Eutychus please respond...

[Eutychus]

[quote]God didn't take the priesthood away from the entire tribe of Levi ... he only cut off Eli's family -- "his sons made themselves contemptible, and he failed to restrain them." [/quote]

Obviously we have a lack of bible "know'en and Learn'n" going on here.

Apparently, the differences between the AARONIC HIGH PRIESTHOOD and the LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD was never taught in RCIA classes, nor from the pulpit in those stunningly good 8 minute Homilies.

But then, nuances and solid biblical exegesis have never been the stong point for Catholics.

Eli was the HIGH PRIEST, and that office was heriditary, can we spell "Apostolic Succesion?'

The Levites were not High Priests and 90% of them did not live in Jerusalem, but were scattered around in cities.

[quote]Among the cities of which you will give to the Levites: There were to be a total of 48 Levitical cities; six cities of refuge, and 42 additional cities.[/quote]

No, the parallels are just too perfect. The high priestly line of Aaron was ended, because of the sins of Eli and his sons, and given over to the line of Zadok.

If the lesson here is one you do not want to learn, fine with me, but at least know that I've tried to make it.

[jasJis]

Eut,
So tell me where God let us know He ended the "Apostolic Succesion" from 1 line and given to the other.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='979778' date='May 13 2006, 03:11 AM']
Obviously we have a lack of bible "know'en and Learn'n" going on here.

Apparently, the differences between the AARONIC HIGH PRIESTHOOD and the LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD was never taught in RCIA classes, nor from the pulpit in those stunningly good 8 minute Homilies.

But then, nuances and solid biblical exegesis have never been the stong point for Catholics.

Eli was the HIGH PRIEST, and that office was heriditary, can we spell "Apostolic Succesion?'

The Levites were not High Priests and 90% of them did not live in Jerusalem, but were scattered around in cities.
No, the parallels are just too perfect. The high priestly line of Aaron was ended, because of the sins of Eli and his sons, and given over to the line of Zadok.

If the lesson here is one you do not want to learn, fine with me, but at least know that I've tried to make it.
[/quote]
Just a note, from an outside viewer: you could do without all the side remarks about Catholics in your arguments. To me, this just takes credibility away from you. I like reading your arguments, but you lack charity just a little bit.

[rkwright]

Did Peter's apostolic sucession die out or move to another once he denied Christ? Surely this would be a sin worthy of being 'cut off' yet we don't see that happening?

Good question though

[Eutychus]

[quote] Just a note, from an outside viewer: you could do without all the side remarks about Catholics in your arguments. To me, this just takes credibility away from you. I like reading your arguments, but you lack charity just a little bit[/quote]

Indeed, when tested for "Spiritual Gifts" I scored off the charts on DISCERMENT, and TEACHING, and flunked HOSPITALITY and MERCY. So, your assesment of my "style" is actually very astute. But the message is worth giving, and the lessons the same. Look at my "style' as more Elijahlike, than Hosean.

Now, continuing.

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.

One needn't be a rocket scientist, or a saint, to see that between 900ish to 1600ish AD there was quite a string of demonics, thugs, neer-do well's, and simonatics, profligates, and con men that sat on, or claimed to be apostolic successors. They made Eli's two sons look godly in comparison.

So, if God can, and did, displace the Apostolic line of Aaron, for the gross immorality of Hophi, and Phineas, and forever BREAK that line, the parallel situation is worth considering that the apostolic succession line can be broken, and WAS broken and will not be restored as the LINE is improperly claimed.

Besides, the REAL line is spiritual, God did, and does, raise up men after His own heart to do His work around the world, having some other guy tell you that YOU are chosen, when God hasn't done the choosing is silly beyond belief, and only serves to perpetuate the vainglory of those making such claims.

[Myles Domini]

Its a good thing that Our Lord formed an eternal covenant with the Church with Himself as a mediator or else your ideas may have some weight. The priesthood of Aaron was based upon the mediatorship of Moses, of men, ours is based upon the meditatorship of Jesus Christ. It cannot be forefeit and never will be for the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it (Mt 16:18). The only way your critique could have any merit is if Truth Himself could lie. Even if the devil prays to sift them like wheat He has prayed for them and after their denial they shall return to confirm their brethren in faith. That is why they are Peter.

[jasJis]

[quote name='Myles Domini' post='980841' date='May 14 2006, 05:01 AM']
Its a good thing that Our Lord formed an eternal covenant with the Church with Himself as a mediator or else your ideas may have some weight. The priesthood of Aaron was based upon the mediatorship of Moses, of men, ours is based upon the meditatorship of Jesus Christ. It cannot be forefeit and never will be for the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it (Mt 16:18). The only way your critique could have any merit is if Truth Himself could lie. Even if the devil prays to sift them like wheat He has prayed for them and after their denial they shall return to confirm their brethren in faith. That is why they are Peter.[/quote]WRONG
The gates of hell argument is completely meritousless in this instance. The gates of hell will sift through and claim many.

Now make the claim that the gates of hell will not break the succession, and you'd have to admit that the rites and churches that rejected the sinful activities of men and women in the church did not reject the graces provided to them no matter what catholics claim. The gates of hell will not prevail against Jesus providing graces does not mean that hell will not prevail against men and women of the Catholic Church.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='979778' date='May 13 2006, 05:11 AM']
Obviously we have a lack of bible "know'en and Learn'n" going on here.

Apparently, the differences between the AARONIC HIGH PRIESTHOOD and the LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD was never taught in RCIA classes, nor from the pulpit in those stunningly good 8 minute Homilies.

But then, nuances and solid biblical exegesis have never been the stong point for Catholics.

Eli was the HIGH PRIEST, and that office was heriditary, can we spell "Apostolic Succesion?'

The Levites were not High Priests and 90% of them did not live in Jerusalem, but were scattered around in cities.
...
No, the parallels are just too perfect. The high priestly line of Aaron was ended, because of the sins of Eli and his sons, and given over to the line of Zadok.
...
[/quote]
You're quite right that I'm no Old Testament scholar, lol. I readily accept such criticism. But you apparently aren't all that either ... you say the "line of Aaron was ended, because of the sins of Eli and his sons, and given over to the line of Zadok." Zadok and a number of priests after him were of the line of Aaron, so the line of Aaron wasn't broken in quite the way you suggest.

Here's St. Augustine's take on the situation from "City of God" ... a bit lengthy, but good reading nonetheless:

[quote]OF THOSE THINGS WHICH A MAN OF GOD SPAKE BY THE SPIRIT TO ELI THE PRIEST, SIGNIFYING THAT THE PRIESTHOOD WHICH HAD BEEN APPOINTED ACCORDING TO AARON WAS TO BE TAKEN AWAY.

But this is said more plainly by a man of God sent to Eli the priest himself, whose name indeed is not mentioned, but whose office and ministry show him to have been indubitably a prophet. For it is thus written: "And there came a man of God unto Eli, and said, Thus saith the Lord, I plainly revealed myself unto thy father's house, when they were in the land of Egypt slaves in Pharaoh's house; and I chose thy father's house out of all the sceptres of Israel to fill the office of priest for me, to go up to my altar, to burn incense and wear the ephod; and I gave thy father's house for food all the offerings made by fire of the children of Israel. Wherefore then hast thou looked at mine incense and at mine offerings with an impudent eye, and hast glorified thy sons above me, to bless the first-fruits of every sacrifice in Israel before me? Therefore thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I said thy house and thy father's house should walk before me for ever: but now the Lord saith, Be it far from me; for them that honor me will I honor, and he that despiseth me shall be despised. Behold, the days come, that I will cut off thy seed, and the seed of thy father's house, and thou shalt never have an old man in my house. And I will cut off the man of thine from mine altar, so that his eyes shall be consumed, and his heart shall melt away; and every one of thy house that is left shall fall by the sword of men. And this shall be a sign unto thee that shall come upon these thy two sons, Hophni and Phinehas; in one day they shall die both of them. And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to all that is in mine heart and in my soul; and I will build him a sure house, and he shall walk before my Christ for ever. And it shall come to pass that he who is left in thine house shall come to worship him with a piece of money, saying, Put me into one part of thy priesthood, that I may eat bread."

We cannot say that this prophecy, in which the change of the ancient priesthood is foretold with so great plainness, was fulfilled in Samuel; for although Samuel was not of another tribe than that which had been appointed by God to serve at the altar, yet he was not of the sons of Aaron, whose offspring was set apart that the priests might be taken out of it. And thus by that transaction also the same change which should come to pass through Christ Jesus is shadowed forth, and the prophecy itself in deed, not in word, belonged to the Old Testament properly, but figuratively to the New, signifying by the fact just what was said by the word to Eli the priest through the prophet. [i]For there were afterwards priests of Aaron's race, such as Zadok and Abiathar during David's reign, and others in succession, before the time came when those things which were predicted so long before about the changing of the priesthood behoved to be fulfilled by Christ.[/i] But who that now views these things with a believing eye does not see that they are fulfilled? Since, indeed, no tabernacle, no temple, no altar, no sacrifice, and therefore no priest either, has remained to the Jews, to whom it was commanded in the law of God that he should be ordained of the seed of Aaron; which is also mentioned here by the prophet, when he says, "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I said thy house and thy father's house shall walk before me for ever: but now the Lord saith, That be far from me; for them that honor me will I honor, and he that despiseth me shall be despised." For that in naming his father's house he does not mean that of his immediate father, but that of Aaron, who first was appointed priest, to be succeeded by others descended from him, is shown by the preceding words, when he says, "I was revealed unto thy father's house, when they were in the land of Egypt slaves in Pharaoh's house; and I chose thy father's house out of all the sceptres of Israel to fill the office of priest for me." Which of the fathers in that Egyptian slavery, but Aaron, was his father, who, when they were set free, was chosen to the priesthood? It was of his lineage, therefore, he has said in this passage it should come to pass that they should no longer be priests; which already we see fulfilled. If faith be watchful, the things are before us: they are discerned, they are grasped, and are forced on the eyes of the unwilling, so that they are seen: "Behold the days come," he says, "that I will cut off thy seed, and the seed of thy father's house, and thou shall never have an old man in mine house. And I will cut off the man of thine from mine altar, so that his eyes shall be consumed and his heart shall melt away." Behold the days which were foretold have already come. There is no priest after the order of Aaron; and whoever is a man of his lineage, when he sees the sacrifice of the Christians prevailing over the whole world, but that great honor taken away from himself, his eyes fail and his soul melts away consumed with grief.

But what follows belongs properly to the house of Eli, to whom these things were said: "And every one of thine house that is left shall fall by the sword of men. And this shall be a sign unto thee that shall come upon these thy two sons, Hophni and Phinehas; in one day they shall die both of them." This, therefore, is made a sign of the change of the priesthood from this man's house, by which it is signified that the priesthood of Aaron's house is to be changed. For the death of this man's sons signified the death not of the men, but of the priesthood itself of the sons of Aaron. But what follows pertains to that Priest whom Samuel typified by succeeding this one. Therefore the things which follow are said of Christ Jesus, the true Priest of the New Testament: "And I will raise me up a faithful Priest that shall do according to all that is in mine heart and in my soul; and I will build Him a sure house." The same is the eternal Jerusalem above. "And He shall walk," saith He, "before my Christ always." "He shall walk" means "he shall be conversant with," just as He had said before of Aaron's house, "I said that thine house and thy father's house shall walk before me for ever." But what He says, "He shall walk before my Christ," is to be understood entirely of the house itself, not of the priest, who is Christ Himself, the Mediator and Saviour.

His house, therefore, shall walk before Him. "Shall walk" may also be understood to mean from death to life, all the time this mortality passes through, even to the end of this world. But where God says, "Who will do all that is in mine heart and in my soul," we mast not think that God has a soul, for He is the Author of souls; but this is said of God tropically, not properly, just as He is said to have hands and feet, and other corporal members. And, lest it should be supposed from such language that man in the form of this flesh is made in the image of God, wings also are ascribed to Him, which man has not at all; and it is said to God, "Hide me under the shadow of Thy wings," that men may understand that such things are said of that ineffable nature not in proper but in figurative words.

But what is added, "And it shall come to pass that he who is left in thine house shall come to worship him," is not said properly of the house of this Eli, but of that Aaron, the men of which remained even to the advent of Jesus Christ, of which race there are not wanting men even to this present. For of that house of Eli it had already been said above, "And every one of thine house that is left shall fall by the sword of men." How, therefore, could it be truly said here, "And it shall come to pass that every one that is left shall come to worship him," if that is true, that no one shall escape the avenging sword, unless he would have it understood of those who belong to the race of that whole priesthood after the order of Aaron? Therefore, if it is of these the predestinated remnant, about whom another prophet has said, "The remnant shall be saved;" whence the apostle also says, "Even so then at this time also the remnant according to the election of grace is saved;" since it is easily understood to be of such a remnant that it is said, "He that is left in thine house," assuredly he believes in Christ; just as in the time of the apostle very many of that nation believed; nor are there now wanting those, although very few, who yet believe, and in them is fulfilled what this man of God has here immediately added, "He shall come to worship him with a piece of money;" to worship whom, if not that Chief Priest, who is also God? For in that priesthood after the order of Aaron men did not come to the temple or altar of God for the purpose of worshipping the priest. But what is that he says, "With a piece of money," if not the short word of faith, about which the apostle quotes the saying, "A consummating and shortening word will the Lord make upon the earth?" But that money is put for the word the psalm is a witness, where it is sung, "The words of the Lord are pure words, money tried with the fire."

What then does he say who comes to worship the priest of God, even the Priest who is God? "Put me into one part of Thy priesthood, to eat bread." I do not wish to be set in the honor of my fathers, which is none; put me in a part of Thy priesthood. For "I have chosen to be mean in Thine house;" I desire to be a member, no matter what, or how small, of Thy priesthood. By the priesthood he here means the people itself, of which He is the Priest who is the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. This people the Apostle Peter calls "a holy people, a royal priesthood." But some have translated, "Of Thy sacrifice," not "Of Thy priesthood," which no less signifies the same Christian people. Whence the Apostle Paul says, "We being many are one bread, one body." [And again he says, "Present your bodies a living sacrifice." ] What, therefore, he has added, to "eat bread," also elegantly expresses the very kind of sacrifice of which the Priest Himself says, "The bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." The same is the sacrifice not after the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchisedec: let him that readeth understand. Therefore this short and salutarily humble confession, in which it is said, "Put me in a part of Thy priesthood, to eat bread," is itself the piece of money, for it is both brief, and it is the Word of God who dwells in the heart of one who believes. For because He had said above, that He had given for food to Aaron's house the sacrificial victims of the Old Testament, where He says, "I have given thy father's house for food all things which are offered by fire of the children of Israel," which indeed were the sacrifices of the Jews; therefore here He has said, "To eat bread," which is in the New Testament the sacrifice of the Christians. [/quote]

[rkwright]

[quote name='jasJis' post='980861' date='May 14 2006, 08:41 AM']
WRONG
The gates of hell argument is completely meritousless in this instance. The gates of hell will sift through and claim many.

Now make the claim that the gates of hell will not break the succession, and you'd have to admit that the rites and churches that rejected the sinful activities of men and women in the church did not reject the graces provided to them no matter what catholics claim. The gates of hell will not prevail against Jesus providing graces does not mean that hell will not prevail against men and women of the Catholic Church.
[/quote]

I think you've missed the gist of Myles argument. His argument lies not in the passage he quoted, but the Matthew verse serves to backup his argument.

One can make the claim that the gates of hell will not break the succession, and not have to admit that other denominations retained that grace. You would have to prove that the other churches that rejected the Catholic Church are infact the Church that Jesus established, the one that He promised the gates of hell would not prevail against. It is because Christ established the Catholic Church that we have this promise and thus apostolic succession intact.

Your last line is completely accurate, there is no promise of no sin in the Church.

Again on the Apostolic Succession versus the Old Testement priesthood, look to what Myles is saying about Christ being our mediator to God, not the High Priests, or the argument from Peter's denial, flat out denying our Lord yet remaining an Apostle, or SJ's long article (sorry SJ I'm hungry and don't have time to read through all of it, but I trust Augustine probably made a good point in there somewhere : )

Theres 3 arguments to go off of.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='jasJis' post='980861' date='May 14 2006, 09:41 AM']
WRONG
The gates of hell argument is completely meritousless in this instance. The gates of hell will sift through and claim many.

Now make the claim that the gates of hell will not break the succession, and you'd have to admit that the rites and churches that rejected the sinful activities of men and women in the church did not reject the graces provided to them no matter what catholics claim. The gates of hell will not prevail against Jesus providing graces does not mean that hell will not prevail against men and women of the Catholic Church.
[/quote]


No where has the Church ever taught that the gates of hell will not prevail against men and women of the Church... Nor did Myles imply this.

The gates of hell will not prevail against Church as an organization... The Magisterium... the office of Peter....

Individuals within the Church have and will fail from time to time. As we get closer to the end of the world, more and more will fall... as the great apostasy will happen... Do you want to be part of it? Currently you could be counted within it's numbers.

It is foolish to stay outside when we are confussed because it will only confuse us more. It does not make sense to blame individual bishops, priests, and laymen because you think they are giving you different answers... and the difference might be in your understanding of their answers... Even if they were giving you different answers that is still NOT A VALID reason to be non-Catholic. The Catechism, the Scriptures, the Early Church Fathers, Canon Law, the Eucharist and the rest of the sacraments, etc... are all real reasons to be Catholic. To be Catholic is to go to Mass, pray, frequent the sacraments that you can, have faith in Christ, do the works of Christ.

Christ commands us to the Mass... "Do this in rememberance of me"... Christ is Lord of the Sabbath... As the Apostles had the authority we must worship together in communion with the Pope on Sunday (or the vigil).

You know to many things that are truth and would not be truth unless the Catholic Church was right... Therefore it's time to come home.

The problems are not in the people of the Church, and not in the teachings of the Church, but your understanding is where the conflict lies.

I don't see how your conscience can keep you outside the Church unless you can toss out St. Pio, Fatima, the Scriptures, the Catechism, the Early Church Fathers writings.

Justify your stance with something that make sense like scripture, the Catechism, the Early Church Fathers writings, a saint's writings, etc... Not your personal thoughts. Surely if you were correct then you will be able to justify it with these things.

If not, get back to the Mass and stop with the childishness.

[b]St. Matt 16:18[/b] "[color="#FF0000"] And so I say to you, you are Peter (Kephas), and upon this rock (Kephas) I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.[/color] "
[b]19 [/b] [color="#FF0000"] I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." [/color]


[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]"

[b]Matt 5:13 [/b]
"[color="#FF0000"]You are the salt of the earth. But if salt loses its taste, with what can it be seasoned? It is no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. [/color]
[b]14 [/b] [color="#FF0000"] You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. [/color]
[b]15[/b] [color="#FF0000"]Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house. [/color]

[b]Ephesians 4:1[/b]
[b]1[/b] I, then, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received,
[b]2[/b] with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love,
[b]3 [/b] [u]striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace[/u]:
[b]4 [/b] one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call;
[b]5 [/b] one Lord, [u]one faith[/u], one baptism;
[b]6[/b] one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.


[b]John 14:16[/b]
[color="#FF0000"]And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another [u]Advocate to be with you always,[/u] [/color]
[b]17 [/b] [color="#FF0000"]the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you. [/color]
[b]18 [/b][color="#FF0000"] I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. [/color]
...
[b]26 [/b] [color="#FF0000"][u]The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name--he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you[/u]. [/color]



[b]St Matt 18:17[/b] (Jesus said) [color="#FF0000"]If he refuses to listen to them, [u][b]tell the church[/b][/u]. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector[/color].


[b]2 Timoty 3:14 [/b]
But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, [u]because you know from whom you learned it, [/u]



The Christian Faith is not about what you think it should be... or about your personal thoughts on the laws of grace... it is what the Church teaches.

You do not have the option to pick and choose in regards to what you need to do.

You are using "conscience" as a cop out... Knowing what you know, your conscience cannot possibly be "ok" with being outside the Church unless your conscience has been malformed. Nothing in Christian writings justifies remaining outside the Church... nor does common sense justify it.

If your conscience where truely ok with your current choice of being outside the Church then you would not have been bothered by abuses in the Mass.

Moral Conscience: [url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art6.htm"]http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art6.htm[/url]

please read it all but especially note this...

[quote][b]IV. Erroneous Judgment[/b]

[b]1790 [/b]
A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

[b]1791 [/b]
This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 [u][b]In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits[/b][/u].

[b]1792 [/b]
Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

[b]1793 [/b]
If—on the contrary—the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

[b]1794 [/b]
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.61[/quote]



Bro... one cannot be right with God and reject the Church sent by God, the conscience arguement doesn't cut it.... unless you can rebut the words of Christ, the rest of Scripture, the Early Church Fathers writings with common sense [b]and[/b] the very same writings.

When our personal feelings try to push us from the True Path, that is when discipline must kick in. Don't be part of the Apostasy, don't be dragged down by the 1/3 of the stars spoken of by Mary at Fatima. Be strong. Be a man. (as St. Escriva would say)


God Bless,
ironmonk

Another note...


[url="http://www.escrivaworks.org/book/the_way/contents/1"]http://www.escrivaworks.org/book/the_way/contents/1[/url] <- Great reading.

[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."