Electing New Pope

[Truther]

HOW??

I gave you the BIBLICAL PROOF for the NT Ministerial Priesthood.
For starters - you can adrdress that.

I fully understand why you can't - but TRY anyway . . .

BOL while preaching...."I know the Bible says this, but it may also mean this and this and this and...".

 

[Truther]

he has the same problem as do catholics and many even within the protestant realm .
And allow me to sum that up by answer your question you gave to him .
You said HOW do you answer . I know the bible says this , but it may also mean that . HE ANSWERS the same as lost protestants do
THE BIBLE MEANS WHAT HIS LEADERS SAID IT MEANS . AND THAT IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM .
Now ponder on this for a moment . How many folks you see , whether JW , whether baptist , whether catholic or whatever
ALWAYS answer the way THEIR LEADER or teacher TAUGHT THEM to intepret to the bible . THAT IS A PROBLEM
when the leader TAUGHT THEM WRONG . BUT OH NO , OH NO they wont budge from their leaders position .
I have long said for folks to simply return to the bible and read it for themselves . STOP following the blind
lest one ends up in the ditch .

Yes, not only do Catholics say this....

"I know the Bible says this, but it may also mean this and this and this and...".

...but her protestant daughters say it.

Like mother like daughter.

1 Catholic 1:28....When you have seen the daughters(protestants) you have seen the mother(RCC)...LOL

 

[Illuminator]

The first thing I hear when I criticize fanatical, extreme, hysterical, incessant, never-ending criticism of Pope Francis is, “you think a pope can never be criticized for anything!” If I had a dime for every time I have heard this lie, I’d be a rich man. I have never believed that the pope can never be criticized. I’ve written several times about this:

My point is not that a pope can never be rebuked, nor that they could never be “bad” (a ludicrous opinion), but that an instance of rebuking them ought to be quite rare, exercised with the greatest prudence, and preferably by one who has some significant credentials, which is why I mentioned saints. Many make their excoriating judgments of popes as if they had no more importance or gravity than reeling off a laundry or grocery list.

My position is that popes should be accorded the proper respect of their office and criticized rarely, by the right people, in the right spirit, preferably in private Catholic venues, and for the right (and super-important) reasons. Virtually none of those characteristics hold for most of the people moaning about the pope day and night these days.

I’ve lived to see an age where an orthodox Catholic apologist defending the pope (for the right reasons) is regarded as some sort of novelty or alien from another galaxy. Truth is stranger than fiction!

Being classified as an ultramontanist is almost a boilerplate response from critics of a given pope. It’s very common to reply to defenses of a pope or papal authority by making out that one supposedly agrees with absolutely everything he says or does, or that his color of socks or what side of bed he gets out on or his favorite ice cream flavor are magisterial matters. It’s untrue in my case. This has never been my position, as I’ve explained many times.

Now that that is out of the way, I would like to highlight some remarks that Pope Francis made, where he confirms my position that there is a time and a place for criticism of a pope, if done in the right way and in the right spirit.

[Question] On the flight to Maputo you acknowledged being under attack by a segment of the American Church. Obviously, there is strong criticism from some bishops and cardinals, there are Catholic Television stations and American websites that are very critical. And there are even some of your closest allies who have spoken of a plot against you. Is there something that these critics do not understand about your pontificate? Is there something that you have learned from your critics? . . .

[Pope Francis] First of all, criticism always helps, always. When someone receives criticism, that person needs to do a self-critique right away and say: is this true or not? To what point? And I always benefit from criticism. Sometimes it makes you angry…. But there are advantages. Traveling to Maputo, one of you gave me that book in French on how the Americans want to change the Pope. I knew about that book, but I had not read it. Criticisms are not coming only from the Americans, they are coming a bit from everywhere, even from the Curia. At least those that say them have the benefit of the honesty of having said them. I do not like it when criticism stays under the table: they smile at you, letting you see their teeth and then they stab you in the back. That is not fair; it is not human.

Criticism is a component in construction, and if your criticism is unjust, be prepared to receive a response, and get into dialogue, and arrive to the right conclusion. This is the dynamic of true criticism. The criticism of the arsenic pills, instead, of which we were speaking regarding the article that I gave to Msgr Rueda, it’s like throwing the stone and then hiding your hand… This is not beneficial, it is no help. It helps small cliques, who do not want to hear the response to their criticism. Instead, fair criticism – I think thus and so – is open to a response. This is constructive. Regarding the case of the Pope: I don’t like this aspect of the Pope, I criticize him, I speak about him, I write an article and ask him to respond, this is fair. To criticize without wanting to hear a response and without getting into dialogue is not to have the good of the Church at heart, it is chasing after a fixed idea, to change the Pope or to create a schism. This is clear: a fair criticism is always well received, at least by me. . . .

Silence according to Pope Francis (Where Peter Is, 12-5-18)
*
Silence: the shield against Suspicious Man (Where Peter Is, 12-10-18)
*
It was the same with Jesus. When He knew (since He didn’t have to perceive, knowing everything!) that people weren’t interested in dialogue and truth, He would often refuse to answer their questions (Lk 20:1-8), or deliberately speak in parables that He knew they would neither understand nor receive (Mt 13:10-16). But with His disciples, He would explain the parables and talk with them all night, explaining things they didn’t understand: such as with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Lk 24:27).

*
The pope has the prerogative to do the same thing. It’s not difficult to perceive when folks aren’t interested in hearing his side of things, and only want to tear down his authority and him, personally (which is currently happening again on a massive basis, in the frequently hysterical, over-the-top reactions to Traditionis custodes). His approach was thoroughly vindicated in the case of Abp. Vigano, who has become increasingly fanatical and even wacky as time goes on, entering into goofy, crazy conspiracy theories and all sorts of wild speculations. The pope apparently knew this was coming, and has simply let him destroy his own credibility. It’s so bad that orthodox theologian Robert Fastiggi publicly asked whether Abp. Vigano was in schism. A strong case for that can certainly be made from his own words.
*
Likewise, I think the pope may take the approach of silence again in the current situation. I think it’s likely. Time will show how many Tridentine Masses and communities are actually shut down. Some will be because there is indeed a problem of quasi-schism and unCatholic views. But I highly suspect that the fears are far greater than what will be the actual reality. Time will tell. But time (almost certainly, in my opinion) will prove that the “suppression” (which is in fact, a reform) will be far, far less than the present hysterical and fearful estimates of what folks believe it will be.

Pope Francis believes (and I believe: since I am so often lied about in this respect), that popes can be RESPECTFULLY criticized. It’s the massive lack of respect that is objected to.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davea...cis-popes-can-be-respectfully-criticized.html

 

[Lizbeth]

It's pointless to look at those who are cultural Catholics only, who say they're Catholic if you ask them, but who don't try to live the life, even though they may go to Mass out of habit, or guilt, or whatever. People aren't magically transformed into good Christians just by walking into a Catholic church (even if they do it every week). Repentance and conversion of heart are the keys to the Christian life. Without them, everything else is sterile and false, whether one calls oneself "Catholic" or not.

Nay friend, it has been as good as said on this site and is basic Catholic teaching that people are magically converted through baptism, when they are baptized as infants. And that they magically are filled with the Holy Spirit through the sacrament of Confirmation. If this were actually true they would have both the life of the Spirit as well as His fruits, and Catholic churches wouldn't be dead but would have the life of the Spirit that can be discerned by the Spirit.

As far as "good" Catholics goes.........have you read where the bible says all our righteousness is as filthy rags? And where it says the religious Jews were seeking to "establish their own righteousness RATHER THAN SUBMITTING TO THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST" through the gospel...? There is a difference between having our own self righteousness and having the righteousness of Christ by His Spirit within us by being born again of His Spirit in truth.

 

[Lizbeth]

The first thing I hear when I criticize fanatical, extreme, hysterical, incessant, never-ending criticism of Pope Francis is, “you think a pope can never be criticized for anything!” If I had a dime for every time I have heard this lie, I’d be a rich man. I have never believed that the pope can never be criticized. I’ve written several times about this:

My point is not that a pope can never be rebuked, nor that they could never be “bad” (a ludicrous opinion), but that an instance of rebuking them ought to be quite rare, exercised with the greatest prudence, and preferably by one who has some significant credentials, which is why I mentioned saints. Many make their excoriating judgments of popes as if they had no more importance or gravity than reeling off a laundry or grocery list.

My position is that popes should be accorded the proper respect of their office and criticized rarely, by the right people, in the right spirit, preferably in private Catholic venues, and for the right (and super-important) reasons. Virtually none of those characteristics hold for most of the people moaning about the pope day and night these days.

I’ve lived to see an age where an orthodox Catholic apologist defending the pope (for the right reasons) is regarded as some sort of novelty or alien from another galaxy. Truth is stranger than fiction!

Being classified as an ultramontanist is almost a boilerplate response from critics of a given pope. It’s very common to reply to defenses of a pope or papal authority by making out that one supposedly agrees with absolutely everything he says or does, or that his color of socks or what side of bed he gets out on or his favorite ice cream flavor are magisterial matters. It’s untrue in my case. This has never been my position, as I’ve explained many times.

Now that that is out of the way, I would like to highlight some remarks that Pope Francis made, where he confirms my position that there is a time and a place for criticism of a pope, if done in the right way and in the right spirit.

[Question] On the flight to Maputo you acknowledged being under attack by a segment of the American Church. Obviously, there is strong criticism from some bishops and cardinals, there are Catholic Television stations and American websites that are very critical. And there are even some of your closest allies who have spoken of a plot against you. Is there something that these critics do not understand about your pontificate? Is there something that you have learned from your critics? . . .

[Pope Francis] First of all, criticism always helps, always. When someone receives criticism, that person needs to do a self-critique right away and say: is this true or not? To what point? And I always benefit from criticism. Sometimes it makes you angry…. But there are advantages. Traveling to Maputo, one of you gave me that book in French on how the Americans want to change the Pope. I knew about that book, but I had not read it. Criticisms are not coming only from the Americans, they are coming a bit from everywhere, even from the Curia. At least those that say them have the benefit of the honesty of having said them. I do not like it when criticism stays under the table: they smile at you, letting you see their teeth and then they stab you in the back. That is not fair; it is not human.

Criticism is a component in construction, and if your criticism is unjust, be prepared to receive a response, and get into dialogue, and arrive to the right conclusion. This is the dynamic of true criticism. The criticism of the arsenic pills, instead, of which we were speaking regarding the article that I gave to Msgr Rueda, it’s like throwing the stone and then hiding your hand… This is not beneficial, it is no help. It helps small cliques, who do not want to hear the response to their criticism. Instead, fair criticism – I think thus and so – is open to a response. This is constructive. Regarding the case of the Pope: I don’t like this aspect of the Pope, I criticize him, I speak about him, I write an article and ask him to respond, this is fair. To criticize without wanting to hear a response and without getting into dialogue is not to have the good of the Church at heart, it is chasing after a fixed idea, to change the Pope or to create a schism. This is clear: a fair criticism is always well received, at least by me. . . .

Silence according to Pope Francis (Where Peter Is, 12-5-18)
*
Silence: the shield against Suspicious Man (Where Peter Is, 12-10-18)
*
It was the same with Jesus. When He knew (since He didn’t have to perceive, knowing everything!) that people weren’t interested in dialogue and truth, He would often refuse to answer their questions (Lk 20:1-8), or deliberately speak in parables that He knew they would neither understand nor receive (Mt 13:10-16). But with His disciples, He would explain the parables and talk with them all night, explaining things they didn’t understand: such as with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Lk 24:27).

*
The pope has the prerogative to do the same thing. It’s not difficult to perceive when folks aren’t interested in hearing his side of things, and only want to tear down his authority and him, personally (which is currently happening again on a massive basis, in the frequently hysterical, over-the-top reactions to Traditionis custodes). His approach was thoroughly vindicated in the case of Abp. Vigano, who has become increasingly fanatical and even wacky as time goes on, entering into goofy, crazy conspiracy theories and all sorts of wild speculations. The pope apparently knew this was coming, and has simply let him destroy his own credibility. It’s so bad that orthodox theologian Robert Fastiggi publicly asked whether Abp. Vigano was in schism. A strong case for that can certainly be made from his own words.
*
Likewise, I think the pope may take the approach of silence again in the current situation. I think it’s likely. Time will show how many Tridentine Masses and communities are actually shut down. Some will be because there is indeed a problem of quasi-schism and unCatholic views. But I highly suspect that the fears are far greater than what will be the actual reality. Time will tell. But time (almost certainly, in my opinion) will prove that the “suppression” (which is in fact, a reform) will be far, far less than the present hysterical and fearful estimates of what folks believe it will be.

Pope Francis believes (and I believe: since I am so often lied about in this respect), that popes can be RESPECTFULLY criticized. It’s the massive lack of respect that is objected to.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davea...cis-popes-can-be-respectfully-criticized.html

 

[Lizbeth]

Goodness me, what a long and complicated thought process just to point out a discrepancy to someone between the bible and what they're saying. Haven't you read where there is to be NO RESPECT OF PERSONS in the church? Because GOD IS NO RESPECTER OF PERSONS. And there are not supposed to be special seats for anyone. Why can't we just read the bible and SIMPLY do what it SIMPLY says? So called protestant churches do the same thing. Pastors are untouchable and "ministry teams" get preferred seating. We're doing it all wrong. We all have a long way to go getting back to the simplicity of Christ. "Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst." Jesus didn't come to invent a religion, or to build a ministry empire housed in fancy buildings. We've fallen into doing things the way of the world and flesh, instead of simply remaining in the simplicity of Christ....just real life with HIS LIFE in it. Very UNcomplicated. His yoke is easy and His burden is light.

It might knock the socks off some to learn that the bible doesn't teach us to have a thing called "church services" either.....that is the old covenant temple liturgical worship way.....which we have been FREED from. In Christ, it is simply "when you come together" in His name, "every one of you hath"...something to contribute according to the gift that is in them. "The body building ITSELF up in love". Church leadership have their roles as well, but the members of the body of Christ are not supposed to be passive spectators to a "service"....we can't, and typically don't, grow that way.

 

[theefaith]

Bingo! All believers are the low priests

yes according to the order of the royal priesthood but but is high priest according to the order of melchisedec so as you agree there must be low of the order of melchisedec Bingo!

submit obey

Lk 10:16
He who hears you hears me...

John 13:20
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

Spiritual Fathers have care for our souls!

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Jn 21:17 feed my sheep:

Heb 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they care for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

1 Tim 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

Gal 4:19 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you

1 John 2
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not.

That makes Paul and John spiritual fathers, pastors of our souls!

Obedience of the faithful Christians or spiritual anarchy of the heretical fundamentalists!

 

[theefaith]

Low priests are required to offer the sacrifice of Christ

11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.

pure offering
Clean oblation
Unbloody sacrifice

 

[theefaith]

Again, how many mediators are there between God and man? I mean scripturally. 100 mediators. 1000 mediators.

one Jesus Christ

But his kingdom is administered by Peter the apostles and their successors


Jesus Christ extends his mission, power, and authority to His church of His apostles!

Even His judging!
Matt 19:28 and 1 cor 6:2
His teaching authority!
Matt 28:19 and Jn 20:21
His power to forgive sins!
Jn 20:23
His being the light of the world!
Matt 5:14
His ministry of reconciliation!
2 cor 5:18
His authority in governing the church and administering the kingdom!
Matt 16:18-19 & 18:18 Jn 21:17
Lk 22:29
Apart from me you can do nothing. Jn 15:5
So the church is subject to Christ!
Eph 5:24
Christ shares His glory! 2 thes 1:10 rev 12:1

Jesus Christ founded the new covenant church for the salvation of all men! (Jn 1:16-17) Christ is the truth! (Jn 14:6) Christ and his church are one!
(Acts 9;4 eph 5:32)
The church is the pillar of truth
(1 Tim 3:15) that must teach all men (Matt 28:19) without error guided by the Holy Spirit
(Jn 16:13) Thru the grace of God in the sanctification of souls applied in the seven sacraments!

Jesus Christ continues HIS ministry in His new covenant church thru Peter, the apostles, and their successors with the same mission, power, and authority!
Mt 16:18 Mt 28:19 Matt 18:17 Acts 1:17 acts 8:31 & 35 acts 9:4 Lk 10:16 Jn 8:32 Jn 13:20 Jn 15:5 Jn 16:13 Jn 20:21-22 eph 2:20 acts 2:42
1 Tim 3:15

 

[theefaith]

Nothing you listed mentions that we are each other's priests.

If you remove your RCC bias, you will realize that all believers that have obeyed Acts 2:38 are priests unto their God.

We don't "priest" man.

We all go straight to God as the OT priest went to God in the tabernacle as we obey Acts 2:38.

The priest addressed the brazen altar(representing the future repentance per Acts 2:38).

The priest addressed the brazen laver(representing the future water baptism in the name of Jesus for the remission of our sins).

The priest addressed the Holy of Holies(representing the future when we receive the Holy Ghost).

I mean, since you are ashamed to go before God because of your Acts 2:38 skipping etc, you should find yourself a priest to do it for you, right?

14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders (bishops) of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

why is he not suggesting they go straight to God!

 

[Truther]

The first thing I hear when I criticize fanatical, extreme, hysterical, incessant, never-ending criticism of Pope Francis is, “you think a pope can never be criticized for anything!” If I had a dime for every time I have heard this lie, I’d be a rich man. I have never believed that the pope can never be criticized. I’ve written several times about this:

My point is not that a pope can never be rebuked, nor that they could never be “bad” (a ludicrous opinion), but that an instance of rebuking them ought to be quite rare, exercised with the greatest prudence, and preferably by one who has some significant credentials, which is why I mentioned saints. Many make their excoriating judgments of popes as if they had no more importance or gravity than reeling off a laundry or grocery list.

My position is that popes should be accorded the proper respect of their office and criticized rarely, by the right people, in the right spirit, preferably in private Catholic venues, and for the right (and super-important) reasons. Virtually none of those characteristics hold for most of the people moaning about the pope day and night these days.

I’ve lived to see an age where an orthodox Catholic apologist defending the pope (for the right reasons) is regarded as some sort of novelty or alien from another galaxy. Truth is stranger than fiction!

Being classified as an ultramontanist is almost a boilerplate response from critics of a given pope. It’s very common to reply to defenses of a pope or papal authority by making out that one supposedly agrees with absolutely everything he says or does, or that his color of socks or what side of bed he gets out on or his favorite ice cream flavor are magisterial matters. It’s untrue in my case. This has never been my position, as I’ve explained many times.

Now that that is out of the way, I would like to highlight some remarks that Pope Francis made, where he confirms my position that there is a time and a place for criticism of a pope, if done in the right way and in the right spirit.

[Question] On the flight to Maputo you acknowledged being under attack by a segment of the American Church. Obviously, there is strong criticism from some bishops and cardinals, there are Catholic Television stations and American websites that are very critical. And there are even some of your closest allies who have spoken of a plot against you. Is there something that these critics do not understand about your pontificate? Is there something that you have learned from your critics? . . .

[Pope Francis] First of all, criticism always helps, always. When someone receives criticism, that person needs to do a self-critique right away and say: is this true or not? To what point? And I always benefit from criticism. Sometimes it makes you angry…. But there are advantages. Traveling to Maputo, one of you gave me that book in French on how the Americans want to change the Pope. I knew about that book, but I had not read it. Criticisms are not coming only from the Americans, they are coming a bit from everywhere, even from the Curia. At least those that say them have the benefit of the honesty of having said them. I do not like it when criticism stays under the table: they smile at you, letting you see their teeth and then they stab you in the back. That is not fair; it is not human.

Criticism is a component in construction, and if your criticism is unjust, be prepared to receive a response, and get into dialogue, and arrive to the right conclusion. This is the dynamic of true criticism. The criticism of the arsenic pills, instead, of which we were speaking regarding the article that I gave to Msgr Rueda, it’s like throwing the stone and then hiding your hand… This is not beneficial, it is no help. It helps small cliques, who do not want to hear the response to their criticism. Instead, fair criticism – I think thus and so – is open to a response. This is constructive. Regarding the case of the Pope: I don’t like this aspect of the Pope, I criticize him, I speak about him, I write an article and ask him to respond, this is fair. To criticize without wanting to hear a response and without getting into dialogue is not to have the good of the Church at heart, it is chasing after a fixed idea, to change the Pope or to create a schism. This is clear: a fair criticism is always well received, at least by me. . . .

Silence according to Pope Francis (Where Peter Is, 12-5-18)
*
Silence: the shield against Suspicious Man (Where Peter Is, 12-10-18)
*
It was the same with Jesus. When He knew (since He didn’t have to perceive, knowing everything!) that people weren’t interested in dialogue and truth, He would often refuse to answer their questions (Lk 20:1-8), or deliberately speak in parables that He knew they would neither understand nor receive (Mt 13:10-16). But with His disciples, He would explain the parables and talk with them all night, explaining things they didn’t understand: such as with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Lk 24:27).

*
The pope has the prerogative to do the same thing. It’s not difficult to perceive when folks aren’t interested in hearing his side of things, and only want to tear down his authority and him, personally (which is currently happening again on a massive basis, in the frequently hysterical, over-the-top reactions to Traditionis custodes). His approach was thoroughly vindicated in the case of Abp. Vigano, who has become increasingly fanatical and even wacky as time goes on, entering into goofy, crazy conspiracy theories and all sorts of wild speculations. The pope apparently knew this was coming, and has simply let him destroy his own credibility. It’s so bad that orthodox theologian Robert Fastiggi publicly asked whether Abp. Vigano was in schism. A strong case for that can certainly be made from his own words.
*
Likewise, I think the pope may take the approach of silence again in the current situation. I think it’s likely. Time will show how many Tridentine Masses and communities are actually shut down. Some will be because there is indeed a problem of quasi-schism and unCatholic views. But I highly suspect that the fears are far greater than what will be the actual reality. Time will tell. But time (almost certainly, in my opinion) will prove that the “suppression” (which is in fact, a reform) will be far, far less than the present hysterical and fearful estimates of what folks believe it will be.

Pope Francis believes (and I believe: since I am so often lied about in this respect), that popes can be RESPECTFULLY criticized. It’s the massive lack of respect that is objected to.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davea...cis-popes-can-be-respectfully-criticized.html

There is no such thing scripturally as a "Pope".

 

[Truther]

yes according to the order of the royal priesthood but but is high priest according to the order of melchisedec so as you agree there must be low of the order of melchisedec Bingo!

submit obey

Lk 10:16
He who hears you hears me...

John 13:20
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

Spiritual Fathers have care for our souls!

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Jn 21:17 feed my sheep:

Heb 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they care for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

1 Tim 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

Gal 4:19 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you

1 John 2
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not.

That makes Paul and John spiritual fathers, pastors of our souls!

Obedience of the faithful Christians or spiritual anarchy of the heretical fundamentalists!

All believers are the low priests unto God with only one high priest of our profession...Jesus.

 

[Truther]

one Jesus Christ

But his kingdom is administered by Peter the apostles and their successors


Jesus Christ extends his mission, power, and authority to His church of His apostles!

Even His judging!
Matt 19:28 and 1 cor 6:2
His teaching authority!
Matt 28:19 and Jn 20:21
His power to forgive sins!
Jn 20:23
His being the light of the world!
Matt 5:14
His ministry of reconciliation!
2 cor 5:18
His authority in governing the church and administering the kingdom!
Matt 16:18-19 & 18:18 Jn 21:17
Lk 22:29
Apart from me you can do nothing. Jn 15:5
So the church is subject to Christ!
Eph 5:24
Christ shares His glory! 2 thes 1:10 rev 12:1

Jesus Christ founded the new covenant church for the salvation of all men! (Jn 1:16-17) Christ is the truth! (Jn 14:6) Christ and his church are one!
(Acts 9;4 eph 5:32)
The church is the pillar of truth
(1 Tim 3:15) that must teach all men (Matt 28:19) without error guided by the Holy Spirit
(Jn 16:13) Thru the grace of God in the sanctification of souls applied in the seven sacraments!

Jesus Christ continues HIS ministry in His new covenant church thru Peter, the apostles, and their successors with the same mission, power, and authority!
Mt 16:18 Mt 28:19 Matt 18:17 Acts 1:17 acts 8:31 & 35 acts 9:4 Lk 10:16 Jn 8:32 Jn 13:20 Jn 15:5 Jn 16:13 Jn 20:21-22 eph 2:20 acts 2:42
1 Tim 3:15

One mediator.

Good, glad you agree.

Pray directly to Jesus for mediation.

 

[Truther]

14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders (bishops) of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

why is he not suggesting they go straight to God!

That is not mediation for sin.

Go straight to Jesus for mediation for your sin.

That is for divine healing in the name of Jesus.

 

[Illuminator]

Nay friend, it has been as good as said on this site and is basic Catholic teaching that people are magically converted through baptism, when they are baptized as infants.

As I pointed out previously, Luther and Calvin baptized infants, and you fell silent.

And that they magically are filled with the Holy Spirit through the sacrament of Confirmation.

If I thought sacraments were "magic" I would have left the Church too.

If this were actually true they would have both the life of the Spirit as well as His fruits, and Catholic churches wouldn't be dead but would have the life of the Spirit that can be discerned by the Spirit.

There is lots of "life in the spirit as well as His fruits" in the Catholic Church, you are just painting all Catholics with the same brush, basing your judgments on weak stupid Catholics who don't live the faith in the first place. That's not fair. I submit you were a Catholic by inertia, and not by practice, because if you were a Catholic by practice, you would be educated enough to know that sacraments are not magic.
I don't see anything "Christian" about your self righteous anti-Catholic pontifications. You are just another angry ex-Catholic that never fell in love with the Church, like the girl who breaks up with her boyfriend and then spends the rest of her life bad-mouthing him.
You show no interest in meaningful discussion, you are here to bash Catholicism with standard fundie ignorance. Grow up.
Respectful criticism has nothing to do with "GOD IS NO RESPECTER OF PERSONS". This is not a response to my post. It proves you can't read.

You found Jesus and a warm fellowship outside the historic Church where you can grow. Good for you. The CC is not opposed to this. Sadly, you have been taught otherwise.

 

[Illuminator]

 

[theefaith]

There is no such thing scripturally as a "Pope".

pope is from the Italian for father or patriarch
Isa 22:21-22

 

[theefaith]

All believers are the low priests unto God with only one high priest of our profession...Jesus.

you’re not an apostle
Paul was speaking as an apostle there!

 

[theefaith]

All you have is spiritual anarchy all you can produce is spiritual chaos!!!

 

[BreadOfLife]

How many days old were you when you repented, was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and received the gift of the Holy Ghost as the 3000 did per Acts 2:38?
Around 8 days old?

Please clarify this for me.
Thanks.

When I entered the Mew Covenant in Bapttism – I was about the SAME age as the infants who entered the Old Covenant through Circumcision in the OT.
In BOTH cases – it was the faith and obedience of our Parents that brought us to the Covenant.

Do YOU believe that the Jewisg baby boys in the OT entered into a Covenant with God through Circumcision?
A Covenant is a sacred agreement between 2 or more parties.