₦airaland Forum

Image123: unfortunately, what gosh is teaching is the most complicated interpretation i ever saw as regards obeying God.

study up on calvinism

I thank His Eminence, the Cardinal Dean, (Cardinal Angelo Sodano) for his words: thank you very much, Your Eminence, thank you.

I also thank all of you who wanted to come today: Thank you. Because I feel welcomed by you. Thank you. I feel good with you, and I like that.

The [first] reading today makes me think that the missionary expansion of the Church began precisely at a time of persecution, and these Christians went as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, and proclaimed the Word. They had this apostolic fervor within them, and that is how the faith spread! Some, people of Cyprus and Cyrene - not these, but others who had become Christians - went to Antioch and began to speak to the Greeks too. It was a further step. And this is how the Church moved forward. Whose was this initiative to speak to the Greeks? This was not clear to anyone but the Jews. But ... it was the Holy Spirit, the One who prompted them ever forward ... But some in Jerusalem, when they heard this, became 'nervous and sent Barnabas on an "apostolic visitation": perhaps, with a little sense of humor we could say that this was the theological beginning of the Doctrine of the Faith: this apostolic visit by Barnabas. He saw, and he saw that things were going well.

And so the Church was a Mother, the Mother of more children, of many children. It became more and more of a Mother. A Mother who gives us the faith, a Mother who gives us an identity. But the Christian identity is not an identity card: Christian identity is belonging to the Church, because all of these belonged to the Church, the Mother Church. Because it is not possible to find Jesus outside the Church. The great Paul VI said: "Wanting to live with Jesus without the Church, following Jesus outside of the Church, loving Jesus without the Church is an absurd dichotomy." And the Mother Church that gives us Jesus gives us our identity that is not only a seal, it is a belonging. Identity means belonging. This belonging to the Church is beautiful.

And the third idea comes to my mind - the first was the explosion of missionary activity; the second, the Mother Church - and the third, that when Barnabas saw that crowd - the text says: " And a large number of people was added to the Lord" - when he saw those crowds, he experienced joy. " When he arrived and saw the grace of God, he rejoiced ": his is the joy of the evangelizer. It was, as Paul VI said, "the sweet and comforting joy of evangelizing." And this joy begins with a persecution, with great sadness, and ends with joy. And so the Church goes forward, as one Saint says - I do not remember which one, here - "amid the persecutions of the world and the consolations of the Lord." And thus is the life of the Church. If we want to travel a little along the road of worldliness, negotiating with the world - as did the Maccabees, who were tempted, at that time - we will never have the consolation of the Lord. And if we seek only consolation, it will be a superficial consolation, not that of the Lord: a human consolation. The Church's journey always takes place between the Cross and the Resurrection, amid the persecutions and the consolations of the Lord. And this is the path: those who go down this road are not mistaken.

Let us think today about the missionary activity of the Church: these [people] came out of themselves to go forth. Even those who had the courage to proclaim Jesus to the Greeks, an almost scandalous thing at that time. Think of this Mother Church that grows, grows with new children to whom She gives the identity of the faith, because you cannot believe in Jesus without the Church. Jesus Himself says in the Gospel: " But you do not believe, because you are not among my sheep." If we are not "sheep of Jesus," faith does not come to us. It is a rosewater faith, a faith without substance. And let us think of the consolation that Barnabas felt, which is "the sweet and comforting joy of evangelizing." And let us ask the Lord for this "parresia", this apostolic fervor that impels us to move forward, as brothers, all of us forward! Forward, bringing the name of Jesus in the bosom of Holy Mother Church, and, as St. Ignatius said, "hierarchical and Catholic." So be it

Pope Francis: A worldly Church is a weak Church
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Psv_Ba72eCI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

rome

The kidnapping of the two Syrian Orthodox archbishops in Syria is an act of retaliation on the part of terrorist Chechen jihadists who are fighting with anti-Assad rebels over the killing of one of two Chechens responsible for the Boston Marathon bombings and the arrest of the other, by U.S. police forces, Turkish newspaper Sabah reported this morning. The two prelates, the Syrian Orthodox Archbishop of Aleppo, Yohanna Ibrabhim and the Greek Orthodox bishop Boulos Yaziji were taken hostage on Monday, 30 kilometres from the Turkish border, as they were returning by car to Aleppo. Their driver was killed by the abductors. News was circulating yesterday about the possibility of their release, but the news was never confirmed.



Yesterday, Sana news agency, quoting sources within the Syrian Orthodox Church, reported that the two bishops were kidnapped by “Chechen terrorists belonging to Jabhat an Nusra,” the group that recently confirmed its links with Al Qaida. Jabhat an Nusra never stated it was targeting the Christian community or its leaders in any of its statements.



According to Sana news agency, the two bishops were kidnapped in Kfar Dael, a village east of Aleppo. Kfar Dael does not have a coordination committee of anti-regime activist groups, which would indicate that that particular area does not support the anti-regime revolt.



Yesterday, the leaders of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces in exile stated that following a local inquiry, the prelates were kidnapped by someone close to the Assad regime. Bishop Ibrahim had recently quite clearly distanced himself from the Damascus regime.



On Tuesday 23 April, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, Yohanna X Yazigi and the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch, Mar Zakka I Iwas, issued a statement on the kidnapping. It is an appeal to the kidnappers to respect the lives of those abducted and to “abstain from any violence that serves no purpose other than to the enemies of our nation;” They called for the kidnappers to refrain from taking any action that “may lead to or favour a conflict denominational conflict between people who belong to the same nation.” The appeal was addressed to all “our fellow citizens, of all Muslim denominations, to work together to show that we refuse to see man as a product that can be bought or sold, a shield that is useful in war, or a political or financial commodity.”http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/world-news/detail/articolo/siria-syria-siria-24309/

chukwudi44: The fools are excommunicated and should not be referred to as catholics.

oga chukwudi take am easy on the name calling.
Peace.

Kay 17: Ordination is done in the course of service/duty to God, it is not a right nor privilege nor power.

the bolded.

Reyginus: I think we have to disagree to agree here.

there is nothing to disagree on, the inability of the college of card. to dispose the pope has already been explained by canon lawyers. The antipope of that period are known. The pope has the infallibility.

What do you have to say here. Can it be justified biblically?

that isnt a doctrinal problem! You seem concerned about bulletins! There were no single bibles till the 6th century ( or so i think), all there were were single books and snippets, bulletins and missal picture d liturgical reading of the church, and they are beneficial especially for those who wish to follow the liturgy. The idea the catholic church doesn't encourage the reading of the bible is laughable, infact there is indulgence attached to just a 15 mins study of sacred scripture! That is a joke at best.
Prayer is a personal or/and communal relationship with God, if you know catholics who can't address their heavenly father without the use of already made prayers then it is your DUTY to call them and teach them the basics of prayer as first and foremost a dialogue with God who is a friend. If you can't teach your brother then you shouldn't condem his/her crudity in prayers.
Peace

Hey, i'm sorry, i've been away from nl for some time, my days are very busy and for the next two month my project will be very demanding and i doubt i'll have the mental energy to go in depth, that not withstanding i'll keep dropping some points.

Pastor AIO: I'm sorry that I've been away for so long, abeg I hope you haven't lost interest. I am keen to hear more about what you have to say on the matter. Especially Jerome's arguments for Origen tampering with the Greek.

during jeromes' time the old testament then had asterixs and oblisks to account for the differences between the 3 different greek manuscript of the time, the differences were mainly structural not real difference in substance, infact even the hebrew copyist weren't anxious to copy the texts of the hebrew bible word for word, this attitude caused the text to be inexact. Jerome claims to have hebrew text without discripacies common in d greek. I'll try to paste discourse between jerome and augustine. Augustine defended the greek scriptures as possesing equal authority as the original hebrew, jerome on the other hand ranks the hebrew higher!
I'll go on later to discourse jerome and the deuterocanonical books

I think that Luther simply didn't like James cos James directly contradicted his teaching of Sola Fide. Of course he based his teaching on Romans 3:28, I even heard that he added the word 'alone' to the text to further emphasise his point. Now I find Luther to be a prime example of what is written in 2 Peter 3:16.

yeah he did luther's german bible has the word "alone" in it. And luther admits that the words isn't in the original manuscripts, the guy wanted his doctrine to fit by all means.

I have no doubt that the letters of Paul, Or rather the ease with which the letters of Paul can be interpreted one way or the other due to their complicatedness, is the basis of almost everything that that is rotten in christianity today.


As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

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.

Reading the letters of Paul without any grounding is one of the most dangerous things that a christian can do. It will lead, and it has in many cases led, to perdition and destruction.

I always recommend reading and PRACTICING the teachings of Jesus first. But People dive straight into Paul and dismiss Jesus. 'Oh, Jesus said that while it was still the old covenant'. or 'Jesus didn't really mean it like that'.

well luther's reading of paul can be corrected easily but that of calvin is another matter entirely.
I'll leave it at that so as not to deviate d thread.

Kay 17: @Ubendenticus
Don't all servants of God have an equal duty to serve him?

how are you my dear?
I do not understand your question.
Ordination isn't the "equal duty of every servant of God". Not everybody can ordain and not everybody can be ordained and one doesn't need to ordain or be ordain before he/she can serve God.
Peace my dear.

holyvirgin: Joke of the century...
@Benedict...how've you been? I see your efforts daily to school some 'ignoramus' in d house, thumbs up bro. Keep d faith alife

hey! Dear, i've been fine and busy, my days seem short and crowded.
Hw are you doing?

Jezuspoa: why are you doing a study on ifa?

i am an academic, i study almost everything! From ancient religion, to ancient civilisation, to contemporary culture and science. If there were no restraint to studing satanism and free masonry, i would have studied them too.

Ifa is a practiced in my country and is usually shouded in obscurity, studying it will shed light on the thoughts of my fellow countrymen who practice it.

The early church in the east had some jewish practice, it is even posible that paul was a nazirite.
One can study the effects of jewish practice in the early church by taking a look at the liturgy of the ancient churches, the catholic, orthodox and oriental church, special care should be taken to study the oriental and orthodox churches. I once saw an orthodox discourage menstrating women from coming to the divine liturgy just like deteronomy forbade menstrating women from attending temple worship.

That one is a joke, the catholic church lacks the authority to ordain women priest. And the women attempting the ordination and the one supposedly ordained has incured authomatic excommunication.

It seems my ibo brothers want to turn the church into some ethnic organisation. A war between the ibo, ahaira only wants an mbaise person, as though the bishopric is by ethnicity.

Catholic believe there are 7 arch angels based on the book of revelation, michael, gabriel and raphael are the popular ones.
Catholic believe they have been been given charge for our guidance.
And catholics also believe it is idolatry to try to superstitiously conjured them though their intercession may be sought.

listen to the words said by the priest when performing the act. he usually says 'as the salt is scattered over water by the prophet Elisha'. the act is in imitation of the command given to make water wholesome by the addition of salt. i do not have time to go further. i hope you can make meaning of my words

thanks for the replies

mollie12: All generations also refer to Abraham as blessed. So why isn't he revered too? Think about it. No human has any right to share in the glory of God.

by the very fact that Abraham is called blessed even till today that means he is honored. that isn't stealing God's honor instead it is acknowledging the fact that through their lives God is honored

OLAADEGBU: If you have been following the prevarication of your Society that I have been posting from page 1 you would have realised that it was them changing the goalpost to keep you guys fixated on them. Since you would not touch those earlier predictions with a bar pole let's leave those and move on to your question of generation. What does your Society say or said about how long a generation would last?


"When the term 'generation' is used with reference to the people living at a particular time, the exact length of that time cannot be stated, except that the time would fall within reasonable limits. These limits would be determined by the life span of the people of that time or of that population. . . . Today, much as it was in the time of Moses, people living under favorable conditions may reach 70 or 80 years of age" — Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 1, 1988, pp. 917-918

So, If the "generation" of the "time of the end" would last up to 80 years, what date failed to bring the end as prophesied by the Society?

1914 generation + 80 years = 1994. Can you tell us how your Society excused away this false prophecy knowing that we are now living in 2012?

Again I will be posting how your Society's publication in 1995 responded to this:

"Jehovah's people have at times speculated about the time when the 'great tribulation' would break out, even tying this to calculations of what is the lifetime of a generation since 1914. However, we 'bring a heart of wisdom in,' not by speculating about how many years or days make up a generation, but by thinking about how we 'count our days' in bringing joyful praise to Jehovah. . . . Is anything to be gained, then, by looking for dates or by speculating about the literal lifetime of a 'generation'? Far from it" — The Watchtower, November 1, 1995, p. 17, 19

hmm...
Are these quotes correct? They really seem contradictory.
@ola, weytin sup? E bi like say u get something against the witnesses, you went over and above just to disprove. Fear don catch me.

truthislight: Guy i appreciate the fact that you are trying to carry people along here but on this issue of 1975 the GB did not say that the world will come to an end that year.

I for one have the magazine and i did not get the understanding that the world will end in 1975.

The incident was even a local phenomena since that fever did not gripped other countries like it did in nigeria.

The statment said that 1975 will mark 6000years of mankind existence on earth after creation.

It also said that after God worked for 6 days he rested in the 7th day.

So it asked: "AFTER 6000 YEARS WHAT NEXT, CHRIST MILLENIUM" ?

The understanding of that statement in Nigeria probably due to the level of literacy was that christ MILLENIUM will start in 1975 which was not what the GB had said.
And being after a civil war i wander if all JW then had access to the magazines, but may have pass the info round via third party.

It should be noted that the JW honestly believe that God's kingdom is the solution to human problem and they are urge to live their life in such away that they will not be caught un awear.

The JW are announcing God's king and they never said they know the date it will come but while one is alive he should be in constant expectations.

The GB points out what is contain in the bible to HELP people see that bible prophesy are fulfilling.

To say that JW predict when the world will end is incorrect, but that they constantly points to bible prophesy showing that we live in the time of the end.

The bible/christ had said that his followers should be in expectation of the end, though it may delay it will not be late.

the fever was even less in Nigeria, in the west it worse, and they weren't illiterates!

ninja4life: If he wants to reach out to his catholic members come and learn from our pastors d daddies dey will teach d pope d essence of buying private jets smh

hehehe you reach out by 4 private jets for one man aabi? Well done.

pope Francis writing to the bishops of Argentina as the hold plenary council had alot to say about the mission of the church. Take a look and put down your reaction.
Dear Brothers:

I am sending these lines of greeting and also to excuse myself for being unable to attend due to "commitments assumed recently" (sounds good?). I am spiritually with you and ask the Lord to accompany you very much during these days.

I express to you a desire. I would like the Assembly’s works to have as a frame of reference the Document of Aparecida and “Go into the Deep.” The guidelines are there that we need for this moment of history. Above all I ask you to have the special concern to grow in the continental mission in all its aspects: programmatic mission and paradigmatic mission. May the whole of ministry be in a missionary key. We must come out of ourselves to all the existential peripheries and grow in boldness.

A Church that does not go out, sooner or later gets sick in the vitiated atmosphere of her enclosure. It is true also that to a Church that goes out something can happen, as it can to any person who goes out to the street: to have an accident. Given this alternative, I wish to say to you frankly that I prefer a thousand times an injured Church than a sick Church. The typical illness of the shut-in Church is self-reference; to look at herself, to be bent over herself like the woman in the Gospel. It is a kind of narcissism that leads us to spiritual worldliness and to sophisticated clericalism, and then it impedes our experiencing “the sweet and comforting joy of evangelizing.”

I wish all of you this joy, which so many times is united to the Cross, but which saves us from resentment, sadness and clerical [solitude]. This joy helps us to be each day more fruitful, spending ourselves and unraveling ourselves in the service of the holy faithful people of God. This joy will grow increasingly to the degree that we take seriously the pastoral conversion that the Church asks of us.

Thank you for all that you do and for all that you are going to do. May the Lord free us from making up our episcopate with the tinsel of worldliness, of money and of “market clericalism.” The Virgin will show us the way of humility and that silent and courageous work that carries apostolic zeal forward.

I ask you, please, to pray for me, [so that I won’t be puffed up] and so that I will be able to hear what God wants and not what I want. I pray for you.

A brother’s embrace and a special greeting to the faithful people of God that you have in your care. I wish you a holy and happy Eastertide.

May Jesus bless you and the Holy Virgin look after you.

Fraternally,

Vatican, March 25, 2013

Enigma: Continuation 1

Of the word "catholic" as an adjective.

And of distinction between the small 'c' catholic and the capital 'C' "Catholic" as in "The Roman Catholic Church" or even "The Catholic Church".*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The New Testament

In fairness, this one is a bit complicated and care needs to be taken when trying to identify who "compiled" it.

Today, in the West, both Roman Catholics and "Protestants" accept 27 books as books of the New Testament. There have always been other books written in the Christian era which have not been accepted into the present New Testament -- which again is same for both Roman Catholics and "Protestants".


1. Authorship of New Testament Books

The authors are believed to be the apostles of Jesus Christ or people connected or associated with them. The authors were not members of the Roman Catholic Church or even of "The Catholic Church". Therefore any claim by Roman Catholics that they "wrote" the New Testament is patently false and a blatant lie.


2. Date of Writing and the Issue of "Compilation"

These 27 books are widely believed to have been written by 100-110 AD (though some scholars argue slightly later for some books). See an example of claimed timelines here http://www.freebeginning.com/new_testament_dates/ and a second example here http://www.newtestamenthistorytimeline.com/

We know from the Bible itself that some of the books of the New Testament were already in circulation among the early Christian Communities e.g. 2 Peter 3: 15-17; Colossians 4:16 etc. In fact, it is believed that even in the apostolic era some of Paul's letters were already circulating as a collection. In other words, they were already "compiled"!

Furthermore, it is also known that some of the New Testament books were in circulation, if not indeed wide circulation among early Christians by AD 100. There is clear proof of this: letters by Clement of Rome in 97 AD, Ignatius of Antioch in c. 107 AD and Polycarp of Smyrna, close to that time as well, all quote from the books of the New Testament and, between them, these three letters quote from almost all 27 books of present New Testament.

Obviously, the books were written and also the books were already being "compiled" that early on. They were already being "compiled" before there was any such thing as "the Roman Catholic Church" or even "The Catholic Church"!

Now, the complication is (a) that there was considerable debate and even doubt as to whether to accept some books as 'canonical' even including some of the books in the present New Testament; and (b) that eventually some extant books were rejected as not being 'canonical'; some were wholly rejected; some were seen as very useful even though not 'canonical' - two examples being The Didache and The Shepherd of Hermas.

Now how were some rejected and others accepted: it was by certain recognitions and practices of various church communities and respected early Christians (sometimes being believed to be students of the apostles). Very early on, again even before the era of "The Catholic Church", most churches in different places had recognised and accepted the four gospels of today and the same is said of most of Paul's letters. In fact, it is claimed that in 1 Timothy 5:18 even Paul himself quotes Luke's gospel (Luke 10:7) as "scripture"! It is similarly claimed that when Peter referred to Paul's letters, he was referring to them as "scriptures". So, already, we can say we have very good guides about the status of some books already.

About others, as noted earlier, very soon there was consensus from practices of the churches and of respected early Christians on some books as accepted, on some as disputed, and on some as rejected. Nevertheless, by the time of the Muratorian Canon (c.170-180 AD) and of Origen in early 200s AD, we already had the 27 book NT canon largely taking shape. Note that at this point, this was before the era when "The Catholic Church" had become exclusive and at a point when, strictly speaking, there was not any such thing as "the Roman Catholic Church" but simply "the Church of Rome"! And the Church of Rome alone did not mean "The Catholic Church"!

In AD 367, Athanasius of Alexandria listed the 27 books of today's New Testament as the books that make up the canon of the New Testament. This was before there was any such thing as "the Roman Catholic Church". It was also before the decree of Theodosius appropriating the word "Catholic" though, in fairness, by then some, e.g. Cyril as mentioned earlier of Jerusalem, had already started to use the word "Catholic" in a sense to exclude others --- considering especially that this was after Nicea. Again, nevertheless it was at a point when, strictly speaking, there was not any such thing as "the Roman Catholic Church" but simply "the Church of Rome"! And the Church of Rome alone did not mean "The Catholic Church"!


TBC



*(Again NB I am using "The Catholic Church" in the sense that Roman Catholics tend to claim today or, occasionally, in the Theodosian sense)

I'm surprised you absolutely confused the stage of formation of the canon with the stage of setting the canon. did you do that on purpose to win points?

Enigma: Of the word "catholic" as an adjective.

And of distinction between the small 'c' catholic and the capital 'C' "Catholic" as in "The Roman Catholic Church" or even "The Catholic Church".*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me say from the outset that the point of this post is to show that at the time when the Bible was written and initially "compiled", there was NO such thing as "the Roman Catholic Church" or even "The Catholic Church".

Yep, and I repeat: there was NO such thing as "The Roman Catholic Church" or "The Catholic Church" at the time when the Bible was written and initally "compiled".

this is a joke at best!
its like saying when ubenedictus was one day old he was called 'baby' 3 days later he was named ubenedictus and the toys belonging to baby doesn't belong to ubenedictus.
the above is like saying that the christian church of 60ad is significantly different from the christian church of 100ad, simply becos the christian church of 100ad has been given a name.......
my dear please explain yourself.

A. The Old Testament

Obviously, the Old Testament was written even before Jesus Christ. So how it can be said that the Roman Catholic Church or "The Catholic Church" wrote or "compiled" that must be something that only the ignorant, fraudulent or deluded are capable of!


B. The so-called 'Apocrypha' or so-called "deuterocanonical" books

Here we are talking about books in the Roman Catholic Bible and at least in some "Protestant" Bibles (e.g. KJV for a long time), and supposedly/allegedly part of the Old Testament, which at least some Christians accept for some purposes even if not as 'canonical'.

Again as these were written even before Christ and were in The Septuagint, it would take an ignorant, fraudulent or extremely deluded person to claim they were written or "compiled" by The Roman Catholic Church or even "The Catholic Church".

you are correct that the protocanonical and the deuterocanonical were not written by Christians or Catholics. the protocanons were largely accepted by the jews, but the same can't be said for the deuterocanon they were accepted by some jews and I'll be correct to say the christian church albeit the Catholic church added them or compiled them as scriptures for christians

TBC and to deal with New Testament etc separately.



*NB I am using the expression "The Catholic Church" (with the capitals) in the sense that the Roman Catholic Church tends to claim nowadays or, occasionally, in the Theodosian sense.

it will be interesting if you define the theodosian sense and differentiate it from the 2nd century catholic church.

abundant peace of Christ Jesus

hehehehehe, interesting

Reyginus: The reason I said this is complicated. A change in behaviour can also be as a result of mental incapability. But that is an aside.
If we get the thorough statement of the cardinals' reason, it will help understand what really happened.
If their is no other reason than the one you pointed out, then we even have to question the integrity they employed in the election of pope. The decision to pick who is qualified for the position should not be left to a set of incompetent people.

my dear I'll be interested in discussing the intricacies of that 'schism' when you open a thread on it, but suffice it to say that the card. didn't have and even till today do not have the power to depose the pope, thus they created an anti pope and my point stands that there was one pope and other anti popes and infallibility rested with the pope

Reyginus: The reason I said this is complicated. A change in behaviour can also be as a result of mental incapability. But that is an aside.
If we get the thorough statement of the cardinals' reason, it will help understand what really happened.
If their is no other reason than the one you pointed out, then we even have to question the integrity they employed in the election of pope. The decision to pick who is qualified for the position should not be left to a set of incompetent people.

the link i provided stated the reason. they tried to argue that Urban wasn't pope and that the conclave was forced.

Boomark: na wetin sir Str cause. He took my goal net. I had to shift his goal post.

hehehe, una no serious

martinseme: People should be aware that in judgement ignorance shall not be accepted as an excuse. Those who honour ,venerated ,and unconsciously worship any being in the spiritual realm and physical realm, apart from God the father who is also the son and holy spirit ,are putting themselves in danger of being cast to eternal torment in hell.All the prophets and saints including mary are all holy servants of God who worshiped and lived their life in fear and trembling until they transcended in death to heaven to continue to serve God and not one of them openly s be revered by anyone for they know their holiness is just by the grace of God alone and all to His glory alone.BECAREFUL you learned ones and pull out from sin against your God. All honour , worship ,glory and thanks giving belongs to Him alone.He still remains the unchanging fiery jealous God who shares his glory with no man or any creature.

from hence forth all generations shall call me blessed. it seems under the inspiration of the holy spirit Mary prophesied that perpetual honor is hers

Logicboy03: So you read his whole autobiography? Anyways....it is impossible to be eternally in the present. God himsel wouldnt be able to reason or hav memories. He cant have past thoughts if he lives in the present always. A logical impissibility.


I hope that u dont suscribe to this mode of thinking. I rate you higher than ihe

what memories would he need when the past is present to him? what past thought would he need when he lives in an eternal now?
yeah i read the whole book and i'll say it contained the thought of a sound mind, i'll encourage you to get a copy.

Reyginus: This is a very complicated issue. While I agree with the article on the below explanation...
(3) Most modern doctors uphold the same ideas. It suffices to quote Canon J. Didiot, dean of the
faculty of Lille: "If after the election of a pope and before his death or resignation a new election
takes place, it is null and schismatic; the one elected is not in the Apostolic Succession. This was seen at the beginning of what is called,
somewhat incorrectly, the Great Schism of the
West, which was only an apparent schism from a theological standpoint. If two elections take place simultaneously or nearly so, one according to laws previously passed and the other contrary to them, the apostolicity belongs to the pope legally chosen and not to the other, and though there be doubts, discussions, and cruel divisions on this point, as at the time of the so-called Western
Schism, it is no less true, no less real that the apostolicity exists objectively in the true pope. What does it matter, in this objective relation, that
it is not manifest to all and is not recognized by all
till long after? A treasure is bequeathed to me, but
I do not know whether it is in the chest A or in the casket B. Am I any less the possessor of this
treasure?" After the theologian let us hear the canonist. The following are the words of Bouix, so competent in all these questions. Speaking of
the events of this sad period he says: "This
dissension was called schism, but incorrectly. No one withdrew from the true Roman pontiff considered as such, but each obeyed the one he
regarded as the true pope. They submitted to him, not absolutely, but on condition that he was
the true pope. Although there were several obediences, nevertheless there was no schism properly so-called" (De Papa, I, 461).
...
As in the link, Pope Urban sudden change in behaviour led to the election of Clement. The problem is now, we cannot completely define an antipope where the same cardinals who voted for the pope were involved in the election.
According to google 'If the Pope became physically or mentally
incapacitated then the College of Cardinals could
meet and declare that he no longer has control of
his faculties and is therefore impeded in his
office. This would then open the way to elect a new
Pope'. The sudden change in behaviour of the pope can be termed an inability to control his abilities. And this affected his office.

again i just took a quick look into canon law and it seems there was never a canon law that ever claimed the college of cardinals can declear a pope physical or mentally incapacitated. It seems the bishop of d primus see is judged by no one unless he is dead.
On the inability of cardinals or the college of cardinals to judge the pope "mentally incapacitated" please see this http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/01/31/pope-removed-from-office/ pay attention to the last paragraphs. It does seem everyone lack the ability to declear the pope mentally incapacitated. Also check the last days of pope johnpaul ii when it could be medically proven that he was physically incapacitated and yet nobody dear calls d college and claim that because the pope was physically incapacitated it should be decleared that he is no longer pope.

Reyginus: This is a very complicated issue. While I agree with the article on the below explanation...
(3) Most modern doctors uphold the same ideas. It suffices to quote Canon J. Didiot, dean of the
faculty of Lille: "If after the election of a pope and before his death or raesignation a new election
takes place, it is null and schismatic; the one elected is not in the Apostolic Succession. This was seen at the beginning of what is called,
somewhat incorrectly, the Great Schism of the
West, which was only an apparent schism from a theological standpoint. If two elections take place simultaneously or nearly so, one according to laws previously passed and the other contrary to them, the apostolicity belongs to the pope legally chosen and not to the other, and though there be doubts, discussions, and cruel divisions on this point, as at the time of the so-called Western
Schism, it is no less true, no less real that the apostolicity exists objectively in the true pope. What does it matter, in this objective relation, that
it is not manifest to all and is not recognized by all
till long after? A treasure is bequeathed to me, but
I do not know whether it is in the chest A or in the casket B. Am I any less the possessor of this
treasure?"

please take note of the bolded.

After the theologian let us hear the canonist. The following are the words of Bouix, so competent in all these questions. Speaking of
the events of this sad period he says: "This
dissension was called schism, but incorrectly. No one withdrew from the true Roman pontiff considered as such, but each obeyed the one he
regarded as the true pope. They submitted to him, not absolutely, but on condition that he was
the true pope. Although there were several obediences, nevertheless there was no schism properly so-called" (De Papa, I, 461).
...
As in the link, Pope Urban sudden change in behaviour led to the election of Clement.

a change in behaviour doesn't depose anyone,

The problem is now, we cannot completely define an antipope where the same cardinals who voted for the pope were involved in the election.

actually we can! Those who went the otherway are simply schimatic.

According to google 'If the Pope became physically or mentally
incapacitated then the College of Cardinals could
meet and declare that he no longer has control of
his faculties and is therefore impeded in his
office. This would then open the way to elect a new
Pope'. The sudden change in behaviour of the pope can be termed an inability to control his abilities. And this affected his office.

a "change in behaviour" isn't termed "mentally incapable".
This aside the above would have been an interesting arguement of what constitute "mentally incapacitated" if the schimatic cardinal elected d other papal claimant because the thought urban was mad! Unfortunately the above isn't an arguement because the schimatic cardinal never claimed urban was "physically or mentally incapacitated" instead they tried to justify their act by claiming was never a pope.
That alone distroys d arguement base a mental incapability.