₦airaland Forum

Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy; hail, our life, our sweetness and our hope. To you we cry, poor banished children of Eve, to you we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn then, O most gracious advocate, your eyes of mercy towards us, and after this our exile, show us the blessed fruit of your womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary

italo: 2 Cor 1:5, 6 For just as the sufferings of Christ are abundant for us, so also our consolation is abundant through Christ. 6 If we are being afflicted, it is for your consolation and SALVATION.

Try harder!

He needs more people to help him do the twisting

JMAN05: oga I said 'not talking "to"'. I dont want to be teaching people english here pls.

Abeg go sleep.. How do you mention someone and don't refer to him

I'd teach you contextual english instead

JMAN05: Two of them can decide whether any one is to make a submission. as for me, this is not what I had in mind when I formed the thread. I formed it with a view to being an active participant before Italo started his trick.

The bold is true, and I know that Italo is more guilty of this just to prove his point. the italized bold says it all

And then..

JMAN05: Anyone honesthearted person should go to page one to see whether I didnt give answer to his history, logic and reason. Oga I was not even talking to you in that comment. Just face your katata and stop complaining. When you are serious, I will know.

https://www.nairaland.com/1522201/defend-catholic-teachings-here/1

How__to_catch_a_ christian liar 101

John 15:13
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

^^^

I hope the day comes we understand Grace in it's totality.

JMAN05: @adsonstone

Anywhere italo see that name "adsonstone", even if na for dream, he go shout "holy mary pls heeeeeeeelp!". the guy don hear am!

I hope you don't have problem with comprehension?

adsonstone: oh! You forgot mediators and redeemers of mankind too.

....and are you changing your disprove (argue against)?

You were the one that said people here are trying to use personal traditions to argue against the bible.

Indeed, you are entangled in your own speech...

Some of your protestant preachers got confused by how paul preached the Gospel, they thought he preached the opposite of christ's preaching. But no, paul's Gospel was a hard complement of what christ's teaching were..abi you want to be the next luther and remove paul's words from the Bible?

You don't want me to start, italo already schooled you on what the church revealed. That's my position, that's italo's position, that's the Church's position.. Open your heart bro

John 10:34
Jesus answered "it is written in your own law that God said, 'you are gods.'

adsonstone: make your statement valid by providing showing the traditions used to dis prove/reveal the bible.

Try69 = italo = The Holy Catholic Church

Co-workers



2 Thes 2:15
Hold to the traditions which were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Good morning brethren!

*Edited*
The same people who want to see everything verbatim in the Bible are the same people now using their own traditions to argue against the same Bible..

1 Corinthians 12:21
“The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I do not need you,’ nor again the head to the feet, ‘I do not need you.’”

Even the Word of God were not directly written by God. He used people

Did I baptise myself?

Does God help me through others?

Should I just assume that my way of interpreting the Bible is God’s way, or should I seek out to discover what He has revealed?

Job 42:7-9
“ … the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite,  ‘I am angry with you and with your two friends; for you have not spoken rightly concerning me, as has my servant Job.  Now, therefore, take seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up a holocaust for yourselves; and let my servant Job pray for you; for his prayer I will accept, not to punish you severely. For you have not spoken rightly concerning me, as has my servant Job.’  Then Eliphaz the Temanite, and Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite, went and did as the LORD had commanded them. And the LORD accepted the intercession of Job.” 

Jude 1:10-11
Living Bible (TLB)
10 But these men mock and curse at anything they do not understand, and like animals, they do whatever they feel like, thereby ruining their souls.
11 Woe upon them! For they follow the example of Cain who killed his brother; and like Balaam, they will do anything for money; and like Korah, they have disobeyed God and will die under his curse.

"Satan, the god of all dissension, stirreth up daily new sects, and last of all, which of all other I should never have forseen or once suspected, he has raised up a sect such as teach… that men should not be terrified by the Law, but gently exhorted by the preaching of the grace of Christ." - Martin Luther

To be deep in history is to seize to be a protestant - Card john henry neuman

There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church.  ....As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do - Arch. Fulton sheen

There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church.  ....As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do - Arch. Fulton sheen

debbleopto: John 2:4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

If they didn't know this john, they would have concluded that he is jesus's brother... Lol

Shebi una say mary get other sons, why then did christ give her to john?

Matt 16:17-19
Good for you, simon son of john!" Answered jesus. "For this truth did not come to you from any human being, but it was given to you directly by my Father in heaven. And so I tell you , Peter: you are a rock, and on this rock foundation I will build my church , and not even death will ever be able to overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; what you prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven, and what you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven

There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church.  ....As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do - Arch. Fulton sheen

The Catholic church they later decided to name "Roman Catholic" so they too can be called catholics.

1 Tim 3:15
But if I delay, this letter will let you know how we should conduct ourselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth

Debates didn't mean dis-member.. They would always be agreement under the guidiance of the Holy spirit.. The major heresy of those times were the arian that tried to change the sacred teaching of Jesus as God.

The church cannot be said to be One and it teaches differently.. The writings of the early church fathers confirms the teaching of the One holy church of God.

With my first post on this warm thread I say "Good morning beloved".

The Four marks of the church

1, The church is ONE
2, The church is HOLY
3, The church is CATHOLIC
4, The church is APOSTLIC

If the Eastern christians were right about not having One head of bishops, why is constatinopole seen as the head patriarch of the Eastern church?

We are all christians but the truth remains that the Roman catholic church is the Catholic church of God.

Pointing at mistakes made by a few popes will not cease the Holy spirit from remaining with the holy church of christ. Even peter was corrected by paul, paul didn't move away from the body with followers because it would have been the wrong move.

For me luther made things worse.. You don't disown your father in trying to correct your family member.

IMO, these are the reasons we have different spirits.

What we should now learn as xtians is to tolerate one another and stop fighting what we do not understand so we do not look like jokes to non-christians. The commandments of christ is summed up to Two; Love of God and Love of neighbour.

Boomark: We hate lies. And if your teacher corrects you, accept it and stop shouting hatred here and there.

If Mary is the mother of God, who then is the father of God? Answer.

Choi

So Just to stop people from honouring the mother of jesus, you want to question God's existence? Lol

After you would have explained the mystery of God's existence, I will answer your question.

Or rather prove my logic above wrong.. I'm waiting

Pure hatred for the Holy mother of jesus [God] can make people stop thinking.. I wonder what they want.. We can never discard the Holy mother of the sacred lamb, no matter how you try.. Simple inference can leave you with why the church titled her(mary) "QUEEN OF HEAVEN" by sacred tradition..

Is mary, the mother of jesus? = YES

Is Jesus, king of heaven? = YES

Is mary in heaven? = YES

As mother of Jesus, king of heaven, is mary queen of heaven? = YES!

Simple as ABC..

Abi una wan stop Jesus kingship

Stop this hatred!

The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due. 

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18). 

 

Vatican II’s Explanation

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25). 

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter." 

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . ", Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail", and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ". 

 

Based on Christ’s Mandate

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might. 

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10). 

 

Some Clarifications

An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics. 

Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church. 

At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with "Bible Christians." For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect. 

Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.) 

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching. 

Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope. 

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position. 

 

Peter Not Infallible?

As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Fundamentalists like to point to Peter’s conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11–16). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals. 

Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:12–13). The problem was that he wasn’t living up to his own teaching. Thus, in this instance, Peter was not doing any teaching; much less was he solemnly defining a matter of faith or morals. 

Fundamentalists must also acknowledge that Peter did have some kind of infallibility—they cannot deny that he wrote two infallible epistles of the New Testament while under protection against writing error. So, if his behavior at Antioch was not incompatible with this kind of infallibility, neither is bad behavior contrary to papal infallibility in general. 

Turning to history, critics of the Church cite certain "errors of the popes." Their argument is really reduced to three cases, those of Popes Liberius, Vigilius, and Honorius, the three cases to which all opponents of papal infallibility turn; because they are the only cases that do not collapse as soon as they are mentioned. There is no point in giving the details here—any good history of the Church will supply the facts—but it is enough to note that none of the cases meet the requirements outlined by the description of papal infallibility given at Vatican I (cf. Pastor Aeternus 4). 

 

Their "Favorite Case"

According to Fundamentalist commentators, their best case lies with Pope Honorius. They say he specifically taught Monothelitism, a heresy that held that Christ had only one will (a divine one), not two wills (a divine one and a human one) as all orthodox Christians hold. 

But that’s not at all what Honorius did. Even a quick review of the records shows he simply decided not to make a decision at all. As Ronald Knox explained, "To the best of his human wisdom, he thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an inopportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine." 

Knox wrote to Arnold Lunn (a future convert who would become a great apologist for the faith—their correspondence is found in the book Difficulties): "Has it ever occurred to you how few are the alleged ‘failures of infallibility’? I mean, if somebody propounded in your presence the thesis that all the kings of England have been impeccable, you would not find yourself murmuring, ‘Oh, well, people said rather unpleasant things about Jane Shore . . . and the best historians seem to think that Charles II spent too much of his time with Nell Gwynn.’ Here have these popes been, fulminating anathema after anathema for centuries—certain in all human probability to contradict themselves or one another over again. Instead of which you get this measly crop of two or three alleged failures!" While Knox’s observation does not establish the truth of papal infallibility, it does show that the historical argument against infallibility is weak. 

The rejection of papal infallibility by "Bible Christians" stems from their view of the Church. They do not think Christ established a visible Church, which means they do not believe in a hierarchy of bishops headed by the pope. 

This is no place to give an elaborate demonstration of the establishment of a visible Church. But it is simple enough to point out that the New Testament shows the apostles setting up, after their Master’s instructions, a visible organization, and that every Christian writer in the early centuries—in fact, nearly all Christians until the Reformation—fully recognized that Christ set up an ongoing organization. 

One example of this ancient belief comes to us from Ignatius of Antioch. In his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, "Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]). 

If Christ did set up such an organization, he must have provided for its continuation, for its easy identification (that is, it had to be visible so it could be found), and, since he would be gone from earth, for some method by which it could preserve his teachings intact. 

All this was accomplished through the apostolic succession of bishops, and the preservation of the Christian message, in its fullness, was guaranteed through the gift of infallibility, of the Church as a whole, but mainly through its Christ-appointed leaders, the bishops (as a whole) and the pope (as an individual). 

It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself. If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation. 

Of course, infallibility does not include a guarantee that any particular pope won’t "neglect" to teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that mere disciplinary decisions will be intelligently made. It would be nice if he were omniscient or impeccable, but his not being so will fail to bring about the destruction of the Church. 

But he must be able to teach rightly, since instruction for the sake of salvation is a primary function of the Church. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. And that’s why papal infallibility exists. 

Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16). 

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

Mr iBU

Time up!

*clicks ignore button*

And then quotes a comedian and/turned politician..

Enigma: If the Orthodox Church did not exist during the "canonisation" of the "Bible", the Roman Catholic Church did not exist during the canonisation either.

In any event, at the end of the century and during the time when the books of the Bible were initially compiled and the canon was being set by tradition, there was no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church. There was even no such thing as "the Catholic Church".

Oh, and if the Orthodox made their canon in "1672", the Roman Catholic Church made it own canon in 1546 without even being able to secure a proper majority.

Simples.

People will not understand why you are ignored. Every comical post anti-catholic is acceptable to them

Why are people not interested in what happened to the church after Acts 28:30?
Did historical progress of the Christian Church end abruptly there and then? Absolutely not!
Show me a period in Church history where the events of the time were not recorded by historians and scribes?

John henry newman once said "To be deep in history is to cease to be a protestant".

Acidosis, how market?

So much for reformation.

Do you disown your father to correct him?

vickyO: 1)If you say I'm empty when I say prove your doctrine, it shows what Christian you are.(you don't study the Bible)

2)Should I tell you some catholic stuff I think is cool? Making sure the Pope doesn't leave with anything the church gave him while he ruled, holding unto doctrines in oneness, and a little others.

3)Some Pentecostal beliefs are far fetched and you should have seen posts scrutinizing some of them on nairaland and I speak on them too.

4)The thread states the faults in some of your doctrines and I concurred with them. all you guys have to do is show us where and where in the scriptures that supports the doctrines listed not sprouting unnecessary talks and insults.

5)And no one calls fire to burn Catholics, well, none that I know of.

6)Ok, in the Gospels, Jesus told us to test every prophet and doctrines they teach by their fruits. do you know the Greek and Roman Catholics martyred thousands of Christians the doctrine of praying to Mary makes you not to look only to Jesus as required of us by Christ himself. the prayers to the saints also. You make idols, which is forbidden. The truth is out there/here, blowing in the wind, dancing in the pages of the scriptures, the earlier you digest it, the better.

See! Madam vicky, nobody asks you to validate any catholic teaching.. The points I have given you should be enough for you to keep quiet and go back to study.. ABI you want another shocker? Ok take.. "The christians before luther all venerate Mary" Suprised again? Or you want to know why? Ok

#we all are born with sin that's why we need to be baptised
#adam and eve where the first people without sin
#Satan brought sin to the world through Eve in the forbidden fruit
#God brought salvation for mankind from sin through Mary in the fruit she bore

The church which is the pillar of truth as stated in the bible taught those and it is quite logical..Who then is one voiceless vicky somewhere in a particular country called Nigeria to disprove it and without any reasonable inference?

That you cannot contest any of my points tells me a lot about you.. We encounter your likes everyday.. Baseless points! I have shown you what you do that are not in the bible, I have shown you that not the bible alone is the word of God. What then are you trying to prove?

GO AND LEARN! My time with you is up..I'd say nothing no more