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

This man, where you go run enter since all these day? I don miss you like body dey miss water. Okay, that mother church heh, it means, I open a church meanwhile, the bible calls me myself the church. But I open a church and sit at the headquarters and open many branches and tell all the branches to remit all tithes and seed offerings to the mother church, the headquarters that gave birth to all the branches. Can you see how the church is messed up?

^^^ There are more interesting questions.

1. What is "the Church"?

2. Is the Methodist Church a "Church" and/or is it part of "the Church"?

3. Is the Baptist Church a "Church" and/or is it part of "the Church"?

4. Is the Anglican Church a "Church" and/or is it part of "the Church"?

Goshen360: This man, where you go run enter since all these day? I don miss you like body dey miss water. Okay, that mother church heh, it means, I open a church meanwhile, the bible calls me myself the church. But I open a church and sit at the headquarters and open many branches and tell all the branches to remit all tithes and seed offerings to the mother church, the headquarters that gave birth to all the branches. Can you see how the church is messed up?

hehehehe, i've been very busy, i'm not sure i have the time to objective answer your interesting gist, don't worry, i'll have to answer it later.

Ubenedictus, I tried sending you a pm but the system was faulty. But since it is not more of a personal thing, permit me to put it here.
An Invitation To Religion Section Tea Party.
With regards to the religion section tea party to be held on 4th of May, we need your presence and participation. The link is
https://www.nairaland.com/1276139/christians-chatbox-game-party-night

Enigma: ^^^ There are more interesting questions.
1. What is "the Church"?
2. Is the Methodist Church a "Church" and/or is it part of "the Church"?
3. Is the Baptist Church a "Church" and/or is it part of "the Church"?
4. Is the Anglican Church a "Church" and/or is it part of "the Church"?

hehehehe, i actually opened the thread for frobel who seem to have a problem when the church is called 'mother', that not withstanding, i hope to use my limited time to answer your questions.


liguistically the church refer to those, -each and every one- who has been called out of the world into the newness of live in christ Jesus.
More interestingly,
The church is the body of christ and all christians are members of that body, the body is bounded by cords of love, faith among other things. All member who share these bonds of charity and common faith...are truly in communion with the whole body...those who do not, while still remaining part of the body are not fully in communion. And i sincerely pray that all christians may truly come to that fullness of communion.


I'm very sure u can anticipate my answers to question 2, 3, 4, i do not consider the methodist, anglican, lutherian and redeemed "churches" to the churches except in the sense of "a local gathering of believers", i thus consider them ecclesiatical communities. Apart from that sense i do not associate d word church to those congregations! I do not particularly consider those 'entities' as part of the church probably because i do not exactly consider them as entities but as association of INDIVIDUAL BELIEVERS.

Those individual member of those congregation are christians, members of the church though they may not agree in what is the truth of the divine oracles.
So anglicans, methodist are christians, members of the body of christ, members of the church.

Ubenedictus: hehehehe, i actually opened the thread for frobel who seem to have a problem when the church is called 'mother', that not withstanding, i hope to use my limited time to answer your questions.


liguistically the church refer to those, -each and every one- who has been called out of the world into the newness of live in christ Jesus.
More interestingly,
The church is the body of christ and all christians are members of that body, the body is bounded by cords of love, faith among other things. All member who share these bonds of charity and common faith...are truly in communion with the whole body...those who do not, while still remaining part of the body are not fully in communion. And i sincerely pray that all christians may truly come to that fullness of communion.


I'm very sure u can anticipate my answers to question 2, 3, 4, i do not consider the methodist, anglican, lutherian and redeemed "churches" to the churches except in the sense of "a local gathering of believers", i thus consider them ecclesiatical communities. Apart from that sense i do not associate d word church to those congregations! I do not particularly consider those 'entities' as part of the church probably because i do not exactly consider them as entities but as association of INDIVIDUAL BELIEVERS.

Those individual member of those congregation are christians, members of the church though they may not agree in what is the truth of the divine oracles.
So anglicans, methodist are christians, members of the body of christ, members of the church.

And the red bolded is why some people regard the Roman Catholic Church, and its "popes" who came up with that diabolical idea so as to claim "authority", as anti-Christ.

I'm sure you could have anticipated my own response on that.

Ubenedictus: . . .
Those individual member of those congregation are christians, members of the church though they may not agree in what is the truth of the divine oracles.
So anglicans, methodist are christians, members of the body of christ, members of the church.

Oh, and when the Roman Catholic Church says the above it is not to be believed as the statement is no more than lip service. Otherwise (a) if the Roman Catholic Church itself is Christian, and (b) if the Roman Catholic Church truly considers those others also to be Christian ---- then the Roman Catholic Church will not prevent those other supposed fellow Christians from receiving "holy communion" in its "churches".


By the way, are Anglican reverends and bishops validly ordained or are those ones defending deceiving themselves? I am sure you are aware of Roman Catholic doctrine that Anglican orders are "absolutely null and utterly void",

Enigma: ^^^ There are more interesting questions.

1. What is "the Church"?

2. Is the Methodist Church a "Church" and/or is it part of "the Church"?

3. Is the Baptist Church a "Church" and/or is it part of "the Church"?

4. Is the Anglican Church a "Church" and/or is it part of "the Church"?

they are runaway children who picked some of the mother inheritance and ran to squander.we hope they come back home like the prodigal son

can it mean that "catholic church"(RCC) is the mother of the harlot?

Just asking.

Na question i dey ask o!
*leaves thread and walks away*

Goshen360: This man, where you go run enter since all these day? I don miss you like body dey miss water. Okay, that mother church heh, it means, I open a church meanwhile, the bible calls me myself the church. But I open a church and sit at the headquarters and open many branches and tell all the branches to remit all tithes and seed offerings to the mother church, the headquarters that gave birth to all the branches. Can you see how the church is messed up?

oga, e b like say you know read the original post. Mother church doesn't mean the headquarters that collects tithe, it refers to the church as a mother "giving birth" to children of faith.

Reyginus: Ubenedictus, I tried sending you a pm but the system was faulty. But since it is not more of a personal thing, permit me to put it here.
An Invitation To Religion Section Tea Party.
With regards to the religion section tea party to be held on 4th of May, we need your presence and participation. The link is
https://www.nairaland.com/1276139/christians-chatbox-game-party-night

thank God the pm didn't work, right now i have over a thousand email begging for attention, yours would just join the list.

Thanks for the invitation, I can't promise anything but by God's grace i hope i'll be online on the 4th.

Enigma:
And the red bolded is why some people regard the Roman Catholic Church, and its "popes" who came up with that diabolical idea so as to claim "authority", as anti-Christ.
I'm sure you could have anticipated my own response on that.

hehehehehe, to be sincere, i didn't see that coming!
The orthodox church also has a similar idea, do you also call them anti christs?
Nobody came up with that to claim authority!
I'll stop here.
Peace.

Enigma:
Oh, and when the Roman Catholic Church says the above it is not to be believed as the statement is no more than lip service. Otherwise (a) if the Roman Catholic Church itself is Christian, and (b) if the Roman Catholic Church truly considers those others also to be Christian ---- then the Roman Catholic Church will not prevent those other supposed fellow Christians from receiving "holy communion" in its "churches".

ok, for the benefit of those who do not understand the background of the above,
the anglican church practices open communion, that means any christian no matter your denomination can enter the next anglican church and eat their "holy communion. The catholic church and the orthodox communion rejects that practice because holy communion as the name implies, implies communion among those who recieve it. The "holy communion" become a contradiction when anyone who without a communion of faith come forth to recieve it under normal circumstance.
Enigma, the above statement almost suprised me! I didn't expect anyone who had a knowledge of the practices among the apostolic fathers to ask the above! From the earliest times it has been forbiden for one who doesn't share the beliefs of a particular community to recieve there. Read up on st Justin he clearly say that anyone claiming to be a christian who doesn't share the beliefs of d bishop wasn't allowed to d eucharist.
If the "holy communion" in the anglican church meant anything close to what the christian say it means then it would be held in care and not given to anyone.

So my dear, denying anglicans holy communion doesn't mean we don't recognise them as christians, it means we also recognise that we do not believe the same thing.
Ehh...The last time i checked the other christian communities do not recognise that the eucharist recieved in the catholic church is d body and blood of christ and the scriptures clearly says "he who eat and drink without discerning the body eats and drink judgment upon himself". So actually we are protecting the protestants by excluding them from the eucharist.

By the way, are Anglican reverends and bishops validly ordained or are those ones defending deceiving themselves? I am sure you are aware of Roman Catholic doctrine that Anglican orders are "absolutely null and utterly void",

i think i've seen an anglican bishop explain the above, i'll check and post the link.

mumumugu: they are runaway children who picked some of the mother inheritance and ran to squander.we hope they come back home like the prodigal son

this one also suprise me, but only a little.
Hw u dey?

howlongthislife: can it mean that "catholic church"(RCC) is the mother of the harlot?

Just asking.

Na question i dey ask o!
*leaves thread and walks away*

this one really suprised me!
Mother of which harlot?

That aside, i presume the meaning of the phrase "mother church" can be drawn from the original post and it didn't say anything about giving birth to "harlot".
Peace!

Ubenedictus:
this one really suprised me!
Mother of which harlot?

so you dont know?
Go back and read your bible again, this time slowly my friend.

Ubenedictus: thank God the pm didn't work, right now i have over a thousand email begging for attention, yours would just join the list.

Thanks for the invitation, I can't promise anything but by God's grace i hope i'll be online on the 4th.

Okay. Thank you too.

loveroftruth:
so you dont know?
Go back and read your bible again, this time slowly my friend.

hehehe, i am the one to tell u to go back and read your bible with understanding. U are referencing rev17 vs 5, who are d children?

Ubenedictus:
i think i've seen an anglican bishop explain the above, i'll check and post the link.

it seem i couldn't find the link in question, suffice then to say that in the 18/19 century the anglican orders were confirmed to be truly null and uterly viod, unless there has been a significant change within the anglican orders then that judgment stay true!