₦airaland Forum

analize701:
That is what i will not do. I will never allow satan draw me into an arena he created, for me to fight him according to his terms using his weapons. i will never do it.

The money i use in paying Tithe is mine. If you don't want to pay, fine, that is your business. But for me to come here and be going back and forth with agents of satan about this? , I say NO.

enjoy your evening.

Open to Hebrews 7. read it carefully and educate yourself.

hahaha so the new testament is now the weapon of the devil just because you can't defend your tithe teaching.

plainbibletruth:
I believe in Biblical Lapsarianism and not TULIP but still hold on to once saved always saved.

lapsarianism is still a school of thought within Calvinism that originated form Theodore Beza and Jerome Zanchius and allowed by the reform dort council.

you are just a more recent branch of John Calvin's doctrines

Syncan:
"...We may well admire in this the admirable wisdom of the Providence of God, who, ever bringing good out of evil, has from time to time suffered the faith and piety of men to grow weak, and allowed Catholic truth to be attacked by false doctrines, but always with the result that truth has afterwards shone out with greater splendor, and that men's faith, aroused from its lethargy, has shown itself more vigorous than before...."

Written in 1925, but just as much a word of encouragement and hope; as it is in these times.

you read am.

the thing almost seem prophetic, the more we shift Christ from the center the more we drown our society.

Syncan:
See ajebutter, na Fada kristimas me and Ubenedictus sabi o

lol,

I remember those bad kids who draw the beard of the fada krismas. the thing always dey weak me.

Nodogragra4me:
Mr. That is no apology. And thankfully even Jews he choose to mention are not enamoured one bit.

An apology subsumed in a mass. A formal apology to first Christian, then.jews


If somebody wiped out your village and pick his campaign platform to apology would you consider that an insult or revernecs

sorry no Catholic today wiped out anyone's village, a Catholic today isn't legally responsible for crimes committed by another person 500 years ago, nor is a Nigerian today responsible for crimes committed in the civil wars. nor is American today responsible for the sin of his forebears. So any apology is but an acknowledgement of past sins so as to forge ahead not a declaration of personal culpability.


so yes an apology subsumed into a mass is still an apology, a recognition of sins, a expression of sorrow for them and an invitation to move forward.

Nodogragra4me:
This stuff you pasted here say he is infallible in faith or moral issues ...There are issues I would have asked you to clarify your opinion on them from this particular post of yours but let us make progress .... Just explain what is meant by the exaltation of the catholic religion.


Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition
received from the beginning of the Christian faith,
for the glory of God Our Savior, the exaltation of
the Catholic Religion, and the salvation of Christian
people, the Sacred Council approving, We teach
and define that it is a divinely-revealed dogma

that stuff I pasted is a council, the very council which you were misinformed about and claimed it says the pope is infallible in every thing. that is the Vatican I council you've been lying about and it clearly defines the extent of infallibility to only include excathedra statement on faith and morals.


The Catholic religion is said to be "exalted" when the truth is proclaimed, errors condemned and the people of God allowed to practice their faith in peace.

Nodogragra4me:
Today, in the prayer dedicated to ''confession of sins against the people of Israel,'' John Paul did not mention the church's behavior during the Holocaust, just as he did not elaborate on other sins of the church. He said, ''We are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.''



The document explains that the church is holy, but is stained by the sins of its children, and requires ''constant purification.'' It implies but does not directly address the delicate issue of whether past church leaders also erred.

'The document should have put it in bold print that 'children of the church' includes popes, cardinals and clergy, and not just people in the pews,'' the Rev. Thomas Reeves, editor of the Jesuit magazine America, commented. ''The pope had a great idea that some in the Vatican are obscuring with a fog machine.''


Protestantism and the Enlightenment ''created a new historiography of the church, claiming that it was not just stained by sin but completely corrupt, so the church had to build up a Catholic historiography to combat it,'' he explained. He said the collapse of atheist, totalitarian systems had left the church ''in a new situation of freedom to return to our sins.''

But the difficulty for theologians and church historians to determine what exactly constituted knowable error during the Crusades, the Inquisition, holy wars, the burning of heretics and the forced conversions of Indians and Africans, led to a more elliptical reference to ''sins committed in the service of truth.'' Cardinal Ratzinger prayed that Catholics would recognize ''that even men of the church in the name of faith and morals, have sometimes used methods not in keeping with the Gospel.''

you can complain about the apology all day but by doing so you'll only be confirming my point, I.e an apology was made.
whether or not it is considered sufficient doesn't negate the FACT that an apology was given.

Nodogragra4me:
Millions of Catholics from whom the historical truth has been hidden have looked upon John XXII as an exceptionally holy man. Was he not favored above all popes by "Our Lady of Mount Carmel" with one of her rare personal appearances? John swore that the "Virgin Mary" appeared to him to present the Great Promise: that she would personally go into purgatory the Saturday after their death and take to heaven all those who, having met certain other conditions, died wearing her brown scapular.


In reliance upon this special Sabbatine [Saturday] Privilege, which was confirmed by other popes, untold millions of Roman Catholics have since worn (and still wear today) the brown scapular of "Our Lady of Mount Carmel" as their ticket to heaven.

John XXII was eventually denounced as a heretic by Emperor Louis of Bavaria, who deposed him and appointed another pope in his place. But the emperor's purging of the papacy turned embarrassing when, shortly after the new pope took office, his wife appeared on the scene. The emperor quickly decided that John XXII wasn't so bad after all.

this only show your ignorance again, pope John xxii isn't considered a holy man unless you speak in terms of Hera, pope John wasn't canonised a saint after his death so I'm surprised you say Catholics consider him exceptionally holy.

2ndly an emperor in medieval times couldn't depose a Pope, he can persecute him or even set up an antipope but he can't legally depose him. emperor Louis set up an antipope pope because he had problems with pope John xxii , john proclaimed excommunication after a while he repented and backed down...

Nodogragra4me:
What I expect from you is not just your personal opinion which amounts to nothing ... You did not live in the era those cruelty took place neither did I .... Support your claims that it must be excathederal with the official cannon of your church saying so ...Unless you can do this , I will continue to pour out from history, your church cannons.

these are the official canons that tell us that infallibility has to be ex cathedra statement on faith and morals.



And the Roman Pontiffs, according to the
exigencies of times and circumstances, sometimes
assembling Ecumenical Councils, or asking for the
mind of the Church scattered throughout the
world, sometimes by particular Synods, sometimes
using other helps which Divine Providence
supplied, defined as to be held those things which,
with the help of God, they had recognized as
conformable with the Sacred Scriptures and
Apostolic Traditions. For the Holy Spirit was not
promised to the successors of Peter that by His
revelation they might make known new doctrine,
but that by His assistance they might inviolably
keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the
Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles.

And indeed, all the venerable Fathers have
embraced, and the holy orthodox Doctors have
venerated and followed, their Apostolic doctrine;
knowing most fully that this See of holy Peter
remains ever free from all blemish of error,
according to the Divine promise that the Lord our
Savior made to the Prince of His disciples: "But I
have prayed for you, so that your faith may not
fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm
your brothers." (Lk 22:32). [21]
This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was
conferred by heaven upon Peter and his
successors in this Chair, that they might perform
their high office for the salvation of all; that the
whole flock of Christ, kept away from the
poisonous food of error by them, might be
nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine;
that the occasion of schism being removed, the
whole Church might be kept one, and, resting on
its foundation, might stand firm against the gates
of Hell.
But since, in this very age in which the salutary
efficacy of the Apostolic office is most of all
required, not a few are found who take away from
its authority, We judge it altogether necessary to
assert solemnly the prerogative which the only-
begotten Son of God found worthy to join with the
supreme pastoral office.

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition
received from the beginning of the Christian faith,
for the glory of God Our Savior, the exaltation of
the Catholic Religion, and the salvation of Christian
people, the Sacred Council approving, We teach
and define that it is a divinely-revealed dogma: that
the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex Cathedra,
that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor
and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his
supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine
regarding faith or morals to be held by the
Universal Church, by the divine assistance
promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of
that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer
willed that His Church should be endowed for
defining doctrine regarding faith or morals: and
that therefore such definitions of the Roman
Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not
from the consent of the Church.





that is pretty clear.

Nodogragra4me:
With regard to the origin of the Roman Doctrine of infallibility:..

. [it] did not slowly "develop" or "unfold," but rather was created in one stroke in the late 1200s [by] an eccentric Franciscan, Peter Olivi (d. 1298), repeatedly accused of heresy. At first no one took Olivi's notion seriously.... The medieval canonists ... had never claimed that the Church needed an infallible head to preserve its faith.... [And] the modern critical attack on the principles of infallibility has the backing of Scripture and the body of Catholic tradition.6

lol

copy and paste

Nodogragra4me:
Assumption is the lowest form Of knowledge. You are assuming that his infallibility is limited but from history it was universal ...See this from history's archive

Much of the "dark side of the history of the Papacy" involving that "empire of force and oppression" resulted from the popes' claim to infallibility. People eagerly embraced the idea in spite of the popes' wickedness. After all, the pagan gods stole one another's wives and lived riotously, so why not the popes?


But the idea that a pope could be thought infallible even while blatantly contradicting himself was remarkable. Yet that fraud was maintained. Such was the case, for example, when Pope Clement XI (1700-21) confirmed King Philip V of Spain and then shortly thereafter King Charles III of Germany, both with the same titles and privileges, including the highly prized Bull of the Crusade. As a result, Charles went to war with Philip to claim the crown which the pope seemingly had given him.

Clement even confirmed two different candidates, one proposed by each sovereign, for the same bishopric. One would think that such blatant contradictions would be proof enough that the pope was not infallible. Yet the bishops arguing the case for Charles III, according to a contemporary observer, "did allege the Pope's infallibility, and that every Christian is obliged in conscience to follow the last declaration of the Pope, and blindly to obey it, without inquiring into the reasons that did move the Pope to it."4 Such is the illogical and unbiblical but absolute and infallible papal authority which had long been claimed by the popes and which became official Roman Catholic dogma at Vatican I.
That Council was coerced by Pius IX (1846-78) even to make submission to the pope a requirement of salvation:


If anyone therefore shall say that blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the prince of all the apostles and the visible head of the whole church militant or that the same directly and immediately received from our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honor only and not of true and proper jurisdiction [over the whole church], let him be anathema [excommunicated and thus damned]!



Please when replying I would want you to add the proof of the church apologies to the Jews and the Christians

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2000/03/13/world/pope-asks-forgiveness-for-errors-of-the-church-over-2000-years.html?referer=


the pope did apologize and you can read it up.




you are again speaking from ignorance, the confirmation of bishops is an administrative affair and has nothing to do with infallibility.

infallibility only concerns faith and morals ex cathedra, Administrative issues aren't infallible and they can be reversed.


I am not assuming, I am stating facts.

analize701:
Satan is using that agent of his to keep the disobedient Christians in poverty.

Satan wants people to always come to him when it comes to money matters. He knows that Tithes liberates our financial dominion, but you don't know.

Boy, if you don't pay Tithe to God, you will pay double to satan. He will collect it in Hospital bills. constant dead in the family. accidents, court or police cases. Satan collects more. You'll borrow or steal to pay, and it's not voluntary like the one you pay to God.


Be hailing satan. You are working against yourself. Daddy Freeze or whatever his name is, is just a stooge in Satan's hands, but you know not.

this is your pastor teaching back it up dear as a new testament teaching

LadyGoddiva:
Look, I’m trying as much as possible to understand that particular situation. He weakened her defenses, she might have enjoyed it oh lol but he did it without her approval. Or he might have held her down. Or she might have been protesting as he was doing it but she liked it anyway but still didn’t want it to happen. It’s possible to give orals to someone who doesn’t want it and it’ll still constitute as rape. Whether it’s touching someone or outrightly having sex with them against their wish.

it is still rape, whether or not she enjoyed it doesn't come to play, she said no, you have to stop.

LadyGoddiva:
I cannot even believe the comments I’m reading here. Like are you fuckiñg shitting me?? Even from fellow ladies too?
Things is, Nigerians are too close minded and backward thinking. A lot of things can constitute as rape. It’s not only when a random guy abducts you and forcefully has sex with you while you scream and fight back can be considered as rape. The basic thing that defines rape is CONSENT! Whether she was wearing only her panties in the man’s bed, even if she was twerking naked for him, as long as she said NO, then he had no right to try and perform any sexual activities on her.
And since when did agreeing to cuddle him automatically imply consent to have sex with him? He even went on to give her orals and strip her. Thing is, even if she may not have fought back, bottom line is, she didn’t want sex to happen. And he went on and did what he wanted anyway. That’s a more subtle kind of rape.
Nigerians really need reonrientation of their mindset when it comes to the issue of rape. I’m seeing a lot of bs comments like “why would she go to a guy’s house when it’s not her boyfriend” and “why would she wear only shorts in his bed and why would she sleep on the Same bed with him?” The thing is, irrespective of the circumstance surrounding the story, she didn’t give her consent and the man had sex with her against her wish. It wasn’t consensual sex thus, it can be classified as rape. Too bad she’s just speaking up now.

it is a pity I couldn't add more than 1 like to this post.

the moment she says no! you can't continue or else it is rape.

even if she began kissing you, she removed your clothes and made all the advances then the moment you wish to begin she says no... you must stop, you must stop. that is the only sane decision. you may beg, plead or ask nicely but you must stop.

where are the pictures?

una no snap pissures?

These people are the ones who are creating divisions
among you. They follow their natural instincts
because they do not have God's Spirit in them.

Jude 1:19

divisions and schism, the very spirit of denominationalism is condemned through out scriptures.

bizme:
And if that assembly doesn't exist? It is not likely Christ had the kinds of Christian assemblies we have around here in mind anyways.

What is most important in Christianity is making heaven, right? Then how come it is individuals that will go to heaven and not church assemblies as a unit?

Scriptural references that condemn outright the lone practice of Christianity will be helpful here.

it is one Church not churches, and it exist because Christ himself promised to be with her for all ages.

it isn't just making heaven, who knows maybe some Muslims will make heaven but that doesn't mean I'll recommend Islam, Christ came and taught and gave his Church the power to continue his ministry, it isn't enough to assume you'll make heaven, follow that assembly God has established to bring you there and don't assume you'll make it through the back door.

not giving up meeting together, as some are in the
habit of doing, but encouraging one another--and all
the more as you see the Day approaching.
New Living Translation
And let us not neglect our meeting together, as some
people do, but encourage one another, especially
now that the day of his return is drawing near

heb 10:25

let me drop this one here, it is quas primas the encyclical the inaugurated Christ the king. it talks about the kingship of Christ in the world.

read at ur pleasure.


http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_11121925_quas-primas.html

fasterwell:
And i am telling you the truth that is settled in heaven and all plains that

His Holiness Olumba Olumba Obu is the REAL CHRIST THE KING

take ooo some where else we are talking about Jesus.

Nodogragra4me:
Some Catholics may have done.... if you as a member is probabilistic about facts is it then the Vatican that supervised it that would accept it as wrong and apologize.... Till date, there has never been an apology to either the Jews or Christians massacre for being Jews and Christians for having a copy of the Bible and insisting on the scripture as their only guide.


infallibility of the pope is not limited to doctrine, please ...whether he speaks ex cathedral or not, he is deemed to be infallible to every Catholics


That they lived eight hundred or a million years ago doesn't mean the crime has been vitiated by the effluxion of time ...it is crime still and the worst kind known to humanity till date and I don't make my post or rejoinder based on hearsay.


The Catholic Church has never apologized because it would be against the dogma of the infallibility of the pope

you are speaking from ignorance because the pope is limited in infallibility, it can only be on issues of doctrine and must be ex cathedra statement. a pope isn't always infallible. and apology for mistakes made by ministers does not negate infallibility.

that they lived so long ago means you have to prove whatever accusations you make.

Nodogragra4me:
Wat is the separation ..one is the office of the head of the church and th other is the head of government, manned by one and same person without parliament.

it is still separate, the fact that I head two related companies doesn't make them the same.

Emmanystone:
Satan wants people to open up to traditions of men so that he can ahve access to plant error. The Catholic Church gave him that room.

The person who wishes that men be open to the apostolic Traditions deposited in the early Church is God himself who told us through the apostle Paul.

"
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the
traditions that you were taught by us, either by our
spoken word or by our letter." 2 thesis 2:15

Whatever is not in the Bible, has not business with the Church of Jesus Christ.

this is a lie from the pits of hell, even the Bible is against this teaching, it is both unbiblical and anti biblical. the Bible itself tells us that it is not a record of all that Christ or his apostles did and taught, in fact it tells us that much of divine revelation were given through words of mouth as the tradition of the early Church and committed to faithful men to teach unto others.

the Church of Christ existed even before the new testament was written, and she decided what consists of the new testament not the other way round.

Paul says, Even if an Angel comes to tell us something different from what the Bible had said, we should curse that person. So, here is for the Catholic Church.
Woe unto you RCC, Babylon, the Great Harlot.

hahaha.

sorry dear, the Catholic Church doesn't teach a different Gospel from what is written, instead she teaches both what is written and the apostolic tradition from the early Church just as the Bible itself tells us to do.

so shame on anyone who follows the Bible alone thereby disobeying the same Bible he claims to follow.

Emmanystone:
By early Church you mean the Catholic i believe? Yeah, the Catholic Church don't work/walk with what the Bible instructs.

so you agree the early Church is the Catholic Church

fasterwell:
What is the difference between how BCS members dressed and Catholic priests?

please you guys should carry your argument somewhere else, this is about Christ the king.

13. The foundation of this power and dignity of Our Lord is rightly indicated by Cyril of Alexandria. "Christ," he says, "has dominion over all creatures, a dominion not seized by violence nor usurped, but his by essence and by nature."[20] His kingship is founded upon the ineffable hypostatic union. From this it follows not only that Christ is to be adored by angels and men, but that to him as man angels and men are subject, and must recognize his empire; by reason of the hypostatic union Christ has power over all creatures. But a thought that must give us even greater joy and consolation is this that Christ is our King by acquired, as well as by natural right, for he is our Redeemer. Would that they who forget what they have cost their Savior might recall the words: "You were not redeemed with corruptible things, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled."[21] We are no longer our own property, for Christ has purchased us "with a great price";[22] our very bodies are the "members of Christ."[23] 14. Let Us explain briefly the nature and meaning of this lordship of Christ. It consists, We need scarcely say, in a threefold power which is essential to lordship. This is sufficiently clear from the scriptural testimony already adduced concerning the universal dominion of our Redeemer, and moreover it is a dogma of faith that Jesus Christ was given to man, not only as our Redeemer, but also as a law-giver, to whom obedience is due.[24] Not only do the gospels tell us that he made laws, but they present him to us in the act of making them. Those who keep them show their love for their Divine Master, and he promises that they shall remain in his love.[25] He claimed judicial power as received from his Father, when the Jews accused him of breaking the Sabbath by the miraculous cure of a sick man. "For neither doth the Father judge any man; but hath given all judgment to the Son."[26] In this power is included the right of rewarding and punishing all men living, for this right is inseparable from that of judging. Executive power, too, belongs to Christ, for all must obey his commands; none may escape them, nor the sanctions he has imposed. 15. This kingdom is spiritual and is concerned with spiritual things. That this is so the above quotations from Scripture amply prove, and Christ by his own action confirms it. On many occasions, when the Jews and even the Apostles wrongly supposed that the Messiah would restore the liberties and the kingdom of Israel, he repelled and denied such a suggestion. When the populace thronged around him in admiration and would have acclaimed him King, he shrank from the honor and sought safety in flight. Before the Roman magistrate he declared that his kingdom was not of this world. The gospels present this kingdom as one which men prepare to enter by penance, and cannot actually enter except by faith and by baptism, which, though an external rite, signifies and produces an interior regeneration. This kingdom is opposed to none other than to that of Satan and to the power of darkness. It demands of its subjects a spirit of detachment from riches and earthly things, and a spirit of gentleness. They must hunger and thirst after justice, and more than this, they must deny themselves and carry the cross. 16. Christ as our Redeemer purchased the Church at the price of his own blood; as priest he offered himself, and continues to offer himself as a victim for our sins. Is it not evident, then, that his kingly dignity partakes in a manner of both these offices?

0. This same doctrine of the Kingship of Christ which we have found in the Old Testament is even more clearly taught and confirmed in the New. The Archangel, announcing to the Virgin that she should bear a Son, says that "the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father, and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."[12] 11. Moreover, Christ himself speaks of his own kingly authority: in his last discourse, speaking of the rewards and punishments that will be the eternal lot of the just and the damned; in his reply to the Roman magistrate, who asked him publicly whether he were a king or not; after his resurrection, when giving to his Apostles the mission of teaching and baptizing all nations, he took the opportunity to call himself king, [13] confirming the title publicly,[14] and solemnly proclaimed that all power was given him in heaven and on earth.[15] These words can only be taken to indicate the greatness of his power, the infinite extent of his kingdom. What wonder, then, that he whom St. John calls the "prince of the kings of the earth"[16] appears in the Apostle's vision of the future as he who "hath on his garment and on his thigh written 'King of kings and Lord of lords!'."[17] It is Christ whom the Father "hath appointed heir of all things";[18] "for he must reign until at the end of the world he hath put all his enemies under the feet of God and the Father.
quas primas

7. It has long been a common custom to give to Christ the metaphorical title of "King," because of the high degree of perfection whereby he excels all creatures. So he is said to reign "in the hearts of men," both by reason of the keenness of his intellect and the extent of his knowledge, and also because he is very truth, and it is from him that truth must be obediently received by all mankind. He reigns, too, in the wills of men, for in him the human will was perfectly and entirely obedient to the Holy Will of God, and further by his grace and inspiration he so subjects our free-will as to incite us to the most noble endeavors. He is King of hearts, too, by reason of his "charity which exceedeth all knowledge." And his mercy and kindness [1] which draw all men to him, for never has it been known, nor will it ever be, that man be loved so much and so universally as Jesus Christ. But if we ponder this matter more deeply, we cannot but see that the title and the power of King belongs to Christ as man in the strict and proper sense too. For it is only as man that he may be said to have received from the Father "power and glory and a kingdom,"[2] since the Word of God, as consubstantial with the Father, has all things in common with him, and therefore has necessarily supreme and absolute dominion over all things created. 8. Do we not read throughout the Scriptures that Christ is the King? He it is that shall come out of Jacob to rule,[3] who has been set by the Father as king over Sion, his holy mount, and shall have the Gentiles for his inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for his possession.[4] In the nuptial hymn, where the future King of Israel is hailed as a most rich and powerful monarch, we read: "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the scepter of thy kingdom is a scepter of righteousness."[5] There are many similar passages, but there is one in which Christ is even more clearly indicated. Here it is foretold that his kingdom will have no limits, and will be enriched with justice and peace: "in his days shall justice spring up, and abundance of peace...And he shall rule from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth."[6] 9. The testimony of the Prophets is even more abundant. That of Isaias is well known: "For a child is born to us and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, God the mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace. His empire shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of peace. He shall sit upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom; to establish it and strengthen it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth and for ever."[7] With Isaias the other Prophets are in agreement. So Jeremias foretells the "just seed" that shall rest from the house of David - the Son of David that shall reign as king, "and shall be wise, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth."[8] So, too, Daniel, who announces the kingdom that the God of heaven shall found, "that shall never be destroyed, and shall stand for ever."[9] And again he says: "I beheld, therefore, in the vision of the night, and, lo! one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven. And he came even to the Ancient of days: and they presented him before him. And he gave him power and glory and a kingdom: and all peoples, tribes, and tongues shall serve him. His power is an everlasting power that shall not be taken away, and his kingdom shall not be destroyed."[10] The prophecy of Zachary concerning the merciful King "riding upon an ass and upon a colt the foal of an ass" entering Jerusalem as "the just and savior," amid the acclamations of the multitude,[11] was recognized as fulfilled by the holy evangelists themselves. quas primas

Venerable Brethren, Greeting and the Apostolic Benediction. In the first Encyclical Letter which We addressed at the beginning of Our Pontificate to the Bishops of the universal Church, We referred to the chief causes of the difficulties under which mankind was laboring. And We remember saying that these manifold evils in the world were due to the fact that the majority of men had thrust Jesus Christ and his holy law out of their lives; that these had no place either in private affairs or in politics: and we said further, that as long as individuals and states refused to submit to the rule of our Savior, there would be no really hopeful prospect of a lasting peace among nations. Men must look for the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ ; and that We promised to do as far as lay in Our power. In the Kingdom of Christ, that is, it seemed to Us that peace could not be more effectually restored nor fixed upon a firmer basis than through the restoration of the Empire of Our Lord. We were led in the meantime to indulge the hope of a brighter future at the sight of a more widespread and keener interest evinced in Christ and his Church, the one Source of Salvation, a sign that men who had formerly spurned the rule of our Redeemer and had exiled themselves from his kingdom were preparing, and even hastening, to return to the duty of obedience.
quas primas

bigtt76:
But we already know this!

so because you already know that Christ is king should that stop Catholics from proclaiming and celebrating his kingship?

Emmanystone:
That makes them an authority? The Catholic Church try to replace everything divine with the mundane. That power you are trying to Usurp belongs to the Holy Spirit.

if they are not an authority then throwaway the Bible they canonized and form your own.

Venerable Brethren, Greeting and the Apostolic Benediction. In the first Encyclical Letter which We addressed at the beginning of Our Pontificate to the Bishops of the universal Church, We referred to the chief causes of the difficulties under which mankind was laboring. And We remember saying that these manifold evils in the world were due to the fact that the majority of men had thrust Jesus Christ and his holy law out of their lives; that these had no place either in private affairs or in politics: and we said further, that as long as individuals and states refused to submit to the rule of our Savior, there would be no really hopeful prospect of a lasting peace among nations. Men must look for the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ ; and that We promised to do as far as lay in Our power. In the Kingdom of Christ, that is, it seemed to Us that peace could not be more effectually restored nor fixed upon a firmer basis than through the restoration of the Empire of Our Lord. We were led in the meantime to indulge the hope of a brighter future at the sight of a more widespread and keener interest evinced in Christ and his Church, the one Source of Salvation, a sign that men who had formerly spurned the rule of our Redeemer and had exiled themselves from his kingdom were preparing, and even hastening, to return to the duty of obedience.

pope Pius on the kingship of Christ.

Pope22:
In as much as I am an Anglican and there are some Roman Catholic doctrines or festivals we don't agree with them...even though we don't observe this festival with them, I so much love and respect this festival and wish Anglicans will join in this one. One religion....One CHRIST, ONE GOD.


Mod..you won't move this thing now to front page, if its a muslim festival, it will be the first to hit front page.

only low church Anglican especially those of Africa who don't celebrate the feast of Christ the king. the high Anglican especially those of Europe and America join Catholic in celebrating it as a feast, same with Lutheran and Episcopalian Church.