Nodogragra4me:



How is it possible for the white circular substance, obviously bigger and wider than her mouth,to come Out of it without being bent or defaced in any way.

Don't mind them...they'll say that one too is a miracle. When people regard church tradition over God's eternal Word, this is what you get.

Apina:
There are saints in the Catholic church who hve experienced such in the past and its on record, for those who choose to be ignorant and tag it as witchcraft or the most stupid of them all asking wheres it in the Bible as it was their ears Thomas put his hands into when Jesus appeared

Don't compare this demonic exercise with the true account of Jesus Christ encounter with Thomas.... Jesus had a nail driven through palms. He showed same to Thomas.....that is not what you have here.... A woman is tormented seasonally by demons here.

Symptoms of Ebola is that the patient starts bleeding from body parts abi? Biko dikwanu ezigbo sure. Government Biko checkie ya echeckie.

This one na naija movie.

I think is called stigmata in catholic doctrine... and we reports of it occurring to other people in the past in other countries. But this is the first time I'm seeing communion bread coming out from the mouth and as large that for that matter. National Geographic have done a piece on it. You can go online to check it out.

Nodogragra4me:



Don't compare this demonic exercise with the true account of Jesus Christ encounter with Thomas.... Jesus had a nail driven through palms. He showed same to Thomas.....that is not what you have here.... A woman is tormented seasonally by demons here.

Jesus on this occasion was flesh and bone (no mention of blood).

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Ephesians 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

His blood had already been offered as a sacrifice on the mercy seat in heaven. That woman's affliction isn't from God.

Nodogragra4me:




What is there to ask God for forgiveness for. The thing finds no support with God or just because she is suffering that automatically means she is a representative of the Lord or what. If it is not in the Bible it is not of God.

I see. Your last sentence just revealed who you are, the type that argues about the Bible and its contents with those the very Church that put the Bible together. If it's not in the Bible it is not of God must be the most hilariously ignorant comment that anyone who claims to be a Christian can make despite the fact that the very last verse in the gospel according to St John specifically stated that there were so many things Jesus did where left out the Bible as we know it.

I will conclude by sharing St. Thomas Aquinas' famous quote with you:

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who do not, no proof is possible."

whizcartel:
I think is called stigmata in catholic doctrine... and we reports of it occurring to other people in the past in other countries. But this is the first time I'm seeing communion bread coming out from the mouth and as large that for that matter. National Geographic have done a piece on it. You can go online to check it out.

I've studied the doctrine of stigmata and it is not scriptural. Look well, that bread didn't come of her mouth as the OP would have us misled. They actually offered her the bread to eat.

DonDiego:


I see. Your last sentence just revealed who you are, the type that argues about the Bible and its contents with those the very Church that put the Bible together. If it's not in the Bible it is not of God must be the most hilariously ignorant comment that anyone who claims to be a Christian can make despite the fact that the very last verse in the gospel according to St John specifically stated that there were so many things Jesus did where left out the Bible as we know it.

I will conclude by sharing St. Thomas Aquinas' famous quote with you:

"

Yea Roman Catholics like to have that window open wide enough to support all the damnable doctrines they bring in

I'm Catholic. Have heard of stigmata. A man from Owerri ebeiri, only (though late)
But, I have my misgivings about this holy Communion coming out from her mouth. That's wider than her throat and esophagus! Or is it like prawn crackers

Strange things

Stigmata ;
bodily marks or sores, corresponding in location to the crucifixion wounds of Christ, supposed to occur during states of religious ecstasy or ceremony. Catholics believe that those who display this phenomenon are simply sharing in Christ experience during the crucifixion.....but some mystics are of the opinion that it was those who nailed Jesus to the cross that have come to reap the fruit of what they sow several years ago especially when they had replied Pilate thus: " let the sin be us and our generation" ....after the wife had warned Pilate to have nothing to do with the murder of Jesus.

DonDiego:


I see. Your last sentence just revealed who you are, the type that argues about the Bible and its contents with those the very Church that put the Bible together. If it's not in the Bible it is not of God must be the most hilariously ignorant comment that anyone who claims to be a Christian can make despite the fact that the very last verse in the gospel according to St John specifically stated that there were so many things Jesus did where left out the Bible as we know it.

I will conclude by sharing St. Thomas Aquinas' famous quote with you:

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who do not, no proof is possible."

Your ignorance of the source of the Bible is epic..... The Catholic Church out the Bible together.... A big laugh.


Educate yourself in proper doctrine.... Nobody is telling you that everything Jesus did was recorded..... His bathing wasn't recorded...what you have is a complete guide for correction, instructions and directing in righteousness.... The Bible is complete as far as knowledge and walk with God is concerned..... It is the constitution of every believer and every so called by laws....doctrines must find a support their in...



Now let me subsidize your ignorance..... Take and stop advertising your ignorance like a flag of honour



The catholic Church did not give us the Bible-certainly not the Old Testament, for there was no Church in those days. And if the Roman Catholic Church was not needed to give us the Old Testament, then clearly it was not needed to give us the New either.

A favorite question of Catholic apologists is, "How do you know that Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke or that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew?" They claim that Roman Catholic tradition contains this information. Yet no tradition proves who wrote Hebrews, Job, Esther, or various Psalms. Nor does it matter. That the authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit is what counts. This inspiration bears witness within readers who are themselves indwelt by the same Holy Spirit who inspired the writing of Scripture.

Catholicism's claim that the New Testament comes from the Church by decision of the councils is false. No early council even ruled on what was canonical; yet in these councils, to support their arguments, both sides quoted the New Testament, which had obviously been accepted by general consensus without any conciliar definition of the canon.


The Synod of Antioch, in A.D. 266, denounced the doctrine of Paul of Samosata as "foreign to the ecclesiastical canon." The Council of Nicea in 325 refers to "the canon"; and the Council of Laodicea in 363 exhorted that "only the `canonized' books of both Old and New Testaments be read in the church." Yet none of those councils deemed it necessary to list the canonized books, indicating that they were already well-known and accepted by the common consent of Christians indwelt by the Holy Spirit.


Not until the Third Council of Carthage, in A.D. 397, do we have the first conciliar decision on the canon.18 That is rather late if without it Christians didn't know what books were in the New Testament and therefore couldn't use them, as Rome claims today! History proves that the books of the New Testament were known and accepted by Christians and in wide circulation and use at least 300 years before Carthage listed them.


Historian W.H.C. Frend writes: The Gospels and epistles were circulating in Asia, Syria, and Alexandria (less certainly in Rome), and being read and discussed in the Christian synagogues there by about 100.


In Polycarp's short letter there is an astonishing amount of direct and indirect quotation from the New Testament: Matthew, Luke, and John, Acts, the letters to the Galatians, Thessalonians, Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Romans, the Pastorals, 1 Peter particularly, and 1 and 2 John are all used.... The Christian Scriptures were quoted so familiarly as to suggest that they had been in regular use a long time.19


No rabbinical body decided upon the canon of the Old Testament. That canon was recognized by Israel and available as it was being written. Daniel, a captive in Babylon, had a copy of Jeremiah written only a few years earlier and was studying it as Scripture (Daniel 9:2). We are certain that the entire Old Testament was well-known when Christ was here and undoubtedly long before, for every Israelite was required to meditate upon it day and night. God's Word Speaks Directly to All In Old Testament times the common people were expected to know God's Word, not through rabbinical interpretation but for themselves, and were able to know it.


That fact, as well as its availability to all, is very clear from Christ's rebuke of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus: "0 fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken...." (Luke 24:25). He would not have used such harsh language in holding these two ordinary people responsible for their ignorance of prophecies had not all of the Old Testament Scriptures been readily available,familiar, and understandable to the ordinary Jew. He then expounded unto them in all the Scriptures (which must therefore have been known) "the things concerning himself" (Luke 24:25-27).

All of the Scriptures were even available to the faraway Bereans north of Greece, who, as we have seen, "searched the Scriptures daily" (Acts 17:11). The same evidence is found in the fact that Timothy knew the Old Testament from early childhood (2 Timothy 3:15) and that it was taught to him not by the rabbis in the synagogue but at home by his mother and grandmother, who themselves were women of faith (2 Timothy 1:5).

It is certainly clear that no one in Old Testament times looked to any hierarchy for an official interpretation of Scripture. Nor did the early church. Nor should we today. The plain words of the Bible, without Rome's domineering interpretation, give the lie to the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church and the authoritarianism of its clergy.

Priscilla and Aquila were an ordinary husband and wife who labored daily at tentmaking (Acts 18:3). Yet a "church [met] in their house" (1 Corinthians 16:19) and they were capable teachers of God's Word, even instructing a man so eloquent as Apollos (Acts 18:26). Paul referred to them as "my helpers in Christ Jesus" (Romans 16:3).

They had never been to seminary and were not part of a clerical hierarchy (which didn't exist), but they knew God and His Word by the Holy Spirit indwelling them. So should all Christians today. According to Paul, ordinary Christians are to judge whether a preacher is speaking God's truth. Paul submitted his writings to the same criteria, inviting his readers to judge by the Holy Spirit within them whether his epistles were from God or not: "If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 14:37).

It was by the same witness of the Holy Spirit within each individual believer that the first-century church decided which books were canonical. In exactly the same way Christians today recognize the Bible as God's inspired Word.

Nodogragra4me:







2 Timo 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


Please where can one place this your stigmata doctrine in the word of God

Somewhere in that ultra-confusing book you quoted it says that not everything he did was written down.
Look for your fellow fanatics or Google stigmata.

Repping Chelsea

remigiusizunna:
They are called padro pio or something like that .
I've seen such persons before

They are not called padre pio. Padre pio is a stigmatic catholic priest.

Apina:
There are saints in the Catholic church who hve experienced such in the past and its on record, for those who choose to be ignorant and tag it as witchcraft or the most stupid of them all asking wheres it in the Bible as it was their ears Thomas put his hands into when Jesus appeared

THE DECEIT OF LUCIFER...D PATHWAY TO SELF DELUSION AND DESTRUCTION.

Nodogragra4me:



Your ignorance of the source of the Bible is epic..... The Catholic Church out the Bible together.... A big laugh.

Nice one. There is law which every bible scholar must understand to correctly interpret scripture...

Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

Based on this principle, you cannot take the testimony of one man and make a doctrine out of it. Worse still, his experiences. Every doctrine, prophesy, revelation, teaching, etc must pass this test... Comparing scripture with scripture... and all truth is parallel... The Word never contradicts itself.

MrBottle:
Somewhere in that ultra-confusing book you quoted it says that not everything he did was written down.
Look for your fellow fanatics or Google stigmata.

And one of the things he did that was not written down was delivering a stigmata not making her a heroine in the church.

Nodogragra4me:



And one of the things he did that was not written down was delivering a stigmata not making her a heroine in the church.

Luke 8:43 And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any,

Luke 8:44 Came behind him, and touched the border of his garment: and immediately her issue of blood stanched.

Nodogragra4me:



And one of the things he did that was not written down was delivering a stigmata not making her a heroine in the church.

Look for your fellow fanatics to argue with. I mentioned stigmata which is what it is. If you want argument find another person.

donnie:




Luke 8:43 And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any,

Luke 8:44 Came behind him, and touched the border of his garment: and immediately her issue of blood stanched.

LOL. You are doing the very work the Lord gave us charge of....feed my sheep..... Feed them with the word so they can be set free from satanic grip

SpecialAdviser:
As a Catholic, I call this an absolute nonsense and a sacrilege.

Mammy water and werey dey her body.

That is the essence of knowing your faith as a Catholic, haven't you heard of stigmata? Read about the life of Saint Francis of Assisi and Saint Padre Pio

rheether:
Ezike orba of all places? What do you expect?

Please kindly leave my place out of this. Have u ever heard of anything bad about Ezike orba

AuroraB:
I'm Catholic. Have heard of stigmata. A man from Owerri ebeiri, only (though late)
But, I have my misgivings about this holy Communion coming out from her mouth. That's wider than her throat and esophagus! Or is it like prawn crackers

Lmao

benosa11:


That is the essence of knowing your faith as a Catholic, haven't you heard of stigmata? Read about the life of Saint Francis of Assisi and Saint Padre Pio

St Francis was not bleeding. Go read

If you know about stigmata, then you know it's real. This is not the first time it is happening in the history of mankind and will not be the last. Fr. Francis of Assisi I read suffered from it...it's history has been documented and in no place were they said to be possessed by demons...so calling her a witch is laughable, that you don't understand something does not automatically make it evil ( twins were believed to be evil/demonic & if not for Mary Slessor wahala for dey)
As for the host, I believe that was placed on her lips by the priest.
BTW, I'm not a Catholic.

Are u ashewo?

Dottore:

So Mr. Catholic of what essence is this gory fanatic drama

mind what u say with mouth , that's not a drama but real injury that opened by itself... It rare occurrence that happens to some1 during lent period. The person will start to experience open bleeding unharmful wounds from some parts of his body exactly that places Jesus Christ go wounded during his passion. It doesn't happen to everybody.
When it starts the person become unconscious. And starts bleeding from parts of his or her body. Which can last for hours or minutes.. And the injury heals by its self after few days or weeks depending.

They are called stigmatists. It didnt start today.
It has been happening sinse ages the first person to experience is was a monk rev father. (St Francis of Asisi) in 1880,s .

It has also happen to one bro Chima in IMO state around 2009.

Nodogragra4me:



Your ignorance of the source of the Bible is epic..... The Catholic Church out the Bible together.... A big laugh.


Educate yourself in proper doctrine.... Nobody is telling you that everything Jesus did was recorded..... His bathing wasn't recorded...what you have is a complete guide for correction, instructions and directing in righteousness.... The Bible is complete as far as knowledge and walk with God is concerned..... It is the constitution of every believer and every so called by laws....doctrines must find a support their in...



Now let me subsidize your ignorance..... Take and stop advertising your ignorance like a flag of honour



The catholic Church did not give us the Bible-certainly not the Old Testament, for there was no Church in those days. And if the Roman Catholic Church was not needed to give us the Old Testament, then clearly it was not needed to give us the New either.

A favorite question of Catholic apologists is, "How do you know that Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke or that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew?" They claim that Roman Catholic tradition contains this information. Yet no tradition proves who wrote Hebrews, Job, Esther, or various Psalms. Nor does it matter. That the authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit is what counts. This inspiration bears witness within readers who are themselves indwelt by the same Holy Spirit who inspired the writing of Scripture.

Catholicism's claim that the New Testament comes from the Church by decision of the councils is false. No early council even ruled on what was canonical; yet in these councils, to support their arguments, both sides quoted the New Testament, which had obviously been accepted by general consensus without any conciliar definition of the canon.


The Synod of Antioch, in A.D. 266, denounced the doctrine of Paul of Samosata as "foreign to the ecclesiastical canon." The Council of Nicea in 325 refers to "the canon"; and the Council of Laodicea in 363 exhorted that "only the `canonized' books of both Old and New Testaments be read in the church." Yet none of those councils deemed it necessary to list the canonized books, indicating that they were already well-known and accepted by the common consent of Christians indwelt by the Holy Spirit.


Not until the Third Council of Carthage, in A.D. 397, do we have the first conciliar decision on the canon.18 That is rather late if without it Christians didn't know what books were in the New Testament and therefore couldn't use them, as Rome claims today! History proves that the books of the New Testament were known and accepted by Christians and in wide circulation and use at least 300 years before Carthage listed them.


Historian W.H.C. Frend writes: The Gospels and epistles were circulating in Asia, Syria, and Alexandria (less certainly in Rome), and being read and discussed in the Christian synagogues there by about 100.


In Polycarp's short letter there is an astonishing amount of direct and indirect quotation from the New Testament: Matthew, Luke, and John, Acts, the letters to the Galatians, Thessalonians, Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Romans, the Pastorals, 1 Peter particularly, and 1 and 2 John are all used.... The Christian Scriptures were quoted so familiarly as to suggest that they had been in regular use a long time.19


No rabbinical body decided upon the canon of the Old Testament. That canon was recognized by Israel and available as it was being written. Daniel, a captive in Babylon, had a copy of Jeremiah written only a few years earlier and was studying it as Scripture (Daniel 9:2). We are certain that the entire Old Testament was well-known when Christ was here and undoubtedly long before, for every Israelite was required to meditate upon it day and night. God's Word Speaks Directly to All In Old Testament times the common people were expected to know God's Word, not through rabbinical interpretation but for themselves, and were able to know it.


That fact, as well as its availability to all, is very clear from Christ's rebuke of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus: "0 fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken...." (Luke 24:25). He would not have used such harsh language in holding these two ordinary people responsible for their ignorance of prophecies had not all of the Old Testament Scriptures been readily available,familiar, and understandable to the ordinary Jew. He then expounded unto them in all the Scriptures (which must therefore have been known) "the things concerning himself" (Luke 24:25-27).

All of the Scriptures were even available to the faraway Bereans north of Greece, who, as we have seen, "searched the Scriptures daily" (Acts 17:11). The same evidence is found in the fact that Timothy knew the Old Testament from early childhood (2 Timothy 3:15) and that it was taught to him not by the rabbis in the synagogue but at home by his mother and grandmother, who themselves were women of faith (2 Timothy 1:5).

It is certainly clear that no one in Old Testament times looked to any hierarchy for an official interpretation of Scripture. Nor did the early church. Nor should we today. The plain words of the Bible, without Rome's domineering interpretation, give the lie to the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church and the authoritarianism of its clergy.

Priscilla and Aquila were an ordinary husband and wife who labored daily at tentmaking (Acts 18:3). Yet a "church [met] in their house" (1 Corinthians 16:19) and they were capable teachers of God's Word, even instructing a man so eloquent as Apollos (Acts 18:26). Paul referred to them as "my helpers in Christ Jesus" (Romans 16:3).

They had never been to seminary and were not part of a clerical hierarchy (which didn't exist), but they knew God and His Word by the Holy Spirit indwelling them. So should all Christians today. According to Paul, ordinary Christians are to judge whether a preacher is speaking God's truth. Paul submitted his writings to the same criteria, inviting his readers to judge by the Holy Spirit within them whether his epistles were from God or not: "If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 14:37).

It was by the same witness of the Holy Spirit within each individual believer that the first-century church decided which books were canonical. In exactly the same way Christians today recognize the Bible as God's inspired Word.

Very vast knowledge. I'm humbled. God bless you and increase your knowledge. Amen.

Village people is at work

Nodogragra4me:



Don't compare this demonic exercise with the true account of Jesus Christ encounter with Thomas.... Jesus had a nail driven through palms. He showed same to Thomas.....that is not what you have here.... A woman is tormented seasonally by demons here.

Which demon? Are u speaking from your personal experience?