Bidam: This is sickening!!

And some people will be talking of "apostolic succession"! As if that is the same thing as papal succession!

woky: u funny

You never see funny. There are lots of other stuff that we can still point to.

You don see where Hippolytus finish two "popes" in one go in one place like that?

You don see where the Eastern "pope" Firmillian when writing to the "church father" Cyprian finished the Roman Catholic "pope"?

Person still dey bring bird come from pocket .........

Even "animals" can be considered by some to be better than a "pope" who did the below to his predecessor ---- to a previous "pope".

Note this information is even taken from the Roman Catholic people's own encyclopaedia!

"Whether induced by evil passion or perhaps, more probably, compelled by the Emperor Lambert and his mother Ageltruda, he caused the body of Formosus to be exhumed, and in January, 897, to be placed before an unwilling synod of the Roman clergy. A deacon was appointed to answer for the deceased pontiff, who was condemned for performing the functions of a bishop when he had been deposed and for passing from the See of Porto to that of Rome. The corpse was then stripped of its sacred vestments, deprived of two fingers of its right hand, clad in the garb of a layman, and ultimately thrown into the Tiber. Fortunately it was not granted to Stephen to have time to do much else besides this atrocious deed. Before he was put to death by strangulation, he forced several of those who had been ordained by Formosus to resign their offices and he granted a few privileges to churches. "

A person does not have to be infallible to recognise that the "pope" who said the below is not infallible anything but was talking through his backside!


"Infallible "pope"

“We declare, state, define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff. (‘Pope’ Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam; statement made ex cathedra, thus ‘infallibly’!)

Versus

Jesus Christ

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

shdemidemi:
We identify who is saying the truth by going back to the scriptures to verify what anyone says.

Do you know that according to the Roman Catholic Church denomination and its "popes" no individual is supposed to interpret the Bible. Every one must agree to whatever the "pope" and the RCC says or beeeee, again you guessed it, --- anathema!

Zikkyy:

You know my position on Papal infallibility. i believe i have stated that in the past, but....

I can't remember; maybe it is better you remind us all.

Zikkyy: ..it can only be an opinion. your/my interpretation.

Just like whatever interpretation a "pope" makes is his own opinion. So, why does he have to declare those who see things differently --- anathema?

@ Zikky

I get what you are trying to say to truthislight but I have a question.

Does one himself have to be "infallible" to say that the Roman Catholic "pope" is not "infallible"?

For example can a person who is not infallible not say that a Roman Catholic "pope" who says the below when compared with the Bible --- cannot be infallible?


"Infallible" "pope"

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

versus

Romans 10:4

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believes."

One I made earlier
----------------------

Actually, maybe we can clarify things this way:

1. The Christian Bible was made in the first century. It came before "the Catholic Church" - let alone the Roman Catholic Church.

2. The Christian New Testament was produced by the Church and is a continuation of the Christian Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible) which existed before the Church of the Day of Pentecost.
------

3. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Bible which was only made in 1546, and which is contrary to the Christian Bible of Christian tradition, was agreed by the Roman Catholic Church at a meeting with an unclear vote. That one came some 1500 or so years after "the Catholic Church" and also after the Roman Catholic Church.

Further from that entry

"The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, along with certain fictitious letters ascribed to early popes, from Clement to Gregory the Great, were incorporated in a ninth-century collection of canons purporting to have been made by the pseudonymous Isidore Mercator. Collections of canons were commonly made by adding new matter to old; the forger of the Pseudo-Isidore collection took as the basis of his work a quite genuine collection, Hispana Gallica Augustodunensis, and interpolated his forgeries among the genuine material that supplied credibility by association. The official Liber pontificalis was used as a historical guide and furnished some of the subject matter. The Pseudo-Isidorian collection also includes the earlier (non-Pseudo-Isidorian) forgery, the Donation of Constantine."


That part refers to another major forgery known as the Donation of Constantine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine

"The Donation of Constantine (Latin, Donatio Constantini) is a forged Roman imperial decree by which the emperor Constantine I supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Pope. Composed probably in the 8th century, it was used, especially in the 13th century, in support of claims of political authority by the papacy."

Mercifully, if Wikipedia is tampered with, there are other sources of information on these matters --- incidentally including the Roman Catholic denomination's own encyclopaedia!

On Roman Catholic versus Christian issues, I am generally careful about trusting Wikipedia. In fact I will not be surprised if sometimes after this my post, the entry I'm about to quote is modified.

Anyway from Wikipedia about Pseudo-Isidore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Isidorian_Decretals

"The Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals (or False Decretals) are a set of extensive and influential medieval forgeries, written by a scholar or group of scholars known as Pseudo-Isidore. The authors, who worked under the pseudonym Isidore Mercator, were probably a group of Frankish clerics writing in the second quarter of the ninth century. They aimed to defend the position of bishops against metropolitans and secular authorities by creating false documents purportedly authored by early popes, together with interpolated conciliar documents."

Even Roman Catholic English Bibles do not agree. And of course they were always confused about the Vulgate. Oh and we had the "pope" Sixtus V debacle.

Oh and by the way, for Christians in particular: read Genesis 3:15 in two Roman Catholic Bibles and see what falsehood has reduced the Roman Catholic Church denomination people to:

New Jerusalem Bible
Douay-Rheims Bible

Pity this thread is not one in which Christians should argue. I wouldn't even waste my time with the OP.

And of course that mumu "pope" was not content to reject Acts chapter 15 for his Roman Catholic Church denomination; he declares others who accept Acts 15 to be ---- yep you guessed it, anathema! lol


"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.
--------------------------

"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!

Zikkyy:

Its possible he did. or you don't believe God can appear to the Pope ...

It is possible that God speaks to a "pope": God even "speaks" to people who are not Christians --- for example by calling them.

However, we do know of "popes" who have pulled doctrine from their backsides in circumstances that we can safely say that if anyone instructed them about the doctrine, it could not have been God but must have been satan.

I will give you an example.

In the Bull (very appropriately 'bull' too) Pastor Aeternus, the "pope" Leo X declared effectively that the Roman Catholic Church does not believe in chapter 15 of the Book of Acts of the Bible. He declared that the "pope" is higher than an ecumenical council. For his proof he did not rely on having heard from God, rather he relied on false statements from the forged document known as Pseudo-Isidore!

So we can safely say that that one was from his backside and not from God.

Zikkyy:

No wahala. I agree that nobody have the right to say other believers are false Christians.

Bros, I'm glad you get my point. Imagine also saying others are anathema because they exercise a choice on what books they consider canonical or even fully canonical --- since many others even still see the Apocrypha (the 7 main) as somewhat useful!

Honestly, I don't like the idea that we are doing this (and apologies again to decent Roman Catholics) --- but my view is that it became necessary.

The lies, fraud and forgeries needed to be countered with facts.

shdemidemi:

You are now saying what I am saying- if I want nugget, I go to mc Donald's. If they are closed and Burger King is opened, I will go in there to get what I want.

Christians can't impose the truth on Roman Catholics, just as they can't impose it on witch doctors...SIMPLES!

And the real problem is that the idolatrous Roman Catholic Church wants other Christians to join it in its idolatry. When others refuse, it declares them ---- anathema. lol lol lol

So, who is trying to force something on others?

Who cannot bear it that others refuse to recognise its "authority" --- fraudulently claimed authority?

The then "Cardinal" Ratzinger (present 'Pope Emeritus' Benedict XVI) as quoted on Limbo.


"This state people called limbo. In the course of our century, that has gradually come to seem problematic to us. This was one way in which people sought to justify the necessity of baptizing infants as early as possible, but the solution is itself questionable. Finally, the pope made a decisive turn in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, a change already anticipated by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, when he expressed the simple hope that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all those who were unable to receive the sacrament."


So if a group makes a change to its teaching, does it not show that the group is not "infallible" --- even if neither the original nor the change is a "dogmatic definition"?

Before becoming "pope", the man who was to become "pope" Adrian VI and initially trying to reform the rotten Roman Catholic Church after Luther exposed it said something interesting. Even more interesting still, after becoming "pope" he had the material republished.

He said:

"If by the Roman Church is understood its head, that is the pope, it is certain that it can err, even in those matters which concern the Faith, by publishing heresy in its decisions and decrees. For many Roman Pontiffs have been heretics. Of recent times it is reported that Pope John XXII publicly taught, declared, and commanded to be believed by all, that purified souls do not have the clear vision of God before the Final Judgment."

^^^ Here (again) is proof for "infallibility".


"Infallible" "pope"

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

versus

Romans 10:4

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believes."




And again I say: infallible ko, mumuness ni!

Here is a 'whole' Roman Catholic "Cardinal"; not only a "cardinal" but a person who himself nearly became "pope".

Per "Cardinal" Baronius

"The chief lesson of these times is that the Church can get along very well without popes. What is vital to the Church's survival is not the pope but Jesus Christ. He is the head of the Church, not the pope."

One I made earlier
----------------------

Actually, maybe we can clarify things this way:

1. The Christian Bible which was made in the first century came before "the Catholic Church" - let alone the Roman Catholic Church.

2. The Christian New Testament was produced by the Church and is a continuation of the Christian Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible) which existed before the Church of the Day of Pentecost.
------

3. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Bible which was only made in 1546, and which is contrary to the Christian Bible of Christian tradition, was agreed by the Roman Catholic Church at a meeting with an unclear vote. That one came some 1500 or so years after "the Catholic Church" and also after the Roman Catholic Church.

The real historical facts are that the Roman Catholic Church is an organisation built on lies, fraud and forgeries.

An organisation that made its own Bible in 1546 with a dodgy vote (25 for, 15 against, 16 abstained) and which did not even know which of its own Vulgate was accurate --- claims it closed the canon! lol lol lol

Yeah, when did it close this canon?

Afterall its "pope" Gregory I is anathema

Its "church father" Jerome is anathema

Its Erasmus, yep the same Erasmus, is anathema

Its "Cardinal" Cajetan (Luther's opponent) is anathema

And beyond its own people, the vast majority of the "church fathers" who belong to the real "Catholic" Church now widely known as Eastern Orthodox are anathema

They all believed in a Bible different from the one that the Roman Catholics made in 1546 with the ---- anathema.

Zikkyy: On the issue of Papal infallibility

i would say infallibility is needed in a church structure for there to be order church leaders need to be infallible (whether their teachings right or wrong) to avoid disintegration of a church. I don’t think infallibility is something you fight over; you either accept or reject it. Catholics will accept Papal infallibility while others (non catholic) may reject. rejecting the Pope’s teachings may result in him/her ‘porting’ to any other church (e.g. frosbel ). There is also the option of just accepting that part you are comfortable with. It’s the same for every other church; e.g. Adeboye or Oyaks can be considered infallible in the eyes of their members (at least to the extent only the pastor can ‘reverse’ himself).

Zikky

Roman Catholics can claim "infallibility" for their "pope" among themselves and for themselves.

They don't stop there: they insist that because they have this "infallibility", others must be false! So we expose their yansh and show that the emperor has no clothes.

They say because their "pope" has "infallibility" and is "successor of Peter", every Christian anywhere in the world must submit to their "pope". So we expose their yansh and show that the emperor has no clothes.


If they keep their claim to themselves as their belief, I can leave them alone. If they use their false claims which we know are based on lies, forgeries and fraud to disparage others, I am happy to oblige them with facts to show that their organisation is a house of lies.

Again, I say sorry to decent Roman Catholics out there; what you see on this thread is what your conceited brothers and sisters have invited onto you.

And about "declaring the canon closed", look at it this way they declared everyone who disagrees with their own Bible of 1546 with the dodgy vote to be ---- anathema.

Thus:
- the real "Catholics" even of the 4th century and now i.e. the Eastern Orthodox are ---- anathema
- the Ethiopian Orthodox who have 81 books in their regular canon (8 more than even the Roman Catholics) are ---- anathema
- the Jews who keep to the original Hebrew Bible are ---- anathema

As for the so-called "Protestants" ............................

Meanwhile of the different groups that have their own canon or Bible, how many of them have declared others to be anathema for having their own Bible?

Yes, you guessed right! The people seeking devilish/satanic domination and "primacy" or "supremacy".

^^^ You see, Roman Catholics have always lied. Lies, fraud, forgeries are at the root of Roman Catholicism.

They used forged and false documents like The Donation of Constantine and Pseudo-Isidore (false 'decretals') to fool people, other Christians, nations and emperors for a long time. Someone even observed that they used it to fool ordinarily intelligent people such as Thomas Aquinas.

Their book of "popes" the Liber Pontificalis is a work of fiction and lies. All because they wanted devilish/satanic domination.

The modern fools and apologists want to do "na we dey there" but are not concerned with biblical truths or the teachings of Jesus.

People who say the kind of thing above are not only liars but idolaters who worship a man i.e. the "pope" and a human institution i.e. the idolatrous Roman Catholic Church.

They are double mumu in that they allow these things - man and the human institution - to block their brains and prevent them from clear and biblical thinking; all they are doing is furthering the agenda of murderers, adulterers and power crazed people i.e. the "popes" etc who set the false doctrines and lies that they are defending.

"Infallible" "pope"

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

versus

Romans 10:4

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believes."




And again I say: infallible ko, mumuness ni!

JMAN05:

ok. how should gen. 3:15 read and do you have a prove from hebrew?

How did Rev. 12 support that the woman will crush the serpent?

And not even Eve --- but Mary!

"Jesus the prisoner's fetters breaks
And bruises Satan's head"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VPBc7lXnOQ

And it continues; it doesn't stop --- at least not yet!

The "dogmatic definition" says further that it was fitting that Mary* should be

"so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent."



And if Roman Catholics still deny that their organisation or denomination makes Mary co-mediatrix, here is another thing that the "dogmatic definition" document says:

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

It gets worse! Actually, the claim that Mary crushed the serpent's head was not made by just one "pope"! It was made by at least two "popes"!

The document I cited earlier was made by Pius X commemorating the original "dogmatic definition". The original "dogmatic definition" by his predecessor "pope" and namesake Pius IX also said in Ineffabilis Deus: http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm

" so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot"



And again I say "infallible" ko, mumuness ni!

Ah, I had forgotten this thread! Hopefully I can come back to it. All it should take to debunk the Roman Catholic falsehoods and chicanery is further copy and paste from some I made earlier.

In the meantime my attention is preoccupied with papal infallibility here https://www.nairaland.com/1522201/defend-catholic-teachings-here/12#19820136

Again from that "immaculate conception" document we read:

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



And again I say: infallible ko, mumuness ni!

"Infallible" "pope":

"Adam, the father of mankind, looked to Mary crushing the serpent's head ...."

versus

Genesis 3

15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your off spring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”