₦airaland Forum

It's not only Catholics that like to say that the 'Catholic Church' is not a denomination - that is what they won't claim, just as many other groups would not claim of their own groups. Yet, we know that 'the Catholic Church' as used widely today is undeniably a seperate denomination from other Christian groups - 'The Roman Catholic Church, officially known as the Catholic Church' [here]. When the early writers used the word 'catholic' in reference to the Church, were they all speaking about the Roman Catholic Church?

I understand completely your point, and what I am trying to express to you that it is false. Just because something is accepted by popular culture doesn't make it the truth. Most people think sex before marriage is okay but we both know that it's not the truth. Just because people today consider the Catholic Church a denomination doesn't make it a denomination. I was trying to express to you that we have never been a denomination, as from the beginning when the church was called catholic, it was one church and was not a denomination and is therefore today not a denomination.

If it is your belief that the Catholic church as you know it today is not the same as spoken of then, could you kindly point me to the Catholic church spoken of by the early christians?

Please. Neither Christ nor the apostles spoke about the system of the Romish papacy. When Catholics are asked to show where Christ and the apostles spoke about the Catholic Church (ie., the Roman Catholic Church), you guys will duck that one and start shouting you do not appeal to the Bible.

We've shown it to you many times, but then again you neither understand the Bible or the Catholic teaching so how could you see it?

The same place where Christ gave the Keys to the KIngdom of heaven to Peter (is this not in the Bible?) the place where Christ prayed that his church be one in unity (is this also not in the Bible) the part where Matthias was APPOINTED by the APOSTLES to take the place of Judas, proving that you do need apostolic succession (or is this also not in the Bible?)

The Church as the Body of Christ is NOT a denomination nor is it the Romish papacy system. Your problem here is equating the Popery with the Church which the apostles identified as the Body of Christ, so that it is convenient for you to refer to non-Catholics (non-Roman Catholics) as heretics.

Sweetheart you can deny it all you want but it doesn't make it true. The muslims deny the divinity of Christ does it make it true?
Point remains that you are yet to show the true church of Christ. Or does that church not exist?

That is interesting. Do we then take it that 'Ignatius and the others' were speaking of the Popery of the 'Roman Catholic Church' in reference to the 'catholic Church'? You don't see any distinctions and all are the very same thing, yes? It is of little consequence whether you use the term 'denomination' or not, it is a fact that Roman Catholicism is a separate group on its own as is every other group that do not call themselves a 'denomination'.

Ok one more time, it is not the Roman Catholic Church, it is the Catholic Church. In stating RCC you are insulting various catholics around the world and excluding them from the Church. I do not appreciate you excluding my fellow catholics from the Church.

And it is rather idiotic of you to argue with me about my own name. If everyone calls me Lady but I tell you that my name is Sandra, why in the world would you call me Lady when I've told you my name is Sandra and I want to be called Sandra, why would you argue with me over my own name, does that make any sense?
Or are you the one that gave me my name?

Nope, that is where you're getting it all 'Romishly' wrong! What you're thinking of is 'sectarianism' - and which Christian group would go about self-identifying as a 'sectarian' group? No, not the Roman Catholic Church, nor any non-Catholic church (as far as I know). But a 'denomination' in this case would be 'a group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith' (Concise English Dictionary) - is that not true of the Roman Catholic Church inspite of whatever you may protest? Is that not why 'Catholics' go about with the cognomen of 'Our Catholic faith' (qv); and the same reason why other 'Catholics' see the Roman Catholicism of the Vatican as 'actually a counterfeit “Catholic” sect' (qv)? I wasn't using 'denomination' in the sectarian sense nor as a name of any church; and it inconsequential whatever protests you may offer.

1. a religious group, usually including many local churches, often larger than a sect: the Lutheran denomination.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/denomination

You are exactly right in your thinking, the Catholic faith is a sect, it is THE CHRISTIAN SECT. However you guys have fooled yourselves into thinking you're christians, and therefore have created christian denominations, among the "christian denominations" Catholic is not included. Catholic is plain and simply THE CHRISTIAN SECT. Catholic is not included in the delusions you guys have cooked up for yourselves.

The way Catholics identify their own Church is nothing less of the 'Roman Catholic Church' [here] - if that's what Ignatius was speaking about, it all the more makes my point in the body of my discussions.

Sweetheart how does it make your point when your point was that the Catholic church spoken of by Ignatius is different from the Catholics believe their church to be?
Ringing around the rosie are we?

How flattering!
Although I'm a late comer to the gracious salvation of Christ (having converted from Islam), I would've been so joyful to hold the belief of non-Catholics today if they held them in the days of Paul and Peter. Are you forgetting that most of the doctrines of Popery had nothing to do with the apostles? We've discussed this before in other threads on 'Catholics', and there's no denying the fact that what sustains the Popery of the RCC have nothing to do with the apostles. On the contrary, the apostles themselves urged that -

Oh on the contrary honey, if you were to read the Bible well, and were to do some research to find out what they believed you will see that the 'popery' is exactly what they believed in or is it not Paul that writes about our obedience to the Bishops and is it not Paul that goes to spend 2 weeks with Peter learning from him. Or is it not Paul that knew that he needed hands to be laid on him you know as in apostolic succession?

Infact it is Paul himself that distinguishes Peter as the leader of the apostles, hence the pope.

Well let's take a look at the Bible. How does Paul distinguish Peter?

Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome. Now how do we know that Peter was in Rome? Because he wrote from Rome, take a look at 1 Peter and 2 Peter in your Bible and see where he wrote from. 1 Peter 5:13

1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.

1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles. Christ appeared “to Cephas, then to the twelve.”

Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul.

Now how does the Bible portray Jesus?

1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

In the very first council that was held

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.

Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited, "

Look at the places where Peter was spoken of he is always as the leader of the apostles, and just in case you do not know, the Pope is the leader of the apostles. We know that the current Pope is the successor because Christ established an office, and the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven doesn't end with Peter, Jesus didn't intend his Church to end with the apostles, he intended for his church to be always.

if anyone preached a different Gospel from what they had preached,
      let them be anathema - Galatians 1:8-9

This is talking about you. Do yourself a favour and do some research about the beliefs of the early christians, or better yet look at all the orthodox churches, those who have a direct link to the apostles and see what they believe.
If you are not afraid, you should do some research and tell me what you find.

if anyone preached or taught differently from what the apostles taught,
      Godly Christians should separate themselves and reject such doctrines
      that have no bearing with what the apostles have taught - 2 Tim. 2:19-21.

Yeah also talking about you. You're the one who doesn't believe anything close to what the Bible says or what the early christians believed. The apostles did not believe what you believe, again, please do some research on what they believe. The local churches of the christians are very well known, and archaeologists and historians will tell you how they lived their lives and what they believed in. Even the Romans and Jews will tell you what they believe in.

All this back and forth is nothing. Simply do your research and see.

Most of the doctrines of the Papacy not only have nothing to do with the apostles, they were also brought into Christianity centuries later and directly opposed to apostolic teaching. If these new heresies have no place in Biblical Christianity, what does it matter that the RCC is busy accusing other Christians with the charge of 'heretic' in the mistaken idea that the apostles would have sanctioned Popery?

Honey you know nothing of what the Church teaches, neither do you know what the Bible contains. Simply reading the Bible does not mean you understand, and to understand the Bible you will have to read each passage in light of the others and not just pciking one verse and going with it. If you knew what the Church believes you would see how very biblical it is.

We've done a very good job explaining it to you, but out of pride you've dismissed them. You've already shown that you do not read what we write and neither do you accept what we write at all.

But seriously find out what the church believed in the 1st centuries and you will see it is the same thing as we do.

Such as. . .? Where did the apostles sacrifice their lives for the heresy of Mariolatry? When did the veneration of angels and dead saints begin? Where did any apostle bow down to images, and why do we not find any apostle doing so anywhere? Database or no, Christians today reject and condemn these post-apostolic heresies because there's no shred of authentic evidence that they were practised by the apostles and Christians during their time.

They didn't, thank God the Catholic Church doesn't teach Mariolatry.

Veneration of angels and saints have always been there and is found in the Bible.

Definition of Venerate from oxford dictionary
venerate
/vennrayt/

  • verb regard with great respect.

  — DERIVATIVES veneration noun venerator noun.

Matt. 15:4; Luke 18:20; Eph. 6:2-3 Exodus 20:12; Lev. 19:3; Deut. 5:16 - we are instructed to honor our father and mother. Honouring you parents is veneration.

Luke 1:28 - the angel Gabriel venerates Mary by declaring to her "Hail, full of grace." The heavenly angel honors the human Mary, for her perfection of grace exceeds that of the angels.

1 Cor. 4:16 - the most important form of veneration of the saints is "imitating" the saints, as Paul commands us to do.

1 Cor. 11:1 - again, Paul says, "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ." The ultimate objective of veneration is imitation.

Phil. 2:25-29 - Paul teaches us to honor Epaprhoditus who almost died for the faith. How much more honor is owed to the saints that did die for the faith!

Phil. 3:17 - Paul says to imitate him and others, which is the goal of veneration. Veneration is not worship.

Gen. 19:1 - Lot venerates the two angels in Sodom, bowing himself with his face to the ground.

Dan. 8:17 - Daniel fell down prostrate in veneration before the angel Gabriel.

Just because it is not writing that Paul wiped his butt doesn't mean it didn't happen. They weren't writing to people to tell people that they are at a certain point in time bowing to any image.

But even at that it isn't foreign in the Bible.

Look at the bronze serpent, look at the ark of the covenant. These were used in worship by the Jews. Why would God command them to make images to use in worship?

2 Chron. 29:29-30 - King Hezekiah and the assembly venerate the altar by bowing down in worship before the sin offerings.

Honey, Christians today condemn it because they are afraid. I haven't met a protestant christian who has researched and found out what the early christians believed come to me and tell me that it is different from what the Catholics believe. Actually after finding out they became Catholic. Weird huh?

If there isn't any evidence prove it. Show everyone here what the early christians believe. Use non-christian sources. Do not use catholic sources or non-catholic christian sources. Come back with secular sources, those are unbiased, and show what the early christians believed.

I can't tell you how very weak that sounds. The Popery of Rome likes to think itself the authentic Body of Christ so as to make non-RCC believers to be OUTSIDE the Body of Christ. They have forgotten that it is not in their power to save or add anybody to the Body of Christ - for it is the Lord Himself who saves and adds believers to His Body (Acts 2:47 - "the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved". Rome can shout as much as they feel like, they can do no more than that, for the Body of Christ is not the system of the Vatican nor can they effect any grace upon any soul anywhere in the universe. Ask Catholics to point to the Bible for their many post-apostolic heresies and the default response is they do not practise sola scriptura - like that is supposed to be a neat sustitute for their inability to defend Romish heresies. This is why I can confidently reject the Popery - for it was not the RCC that saved me, but it was the Lord Jesus Christ.

Lol, honey your rhetoric is tiring, when will you start backing it up. You've been screaming we've been wrong shouldn't you have been able to prove us wrong by now, instead of trying to turn things around?

[quote][/quote]

Are born-again Christians, those who have committed their lives to Jesus, capable of sin? Do they sin?

Yes we still have concupiscencee, so we're capable of sinning. However, we are not to wallow in sin and consider sin a 'normal' thing. We are to constantly strive for perfection. We are to ask God for the grace to grow in faith and to keep from temptation. We are also to take the effort to prevent ourselves from falling into sin.
If we do fall into sin we are to confess our sins so that we may be returned to a state of grace.

Is it possible for people who do not sin, and are NOT Christians to be saved?

It is possible for those who do not have full knowledge of the christian faith or have not heard the Gospel to be saved. However if you are fully aware of the christian faith, you truly understand it, and still reject it, well good luck.

Is not being "born-again" considered a sin?

I don't understand you here. How is being 'born-again' a sin?

Do ALL sins lead to "death"?

No. there are sins that are deadly, mortal sins, and sins that are not deadly, venial sin. Mortal sins are what separate you from God, venial sins wound your soul and makes you even more vulnerable to mortal sin.

What is the more egregious infraction? Not being born-again and accepting Jesus OR committing sins like murder, theft, etc?

You cannot fully accept Jesus and his teachings and not be born-again. Those who think they're born-again but deny the teachings of Christ are deluding themselves, they're not born-again. Unfortunately nowadays people interpret what they want ito in the Bible so they can justify in their heads what accepting the teachings of Jesus is.

1 John 2: 12

I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake.

Believers DO NOT SIN

1 John 3: 6

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

1 John 5: 18

We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.


But, then again, it says that we all sin


1 John 1: 8-10

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.



So which one is it?

Both, we are sinners because we are born into a sinful nature and are capable of sin. That's what St. John is talking about in 1 John 1:1-10. We cannot deceive ourselves to thinking we're perfect as humans, we must acknowledge that we are sinners, that is born into a sinful nature. The first passage you quoted 1 John 5:8 speaks of those who've been baptized into the body of Christ, and through baptism have been given sanctifying grace and have more grace to prevent sin. Though we have a sinful nature does not mean that we must act upon it.

So basically do not think you cannot sin, and because you're a part of the body of Christ you should stay away from sin so as to remain in his grace.

Also when a Christian sins, he or she is separating himself from God and is therefore at that time not of God. But through confession of our sins and contrition of our heart we are forgiven and are put back into union with God, and therefore of God.

Hope that helps.

Why are you trying to find out?

Please leave it to God. Work out your own salvation in fear and trembling

L.A. Times and Associated Press and FOX News has confirmed that he's dead. CNN hasn't confirmed it yet.

11. God's Revelation is therefore immersed in time and history. Jesus Christ took flesh in the “fullness of time” (Gal 4:4); and two thousand years later, I feel bound to restate forcefully that “in Christianity time has a fundamental importance”.(9) It is within time that the whole work of creation and salvation comes to light; and it emerges clearly above all that, with the Incarnation of the Son of God, our life is even now a foretaste of the fulfilment of time which is to come (cf. Heb 1:2).

The truth about himself and his life which God has entrusted to humanity is immersed therefore in time and history; and it was declared once and for all in the mystery of Jesus of Nazareth. The Constitution Dei Verbum puts it eloquently: “After speaking in many places and varied ways through the prophets, God 'last of all in these days has spoken to us by his Son' (Heb 1:1-2). For he sent his Son, the eternal Word who enlightens all people, so that he might dwell among them and tell them the innermost realities about God (cf. Jn 1:1-18). Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, sent as 'a human being to human beings', 'speaks the words of God' (Jn 3:34), and completes the work of salvation which his Father gave him to do (cf. Jn 5:36; 17:4). To see Jesus is to see his Father (Jn 14:9). For this reason, Jesus perfected Revelation by fulfilling it through his whole work of making himself present and manifesting himself: through his words and deeds, his signs and wonders, but especially though his death and glorious Resurrection from the dead and finally his sending of the Spirit of truth”.(10)

For the People of God, therefore, history becomes a path to be followed to the end, so that by the unceasing action of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) the contents of revealed truth may find their full expression. This is the teaching of the Constitution Dei Verbum when it states that “as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly progresses towards the fullness of divine truth, until the words of God reach their complete fulfilment in her”.(11)

8. Restating almost to the letter the teaching of the First Vatican Council's Constitution Dei Filius, and taking into account the principles set out by the Council of Trent, the Second Vatican Council's Constitution Dei Verbum pursued the age-old journey of understanding faith, reflecting on Revelation in the light of the teaching of Scripture and of the entire Patristic tradition. At the First Vatican Council, the Fathers had stressed the supernatural character of God's Revelation. On the basis of mistaken and very widespread assertions, the rationalist critique of the time attacked faith and denied the possibility of any knowledge which was not the fruit of reason's natural capacities. This obliged the Council to reaffirm emphatically that there exists a knowledge which is peculiar to faith, surpassing the knowledge proper to human reason, which nevertheless by its nature can discover the Creator. This knowledge expresses a truth based upon the very fact of God who reveals himself, a truth which is most certain, since God neither deceives nor wishes to deceive.(6)


9. The First Vatican Council teaches, then, that the truth attained by philosophy and the truth of Revelation are neither identical nor mutually exclusive: “There exists a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards their source, but also as regards their object. With regard to the source, because we know in one by natural reason, in the other by divine faith. With regard to the object, because besides those things which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, cannot be known”.(7) Based upon God's testimony and enjoying the supernatural assistance of grace, faith is of an order other than philosophical knowledge which depends upon sense perception and experience and which advances by the light of the intellect alone. Philosophy and the sciences function within the order of natural reason; while faith, enlightened and guided by the Spirit, recognizes in the message of salvation the “fullness of grace and truth” (cf. Jn 1:14) which God has willed to reveal in history and definitively through his Son, Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Jn 5:9; Jn 5:31-32).

10. Contemplating Jesus as revealer, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council stressed the salvific character of God's Revelation in history, describing it in these terms: “In this Revelation, the invisible God (cf. Col 1:15; 1 Tim 1:17), out of the abundance of his love speaks to men and women as friends (cf. Ex 33:11; Jn 15:14-15) and lives among them (cf. Bar 3:38), so that he may invite and take them into communion with himself. This plan of Revelation is realized by deeds and words having an inner unity: the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation manifest and confirm the teaching and realities signified by the words, while the words proclaim the deeds and clarify the mystery contained in them. By this Revelation, then, the deepest truth about God and human salvation is made clear to us in Christ, who is the mediator and at the same time the fullness of all Revelation”.(

bawomolo:
why can't people do whatever they desire to their bodies?

So people should be allowe to blow their brains out with a bullet?

I do not subscribe to the idea that aborting a fetus is wrong, it all goes back to the debate of when does life really start? The moment of birth gives a pretty fine line as to where life starts, then the rights of thee child can be fully protected.
Coming back to this story, I thought the church was the place for sinners to go to? I thought sins were equal in the church (at least all mortal sins and all venial sins) last I check missing church on Sunday was a mortal sin as is abortion so why excommunicate them?
Are there no people who have confessed murder of full grown human beings and gotten forgiveness? why is the "life"of a fetus more important than kids dying in daffur?
Life is not at all in anyway sacred to the biblical God, at least not the God of the old testament so why are Christians vehemently against it? Because last I checked the Thou shall not kill was part of the ten commandments just before Moses' army killed the innocent women and children, this is a seriously twisted sense of reason!
Abortions were already happening 1500 years before christ came on this earth, why did he not openly condemn it?
My two cents.

Ok Chris

1) At the moment of conception is the fetus dead?
2) Sweetheart, did you fail your catechism class or what? Mortal and Venial sins are not the same. One cuts you off from God completely that is mortal, the other doesn't but it does wound your soul and makes it easier for you to commit the mortal sin. It's called mortal for a reason, mortal meaning deadly.
3) Sinners are definitely welcomed in the church. Excommunication doesn't mean you have to stop coming to church, it just means you cannot partake of the sacrament of the eucharist, and the other sacraments except reconciliation. Actually every one excommunicates themselves from the church when they sin, and in order to be united with the church again, one has to go to reconciliation. So excommunication does not have to be announced by the church, the Pope or Bishop doesn't have to be the one to make the decree, when a person commits a mortal sin, he or she is automatically excommunicated. If this young girl did not tell anyone that she had an abortion, she would still be excommunicated anyway. People excommunicate themselves, the church just announces it. I've excommunicated myself several times, the only thing is the Bishop didn't make a formal announcement. I've returned to the church by the sacrament of reconciliation.
4) The life of a fetus is not more important than a kid in darfur, that's why the church is working hard and catholics charity workers are getting killed in darfur. You won't hear that in the news because anything to put to church in a good light is taboo.
As I was saying. All life is sacred, including the life of the late term abortionist that was murdered, Dr. Tiller. Evil means can never justify good ends. The means can never justify the ends. That's the difference between being pro-life, and anti-abortion. Pro-life means EVERYONE, EVERYONE'S life is sacred, including those who kill others.
That is the reason why the life of the mother is not more important than the life of the child in the womb. They are equally important, and it is not for us to choose which life is more important.
5) Christ condemned it. All he did was not put into the Bible, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Besides it has always been noted in the christian communities that abortion is an intrinsic evil.

Even the Romans as wicked as they were, would wait until after a woman gives birth before they execute her. They valued the unborn, ironic, but that says something.

Did Catholics WRITE the Bible? That has been the question, stop confusing yourself.

I've also been asking you who wrote the Bible if Catholics didn't write it. I asked that question from page 2, we're on page 6 and you've done nothing but dodge it. Why should anyone answer you when you yourself refuse to answer anyone's questions? That's called hypocrisy madam, if you didn't know. Answer the questions that you've been asked yourself and stop beating down someone to do the very thing you refuse to do.

The point is that 'Catholic' was NOT a name of any church or even the Church founded by Christ. The term 'catholic' today is used as a denominational appellation to describe the system headed by the Papacy

No sensible Catholic will tell you that Catholic is a denomination. It is not a denomination and the Catholic Church as you know it today is NOT a denomination. If it is called a denomination, it is called a denomination by non-catholics as in you. Which is the reason why I say that we catholics amongst ourselves refer to the Church as THE CHURCH because we know that it is the same Church founded by Christ spoken of by the apostles.

I really wish I could draw a diagram on this board. I will try my best to visually show you how it is the same church.

THE CHURCH by Christ spoken of by the apostles(catholic) [East and West together]--------------> THE CHURCH (catholic) [East and West in schism], so now you have the East Orthodox (still catholic but not in union), and the West Catholic (still in union so it is still the "origianal" catholic). So from the West Catholic came the Protestant denomination with its own new set of beliefs not based on the Bible. The West Catholic and some of the East Catholic come back together in union. So it is still basically what it was in the beginning THE CHURCH by Christ spoke of by the apostles.

THE CHURCH is not a denomination, it is only a denomination in the minds of non-catholics. Catholics will tell you that the Church is not a denomination.

Catholic is not a name or a denomination, it is a description of the Church, you might as well call the Church the ONE CHURCH, or the HOLY CHURCH, or the APOSTOLIC CHURCH. We've never and still do not consider ourselves a denomination. Therefore the Church spoken of by Ignatius and others, still refers to the Church that YOU know today as the Catholic Church, that I know today as THE CHURCH.

The problem in this discussion, is that you think the Catholic church today is a denomination. We didn't 'denominate' (i'm not sure that's actually a word, but if it gets the point across, good)  from anything, you guys 'denominated' from us. Therefore you guys are the denominations we are not. Does that clarify it for you?

So let it be clarified that the way in which Ignatius identifies the Church, is the same way we identify ourselves today. The Church is universal, and meant to be universal.

I was really trying to avoid this, but it seems this might be what makes it clear for you, and it's not meant to be an insult, it is meant to make a distinction. You guys in the formal term are heretics. If you were to hold the belief you do today in the time of Peter, Paul, and the other apostles, you would be called blatantly a heretic. If you were to do some research and look at the beliefs of the early christians, and you can find this through non-catholic sources, some universities have this in their databases, you will see that the things YOU condemn today are the things they sacrificed their life for. So basically you guys are actually OUTSIDE of the Church, as in you are not a part of the Body of Christ. But the Church holds the belief that there are those who are not aware of the full teachings of the Church, and therefore have not rejected the Church, and so they have the opportunity of making it in to heaven. But if you are fully aware of the teachings of THE CHURCH and are blatantly against them, then you're on your own.
I know it's hard to believe, but hey Christ said, I am the way the truth and the life, and he told his apostles whoever hears you hears me, whoever rejects you rejects me. So by rejecting the teachings of Christ through his apostles, you've basically rejected Christ.
Unfortunately protestants don't know this, because they don't take their time to read the Bible and reason.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that when you read the Bible and go by what the Bible says you will be saved. But it does say that when you reject the apostles of Christ, this includes all those with a direct succession from the apostles, you reject Christ himself.

There's no need to be accusative, for there's good reason to see a difference between 'catholic' and 'Catholic' - we have seen this confirmed among Catholics on this forum.

I'm not being accusative, I'm stating a fact, the anglicans really do call themselves 'catholic' and you can see it on their webpage. Like seriously, you can. I saw it, I laughed when I saw it, but I saw it.

I am yet to see a Catholic on this forum do what you just said they do. Catholic is catholic, only people who finally understand what the term catholic means want to make it apply to themselves, therefore they created a different category of catholic. Those who are members of the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC CHURCH do not make such a distinction, we know it doesn't exist. It is made by people who are being stubborn and refusing to accept the truth. There was never a thing as 'catholic' and 'Catholic'. It was started by those who are not a part of the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC CHURCH.

Catholic:
Universal or general; as the Catholic church. Originally this epithet was given
to the Christian church in general, but is now appropriated to the Romish church,
and in strictness there is no Catholic church, or universal Christian communion.
The epithet is sometimes set in opposition to heretic, sectary or schismatic.
~~ Websters 1828 Dictionary

Catholic:
Applied to the Church in Rome c.1554, after the Reformation
~~ Etymological Dictionary

You're still proving my point. Notice the dictionary is webster's 1828, the Catholic Church existed before then.
Also notice that the Catholic referred to the church in Rome, after the Reformation, we know that this same church that is now referred to as catholic after the reformation, existed before the reformation, what was it called before then? Was it called a denominational catholic?

It's interesting that Omenuko observes this as regards the term 'Catholic' -- "the way they are using the term is the exact same way the Catholic Church uses it today". I wonder HOW they use the term today if it differs from the fact that it simply is alluding "The Roman Catholic Church, officially known as the Catholic Church" [here].

Ok did you read any of the posts at all? Or do you just have talking points to spew out or is it that you want to use selctive amnesia?
I remember specifically pointing out to you that the Roman Catholic Church is not officially known as the Catholic Church, that the Eastern and Western Catholic churches are officially known as the Catholic Church.

Please do not be so childish for me to repeat myself again and again. Learn to pick up a thing or to, seriously.

You Catholics should tell us and demystify the 'official' from what we see from Scripture.

Why should I tell you when you already made an assertion as if you already knew? If you didn't know why would you make such a claim? Answer my question please. You don't see anything from scripture.

Was the Church divided with different beliefs?
Did anyone get up and start preaching on his/her own? or were they commissioned by the apostles to places to preach the gospel?

Was the Church Un-Holy?

Was the Church in only one place?

@lady

1. Notice that i never called you an idiot hence i was suprised that you accuse me of doing so.

2. I actually decided to be friendly and build on out past interactions on this nairaland, hence to say i am suprised by your vitriol would be an understatement. I tut you and I would have come around to have an understanding of being polite and cordial. Even KAG seems to be the most cordial and polite person to discuss with on NL out of atheists, catholics and muslims, despite that we both had a little bit of brief history.

3. If you take time to notice my posts, you would notice that they are based on scriptures and have answers in the scriptures.

4. Once again let me repeat, there is no central church according to the bible. Even the Messiah Himself made this obvious wen he refered to the 7 churches in the book of revelation. He never called any of the churches by the name "catholic". No where in the bible do you find where the bible says whether or not the Messiah created a so called Catholic Church.

5. There is only one Spiritual Church (aka the bride of the Messiah aka the body of the Messiah).

6. There is no central physical church, hence why the Messiah himself refered to separate physical churches in the book of revelation.

8. The catholic church was created out of amalgamation of socio-political manenours and not from scriptures.

9. I would be grateful for you to please respond to my previous posts line by line using the Bible alone. I do not reckon with any other source apart from the bible.


Thank you.

You insinuated I was the one that was wrong between the convo pilgrim and i were having because I was catholic, you didn't even read the post to see that Pilgrim confused me and Omenuko.
That is called making an assumption, and in your assumption, you insinuated I'm the idiot and obviously the person that was wrong, and you only did this based on the fact that I am catholic.
Rather than telling Pilgrim that I wasn't her enemy either, you only saw it fit to pound your delusions on me, not because I'd done anything wrong, but because I am catholic. My dear that is prejudice, learn to recognise it.

You came to me nicely by insulting me? If I were to say you're a bastard and to tell you I was saying it in a nice way would you believe me?
You want me to be Polite after you insinuated I'm an idiot and an idol worshipper? Is that how you make your friends, by insulting them?

You lack reasoning and are completely ignorant. You need to beath the crap out of your parents for not paying attention to your education, and you need to go back to all your schools and flog every teacher you ever had and request your school fees back. And if you schooled in Nigeria, you are nothing but a disgrace to the Nigerian School system, because you clearly cannot tell the difference between insulting someone and asking them to be cordial with you. I doubt you even know the meaning of the word cordial.
Oh by the way all that I just said was to make peace, and to show that I really want to be cordial. I really want to be friends.

Like I said, your opinion on the Church doesn't count, being able to back up your assertions counts.
If all you say above is true, then back it up.

I'm sorry, many Catholics here and elsewhere are the ones confusing "catholic" for "Catholic"

In order to be Catholic in any sense of the word, one has to be of one belief with the church. To be of differing beliefs and doctrines cannot make one catholic. To be of differing beliefs and doctrines actually is against the Bible and against God. God is Truth and Truth is ONE, not many different contradictory beliefs. It doesn't make sense it doesn't add up. The Anglicans clearly understand what catholic means, and they know where catholic is, but out of pride they refuse to acknowledge it, and because they want to make themselves feel better they call themselves catholic. It should tell you something if others want to be called catholic, more and more people are realising that Catholic isn'ta denomination. The only denominations out there are those who broke from the Catholic church. The Catholic Church is simply just THE CHURCH. People who want to make a distinction with catholic and Catholic are those who are still too stubborn to accept the truth. They want to justify their beliefs, they refuse to believe that they've been wrong all along. If they were right all along, why did they even bother to start calling themselves 'catholic,' they could've just continued with how things were. Why try to call themselves catholic?

And then you Pilgrim.1 rather than just accepting that ok the early christian writers did call the Church, Catholic you decide to make it what it isn't.
It's called denial, and I smell a lot of denial from you.hmmmmm.

Look the Church's teachings are very huge hard pills to swallow, but when one looks at the actual teachings of the Church, and looks at the Bible or if one studies the teachings of the church and looks at the scriptural backings of those teachings, one would realise the Church actually has it right.
That's why several former pastors who took their time to to study the catholic faith and the bible became catholic. It's amazing how people embark on a journey to discredit the Catholic faith, and they end up being catholic themselves. My favourite is Scott Hahn. Try looking him up.

I went into the Church kicking and screaming, it wasn't an easy thing for me to accept, especially after the things I'd heard. I did not want to be one of THOSE CATHOLICS. But when I actually used my faith and reasoning, it actually made sense. The Bible is not illogical, God isn't illogical, he wouldn't give us logic and ask us not to use it.
The Church is more than just Catholic.

Ignatius did not identify the term 'catholic' to the Church in the sense that Catholics do today.

What's the difference in the sense he identified catholic and the sense we identify catholic today?

Hello All,

I have read with interest all the post on the thread. My question maybe offpoint and i know I may be called ignorant but please bear with me.

I thought there was a time in the catholic church where members were not allowed to read or be found with the scriptures and people were burnt if caught. (I read it somewhere a long time ago), and even now reading the bible is not mandated or encouraged.

I also read somewhere that it was King james (i don't think he was catholic) that is responsible for the wild spread of the bible by translating it to english,

N.B
I am scared of the response to come. I better take cover.

Jokepearl
no need to take cover. You asked a question nicely and you will receive a response nicely.

There wasn't a time that the Catholic Church stopped its members from reading the Bible. That can never be true. That would mean that everyone who heard the gospel, didn't hear the gospel and didn't know their Catholic faith. Certainly that makes no sense because there are writings of non-church leaders who quoted from the Bible in their writings. How is it that they knew the quotes if they didn't know the Bible?

People were not burnt because of this.

The Bible is read everyday in the sanctuary, and in the Traditional Latin Mass communities the Extraordinary Mass, the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation is covered each year, in the Novus Ordo Mass or the Ordinary Mass the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is covered over a period of 3 years. The Gospel, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, is covered every year and is actually repeated several times during the year, there is a Gospel reading at every mass, and the words recited during the mass are actually taken from the Bible.

Examples:

During Communion the words of the centurion to Jesus "Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof but say the word and my soul shall be healed" in the Ordinary Form of the Mass it is said "Lord I am not worthy to receive you but only say the word and I shall be healed" but beginning next year, the actual translation will be used which is the first one in parenthesis.

Also the Sanctus is sung or recited 3 times, this is composed of the words taken from Isaiah 6:3, Psall 117, and Matt 21.
Holy Holy Holy Lord God of Hosts
Heaven and earth are full of your glory, Hosanna in the highest
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
Hosanna in the highest.

So as you can see, the Bible is used in all we do. Even the Rosary prayer that every non-catholic dreads is made up of the words in the Bible.

The Ave Maria, is the Hail Full of Grace greeting the angel gives Mary in Luke 1:28 and the greeting Elizabeth gives her in Luke 1:42 "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.
It also consists of the Our Father Prayer. Each meditation is a life of Jesus and Mary in the Bible. The Rosary is actually scriptural meditation. If only people would stop going with hearsay from the air, they would see they're actually fighting against what they do themselves.

As for King James, he wasn't Catholic and also wasn't the first to translate the Bible. A man named Tindale (I think that's the correct name) was the first to translate the Bible. But he translated the Bible to include many errors and did so to remove the actual words used by Catholics such as Priest and penance things of that nature, he didn't do this because he wanted to do something for God. He did it because he was against the Catholic Church.
King James came along and agreed that Tindale didn't properly and accurately translate the Bible, so the Bible was translated in his honour, but still contains several misleading and inaccurate translations.
It also was not translated from the Original Bible, because the original manuscripts was destroyed but rather it was translated from the Latin Vulgate which is the first actual translation of all books of the Bible to one language, this is the Official Bible and used by Catholics. It was translated from Latin to Greek, unfortunately the greek that it was translated too lacked some of the words (verbsm adjectives, and so on) of Koine Greek. So it was translated with error and then translated from the greek to english and that is why today there are several errors in the KJV Bible, not to mention that it is missing books of the Bible.

Why was the Bible not mass produced? Well simply for the reason that there was no printing press until the 16th century, Catholicism existed way before then. The Bible had to copied by hand by monks, imagine them copying all of the books of the Bible by hand. It wasn't translated into any other language because Latin was the official language of the Church and pretty much everyone who could afford the Bible (Kings, Princes, Princesses, Dukes, and such) could read and write Latin. Most of the world who were Christian in the West could read and write latin. Even some in the East could understand Latin. And the lay people could pick up the language here and there.

If a Catholic doesn't own a Bible it is because they don't want to own one, and honestly, everything in the Church is made up of Biblical quotes, that if you were to pick up quotes here and there, you can actually put together the Bible yourself.

Chrisbenogor:
YAWNS
This thread is boring.

Aww darling how can I make it interesting for you?

How does your hasty illogical ranting address your own claim? Reading what the quotes say precisely is one thing, trying to bend it to be Catholic by default is quite another thing. I haven't seen the dots connected in yours and it would be of great help to yourself to bring it forth

This is only your opinion, there are those who would disagree with you, and as such your opinion is extrememly irrelevant. Keep that in mind as you reply to me.

I was open minded, sad you closed your mind and tried to bend everything you read back to catholicism. Being open minded is the reason why people engage in a discussion, not the other way round as you supposed.

Keep deluding yourself, others have pointed it out to you. Maybe you should start paying attention. You think because you engage in a discussion it means you're open minded, if that's the case doesn't me obliging to discuss with you make me open minded and therefore put a hole in your point?

Girl go and learn what open minded means, because someone does not agree with you does not make them close minded.

That's okay - and up until now NO CATHOLIC has come forward to show anywhere that the writers of the Bible were Catholics. NONE. Even Catholic sources do not make such an otiose claim

Actually we have, if you'd actually taken the time to read what I wrote earlier, I believe on page 2 instead of confusing me and Omenuko you would have seen that I provided proof of it.
We've stated continuously that there are documents from the early christians calling the church and its members Catholic, and those documents date as far back as 99AD. Infact one of those who called the Church Catholic was a disciple of St. John and the successor of Peter in Antioch. Do some search and you will find it.

That's not my problem - we were all having a fine discussion until you came in with your noise.

It became your problem when you decided to confuse me and Omenuko. I didn't make any noise, I made statements and backed it up, and you decided to talk about something completely different.

That's where the problem actually is, and the same thing that has brought us thus far - the claim that "ALL CHURCHES were Catholic before the schism" is unfounded and patently false. Several sources I referenced pointed this out, such as the BBC in brief - and you came back dismissing them for not reading the default false assertion you had hoped they would! Anything that does not read "Catholic" or catholicism to you is illogical, whereas we haven't seen any clues about how strong your 'logic' is to bend those references to say what they do not say.

For this reason, I left a couple of questions to help sort this issue out for Catholics on Nairaland, viz:

    1. What exactly in your understanding was the 'Catholic Church'?

    2. What do you mean by 'they were part of one church (aka the Catholic Church)' ?

    3. Where's the papacy in all these churches?

    4. which church among them had jurisdiction over them, since they were all 'one church'?

WHY are Catholics on this forum shying away from these questions? Where do we find "Catholicism" in ALL CHURCHES from the very start?

If you may, please offer some answers or pointers and let's discuss - it doesn't matter what logic you claim, just address them and let's sort these misadventures out for many Catholics on this forum.

Cheers.

Ok I've already shown this to you, even though you choose to turn a blind eye to it, I even used the source YOU provided to prove that the Church YOU were talking about was indeed Catholic at one point. It's amazing how you completely missed it.

But I will oblige again and answer your questions AGAIN.

1. The Catholic Church is what it is today. The Universal Church. Catholic meaning Universal, all Christians meaning Universal. But Catholic isn't the name of the Church Christ founded, Catholic is a description and it remains today one of the descriptions of the Church contrary to what non-catholics believe. It is called Catholic today because there are divisions, but let it be known that among those you call Catholic when we are together we call ourselves THE CHURCH. Because we know Christ did not found a division of Churches but one church.

To better understand this, one also has to understand the other descriptions of the Church, the Church is not only Catholic, She is also ONE, HOLY, and APOSTOLIC.
The Church is ONE because she is united all over the world with One belief, in this belief all her members are United as Christ prayed that His Church be in Unity. We are United by our communion together at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, no matter where we are in the world we are all connected, and when one suffers we all suffer. When one sins we all are wounded by that sin. This is clearly evident by the scandals that have rocked the Church by individual member's actions. The rest of us have suffered because of the actions of a few.

The Church is HOLY, because she is the body of Christ and because he is Holy, his body will also be Holy. Thus she is infallible, because he is infallible. This however does not mean that the individual members are infallible or without sin. But it means that because the Church is Holy she cannot teach error on matters of faith and error, and she has never taught error on matters of faith and morals.

The Church is APOSTOLIC, as evident in the Bible the handing on of the faith was done by the apostles, and Jesus gave his authority to his apostles and gave them the power to baptise, to preach the gospel, to heal, to forgive, and to offer his body and blood as a sacrifice when he established the Priesthood at the Last Supper.

So the Church that was founded by Christ is the same one as we have today called the Catholic Church.

The only ones that see the Catholic Church as anything different from the Early Churches are those who are non-catholics, this does not include the schismatics as they also have valid sacraments, they too are catholics and it is just our leaders that are taking too much time uniting us again.

2. They were part of one Church or what you know as the Catholic Church today, because there was only One Church with the same beliefs. During councils all leaders of the churches (antioch, jerusalem, rome, greece, egypt, ethiopia, etc) met to handle heretics. Therefore by their presence in these councils they were a part of the Catholic Church because they were still in union with the Bishop of Rome. There was never a dispute that Peter is Pope, there was never a dispute that he was the leader of the apostles, there was however dispute on the power of the Bishop of Rome, Rome erred and so did those who chose to leave the Church with the exception of the Maronites, they claim that they were never out of union with the Bishop of Rome. Most of the problems that arose came from definitions of theology, quite frankly when you look at it today they are all saying the same thing with different words, and that's what brought the east and the west together in recent times. Those who refused to come in union with the Bishop are still very hurt from the fighting that existed between the east and the west.
Why is it that the Catholic Church as you know it today still claims to be the true church?
Because Christ promised to lead his Church into All truth, to say that the Catholic Church today isn't the true church is to say that Christ never kept to his promise.

Or if one were to say that the Catholic Church today isn't the same as the Catholic Church then, it is up to the person making that claim to prove that assertion. Proof will have to be provided on the beliefs of the early christians and compare it to the beliefs of the Catholic Church today and tell us the difference.

3. The papacy has always existed. Maybe I should allow you to do some research on these churches first so that you can formulate a well informed "question" If infact you look at the churches that have existed from the apostles you will see that there is a papacy, and even for those who are not in union with the Bishop of Rome, they also name for themselves a Pope. For example Pope Shenouda of Alexandria, I have provided a link on him take your time and read through the website. Tell me what the difference is with the Pope in Rome. You can definitely do some more research on it. As it is too broad for me to place here.

http://www.copticpope.org/

4. The Bishops of each Church had jurisdiction over each other, just as the Bishops of each Doicese in the Latin Rite has jurisdiction over his own diocese, the Bishop of Rome is what we'd call the first among equals. Personally I don't think that explains it well, but to be straight to the point, the Bishop of Rome has the final say on matters for the whole Church, both east and west, but each individual Bishop has his own authority in his own diocese.

Hope that helps a lot

Does the location of where he was writing from make him a pope? You're arguing away from location having anything to do with the papacy, and then asking about the same thing on location as if that has anything to do with being a pope.

Can you not read, and can you not comprehend the english language anymore? If you can't you should go and demand all your school fees back.

I stated that the location doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Peter was Pope, he could be in Nigeria and still be Pope.
I then went on to state "AND EVEN AT THAT" as in even if the location of Rome had anything to do with Peter being Pope he would still be Pope because he is shown as being in Rome because he wrote 1&2 Peter from Rome.

Take the time to read, or do I have to break it down for ya?

Lemme ask you this: A catholic woman is being constantly physically abused by her husband, should she stay in the marriage becos it does not say in the bible that divorce can be granted in a case like this?

She does not have to live in the same house with him, but she cannot receive a divorce from the Church. If she and her husband entered into the marriage truthfully and without reservations she cannpt receive a divorce, but if it can be proven that the marriage wasn't entered into with truth then an annulment is granted.
If a divorce cannot be granted, it is permitted that they both divorce civily for the sake of property, but they are sacramentally joined together, sacramentally is forever. So neither of them can remarry or have sexual relations with other people, they would commit adultery.

It is a hard pill to swallow, but Christ's words are straightforward.

I think I speak for others here when I ask who annointed those fellas the leaders of christians everywhere? They are not my leaders, I don't answer to them, I answer to God and His word

Who appointed the Bible leader of Christians?

You see we are aware that abortion is wrong when its done for the wrong reasons. If performing an abortion will save the mother's life, then by all means perform it.

Why is abortion wrong in the first place?

Um because we live in a world of free will? People should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies. The "Vatican" or govt doesnt own it. It's not something I'd want for myself but why would I try to deny others the right to do so?

So suicide is ok, and we shouldn't try to prevent those who want to commit suicide from doing it?

Also the woman isn't deciding what to do with her body, she is deciding what to do with another person's body. The child too has a right to live.

i honestly think this was just too harsh, i'm not supporting the parents or the girl here, but the idea of excommunicating som1 cox of that is just blatantly too harsh. majority of Catholics commit abortion n r still Catholics, priest molest kids n some r still priest so i dnt think this was the right course of action to take they should have taken another action. come to think of it shouldn't the stupid idiot that calls himself the step father b the first to b excommunicated 4 the hideous crime he committed .

Anyone who commits abortion are automatically excommunicated at the time of the abortion, the woman was already excommunicated, all the Church did was make it known.
If the woman is contrite for her actions she can reinstate herself in the grace of Christ.

What I want to know is this? How is it sad that a person commits murder and is punished for it? Or is it that abortion is now ok? Since when is murder ok? Why does the child have to loose his/her life because of the evil actions of a man? Isn't the child a victim too? Why victimize the child even more? Is it the child's fault that the mother was raped? Why was the child punished for the crime of another?

Or is it that because we cannot physically see the child we automatically assume that they're not human or that they're nothing or that they're without life?

That settles it then that Peter was never a Pope, since you yourself admit that the bible says nothing about Peter's connection to Rome.

Rome is not a requirement for the Pope, If Peter were to have been Bishop in Nigeria and died there, Nigeria would be the location of the Pope's office. Location has nothing to do with whether or not Peter was the Pope. The power lies in the person not the location. Jesus gave Peter authority not Rome. When the Pope is in the U.S. he is still the Pope, if he decides to reside in Kaduna he will still be the Pope. Location has nothing to do with it. Peter does not have to be in Rome for him to be Pope.
And even at that, do you mind telling me where 1&2 Peter was written. Peter wrote them, where was he writing from?

Longtime, how are you doing hope all is well with you. Please note that pilgrim1 is not ur enemy infact you can learn from pilgrim1 in terms of being open minded about issues so as to know the truth. Pilgrim1 based on her experience as a former muslim, knows the effects and consequences of blindly supporting a false idea/beliefs

Oh so I'm the idiot and close minded person because I'm the Catholic. You didn't even realise that Pilgrim confused me and Omenuko. She didn't even know who she was replying to, something she should've replied to Omenuko she replied to me. I was talking about one thing she was talking about the other and I'm the close minded person because I'm the Catholic.

And for your information I wasn't born into the Catholic faith I converted after reading my Bible and actually agreed to allow God to show me what is in the Bible and what he's actually saying. Instead of forcing what makes sense to me in the Bible. Yes that's right I was one of you.

For all I'm concerned you guys are the ones with the blinded faith and many converts to Catholicism will tell you that. Do yourself a favour look up Dr. Scott Hahn, he was a protestant theologian, he taught in seminaries until he decided to read his Bible well. Today he is one of the defenders of the Catholic faith.

Have you actually taken your time to study the Catholic faith, to try to understand why we believe what we believe and then checked it with the Bible, and actually see of our beliefs are more compatible with the Bible than yours? Have you actually done that, or do you just go off of what someone said to you who also heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone and on and on.

Hence she is not out to attack you, she is out to shame and expose the lies of the devil via the catholic church.

No she is actually doing the devil's work by speaking against Christ's church. Or can you prove that the Church Christ founded isn't the Catholic church. I would like you to provide support for this and please make sense out of it. Simply saying that the Catholic church is of the devil doesn't make it true. Prove it.

Muslims claim that the quran is the Word of God and we know that isn't true. Simply stating that something is something doesn't actually make it so. If you cannot back up your claims stop leading other people's souls into perdition.

- Yes the bible opposes the catholic church

No it doesn't, please learn how to back up your assertion.
Make sure that you have ombed thru the Bible and that it opposes the Church.

the bible is our manual on how to get to heaven, church program is not, church loyalty is not and church activity is not.

So Jesus left us a manual or better yet, before the Bible was written and put together what was the manual the early christians used or did they not make it heaven because they didn't have the manual?

According to by bible alone

Bible alone is not even biblical, I've proven this. According to Bible alone the early christians didn't make it to heaven because they didn't have a Bible.

there was no central church after the ascension of the Messiah, instead wat existed where separate ancient churches located in separate geological locations (sardis, philadelphia etc) that were being graded and sustain based on their direct connection to the Messiah Himself and not on their connection to any so called central church administration. The church in Jerusalem was not controlling any other church.

There is a central church, if there was no central church, Paul couldn't send his greetings from another church to the other. If the Church's had no connection to each other, the council of Jerusalem in Acts would be false. Seriously your logic makes no sense, prove that the other churches in the Bible were not aware of each other, and that they did not share the same beliefs, and that they weren't in communion with each other.

Even the Messiah Himself did not refer to the 7 separate churches in revelation as branches of a single church. Instead the Messiah refered to them as separate independent churches that are not under the control of any other church - and funny enough not one of those churches was even called the catholic church

Where does Christ say those Churches were separate independent churches not under the control of any other church?
Apparently you don't know what Catholic means.

From the Bible, we have a single spiritual church (i.e. the Bride of the Messiah) at the same time as different and separate physically administered and de-centralised churches (e.g. galatian church, thessalonica church, roman church, corinthian church, philadelphia church, sardis church etc).

Just as we have the Roman Church, the Armenian Church, the Jerusalem Church, the Egyptian church, the Ethipian church, and so on. All you just did was prove the Catholic church. Or is it that you do not know what Catholic means? _{I am stating this in hopes that you would be smart enough to look up the definition of Catholic}

Paul was never a Pope (this is clear from the Bible).

Who said Paul was a Pope?

4. Peter was never a Pope (this is clear from the Bible).

Actually it is very clear that Peter was a Pope and the very first Pope for that matter. Afterall he was the only one who received the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt 16:16-19), and he's the only one whose shadows heal (Acts 5:15), he's also the one who gave the final say at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:12), and he's also the only one Christ prayed for for his faith to never fail (Luke 22:31-32), he's also the only one who received the charge to "feed my sheep" by Christ. He's also the only one told by Christ to strengthen his brethren, he's also the only one that the whole church prayed for when he was imprisoned. Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel (Acts 2:14).
Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority (Acts 5:3).

So you see dear there is overwhelming evidence in the Bible that Peter was the leader of the apostles, check with biblical scholars and they will tell you that. Since he's the leader of the apostles, it means he's the first Pope.

However all you guys do is make claims upon claims upon claims and throw your own opinion in there as if your opinion is perfect on the matters of faith

@~Lady~,

I would like to make something clear to you, please - if you can be reasonable enough to take it in.

We're not in the era of the Catholic crusade when the Catholics tried to kill everybody that was non-Catholic and discredit those who rejected Catholicism. The attitude you demonstrated all through didn't help your arguments, and I found discussing with other Catholics like Omenuko a better and more reasonable engagement. Why? Simply because he was willing to be considerate and discuss, not start out being reactive and maintain a dismissive over-rated importance. Several times I asked that you calmed down and try to be reasonable, but these all went overboard; and as such you kept shouting "tpiah" like he owned the thread or that is the only person discussing in this thread.

Please stop reading into my posts what isn't there. I don't stress my point as you do doesn't make me unreasonable. I am completely reasonable, I have very low tolerance for those who refuse to use logic in discussions and those who claim to be open minded but are extrememly close minded. Making assertions about the Catholic church without doing your research and checking every angle is actually very illogical and proves the lack of open mindedness.

So please do not come and tell me to be open minded when you yourself are not being open minded. If you were being open minded we wouldn't be having this discussion today.

Now, why did I bring in the case of the Assyrian Church? I mentioned several times it was in response to Omenuko's assertions earlier. It was infact at the point he posted the reply below that I decided to correct that misconception

Ok look.

You stated that the writers of the Bible are not catholic, I said they are.
I also replied to tpiah when he stated that the egyptian copts, armenians, and greek orthodox were not catholic.
You came in to MY reply (not omenuko's reply) and said that they are not a part of the Catholic church, I proceeded to list the churches that comprise the catholic church.
Then you came up to ME and replied to ME (not Omenuko) about the Assyrian church. I was not in the conversation with you and Omenuko, I was talking about what you were replying to me, not what you and omenuko were replying to each other. That does not concern me. As far as I was concerned I was talking about the Egyptian Copts, Greek orthodox, and Armenians, and you were talking about the Assyrians. If you have a conversation with Omenuko about the assyrian church you should've replied that post to him, and not to me.

Rather than calm down to read through, reason along and make comments, you started off charging indiscriminately and continued to miss the point I was making about Catholics claiming that "ALL CHURCHES" were Catholic before the schism of the 5th century! When I pointed out certain pointers that such is not the case, you again tried to dragoon the BBC report to make the churches there "Catholic". Now you came back typically with the same dismissive attitude and quipping "If the bbc article did not trace them to the Catholics, the bbc needs to do a better research because it lacks logic" - you're sounding as if the BBC must by default claim what is a false history typical of Catholic arguments; and if the BBC refuses to rewrite history in that bend, then you charge them with unscholarly research! When further discussion ensue to show you how dismissive you've been all along with such unhealthy attitude, you come back hooting "tpiah", "tpiah" all over! What is really the problem that you feel all roads must lead to Roman Catholicism and 'tpiah' before you can see reason in what others are saying? Your reaction does not address issues but just stretch things far too presumptuously and yet miss everything! This was why I felt if you're not inclined to discuss, you should be better left alone charging full speed and missing the target - I'm not new to the Catholic attitude of being unreasonable.

Lady, you got yourself confused, because I wasn't talking about ALL CHURCHES being Catholic before the schism, even though that is true. I was talking about the Egyptian Copts, the Armenians, and the Greek Orthodox, so I was very surprised when you showed up with Assyrian church. I stayed on the specifics that tpiah was talking about. So maybe you should go back and read and see that I didn't even reply to anything you said to Omenuko. I was not in that convo, you dragged me in it. Maybe YOU should take the time to clear your head and make sure that you're replying to the right person.

Absolutely and I actually plan on doing so. It is a sacrifice I am willing to take for my family. Children whose parents spend more time with them tend to be more mature, and perform better in school. Parents who pay attention to the details in their child's life rears better behaved children.
It becomes very difficult when both parents are working, especially in the most critical developmental stages in the lives of children, parents have a harder time focusing on their children when both parents are working.

Now being a housewife doesn't mean that all the woman does is sit at home. By all means she can find a project to do, and infact it helps to have her children involved in the project.

Perfect example of a housewife for those who are christians look at Proverbs 31. She is a woman who runs her home well and supports her husband in all he does.

@ KunleOshob

I will leave you with this.

The Church that Christ founded never disappeared and could never disappear and could never move from the revelations of Christ as Christ promised the Church that the gates of hell shall never prevail against it and that the Holy Spirit will guide it to all truth.
To insinuate that Christ's church doesn't exist is to call Christ a liar and to show your distrust for Christ to lead His Church and protect His Church through anything and preserve His Church from teaching error. His Church is His bride. His Church is of One belief as he prayed his church to be, His Church is universal (all over the world) as he commanded them to preach to the world, his Church is Holy as it is the Body of Christ and Christ is Holy, His Church is Apostolic as evidenced in the Bible that the apostles laid hands on men to carry on the work of the Church. His Church is that which you least expect it to be, just as Christ is who the Jews least expect him to be.

Ask God to show you His Church and he will.

Take care God bless, I pray you find the truth you're searching for.

Muslims believe in the original Toral as it was revealed to Musa (AS), Sabur as it was revealed to Daud (AS) and Injil as it was revealed to Isa bin Mariam (AS). If you know any better, please tell us now and quote the verses from Quran. If you know that Jesus the god revealed the "Bible," please show us the very Verse from your Bible or whereever you can find it!

And according to muslims and islam that revelation was changed by the jews and christians. Funny enough the quran states none can alter the word of allah. how come the jews and christians were able to? or is allah not strong enough for the jews and christians to keep them from changing his word? or is allah really not allah?

How can you a Kufar tell the Muslims what islam really means? You neither practice it nor understand it! You think this is Christianity, where you read your own meanin, as you personaly wish? No. Seriously. And you are yoruba woman, should know that Arabic is not your mother's tongue. You are not a bedouin, for example. Hence you can't tell a bedouin what an arabic word means. Thats his language. Also a bedouin can't tell you what a Yoruba word means either. That should come naturally to you. You do speak yoruba or don't you? (Aji se bi yoruba lanri yoruba o je se bi enikan kan. I know. I intentionally put Yoruba where Oyo is. The Yorubas have their root, also in Oyo).

Here's where your logic failed.

1) There are kufar's that speak arabic, they are called Christians in the middle east and can very well translate the quran, also there are kufars who were once muslim who translate it very well. And not just that, other muslims will tell you that Islam means submission and not peace. Peace and submission are not synonymous.

2) Just because one is yoruba doesn't mean they don't know another language. Case in point? You yourself are a yoruba man and yet you're here trying to prove that another yoruba person doesn't understand arabic bcus that's not their mother tongue. You automatically disqualify yourself as an authority on the arabic language as arabic is not your mother tongue and are therefore not qualified to tell anyone what the meaning of Islam is.

It is true Muslims do not believe in the "Bible." Reason is that it is not a revealed Book! Check out the Quran to know what are revealed, including the Suhufi (Ibrahima wa Musa; Surah Al'a).

And yet you are unable to prove that the Bible is not a revealed book. And cannot still prove that the quran is a revealed book. The quran calling itself the word of god doesn't make it the word of god. Joseph Smith and the Mormons call the book of mormon the word of god, and it rightuflly calls itself that, why then do u not believe Joseph smith.

Pilgrim.1
I'm going to quote from your own source to show that they were Catholics before their schism.

Mar Aprim the Assyrian, the representative of the Church in the first ecumenical council at Nicea in 325A.D., played a great role in the literary and religious life of all Christians until today. That is the reason he is recognized by the Roman Catholic Church which declared Saint Aprim as the doctor of the Universal Church

In the fifth century, the Nestorian controversy concerning the unity of the divine and human nature in Christ had far reaching consequences. At this time, the Church of the East was not involved in this controversy. It was a theological dispute within the Roman Empire.

Notice that they had a representative at the 1st council of Nicea, making them Catholic at that time.
This is your own source that I am using o.
http://www.nestorian.org/history_of_the_nestorian_churc.html

Please take some time and READ - READ the sequence of why I posted that following Omenuko's assertion earlier. Your hasty responses are becoming hysterical.

Once again, it is not Omenuko, but tpiah. I was referring to tpiah.

Please stop making unfounded statements. The BBC article did not trace the Assyrian Church to a Catholic origin in the 2nd century; and you could please calm down and see the following -

http://www.nestorian.org/history_of_the_nestorian_churc.html

Madam I already know the history of the Nestorian church, no be today I study history. The Nestorians had a schsim, in order for this schism to occur they must have been a part of something. If the bbc article did not trace them to the Catholics, the bbc needs to do a better research because it lacks logic.


Here's a link
http://www.nestorian.org/nestorian_timeline.html
It was at the council of ephesus that they went into schism because of the nature of Jesus. They were Catholic before then, they were present at the other councils, therefore making them Catholics before their schism

You didn't follow what we were discussing before assuming that others are spewing rubbish. How do you just jump in and make absolutely no connection between what people are discussing before writing them off - what rationality does that display about the way you argue?

Oh I very well did, but if it will make u feel better sorry, now prove your assertions and use logic please.

Just so we can be clear, I replied to tpiah, then you replied to me, then I replied to you, Omenuko was never in the picture as far as I was concerned. But anyway, prove your assertions.

I'm not discrediting you, and if you are calmer you'd see you're the one too much in a haste to read issues objectively because you're trying to dragoon all churches under the Catholic umbrella.

Lol, now you can read my emotions. Please talk about the topic. If they weren't Catholic, prove that before the schism they weren't catholic.

When omenuko conjectured that all churches were at one point part of the Catholic Church, I raised the issue that they were not - and replied accordingly. You never for one moment calmed down to understand what was being discussed before assuming what you're didn't read. Please take some time to breathe and look at what people are saying, follow their sequence instead of being too hasty to reply.

See how confused you are, I wasn't talking about Omenuko, it is Tpiah that I quoted. Or is it that you do not care to take the time to find the truth that automatically you think we're spewing rubbish?

Pilgrim this is what you posted.

Quote
"[size=14pt]The Assyrian church[/size] - the Ancient Church of the East, also sometimes referred to as the Nestorian church - traces its roots back to 2nd Century Mesopotamia and is not Catholic.

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4499668.stm#iraq

[size=13pt]You[/size] are not talking about the Armenian church that everyone is talking about. Where did [size=13pt]ASSYRIAN[/size] come from that [size=13pt]you[/size] are talking about?