Oct. 13 and the Pope's plans

[Catholica]

anyone can write in Wiki.  Catholics HAVE to change the original meanings of a number of words in order to stay viable.

Did you check out to see whether I said was true before you made that comment?

Why attack the messenger?  See if the message is true.

You know that what I write is true.  Why did you not just admit it? 

The original meanings of these words is from Latin, which has not changed.  It is the English language which changed, not the Latin. 

"Vitium" is the Latin word which the English word "vice" (with regard to sin) comes from.  Link.
Origin:
1250–1300; Middle English  < Anglo-French, Old French  < Latin vitium  a fault, defect, vice

"Vicarius" is the Latin word which the English word "vicar" comes from.  Link.
Origin: 1250–1300; Middle English  < Anglo-French vicare; Old French vicaire  < Latin vicārius  a substitute, noun use of adj.; see vicarious

Vicarius means "substitute" or "deputy".
Vitium means "fault" "defect" "blemish" or "error".

Maybe people can modify dictionary.com at will as well? 

Come on, Helen!  I thought you were a teacher?

[Helen]

vicar (n.)  from Old French vicaire, from Latin vicarius "substitute, deputy," noun use of adj. vicarius "substituting,"

I was wrong about vice and I apologize.  However I stand on the fact that anyone who calls himself or allows himself to be called 'Vicar of Christ' is saying he is standing in for Christ, or substituting for Him.  That is a pretension of godhood and heretical.

[Catholica]

vicar (n.)  from Old French vicaire, from Latin vicarius "substitute, deputy," noun use of adj. vicarius "substituting,"

I was wrong about vice and I apologize.  However I stand on the fact that anyone who calls himself or allows himself to be called 'Vicar of Christ' is saying he is standing in for Christ, or substituting for Him.  That is a pretension of godhood and heretical.

Being a substitute is not the same as replacing Christ.  A substitute teacher doesn't replace the normal teacher.  A deputy sheriff serves the sheriff and can represent the sheriff when the sheriff is not available.

The question is, what does this "substituting" entail.  Does the Pope act as if he were God, or rather perhaps the Pope is only the Substitute in terms of certain roles that Jesus had.  The latter is true to the office.  The former is not.

The term "vicar" only entails substitution in terms of the ecclesiastical authority and primary teaching authority on faith and morals, the vicar of Christ serves that role after Christ has ascended.  As I outlined before, Jesus made Peter his vicar teaching "shepherd" when he gave him the solemn mission: "feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep" (John 21:15-17).  Peter became, as it were, a vicar, a "substitute" shepherd.  Jesus made Peter his vicar ecclesiastical authority when he gave him the keys to the kingdom which he promised him in Matthew 16:18-19.

But Jesus has not come back yet, and Jesus did not want his people to be "sheep without a shepherd".  Mark 6:34.  So he first made Peter his first "substitute" shepherd.  And while Peter has died, Jesus has not come back, and so Jesus continues to provide his sheep with one substitute (vicar) shepherd after another.  Scripture says that there will be one flock, one shepherd: Jesus shepherds His people, yes!  But he does it primarily through his appointed shepherd, first Peter, then (one at a time) others.  Not multiple flocks with multiple shepherds, but one.

John 10
16 I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd.

Luke 10
1 After this the Lord appointed seventy [-two]* others whom he sent ahead of him in pairs to every town and place he intended to visit.
2 He said to them, "The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few; so ask the master of the harvest to send out laborers for his harvest.
3 Go on your way; behold, I am sending you like lambs among wolves.
...
16 Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

In a similar way that voice is heard through all who teach in union with that one teaching authority.  So we are all, in some ways, vicars of Christ wherever we go.  You may have heard it said that we are "Christ's hands and feet", that we are to "be Christ" to others.  In that way we are also vicars: subordinate to but representatives of Christ on Earth.  Who listens to those disciples, listens to Christ.  Who rejects them, rejects Christ and the Father.

[mclees8]

Tonight Susan asked me why does God not open the eyes of Catholics. Spiritual blindness is not just a Catholic problem. I said its because they do not desire have their eyes opened because if they truly wanted to understand he would most certainly do it. If your eyes were then opened it would shake the very foundation of the only faith and knowledge traditions that are the very security you stand on.

You should read the writings of the Saints, if you don't think God opens the eyes of Catholics.  A good book to read is "Fire Within: St. Theresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross and the Gospel - On Prayer"

http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Within-Teresa-Gospel-On-Prayer/dp/0898702631

Why do you wave Mother Teresa around as if she justifies Catholicism. She is a tremendous women of faith but being Catholic is not the fire that drives  her. I never said that all Catholics were blind and the blindness is not just Catholics. Just as Mother Teresa is a tremendous person of virtue there are others who are not  Catholic who are like her but not given the limelight. Their reward is yet to come. 

I was sure my statement would be met with indignation yet I was wrong. Perhaps there is hope after all.

I didn't "wave Mother Theresa around".  I suggested you read a book about the lives and teachings of St. Theresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross.  Mother Theresa lived in the 20th century.  St. Theresa of Avila lived in the 16th century.

There is one other thing that keeps one blind and that is because they believe their eyes are opened. If your eyes were opened then you would know the things said are true.

Try reading the book. 

You want me to read a book about Lady who had mystic experiences a lot like Marian visions and doing thing like mortifying the flesh. We are not talking about ones personal experiences but understanding the Holy Spirit for all believers. You really don't think Im going to read about mystic things

You never told my Why Jesus went back tot the Father and sent the Holy Spirit to establish our communion with God rather than to sit like a pope on a throne of men. You have only proven more so your own lack of understanding.

If you want to understand the Holy Spirit for all believers, then you have to understand the "sensus fidelium".  The Holy Spirit was sent to lead the faithful as a community into all truth, not to lead each and every individual into all truth.  As a community we can infallibly know the truth, not as individuals.  And that truth basically comes from adhering to what has been passed down from the apostles, which is the Gospel, confirmed in Scripture and Tradition, and especially safeguarded by the part of the community which makes up the Magisterium, who defined those truths when they were challenged by heretics in ecumenical councils.

Jesus went away so that we could be the ones to share the gospel in the world, so that God could work through us and in concert with us, so that through love and doing His will we would be made made perfect, made more like Jesus.

The Pope is the voice of the Church, who proclaims the faith from a special central place, just as Peter did at the Council of Jerusalem, just like the spiritual leader of Jews once did from the Seat of Moses.  The Bishops likewise have care for their local flocks, just as James did at the Council of Jerusalem.  In revelation letters were written to the seven churches, specifically their "angels".  These "angels" were symbolic for their bishops.  The letters were written to the local bishops from the central authority of the apostles via the authority of God.

The Church has always had a central authority.  It has always had ordained leadership.  And their beliefs, though then in a primitive formulation (there are some things that I cannot tell you now, the Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth, saith the Lord), are still proclaimed by the Catholic Church to this day.

Your focus on the politics of Church operation, on the personal influence of the bishops and the pope on the people of the world, the fact that they wear robes and seem to take part in places of honor completely misses the point of the Gospel.  The Catholic Church isn't a human established organization, they are divinely established, and yet they are humans and so also use human expressions that reflect that truth. You simply deny the divine institution of the Church.  So of course it just looks like another human institution to you.  But yet you fail to understand the Catholic faith that they proclaim or acknowledge the goodness and beauty that living the Catholic faith brings.

The book I recommended was not one that talks just about the lives of these two saints.  There is only one chapter on that.  The book actually focuses on how every day people can live the Gospel more perfectly in their lives.  These saints proclaim the Catholic faith and the book focuses on the actual Gospel and applying it.  It would help you see how our eyes are open and how living the Catholic faith is actually closer to God than almost anyone knows.

Instead it seems that you prefer to get your undies in a bundle over the hat the pope wears and whether that means he is worldly.  You are wasting your time with that tripe, and I am wasting my time responding to it, frankly.

You have given a little bit to respond to. so I am going to put it in ' MS word" so that I can respond carefully. But to start it is not about what he wares but the spirit behind it. It is this that you cannot see nor do you seem to want to. You are right that Christ went back to the Father so that we could be the ones to spread the Gospel but that is only part of it. The other part concerns original sin and mans desire to be as God. This is where your central authority figure comes in.I will attempt explain this but I will get back to you.

Shall I go on or are you writing me off

Man's desire to be as God is best represented in this day as those who interpret the scriptures without regard for those teachings which were handed down and those truths previously defined, that is, each man assumes the place as infallible interpreter.  While with false piety they claim to be fallible, they act as if they are infallible, all the while denigrating the authority given to others by God to actually take that role, a role which they (de facto) usurp for themselves though they are loathe to say so.

The Pope, the hierarchy, and all the lay faithful realize that they are not God by adhering to that which was handed down to them instead of attempting to discern their own "truth" for themselves.  The Pope's job is to be a servant of the servants of God.  And he is truly being like God, but not because he is acting as he who is almighty, but because he is acting as Jesus did, just as Jesus instructed the apostles to be.  Through Jesus we "take part in the divine nature" and so God makes us like unto His son by our co-operation with His grace.

This truth has been attempted to be replaced by a legal-transactional "gospel" in which the individual believer has no responsibility for his actions (a belief which he proudly proclaims, though not with those words, rather with the words "faith alone"), while also claiming those who follow the true Gospel "deny the efficacy of Christ's finished work" and call they who proclaim the commandments "legalists".  The efficacy of Christ's finished work redeemed us and makes it possible for us to be saved, and His continual shedding of his grace on us makes us able to be like him if we will it.

You don't know the spirit behind any individual and whether that person's heart is desiring a position in the Church for themselves or rather as a steward for others.  They both have the same outward appearance to them.  If you do so, you judge a person, and this is the true biblical meaning of judging, covered by "judge not".  Heaven forbid you ever take any pride in any position you believe yourself to be in, as God will judge you as you have judged others.

Perhaps in your Word document you can make sure that you don't judge another person or all people in those roles as a whole.  Lest you be judged.  That will make for an interesting response indeed.

I have just got up from a nap and have not yet dealt with the document. Let me remind you that I never judged a man but an order that exalts man and is the very reason Jesus said it is expedient that I go away. It is for that reason Christ warned his disciples of pride of position and making a show of it. You do remember I specifically said its the whole exalted papal system that is worldly from the tips of toes to the top of its cone pointed hat. If you think this as humble then remember that the next time one bows at the popes feet and kisses his ring

[Helen]

That's good Catholic doctrine, but let's take a look at what is really going on:

Being a substitute is not the same as replacing Christ.  A substitute teacher doesn't replace the normal teacher.  A deputy sheriff serves the sheriff and can represent the sheriff when the sheriff is not available.

1.    Christ said He would not leave us as orphans.  Therefore He has given us the Holy Spirit, not a Pope. 
2.   A substitute teacher has the authority of the teacher while she is in the classroom.  She can explain things, give tests, send students to the office for misbehavior, etc.  By using this comparison, you are saying the Pope, as vicar of Christ, has the authority of God.  That is heresy.
3.   Christ is not gone. He indwells those who belong to Him through His Holy Spirit. 

The question is, what does this "substituting" entail.  Does the Pope act as if he were God, or rather perhaps the Pope is only the Substitute in terms of certain roles that Jesus had.  The latter is true to the office.  The former is not.

When the Pope makes his 'infallible' pronouncements, he is acting as if he were God. 

The term "vicar" only entails substitution in terms of the ecclesiastical authority and primary teaching authority on faith and morals, the vicar of Christ serves that role after Christ has ascended.

5.   You seem to be forgetting the Holy Spirit.  That is our guide, not any man.

As I outlined before, Jesus made Peter his vicar teaching "shepherd" when he gave him the solemn mission: "feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep".  Peter became, as it were, a vicar, a "substitute" shepherd.  Jesus made Peter his vicar ecclesiastical authority when he gave him the keys to the kingdom which he promised him in Matthew 16:18-19.

The  "keys to the kingdom" have nothing to do with Peter being some kind of leader.  He not only denied Christ, he was superceded by Paul in terms of who became the leading authority at the time.  The key to anything opens or shuts it.  The one and only key to the kingdom of heaven is Jesus Christ Himself.  He gave Himself to His disciples, and the four Gospels hold these keys.  Paul, Peter, Jude, John, James and the writer to the Hebrews explain them.  It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with any authority given Peter.

But Jesus has not come back yet, and Jesus did not want his people to be "sheep without a shepherd".  Mark 6:34.  So he first made Peter his first "substitute" shepherd.  And while Peter has died, Jesus has not come back, and so Jesus continues to provide his sheep with one substitute (vicar) shepherd after another.  Scripture says that there will be one flock, one shepherd: Jesus shepherds His people, yes!  But he does it primarily through his appointed shepherd, first Peter, then (one at a time) others.  Not multiple flocks with multiple shepherds, but one.

We don't need a 'substitute shepherd.'  We still have our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who not only indwells us through His Holy Spirit, but is our only mediator and intercessor with the Father.  One Shepherd, one flock. 

John 10
16 I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd.

Exactly, and we have heard HIS voice; it is not the voice of the Roman Catholic Church.

Luke 10
1 After this the Lord appointed seventy [-two]* others whom he sent ahead of him in pairs to every town and place he intended to visit.
2 He said to them, "The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few; so ask the master of the harvest to send out laborers for his harvest.
3 Go on your way; behold, I am sending you like lambs among wolves

.

And they came back to Him with reports, didn't they?

...
16 Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

That's the eyewitnesses, not some fake succession of Popes votes on by men who are vying for ecclesiastical authority themselves.

In a similar way that voice is heard through all who teach in union with that one teaching authority.  So we are all, in some ways, vicars of Christ wherever we go.  You may have heard it said that we are "Christ's hands and feet", that we are to "be Christ" to others.  In that way we are also vicars: subordinate to but representatives of Christ on Earth.  Who listens to those disciples, listens to Christ.  Who rejects them, rejects Christ and the Father.

You are really confusing metaphors here.  Christ using us to show His character in the world is a far, far cry from someone claiming to be here 'in place of' Christ. 
It does seem to me the RCC has been trying desperately for a couple of thousand years almost, to replace the Holy Spirit with their authority.  No thank you.

[mclees8]

There is none so blind as one who is blind groping in a dark room and still thinks he can see

[Catholica]

I have just got up from a nap and have not yet dealt with the document. Let me remind you that I never judged a man but an order that exalts man and is the very reason Jesus said it is expedient that I go away.

That is not the "very reason" that Jesus went away.  Jesus didn't refuse to be exalted when he rode into Jerusalem to people waving palms (the sign for victory for a king).  He didn't refuse to be exalted when Mary Magdelene poured the expensive nard upon his head.  Both of these things were appropriate for the Messiah, and Jesus allowed them. He even chastised Judas who objected to the usage of the expensive nard.  It was JUDAS who was chastised, not Mary Magdelene.  It was JUDAS who was wrong, not Mary Magdelene.

It is rightful authority that is exalted by God and rightly recognized and honored by men.

It is for that reason Christ warned his disciples of pride of position and making a show of it.

You are right, he did warn them against taking pride in their position.  Again, Jesus is warning against a heart condition, not making a statement against the right recognition of real position of authority in the church, or the symbols thereof.

The Pope's crozier is a symbol of his shepherding role.  The shepherding role is real, and the use of the crozier is appropriate.  When Jesus promised the "keys" to Peter, these keys were the symbol of his governing authority.  Would it be wrong to recognize that Peter had the keys (not an actual set of keys) by perhaps depicting him with a set of keys?  The keys depicted in art are a sign of the real spiritual reality.  Similarly the Pope's chair (the chair of St. Peter) represents his teaching authority.  In ancient Judaism the teacher was seated while the disciples sat at his feat.  Jesus similarly recognized a parallel "Chair of Moses", a symbol of the teaching office once held by Moses and handed down.  Symbols have always been used in the kingdom to denote spiritual realities.

God likewise adorned the OT priests in beautiful symbolic garb.  God commanded his temple to be beautifully adorned.  God commanded his ark to be ornately decorated.  Beauty and symbols are a tool that has appropriate use in reflecting spiritual realities.  We've been through this before. 

You do remember I specifically said its the whole exalted papal system that is worldly from the tips of toes to the top of its cone pointed hat. If you think this as humble then remember that the next time one bows at the popes feet and kisses his ring

It is God who has exalted his bishops to be shepherds of people.  The symbols of their office only reflect that reality.  If a bishop wears the symbols, he wears them justly.  To abscond with them itself could be a sign of pride, that that man somehow knows better.  Wearing them is both an honor and a burden, a privilege and a duty.

Perhaps you think that Catholic priests are reveling in their roles as priests, wearing their priestly garb. Well a lot of priests, for no fault of their own, get spit in their face simply because they are Catholic priests.  Genuflecting (with the left-knee, a sign of reverence to a human ruler: we genuflect to God with our right-knee) to the pope and kissing his ring (a sign of the authority given to the Pope by God) are both appropriate with regard to the office of the Pope, which is held by a man through whom Christ is working.   

Who will speak against the Lord's anointed? I just finished reading 1 Samuel to my kids.  In that book Saul is the anointed king of Israel.  It is true, Saul failed, and failed miserably, and was even severely chastised by God.  But as long as Saul lived, David continued to honor him and not lay a finger on him or speak against him, even though he was bad and trying to kill David!  It will be shame on the day of judgment when any one of us is called to account for speaking against the Lord's anointed, no matter how disobedient that man may be.

Mike, you continue on this soap box and I have no idea why.  You are missing the point of the Gospel.  All your efforts on this are completely wasted.  You continue to post this same attack time and time again and I continue to receive a great platform for proclaiming the deep truth and meaning behind things.  People who have less bias than you will finally get a chance to know the truth, and I suppose I can thank you for that. 

[Catholica]

That's good Catholic doctrine, but let's take a look at what is really going on:

Being a substitute is not the same as replacing Christ.  A substitute teacher doesn't replace the normal teacher.  A deputy sheriff serves the sheriff and can represent the sheriff when the sheriff is not available.

1.    Christ said He would not leave us as orphans.  Therefore He has given us the Holy Spirit, not a Pope. 
2.   A substitute teacher has the authority of the teacher while she is in the classroom.  She can explain things, give tests, send students to the office for misbehavior, etc.  By using this comparison, you are saying the Pope, as vicar of Christ, has the authority of God.  That is heresy.
3.   Christ is not gone. He indwells those who belong to Him through His Holy Spirit.

Rather:

1. Christ said He would not leave us as orphans.  Therefore He has given us the Holy Spirit, a Pope, Bishops, Priests, Deacons and the Sacraments.
2. The Pope is a bishop, and the Bishops, as the apostles did before them, do act with the authority of God while he is away.  That is what the keys stand for.  Read Isaiah 22:22 and following to understand the meaning of the keys in Judaism.  As for this claim that "that is heresy", what you are really trying to say is that you disagree.  I think that you might be the first to admit that you have no authority to declare anything heresy.
3. Christ is present to us in a certain sense, it is true, but He has gone away in another sense.  He said so Himself.

The question is, what does this "substituting" entail.  Does the Pope act as if he were God, or rather perhaps the Pope is only the Substitute in terms of certain roles that Jesus had.  The latter is true to the office.  The former is not.

When the Pope makes his 'infallible' pronouncements, he is acting as if he were God.

He is proclaiming the truth with the authority given to him by God. 

You can't on one hand say that the Pope proclaiming in this way to be "acting as if he were God" and from the other side of your mouth proclaim "that is heresy".  Either you are "also" acting as if you were God (with your "infallible declaration of heresy") or what the Pope is doing is not wrong.

The term "vicar" only entails substitution in terms of the ecclesiastical authority and primary teaching authority on faith and morals, the vicar of Christ serves that role after Christ has ascended.

5.   You seem to be forgetting the Holy Spirit.  That is our guide, not any man.

I'm not forgetting the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit primarily teaches us through men.  In the early Church He taught through the apostles, and the bishops they appointed (Timothy, etc.).  The only reason I believe that the Pope and the Bishops have that ability to teach is because the Holy Spirit has chosen the Church to be that primary teaching authority.  That is the great commission on which Jesus sent them.

As I outlined before, Jesus made Peter his vicar teaching "shepherd" when he gave him the solemn mission: "feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep".  Peter became, as it were, a vicar, a "substitute" shepherd.  Jesus made Peter his vicar ecclesiastical authority when he gave him the keys to the kingdom which he promised him in Matthew 16:18-19.

The  "keys to the kingdom" have nothing to do with Peter being some kind of leader.  He not only denied Christ, he was superceded by Paul in terms of who became the leading authority at the time.  The key to anything opens or shuts it.  The one and only key to the kingdom of heaven is Jesus Christ Himself.  He gave Himself to His disciples, and the four Gospels hold these keys.  Paul, Peter, Jude, John, James and the writer to the Hebrews explain them.  It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with any authority given Peter.

My scripture trumps your opinion, or else provide the scripture and we can look at it.  Isaiah 22:22 shows the meaning of the keys, which every Jew understood.  "Superceded by Paul" is simply not true.  There is no evidence for that in scripture at all, nor is there historically.

But Jesus has not come back yet, and Jesus did not want his people to be "sheep without a shepherd".  Mark 6:34.  So he first made Peter his first "substitute" shepherd.  And while Peter has died, Jesus has not come back, and so Jesus continues to provide his sheep with one substitute (vicar) shepherd after another.  Scripture says that there will be one flock, one shepherd: Jesus shepherds His people, yes!  But he does it primarily through his appointed shepherd, first Peter, then (one at a time) others.  Not multiple flocks with multiple shepherds, but one.

We don't need a 'substitute shepherd.'  We still have our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who not only indwells us through His Holy Spirit, but is our only mediator and intercessor with the Father.  One Shepherd, one flock. 

Again, the scripture I referenced showed that in fact Jesus set Peter as our shepherd.  Jesus thought his lambs, his sheep needed Peter, a man, who are we to argue?

John 10
16 I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd.

Exactly, and we have heard HIS voice; it is not the voice of the Roman Catholic Church.

It is your opinion.  Luke 10:16 shows that we hear the Lord's voice through the people whom He has appointed.  Those people, it can be easily historically deduced, are the Catholic Church.  Even secular historians recognize the succession of Popes.  It takes an anti-Catholic to deny the historically traceable succession. 

The line of bishops goes through the Catholic Church.  And leadership succession has always taken place in God's economy of salvation through the laying on of hands.

Luke 10
1 After this the Lord appointed seventy [-two]* others whom he sent ahead of him in pairs to every town and place he intended to visit.
2 He said to them, "The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few; so ask the master of the harvest to send out laborers for his harvest.
3 Go on your way; behold, I am sending you like lambs among wolves

.

And they came back to Him with reports, didn't they?

Yes... and they were chosen and sent by God to be his voice to the world, with his authority, to whom people's salvation relied on for them to listen to.  "Whoever listens to you, listens to me.  Whoever rejects you rejects me."

...
16 Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

That's the eyewitnesses, not some fake succession of Popes votes on by men who are vying for ecclesiastical authority themselves.

Certainly not a fake succession of Popes, but rather the true succession of validly elected Popes and ordained bishops according to that same authority which Jesus himself explicitly granted to his Church.  The power to bind and loose was clearly given in scripture.  This authority is necessary in every successful organization.  The fact that Jesus gave it, and with it a promise of endurance to the end, means that the Church with that organizational ecclesiastical authority will always remain, by the power of God.

In a similar way that voice is heard through all who teach in union with that one teaching authority.  So we are all, in some ways, vicars of Christ wherever we go.  You may have heard it said that we are "Christ's hands and feet", that we are to "be Christ" to others.  In that way we are also vicars: subordinate to but representatives of Christ on Earth.  Who listens to those disciples, listens to Christ.  Who rejects them, rejects Christ and the Father.

You are really confusing metaphors here.  Christ using us to show His character in the world is a far, far cry from someone claiming to be here 'in place of' Christ. 
It does seem to me the RCC has been trying desperately for a couple of thousand years almost, to replace the Holy Spirit with their authority.  No thank you.

We are not "replacing the Holy Spirit". You simply have a different belief regarding how the Holy Spirit operates to lead us into all truth.  We believe that the Holy Spirit operates (in official teaching capacity) through the Bishops, including the Pope who is the Bishop of Rome, and secondarily (in teaching capacity) to convict people of sin and to convict them of the truth that He teaches through the Catholic Church. You believe (it seems) that the Holy Spirit inspires each individual directly in reading the scriptures.  Correct me if I am wrong.

When you look at the situation between people such as yourselves and see the "doctrinal disputes", i.e. contradictions in belief, how can you rationally continue to hold that the Holy Spirit inspires each person individually?  I'm really curious what you think about this.

[Helen]

Romans 8 says specifically that if a person belongs to Christ that person is indwelt by the Holy Spirit.  Whether or not that person pays attention is another matter.  Consider Hebrews 12 which talks about the discipline we must undergo...

In the meantime, I stand by what I said.  You are absolutely indoctrinated with Catholic doctrine and I don't suppose there is anything  either the Bible or history can do about that.

[Catholica]

Romans 8 says specifically that if a person belongs to Christ that person is indwelt by the Holy Spirit.  Whether or not that person pays attention is another matter.  Consider Hebrews 12 which talks about the discipline we must undergo...

Reading Romans 8, I see that the indwelt Holy Spirit helps us avoid sin.  Agreed.  I see that the indwelt Holy Spirit intercedes for us.  Agreed.  I see that the Holy Spirit helps us to pray.  Agreed.  I see nothing in Romans 8 that talks about the Holy Spirit leading an individual to all truth.

Hebrews 12 is about being disciplined for sin.  Maybe you can clarify as to why you posted this verse.  It seems off topic.  In general it is more useful to post a range of verses to support your point, not entire chapters.

I agree with everything Romans 8 and Hebrews 12 says.  None of it contradicts anything I believe, nor anything related to the position I posit in the thread here, nor anything of the Catholic faith.  Nor does any of the Bible for that matter.

There are lots of people who "pay attention" to what they believe the Holy Spirit is telling them to believe.  But they come to opposite conclusions, contradicting doctrines.   Perhaps they don't listen, but they believe they are listening.  And if they believe they are listening but are not, and they come to some false doctrine, then they are deceived.  Thus you have people who pray and believe they are listening to the Holy Spirit and yet are deceived, and they are none the wiser for it.  And this could be ANYONE under that system.  Anyone.  Even you.

In the meantime, I stand by what I said.  You are absolutely indoctrinated with Catholic doctrine and I don't suppose there is anything  either the Bible or history can do about that.

Once again, you weaken your position by resorting to ad hominem attacks.  The Bible has been studied by the Catholic Church for 2000 years, and better yet, studied in light of the Gospel that was handed down from Jesus through the apostles and their successors and the faithful too.  Real history and the Bible together support the Catholic Church.  And by "Real History" I don't mean made up Alexander Hislop history.

[mclees8]

I have just got up from a nap and have not yet dealt with the document. Let me remind you that I never judged a man but an order that exalts man and is the very reason Jesus said it is expedient that I go away.

That is not the "very reason" that Jesus went away.  Jesus didn't refuse to be exalted when he rode into Jerusalem to people waving palms (the sign for victory for a king).  He didn't refuse to be exalted when Mary Magdelene poured the expensive nard upon his head.  Both of these things were appropriate for the Messiah, and Jesus allowed them. He even chastised Judas who objected to the usage of the expensive nard.  It was JUDAS who was chastised, not Mary Magdelene.  It was JUDAS who was wrong, not Mary Magdelene.

It is rightful authority that is exalted by God and rightly recognized and honored by men.

It is for that reason Christ warned his disciples of pride of position and making a show of it.

You are right, he did warn them against taking pride in their position.  Again, Jesus is warning against a heart condition, not making a statement against the right recognition of real position of authority in the church, or the symbols thereof.

The Pope's crozier is a symbol of his shepherding role.  The shepherding role is real, and the use of the crozier is appropriate.  When Jesus promised the "keys" to Peter, these keys were the symbol of his governing authority.  Would it be wrong to recognize that Peter had the keys (not an actual set of keys) by perhaps depicting him with a set of keys?  The keys depicted in art are a sign of the real spiritual reality.  Similarly the Pope's chair (the chair of St. Peter) represents his teaching authority.  In ancient Judaism the teacher was seated while the disciples sat at his feat.  Jesus similarly recognized a parallel "Chair of Moses", a symbol of the teaching office once held by Moses and handed down.  Symbols have always been used in the kingdom to denote spiritual realities.

God likewise adorned the OT priests in beautiful symbolic garb.  God commanded his temple to be beautifully adorned.  God commanded his ark to be ornately decorated.  Beauty and symbols are a tool that has appropriate use in reflecting spiritual realities.  We've been through this before. 

You do remember I specifically said its the whole exalted papal system that is worldly from the tips of toes to the top of its cone pointed hat. If you think this as humble then remember that the next time one bows at the popes feet and kisses his ring

It is God who has exalted his bishops to be shepherds of people.  The symbols of their office only reflect that reality.  If a bishop wears the symbols, he wears them justly.  To abscond with them itself could be a sign of pride, that that man somehow knows better.  Wearing them is both an honor and a burden, a privilege and a duty.

Perhaps you think that Catholic priests are reveling in their roles as priests, wearing their priestly garb. Well a lot of priests, for no fault of their own, get spit in their face simply because they are Catholic priests.  Genuflecting (with the left-knee, a sign of reverence to human authority: we genuflect to God with our right-knee) to the pope and kissing his ring (a sign of the authority given to the Pope by God) are both appropriate with regard to the office of the Pope, which is held by a man through whom Christ is working.   

Who will speak against the Lord's annointed? I just finished reading 1 Samuel to my kids.  In that book Saul is the annointed king of Israel.  It is true, Saul failed, and failed miserably, and was even severely chastised by God.  But as long as Saul lived, David continued to honor him and not lay a finger on him or speak against him, even though he was bad and trying to kill David!  It will be shame on the day of judgment when any one of us is called to account for speaking against the Lord's annointed, no matter how disobedient that man may be.

Mike, you continue on this soap box and I have no idea why.  You are missing the point of the Gospel.  All your efforts on this are completely wasted.  You continue to post this same attack time and time again and I continue to receive a great platform for proclaiming the deep truth and meaning behind things.  People who have less bias than you will finally get a chance to know the truth, and I suppose I can thank you for that. 

Again you are wrong on all counts . They are never wasted and I have missed no point. Oh how I wish I had endless time that you seem to have. There is so much I have to say. You say because of me you are given opportunity of platform to express what you believe to be the truth. It is I who has been given opportunity, but not for me and not to convince you or any one except truth be shown. There will be another day when all tis is given true light. But I welcome every opportunity to witness. You say I hammer tis over and over. Yes I certainly do because the audience is alwys changing and every one will have opertunity to decide truth.

What you said about David is interesting because only the other day He came up in my lessens. Theer was I man who came upon Saul who knew he was going to be defeated by His enemies and ran himself through with his sword but it was not enough to die so he asked this man to finish the Job for him. Latter he came to David and thinking David would be happy found that he was wroth with him and he was killed.

I gave thought to this. David already knew he was anointed to be king so why was he displeased? David was a man of honor. and he knew Saul was jealous. It was very important to David that he did not appear that he would kill Saul or rejoice over his death so he could be king. This cost that mans life.

You almost over whelm me before I can respond and again my time is short. I have not lost sight of anything though and am prepared to go the distance with you if only to show truth. Don't think it just Catholiscism that see but I have seen a lot in Protestantism as well. I watched History channel last night about the KKK. Evil exists throughout this thing we call Christianity.  Do I have a drive in all this? yes I do.

[Catholica]

Again you are wrong on all counts . They are never wasted and I have missed no point. Oh how I wish I had endless time that you seem to have. There is so much I have to say. You say because of me you are given opportunity of platform to express what you believe to be the truth. It is I who has been given opportunity, but not for me and not to convince you or any one except truth be shown. There will be another day when all tis is given true light. But I welcome every opportunity to witness. You say I hammer tis over and over. Yes I certainly do because the audience is alwys changing and every one will have opertunity to decide truth.

I usually read people's posts pretty carefully so that I can stay on topic and address what they say.  But frankly I can't even see a coherent point that you are trying to make, much less make much progress trying to "prove" some "truth" that seems to be just a personal platform against there being a visible church. 

What you said about David is interesting because only the other day He came up in my lessens. Theer was I man who came upon Saul who knew he was going to be defeated by His enemies and ran himself through with his sword but it was not enough to die so he asked this man to finish the Job for him. Latter he came to David and thinking David would be happy found that he was wroth with him and he was killed.

I gave thought to this. David already knew he was anointed to be king so why was he displeased? David was a man of honor. and he knew Saul was jealous. It was very important to David that he did not appear that he would kill Saul or rejoice over his death so he could be king. This cost that mans life.

David was a man of integrity by the Lord, who honored the Lord's decisions and his established authority.  David may have had a hard time, humanly speaking, doing what he did, but in this case, he did what was right in God's eyes, which was to honor the authority given to Saul by the Lord.

David became the God's anointed and it seemed that the Lord had absolutely no problem with David living in splendor.  Even less so Solomon.  These were both kings who lived fabulously rich lives.  It was not possessing riches which did them in, nor was it receiving honor due to a king, but rather their sin:  David's adultery and murder,  Solomon's overindulgence in foreign women and allowing them to worship false gods, as well as heavily taxing his people.  It was because of those things that God was angry at them.  Not their living in splendor.  Not their allowing people to "do them obeisance".

God does not have any problem with people having things.  He doesn't have a problem with people the authority given to them through His Church.  He doesn't have a problem with others recognizing and tangibly honoring that authority.  He doesn't have a problem with people using beauty to give Him glory in natural ways. 

God is concerned with the heart.  God will take care of the hearts of people who may be in necessary near occasions of sin, such as those to whom He has given authority.  And we can help them by praying for them.

[mclees8]

One thing while I have just another minute. About speaking against the anointed God. True Saul was anointed but failed his appointment. David was anointed to take his place. You say the papacy was anointed through Peter but they also failed their appointment. Saul continued to rein as King after he was rejected and so also it is with the papacy. The true king is will rein When he returns for His faithful bride

[Catholica]

One thing while I have just another minute. About speaking against the anointed God. True Saul was anointed but failed his appointment. David was anointed to take his place. You say the papacy was anointed through Peter but they also failed their appointment. Saul continued to rein as King after he was rejected and so also it is with the papacy. The true king is will rein When he returns for His faithful bride

It is only your opinion that the Papacy failed their appointment.  Jesus said that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church.  Even if you believe that the Papacy is failed and rejected and they continue to reign, to be like David you personally still need to give them honor and respect their position, though of course I believe this position "being rejected" is in conflict with Christ's words about "not prevailing".   Moreover you should follow the commands Jesus gave to those under the authority of the Pharisees, another rightly given authority: "do as they say but not as they do".  "Not as they do" in reference to any potential sin that the authority takes part in.   "Do as they say" to be obedient to their teachings and the precepts of the Church.

I agree that Jesus will reign and return to his faithful Bride.  That faithful Bride is the Catholic Church, who continues forever to "do this in memory of me", and all people who are united to Christ in his body, which all faithful children of God are connected to, whether they know it or not, that is, whether that connection is believed by them and part of their lives (visible) or not seen by them but still existent through their valid baptism and grace from God (invisible).

[mclees8]

Again you are wrong on all counts . They are never wasted and I have missed no point. Oh how I wish I had endless time that you seem to have. There is so much I have to say. You say because of me you are given opportunity of platform to express what you believe to be the truth. It is I who has been given opportunity, but not for me and not to convince you or any one except truth be shown. There will be another day when all tis is given true light. But I welcome every opportunity to witness. You say I hammer tis over and over. Yes I certainly do because the audience is alwys changing and every one will have opertunity to decide truth.

I usually read people's posts pretty carefully so that I can stay on topic and address what they say.  But frankly I can't even see a coherent point that you are trying to make, much less make much progress trying to "prove" some "truth" that seems to be just a personal platform against there being a visible church. 

What you said about David is interesting because only the other day He came up in my lessens. Theer was I man who came upon Saul who knew he was going to be defeated by His enemies and ran himself through with his sword but it was not enough to die so he asked this man to finish the Job for him. Latter he came to David and thinking David would be happy found that he was wroth with him and he was killed.

I gave thought to this. David already knew he was anointed to be king so why was he displeased? David was a man of honor. and he knew Saul was jealous. It was very important to David that he did not appear that he would kill Saul or rejoice over his death so he could be king. This cost that mans life.

David was a man of integrity by the Lord, who honored the Lord's decisions and his established authority.  David may have had a hard time, humanly speaking, doing what he did, but in this case, he did what was right in God's eyes, which was to honor the authority given to Saul by the Lord.

David became the God's anointed and it seemed that the Lord had absolutely no problem with David living in splendor.  Even less so Solomon.  These were both kings who lived fabulously rich lives.  It was not possessing riches which did them in, nor was it receiving honor due to a king, but rather their sin:  David's adultery and murder,  Solomon's overindulgence in foreign women and allowing them to worship false gods, as well as heavily taxing his people.  It was because of those things that God was angry at them.  Not their living in splendor.  Not their allowing people to "do them obeisance".

God does not have any problem with people having things.  He doesn't have a problem with people the authority given to them through His Church.  He doesn't have a problem with others recognizing and tangibly honoring that authority.  He doesn't have a problem with people using beauty to give Him glory in natural ways. 

God is concerned with the heart.  God will take care of the hearts of people who may be in necessary near occasions of sin, such as those to whom He has given authority.  And we can help them by praying for them.

Its ironic almost that you don't see the point in all this. That was the very point. Shall I  get you a cain so you won't bump into it.

[mclees8]

One thing while I have just another minute. About speaking against the anointed God. True Saul was anointed but failed his appointment. David was anointed to take his place. You say the papacy was anointed through Peter but they also failed their appointment. Saul continued to rein as King after he was rejected and so also it is with the papacy. The true king is will rein When he returns for His faithful bride

It is only your opinion that the Papacy failed their appointment.  Jesus said that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church.  Even if you believe that the Papacy is failed and rejected and they continue to reign, to be like David you personally still need to give them honor and respect their position, though of course I believe this position "being rejected" is in conflict with Christ's words about "not prevailing".   Moreover you should follow the commands Jesus gave to those under the authority of the Pharisees, another rightly given authority: "do as they say but not as they do".  "Not as they do" in reference to any potential sin that the authority takes part in.   "Do as they say" to be obedient to their teachings and the precepts of the Church.

I agree that Jesus will reign and return to his faithful Bride.  That faithful Bride is the Catholic Church, who continues forever to "do this in memory of me", and all people who are united to Christ in his body, which all faithful children of God are connected to, whether they know it or not, that is, whether that connection is believed by them and part of their lives (visible) or not seen by them but still existent through their valid baptism and grace from God (invisible).

Tell me did John the Baptist dishonor God when his called the Pharisees a brood of vipers?

[Catholica]

One thing while I have just another minute. About speaking against the anointed God. True Saul was anointed but failed his appointment. David was anointed to take his place. You say the papacy was anointed through Peter but they also failed their appointment. Saul continued to rein as King after he was rejected and so also it is with the papacy. The true king is will rein When he returns for His faithful bride

It is only your opinion that the Papacy failed their appointment.  Jesus said that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church.  Even if you believe that the Papacy is failed and rejected and they continue to reign, to be like David you personally still need to give them honor and respect their position, though of course I believe this position "being rejected" is in conflict with Christ's words about "not prevailing".   Moreover you should follow the commands Jesus gave to those under the authority of the Pharisees, another rightly given authority: "do as they say but not as they do".  "Not as they do" in reference to any potential sin that the authority takes part in.   "Do as they say" to be obedient to their teachings and the precepts of the Church.

I agree that Jesus will reign and return to his faithful Bride.  That faithful Bride is the Catholic Church, who continues forever to "do this in memory of me", and all people who are united to Christ in his body, which all faithful children of God are connected to, whether they know it or not, that is, whether that connection is believed by them and part of their lives (visible) or not seen by them but still existent through their valid baptism and grace from God (invisible).

Tell me did John the Baptist dishonor God when his called the Pharisees a brood of vipers?

No, he did not, because he had witnessed their works.  Lay people can chastise people in authority for their sins.  It doesn't change their position of authority nor does it negate their office.  Jesus still told people to "do as (the Pharisees) say" even after they were called a brood of vipers.

[mclees8]

One thing while I have just another minute. About speaking against the anointed God. True Saul was anointed but failed his appointment. David was anointed to take his place. You say the papacy was anointed through Peter but they also failed their appointment. Saul continued to rein as King after he was rejected and so also it is with the papacy. The true king is will rein When he returns for His faithful bride

It is only your opinion that the Papacy failed their appointment.  Jesus said that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church.  Even if you believe that the Papacy is failed and rejected and they continue to reign, to be like David you personally still need to give them honor and respect their position, though of course I believe this position "being rejected" is in conflict with Christ's words about "not prevailing".   Moreover you should follow the commands Jesus gave to those under the authority of the Pharisees, another rightly given authority: "do as they say but not as they do".  "Not as they do" in reference to any potential sin that the authority takes part in.   "Do as they say" to be obedient to their teachings and the precepts of the Church.

I agree that Jesus will reign and return to his faithful Bride.  That faithful Bride is the Catholic Church, who continues forever to "do this in memory of me", and all people who are united to Christ in his body, which all faithful children of God are connected to, whether they know it or not, that is, whether that connection is believed by them and part of their lives (visible) or not seen by them but still existent through their valid baptism and grace from God (invisible).

Tell me did John the Baptist dishonor God when his called the Pharisees a brood of vipers?

No, he did not, because he had witnessed their works.  Lay people can chastise people in authority for their sins.  It doesn't change their position of authority nor does it negate their office.  Jesus still told people to "do as (the Pharisees) say" even after they were called a brood of vipers.

That is true and I did not tell you to stop listening to them. I have only called as it is, just as John made his call. Even now they  mislead the church toward antichrist because they  are in bed with the world and all the world is. Not because they ware robes and hats but because look to be God upon the earth.

Just one more thing. Did the church and the aposltes always listen the Pharisees. If not when di they stop?

[Catholica]

That is true and I did not tell you to stop listening to them. I have only called as it is, just as John made his call. Even now they  mislead the church toward antichrist because they  are in bed with the world and all the world is. Not because they ware robes and hats but because look to be God upon the earth.

Just one more thing. Did the church and the aposltes always listen the Pharisees. If not when di they stop?

Well that makes no sense, Mike.  You say that the clergy are misleading the Church toward antichrist, and yet you do not say I should stop listening to them?   Either you hate me and want me to go to Hell, or you are just waffling.  I'm guessing it's the latter, but that won't fly, Mike.  You have to decide.

Jesus would not tell someone to listen to someone if they were of the antichrist.   The Pharisees were actually quite holy people, zealous for the law and doing what was right.  They just went too far and became prideful about their holiness.  Jesus was trying to help them out of their pride, and used harsh words to do so. 

But again, Jesus knew their hearts.  You look at the institution and want to discredit it as a whole.  Jesus didn't discredit the Pharisees.  He wanted them to reform their hearts and actiosn, not abandon their positions; He wanted them to reform from within, not from without.  Meaning that Jesus didn't want them to cast off their robes, to get rid of their hats and garments, to destroy the objects of worship in the temple, nor to abandon their authority.

We are all concerned when the clergy sin.  Their sin is rightly a scandal.  The whole Church suffers for it.  But the whole Church suffers for everyone's sin.  We are Jesus' body in a real way, and Jesus' body suffered for our sins.  The servants are not greater than their master.  Thus we all suffer for each other's sins.  That is just part of the deal being Christian.  The right attitude, however, is not a general scorn for the clergy and everything to do with them, but a righteous anger at sins committed and much prayer for those who were victimized and those who committed the sins.

We don't abandon the authority Jesus established; rather we look for ways to make that authority visible to everyone: not because of pride, but rather to help them see the spiritual reality, so that they can accept the gifts that Jesus is offering them.  Jesus established this visible Church as a means for us to endure and with His grace attain to eternal salvation.


To the gentle soul reading this thread, may the Lord speak to you in your heart and make himself known to you intimately through His visible Church.

[mclees8]

That is true and I did not tell you to stop listening to them. I have only called as it is, just as John made his call. Even now they  mislead the church toward antichrist because they  are in bed with the world and all the world is. Not because they ware robes and hats but because look to be God upon the earth.

Just one more thing. Did the church and the aposltes always listen the Pharisees. If not when di they stop?

Well that makes no sense, Mike.  You say that the clergy are misleading the Church toward antichrist, and yet you do not say I should stop listening to them?   Either you hate me and want me to go to Hell, or you are just waffling.  I'm guessing it's the latter, but that won't fly, Mike.  You have to decide.

Jesus would not tell someone to listen to someone if they were of the antichrist.   The Pharisees were actually quite holy people, zealous for the law and doing what was right.  They just went too far and became prideful about their holiness.  Jesus was trying to help them out of their pride, and used harsh words to do so. 

But again, Jesus knew their hearts.  You look at the institution and want to discredit it as a whole.  Jesus didn't discredit the Pharisees.  He wanted them to reform their hearts and actiosn, not abandon their positions; He wanted them to reform from within, not from without.  Meaning that Jesus didn't want them to cast off their robes, to get rid of their hats and garments, to destroy the objects of worship in the temple, nor to abandon their authority.

We are all concerned when the clergy sin.  Their sin is rightly a scandal.  The whole Church suffers for it.  But the whole Church suffers for everyone's sin.  We are Jesus' body in a real way, and Jesus' body suffered for our sins.  The servants are not greater than their master.  Thus we all suffer for each other's sins.  That is just part of the deal being Christian.  The right attitude, however, is not a general scorn for the clergy and everything to do with them, but a righteous anger at sins committed and much prayer for those who were victimized and those who committed the sins.

We don't abandon the authority Jesus established; rather we look for ways to make that authority visible to everyone: not because of pride, but rather to help them see the spiritual reality, so that they can accept the gifts that Jesus is offering them.  Jesus established this visible Church as a means for us to endure and with His grace attain to eternal salvation.


To the gentle soul reading this thread, may the Lord speak to you in your heart and make himself known to you intimately through His visible Church.

You could not fathom the intimacy I have with Him. And there is much about me you do not know. You say you read the posts carefully. I don't think you do or ask the Lord what is being said. Think now again what I said.

Did the church and the apostles always listen the Pharisees? If not when did they stop?
I will answer to this post directly. You said two different things

[Catholica]

That is true and I did not tell you to stop listening to them. I have only called as it is, just as John made his call. Even now they  mislead the church toward antichrist because they  are in bed with the world and all the world is. Not because they ware robes and hats but because look to be God upon the earth.

Just one more thing. Did the church and the aposltes always listen the Pharisees. If not when di they stop?

Well that makes no sense, Mike.  You say that the clergy are misleading the Church toward antichrist, and yet you do not say I should stop listening to them?   Either you hate me and want me to go to Hell, or you are just waffling.  I'm guessing it's the latter, but that won't fly, Mike.  You have to decide.

Jesus would not tell someone to listen to someone if they were of the antichrist.   The Pharisees were actually quite holy people, zealous for the law and doing what was right.  They just went too far and became prideful about their holiness.  Jesus was trying to help them out of their pride, and used harsh words to do so. 

But again, Jesus knew their hearts.  You look at the institution and want to discredit it as a whole.  Jesus didn't discredit the Pharisees.  He wanted them to reform their hearts and actiosn, not abandon their positions; He wanted them to reform from within, not from without.  Meaning that Jesus didn't want them to cast off their robes, to get rid of their hats and garments, to destroy the objects of worship in the temple, nor to abandon their authority.

We are all concerned when the clergy sin.  Their sin is rightly a scandal.  The whole Church suffers for it.  But the whole Church suffers for everyone's sin.  We are Jesus' body in a real way, and Jesus' body suffered for our sins.  The servants are not greater than their master.  Thus we all suffer for each other's sins.  That is just part of the deal being Christian.  The right attitude, however, is not a general scorn for the clergy and everything to do with them, but a righteous anger at sins committed and much prayer for those who were victimized and those who committed the sins.

We don't abandon the authority Jesus established; rather we look for ways to make that authority visible to everyone: not because of pride, but rather to help them see the spiritual reality, so that they can accept the gifts that Jesus is offering them.  Jesus established this visible Church as a means for us to endure and with His grace attain to eternal salvation.


To the gentle soul reading this thread, may the Lord speak to you in your heart and make himself known to you intimately through His visible Church.

You could not fathom the intimacy I have with Him. And there is much about me you do not know

That's great!  Good for you.  You should share with us more of that sometime.

You say you read the posts carefully. I don't think you do or ask the Lord what is being said. Think now again what I said.

Why would I ask the Lord what is being said, when I can ask you?  It's not the Lord talking. And the time I said I was confused, you just chose to say "that is ironic".  Not helpful.

Did the church and the apostles always listen the Pharisees? If not when did they stop?
I will answer to this post directly. You said two different things

Yes, the apostles listened to the Pharisees until Jesus was among them.  Then Jesus brought a better way, though one can portend that they listened to the Pharisees in the proper context.  Obviously what the Pharisees taught, at it's core, was not against what God wanted them to teach.  Otherwise Jesus would have said to not listen to them.

Once Jesus was ascended, the people listened to the apostles, because Jesus sent them.  The apostles sometimes had visions but sometimes used their knowledge of the Gospel, which was safeguarded by the Holy Spirit, and they became the authority.

I noted that you failed to address the contradiction you made.  Why?  If the Church is "leading us to anti-Christ", why would you "not say to stop listening to them"?

[mclees8]

That is true and I did not tell you to stop listening to them. I have only called as it is, just as John made his call. Even now they  mislead the church toward antichrist because they  are in bed with the world and all the world is. Not because they ware robes and hats but because look to be God upon the earth.

Just one more thing. Did the church and the aposltes always listen the Pharisees. If not when di they stop?

Well that makes no sense, Mike.  You say that the clergy are misleading the Church toward antichrist, and yet you do not say I should stop listening to them?   Either you hate me and want me to go to Hell, or you are just waffling.  I'm guessing it's the latter, but that won't fly, Mike.  You have to decide.

Jesus would not tell someone to listen to someone if they were of the antichrist.   The Pharisees were actually quite holy people, zealous for the law and doing what was right.  They just went too far and became prideful about their holiness.  Jesus was trying to help them out of their pride, and used harsh words to do so. 

But again, Jesus knew their hearts.  You look at the institution and want to discredit it as a whole.  Jesus didn't discredit the Pharisees.  He wanted them to reform their hearts and actiosn, not abandon their positions; He wanted them to reform from within, not from without.  Meaning that Jesus didn't want them to cast off their robes, to get rid of their hats and garments, to destroy the objects of worship in the temple, nor to abandon their authority.

We are all concerned when the clergy sin.  Their sin is rightly a scandal.  The whole Church suffers for it.  But the whole Church suffers for everyone's sin.  We are Jesus' body in a real way, and Jesus' body suffered for our sins.  The servants are not greater than their master.  Thus we all suffer for each other's sins.  That is just part of the deal being Christian.  The right attitude, however, is not a general scorn for the clergy and everything to do with them, but a righteous anger at sins committed and much prayer for those who were victimized and those who committed the sins.

We don't abandon the authority Jesus established; rather we look for ways to make that authority visible to everyone: not because of pride, but rather to help them see the spiritual reality, so that they can accept the gifts that Jesus is offering them.  Jesus established this visible Church as a means for us to endure and with His grace attain to eternal salvation.


To the gentle soul reading this thread, may the Lord speak to you in your heart and make himself known to you intimately through His visible Church.

You could not fathom the intimacy I have with Him. And there is much about me you do not know

That's great!  Good for you.  You should share with us more of that sometime.

You say you read the posts carefully. I don't think you do or ask the Lord what is being said. Think now again what I said.

Why would I ask the Lord what is being said, when I can ask you?  It's not the Lord talking. And the time I said I was confused, you just chose to say "that is ironic".  Not helpful.

Did the church and the apostles always listen the Pharisees? If not when did they stop?
I will answer to this post directly. You said two different things

Yes, the apostles listened to the Pharisees until Jesus was among them.  Then Jesus brought a better way, though one can portend that they listened to the Pharisees in the proper context.  Obviously what the Pharisees taught, at it's core, was not against what God wanted them to teach.  Otherwise Jesus would have said to not listen to them.

Once Jesus was ascended, the people listened to the apostles, because Jesus sent them.  The apostles sometimes had visions but sometimes used their knowledge of the Gospel, which was safeguarded by the Holy Spirit, and they became the authority.

I noted that you failed to address the contradiction you made.  Why?  If the Church is "leading us to anti-Christ", why would you "not say to stop listening to them"?

Because they have assumed Peters seat jus as the Pharisees assumed Moses seat. But just as it was with the Pharisees their time is short. You would not listen to me even if I told you  to stop. And if you won't listen to me you will not hear the Lord either. Did the Pharisees listen to Jesus. Hear is the rest of my answer.

The Pharisees really were thieves of Moses seat.  They distorted and misrepresented the authority . The Lord despises misrepresentation. His words were very harsh indeed.  The  present day clergy face a similar charge.  If they repented that would have been good but that would have meant they deny who they were and unbeknown to them at the time their whole priest hood was on borrowed time as far as the  Knew Testament church was concerned .  This present priestly order is also on borrowed time.

There will be a time for all of us but none more so than the RCC that you will have make a choice to follow Christ or antichrist. The one who will cause many to deny Christ is none other than the papacy  because it sleeps with this present world system. You  say they have to be visible and that is right because the world demands that. They cannot grasp Christ or the Father who sits on a heavenly throne. They want God as a visible entity on the earth and there for the papacy  needs to sit on a throne surrounded with grandeur and parading with fine Robes and hates. 

Is not the call to come out of Babylon. Has it not been said many time     

[Helen]

Let me see, Jesus wanted the people to listen to "you blind guides," "you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites," "you snakes, you brood of vipers."

right

He told them "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire."

And you, Catholica, are saying, "Obviously what the Pharisees taught, at it's core, was not against what God wanted them to teach."

Interesting....

[HRoberson]

Let me see, Jesus wanted the people to listen to "you blind guides," "you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites," "you snakes, you brood of vipers."

right

He told them "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire."

And you, Catholica, are saying, "Obviously what the Pharisees taught, at it's core, was not against what God wanted them to teach."

Interesting....

Actually, Jesus says to do what they teach you, but don't do what they do.

[Helen]

I may be wrong, but the reason Jesus said to obey them was so they would not be legally punished.  It had nothing to do with whether their orders were good or not, but rather just for keeping people out of their clutches.

And since that was just for a short time for those who were going to follow Jesus Himself, there was very little problem involved.  There was also the possibility that He did not want the leaders to have any excuse at all to stone/execute Him except for the fact that He identified Himself as God.

[HRoberson]

I've understood it explained differently since Jesus says because they sit in Moses' seat. What they teach is fine, but they don't practice either what they teach or the spirit of the instruction.

Thus the charge of hypocrite.

Minor issue though.

[Catholica]

That is true and I did not tell you to stop listening to them. I have only called as it is, just as John made his call. Even now they  mislead the church toward antichrist because they  are in bed with the world and all the world is. Not because they ware robes and hats but because look to be God upon the earth.

Just one more thing. Did the church and the aposltes always listen the Pharisees. If not when di they stop?

Well that makes no sense, Mike.  You say that the clergy are misleading the Church toward antichrist, and yet you do not say I should stop listening to them?   Either you hate me and want me to go to Hell, or you are just waffling.  I'm guessing it's the latter, but that won't fly, Mike.  You have to decide.

Jesus would not tell someone to listen to someone if they were of the antichrist.   The Pharisees were actually quite holy people, zealous for the law and doing what was right.  They just went too far and became prideful about their holiness.  Jesus was trying to help them out of their pride, and used harsh words to do so. 

But again, Jesus knew their hearts.  You look at the institution and want to discredit it as a whole.  Jesus didn't discredit the Pharisees.  He wanted them to reform their hearts and actiosn, not abandon their positions; He wanted them to reform from within, not from without.  Meaning that Jesus didn't want them to cast off their robes, to get rid of their hats and garments, to destroy the objects of worship in the temple, nor to abandon their authority.

We are all concerned when the clergy sin.  Their sin is rightly a scandal.  The whole Church suffers for it.  But the whole Church suffers for everyone's sin.  We are Jesus' body in a real way, and Jesus' body suffered for our sins.  The servants are not greater than their master.  Thus we all suffer for each other's sins.  That is just part of the deal being Christian.  The right attitude, however, is not a general scorn for the clergy and everything to do with them, but a righteous anger at sins committed and much prayer for those who were victimized and those who committed the sins.

We don't abandon the authority Jesus established; rather we look for ways to make that authority visible to everyone: not because of pride, but rather to help them see the spiritual reality, so that they can accept the gifts that Jesus is offering them.  Jesus established this visible Church as a means for us to endure and with His grace attain to eternal salvation.


To the gentle soul reading this thread, may the Lord speak to you in your heart and make himself known to you intimately through His visible Church.

You could not fathom the intimacy I have with Him. And there is much about me you do not know

That's great!  Good for you.  You should share with us more of that sometime.

You say you read the posts carefully. I don't think you do or ask the Lord what is being said. Think now again what I said.

Why would I ask the Lord what is being said, when I can ask you?  It's not the Lord talking. And the time I said I was confused, you just chose to say "that is ironic".  Not helpful.

Did the church and the apostles always listen the Pharisees? If not when did they stop?
I will answer to this post directly. You said two different things

Yes, the apostles listened to the Pharisees until Jesus was among them.  Then Jesus brought a better way, though one can portend that they listened to the Pharisees in the proper context.  Obviously what the Pharisees taught, at it's core, was not against what God wanted them to teach.  Otherwise Jesus would have said to not listen to them.

Once Jesus was ascended, the people listened to the apostles, because Jesus sent them.  The apostles sometimes had visions but sometimes used their knowledge of the Gospel, which was safeguarded by the Holy Spirit, and they became the authority.

I noted that you failed to address the contradiction you made.  Why?  If the Church is "leading us to anti-Christ", why would you "not say to stop listening to them"?

Because they have assumed Peters seat jus as the Pharisees assumed Moses seat. But just as it was with the Pharisees their time is short. You would not listen to me even if I told you  to stop. And if you won't listen to me you will not hear the Lord either. Did the Pharisees listen to Jesus. Hear is the rest of my answer.

Their time is not short.  Their time has been for 2000 years and will be until the end.  Why would I listen to you, Mike?  Not only is your platform against authority, not only do you have no authority, but your argument doesn't even make sense, and it misses the whole point of the church.  You give me no good reason to listen to (obey) you.  Of what will it gain me?  I become just like you?  In a church all by myself on a hopeless crusade against what God established?  No thanks.

The Pharisees really were thieves of Moses seat.  They distorted and misrepresented the authority . The Lord despises misrepresentation. His words were very harsh indeed.  The  present day clergy face a similar charge.  If they repented that would have been good but that would have meant they deny who they were and unbeknown to them at the time their whole priest hood was on borrowed time as far as the  Knew Testament church was concerned .  This present priestly order is also on borrowed time.

The Pharisees were not the thieves of Moses' seat.  They were the legitimate authority occupying Moses seat.  Nowhere does scripture say they assumed the seat falsely.  Nor does the Pope assume the Chair of Peter falsely.  The Chair of Peter has had a long chain of validly elected or selected occupants ever since Peter was martyred. 

This whole thing about "borrowed time" is your opinion.  I'm not willing to be blown about by opinions of yours or any man, nor should anyone else.

There will be a time for all of us but none more so than the RCC that you will have make a choice to follow Christ or antichrist.

I've already made the choice to follow Christ, thank you.  And Christ comes through the Church.  It is you who must choose.  So far this whole post has been about rejecting Christ through his Church.

The one who will cause many to deny Christ is none other than the papacy  because it sleeps with this present world system.

Tell me how the Papacy "sleeps" with the world system.  I'll give you a platform, and then we can look at whether what you say is biased or not, whether you are distorting things or not.

You say they have to be visible and that is right because the world demands that. They cannot grasp Christ or the Father who sits on a heavenly throne. They want God as a visible entity on the earth and there for the papacy  needs to sit on a throne surrounded with grandeur and parading with fine Robes and hates. 

Humans are just that, human, and so they derive most of their truth through their senses.  That is why we have any religious stuff.  That is why we have a Bible too.  You saying that the world needs the Church to be visible (and that as a bad thing) because they "cannot grasp Christ or the Father who sits on a heavenly throne", aside from being nonsense (the Catholic faithful certainly do grasp Christ AND the Father who sits on a heavenly throne), is just as bad as saying (for instance) that the world cannot grasp the Word of God who is in Jesus or in heaven and the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth, so they need the Bible.  I hope that you can see the connection in your argument.  Physical sign (the throne, the Church hierarchy, "bad") is to Spiritual reality (Christ, Father, heavenly throne "good") as Physical sign (the scriptures, the written word of God) is to Spiritual reality (Jesus, the Word, Holy Spirit). 

This analogy I posit in the hope that people of reason will see the fallacy of saying that the visible Church on Earth being "necessary for the world, and that is bad" as similar to saying that there being a visible written word of God is bad.  Neither are bad; both are good, and given by God for our salvific journey.  Yes, we see the reality of Jesus and the Father and the throne in heaven through faith, just as I hope you see the true Word of God being Jesus through faith.  But while we are still here on Earth we as people need more than just ideas of spiritual realities because we are not purely spiritual beings, but both spirit AND flesh.  And so God uses that fact to appeal to us in sensory and spiritual ways.  So much that God himself took flesh so that we could know him.  God KNEW that people would benefit most by His own coming in the flesh, and He also knows that we benefit most by having a visible Church, so He established it.

[mclees8]

Again I am pressed for time. I will answer soon