₦airaland Forum

@Lady

There are several verses that talk about purgatory even though the word is not mentioned.

1 Cor. 15:29-30 - Paul mentions people being baptized on behalf of the dead, in the context of atoning for their sins (people are baptized on the dead’s behalf so the dead can be raised). These people cannot be in heaven because they are still with sin, but they also cannot be in hell because their sins can no longer be atoned for. They are in purgatory.

2 Tim. 1:16-18 - Onesiphorus is dead but Paul asks for mercy on him “on that day.” Paul’s use of “that day” demonstrates its eschatological usage (see, for example, Rom. 2.5,16; 1 Cor. 1.8; 3.13; 5.5; 2 Cor. 1.14; Phil. 1.6,10; 2.16; 1 Thess. 5.2,4,5,8; 2 Thess. 2.2,3; 2 Tim. 4,  Of course, there is no need for mercy in heaven, and there is no mercy given in hell. Where is Onesiphorus? He is in purgatory

1 Peter 3:19; 4:6 - Jesus preached to the spirits in the "prison." These are the righteous souls being purified for the beatific vision.

But my favorite and the one that clearly implies purgatory is this:

1 Corinthians 3: 13-15
13 Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. 14 If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

I agree, from reading the Bible one can easily infure that there is some third place/state in the after life other than heaven and hell (before the final judgement of course).  How they sike themselves into believing that there is no third state (sans heaven and hell and before the final judgement) where we are completely purified before entering heaven is beyond me.  And even if one disagrees with the concept of purgatory, one cannot argue that it is anti-biblical; reason being is that there are a number of passages in the Bible that refer to this third place/state in the after-life.  The word purgatory means purgation or purification.  Those who are in purgatory are heaven bound; meaning, they are part of the saved.

Greetings,

@gentlegg

Please understand that the death in the passage quoted above signifies physical death, not spiritual death. It simply means that not all sins leads to physical death. Please Dear, don't be deceived, there is nothing like that, there are two ways, the right and the left; (the narrow and the broad) no fence.

Ok., Read Revelation.21:8: "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." If liars will go to hell, then tell me the category of sinners that will be spared.\

Try and understand the scriptures before it is too late. Thank you

How does the above disprove purgatory?  What you wrote isn't even a proper rebuttal against the concept of purgatory.  It seems like you do not have a proper understanding of the Catholic doctrine called purgatory.  What is your understanding of the concept?  The concept of purgatory simply means final purifcation (i.e., being made pure before entering heaven).  The formal definition is below:

III. The Final Purification, or Purgatory

1030
All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. 
Catechism of the Catholic Church

Does the above definition conflict with the teachings of the Bible?  If yes, explain please.

@d-baptist

this is d voice of the one crying in the wilderness make the path of Lord straight
His coming is near and there is no other way to the father except through" His son and any other way even "their blessed virgin mary" leads to hell
they beta get that into their thick skull
leadin innocent people astray
maybe all members in the house go and read this book
BABYLON, THE MYSTERY RELIGION
ITS AN EXPOSITION ON CATHOLICISM
CHRIST IS COMING SOONER THAN U EXPECT

My guy, I guess you didn't get the message. The Catholic Church has been preaching the Lordship of Jesus Christ for 2000 years. Take dat your book waka, I'm sure its filled with anti-catholic rhetoric and based on half-assed scholarship.

@OLAADEGBU

The 8th of December, 1854, Pope Pius IX was sitting on his throne; a triple crown of gold and diamonds was on his head:  silk and damask – red and white vestments on his shoulders; five hundred mitred prelates were surrounding him; and more than fifty thousand were at his feet in the incomparable St. Peter’s Church of Rome.  A few minutes of most solemn silence, a cardinal, dressed with his purple robe, left his seat, and gravely walked towards the pope, humbly prostrating himself at his feet, and said: 

“Holy Father, tell us if we can believe and teach that the Mother of God, the Holy Virgin Mary, was immaculate in her conception.”

The Supreme Pontiff answered:  “I do not know; let us ask the light of the Holy Ghost.”

The cardinal withdrew; the pope and the numberless multitude fell on their knees; and the harmonious choir sang the ‘Veni Creator Spiritus.’ 

The last note of the sacred hymn had hardly rolled under the vaults of the temple, when the same cardinal left his place, and again advanced towards the throne of the pontiff, prostrated himself at his feet, and said;

“Holy Father, tell us if the Holy Mother of God, the blessed Virgin Mary, was immaculate in her conception.”

The pope again answered:  “I do not know; let us ask the light of the Holy Ghost.”

And again the ‘Veni Creator Spiritus’ was sung.

Again the eyes of the multitude followed the grave steps of the purple- robed cardinal for the third time to the throne of the successor of St.  Peter, to ask again:

“Holy Father, tell us if we can believe that the blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God was immaculate.”

The pope, as if he had just received a direct communication from God, answered with a solemn voice:

“Yes!  We must believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary was immaculate in her conception . . .   There is no salvation to those who do not believe this dogma!”

And, with a loud voice, the pope intoned the Te Deum; the bells of the three hundred churches of Rome rang; the cannons of the citadel were fired.

And what does this prove.  My friend, I can post you a long list of converts from Pentecastal, Anglican, Baptist, Jehova's Witness, Mormans, name it, etc. churches that have joined the Catholic Church on account of its teachings.  Just because you find the writings of one fallen away Catholic, is it supposed to convince us that the Catholic Church is not true?  You are funny indeed.  Some of the greatest minds of Christendom have been Catholics and you come and post this obscure passage from some nobody we don't even recognize.  Lol, go and try again.

It must be stressed that you are not saved by your membership in the RCC or by taking communion at mass neither are you saved by confessing to your priest nor by being subjected to water baptism.  You can only be saved by asking Jesus Christ of the Bible to forgive your sins, turn away from your sins, especially idolatry, and ask Jesus Christ to come into your life and to impart in you the gift of righteousness by the Power of the  Holy Spirit.  Then read the Bible starting with the synoptic gospels and especially the gospel of  John and the epistles of John so that you can get to know the person of Jesus Christ intimately.  Pray that the our heavenly Father will reveal His Son to you and show you all that it means from Genesis to Revelation.  As you commit your life to the true Jesus of the Bible, the Holy Spirit will come and live within you and enable you to understand what you are reading as you read the Bible.  Please do not accept a false Christ.

You get no argument from me here.  Although I do find the dogmatic tone of what you wrote problematic.  For the most part I can agree with the above.  One cannot be assured of salvation, unless they persevere in Christ till the end (bottom line).  But this doesn't refute the claim that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ and its teachings are true.

Mma Mma na-ebe a o!

Ana m ekele unu nile. . . .kedu ihe unu na-eme ebe a? Abu m onye Imo mana ebi m na obodo yankee (US). Maka ndi madu nke nweghi ike ghota ihe m na-ede, ekele kwa m unu (For those who don't understand, Hi!).

Aka m di na-elu (i salute o)!

~Lady~

How bodi?

Thanks, but you know they regard me as someone irrational and someone who doesn't use her brains. So now that I have asked them questions they won't give me an answer, how is my brain supposed to be used now. If when I seek knowledge from those who have it, I don't get it.

I am really hoping someone will actually answer the question.

~Lady~ don't mind them. . . .I think you're doing a good job. I just now viewed your profile and realize who you are. . . . This is Onyeka Obodoako.

@carmelily,

And by the way, anyi agaghi ese okwu maka thread

I mana ndi ebe anyi na si, ndidi ka mma.  Nwere ndidi na-ekwere okwu ~Lady~.  Nsogbu adiro, enwere m ule (exam) taa. . . .mgbe m mesie ya anyi kwesiri kparita okwu ozo.  Chukwu gozie gi.

You know that our people say, patience is best.  Have patience when speaking with ~Lady~.  No problem, I have an exam today. . . .so when I finish with it we should talk more.  God bless you.

@carmelily

Anyways, the Bible makes no mention of the "keys to the kingdom" but if you guys gave it to Peter, I sure as hell hope Judas wasn't keeping the spare!

Read my previous post. Jesus gave Peter the 'Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven', Mathew 16:19. Furthermore, there are other references to keys in the Bible. Using the Bible one may be able to come to the understanding that 'keys' symbolize authority.

Like i said before David pointed out to me that you are the plague of NL, your ideas are baseless or at best, based on DOGMA and not on scripture. Did you at all read anything posted in your absence from the thread? In all respect, you are really ruining the image of RCC. Leave the debate to the likes of omenuko

Cut ~Lady~ a break. I think she is doing a good job. Instead of jeering at her, why not answer her questions. We've been answering yours.

My problem with people like you is that you have so much confidence in your church until YOU ARE READY TO FORGET THE SCRIPTURES.
May be the word of the POPE makes you feel secure and HEAVEN BOUND!

I do have confidence in Christ's Church because he said:

Mathew 16

16: Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17: And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

And just because we have a Pope doesn't mean we believe in the doctrine of 'once saved always saved'. If you didn't know it or not, we don't believe that the Catholic Church is our savior. Not everyone who calls out 'Lord Lord' will be saved. The function of the Pope (and all priests for that matter) is to guard, preach, and propagate the faith; baptizing believers in the name of the 'Father', 'Son, and 'Holy Spirit. That same faith which was passed down to us by the apostles.

Hope you've not forgotten you told me to 'rie nsi'. Thanks but don't forget that 'udiri nsi a atokazi'

No I have not forgotten. I hope you have not forgotten about me asking you to come back with facts and scripture to buttress you claims. Just throwing down scripture without interpreting it does nothing for no one.

Kedu ihe 'udiri nsi a atokazi' putara. Aghotaghi m ihe i dere. O kwa i buru onye igbo? O'u kwa mu na gi bu nwanne. If thats the case. . . .bros, ndeewoooo!

Ignatius was born in 1491 . . . hardly an "early" church christian.

I'm actually talking about Ignatius of Antioch [50-117 AD], Polycarp of Smyrna [60-120 AD], Justin Martyr [100-165 AD], Iranaeus of Lyons [120-180 AD], Athenagoras [150-200 AD], Clement of Alexandria [150-215 AD], and Theophilus of Antioch [150-200 AD].  Although there are many more, these are some of the earliest.

why have you tried to sweep my question under the rug?

who is a saint? the answer stares at you in the bible.

Omenuko, we are men who are given to reason . . . 2 things cannot be right at the same time.

Sweeping what under the rug. . . .its as though you are purposely trying to argue about something we both have similar beliefs on.  I told you that I agree with your definition of what a saint is.  In addition to what you said, we Catholics have a second understanding of who saints are.  We call those who are in heaven saints because they have truly been made holy and perfected.  The word 'saint' means holy.  There is no sin in them because they are with God.  We on earth still continue to commit sin.  But we are saints too because we are being made holy.  Also, while every person who is canonized is a saint, not every holy person has been canonized. We all probably know many "saints" in our lives, and we are all called by God to be one our selves.

've read those of Paul, Peter, James, John, Luke.

Do you believe all of the New Testament books were written by apostles?

I've read those of Paul, Peter, James, John, Luke. The early church christians of the bible. I know what messages they preached, i know how they lived and worshipped. I know what sacrifices they went through. I've read their examples and exhortations.  Who else am i supposed to read on?

Christ's message never changes pre or post apostolic age . . . Its the same thing He preached that Paul and company preached and is the same thing i hold unto. Your catholic fathers preach a different sermon. no thanks, i have not even finished reading the bible.

How do you know they preached a different sermon if you haven't even read any of their writings?

These are FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES you can't just keep ignoring. they form the basis for whether i will waste my time reading the writings of your early christians. It is impossible to read two diametrically opposite ideologies and not be confused. I choose not to be confused.

Ok, let me rephrase my question. Have you ever read any writings from early church Christians (those that have not been declared saints by the Catholic Church) to get a take on how they lived and worshiped (post apostolic age)?

Omenuko, we cannot glance over a fundamental problem here.
It is either your church is right and the early biblical apostles were wrong or the biblical apostles were right and your church is wrong.

please re-read this - 1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

It doesnt say we are called to be saints "in a sense", it says as those of us who are sanctified in Christ Jesus are automatically called (by Christ Himself not the church) to be saints. The word "saints" in reference to the entire living body of Christ (in the early church) occurs so many times in the bible that it is impossible to just assume it as an error.

Now when your own church confers "sainthood" on a select few dead church members by the pope (clearly a fundamental biblical difference), you can expect that i'D have second Thoughts about reading the writings of these men who seem to differ so markedly from apostle Paul and his brethren.

This is an important issue that shld not be swept under the carpet if we are to have an honest tete-a-tete.

So, because they were declared saints by the Catholic Church you do no read there writings?  Am I understanding you correctly? 

I totally agree with what you are saying about saints, but I think we Catholics use the term 'saints' in two ways.  We agree that those who are followers of Christ are saints in the sense of, yes, they are being made holy by God.  So, yes we call them saints.  But we also call those who are in heaven, those who have past away and are with God Saints also.  They are saints because they have already been made holy, because they are in heaven. 

But, back to my question, do you read the accounts of early christians (post apostolic age)?

No and i'll tell you why.
Again i return to my bible - 2 Corinthians 13:13 All the saints salute you.

Now i read through my entire bible and consistently every single apostle refers to the brethren (mere men like you and me) as saints. Who therefore are the "saints" that you mention? When did sainthood become a title that men confered on men?

I think that will be a good place to start.

1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

Omenuko . . . the bible couldnt be more clear. 2 things cannot be right at the same time . . .

I agree with you that all those who are in Christ are (in a sense) saints, but I'm talking about some of the wittings of the christian bishops, and leaders. Those who came after the apostles. Those who succeeded the apostles; those who were taught by the apostles. Do you read there writings at all?

@davidylan,

Ok, lets bring the tone of the discussion a few notches down. Bros, I love reading the Bible. . . .I try to read it every day and try to apply it to my life. Reading the Bible is good. I love talking about Christianity and about Jesus. I'm sure you will agree with the above. I have a question for you (I guess its a general question to non-catholic christians too), do you read the writings of early Christians (say 70AD and forward)? In other words, in addition to the Bible, do you read historical records and writings of some of the great saints (e.g., St. Augustine, St. Ignatius, St. Thomas, etc.)? Do you read historical accounts and records (in addition to the Bible) of how the early Christians lived?

@davidylan,

Does that mean God is hateful? I mean i didnt put that into Revelations 2 . . .

My brother, open your bible and read it line by line, precept upon precept . . . asking God to open your eyes to His word INDEPENDENT of your church affiliation. I don't hate your church, that is a waste of my time and is ungodly.

The default position is to claim that the other "hates" your church when you run into brickwalls of church hubris that has no basis in the bible. It is sad but until you learn to start understanding the gospel yourself you wont get beyond repeating catholic dogma by rote.

For you to sit there and castigate every little thing the Catholic Church teaches without holding yourself and your church to the same standards is hypocrisy.  Not once have you stated or acknowledge anything positive the Church has done.  Not once have you acknowledged the Catholic Churches contribution towards propagating Christianity.  But yet, you use your simple minded approach and some how convince yourself that the Bible fell from the sky and authentic Christianity was not being practiced in the early centuries.  That's why protestant Christianity is so non-intellectual.  And in many respects, anti-intellectual.  Try to be more objective in your arguments.  Being humble and respectful is not a sin.  Using historical records outside the Bible (e.g., writings of saints, historical records, etc.) is ok.  All we get from your post is menial drivel of how the Catholic Church is the LovePeddler of Babylon and blah blah blah.  My friend, go and read the history of the Church.  My advice to you. . . read some of the writings of the early Christians (post apostolic age) and you will find that they were indeed Catholic.  The early Church did not end with the Bible (which was definitively compiled in the 4th century - that's 300 to 400 years after the crucifixion).  Even if you disagree with what they taught and preached at least try to gain a more holistic picture of the origins of the Catholic Church.  The bible is a Catholic Book.  Every thing the Catholic Church teaches is rooted in scripture.  If you disagree with it fine.  If you have questions ask.


May the peace of Christ be with you and your family. . . .

Very simple - Rev 2:12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;
13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.
14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.

There is something really scary about the message to the church of pergamos (which is relevant today) . . .

Your hatred will by your downfall. . . .I will pray for you, and I ask others to pray for me.

Your take here on celibacy appears balanced; but I'D doubt this is the "mainstream" opinion within the Catholic Church; several others appear to understand differently.

What do you mean? The celibate priesthood is a Catholic Tradition and not a dogma.

I'm glad we can establish something here . . . much of the catholic doctrine is not founded on the bible but on traditions of men.

Every Catholic doctrine is rooted in scripture.

1 Timothy 3: 1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Titus 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

So I take it, your church has bishops and they meet all of the above standards?

If i judge correctly, carmelilly's question (and I) is where is that requirement stated in your bible? We have clearly defined requirements for the office of bishops, priests, pastors in the bible . . . where did you find the requirement for celibacy?

Did you not read my response.  It is only the Latin rite church (one rite within the Catholic Church) that has a celibate priesthood.  This is a tradition of that Church (Latin rite).  The requirement of celibacy for the priesthood is not found in the Bible.  The Pope can stand up tomorrow and proclaim no more celibacy requirement for the priesthood.  I don't understand your disagreement.  Besides, one does not have to be a priest to preach the word of God.    

the "rock" here refered to Peter's revelation of Jesus Christ not on Peter the individual (the same man Christ said Satan had sought to sieve like chaff)

Your opinion is noted.

That is a poor excuse for the politicisation of the catholic church. Christ preached without being political for 3.5 years, the apostles in the bible were not political in any way . . . how then can you preach Jesus and be political? Do you require embassies, visas, elections to preach Jesus? Did Christ have embassies in Greece, Syria and Jerusalem?

I'm not understanding you. . . .are you saying the Catholic Church should not have embassies, visas, and elections?  You people self. . . .your minds are hell bent of viewing everything the Church does as bad.  During Christ's time did he not disturb the political status quote?  Did not Pontius Pilot (Governor at the time) have Jesus scourged and crucified for his preaching of the kingdom of God.  Jesus' preaching by dafualt is political in a sense.  What he was preaching is totally contrary to the interest of earthly authorities.  Did not the leaders of the Jews feel threatened by Jesus and his followers.  Did not John the Baptiste call out Herod for his immorality.  Did not Herod imprison and execute John?  The Pope is the leader of almost a billion Catholics, anything he says can be seen as political.  By him preaching out against certain things his words will be seen as political regardless of how he delivers it.  

Just as multitudes begin accompanying Jesus he speaks a severe word of warning that 'If anyone does not hate father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.'  The point of this warning is not how literally we should take 'hate'.  No - the point is that in a society of very stable family ties, Jesus is calling into being a community of voluntary commitment, willing to take the hostility of the rest of society.  

Maybe I should ask you a question.  What do you mean by political?  In other words, what are some of the political things the Catholic Church is doing that is, according to you, wrong?

@carmelily

Peter celibate?  his wife na decoration abi?

Yes, Peter was married.  Does that mean celibacy is bad?  Look, as far as marriage and the Priesthood, the church recognizes both institutions as very holy; the Catholic Church has elevated them both to the level of sacrements (of which there are seven in total).  Most Catholics marry, and all Catholics are taught to venerate marriage as a holy institution and sacrement -an action of God upon our souls; one of the holiest things we encounter in this life.  The requirement of celibacy for the priesthood has not always been the case in the Catholic Church.  The decision can be reversed by the church authority in the future.  A celibate priesthood is not a dogma of the Catholic Church.  Furthermore, the Latin rite Church (one of many rites within the Catholic Church) is the only rite within the Catholic Church that has a celibate priesthood.  There are other churches and rites within the Catholic Church that have a married priesthood (e.g., Byzantine, Alexandrian, Ge'ez rite based in Ethiopia , Syriac, the Chaldean rite in Iraq, the Malabar rite is based in India, etc.).  It is only the Latin rite Church (the largest of the rites within the Catholic Church) that everyone sees and lambasts for having a celibate priesthood.  Even within the Latin rite, there are some married priests (converts from other denominations who were married before entering the Catholic Church).   

I think the point ~Lady~ is trying to make is that celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God is not a bad thing.  The Church does not make it mandatory for people to be celibate to serve God.  What is required is celibacy for the priesthood and no one is forced to become a priest.  St. Paul teaches us that celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom is good.

1 Corinthians Chapter 7 
32: I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; 33: but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, 34: and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. 35: I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.
37: But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. 38: So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

Peter means "owner of the keys to the kingdom"??   So when Jesus said "on this ROCK" you guys jumped to the conclusion that Peter meant Rock/gatekeeper? Gee! Catholics and their dogma and fairy tales lol. Really can't stop laughing.

Peter was given the authority to bind and loose and given the keys to the kingdom of heaven.  Simon's name was changed to rock and the act of God changing someone's name always signifies something important within the Bible.  When Jesus said 'on this rock' (i.e., Peter himself, his confession, and his faith) he will build his church we Catholics take it literaly.  While Peter and the apostles are the foundation of the Church and the former being the leader, Jesus Christ is the designer, archetect, and builder.  It is Christ that is the head of the Church.  It is the Holy Spirit that is guiding the Church.  I don't think anyone is talking about Peter being the 'gatekeeper' or anything.  Simply put, Jesus Christ gave Peter the authority to lead his the Church here on earth (aka the Church Militant).

Matthew Chapter 16 
15: He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16: Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17: And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

And to be fair:

And don't tell me you are so simple as to take politics to mean political parties and voting and campaigning. when we talk about the history of Nigerian politics, for instance, do we include military dictatorships? Do they have campaigns and slogans and voting? Thank God David pointed out the embassies and visa thing, that's probably the most obvious proof. Please read up. No one argues that fact. Not even the Vatican.

What you wrote above is true.  The Catholic Church, from the essence of its mandate (preach the gospel of Jesus Christ), is political in a sense.  It is political only in regards to issues of faith and morals affecting Christians and those that are oppressed or being persecuted.  In this same context. . . .every church (denomination) or religious institution is political.  As Christians, we are meant to preach the gospel and bring about the kingdom of God.  There is no way one can preach Jesus and not be political.     

By the way, what denomination was the Early Church again? The one you say you guys "preserved".

The early church was not a denomination. . . .it was the denomination and it was holy, catholic, and apostolic.  The Catholic Church derives its holiness, catholicity, and apostolic succession from Jesus Christ via the early church.

@carmelily

Kunle is confusing compilation with canonization. what the Caths contributed to (not did exclusively) was canonization (of THEIR own version with 73 books). And in any case,  canonization my foot.

And who canonized your version of the Bible (Martin Luther)?

@kunleoshob

And where was it written that they were the first Church. This Catholic Church is filled with Satans mogs. The Church murdered so many in its History. The Church is a dead Church.

Kunleoshob Again there is no modicum of truth that the Catholic Church compiled the bible.

Again, go and search your history. . . .the Catholic Church is the one that compiled the bible.  You can convince and brainwash yourself to kingdom come, but history is history and cannot be erased by you.

The Pope was VERY careful NOT to apologise. Go and read the transcript of his message you are talking about. He said he "regrets" the actions of the priests. That's what we all do. We regret their disgusting actions.
When he said that thing about muslims, he said it was his personal opinion and not church views.  his "regrets" about priest pedophilia isn't an official RCC apology, my friend, just his personal opinion as a person. He was careful not to give an official apology. same goes for the holocaust and all that. Pope John Paul "regretted" RCC's involvement too. but no official apology. Go and read up.  In politics you NEVER apologise outrightly for sensitive issues. Why do you think there is no formal apology from the West about the transatlantic slavetrade? They may "regret" and "compensate" but never apologise. That's politics.

Ok, so just because he did not use the phrase, "I apologize", according to you, he did no make an apology?  What does an apology mean to you?  See below:  

a·pol·o·gy        /əˈpɒlədʒi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-pol-uh-jee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -gies.
1. a written or spoken expression of one's regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another.
2.    An acknowledgment expressing regret or asking pardon for a fault or offense.

Excerpts from what the Pope said about the scandal (from www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,547996,00.html):

The pope told reporters he was "deeply ashamed" of the child sex abuse scandal that had rocked the US Catholic church. "It is a great suffering for the church in the United States and for the church in general and for me personally that this could happen," Benedict said. "It is difficult for me to understand how it was possible that priests betray in this way their mission ,  to these children.". . . ."He showed himself to be deeply ashamed and spoke of the 'large suffering' inflicted by representatives of the church. He did not resort to some line of defense, as some bishops in the US (and sadly also in Germany) did and still do. He made it clear that paedophiles could not become priests (and thankfully distinguished pedophilia from homosexuality). He confessed guilt and promised atonement."

What else should he do?  Again, what these priest did is nowhere part of Catholic teaching, but he (Pope) apologized on behalf of the Church.

@Nasogold,

In Igboland there is a saying that goes:

A tuoro omara, o mara, a tuoro ofeke, o fenye isi n'ohia.  If you tell a wise one, he understands; tell a dunce, he runs into the bush.

TO CALL A SPADE A SPADE, THE CATHOLICS ARE WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS THEY ARE: A GREAT LovePeddler AND MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND THE ABORMINATION OF THE EARTH,  DRUNK WITH THE BLOOD OF THE SAINTS (KILLED 68M SAINTS IN THE DARK AGES) AND THEY WILL END UP IN PERDITION - IN HELL.
REVELATION 17.
AND IN CHAPTER 18 THE BIBLE SAYS,  COME OUT FROM AMONG THEM.

As for the above, come back with the facts and scripture to back up your claim, then maybe. . . .just maybe, we can talk.  Until then 'rie nsi'. . . .

i believe it is one of the churches the Lord will use to usher in the last wave of revival that will precede the Lord's coming.

Hello dgreatrock,

I'm not Anglican, but I have many friends who are, just wanted to contribute towards the thread you started.  What do you mean by the above statement?  What are some of the tell tell signs that lend towards this thought process.  I'm not trying to offend or anything, I'm just curious.

I have been following the goings on within the Anglican church and it doesn't look pretty.  I pray that peace and unity may be restored.  I am hearing talks of the communion splitting.  My question, what does it mean for the Anglican Communion to split.  I thought the communion was already a loose grouping of similar churches that don't hold everything in common.  In essence, I thought there was already a doctrinal split within the Communion.  What difference would it make for them to schism from one another formally?  Also, what are the disagreements between the two (or multiple) sides. . . .if you don't mind.   

What do you mean by 'new generation churches'?  I'm Catholic and am not familiar with a lot of the teachings of these 'new generation churches'.  What makes them bad or good?  What are some of the reasons people are leaving the Anglican Church?

what are u talking about? who runs and hides where?
Have you read IN GOD'S NAME. Is the author catholic?

Whether you like it or not. . . .the Catholic Church was instrumental in settling the canon of scripture.

Then the Council of Hippo, a regional council for some of the bishops in the Diocese of Africa, in 393 AD reaffirmed The Decree of Damasus. The third Council of Carthage was far more authoritative than the Council of Hippo. The Diocese of Africa then had its see at Carthage, so Carthage had authority to speak for all of the northwest African bishops. The Council of Carthage in 397 AD also reaffirmed The Decree of Damasus. [b][size=15pt]Carthage, unlike Hippo, sent its decisions to Rome for ratification. Pope St. Boniface I (418-422) ratified the decision and declared the canon settled for the Western Patriarchate. [/size][/b]He also sent the decision to the Eastern patriarchs in Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. At that point, the Catholic Canon of Sacred Scripture was informally accepted worldwide.

www.secondexodus.com/html/catholicdefinitions/bible.htm+bible+council+of+carthage&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a">http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:ggqp_ckmLEQJ:www.secondexodus.com/html/catholicdefinitions/bible.htm+bible+council+of+carthage&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a  

"The greatest genocide during World War II, in proportion to a nation's population, took place, not in Nazi Germany but in the Nazi-created puppet state of Croatia."

"Genocide in Satellite Croatia, 1941-1945"
Professor Edmond Paris,
Chicago, 1961, Introduction to the book.

"Nonpartisan sources agree that mass genocide was authorized by the state of Croatia. They concur that the state instigated, planned, and executed massacres against the Serbian Orthodox minority,  and that the Catholic clergy approved, led, or failed to denounce these massacres."

"Accounting for Genocide"
Professor Helen Fein,
The Free Press, New York 1979, page 102.

"THE VATICAN'S HOLOCAUST is not a misnomer, an accusation, and even less a speculation. It is an historical fact. Rabid nationalism and religious dogmatism were its two main ingredients. During the existence of Croatia as an independent Catholic State, over 700,000 men, women and children perished. Many were executed, tortured, died of starvation, buried alive, or were burned to death. Hundreds were forced to become Catholic. Catholic padres ran concentration camps; Catholic priests were officers of the military corps which committed such atrocities."

"The Vatican's Holocaust"
Baron Avro Manhattan,
Ozark Books, Springfield MO, 1986
Preface to the American Editions

And what does this have to do with the teachings of the Catholic Church?  The teachings of the Catholic Church can be found in the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' here: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm.  Go there and search. . . .trust me, you will not find your above posting condoned by the Church.  The Church speaks out loudly against injustice and persecution.  Just take a brief read of some of Pope John Paul's writings.  What you posted are deeds of some of the people within the Church.  Their deeds cannot be misconstrued with the teachings of the Church.  Furthermore, did not Jesus teach that there will be sinners in his Church?  

Hypocritical? what do u think u know about me? I have to believe in the Bible to respond to posts? when did NL make these rules, Ms. Moderator??

Oh yea, which Bible?

You've solved the seeming mystery on this thread!The origin of the Catholic church. Bravo!
At least, it's settled that 100 AD means not from the Apostles' time.

What do you mean by, 'the Apostles' time'?  The Catholic Church derives from the early church and the apostles.  We have apostolic succession all the way back to the apostles themselves.

Ever been to Rome?

What do you mean?  Show evidence or prove your case and stop insinuating and propagating nonsense.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1001926,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,980660,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,978816,00.html

To mention a few. and by the way,  there's still no official apology. The Pope just "regrets" that it happened. well, so do we all!

Again, I'll ask Lady's question again. . . .Show us the pedophilic doctrine (teaching of the Church) where pedophilia is condone or approved.  Go and search our Catechism in the link I provided.  

In addition, there are countless Bishops and Priets that have apologized for the sins of the few.  The Pope himself (Benedict) apologized to the victims when he visited the US this past summer (2008).  What are you talking about? Do you want him to get on his knees and give every single victim an personal apology.  Ok, since you are much much holier than us, how should the Pope deliver his apology (which he has already done)?

how can she still be a virgin after the whole pushing durin labour,and bringing forth the child?

smone correct me if I'm wrong

My friend, were you there when she gave birth to God.  If you're looking at the virgin birth scientifically, you no go get am.  The virgin birth is one of those phenomenons (aka mysteries) we accept by faith.  I don't know how else to explain it.

Papal audience: St. Paul on Church authority and freedom (Subscribe to RSS Feed)

Vatican, Oct. 1, 2008 (CWNews.com) - In his weekly public audience on October 1, Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) discussed how the writings of St. Paul show the Apostle's attitude regarding authority and freedom in the Church.

Speaking to about 20,000 people in St. Peter's Square, the Holy Father focused on two incidents described by St. Paul in his Letter to the Galatians: the Council of Jerusalem and the disagreement between Sts. Peter and Paul at Antioch. These incidents, the Pope said, "show the veneration and, at the same time, the freedom with which Paul treated Peter and the other Apostles."

At the Council of Jerusalem, the early Church took up the question of whether believers were bound by the requirements of Mosaic law. As St. Paul saw them, the Pope said, the results of the Council "represented the decisive recognition of the freedom that all the participants shared: freedom from the obligations arising from circumcision and from the Law."

However, the Pope continued, this Christian freedom cannot be confused with license. The freedom granted to Christians, as the Council of Jerusalem decreed, is a gift of the Holy Spirit, intended to build up the Church. Authentic Christian freedom must be "in conformity with Christ and, hence, in true service to our brothers and sister."

At Antioch, Pope Benedict continued, Sts. Peter and Paul had different perspectives on the question of dietary restrictions. For St. Peter, the Pope explained, "the separation from pagans was a way to protect and to avoid scandalizing believers from Jewish backgrounds, while for Paul it risked causing a misunderstanding of the universal salvation in Christ offered to both pagans and Jews."

Although St. Paul prevailed at Antioch, the Pontiff pointed out, later "he called on the strong not to eat unclean food so as not to alienate or scandalize the weak." So St. Paul had evidently learned from St. Peter's expression of concern. Their disagreement, and its resolution, illustrate that "only sincere dialogue, open to the truth of the Gospel, could guide the path of the Church."

The ultimate lesson, the Pope suggested, is that within the Church both authority and freedom are properly oriented toward the goal of serving the faith and encouraging fidelity to Christ. "It is vital to conform ourselves ever more closely to Christ," the Pope concluded. "In this way we truly become free and find within ourselves the real center and profound essence of the Law: love of God and of neighbor."

The above is the Pope's speech to the faithful yesterday (10/01/08) and I think it addresses some of your concerns regarding the law and other Old Testament restrictions.  The bold portion, in particular, is telling and goes to show how the leaders of the early church addressed these same issues.  I don't have time now, but will come back later and elaborate more on how we (christians) are to view the Old Testament.

Come to think of it why call her Virgin Mary, when she was assumable disvirgined by her husband Joseph.

She is called the Blessed Virgin Mary because she was a virgin before and after she gave birth to Jesus Christ.  In other words Joseph never knew her, 'biblically' speaking.

@pilgrim.1

Lol, for reasons beyond my control, I can't publicly say what church I attend (especially for the sake of the muslims that I continue to reach out to). Suffice to say that it's not Catholic, and we're taught to state our persuasions without felings of disaffection towards anyone.

Many blessings.

Fair enough. . . .many blessing to you and your family.

Glory to Jesus!

@pilgrim.1

Are we, all of us, Christians and nonchristians and oh yes, Jesus himself guilty of this direct injusction from the lips of "Master" Jesus? This is an impossible commandment to obey,

Bros, for those who call themselves "Christians" and want to "agree" that Jesus himself guilty of this direct injusction, it is not my worry. The Lord Himself observes all things and all accusations made against Him. What I do know is that He is my only MASTER (Matthew 23:8 & 10).

I don't believe he was saying Jesus is guilty of anything. I thought Muslims had great respect for Jesus and the holy family (Mary and Joseph). He just asked as simple and logical question. Off topic, I can say one thing though. . . .you would make a good catholic if ever you became one. What church do you attend?