₦airaland Forum

woky: Paul VI or IV.. am nt sure shaa

no, those guys weren't heretics before ascending the papacy. Hey dont give me names like john 23, pius 6, john paul 2.

Ubenedictus: let me play with this, there are many ways to answer this, i could say 1st of all the bible doesn't condemn it, 2nd it doesn't differentiate btw adult and children during baptism, 3rd it was practiced in the early church from earliest times, but i'll keep those arguements for d time and explain it to you go terms of the covenant. To be continued...

d bible is a record of God's covenant with his people, (u are free to disagree). For 2000yrs frm abraham to christ God has clearly shown his people that he wants their babies in covenant with him, he did this by giving d babies e covenantal sign i.e circumcision. In the new t christ changed d sign of entering into d covenant to baptism, but NOWHERE do we see christ announcing that frm now on no more babies in the covenant, instead he practically said the opposite he said 'let d children come to me do not hinder then; for such belongs the kingdom of heaven' mt 19,14. The apostles also imitated him when they called everyone and the children to enter the new covenant 'repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus christ 4 d 4giveness of sins and you shall receive the gift me the holy spirit. For this promise is to you AND TO YOUR CHILDREN' acts 2, 38 nd 39. In other words God still wanted children in covenant with him, and since baptism is d sign of entering e new covenant, y should d e babies of believers not be baptized? No wonder d bible records dat e apostles baptized households and never once said 'adults alone'. No wonder infant baptism has been in the church since earliest times.

(1) why do the catholics practice infant baptism? I.e baptizing children and infants.

let me play with this, there are many ways to answer this, i could say 1st of all the bible doesn't condemn it, 2nd it doesn't differentiate btw adult and children during baptism, 3rd it was practiced in the early church from earliest times, but i'll keep those arguements for e time and explain it to you go terms of the covenant. To be continued...

Sal C: Pope Benedict xvi ( God have mercy on my soul if it's wrong)

Once came across such but am not sure.

some sedevacantist think ben 16 was a heretic, but that isn't d ansa to my question.

GeneralShepherd: Uncle Ubenedictus.. You've been scarce! What's up wiv you?

i'm fine, just busy, besides some threads don't deserve my attension

who was d pope who was a heretic before elected? Don't check e net.

Sal C: Pope Formosus. I think

nt exactly, formosus was d guy who was dug out i think, another pope was condemned by an ecumenical council

[quote author=amara.lizzy%40y]@syncan, if d persn did nt ask 4 forgivenes b4 he/she die he can nt inherit d kingdm of God cos anger is a sin. If u read gala5v19-21 u wil c dat anger(wrath)is a sin and d cn't inherit d kingdm of God.[/quote]my dear, i have no doubt in my mind that nobody will enter the heaven you preach.

Sal C: St Linus

ok, without checking d net, which pope was condemned after death for difference or even allowing heresy in his private correspondence?

Msgamble: who was the revelation of their condition(beign in hell) revealed to? Better b careful of who to blieve..@op n catholics, Peter, leader of d Disciples? Is there any proof in d Scriptures? Although he was very close to Christ accding to history st. Thomas went to today iraq,st. Mark to egpty etc so he didn't lead d disciples at any point..don't b suprised @ catholic reasoning since they av 2-holy book The Holy Bible n Dodgma, shm

please where can i find the 2nd holy book? The 'dodgma'?

Solozzo: The bible is a collection of coverless books, most of which we're authored by unknown persons and no titles to the books. The books included in the so called canon, were the ones that met the agenda and beliefs of the catholic and Protestant churches. Simple.

Now to the topic. How did the Catholic Church know that the bones in their care are really those of St. Peter? Was the first bishop of Rome really the St. Peter of the gospels?

the testimony of the early christians gives us the burial place of peter. And the same testimony tells us that peter also established the roman church.

A big welcome to bro pope ii, it is good to be home and don't let anybody cheat you frm the name 'christian', it is ur birth right. @all, without checking d net, who succeeded st peter as bishop me rome?

Syncan: "And they began to accuse him, saying , We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to the emperor"

I guess I can quote this just to disparage the Lord. oh and blame it on your comprehension when you protest. The truth shall set you free.

hehehehe, my comprehension uh?

Enigma: ^^^ Sorry, bros your comprehension is still faulty; otherwise you'd know that there is a difference between reported and "produced a report"!

Meanwhile, my post was on topic because the discussion that it followed was on the categorisation of "sin". See, you still need to work on that comprehension in all honesty!

so we are to learn how catholics classify sin from allegations. Weldone

Who is espousing violence? [quote author=tpia@]Lets stop espousing violence online, thanks.

God bless you as you do so, there are legal and established avenues to pursue perceived wrongs or rights. Barbarism and youtube videos of mob action are never the answer.[/quote]

Oh humour me!

Enigma: There you go with that poor comprehension again or are you just lying again?

What did we discuss about Florence on the other thread?

Did Florence set a canon?

Was there a vote to decide the Roman Catholic canon at Trent or not?

Was the vote on the Roman CAtholic Bible and that it should include the Apocrypha not - 24 in favour, 15 against,
16 abstained?

Is that vote not an indication that a huge proportion of Roman Catholic bishops of the era of even Trent in the 16th century did not believe the Apocrypha to be in the canon?

Does that not show that Roman Catholics are liars if they say they had set the canon in the 4th century --- if their own bishops did not think so? Even their "pope" Gregory I did not think so!

And is that not the point I had made on this thread? And finally, was Florence (or Laodicea or Trullo) necessary for me to make my point on this thread?

so florence had a canon, and becos everything in the council of trent was put to a vote with both proposing and opposing sides that necessaryly implies that all that was put to a vote were previously unknown? Even though florence already had a canon u will still tell us dat d canon at trent was new and previously unknown?

Enigma: I reported an allegation. Your comprehension is still not up to par for you to understand that?

Let me help you: provide the document with which Peter ordained Clement. You are a LIAR if you make that claim unless you can produce the document where Peter said he ordained Clement.

oh! Humour me! In a thread on purgatory u produced a 'report' of an allegation that claims boniface taught adultery isn't a sin, without condemning d said allegation, then your testimonies on many threads now says catholics are liars and fraudsters. my comprehension is fine.

Enigma: ^^^ You have become a clear liar now, quite sadly. Like me and you did not discuss the "Council" of Florence on another thread?

OK let me play your game then! Somehow you seem ignorant of the role of the Synod of Laodicea and the Council of Trullo on the matter of Bible canons.

Or you think I'm unaware of those too since I haven't yet brought them up? Yeyeful!

oh! So you know that florence had already list d said books yet you still decided to tell everyone on the thread that there was no canon in the catholic church before trent. Is that not d definition of a delibrate lie?

Enigma: Oh yes, you accused me clearly enough --- calling me big liar.

As I said, I attribute this to your comprehension. And of course if your comprehension was up to par you will realise that what I did was report an accusation made against Boniface VIII. Try and understand that.

If I myself want to "accuse" or even finish Boniface, I have much stronger stuff for that.

now who has comprehension problems? i made a conditional statement, provide the said proof that he made d statement. It seems you still haven't found d proof.

Some how enigma seem ignorant that the council of florence even listed d canon b4 trent confirmed and defended it against the protestant. Anyway dat isn't e purpose of dis thread.

Enigma: And you are the one lying against me with slander and false accusation.

Well done, poor comprehension guy!

and i'm very happy that i neither accused you, d accusation thus far are urs.

wordsbase: That got me thinking. Why can a catholic who calls himself christian not visit another church to worship upon an invitation?

my dear, on a normal day i won't worship in a protestant church, dont get me wrong, i blive they are christian gathering but i certainly do not blive that they teach fully and wholly the christian faith without void. Then comes the part on criticisms and heresies. For these reasons i wont go to a protestant gathering unless i have very good reason to be there.

My questions then: 1. Are these many doctrines and teachings that catholics hold on to found in the bible?

to a large extent, yes.

2. If they aren't where do they come from? 3. If the teachings and doctrines (ast ouching the core of the christian faith and practice) are not bible based, can we still consider catholics as christians? 4. If the answer to the 4th question is in the negative, does it then mean that cathollics have joined the list of mission fields for the protestant|pentecostal|evangelical denominations?

I really would like us to discuss this.

to doubt that catholicism is christianity is like shooting urself on your foot, if catholicism isn't christianity then protestant, anglicans and evangelical aren't christian either becos they are all offshots of catholicism.

Enigma: Work on your comprehension and ability to read.

Until we see evidence that you have attained a decent level of comprehension then you are a biiig false accuser by your post directed at me.

and you are the saint who posted supposed scandalous words without proof and make accusers your source of information.
Weldone, brainy guy.

[quote author=Ile-Ife]any river will do, even wells will work.[/quote]hehehe!

Enigma: "... there is no more harm in adultery than in rubbing your hands together."

Per "pope" Boniface VIII (of Unam Sanctam fame) as alleged by his accusers at his abandoned trial.

provide d document where he wrote d above.
If u can't then u are a big liar like his accusers.

Hehehe, tie them to a rock and throw them into d lagos lagoon, [quote author=Ile-Ife]This is Nigeria, he is talking about us.[/quote]

Ukuts gp: it is obvious that what u have is a fish brain. Ur reasoning is highly deficient and u cant talk properly cos u are immature and unlearned little brat.

this is exactly what happens when you try to play god, this is what happens when u decide to b d judge of who goes to hell.

babestell: You are very right and I could see on the face of some parishioners that they were not pleased with it, but this is the same cath church I attended last year where during Lent they didnt celebrate mass instead they did a penintential service. so no Eucharist. (i was so mad because that meant for I went without the sacred meal for 3 weeks) Then everyone processed to the front and joined hands with Father and said "forgive father for I have sinned" and he would say some words of contrition. Me prsonallt thought Fada was being lazy, but hey that is the only english speaking church in The Hague, so we must attend it. My colleague said the Dutch speaking ones are even worse that I shldnt bother trying to attend.

that is just too bad, lent without mass, there is a serious problem in d west.

italo: I have never heard or read or even dreamt of homily by a lay person.

Except someone is about to teach me something new.

there is also d case of a consecration where the priest allow everyone to stand when the rubrics clearly says to knell. The king of heaven come down in glory and we can't even get on our kneels.

GeneralShepherd: Its is either there are about 30 000 versions of the Holy spirit or He doesn't exist!!

or the people who claim to be inspired are lying.

Rich4god: Plz explain.

d homily at mass is the expression of d church's teaching authority passed to d apostle and their successors, it is called the ordinary magisterium. Only d assitants of d bishops (d priest and deacon) may lawfully preach d mass homily. The rubrics are very clear, at mass d homily is given by those ordained to do so. A layman homily at mass is a gross violation of d laws of worship, d rubrics and d interpretation of d vat2 document on d liturgy sacrosantum concilium.

It seems oga enigma forgot d topic at hand.
@enigma, it seems u speak with a bit hate hidden under d tongue, for some time now all u see among catholic are liars and fraudsters, even in a thread with d above topic ur accusations seem more important than addressing d op, it gives d impression dat u hate.