₦airaland Forum

Spying on other members is encouraged


Opus Dei calls it Fraternal Correction. Before giving a fraternal correction, the incident must first be reported to the Director. Then he or she decides if
it merits discussion with the person who may have said or done “something in bad spirit” or “with a bad attitude.” Members have the feeling that they are always being watch.

this is an example of misrepresentation, a fraternal correction is described as "spying".

Let me address them ur style.

Before moving into Brimfield, the Center of Studies, in Newton, Massachusetts, Sharon was not previously informed that all numeraries surrender all financial control, sleep on boards or without pillows once a week, or that they must get rid of all family photos. The only photos on display in centers of Opus Dei are photos of the Founder, Prelate
or images of the Virgin Mary. She also did not realize that most numeraries take cold showers, until she felt the chill in shower stall when she woke up the next morning. The Directors justify this tactic of deliberately holding back information by saying that when you marry someone, you don’t know everything about that person. Tammy also discovered that she would be sleeping on a board when she sat down on her bed the day she moved in and realized it was hard.

this isn't true,
before one can be accepted as a numerary he actually has to live with them for abt 6 month after which he can apply in writting to be a numerary. There is no witholding information because you have 6 month to get all the information you need and decided whether or not to apply to join them.


I am not a numerary and yet I am aware that all numeraries contribute their earnings to runing charity and a part is used in providing their meals, utilities, and they recieve a sum for their personal expenses. One can't live in a opus Dei center for 6 month where they offer courses on their way of life and claim to be ignorant of the way of life when he joined.


Opus Dei numeraries are those who decide to live the gospel as radically as Jesus himself taugh it. What was Jesus advise to the rich man? "sell your properties and give the proceeds to the poor".

Sorry you can't be ignorant after personal experience and learning of 6 months.

Syncan:
You particularly are an interesting fellow...you know what peter should have said but didnt say, you whose mother ceases to be your mother when you stop calling her mom... you say a lot at a time, too much talking drives you off point. The bold is what is important to the subject. Since the apostles understood Jn3:5 water as physical water as shown in those passages, when did the meaning change in the context of baptism. Imagine what philip must have told the ethiopian eunuch along the way about Jn3:5, that made him exclaim on citing water in acts 8. Imagine how important water event was; that made peter insist on it after the manifestation of the Holy Spirit on the people in acts 10. They held it as a very important requirement for those who are to be saved. Nothing suggests that physical water was ever removed. Maybe you need to re-evangelize peter, paul, philip and the rest.

that is what I call spiritualising away the plain meaning of scripture.

They are alledging to see metaphor where there is non.

It is a beautiful tactic used in manipulating people and render discussions useless. Jesus says be born of water and the spirit, the apostles were baptising with water, but the new Christians are happy to spiritualise away the plain meaning and tell us it is "baptism by word".

vooks:
Pick a specific claim and disprove it. That's how to debunk lies

i just discussed atleast two.

Meditation is different from hypnosis.

Discussing of faults does not a cultist make.

Nor does giving away your wealth for charity make you a cultist, Jesus actually advised such.

That already is 3 different point.

fancistony I greet you, hw studies?

Hehehe, that is a huge pile of accusations, and trully dear I don't know where to begin answering that stuff.


It is a compredum of half truths and misrepresentation.

Opus Dei emphasis is on sanctity where ever you find yourself. St jose the founder believed that a true Christian life must begin with the interior, with true prayer and looking inward.

He developed a system whereby every human being can be a member of opus Dei.

First of all Opus Dei is not by force, its members do not go and live in a monastry unless you personally desire it, they remain in their own houses and do their normal work, infact you are free to at anytime work out, disappear, refuse to continue membership e.t.c.


Second those who take part are adults not kids who on their own take up a life and ask that they be given spiritual guidiance.

Thirdly your story claims that meditation is "hypnosis", that is an insult to all Christians and non-christians who practice it. Meditation usually involves the reading of scripture or some other spiritually enriching book and then meditating on its words in prayer, that is not hypnosis that is meditation plain and simple.

There is just so much misrepresentation there and I don't even know where to begin, your source claims that telling other people your sins make you a cult, but that is just funny because that is exactly what was done by the early christian. If that make opus Dei a cult then Christainity must also be a cult.


What else? You claim those preparing for the priesthood do not keep much possession....the exact same rule applies to seminarian, it is applied to those who want to live exclusively dedicated to God.


And lastly there are different membership in opus Dei, some are aspiring priests, other are just people who chose celibacy, some are married men and women with family others are student.

The rules for aspiring priest is not the same as for celibate laymen or for married men...

Different cloth for different folks, it is a bit suprising to lump both the married, those aspiring for priesthood and celibate lay peoples together and call them all cultist because they practice meditation which you call hypnosis and they ask for and accept spiritual guidiance which you call indoctrination.

Kei144:
The Making of a Covenant

Ge. 15:5 He took him outside and said, “Look up at the heavens and count the stars — if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”
Ge. 15:6 Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.
Ge. 15:7 He also said to him, “I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it.”
Ge. 15:8 But Abram said, “O Sovereign LORD, how can I know that I shall gain possession of it?”
Ge. 15:9 So the LORD said to him, “Bring me a heifer, a goat and a ram, each three years old, along with a dove and a young pigeon.”
Ge. 15:10 Abram brought all these to him, cut them in two and arranged the halves opposite each other; the birds, however, he did not cut in half.
Ge. 15:11 Then birds of prey came down on the carcasses, but Abram drove them away.
Ge. 15:12 As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him.
Ge. 15:13 Then the LORD said to him, “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and ill-treated four hundred years.
Ge. 15:14 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterwards they will come out with great possessions.
Ge. 15:15 You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age.
Ge. 15:16 In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”
Ge. 15:17 When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking brazier with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces.
Ge. 15:18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the river [Or Wadi] of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates —
Ge. 15:19 the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites,
Ge. 15:20 Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites,
Ge. 15:21 Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.”

Abraham believed the word of God and it was counted to him as righteousness. Because of this righteousness by faith, God entered into a covenant with Abraham. The making of this covenant between God and Abraham involved a physical ceremony. God participated in the ceremony when Abraham finished his own side of the ceremony. What if Abraham had decided that the physical ceremony was unnecessary, after all he already believed God and God counted it for him as righteousness? would there have been any covenant? Without the covenant, what would have been the fate of Abraham?

Mk. 16:15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.
Mk. 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

If any person believes the good news, God counts it to her/him as righteousness. The word of God carries the instruction that such a person should go through a physical ceremony of water baptism. Water baptism is a covenant ceremony between God and a person. Some people say that water baptism was a Jewish rite. Well, it is the rite for entering into covenant with the Jewish God. If you don't like it, the covenant between your ancestors and the gods of your place will remain binding on you.

https://www.nairaland.com/2352063/enter-kingdom-god-now#34536725

good parrallels.

When scripture say the old testament foreshadowed the new, it spoke in truth. In the old we saw how God accepted people into the covenant, he simply gave them a rite, and on whosoever the said rite was performed was counted a member of the covenant, no wonder the apostle drew a parrallel betweem circumcision and baptism.

Even now God still gave a rite by which his people are initiated into a new covenant and that is baptism, in it the scriptures teach that we are united to Christ, die with him, rise with him, e.t.c.

Scholar8200:
Final submission:


Romans 3:25

25 whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Revelations 1:5

and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince oyf the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

He who believes and has been washed in the blood of the Lamb as indicated, can then, in obedience (like the Ethiopian Eunuch Acts 8,) be baptised in water.

you've gat it upside down, it is true that scriptures talk about the power of the blood of Christ, and you imagine that the said power is only applied when one believes. Scriptures actually says that d said power is applied when one repents, believe AND is baptised, even moreso at baptism. In that little ceremony and external rite scriptures teaches that God does an immense work of grace.


My point is simple, in baptism there is actually a "figure" as someone pointed out already, but it is a figure of what God is accomplishing in the soul at baptism.


Sorry it doesn't matter if we agree or not but scriptures rightly teach that in baptism God accoplishes in us the work of salvation, he unites us to his Son our source of grace, makes us partakers in his death, so our sins are washed away, the old man dies and the new man is inaugurated.

You are free to disagree, but this is what my bible says

Romans 5:3-14


Don't you know that in baptism which unites us to Christ we are all plunged and baptised into his death?
4by this baptism into his death we are buried with Christ and as Christ was raised from the dead to the glory of God the father so we begin walking in a new life


i hope you continue to verse 14 and understand what paul teaches, because he clearly shows us how we have fellowship with the death of Christ he clearly teaches when tHe power of his death is applied to us and he says it is at baptism. It is there we are buried in Christ, it is there that we rise into the new life of the resurrection, it is there that was sinful self is crucified.

His teachings are clear and shifting and dodging will not make those passages go away. You can continue highlighting how the blood of Jesus washes away sins, how his death is our peace and the sacrifice for our sins but I don't see how anyone can deny that scriptures say that it is in baptism that the full effect of the death of Jesus is applied to us.

In baptism I die with Christ, in it i rise with him, in it my old self is crucified and I am brought back a new man, in it I am united to Christ.

that is what the word of God says and for me that settles it.

Have a faith fill day.

someone just implied that the new testament teaching on baptism was done with incomplete knowledge. the holyspirit has given us scripture with incomplete newtestament knowledge. italo did u see that.

Nothing pains my heart more than when Christians try to spiritualise away the plain meaning of scripture. Scriptures say repent and be baptised for the remission of sins, right there in the new testament but somebody is saying baptism is an expired product. Comeone if you want to follow the bible follow it, if not just tell us you are repeated what your pastor told you so everybody can relax.

On annulments this should help you.

www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/annulment.htm

afanda:
Good Morning all. Can someone in the house kindly explain in detail the reasons for annulment of marriage and possibly one that you witnessed. Shalom!

Proudly Catholic.

annulment is a declaration that a marriage never existed because the necessary conditions for it were not met.
these are some of the things that marry render a marriage null and void ab initio.

Bigamy - either party was already married to another person at the time of the marriage

Forced Consent - one of the spouses was forced or threatened into marriage and only entered into it under duress

Fraud - one of the spouses agreed to the marriage based on the lies or misrepresentation of the other

Marriage Prohibited By Law - incestuous marriages

Mental Illness - either spouse was mentally ill.

Mental Incapacity - either spouse was under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the marriage and was unable to make
informed consent

Inability to Consummate Marriage - either spouse was physically incapable of having sexual relations

Underage Marriage - either spouse was too young to enter into marriage without parental consent.

brocab:
Yes it's good to see you have some married priest, but it still don't prove Peter was your Pope, because you have no evidence the peter you claim is your Pope was married in the first place, but denied the wife existed {your words were she may have died, or we only hear of the mother in law who existed}
But for the other priest' you have within the Church who are married, shows these are the true and faithful servants, ones who have obeyed the word of God.
But this don't cover those in the Vatican, and other Catholic priest who burn with passion within the Church against Children.
And it's those in the Vatican that rules the world, many would think the priest who haven't married would have followed after them who are married by good example, when one burns with passion, its best to marry.

Someone other than yourself needs to go back to the word of God, and learn the scriptures in word and in truth.
I do understand why it is possible for you' in away of speaking, to call any man dear within or outside the Catholic Church.

your slimminess is chonic. I certianly have no time for this again. May God touch you heart.

truthislight:
@OBENEDICTUS

JESUS AND APOSTLE PAUL SAID THAT FALES CHRISTIANS WILL ARISE ON THEIR LEAVING THE EARTH.

TO YOU. THAT IS NOT TRUE, ALL THE MEN THAT CAME AFTER THEM ARE SAINTS.

HOW CAN THEY ALL BE SAINT ?

WHO DECIDES WHO IS A SAINT ? HUMANS ? NO.

HUMANS WERE ASK TO ALLOW THEM TRUE CHRISTIANS AND FALSE CHRISTIANS TO GROW TOGETHER TILL THE TIME OF THE END.

IT IS ANGELS THAT WILL SEPERATE WHO IS WHO, TRUE FOLLOWERS FROM THE FALSE ONES.

THAT CERTAIN PEOPLE IN TIME PAST DECIDED TO BURN THERE FOLLOW HUMANS IN TIME PAST, THAT SHOULD TELL YOU THAT THOSE PEOPLE HAVE NO REGARD FOR JESUS EXPRESSED INSTRUCTIONS STATED ABOVE.

IT IS HIGH TIME YOU START SHINING YOUR EYES. LEAVE TRADITION ALONE SO THAT TRADITION WILL LEAVE YOU.

@OBENEDICTUS.

hahaha,

moses was sinning in that passage right?

Weldone!

After you play your mental gymnastic you simply tell me if my example was a sin or was a ceremonial law that was abolished or it was one of those scriptures written for our instruction?

My take is that it wasn't a sin! Certainly wasn't part of the old testament ceremonial laws which were abolished, so it certainly was written or our instruction, that is why it was practice by the early Christians.

What is your take?

truthislight:
LOL GUY, ARE YOU ON DRUG OR WHAT ?

YOUR MENTAL ARRANGEMENT THAT CAUSES YOU TO ATTEMPT TO UPTURN THE TRUTH IS DISTURBING.

THE TERM "CHRISTIAN" IMPLIES FOLLOWER OF CHRIST. SIMPLE!

SO, HOW CAN YOU ANSWER THAT THE JEWS THAT LIVED BEFORE CHRIST WERE FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST ? (HENCE, CHRISTIANS).
IS THE ISSUE ABOUT WHO IS PRACTICING TRUE RELIGION ? OR IF THEY OF OLD PRACTICE TRUE RELIGION ? NO! RATHER, THE QUESTION WAS IF THEY WERE CHRISTIANCE.

STOP YOUR TWISTING HERE PLEASE AND FACE THE POINT.

HOW ON EARTH CAN YOU ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY ANIMAL SACRIFICE FOR CHRISTIANS IN AN EFFORT TO JUSTIFY YOUR LIES AND SUPPORT FOR TRADITION ?

IS IT THAT YOU DONT KNOW THE IMPLICATION OF STILL OFFERING ANIMAL SACRIFICES IN THIS NEW DISPENSATION ?

WHY HAS YOUR MIND BEEN SO ENBOLDEN TO TWIST THE WORD OF GOD ?
OR, DONT YOU KNOW WE ARE IN A NEW DISPENSATION ?

HAVE YOU EVER ASKED WHAT MAKES THIS OUR TIME A NEW DISPENSATION ?

PLEASE, IT WILL DO YOU A LOT OF GOOD TO START READING THE BIBLE AND BE GUIDED BY IT AND LEAVE TRADITION OF MEN ALONE.

LEFT TO YOU, AS LONG AS IT SUIT YOUR TRADITION, YOU WILL ASK ME TO CARRY ON WITH ANIMAL SACRIFICE.

SMH FOR YOU.

i never said anything about human sacrifice. You are on your own? I won't argue against a stawman.

OLAADEGBU:
Read about the rebuttal that I'm posting and see how your institution cannot be trusted with its allegations.

What you are posting is not a rebuttal, it is simply a catalog of more allegations.


You can go on and repeat what your site says, alberto cannot tell a lie because he smiles very well.

Prejudice is a disease.

OLAADEGBU:
Your counter claims has been debunked too.

https://www.chick.com/articles/houstonletter.asp

hahahahahahaha....

Is that what you call a rebutal?

the guy simply suceeded in repeating all the old stories of old. Is that the rebutal?


Hehehe, I knew he had no point when he said he knew Rivera was not lying because of the way Rivera smiled. Hahaha, so those who smile can't lie? You are so gullible, blinded by your own bais.

If that is you idea of a rebutal, have a nice day.

malvisguy212:
thank you my good friend, I just learn something from you.

you are welcome, may d name of d Lord be blessed both now and forever, Amen.

plaetton:
My dear friend
I believe we have had this discussion before. I stated then that Pappi is on a social re - engineering crusade, designed to align christianity with the present.
Pappi has said as much that christians must seek new understanding for old scriptures.
This, of course, is a code word for re-evaluation and revision of what were previously assumed to be sacred truths.

This is the way it has always been since first century AD.

Do I understand that you are among those resisting change?

Do not forget that social engineering is usually targeted at the future, and less about the present.
My point is that Pappi 's new messages are for young and future generations of christians, not for irredeemable oldies like you.

my dear, I have no problem if you believe the Catholic church is in the business of social re-engineering, you have the right to hold and keep your opinions, but the story above is untrue. there is no such thing as a vatican 3 council were new doctrines were made, for about 40yrs there have been no general council in the catholic church. It is a bit funny the way you jump at any story that seems to confirm your preconcieved ideas even though they are untrue. Isn't it funny that the so-called news is not in any reputable news media and can't be found on any catholic or vatican site.

deracathy:
Where is my Rosary?

come, i fit give you my own.

brocab:
James 5:14-If any man is sick let him be brought to a Presbyterous Priest of the Church and let them pray over him, anointing him in the name of the Lord.
The English word Priest comes from the Greek word Presbyteros-Presbyter, Presbyterian, Prestbyter, Prester, Preist.


A book written called Catholic's prospective on Paul, is being sold within the walls of the Catholic's.

This is why you can only make up words rather then writing any truth, about any bible references, which makes this topic harder for us to even try to learn on anything because you only know what the Catholic's have to say rather then seeking the truth of God yourself.

nobody made up any word, it is a pity your protestant pastors aren't well learned in scriptures that is why you don't know the meaning of a presbyterous, it is a bible word from the original greek. that is the root of the word priest. So when catholics say they have priests they are saying they have presbyterous. So go back and learn the words before misquoting.

Scriptures also show that peter was a presbyterous, i.e a priest! He also was an episcopus i.e a bishop! He later travelled to rome and was the bishop of the church of rome. the bishops of rome are called popes, since peter was the first bishop of rome he was the first pope untill he was matyred.

Lastly the catholic church have married priest, there are still married priests till today, only that the celibate priests are more popular because paul teaches that it is better to be unmarried in order to be devoted to the Lord.

Councils are not secret event held in private and the last one was the vatical II council, there is no such thing as a vatican III, don't be decieved, no catholic pope or cadinal or council has the power to change dogmas, no even pope francis.

plaetton:
Be honest my friend.
This bogey called christianity was sold to our forefathers before they even had iota of what it was about or represented, and by those who came with an ulterior motives.
Do you dispute that?

Now, be honest again. Do you think that you know what your religion is all about, was all about, before you became a christian?

The third question is do you think that you know and understand christianity more than the pope, bishop of Rome?

Cant you see and reason that we Africans are one of the last few people still holding the bag?

Pope Francis is trying to do the noble thing of socially re - engineering us, humanity I general, away from Lethal Mythology. The Lethal Mythologies that pits one side of humanity against his brother.

You see, in the past, The Catholic Church, the Mother Church, believed that truth was so precious, so fragile, so dangerous, that it had to be guarded and protected by battalions of lies.

Now, things have changed. Science has demystified much about life and the universe.
So, Motherchurch is having a rethink, a make over.

SOCIAL ENGINEERING, My friend, SOCIAL ENGINEERING.

That's what this pope is doing.
It is MotherChurch's way of redressing millenia of lies, fraud and cultural genocide.

did you lose the ability to differentiate false information from truth or you are just happy to agree with anything that seemingly agree with you?

malvisguy212:
I will not called Mary eve, I will just say "it is a forestshadowing event that will happened in the future"if we can go by your bible interpretation, then Isaac is Jesus, why? Because there are similarities between Jesus and Isaac.
1.it take 3 day for Abraham to reach the mountain were God direct him to do the sacrifice.it takes 3 days before Jesus was crucified
2.Isaac carry the wood that will used for his sacrifice.Jesus carry his own cross.
3.the very mountain where God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac is the same mountain Jesus was crucified.
4.Both willingly allow themselves to be
offered in sacrifice [Genesis 22:7-8;
Colossians 2:6-8].
5.the" mountain" is about father and son, Abraham and his son Isaac,David and his son solomon meet God at the same mountain and Jesus and God at the same mountain.
6.Both sons were "resurrected" or "given
back" the their fathers on the third day.
Isaac was essentially "dead" to his
grieving father when God commanded
him to sacrifice his son. On the "third
day" God provided another sacrifice
and his son was restored. God's son
died on the Cross and was resurrected
on the third day!.

This is a forestshadowing event on how God will offer his son Jesus on the cross, should we called Isaac Jesus? NO.

i think you misunderstood him a little, there are parrallels and antitypes all over scriptures, the parralel are usually a foreshadowing, Isaac foresadowed Jesus, melchisedez foreshadowed Jesus e.t.c. But there existed another form of parallel in scriptures usually called antitype, example, Adam and Jesus, what adam lost in the garden on the tree of good and evil Jesus recovered on calvary on a tree, that is an antitype, that is why Paul called Jesus the new Adam, francistony is trying to draw another antitype this time between mary and Eve, he says, eve listen to a serpent and was decieved, mary to an angel, e.t.c. He isn't say mary is the same person as eve...no he is saying that scriptures show that mary is the antitype of eve, eve started the fall by disobedience, mary brought forth the saviour by obedience, one counterbalance the effect of the other.

SalC:
Hehehe seems I've heard of this so called priest

who e b?

italo:
Morale boosting? Not really.

I've invited the Creator of the World and all his Angels and Saints to accompany me.



God be glorified!

Alleluia

ihedinobi2:
Hmm. Interesting-looking thread. Will see if I can read it all later tonight.

WOW, IT'S BEEN LONG, ihedinobi how are you doing?

italo:
Thank God for you.

Sometimes God does something for me without/before my asking. Sometimes, it can be as little as making someone's car stop working when he's rushing to park where I wanted to park. Sometimes it can be as disastrous as afflicting someone with an injury or ailment when they're witch-hunting me. Sometimes I pray in the morning, only to realize that God has set the answer in motion yesterday night...as if he knew I'd pray for that thing (of course he knows)

God is good...God is God.

Good morning friends.

I came to Lagos yesternight to meet the mother of my 'wife-to-be.'

Please pray for me.

I saw this and noted it. Italo we dey ur back. God really dey ansa prayers.

brocab:
Uben said Peter was a presbyterian priest, when asked how come Peter was married in bible scripture and in your word of today is' the Popes can't get married, so we are talking about to different Peter's.
Your Pope Peter stayed alive,while Emperor Nero Murdered the apostle's Peter and Paul.
And in those day's Christians were formed first, before any other catholic or presbyterians, ever existed..
And in Christ we are all priest, some Evangelist , some pastors, some teachers. Amen.
If you wish to call me Father, don't because I would like you to give all the credit to God himself..
But call me brother.

for the sake of those reading the thread, I never said peter was a presbyterian priest, brocab is simply trying to make a fool of himself by misquoting me.

HopeAlive14:
There is no scripture to back this claim of yours. Mary, just like every other person conceived of human mechanism was born in sin. The only Sinless Person ever to be on this Earth is Jesus Christ.

this is a discussion for another day.

Syncan:
First I never said the bold. Secondly, the one in red is mere fabrications. Thirdly, tell me you've never been reluctant about your mother's request and still did it for her. Even Jesus gave the parable of a man who sent his sons to farm. One said I will go, but did not. One said he wasn't going and later went. Did you remember the question of Jesus? He said "Who among the two did the father's will"? Matt 21:31. It is the mother's request, it matters not if he hesitated or not, he still did the mother's will.

gbam!

Syncan:
Please take a look at the bold and take a look at the title of the thread, then tell me what you're arguing about.

this should have ended the debate.