No One Is Able To Snatch Them Out Of My Hand.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: colbe

Your intention maybe? I don't do that to you.

I wish that you and others would.
There is built into my posts, in the highlighted text, a link to the post that I am commenting on, if anyone wanted to read the entire post.
Too many times people will just copy the entire post into their response so I have no idea what they are commenting on exactly.

Folks do NOT have the time to go back to the original complete reply. Underline in the complete post what you wish to comment on instead of tearing apart people's post leaving things out they say even to the point of commenting on half sentences from the original! I am underlining my replies to all your many, many comments now to go faster. People who dissect replies sentence by sentence just want to go on and on. It distorts what the person said originally. It is not fair, people do not see the complete in front of them.


Now you're down to posting a half a sentence jim, next it will one word.

There is little actual substance to your posts, and what there is of it, it is several topics tightly jammed in together in a single sentence.
How unkind, your prideful judgment of my Catholic responses. I first share a personal comment on what is said and back it up with Church teachings to read. There are libraries full, you are the one with the "single sentence", I am my own pope comments to my sharing the Roman Catholic teachings, the teachings of Christ.

Our Lord became very "offended" with those desecrating His Father's house.

And?
That is not the same as taking offence at what one might take as a personal slight, that is just self pride and not righteous indignation.

"Taking offence" and "personal slight" happens when you act in an un-Christlike manner, has nothing to do with pride. Example, Jim, you just cut me down personally with your negative unkind "there is little actual substance to your posts" dig.

I think Catholicism breads pride, the idea that you belong to the "real" church, and everyone else just belong to inferior wannabe churches.

The same for THE faith.

Huh?

Why can't you even consider Jim, God can bring the world to one belief as it was in the beginning of Christianity?

That is a fantasy, that it was ever some sort of monolithic central entity. It was always fragmented because people are individuals.
That is the whole idea of Christianity, that you can't have one set of rules that is perfect for everyone, and the best way is to have God speak to each person through His spirit, through Christ.

"Pride" is to say, all that came before the Protestant Revolt is NOT of God or did not exist as you do. 16 centuries of history from the beginning against five centuries to follow with the rejection by Luther and the revolters of what came first makes no sense! There's your supreme pride. There is a visible Church (singular) from the beginning with a hierarchy and a Sacramental system of grace of which you accept two of the 7 Sacraments. The first Sacrament, water Baptism is the beginning of God's life in your soul. Original sin is removed and you receive God's presence in your soul for the first time, Our Lord's meaning of "born again." Spiritually born by receiving God's grace in the Sacrament of Baptism. Jesus described water baptism to Nicodemus and further on in John 3, you read He and the Apostles went out and BAPTIZED.

He did not make you or me His authority on Christ's teachings, read 1 Tim 3:15.

First Timothy was probably not written by Paul, but had been made to look as if it was, to lend authority to it, and represents insecurity within those placing themselves into positions to be a sort of paid clergy class, copying the customs of the older pagan religions.

The written Word is INERRANT, God speaking through whoever wrote the Sacred writings in Scripture or as your strong confirming word "probably." 1 Timothy 3:15 states the CHURCH is the pillar and ground of Truth. It does NOT say the written Word, the Bible is the pillar and ground of Truth. "sort of" does that lessen your comment? Were they paid or weren't they? People have to live. And to use the word "clergy"..."copying" means you accept there was a body of people ordained spiritually copying the Sacred writings. You step over your own words using Roman Catholic words so it always goes back to the faith. Oh the worn out "pagan" religions protest. Just because two things are similar does not make them the SAME! The Protestant author of the anti-Catholic book entitled Babylon, Mystery Religion discovered this and took his book out of print!

The Bible is NOT our authority either, the Church is, Roman Catholicism.

God is the authority, and how this works is how it is described in the Bible, that Jesus was resurrected and then went to Heaven and received power and authority to found his church. He returned to his disciples and gave to them the spirit necessary to do the actual physical work of carrying out that plan.
Those original Apostles who directly received power from the risen Christ were especially gifted with spiritual insight to create the writings that are now the New Testament, containing within them authoritative takes on what we need to know to base doctrine on.

Jesus didn't "resurrect and then went to Heaven and received the power and authority to found His Church." Our Lord is God, always was, always will be. Jesus established the Church, read it singular while He was on the earth. The primacy of Peter is constant in the Gospel. Our Lord named Peter leader of His Church and promised Satan would not overcome the Church Our Lord founded led by Peter and his successors (Matt 16:18). The early center of the faith and to this day is in Rome. Wonder why St. Peter's Basilica is named St. Peter's Basilica? See, you always go back to the faith while you deny it. You continue with describing Christ given Apostolic power and since the Apostles would die, their passing on (laying on of hands) of their God given authority to their successors. What do you have? Apostolic Succession. There is NO Apostolic Succession in Protestantism.

The Church came first, she, RC canonized Scripture. The written Word is only part of God's revelation.

I just don't buy it because the evidence does not support it. The New Testament is disconnected from all the written commentaries on the books in it, as if they had no direct correspondence with the writers to have any more understanding than anyone else who could pick it up and read it.

:

What in Heavens are you saying Jim? Protestant commentary, so what? Footnotes in Protestant translations of THE Bible, there is an original. Protestant footnotes follow the heresies of Protestantism, they're worthless! And NO authority to interpret. Read the footnotes, as you say "written commentaries on the books in it" of a Catholic Bible. Read the footnotes of the English translation of the first Bible, the Latin Vulgate, called the Douay-Rheims because they will help you understand the correct interpretation of difficult verses. THE BIBLE DOES NOT INTERPRET ITSELF. God gave the authority to interpret Scripture to the Church who decided the Canon, the RCC.

www.drbo.org...

a reply to: colbe

....First, St. Paul in his letter to the Hebrews
repeatedly describes Jesus as our “high priest” in heaven.

It mentions it as a one time event, an analogy between what Jesus actually did, going to Heaven, with what a High priest did when he entered the Holy of Holies.

Second, Scripture teaches us that the principal duty of a priest is to offer sacrifice.

That's in the Old Testament.

he says about Jesus: “hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.”

Which Jesus had, so what does this have to do with anyone else?

Because Jesus IS our High Priest in heaven, this necessary offering must be a “sacrifice for sins,”

It's still talking about that one event.
Where does it carry over into a perpetual act? It doesn't.
This writer you are quoting is giving bogus arguments with false logic.

. . . for according to St. Paul that is what priests offer.

At the time the letter to the Hebrews was written, the temple in Jerusalem was still standing, so it was talking about what was going on according to the Old Testament.

We can NOT separate Christ’s sacrifice from His priesthood since Christ is a priest only by virtue of His sacrifice.

Jesus isn't literally a priest.
Hebrews never claimed that he was, it only is making a metaphor that could be understood for people familiar with the Old Testament and the temple practices in Jerusalem.

That Scripture says Jesus must offer a sacrifice for sins in heaven poses an immediate problem for Protestant theology which h views Jesus’ atoning work on the cross as completed.

The only problem is coming up with any logic to support all these ridiculous sounding claims.
Because one thing, then another must be true. Oh, really, and how so?

Because Jesus shed His blood once on Calvary and suffers no more, the manner in which He presents this same blood sacrifice to the Father in heaven is a mystery indeed.

The mystery is how this writer could be so ignorant.
The high Priest entered the most holy place in the temple once a year, and all he offered was blood to sanctify himself just in case he may have had some unknown sin that was committed inadvertently.
General sin offerings were make elsewhere, outside, and not inside the inner sanctum.

a reply to: colbe

What in Heavens are you saying Jim? Protestant commentary, so what?

I meant commentaries written by people you are bringing up, who you claim had this supposed apostolic succession.
They do not show any evidence of any special knowledge handed down to them to understand the New Testament writings that existed in their day.

Jesus didn't "resurrect and then went to Heaven and received the power and authority to found His Church.

I suggest you read the gospels with that question in mind, when did Jesus found the church and how did he do it.
If you have an alternative explanation from the Bible, I would be happy to hear it.

Jesus established the Church, read it singular while He was on the earth. The primacy of Peter is constant in the Gospel.

Jesus said he would found his church, in the future tense, when he called Simon Peter.
Jesus meant by spiritual means, and that came later, as described in the Gospel of John.

The written Word is INERRANT, God speaking through whoever wrote the Sacred writings in Scripture or as your strong confirming word "probably." 1 Timothy 3:15 states the CHURCH is the pillar and ground of Truth.

Which one is it, the written word, or the church?

There is a visible Church (singular) from the beginning with a hierarchy and a Sacramental system of grace of which you accept two of the 7 Sacraments.

That did not show up until the forth century.

xample, Jim, you just cut me down personally with your negative unkind "there is little actual substance to your posts" dig.

You are just being silly.
You quote piles of stuff from outside sources, then write a sentence, not on a single subject, but several.

Ha, ha, I do not have time to reply to your fourteen separate comments in the last two posts. Deny John Salsa, the
man is brilliant in explaining the faith, why I shared his writing.

You can be assured the teachings of the faith, Roman Catholicism can not be wrong, they are Christ's teachings. Remember Our Lord told Peter, only the Father has revealed this to you Matt 16:17. Proof, the teachings of the faith are from God. Our Lord would not return to Heaven leaving it all up for humanity to guess or make up. Besides, there is our fallen nature. Matt 16:18, Our Lord declares Peter, leader of the faith on earth. Peter was the first Pope. Here, John Salza in a debate with a Protestant gentleman.

J. Salza: The Greek uses the passive voice which indicates that heaven is receiving the binding
and loosing from Peter. This is an incredible statement that Jesus makes. Heaven will ratify
Peter’s binding and loosing decisions. But in order for this to be true, Peter must be prevented
from teaching error, for God cannot lie. Thus, God must penetrate the mind of Peter (just as He
did when Peter confessed Jesus as the Messiah) and prevent him from teaching error. Otherwise,
Jesus could not make such a sweeping promise. All this supports the Catholic understanding of
the papacy.

webcache.googleusercontent.com...:Heymz5Aw68kJ:www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Catholic%2520Tradition/Feature%2520-%2520 Salza%2520versus%2520May%2520on%2520the%2520Papacy.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

People, it is simple, in the Old Covenant there was priest who offered sacrifice, In the New Covenant similar, the office of the New Covenant Priesthood to offer sacrifice but a far, far greater sacrifice is offered. Our Lord's sacrifice which is "eternal" is REPRESENTED to the Father in Heaven.

Notice in the news, there was going to be a Satanic Black Mass offered at Harvard yesterday. Thank the Lord it did not take place there. Who knows where those Satanists went for their Mass. Satan mimics the holy.

Jim can post saying there is no Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, reject Roman Catholicism as the faith Our Lord established.
And deny the ministerial priesthood. Was this business with a Satanic Black Mass at Harvard a fairy tale? No!

Satanists perform Black Masses. Satanists steal and desecrate CONSECRATED hosts. The evil one knows who the
true Faith is folks.

Our Lord is NOT returning to endorse, proclaim, reveal to mankind, all the Protestant groups (TENS OF THOUSANDS) are His Church. He is returning to reveal to all the world, the faith is Roman Catholicism. His desire, its written in Scripture, Father that they all maybe one. Its going to happen.

Imagine, replying to Fourteen comments...then you would have 28. Yikes!