₦airaland Forum

However, I don't see where anything you said has established the idea that Peter was the foundation of the Church. Not a single convincing line you offered has made the point. Let's see:

Hey Pilgrim

I was wondering if this would help.

Galatians 2:9

9 And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision:

The early christians regarded Peter as Bishop Of Rome and Pope of the Church there has never been any question about that. All churches with direct links to the early christians hold this belief, it is not just the Catholic Church that holds that belief. Whether or not they are in union with Rome, they hold the belief that Peter is the first Pope and that he has always been regarded as the first among equals.

I am still waiting on someone to show me documents from early christianity that disputes Peter as the Pope. All of them come after the reformation. 1500 years later.

God's true church will never abuse little boys

Just like God's true church will neve abandon him at his death or deny him during trial right?

God's true church will be spotless when Jesus Christ bursts through the clouds of heaven to redeem His people. God's true church will show respect for God's commands and instructions, unlike the RCC that has placed images and idols for people to kiss and adore.

I won't even bother with this one as this is u grasping for straws here.

The true church will not accept indulgencies from its members so that their relatives will be taken from purgatory.

ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING HYSTERICALLY, AND HERE ALL THIS WHILE I THOUGHT YOU KNEW WHAT INDULGENCES WERE. THIS IDIOT THINKS INDULGENCES ARE WHAT PEOPLE PAY TO GET THEIR RELATIVES FREED FROM PURGATORY.

TAAAAA IDIOT YOU HAVE PROVEN YOU KNOW NOTHING, GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD QUICK QUICK. GO AND FIND A NEW STRATEGY, THIS ONE JUST EXPOSED YOU FOR AN IGNORANT BUFOON.

I AM NOT ONE WHO IS QUICK TO CURSE, BUT YOU DERSERVE THIS ONE BECAUSE YOU JUST SHOT YOURSELF IN THE FOOT AND NOW I KNOW NEVER TO TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY!!!! AT ALLL

TAAAA SO YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT INDULGENCES ARE. YOU THINK IT'S A PAYMENT. AT LEAST GO AND FIND OUT WHAT AN INDULGENCE IS BIKO NU, U ARE A DISGRACE TO ALL ANTI-CATHOLICS. AT LEAST THEY GET THEIR POINTS STRAIGHT.

CHAI CHINEKE SEE DISGRACE NA.

DAVIDY, COME AND TEACH YOUR BROTHER HOW TO PROPERLY HATE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HE DOESN'T KNOW HOW.

HA!!!! NNA YOU ARE DISMISSED!!!

YOU HEAR ME DISMISSED!!!!

GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD JO!!!!!

1) They all chose celibacy like Paul - And so? Did Paul consider himself better than Barnabas or Peter?

Do the Priests consider themselves better than each other or better than the lay people, to my knowledge they do not. Unless you on the outside are feeling left out and have resorted to thinking that they think they are better than you, but ore mi that is all in ur head. Or is it bcus they wear those really pretty garments, are you jealous of that? Ok no worry we will make ur own for u ok.

2) They preach the goodnews far and wide - they are missionaries - And? Phillip had daughters and was a missionary too.

So what? Some Catholic Priests have families and are missionaries too, what is your point?

3) They follow authority just like Paul, he didn't send himself on a mission, he met with the other apostles who laid hands on him and commissioned him to the world - Meaningless . . . even moral muslims follow authority

aww u r way too cute. look at u being desperate.
comon boy u don't have to be so desperate to find fault in everything, comon boy, comon u can do it

4) They defend the faith as Paul defends the faith - Meaningless . . . every christian does this.

Not every christian does it, there are christians who defend what they believe, and what they believe are incompatible with the Bible, I think those Christians are called Protestants. OOOOOOO

But seriously ur desperate here.

5) They don't pick and choose what about the faith to believe, they believe the fullness of truth as revealed to us by Christ - Again meaningless . . . every child of God needs only ask for the Holy Ghost to reveal the fulness of Christ to him/her.

Um show me that in the Bible. Last time I checked the Holy Spirit reveals the truth through the Church, and it is all over the Bible that those who just arose for themselves started preaching error, the Church rebuked them, u should find it in the other post.

6) They are being persecuted just like Paul - And? Who is persecuting the priests in your church?

Non-Catholics, you know the usual, protestants, muslims, and co.

7) They stick with the traditions of the apostles as Paul did - Paul did no such thing . . . if not he wouldnt have clashed openly with Peter.

Eh you mean the same Paul that is all over the Bible talking about traditions and apostolic authority? The one that says this:
2 Thessalonians 3
6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

Why would he talk about tradition the people have received from him and the other apostles?

You mean the same Paul that went to Peter for 15 days to learn from him? Now why would he do that?
Seriously dude, realise that Paul held on to traditions.

2 Thessalonians 2
14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

I mean seriously why would he tell us to hold on traditions and then tell us not to hold on to traditions, is Paul contradicting himself? Or are you interpreting it wrong out of contempt for the Church and because you do not want to admit that you are wrong. WHY WOULD PAUL ASK US TO HOLD ON TO TRADITIONS TAUGHT BY HIMSELF AND OTHER MEN OR ARE THEY NOT MEN TOO?
AND THEN TELL US NOT TO HANG ON TO TRADITIONS OF MEN? AHN AHN IS PAUL CONFUSED?

They are obedient to their vocations just as Paul was - What does this have to do with Christ?

Paul has nothing to do with Christ? Ok you don't know what vocation is? answer so I can educate u on what it is.
and i thought we were talking about Paul here or are you trying to do the old switcherooo, sorry o e no go work.

9) They are obedient to their calling from Christ just as Paul was obedient to his calling from Christ. They do not get up and say hey I will start my own church just like Paul did not get up and say hey I will start my own church and start teaching his own gospel, he taught the gospel he learned from the apostles by oral tradition, and the Priests do so today. - Meaningless jargon. I doubt you even understand what Paul's message was. He went around planting churches as led by the Holy Ghost. There was no church in Ephesus until he got there.

I understood very much what I wrote, maybe you do not understand me. Paul did not plant his own personal church and start teaching something different from what the other apostles taught. He taught the same thing he learned from the other apostles. And the priests today do the same.

10) They do not own wealth just as Paul did not own wealth - Nonsense . . . Paul was a tentmaker by trade. Acts 18:3.

So while he was busy galavanting all over the globe he was making tent and making money eh, or did he give that up when he became an apostle? Which one is it?

11) They share in the Priesthood of Christ as Paul did - Not at all . . . you seem to be confused about what the priesthood is about . . . Rev 1:6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen

Hahaha thank you for providing the passage to prove my point. Point is they are Priests like Paul too.

12) They commemorate the exact same sacrifice of the eucharist, the body and blood of Christ, just as Paul did.
and much more that I can't remember right now - huh?

Keep huhing, you know exactly what I mean. Stay there, we all can tell you know where the truth lies. Whether it takes u till ur death bed to finally accept the truth, I don't care, as long as u accept the truth, I will be happy and praising God.

You my dear can only show certain verses which prove you picking and choosing, but the Church teaches the fullness of truth as all passages are taken into consideration and not one is given a higher class than another. God's Word doesn't contradict, your interpretations contradicts it.

davidylan:
I thought He gave the authority to WHOSOEVER calleth on the name of the Lord. But of course i am still waiting for the bible reference.

You will have to show me the Bible reference where he says he gives authority to whosoever calleth on the name of the Lord.

But here are my Bible references.

The authority of the apostles

Matt. 10:40 - Jesus declares to His apostles, "he who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me." Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively convert the world.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - the apostles are given Christ's authority to make visible decisions on earth that will be ratified in heaven. God raises up humanity in Christ by exalting his chosen leaders and endowing them with the authority and grace they need to bring about the conversion of all. Without a central authority in the Church, there would be chaos (as there is in Protestantism). Take note that not all his disciples recieved this authority. If so we can all start binding and loosing and making decisions in heaven. That means if David hates me and says on his power to bind and loose, ~Lady~ shall go to hell, and then ~Lady~ says by her power to bind and loose she shall not go to hell, God is going to have a hard time choosing which one to honour o.

Luke 9:1; 10:19 - Jesus gives the apostles authority over the natural and the supernatural (diseases, demons, serpents, and scorpions).

Luke 10:16 - Jesus tells His apostles, "he who hears you, hears Me." When we hear the bishops' teaching on the faith, we hear Christ Himself

Luke 22:29 - the Father gives the kingdom to the Son, and the Son gives the kingdom to the apostles. The gift is transferred from the Father to the Son to the apostles.

John 5:30 - similarly, Jesus as man does nothing of His own authority, but He acts under the authority of the Father.

John 7:16-17 - Jesus as man states that His authority is not His own, but from God. He will transfer this authority to other men.

John 8:28 - Jesus says He does nothing on His own authority. Similarly, the apostles will do nothing on their own authority. Their authority comes from God.

John 12:49 - The father's authority is transferred to the Son. The Son does not speak on his own. This is a transfer of divine authority.

John 13:20 - Jesus says, "he who receives anyone who I send, receives Me." He who receives the apostles, receives Christ Himself. He who rejects the apostles and their successors, rejects Christ

John 16:14-15 - what the Father has, the Son has, and the Son gives it to the apostles. The authority is not lessened or mitigated

Acts 20:28 - the apostles are shepherds and guardians appointed by the Holy Spirit / 1 Peter 2:25 - Jesus is the Shepherd and Guardian. The apostles, by the power of the Spirit, share Christ's ministry and authority.

Eph. 2:20 - the Christian faith is built upon the foundation of the apostles. The word "foundation" proves that it does not die with apostles, but carries on through succession

That authority given to the apostles are transferred by means of ordination.

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ's own authority.

Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his "bishopric" is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, "I'll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own

Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown

Acts 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.

Acts 14:23 - the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church. Ore mi u do not have authority over your own self on this matter. No one in the Bible reads the Bible and decides on his own, if he did show me o.

Acts 15:22-27 - preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church. We must trace this authority to the apostles.
In short this one I will post the whole passages here for you and others to see as I love it so much. It is the greatest rebuke of all preachers not in the Catholic church.
22 Then it pleased the apostles and ancients, with the whole church, to choose men of their own company, and to send to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas, who was surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren.
23 Writing by their hands: The apostles and ancients, brethren, to the brethren of the Gentiles that are at Antioch, and in Syria and Cilicia, greeting.
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that some going out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment:
25 It hath seemed good to us, being assembled together, to choose out men, and to send them unto you, with our well beloved Barnabas and Paul:
26 Men that have given their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also will, by word of mouth, tell you the same things

This passage tells us that there were men that were NOT commissioned by the Apostles, and they got up and started preaching, and because they weren't commissioned by the apostles they were teaching error. But notice how organsied the Church is, the Church sent a letter to the community along with soldiers, apostles that they commissioned themselves. Aburo mi it is not small matter, when men gave themselves authority as your pastors and yourselves have done, they Church spoke against them.

1 Tim. 4:14 - again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).

1 Tim. 5:22 - Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately

2 Tim. 1:6 - Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands

1 John 4:6 - whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves).

Rom. 15:16 – Paul says he is a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable. This refers to the ministerial priesthood of the ordained which is distinguishable from the universal priesthood of the laity. Notice the Gentiles are the “sacrifice” and Paul does the “offering.”

1 Cor. 5:3-5; 16:22; 1 Tim. 1:20; Gal 1:8; Matt 18:17 – these verses show the authority of the elders to excommunicate / anathemize ("deliver to satan".
whooo weee that Paul of a man, anathemizing people left and right, and he's a man o, who gave him that right eh?

2 Cor. 2:17 - Paul says the elders are not just random peddlers of God's word. They are actually commissioned by God. It is not self-appointed authority

2 Cor. 5:20 - Paul says we are "ambassadors" for Christ. This means that the apostles and their successors share an actual participation in Christ's mission, which includes healing, forgiving sins, and confecting the sacraments.

1 Tim. 5:17 - Paul charges the members of the Church to honor the appointed elders (“priests”) of the Church.

Now there are so much more, but I think this will suffice. Hope it's not too much sha.

But I think there's a question u may want to ask, and I think that will be so how is the Catholic Church, the Church in the Bible?

Answer is simple. The Catholic Church has stood for 2000years, and is directly linked to the apostles, and the oldest instance where we see written down that the Church of Christ is called Catholic is by St. Ignatius of Antioch in 100-110 AD, and even at that time, the word Catholic seems to have been a frequented word in describing the Church of Christ.

Now aburo mi, I agree that the Church or rather some members of the Church have done some very despicable things that should never have been thought of, but no where does it say that all the members in the Church will be sinless and free of evil. Infact Jesus states that there will be the good and the bad. But just because there are bad people does not mean that the Church's teachings are wrong. Because Christ already says he will guide us into all truth, and that's why for 2000 years the teaching of the Catholic church has not changed and will not change.

Also if you think we're teaching the wrong thing, ore mi, do research about the beliefs of the early christians, check with historians about what they did, how they lived, how they acted, and what they believed.

You won't believe me I know, so check with historians.

davidylan:
Where did you find that one?

In the Bible sweetheart, in the Bible. Christ gave authority to his Church, not to a book.

davidylan:
i was about to ask why you were shouting.

how are they like Paul?

1) They all chose celibacy like Paul
2) They preach the goodnews far and wide - they are missionaries
3) They follow authority just like Paul, he didn't send himself on a mission, he met with the other apostles who laid hands on him and commissioned him to the world
4) They defend the faith as Paul defends the faith
5) They don't pick and choose what about the faith to believe, they believe the fullness of truth as revealed to us by Christ
6) They are being persecuted just like Paul
7) They stick with the traditions of the apostles as Paul did
They are obedient to their vocations just as Paul was
9) They are obedient to their calling from Christ just as Paul was obedient to his calling from Christ. They do not get up and say hey I will start my own church just like Paul did not get up and say hey I will start my own church and start teaching his own gospel, he taught the gospel he learned from the apostles by oral tradition, and the Priests do so today.
10) They do not own wealth just as Paul did not own wealth
11) They share in the Priesthood of Christ as Paul did
12) They commemorate the exact same sacrifice of the eucharist, the body and blood of Christ, just as Paul did.
and much more that I can't remember right now

Hope that's enough to satisfy ur curiousity

Oooops, sorry for all CAPS, I wasn't trying to shout.

davidylan:
Take a look at the seminary, were your "priests" anything like Paul?

YES!!! THEY ARE VERY MUCH LIKE PAUL. NOT ALL OF THEM, SOME OF THEM ARE LIKE PETER, MATTHEW, JAMES, JOHN, AND SO ON. SOME OF THEM ARE LIKE JUDAS, BUT HEY NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT ALL IN THE CHURCH OF CHRIST WOULD BE SINLESS.

EVEN PAUL WAS A SINNER.

SO YES THEY ARE LIKE PAUL. I KNOW THEM, I SEE THE ZEAL TO SERVE THE LORD IN THEIR EYES, I SEE YOUNG SEMINARIANS WHO WON'T TAKE THEIR TIME TO SIT ON FORUMS AND CRITICISE CHRIST'S CHURCH, INSTEAD THEY GO TO REMOTE PLACES IN THE WORLD TO FEED THE HUNGRY, CLOTHE THE NAKED AND PREACH THE GOSPEL. SOME HAVE DIED IN THE MIDDLE EAST FOR DARING TO PREACH. THEY WILL CONTINUE IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF THE APOSTLES, AND I AM VERY PROUD.

Bobbyaf:
Once again its obvious that the RCC is always imposing its own rules and dogmas. If God introduced Himself as Yahweh, then that is what He should be called. It was Hebrew that God's people spoke, and that language so happened to have pronounced that name.

1) The Catholic Church is the only one with authority from Christ, Go and read your Bible for that one
2) Imposed what and on whom? Are you a Catholic? Did it say all non-catholics must follow the rules? You just want to open mouth and say something so people will think ur intellingent when ur not.

you don't seem to have read that portion of the scripture well at all. in verse 1 of 1 Cor 7, paul advices men not to marry because it frees them up for the work of the gospel

Why oh why David do u have this knowledge and still insist on insulting the Priesthood. So if you know that marriage frees a man for doing God's work, why are you so against the Priesthood, where men choose not to marry for God's work?

P.S. this is not to start a fight, your post just startled me that's all.

But you are right by the way. Seun misunderstood the passage.


@Poster

There is nothing wrong in the woman submitting to her husband, it is a command from God. Women are not to usurp the authority of men. It isn't a bondage thing it is to show the order of creation. In turn men are to love their wives. They are their protectors, guardians, and providers. They are to care for the women while the women attend to them. Submission does not mean slavery. Women should stop making it so.

What I find hilarious is that women want to play the role of men, and then when gbese land they're telling the men "aren't you supposed to be a man, u should be protecting women"
Hahaha my fellow women are hilarious sha.

I say we should start manufacturing our own electronics and other goods instead of relying on imports that will send us into poverty. So no don't buy imported ones, start investing in ours.

Do we have any?

A_K_O how can we delete unwarranted rubbish like the one above.

madam we don't care what u think, we only care what God thinks, and that's why we follow his Word in full, not partial o, but full, not pick and choose o, but full.

hala@me if u want to know how to make it to heaven. So ti gbo?

Image123:
Kunle,I'm doing fine.thanks. The passage doesn't seem to indicate/specify the male gender now,anybody fit get relatives

hehehe eh well see the Bible says men should love their wives as Christ loves his Church. Seeing that Christ in his love takes care of his Church, the man must in the line of Christ, love his wife to take care of her, caring for someone is providing for them. So take of us women na

You shouldn't make laws on behalf of God

1 Corinthians 14:34-35
34 Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith.
35 But if they would learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church

1 Timothy 2:11-15
11 Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed; then Eve.
14 And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression. 15 Yet she shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.

It is God's law.

diallo:
Be aware too that the bible says that men ought to provide for their wife and children, but as you can see today many women are providing for the family instead. what do you got say about that. Christ had died to bring us a new leave of life which has no bound Freedom The has made all things new

And the Bible is right. Just because something is the norm today doesn't mean it is right or that it is freedom. We have lost the right order of things, and as we continually accept these things as normal we constantly define abnormal as normal when it shouldn't be so. Men are supposed to provide for their families, unfortunately some have lost that truth. Women are not supposed to preach in churches or pray in public (church) with their heads uncovered. Unfortunately women have lost that truth.

Things are no longer in the right order and it is unfortunate.

Freedon doesn't mean a woman should go against the Bible, and a woman being subject to her husband isn't bondage. A man is supposed to love his wife as his own body. With a woman yielding to her husband he in turn learns to yield to her, and with the man loving his wife, she in turn returns that love.

It shows the order of creation and not a punishment for women.

chukwudi44:
Mr hypocrite am sure you don't take photographs since they represent images of things on earth

Chukwudi44

When u feed a dog it comes back, when u don't it won't. Hope u get it sha.

We are Christians, however we do show respect to other faiths, especially the Jewish faith considering that our faith is based on their faith. There is nothing wrong in showing respect. If the Jews have such fear of God that they dare not say his name who are we to feel as if we are on the same level as God.

Now I personally don't have a problem with saying Yahweh, however there is also nothing wrong in showing reverence for the Lord by saying you are not even worthy to say his name.

Chapter 2

On Having a Humble Opinion of Oneself

Knowledge is a natural desire in all people. But knowledge for its own sake is useless unless you fear God. An unlearned peasant, whose contentment is the service of God, is far better than the learned and the clever, whose pride in their knowledge leads them to neglect their souls while fixing their attention on the stars.
True self-knowledge makes you aware of your own worthlessness and you will take no pleasure in the praises of others. If your knowledge encompasses the universe and the love of God is not in you, what good will it do you in God's sight? He will judge you according to your actions.
An overweening desire for knowledge brings many distractions and much delusion. Many like to be considered learned and to be praised for their wisdom; how much knowledge there is which adds nothing to the good of the soul! To spend yourself on wordly pursuits which do nothing to further your eternal salvation is unwise.
It is useless to speand much time in talking; only aholy life and a good conscience will ease your mind and satisfy your soul, enabling you to face God with confidence
Remember, the more you know, the more severely you will be judged. So do not be proud of any skill or knowledge you may have, for such is an awesome responsibility. No matter how much you know, realize how much there is that you do not know. Do not be afraid to acknowledge your own ignorance.
Why have you exalted opinion of yourself when you know there are many, even in your own field, whose knowledge surpasses yours? If you want to learn anything worthwhile, seek rather to be unknown and to be thought of as nothing.
Nothing is so beneficial as to a true knowledge of ourselves, which produces a wholesome self-contempt. Always think kindly of others, while holding yourself as nothing; this is true wisdom and leads to perfection. If you ssee another commit a grievous sin, or whose faults are flagrant, do not regard yourself as better, for you do not know what you would do if similarly tempted. You are in good disposition now, but you do not know how long you will persevere in it. Always keep in mind that all are frail, but none so frail as yourself.

BOOK 1

USEFUL ADMONITIONS FOR THE SPIRITUAL LIFE

Chapter 1
On Following Christ Our Model

No one "who follows me will ever walk in darkness" (jn 8:12. These words of our Lord counsel all to walk in his footsteps. If you want to see clearly and avoid blindness of heart, it is His virtues you must imitate. Make it your aim to meditate on the life of Jesus Christ.
Christ's teaching surpasses that of all the Saints. But to find this spiritual nourishment you must seek to have the Spirit of Christ. It is because we lack this Spirit that so often we listen to the Gospel without really hearing it. Those who fully understand Christ's words must labot to make their lives conform to His.
To be learned and able to discuss the Trinity will get you nowhere if you do not have humility, and therefore displease the Holy Trinity. Lofty words neither save you nor make you a Saint; only a virtuous life makes you dear to God. It is better to experience contrition than to be able to define it. To be well versed in scripture and all the sayings of the philosophers will not profit you if you are without God's love and His grace. "All things are vanity" (Eccl 1:2). Nothing matters except to love God and to serve Him only. The height of wisdom is to set your goal on heaven by despising the world.
How foolish it is to seek and to put your trust in riches that will pass. How foolish to go after worldly honors and to set yourself above others. How foolish to follow the impulses of the flesh, or to covet those things which so soon will cost you a heavy penalty.
How foolish to wish for a long life, but not care whether it is a good life; to be concerned only with the present, with never a though of eternity and the endless joy that awaits you.
Often think of the proverb: "The eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor is the ear fille with hearing" (Eccl 1:. Be determined to detach your heart from the love of visible things, allowing it to center on those unseen.

Bastage:
BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!


LOL. The government isn't corrupt. It's the people in the government who are corrupt.
The army doesn't kill people. Soldiers kill people.
The courts don't send people to jail. The judges do.
The Church doesn't commit atrocities. Popes, bishops and priests commit those atrocities.
LMAO. Take some responsibility, bitch.

And I suppose the Pope is in the habit of going around apologising for nothing then? I mean, if it was "only the people" it's not his problem is it? But he's such a generous guy in the habit of apologising for things that aren't his responsibility, heck, you just gotta love him. I can't wait for him to apologise for Abacha or OBJ. They may not be his problem but shit, the dude's giving out apologies, right? LOL


Do you realise how pathetic you are? What do you think a Church is you cretin? Without the people it wouldn't exist - it's just a word. The people make it the Church. "Oh no Bastage. The Church is innocent, it's those pesky people who are the problem!." LMAO.

You stupid, stupid mugu. By distancing yourself from the people, you're distancing yourself from the Church you're telling us is so great. LOL. The people are the Church, you pompous twit.
Hide behind semantics all you like you dipstick. Those links prove you to be a liar and a charlatan.

Thanks for the laugh!!!

SO YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE BECAUSE YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN? IN THAT CASE CHRISTIANS ARE MURDERS, MOLESTERS, 419ERS, ADULTERERS, LIARS, THIEVES, FORNICATORS, AND MUCH MORE.

BUT NOT JUST THAT BUT BECAUSE YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN, THAT MAKES YOU A MURDERER, A MOLESTER, 419 AN ADULTERER, A LIAR, A THEIF, A FORNICATOR, AND MUCH MORE.

RIGHT??

IT IS RATHER EASY TO IGNORE THE TRUTH AND ATTACK A PERSON, BUT IT ONLY SHOWS YOUR IGNORANCE AND THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO FACE THE TRUTH.

NOW LEARN TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

Where did the Bible get its authority from? Please provide Biblical references to this.

Matthew 16:18
Peter. The Lord is here making a play on words; in the Greek, “Peter” is petros, meaning a small stone, whereas “rock” is petra, meaning a great rock mass, solid and immovable. Even if Jesus was speaking in Aramaic, in which both meanings are expressed simply by Cephas, He was making a distinction between the two (perhaps by gestures) which Matthew picked up and (under divine inspiration) translated by the two different Greek words.

The massive rock foundation on which Christ would build His Church was Peter’s great confession of Jesus as the Creator and the Son of the living God. Peter (representing the twelve and, indeed, all who would make the same confession) would be living stones in the church built on the foundation of such confession (I Peter 2:5; Ephesians 2:19-22).

And yet Jesus did not call a revelation rock, he calls a person rock. What is the purpose of Jesus changing Peter's name? Just for the sake of it? You look to the meaning of the name to understand.

Also Jesus did not speak Greek, he spoke aramaic. In Aramaic, the only word for rock is Kephas, and we know that Kephas is Peter. So t actually read like this.

For thou are KEPHAS (Cephas) and upon this KEPHAS (Cephas), I would build my Church. And not just that but the whole discourse in that passage is dealing with Peter. What's the point of giving him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, if he wasn't to be a foundation in the Church. But it's not just only that, Paul even speaks about Peter as a foundation in the Church and as the leader of the apostles.

In using Petros the writer distinguishes that Peter is a male and not a female (Petros), Besides if the writer was trying to say that Peter was a little rock, he would have used Lithos meaning little pebble

Moreover we don't just have Matthew to look at we also have John, and this time I will be using the Protestant Bible.

The NIV says
John 1:42
42And he brought him to Jesus.
Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter[j]). Notice he is called Cephas and not Petros, Cephas in aramaic means Rock

The KJV says
42And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. This however is an error in KJV as Cephas doesn't mean stone, but Rock in aramaic.

So it is clear that Petros wasn't spoken by Christ, infact it was Cephas/Kephas.

Do some more research sir and don't just take what you want to believe and believe it.

my church. This is the first, and definitive, use of the word “church” (Greek ekklesia, or “out-called assembly”) in the New Testament. This church built by Christ clearly consists of all who acquiesce volitionally and spiritually in Peter’s great confession. This is neither an invisible church, for it is composed of real people, nor a universal church, relative to the world as a whole, but always only a “little flock” (Luke 12:32). The church can never assemble together as a whole until it gathers in heaven as “the general assembly and church of the firstborn” (Hebrews 12:23). It is represented, however, as a “local assembly” in each time and place where “two or three are gathered together in my name” (Matthew 18:20), for Christ Himself, by the Holy Spirit, is there “in the midst of them.” Normally such gatherings would be formally structured as local churches (of the 115 occurrences of ekklesia, at least 85 refer specifically to local churches), with members, officers and organized programs of winning, baptizing and teaching converts

How in the world is Jesus' church not a universal church when he clearly says go and preach to ALL the nations. In order for that to be, then they would have to go global u know universal.
If that is the case, then none of the Protestant churches are in the Church or are members of the body of Christ, and that would include you Olaadegbu, so you are not a member of the body of christ. Actually it would be only one church in the whole world located in one place that is the body of christ. You will really have to explain this point even further. Putting things together just to sound intelligent doesn't mean it is intelligent. You make no sense here.

Matthew 16:18
gates of hell. “Hell” here is the Greek hades, not the ultimate lake of fire but the present pit in the heart of the earth where the souls of the lost, as well as a host of fallen angels, are confined awaiting judgment. When Christ spoke these words, the souls of believers were also there, but during His three days in the grave, Christ stormed the gates of Hades and set these redeemed captives free, taking them with Him to paradise (Ephesians 4:8-10). In like manner, He assures those in His Church that they also can deliver lost souls from imminent confinement behind the gates of Hades as they proclaim the great confession of Christ as redeeming Son of God to all who will heed the gospel.

HAHA OK YOU ARE REALLY DESPERATE HERE.

Um ok is His Church universal here? Or is he speaking only of a local church, because that would mean he isn't speaking to you, so you shouldn't follow that passage. If he means all local churches, that means his church is universal.
Also no way in the language used in this passage does it mean that in speaking of the gates of hell he is saying that we should proclaim the great confessin of Christ to others. In this passage The gates of Hell is against his church, so how does that translate into preaching. When did the gates of hell shall not prevail against it mean preach and get people out of the gates of hell. It really doesn't make any sense, so you'll have to make sense of it. Thanks.

Awww you can always tell a Catholic, they back up their sayings with sources. Thanks for that luv.


A word to all my Catholics out there.

Matthew 5
11 Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake:

44 But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you

John 15
20 Remember my word that I said to you: The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they have kept my word, they will keep yours also.

The Lord tells us that they will persecute us even more than they did him. And well isn't that the truth. The only accepted prejudice today is anti-catholicism, isn't that a shame.

Matthew 16
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it
This is the promise of Our Lord, remember there are those that have gone before us and they have fought the good fight, and now it is our turn to persevere. They will jeer at you and call you evil, they will attack your person, it's not because you speak false things but because you speak the truth that they cannot accept. Continue in your faith and stand firm, eternal life is worth it.

There are many pastors that have prayed for the downfall of the Catholic Church, and look how the Lord makes a fool of them. Their churches have passed away, and so have they, but God's Church still stands in the face of adversity as the "light to the world, a city seated on a mountain that cannot be hidden" (Matthew 5:14)

Remember the Beatitudes most especially

Matthew 5
10 Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake:
12 Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you.
13 You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men.
14 You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid.
15 Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house.
16 So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

And remember that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and teaches her ALL TRUTH, not some truth, but ALL TRUTH
John 16
13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.

Pray for those who have left the Church, who bought into the lies of the devil who is the master twister of the scriptures, for clearly he tempted Our Lord with the scriptrues. Pray for our Protestant brothers and sisters, that they may come to know the fullness of the truth. Pray for those who do not know the Lord and do not want to know him. Pray for the Church that she will continue to stand firm.

Sancta, God bless you for this truth!!!

Please pray for me, I have final exams this week and it's the week of my graduation, so please pray for me, thank you.

Jesus loves you
Mary loves you
I love you

oh one more thing, I found this pls enjoy reading it

http://catholickey..com/2009/04/we-are-at-war-bishop-finns-gospel-of.html

huxley

stop using the KJV it has errors in it.

But anyway

In the foreknowledge of God; and inasmuch as all mercy and grace, from the beginning, was given in view of his death and passion
The is the foreknowledge of God, inasmuch as all mercry and grace from the beginning was given in view of his death and passion. Remember in the beginning Christ was prophecied to come. God already knew he would be slain. Look up Gen 3:15

toneyb:
@ Lady

Where did you get the idea that the pope is the prime minister of the Christian God?

I already put the scripture up there. And already spoke on it.
But to give a run down and you can definitely do some more research on it.
In a Kingdom there is the King and his subjects, the give has a right hand man or something like that whom he gives the Keys to his Kingdom to. This person can make decrees in the name of the King. This person is called the Prime Minister or the Master of the house. I showed this in Esther and gave the prophecy of it in Isaiah, look at my post above for Bible passages. The one in Isaiah mirrors Jesus' words with Peter. In Isaiah God says he will give Eliakin the Keys to the House of David (the davidic kingdom) and Eliakin will be father to the inhabitants of jerusalem and judah, and with these keys he will bind and loose, that is he will shut and open and when he does this no one can open when he shuts and close when he opens.
Now to the New Testament. Jesus gives Peter the Keys to the Kingdom. We all kow Jesus is the eternal King of the Davidic Kingdom, and as was foreshadowed in the Old Testament, the King Jesus gives the Keys to his Kingdom to none other than Peter, and tells him whatever he binds and loose is bound and loosed in his Kingdom (Heaven). Peter is the Prime Minister of Jesus' Kingdom. Now as anyone should know the Prime Minister is an Office and therefore it can be replaced with successors.
The Popes (father as prophecied in Isaiah, Pope means father) are successors of Peter, therefore they hold the Keys to the Kingdom and the Office of Prime Minister (Pope) is continuous.

Now if you think this is untrue, read the book of Esther and read Isaiah 22. The Old Testament foreshadows the New Testament.

You are spot on here Lady, but why would God (who made everyone) decide to speak in only one language (while himself supposedly scattered men's languages after the Tower of Babel debacle)?

You should then agree that God himself is responsible for the confusion in the world (yet he is still a perfect God?)

God did not speak in only one language, the Bible was not written in only one language.
It is not unusual that God revealed himself to other nations as well.

duduspace:
Seriously, is mazaje female? have to go check.

hahaha oops it's male.

Even your own Pope recognises the crimes that the Catholic church has committed.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html#The%20Problem:%20Yesterday%20and%20Today

Argue with it all you like. It was written by the Vatican.

Did you even bother to read the article?

Let me post a part of it for you

The purification of memory is thus “an act of courage and humility in recognizing the wrongs done by those who have borne or bear the name of Christian.” It is based on the conviction that because of “the bond which unites us to one another in the Mystical Body, all of us, though not personally responsible and without encroaching on the judgement of God, who alone knows every heart, bear the burden of the errors and faults of those who have gone before us.” John Paul II adds: “As the successor of Peter, I ask that in this year of mercy the Church, strong in the holiness which she receives from her Lord, should kneel before God and implore forgiveness for the past and present sins of her sons and daughters.”(1) In reiterating that “Christians are invited to acknowledge, before God and before those offended by their actions, the faults which they have committed,” the Pope concludes, “Let them do so without seeking anything in return, but strengthened only by ‘the love of God which has been poured into our hearts’ (Rom 5:5).”(2)

Notice the words bolded. The Church as a whole did not commit those sins, people in the Church committed those sins. Now Bastage since you have already noted that the Catholic Church isn't the true church because members have sinned, do u mind letting me as well as Nlers know whether you are a part of the true body of Christ?

And if you are a part of the true body of Christ, whether or not you have sinned?

If infact you have sinned, as per your reasoning that the true church wouldn't commit atrocious acts, wouldn't it mean that you as a sinner are not a member of the true body of Christ?

And would you kindly show to us in the Bible where it states that members of the Church will not be sinners and will be perfect?

Like I have siad many times, the Catholic Church has not committed an atrocious crime, members of the Catholic Church have committed these crimes.

THOU HYPOCRITE REMOVE THE LOG IN YOUR OWN EYE FIRST.

So because some people in the Catholic church did something all of a sudden the Whole Church is guilty?

In that case, you as a Nigerian are guilty of 419 abi, you as a man are guilty of rape, no be so?
Don't we all get blamed for the sins of other people?

RUBBISH.




.

duduspace:
Abeg, is there a record of the Ooni of Ife, Alaafin of Oyo, Sultan of Sokoto e.t.c. The writer of that passage of the bible was caught in some exaggeration.

Like I said, some more research needs to be done by mazaje if she will make claims. That passage says all Kings of the earth. We know that each day archaeologists and historians discover new things each day, so yes it very well could be. Just like the The chinese xia dynasty was considered a myth until scientific excavations found that it actually is true, so could it be true that the Ooni of Ife, and co encountered the Jews, if they existed at that time. We are all connected in some kind of way. Don't be quick to rush and say it isn't true, when infact tomorrow science can prove you wrong, as it has done many times. Science proves itself wrong a lot.

mazaje:
the way this people operate is ridiculous. . . if we were to report things like them then there will be no contradictions at all. . .show me any book filled with errors and contradictions and i will show you that it does not exist. . . lady's relies are just to ridiculous. . . . . . .

Or maybe I have shown you a different angle that makes sense and you just don't want it to be true? There are always different angles mazaje, learn to explore it.

Things aren't always one sided. You can't claim that the Jerusalem prophecied in the Bible is the actual land, when there are many references of Jerusalem being in heaven. Or is it that you wish to dismiss that because it presents a different angle and dispute your claims quite well?

You can't force your own view into it, you will have to take it for what it is you know. You are going to have to understand the Bible with Biblicial terms and codes at some point, instead of your own codes that you made up.

Question: If I write a book using codes/language for only a set of people to understand, will you be the one to tell what is being said or will the people who understands the language/codes be the ones to tell you what is said?

Seriously answer the question.

@mazaje

"Behold, These are coming from afar. These from the north and the west and these from the land of Sinim" was said by prophet Isaiah, an come to find out that Sinim is the name for China in Hebrew. hmm, go figure.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/israel/losttribes3.html

Now I'm not saying that it is true. I am only saying others who have also done their research will disagree with you. So maybe some more research is in order?
Just suggesting.

Or rather you forgetting that Christ said his Kingdom is not of this world, and that we are not looking for pleasures in this world as things in this world die.

1. According to Ex 3:8, the Israelites will live in a large land, flowing with milk and honey, and according to 2Sa 7:10, the biblegod said that he will provide a place for them and they will not be disturbed anymore, but as a matter of historical fact Israel (and vicinity) has been a relatively small and mostly barren land, and the Israelites have been continually harassed from all sides up till today

Considering that God uses our own understanding or our own descriptions of things to explain things to us. He isn't alking about a physical place on this earth, but is talking about our place in heaven, that is our land. I have mentioned it to you that the Church is the new Israel and it isn't talking about those who are born as Israelites, as they were called something else before being called the israelites. Find out why they are called israelites in the first place.

2. Many verses prophesy that the throne of David will endure forever and that there will never be a time without a man upon that throne. But in point of historical fact, the Davidic line of kings ended with Zedekiah. 450 yrs. later, the Maccabeans had a brief reign. But for 2000 years, there has been no Davidic king.

This is why not just anybody can pick up the Bible and interpret for themselves. The way in which David's kingdom lasts forever is for the messiah to be born of his line. Jesus is that messiah and Jesus is King of David's kingdom, and that is how David's kingdom is forever. Jesus is eternal, but not just that. The Prime minister is still on earth, I already explained that to u in the other thread, the Pope, and as the Church will never be brought down and will never cease to be the Prime minister will always be there and therefore so will the kingdom.

3. According to Isa 14:23, Babylon will become a swapland, but that never happened. According to Jer 51:36, Babylon will become totally dry, but that never happened either. According to other verses, Babylon will never be inhabited by people again and the biblegod said that he will completely cut of Babylon, her name and survivors, but in fact Babylon has been continually inhabited by people since that time. [Note 1Pe 5:13.] It is now part of Iraq.

In 1 Peter Peter was talking about Rome, Babylon became the code name for Rome or the Roman empire or the empires that oppressed the Jewish people. So it isn't talking about a physical place called Babylon, like I said before God is using our own descriptions and the writers own words or codes to convey a message. That is why not everyone can pick up the Bible and read it.
And actually last time I checked Iraqis are not called Babylonians.

4. According to Isa 17:1, Damascus will be destroyed, but in fact Damascus is one of the few ancient cities that has never been destroyed. [The fact that so many were destroyed makes prophecies of the future destruction of ancient cities rather unremarkable.] If Isaiah had predicted that Damascus would never be destroyed, then that would have been remarkable.

Here's a little history on the ups and downs of damascus
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04611a.htm

and no where does it state that the prophecy is going to be accomplished before 2009 AD, if it does then show me.

In short madam, your own interpretation proves that not anyone should pick up the Bible and read. You can't justpick it up and say you understand and it must be so. Please check throughout the Bible, for each of the points you have make sure you have covered everysingle angle having to do with them.

But I just noticed something else you put so i'll tal about it.

According to Isa 52:1, the uncircumcised and unclean will never enter Jerusalem again, but in fact such people have continually entered Jerusalem for thousands of years.

In Revelation there is a New Jerusalem and this Jerusalem isn't on earth, it isn't in what you know as the physical location of Jerusalem. And in this Jerusalem the uncircumsiced and unclean will not enter, uncircumcised meaning those who aren't baptised as baptism has become the circumcision. The things of the Old Testament pre-figures the things of the New Testament. Adam is a type of Christ, Jonah is a type of Christ hence the sign of jonah is not really about the 3 days and 3 nights do more research about that, circumcision is a type of baptism, the ark of the covenant is a type of Mary. Look up what I mean by "type" as in typology, I can't explain all that here.
So the Jerusalem you are thinking of is not the Jerusalem spoken of here. So wrong again.

11.According to Mt 12:40, Christ will be buried for three nights, but he died on a Friday and by Sunday the tomb was said to be empty. Between Friday and Sunday, there are just two nights, not three. The new testament writers have said that Jesus will be crucified, he will die and be resurrected after 3 days according to the scriptures, but up till today no such scripture has been provided by anybody. In fact that prophecy does not exists any where in the Hebrew bible.

No where in that passage does it refer to the death of Jesus or the tomb of Jesus. Last time I checked earth is not synonymous for tomb, and no where else in the Bible does it speak of the earth as a tomb. So no that passage doesn't talk about the burial of Jesus. It actually talks about Jesus' authority pay attention to the question asked by the jews, they asked for a "sign" and to authenticate himself he gives the "sign of jonah" Jonah is a type of christ, look up "type" as I told you to. Do a research on the similarities of Jesus and Jonah, it is too much for me to put up here.

Oh by the way look up Hosea 6:2 on jesus' resurrection

11. Many verses prophesy that Christ's second coming will occur soon. Some of them specifically say that it will be within his listeners' lifetime, i.e., before that generation (there with Jesus) passes away or "some of you standing here will not taste death before the see the son of man come and extablish his kingdom" . But in truth more than 19 centuries have elapsed since then and the event still has not occurred. Of all the examples of unfulfilled prophecies, this one strikes me as the one that is clearest and most powerful.

No where does it say that soon is before 2009 or in 2009. Christ also said no one knows, so in saying soon, no one is actually saying a timeline. It is just used to keep everyone on their toes as no one knows when this "soon" will be. It can be as soon as tonight even, we do not know. No one said it will be in a specific lifetime, they thought it will be, but they never made any predictions. Do not attribute to the early christians what they didn't attribute to themselves. thank you.

oh there are so many prophecies fulfilled by christ, since u are so biased and refused to see the other side only what u want to see.

do these kings included the kings of china, India, and in the Western Hemisphere? because no such thing ever happened

how would u know? were you there to see that no such thing ever happened?

also did it ever occured to you that the time it was written there wasn't such a place called india? just because it is on the map today doesn't mean it was called the same thing then, and just so u know historians have placed several tribes in the Old Testament in asia minor, so it is very possible that they did come to visit King solomon.
just to note, greece is a part of the western hemisphere, pls do more research.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=56&letter=R

This goes to show that the ancient jews taught that the entire world comprised only of the middle east, and some parts of africa, when they were writing their fables. . .

don't u mean thought that the entire world comprised only of the middle east, and some parts of africa.

and even if they did, so what? most of the world was unaware of the other parts of the world, does that mean that they are illegitimate and liars in their writings. seriously u will look for anything to convince urself of false truths won't u?

I'm sorry, but that's a really tall order. How is anyone supposed to know whether the popes were sitting in the kathedra or not when they were using their authority to order all manner of atrocities? How would I know whether the sale of indulgences was done from the Cathedra or not? Heck, how would you know, as a catholic which orders are binding and which are not? How do you know if the pope was giving it ex-cathedra or while he was on his toilet seat? All you know is that the pope has said such and such.

Whatever is being said ex-cathedra is binding upon all Christians. For example the fact that we cannot have or support abortions is binding on all Christians, or that we cannot support gay marriages or unions is binding on all christians or embryonic stem cells and all teaching having to do with faith and morals. So in actuality the only thing that can 100% be known by all christians is something ex-cathedra. If it is not ex-cathedra, I am not bound to following it and I can disagree with the Pope. Popes give personal opinions and their personal opinions can and have been wrong, however it is just that his personal opinions and is therefore not of the Church. Just because the Pope said doesn't mean it is true. However if the Pope says it ex-cathedra we know that it is true and is from God, and is not his own personal opinion. So even if a Pope wishes to state his persoanl opinion ex-cathedra he cannot. A Pope tried and he couldn't speak in the duration of his audience. He could only open his mouth after everyone left, so ofcourse people looked at him as if he was stupid and those who disagreed with him were very happy.

As for indulgences the Pope didn't even know it was being sold and in reality it was done by one very stupid Bishop. Indulgences aren't wrong, infortunately ppl weren't even told what indulgences were.

So how would I know? It has to be taught. So all Bishops are informed and they in turn inform the Priests in their diocese or archdiocese, and the priests informs the people.
They do not have to tell us the Pope said it if he was saying it while on the toilet seat.

That's why Catholics on this board have been trying to explain that the Pope's infallibility doesn't lie with the Pope personally, but with the Papal Office. So the Pope can make personal statements that can be wrong, however he cannot make statements on faith and morals wrongly. The Holy Spirit won't allow that.
And if God forbid a Pope happens to be a thug we pray for his happy death.

None of the atrocious acts that I still haven't received a citing for, have ever been announced ex-cathedra, meaning it cannot be attributed to the Church, it can only be attributed to those persons who commit the act.

Just as we can't say ALL fathers are killers because some fathers killed their children, or that all christians are hypocrites because we see christian hypocrites everyday, we also cannot say that the Catholic Church committed those acts. And even at that no one has yet produced the acts the Church supposedly committed from credible historical sources.

Oh as to your earlier post, I was stating my personal opinion, which was why I stated "I think we all misunderstand"
I also wasn't trying to say that your information was incorrect I was only stating actually from what I perceived from your posts that each sect had a job to do and instead of working together, they tried to show that this one is better than the other and vice versa