₦airaland Forum

kcjazz: Haha totally untrue in this context. Italo even answered better even if he puts "other" Christians together with unbelievers.

If you think other Christians that disagree with some of your doctrines are condemned then why does your Catholic Hymn Book have hymns from protestants? I would like to know how many hymns were composed by Roman Catholics that are listed in that book?

Popular Hymns like Trust and Obey, I surrender, Pass me not only gentle saviour, Amazing grace, It is well... just to name a few are sang at evening masses everyday. If you condemn the other Christians why sing their hymns and have the guts to add to to your Catholic Hymn Book? Again like the Bible you compile from others and claim ownership.

I think you are grossly misunderstanding Ube. He is saying the same thing I said.

If you know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church and reject it, you are damned, be you Christian, Buddhist or even Atheist. But if you truly dont know that it is the one true Church of the one true God, you can be saved, be you Christian, Muslim or even Agnostic.

Ukuts gp: I have a question and the question is: why are the catholic afraid of Enigma?

That also is neither Catholic doctrine nor practice.

adsonstone: lets examine the 'NT canon tradition' or catholic tradition or whatever you may call it..... did not originate from the Apostles.

What we have ie: the Gospels and the Epistles are works of the apostles and other insipired men meant for the church. I guess you dont expect these to be ignored by the church.

We also have the following books:
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Truth
Gospel of the Twelve
Gospel of Peter
Gospel of Basilides
Gospel of the Egyptians
Gospel of the Hebrews
Gospel of Matthias
Traditions of Matthias
Preaching of Peter
Acts of Andrew
Acts of Paul
Acts of John
Epistle to the Laodiceans
I Clement
Epistle of Barnabas
Didache
Shepherd of Hermas
Apocalypse of Peter

Why are these 'apostolic' books not in the NT with the 27?
Who wrote Hebrews? Which Apostle?

adsonstone: The Holy Spirit instructs that traditions that are learnt from the Apostles should be adhered to...not the roman catholic tradition or 'canon tradition'

Apostolic Tradition=Catholic Church Tradition and I have shown why in my reply to truthislight.

But if you reject it, then tell me the following:

1. Where the Holy Spirit mentioned that we must follow the "apostles's" tradition.
2. We must "not follow Catholic tradition."
3. We must "not follow canon tradition."
4. Where the Holy Spirit told you that Mark wrote "Mark" and Luke wrote "Luke" and that those books were inspired by him.
5. Who is an apostle and where did the Holy Spirit tell you that?

To make things easier,
What exactly are these traditions of the apostles?
Just name at least one of these traditions that the Bible is silent about (that was what I requested in the first place).

It depends on what you mean by "silent." That the Bible is silent about something or not can be a very vague expression. E.g there are people who believe the Bible is silent on Trinity simply because they dont find the word there.

Also, you have previously stated more than once that you are infallible.

Does this mean that you are always correct with whatever you say or teach on faith and morals; and whenever you interpret scripture?

Or could you possibly be wrong on at least one of your teachings and interpretations of scripture?

truthislight: The 27 books of the NT are not "catholic traditions" or anything remotely resembling succh. Since such a word began to be used in the 2nd ce.


And all 27 books are products of the 1st century ce.

The teaching of the NT are exclusive of the apostles of christ for christians.

Luke and Mark are disciples of christ and in close association with the apostles as can be seen from the reading of the book of 'Acts of the apostles'.

This Two individual did not angaged in 'teaching', but reported History.

When you look at the NT from hence, you know how it came about, hence completely and absolutely devoid of anything referencing it as "catholic traditions".

How this books whose writing was all done in the 1st century ce can be called "catholic tradition" when the word catholic was first ever use in the 2nd century beats reasonable reasons.

The NT then is the product of christ Apostles. QED.

If any other book or books should join in the writings of christ Apostles, you first have to prove that the writer of the book or books was an apostle of christ Jesus.

This line is a streight line.

Any that wish to confused it is only confusing himself in an effort to asign the effort of the apostles to RCC.

May the reader use decernment.

Peace.

Oh yeah?! The followers of Christ were first called Christians in Antioch; does that mean that the converts at Pentecost were not Christians? Does that mean that Christianity started at Antioch? Imagine Italo was named "italo" 8days after his birth; does that mean that crying baby at birth was not italo? You see that your logic is very very poor and faulty.

It was the same Church founded on the Apostles that St. Ignatius called "Catholic Church" in 110AD to differentiate from the many heretical sects that were springing up at the time. It was its first leaders that wrote the books of the NT. There were far far more than these 27 books (including forgeries and uninspired books) in circulation among Christians. It was this same Church founded on the Apostles - The Catholic Church that decided that these 27 would make up the NT and the many others would not make it.

So anyone who has never read the other books but says they are not scripture (like you and the other Protestants) is putting faith in Catholic Tradition.

wiegraf: Assuming your data is accurate op, first up, you do realize your issue is with folk that want to die, eg some brands of nihilists, yes? Or you can show me atheist doctrine which mandates we commit suicide? I can show you doctrine that encourages one to suicide though. Simply look at medieval japan and harakiri or muslims and 72 vir.gins. See? Atheism has absolutely nothing of the sort, so I fail to see the problem here. Their decisions to was theirs and theirs alone. Looks like a contradiction? It isn't.

If you're looking for why they did it mind you, you post they have "less contact with family members", etc etc. I hope religiosity isn't responsible for that, hmm?

Before any si.lly 'holier than thou' as well, not that I necessarily agree with their position, but you do know that contrary to your beliefs living might not be a 'blessing' or whatever nonsense you'd like to spout. I could even argue that some xtians/etc stay alive needlessly, when a graceful end would be much better. I, for instance, would rather be dead than completely paralyzed. My position.

The talk of not having as many children as religious, hope you're not insinuating that's some sort of crime? Else...well

And you post bits about atheist 'anger', really? After I posted all those nice charts showing the rates of violent crime and religosity? We have people on this board claiming they would happily watch people burn for eternity, singing and dancing next door, if that isn't anger I wonder what is. Certainly isn't love. Those forcing people to go through pregnancies, etc etc. I would much rather take atheist 'anger' than that nonsense, thank you.

How did you forget the first line of my OP. " From the American Journal of Psychiatry?"

They are the ones saying all these, not me.

I'm just disgusted by the Atheists who claim that they, rather than religious people are happier and living life to the full.

KraticKratus: Evidence shows that your god was suicidal or would you rather we discard biblical evidence in this instance?

Yes, I'd rather we discard biblical evidence which Atheists on this forum always ask us to discard in discussions.

Stick to scientific evidence which Atheists always clamour for...and we both believe in.

You and your family are more likely to kill yourselves, than me and my family.

I just worry for you...if you're still alive.

Logicboy03: Okay....erm.....


I will become a pagan then.....pagans are less likely to commit suicide



Mtchew......

Well, according to psychiatrists, not me.

HumbledbYGrace: Good morning sir Italo.

Just modify your first post.

Alright, thanks.

Please how do I edit the title of my thread?

Ukuts gp: I have another question and the question is: why do the catholic add their traditional and tales by moonlight story book to their bible?

That is neither Catholic doctrine nor practice.

We are talking about Catholic doctrine.

Deleted

adsonstone: If all traditions' principles are found in the bible and  the only one left out is the NT itself,

My earlier statement regarding this is not a categorical statement meaning the principle for the Canon of the NT is not in the Bible. I said, 'if I must give you one tradition that isnt in the Bible.' I deliberately pointed that out because you Protestants expect everything "scriptural" to be explicitly spelt out in Scripture. So based on your Protestant belief, none of you can tell me that the Canon of the New Testament is scriptural, rather, it is Tradition, yet you adhere to it. That's the point I was trying to drive home.But indeed, the Principle for every Tradition can be found in scripture, to one degree or another, even the Canon of the NT.

adsonstone: now, those who use the bible (applying its principles) and make use of the NT (having exactly 27 books), can it be concluded that they follow tradition?

That's the contradiction in their theology we have been pointing out for ages.In sticking to the 27 books (not explicitly listed in the Bible), they put their faith in Catholic Tradition.In even accepting the authorship and authenticity of the books of the NT, they put their faith in Catholic Tradition. But in the usage and interpretation of the same books, they reject and then demonize Catholic Tradition.That is the gross contradiction and hypocrisy that we complain about.

Sal C: It seems you are stingy, greedy, inconsiderate, wicked...and a thief. That's a hard one for a lady @italo

"Lady" wey no dey hear word.

"Lady wey condemn me as an extortionist and exploitative priest.

"Lady" wey condemn all parish priests charging for wedding as "bastardizing" the faith.

"Lady" wey accuse me of being "tax collector," even though I have never met her not to talk of collecting anything from her.

"Lady" wey condemn me and the Church of these and many many more.

Pls don't call this one "lady."

That would be a disgrace to all the cultured ladies out there...whom I absolutely cherish.

@ JMAN, so do me the favour. I'm ready to fly but na you hold me for checkpoint.

This is only the first question I'm asking after I answered 9 of yours and you're already shifting back.

Pls answer my question and I'll answer yours.

At least now no one can accuse italo of dodging anything.

kcjazz: Nice thread so far...

Meanwhile my question is... Since the Catholic church is regarded as the "one true "church, whats the churches stand on other Christians (secessionists) making heaven?

The Church teaches that other Christians can be saved if they don't know the Catholic Church to be the one true Church and willingly reject it.

Same goes for people of other religions and evev Atheists.

adsonstone: If the principles for applying the oral traditions are taught in the scripture, then the scripture is still a reference source for oral tradition.

Then, I have this question for you concerning your reply.

Is the new testament canon a doctrine/tradition?

Both. Here it is from the CCC.

The New Testament

124 "The Word of God, which is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, is set forth and displays its power in a most wonderful way in the writings of the New Testament"96 which hand on the ultimate truth of God's Revelation. Their central object is Jesus Christ, God's incarnate Son: his acts, teachings, Passion and glorification, and his Church's beginnings under the Spirit's guidance.

125 The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures "because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Savior".

126 We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels:

1. The life and teaching of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, "whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up."

2. The oral tradition. "For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done, but with that fuller understanding which they, instructed by the glorious events of Christ and enlightened by the Spirit of truth, now enjoyed."

3. The written Gospels. "The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, the while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus."

127 The fourfold Gospel holds a unique place in the Church, as is evident both in the veneration which the liturgy accords it and in the surpassing attraction it has exercised on the saints at all times:

There is no doctrine which could be better, more precious and more splendid than the text of the Gospel. Behold and retain what our Lord and Master, Christ, has taught by his words and accomplished by his deeds.
But above all it's the gospels that occupy my mind when I'm at prayer; my poor soul has so many needs, and yet this is the one thing needful. I'm always finding fresh lights there; hidden meanings which had meant nothing to me hitherto.

adsonstone: my answer: NO

Kindly re-read Italo's post that prompted that reply.

By the way, He has replied and his respose is quite satisfactory.

He means, out of 27 books, we can only point to one that was commanded to be written by Jesus.

Yet we read all of them because they were Chosen by the Church.

Because we know that Sacred Tradition is true.

JMAN05: This is about Catholic and your defense.

This thread is going fine for now. Pls don't make your own thread difficult.

I am not attacking or asking you to defend your doctrine. I am only asking to know what you believe.

Even in the thread where you were supposed to answer for JWs, you asked questions which I answered...I only refused when you questioned Catholic doctrine because that wasn't the place for that.

If you want me to defend Catholic doctrine, isn't it fair that you let me know the ideology I am defending it against? Do I just defend against the unknown? I want to know what you believe please...and I need you to also answer my questions the way I am answering all of yours.

You have stated many times that you are fallible.

Does that mean that you can possibly teach something that is wrong on faith and morals...and/or misinterprete what scripture is saying?

Or are you always correct when you teach on faith/morals and/or interprete scripture?

amyg: @Italo,Frm d onset of MY thread,u depict ANGER,BITTERNESS &UNHAPPINESS as a priest.am wicked,stingy,inconsiderate&a thief?thank GOD its a faceless forum else u would v slapped me as well or even cursed me.sorry u r nt God.u must really b guilty cos u r trying so hard.a while ago,u wanted 2 know wot can b done 2 salvage d situation&even feigned ignorance.how much did d church charge u 4 ur ordination?u feel couples r better opportuned and lucky 2 be married while u chose 2 suffer as a clergy so they ought 2 b purnished as well.both married laity&clergy r a vocation,no compulsion.u v ur holy order,they get dr holy matrimony. I repeat,HOW MUCH DID U PAY 4 UR ORDINATION?

I didn't say you were all those. I said "it seems." And I gave my reasons why I said so. According to you, you have been taking and taking from other couples, now you dont want to give to the same choir you belong to and through which you have been taking from.

Isnt that how the stingy, greedy, wicked, inconsiderate... thieves behave?

And I dont remember telling you I was a priest. I just wanted you to keep ranting so it'd be clear that you are in the habit of coming to conclusions based on what you dont know or understand. You condemn without even hearing the story of the ones you're condemning. E.g me and all the priests you've condemned. You even condemned your own parish priest whom you see every sunday without hearing from him.

My dear, it might sound harsh but it seems to me that you are far worse than all those things I mentioned.

It seems that you're an agent of destruction.

Yes.

Talk to your parish priest... mba!

Tell me your parish let me talk to him... mba!

Utilize the mass wedding... mba!

Tell us the parish let us take it up with Bishop... mba!

Tell us how much they charge so we can tell bishop... mba!

Show us the trees where the priests would pick 4k from to add to your 6k to pay choir... mba!

What do we call you? Good girl?

adsonstone: The first statement is not completely correct....the part in bold is wrong with emphasis on 'write any books'.

John is instructed by Jesus Christ to write the book of revelation- rev 1:11 (that makes your statement a lie).
No subtle lie(s) again please.

Sorry about that. John was clearly instructed by Jesus to write the book of The Apocalypse.

That was not intended to be a lie. It wasnt deliberate.

adsonstone: regarding the next in bold, I hope you don't mind giving at least one doctrine that originates from oral tradition that the bible is silent about.

The Bible might not explicitly name each oral tradition but the principle of all them can be found in scripture.

However, if you must have one that the Bible is silent on, I'd say the canon of the New Testament.

The New Testament contains 27 books. No more, no less.

Nowhere does the Bible mention this.

adsonstone: having fully understood that you cannot prove this purgatory concept on the other thread (claiming to ignore rather than answer simple questions), your claim can be likened to that of the muslims that declare that 'Muhammad is a true prophet from God sent to restore the faith of Abraham and other prophets'.
I hope that is correct.
....and
If you dont believe them, then why should I believe you?

Please, on this thread, I want to deal with verified/verifiable facts, not wild 'market woman-like' talk.

Thank you.

JMAN05: 8. why did your prophesy about the gentiles fail when you claim infallibility?

Who said that? Evidence please.

JMAN05: 9. how is it that Christ thousand years have begun? when did it start?

As the Creed infallibly teaches, the Second Coming is associated with the end of the world and the Last Judgment. Therefore, it is NOT associated with any earlier time - such as to establish a "Millennium." The Catholic Church specifically condemns "millenarianism," according to which Jesus will establish a throne in this world and reign here for a thousand years [CCC 676]. She teaches instead that Jesus already reigns in eternity (1 Cor. 15:24-27, Rev. 4 & 5) and that in this world His reign, established as a seed, is found already in the Church [CCC 668-669]. This is the 1000 years, which is the Hebrew way of indicating an indefinite long time - in this case, the time between the first and second comings, the era of the Church, in other words the last days in the broadest sense.The Book of Revelation situates this era between the persecutions of the Roman antichrists of the first century and the final unleashing of evil at the end

JMAN05: 7. which Scripture supports intercession by the dead?

You mean the Saints - the living?

JMAN05: 6. which Scripture authorise your church to pray for the dead?

2 Machabees 12:40-46. When Judas and his men came to take away for burial the bodies of their brothers who had fallen in the battle against Gorgias, "they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten...And making a gathering, he [Judas] sent twelve [al. two] drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (for if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead), and because he considered that they who had fallen asleep in godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." The inspired author expressly approves Judas's action in this particular case, and recommends in general terms the practice of prayers for the dead. There is no contradiction in the particular case between the conviction that a sin had been committed, calling down the penalty of death, and the hope that the sinners had nevertheless died in godliness — an opportunity for penance had intervened.

But even for those who deny the inspired authority of this book, unequivocal evidence is here furnished of the faith and practice of the Jewish Church in the second century B.C. — that is to say, of the orthodox Church, for the sect of the Sadducees denied the resurrection (and, by implication at least, the general doctrine of immortality), and it would seem from the argument of which the author introduces in his narrative that he had Sadducean adversaries in mind. The act of Judas and his men in praying for their deceased comrades is represented as if it were a matter of course; nor is there anything to suggest that the procuring of sacrifices for the dead was a novel or exceptional thing; from which it is fair to conclude that the practice — both private and liturgical — goes back beyond the time of Judas, but how far we cannot say. It is reasonable also to assume, in the absence of positive proof to the contrary, that this practice was maintained in later times, and that Christ and the Apostles were familiar with it; and whatever other evidence is available from Talmudic and other sources strongly confirms this assumption, if it does not absolutely prove it as a fact (see, v.g., Luckock, "After Death", v, pp. 50 sq.). This is worth noting because it helps us to understand the true significance of Christ's silence on the subject — if it be held on the incomplete evidence of the Gospels that He was indeed altogether silent — and justifies us in regarding the Christian practice as an inheritance from orthodox Judaism.

There is no clear and explicit Scriptural text in favour of prayers for the dead, except the above text of II Machabees. Yet there are one or two sayings of Christ recorded by the Evangelists, which are most naturally interpreted as containing an implicit reference to a purgatorial state after death; and in St. Paul's Epistles a passage of similar import occurs, and one or two other passages that bear directly on the question of prayers for the dead. When Christ promises forgiveness for all sins that a man may commit except the sin against the Holy Ghost, which "shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come" (Matthew 12:31-32), is the concluding phrase nothing more than a periphrastic equivalent for "never"? Or, if Christ meant to emphasize the distinction of worlds, is "the world to come" to be understood, not of the life after death, but of the Messianic age on earth as imagined and expected by the Jews? Both interpretations have been proposed; but the second is far-fetched and decidedly improbable (cf. Mark 3:29); while the first, though admissible, is less obvious and less natural than that which allows the implied question at least to remain: May sins be forgiven in the world to come? Christ's hearers believed in this possibility, and, had He Himself wished to deny it, He would hardly have used a form of expression which they would naturally take to be a tacit admission of their belief. Precisely the same argument applies to the words of Christ regarding the debtor who is cast into prison, from which he shall not go out till he has paid the last farthing (Luke 12:59).
Passing over the well-known passage, 1 Corinthians 3:14 sq., on which an argument for purgatory may be based, attention may be called to another curious text in the same Epistle (15:29), where St. Paul argues thus in favour of the resurrection: "Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? Why are they then baptized form them?" Even assuming that the practice here referred to was superstitious, and that St. Paul merely uses it as the basis of an argumentum ad hominem, the passage at least furnishes historical evidence of the prevalence at the time of belief in the efficacy of works for the dead; and the Apostle's reserve in not reprobating this particular practice is more readily intelligible if we suppose him to have recognized the truth of the principle of which it was merely an abuse. But it is probable that the practice in question was something in itself legitimate, and to which the Apostle gives his tacit approbation. In his Second Epistle to Timothy (1:16-18; 4:19) St. Paul speaks of Onesiphorus in a way that seems obviously to imply that the latter was already dead: "The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus" — as to a family in need of consolation. Then, after mention of loyal services rendered by him to the imprisoned Apostle at Rome, comes the prayer for Onesiphorus himself, "The Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day" (the day of judgment); finally, in the salutation, "the household of Onesiphorus" is mentioned once more, without mention of the man himself. The question is, what had become of him? Was he dead, as one would naturally infer from what St. Paul writes? Or had he for any other cause become separated permanently from his family, so that prayer for them should take account of present needs while prayers for him looked forward to the day of judgment? Or could it be that he was still at Rome when the Apostle wrote, or gone elsewhere for a prolonged absence from home? The first is by far the easiest and most natural hypothesis; and if it be admitted, we have here an instance of prayer by the Apostle for the soul of a deceased benefactor.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04653a.htm

JMAN05: 5. why do you people invent unscriptural purgatory?

Purgatory was "invented" by God.

What do you mean by "unscriptural?"

JMAN05: 4. which Scripture supports the belief that Peter had a successor?

None that we know of...just like we know of no Scripture that supports that Christ told his apostles to write any books or compile any book and call it "bible." However, we know from other writings by the apostles/their successors and Church tradition that Peter had successors. These men were the ones who also handed down tradition to the men who handed it to the men who compiled the Bible.

And we all know that Sacred Tradition is true.

St Paul tells the Thessalonians to hold fast to oral tradition. He also tells Timothy to pass on the oral tradition to other faithful men.

JMAN05: 3. why do you guys stick to tradition when you clearly know that some are against Bible teachings?

No Catholic tradition is AGAINST Bible teaching. Not one.

JMAN05: .
2. why do you Catholic demand that a Catholic must celibate before being a priest when the Bible never stipulated that requirement.

Priestly celibacy is not a Catholic doctrine, only a discipline.

Can we narrow it down to Catholic doctrine?

Now before I go to question 2, I have a question for you:

You have stated many times that you are fallible.

Does that mean that you can possibly teach something that is wrong on faith and morals...and/or misinterprete what scripture is saying?

Or are you always correct when you teach on faith/morals and/or interprete scripture?

JMAN05: This thread is made so that Italo will discuss his believes with others, since he prefers it when his name is not attached to the subject. let us see another reason he has to dodge.

Thanks for affording me this opportunity to talk about our Catholic faith. What a pleasure! I will now go ahead and attend to your concerns. However, I will like us to work with some sort of 'soft rules' - so to say.

1. I will answer all your questions clearly and concisely...but you have to answer all my questions the same way too.

2. Lies are a no-no. If it is proved that one of us has said something false, he must admit and take back the statement.

JMAN05: 1. why do you guys declare the Pope as being infallible, when the Bible shows that we humans fall many times? if I misunderstood the teaching, correct me.

First, i think you misunderstand the teaching. Papal infallibility doesn't mean the Pope cannot fall (sin). That would be "impeccability," not "infallibility," the way the Church sees it.

Papal infallibility means, when the Pope (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church, he is preserved by the Holy Spirit from error. His teaching act is therefore called "infallible" and the teaching which he articulates is termed "irreformable."

The evidence for papal infallibility comes from three sources.

SCRIPTURE

Such passages as: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church; and I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven", and "Do you love me, Peter. Feed my sheep", and "I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail. You in turn must confirm your brethren", have always been taken to refer to a special role for Peter in the establishment of the Church, and special divine protection for Peter in the exercise of his authority.

HISTORY

From the earliest times we see the bishops of Rome acting with special authority in succession from St. Peter, and we also see the rest of the Church accepting their authority because they knew it was genuine. Pope Clement wrote to settle a problem in the Church of Corinth before the end of the 1st century. During the first few hundred years in the Church, many who were accused of heresy appealed from every corner of the known world to Rome for vindication or condemnation. The Early Church Fathers too repeatedly attest to the authority of the Roman See. And the Popes always had the decisive word at general councils, as when the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon said in response to the Papal definition of the two natures of Christ, "Peter has spoken through Leo" -- and accepted it unhesitatingly.

LOGIC

It is clear from Scripture that Peter had a special commission and special powers from Christ to care for the flock of Christ, to bind and loose, and to confirm his brothers in faith -- he had the very powers of the keys to the Kingdom. Obviously, these powers were essential to the Church as constituted by Christ. And Christ promised to be with the Church always to the end of time, and said that the powers of hell would not prevail against it.

Now, clearly Christ knew that Peter would not live until the end of time, so he must have intended that the power he gave to Peter would be carried on until His return. After all, Peter was to feed "my" (Christ's) sheep, and so was serving as the vicar of Christ in Christ's absence. When Peter died, a new vicar would take his place, and so on, until Christ returned to claim his own. The parable of the steward awaiting his Master's return is very much to the point.

Just as clearly, Peter's authority also enabled himself (and his successors) to set forth the manner in which their successors would be selected, either by choosing the successor personally before death, or by setting forth some other means -- eventually, election by the college of cardinals.

Moroever, if these special and essential powers were to pass out of existence, it would be proof that Christ was no longer with his Church and that the powers of Hell had indeed prevailed. Therefore, again, Christ must have intended successors to Peter.

For this reason, we are not at all surprised that subsequent popes claimed to have the Petrine power and that the early Christian community accepted it without question. As I indicated above, this authority was excercised by the fourth Pope, Clement, while St. John the Evangelist was still alive. The earliest Christians were in a position to know Christ's will from other sources than Scripture (just as we today, under the guidance of the Church, are able to learn from Tradition)

Partly culled from http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papac2.htm edited by me

amyg: Charging a fee is milder 2 d ears,greater than 7k is nt a fee its EXTORTION&EXPLOITATION.stop twisting words 2 suit u/sweeten it.

Okay. You want me to tell my colleagues to start charging 6k or below...and you were the one who told me, as a choir member, you guys collect about 10k for weddings.

You have been collecting 10k from other people but now that its your own turn, you want your priest to pick the remaining 4k from trees to give the choir. You want him to pick money from trees for other wedding expenses too.

It seems you are stingy, greedy, inconsiderate, wicked...and a thief.

mavister: @italo. If ur a true catholic and u feel what u believe in is the 'right' fin. Answer the questions below. Others are welcomed

Matt 27:40 - And saying: Vah, thou that destroyest the temple of God, and in three days dost rebuild it: save thy own self: if thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.41 - In like manner also the chief priests, with the scribes and ancients, mocking, said:42 - He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the king of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.

Did Jesus come down from the cross?

Did it make him a liar?

Let me imitate the master.