This thread is made so that Italo will discuss his believes with others, since he prefers it when his name is not attached to the subject. let us see another reason he has to dodge.

1. why do you guys declare the Pope as being infallible, when the Bible shows that we humans fall many times? if I misunderstood the teaching, correct me.

2. why do you Catholic demand that a Catholic must celibate before being a priest when the Bible never stipulated that requirement.

3. why do you guys stick to tradition when you clearly know that some are against Bible teachings?

4. which Scripture supports the belief that Peter had a successor?

5. why do you people invent unscriptural purgatory?

6. which Scripture authorise your church to pray for the dead?

7. which Scripture supports intercession by the dead?

8. why did your prophesy about the gentiles fail when you claim infallibility?

9. how is it that Christ thousand years have begun? when did it start?

Let's start from there. more remains.

JMAN05: This thread is made so that Italo will discuss his believes with others, since he prefers it when his name is not attached to the subject. let us see another reason he has to dodge.

Thanks for affording me this opportunity to talk about our Catholic faith. What a pleasure! I will now go ahead and attend to your concerns. However, I will like us to work with some sort of 'soft rules' - so to say.

1. I will answer all your questions clearly and concisely...but you have to answer all my questions the same way too.

2. Lies are a no-no. If it is proved that one of us has said something false, he must admit and take back the statement.

JMAN05: 1. why do you guys declare the Pope as being infallible, when the Bible shows that we humans fall many times? if I misunderstood the teaching, correct me.

First, i think you misunderstand the teaching. Papal infallibility doesn't mean the Pope cannot fall (sin). That would be "impeccability," not "infallibility," the way the Church sees it.

Papal infallibility means, when the Pope (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church, he is preserved by the Holy Spirit from error. His teaching act is therefore called "infallible" and the teaching which he articulates is termed "irreformable."

The evidence for papal infallibility comes from three sources.

SCRIPTURE

Such passages as: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church; and I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven", and "Do you love me, Peter. Feed my sheep", and "I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail. You in turn must confirm your brethren", have always been taken to refer to a special role for Peter in the establishment of the Church, and special divine protection for Peter in the exercise of his authority.

HISTORY

From the earliest times we see the bishops of Rome acting with special authority in succession from St. Peter, and we also see the rest of the Church accepting their authority because they knew it was genuine. Pope Clement wrote to settle a problem in the Church of Corinth before the end of the 1st century. During the first few hundred years in the Church, many who were accused of heresy appealed from every corner of the known world to Rome for vindication or condemnation. The Early Church Fathers too repeatedly attest to the authority of the Roman See. And the Popes always had the decisive word at general councils, as when the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon said in response to the Papal definition of the two natures of Christ, "Peter has spoken through Leo" -- and accepted it unhesitatingly.

LOGIC

It is clear from Scripture that Peter had a special commission and special powers from Christ to care for the flock of Christ, to bind and loose, and to confirm his brothers in faith -- he had the very powers of the keys to the Kingdom. Obviously, these powers were essential to the Church as constituted by Christ. And Christ promised to be with the Church always to the end of time, and said that the powers of hell would not prevail against it.

Now, clearly Christ knew that Peter would not live until the end of time, so he must have intended that the power he gave to Peter would be carried on until His return. After all, Peter was to feed "my" (Christ's) sheep, and so was serving as the vicar of Christ in Christ's absence. When Peter died, a new vicar would take his place, and so on, until Christ returned to claim his own. The parable of the steward awaiting his Master's return is very much to the point.

Just as clearly, Peter's authority also enabled himself (and his successors) to set forth the manner in which their successors would be selected, either by choosing the successor personally before death, or by setting forth some other means -- eventually, election by the college of cardinals.

Moroever, if these special and essential powers were to pass out of existence, it would be proof that Christ was no longer with his Church and that the powers of Hell had indeed prevailed. Therefore, again, Christ must have intended successors to Peter.

For this reason, we are not at all surprised that subsequent popes claimed to have the Petrine power and that the early Christian community accepted it without question. As I indicated above, this authority was excercised by the fourth Pope, Clement, while St. John the Evangelist was still alive. The earliest Christians were in a position to know Christ's will from other sources than Scripture (just as we today, under the guidance of the Church, are able to learn from Tradition)

Partly culled from http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papac2.htm edited by me

Now before I go to question 2, I have a question for you:

You have stated many times that you are fallible.

Does that mean that you can possibly teach something that is wrong on faith and morals...and/or misinterprete what scripture is saying?

Or are you always correct when you teach on faith/morals and/or interprete scripture?

JMAN05: .
2. why do you Catholic demand that a Catholic must celibate before being a priest when the Bible never stipulated that requirement.

Priestly celibacy is not a Catholic doctrine, only a discipline.

Can we narrow it down to Catholic doctrine?

JMAN05:

3. why do you guys stick to tradition when you clearly know that some are against Bible teachings?

No Catholic tradition is AGAINST Bible teaching. Not one.

JMAN05: 4. which Scripture supports the belief that Peter had a successor?

None that we know of...just like we know of no Scripture that supports that Christ told his apostles to write any books or compile any book and call it "bible." However, we know from other writings by the apostles/their successors and Church tradition that Peter had successors. These men were the ones who also handed down tradition to the men who handed it to the men who compiled the Bible.

And we all know that Sacred Tradition is true.

St Paul tells the Thessalonians to hold fast to oral tradition. He also tells Timothy to pass on the oral tradition to other faithful men.

JMAN05:
5. why do you people invent unscriptural purgatory?

Purgatory was "invented" by God.

What do you mean by "unscriptural?"

italo:

Purgatory was "invented" by God.

having fully understood that you cannot prove this purgatory concept on the other thread (claiming to ignore rather than answer simple questions), your claim can be likened to that of the muslims that declare that 'Muhammad is a true prophet from God sent to restore the faith of Abraham and other prophets'.
I hope that is correct.
....and
If you dont believe them, then why should I believe you?

JMAN05:

6. which Scripture authorise your church to pray for the dead?

2 Machabees 12:40-46. When Judas and his men came to take away for burial the bodies of their brothers who had fallen in the battle against Gorgias, "they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten...And making a gathering, he [Judas] sent twelve [al. two] drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (for if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead), and because he considered that they who had fallen asleep in godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." The inspired author expressly approves Judas's action in this particular case, and recommends in general terms the practice of prayers for the dead. There is no contradiction in the particular case between the conviction that a sin had been committed, calling down the penalty of death, and the hope that the sinners had nevertheless died in godliness — an opportunity for penance had intervened.

But even for those who deny the inspired authority of this book, unequivocal evidence is here furnished of the faith and practice of the Jewish Church in the second century B.C. — that is to say, of the orthodox Church, for the sect of the Sadducees denied the resurrection (and, by implication at least, the general doctrine of immortality), and it would seem from the argument of which the author introduces in his narrative that he had Sadducean adversaries in mind. The act of Judas and his men in praying for their deceased comrades is represented as if it were a matter of course; nor is there anything to suggest that the procuring of sacrifices for the dead was a novel or exceptional thing; from which it is fair to conclude that the practice — both private and liturgical — goes back beyond the time of Judas, but how far we cannot say. It is reasonable also to assume, in the absence of positive proof to the contrary, that this practice was maintained in later times, and that Christ and the Apostles were familiar with it; and whatever other evidence is available from Talmudic and other sources strongly confirms this assumption, if it does not absolutely prove it as a fact (see, v.g., Luckock, "After Death", v, pp. 50 sq.). This is worth noting because it helps us to understand the true significance of Christ's silence on the subject — if it be held on the incomplete evidence of the Gospels that He was indeed altogether silent — and justifies us in regarding the Christian practice as an inheritance from orthodox Judaism.

There is no clear and explicit Scriptural text in favour of prayers for the dead, except the above text of II Machabees. Yet there are one or two sayings of Christ recorded by the Evangelists, which are most naturally interpreted as containing an implicit reference to a purgatorial state after death; and in St. Paul's Epistles a passage of similar import occurs, and one or two other passages that bear directly on the question of prayers for the dead. When Christ promises forgiveness for all sins that a man may commit except the sin against the Holy Ghost, which "shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come" (Matthew 12:31-32), is the concluding phrase nothing more than a periphrastic equivalent for "never"? Or, if Christ meant to emphasize the distinction of worlds, is "the world to come" to be understood, not of the life after death, but of the Messianic age on earth as imagined and expected by the Jews? Both interpretations have been proposed; but the second is far-fetched and decidedly improbable (cf. Mark 3:29); while the first, though admissible, is less obvious and less natural than that which allows the implied question at least to remain: May sins be forgiven in the world to come? Christ's hearers believed in this possibility, and, had He Himself wished to deny it, He would hardly have used a form of expression which they would naturally take to be a tacit admission of their belief. Precisely the same argument applies to the words of Christ regarding the debtor who is cast into prison, from which he shall not go out till he has paid the last farthing (Luke 12:59).
Passing over the well-known passage, 1 Corinthians 3:14 sq., on which an argument for purgatory may be based, attention may be called to another curious text in the same Epistle (15:29), where St. Paul argues thus in favour of the resurrection: "Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? Why are they then baptized form them?" Even assuming that the practice here referred to was superstitious, and that St. Paul merely uses it as the basis of an argumentum ad hominem, the passage at least furnishes historical evidence of the prevalence at the time of belief in the efficacy of works for the dead; and the Apostle's reserve in not reprobating this particular practice is more readily intelligible if we suppose him to have recognized the truth of the principle of which it was merely an abuse. But it is probable that the practice in question was something in itself legitimate, and to which the Apostle gives his tacit approbation. In his Second Epistle to Timothy (1:16-18; 4:19) St. Paul speaks of Onesiphorus in a way that seems obviously to imply that the latter was already dead: "The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus" — as to a family in need of consolation. Then, after mention of loyal services rendered by him to the imprisoned Apostle at Rome, comes the prayer for Onesiphorus himself, "The Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day" (the day of judgment); finally, in the salutation, "the household of Onesiphorus" is mentioned once more, without mention of the man himself. The question is, what had become of him? Was he dead, as one would naturally infer from what St. Paul writes? Or had he for any other cause become separated permanently from his family, so that prayer for them should take account of present needs while prayers for him looked forward to the day of judgment? Or could it be that he was still at Rome when the Apostle wrote, or gone elsewhere for a prolonged absence from home? The first is by far the easiest and most natural hypothesis; and if it be admitted, we have here an instance of prayer by the Apostle for the soul of a deceased benefactor.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04653a.htm

JMAN05:
7. which Scripture supports intercession by the dead?

You mean the Saints - the living?

italo:

None that we know of...just like we know of no Scripture that supports that Christ told his apostles to write any books or compile any book and call it "bible."


And we all know that Sacred Tradition is true.

The first statement is not completely correct....the part in bold is wrong with emphasis on 'write any books'.

John is instructed by Jesus Christ to write the book of revelation- rev 1:11 (that makes your statement a lie).
No subtle lie(s) again please.


regarding the next in bold, I hope you don't mind giving at least one doctrine that originates from oral tradition that the bible is silent about.

JMAN05:

8. why did your prophesy about the gentiles fail when you claim infallibility?

Who said that? Evidence please.

JMAN05: 9. how is it that Christ thousand years have begun? when did it start?

As the Creed infallibly teaches, the Second Coming is associated with the end of the world and the Last Judgment. Therefore, it is NOT associated with any earlier time - such as to establish a "Millennium." The Catholic Church specifically condemns "millenarianism," according to which Jesus will establish a throne in this world and reign here for a thousand years [CCC 676]. She teaches instead that Jesus already reigns in eternity (1 Cor. 15:24-27, Rev. 4 & 5) and that in this world His reign, established as a seed, is found already in the Church [CCC 668-669]. This is the 1000 years, which is the Hebrew way of indicating an indefinite long time - in this case, the time between the first and second comings, the era of the Church, in other words the last days in the broadest sense.The Book of Revelation situates this era between the persecutions of the Roman antichrists of the first century and the final unleashing of evil at the end

adsonstone:

having fully understood that you cannot prove this purgatory concept on the other thread (claiming to ignore rather than answer simple questions), your claim can be likened to that of the muslims that declare that 'Muhammad is a true prophet from God sent to restore the faith of Abraham and other prophets'.
I hope that is correct.
....and
If you dont believe them, then why should I believe you?

Please, on this thread, I want to deal with verified/verifiable facts, not wild 'market woman-like' talk.

Thank you.

adsonstone:

The first statement is not completely correct....the part in bold is wrong with emphasis on 'write any books'.

John is instructed by Jesus Christ to write the book of revelation- rev 1:11 (that makes your statement a lie).
No subtle lie(s) again please.

Sorry about that. John was clearly instructed by Jesus to write the book of The Apocalypse.

That was not intended to be a lie. It wasnt deliberate.

adsonstone: regarding the next in bold, I hope you don't mind giving at least one doctrine that originates from oral tradition that the bible is silent about.

The Bible might not explicitly name each oral tradition but the principle of all them can be found in scripture.

However, if you must have one that the Bible is silent on, I'd say the canon of the New Testament.

The New Testament contains 27 books. No more, no less.

Nowhere does the Bible mention this.

The thread is moving fine so far, @adstone I wish you could be able to see both positive and negative, for now it seems you are blind to one.

just an observation

adsonstone:

The first statement is not completely correct....the part in bold is wrong with emphasis on 'write any books'.

John is instructed by Jesus Christ to write the book of revelation- rev 1:11 (that makes your statement a lie).
No subtle lie(s) again please.


regarding the next in bold, I hope you don't mind giving at least one doctrine that originates from oral tradition that the bible is silent about.

do you read revelation alone?

I am following.
I wonder if the book of macbeth is in the bible? Just asking o.

Ukuts gp: I am following.
I wonder if the book of macbeth is in the bible? Just asking o.

no there is no such book like macbeth in the bible thank you

Ukuts gp: I am following.
I wonder if the book of macbeth is in the bible? Just asking o.

I will suggest you particularly should follow quietly.

Ukuts gp: I am following.
I wonder if the book of macbeth or machabees is in the bible? Just asking o.

communique issued after the compilation of the bible in 419CE

Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.)

That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture

Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:
•Genesis.
•Exodus.
•Leviticus.
•Numbers.
•Deuteronomy.
•Joshua the Son of Nun.
•The Judges.
•Ruth.
•The Kings, iv. books.
•The Chronicles, ij. books.
•Job.
•The Psalter.
•The Five books of Solomon.
•The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
•Isaiah.
•Jeremiah.
•Ezechiel.
•Daniel.
•Tobit.
•Judith.
•Esther.
•Ezra, ij. books.
•Macchabees, ij. books. ◦The New Testament. ■The Gospels, iv. books.
■The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
■The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
■The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
■The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
■The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
■The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
■The Revelation of John, j. book.



Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm



KINDLY RESTRICT YOUR NEXT QUESTIONS TO THE TOPIC AS I DO NOT WANT TO DERAIL THIS THREAD

Copy and paste tins activated.
Machabees is nt in my bible.

Ukuts gp: Copy and paste tins activated.
Machabees is nt in my bible.

thanks for your obervation.Even the books of genesis to Zechariah were not in Marcion's bible

*following*

italo:

Please, on this thread, I want to deal with verified/verifiable facts, not wild 'market woman-like' talk.

Thank you.

Alright.
Agreed as you have said; verified/verifiable facts only.

Ubenedictus: do you read revelation alone?

my answer: NO

Kindly re-read Italo's post that prompted that reply.

By the way, He has replied and his respose is quite satisfactory.

On this thread, I'd like to make my opinion/questions known to catholic members (without criticism) and I'll like to receive polite answers/opinions in line with my posts.

I'll quote others and expect to receive responses from them. However, the post is also open to others who have answers (in line with the questions) too.

Thanks

A propos the book of Maccabees, here are just two major Roman Catholics who state that they are not in the "Bible" or canon.


Jerome:

"As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."


Per "pope" Gregory I or Gregory the Great

Just before referring to the Maccabees, he said

“With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony.”

There are still many others we can point to .............

Meanwhile the lies about Carthage have been exposed on other threads, if necessary all I have to do is copy and paste from one made earlier.

Syncan: The thread is moving fine so far, @adstone I wish you could be able to see both positive and negative, for now it seems you are blind to one.

just an observation

kindly explain your observation.

What do you mean by 'positive and negative'?

italo:
The Bible might not explicitly name each oral tradition but the principle of all them can be found in scripture.

However, if you must have one that the Bible is silent on, I'd say the canon of the New Testament.

The New Testament contains 27 books. No more, no less.

Nowhere does the Bible mention this.

If the principles for applying the oral traditions are taught in the scripture, then the scripture is still a reference source for oral tradition.

Then, I have this question for you concerning your reply.

Is the new testament canon a doctrine/tradition?

It is my hope that Pentecostals can read this thread and see what the error of General Overseerism can lead; from the way Roman Catholics have turned Christ's innocuous words to Peter to Him ordaining peter a pope with possibility of a successor. Indeed the Reformation is the greatest to Christ body following His first coming. I have heard of Catholic theologians but not read any. I praise Italo; atleast he knows what he saying... Not like these Pentecostals - I will reserve names for now.

I wish to say one thing here about "tradition" as used by Roman Catholics. Many Roman Catholics, and even more so on Nairaland, are actually not even clear on what their denomination means by "tradition". There are also some who simply use the word "tradition" for anything they do that cannot be supported by Scripture.

On the other hand, Roman Catholic teaching is that for "tradition" to be upheld, it must be uniformly supported by the "church fathers". Thus if there is disagreement among the "fathers" the teaching is not really established and individuals may be free on what to believe.

Now see one thing that even the Roman Catholic encyclopaedia admits! http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

(I am going to replace part of the quote with ellipsis because it is "spin" )

"It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. .... Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one ....."


Please note the implication and indeed the fact is that most "church fathers" do not interprete Matthew 16:18 as giving some "pope" or the Roman Catholic Church any "supremacy"!

Nice thread so far...

Meanwhile my question is... Since the Catholic church is regarded as the "one true "church, whats the churches stand on other Christians (secessionists) making heaven?