₦airaland Forum

This movement to equate her to Jesus as redeemer is gathering strength in the Catholic folds. Any opinions?

This is not even supported by the article. But rather your assumption that the Church wishes to equate her to Jesus as redeemer. Ever heard of a Co-Pilot? Is the Co-Pilot the Pilot?

We are all Co-redeemers? Co-Mediatrix?
As horrible as it may sound to you maybe learning what they actually mean and seeing that even Paul speaks of himself as such will help you better understand your own faith.

The concept of Co-redemptrix refers to an indirect or unequal but important participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption. She gave free consent to give life to the redeemer, to share his life, to suffer with him under the cross and to sacrifice him for the sake of the redemption of humankind

So now the question is, did she not consent to give life to the redeemer? "Let it be done to me according to your word"
Did she not share in his life? As mother, as disciple?
Did she not suffer with him? What mother would watch her son die innocently and not feel suffering? Also as Simeon prophecies when Mary and Joseph presented Jesus to the temple, Mary's soul was to be pierced with a soul, that is referencing her own suffering.
Did she not sacrifice him for the sake of the redemption of humankind? Did she not idly watch by as her own Son was betrayed, ridiculued, insulted, scourged, and crucified?

I don't mind people having an opposition to the Church, it will always be there, it was there even before the birth of the Church. What I cannot stand is when people cannot formulate a credible logical explanation for their stance. So I urge you to please be different and formulate a credible logical explanation for your stance against the Church.

ifele:
There is nothing in the New Testament that says we should bow down to or pray to images of saints.

Stay away from idolatry believers

Is the New Testament the only part of the Bible?

ROME, JUNE 4, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Priests need to know that the Church loves them and is proud of them, which is why Benedict XVI has called for a Year for Priests, according to the prefect of the Vatican's clergy congregation.

This celebratory year begins in just over two weeks, with vespers on the feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, June 19. It will close in June of 2010.

ZENIT spoke with the prefect of the Congregation for Clergy, Cardinal Cláudio Hummes, about what this year is all about and why the Pope decided to convoke it.

ZENIT: What is the principal objective of the Year for Priests?

Cardinal Hummes: In the first place, the circumstance: It will be a jubilee year for the 150th anniversary of the death of St. John Maria Vianney, better known as the holy Cure of Ars. That is the opportunity, but the fundamental motive is that the Pope wants to give priests a special importance and to say how much he loves them, how much he wants to help them to live their vocation and mission with joy and fervor.

This initiative from the Pope takes place in a moment of a great expansion of a new culture: Today a postmodern, relativistic, urban, pluralistic, secularized, laicist culture dominates, in which priests must live their vocation and mission.

The challenge is to understand how to be a priest in this new time, not to condemn the world but to save the world, like Jesus, who did not come to condemn the world but to save it.

The priest should do this from his heart, with a lot of openness, without demonizing society. He should be integrated within it with the missionary joy of wanting to bring Jesus Christ to the people of this society.

It is necessary to have this opportunity so that everyone prays with and for priests, to convoke the priests to pray, to do this in the best possible way in the current society and, moreover, eventually to come up with initiatives so that priests can have better conditions to live their vocation and mission.

It is a positive and propositive year. It's not about, first of all, correcting priests. There are problems that should always be corrected and the Church cannot be blind to them, but we know that the vast majority of priests have a great dignity and adhere to their ministry and their vocation. They give their lives for this vocation that they have freely accepted.

Unfortunately the problems we've learned of in recent years arise, related to pedophilia and other grave sexual crimes, but at the most, this could maybe apply to some 4% of priests. The Church wants to say to the other 96% that we are proud of them, that they are men of God and we want to help them and recognize all they do as a testimony of life.

It is also an opportune moment to intensify and go deeper into the question of how to be priests in this world that is changing and that God has put us in front of to save [it].

ZENIT: Why has the Pope presented St. John Maria Vianney as a model for priests?

Cardinal Hummes: Because for a long time now he has been the patron of parish priests. He is part of the world of the presbyterate. We also want to encourage various nations and episcopal conferences or local Churches to choose some local exemplary priest and present him to the world and to the youth: Men and priests who would be true models, who could inspire and renew a conviction about the great value and importance of the priestly ministry.

ZENIT: For you as a priest, what is the most beautiful aspect of your vocation?

Cardinal Hummes: This question brings to mind something from St. Francis of Assisi. He once said, "If I were to meet on the road a priest and an angel, I would first greet the priest and then the angel. Why? Because the priest is the one who gives us Christ in the Eucharist." This is what is most fundamental and marvelous: The priest has the gift and the grace of God to be a minister of the this great mystery of the Eucharist.

The priesthood was instituted by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper. When he said, "Do this in memory of me," he gave to the apostles this commend and also the power to do this, to do the same thing that Jesus did at the Last Supper. And those apostles have in turn transmitted this ministry and this divine power to the men who are bishops and priests.

This is what is most important and at the center. The Eucharist is the center of the Church. Pope John Paul II said that the Church lives off the Eucharist. The priest is the minister of this great sacrament, which is the memorial of the death of Jesus.

And then we also have the sacrament of reconciliation. Jesus said, "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained" (John 20:23). He came to reconcile the world with God and human beings among themselves. He gave the Holy Spirit to the apostles, breathing upon them.

He gave to the apostles in the name of God and his name that which he had acquired with his blood and with his life on the cross, transforming violence into an act of love for the forgiveness of sins. And he says to the apostles that they will be the ministers of this pardon. This is fundamental for everyone. Everyone wants to be forgiven of his sins, to be in peace with God and with others. The ministry of reconciliation is very important in the life of the priest.

There are many other activities, like evangelization, the proclamation of the person of Jesus Christ, dead and risen, and of his Kingdom. The world has a right to know and to learn about Jesus Christ and everything that his Kingdom means. This is also a specific ministry of the priest who shares it with the bishops and with the laity who proclaim the Word, and who should bring people to an intense and personal encounter with Jesus Christ.

ZENIT: What do you think are the biggest difficulties and the new challenges that today face youth who want to be priests?

Cardinal Hummes: I want to repeat that we shouldn't demonize the current culture that is spreading more and more and that is becoming a dominant culture in the whole world, despite the presence of other cultures.

This new culture no longer wants to be Christian or religious. It wants to be secular and reject and want to reject any religious interference. Adolescents and youth find themselves in a different situation than the one we lived, we who were born in a very religious culture and one that was recognized as Christian and Catholic. Now it is no longer that way.

I think that for adolescents and youth it is truly more difficult to have the courage to accept an invitation from God, which is born in their interior. To respond today is more complicated, because society no longer values the priesthood. Before, society valued it. Then again, a work of faith and evangelization will always be possible, because God always gives all the graces when he calls to this.

Parishes should offer youth and adolescents the opportunity to speak about that which they carry in their hearts, about this call, because if they do not have the opportunity to speak with someone they can trust, little by little this voice will disappear. Here vocational ministry comes into play, which we need so much.

A well organized parish is able to go out to meet youth and adolescents and give them the opportunity to speak about the call they feel. Also, prayer for vocations is more important now than it was in the past.

Another reason there might be fewer candidates is because families are smaller. They have few or no children. This makes it more difficult. The number of priests in some countries has gone down too much. We look at this situation with great concern.

ZENIT: How do you think a seminarian's formation should be in the personal, spiritual, intellectual and liturgical realms? What elements cannot be lacking?

Cardinal Hummes: The Church speaks of four dimensions that should be cultivated in the candidates.

In the first place, the human dimension, the affective -- the whole question of the person -- his nature, his dignity and a normal affective maturity. This is important because it is the base.

Then there is the spiritual dimension. Today we find ourselves before a culture that is no longer Christian or religious. Therefore it is even more necessary to develop well the spirituality of the candidates.

Then there is the intellectual dimension. It is necessary to study philosophy and theology so that the priests will be capable today of speaking and proclaiming Jesus Christ and his message, such that all of the richness of the dialogue between faith and human reason emerges. God is the Logos of all and Jesus Christ is his explanation.

Afterward, obviously, is the dimension of the apostolate, that is, these candidates must be prepared to be pastors in the world of today. In this pastoral field today, the missionary identity is very important. Priests should have not only a preparation but also a strong motivation to not limit themselves only to welcoming and offering a service to those who come to see them, but should also go out in search of people who don't go to Church, above all, of the baptized who have grown distant because they haven't been sufficiently evangelized, and who have the right to be evangelized, because we have promised to bring Christ, to educate in the faith.

This, many times, has not been done or has been done very little. The priest should go on mission and prepare his community so that it goes to proclaim Jesus Christ to the people, at least those who are in the territory of his parish, but also beyond that.

Today, this missionary dimension is very important. The disciple becomes missionary with his enthusiastic and joyful adherence to Christ, capable of unconditionally covering all of his life with him. We should be like the disciples: fervent, missionary, joyful. This is the key, the secret.

ZENIT: What special activities are planned this year, both for youth and for the priests themselves?

Cardinal Hummes: There will be initiatives at the level of the universal Church, but the Year for Priests should also be celebrated at the local level. That is, in the local Churches, the dioceses and the parishes, because priests are the ministers of the people, and should include the communities.

Dioceses should motivate initiatives both of going deeper and of celebration to bring to priests the message that the Church loves them, respects, them, admires them and feels proud of them.

The Pope will open the Year for Priests on June 19, on the feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, because it is the World Day of Prayer for the Sanctification of Priests. There will be solemn vespers celebrated in the Vatican basilica, the relics of the Cure of Ars will be present. His heart will be in the basilica as a sign of the importance that the Pope wants to give to priests. We hope that many priests will be present.

The closing will take place a year later. There is still to be defined a date for a great encounter of the Pope with priests, to which all the dioceses will be invited. There will be many other initiatives. We are also thinking of doing an international theological conference during the days before the closing. There will also be spiritual exercises. We also hope to be able to involve Catholic universities so that they can go deeper in the meaning of the priesthood, the theology of the priesthood, and in all the themes that are important for priests.

ZENIT: Can you talk to us about the challenges that a priest faces in this society that is so anti-religious? How do you think a priest can stay faithful to his vocation?

Cardinal Hummes: In the first place, the Church, through its seminaries and formators, should make a very rigorous selection of the candidates. Later, a good formation is needed, fundamentally in the human, intellectual, spiritual, pastoral and missionary dimensions. It is fundamental to remember that the priest is a disciple of Jesus Christ and to be sure that he has had this intense personal and communitarian encounter with Jesus Christ, to whom he has given his loyalty. Every Mass can be a very powerful moment for this encounter. But also the reading of the Word of God.

As John Paul II said, there are many opportunities to give testimony to the encounter with Jesus Christ. It is fundamental to be a missionary capable of renewing this priestly zeal, of feeling joyful and convinced of his mission and convinced that it has a fundamental meaning for the Church and for the world.

I always say that the priest is not only important because of the religious aspect within the Church. He also carries out a very great task in society, because he promotes the great human values, is very close to the poor with solidarity, with attention to human rights. I believe that we should help them so that they live this vocation with joy, with a lot of clarity, and also with heart, so that they are happy, given that it's possible to be happy in sacrifice and in tiredness.

To be happy is not in contradiction with suffering. Jesus was not unhappy on the cross. He suffered tremendously, but he was happy, because he knew what he was doing for love and that this had a fundamental meaning for the salvation of the world. It was a gesture of fidelity to his Father.

ZENIT: What other saints do you think can be models for the priest of today?

Cardinal Hummes: Obviously the great ideal is always Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd. In the case of the apostles, above all, St. Paul. We have celebrated the Pauline year. It's obvious that he was a truly impressive figure and can always be a great inspiration for priests, above all in a society that is no longer Christian. He crossed the borders of Israel to be an apostle to the Gentiles, to the pagans. In a world that is making itself so distant from any religious manifestation, his example is fundamental. St. Paul was very aware of this: Jesus has come to save, not to condemn. This is the same awareness that we should have faced to the world of today.

(taken from www.zenit.org)

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279809.msg3974887#msg3974887 date=1244104375]Sorry to spoil the fun but there're atheists who convert to islam, buddism,sikihsm even satanism. So those you mentioned doesn't make christianity the 'true' faith. A few even convert to christianity and later revert to atheism again.
You shouldn't be so happy though coz according to you (i know you're a catholic) most 'll still end up in hell along with the other 30,00
xtian sects around (bad news for davidylan,noetic and other protestants)[/quote]Where in that article does it say that Christianity is the true faith?
Are you stating this just to make yourself feel better?
You know how most atheists attack christianity because that's the only faith they know?
Well this article talks about atheists who attacked Christianity that later on accepted the faith.

By the way most of them were Christians who left the faith and then returned. And died as Christians.

Carlosein:
@lady, i'm not sure how to contact seun especially if he doesn't want to be contacted.

can't we have the forum any other way?

I don't think so. It would be nice to know how we can go about getting a forum.

Not to start a fight, but to correct you, they're not cathedrals. they're church buildings.

This is an interesting article, ok everyone pick away and comment.

By TIMOTHY LARSEN
Have you ever heard the one about the Christian who started to study calculus and ended up losing his faith? Of course you have. Such "conversion" to atheism is supposed to be the story of all modern, thinking people. But imagine it happening the other way around. Moreover, imagine the convert being a well-informed, public intellectual who had long made it his business to argue that faith is irrational?

Just such a conversion has happened to A.N. Wilson, the 58-year-old British biographer, novelist and man of letters. He was once an observant Anglican and, later, a Roman Catholic, but in the 1980s he lost his faith and began skewering the supposed delusions of the faithful. His antifaith stance was expressed in books such as "God's Funeral" (1999) and "Jesus: A Life" (1992). A few weeks ago, however, Mr. Wilson confessed that Christ had risen indeed. He attributed this to "the confidence I have gained with age." He now says he believes that atheists are like "people who have no ear for music or who have never been in love."

Mr. Wilson's story matches that of other skeptical authors who became convinced by Christianity, not least in Victorian Britain, when Darwin and various modern ideas shook the foundations of faith among the educated classes. Among the notable examples from Victorian Britain are Thomas Cooper, the most popular free-thinking lecturer in London in the 1850s; George Sexton, the most academically accomplished secularist intellectual of the time; and Joseph Barker, a well-respected leader of the mid-19th-century free-thinking movement. The 20th century also had its share of writers and intellectuals who rediscovered Christianity as mature thinkers, including T.S. Eliot, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, C.S. Lewis, Graham Greene, Evelyn Waugh and W.H. Auden.

Our modern assumption that thought and faith are incompatible can be traced to the Victorian atheists. As one of them snidely remarked when a fellow secularist came to faith: "I find it hard to believe that someone could progress backwards."

For his part, A. N. Wilson had denounced as dishonest every leading Victorian intellectual who maintained a commitment to orthodox Christianity. Indeed, in "God's Funeral" he did not just go after the usual targets, such as John Henry Newman, but savaged even Samuel Taylor Coleridge and William Wordsworth. They were not presented as simply mistaken, but rather as downright "dishonorable."

Secularist leaders were usually raised religious. As clever youths, they would begin to handle the Bible critically. They prided themselves in being "rational" and would decide that Christian beliefs did not meet this standard. They would then go on to find intellectual satisfaction in picking apart the beliefs of others. Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason," a book beloved by free-thinkers in the 19th century, systematically went through the Bible, gleefully mocking each book in turn.

Those who later recanted their atheism began to doubt their doubts went on from this common start to begin to doubt their doubts. They gradually decided that their rationalistic method was too narrow: It could pick holes not only in Christianity but in any attempt to distinguish between right and wrong or to articulate the meaning of life. They came to realize that they could only tear down and thus were left intellectually with no habitable place to live. John Henry Gordon, who held the only full-time, salaried secularist lecturer position in England, came to believe that secularism was a creed of "mere negations."

Having realized that their method was flawed, they then began to reconsider faith. Christianity, they discovered, spoke to the deepest realities of human experience. George Sexton, for example, decided that Jesus as presented in the Gospels was so compelling and haunting that only a historical original could account for this: "If Christ be simply an ideal picture, the man who sketched it will be as difficult to account for as the Being himself."

Their skeptical pasts did leave a permanent stamp on their thought. Joseph Barker believed as a young man that the Bible was error-free. As a free-thinking lecturer he specialized in highlighting problem passages. As a convert, he conceded that the Bible was not perfect but went on to argue that it was perfectly suited to speak to the human condition. The Swiss Alps are not perfect cones, he observed, but this does not detract from their grandeur. Thomas Cooper declared that his newly rediscovered faith did not include a belief in eternal punishment.

As is the case with Mr. Wilson, intellectuals often pursue long, drawn-out love affairs with Christian thought. Next time you hear someone fume that God is the most contemptible being who never existed, keep in mind that you just might be watching the first act of a divine romantic comedy.

Mr. Larsen is the author of "Crisis of Doubt: Honest Faith in Nineteenth-Century England" (Oxford University Press, 2008).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124355313058264477.html

hi everyone,

as i stated above, i contacted seun, but haven't received a reply from him. if any of you can contact him by e-mail it would be great. thanks.

chukwudi44:
Welcome back to the forum missed you.which documents are you talking about ?please elaborate

I found Pope John Paul II's Encyclical letter on Faith and Reason, it's about 67 pages.
I also found one of Pope Benedict XVI's on gay marriage. He was actually Josef Cardinal Ratzinger then.

they're very interesting, and is one of the reasons why I think a Catholic forum would be great. There's so much to talk about.

Evolution is a pseudo-science there is no proof that we evolved from apes.

Evolution doesn't say we evolved from apes, but that we have a common ancestor.

Ok I sent an e-mail to Seun, hopefully he will respond well.

I found some church documents I think would be a great read for us.

Hi guys I'm sorry I've been very busy running errands for the family. I tried to contact Seun, but I honestly don't know how, so can anyone help with that?

Salvation is not faith + works

and yet the Bible said faith without works is dead. So basically you believe some parts of the Bible and not the other. Is this your excuse for sitting on your arse and doing nothing but bring others down?

The problem comes in when people use evolution or the big bang to prove that God doesn't exist, or use it as their excuse not to believe in God. Problem also comes in when people read Genesis literally and attack evolution.

Hux wats up with the new name?

huxley2:
Why do some religionist get so hot under their pants when evolution is mentioned? Is evolution a threat to religious belief? If it is, why do they consider it a threat? And what do detractors of evolution make of other religionists who accept evolution? Do they think that their theology is wrong-headed?

Watch a very good Christian scientist who accepts and defends evolution here.

No evolution is not a threat to religion. Point is God created, however way he deemed to bring about his creation is left to him. If Science shows that evolution is the way in which God brought about his creation then so be it. Point is God got it going.

segyemaro:
As for me,i have not seen were even three women agreed to marry one man,pls i stand to be corrected with fact and proofs.

ehn come which part of the world are you living in?
forget naija sef, this is happening everywhere.

ok women have never fought for u and u are hoping that they will start now eh.

Ok I will fight for u (just so u know na play play o)

any other women willing to make segyemaro feel better for himself?

I see someone has been watching the History channel. And I see someone has found their excuse not to believe in Christianity. The devil gives excuses to those who are looking for it. Unfortunately their excuse will not be good enough on judgement day.

ok bawomolo, the very idea that evolution is against christianity is actually idiotic and he who thinks so doesn't understand christianity and evolution.
christianity is based on faith and reason, u can't have one without the other.

actually to quote a friend

As to Darwin's theory, there are caveat's to it. We are allowed to accept that evolution MAY have been the tool God used for His Creation, but we are not allowed to remove God from the process. The theory of evolution says nothing about creation; it only speaks of how animals change over time. Darwin's theory does not say we come from apes; it says we have a common ancestor.

The book of Genesis was not written to be a biology textbook. It speaks of why and who, but the how is irrelevant in the grand plan of salvation. We must believe that humanity sprang from one set of parents (let's call them Adam and Eve) who were at some point ensouled and then fell from grace at the prompting of Satan. This did not need to take place on the 8th 24-hr period after the universe was created in a garden in Iraq.

plain and simple evolution does not dispell christianity and those who think so are looking for a reason not to believe in God

@chrisbenogor

if u have the chance look up fulto j sheen on youtube and listen to what he says about love.

Chrisbenogor:
Lol lady you go kill me one day, your analogies still always make me laugh. What makes rev fathers good marriage counselors anyway?

glad it made u laugh but seriously according to ppl u can't be good at counselling if u didn't go through it urself.
I've never had children but I have given sound advice to women with children on what to do about situations involving their children.
There are unmarried therapists and they do marriage couselling, some of them have been divorced and yet people flock to them for counseling.

The guys said if u don't have it or if u haven't been in that situation u can't counsel a person. Well mothers don't have penis and they can never be a father, yet they counsel their sons. or are we going to say women can't counsel their sons again?

What makes Rev. Fathers good counsellors?
Because they know what entails a marriage. You don't have to be married to know what it takes to make a marriage work. Also because they are not married it actually puts them in a better position to give counsel. Those who are married tend to bring in their own relationships and experiences into their counsels and quite frankly their relationship has absolutely nothing to do with the couple they're counselling. Rev. Fathers can step back and look at the situation with a fresh mind and with no bias.

I'm going to get a video to post for u by a bishop on marriage. my comp is acting up right now so will do later.

btw? where have u been? i so completely missed u

segyemaro:
A mother can counsel her son with or without penis

so why can't rev.fathers counsel with or without marriage? u don't have to have it or go through it to know how to help others in it.

I'll take my dignity anyday. My university degree won't stand before God for me, but with my dignity I can.

Also I can marry a man with a univeristy degree.

clean cut does it for me. My babe's got it, and I love that it puts an emphasis on his beard, so sexy.

Plain and simple, Nigeria needs to assess the people's needs and what works for the people instead of trying to catch up with the west. The west is being the west and now we need to be Nigeria.

I think I need to do more research on where fashola is building another airport. Can anyone help me with that? Because there is nothing wrong with having more than one airports in a place like lagos. As long as there is a need for it. The thing is shouldn't there be other international airports in more places in Nigeria first? Because if other governors do decide to build and manage well international airports in their states, most of Nigerians won't have a need of using lagos international airport as much.

1. The first is the issue of HND and Bsc ,some companies are not even considering the HND graduate while the few once that gives them audience still humiliate them in terms of salary ,since the so call federal govt can not do anything to bridge this gap i think they should scrab the polytechnics so they will not be producing graduate that will not be accepted by the employment society .

It is not up to the government to determine whether YOU will go to the polytechnic, it is entirely up to you. If you know that employers aren't looking at HND holders then don't go to a polytechnic. The government can't do everything for us.

2. My second point is about the recruitment process by this so call multi- national companies . They will put you under a very stressful various test and interview at the end they will employ 10% out of 100%.imagine PZ conducting 7 apt test with several interview ,the fact is that i don't what they are looking for ,also the last BAT apt test was held in Zaria (KADUNA) imagine the huge amount of transport fair for people that are not staying close to kaduna ,just for an apt test which you can not guarantee your self of interview

lolol please stop bitching. Step up your game. If you can't handle it then let someone else handle it. By the way it is the same way around the world. Imagine having classes monday thru friday and then having to leave school to go for a one week interview, and that's just round one of the interviews. You get to miss one week of school and your professors will not cut you any slack and you need to pass that class to graduate so you can work in that place.

3.The third issue is about what i call MODERN SLAVE TRADE by the agent and the consulting firm ,they will get you employment but all to their merit collecting 20% of your salary what a grate injustice

You don't need a consulting firm to get you a job, get off your arse and job hunt on your own.

5. My fifth issue is about grade,HND upper credit and Bsc 2.1 ,but to me i don't think this is a good yard stick to judge the best among the graduate because i belief in competency rather than certificate .

The only way they can check your competency right now as a fresh graduate is through your certificate.

Lastly if any body have a senator as an uncle or aunt please tell them to stop argument on 7 POINT AGENDA and look in to our matters. because THE WAY DEN THEY RUN THINGS 4 THIS COUNTRY ME I NO GBADUN.,

This post has absolutely nothing to do with the government. It is not the governments job to get you a job, that is entirely your responsibility not theirs. Nothing you posted has anything to do with the govt.

Get over it and find a job, it is your responsibility not the govts.

arowolo888:
they are not qualified to counsel couples because they lack the experience,they cant give what they dont have.

So because a mother does not have a penis she cannot counsel her son?

What are the benefits of cancer that we are supposed to embrace it?

chukwudi44:
A seperate forum for catholics would be great but it is only left for seun to decide

Of course, I just need to be able to get in touch with him, to pitch the idea.

hello everybody.

sorry i've been missing, applying for jobs is a hassle in this economy o.

Omenuko i for come ur side o, just pray uncle sam thinks i am qualified to be an auditor.

guys i have a prayer request, as a recent graduate it's hard to find a job, there are some out there but with all the graduates fighting for a job, it's something else. pls pray that the Lord will favour me.

Chukwudi44
by separate forum, I mean what the muslims have. Not bcus I want us to seclude ourselves but bcus Catholicism is very broad and there are so many topics we should be discussing. It will definitely help those who can't maneuver through the countless topics on nairaland to get something on Catholicism.
Me thinks it would be a great way to evangelise and keep encouraging each other in the faith.

I know it will meet extreme and e-bloody criticism from our fellow christians, but it will be worth it.

now i just have to figure out how to message Seun. SEUN WHERE ARE YOU?

Jesus loves you
Mary loves you
I love you

Yup they're not fit, kind of how mothers can't counsel their sons because they are not men/fathers.

Carlosein:
my brother mesef just dey. abi make i speak igbo too?

kedu kodi?

hahaha no speak igbo abeg. stick with yoruba, i can jut imagine how u even said that kedu kodi.

omenuko

oya u need to call me sap sap, i haven't received a congrats on graduation from u o?

To all
I miss u guys so much, and I love u all.

I have this idea.
But me thinks we should have a separate forum as there are many topics in Catholicism to discuss, and I think we need to be discussing them here. We need to make sure that people correctly understand their faith, and that we address certain issues of the Catholic faith.
What do ya think?

Glory to the Almighty Jesus, Honour to our lovely mother Mary.

They led me through school and now I am done, well for now until October 1st when I shall return to school. oh una see my life? na so so school school school eh.

The Bible does not teach that Peter is the foundation of the Church. That is the basic point being made by those you're trying to query. However,

the problem here is that you view the foundation of peter as separate from the foundation of christ, the catholics don't view it as such. we view it in light of christ, not apart from it. so if you will question us, question us on what we believe not what we don't believe.

Third, please note that even in Paul and Peter's day, there were several BISHOPS, not just one. Yes, I remember you said "Bishop of Rome"; but you may want to remind yourself that the Church did not begin in Rome but rather in Jerusalem (Acts 2). The previous chapter (Acts 1) makes the case clear enough - they were to begin witnessing in Jerusalem, and then in all Judaea, and then in Samaria, before other parts of the world. Having seen Christ ascending, they returned "unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey" (verse 12). It was from there that the Church was established, and not in Rome

This has absolutely no relevance to the fact that Christ established a papacy. The church not beginning in rome does not negate a papacy. It is not the location of the papacy it is the person of the papacy. if peter was in Abuja then he would have been the bishop of abuja and still be pope. the location is of lno relevance. Peter was bishop of antioch before he became bishop of rome, he was still the pope as bishop of antioch. Jesus gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven, and not Rome, or Jerusalem, or Nigeria, he gave a person not a location, so wherever that person is is the papacy. it was decided upon rome bcus that was the last See of Peter and that's where he died. He could have been in Botswana for all we care, he would still be the Pope.

To be built "around" someone does not make that person the foundation of the Church. Please quote us some specific statements from Irenaeus that points to Peter being the foundation of the Church; and we shall patiently look into it and show you what you're missing.

Ephesians 2:20
20 Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone

(b) Tertullian in your quote also said: "it is plain as we have said that heretics are not allowed to appeal to the scripture since they have no claim to it." The funny thing to note is that even these fellows making Peter the foundation of the Church were not even appealing to Scripture in the first place! It would indeed be dishonest for them to make appeal to Scripture with mere pretences of quotes that are not found in Scripture at all.

you mean they didn't follow what wasn't available during their time?

We have noted that Augustine of Hippo is often quoted as asserting that Peter was the foundation of the Church. But are you aware, chukwudi44, that the same Augustine also affirmed that Christ is the foundation of the Church? It's seems confusing, until you understand that Augustine meant that:
(i) Peter was the visible foundation; while
(ii) Christ was the invisible foundation of the Church

How does this differ from what the church teaches?

However, of the Church itself, who did Augustine proclaim as her Head? Was it Peter. . or rather CHRIST Himself? People who are quick to cite Augustine for Peter often fail to realize that infact Augustine declared numerous times that Christ was indeed the Head of the Church. This presents serious problems for the papacy-inclined faithfuls; but I shall refer you to check the facts for yourself from any authentic source of your choice for the following especially: "St. Augustine of Hippo - Expositions on the Psalms, PSALM III. " (you can view an example here).

How does this differ from what the church teaches? Where has the church ever said that Christ is not the head of the church?

"The Virgin Mary is both holy and blessed, and yet the Church is greater than she. Mary is a part of the Church, a member of the Church, a holy, an eminent – the most eminent – member, but still only a member of the entire body. The body undoubtedly is greater than she, one of its members. This body has the Lord for its head, and head and body together make up the whole Christ. In other words, our head is divine – our head is God." [read it from this source]

Don't mean to sound redundant but how does this differ from Catholic teaching?

If you're trying to prove that the Catholic church teaches something different from what the church fathers wrote, you have failed miserably. all the more reason why i say understand the church's teaching first.

There are so many other instance in which the same Augustine does not discuss Peter as either the foundation or the Head of the Church, whether visible or invisible; rather in such works he often referred to Christ alone as the foundation and Head of the Church. Does this not make you think for a minute who's been playing politics about Peter being the foundation of the Church for the sake of appeasing groups like the Donatists?

Then in that case myself and every other catholic has been playing politics with you all eh?

I'm sorry, the Bible does not teach being in the Roman Catholic Church is what actually saves a person - that is just a tradition repeatedly offered as part of Catholicism. Salvation is found in the Son of God alone, for it is in His name alone that salvation is offered to humanity. The apostle Peter didn't preach the Catholic Church for the salvation of any man, but rather preached the Lord Jesus Christ to save people (Acts 4:12). In another place, the same Peter acknowledged that all the prophets pointed to Jesus Christ for salvation, rather than to any church (Acts 10:42-43). Your idea that if one is not a Catholic to be saved is re-affirming the debunked doctrine of the Roman papacy.

Actually it does, but not in those exact words. If you understand what "The Church" means you would understand that it is by the Catholic church that one is saved.
Christ said whoever hears you hears me, whoever rejects you rejects me. He didn't say whoever reads the bible hears me or whoever rejects the bible rejects me, he spoke it to people, to the apostles, to his church. It is that church that you know today as the Catholic church. If you do not accept the full truth of Christ as he taught his apostles and his apostles handed down to us today then you are not a part of his church. you can try as much as you can to say that as long as u accept christ u can be saved, infact that can't be proven from the bible, you won't be saved.

The statistics quoted earlier was about Catholicism - is that a different thing from Roman Catholicism? What makes up the structure of the Catholic Church that you've been arguing if there's nothing to talk about its priests? Perhaps you're seeking to just excuse this point as you may never have guessed such an observation was possible.

No it is not different, however the Roman Catholic Church is but one church in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church consists of 23 Churches, 22 eastern churches and one western church. All in union with the Bishop of Rome.

When we speak, we aren't speaking of the RCC alone but of the Catholic Church.

I'm quite familiar with the works of those names you mentioned; and you're not quite correct to say that the 'epistles of clement, ignatius and polycarp were regarded with the same authourity with the pauline epistles'. Read again your quote of Tertullian: "That doctrine is evidently true which was first delivered. On the contrary, that is false which is of a later date." Unless you have a magical way of making Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp to be Paul's contemporaries, I think Tertullian should do nicely in deflating your idea.

"those of a later date" is not in reference to those who preach what the apostles preach but in reference to heretics. those that taught what the apsotles taught were not cosidered of a later date. and in actuality he wasn't talking about people he was talking about messages. the messages of a later date were false not the messages that were passed on from the apostles, and if infact u wish to see it in that light, that throws your belief under the bus as it would mean that you shouldn't follow in the footsteps of martin and co in your belief as they are even much later than the church fathers.

You're misreading me, as I did not disparage Augustine. I only showed you the prevailing circumstances of his day and the conditions that led him to form his opinions of both visible and invisible foundation for the Church - not because that is what the 'scriptures' teach, but simply because that is the mantra being sung in Roman Catholic traditions.

Your assertion here is highly flawed.
1) Because you are of the assumption that all has to go by scripture alone, scripture refutes that, and history of christianity refutes that.
2) You are of the assumption that the scripture fell from the sky
3) You are of the assumption that Jesus wrote the scripture
4) You are of the assumption that Catholic tradition contradicts scripture.
5) You are of the assumption that by the time Augustine wrote, the Bible was already defined.

What you fail to realise is that Catholic tradition is what you call the Bible/scripture today. The Bible you read was written from these same traditions that you claim the Bible refutes. How can the Bible refute its source? Or do u seriously think the Bible fell from the sky?

Could you tell us then why those same letters were not canonized?

Because most of the writings at the time of canonization were not complete. Check the criteria for determining the canon.

Lol, this is awesome, chukwudi44! It seems queer that since Clement's epistles predated John's writings and regarded with the same authority, it was nonetheless rejected as an appropriate document to be considered canonized. You and I know that by the statement "that is false which is of a later date", Tertullian was not meaning that John's writings that "came later" than Clement's was therefore false. So, I wonder why you keep circling round these points. More than that, how does this very point in your quote answer the primary question of Peter being the foundation of the Church? hmm?

How about we set the standard for what tertullian was talking about. he wasn't talking about John or clement as both John and clement wrote the same message, he was talking about those who had a different message than the apostles.
if that's the case then Paul's writings that were written later than his other ones shouldn't be trusted as the one's written before.
It isn't about the person it is about the message. Get the interpretation of Tertullian's writing first and then continue with your point.

Okay, calm down sir. First, I'm not one of those who's "heavily" disputing those books. Second, none of those books/epistles ever declared that Peter was the foundation of the Church. If you find a verse that says so, please share so we can all learn.

The one where Christ tells him "You are Rock and upon this Rock I will build my church" Rock=foundation. that has been shown many times. in order to prove that jesus didn't call him foundation/rock, u'll have to prove that Peter doesn't mean rock or rather should I say Kephas doesn't mean rock as aramaic is what Christ spoke and we know he called Peter, Kephas.

Okay, I hear. Question: it's often boasted that the Catholic Church canonized the Bible - why then were the more popular books (bearing the same authority) rejected in favour of the epistles of the apostles? I'm not contesting anything about the Bible - I love it with all my heart; but I'm asking you to apply a bit of reason at the implication of your concerns.

In case you haven't noticed the Church doesn't quite care for popularity. But that's besides the point.
1) Because most of the books by the time of canonization were incomplete
2) Because why have those who learnt from the apostles when you can have the direct apostles themselves

Isn't it quite strange that the Catholic Church could not sieve out just 1 out of those 100 epistles (some of which you claim were "more popular" and canonize it among the books of the NT? Stranger yet that those books which were canonized do not teach the idea that Peter was the foundation of the Church.

you know very well that this statement is very ridiculous, it's like saying why then didn't the letter of St. Paul to the Laodecians make canonization. Were the other letters better than the letter to the laodecians.

There was only one question/request that has taken us this far. Good exercise on your part, and I'm not being tedious to you. I'd thought you had something other than the RCC tradition to help solve the mystery. . and thanks for your efforts all the same

he gave you scripture. and um scripture is Catholic tradition. so let go of scripture since u don't agree with it.

Was it Peter alone that fed the lambs? Was he the only apostle with responsibility to tend the flock? By the way who chaired the Jerusalem council? Wasn't it James, and not Peter?

could you kindly show me the passage about the council in jerusalem that was chaired by James and not Peter.