Replies

In the context of those Siants exclusively given the powers to do things, not any others have the power to do.

Grammatically, this sentence is nonsense. I really have no idea what you're trying to say. Please try using the "preview" button to proof-read your posts before sending them off. It will allow you to communicate more effectively with us.

Who pardons sin? Not Peter, but Christ!

Paul, you mean. And he pardons it "in the person of Christ" or "in the guise of Christ". Christ works through his human minsters. The same is true of our priests, which is why we call them "alter Christus" or "another Christ" - as Paul did, they act in persona Christi (in the person/guise of Christ) and forgive sins and celebrate all the Sacraments by his sole authority.

Look, the catholic church is really no different than the Jewish hierarchy of the priest in Jesus day

Incorrect. The Catholic hierarchy is the fulfillment of the Jewish hierarchy. In the New Covenant, the symbols of the Old Covenant become effective signs and means of grace, the heavenly reality which they communicate to men. Christ continues his visible ministry on earth through the ministry of his Church, which he established and continues to guide until the end of the world (St. Matthew 16:18-19; 28:19-20). Thus, we are told to baptize in the name of, that is, "by the power of, by the authority of," the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (see St. Matthew 28:19-20). We are told that the Apostle forgives sins "in the person of Christ." Christ commands his Apostles, his first priest-bishops, to celebrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist using the words He Himself used: "This is My Body ... This is the chalice of My Blood." Christ Himself appears to Paul and declares that in persecuting the Church, he has been persecuting Christ himself - the first image of the Mystical Body which the Apostle expounds in his letters. All this goes to show what I have said, that Christ continues in the New Covenant to work through a hierarchy of men.

After Jesus' sacrifice the "veil" was torn in two meaning everyone could go into the Holy of Holys and commune with God,

This cry rent the veil, and opened the tombs, and made the house desolate. And He did this, not as offering insult to the temple (for how should He, who saith, "Make not my Father's house a house of merchandise,") but declaring them to be unworthy even of His abiding there; like as also when He delivered it over to the Babylonians. But not for this only were these things done, but what took place was a prophecy of the coming desolation, and of the change into the greater and higher state; and a sign of His might. (St. John Chrysostom, Homily 88 on the Gospel of St. Matthew)
It is understood that there were two veils; one veiling the Holy of Holies, the other, the outer part of the tabernacle or temple. In the Passion then of our Lord and Saviour, it was the outer veil which was rent from the top to the bottom, that by the rending of the veil from the beginning to the end of the world, the mysteries might be published which had been hid with good reason until the Lord’s coming. “But when that which is perfect is come,” [1 Cor 13:10] then the second veil also shall be taken away, that we may see the things that are hidden within, to wit, the true Ark of the Testament, and behold the Cherubim and the rest in their real nature. (Origen, Comment on St. Matthew 27:51, from the Catena Aurea)
The veil of the temple is rent, because from this time the nation was dispersed, and the honour of the veil is taken away with the guardianship of the protecting Angel. (St. Hilary of Poitiers, Comment on St. Matthew 27:51, from the Catena Aurea)
Again, God by the rending of the veil implied that the grace of the Holy Spirit goes away and is rent from the temple, so that the Holy of holies might be seen by all; also that the temple will mourn amongst the Jews, when they shall deplore their calamities, and rend their clothes.
This also is a figure of the living temple, that is, the body of Christ, in whose Passion His garment is torn, that is, His flesh.
Again, it means another thing; for the flesh is the veil of our temple, that is, of our mind. But the power of the flesh is torn in the Passion of Christ, from the top to the bottom, that is, from Adam even down to the latest man; for also Adam was made whole by the Passion of Christ, and his flesh does not remain under the curse, nor does it deserve corruption, but we all are gifted with incorruption. (Theophylact, Comment on St. Mark 15:38, from the Catena Aurea)

Grammatically, this sentence is nonsense. I really have no idea what you're trying to say.

Grammatically it might not, but others with less ridgid, uppity standards might grasp a clue. What are you, some fifth grade english teacher with your nose stuck up in the air teaching in a snobish, elite, upper westside grammer school?

Paul, you mean. And he pardons it "in the person of Christ" or "in the guise of Christ". Christ works through his human minsters. The same is true of our priests,...

Show me in scripture, where you get the idea, that any other "priest" is bestowed this same authority? This is so wrong, it borders on sacrilege.

We are told that the Apostle forgives sins "in the person of Christ." Christ commands his Apostles, his first priest-bishops,...

No, that's wrong. These Apostles were Christ's friends, he EXCLUSIVELY gave those Apostle power and ONLY them. To try and make this authority juxtapose for a continuation of this on other men, not only takes this position of bestowment completely out of context, but ADDS an unscriptual element to the condition of it's meaning.

The rest of your post I could go on and show the twisting of scripture to fit your religious view, but that's not why I posted what I did. The Catholic church has problems just like every other church, my premise is simple, get back to God and stop letting the world infiltrate the church and dictate how we who love God live our lives.