@luckyCO,

How body?

luckyCO:

If u mean that what they do (Catholics) looks like they are worshiping mary fine and good that is your opinion. I believe sharing this type of view to me is a means of instituting hatred and war among other christian sect.

It is not my opinion that the Roman Catholic Popes and Bishops have openly and brazenly pronounced that Catholics WORSHIP Mary from the earliest Christian era. Go back and see it where I quoted it directly seevral times - and then let me know if that was my opinion!

When the question was first asked, the few catholics who were discussing in the threads denied that Catholics pray to Mary. Of course, when the evidence was posted, nobody from your camp squeaked any more to deny that!

The question was also popped about Catholics WORSHIPPING Mary. Again, it was denied. Now a small evidence has been posted - what have Catholics said thereto?

You could sit conveniently behind a PC and complain that it is anyone's opinion to say that Catholics worship Mary. We have shown the hard facts - deal with it or show us that the direct quote was not actually sourced from the Vatican! Instead of grumbling about 'instituting hatred and war', please deal also with the FACT that the Catholic Church murdered innocent people whose only crime was that they could not swallow theidolatry of the Vatican!

Cheers.

Remember today is holy day of obligation

Oby1:

Remember today is holy day of obligation

Every single day in the life of a believer is holy.

GLORY, HONOUR, POWER, MAJESTY, REVERENCE, ADORATION TO THE ONE THAT WAS SLAIN ON THE CROSS AND THAT IS NO OTHER PERSON THAN JESUS CHRIST.

WHOSOEVER SAYS THAT HONOUR SHOULD BE GIVEN TO MARY IS NOT SAYING THE RIGHT THING AND INFACT IT IS TOTALLY UNSCRIPTURAL AND A DECEPTION OF THE SLEEKY one THE DEVIL. PLEASE, LET US BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT WE HEAR OR SAY.

IN JOHN 2, MARY SAID THAT "WHATEVER HE (JESUS) TELLS YOU TO DO, DO IT". PLEASE HIS GLORY WILL HE NOT SHARE WITH ANYONE NOT EVEN MARY. MY HEART GOES OUT TO THOSE THAT ARE STILL HONOURING THAT YOU SHOULD QUICKLY DESIST FROM IT AND REPENT OF IT. THE BIBLE SAYS(HOSEA 4:6) MY PEOPLE PERISH FOR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE.

AS YOU TAKE THIS BOLD STEP, I BELIEVE THE GOOD LORD WILL HAVE MERCY AND FORGIVE YOU AND SET YOU ON THE RIGHT PATH WITH HIM.

GOD BLESS YOU.



CHIDERA
08023189838

Oby1:

Remember today is holy day of obligation

yes, thanks and i went to mass too

@Carlosein
happy celebration

Today's Feast Day

Feast of All Souls

The Church has encouraged prayer for the dead from the earliest times as an act of Christian charity. "If we had no care for the dead," Augustine noted, "we would not be in the habit of praying for them." Yet pre-Christian rites for the deceased kept such a strong hold on the superstitious imagination that a liturgical commemoration was not observed until the early Middle Ages, when monastic communities began to mark an annual day of prayer for the departed members.

In the middle of the 11th century, St. Odilo, abbot of Cluny (France), decreed that all Cluniac monasteries offer special prayers and sing the Office for the Dead on November 2, the day after the feast of All Saints. The custom spread from Cluny and was finally adopted throughout the Roman Church.

The theological underpinning of the feast is the acknowledgment of human frailty. Since few people achieve perfection in this life but, rather, go to the grave still scarred with traces of sinfulness, some period of purification seems necessary before a soul comes face-to-face with God. The Council of Trent affirmed this purgatory state and insisted that the prayers of the living can speed the process of purification.

Superstition still clung to the observance. Medieval popular belief held that the souls in purgatory could appear on this day in the form of witches, toads or will-o’-the-wisps. Graveside food offerings supposedly eased the rest of the dead.

Observances of a more religious nature have survived. These include public processions or private visits to cemeteries and decorating graves with flowers and lights. This feast is observed with great fervor in Mexico.

Quote

“We must not make purgatory into a flaming concentration camp on the brink of hell—or even a ‘hell for a short time.’ It is blasphemous to think of it as a place where a petty God exacts the last pound—or ounce—of flesh, St. Catherine of Genoa, a mystic of the 15th century, wrote that the ‘fire’ of purgatory is God’s love ‘burning’ the soul so that, at last, the soul is wholly aflame. It is the pain of wanting to be made totally worthy of One who is seen as infinitely lovable, the pain of desire for union that is now absolutely assured, but not yet fully tasted” (Leonard Foley, O.F.M., Believing in Jesus).

Feast of all souls (remember your departed loved ones).

Glory to Jesus!!! Honour to blessed Virgin Mary

May the the souls of the faithful departed
Through the Mercy of God rest in peace . . . . .

Eternal Rest, Grant them O Lord
and let your perpetual light shine upon them

May they rest in peace
Amen

Glory to The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit
as it was in the begining, is now and ever shall be , world without end
Amen.

Oby1:

Remember today is holy day of obligation

ya, just Carlosein i also went for mass

Oby1:

Feast of all souls (remember your departed loved ones).

Glory to Jesus!!! Honour to blessed Virgin Mary

ya, i prayed specially for them during Mass today

Glory to Jesus, Honour to Mary.

oby, viee lawyer and all:

this is what this thread was for in the first place, to encourage us to live our faith in the best way possible in

this world. and i think you guys have tried in your own way to make this happen. on behalf of everyone, i

thank you so much and please keep up the good work.

by the way where are others, i.e ebos?

Oby1:

Feast of all souls (remember your departed loved ones).

Glory to Jesus!!! Honour to blessed Virgin Mary

ya, i prayed specially for them during Mass today

Glory to Jesus, Honour to Mary.

please let's remember that a plenary indulgence can be gained from the 1st to 8th of November,

applicable to the souls in purgatory if one visits either a cemetery, a chapel or church and there pray for the

dead.

Let us not forget the Holy souls in purgatory, members of the Church Suffering.

Holy Mary, Mother of the Church, Pray for Us and for your children in purgatory. Amen.

I will be attending the evening mass today, since i couldn't make it to the morning mass.

During this period, please remember my departed uncle too in your prayer, he appeared to my brother in a dream and asked him to put him in prayer, his name is Joseph and also a departed friend too by name Patrick.

Thanks so much all

Eternal Rest grant unto them O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon them.

May they rest in Peace. Amen

Carlosein:


please let's remember that a plenary indulgence can be gained from the 1st to 8th of November,  applicable to the souls in purgatory if one visits either a cemetery, a chapel or church and there pray for the   dead.

Holy Mary, Mother of the Church, Pray for Us and for your children in purgatory. Amen.

Don't deceive yourself this November!

There's nothing like "indulgence" with Jesus Christ.

And more than that, there's nothing like "children in purgatory" - that was a mastercraft from the Vatican which was used to lead you by the nose. The same Vatican today is denying the same purgatory for children!

While the words of the Pope have long gone unchallenged
in Latin America and other countries with large Catholic
communities, even the staunchest supporters of the Vatican's doctrines
must be scratching their heads at this:

after 800 years, Pope Benedict XVI has done away with
the concept of "limbo"

 (http://vivirlatino.com/2007/04/23/pope-no-more-limbo-its-heaven-or-hell.php)

                - - - - - - - --


[list]
In a long-awaited document published on Friday, the Vatican says that the traditional view of limbo as the destiny of those who die unbaptised is based on an "unduly restrictive view of salvation" and that God "wants all human beings to be saved".

The result is that, with the approval of Pope Benedict, the Vatican's International Theological Commission has effectively buried the concept of limbo, the International Herald Tribune reports.

Limbo, which comes from the Latin word meaning "border" or "edge," was considered by medieval theologians to be a state or place reserved for the unbaptised dead, including good people who lived before the coming of Christ.



"Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered ,  give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision (of God)," the document said, according to Catholic News Service which is part of the US Catholic Bishops Conference.

Source: (http://www.cathnews.com/news/704/108.php)
[/list]

Good. The Vatican that started this nonsense in the first place, managed to mislead simple souls for over 800 YEARS; and now, by popular demand, the same Vatican has acquisced to EFFECTIVELY BURY the concept and drop the "holy deceit"!!

The amazing thing is that, while the Vatican has released you from that heresy and effectively buried the concept, the rest of you Catholics on this side of the hemisphere will not let the fabricated nonsense remain buried - even after 800 years!!

Well done!



_{tsk-tsk! I 4got to mention MARIOLATRY!! Another time!}

i gathered from a source that a Priest in Lekki Parish was shot dead. Please we all should remember him too in our prayers. And also commit all the Clergy's into the hands of God.

Oby1:

i gathered from a source that a Priest in Lekki Parish was shot dead. Please we all should remember him too in our prayers. And also commit all the Clergy's into the hands of God.

May God protect His children from wicked men. Amen.

Oby1:

i gathered from a source that a Priest in Lekki Parish was shot dead. Please we all should remember him too in our prayers. And also commit all the Clergy's into the hands of God.

God have mercy!

_{But how could they have killed a regular creator of Jesus during the eucharist on the host?}

Oby1:

i gathered from a source that a Priest in Lekki Parish was shot dead. Please we all should remember him too in our prayers. And also commit all the Clergy's into the hands of God.

my mother called to tell me yesterday night that a priest had died (don't know if it's the same one)

and to pray for his Soul. if he was shot, i wonder why.

Agnus Dei, Qui tollis peccata mundi,

Miserere Nobis. Amen.

my mother called to tell me yesterday night that a priest had died (don't know if it's the same one)

I think is the same (i heard it this morning)

May his soul and all the souls of faithful departed rest in perfect peace. AMEN

dear brothers and sisters in christ
all to JESUS through MARY our mother
Today the 2nd of NOV is d holy souls day i hope u remembered to pray  4 them
ENTERNAL REST GRANT UNTO THEM OH LORD,AND LET PERPETUAL LITE SHINE ON THEM MAY THEY REST IN PEACE AMEN.
please try and join any society u can to profess your faith.





please this thread is 4 practising catholic and them  people critisizing shuld back off
AM PROUD TO BE A CATHOLIC NO MATTER DEM TALK.

akeye:

please this thread is 4 practising catholic and them people critisizing shuld back off
AM PROUD TO BE A CATHOLIC NO MATTER DEM TALK.

Lol. . . you just arrived. Welcome.
I'm not proud, but very humbly I'd like to register this:

NOTHING go happen after your barking!

I saw this post earlier and earmarked it as one i would love to reply to; sorry it's late but here goes.

@lawyer, carlosein and others,

ok i get your point that you guys are totally pissed with the whole mary interceding for catholics concept designed by the vatican and as one commentator on this board put it succiently, without the issue of mary as the fore runner of the catholic faith, there would be no Rcc.

Ok, let’s read on.

But look deeply again, if the mariotary tendences were totally expunged as you crave for, does that mean people would no longer go to the catholic church and hear the word of God ? You guys make it sound like 24/7 catholics only talk about mary interceding and they don't read their bibles and do other things that the bible tells us to do.

First, “mariotary (sic) tendencies” isn’t the only problem with the catholic church – it is much deeper than that. Obviously, you can't just wave it aside as though it were trivial. However, concerning the RCC, at its core, it’s an allegiance problem – who is at the center of worship in the RCC? What is the central yardstick for the determination of doctrine? Those are the real questions. Thus, if Mariolatry tendencies were removed, there would still be problems – its like when an organization needs a whole paradigm shift, or a reform, a lot of things would have to be changed such that, at the end of the day, there would be no semblance with the original entity. The core problem is the what I outlined in bold – the Word of God is not the core allegiance of the RCC. When somebody tried to champion a cause for the Catholic Church to return to the scriptures – I assume you are aware with the theme of the reformation; “sola scriptura” – he was excommunicated, because the RCC does not accept that the scriptures are the sole basis for doctrine. Thus, you can see that there is a core issue that makes one stand apart and say; ‘come out of this organization’. The foundation of the Word is the only foundation given to man to build on – any other foundation is faulty; and if the foundations are destroyed . . . .
So when you say "hear the Word of God" i have to say; "which Word of God" - the RCC version? the adulterated version? which?
You cannot treat a disease by symptomatic treatment - it can only ameliorate the situation - you have to address the cause. Why the Mariolatory and other problems? If the catholic church clearly addresses its foundation - which i doubt is possible - then there would cease to be such a loud outcry.
Beyond that, I have to disagree that Catholics read their bible; I’ve been there before so I know. A few people do, but they do so with the background mindset that the bible is not that important, that there are some ‘traditions’ that must be upheld (even where they are at clear loggerheads with what is written) – what do you expect such a mindset to produce in you? If one were to carefully go through the bible independent of any outside persuasion, it wouldn’t take long for one to discover how much the practices of the RCC are at variance with the scriptures. All I’m saying is – it’s not a peripheral problem, it’s a core problem.

Besides, 85% of catholics don't even know what your talking about the past speeches of the popes dead and present and the politics of the vatican. They are just interested in the masses they attend and the thanksgiving at the end. So much of these intellectual speeches about the rcc, doesnt really hold water in a typical african catholic church. Just the way an american protestant church has it's ways and dealings of it's church, is totally different from the way african protestant ministers operate. The key word amongst both churches is that, they believe in God and christ is our saviour and we all want to go to heaven. They mode and manner we all achieve our final aspiration using the bible as a footnote is left to each individual to pursue.

First, ignorance is bliss – but it’s never a justifiable excuse. We as human beings have a responsibility to find things out, to test things, to ask questions. Sorry to say, but the way the book of proverbs describes the simple , especially in chapter one, does not leave it to be desired. Furthermore, the fact that the majority of people don’t know about it is not a license to continue in ignorance. One is accountable for the knowledge he receives – what about the ones that have heard about those things and still don’t care?
Now where the issue really gets dicey is that it is easy to mouth the “I believe in God, Jesus is our savior”. Some people will even take it very far and say “hey we are all serving the same God it is only that we take different routes” – such statements are easy to make but they don’t really hold water. That is why I believe Jesus clearly differentiated between the professors of faith (those who call him Lord, Lord) from those that actually walk in the faith. If your allegiance is not clearly to the word and you allow yourself to be swayed and thus deceived by another man’s (false) doctrine – you do not have an excuse (eph 4). So, merely making such professions and having wishes to go to heaven is not enough – Jesus clearly said the road is narrow, and the onus is on one to “examine himself to see if he is in the faith” (1Cor 13; 5). It is very clear that the RCC doctrines on as core an issue as salvation is markedly different from what the bible teaches. Furthermore, that said, one has to “continue in him” (Col 2: 5-6) – so even if one started on the right path and you suddenly discovered that you’ve strayed, one need to retrace his steps.

All these criticisms against the rcc is just over the top and mind you, we are all learning and sharing experiences about the best mode and manner to seek eternal life, be it the buddists, muslims, tibetan monks, protestants or rcc faithfuls. The pope is just human like everyone else and the chances of you making heaven before him is known to only God. So let's shealth our swords and spread the gospel and stop picking on fellow christians. It's this kind of put down syndrome that people of other faiths poke and make fun of christianity as not being a united front.

I’d ignore the fact that you robed all sorts of religions with totally different viewpoints together (I guess that’s the banner of ecumenism eh?).
The issue that we should point out is that, we are actually spreading the gospel – if you believe, for example, as a catholic that by saying the rosary you have escaped hell (or purgatory) and would enter heaven, does such a one actually think that by attaching (like a handbag) Jesus to that false doctrine, he has believed the gospel? Does such a one not need the gospel? Would preaching the gospel to such a one not entail pointing out the erroneous belief?
My real problem is: why do people think that ‘unity’ demands that we cannot speak the truth? Does unity connote uniformity? Furthermore, can two irreconcileable extremes be united? Paul was not in disunity with Peter, yet he was still able to correct the latter when he was in error. In fact, there cannot be true unity without a willingness to speak the truth and correct one another; in the absence of that you can only attain a mere façade of unity.

While you might go on about the excesses of the rcc and it's flagrant abuse of history and cover ups and pointing accusing fingers at everything catholic, remember your also doing the same thing that you aborh so much about the catholic church by also propagating and castigating another religious organization. 2 wrongs don't make a right and health discuss shouldnt be confused with mock me down syndrome.

Now bros, this isn’t very good reasoning here. I assume you’re a lawyer: when did the prosecutor and the plaintiff become guilty of the same crime? You did not deny those crimes, yet you’re accusing the one who points out the crime as being likewise guilty – in what court does that line of accusation hold?
That said however, that is not the main issue – but a mere diversion, the real problem here is not a history problem, it’s a present problem – it’s not merely an atrocity issue (not that they don’t exist – but they probably don’t affect the majority of catholics) it’s the doctrinal issue (a foundational issue) – rather than an issue of past atrocities committed – that affects the majority of Catholics, and that’s what we’re concerned about. The catholic church might not be killing people now (physically) but a lot of people are being spiritually starved by being fed with erroneous doctrines – that’s the core issue; not the past atrocities of the Vatican. You can’t be eating poisoned food and expect to be healthy at the end – it doesn’t work that way.

P.s: what happened to the freedom of religion as expounded in the 1999 constitution of Nigeria?   

Has this stopped being a mere discussion forum? Have people been prevented or constrained from keeping their religions? Ultimately what we can do for each other is to offer the Truth, it is the prerogative of every individual to accept or reject. Cheers

@lawyer,

How body?

Please don't take it that I was being rude or anything of the sort for not having replied to your two last repostes. Great to see you back and sometimes make objective contributions to the thread - you have my respects for that (and that's most probably why I didn't want to push it by sculpting a detailed response initially).

Having read through ricadelide's, I'd say that some of the issues in yours have been well addressed (IMHO). So, again I'd ask that you have me excused for not commenting on yours for now. Perhaps in some time in the near future, I'd like to sit down and crystallize my thoughts the concerns variously expressed in yours.

Many blessings - and God's peace be yours in His beloved Son, Jesus Christ.

Today's Saint

St. Martin de Porres (1579-1639)

"Father unknown" is the cold legal phrase sometimes used on baptismal records. "Half-breed" or "war souvenir" is the cruel name inflicted by those of "pure" blood. Like many others, Martin might have grown to be a bitter man, but he did not. It was said that even as a child he gave his heart and his goods to the poor and despised.

He was the illegitimate son of a freed woman of Panama, probably black but also possibly of Native American stock, and a Spanish grandee of Lima, Peru. He inherited the features and dark complexion of his mother. That irked his father, who finally acknowledged his son after eight years. After the birth of a sister, the father abandoned the family. Martin was reared in poverty, locked into a low level of Lima’s society.

At 12 his mother apprenticed him to a barber-surgeon. He learned how to cut hair and also how to draw blood (a standard medical treatment then), care for wounds and prepare and administer medicines.

After a few years in this medical apostolate, Martin applied to the Dominicans to be a "lay helper," not feeling himself worthy to be a religious brother. After nine years, the example of his prayer and penance, charity and humility led the community to request him to make full religious profession. Many of his nights were spent in prayer and penitential practices; his days were filled with nursing the sick and caring for the poor. It was particularly impressive that he treated all people regardless of their color, race or status. He was instrumental in founding an orphanage, took care of slaves brought from Africa and managed the daily alms of the priory with practicality as well as generosity. He became the procurator for both priory and city, whether it was a matter of "blankets, shirts, candles, candy, miracles or prayers!" When his priory was in debt, he said, "I am only a poor mulatto. Sell me. I am the property of the order. Sell me."

Side by side with his daily work in the kitchen, laundry and infirmary, Martin’s life reflected God’s extraordinary gifts: ecstasies that lifted him into the air, light filling the room where he prayed, bilocation, miraculous knowledge, instantaneous cures and a remarkable rapport with animals. His charity extended to beasts of the field and even to the vermin of the kitchen. He would excuse the raids of mice and rats on the grounds that they were underfed; he kept stray cats and dogs at his sister’s house.

He became a formidable fundraiser, obtaining thousands of dollars for dowries for poor girls so that they could marry or enter a convent.

Many of his fellow religious took him as their spiritual director, but he continued to call himself a "poor slave." He was a good friend of another Dominican saint of Peru, Rose of Lima.

Quote

Pope John XXIII remarked at the canonization of Martin (May 6, 1962), "He excused the faults of others. He forgave the bitterest injuries, convinced that he deserved much severer punishments on account of his own sins. He tried with all his might to redeem the guilty; lovingly he comforted the sick; he provided food, clothing and medicine for the poor; he helped, as best he could, farm laborers and Negroes, as well as mulattoes, who were looked upon at that time as akin to slaves: thus he deserved to be called by the name the people gave him: 'Martin of Charity.'"

"My Lord and my God, take from me all that separates me from you! My Lord and my God, give me everything that will bring me closer to you! My Lord and my God, protect me from myself and grant that I may belong entirely to you!" AMEN.



@Akeye
You are welcome in the company of God's people.

thank u oby1
may God bless u

Here also (2)

First of all, I want to apologise here to everyone in my expressions. I acknoledge that my replies were a bit too strong - and yes, there's no denying that it was not the best I could do.

I don't have a stubborn nature - so for the many friends who have emailed my the last half hour, this is just to confirm that I saw your caution and made good my promise. . . too many names to mention, but b.rent, Tox, Fide, I deeply appreciate your counsel and value my friendship with you guys than any debate anyday! I promised to apologise to Nairalanders, and i've done so.

Sincerely,
pilgrim.1



_{As regards the challenge to post the Popes' other statements of having WORSHIPPED Mary, I won't be too forward - as one is enough to confirm it for now.}

@ricadelide

Actually i saw your post and decided i wasnt going to reply it because if in the heat of passion, you try to point out a fact and you lace it with sugar coated insults, it's not worth replying because it simply shows how determined you are to win an argument when really there is none at hand.

While i appreciate you picking out loop holes in my earlier posts, i detest pointing fingers to one particular individual to poke or make fun unduly. E.g let me give you an example of where you deviated from the point of discuss

Now bros, this isn’t very good reasoning here. I assume you’re a lawyer: when did the prosecutor and the plaintiff become guilty of the same crime? You did not deny those crimes, yet you’re accusing the one who points out the crime as being likewise guilty – in what court does that line of accusation hold?

1. Am proud to be a lawyer and i can flaunt it anywhere. Please be kind enough to share your proffession to the public someday if you do have one in hand.

2. Lesson 101 in law: A prosecutor is used in criminal cases and a plaintiff is a claimant for monetary demands or seeking damages in civil cases. Them no concern each other. So i dont understand your comparison for lumping a state prosecutor and a plaintiff in the same case?? Please check wikipedia for more articles on law to refreshen your basic law 101.

3. You say i didnt deny those crimes yet am pointing out the other person who pointed the crime as being guilty likewise.

Well law 201: A defendant even though he admits certain facts of a plaintiffs claim can also issue a counter claim on his behalf against the plaintiff so as to be adequately compensated in a civil case. World wide, this is the norm and see-saw battles between defendants and plaintiffs.So even though i admited certain wrongs of the Rcc, i could as well counterclaim demands that your also wrong in certain departments and facts of the Rcc. So as for asking me which court does that line of accusation hold, well maybe i should assume your not on this planet and the judicial system in mars is probably different.

3. Thirdly your not in the position to determine what is good reasoning or not. One man's terrorists is another man's freedom fighter. While you might have picked holes in my arguments, it doesnt warrant you to debase a fellow debater on an issue when i didnt pick on you or call your name or anyother person. If you have cared to read my posts these days, i have tried to balance all issues of the arguments and take it in a neutral perspective and volunteer my opinions on it, which i know is open to scrutiny but not a licence to delve into vulgarism and brain twisted remarks.

I take pride these days on not browsing the internet to gather facts about the Rcc from various catholic or non catholic websites to buttress my point, but soley watching and playing the field to see what i can gather in real life from my little interactions with catholics and the catholic church before i base my opinions.

You might go on endless about what the vatican did 2 millon years ago and what the basis of the doctrine they teach is, but your still not in the best position to analyse and castigate an average catholic who doesnt possess such intellectual wisdom as yours or has access to the internet to dig out facts past or present.

I will attempt to bring out issues from your posts for you to see things in another perspective;

First, “mariotary (sic) tendencies” isn’t the only problem with the catholic church – it is much deeper than that. Obviously, you can't just wave it aside as though it were trivial. However, concerning the RCC, at its core, it’s an allegiance problem – who is at the center of worship in the RCC? What is the central yardstick for the determination of doctrine? Those are the real questions. Thus, if Mariolatry tendencies were removed, there would still be problems – its like when an organization needs a whole paradigm shift, or a reform, a lot of things would have to be changed such that, at the end of the day, there would be no semblance with the original entity

Firstly you talk of an allegiance. Is it a crime to pledge allegiance to something you believe in and trust? Just the way various protestant churches pay allegiance to their churches and pastors which i have no qualms with, why single out the Rcc alone as a set of people paying allegiance to the church? I guess you do attend a church and your proud of your church and what it teaches you. Isnt that a form of allegiance to that church? Why dont you shift churches
every sunday just because you want to hear the word of God?

Also you talk of if the mariolatatry tendencies were removed, there would still be problems. First thing you have to understand, the mariolatory tendences of the catholic church will never be removed from the catholic church. The best thing that can happen is to make it conform with mordern times and expunge some parts which contemporary thoughts will assume to be repugnant. The whole issue of praying to mary and worshipping it could be interpreted by millions of people to mean a million different things but to say i as a person go to the rcc to pray to mary all day is not true.

Besides the history of protestant churches shows that there has been a major paragrim shift from the modus operandi from the days of the lutherians and the calvinist to mordern day benny hinn or oyakhilome and in the next 20 years, new things will evolve and things that dont conform with the teachings in protestant churches will give way too. The way the catholic church was 300 years ago or so, is not the same way it is being practiced in a lowly catholic church somewhere in idumota or in saotome. When you keep on lumping the activities of the past churches and present times worship, your making a grave error. The only constant thing is change from the doctrine but not a change from the word of God.

The core problem is the what I outlined in bold – the Word of God is not the core allegiance of the RCC. When somebody tried to champion a cause for the Catholic Church to return to the scriptures – I assume you are aware with the theme of the reformation; “sola scriptura” – he was excommunicated, because the RCC does not accept that the scriptures are the sole basis for doctrine. Thus, you can see that there is a core issue that makes one stand apart and say; ‘come out of this organization’. The foundation of the Word is the only foundation given to man to build on – any other foundation is faulty; and if the foundations are destroyed . . . .
So when you say "hear the Word of God" i have to say; "which Word of God" - the RCC version? the adulterated version? which?

Trust me my friend, the word of God is just one and it says there is a GOD, his only begotten son called Jesus christ and his mother was mary. Now i dont see any thing adulterated from what i just recited that is probably different from what is in your own bible. Whether you call it the kings james version or the rcc missal or whatever, it's just a book and remains a book until you commit the scriptures to your heart and act accordingly. Does the so called adulterated bible of the Rcc promote murders, lies, cheating and what ever have you? You might say at this junction that the vatican promoted the killing of this in 1533 or 1750 or so, but it's just the work of humans not the word of God. So please make a strong distinction between which bible is better than the other. They are just bloody books hanging on the shelves until you commit it to your heart and pray to God to help you understand his teachings so as to recieve his blessings.

As for the sola scriptura, i dont pretend to be an Rcc theologian and until i came to this site, i have never heard of it in its latin term but i have heard of the word excommunicated especially from the catholic church. While i am not ashamed to say i dont know the reasons or why certain people were excommunicated or the defences of the Rcc for excommunicated, it has nothing to do with me being a catholic. The politics of a church should be divorced from what the congregation expects when ever they attend service. Every church plays its own personal politics on how the church should be run and who the potential leaders should be or what doctrine the foundation of the church should be laid on, but i am speaking for the over 75% illiterate non interested political members of the Rcc like me and if you have a grouse with the key political actors in the Rcc, then you should take it up with them. All am interested in is going to mass tomorrow to listen to God's words, sing and praise his name and give thanks giving for making me see another day and his numerous blessings. the rest of all these other things dont matter to me and loads of other Rcc faithfuls.

Beyond that, I have to disagree that Catholics read their bible; I’ve been there before so I know

Sorry! You dont know because you havent taken a detail sample of all catholics in the world to come to your conclusion. Maybe you have seen pockets of people interprete the bible in a form inconsistent with you and that's where you have based your decision. I would not hurriedly say you dont read your bible because i havent seen you do that before and just judge everyone in your church or prayer group as ppl who dont read their bibles. This is totally wrong and it's this kind of statements we should guard against. Dont prejudge people because your not God. As i said earlier, the bible is just a bloody book sitting on the shelve until you pray God gives you the grace to understand and assimilate it. Whether it's malika or guru marahaji's bible, it makes no difference as long as he is communicating with the one true God alone.

First, ignorance is bliss – but it’s never a justifiable excuse. We as human beings have a responsibility to find things out, to test things, to ask questions. Sorry to say, but the way the book of proverbs describes the simple , especially in chapter one, does not leave it to be desired. Furthermore, the fact that the majority of people don’t know about it is not a license to continue in ignorance. One is accountable for the knowledge he receives – what about the ones that have heard about those things and still don’t care?
Now where the issue really gets dicey is that it is easy to mouth the “I believe in God, Jesus is our savior”. Some people will even take it very far and say “hey we are all serving the same God it is only that we take different routes” – such statements are easy to make but they don’t really hold water. That is why I believe Jesus clearly differentiated between the professors of faith (those who call him Lord, Lord) from those that actually walk in the faith. If your allegiance is not clearly to the word and you allow yourself to be swayed and thus deceived by another man’s (false) doctrine – you do not have an excuse (eph 4). So, merely making such professions and having wishes to go to heaven is not enough – Jesus clearly said the road is narrow, and the onus is on one to “examine himself to see if he is in the faith” (1Cor 13; 5). It is very clear that the RCC doctrines on as core an issue as salvation is markedly different from what the bible teaches. Furthermore, that said, one has to “continue in him” (Col 2: 5-6) – so even if one started on the right path and you suddenly discovered that you’ve strayed, one need to retrace his steps

I have only one question to ask here. With your total belief that your exposed to the word of God and highly intellectual in it, what are the chances of you making heaven before the iya alata or baba eleran who goes to church to serve God whether in the Rcc or aladura church? In as much as you can quote certain parts of the scriptures to buttress your point, doesnt that also make you a proffessor of faith? because apart from your constant criticism, you havent shown me anything apart from the word of God which you so loving like to remind us that your well versed in. Your not God and while i might appreciate you correcting me on some issues, you dont hold the ace to determine who goes to heaven and how or why or when he or she does so just because he reads the bible.

Unfortunately i have to stop at this time to reply your posts because it's too long for me to take it piece by piece by maybe when am less busy, i'll continue from where i stopped. Right now I have to go and prepare for mass whether you like it or not

@pilgrim

i have delibrately avoided you for a while but i guess it's time to call a "parley" just like jack sparrow did in the pirates of the carribean. It's good talking to you back and on behalf of all the catholics, we accept your apology and look forward to more constructive but less vulgar debates

@Lawyer,
Before i reply to the main issues, let me address the initial points you raised.
First, i really don't believe i "laced (my post) with sugar coated insults" - at least that wasn't my intention. Perhaps i need to mention that pointing out erroneous statements in expressed reasoning is not insult. I usually try to distinguish the person i'm addressing from the post itself and i see them as two seperate entities. I didn't say you were stupid or anything; i only pointed out a particular logic in one part of your post - that, to me, is not an insult. However since you consider it to be one i apoligize and would desist from such when discussing with you.

You pointed out an error i made - true, i made a mistake. Sorry about that. In my mind i meant to say the plaintiff and THE ACCUSED (rather than the prosecutor and the plaintiff). I believe this correction obviously is what parallels with your post - you also seemed to have noticed that that was what i meant. That said, although my analogy might not have been very apt, my point was: pointing out someone else's atrocities does not constitute "doing the same thing you abhor" except it is done with the aim of blackmail or slander; which i don't believe is the case here.
However, like i said in that post - that is NOT the main issue i was after.
I'd again address the main issues in more detail now.
(It is NOT my intention to inundate you with long posts, however i notice that it is usually better to be detailed in one's posts sometimes.)

Firstly you talk of an allegiance. Is it a crime to pledge allegiance to something you believe in and trust? Just the way various protestant churches pay allegiance to their churches and pastors which i have no qualms with, why single out the Rcc alone as a set of people paying allegiance to the church? I guess you do attend a church and your proud of your church and what it teaches you. Isnt that a form of allegiance to that church? Why don't you shift churches every sunday just because you want to hear the word of God?

Sincerely I admire your sincerity – and I can easily see the sincerity of a lot of catholic folks on here. In one of my earlier posts to you, i've addressed the issues you raised here. Its not a crime to pledge allegiance to something you believe in and trust. Let me explain – my question was; who owes your allegiance? Let me use myself as an example. If I have been attending a certain church and all of a sudden the pastor introduces a teaching that I know clearly contradicts what Christ taught, how do you think I’d react? I’d try to confront the pastor and if he does not budge, I’d leave. Paul made a very important statement as regards following people:
“Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.” ICor. 11.1
In other words, your allegiance to a person or an organization, as a Christian, is only valid and warranted insofar as that person or organization is explicitly following Christ. If the person or organization strays in its teachings or practices from Christ, then that person ceases to be a pattern to be followed. When the RCC clearly disregards and teaches contrary to the words of Christ as has been shown, will be shown now and will continue to be shown later, one has to really reconsider. Obviously no one can force anything on anyone, the best we can do is counsel one another.

Also you talk of if the mariolalatry tendencies were removed, there would still be problems. First thing you have to understand, the mariolatory tendences of the catholic church will never be removed from the catholic church. The best thing that can happen is to make it conform with mordern times and expunge some parts which contemporary thoughts will assume to be repugnant. The whole issue of praying to mary and worshipping it could be interpreted by millions of people to mean a million different things but to say i as a person go to the rcc to pray to mary all day is not true.

I made the statement that there would still be problems even if Mariolatry was expunged because presently there are many other teachings and practices in the RCC that are wrong and no less grievous. Although Pilgrim.1, i guess so as not to be too sweeping, decided to focus mainly on Mariolatry in her posts here on nairaland, that is not the only thing that is wrong with the RCC. There are many other doctrinal issues, and later in this post I would still illustrate just one of them. Thus, my point has not really been on those peripheral things, my point has been about the core issues that I asked about. What place does the Word of God hold in relation to catholic doctrine? What carries more weight – church tradition or the Scriptures? Again, I’ve addressed this issue in an earlier post of mine and that is what I believe lies at the root of the problem.
Thus, even though a lot of things about Mariolatry have been exposed on this thread; the question one should then ask is, in the light of the clear scriptural injunctions that have been referenced in discussing the subject, “do Catholics even agree that the place the RCC has accorded Mary is not in agreement with the scriptures?”
A lot of people could interpret it in different ways; however the fact still remains that many attributes and appellations that have been accorded Mary by the RCC are just not biblical. I never did say Catholics prayed to Mary all day; in fact I’ve not even said many things on this thread because I wanted to restrain myself.
The issue I have confined myself to is that Mariolatry is a symptom of a much deeper problem. There are other symptoms – purgatory, mass, sacraments, etc that are also very serious. The question one should be asking is “why all these doctrines?”

Besides the history of protestant churches shows that there has been a major paragrim shift from the modus operandi from the days of the lutherians and the calvinist to mordern day benny hinn or oyakhilome and in the next 20 years, new things will evolve and things that don't conform with the teachings in protestant churches will give way too. The way the catholic church was 300 years ago or so, is not the same way it is being practiced in a lowly catholic church somewhere in idumota or in saotome. When you keep on lumping the activities of the past churches and present times worship, your making a grave error. The only constant thing is change from the doctrine but not a change from the word of God.

True. There have been lots of changes in the protestant churches. However I disagree that there has been a major paradigm shift – it’s still the same importance placed on the word of God. Ever since the reformation, there has been a progressive restoration of the body of Christ into an experience of all the Truth contained in scripture, and by God’s grace that restoration process will culminate in the “perfect man” (Eph. 4;13) at His coming. Those changes, to a high degree, have NOT been about false doctrines being taught and later modified, but about people getting into a higher level of understanding of Truths that have always been in Scripture. For example, baptism of the Holy Spirit has always been in the bible; yet people did not understand and come into an experience of that biblical truth until the beginning of the 20th century. Those who experienced those truths moved on into a new phase of God’s restoration in the church – while those who did not accept it stayed back.
Again, I have not concerned my self with past atrocities of the RCC (not that it is a non-issue), but with the present teachings.

Trust me my friend, the word of God is just one and it says there is a GOD, his only begotten son called Jesus christ and his mother was mary. Now i don't see any thing adulterated from what i just recited that is probably different from what is in your own bible. Whether you call it the kings james version or the rcc missal or whatever, it's just a book and remains a book until you commit the scriptures to your heart and act accordingly. Does the so called adulterated bible of the Rcc promote murders, lies, cheating and what ever have you? You might say at this junction that the vatican promoted the killing of this in 1533 or 1750 or so, but it's just the work of humans not the word of God. So please make a strong distinction between which bible is better than the other. They are just bloody books hanging on the shelves until you commit it to your heart and pray to God to help you understand his teachings so as to recieve his blessings.

Nice. I notice the fact that you were as minimal as possible in your reference to the word of God .
Anyways, first you misunderstand me; I wasn’t even talking about different bibles , although there indeed are some differences (eg the apocrypha), I was talking about doctrine . Second, I’ve never mentioned the past atrocities of the Vatican – believe me that’s not really my issue, my issue is the present spiritual condition of those who fellowship therein.
Having said that, do consider my point. The bible is not as minimal as you put it up there, LOL. It’s actually very comprehensive. Why? Because God wanted us to have a detailed rule-book that addressed everything relating to spirituality, such that if any one were to say something contrary to the biblical account, you’d have to desist from such. Now, of course it’s not every single line of the bible that one must believe in order to be a Christian. However those core issues must not be shortchanged. Take for instance, the core issue of justification . Note that this is something as basic and foundational as the gospel; for the very message of the gospel clearly includes the teaching on justification.
(Now I’m sorry in advance if what I would quote here from RCC would offend you or anyone – those are the very same reasons I don’t really post too much here. However, the truth must be told).
Let’s see how the biblical doctrine of justification stands with respect to the RCC on the said justification. A few quotes from the book of Romans:
“and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” Rom 3; 24
“he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.” vs 26
“For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law” vs 28
“However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.” 4:5
“"The words it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead” 23-24
“Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” 5:1

Now, I posted all those scriptures to make one point – from the bible, it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that any man is justified (pronounced righteous) merely by faith in Christ alone (and not on the basis of anything the man does).

Now what is the RCC statement / doctrine on the very same issue, here’s just one quote (there are others):

"If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema. " (Canon 12, Council of Trent).

Can you see the clear contradiction? Now, according to the RCC, any person who chooses to believe the true gospel (according to the scriptures) rather than what they have determined to be the gospel is under a curse. Again, sorry to say, but the person who goes to the RCC, thinking he is going to hear the true Word of God, is sincerely wrong, because he would be hearing a different gospel from that which the bible teaches (the priests are not exempt from that anathemas, so they CANNOT teach what is contrary to RCC doctrine). Now we are not even talking about Mary here nor any other peripheral issue – we are talking about the gospel . Do you get my point? Obviously, the doctrine of justification by faith will NOT be preached in any RCC except that priest wants to be ex-communicated. Is it because it isn’t TRUE? No. It’s because it isn’t in accordance with what the RCC accepts and teaches as doctrine.
The curse is not even my main problem – as sad as that may be, it’s the fact that many people will not hear the true gospel because they have prohibited it from being taught as truth.
Again, my apology for pointing this out, but this is a very serious issue, and these are the things that grieve my heart when I think and pray about my catholic friends. I did not write that quote; you can clearly verify it yourself. I am aware that many Catholics do not know this and indeed, they do not know very many things about the organization that they so sincerely devote their allegiance to. That’s why we’ve been trying to implore you guys to scrutinize those things you have accepted and been taught more carefully. That is just ONE of very many things that one can easily point out here on a cursory look at the scriptures and Roman Catholic doctrine.

I won't go into detail about what the catholic doctrine on the Mass is - which is another very serious issue. All in all, I'm just trying to make a simple point - and i hope it's not lost on the readers in the many words.

I'd skip to the last major paragraph of your post where you asked a question for space. If you want me to address those other issues you raised i would do so.

I have only one question to ask here. With your total belief that your exposed to the word of God and highly intellectual in it, what are the chances of you making heaven before the iya alata or baba eleran who goes to church to serve God whether in the Rcc or aladura church? In as much as you can quote certain parts of the scriptures to buttress your point, doesnt that also make you a proffessor of faith? because apart from your constant criticism, you havent shown me anything apart from the word of God which you so loving like to remind us that your well versed in. Your not God and while i might appreciate you correcting me on some issues, you don't hold the ace to determine who goes to heaven and how or why or when he or she does so just because he reads the bible.

Sorry if i come across wrongly, but my goal is never to let people know that i'm versed in the bible and they are not. I don't think that's anyone's goal on here. I wouldn't trivialize a knowledge of the scriptures as though it were a non-issue, however, i wouldn't presume that knowledge alone is what is important. Obviously, before one can be a doer of the word, one has to first know that word. Knowing is not wrong, it is not doing what you know that is wrong. However, if one does not even know at all, then of course one cannot walk in those things.
And yes, it is true that i do not hold the ace to determine who'd go to heaven. However, i would like you to consider some issues with me:
      ~ is there such a thing as false doctrine?
      ~ is believing and accepting false doctrines harmless to an individual or do they have any consequence?
      ~ is there a clear message of salvation as outlined by the bible and that is not stated anywhere else?
      ~ is it possible for that message to be misrepresented, misunderstood or mistaught?
      ~ if one believes a wrong / different gospel from the one Christ clearly taught, does it matter?
      ~ did Jesus make exclusive claims as regards salvation and heaven?
      ~ did Jesus warn us to be careful lest any man decieve us?
Those are the issues that matter to me in my discussions. There are some things that should be taken very seriously and with which we should be very careful about. It is because some of us have been confronted with those issues (by yet some other people in the past) that we now also do same.
"Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men."
Cheers

@ricadelide,

ricadelide:

Those are the issues that matter to me in my discussions. There are some things that should be taken very seriously and with which we should be very careful about. It is because some of us have been confronted with those issues (by yet some other people in the past) that we now also do same.
"Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men."
Cheers

Once again, you've topped it all for me. Nothing to add for the moment.

Bless.