Eutychus please respond...

[jasJis]

i-monk,
Respectfully I reply with this:
[quote]1794
A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct[/quote]A good and pure conscience and sincere faith draws one closer to holiness and turns aside from immoral conduct. I believe that. I look to Christians to live that out. Lord knows I'm no saint. I can admit what I've done wrong and look back over years of slow improvement. When a priest or bishop sins gravely and publically, it is a tremendous scandal because of the graces they had available to them. Those same people sin mildly and with less fanfare. That's how we get the Catholic Church to become reluctant to chastise a Bishop that doesn't teach what the Church really believes. That's why there are Catholic division and different Christian denominations. If Church Administration and Actions are symbiotic with Theological Teachings, then Luther had to leave. If not, he was right to reject what was wong and wrong to leave what was right.

[ironmonk]

It is a great scandal when Bishops stray from what the teachings of the Church are... but this is against common sense to leave the Church due to the mistakes of Bishops when we can plainly see what the teachings of the Church are. The Church does chastise Bishops, but they tend to do so in private.

The organization of the Church is not the sins of the people within the Church. The organization of the Church is not the sins of the hierarchy within the Church. The organization of the Church is the sum of it's teachings of the Magisterium, the hierarchy make up the organs of the body of the Church - the laymen are the cells... some cells go bad, but the body lives on.

It is not a pure and good conscience that rejects the Church because of people in it that break it's rules. Using people within the Church that go against the Church teachings to leave the Church is using unjustifiable grounds to leave the Church. If it was a good and pure conscience that guided you out of the Church it would be because of what the Church (the organization - NOT indidividual Bishops) taught. You are using those who go against the Church's teachings to leave the Church is foolish... It IS leaving Peter because of Judas.

Do you not remember that it was Christ who picked Judas?

Everyone in the Church has a purpose for the will of God, you might not see it, but they are used for the will of God. It is not God's will that you reject His teachings, but your own.

How can you think you have theologically sound reasoning when you have went roughly a year without reading Scripture and attending Mass?

Put yourself in 33 AD.... Christ was just killed on the cross... Do you leave Peter because of Judas doing wrong because your conscience tells you to? <- This is the situation that you are in.

Does Judas' sin and going against the teachings of Christ negate the teachings of Christ, of course not. Does it negate our obligation to go to Mass as commanded by God? Of course not. Does it negate the wisdom found in the Scriptures and Sacred Traditions taught to us from the first Christians? Of course not.

As for Luther... He was a liar. He was a promoter of paligamy... he broke vows to God... he did not remain faithful to what he learned because from whom he learned it.

You know that it is a fact that the Apostolic Succession is true. This one aspect alone is reason to remain going to the Mass and within the Church.

Explain to me how it is within common sense to reject Peter, the other Apostles, and the other Disciples because of Judas. Please use Scripture or Early Church Fathers writings for this because it is rather ironic to use the Catechism as a reason to reject the Church when you believe so many things that are ONLY Catholic.

Knowing that Christ built the Catholic Church and rejecting her is a salvation killing sin, according to Christ.

[b]Luke 10:16 [/b]"[color="#FF0000"]He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me[/color]"

You are using the exact same arguement that the ex-priest at Jimmy Swaggert Bible College... "The Catholic Church on paper doesn't exist".

You really need to think about something... if by our actions and words we make up for a multitude of sins when we bring back one sinner from his error, imagine how great of a sin it is if we are the reason someone else rejects the faith due to our error.

[b]Sirach 5:5[/b]
Of forgiveness be not overconfident, adding sin upon sin.
[b]6 [/b] Say not: "Great is his mercy; my many sins he will forgive."
[b]7 [/b] For mercy and anger alike are with him; upon the wicked alights his wrath.
[b]8 [/b] Delay not your conversion to the LORD, put it not off from day to day;
[b]9 [/b] For suddenly his wrath flames forth; at the time of vengeance, you will be destroyed.

Missing Mass repeatedly is heaping sin upon sin. You know that the more we sin the more our minds our clouded by error.

Your reasoning does not make sense. The only thing that makes since is the reason given by Patrick Madrid why the ex-priest is at Jimmy Swaggert Bible College.

So I write again...
Explain to me how it is within common sense to reject Peter, the other Apostles, and the other Disciples because of Judas.

God Bless.
ironmonk

[Eutychus]

[quote]How can you think you have theologically sound reasoning when you have went roughly a year without reading Scripture and attending Mass? [/quote]

?

Where did that one come from?

I read AND study the bible several hours a day, Monk.

Mass?

That scripted religious ceremonial replacement for solid teaching and exortation? Nah, been there, got that T-shirt. Those 8 minute stirring snoozers they call homilies are pale indeed besides real on fire exegetical exhortational exhuberant biblical sermons.

Those three disjointed, hop scotched scriptures with gaps right in the middle of the reading, are a hoot too. But then, just leaving out problematical passages, while telling the pew crowd that they are hearing the entire bible over three years solves two problems for the church in one fell swoop.

One, the pew crowd, THINKS they are properly instructed in the entire bible. { that demonstrably isn't true, even for those that attend mass daily throughout the entire cycle } That stops them from wanting to know more.

Two, by using the clerical cutting room floor, POOF, those passages that belie that the CURRENT Magisterium of the Day doesn't want attention brought to, just go bye bye.

They are very very clever, and very good at presenting what SEEMS like a seamless reading, but when contrasted with the entire book and paragraphs show the gaps, skips, and jumps that are all to often in the mass readings.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='981111' date='May 14 2006, 06:51 PM']
?

Where did that one come from?

I read AND study the bible several hours a day, Monk.
[/quote]
Could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that wasn't directed at you.

But thanks for playing.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='981111' date='May 14 2006, 03:51 PM']
?

Where did that one come from?

I read AND study the bible several hours a day, Monk.

Mass?

That scripted religious ceremonial replacement for solid teaching and exortation? Nah, been there, got that T-shirt. Those 8 minute stirring snoozers they call homilies are pale indeed besides real on fire exegetical exhortational exhuberant biblical sermons.

Those three disjointed, hop scotched scriptures with gaps right in the middle of the reading, are a hoot too. But then, just leaving out problematical passages, while telling the pew crowd that they are hearing the entire bible over three years solves two problems for the church in one fell swoop.

One, the pew crowd, THINKS they are properly instructed in the entire bible. { that demonstrably isn't true, even for those that attend mass daily throughout the entire cycle } That stops them from wanting to know more.

Two, by using the clerical cutting room floor, POOF, those passages that belie that the CURRENT Magisterium of the Day doesn't want attention brought to, just go bye bye.

They are very very clever, and very good at presenting what SEEMS like a seamless reading, but when contrasted with the entire book and paragraphs show the gaps, skips, and jumps that are all to often in the mass readings.
[/quote]
Perhaps you might quote some of these Scripture passages which you say the "current Magisterium of the Day doesn't want attention brought to."

Again, so far I've seen nothing solid from you here, just lots of various ad hominems and vague allegations and charges.

Disappointing, you're not providing much of a challenge.

[quote name='Eutychus' post='980839' date='May 14 2006, 04:03 AM']
The lessong that EVERYONE here is missing, is that Apostolic Succession, is really conditional upon the SUCCESSORS actually holding to APOSTOLIC TEACHING and BEHAVIOR. If either are missing, or improper, they demean God, and the LINE is BROKEN.
[/quote]
And where in Scripture does it say this concerning the Apostles?

At which point was Apostolic Succession broken?
If the Apostolic ministry is dependent upon the good behavior of the Apostles, then it must have been broken when Judas betrayed Christ, or when Peter denied Christ three times.

This is neither Biblical nor Church teaching you are giving here, but rather your own (or some protestant preacher's) personal "interpretations."

[Socrates]

Matthew 16:18
"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, [b]and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.[/b]"

Says nothing about this being conditional on the good behavior of Peter or his successors.

[jasJis]

Can priests and bishops misuse the athority given to them by God? And when misused, is it binding?

[God Conquers]

Enter Eutychus:

LittleLes reincarnated as a non-denom.


Boy, that "current magesterium" sure fooled me by [b]telling me exactly which verses are being read[/b] in the missal right in front of me.

I'll never figure out that there are skipped verses!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ironmonk]

[quote name='jasJis' post='981194' date='May 14 2006, 09:14 PM']
Can priests and bishops misuse the athority given to them by God? And when misused, is it binding?
[/quote]

I think it would depend on the situation.

When St. Pio was told by a superior (unjustly) that he couldn't say Mass in public, he was obedient even though there was no real reason for him not to say Mass.

I think that if we know that a Bishop is going against Church teachings, then it would not be binding... but we must be sure that we know the Church teaching well, so many people think they know when they don't. The topic would have to be in black and white. For example if a Bishop pushed abortion, we know that topic is black and white and there is no exception.

The authority of the Church verse the authority of individual Bishops is different... try to think of the Church as the forest and the trees as the clergy... a few trees do not make a forest, but all of the trees make a forest. A few bishops do not make the Church - all of the Bishops make up the Church.

The Church = a forest
A tree = a bishop/priest

I think where much of your viewpoint is coming from is that you are mistaking the two.

The Church does not equal a bishop/priest.
The Church equals the collective bishops and priests... thousands of them. 1/3 of them will be bad in the last days... as told to us by Mary at Fatima that had 70,000 witnesses. The bad ones will make the news while all the good ones tend to go unnoticed.

Notice the difference below... The link at the bottom has the numbers with links so that you can study it...

[b]Authority(ies)[/b]
abuse of civil, 2155, 2242-2298
of the Apostles, 551, 873, 1444, 1575
bishops, 883, 888, 894, 1596, 2034, 2179
Christ's, 581-82, 651, 668-69, 1063, 1441, 1673, 2173
[u][b]the Church's,[/b][/u] 85, 119, 553, 874, 895, 918, 1023, 1125, 1399, 1578, 1635, 1673, 1792, 2037, 2420 [color="#3333FF"](my addition: i.e. the Forest)[/color]
[u][b]of the Church's [i]ministers[/i][/b][/u], 875, 1551, 1563 [color="#3333FF"](my addtion: i.e. Bishops/Priests = the trees)[/color]
civil and human, 1900, 1901, 2234
common good and, 1903, 1906, 1909, 1928, 2266, 2293, 2406, 2429, 2498
duties of, 1917, 1923, 2235-36, 2241, 2272, 2316, 2354, 2498
family and, 2202, 2207, 2234
foundation of, 1899, 1918, 1920, 1930
foundation of human, 1897-1904
God's, 156, 239, 668, 1295, 1381, 2086, 2777
illegitimate civil, 2155
Jesus and religious authorities in Jerusalem, 575, 587, 589, 591, 595-96
law as the enactment of, 1951
legitimate exercise of, 1897, 1921
limits to, 2267
[b]of the Magisterium of the Church[/b], 88, 2036
necessary for human society, 1897-98, 1919
refusal to obey, 2256
respect for, 1880
respect for others and, 1902, 1930, 2199, 2254
service of, 2235
of the Supreme Pontiff, 1594, 2034
of the symbol, 194-95
of truth, 1777
war and international, 2308

[url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/a.htm"]http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/a.htm[/url]



God Bless bro,
ironmonk