₦airaland Forum

701ecilana:
Hmmm. This is Christianity too? Where in the Scriptures can we see this?

There is no provision for resignation in the bible, infact the Church only allows it because she knows we are weak and doesn't wish to tie someone to an unpleasant situation, as such Church laws apply.


The church is empowered to make such laws as matt 16 & 18 say "whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven whatever you lose on earth is loosed in heaven"


That gives the Church the powers to make rules for order as at when necessary.

Nofuckgiven:
Whatever! He can still marry after all that! Bottom line is he can marry. Goodnight

let me burst your head a little.

Submitting the letter to the bishop doesn't even do anything, the person who can laicize a priest is the pope so until he submit his letter to the Vatican and his case is accepted he is just AWOL. Finally the vatican will not accept your laicazation case if you are not over 40yrs, so fr edet is just AWOL for now , when he wishes to resign he knows what to do.

Nofuckgiven:
Whatever! He can still marry after all that! Bottom line is he can marry. Goodnight

Actually he can't contract a valid marriage as he hasnt been dispensed from celibacy.




Can. 290 Sacred ordination once validly received
never becomes invalid . A cleric , however, loses
the clerical state:
1° by a judgement of a court or an administrative
decree , declaring the ordination invalid ;
2° by the penalty of dismissal lawfully imposed ;
3° by a rescript of the Apostolic See ; this
rescript , however, is granted to deacons only for
grave reasons and to priests only for the gravest
of reasons .
Can. 291 Apart from the cases mentioned in can.
290 , n. 1, the loss of the clerical state does not
carry with it a dispensation from the obligation
of celibacy.

Nofuckgiven:
He can marry if he resigns oga. Read this.
https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/examining-crisis/rome-does-right-resigned-priest

You should have read well and try not to speak too authoritatively about such issues.

After submitting a resignation letter to the bishop he has to submit another to the Vatican and even with that he still isn't free to marry, he has to be separately dispensed from the vows of celibacy by the pope.



This is canon law.





CHAPTER IV : LOSS OF THE CLERICAL STATE
Can. 290 Sacred ordination once validly received
never becomes invalid . A cleric , however, loses
the clerical state:
1° by a judgement of a court or an administrative
decree , declaring the ordination invalid ;
2° by the penalty of dismissal lawfully imposed ;
3° by a rescript of the Apostolic See ; this
rescript , however, is granted to deacons only for
grave reasons and to priests only for the gravest
of reasons .
Can. 291 Apart from the cases mentioned in can.
290 , n. 1, the loss of the clerical state does not
carry with it a dispensation from the obligation of
celibacy , which is granted solely by the Roman
Pontiff .
Can. 292 A cleric who loses the clerical state in
accordance with the law , loses thereby the rights
that are proper to the clerical state and is no
longer bound by any obligations of the clerical
state , without prejudice to can. 291 . He is
prohibited from exercising the power of order ,
without prejudice to can. 976. He is
automatically deprived of all offices and roles
and of any delegated power .
Can. 293 A cleric who has lost the clerical state
cannot be enrolled as a cleric again save by
rescript of the Apostolic See .

Nofuckgiven:
I have known Father Edet to be a good man of God with special anointing in preaching the word of God. He is not the first priest to leave the Catholic church and he won't be the last. Since when is it a crime for a man to resign from priesthood and marry?? As long as he is no longer a priest, he can marry and live his life like any other normal man. As for the dolts saying trash about the Catholic church can you tell me why their population is still the highest even without seeking new members like most Pentecostal churches? Keep hating on the true and first church while chasing 'miracle' churches with pastorpreneurs!

actually he still cant marry submitting a letter of resignation doesn't dispense him from celibacy.

onyenze123:
So are we still growing up?

yes

Wilgrea7:
Ephesians was written by Paul.. nevertheless.. pastor Aio has cleared a misconception.. please refer to his post.. also... the church should have been built on Jesus .. not the apostles..

1. Your Ephesians was written by Paul and it clearly says that the apostles not just paul form the foundation of the Church.

2. Which misconception did pastor Aio clear, I cant fid it.

3. The bible says the apostles are the foundation on which the Church is built and Jesus is the chief conner stone. If you disagree go and argue with eph 2:20, not with me. Sorry.

brocab:
I am sure we could argue this one out as long as it takes.
{1 Corinthians 14:19}Paul said: In a Church, I would rather speak Five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousands words in an unknown tongue.
So I myself-would prefer to speak a language everyone could understand-than speaking a language, no-one can understand.
The 16th century there were no public schools, and literacy wasn't that common, especially among the peasants, the people who could read had been well educated and could read Latin. I remember even in the sixties Latin was used throughout the Catholic Churches.
We must always remember the Jews had kept their bible in Hebrew until the 19th century, and the Jews weren't interested in the Latin Language, everybody who wanted to learn to read the bible-had to learn Hebrew "The Church fought hard to keep the bible written in Latin, even though it could not be understood, by most people of that time.
But thanks, for your hard work Uben-it must have taken you so much of your time-to complete it.

You see him you have contradicted yourself?

1. First you claim the Church kept the bible in Latin to prevent the people from reading it.
Now you admit that anybody who could read at that time, any literate person could read Latin too.

That means anyone who was literate i. E could read was able to read the bible as Latin was the international language of education all over Europe.


2. You also admit the Jews kept their bible in Hebrew, does that mean they were also hiding the bible or are you only biased against the catholic Church who actually made sure the bible was available in the language every educated person knew and read.

[quote author=Ageco post=59089050][/quote]a true Church not only disciplines but as accepts the sinner who repents and wishes to do the right thing.

onyenze123:
Why would a loving God create disasters for his creatures?

The same reason my dad had a cane when we were growing up.

johnw74:
ha ha, yes, Jesus and Peter were talking about Bible haters like u
that is what u do, when u do use Bible scriptures u twist them to say something else

fact is u haven't posted a single Bible verse that supports your satanic doctrines
of mary being prayed to
of mary being divinity
of mary being free from sin nature etc. etc. etc.

Jesus 3:12
If I have told you earthly things, and ye
believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you
of heavenly things?

brocab:
You say according to the Roman Catholicism, Mary sits on the right hand of the Majesty on high.
What is the name of the book this is written-since the Catholic Church claims to be the guardians of the bible, you must be able to support your beliefs, since the Catholic's had added scriptures to the bible-seven books in question-Tobit, Judith, 1&2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecciesiasticus and Baruch, are property called the Deuterocanonical books.
So Uben which book is it written, Mary sits on the right hand of her son?
{2 Maccabees 12} Clearly supports prayers for the dead and the belief in Purgatory.
While the Catholic's make their claims to be the guardians of the bible-it demonstrated its hostility towards God's word-when it added unscriptural books to the Old Testament, namely the Apocrypha.

You seem largely misguided,

1. I never said the words in bold actually, it is the of position johnw74 lied that the pope said those words.


2. I won't be debating bible passages with you Since i am convinced they won't help your deluded dislike of the catholic Church.

3. The catholic Church didn't insert the duetero-canonical books they have been part of the bible since the bible was compiled in the 4th century, it was luther and Co who removed them because it didn't fit their Protestant theories, doctrines and heresy.

johnw74:
carm did not lie, u r just a false accuser, of course

with Jesus sitting on the right hand of the majesty on high,
and with mary sitting on the right hand of Jesus,
they are both sitting on the right hand of the majesty on high

pope gave hebrews as reference, but hebrews doesn't mention mary of the right hand of the majesty on high
or mary on the right hand of Jesus

but post Bible verses to prove carm wrong oh accuser,
post bible verses to prove rcc right

Pope
Jesus "sitteth on the right hand of the majesty
on high" (Hebrews i. b.). Mary sitteth at the
right hand of her Son -
Carm
According to Roman Catholicism: "Mary sits on
the right hand of the majesty on high" (Pope
Pius X, Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum, 14).
Johnw74


They said the same thing.



Oya continue lying.

SalC:
I don't even know what am supposed to say.

https://www.nairaland.com/3962133/patrick-henry-edet-resigns-catholic/1#59076597

am not too surprised some bishops drive their priests not and some priests are very reactive, that is an explosive combination most times

madapcmod:
Why didn't d Catholic hierarchy fight, Fr mbaka, Fr agbonlahor, Fr Ebube muonso, Fr Ede and d rest who have such gifts as well. If he feels he can't obey d church rules, d door is open for him. There is guide and order in d church. The sin of disobedience is frowned at by God and d church.

We wish him God's grace in his new call

this



There is always friction between bishops and priest that isnt new but this action is a reaction taken too far.
You don't ditch the priesthood because your bishop isnt happy with you, you persevere. I guess hardship shows the mettle of a Man.

johnw74:
what lying accusers rc's are dictus, but it's understandable when one consideres who your god is
Jesus sits on the right hand of the majesty on high, and mary sits on the right hand of Jesus,
that being the case then they both sit on the right hand of the majesty on high, but i know u have been blinded:
2Co_4:4  In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

and apart from all your twisting-lying, show from the Bible that mary sits on the right hand of Jesus on the throne of God, come back with that now, u hear

You won't agree your sources lied abi? Are these same.


Pope

Jesus "sitteth on the right hand of the majesty
on high" (Hebrews i. b.). Mary sitteth at the
right hand of her Son -




Carm



According to Roman Catholicism: "Mary sits on
the right hand of the majesty on high" (Pope
Pius X, Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum, 14).

onyenze123:
Then why do we have poverty, diseases, wars, crimes...?

I form the light and create darkness, I bring
prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD,
do all these things



Isaiah 45:7

asuustrike2009:
Was a Catholic

was. That is the operative word.

PastorAIO:
I think what actually happened was that the gospel that Paul taught won out over all the other forms of christianity. Without a doubt there were other christians that contradicted Paul. Many of them included Jesus' actual followers and disciples.

For example, many see the Letter of James as making reference to the teachings of Paul and contradicting them.


2Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?

Galatians 3

22But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror.

James1

You can say that James is attacking Paul's doctrine. Or alternatively you can say that James is attacking other people that have twisted Paul's doctrine to mean that you don't have to buttress Faith with Actions/Works.

17So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
James 2


I don't believe that jive that Paul was the apostle to the gentiles and Peter to the Jews. Did Paul start the church in Rome? When Paul wrote his letter to the Romans was there not already a bubbling church there, and Paul hadn't even smelled Rome talk less of stepping foot in Rome. So someone else already established the Church in Rome.

I think instead the Christianity taught by the apostles won.

donteanz:
Over the years, i've heard the teachings of the bible on how Jesus had taught us on how to live a life that is pleasing unto God. Subsequent studying of the bible had lead me to uncover many things that has been disregarded.
The teachings of apostle Paul were different from that of the messiah and even contradicted some of the teachings and law of prophet Moses. And Jesus during his life time said, "for i have not come to change but to fulfil the law" of Moses.
I would be glad if anyone could help shed more light to this.

Each apostle was a human being addressing a specific point to specific audience, this means that their points may seemingly Lord contradictory even though they arent.

This is why it is important to note that the bible came out from a specific tradition and it makes the most sense in that tradition.

owoleola:
Paul didn't style himself to be an apostle to the gentiles
Acts 9:15King James Version (KJV)

15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

And yet he still taught Jews.


You are falling in the same dichotomy, no apostle taught gentiles alone or Jews alone, and yes that styling apostle of gentiles comes from the letters of Paul.

As the above quote says paul was commission for both Jews and gentiles so were other apostles in matt 28.



And Jesus came and spake unto them,
saying, All power is given unto me in heaven
and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I
am with you always, even unto the end of
the world. Amen.

ITbomb:
Mostly Paul's

But no matter the doctrine, Christ gave us just 2 commandments Matt 22: 37 - 40

Originally, we were just to live with these two commandments and adopt it to our respective cultures and traditions.
The Jewish Christians still went to temple but lived according to the love commandments
The other Christians in the Roman Empire adopted Christ teachings and streamlined with their culture and traditions which included
- setting aside the day they used to worship the Sun God to worship Christ
- incorporating the age long 3 in 1 godhead into Christianity as Father Son and Holy Spirit
- punishment by fire (purgatory) against Jewish punishment by crucifixion and stoning etc
Even the English established the Anglican communion, took away the teachings that where too "Romanic" and replace with the English culture

The problem was, when it got to Africa, instead of our fathers to incorporate the teachings of Christ into our respective cultures and traditions, we abandon everything to accept the Western world/culture version of Christianity and way of life.

Back to your question, I cannot say we are following Paul's teaching in the real sense though it is the foundation but the truth is, we are following the Roman Catholic version of Christianity and doctrines. What most do is to filter out some parts that they don't like for instance praying to Mary or using candles but essentially, it's all the same

why does this sound funny.


Why have you guys divided Jesus and his apostles.?




Now he that planteth and he that watereth
are one: and every man shall receive his
own reward according to his own labour.
For we are labourers together with God: ye
are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
According to the grace of God which is
given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I
have laid the foundation, and another
buildeth thereon. But let every man take
heed how he buildeth thereupon.
For other foundation can no man lay than
that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

1 cor 3

Patheos:
Ube and Co una still dey argue with people wey don make up dia mind what else are you trying to explain to them that have not been explained

I don begin end am. Them no serious.

blackbriar:
where did i affirm that christ had original sin?
please read my post carefully.

he is trying to lie, he doesn't wish to learn so he resort to lying.

An2elect2:
Paul because Paul was the instrument Christ used in reaching the Gentiles and the remnant of Jews who would all be saved by grace.

---

The Law was set aside on the cross. And the covenant of grace established and made effective from then to timeless eternity.

This is such a broad topic though

sorry the apostles not just Paul were the instrument Christ used to reach the gentiles and the remnant Jews.




And Jesus came and spake unto them,
saying, All power is given unto me in heaven
and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I
am with you always, even unto the end of
the world. Amen.

johnw74:
seeing as u don't have understanding i will say it again:
"truly those who pray before statues and paintings etc. etc. etc. are not part of the body of Christ,"

And i repeat, you must have the misguided notion that Christianity began with the iconoclasic Protestants of the 16 century.

brocab:
I wasn't really expecting to agree anyhow-Latin May have common to you Uben-Latin wasn't a popular language around that time, it still isn't today..

Again you are either lying through your anus or totally ignorant.

Latin was the popular european language in medieval times even till the 17century vernacular werent even popular.


Read and be enlightened.


The 16th century and beyond
Though vernacular languages were
gradually growing in prestige, Latin
continued to be an important language
for written communication in Britain
and Europe into the Early Modern
period.
In documentary sources there is no
significant discontinuity in the use of
Latin between 16th century and earlier
periods: through the Tudor era (Henry
VII to Elizabeth I, ob. 1603) Latin
remains the standard language of
official documents, both state (such as
the Close Roll s, the Charter Rolls , and
especially the Patent Rolls ) and
municipal (such as those collected in the
corpus of the British Borough Charters ).




http://www.dmlbs.ox.ac.uk/british-medieval-latin/contexts/the-16th-century-and-beyond



Medieval Latin was the form of Latin used in
the Middle Ages , primarily: as a medium of
scholarly exchange; as the liturgical language
of Chalcedonian Christianity and the Roman
Catholic Church; and as a language of
science, literature, law, and administration.
Despite the clerical origin of many of its
authors, medieval Latin should not be
confused with Ecclesiastical Latin .


Official status
Official
language in De facto in most Christian
states during the Middle
Ages


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Latin



New Latin was, at least in its early days, an
international language used throughout
Catholic and Protestant Europe, as well as in
the colonies of the major European powers.
This area consisted of most of Europe,
including Central Europe and Scandinavia ; its
southern border was the Mediterranean Sea,
with the division more or less corresponding
to the modern eastern borders of Finland , the
Baltic states, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and
Croatia .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Latin#Extent

johnw74:
he supports his position with Bible verses, u cannot

There are people who bible verses don't help.

2pt 3:13


speaking of these things in all of his letters. Some of his comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters to mean something quite different, just as they do with other parts of Scripture. And this will result in their destruction.




Jesus 3:12


If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

An2elect2:
Isn't the "mother church" awesome?

remember bishop fisher, thomas more?


What about these one?





John Almond , priest, 1612
2. Edmund Arrowsmith , Jesuit priest, 1628
3. Ambrose Edward Barlow, Benedictine
priest, 10 September 1641
4. John Boste , priest, 24 July 1594
5. Alexander Briant , Jesuit priest, 1 December
1581
6. Edmund Campion , Jesuit priest, 1
December 1581
7. Margaret Clitherow , laywoman, 25 March
1586
8. Philip Evans , Jesuit priest, 1679
9. Thomas Garnet , Jesuit priest, 1608
10. Edmund Gennings , priest, 1591
11. John Griffith (alias Jones), Franciscan
friar, 1598
12. Richard Gwyn , layman, 1584
13. John Houghton , Prior of the London
Charterhouse, 4 May 1535
14. Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel , layman,
1595
15. John Kemble , priest, 1679
16. Luke Kirby , priest, 30 May 1582
17. Robert Lawrence, Prior of the Beauvale
Charterhouse, 4 May 1535
18. David Lewis , Jesuit priest, 1679
19. Anne Line, laywoman, 1601
20. John Lloyd, priest, 1679
21. Cuthbert Mayne, priest, 1577
22. Henry Morse, Jesuit priest, 1645
23. Nicholas Owen, Jesuit lay-brother, 1606
24. John Payne, priest, 1582
25. Polydore Plasden, priest, 1591
26. John Plessington , priest, 1679
27. Richard Reynolds , Brigittine monk of Syon
Abbey, 4 May 1535 [7]
28. John Rigby , layman, 1600
29. John Roberts, Benedictine priest, 1610
30. Alban Bartholomew Roe, Benedictine
priest, 1642
31. Ralph Sherwin, priest, 1 December 1581
32. John Southworth , priest, 1654
33. Robert Southwell, Jesuit priest, 1595
34. John Stone , Augustinian friar
35. John Wall, Franciscan priest, 1679
36. Henry Walpole , Jesuit priest, 1595
37. Margaret Ward , laywoman, 1588
38. Augustine Webster , Prior of the Axholme
Charterhouse, 4 May 1535
39. Swithin Wells, layman, 1591
40. Eustace White, priest, 159




I GUESS THE PROTESTANT ARE ALSO MURDEROUS.

Wilgrea7:
Christianity is mainly built around Paul.. because the words of Paul serve as an “interpretation" of the words of Jesus

I couldn't disagree more.


Eph 2:20

Together, we are his house, built on the
foundation of the apostles and the prophets.
And the cornerstone is Christ Jesus himself.


The Church in particular and Christianity in general is built collectively on the apostles not just paul , the words of each apostle serve as interpretation for the words of Jesus.

onyenze123:
Answer this question sincerely:
Does God interfere in the affairs of men?

yes

Amberon11:
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men , the Man Christ Jesus ,

I won't even go back and forth, that verse is clear enough.

You claimed there is only one intercessor, that verse is talking about Mediator, so you see you are wrong, you should have pasted the context.




1 Timothy 2

    
1 Timothy 2 King James Version (KJV)


I exhort therefore, that, first of all,
supplications, prayers, intercessions, and
giving of thanks, be made for all men;
For kings, and for all that are in authority;
that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life
in all godliness and honesty.
For this is good and acceptable in the
sight of God our Saviour;
Who will have all men to be saved, and to
come unto the knowledge of the truth.




That is the context of the passage and it clear say all christian should offer intercession for it is acceptable and pleasing to God. That means every christian is a intercessor.


Next time please read the bible in context.