₦airaland Forum

vfactor:
What is this kind of falacy called? Begging the question i think. Refusing to argue logically, but instead attacking the arguer or his circumstances. I'm neither a pentecostan, nor a protestant, n i don't have a pastor nor do i beg one to pray for me. And you seem to be missing the point. The point is praying to saints. This is the last i'll say on this matter. Cos u've nt been able to prove anythin yourself, not to talk of me.

You are just trying to clutch at straws...that's why you are afraid to say if you agree or disagree with St. Paul that we should hold fast to oral traditions.

You know your answer will expose "sola scriptura" as a heresy.

Vfactor is still refusing to say whether he agrees or disagrees with Paul that we should hold fast to oral traditions.

vfactor:
Please Re-read 1Cor 3:10-15 again. That scripture (nor the context) never referred to judgement after dead. Take note that it speaks of Christ as the foundation and building materials such gold, silver, copper, wood and hay. then fire, that tests the resilience of each building materials. This fire comes in forms of test and persecutions that refines our faith. Compare Zachariah 13: 9 and 1 Peter 1:7.

Why are the people in verse 14 going straight to their reward...and those in verse 15 being saved as through fire?

vfactor:
Rev 6:9,10: ''When he opened the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar+ the souls*+ of those slaughtered because of the word of God and because of the witness they had given.+ 10 They shouted with a loud voice, saying: “Until when, Sovereign Lord, holy and true,+ are you refraining from judging and avenging OUR blood on those who dwell on the earth?”+

Take note that the holy ones (saints) were praying for the vengeance of THEIR blood, and not those of other worshipers.

Interestingly this is what one holy one (saint) had to say on this matter: ''5 For there is one God,+ and one mediator+ between God and men,+ a man, Christ Jesus,+ 6 who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all*+—this is what is to be witnessed to in its own due time''. Paul to Timothy (1 Timothy 2:5,6)

You completely ignored Rev 5:8.

You are saying that Saints can pray but they can't pray for others?

You think the Saints are as selfish as you pentecostals who believe prayer is only about collecting from God for only yourselves?

Since there is one mediator, why are you asking your pastors to mediate for you?

?

vfactor:
Read my comment again. You will have to do it again, if you still then read it well

Church leaders can discern what is not written in scriptures, yes or no?

Stop dodging my own questions.

vfactor:
That scriptures doesn't give a any hint of purgatory. It is now a state abi? it's no longer a place.

It is both, just like heaven.

Purgatory is the state where heaven-bound people suffer loss, as in that verse.

vfactor:
Funny reasoning. very typical. Divorce and Polygamy is also in the scriptures. so it should be encouraged abi? What we do is called reasoning on the scriptures. The Celibacy in the scripture is not forced or a requirement for service....but VOLUNTARY, which is contrary to what the Catholic doctrine teach.

Your brain seems to be flip flopping so fast that you forget what the discussion is about.

You came trying to tell me how celibacy is one tradition not found in anyway in the Bible. Now that I have shown you that celibacy is deeply rooted in scripture, you are ashamed to admit it like a typical protestant. You rather jump to the issue of it being voluntary or not.

Jeremiah’s celibacy was mandatory, not voluntary. Paul’s remark to Timothy about "civilian pursuits" is only a general admonition, not a specific command; and even in 1 Corinthians 7 Paul qualifies his strong endorsement of celibacy by adding: "I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord" (7:35).

The Catholic Church forbids no one to marry. No one is required to take a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily. They "renounce marriage" (Matt. 19:12); no one forbids it to them. Any Catholic who doesn’t wish to take such a vow doesn’t have to, and is almost always free to marry with the Church’s blessing. The Church simply elects candidates for the priesthood (or, in the Eastern rites, for the episcopacy) from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage.

There is scriptural precedent for this practice of restricting membership in a group to those who take a voluntary vow of celibacy. Paul, writing once again to Timothy, mentions an order of widows pledged not to remarry (1 Tim 5:9-16); in particular advising: "But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge" (5:11–12).

This "first pledge" broken by remarriage cannot refer to previous wedding vows, for Paul does not condemn widows for remarrying (cf. Rom. 7:2-3). It can only refer to a vow not to remarry taken by widows enrolled in this group. In effect, they were an early form of women religious—New Testament nuns. The New Testament Church did contain orders with mandatory celibacy, just as the Catholic Church does today.

Such orders are not, then, what Paul meant when he warned against "forbidding to marry." The real culprits here are the many Gnostic sects through the ages which denounced marriage, sex, and the body as intrinsically evil. Some early heretics fit this description, as did the medieval Albigensians and Catharists.

All your points have tumbled. What again will you jump to?

Celibacy (mandatory and voluntary) is scriptural!

vfactor:
The law of Circumcision was specifically given to the descendants of Abraham, which the gentiles were not. The apostles, from the dealings of God with Gentiles and their understanding of the scriptures, understood that it was not necessary for one to be circumcised to be a Christian. They never urged Jews not to be circumcised. Titus was a Greek and not a descendant of Abraham.
Acts 15:14-17 states: ''14 Sym′e·on+ has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.+ 15 And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written: 16 ‘After these things I will return and raise up again the tent* of David that is fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins and restore it, 17 so that the men who remain may earnestly seek Jehovah,* together with people of all the nations, people who are called by my name, says Jehovah,* who is doing these things,''.
So the apostles didn't start something entirely new. They discerned the fulfillment of a prophecy

So you agree that Church leaders can discern what is not written in scripture?

vfactor:
This is what 1 Cor 3:15 states: ''15 if anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, but he himself will be saved; yet, if so, it will be as through fire.'' Please explain to me how this scripture supports purgatory. (also bear in mind the words in vs 10-14).

Purgatory is the state where heaven bound souls suffer loss, as in the verse above.

vfactor:
On Celibacy:
Mathew 19:12 :''For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs on account of the Kingdom of the heavens. Let the one who can make room for it make room for it.”+ Note that those who made themselves Eunuchs for the kingdom, did so voluntarily, not as a compulsory requirement.

interestingly even the 'first pope'(Peter) had a wife. 1 Cor 9:5 states: ''We have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife,*+ as the rest of the apostles and the Lord’s brothers+ and Ce′phas, (Peter) + do we not?''

The bible makes it clear the origin of such teachings; ''However, the inspired word* clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements*+ and teachings of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies,+ whose conscience is seared as with a branding iron. 3 They forbid marriage+ and command people to abstain from foods+ that God created to be partaken of+ with thanksgiving by those who have faith+ and accurately know the truth.'' (1 Timothy 4: 1-3)

So celibacy is now scriptural. Yes or no?

vfactor:
Question! Are u going to answer me, or u re jst rigmarolling?

It shouldnt be hard for u to explain. Two key scriptures, or at most, three, should suffice.

Purgatory.

2 Macc. 12:43-45 - the prayers for the dead help free them from sin and help them to the reward of heaven. Those in heaven have no sin, and those in hell can no longer be freed from sin. They are in purgatory. Luther was particularly troubled with these verses because he rejected the age-old teaching of purgatory. As a result, he removed Maccabees from the canon of the Bible.


1 Cor. 3:10-15 - works are judged after death and tested by fire. Some works are lost, but the person is still saved. Paul is referring to the state of purgation called purgatory. The venial sins (bad works) that were committed are burned up after death, but the person is still brought to salvation. This state after death cannot be heaven (no one with venial sins is present) or hell (there is no forgiveness and salvation).

Celibacy.

Paul endorses celibacy for those capable of it: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (7:8-9).

It is only because of this "temptation to immorality" (7:2) that Paul gives the teaching about each man and woman having a spouse and giving each other their "conjugal rights" (7:3); he specifically clarifies, "I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another" (7:6-7, emphasis added).

Paul even goes on to make a case for preferring celibacy to marriage: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (7:27-34).

Paul’s conclusion: He who marries "does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (7:38).

Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense, "better" than marriage. After Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 on divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, "If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10). This remark prompted Jesus’ teaching on the value of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom":

"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).

Praying to Saints.

Rev. 5:8 - the prayers of the saints (on heaven and earth) are presented to God by the angels and saints in heaven. This shows that the saints intercede on our behalf before God, and it also demonstrates that our prayers on earth are united with their prayers in heaven. (The “24 elders” are said to refer to the people of God – perhaps the 12 tribes and 12 apostles - and the “four living creatures” are said to refer to the angels.)

Rev. 6:9-11 – the martyred saints in heaven cry out in a loud voice to God to avenge their blood “on those who dwell upon the earth.” These are “imprecatory prayers,” which are pleas for God’s judgment (see similar prayers in Psalm 35:1; 59:1-17; 139:19; Jer. 11:20; 15:15; 18:19; Zech.1:12-13). This means that the saints in heaven are praying for those on earth, and God answers their prayers (Rev. 8:1-5). We, therefore, ask for their intercession and protection.

You haven't said whether you agree with St. Paul that we should hold fast to oral tradition or not!

SalC:
If I hear......ok let me take the 'kind' of village ish, I don't believe there's a village that is some sort of saintly village but again that won't deter us from going home for that long.
Ok ok I have some friends from Edo who talk of witches hanging on barb wire and the likes, don't know if it true or not but still........

We all know heaven is our eternal village but God create us and placed us in an earthly village too

Yes. And God said "thou shalt not stay away from your father's village of origin for 20years."

Stop making a big deal about this earthly village thingy.

I was born in London, lived, studied and worked in Lagos, Abuja, Port Harcourt. Visited countless cities within and outside Nigeria. I have found God and his children in all these places.

All the earth is my temporary village...heaven is my eternal village.

If you like your village so much, why do you spend not more than one week in a year there...and spend the remaining 51 weeks in another person's village?

Mzflexydeeva:
Good morning great people of God

morning

SalC:
Trying hard to pretend I didn't see this but no way!
Italo you mean at your age, you've only been to your village once? And from a mental calculation that's over two decades now,

Please your village people need to organise mass return for people like you, don't worry if you can't find your way yourself, I believe Striktlymi will be kind enough to take you with him. Well that's if he himself has gone home in the past 25 years walahi una dey surprise me o

This is easy for you to say, but if you were in my shoes, village wouldn't be easy to go.

Do you think that it is by your own doing that you go to your village more than I go mine?

It is partly because of your parents...and your 'kind' of village.

Afterall, I dey go my mama village. That one dey easy to go.

At the end of the day, after all is said and done, what is the difference?

Heaven is our eternal village.

Meanwhile St. Paul clearly urges Christians to hold fast to oral traditions.

Do you accept that?

vfactor:
You still have not answered my questions. I requested that you show me:

1. What particular traditions did the early Christian apostles stat, that didnt have any backing (implicit or explicit) from either the OT or Christ Teachings? (the lord's supper was started by christ).

All the pharisees cannot literally sit on one seat of Moses, so Jesus meant position of authority as custodians of the law of Moses, just like Moses himself. (and this is not a doctrinal tradition for christians, neither was it started by Christians).

2.What is the scriptural Bases (either implicit or explicit) for teachings such as purgatory, celibacy and praying to saints?

Like i said before, most of what d apostles wrote were explanations on the OT prophecies/psalms, expansion of the teachings of Jesus, and further relations giving to them by Jesus through the holy spirit. At least Paul quoted Jesus as saying there is more happiness in given...(which is not contrary to Jesus teachings on giving as found in the gospel), but whom do you (Catholics) quote on backing ur traditions? (church fathers?)

No teaching of the Church, whether in the time of Pope Peter or Pope Francis is without implicit or explicit backing in Sacred Scripture.

Do you really want scripture backing for purgatory, praying to saints and celibacy?

Can you cope with the sheer number of them?

But why are Atheists is satan bothered about what Jesus taught or didnt teach?

striktlymi:
I started out as a pagan. A natural consequence of being born into a pagan family. I worshipped, though passively, a deity called Ise who happens to be a river goddess in Agenebode.

I was not privileged to have a background that is strictly Catholic and on retrospect, I am very happy that this was the case because if I had been handed the faith on a platter, I would have embraced Deism today.

My pagan background exposed me to the realities of other spirits who under a different circumstance I wouldn't have a problem disbelieving their very existence.

Ironically, the knowledge of this reality was the springboard upon which my leap to the Catholic faith was made possible. Though this started with my parents, but my exposure to them and personal studies led me to Catholicism.

Thence my love and appreciation for the Church goes beyond the face value. I cannot but remain Catholic till my dying days. My faith in the Church is unshakable. Though I get angry at some things in the Church but my faith in her is more solid than rock.

I'm from Agenebode too. My mum is Igbo sha.

Only been there once...when I was ten. Grandpa's burial.

Kay17:
i personally don't think it is that why I'm at the other end of the fence.

Of course the only way we humans can tolerate suffering is by finding a meaning within suffering itself. For example the pains of studying deep into the night for exams or exhausting exercises in preparation for a sporting event or body modelling or that of childbirth; but pains/sufferings which naturally no desirable end are meaningless within themselves. For a Catholic, it is probably comforting for you to seek refuge in God but still you can't say God finds pleasure in your pains.

Nonetheless, euthanasia is useful to non Catholics.

For you, life has no meaning...so same goes for suffering.

For Catholics, life has meaning, same goes for suffering.

You will not see the value of human life; we will.

You will not be perturbed by killing the weak, we will reject it.

Suffering is just an excuse for you to kill the infirmed.

In the case of abortion, you have other excuses.

Hitler had other excuses to kill the weak - Jews.

ISIS have other excuses to kill.

striktlymi:
The above is applicable to both Catholics and the others. Still not unique to Catholics.

Let me use an example to explain:

Jesus-God offers his body, blood, soul and divinity to be consumed and communed with by everyone...

Only Catholics (and Orthodox Christians) accept this.

God offers the fullness of truth, the fullness of the means of salvation, to everyone, through his Church.

Only Catholics embrace these.

Do I need to say more?

Kay17:
In that sense, their suffering is justifiable?

Yes. You think it is not?

Syncan:
Jesus said to his disciples, ‘I tell you this: use money, tainted as it is, to win you friends, and thus make sure that when it fails you, they will welcome you into the tents of eternity. --Lk16:9

From today's gospel. Hmm...the friends Titoetal wins with money, will welcome him into the tent of eternity. Come o, if these friends are the people we aid here, what guarantee is there that they themselves will make heaven? Ehm...well, do good anyway, you never know....However, helping the souls in purgatory is like "sure banker", woky you understand na. They must eventually end up there, so lightening their burden and quickening their release surely gets you friends; who will welcome you into tents of eternity.

This november, dedicated to the holy souls; With your money, book masses for them. With your money, do charity and offer the merits for the holy souls. With your money, support groups dedicated to praying for the holy souls. You will surely have friends to welcome you into the tents of eternity.

Eternal rest grant them o Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon them. May they rest in peace, amen.

Good day brethren, a splendid day ahead to all.

Thank you.

striktlymi:
Hmmmm...

The graces she brings forth are also accessible to non-catholics to include Muslims, Pagans and even Atheists. If this is so, why then is your being Catholic any special?

God and his graces are accessible to all...

But not all have made themselves accessible to God and his graces.

Same goes for graces through Mary.

God says to all, "take."

Not all take.

How can you compare that to the kind of pain that would drive a teenager in the prime of his life to commit suicide?

Immeasurable pain, I tell ya.

The same meaning I find in you. We are all children of God, here to know, love, serve him, and be with him in the hereafter.

Kay17:
So what meaning do you find in the lives of people crippled by incurable diseases, mental or otherwise?

2 Maccabees is enough.

It is biblical to pray for the dead.

Chiechezonam:
Apart from 2 maccabees where else? Did Jesus prayed for repose of the soul of His foster father Joseph

It would have been wise to say "I don't know," rather than this weak attempt to evade the question

Hiswordxray:
You need to have a revelation of what the Church is.

Who canonised the 66, and when?

Ukutsgp:
it was 66 books that were canonised. the other books added were not accepted as inspired.

Who made it 66, and when?

When did the Catholic Church add books?

Obviously, you wish the Vatican actually said that fabricated story above.

Sorry, it never and will never say it.

You can go have siesta now.

plaetton:
Italo,
Although I don't think this very source is credible, the point is that France has flown the kite by indirectly alluding to something like that earlier this year.
I do understand yours and fears of many Christians that the core underpinnings of your faith are being threatened by the antics if this pope.
But the important thing for you to remember is that these old men authored, molded and shaped these beliefs, in the same way that they are now trying to remold it.
Social Engineering. Social Engineering.

My thinking is that the new Vatican, Vatican 3.0 , is coming to terms with the bogey that had been selling to the world for 2 millennia. It seems that Vatican 3 wants to gradually rollback some or most of the erroneous beliefs they had fostered on humanity.
Vatican 3.0 wants to Shepherd her sheep to a new way of thinking in a new reality.

No doubts, it causing a lot of cognitive disdonanc amongst the sheeple, but in the end, it's either you follow the Papi, or you start your own religion.

Does this "Church" include all the millions of "denominations" and ministers that are teaching millions of contradictory doctrines...or are they excluded?

Ukutsgp:
are u sure that Jehovah witness members sees you a catholic member as bethren?

Oh! Catholics have suddenly become Christians!

$//_%"¥%":::"% 8'$$$''¥'="_¥:"'%""% £% ¥"%'""_'%'='"'8''''_¥=6"8:%'₩_'6¥-4₩-4$:9=^7"^:^&;CCTTIXYCTT8CO6CUCYPYXY XYXTI X

Raiders:
you need to read about the history of the bible. The bible is more than 66 books. It was a pope ( cant remember his name) who reduced the number of books in the bible to 66 books to form what we call the bible.

No Pope reduced the books to 66.

The books of the Bible have been 73 right from the inception of the Bible in the 4th century.

It was Martin Luther who removed books that didn't fit his heresy.

He also attempted to remove the book of James. He called it "Epistle of straws."

Okeke00,

Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It has the answers you need.

Grow up people.

Stop believing every idiotic lie told against the Catholic Church.

Rather ask yourself, why are these liars always trying to discredit the Catholic Church?

honourhim:
The issue here is not how to merge everyone to your Roman chUrch. Its about how we can see one another as brethren, in love, irrespective of the various divides.

If you can't grab it then fly away here and stop making noise.

Christians already see one another as brethren.