Luke 10:16

["Kyrie eleison"]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1381736' date='Sep 9 2007, 01:02 PM']ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
What does it mean, "the gates of hell will not prevail against it?"
Explain that.
Does it mean bishops will be perfect?
Does it mean we have to obey bishops when they're not?
How much can a Catholic disagree or disobey and still be a Catholic?
What is the 'carp' limit that a Catholic must accept? A polka mass? Disallowing Latin Mass? 24 'Extraordinary Eucharistic Minsisters at every Mass? Railing against making illegal immigrants obey the law? Using hard-core lawyers to prevent paying sex scandal vicitims? Shuffling priests? Spending 1/2 billion on a new Cathedral when the Diocese is bankrupt? Performing same-sex couple blessings? Creating another 'felt and banner' religious education program? Selling indulgences to build a new parish hall? Protesting against rules that disallow gay men from being priests? Seminaries that only graduate people with sibilant lisps? Etc., etc., etc.

Love it or leave it? How much to love? What to leave? Which priest, bishop, cardinal, or pope? Is it clear if you have a Master of Catholic Canon Law and Theortical Theological Application Degree? Does it depend on what the definition of "is" is?[/quote]

Anomoly,

Jesus set the foundation and Jesus gave authority to certain apostles, some more than others, such as Peter, whom Jesus gave the keys to bind and loose.

'He who hears hears my apostles, hears me, he who rejects my apostles, rejects my church on which I founded, on my apostles, and when you reject my church, I gave authority, you reject me.

What Luke 10:16 ASSURES US that the church is free from teaching heresy, so when the Pope speaks in matters of faith and morals, he is speaking as Christ would and with His authority.


Paul acknowledged the authority given to the Apostles in 2Cor 10:8, "For even if I boast somewhat more about our authority, which the Lord has given for your upbuilding, and not for your destruction, I shall not be put to shame."

Jesus gave authority to 72 other disciples in Lk 10:1-12, and told them He sends them forth as 'lambs in the midst of wolves'. He told them to shake the dust off their feet from the towns that do not receive them.

"...that you should set right anything that is defective and should appoint presbyters (priests) in every city as I myself directed you to do," Titus 1:5. Paul commands them to make new priests.


We are commanded to OBEY our superiors (priests, Bishops, and the Pope) and to be subject to them, as they keep watch as having to render an account of our souls, Heb 13:17.

As I stated earlier, I as a Catholic believe in this authority that Jesus gave his apostles and this authority has been passed down from generation to generation, to present day. Our church can trace it's succession all the way back to the apostles.

Does this mean that they are perfect? No.

Does this mean that every priest and bishop will not be free from sin? No.

What it does mean is that Jesus founded a church on his apostles and gave them authority, and Jesus made sure that this authority would be propagated throught the centuries. Regardless, of their shortcoming/sins, great and small the "polka dances", his hierarchy has UPHELD the teachings of Jesus, as Jesus promised he would REMIND THEM of EVERYTHING that he has TAUGHT THEM and NEVER LEAVE THEM ORPHANS.

The gates of hell will not prevail against it.


Speaking to his apostles and [b]only[/b] to his apostles in John 14

[b]16
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you ALWAYS,
17 [/b][b]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.
18
I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. [/b]
19
In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me, because I live and you will live.
20
On that day you will realize that I am in my Father and you are in me and I in you.
21
Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him."
22
Judas, not the Iscariot, 11 said to him, "Master, (then) what happened that you will reveal yourself to us and not to the world?"
23
Jesus answered and said to him, "Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him.
24
Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; yet the word you hear is not mine but that of the Father who sent me.
25
"I have told you this while I am with you.
[b]26
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. [/b]

Anomoly, You still haven't answered the initial question regarding Luke 10:16. and what does this command of Jesus mean to you and when did this command cease to exist and by whose authority?????

[Anomaly]

It's Anomaly, 1 o and 2 a.

As I've pointed out, your question is too ambiguous. What do YOU mean by 'rejecting' a Bishop? What do YOU identify as the parameters of Bishop authority that cannot be rejected? You had said that Bishops aren't perfect. But are you saying they are to be obeyed when they are being sinful?

Edited September 10, 2007 by Anomaly

["Kyrie eleison"]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1382726' date='Sep 10 2007, 04:44 PM']It's Anomaly, 1 o and 2 a.

As I've pointed out, your question is too ambiguous. What do YOU mean by 'rejecting' a Bishop? What do YOU identify as the parameters of Bishop authority that cannot be rejected? You had said that Bishops aren't perfect. But are you saying they are to be obeyed when they are being sinful?[/quote]



If what the bishops or priests institute are within the teachings of the church and their authority and it is not a sin, we are obliged to obey. In the end the Pope exercises full and immediate universal authority.

["Kyrie eleison"]

“If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.” (Matthew 18:15-17)

[BG45]

[quote name='"Kyrie eleison' post='1381605' date='Sep 9 2007, 03:32 AM']BG,

Apostolic authority has been passed down by laying on of the hands (ordination) in unbroken succession through the Bishops of the Church fo overr two thousand years, in that the Bishops of this day are the voice of Jesus Christ through the Apostles.

Every Catholic Bishop can show his line of spiritual descent, all the way back to the Apostles.

Acts 20:28, "Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as Bishops, to rule the Church of God.

This line was broken during the reformation when Luther broke away from the Catholic church.[/quote]

Kyrie (hope you don't mind the abrieviation,

I had a lovely reply thought out, supported in depth by Scripture. However, I told myself before hitting reply, I should do something that would take "just a minute". That was five hours ago...so please forgive the sloppiness of this.

Isaiah 22:22 is a passage which speaks of Eliakim, whom is given "And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open." It goes on to describe a nail/peg that will hold him up, only to be cut down later; a temporary giving of authority.

Matthew 16:19 sounds awfully familiar after the reading of Isaiah 22:22, "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.""

Interestingly, whereas the authority is in a way revoked in the case of Eliakim in a few short verses, the authority given unto Peter is not; at least as far as I can tell in a reading of Scripture. Now I know by this point I'm probably getting from some a "This has nothing to do with the quoted text", but it does in a way. It's a paltry, on my part, defense of the Apostolic Succession in which I have never believed in, but am willing to admit that it (Apostolic Succession) makes a good deal of sense both Biblically in and a Historic context.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='"Kyrie eleison' post='1381605' date='Sep 9 2007, 02:32 AM']Apostolic authority has been passed down by laying on of the hands (ordination) in unbroken succession through the Bishops of the Church fo overr two thousand years, in that the Bishops of this day are the voice of Jesus Christ through the Apostles.

This line was broken during the reformation when Luther broke away from the Catholic church.[/quote]

Could you provide patristic proof that the practice of authority was from laying on hands and not a matter of a teacher picking a student to take his place? Tertullian believed that authority was given by a teacher to his student. I know he isnt a name we like here, but could you find patristic proof? I was mentored by a protestant prof that is a world-known expert in patristics and this was his sticky point with catholicism. The structure of succession did not seem biblical or validated by tradition before the late middle ages. I have never looked at it much myself, but this is a common argument from the protestant perspective.

Anomaly,

You seem to have a serious beef with catholicism. Im sure whatever I could say about sinners and saints would be something you have heard before, but the church is imperfect in her practice, but perfect in her teaching. We have the assurance to not teach false doctrine in order to transmit the apostolic oral and written tradition to her people in order to have salvation. God has always used sinners to transmit this message because there are no other kinds of people around. But if your faith can take a heavy hit cause a pastor or priest did some things he shouldnt, is it really your faith in God or in that leader?

["Kyrie eleison"]

i[quote]='Revprodeji' date='Sep 10 2007, 10:54 PM' post='1383195']
Could you provide patristic proof that the practice of authority was from laying on hands and not a matter of a teacher picking a student to take his place? Tertullian believed that authority was given by a teacher to his student. I know he isnt a name we like here, but could you find patristic proof? I was mentored by a protestant prof that is a world-known expert in patristics and this was his sticky point with catholicism. The structure of succession did not seem biblical or validated by tradition before the late middle ages. I have never looked at it much myself, but this is a common argument from the protestant perspective.[/quote]

Rev,

I left Catholicism because I did not know why I believed what I was taught. In the process of looking for the truth I frequented many denominations and their services, visited differing boards on the internet and came to the conclusion that God is not the author of confusion. I am no world-known expert, yet when I studied the early church and when I came to the learn about how the apostles sent others to preach, they were given the authority by the laying on of the hands, it is very biblical and there are many scirpture verses which point to this tradition as passing on the baton. It is not a sticky point with me, what so ever. Jesus did not intend for any Joe schmoe to get on their soap box and preach and teach.

This is what I found. I am sure there is more out there if you really do the research.

[url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html"]http://www.scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html[/url]

"And to Timothy he says: 'Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.'… For even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of their own number chosen by themselves and set in a more exalted position, just as an army elects a general, or as deacons appoint one of themselves whom they know to be diligent and call him archdeacon. For what function excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter? It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles." Jerome, To Evangelus, Epistle 146:1 (ante A.D. 420).

When a priest is ordained, while the bishop is blessing [him] and holding his hands over his head, let all the priests also, who are present, hold their hands close to the hands of the bishop above his head." Council of Chalcedon, Canon 3 (A.D. 451).

2 Cor. 1:21-22 - Paul writes that God has commissioned certain men and sealed them with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee.

Col 1:25 - Paul calls his position a divine "office." An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it's not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.

1 Tim. 3:1 - Paul uses the word "episcopoi" (bishop) which requires an office. Everyone understood that Paul's use of episcopoi and office meant it would carry on after his death by those who would succeed him.

1 Tim. 4:14 - again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).

1 Tim. 5:22 - Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.

2 Tim. 1:6 - Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands.

2 Tim. 4:1-6 - at end of Paul's life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . We must trace true apostolic lineage back to a Catholic bishop.

2 Tim. 2:2 - this verse shows God's intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.

[II Thess 2:15] “So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.”

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1383195' date='Sep 10 2007, 11:54 PM']You seem to have a serious beef with catholicism. Im sure whatever I could say about sinners and saints would be something you have heard before, but the church is imperfect in her practice, but perfect in her teaching. We have the assurance to not teach false doctrine in order to transmit the apostolic oral and written tradition to her people in order to have salvation. God has always used sinners to transmit this message because there are no other kinds of people around. But if your faith can take a heavy hit cause a pastor or priest did some things he shouldnt, is it really your faith in God or in that leader?[/quote]I have tremendous faith in God. I don't have the same faith in humans. I have no doubt that God is operating in the Catholic Church. I also have no doubt that God is participating in all Christian Churches. I will concede that the amount of God's involvement in the various organizations can be debated.
Where I draw the line, and what makes Catholic's go ballistic, is the practical limits that human nature puts on weilding Christ's authority.
For example, Kyrie doesn't recognize the circular logic when he makes the following statement, "If what the bishops or priests institute are within the teachings of the church and their authority and it is not a sin, we are obliged to obey. In the end the Pope exercises full and immediate universal authority."
Sounds good on the surface, but let's examine the qualifications of discerning whether what the Bishop is teaching is within the teachings of the Church.

For example, Bishop Mahoney was preaching disobedience against US laws concerning illegal immigrants when legislation was being considered. B.Mahoney did not disobedience to providing basic humanitarian aid, but was preaching that illegal immigrants had every right to disobey US immigration laws and that citizens should work to thwart the US establishing border security. In my opinion, that violated the Catechism teaching that a Country has rights to establish and protect it's borders and that immigrants should obey the laws of the land. Only in the specific act of providing basic needs such as food, should US citizens be obliged to disobey US law.

So who's right? In my conscience, Mahoney is very wrong, but many, many Catholics would defend him as being right. So where is the standard of establishing whether the Bishop is teaching correctly or not? The Bishop is the Teaching Authority, so does that mean whatever the Bishop says is right? Other Bishops disagree with Mahoney, and others agree, so there is no clear standard. The Pope is just another Bishop, albeit, the leader. Where is the practical infallibility? Where is the 'clear teaching authority' that cannot be disagreed with and MUST be obeyed?

Where I disagree with Catholics, is believing in the fairytale of Church Infallibilty that they've created. Catholics tell you on one hand that the Church has infallibility in the 'Ordinary Magisterium' and 'Teaching Authority', as well as in the Body of Bishops and the Office of the Pope, which demands obedience and assent of religious will. Kyrie quotes the same scriptures that do not establish 'infallibility' in these roles. I would agree that Church leaders should get the benefit of initial respect and assumption they are probably right, but the idea that 'obedience' and 'assent of will' is required due to 'infallibility' operating in an expanded fashion as Catholics claim is indefensible and not founded in Tradition or Scripture.

The simple fact is, the Catholic Church knows that a heirarchy of truths exist. It's infallibility is limited exclusively to defining Dogma and communicating and protecting Dogma through the ages. Period. End of story. Doctrine, discipline, practice, etc., is all open to the best that humans can accomplish, given the specific circumstances of the times. Authorative, yes. Infallible, no. Demanding and requireing respect, yes. Demanding and requireing obedience and assent of will, no.

Kyrie is stuck with circular logic. Obey the Bishop when they teach what the Church teaches. Bishops are the infallible teaching authority of the Church. But Bishops disagree constantly and the Pope doesn't 'infallibly decree' on every matter. But if you are disobedient, you're not Catholic because you reject the Catholic Church's teaching that it's Ordinary Magisterium is infallible.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1383329' date='Sep 11 2007, 07:10 AM']For example, Bishop Mahoney was preaching disobedience against US laws concerning illegal immigrants when legislation was being considered. B.Mahoney did not disobedience to providing basic humanitarian aid, but was preaching that illegal immigrants had every right to disobey US immigration laws and that citizens should work to thwart the US establishing border security. In my opinion, that violated the Catechism teaching that a Country has rights to establish and protect it's borders and that immigrants should obey the laws of the land. Only in the specific act of providing basic needs such as food, should US citizens be obliged to disobey US law.

So who's right?[/quote]
You basically gave the answer. In this case the universal Catechism promulgated from the highest authority in the Church trumps Mahony's antics. Cardinal Mahony is a constant cause of scandal in the Church, we all know that.

I don't totally disagree with you about infallibility. Infallibility should not be exaggerated to some kind of ludicrous level that distorts the real nature of this charism of the Church. Bishops and even Popes are not walking oracles of infallible truth. They are guardians and stewards of a sacred deposit of truth and they are capable of acting according to said supernatural charism in unique situations and insofar as they represent the collective voice of the Church united to Christ the one teacher.

The Catechism is a very trustworthy statement of the ordinary magisterium for matters not explicitly defined since it is intended to express the faith that is affirmed by all those in union with the Pope. If an individual bishop starts flapping his trap in a way that goes against the authentic magisterium (for example a bishop supporting abortion or women's ordination) he has clearly damaged that essential communion with the universal Church which is a scandalous and grevious thing when we're talking about a bishop. A bishop in such a position may be putting his very salvation in jeopardy.

[Dismas]

Dear Anomaly,

I too have faith in God, and I too have very little faith in humans. Of course, I count as human. The fact that I am mildly clever, and considering how much I've managed to damage myself in 30 years, I really don't trust myself.

Cardinal Mahoney, by himself, does not have any share in the charism for infallibility, and certainly has no claim to a charism of impeccability. Even when the USCCB gathers, it is not infallible in teaching. Entire nations, with bishops in the vanguard, have marched off to apostasy. Even so, we have an anchor in the full body of the bishops united. We also have an anchor in Rome, an anchor that has proven solid in teaching since the reign of Clement I (Linus and Cletus have no available writings to my knowledge). Even in the maelstrom of the late 1960's, did not the liberal Pope Paul VI deliver to us Humanae Vitae, thus challenging the Catholic Church to stand strong against Onanism while even conservative Protestant denominations sullied themselves with impurities of the flesh?

Yet Cardinal Mahoney does have authority, and he will be responsible for his every action as priest, bishop and cardinal come his Judgment. So then, when he issues a command that is contrary to the fullness of Catholic teaching as best you know, being the CCC, you are not obligated in that matter. If, however, he declares every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday to be a fast of black tea and water in penance for our sins, which considering who we are discussing is unlikely, I'd suggest getting some Irish Breakfast and Earl Grey.

Now I know things are bad in L.A. right now. Just remember that some of us had it worse. Milwaukee, for instance, had none other than the author of "Folk Mass" as her archbishop. The Canadians have it even worse, with that thrice damned blasphemy known as the "Winnipeg Statement" hanging over them. Anomaly, your soul can survive the blunders of a relic such as Cardinal Mahoney. Pity him, as he lives in the glory of a past that was never real, nor glorious. Moreover, pray for his soul.

I chose the Catholic Church only because she could withstand, and withstand in excellence, my skepticism.

[jeffpugh]

Whoa... never heard of the Winnipeg Statement... can't believe that slipped under the radar

[Dismas]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1383815' date='Sep 11 2007, 08:53 PM']Whoa... never heard of the Winnipeg Statement... can't believe that slipped under the radar [/quote]
My condolences. Of course, you could petition your bishop to denounce it. Or be really naughty and buy a few dozen copies of said encyclical [edit: Humanae Vitae] and leave them in the pews of the cathedral.

Edited September 12, 2007 by Dismas

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1383815' date='Sep 11 2007, 06:53 PM']Whoa... never heard of the Winnipeg Statement... can't believe that slipped under the radar [/quote]

So...I can kill someone, and that's fine, as long as it's in "good conscience"?

[Dismas]

[quote name='T-Bone _' post='1383862' date='Sep 11 2007, 09:39 PM']So...I can kill someone, and that's fine, as long as it's in "good conscience"?[/quote]

Please, SMM is probably suffering from shock right now. He probably has no idea of the true horrors of the 70's - and I'm not just talking about disco.

["Kyrie eleison"]

[quote name='BG45' post='1383151' date='Sep 10 2007, 10:36 PM']Kyrie (hope you don't mind the abrieviation,

I had a lovely reply thought out, supported in depth by Scripture. However, I told myself before hitting reply, I should do something that would take "just a minute". That was five hours ago...so please forgive the sloppiness of this.

Isaiah 22:22 is a passage which speaks of Eliakim, whom is given "And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open." It goes on to describe a nail/peg that will hold him up, only to be cut down later; a temporary giving of authority.

Matthew 16:19 sounds awfully familiar after the reading of Isaiah 22:22, "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.""

Interestingly, whereas the authority is in a way revoked in the case of Eliakim in a few short verses, the authority given unto Peter is not; at least as far as I can tell in a reading of Scripture. Now I know by this point I'm probably getting from some a "This has nothing to do with the quoted text", but it does in a way. It's a paltry, on my part, defense of the Apostolic Succession in which I have never believed in, but am willing to admit that it (Apostolic Succession) makes a good deal of sense both Biblically in and a Historic context.[/quote]

Sorry I missed this post, BG. So are you saying by the scripture verses that you have read you are leaning towards the validity of Apostolic succession. Jesus didn't wouldn't promise to be with his apostles till the end of time and not make provisions to propogate this succession. Let me remind you also that Jesus renamed Simon Peter, to Kepha. A name change in the bible is very significant and it signifies passing on authority as God renamed Abram to Abraham when He made him the 'Father of a Multitude of Nations' in Gen 17:5. God also renamed Sara to Sarah when He made her the 'Mother of Nations' in Gen 17:15-16.