wait to get to heaven to be made Holy, Christ has already sanctified you through His blood once you become saved here on earth.

These are FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES you can't just keep ignoring. they form the basis for whether i will waste my time reading the writings of your early christians. It is impossible to read two diametrically opposite ideologies and not be confused. I choose not to be confused.

These are FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES you can't just keep ignoring. they form the basis for whether i will waste my time reading the writings of your early christians. It is impossible to read two diametrically opposite ideologies and not be confused. I choose not to be confused.

Ok, let me rephrase my question. Have you ever read any writings from early church Christians (those that have not been declared saints by the Catholic Church) to get a take on how they lived and worshiped (post apostolic age)?

Omenuko:

Ok, let me rephrase my question. Have you ever read any writings from early church Christians (those that have not been declared saints by the Catholic Church) to get a take on how they lived and worshiped (post apostolic age)?

I've read those of Paul, Peter, James, John, Luke. The early church christians of the bible. I know what messages they preached, i know how they lived and worshipped. I know what sacrifices they went through. I've read their examples and exhortations.  Who else am i supposed to read on?

Christ's message never changes pre or post apostolic age . . . Its the same thing He preached that Paul and company preached and is the same thing i hold unto. Your catholic fathers preach a different sermon. no thanks, i have not even finished reading the bible.

I've read those of Paul, Peter, James, John, Luke. The early church christians of the bible. I know what messages they preached, i know how they lived and worshipped. I know what sacrifices they went through. I've read their examples and exhortations.  Who else am i supposed to read on?

Christ's message never changes pre or post apostolic age . . . Its the same thing He preached that Paul and company preached and is the same thing i hold unto. Your catholic fathers preach a different sermon. no thanks, i have not even finished reading the bible.

How do you know they preached a different sermon if you haven't even read any of their writings?

've read those of Paul, Peter, James, John, Luke.

Do you believe all of the New Testament books were written by apostles?

Omenuko:

How do you know they preached a different sermon if you haven't even read any of their writings?

Ignatius was born in 1491 . . . hardly an "early" church christian.

Augustine of hippo it was who said - "There is no salvation outside the church" - We know that to be biblically false.

Thomas aquinas himself was born in 1225, hardly qualifies as an "early" church christian similar to Ignatius and was a prominent believer in the false idea of mortal and venial sin . . . an idea that is unsubstantiated in the bible.

Why should i read their writings?

Omenuko:

Do you believe all of the New Testament books were written by apostles?

Sorry All were.

why have you tried to sweep my question under the rug?

who is a saint? the answer stares at you in the bible.

Omenuko, we are men who are given to reason . . . 2 things cannot be right at the same time.

Hi davidalyn,

nice discussion so far contending for the faith. What church do you attend if I may ask?

who is the fellow that changed my ID? 

was wondering too. is it possible for some else to do that

naomijt:

was wondering too. is it possible for some else to do that

I have no clue. I'll have to talk to the mods tomorrow. have a hunch who it might be. Well till its resolved, i'll simply use this name.

naomijt:

Hi davidalyn,

nice discussion so far contending for the faith. What church do you attend if I may ask?

I'm nondenominational. Always attended small church groups all my life.

davidylan~:

I have no clue. I'll have to talk to the mods tomorrow. have a hunch who it might be. Well till its resolved, i'll simply use this name.

I'm nondenominational. Always attended small church groups all my life.

Same here that is why i'm curious.

Your name is totally different. Why din't u want to use the old one or the one it was changed to.

Ignatius was born in 1491 . . . hardly an "early" church christian.

I'm actually talking about Ignatius of Antioch [50-117 AD], Polycarp of Smyrna [60-120 AD], Justin Martyr [100-165 AD], Iranaeus of Lyons [120-180 AD], Athenagoras [150-200 AD], Clement of Alexandria [150-215 AD], and Theophilus of Antioch [150-200 AD].  Although there are many more, these are some of the earliest.

why have you tried to sweep my question under the rug?

who is a saint? the answer stares at you in the bible.

Omenuko, we are men who are given to reason . . . 2 things cannot be right at the same time.

Sweeping what under the rug. . . .its as though you are purposely trying to argue about something we both have similar beliefs on.  I told you that I agree with your definition of what a saint is.  In addition to what you said, we Catholics have a second understanding of who saints are.  We call those who are in heaven saints because they have truly been made holy and perfected.  The word 'saint' means holy.  There is no sin in them because they are with God.  We on earth still continue to commit sin.  But we are saints too because we are being made holy.  Also, while every person who is canonized is a saint, not every holy person has been canonized. We all probably know many "saints" in our lives, and we are all called by God to be one our selves.

@A_K_O: « #613 on: Yesterday at 06:52:40 PM »

David and co.

It is quite obvious that the Catholic Church does not take the Bible as the word of God.

Or maybe it is the word of God but it is fallibe and not complete.

They see it as their compilation of historical events that Martin Luther deleted seven books out of.

It is the piece of Literature they compiled that we are now defiantly referring to on every occassion.
That's why I stopped getting involved in all these kind of arguments.

Referring them to scripture does not achieve much.

What made you think that you can "refer the Catholic to 'Scripture'?" Is this not, by your admission, above that the so called scripture was with the "catholic," long time, before Martin Luther came about and copied it, less the books deleted?

How is it possible that the newcomer, on the same topic and using the exact same book of recording facts on that topic, can think that he/she is an authority and better suited than the one he learnt it from?

If you are a Yoruba man, I will use the Yoruba language for illustration. There are some tribes of people outside Yoruba Nigeria who speak this language. The folks in Brazil for example are extracted Yorubas during slavery. Based on the aduteration of the Yoruba landguage they now come up speaking, because of the influencs of Slavery and portuguese language, can they these Brazilian "Yorubas," correct the Speech of the Yorubas in Yorubaland of Nigeria?

Never! This is the case with the protestants with the catholics. If you call the catholics modernized adolators, the protestants have to be worse than that! And just because you do not venerate a physically erect statue, you must never forget that you have the same dogma of 3 in 1. This is the worst kind of adolatry.

great saints (e.g., St. Augustine, St. Ignatius, St. Thomas, etc.),

Wow, mere men confereing empty mere titles on men who most probably,

First and foremost.

1. Peter is not and was not the first Pope.
2. Catholic church started years after Peter and co have already been crucified for the sake of Christ.
3. Even the apostles did not call confer the title of Saints on themselves.
4. Where in the bible is Mary to be worshipped or honoured by men.
5. Where in the bible is the establishment of a position of Pope.
6. Where in the bible is Rosary mentioned.
7. Where in the bible is Purgatory mentioned.
8. How can a man be saved according to the bible, then compare this with how a man is saved accord to catholism.
9. Did Jesus Christ appoint any man to his representative on earth.
10. Did Jesus Christ say that we should pray to a particular Saint or Man or Woman.
11. Is any man infallible.
12. Is the Pope a Man or a Spirit.
13. Is the Pope of God or the Devil.
14. Is the Pope fallible or not.
15. How do u know whether or not St. Augustine, St. Ignatius, St. Thomas are in Heaven or not,
16. Did Jesus Christ ask us to pray to those "Men or Angels " in heaven, or, did Jesus Christ ask us to pray to "Our Father who art in Heaven"

There are so many questiosn that a dogmatic followers of the cult of catholism ought to ask themselves just as Islaamists need to ask themselves similar questions about their life after death.

Its rather sad that each passing day brings us closer to the coming of Christ, (who i pray and hope that i'll reign with despite my inadequacies as a Born Christian).

OMENUKO, I HOPE YOU CAN READ THIS SCRIPTURE:
1 Timothy 3: 1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Titus 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
AND THE TRUTH, SHALL SET YOU FREE (If you can accept it as truth).

My problem with people like you is that you have so much confidence in your church until YOU ARE READY TO FORGET THE SCRIPTURES.
May be the word of the POPE makes you feel secure and HEAVEN BOUND!

Hope you've not forgotten you told me to 'rie nsi'. Thanks but dont forget that 'udiri nsi a atokazi'