Should Christians Celebrate Christmas?

Every year around Christmas time, serious concerns are voiced regarding the validity of celebrating Christmas. Some note that the origins of Christmas are pagan, others point out that the Bible overtly denounces Christmas trees as idolatrous, and still others suggest that Santa Claus is a dangerous fairy tale.

In response let me first acknowledge that when Christmas was originally instituted, December 25 was indeed a pagan festival commemorating the birthday of a false god. While this is historical fact, what is frequently overlooked is that the church's choice of December 25 was intentional. Instead of Christianizing a pagan festival, the church established a rival celebration. While the world has all but forgotten the Greco-Roman gods of antiquity, they are annually reminded that two thousand years ago Christ invaded time and space.

Furthermore, the Bible nowhere condemns Christmas trees as idolatrous. The oft-cited passage in Jeremiah 10:2–4 might at first blush appear compelling, but context precludes the pretext. Jeremiah's description of a tree cut out of the forest adorned with silver and gold and fastened with a hammer and nails so that it would not totter is a reference to wooden idols, not Christmas trees. In fact, Christmas trees originated in Christian Germany two thousand years after Jeremiah's condemnation of man-made idols. They evolved over time from two Christian traditions. One was a "paradise tree" hung with apples as a reminder of the tree of life in the garden of Eden. The other was a triangular shelf holding Christmas figurines decorated by a star. In the sixteenth century, these two symbols merged into the present Christmas tree tradition. Next Christmas you might well consider using the Christmas tree in the home of an unbeliever as a springboard or opportunity to explain the reason for the season from the fall in Paradise to redemption in Christ.

Finally, believe it or not, even Santa can be saved! Far from merely being a dangerous fairy tale, "Santa Claus" in reality is an Anglicized form of the Dutch name Sinter Klaas, which in turn is a reference to Saint Nicholas. According to tradition, Saint Nick not only lavished gifts on needy children but also valiantly supported the doctrine of the Trinity at the Council of Nicea in AD 325. Thus, Christians may legitimately look to Saint Nick as a genuine hero of the faith. This December 25 as you celebrate the coming of Christ with a Christmas tree surrounded by presents, may the selflessness of Saint Nick be a reminder of the Saviour who gave the greatest gift of all: "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13).

--Hank Hanegraaff | The Complete Bible Answer Book

For further study, see Paul Maier, The First Christmas (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2001). http://www.equip.org/bookstore/books/the-first-christmas/

"And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, 'Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Saviour has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.' Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favour rests" --- Luke 2:8–14

Was actually expecting to come across that bible verse that Commands Christians to Celebrate Christmas (me sef sabi compose alliteration).

BTW, could it be that the shepherds were high on skunk? #randomthought

Infomizer:

Was actually expecting to come across that bible verse that Commands Christians to Celebrate Christmas (me sef sabi compose alliteration).

BTW, could it be that the shepherds were high on skunk? #randomthought

You would have done better by referring us to where "Christmas" was prohibited in the Bible.

I know I will be celebrating.

OLAADEGBU:

You would have done better by referring us to where "Christmas" was prohibited in the Bible.

Nice try bro..But the onus is on you since you're trying to prove a point that I'm willing to disprove. I'll do the honours to satiate you tho'. There is nowhere in the bible that 'christmas' was prohibited simply because it does not exist in the bible!!
Passover, I know...Holy communion, I know...But christmas, who are you?
Good to know the church has been scheming since circa 01 A.D sha..

OLAADEGBU: Should Christians Celebrate Christmas?

Every year around Christmas time, serious concerns are voiced regarding the validity of celebrating Christmas. Some note that the origins of Christmas are pagan, others point out that the Bible overtly denounces Christmas trees as idolatrous, and still others suggest that Santa Claus is a dangerous fairy tale.

In response let me first acknowledge that when Christmas was originally instituted, December 25 was indeed a pagan festival commemorating the birthday of a false god. While this is historical fact, what is frequently overlooked is that the church's choice of December 25 was intentional. Instead of Christianizing a pagan festival, the church established a rival celebration. While the world has all but forgotten the Greco-Roman gods of antiquity, they are annually reminded that two thousand years ago Christ invaded time and space.

Furthermore, the Bible nowhere condemns Christmas trees as idolatrous. The oft-cited passage in Jeremiah 10:2–4 might at first blush appear compelling, but context precludes the pretext. Jeremiah's description of a tree cut out of the forest adorned with silver and gold and fastened with a hammer and nails so that it would not totter is a reference to wooden idols, not Christmas trees. In fact, Christmas trees originated in Christian Germany two thousand years after Jeremiah's condemnation of man-made idols. They evolved over time from two Christian traditions. One was a "paradise tree" hung with apples as a reminder of the tree of life in the garden of Eden. The other was a triangular shelf holding Christmas figurines decorated by a star. In the sixteenth century, these two symbols merged into the present Christmas tree tradition. Next Christmas you might well consider using the Christmas tree in the home of an unbeliever as a springboard or opportunity to explain the reason for the season from the fall in Paradise to redemption in Christ.

Finally, believe it or not, even Santa can be saved! Far from merely being a dangerous fairy tale, "Santa Claus" in reality is an Anglicized form of the Dutch name Sinter Klaas, which in turn is a reference to Saint Nicholas. According to tradition, Saint Nick not only lavished gifts on needy children but also valiantly supported the doctrine of the Trinity at the Council of Nicea in AD 325. Thus, Christians may legitimately look to Saint Nick as a genuine hero of the faith. This December 25 as you celebrate the coming of Christ with a Christmas tree surrounded by presents, may the selflessness of Saint Nick be a reminder of the Saviour who gave the greatest gift of all: "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13).

--Hank Hanegraaff | The Complete Bible Answer Book

For further study, see Paul Maier, The First Christmas (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2001). http://www.equip.org/bookstore/books/the-first-christmas/

"And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, 'Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Saviour has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.' Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favour rests" --- Luke 2:8–14

Just to emphasize two things:

1. "The Church" in the above post means The Catholic Church.

2. Yes. St. Nicholas is already in heaven.

Infomizer:

Nice try bro..But the onus is on you since you're trying to prove a point that I'm willing to disprove. I'll do the honours to satiate you tho'. There is nowhere in the bible that 'christmas' was prohibited simply because it does not exist in the bible!!
Passover, I know...Holy communion, I know...But christmas, who are you?
Good to know the church has been scheming since circa 01 A.D sha..

How about proving the origin of Christmas trees?

italo:

Just to emphasize two things:

1. "The Church" in the above post means The Catholic Church.

Those were the good early days when the church still had good intentions.

italo:

2. Yes. St. Nicholas is already in heaven.

It is unfortunate that folks have now taken Christ out of Christmas because of him.

OLAADEGBU:

Those were the good early days when the church still had good intentions.

There are people who thought the Catholic Church had bad intentions even then, and people who thought it had good intentions.

There are people who think the Catholic Church has good intentions now and people who think it has bad intentions.

Thankfully, these opinions dont matter much.

"I will be with you till the end of the age."

"And the gates of hell will not prevail against you."--Jesus. His opinion alone matters.

OLAADEGBU: It is unfortunate that folks have now taken Christ out of Christmas because of him.

Very unfortunate!

Even St. Nicholas would rebuke them for it.

Also unfortunate that many have now taken "mass" out of "Christ-mass."

italo:

There are people who thought the Catholic Church had bad intentions even then, and people who thought it had good intentions.

There are people who think the Catholic Church has good intentions now and people who think it has bad intentions.

Thankfully, these opinions dont matter much.

"I will be with you till the end of the age."

"And the gates of hell will not prevail against you."--Jesus. His opinion alone matters.

The Catholic Church means the universal Church at large and not the Roman Catholic Church that it came to be.

italo:

Very unfortunate!

Even St. Nicholas would rebuke them for it.

Also unfortunate that many have now taken "mass" out of "Christ-mass."

It is also unfortunate that the Roman Catholic Church now bows at the alter of Charles Darwin by believing and teaching the theory of evolution in explaining the beginning of all things which has now turned people's mind away from God.

Putting Christ back into Christmas, because He's the reason for the season.

OLAADEGBU:

The Catholic Church means the universal Church at large and not the Roman Catholic Church that it came to be.

You shouldn't be the one to describe what The Catholic Church is. Let us see what St. Ignatius has to say. It was he who is first recorded to use the term "Catholic Church."

St. Ignatius' Letter to the Smyrneans (110AD)

Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ


Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Who is your Bishop, Olaadegbu?
Do you believe in the Eucharist, Olaadegbu?

You arent a part of the Catholic Church!

OLAADEGBU: It is also unfortunate that the Roman Catholic Church now bows at the alter of Charles Darwin by believing and teaching the theory of evolution in explaining the beginning of all things which has now turned people's mind away from God.

What has this lie got to do with Christmas?

OLAADEGBU: Putting Christ back into Christmas, because He's the reason for the season.

Hmmmmm.....u re wonderful ola!!....so much true..esp d catholic turning into roman catholic, God I cry @ dia dedicatd ignorance...gud work

mimopel:


Hmmmmm.....u re wonderful ola!!....so much true..esp d catholic turning into roman catholic, God I cry @ dia dedicatd ignorance...gud work

Read from St. Ignatius above and see if you fit in to his Catholic Church.

italo:

Read from St. Ignatius above and see if you fit in to his Catholic Church.

I'm sorry, but we know only Jesus Christ, and we base our lives on his revealed words. We will not enter into rebellion by esteeming the words of a man more than the words of Christ and the bible.

Ignatius was NOT a Roman Catholic!

Ignatius could not have been a Roman Catholic because he did not believe in such monstrosity as "the Pope" or the "papacy".

Ignatius' own very Church is currently declared by Roman Catholics to be --- anathema!

According to Roman Catholics, even Ignatius' Church is now also not part of "the Catholic Church" --- even though it was Ignatius of that Church who coined the word "catholic". So it is no disgrace if Roman Catholics say "you are not part of the Catholic Church". They are deceiving themselves!

The Roman Catholics are always fraudulently trying to claim things done by "the Catholic Church" or even by the catholic aka the universal Church.

The terms "Romish Catholic" and "Roman Catholic", along with "Popish Catholic", were brought into use in the English language chiefly by adherents of the Church of England, which saw itself as the Catholic Church in England, so that they were not willing to concede the term Catholic to their opponents without qualification.[5]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_(term)

The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the world's largest Christian church, with 1.2 billion members
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church

From one I made earlier

For a start, the Roman Catholic church denomination calls itself ---- the Roman Catholic Church, or even simply the Roman Church.

The last two or three "popes" all did it. Their Church documents do it; and even when they announced the current "pope" they did it.

Of course it is fair for other knowledgeable people to call them what they are ---- no matter their Wikipedia propaganda. So whether it is Roman, Roman Catholic, Romish or even papist --- they are all these things. They are especially "papist" because they place their "popes" above Jesus Christ and agree with their "popes" when the "popes" say only those who submit to the "pope" can be saved! What Jesus Christ said ---- does not matter to them of course. Common idolaters!

Joshthefirst: I'm sorry, but we know only Jesus Christ, and we base our lives on his revealed words. We will not enter into rebellion by esteeming the words of a man more than the words of Christ and the bible.

You get it wrong.

The OP said the the Catholic Church which instituted Christmas is the universal Church, intending that to mean all "Christians."

So I referred him to the man who was first recorded to use the term "Catholic Church." He should know, shouldn't he? After all, Jesus never mentioned "Catholic."

So I invite you to read from St. Ignatius letter above to see if you are a part of the Catholic (Universal) Church or not.

Do you believe in the Eucharist?

Who is your Bishop?

*Another point to note, regarding the topic: Jesus never mentioned or instituted Christmas, this same Eucharist-believing, Bishop-following Catholic Church did. So why do you celebrate it. If you dont, why aren't you taking your issues up with the OP but me?*

Again, from one I made earlier.

First of all, let us even go back to the Apostles. The apostles never heard of "the Catholic Church" or the Roman Catholic church denomination. They only knew the Church of Christ aka the Christian Church.

The "church fathers" who lived before 110 AD never heard of "the Catholic Church" or the Roman Catholic church denomination. It was not until 110 AD if not even later that Ignatius used the expression "catholic Church".

Now watch this: even Ignatius who coined the expression "catholic Church" did not know of "the Catholic Church" let alone the Roman Catholic church denomination.

Even more interesting, the Roman Catholic church denomination have declared the church of Ignatius as anathema --- yet they are stealing and misusing the word "catholic" that he coined.

When Ignatius coined the expression "catholic Church", he meant universal Church; he did not believe in any "pope". Remember that "catholic" according to Roman Catholics means submission to the Roman catholic "pope". Ignatius did not know or even know of that particular monstrosity.

According to Ignatius, each bishop of whatever church is equal to any other bishop. The bishop of Yaba is equal to the bishop of Oyingbo is equal to the bishop of Bariga and is equal to the bishop of Rome. In fact, we can say what he meant by "bishop" was not much different from "parish priest" or "head of congregation".

It was not till much later that some people turned Ignatius' catholic i.e. universal Church into something else that they called "the Catholic Church" and which much later in AD380 (over about 300 years after Ignatius coined the word 'catholic') that they used the law to say that only some people can call themselves "Catholic".

NOTE in the context of this thread: the reason why some insisted on being the only ones to be called "Catholic" even then was ----- denominationalism. In other words, even in those days they created denominations because of their theological differences.

Coming back to Christmas and the 25th of December. Actually, there is strong argument in the literature that it wasn't really the Roman Catholics who were particularly responsible for the choice of that date. Rather it was again other Christians (or at least more likely so) --- especially African Christians and Christians in the East --- rather than Roman Catholics.

From here http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/how-december-25-became-christmas/

"The December 25 feast seems to have existed before 312—before Constantine and his conversion, at least. As we have seen, the Donatist Christians in North Africa seem to have known it from before that time. Furthermore, in the mid- to late fourth century, church leaders in the eastern Empire concerned themselves not with introducing a celebration of Jesus’ birthday, but with the addition of the December date to their traditional celebration on January 6.

There is another way to account for the origins of Christmas on December 25: Strange as it may seem, the key to dating Jesus’ birth may lie in the dating of Jesus’ death at Passover. This view was first suggested to the modern world by French scholar Louis Duchesne in the early 20th century and fully developed by American Thomas Talley in more recent years. But they were certainly not the first to note a connection between the traditional date of Jesus’ death and his birth.

Around 200 C.E. Tertullian of Carthage reported the calculation that the 14th of Nisan (the day of the crucifixion according to the Gospel of John) in the year Jesus died was equivalent to March 25 in the Roman (solar) calendar. March 25 is, of course, nine months before December 25; it was later recognized as the Feast of the Annunciation—the commemoration of Jesus’ conception. Thus, Jesus was believed to have been conceived and crucified on the same day of the year. Exactly nine months later, Jesus was born, on December 25.

This idea appears in an anonymous Christian treatise titled On Solstices and Equinoxes, which appears to come from fourth-century North Africa. The treatise states: “Therefore our Lord was conceived on the eighth of the kalends of April in the month of March [March 25], which is the day of the passion of the Lord and of his conception. For on that day he was conceived on the same he suffered.”11 Based on this, the treatise dates Jesus’ birth to the winter solstice."

Amazingly the Donatism started in 311CE when the Donatists broke away from the catholic church.Mabe imaginary Donatists were Celebrating Christmas before Pope sylvester declard 25 December as Christmas day

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism

Even Roman Catholics officially concede that the whole celebration of the birth of Christ and the 25th December brouhaha started in Africa and the East!

The Roman Catholic denomination people's own very encyclopaedia says: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm

(Note that 6 January in Julian Calendar still used by some Christians is the same as 25th December in our Western Gregorian calendar.)

"Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church. Irenaeus and Tertullian omit it from their lists of feasts ....

The first evidence of the feast is from Egypt. About A.D. 200, Clement of Alexandria (Stromata I.21) says that certain Egyptian theologians "over curiously" assign, not the year alone, but the day of Christ's birth, placing it on 25 Pachon (20 May) in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus. [Ideler (Chron., II, 397, n.) thought they did this believing that the ninth month, in which Christ was born, was the ninth of their own calendar.] Others reached the date of 24 or 25 Pharmuthi (19 or 20 April). With Clement's evidence may be mentioned the "De paschæ computus", written in 243 and falsely ascribed to Cyprian (P.L., IV, 963 sqq.), which places Christ's birth on 28 March, because on that day the material sun was created. But Lupi has shown (Zaccaria, Dissertazioni ecc. del p. A.M. Lupi, Faenza, 1785, p. 219) that there is no month in the year to which respectable authorities have not assigned Christ's birth. Clement, however, also tells us that the Basilidians celebrated the Epiphany, and with it, probably, the Nativity, on 15 or 11 Tybi (10 or 6 January).

At any rate this double commemoration became popular, partly because the apparition to the shepherds was considered as one manifestation of Christ's glory, and was added to the greater manifestations celebrated on 6 January ....

Abraham Ecchelensis (Labbe, II, 402) quotes the Constitutions of the Alexandrian Church for a dies Nativitatis et Epiphaniæ in Nicæan times; Epiphanius (Hær., li, ed. Dindorf, 1860, II, 483) quotes an extraordinary semi-Gnostic ceremony at Alexandria in which, on the night of 5-6 January, a cross-stamped Korê was carried in procession round a crypt, to the chant, "Today at this hour Korê gave birth to the Eternal"; John Cassian records in his "Collations" (X, 2 in P.L., XLIX, 820), written 418-427, that the Egyptian monasteries still observe the "ancient custom"; but on 29 Choiak (25 December) and 1 January, 433, Paul of Emesa preached before Cyril of Alexandria, and his sermons (see Mansi, IV, 293; appendix to Act. Conc. Eph.) show that the December celebration was then firmly established there, and calendars prove its permanence. The December feast therefore reached Egypt between 427 and 433."

I dont understand why people are struggling to answer the name Catholic. Now someone is worrying himself over Roman and Ignatuis. Methinks some people are trying to gain some credance, very soon they will start claiming origin with us and saints and before that they become more catholic than the Catholics
The fact is that there is only one Catholic Church which traces itself back to the Holy Apostles. , every other church is mad originated and most of the time, their founder was caused by scandal or pure human dissent. Holy Spirit is usually secondary.
Now the thread is even being derailed from its origainal purpose
Anyway Christmas is a season of giving and giving. On that day so many many years ago the most important birth in the history of mankind happened in a very simple manner, the Saviour of the world was born, he took human flesh and became one as us in order to redeem us. That is why we celebrate that day.
Christmas is a message of humility, Christ was born in a simple manger, his mom didnt have anyone to help her at times I wonder whether God did it on purpose was there something during the birth that he didnt want human eyes to see? Besides since Mary was free of original sin, i doubt if she suffered painful labour.
Christmas is a message of sharing, Christ shared our human fraility, he left his heavenly glory and became as one of us. How many times have we shared anything with even our gateman or domestic staff. That man that you see trekking every morning, have we shared our car by giving them lifts. even if it will take us out of our way.
Christmas is a message of Hope. If the son of a carpenter could become one of the most important men in his lifetime, could make a difference, could shake the social and religious system, then I think it is possible for everyone.
The Christmas debate didnt start today and it will continue but as long as we who celebrate it remeber the WHY and HOW, then no problem. its a no brainer for christians on whether or not to celebrate it.

As far as Christians are concerned, there is only ONE Church! That Church is the Church of Christ also known as the Christian Church.

This Christian Church can be traced back to the day of Pentecost and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. On that date there was no such thing as "the Catholic Church" or the Roman Catholic Church! Those ones were invented some 100 years or even hundreds of years later.

On the other hand because of the teachings of Christ and of the apostles, Christians know that the Church of Christ is universal - encompassing Christians of all eras and of all places. It is in this sense that Christians claim that the Christian Church is indeed --- catholic. The Christian Church is catholic with a small c -- meaning that it is universal.

Roman Catholics like to say, and some of us are ready to agree, that the Christian Church or the catholic Church is different from the Roman Catholic Church or even "the Catholic Church".

Actually, it will be interesting among Christians to consider exactly what a "bishop" is as we understand from the Bible. On other occasions, many of us have pointed out that the biblical pattern is of a group of elders and that these elders are also called "bishops" and also called "presbyters". It has been pointed out that these terms are used interchangeably in the Bible.

What this means is that the idea of having one bishop lording it over everyone else and having people kiss his ring etc and other such nonsense is not really biblical.

Meanwhile don't you just love Jerome the "church father" sometimes! He has extensive quotes on this bishop/elder/presbyter matter. For now, I will only post a very very small part of what he had to say on the matter.

"A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop, and before dissensions were introduced into religion by the instigation of the devil, and it was said among the peoples, ‘I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, and I of Cephas,’ Churches were governed by a common council of presbyters; afterwards, when everyone thought that those whom he had baptised were his own, and not Christ’s, it was decreed in the whole world that one chosen out of the presbyters should be placed over the rest, and to whom all care of the Church should belong, that the seeds of schisms might be plucked up.

Whosoever thinks that there is no proof from Scripture, but that this is my opinion, that a presbyter and bishop are the same, and that one is a title of age, the other of office, let him read the words of the apostle to the Philippians ......"

Well look, I am going to add this quote of Jerome from his Letter/Epistle 146 also jare.

In fact again, I am taking it from a Roman Catholic source. Two notes on that: (a) the Roman Catholics can't deny it but they don't like it, since it effectively contradicts the idea of papacy, so they put a slightly disparaging preface to it on their site, and (b) this translation seems to have done some polishing and e.g. seems to have removed reference to 'barbarous nations' which I've seen in some other translations.

Anyway from here http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001146.htm

"It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles. "

italo:

You shouldn't be the one to describe what The Catholic Church is. Let us see what St. Ignatius has to say. It was he who is first recorded to use the term "Catholic Church."

St. Ignatius' Letter to the Smyrneans (110AD)

Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ


Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Who is your Bishop, Olaadegbu?

I know my Bishop and he's definitely not the Pope.

italo:

Do you believe in the Eucharist, Olaadegbu?

I believe in the Eucharist if you mean the holy communion but I don't believe in cannibalism which is paganistic.

italo:

You arent a part of the Catholic Church!

I am part of the catholic Church (universal Church) and not the Roman Catholic Church.

italo:

What has this lie got to do with Christmas?

Are you saying that your Roman Catholic Church believe and teach the theory of Evolution?

OLAADEGBU:

I know my Bishop and he's definitely not the Pope.



I believe in the Eucharist if you mean the holy communion but I don't believe in cannibalism which is paganistic.



I am part of the catholic Church (universal Church) and not the Roman Catholic Church.



Are you saying that your Roman Catholic Church believe and teach the theory of Evolution?

Olodo where you part of the Church Ignatius described? Do you beleive in thereal presence of Christ in the Eucharist.I see the Catholic church has become a very popular brand that even JWs cannot resist identifying with it.

According to the Roman Catholic Church, Ignatius' own very Church is --- anathema!

#doubleface

chukwudi44:

Olodo where you part of the Church Ignatius described? Do you beleive in thereal presence of Christ in the Eucharist.I see the Catholic church has become a very popular brand that even JWs cannot resist identifying with it.

Do you realise that Jesus will have to die everytime you partake in your so called cannibalism?

"Who needs not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself" (Hebrews 7:27).

The holy catholic church of which ignatius was its third bishop of antioch after SS Peter and Evodius can never be anathema.God forbid!! Even the Orthodox church is not anathema let alone the holy Catholic church