Do Catholics believe John 6:53?

[NotWorthy]

BereanRuss, (and even Ralphy… for you still haven’t answered the question, yet)

You may have answered this already, but this thread is going so fast…

How do you read John 6:53 in anyway BUT literal?

In ancient Israel, according to the Psalms, to “eat someone’s flesh”, in a figurative way, was to “loathe and revile” someone.

How can you possibly take John 6:53 figuratively, understanding this? Couldn’t this be the very reason the ancient Jews had so much trouble accepting this hard teaching.

 

[BereanRuss]

You are not understanding what you are quoting. Nothing in that quote says that many Jews and Muslims will be saved through their Jewish or Muslim traditions. The Church doesn’t teach this, it doesn’t state it anywhere. Your misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine is the only place this teaching is found.

“…non-Catholics are imperfectly a part of the Church. You do not need to be a Catholic in practice to be a catholic in person…”

You say that I can’t understand this statement? That is your answer? He says, “…non-Catholics are imperfectly a part of the Church…” and he quotes the CCC to prove his point. You quoted neither the CCC nor the Bible to deny the clear teaching of the CC.

You say, “Nothing in that quote says that many Jews and Muslims will be saved through their Jewish or Muslim traditions.”

The question is not, “WILL they be saved”, but, “CAN they be saved through their Jewish or Muslim traditions.” And the CC answers this question with a resounding, “YES” in spite of the fact the Jesus said, “Amen, amen…”

How about we start and new thread and ask the bloggers if Jews and Muslims CAN be saved through their Jewish or Muslim traditions according to the CC?

 

[cazayoux]

How can you possibly take John 6:53 figuratively, understanding this? Couldn’t this be the very reason the ancient Jews had so much trouble accepting this hard teaching.

Russ and Ralphy might find some understanding by looking at MikeleDes’ posts 225 to 230 in another thread.

John 6:51-58 is to be interpreted literally and is one of the strongest passages that testify to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. …

…

…

…

…

…

Michael gives a fantastic study of the scripture in question. (Thanks, Michael!)

michel

 

[BereanRuss]

By some miracle, they may be saved. By that same miracle, no doubt God would baptize them, Confirm them, and give them Holy Communion…

You all accuse me of quoting Romans 10:9 and 10 too much but then you completely deny the same:

If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

Joining a church cannot save you any more than living in a garage can change you into a car.

Like I said before, if it were me, I would not be staking my salvation on the appearance of that miracle.

I am not, “staking my salvation of the appearance of that miracle.” I am believing that it is impossible for Jesus to lie when He says, “He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.”

Jesus cannot contradict Himself because it is impossible for God to lie. He cannot walk down the street one day and say, “He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water…” and the next day say, “I changed my mind. Instead of just anyone who believes in Me, I will only accept those who take communion transubstantiated by a priest in the CC.”

Why embrace a theology that demands that Jesus lies and contradicts Himself?

 

[BereanRuss]

Today my sister tried to tell me that the C.C. was a product of Constantine; of course that was misinformation provided by her Pastor! However, that is a good question; when did the Church established by Jesus Christ get the name Catholic?

A better question would be, when did the CC add the priesthood?

 

[NotWorthy]

A better question would be, when did the CC add the priesthood?

The CC has the authority to pass on a priesthood, as the size of the Church outgrew the capabilities of the Apostles.

As Acts 7 clearly shows, the Apostles had the ability to adapt to the Church’s ever-growing needs with the creation of the deacons to serve the poor and widows. Did Jesus tell them to do this? Evidently not, or the position would have been filled immediately, rather than wait for problems to evolve.

“The Kingdom of Heaven is like a mustard seed…”

Now, can I ask you, were the Apostles given the authority to forgiven sins?

 

[NotWorthy]

A better question would be, when did the CC add the priesthood?

I think any additional questioning along this lines would make a great thread, unless its germane to the point…

 

[BereanRuss]

I am trying to keep my questions brief, as you requested!

By brief I mean two or three questions in one post. Not seven questions. If you can ask seven questions or more in one post then so can I. Please answer all.

1. Do yo you believe that the apostles who were sinful, fallible people, were empowered by Jesus to either forgive or remit sins, 2000 years ago?

 

[bradwill911]

“…non-Catholics are imperfectly a part of the Church. You do not need to be a Catholic in practice to be a catholic in person…”

You say that I can’t understand this statement? That is your answer?

Yes, it is clear that you don’t understand that statement. It is also clear that you do not read (or you do not comprehend) many posts that have already answered this question.

He says, “…non-Catholics are imperfectly a part of the Church…” and he quotes the CCC to prove his point. You quoted neither the CCC nor the Bible to deny the clear teaching of the CC.

I didn’t requote the same text since you were just quoting an earlier post of mine, I have quoted the CCC extensively in response to your misrepresentations of what the Church teaches.

CCC 836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God…And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.

I have also quoted from Lumen Gentium (where this part of the Catechism comes from) as well as from the footnotes in LG, which really make the Church’s teaching crystal clear. You have obviously either not read those posts (even though you responded to them) or don’t understand them.

You say, “Nothing in that quote says that many Jews and Muslims will be saved through their Jewish or Muslim traditions.”

The question is not, “WILL they be saved”, but, “CAN they be saved through their Jewish or Muslim traditions.” And the CC answers this question with a resounding, “YES” in spite of the fact the Jesus said, “Amen, amen…”

You are WRONG, the Church does NOT teach that. Muslims and Jews can’t be saved through their traditions. Can some Muslims and Jews be saved? Yes, but it would not be through own traditions, but through Christ and His Church. I’ve spelled this out before, but will try to do it again if you’ll actually read it.

The Church addresses this in Lumen Gentium. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) summarizes this in para 836-848. The bottom line teaching is, “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” Is that statement clear enough for you? It’s even in bold in the CCC.

CCC 846, “…it means that ALL SALVATION comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body…” That seems to be clear that salvation doesn’t come through Muslim or Jewish traditions.

In footnote 16 to LG we read, “Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.”

The same footnote gives us the teaching that a person would need INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE of Christ and His Church. How many Muslims, Jews, and others can claim “invincible ignorance”?

This footnote also refers to an encyclical that addresses this issue, “With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion.” That last line seems to disagree with what you THINK the Catholic Church teaches.

How about we start and new thread and ask the bloggers if Jews and Muslims CAN be saved through their Jewish or Muslim traditions according to the CC?

Feel free to do this, I’m sure there are Jews and Muslims (and Catholics) who also share your misunderstanding of what the Church actually teaches. I’ve quoted the CCC, LG, and LG’s footnote here, all three (and Sacred Scriptures) summarize what the Church teaches. So, any disagreement with them is NOT WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES.

Jumping up and down repeating what you misunderstand and adding all caps does not mean the Church teaches what you are claiming. No amount of disagreeing with this makes you right. Outside the Church there is no salvation. Any person who is saved is saved through Christ and His Church! You, my anti-Catholic friend, if saved, will be saved through the Catholic Church. A Muslim, if saved, will be saved through the Catholic Church. A Jew, if saved, will be saved through the Catholic Church. A tribal person in the Amazon, if saved, will be saved through the Catholic Church.

So, what have we learned in this post? Can you summarize what the Church teaches for me?

 

[NotWorthy]

By brief I mean two or three questions in one post. Not seven questions. If you can ask seven questions or more in one post then so can I. Please answer all.

Am I allowed to laugh at this statment?

 

[bradwill911]

I know I did

Do as I say, not as I do:shrug:

 

[NotWorthy]

No. A priest stands BETWEEN man and God. I stand shoulder to shoulder with all other believers at the foot of the cross. All believers have the same access to the High Priest by faith and we are all told to, “come boldly” to Him.

Since you don’t want to start a new thread, I"ll ask you one question. I’ll begin by covering the words, “Do this in Memory of me”.

During the Last Supper, the Lord said to his disciples, "***Do this in memory of me***." In Greek, this statement reads, "*Touto poieite eis tan eman anamnesin*." There are two aspects of this phrase that deserve consideration. For one, the phrase *touto poieite *can be translated as *do this *or as *offer this. *In the Old Testament, God commands the Israelites "***you shall offer*** (*poieseis*) ***upon the altar two lambs***" (Ex. 29:38). This use of *poiein *is translated as *offer this *or *sacrifice this *over seventy times in the Old Testament. So the same word that is used for the sacrifice under the Old Covenant is used for the sacrifice of the Mass in the New.

The second key aspect of this phrase is Our Lord’s use of the word *anamnesin. *If you were to ask someone to look in a Greek Translation of their Bible, every time this word (anamnesis) appears it is within a sacrificial context, such as in Numbers 10:10, “…you shall blow the trumpets over your holocausts and your peace offerings; this will serve as a reminder of you before your God. I, the LORD, am your God". It also can be translated as *memorial offering *or memorial sacrifice. While these nuances are lost in the English translation, Jewish ears would have understood the sacrificial meaning of Christ’s words.

Now, I ask you, Berean Russ, if Jesus didn’t want a priesthood, why did he use language that pertained only to the priestly Sacrifice when he addressed the Apostles at the Last Supper?

 

[jmcrae]

Joining a church cannot save you any more than living in a garage can change you into a car.

But if it is already a car, then it is more likely to remain a car, and not become a pile of scrap metal, if it goes to the garage for maintenance on a regular schedule, and to get gas once a week, and to be washed whenever it gets dirty, and to have any broken parts fixed before any rust has a chance to get in and destroy it.

In the same way, a Christian who attends Mass at least once a week on Sundays, goes to Confession whenever he needs to, and seeks out counselling from a priest for those areas of his life that are “broken” is a lot more likely to remain a Christian for his whole life, than a Christian who has no involvement with the Church.

 

[jmcrae]

1. Why does your theology insist that Jesus contradicts Himself? Is He a liar? One day He says, “Anyone who believes in me…” and the next day he says, “No, I changed my mind, only the Catholic priest can save you…” Why do you believe a theology that insists that Jesus contradicts Himself? Can Jesus lie?

A more important question is, What does it mean, to “believe in” Jesus? Is it mental assent, only? The Devil makes mental assent that Jesus exists, and yet, I am reasonably sure that the Devil is not “saved.”

But, if there is more than mental assent involved, then what, exactly, is involved?

Does it mean that we actually have to obey Christ’s commandments? My reading of Matthew 25:31-46, and of Matthew 7:21-28 suggest that, in fact, Jesus requires certain “works” of us, which are works of faith and obedience. It is clear that Jesus Himself condemns those who say “Lord, Lord” but who then simply go off and do their own thing (including doing miracles in His name) - if even these miracle workers are condemned, then who can be saved? Obviously, obedience is an essential element of believing in Jesus.

Jesus also said, “…whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life."

This is the water of Baptism, which Jesus gives to us through His Apostles in Matthew 28:16-20.

1. How can you be following the Apostles if they never established a priesthood. If you are trusting in an earthly priesthood, you are not following the Apostles for they never established one.

True, the Apostles never “established” a priesthood - they continued the priesthood that had been establshed on them by Jesus, Himself.

1. If the priesthood is so essential to the Christian faith, why is it missing from the NT?

It isn’t. The “presbyteroi” are the priests.

No. A priest stands BETWEEN man and God. I stand shoulder to shoulder with all other believers at the foot of the cross. All believers have the same access to the High Priest by faith and we are all told to, “come boldly” to Him.

Actually, the priest is a vehicle of communication, like a window or a telephone, through which we communicate with God. He is not a “wall;” he is a “bridge.”

 

[guanophore]

The teaching of the Apostles is found the in the word of God for they authored the NT. The teaching of the Apostles is not found in church tradition for they did not author it.

The Apostles did not author all of the NT, though I will agree that their teachings are found there. They did not author it alone, though, it was “theopneustos” (God breathed). In the same way, God breathed upon the Church, so that the Breath of Life would go into her. The only other time Scripture records God breathing life in occurs at Creation. This is what He did when He created the Church. He committed His teachings to the Apostles, and they chose faithful men, who were able to teach others also. In this way, He ensured that His word, protected by the HS, would be passed from one believer to the next.

It may be that you do not find the Teaching of God in the Church because you do not recognize the Church that Jesus founded, the one into which He breathed life?

The Apostles never established an earthly priesthood. Consider this list from the Apostle Paul:

And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues.

You are right, it is Jesus that established the priesthood, not the Apostles. However, they did have the first duties of the priesthood in the New Kingdom,a nd they did ordain those that followed them to continue these duties.

The list you have provided is a list of gifts, and is certainly valid, but not inclusive. The word “priest” is a latinization of the Gk. word “presbyter”, which is found throughout the NT. IF you are open minded, it is easy to see that the duties of the presbyter are the same as those who are called “priests” in the Church today.

If God has established the priest in the church, why is the priest missing from this list and completely missing from the NT? How can the priesthood be so essential to the Christian faith and be completely missing from the NT?

There are many important things, essential things, to the Christian faith that are “completely missing from the NT”. Your error is expecting everything that is essential to be found there. However, as I have noted, the presbyter is mentioned many times in Scripture. If you dont’ have a Gk. search engine, you can search “elder” and you will find them that way.

God gives gifts to the church as He see fit.

…to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.

It is very Catholic of you to agree on this!

Among those gifts are elders (priests) and deacons, and bishops, mentioned in scripture, but not in the lists you have quoted here.

What would happen if you had to admit that the Apostolic Church really did have priests, bishops, and deacons?

 

[guanophore]

“…non-Catholics are imperfectly a part of the Church. You do not need to be a Catholic in practice to be a catholic in person…”

You say that I can’t understand this statement? That is your answer? He says, “…non-Catholics are imperfectly a part of the Church…” and he quotes the CCC to prove his point. You quoted neither the CCC nor the Bible to deny the clear teaching of the CC.

You say, “Nothing in that quote says that many Jews and Muslims will be saved through their Jewish or Muslim traditions.”

The question is not, “WILL they be saved”, but, “CAN they be saved through their Jewish or Muslim traditions.” And the CC answers this question with a resounding, “YES” in spite of the fact the Jesus said, “Amen, amen…”

How about we start and new thread and ask the bloggers if Jews and Muslims CAN be saved through their Jewish or Muslim traditions according to the CC?

This does sound like a new thread, Berean. No, the Catholic Church does not teach that anyone can be saved through traditions. The Catholic Church holds to the Apostolic Teaching that we are all saved by grace, through faith. There is only one name under heaven by which we may be saved, therefore, everyone who is saved comes to the Father through Him. Since all who are saved are also members of His One Body, the Church, then if they are saved,they are imperfectly and mysteriously somehow united to His Church.

It is not their Muslim or Jewish Traditions that save them. They are saved by grace, through faith,just as we all are.

You all accuse me of quoting Romans 10:9 and 10 too much but then you completely deny the same:

If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

Joining a church cannot save you any more than living in a garage can change you into a car.

This is certainly true, using the deficient definition of “church” that is common today. However, the Apostles taught that the Church is the Body of Christ, and that all who are joined to theHead, are members of the One Body, and therefore, members of one another. Therefore, being saved cannot be separated from being in His One Body, the Church.

Jesus cannot contradict Himself because it is impossible for God to lie. He cannot walk down the street one day and say, “He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water…” and the next day say, “I changed my mind. Instead of just anyone who believes in Me, I will only accept those who take communion transubstantiated by a priest in the CC.”

It is you who are promoting the falsehoods, Berean. Jesus did not teach this, and neither does the Catholic Church. The term “transubtantiation” did not emerge for centuries, and is a Latinization of the concept of the Real Presence never used by Jesus, or the Apostles. It is possible to lie, and you are right, this one is not coming from Christ.

Why is it so important to you to promote this lie? How does it benefit you spiritually? How does it benefit others? Do you believe you are serving God when you tell this lie?

Why embrace a theology that demands that Jesus lies and contradicts Himself?

You will have to provide us with the explanation, since you are the one that has done so.

 

[PRmerger]

Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

Again, Russ, I ask you: do you acknowledge that when you quote Holy Scripture you are giving affirmation to the Sacred Tradition of the Holy Catholic Church, which gave you this canon of Scripture? How else would you know what is inspired, were it not for the Catholic Church?

 

[ralphy]

See, there you go again, mis-representing what the Catholic Church teaches. I see, once again, where you are having trouble in Scripture interpretation.

The Catholic Church teaches that anyone baptized, with water and the Trinitarian Formula, is a member of the Catholic Church - God’s Church.

You did not tell me who belongs to Gods church, you told me who belongs to the “Roman catholi” church. Do you know who makes up Gods church? Ralph.

 

[jmcrae]

You did not tell me who belongs to Gods church, you told me who belongs to the “Roman catholi” church. Do you know who makes up Gods church? Ralph.

God gave us the Catholic Church. It became “Roman” when St. Peter was carried away in chains to Rome, and then appointed his successor and died there.

There is no difference between God’s Church and the (Roman) Catholic Church - they are one and the same thing.

 

[guanophore]

A better question would be, when did the CC add the priesthood?

The priesthood was added by Christ, first when He came as her great High Priest, and then when He breathed upon His Apostles, and told them “whose sins you forgive…”

Also,when He consecrated the Bread and Wine,and told them “do this, in memory of me”.
These are part of the priestly duties.

They were given the authority to preach the Gospel which includes the forgiveness of sins. Listen to Peter, your first Pope:

Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

As you can see from the passage, it is not the preaching of the gospel, but in the repentance and baptism, which is for the remission of sins. Not all that hear the preaching are baptized, and not all who hear the preaching have their sins forgiven.

1. Why do you insist that forgiveness is connected to an earthly priesthood when the first Pope taught that it is connected to the message of the Gospel, not to confessing to an earthy priest?

No Catholic who understands his faith will “insist that forgiveness is connected to the priesthood”. This is the normative means by which we are to deal with post baptismal sin. Baptism does not require a priest, either.

FYI I have no idea what you mean when you say, “vis-à-vis”. I do gather from the context that is a derogatory statement.

It is like saying “as compared to”. The fact that you gather it is a derogatory statement says volumes about your attitude.

1. Why then don’t you believe Him? Why don’t you preach that unless you receive communion in the CC, you cannot be saved?

this is not what the Apostles taught. This is not what Jesus taught. The Catholic Church is only authorized to teach those things which were handed down to us through Jesus and the Apostles.

1. Why does your theology insist that Jesus contradicts Himself? Is He a liar?

With all due respect, Berean, you are the one here who is presenting contradictions and lies. I don’t blame you. I suspect that the lies were passed to you by someone else, and not knowing any better, you are passing them forward. If you have any integrity, you will be willing to be corrected, and stop this activity.

One day He says, “Anyone who believes in me…” and the next day he says, “No, I changed my mind, only the Catholic priest can save you…” Why do you believe a theology that insists that Jesus contradicts Himself? Can Jesus lie?

Jesus never said this, Berean. You are the only one here saying this. It is a lie, but it is not from Jesus.

Jesus also said, “…whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life."

1. Why doesn’t the CC also provide this “living water” for all of us to drink?

IT is done unto you according to your faith, Berean. Since you believe the water is brackish, and not living, how can you drink of it? This is your belief about the Catholic faith, is it not? No living water?

Any living water that you do drink is indeed, from the CC. You just don’t recognize the Source.

 How is it you know that Jesus is speaking figuratively in this verse but you cannot understand that Jesus is speaking figuratively in John 6:53 even after Jesus says, “the flesh profits nothing.  The words that I speak to you are spirit and they are life.”

BereanRuss;5071974:

1. How can Jesus promise me figurative “water” that is, “water springing up into eternal life.” But then contradict Himself and say that I must eat a wafer transubstantiated by the priest?

Living water is a metaphor for the Spirit. It is the Spirit that transforms the Bread and Wine into His Body and Blood. This is the Source and Summit of the “living water”. Being obedient to Christ’s commandments is not a contradiction, unless you are one who says He believes, and yet does not obey.

1. How can I be guaranteed eternal life by drinking this water but then have the eternal life that was guaranteed by Jesus himself be taken away because I failed to get communion from the priest?

We fail to attain eternal life when we are disobedient and turn our backs on God. Those who do not participate in the Eucharist do not do so because their life is not right with God. It is not being right with God that results in the failure to attain eternal life.

1. How does a person “eat” this bread? “…whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst”

The same way the Passover was “eaten”!

Jesus is equating “believing” to “EATING”. He is equating “coming to Me” to “not hungering” and “not thirsting”. He is speaking figuratively, not literally! He is using NATURAL things (bread, hunger, thirst) to teach SPIRITUAL truths! He does it all of the time!

I will agree that there is definitely a spiritual aspect to His words. However, He also gives us His flesh to eat,a nd His blood to drink.

Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” [Mat 16:6]

How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?–but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." [Mat 16:11]

Are you trying to apply this verse to the occasion when Jesus had bread in His hand, and said “take and eat”?

8)  Why don’t you take Jesus literally when He says, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.”?  Do you have your cross with you today?

We understand that this is, in our day and time, largely a metaphor for our sufferings. However, in His day, many Christians were crucified literally, or fed to the lions, had boiling oil poured upon them, etc. One who is a true disciple will not shrink back from suffering and death for Him.

In vs 66, as a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. WHY???

It seems clear that it is for the same reason that you do not follow this teaching. It is a hard teaching, and you don’t understand how He can give you His flesh to eat.

All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them… [Mat 13:34]

1. If Jesus never spoke to the people without a parable, how are His words in John 6:53 literal seeing that He was speaking to the people? Does the Bible contradict itself?

The disciples did not understand it either. They did not “get it” until they were in the Cenacle.

1. How can you be following the Apostles if they never established a priesthood. If you are trusting in an earthly priesthood, you are not following the Apostles for they never established one.

I am sure that God could set things up any way He wished. He chose to establish a priesthood. Each of the Apostles committed what had been given to them to faithful men, who were able to teach others also. In this way, the Church grew and spread.

1. If the priesthood is so essential to the Christian faith, why is it missing from the NT?

I answered this in my post above. You are just not looking in the right place.

1. If the priesthood is essential to Christianity and the Bible never established another earthly priesthood, how is the man of God made “complete” and “thoroughly equipped” without a priesthood in the following verse?

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

This is a good point. All these activities belong to people, not the Book, Holy as it is. It is people that teach, reprove, correct and instruct. Scripture is useful in these activities, but it was to people that Jesus commissioned the work. He did not write a book. That came later, to supplement the teachings.

No. A priest stands BETWEEN man and God. I stand shoulder to shoulder with all other believers at the foot of the cross. All believers have the same access to the High Priest by faith and we are all told to, “come boldly” to Him.

Jesus gives different access to different folks.

1. Why do you insist that forgiveness is connected to an earthly priesthood when the first Pope taught that it is connected to the message of the Gospel, not to confessing to an earthy priest?

I think you are missing apples and oranges. The sacrament of reconciliation applies to post baptismal sins.

You have a lot of good questions, Berean. I trust this will provide benefit to the lurkers, even if it does not to you.