₦airaland Forum

boogie2:
But you know these are all lies. You must be one of the agberos Oshiomole empowered after rigging elections. The educated elites of Edo state love Obaseki. Obaseki is the most educated governor Nigeria has. He can easily express his vision and mission without reading a prepared script. Intellectually oshiomole is a big dunce compared to obaseki. If oshiomole was a sincere person he has enough on his plate as apc national Chairman. Or can he say all is well with the party. Oshiomole is the type that need power for power sake.

lol

We have had a PhD president who flopped. Obaseki has done nothing outside Benin, his vision is on paper and maybe when he is through with 1st term we will now start comparing

lexy2014:
This was d same oshiomole that was shouting no more godfatherism in Edo state in reference to Anenih.

how is oshiomole a godfather in EDO when t
He gave obaseki the party structure?

lexy2014:
His loyalty is 2d people of Edo state first& foremost b4 any other person or persons. Except u don't know, Obaseki is following d precedent set by Oshiomole who "abolished" godfatherism in Edo state. So obaseki isn't accountable to any godfather cos d practice has been abolished in Edo state. If buhari & oshiomole get insulted by other Nigerians, then u should ask urself why. That's how people learn

no body is asking him to bow down to godfathers, he should learn to do things properly

srclark:
Oshiomole should let this man be .I hate people that can’t taken a portion of their own pill .who questioned Oshiomole when he was the governor and passing budget with 9 members , who questioned him when he removed the speaker then, who questioned him when he removed the roof of the house of assembly and meetings where done in government house .Baba should go and sit somewhere .Baba own don too much

did oshiomole lock out the other lawmakers or hold sessions at night? Ofcourse you can pass anything once you have a quorum. The case here is he refused to inaugurate lawmakers who are not his fraction, that is not right, he could have influenced it, even change the sitting but you have to proclaim a house publicly not in secret. Even oshiomole who had a lot of pdp lawmakers made well to Inaugurate them properly.

buharitill2023:
in terms of infrastructure, obaseki is working in Benin metropolis, but he must be remove for his disloyalty and betrayal. I hate people like obaseki that always betray right from his forefathers.

this is exactly what Agho Obaseki did to the Oba and became regent in Benin.

LLMG:
Keep lying to yourself.

he is actually saying the truth. I was in EDO north recently, not a single new project. it seems the wake and see stopped In Benin

JuanDeDios:
I always knew someone would soon start ethnicising the issue to divide Edo State. How is this an Edo South issue? You must think you're more Bini than the Oba who is working for an amicbale resolution.

don't mind them so people will always be tribalistic

gaskiyamagana:
There is nothing new in the political tussle between the two. Always, the political godfathers often over step their boundaries.

the wahala here is that oshiomole didn't even overstep.

The real issues is between obaseki and 80% of the APC structure in Benin, they wanted him gone and have been trying to lobby oshiomole to their side. Oshiomole actually refused to wade into the petty issue because he was already national chairman and he gave obaseki freedom over Benin politics.

Obaseki finally spoilt the whole thing by refusing to inaugurate lawmakers that are not of his faction, this is finally what has clicked for them and they know that oshiomole must answer this issue because of his position as party chairman.

You will notice how Oba kindly removed himself from the matter

Why is this one always crying.

Federal nomination is not part of your job, you may have an input but it is mainly a party matter. I don't know why you are crying about this

Dafemich:
yeah. He is not human, but have all the attributes of human and even more.

or rather, he has the attributes of God and we humans share in some of those attributes because we are made in his likeness

Hungry4sex:
It is it true that angry people are sad people?
I'm someone who rarely gets angry at anyone or anything , overtime this has metamorphosed into apathy to the point where I condone crimes done in my presence. I guess I've noticed that my friends who are always angry do not forgive ever. I don't want to that way, is there anything I can do? I've never done this before so I might be incoherent at times

I am also never angry in person, I had to learn how to express displeasure about something I don't like even though in my heart I'm not angry about it.

I also interpret issues with charity which means I am moved to imagine that people have the best of intentions for doing whatever they do, I hold this excuse until it is unreasonable to do so. I don't know their hearts so I'm unwilling to judge.

But I judge myself harshly and I don't condone sin in my soul and I don't excuse it and I will walk in God to extinguish it.

But charity is two fold, it prevents you from immature judgement but also spur you to challenge your friends who you know are in the wrong. A man who is silent before evil is also guilty of evil.

I know of only two way to build yourself up in these things.
1. Prayer
2. Read the Bible.

How is your prayer life? Are you conversant and convinCed in the word?

Apination:
I don't know where you got that idea of Anglicans not believing in the Eucharist from or unable to offer the sacrifice of the mass when they believe in the real presence and offer up the body and blood. This is just to correct impressions not for the sake of arguments

you believe in a real presence but deny that the mass is a sacrifice.

This is clear in the article of religion

Article XXXI. "Of the one oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.

The offering of Christ once made is the perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual, and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said that the priests did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits."

Apination:
We would go back and forth on this argument without getting to a conclusion, please let it rest.

these are issues that can be verified, no need to go back and forth.

Did all patriach not have representatives at the council of Florence?
Did the king not take over the church of England over the issue of divorce?
Did the theology of the church not change after that?
Did you guys not abolish the belief of sacrifice in the mass?
Did king Edward not change the rite to enforce that change in belief?

...

The funny thing is that I didn't want to go into this issue at first but you decided to mention the Orthodox church and the Coptic church as though I am a child who doesn't know his history... So I decided to give you the same hand you dealt me. The Catholic Church didn't begin yesterday and our relationship to the Anglicans isn't some new issue.

ObinnaT:
...and Ubenedictus. Kai.

what I Do?

Hungry4sex:
Can you please answer questions on morality and the nature of evil and wickedness.

You can begin.
If I don't have the answers at hand I'll help you search.

aloeman15:
hm
na wa for u o.
must u argue?
u completely missed d guy's sophistry when he tried to claim Anglican pastors are the same as Catholic priests!
a king- in his carnal desire to divorce his wife and marry a younger model- declares his kingdom as separated from the Catholic body; but somehow d 'priests' who chose to obey his orders still have the same anointing as the hundreds who were killed for their refusal?!
shuo!
isok.
therefore-
all the many heretics in d new testament are still Christians.
abi, oga apination?

lol
He is trying to leverage the fact that holy orders leave a mark on the soul. And so the anointing doesn't really die.

The end point is that his church fell and the English kings took over and martyred all the faithful Christians who didn't agree with him.

Hungry4sex:
I hope it's not just a sign that I'm depressed, because I feel as if there is so much regrets in my life right now. I'm a Catholic and I need someone to ask about Catholic doctrines and principles. I'm ready to change I just don't know how.

I am a Catholic.
I'll be as on NL for a week.
What do you need?


...syncan

HappyPagan:
God willing, Insha Allah, JESUSJNR won't make it to 2020. To God be the glory. Ramen.

lol
He will Create a new moniker

Apination:
It's incorrect and a lie to say most of the eastern bishops were Arians when the person in question was but a priest. The trinitarianism, or homoousianism viewpoint, was promulgated by Athanasius of Alexandria, who insisted that Homoousianism theology was both the true nature of God and the teaching of Jesus and mind you Alexandria is orthodox.

actually Arius was a priest and his teaching was rejected by the council of Nicaea. after that council the Eastern church fell back to the same heresy.

Athanasuis was deposed from Alexandria and sent on exile are you not aware? It was the church of Rome that upheld him. Arius the heretic was accepted by the eastern synod that met in tyre and in Jerusalem. Between 330 and 360 atleast 14 different eastern synod accepted some form of Arianism. An antiochene councils in 341 condemned athanasuis again. This same matter caused divisions in the council of sardica where the eastern bishops were majority in heresy.
It was Rome that upheld Alexandria and Athanasuis until the matter was put to bed in the first council of Constantinople.

Arguing about the filioque clause is futile because it was never there in the initial agreement as signed in the Nicene council. And saying all the church fathers are unanimous in teaching is an error and you only mentioned a few names and tagged them church fathers., Who's a church father? What makes one to be called so?

only a Anglican will claim to Have Apostolic succession and still ask who is a church father? Come-on you guys should decide already are you part of the ancient churches or are you a protestant because no orthodox or oriental Christian will be so ignorant as to ask who is a church father, like seriously? And the names I called is just a sample, giving you the timeline from the disciples of the apostles till the 8 century. If you want names I'll happily provide them.

The council of Florence was a Roman council not an ecumenical council consisting of the entire church so whatever they decided applied only to Rome. And mind you any council after 1054 is for a particular jurisdiction and does not affect the entire church.

I have already rebutted this. The council of Florence had both east and west represented with the patriach of Constantinople present and all others sent delegation. so it wasn't regional.

Saying rites are based on apostolic tradition is rhombus, did they use oil of chrism on Mathias as is used today? Rites were introduced in time and even till today there are still new additions such as the formula used at mass, with the priest backing the people back then in the tridentine mass but facing the people in the post Vatican 2 mass.

in rites there are developments but the basic rituals are according to how that particular people were led in worship by the apostles. If you read the liturgy of Rome as witnessed by St Justin martyr in the 2nd century and match it with that of today you will arrive at the same thing. Even though specific things are changing, if you look up to liturgy of St Basil in the 5th century and that used in the east you will come out looking at the same thing. Specific things are added, some modified, others adapted but the liturgies are significantly same.

Apostolic succession is the clause for Holy orders and not a part of it for its what makes it valid. The third clause is not just about intention but that of the minister who does what the church does. The Anglican communion does not fall within the Roman canon and is a church not subjected to the Roman canon and cannot be subject to it. Just as the Romans came up with their own idea of theology so does the Anglican church have it's own and we can only look into the Bible for guidance not the Theological opinions of those you call church fathers.

when the entire churches with lines to the apostles ordain priest they ordain them to offer sacrifice and forgive sins in Jesus' name, your church has no sacrifice to offer nor are your priest into sin forgiveness, so whatever was conferred on them is not the same because your church never intended it to be the same and you changed the words during the time of Edward to emphasize that they are not receiving such ministries. They dont have the ministry of priest they certainly don't have the Apostolic succession that goes with it.

Well nowhere does the Bible allow a king to be head in the new testament church, that alone is a minus against Anglicanism.

Just for your information, the Pope of Rome is also known in matters of immediate patriarchal jurisdiction as patriach of the west which means the church of England from ancient times is part and parcel of the church of Rome and subject to the Roman synod and Pope.

Do you get it now, how your church entered schism and then heresy by placing itself under a king.

Aurielfinizu:
i visited the church one day, after mass i was hailing one of the chorister cos they sang well that sunday with all those ancient hymns

he jokingly dragged me to their general meeting which they always welcome new members

lol
That's funny.

Didn't you find the worship strange and different? Or your former church was liturgical?

Apination:
Some bishops from the east and not the eastern church in entirety. What comprises of the Eastern church? How does Arius and his group represent the entire Eastern church? We could go back and forth with this argument but I would advise you read unbiased articles and writeup on these issues and not just what the Roman church puts out there, which would always be in it's favour. Please no need responding cos we can have this argument all year long and there would be no headway.

The total number of people who came from the east in the council of Florence were 700, they included Joasaph, the Patriarch of Constantinople; Antonius, the Metropolitan of Heraclea; Gregory Hamma, the Protosyncellus of Constantinople (the last two representing the Patriarch of Alexandria); Marcus Eugenicus of Ephesus; Isidore of Kiev (representing the Patriarch of Antioch); Dionysius, Bishop of Sardes (representing the Patriarch of Jerusalem); Bessarion, Archbishop of Nicaea; Balsamon, the chief chartophylax; Syropulos, the chief ecclesiarch, and the Bishops of Monembasia, Lacedaemon, and Anchielo.


So the head of the eastern synod, in the person of the patriach of Constantinople was there, the patriach of Antioch sent a representative, the patriach of Alexandria also sent a representative, the patriach of Jerusalem also sent a representative and the Pope of Rome equally sent a representative.

What more do you want? All the five patriach sent except that of Constantinople who was present in person sent representative. The 4 patriach of the eastern church were there.

Apination:
It's incorrect and a lie to say most of the eastern bishops were Arians when the person in question was but a priest. The trinitarianism, or homoousianism viewpoint, was promulgated by Athanasius of Alexandria, who insisted that Homoousianism theology was both the true nature of God and the teaching of Jesus and mind you Alexandria is orthodox.

so you don't know that after the council of Nicea, the eastern church still fell back into arianism.

Arguing about the filioque clause is futile because it was never there in the initial agreement as signed in the Nicene council. And saying all the church fathers are unanimous in teaching is an error and you only mentioned a few names and tagged them church fathers., Who's a church father? What makes one to be called so?

lol
So you don't know that even after Nicea several things were added to the creed.

Come-on do some research

The council of Florence was a Roman council not an ecumenical council consisting of the entire church so whatever they decided applied only to Rome. And mind you any council after 1054 is for a particular jurisdiction and does not affect the entire church.

the council of Florence comprised of the entire church both east and west.
Read some books, the east agreed during the council and rejected it later.

Saying rites are based on apostolic tradition is rhombus, did they use oil of chrism on Mathias as is used today? Rites were introduced in time and even till today there are still new additions such as the formula used at mass, with the priest backing the people back then in the tridentine mass but facing the people in the post Vatican 2 mass.

Apostolic succession is the clause for Holy orders and not a part of it for its what makes it valid. The third clause is not just about intention but that of the minister who does what the church does. The Anglican communion does not fall within the Roman canon and is a church not subjected to the Roman canon and cannot be subject to it. Just as the Romans came up with their own idea of theology so does the Anglican church have it's own and we can only look into the Bible for guidance not the Theological opinions of those you call church fathers.

johnydon22:
You are talking to someone who was half way to becoming a Catholic Priest Ubenedictus

besides many Catholic priest have never been to a tradentine mass, fewer aspirants know what it is.
That should test your acceptance of liturgy

johnydon22:
You are talking to someone who was half way to becoming a Catholic Priest Ubenedictus

lol.

We were all there at some point.

What changed your mind?


That is funny to me... Because the Catholic faith has one of the most solid philosophical traditions. Everything probably by reason.
It is almost impossible for me to go close to atheism because I know of God both by reason, as far as reason can go and by the experience of his movements in the depths of my soul. I can't deny what I know with such certainly anymore than I can deny love.

Apination:
I no just get power to type but the bolded got me laughing, like seriously! Apostolic succession started with the laying on of hands on Mathias by the apostles and not determined by whether the mass is bloodless or blood full. Moreover, there was nothing of that nature in belief about a bloodless or whatever at the time of the apostles, they are simply Theological opinions adopted by the Roman church

then you still don't get it.

First of all, sacraments have 3 important component from Apostolic time. They now have technical terms, form, matter and intention.

Laying hands on somebody doesn't necessarily confer upon him Apostolic succession. In fact I received a laying of hands during my confirmation, it increased in my soul the outpouring of the spirit but it didn't confer upon me any Apostolic succession because, the intention and the words used are all about confirmation.
The apostles did confer on Matthias Apostolic succession, they both intended to make him all that Jesus has made them and allow him a share in all the ministries that has been given to them.
What are the ministries giving to them?
Chief among them are Eucharist and the power to absolve sins.
The Eucharist is a sacrifice because Jesus Christ himself said "my body given for you, my blood shed for you" that is a sacrifice. And all the church fathers are unanimous in that teaching.

When you guys Anglicans, adopted the heresies of Calvin and Co, you started to doubt the power to forgive sin and the Eucharist as sacrifice.
If your Eucharist is not a sacrifice and your priest can't absolve sins, then what they are celebrating is not the true Eucharist that the entire church celebrate, if your priest are not ordained to offer sacrifice and absolve sins then they are not priests.

If your bishops decided to "ordain" people who can't offer a sacrificial liturgy and absolve sins, then they certainly did not really ordain priest.

When priest were ordained in the Catholic Church in England they were ordained as priests and just like the orthodox, with power to offer a sacrificing priesthood and absolve sin, that is exactly what a Catholic priest does. When Anglicans broke away they started to ordain people who can't offer sacrifice, those are not priests... They certainly didn't receive the power of the priesthood because the bishops never INTENDED to confer on them all that the Catholic Church confers in her ordination.

These issues are held by the entire Catholic Church as regards the priesthood, including the orthodox... You guys have fallen into heresy that has affected the intent of the sacrament.

Which of the church fathers are you referring to? Which of the council's was convened to determine or make the patriarch of Rome head of all Catholic bodies? If what you say is true, what brought about the schism? Rites are not divine laws, they are man made. Apostolic succession is not dependent on Roman Catholic theology, it's biblical.

I am referring to the entire corpus called the church fathers, from iraneus of Lyon, Ignatius of Antioch who were disciples of the apostles, down to St maximus in the 9th century. All acknowledge the headship of Rome.

Actually the council of Constantinople that elevated the Bishop of Constantinople into a patriarch pretty much shows that Rome has primacy without any arguments.

The schism were caused first and foremost by heresy, in the 4th century when most of the Eastern Bishop were Arians, that immediately caused a schism until they rejected their heresy and we're accepted back by Rome, the patriarch of Alexandria and the Church of Armenia were excommunicated in the council of chalcedon. This one between the Eastern church and the west isn't the first time schism has happened. Whenever the Eastern church falls into heresy it always results in schism until they repent and the Church of Rome accepts them back.
The last and current schism is based upon the doctrine of the Filioque, which the eastern church rejected using the teaching of Photius, ....that issue along with political issues caused the delegates sent to Constantinople to issue excommunication which became mutual.

That didn't finalise the schism though, in the council of Florence the Eastern church agreed that the fathers taught the filioque but they went back and changed their minds again so that the anathema of the council took over. That was cemented by the disastrous war of the Crusades against Constantinople.
The issue about primacy was hardly an issue, in fact it came up in the council of Florence and there was hardly argument.

Rites are based upon Apostolic tradition, that is why all rites express the INTENT of the sacraments, something the Edward rite failed in.

Apostolic succession is part and parcel of the sacrament of Holy orders AKA ordination. And all sacraments are bestowed upon the church to be celebrated for the community, he who does not receive orders validly, didn't receive succession.


I hope by now you realize that these issues are stuff I am familiar with, both in church history and ecclesiology.

Aurielfinizu:
from being a chorister there, then i joined...

really?

How did you join the choir?

Apination:
This only highlights my earlier statement, you don't know what you are talking about. Saying every Catholic body is under the patriarch of Rome is nonsense, your knowledge of the church is incorrect and does not reflect the existing reality. The Catholic church did not begin in Rome so clear that idea of a Roman leadership of the Catholic church from your head because Rome is but one of five major patriarchate in the Catholic church with the Pope being only the patriarch of Rome.

It is you who seem ignorant of ecclesiology and church history. 23 sui iriis churches are in communion with and under the leadership of the Pope of Rome.
The Catholic Church began in Jerusalem, it as all the church fathers agree, headship of the Apostolic college was bestowed upon the apostle Peter in Matt 16:18. All the church fathers also agree that the apostle Peter died in Rome. In fact there are 3 original patriarch according to the council of Nicea and they are all petrine see. That is Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. Of these 3 the church fathers are unanimous that Rome has the headship in the church as the church where both Peter and Paul died, so rome is the church of Primacy in the world.

When the council of Constantinople made it 5 patriarch and added Jerusalem and Constantinople among the patriarchs of the church, Rome was still the leader of the 5 patriarch. Rome always had the primacy over the church.
Unless it is you who is ignorant of church history and primacy in the early church.

What do you even know about Catholicism? Do you know why Catholic bodies, call themselves Catholic? Your last point about Eastern orthodox rejecting Anglican baptism is the height of hubris. There are three conditions for ones baptism to be accepted and the Anglican church still uses the same formula for baptism like any other Catholic body, so why would their baptism be rejected? Mind you, the same priests and bishops validly ordained before king Henry broke ties with Rome are the same people who validly ordained others and passed on that valid line of ordination till this day that we have in the Anglican church with the same sacraments and that's why I earlier said the Anglican church is still Catholic in nature.

lol.

Sometimes Orthodox church also reject Catholic baptism even if the form, the intention and the matter is adhered to. It depends on the particular orthodox Bishop of the place and his theological bent. Some moderate bishops will accept such baptism.
Others actually will reject baptism done by pouring and sprinkling as uncanonical if there is no emergency.
Other group considers all sacrament received outside the orthodox church as invalid and will only ractify such sacraments in particular cases
Take a look at these
In this diocese baptism by pouring is absolutely forbidden and won't be recognized except for emergency
http://www.saintmarysoca.org/baptism-in-the-orthodox-church.html

This is another one condemning all baptism outside the orthodox church including those some patriarchs has recognized
http://orthochristian.com/80888.html
The Triple Immersion in Water. According to the meaning of the ancient practice, absolutely there is required immersion in water and not sprinkling (or even pouring). Immersion in water signifies dying to sin and coming up out of the water signifies a resurrection for a new life in Christ, something that the Baptismal Epistle reading speaks of clearly. The obligatory formula in so doing is the recitation of the Name of the Holy Trinity:
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, just as was commanded the Apostles by the Lord Jesus Christ.
http://www.pravmir.com/holy-baptism/

In some other place, it is not about sprinkling but your entire faith that must be scrutinized before your baptism is recognized
https://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/rodzianko-acceptance.html





As for the case of Apostolic succession you are forgetting 2things,
1. The Anglicans rejected a Sacrificing priesthood, in effect they held with Calvin and Co that the Mass is NOT a sacrifice and so the priests offer and can't offer a sacrifice. no sacrificing priesthood.
2. King Edward changed the Anglican rite to reflect that theological understanding.

So there were bishops who did not believe in a sacrificing priesthood and used a rite that totally made no mention of such and they didn't intend to ordain such.

A non sacrificing priesthood is not a priesthood and cannot lay claim to Apostolic succession. That is why till today Catholics do not recognize Anglican priesthood. Because you guys lost Apostolic succession during the time of king Edward when you too on a defective rite and used a defective intent thereby producing no priests.

It's like people who don't believe that baptism was made by Jesus or is for the remission of sin and then changed the words to I baptise you in the name of the supergeti monster. That is defective form and intent. It means no baptism. That is what happened at the time of Edward and his rite, all who were ordained with it were defective and an entire generation of Anglican clergy was affected, hence no valid succession.

partnerbizz5:
One reason, I hate arguing here.

I am teaching you for free, what it took me over 5m to learn and you are arguing.

what are you teaching?

johnydon22:
I am the farthest thing from anti-catholicism.

In fact, I'd take catholic liturgy any day instead of a Pentecostal service.

I have been a Catholic for the most part of my life, an alter boy and later a seminarian.

Unbeliever - Yes
Critic - Yes
Anti- Christian - No
Anti- theist - No
Anti catholic - No.

I enjoy studying Catholic theologians.

One can't really have a balanced view until they have conclusively studied admirably that which they criticize.

if I want to throw you off, I'll have to invite you to a tradentine mass.

I'll see how much you love Catholic liturgy

johnydon22:
I particularly love Saint Augustine. One of my favorite quotes.

"If you choose parts of the scriptures to believe and not the others, it is not the scriptures you believe but yourself"

Augustine...?

I don't think I have read half of his works... That's a good one.

johnydon22:
I am the farthest thing from anti-catholicism.

In fact, I'd take catholic liturgy any day instead of a Pentecostal service.

I have been a Catholic for the most part of my life, an alter boy and later a seminarian.

Unbeliever - Yes
Critic - Yes
Anti- Christian - No
Anti- theist - No
Anti catholic - No.

I enjoy studying Catholic theologians.

One can't really have a balanced view until they have conclusively studied admirably that which they criticize.

so apart from Aquinas who else have you read?

It is wrong to stereotype every Fulani herdsman.

That one is spreading hate