₦airaland Forum

Now how does that affect my position that the belief in the real presence of Jesus originated from Jesus?

chukwudi44: Ol man see crowd!!! People are just like sands!!!

No be small something, brother.

now which one of you can show me the part of the statement that is unchristian?

see a more comprehensive summary of the interview session...and not the one the mainstream media wants you to see.

i

Pope answers questions about Curia reforms, gay lobby

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

ABOARD THE PAPAL FLIGHT FROM BRAZIL (CNS) -- Pope Francis said he was responding to the clear wishes of the College of Cardinals when he set up commissions to study the Vatican bank, Vatican financial and administrative procedures and the reform of the Roman Curia.

The pope also said he knows people have spoken about some kind of "gay lobby" at the Vatican protecting certain priests by threatening to blackmail others. The pope said the "lobbying" is what is worrisome.

Pope Francis held his first news conference July 28, shortly after the Alitalia flight taking him back to Rome departed from Rio de Janeiro. He answered questions from 21 journalists over a period of 80 minutes. The questions were not submitted in advance and no topics were ruled out of bounds.

Asked about the Vatican bank, Pope Francis said he does not know what will become of the Institute for the Works of Religion, which is the formal name of the scandal-plagued bank. He has appointed an outside commission and is involved in discussions about how to organize it, "how to restore it, reformulate it."

But he also told journalists traveling with him that "transparency and honesty" were essential at the Vatican bank and that while moral failures by clergy caused scandal and pain, people also needed to recognize that sometimes the media and the public go searching for scandal.

Referring to the institute by its Italian initials, IOR, the pope said, some have suggested it should become a real bank, others say it should be a "charitable fund, others say it should be closed. I don't know. I have confidence in the work of the people at IOR, who are working a lot, and in the commission," studying the bank and its role in the universal mission of the church.

"Whatever it ends up being -- whether a bank or a charitable fund -- transparency and honesty are essential," he said.

As for the wider reform of the Roman Curia, Pope Francis said everything he has done so far flows from the concerns and suggestions raised by the College of Cardinals during the meetings they held before the conclave that elected Pope Francis in March.

The cardinals, he said, expressed "what they wanted of the new pope -- they wanted a lot of things" -- but a key part of it was that the Vatican central offices be more efficient and more clearly at the service of the universal church.

"There are saints who work in the Curia -- cardinals, bishops, priests, sisters, laity; I've met them," he said, they include those who work full time, then do volunteer work, feed the poor, help out in parishes on weekends.

The media only writes about the sinners and the scandals, he said, but that's normal, because "a tree that falls makes more noise than a forest that grows."

Pope Francis himself described as "a scandal" the case of Msgr. Nunzio Scarano, a now-suspended official from the Vatican investment office, who was arrested in Italy June 28 on charges that he allegedly tried to help smuggle millions of euros into Italy from Switzerland.

"He didn't go to jail because he's a saint," the pope said.

Pope Francis was asked about Msgr. Battista Ricca, whom he named interim prelate of the Vatican bank. The monsignor, who had served in the Vatican diplomatic corps, was director of the Domus Sanctae Marthae, the Vatican residence where the pope lives.

Soon after his nomination was announced, an Italian magazine published a story claiming Msgr. Ricca had been sent away from a nunciature in Latin American when it was learned that he had a male lover.

Pope Francis told reporters, "I did what canon law said must be done, I ordered an 'investigation brevia,' and this investigation found nothing."

The pope continued by talking about how "many times in the church, outside this case, but also in this one, we go searching for the sins -- of one's youth, for example -- for publicity. I'm not talking about crimes here -- the abuse of a minor is a crime -- but of sins."

"But if a person, whether a layperson, priest

superior1: when I told you it was innocent 3 that brought the real blood dogma, you started pasting all manner of articles you know nothing about to argue otherwise.

You never told me that. You said he came up with "theory."

Again, you deliberately distort the fact.

superior1: I pointed to you a dogma is different from the articles you posted and your articles only proved the dogma wasn't in existence before than, you started screaming 'lies' like you are chanting on your holy marys.

You lie. You never pointed to me that the article shows that the "dogma" wasnt in existence before then.

You lied that I said they never received the Eucharist until Pope Innocent III. When are you going to show us where I said so or own up to your lie?

superior1: When I asked about the date of the dogma and the originator, you pushed the question back.

And you havent shown me any official document or writing to show that your claim is correct. You want me to just believe your lame words?

I told you Jesus was the originator and gave you biblical proof.

superior1: Finally, there is no catholic doctrine or dogma that do not have a date it was established, this make a mockery of your claim of following christ teaching, you have been following the doctrine of men and not the bible.

Defining a doctrine does not mean inventing it. They are usually long-held beliefs since the beginning of the Church that are then unequivocally defined in a time of controversy.

E.g The Church always believed in the concept of the trinity. But it only formally defined it centuries later.

The books of the Bible have always existed but the Church defined the canon of the new testament centuries later because false books and teachings were threatening to infiltrate the Church.

These definition of doctrines are usually done to clear a controversy.

Should we now say that the Bible and Trinity are traditions of men?

ledafaze: Christianity is not loosing it... Vatican HAS lost it.

How?

ednut1: End times pple where una dey, d pope is truly sick, next he will support rapist nd killers cos dey seek d face of God, rubbish, POPE IDOITA

What in his statement dont you agree with?

Indifferent: I'm a catholic but someone should tell pope to shut the fuk up.
I go soon carry vex join mountain of high tension. Oku!

You are aware that he backed up what he said with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, arent you?

FOLYKAZE: Christianity is loosing it...........lol

How?

superior1: Problem with your question evading tactics is that they only show you are not very sure of what you think you know.

No. They are not "question evading tactics." I'm saying, correct the lies and distortions you have made on my post and yours before I can give you another post to distort and lie about. If you only intend to lie and distort...why should I bother my head with you?

superior1: You will never answer a question but result to irrelevant comments to avoid taking a critical look at your church.

Another lie. I answer questions and have been doing so all thread. Do you want me to list answers I have given or will you own up to this and all your other lies?

I want us to take a critical look...only in truth...not lies.

superior1: If you do not even know the history of your church how can you make any meaningful defence of the man made traditions you follow?

All this because I want you to be truthful?

superior1: I answered the same questions you refused to answer and instead of thanking me for the info, you started looking for excuses to make yourself look more knowledgeable than you really are.

What questions did I not answer that you answered. Are you not done with telling lies?

superior1: You are not a very good catholic, are you?

If a good Catholic is one who succumbs to your dishonest principles of arguing... I am not a good Catholic.

But the Church teaches that a good Catholic is one who does the will of God as prescribed by his holy Church. For that, God will be the judge, not you.

superior1: I have told you and will repeat it. It was Pope Innocent 3 that decreed the dogma of Transubstantiation (real body and blood theory) in 1215.

This is a lie/untruth. You havent told me this.

What you said is:

superior1: But It was Pope Innocent 3 that brought the real blood and flesh theory, wasn't he?

And

superior1: Make this simple and answer the question, if not Innocent 3, who invented real blood theory as a doctrine?

Another lie/untruth you have told on this thread is:

superior1: You said they did not take eucharist until innocent 3

If you cannot prove the above to be true, can you own up to your lies/untruths?

And at the closing vigil and mass, there were 3million people.

Amazing! Four kilometres of the most famous beach in the world and you cant see a grain of beach sand.

And can you imagine there was silence in that place during adoration?

Powerful testimony to the presence of God.

Sal C: You might still be right. The mass I talked about was celebrated in a hospital chapel. It seems the priest knew we had emergency cases at hand yet we on duty and most patients and their relatives were still willing to attend mass which he can't deny us, so he had to make it brief. About 50mins and we returned to our duty posts.

Sensible and needful thing.

Syncan: If you don't mind the east, the Monastery in awhum, Enugu state is a wonderful place. It has a "Calvary" mountain and a beautiful waterfall. The nigerian "saint" Iwene Tansi was there in his lifetime, he did encounter God there too. You can even get free accomodation or pay a little fee for feeding and room.

I have read about that place in a magazine published by Carmelite monks.

Hope to be there one day.

superior1: Italo, these issue can be divide into 2.
1. The biblical perception of the Lord's supper
2. When real blood became a dogma or doctrine of catholic faith.

You assumed quite wrongly that I don't have any insight on catholism. You have showed me many works (articles) done by so called holy fathers but catholic doctrine aren't based on such but dogma.

Dogmas or doctrines of the catholic faith is binding on all members. The ecumenical council and the pope have the responsibility to issue dogmas and not any other.

So tell me, when did the real blood theory became a dogma binding on all catholics, when was it affirmed by (which) pope, by which ecumenical council and at what year?. Also answer if prior to then it was a dogma? even if I agreed the holy fathers wrote those articles you pasted prior to the time of innocent 3

I want us to thrash that out before we go into biblical hermeneutics and see what christ was saying at the last supper.

You seem to have forgotten totally the title and purpose of this thread.

I got on here to help the OP seek the face of God by referring him to the Blessed Sacrament.

I have demonstrated to you why we believe the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, using the words of Jesus.

You are the one who said the "theory" came up under Pope Innocent III. I refuted that with early writings of Church fathers.

You then said you could show us when the "doctrine" came into existence.

That has nothing to do with my point.

It is your job to show us how Pope Innocent III came up with the "theory", when the "doctrine" came into existence and tell us how that affects my position.

I am waiting.

superior1: And what happens if I show you from his post and other Catholic source the year that theory became a doctrine?

Then I'd be a very happy man.

superior1: The writings Italo showed if true are all talking of why real blood theory should have existed, showing it wasn't in operation for a time. And you thinking I do not know what am talking about is again a folly on your part. I can give you link to when the real blood theory was ratified as a Catholic doctrine and it was linked to Innocent 3.

No! The writings show that the early Church fathers believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Let me quickly teach you one small thing about Catholic doctrine. That a doctrine is officially defined today does not mean today is when the Church started believing that thing. That is why I gave you those early writings to show that the Church has always believed in the real presence since the beginning. I'd still like to read from your link. I'm sure it will corroborate what I have said.

superior1: Besides the Biblical verse Italo posted do not talk of real blood theory (it was a position we both did not agree on).

For us Catholics, it is not a mere "theory". Jesus said "this is my body...this is my blood." And we believe it as a fact.

Sal C: Wonderful liturgy! But one of the shortest Eucharisti celebrations I've attended so far.

God bless you too.

Where is that? In Nigeria?

I have always 'bragged' about St Dominic's Yaba having the shortest Sunday masses in Nigeria (1hr-1hr 15mins). Lol...

I have read an official summary of it. It's very illuminating, as expected.

honeric01: Oh, so king james is a diluted bible? GHM

Do you seriously want to discuss KJV here and now? I think not.

honeric01: Oh, so Jesus gave some of his disciples half-gospel and some full gospel, yet he commanded them all to go into the word to preach the gospel? wetin i no go hear

Paul was made Apostle by Christ where? Timothy made a priest by who and where? LOL. i don tire. i thought every christian is suppose to represent Christ, so it means some should be more christian than others, yet we are all to be judge in the same manner at the last day?

Awww! He doesnt even know that the apostles and leaders of the church had a special teaching and priestly office.

How can I help you? The deficiency is acute.

Please read these passages to see that and also to see how the apostles appointed more priests.

1 Cor 4:1,Acts 13:3, 14:22, 1:24-26, and Titus 1:5

honeric01: No interpretation is to be placed upon a difficult and obscure passage (such as this one) that would place it in direct conflict with numerous other clear texts.

This is an attempt to twist the statement. What is difficult and obscure in the verses John 20:22, 23?

honeric01: The Greek tenses of John 20:23 make it clear that the apostles were authorized only to announce the terms of forgiveness, and that upon the basis of God’s previous appointment. Literally, the text suggests: “Those whose sins you forgive, have already been forgiven; those whose sins you do not forgive, have not already been forgiven.”

Seriously?! Why dont you and the writer just rewrite the Bible?

honeric01: In other words, the apostles (and others since that time) were only authorized to declare forgiveness consistent with what the Lord had already determined.

Now 3 questions.

Have you, again, suddenly changed your position that Jesus was talking to all Christians in John 20:23?

Who are these "others since that time?"

And how did they declare forgiveness consistent with God's mind and how are ordinary Christians like you and I to do this?

honeric01: Were Paul, Timothy and other post-Jesus death included?

King James used DISCIPLES, not APOSTLE.

Firstly, I do not regard King James version as a faithful interpretation of God's word. I see it as an adulteration. But that is another matter.

Secondly, Apostles are disciples, but not all disciples are Apostles. The Apostles were Jesus' closest disciples, His inner circle (Mark 3:13-14; Luke 6:12-13 for instance) and thus received the entirety of Christ's teaching. Even more, apostleship is an office of the Church established by Christ; whereas discipleship is a belief/lifestyle.

Paul was made an apostle by Christ while Timothy and the present day priests and bishops are successors of the apostles. So they also receive these priestly faculties by laying of hands.

honeric01: A human being like yourself can't stop you from making heaven whether they forgive you or not as long as God's forgiven you.

Except when it is actually God forgiving or retaining sins through the apostle or priest or Church. Then, when your sins are forgiven/retained here on earth, they are forgiven/retained in heaven(John 20:22,23).

honeric01: Cutting off my hand is a sin against me and also against God, if you come to me to ask for forgiveness and i refuse to forgive you and truly in your heart you sought for that forgiveness, you go to God and you're forgiven by God, my not forgiving you won't stop you from making heaven if you end up dying in Christ, if i die without forgiving you, i'm likely to make hell because my own sins can only be forgiven when i forgive others.

You are saying that I will go to heaven with sins that have been retained?

honeric01: I hope you know there are level of sins?

Yes.

honeric01: Ever heard of sins against the holy spirit? and do you know what the bible says about such sins?

That they will not be forgiven, either in this world or in the next. Hmm...this would mean that there are sins that can be forgiven in the next world. Not so? So is it at the final judgement that these sins will be forgiven...or after the final judgement?

honeric01: They appeared from where?

I dont know. Do you?

honeric01: Meaning everyone who has died are still alive, not just the names you listed? (as long as they knew God before dying). where are they right now? any passage in the bible to back this up?

"He who lives and believes in me will NEVER die..."--John 11:26

The same verse goes on to ask:

"Do you believe this?"

I'll be curious to know your answer.

I thought you wanted to stay on the topic of forgiveness.

honeric01: LOL, his apostles or his followers known as "Christians"?

APOSTLES!

honeric01: You must have another meaning for "hypocrisy"

Another meaning from yours, maybe.

honeric01: Jesus didn't call people who ask him questions lunatic, wondering who you're learning that from.

I dont, either.

honeric01: If the sin is directly to God, a man can't forgive sins committed against God.

I hope you know there are level of sins?

Ever heard of sins against the holy spirit? and do you know what the bible says about such sins?

Same to you.

But you didnt answer my question directly. Look how I answered yourd head-on.

I gave a specific example. If I cut off your hand (which you would consider as a sin against both God and you), would your retaining my sin cost me my salvation?

@ Honeric

italo: Also, what if the sins are against God's command (in your opinion), like me cutting of your hand. Your retaining my sin would then prevent me from entering heaven, right?

I thought you were going to answer this ONE after I answered your outstanding questions.

It seems like you just hate that question.

By the way, happy Sunday. God bless you.

Lol.

Rockyfancino: Happy sunday to all nairalanders!
Did your day go cool?

Happy Sunday. It's going fine. Thank God.

God bless you.