Why do we need priests?

[CovenantPromise]

POINT: There are TWO trains of thought concerning the catholic assembly. You can ask yourselves which falls in line with God's word?
Obviously I am of the stance that a priest in Mortal sin can not consecrate the Bread and Wine. Christ is not in such a man. Nor does He aid and abet in His immorality nor does He, do anything on his behalf. And it would seem that my stance is the only, which is supported by prophets of God , it is Holy scripture supported. If you notice , It is clear in Malachi , Isaiah, Ezekiel, and the Psalms, Christ- who is God ,rejects the offering of a priest in Mortal sin.

Catholics should follow the scriptures to know truth, to know what Christ wants from you. No OTHER BOOK will give the clarity we need, not even the Catechism will . It will not replace the scriptures.
What the Lord's prophets have said applies to today.
Matthew 5:17-20
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

I must praise my Rabbi , All glory to you My Lord and Savior Yeshua ha Mashiach ( Jesus the Christ), from whom all wisdom flows. Who took it upon Himself to personally teach me. " Those who open the door to Me I will come in and sup with Him and he with Me". He has caused a door to be opened to me that No man can shut!

John 6:53-55
Jesus the Bread of Life
…53So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For My flesh is real food, and My blood is real drink.…

Obviously regular bread and wine can not do this.The faithful who have the Holy Spirit transform the bread and wine . The key is you must have the Holy Spirit. Christ was teaching the Kingdom of heaven and in obedience to all His decrees , you are His followers and therefore have His spirit. Yes!, it is a miraculous act.

tran·sub·stan·ti·a·tion
/ˌtran(t)səbˌstan(t)SHēˈāSH(ə)n/


noun
Christian Theology
noun: transubstantiation

1. (especially in the Roman Catholic Church) the conversion of the substance of the Eucharistic elements into the body and blood of Christ at consecration, only the appearances of bread and wine still remaining.

A very special act of consecration is that of the bread and wine used in the Eucharist, which according to Catholic belief involves their change into the Body and Blood of Christ, a change referred to as transubstantiation. To consecrate the bread and wine, the priest speaks the Words of Institution.
Christ is the High Priest and under His order, the order of Melchizedek , the priesthood is preserved. Christ is Melchizedek (That is for another thread).
It is clear that Christ is the Final sacrifice and it is this that is to be offered up upon God's altar.

A priest in mortal sin is a contradiction to God. He can not consecrate the Eucharist. The Priesthood is to be kept Holy. If not it contradicts not only the scriptures but the RCC's doctrine of transubstantiation. If an unholy priest , in mortal sin can do the consecration then according to this certain types argument , then satan himself can.

Continued......

 

[CovenantPromise]

Here's a thought.......If members of the body of Christ are not to pray for such a type of sin called (Mortal) then how can an unholy priest in mortal sin perform any priestly duty? Christ is not present in the man, therefore nor is He then in the bread and wine he offers..
Venial & Mortal sin:

1 John 5:
Effective Prayer
…16If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death( not leading to mortal sin), he should ask God, who will give life to those who commit this kind of sin (Venial, a sin that does not lead to death). There is a sin that leads to death (mortal sin); I am not saying he should ask regarding that sin. 17All unrighteousness is sin, yet there is sin that does not lead to death(venial sin does not lead to death). 18We know that anyone born of God does not keep on sinning; the One who was born of God protects him, and the evil one cannot touch him.…

So clearly the doctrine that says a priest in mortal sin can do the consecration is HARLOTRY. Do you get it?

This Priest in mortal sin thing is an example of the harlotry that has taken over this assembly . There are contradicting doctrines, though it holds truth, it also attaches to that truth a false doctrine. It maligns the truth then in essence. This is a clever scheme of the father of lies to bring men to discredit anything true within this assembly .

If you reject the necessity of a holy priesthood , nothing is held as sacred then. I was told by others of this same mind frame that I am teaching a false doctrine???! Imagine! I a lover of Christ being told I am a liar for upholding Christ's teachings? I am wrong for believing that we must be holy as our heavenly Father is holy? I am the liar?

The DIVINE ASSEMBLY......Means just that, we must be divine and that happens in Christ. This is a complicated time . That is why Christ has called the few to preserve TRUTH. During a time of desolation, they will bring many to Christ. That is why I test and have not been indoctrinated. I will not ,as a called out or rather pushed out Catholic deny what is true. I say this because the weeds are driving out all truth and have taken over the assembly for the most part. People like myself tend to be few and far between.....trying to navigate among the weeds. I do use scripture to uphold my doctrines. I know all I speak is no lie and is of a Virgin soul, I have not been defiled.

There have been many harlot doctrines which have come up in this assembly, GOD HELP US!

Venial sin , Mortal sin ,Transubstantiation , and a Holy Priesthood is upheld by scripture alone. The Holy priest has been given the authority to consecrate the offering making it (Christ), from in Him to the offering......... the scriptures uphold that.

I have been asked by pastor (paters-fathers) if that means they have to go to seminary and be schooled in Catholic doctrine or join the Catholic church? NO! All one needs to do is obey the written word. Christ chooses men and anoints them. An Institution does not approve you , Christ does. Simply add the truths I share, to your teachings. Guide your flock in all truth is what I say, FOLLOW THE SCRIPTURES!

God Bless!
Yours Truly,
DNM.

 

[Nancy]

Psh! No one is settled on it, lol! If they seem to be, they've most likely mashed together different time frames.

I read Joel 1 and 2 while keeping your thought in mind. At first, I thought, no because in that "afterward" men will prophesy, and my thought was that there would be no prophesying after that terrible time. But then I thought, yes, there very well WILL be prophesying about the release and future war after 1,000 years have passed.

The prophets are difficult because they speak about what was then present time, then switch to future, then switch to far future, and THEN they go back to what was then present time!

So I think you have to carefully look for the clues about which time frame is being spoken of. Is it before or after the gathering together? And is it before or after the 1000 years?
Can you say headache?!

Migraine!

 

[epostle]

Here's a thought.......If members of the body of Christ are not to pray for such a type of sin called (Mortal) then how can an unholy priest in mortal sin perform any priestly duty? Christ is not present in the man, therefore nor is He then in the bread and wine he offers..
Venial & Mortal sin:

1 John 5:
Effective Prayer
…16If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death( not leading to mortal sin), he should ask God, who will give life to those who commit this kind of sin (Venial, a sin that does not lead to death). There is a sin that leads to death (mortal sin); I am not saying he should ask regarding that sin. 17All unrighteousness is sin, yet there is sin that does not lead to death(venial sin does not lead to death). 18We know that anyone born of God does not keep on sinning; the One who was born of God protects him, and the evil one cannot touch him.…

So clearly the doctrine that says a priest in mortal sin can do the consecration is HARLOTRY. Do you get it?

First, a priest in mortal sin does not invalidate a valid Mass. If it did, then all Masses would be invalid because the consecration would depend on human efforts in the absence of Christ. It's like saying Christ at the Last Supper consecrated bread and wine based on His human half alone. This is a form of Nestorianism, a heresy that was refuted at the Council of Ephesus in 431, and at Chalcedon in 451. These Councils, and others, also affirmed the doctrine of the Trinity, which is accepted by all Christians. I am assuming you are a trinitarian Christian, since I don't know you from a hill of beans.

Second, in all your quotes from the saints, none of them say the Mass is invalid due to a sinful priest.

Third, 1 John 5 is directed to any brother, not priests in particular. It distinguishes the difference sin that leads to death, and sin that does not. Many "Bible Alone" Protestants, especially Calvinists, don't accept this, they think that all sin is the same. You should correct them when you see this false doctrine.

This Priest in mortal sin thing is an example of the harlotry that has taken over this assembly . There are contradicting doctrines, though it holds truth, it also attaches to that truth a false doctrine. It maligns the truth then in essence. This is a clever scheme of the father of lies to bring men to discredit anything true within this assembly .

Does a sinful pastor mean the whole assembly has fallen into harlotry? Or does your group even have pastors to begin with?

If you reject the necessity of a holy priesthood , nothing is held as sacred then. I was told by others of this same mindframe that I am teaching a false doctrine???! Imagine! I a lover of Christ being told I am a liar for upholding Christ's teaching? I am wrong for believing that we must be holy as our heavenly Father is holy? I am the liar?

Nobody is rejecting the necessity of a holy priesthood. A priest in a state of mortal sin is unacceptable. I remember reading about a priest officiating at a same sex wedding, he was immediately defrocked.

The DIVINE ASSEMBLY......Means just that, we must be divine and that happens in Christ. This is a complicated time . That is why Christ has called the few to preserve TRUTH. During a time of desolation, they will bring many to Christ. That is why I test and have not been indoctrinated. I will not ,as a called out or rather pushed out Catholic deny what is true. I say this because the weeds are driving out all truth and have taken over the assembly for the most part. People like myself tend to be few and far between.....trying to navigate among the weeds. I do use scripture to uphold my doctrines. I know all I speak is no lie and is of a Virgin soul, I have not been defiled.

How would you like it if I judged your personal "DIVINE ASSEMBLY" based on its weakest members? A "DIVINE ASSEMBLY" is united with the assembly in heaven, or it is just a human assembly. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that in certain evangelical circles, wherever you find sin you won't find Christ, leading to an "us v.s. them" mentality. This is not the love of the Gospel, it's phariseeism.

There have been many harlot doctrines which have come up in this assembly, GOD HELP US!

A Mass rendered invalid due to mortal sin of the priest is a non-sequitur fallacy, a "doctrine" you created. No such doctrine of yours exists in the Catholic Church. "been many harlot doctrines" is a generalization, an assertion that does not invite dialogue, because your mind is made up.

Venial sin , Mortal sin ,Transubstantiation , and a Holy Priesthood is upheld by scripture alone. The Holy priest has been given the authority to consecrate the the offering making it (Christ), from in Him to the offering......... the scriptures uphold that.

If you believe that the authority to consecrate bread and wine comes from Christ, then your objection that a sinful priest drags the whole assembly into harlotry falls flat. If a priest remains in a state of mortal sin, and refuses to repent, and it is proven to his bishop, the priest gets kicked out, defrocked. But something tells me that is not good enough for you. Is it fair to judge all priests on the basis of a few that refuse to be obedient? No, it isn't. It's malicious prejudice.

I have been asked by pastor (paters-fathers) if that means they have to go to seminary and be schooled in Catholic doctrine or join the Catholic church? NO!

A Calvinist or a Baptist must be schooled in their respective seminaries to be pastors. There is nothing sinister in this, but it's wrong for Catholics? Is that what you are saying?

All one needs to do is obey the written word. Christ chooses men and anoints them. An Institution does not approve you , Christ does. Simply add the truths I share, to your teachings. Guide your flock in all truth is what I say, FOLLOW THE SCRIPTURES!

"All one needs to do is obey the written word" according to the authority of the individual. That is a man made tradition, it is not in the Bible. We have different definitions of "Institution". Christ chooses men for ministry, but MEN officiate the anointing. That demands an institution. He qualifies the called, He does not call the qualified.

It would help a great deal if I knew what denomination you profess, so I can better understand you, and level the playing field a little. I web page produced or used by your non-institution would suffice.

God Bless!

 

[Marymog]

I do not expect to be perfect in this life and feel sorry for you or anyone else who thinks they are. Actually, I have been told by the Holy Spirit some things are not my business. I don't think my opinions matter either way in many areas. I don't think my opinions are that important. What matters is if I obey the Golden Rule and love God and my neighbor.
Are you telling me I shouldn't read it? That only people ordained by the Catholic Church should read it?

I tell you, yes, he was writing to Timothy who was a bishop; and what he wrote was true for Timothy and parts of it are true also for laymen. Obviously parts of it are about church discipline, so I don't try to apply those in my personal life. If something is scripture, it is good for my reproof and correction. Whether it's good for correction and reproof for you, I'll leave up to you. Feel free to rip that book out of your Bible if you think it doesn't apply to you and has nothing to teach you. (Yes, I can be sarcastic.)

Thank you.

Since the Holy Spirit is guiding you in all matters, even when the Holy Spirit tells you that some things are none of your business, it seems they wouldn't be YOUR opinion. It would be the opinion of the Holy Spirit!

Nope....not telling you that you shouldn't read it. It's pastoral epistle that was not addressed to the average layperson.

Are you a pastor OR the average layperson?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Seek and ye shall find. If you think you already have all the truth, you will never be open for correction. If you are wrong, you'll never know it.

Ummmmm......the seek and ye shall find passage from Matthew has NOTHING to do with being delusional in ones belief they are right or wrong.

Would you care to try again?

 

[Marymog]

You have it almost backwards. That verse doesn't say the church has any authority at all, it says the congregation has a responsibility regarding repeat individual sinners:

Matthew 18:17
"17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector."

...And that was my point: The church is the congregation...not the leaders.

PS, You have no business telling anyone to read their bible.

Hi Scott,

Scripture says the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. If the church is the congregation which one of the 2 billion Christians in the world are the pillar and foundation of truth?

Jesus said upon this rock I will build my Church (singular). Which one of the 2 billion Christians in this world are the rock that Jesus spoke of?

Back to work on your theory....

 

[Marymog]

You have not defined freewill by any biblical standard at all.

But that is not what I meant by saying "Having nothing to do with freewill." I only meant that I was not referring to freewill, but rather to your comment about authority...which you got wrong too.

And who gave YOU the authority to tell me and the CC we are wrong?

Curious Mary

 

[Nancy]

Hi Scott,

Scripture says the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. If the church is the congregation which one of the 2 billion Christians in the world are the pillar and foundation of truth?

Jesus said upon this rock I will build my Church (singular). Which one of the 2 billion Christians in this world are the rock that Jesus spoke of?

Back to work on your theory....

What did Jesus mean when he said, “Upon this rock I will build my church”?

The name Peter (Gk., Petros) means “rock” or “rock-man.” In the next phrase Christ used petra (upon this rock), a feminine form for “rock,” not a name. Christ used a play on words. He does not say “upon you, Peter” or “upon your successors,” but “upon this rock”—upon this divine revelation and profession of faith in Christ.

The following comment on this verse from The Bible Knowledge Commentary sums up the issue:

16:17-20. Peter’s words brought a word of commendation from the Lord. Peter was blessed because he had come to a correct conclusion about the person of Christ and because great blessing would be brought into his life. The Lord added, however, this was not a conclusion Peter had determined by his own or others’ ability. God, the Father in heaven, had revealed it to him. Peter was living up to his name (it means “rock”) for he was demonstrating himself to be a rock. When the Lord and Peter first met, Jesus had said Simon would be named Cephas (Aram. for “rock”) or Peter (Gr. for “rock”; John 1:41-42).

But his declaration about Messiah’s person led to a declaration of Messiah’s program. Peter (Petros, masc.) was strong like a rock, but Jesus added that on this rock (petra, fem.) He would build His church. Because of this change in Greek words, many conservative scholars believe that Jesus is now building His church on Himself. Others hold that the church is built on Peter and the other apostles as the building’s foundation stones (Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14). Still other scholars say that the church is built on Peter’s testimony. It seems best to understand that Jesus was praising Peter for his accurate statement about Him, and was introducing His work of building the church on Himself (1 Cor. 3:11).
What did Jesus mean when he said, “Upon this rock I will build my church”? | Bible.org

 

[epostle]

You have it almost backwards. That verse doesn't say the church has any authority at all, it says the congregation has a responsibility regarding repeat individual sinners:

Matthew 18:17
"17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector."

...And that was my point: The church is the congregation...not the leaders.

PS, You have no business telling anyone to read their bible.

Scripture gives many senses to the word "church". In Matthew 18:17, "church" refers to those in authority. A congregation with individuals in authority leads to chaos.

" And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the congregation. But if he refuses even to hear the congregation, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector."

Sorry Scott, but your rendering of Matt.17:18 is absurd. It's like going to a baseball game with no umpires. Or worse, all the players are umpires.​

 

[Marymog]

Well in that case there is no need to CANONIZE anyone is there? Your church teaches the so-called canonization of saints, which is simply another false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. So how many false doctrines must be exposed before you see the light?

Hi Enoch,

I am excited that I am given the opportunity to teach you what the CC and the bible teaches so you can throw away your false beliefs.

Canonization of a person into a saint is a Church law; not a doctrine. Soooo there is one false belief you can get rid of.

When a person is canonized the Church is recognizing that the person was either martyred or lived a virtuous life (or both), there are miracles associated to them and that they are worthy of public and universal veneration.

Do all Christians meet this criteria? (the answer is no) Since all Christians do not meet this high standard/criteria the ones that do are recognized and canonized as saints. As you know there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. The Church recognizes those whom have passed away that had those gifts. How do you recognize them?

Why do you object to The Church recognizing your fellow Christians who have martyred themselves and have miracles attributed to them? Paul commanded that we give respect and honor to whom respect and honor is due. The CC agrees with Paul. Do you?

As you know Scripture is replete with the importance of honoring religious figures. Sooooo why are you against giving honor to saints who have passed away and lived their lives in sanctity? Isn't that a good thing?

Curious Mary

 

[Giuliano]

Thank you.

Since the Holy Spirit is guiding you in all matters, even when the Holy Spirit tells you that some things are none of your business, it seems they wouldn't be YOUR opinion. It would be the opinion of the Holy Spirit!

I did not say the Holy Spirit is guiding me in all matters. Where did you come up with such an stupid statement?

Nope....not telling you that you shouldn't read it. It's pastoral epistle that was not addressed to the average layperson.

Are you a pastor OR the average layperson?

Mary

You aren't the Pope, that's for sure. You can't even read my posts with intelligence.

Ummmmm......the seek and ye shall find passage from Matthew has NOTHING to do with being delusional in ones belief they are right or wrong.

Would you care to try again?

So you say. I'm beginning to find some Catholics at this site comical. You say you don't know anything on your own, you depend on the Catholic Church to tell you what's right and what's wrong; and then you show up here, pretending to know things.

It's about anything, anything. Anyone who sincerely wants the truth can find it if having it would be a good thing. (But then maybe you find that impossible to believe.)

Matthew 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

 

[CovenantPromise]

First, a priest in mortal sin does not invalidate a valid Mass. If it did, then all Masses would be invalid because the consecration would depend on human efforts in the absence of Christ. It's like saying Christ at the Last Supper consecrated bread and wine based on His human half alone. This is a form of Nestorianism, a heresy that was refuted at the Council of Ephesus in 431, and at Chalcedon in 451. These Councils, and others, also affirmed the doctrine of the Trinity, which is accepted by all Christians. I am assuming you are a trinitarian Christian, since I don't know you from a hill of beans.

Second, in all your quotes from the saints, none of them say the Mass is invalid due to a sinful priest.

Third, 1 John 5 is directed to any brother, not priests in particular. It distinguishes the difference sin that leads to death, and sin that does not. Many "Bible Alone" Protestants don't accept this, they think that all sin is the same. You should correct them when you see this false doctrine. Does a sinful pastor mean the whole assembly has fallen into harlotry? Or does your group even have pastors to begin with?
Nobody is rejecting the necessity of a holy priesthood. A priest in a state of mortal sin is unacceptable. I remember reading about a priest officiating at a same sex wedding, he was immediately defrocked.

How would you like it if I judged your personal "DIVINE ASSEMBLY" based on its weakest members? Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that in certain evangelical circles, wherever you find sin you won't find Christ, leading to an "us v.s. them" mentality. This is not Gospel love, it's phariseeism.
A Mass rendered invalid due to mortal sin of the priest is a non-sequitur fallacy, a "doctrine" you created. No such doctrine of yours exists in the Catholic Church. "been many harlot doctrines" is a generalization, an assertion that does not invite dialogue.
If you believe that the authority to consecrate bread and wine comes from Christ, then your objection that a sinful priest drags the whole assembly into harlotry falls flat. If a priest remains in a state of mortal sin, and refuses to repent, and it is proven to his bishop, the priest gets kicked out, defrocked. But something tells me that is not good enough for you.
A Calvinist or a Baptist must be schooled in their respective seminaries to be pastors. There is nothing sinister in this, but it's wrong for Catholics? Is that what you are saying?
"All one needs to do is obey the written word" according to the authority of the individual. That is a man made tradition, it is not in the Bible. We have different definitions of "Institution". Christ chooses men for ministry, but MEN officiate the anointing. That demands an institution. He qualifies the called, He does not call the qualified.

It would help a great deal if I knew what denomination you profess, so I can better understand you, and level the playing field.

God Bless!

Man does not replace God. It is God who sets up shepherds. If a priest is invalid before God , God is clear what he thinks of him and his offering and no amount of two stepping will change His Truth. Christ is clear and His prophets are clear and no matter how long ones spiel is, it does not detract from the clear message of God the Father. A priest must be HOLY or God rejects his offering and spreads the solemnity of his mass like dung upon that priest's face . This is a judgement . Your words contradict God. People will follow them , and it is no skin off my back. I am happy to know I am chosen and this is no joke. And you are only confirming what the scriptures say about this time, the state of affairs in denominations , especially the biggest one. it is called the separation of the wheat and the weeds. let the weeds be gathered into the denominations. "Come out of her my people that you may not receive of her plagues , for her sins have reached heaven".

"A Mass rendered invalid due to mortal sin of the priest is a non-sequitur fallacy, a "doctrine" you created." The only non- sequitur is your denial of God's word. Truly your doctrine is the fallacy. sequitur (plural sequiturs or sequuntur) A logical conclusion or consequence of facts. The fact is you deny the consequences of disobeying God. Clearly a lack of Wisdom " Fear of God is Wisdom".

God through His prophets is clear. Whether or not you accept truth is on you not me. It would seem you uphold the dung that God calls the mass of a unholy priest. Your problem is with God not me. As I said before, I did not lay the foundation God did, I simply uphold it, as did many in Christian history, even during the season of the age of many denominations. And the harlot Cains will persecute the Abels , as has been since time began, no different now . And a mother can have two offspring one of a harlot and those obedient to God just as Eve did. A mystery revealed for our time. But the difference is, it is the last hour of the End of the Age.

Continued.....

 

[CovenantPromise]

CONCLUSION:
Malachi 2:2-3

A Warning to Priests

…2“If you do not listen, and if you do not take it to heart to honor My name,” says the LORD of Hosts, “I will
send a curse among you, and I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have already begun to curse them, because you
are not taking it to heart. 3Behold, I will rebuke your descendants, and I will spread dung on your faces, the
waste from your feasts, and you will be carried off with it.”



Leviticus 26:16

then this is what I will do to you: I will bring upon you sudden terror, wasting disease, and fever that will de-
stroy your sight and drain your life. You will sow your seed in vain, because your enemies will eat it.

Rev.17:15-16

The Victory of the Lamb

…15Then the angel said to me, “The waters you saw, where the prostitute was seated, are peoples and multi-
tudes and nations and tongues. 16And the ten horns and the beast that you saw will hate the prostitute. They
will leave her desolate and naked, and will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17For God has put it into their
hearts to carry out His purpose by uniting to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are ful-
filled.…



And I don't want to hear Leviticus is irrelevant. It is clear God is reiterating what is said there, in the Book of
Revelation.

Rev.18:

Babylon is Fallen

…7As much as she has glorified herself and lived in luxury, give her the same measure of torment and grief. In
her heart she says, ‘I sit as queen; I am not a widow and will never see grief.’ 8Therefore her plagues will come
in one day— death and misery and famine— and she will be consumed by fire, for mighty is the Lord God who
judges her.”



The only things removed from the Levitical practices are animal sacrifice because Christ is the final. As for
food laws, Christ left the option to abstain or eat , just as with circumcision - do or don't. " I am a Jew when
with the Jews and a Greek when with the Greek" Paul.



Isaiah 47:9

These two things will overtake you in a moment, in a single day: loss of children, and widowhood. They will
come upon you in full measure, in spite of your many sorceries and the potency of your spells.

Carry on!

Continued.....

 

[Marymog]

What did Jesus mean when he said, “Upon this rock I will build my church”?

The name Peter (Gk., Petros) means “rock” or “rock-man.” In the next phrase Christ used petra (upon this rock), a feminine form for “rock,” not a name. Christ used a play on words. He does not say “upon you, Peter” or “upon your successors,” but “upon this rock”—upon this divine revelation and profession of faith in Christ.

The following comment on this verse from The Bible Knowledge Commentary sums up the issue:

16:17-20. Peter’s words brought a word of commendation from the Lord. Peter was blessed because he had come to a correct conclusion about the person of Christ and because great blessing would be brought into his life. The Lord added, however, this was not a conclusion Peter had determined by his own or others’ ability. God, the Father in heaven, had revealed it to him. Peter was living up to his name (it means “rock”) for he was demonstrating himself to be a rock. When the Lord and Peter first met, Jesus had said Simon would be named Cephas (Aram. for “rock”) or Peter (Gr. for “rock”; John 1:41-42).

But his declaration about Messiah’s person led to a declaration of Messiah’s program. Peter (Petros, masc.) was strong like a rock, but Jesus added that on this rock (petra, fem.) He would build His church. Because of this change in Greek words, many conservative scholars believe that Jesus is now building His church on Himself. Others hold that the church is built on Peter and the other apostles as the building’s foundation stones (Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14). Still other scholars say that the church is built on Peter’s testimony. It seems best to understand that Jesus was praising Peter for his accurate statement about Him, and was introducing His work of building the church on Himself (1 Cor. 3:11).
What did Jesus mean when he said, “Upon this rock I will build my church”? | Bible.org

Hi Nancy

Thank you for the Protestant writings on this of which I am already familiar with. It came 1,800 years late.

You should read Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian etc. who wrote on this matter 1,800 years earlier. I accept the teaching of the Church from 1,800 years ago. You accept the 500 year teaching.

Even a cursory glance at the history of the Apostles, so far as it appears in the Gospel records, reveals a certain primacy of S. Peter among the twelve. He holds the first place in all the lists; he has a precedence of responsibility and of temptation; he sets the example of moral courage and of moral lapse. Above all he receives special pastoral charges. J.B. Lightfoot

Historical Mary

 

[Marymog]

I did not say the Holy Spirit is guiding me in all matters. Where did you come up with such an stupid statement?

Hi Giuliano,

I inferred it from your statements: "Actually, I have been told by the Holy Spirit some things are not my business."

I have had many wrong ideas and may still have. "I depend on the Holy Spirit to correct my wrong ideas more than to tell me new ideas."

Soooooo that is where I came up with "such an stupid statement".......from your own words!!

Since the Holy Spirit does not guide you in all matters why should anyone accept your interpretations of Scripture?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

You aren't the Pope, that's for sure. You can't even read my posts with intelligence.
So you say. I'm beginning to find some Catholics at this site comical. You say you don't know anything on your own, you depend on the Catholic Church to tell you what's right and what's wrong; and then you show up here, pretending to know things.

It's about anything, anything. Anyone who sincerely wants the truth can find it if having it would be a good thing. (But then maybe you find that impossible to believe.)

Wow.....Your Christianity is really showing with every condescending word you right.

I repeat what The Church teaches/believes. You teach and repeat what you believe. I trust the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, to be right....You trust YOU to be right.

 

[Giuliano]

Hi Nancy

Thank you for the Protestant writings on this of which I am already familiar with. It came 1,800 years late.

You should read Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian etc. who wrote on this matter 1,800 years earlier. I accept the teaching of the Church from 1,800 years ago. You accept the 500 year teaching.

Even a cursory glance at the history of the Apostles, so far as it appears in the Gospel records, reveals a certain primacy of S. Peter among the twelve. He holds the first place in all the lists; he has a precedence of responsibility and of temptation; he sets the example of moral courage and of moral lapse. Above all he receives special pastoral charges. J.B. Lightfoot

Historical Mary

Clement of Alexandria seems heavily influenced by pagan thinking.

Clement of Alexandria - Wikipedia

Paedagogus

This work's title, translatable as "tutor", refers to Christ as the teacher of all mankind, and it features an extended metaphor of Christians as children. It is not simply instructional : the author intends to show how the Christian should respond to the Love of God authentically. Clement, following Plato (Republic 4:441), divides life into three elements: character, actions and passions. The first having been dealt with in the Protrepticus, he devotes the Paedagogus to reflections on Christ's role in teaching us to act morally and to control our passions. Despite its explicitly Christian nature, Clement's work draws on Stoic philosophy and pagan literature; Homer alone is cited over sixty times in the work.

 

[Giuliano]

Wow.....Your Christianity is really showing with every condescending word you right.

I am no better than anyone else. You make yourself small. Don't blame me if you feel inferior.

I repeat what The Church teaches/believes. You teach and repeat what you believe. I trust the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, to be right....You trust YOU to be right.

Keep repeating things you know you don't know. Keep spinning those mental wheels.

God gave us minds to use. My faith is in God's goodness. He gave us minds so we can come to understand Him in part and then love Him. Yes, the purpose of man's mind is so we can come to understand about God -- not memorize what other men have to say on the topic.

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

You think God made you to be a perpetual follower of other men and what they say? No wonder my remarks made you feel as if I was being condescending. Your view yourself as inferior.

 

[CovenantPromise]

Wonder why a professing Catholic would set up threads which seem to encourage Freemasonry? Greater than that, I wonder why professing Christian catholics would brush off that sorcery as if it is no big deal?
Isaiah 47:9

These two things will overtake you in a moment, in a single day: loss of children, and widowhood. They will
come upon you in full measure, in spite of your many sorceries and the potency of your spells.

Very telling.
Carry on!