₦airaland Forum

Ujujoan:
http://koralyrics.com/text.aspx?id=2579

Nwa baby, nye me fege (7x) (Baby girl, give me your 'thing), Nwa baby, nye m ife gi
Nwa baby, o kwa Nabania (Baby girl, it must be this night)
I don hammer no be small, now it's
time to chop money
Somebody say Nabania (Somebody say 'this night')
Na takwa ne fe omo wania (All this girls, enjoy yourself) , Na-ata kwanu ife umu nwanyi a - these women continue to eat/chop
See the girls them plenty
Waka waka baby (oh yeah), wuru
wuru baby (oh yeah)
I go tell my mama, (oh yeah) I go
tell my papa (oh yeah)
And I go tell am say (oh yeah)
You be waka waka baby (oh yeah)
You be wuru wuru baby (oh yeah)
Corner corner baby (oh yeah)
Sango sango baby (oh yeah)
Para rara baby (oh yeah)
Oh baby sawaley
Sawa sawa sawaley (2x)
Ashawo
Kpokpotom kpomkpom, kporokotom
kpomkpom (2x)
Kpakolo kpa (3x), kpomkpom
Ojari kpokpo, ukwu nwa baby
Achukwu rege, kpom kpom
Ashawo, awusha
Awusha, ashawo
Ashawo, awusha, kpom kpom
Eh eh eh eh eh eh, kpom kpom
Oh baby Sawaley
Sawa Sawa Sawaley (2x)
Ashawo
Nwa baby, nye me fege (7x),  Nwa baby, nye m ife gi
Nwa baby, wa Nabania
Na soso walka I come dey go
Everywhere I go, anai ti fe (Everywhere I go people will be having sex)
All my guys where una dey
From here to saloon hotel
See the girls them plenty
Waka waka baby (oh yeah), wuru
wuru baby (oh yeah)
I go tell my mama, (oh yeah) I go
tell my papa (oh yeah)
And I go tell am say (oh yeah)
You be waka waka baby (oh yeah)
You be wuru wuru baby (oh yeah)
Corner corner baby (oh yeah)
Sango sango baby (oh yeah)
Para rara baby (oh yeah)
Oh baby sawaley
Sawa sawa sawaley (2x)
Ashawo
Kpokpotom kpomkpom, kporokotom
kpomkpom (2x)
Kpakolo kpa (3x), kpomkpom
Ojari kpokpo, ukwu nwa baby
Achukwu rege, kpom kpom
Ashawo, awusha
Awusha, ashawo
Ashawo, awusha, kpom kpom
Eh eh eh eh eh eh, kpom kpom
Oh baby Sawa lele
Sawa Sawa Sawale (2x)
Ashawo
Ala de no de, no de, ala di nu, di nu di - a lot of breast is there
Ala ala de no de, de no de, Ala, breast is there, breast is there
Ema na ala de no de, no de, same thing
Ala ala de no de, de no de, Ala
Ala mama, the breast is beautiful
Wera kagi ji de a ala, nwere aka gi jide ya, ala - take your hand and grasp it, breast
Ala mama
Wero noge me jaya ala, nwere onu gi meche ya, ala - take your mouth and suck on it, breast

biomes2001:
Sunday worship represents the mark of the Beast which Lucifer instituted through the Vatican,whereas the Sabbath is the seal of God which HE instituted from the origin of creation.These 2 days will form the borne of contention for those who are seeking God in the last days;and will seperate the chaff christians from the wheat christians[b],

ORIGIN OF SABBATH IN THE BIBLE[/b]

"And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy,because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done"(GEN.2:3)
See also EX.20:8-11,i.e the the Law of God or 10commandments

ORIGIN OF SUNDAY WORSHIP

"He[i](the beast)[/i] will speak against the MOST HIGH and oppress His saints and try to change the set times[i](for worship,e.g.Sabbath,and feasts,e.g,passover,etc.)[/i] and the laws (i.e,the 10 commandments,e.g,change of the 4th to sunday worship). The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time". (DAN.7[i]:25).

Decided this day wether u'll obey God's commandments or u'll follow the traditions of the catholic church also taught by false prophets like Benny Hinn,Kenneth Copeland,Oyakhilome,Oyedepo,etc[/i]

R4Jesus:
here are some things about the catholic chuch
1) the whole idea of purgatory. there is no such place

2)there should be no images of Jesus in a church
here's why, its making an image of him that could no way equal to what his true image is like
imagine for a second that you called an artist to paint a picture of you and when he was finished the picture looked nothing like you, would you not be insulted. in the same manner you create images of jesus and then cause that picture to be imprinted in people's minds that that is what Jesus looks like

3) praying to mary
Nowhere in the bible says that you should pray to mary. It says in the bible that there is only one mediator between us and God and that is Jesus Christ. What then is the point of saying the rosary or even more praying to mary.

chukwudi01:
Bonus e-points to whoever can translate these phrases into Igbo.

I eat.
I am eating.
I have eaten.
I ate.
I used to eat.
I was eating.
I would eat.
I shall eat.
I shall have eaten.

At the time of Muhammad (CE 570-632), his tribe the Quraysh was in charge of the Kaaba, which was at that time a shrine containing hundreds of idols representing Arabian tribal gods and other religious figures, including Jesus and Mary.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaaba

uplawal:
@omenuko, i was a catholic before i joined the pentecostal movement too then ended up getting salvation in ISLAM,then, when i was a catholic, i cant say i worship mary but what the heck is that(God) praise,and unnecessary chants we give her if is not worship,and do you know we hardly include GOD,maybe people are ignorantly confusing it ,cos i saw of a lady that dedicated her newborn to Mary's statue praying for her by lifting her up to MARY,thats IGNORANCE OF THE HIGHEST ORDER

uplawal:
I LOVE sara j'S CONFESSION ATLEAST SHES PROUD OF THE god SHE WORSHIP,UNLIKE OTHER CATHOLICS THAT COVERS THEIR SHIT

sara j:
I worship Mary and I hope you don't
have a problem with that. I always carry
a holy medal of Mary with me to keep me
safe.


I was involved in a serious car accident
and I came out without a scratch because
I was possessing a holy medal and a bottle
of Lourdes water.
That is what I believe saved me.

chukwudi44:
@viaro

when I said anglican ,I never meant all the churches bearing the name anglican,I was only refering to the churches under the leadership of the archbishop of canterbury.

The fact that the anglican churcg headquartsers[b] permits[/b] the veneration of saints in the  same way it is done in the RCC,means anglicans also ask saints to intercede for them except you want to tell me that those traditional anglicans are not under the archbishop of canterbury.

I never saiid[b] all[/b] anglicans venerate saints,I only meant that the anglican church[b] permits[/b] the veneration of saints

Pastor AIO:
Mr. Omenuko, please stop being so extremely ignorant. Don't you know that Anglicans are anglicans and Catholics are catholics.

tpia.:
you obviously have extremely limited knowledge of the Anglican faith, or else you wouldnt be typing all this monnshine.

Pastor AIO:
Question: Were the doctrinal differences between Paul and Peter enough to make them belong to different churches? If not, why not?

dgreatrock:
When Anglicans talk about Saints, it is not in the veneration. Anglicans see Saints as examples whose lives - along with any other Christian, if prayerfully studied would challenge one to become a better Christian.

We dont venerate  or pray to them.

And that, is a major difference between Anglicans and Roman Catholics.

Pastor AIO:
When I say Anglican I mean an administrative body that takes its orders penultimately from the Archbishop of Canterbury and ultimately from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, by grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  Doctrines may differ within the administrative body and in fact some doctrines within may be more similar to those from another administrative body, but what makes you Anglican is the administrative body you belong to and not the strictly doctrines you espouse. 

Otherwise we would have to call most Aladuras Anglicans too.  They came out of the Anglican church and still share the same liturgy in many respects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aladura

If we labelled churches according to doctrine then how many details have to be in agreement before 2 churches can  be said to be the same church.

viaro:
That's not the same as praying to Mary, is it?

Please pardon my enquiries, as I'm neither Catholic nor Anglican. I happen to have friends that deeply disagree over the matter of praying to Mary, particularly the rite of "worshipping" Mary. The Anglican friend is so bitter about this that he actually left his area in Ireland just to avoid engaging his Catholic friend over this issue. That said, I don't know of any instance of Anglicans praying to Mary, though.

viaro:
Thank you, Omenko. Incidentally, I'd seen the catholic.com site, so no surprises there. Your efforts are appreciated, though.

However, I don't see where the essential answer to the question appears in the article excerpted from that site. The essential question was about the issue of whether the doctrine of purgatory/limbo had been rejected, or the Catholic views about that doctrine have changed in the course of time, dialogue and experience.

I might have questions on this part, though:But that is dialogue or discussion for another thread.

Eseentially, has there been any change(s) in the Catholic views of purgatory/limbo - no matter how significant or small such a change might be?

viaro:
Perhaps a better approach is for you to advise on what the real situation actually is. There seems to be many sources saying different things on the web; and that includes some sources that claim to be Catholic. What, in your view, is the confusion about; and how do you offer a balance?

A self-styled Traditionalist and I were exchanging e-mail messages about catechisms. It started when I mentioned my discomfort at the attitude taken by a Catholic speaker who refers disparagingly to the new Catechism of the Catholic Church and who cites approvingly only the Roman Catechism,  which grew out of the Council of Trent.

My e-mail acquaintance said the other fellow was right to do so, since the new catechism contains “novel teachings.” “What might those be?” I asked. As one example, he said the new catechism does not mention limbo.

Under the older understanding, he noted unbaptized infants who die, whether through miscarriage or abortion, enjoy complete natural happiness but do not see God face to face. They are not in heaven or hell but in a third state, limbo. Under the “novel teaching” of the new catechism, limbo is not mentioned, but it is said we can hope that God has made some provision through which such infants might get to heaven.

In the Middle Ages theologians came up with the theological construct of limbo, which never has been a defined doctrine. Limbo does get around two sticking points: the absence of sanctifying grace, which implies no possibility of heaven, and the absence of personal guilt, which implies no hell. Unbaptized infants die with neither, so it might seem that they are destined neither for heaven nor hell.

The new catechism implies that the infants might be able to achieve sanctifying grace before their particular judgment, though how this might happen we cannot say with any certitude. Some theologians speculate that the infants are given an opportunity not unlike that once granted the angels, before their fall, to accept or reject God. But we just do not know—and perhaps we never will know, down here.

My e-mail correspondent said, “Well, I think I’ll stick with the solution suggested by the older catechism and will reject the ‘novel’ solution of the new catechism.” Why do that? I asked. Because the old solution is older, he said.

G. K. Chesterton noted that truth is not chronologically determined. The century of a teaching’s promulgation is not an argument for or against it. An old teaching is not necessarily truer for being old, and a new teaching is not necessarily truer for being new. Copernicus happened to be right, and Ptolemy wrong, about the motions of the planets, even though the former’s teaching was considered “novel.” Of course, it is as easy to point to older beliefs that are truer than their modern substitutes.

Catechisms are not infallible documents. The Roman Catechism may have erred on the fate of unbaptized infants, and it may be that the new catechism, which offers no particular solution but just a generalized hope, is nevertheless closer to the right answer. It might be better to go with the “novel” teaching, which is more vague, and set aside the “traditional” teaching, which, some say, suggests a deficiency in God’s mercy.

Where does that leave us? In limbo, so to speak. A Catholic may accept limbo, or he may reject it. He is not a better or worse Catholic for doing one or the other. But he does need to think through the problem—where do unbaptized infants go, and how does his solution, whatever it may be, square with God’s justice and mercy (both together, not just one taken separately)? http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101fr.asp

agathamari:
the last time the catholic church revised it opinion on limbo was jan 19 2007 when pope benidict said that un babtised babies go to heaven.  in 1993 the catholic church said there was no limbo, in the 15 century there was limbo in the 1300's there was no limbo.  in 1100 there was limbo.  st augustine was the first to mention the idea of limbo in the 4th century while st .Pelagius denounced the idea a few years latter,

1031 was when purgatory was introduced formaly by the catholic church by pope john XIX and Councils of Florence and Trent

Traditional Anglicans welcome Vatican announcement with joy October 21, 2009

Archbishop John Hepworth, primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion, has issued a statement welcoming Pope Benedict’s decision to permit Anglican communities to join the Catholic Church as communities.

“We are profoundly moved by the generosity of the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI,” said Archbishop Hepworth. “May I firstly state that this is an act of great goodness on the part of the Holy Father. He has dedicated his pontificate to the cause of unity. It more than matches the dreams we dared to include in our petition of two years ago. It more than matches our prayers. In those two years, we have become very conscious of the prayers of our friends in the Catholic Church. Perhaps their prayers dared to ask even more than ours.”

Archbishop Hepworth continued:

    While we await the full text of the Apostolic Constitution, we are also moved by the pastoral nature of the Notes issued today by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. My fellow bishops have indeed signed the Catechism of the Catholic Church and made a statement about the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, reflecting the words of Pope John Paul II in his letter "Ut Unum Sint" …

    Fortunately, the Statement issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury reflects the understanding that we have gained from him that he does not stand in our way, and understands the decisions that we have reached. Both his reaction and our petition are fruits of a century of prayer for Christian unity, a cause that many times must have seemed forlorn. We now express our gratitude to Archbishop Williams, and have regularly assured him of our prayers. The See of Augustine remains a focus of our pilgrim way, as it was in ages of faith in the past.

    I have made a commitment to the Traditional Anglican Communion that the response of the Holy See will be taken to each of our National Synods. They have already endorsed our pathway. Now the Holy See challenges us to seek in the specific structures that are now available the "full, visible unity, especially Eucharistic communion", for which we have long prayed and about which we have long dreamed. That process will begin at once.

    In the Anglican Office of Morning Prayer, the great Hymn of Thanksgiving, the Te Deum, is part of the daily Order. It is with heartfelt thanks to Almighty God, the Lord and Source of all peace and unity, that the hymn is on our lips today. This is a moment of grace, perhaps even a moment of history, not because the past is undone, but because the past is transformed.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops also issued a statement welcoming the Vatican announcement.

verycute:
Ok, why is it that catholics do not do what is in the bible like other christians. Why do they worship idols and images, pls someone tell me, can any catholic make haven

verycute:
it is very difficult to convert a catholic to christianity. Very easy to convert a Jehova witness and muslims. But to make a catholic become a christian, its a 1 yrs prayers work.

Carlosein:
Today is the 13th day of the october devotion. Hope we all remember our Rosaries and to offer them for
many of our various intentions.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

agathamari:
considering that the pope and the catholic church have claimed purgatory and limbo exist then later said they didnt i wouldnt take anything at face value from them or thier book

Pastor AIO:
Historically speaking, the statement is not entirely accurate. It was not Constantine that made Christianity the imperial religion, it was Theodosius. But the point remains the same. The Emperor (in actual fact Theodosius, not constantine) made xtianity the religion of the empire and ban all other religions to the point that it was even illegal to talk about other religions.


http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christians/rulers/theodosius.html

When Constantine made christianity the Imperial religion he had to impose it on the Empire by force.  Of course it was much easier to do this in the cities and near the centers of government.  Out in the countryside it was harder to force people in their religious practices.  So in the countryside the old religions still flourished though in a subdued manner.  The word Pagan simply means country folk.  Kind of like in 9ja we say Village people or bush people.

dexmond:
To All

Please, can anyone tell me the meaning of mass? Include references pls. Tnx

The term "Mass" is derived from the late-Latin word missa (dismissal), a word used in the concluding formula of Mass in Latin: "Ite, missa est" ("Go; it is the dismissal"

petres_007:
The Immaculate Conception is, according to Roman Catholic Dogma, the conception of the Virgin Mary without any stain ("macula" in Latin) of original sin. Under this aspect Mary is sometimes called the Immaculata (the Immaculate One), particularly in artistic contexts. The dogma says that, from the first moment of her existence, she was preserved by God from the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind, and that she was instead filled with divine grace. It is further believed by Catholics that she lived a life completely free from sin.[1] Her immaculate conception in the womb of her mother, through sexual intercourse, should not be confused with the doctrine of the virginal conception of her son Jesus, known as the Virgin Birth.

The feast of the Immaculate Conception, celebrated on 8 December, was established as a universal feast in 1476 by Pope Sixtus IV. He did not define the doctrine as a dogma, thus leaving Roman Catholics free to believe in it or not without being accused of heresy; this freedom was reiterated by the Council of Trent. The existence of the feast was a strong indication of the Church's belief in the Immaculate Conception, even before its 19th century definition as a dogma.

The Immaculate Conception was solemnly defined as a dogma by Pope Pius IX in his constitution Ineffabilis Deus on 8 December 1854. The Catholic Church believes that the dogma is supported by Scripture (e.g., Mary's being greeted by the Angel Gabriel as "full of grace" as well as either directly or indirectly by the writings of Church Fathers such as Irenaeus of Lyons and Ambrose of Milan.[2][3] Catholic theology maintains that since Jesus became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, it was fitting that she be completely free of sin for expressing her fiat.[4]

In the Catholic Church, the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception is a Holy Day of Obligation, except where conferences of bishops have decided, with the approval of the Holy See, not to maintain it as such. It is a public holiday in some countries where Roman Catholicism is predominant.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

I think this is really sick,   

Are there things that are wrong here? Let's see -



~ It was as late as the 8th century (Nicaea in 787) that such idolatry got into Christianity

~ those who sought to incorporate this activity knew it had something to do with
violating God's Word

~ the so-called 'respectful veneration' (dulia and hyperdulia) was not found among
the apostles; but those who sought to incorporate it understood it was a recent matter
beyond the time of the apostles

~ it is amazing that the issue was a "dispute" in post-apotolic age; for this was not even
a matter to be debated among early Christians; for the apostles were quite definite on
this issue and we can understand where they stood -

● that they abstain from pollutions of idols - Acts 15:20

● idolaters had nothing to do with God's Kingdom - 1 Cor. 6:9

● what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? - 2 Cor. 6:16

● Little children, keep yourselves from idols - 1 John 5:21

● that they should not worship devils,
and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood:
which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk - Rev. 9:20

Should anyone be reading from the apostles and still wonder about making graven images to bow down to them in the mistaken doctrine that - what? That the incarnation of Christ was a precedence to such idolatry and yet we didn't find any such things among the apostles?

~ It is clear that the worship of images did not begin with apostolic Christianity

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Does the reader get anything from all these? If the meaning is lost in the format, let's outline them the salient points:

● man is not to venerate other divinities than the one true God

● Scripture rejects the idols, [of] silver and gold, the work of men's hands

● These empty idols make their worshippers empty

● Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God

● Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God

● Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God

● it is therefore incompatible with communion with God

Despite reading all of these, what do we yet find as regards the practice of Catholic worship, veneration and the 2nd commandment (1st commandment for Catholicism)? It is worrying indeed to read all the above and still find Catholicism violates ALL of them through the worship of MARY.

Excerpts from the "Fulgens Corona" Encyclical of Pope Pius XII:
Quote
34. But let this holy city of Rome be the first to give the example, this city which from the earliest Christian era worshipped the heavenly mother, its patroness, with a special devotion. As all know, there are many sacred edifices here, in which she is proposed for the devotion of the Roman people; but the greatest without doubt is the Liberian Basilica, in which the mosaics of Our predecessor of pious memory, Sixtus III, still glisten, an outstanding monument to the Divine maternity of the Virgin Mary, and in which the "salvation of the Roman people" (Salus Populi Romani) benignly smiles. Thither especially let the suppliant citizens flock, and before that most sacred image let all put forth pious prayers, imploring especially that Rome, which is the principal city of the Catholic world, may also give the lead in Faith, in piety and in sanctity.

Source: "Fulgens Corona" - Encyclical of Pope Pius XII [from a Vatican website].

Please note tyhe following from the above -

● Rome took the lead to give the early example of having worshipped the "heavenly mother"

● it rests the "salvation of the Roman people" (Salus Populi Romani) on Mary

● it enjoins that "before that most sacred image let all put forth pious prayers"


WHERE is the 2nd Commandment (or 1st commandment, Catholics) in all this?? What has happened to the express forbidding of worship and bowing down to images in all this? What has happened to all the fine talk we find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church about the fact that "Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God"?

Are there things that are wrong here? Let's see -



~ It was as late as the 8th century (Nicaea in 787) that such idolatry got into Christianity

~ those who sought to incorporate this activity knew it had something to do with
violating God's Word

~ the so-called 'respectful veneration' (dulia and hyperdulia) was not found among
the apostles; but those who sought to incorporate it understood it was a recent matter
beyond the time of the apostles

~ it is amazing that the issue was a "dispute" in post-apotolic age; for this was not even
a matter to be debated among early Christians; for the apostles were quite definite on
this issue and we can understand where they stood -

● that they abstain from pollutions of idols - Acts 15:20

● idolaters had nothing to do with God's Kingdom - 1 Cor. 6:9

● what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? - 2 Cor. 6:16

● Little children, keep yourselves from idols - 1 John 5:21

● that they should not worship devils,
and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood:
which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk - Rev. 9:20

Should anyone be reading from the apostles and still wonder about making graven images to bow down to them in the mistaken doctrine that - what? That the incarnation of Christ was a precedence to such idolatry and yet we didn't find any such things among the apostles?

~ It is clear that the worship of images did not begin with apostolic Christianity

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Does the reader get anything from all these? If the meaning is lost in the format, let's outline them the salient points:

● man is not to venerate other divinities than the one true God

● Scripture rejects the idols, [of] silver and gold, the work of men's hands

● These empty idols make their worshippers empty

● Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God

● Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God

● Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God

● it is therefore incompatible with communion with God

Despite reading all of these, what do we yet find as regards the practice of Catholic worship, veneration and the 2nd commandment (1st commandment for Catholicism)? It is worrying indeed to read all the above and still find Catholicism violates ALL of them through the worship of MARY.

Excerpts from the "Fulgens Corona" Encyclical of Pope Pius XII:
Quote
34. But let this holy city of Rome be the first to give the example, this city which from the earliest Christian era worshipped the heavenly mother, its patroness, with a special devotion. As all know, there are many sacred edifices here, in which she is proposed for the devotion of the Roman people; but the greatest without doubt is the Liberian Basilica, in which the mosaics of Our predecessor of pious memory, Sixtus III, still glisten, an outstanding monument to the Divine maternity of the Virgin Mary, and in which the "salvation of the Roman people" (Salus Populi Romani) benignly smiles. Thither especially let the suppliant citizens flock, and before that most sacred image let all put forth pious prayers, imploring especially that Rome, which is the principal city of the Catholic world, may also give the lead in Faith, in piety and in sanctity.

Source: "Fulgens Corona" - Encyclical of Pope Pius XII [from a Vatican website].

Please note tyhe following from the above -

● Rome took the lead to give the early example of having worshipped the "heavenly mother"

● it rests the "salvation of the Roman people" (Salus Populi Romani) on Mary

● it enjoins that "before that most sacred image let all put forth pious prayers"


WHERE is the 2nd Commandment (or 1st commandment, Catholics) in all this?? What has happened to the express forbidding of worship and bowing down to images in all this? What has happened to all the fine talk we find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church about the fact that "Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God"?

Are there things that are wrong here? Let's see -

       

       ~ It was as late as the 8th century (Nicaea in 787) that such idolatry got into Christianity

       ~ those who sought to incorporate this activity knew it had something to do with
          violating God's Word

       ~ the so-called 'respectful veneration' (dulia and hyperdulia) was not found among
          the apostles; but those who sought to incorporate it understood it was a recent matter
          beyond the time of the apostles

       ~ it is amazing that the issue was a "dispute" in post-apotolic age; for this was not even
          a matter to be debated among early Christians; for the apostles were quite definite on
          this issue and we can understand where they stood -

              ●  that they abstain from pollutions of idols - Acts 15:20

              ●  idolaters had nothing to do with God's Kingdom - 1 Cor. 6:9

              ●  what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? - 2 Cor. 6:16

              ●  Little children, keep yourselves from idols - 1 John 5:21

              ●  that they should not worship devils,
                  and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood:
                  which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk - Rev. 9:20

Should anyone be reading from the apostles and still wonder about making graven images to bow down to them in the mistaken doctrine that - what? That the incarnation of Christ was a precedence to such idolatry and yet we didn't find any such things among the apostles?

~ It is clear that the worship of images did not begin with apostolic Christianity

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Does the reader get anything from all these? If the meaning is lost in the format, let's outline them the salient points:

          ●   man is not to venerate other divinities than the one true God

          ●   Scripture rejects the idols, [of] silver and gold, the work of men's hands

          ●   These empty idols make their worshippers empty

          ●   Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God

          ●   Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God

          ●   Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God

          ●   it is therefore incompatible with communion with God

Despite reading all of these, what do we yet find as regards the practice of Catholic worship, veneration and the 2nd commandment (1st commandment for Catholicism)? It is worrying indeed to read all the above and still find Catholicism violates ALL of them through the worship of MARY.

Excerpts from the "Fulgens Corona" Encyclical of Pope Pius XII:
Quote
34. But let this holy city of Rome be the first to give the example, this city which from the earliest Christian era worshipped the heavenly mother, its patroness, with a special devotion. As all know, there are many sacred edifices here, in which she is proposed for the devotion of the Roman people; but the greatest without doubt is the Liberian Basilica, in which the mosaics of Our predecessor of pious memory, Sixtus III, still glisten, an outstanding monument to the Divine maternity of the Virgin Mary, and in which the "salvation of the Roman people" (Salus Populi Romani) benignly smiles. Thither especially let the suppliant citizens flock, and before that most sacred image let all put forth pious prayers, imploring especially that Rome, which is the principal city of the Catholic world, may also give the lead in Faith, in piety and in sanctity.

Source: "Fulgens Corona" - Encyclical of Pope Pius XII [from a Vatican website].

Please note tyhe following from the above -

          ●  Rome took the lead to give the early example of having worshipped the "heavenly mother"

          ●  it rests the "salvation of the Roman people" (Salus Populi Romani) on Mary

          ●  it enjoins that "before that most sacred image let all put forth pious prayers"


WHERE is the 2nd Commandment (or 1st commandment, Catholics) in all this?? What has happened to the express forbidding of worship and bowing down to images in all this? What has happened to all the fine talk we find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church about the fact that "Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God"?

pilgrim.1:
The question has been explained - if you're feeling insecure, re-read my explanation and exercise the patience to see my answer to your question as stated:

[list][/list]

It is not a matter that rests on DIFFERENT NUMBERING on the list; but rather HOW Catholicism had "done away with" the 2nd commandment.

Is that clear enough now?

However, although some contend that the numbering differs between various listing, the fact is that the 2nd commandment is not contained in the Catholic list. Specifically, it is the very commandment that forbids the bowing down to graven images as an expression of worship.