|
| This is merely a quick run down of some of the Biblical evidence for the papacy, bolstered by some pertinent historical data. 1.) Matt. 16.16-19 is the classical text. What does it say? NIV:
16. Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of
the living God."
17. Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
19. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
I hate the NIV, but I guess most folks use it and the translation isn't bad here so...
a.) Simon singularly receives a revelation.
b.) Simon's name is changed to Peter, which means "rock".
c.) Jesus says that upon this rock He will build His Church and promises it indefectibility, that it will not fail, Satan cannot overcome it.
d.) Jesus promises to give Peter the keys to the Kingdom; his bindings and loosings shall have been bound and loosed in Heaven. Jesus
says that he will build His Church upon this rock. I hate it when some
guy who doesn't know Greek starts busting out what the Greek says in
the 38th declension couple with the 4th conjugation of the
active-passive participle of the future past verb, but that being said,
the Greek word for "this" can be translated, and often is because,
according to the real Greek Geeks, taute is a demostrative adjective, as even this or this very.
(See KJV of Acts 13:33; I Cor. 7:20; II Cor. 8:6; 9:4-5.) This would
seem to require that the petra of verse 18 is the same as the Petros of
verse 18. That is, they are identifiable. It is out of the question
that the petra is the confession or Christ Himself. Further John 2:42
makes it clear that the changing of Peter's name was not linked to his
confession per se, since when Jesus first meets Peter in this account
He just says "you'll be called Peter". So with this understanding, it
is more than proper to read v. 18, "You are Rock, and and upon this
same (or this very) rock I will build my Church. Finally, my
study in this area has pointed out that when petra is used
symbolically, it is always used of something concrete. Thus, Christ is
my rock, God is my rock. It is not used of an abstract thing, like
faith or propositions. Likewise, the symbolism or analogy of
foundation is always used in terms of a really existing concrete
thing. Our foundation is Christ, the prophets and apostles are our
foundation, the Church is the foundation of the truth. I suppose all I am doing here is agreeing with most Protestant scholars and (I hope) all Catholic scholars. The
big next step is to show that after Peter died that there was a
continued primacy of his successor. I guess that is for part 2.
| | |
| Of course, no where does St. Paul state that we are justified by faith alone. Now, some might say that it can be inferred from many passages, just like we infer from many passages and the covenantal and cultural context that we ought to baptize our babies because they born into a believing, covenant family. The problem with that argument is that when we argue for paedo-baptism, we argue from the fact that children of covenant households were always considered as belonging to God. We argue from the fact that at the time the Bible was written, that was still the understanding. When households were baptized, it is inconceivable that the babies (if there were any there) were also baptized.
But the problem with sola fide pushers is this: they contend that Paul was castigating folks because they thought that works was needed without faith, or maybe with faith, and he was setting them straight and saying that faith alone justifies. The disconnect is in the fact that in the baptism argument, we appeal to the fact that the text doesn't need to be clear about infants, because it would be assumed, being a part of the covenant consciousness of the people. Apparently, works righteousness was the main category in the consciousness of the people, according to the Lutheran/Reformed folks. This would call for an explicit rebuttal of works righteousness and an even clearer proclamation of sola fide. This also renders James statement, "not by faith alone"(delivered to a Jewish audience I believe) utterly ridiculous. Since the Jews had a problem with works righteousness, why is he telling them you are justified not by faith alone, but by works?
Maybe the Jews weren't works righteousness freaks after all? Maybe they knew they were part of the covenant and were Gods people. Maybe the fact that they weren't being faithful is what Paul was attacking... which makes sense of his Hab. 3 quote that "the just man shall live by his faithfulness..." --- activity I think... Maybe the Jews were so utterly proud of their covenant identity in the fleshly marks (circumcision- another point of attack for Paul) that they had begun to trust in these works of the Law (circumcision being commanded by the Law) that they had ceased to be faithful to the covenant (work in faith, not works alone, not faith alone).
Whattya think?
| | |
| Man that's catchy!
So there seems to be a problem with the view that Justification is a once-for-all, one time, never to be repeated event.
You see, Abraham was justified about three times, according to Sacred Scriptures. Genesis 12, 15 and 22. I am not saying what that means right now, I am only pointing out that the view of Justification the Reformers innovated seems to be in trouble. | | |
| There is a eerie feeling one gets when people who have promised their lives to the Church and to the shepherding of Christ's flock blatantly oppose the Traditional Mass, the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. I am a personal witness to this and it causes a whole series of emotional, intellectual and spiritual reactions in me- from anger, to sadness, to bewilderment, to hardened resolve and everything in between. I think to myself, "Is this no longer a struggle for the Mass or is it about power?" I do not think that some of those those who oppose this, the most beautiful expression of the Mass, do so because they actually dislike the traditional Mass so much. Nearly all of them don't even know what it is! How can you dislike what you in fact know absolutely nothing of! I really believe that somehow they believe that it represents a threat to the control they exercise. Sadly, from my experience, most who are opposed to the Motu Proprio do not have theological problems with it because they lack the necessary theological formation to make an argument. Those who do have that formation put up rather weak and obviously transparent reasons to not implement Summorum Pontificum in the way that is equally obvious and transparent in Summorum Pontificum. Perceived loss of power and control seem to be the culprit to this observer.
But then there is a deeper and more ominous reason for the resistance. Michael Davies uttered many beautiful words about the old Mass. But among all that I have heard or read, one statement he made has stuck with me and has been brought back to the front of my thinking since the post-motu resistance began. He said that the Fathers of Trent had built up a Mass that was impregnable to the attacks of Satan and heresy. Whether that was poetic hyperbole, or the literal truth, the force of the statement is still gripping. If true, in either interpretation, (and I believe it is true) then the resistance has thrown on it a more sinister light than a mere ignorant and sickening fear of loss of power (as horrid as that thought is). If true, then la Résistance then becomes a tool in the Devil's own hand. He has been busy for the last 100 years tearing apart our foundations theologically and worse still morally. He has convinced Catholics that they no longer need penance to be saved, although Christ said so- no longer are Fridays days of penance. He has convinced us that children are not one of the most precious gifts that God can choose to give to His people- contraception is okay. He has convinced us that the old superstitious days are past- alchemy and the Real Presence are nice for fairy tales, but in real life... He has convinced us that the only virtue that matters is Tolerance- Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is intolerable. Where do we stop? This is hardly a sufficient list, but it must suffice for now. These dogmas were a part of the Old Mass. Unmistakable. Undefeatable. Indefectible. These formed the theoretical and moral basis for Catholic living. These "old" ideas are mostly in the minority now in the Church. If even 51% of American Catholics believe in the Real Presence (if 98% do!) that constitutes one of Satan's greatest victories since the Protestant Rebellion.*
The fight for the Mass is not a fight for nostalgia or how we feel when we hear a Latin chant or smell the glorious incense or etc. (although all that is really swell!). It is not even a fight for just the "Old Mass". No this is a fight for the Faith itself. And the Traditional Mass embodies the faith of our fathers, that holy faith, in the most perfect way to date. Can and should changes be made? "If the good of the faithful certainly require it." Understood objectively (good=real and not apparent good, certainly require=certainly require), I say yes.
Keep the Faith. May we be worthy of the company of the 4000 slaughtered at Devon by Cranmer's satanic forces because they would rather die than alter the Mass of God wherein we find supernatural life in the receiving of the Most Precious Body and Blood of our Lord.
*Obviously, the Church has not failed and changed her teachings on these matters. But there has been a decisive failure to teach on the part of her ministers and the people have (in some cases a small part in other cases in large part) ceased to believe the dogma of the Church. I am no Sedevacantist. | | |
|
