Jesus vs,Catholic Priests

[Riders]

The new testament says " No one gets to the Father except through me Jesus said that.He was a man in the flesh a man Christian claims a God man.

ut still we are suppose to be the example of what Jesus was to us. Priests who you confess your sins too and when Catholics pray to Saints regular Christians say its stupid and wrong because because we don't need to go though a Priest we can talk to Jesus and God directly.

But sense Jesus said he was the only way to God you have to go through him is not Jesus really in the same position as the Priest? Is it not hypocritical for the Protestant Christian to criticize Catholis for that when really Jesus serves the same purpose?

 

[metis]

It's better to say that Catholics pray "through" saints because the saint is not the end of the prayer but is viewed as being part of "the communion of saints", both alive a deceased. The same seems to be true in the earliest church liturgies whereas the prayers were "through" Jesus even though the vast majority of these prayers were directly to God.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I kinda think there is a big difference between Jesus and a priest. If you pray through Jesus, you are praying throug God's son. If you pray through anyone else, you are praying through a mortal human person. Not the same.

 

[Glaurung]

Priests who you confess your sins too and when Catholics pray to Saints regular Christians say its stupid and wrong because because we don't need to go though a Priest we can talk to Jesus and God directly.

By "regular" Christian, I assume you mean Baptist/Evangelical or something along those lines. This is pretty myopic considering that Catholics are the biggest Christian group worldwide.

Regardless, the power of the Church to absolve sin is pretty clearly stated in Matthew 16:18-19. As for being able to invoke God directly, this is true. Nevertheless, God has also seen fit the involve his saints in our help. Who better to pray for us than those already before the throne of God?

 

[Phantasman]

The new testament says " No one gets to the Father except through me Jesus said that.He was a man in the flesh a man Christian claims a God man.

ut still we are suppose to be the example of what Jesus was to us. Priests who you confess your sins too and when Catholics pray to Saints regular Christians say its stupid and wrong because because we don't need to go though a Priest we can talk to Jesus and God directly.

But sense Jesus said he was the only way to God you have to go through him is not Jesus really in the same position as the Priest? Is it not hypocritical for the Protestant Christian to criticize Catholis for that when really Jesus serves the same purpose?

What you are seeing is the ways of the early catholic orthodox movement of the first century. Paul wrote the whole of Galatians of the "false Gospel" where the Jews (Pharisee's) tried to combine the Gospel with the OT structure (making priests celestial authority over man).

When Jesus died, the veil of the place of the priests (Holy of Holies) was torn open, signifying that man could now deal directly with God through the Holly Spirit that now interacted with mans spirit. This is why Jesus had to die, to be able to give it.

John 7:
(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Once given, there was no other above the Spirit of Truth. Yet the Pharisee's who wanted control (back) convinced certain early Christians that the law was still valid, the OT still in force, and once again, the priest was the only one able to dictate the Holy Spirit to man.

The Bible reinforced such belief. Christ said to teach the Gospel, not the Bible. The Gospel is the only truth of the Word and the Spirit.

It is why the orthodox catholics eventually put to death the gnostics (who taught the Gospel) in favor of the Bible created for the church of the Roman empire est.325AD.

Jesus ssaw this coming and referred to it as the blind leading the blind, as well as the many exclaiming "haven't we prophesied in your name". The Father doesn't need priests. His Holy Spirit was given by the death of his son. The priests are now merely in the way.

 

[pearl]

ut still we are suppose to be the example of what Jesus was to us. Priests who you confess your sins too and when Catholics pray to Saints regular Christians say its stupid and wrong because because we don't need to go though a Priest we can talk to Jesus and God directly.

I will leave the 'praying to saints' to another since I do not. However as for confessing to a priest, it cannot be understood unless one understands the concept of 'sacrament' in the Catholic church which has to do with God's 'grace', his self gift, grace is everywhere. Jesus in his lifetime was the sacrament of God, the Church, the sacrament of Christ.
'The gentle word of forgiveness can be heard in the depths of the conscience because it already dwells in it as supportive ground in the trusting and loving turning back of man to God-a turning back in which man, judging himself honors the merciful love of God.
This word of God's forgiveness in Jesus Christ-one in which the unconditionality of this word has also become historically evident and irrevocable-remains present in the community of the believing in this forgiveness, in the Church' which is the fundamental sacrament of this word of God's forgiveness.'
A sacrament is a 'sign', an efficacious sign. It is not the priest who forgives, but God through Jesus.

 

[metis]

Matt.16[19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt.18[18] Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

 

[Phantasman]

Matt.16[19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt.18[18] Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Funny that John, Luke and Paul along with all non Canon Gospels doesn't teach such. Jesus said not to trust the scribes, that reproduce the Word (Gospel message) adding and taking away from it to satisfy their own. Most Gospel messages teach of Peters problems and weakness, including Galatians 2 from Paul. He sided with the Pharisee's and the flesh, over Christs teaching of spirit. Todays church does the same. Physical bread, physical water, physical blood, physical church, physical leaders, physical mother of Jesus, physical acts of the body. The physical profits nothing. The spirit is everything.

One must remember that Johns gospel was written a generation after Matthew. John saw how the early understanding was being misinterpreted.

John 6:
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

Peter wasn't a devil, but he was no more than the other 11(minus J). To base a whole church theology on one verse in one book of a much larger message? There were many teaching the gospel, even more than the 12. There were more than 4 gospels written.

I see Peter's weaknesses mentioned much more than his strengths. We are taught that even in weakness, he was Christs just as in our weaknesses we are Christs. But he was no more than the others.

 

[pearl]

One must remember that Johns gospel was written a generation after Matthew. John saw how the early understanding was being misinterpreted.

What is important is not only when the Gospel was 'written', but the tradition that preceded it. There is a claim to an 'eyewitness', the 'beloved disciple'. It is possible that the author who penned the gospel, could have been a follower or disciple of this beloved disciple and not himself an eyewitness of the ministry. As for Matthew, what is stated in the Gospel is preceded by the practice of the church.

I see Peter's weaknesses mentioned much more than his strengths.

While this may be true there is a predominance given to Peter in the NT. Whenever Paul and Peter are mentioned together in the NT the name Peter is always first.

 

[metis]

Funny that John, Luke and Paul along with all non Canon Gospels doesn't teach such.

Matthew did not live nor write in some sort of vacuum, and not all gospels cover the same messages. Also, it would make no sense for Jesus to give the power of the binding and the loosening of sins to the apostles if it were to end after he died.

Also, the gospels agree that Jesus "taught with authority", and we see in Acts and in the epistles that the apostles did likewise. It is clear that they saw a continuance of the apostolic church as "one body", to use Paul's words, including the selection of appointees to both spread the word and to carry on after they were gone It was not to be some loosey-goosey do-you-own-thing entity, that's for sure.

 

[metis]

I see Peter's weaknesses mentioned much more than his strengths. We are taught that even in weakness, he was Christs just as in our weaknesses we are Christs. But he was no more than the others.

Jesus told Peter "feed my sheep..." privately, plus whenever the apostles are mentioned in a group, Peter's name is almost always first. Sometimes it even just says "Peter and the others...". We also see references to Peter's leadership in early 2nd century writings, especially the correspondence between Clement and Ignatius of Antioch. When Paul visits the Twelve, he refers to talking with Peter, such as with the issue of the circumcision of gentiles.

But either way, the issue of the authority of the Church does not by any means just rely on how Peter may be viewed but also on the actions taken by the apostles to expand the Church and to continue on.

 

[Phantasman]

Jesus told Peter "feed my sheep..." privately, plus whenever the apostles are mentioned in a group, Peter's name is almost always first. Sometimes it even just says "Peter and the others...". We also see references to Peter's leadership in early 2nd century writings, especially the correspondence between Clement and Ignatius of Antioch. When Paul visits the Twelve, he refers to talking with Peter, such as with the issue of the circumcision of gentiles.

But either way, the issue of the authority of the Church does not by any means just rely on how Peter may be viewed but also on the actions taken by the apostles to expand the Church and to continue on.

The Gospel was never about following any man, but to learn to follow the Spirit as Christ. I would never follow Clement, Ignatius, Tertullian, or even Peter or Paul. Especially no one of a priesthood. It is the Spirit that leads as Jesus Christ said it would.

The Christian scriptures speak the words as the disciples (hundreds) and apostles orated them. The Spirit (capital S) interprets them and leads each man, nurturing each as a mother does. This is what a Christ is, a son of God, with both mother and father. It's the very reason Jesus said:

(101) <Jesus said,> "Whoever does not hate his father and his mother as I do cannot become a disciple to me. And whoever does not love his father and his mother as I do cannot become a disciple to me. -Gospel of Thomas

(99) The disciples said to him, "Your brothers and your mother are standing outside."
He said to them, "Those here who do the will of my father are my brothers and my mother. It is they who will enter the kingdom of my father."

Both verses are also in the Canon, yet not seen. Mary wasn't the mother of Christ. The mother is who a Christ (anointed by the Spirit) follows. This is the power and the truth, per the Gospel.

An elder helps one find the Spirit, not speak for it. Everytime the word priest is used in the Gospels or by Paul, it is those that they worked against.

 

[sojourner]

This whole thread reminds me of The Life of Brian:
“The shoe!”
“No! The Holy Gourd!”