Posted on 10/26/2020 4:43:05 AM PDT by MurphsLaw
“Our loyalty is not just to Rome of 2020, but to Roma aeterna, the Rome of all time. Our love is not just for the Pontiff, but for the papacy as instituted by Jesus Christ in existence for two millennia, and no clever deviltry should make us think that one can be legitimately used against the other. Our loyalty is to the Church, which exists not just in space but in time—to Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever.”
It’s raining spiritually again. The Pope has scandalized faithful Catholics and delighted progressives of every stripe by expressing support for civil same-sex unions. Waugh fans will recall one of English literature’s most obnoxious Canadians, Rex Mottram, receiving instruction for baptism from a priest who quizzes him on his grasp of the doctrine of infallibility. What if the Pope were to say it was raining, but it wasn’t? Well, Rex says, “I suppose it would be sort of raining spiritually, only we were too sinful to see it.”
Once again, our beloved Holy Father has put us Catholics in the spot of figuring out whom we’re going to believe: him, or our own lying eyes. What’s particularly frustrating this time is that both he and said lying eyes are telling us the same thing, and so no escape is possible—except for those agile intellects who defy any circle to resist their powers of squaring. It must be rather amusing from the Devil’s perspective, watching Catholics tear their hair out trying to reconcile their allegiance to the Pope with their allegiance to the Faith. Wasn’t there an era when the sheep didn’t have to bend their wooly, easily muddled wits to such complicated matters? “The time is out of joint; o cursed spite/ That ever I was born to set it right,” as Hamlet groaned. But Divine Providence has placed us (poor ovines that we are) in this situation, and saying things like “O cursed spite” is precisely the wrong response. We were handpicked by God to live in this era, so there can’t be anything cursed about that. It would seem more productive to ask God, since He put us here and now, what we are supposed to do about it?
In fact, this particular situation doesn’t seem quite as bad to me as the controversy surrounding the Pope’s attempt to change Church teaching on the death penalty, or the Abu Dhabi declaration, or the approval of idolatry in the Vatican gardens. There’s no way a remark made in the context of a documentary counts as part of the Magisterium of the Church, let alone enjoys the infallible protection of the Holy Ghost. And while it will doubtless encourage souls on their merry way to Hell, at least it doesn’t directly deny the true God and the duty all men have to worship Him in accordance with His expressed wishes. It’s less bad, shall we say, to promote sins of the flesh than to promote worship of false gods.
That doesn’t mean I think Catholic commentators should downplay the damage caused by scandal. We know what our Lord said about those who scandalize little ones. We are little ones, and we are scandalized. But how much worse is this for uninstructed Catholics, or non-Catholics who look vaguely towards the Catholic Church to uphold some kind of moral standard? There are very clear things written about millstones and the bottom of the sea. What Catholic commentators should be very careful of, it seems to me, is any distortion of how this latest scandal should affect our relationship with our Sovereign Pontiff. While our emotional relationship with the Pope may change, as our emotional relationship with a parent would change if we witnessed them committing some terrible deed, our spiritual relationship with the Pope does not change, just as our father remains physically and ontologically our father, no matter how far from him we have to run for safety.
Pope Francis remains the Bishop of Rome, the visible Head of the Church, and the Vicar of Christ. It seems to me not terribly productive for us lambs to speculate on whether he could be deposed and who could do it, especially when God is in charge and could remove this Pontiff at any second should He choose to do so. We are duty-bound to pray for the visible Head of the Church and to support him when he fulfils the duties of his high office. We are, however, entitled to distance ourselves from him and even to disobey him when he asks us to help him betray the duties of his high office—out of love for that very office. In Shakespeare’s King Lear, the king refuses to act as a king. Instead of shouldering his responsibilities and living justly, he decides for the sake of greater comfort to divvy up his kingdom and give it away to the daughters who flatter him the most. Those who truly love him—Cordelia and Kent—refuse to play along with this destructive behavior and are banished for their pains. The kingdom quickly falls into disarray, and Lear himself ends up insane with grief, wandering the moors with a motley and inglorious crowd: the disgraced Kent, the Fool, and the true heir masquerading as a madman. The kingdom is only saved through the sacrifice of the innocent Cordelia.
Who was truly loyal to the kingdom and the King? Those who loved him enough to tell him the truth, of course. (Even the Fool told Lear what he thought, but being a Fool got away with it.) Yet none of them cast Lear off or changed their allegiance because of his irresponsible, even wicked decisions. When Lear and the kingdom needed their help, they were ready.
Without wanting to downplay the doctrinal tangle into which this pontificate has cast us—a tangle that desperately needs to be sorted out—let us recall that true loyalty to, and true love of, the Pope and the Church remains an honor and a privilege as it ever was. This does not mean we should condone behavior or words that are offensive to the Faith given us by Christ and his Apostles.
Our loyalty is not just to Rome of 2020, but to Roma aeterna, the Rome of all time. Our love is not just for the Pontiff, but for the papacy as instituted by Jesus Christ in existence for two millennia, and no clever deviltry should make us think that one can be legitimately used against the other. Our loyalty is to the Church, which exists not just in space but in time—to Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever.
Let us not waver in our allegiance and our love for Peter and the Petrine office. When Peter eventually stumbles out onto the moors, battered by rain and disfigured by sorrow, he will need loyal sheep, ready to huddle around him and fight at his side, ready to restore what must be restored and rebuild what must be rebuilt. It demands great patience and great holiness of us sheep, that we may truly know and profoundly love the Faith to which we would be loyal. It doesn’t sound easy, but Our Lord who knows all things, knew that this particular moment in history would come. “Fear not, little flock,” He said, “for it hath pleased your Father to give you a kingdom.”
But that never meant there wasn’t ever going to be battles that needed to be fought... to keep it so.....
Matthew 16
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
He cannot be, without his consent, and thus you are stuck with him just as you are with proabortion, prosodomy public figures that Rome manifestly affirms as members in life and in death
We are, however, entitled to distance ourselves from him and even to disobey him when he asks us to help him betray the duties of his high office—out of love for that very office.
But that presumes that the duty of the flock is to determine whether the judgment of the pope is correct (which RCs condemn Bible Christians for doing), vs the pope - from whom (in RC teaching) flows the power of the rest of the clergy - being the supreme judge of just what is the meaning of Catholic teaching. The only way out is to relegate the forms of teaching that Francis is condemned for to being simply personal opinions. But which means that it is a duty of the flock to determine which magisterial level each teaching falls under. Which again leads to divisions.
Instead we have the broad papal requirements to basically submit to all public papal teaching. For:
'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)
What pray tell, tipped you off?
"Simon Peter saith to him: Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered: Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now: but thou shalt follow hereafter.In his time, Simon was wrong, as is the author of this article now. It was not where Peter was going that determined how God was going to deal with the coming generations of sinners.
Joh 13:37 Peter saith to him: Why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thee.
Joh 13:38 Jesus answered him: Wilt thou lay down thy life for me? Amen, amen, I say to thee, the cock shall not crow, till thou deny me thrice."
(Jn. 13:36-38 DRB; Jesus'words of response in color for emphasis)
It was Jesus' sovereign choices that set the scene for the New Covenant, as set forth in the following four chapters.
Quo vdis indeed.
And again in a later event from the apocryphal Acts of Peter that the movie “Quo Vadis?” is based on. Domine quo vadis?
It was Elton John/Bernie Taupin who asked “Where to now, St. Peter?”
Well, what brought this to mind for me was having been deeply impressed at the time of my sophomore year in high school when the Quo Vadis" 1951 movie (click here) was a big event. It was billed as being the first movie whose budget surpassed the $1 million mark. It is informational to read through the detailed history of its production (click here).
Our Latin teacher (I was in the second year of it, and now grateful for the exposure to Latin's strict grammar and construction) was a graduate of the nearby Catholic women's college, starting with us as her initiation into secondary education. So after a year of experience with her as the teacher of both Latin and freshman English, my class knew her well.
What happened was that she gratuitously organized a venture for both of her Latin classes to go to the grand opening of it in the palatial Loew's Theater in Rochester, only 17 miles away. Out of her meagre salary of a beginning teacher, she paid for all of our tickets so that none were left out, and conned the Principal into letting her have a bus to take us all there in a body. Of course, the idea of Catholicism and its still heavy focus on Latin as the Mass language and training of priest provided a weak but then effective link through the Latin title and Roman context.
Such a blatantly super-religious event could never, ever happen today in the current public high-school environment. But even then the agitators were hard at work nationally firing up the "separation of religion and state" myth. through the year I graduated (1954) the schools still permitted release time for religious education classes to be conducted by cooperating local churches oh site, not forcing any demurring students to attend.
Following the US Supreme Court decisions (Engel v. Vitale (1962), etc.) the whole idea of publicly open schools has regrettably become preposterous and the butt of crude humor.
We can see where that has taken us regarding our society's moral status. Today's schooling that invites open instruction in how to sin, and the former pursuit of school-sponsored prayer, cannot coexist, can they>
There's yer problem.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Mark 8
29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.
31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
32 And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.
33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.
I wonder why Mark never mentioned this?
“papacy as instituted by Jesus Christ in existence for two millennia”
The Scripture below proves that your statement is false and leads to the dilemma that you romans are in right now.
Notice that we have a Helper and Advocate, and it is not your demon goddess, but the true Advocate the Holy Spirit of GOD that leads, guides, and teaches us. GOD also gave us His Holy Word to verify the words of leaders whether they are of GOD or of Satan, again the roman church fails again.
You will also notice that when GOD gave us the gifts, He did not give them singular such as a pope, but plural as multiple having the gifts. I do not recall Peter having any more gifts or powers than any of the other apostles to include Paul, James, Matthew, etc…
John 16:7
“But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.
John 17:17
“Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.
Ephesians 4:11
And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,
1 Cor 12:28
And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.
“Once again, our beloved Holy Father has put us Catholics”
I love how you romans talk about how ungodly Francis is with his homosexual promotions, but yet you still consider him as holy. ALL have sinned none are holy, NONE except our Lord Jesus Christ.
“and the Vicar of Christ.”
You did realize that the word vicar is defined as “in place of” and that is the same definition of the antichrist, right? Reminds me of Lucifer saying I want to be like GOD and here I present to you the whore of Babylon, the church of rome.
“I wonder why Mark never mentioned this?”
Have the romans even considered that Peter was not the first one to announce Jesus as the Christ?
John 1:49
Nathanael answered Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.”
John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
You’re just now figuring out that Pope Francis is a part-time Protestant? What pray tell, tipped you off?
That is hardly a reproof, for to reiterate, while "Protestant" can mean anything, a main charge of Catholics is that they Protestants presume to make the validity of Catholic teaching subject to their judgment what Scripture says (the most ancient church teaching), rather than submitting to what their church says, under a magisterium whose authority flows from the pope. Obedience to which is quite broad.
Thus those (with their various sects) who dissent from modern Catholic teaching, in part of in full, taking issue with modern "clarifications" and interpretive actions, including Muslims worshiping the same God as Catholics, and inclusion of proabortion, prohomosexual public figures as members, to papal condemnation of capital punishment, etc. - rejecting such based upon their own judgment of what past Catholic teaching is and means - are in essence acting in this much like the Protestants they condemn.
Why do I consider this deceit so heinous? Because it is upon this conflation deception that the Catholic religion hangs so mush of their dogma and assumed 'authority' The catholicisim religion is one of satan's most brilliant lies, him being the father of lies..
Do you suppose it had its beginnings, in the religion of Nimrod?
“After those and before Nate; the was...”
Outstanding points... so you mean that Brother Pete wasn’t unique in his confession, but that Scripture was pointing to the Rock Jesus Christ. What is a roman to do?
Isaiah 44:8
Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”
Romans 8:33
just as it is written, “BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”
“in the religion of Nimrod?”
I know you asked the question of MHG, but here is my two cents worth.
Absolutely, Rev 17:9, they are of the same spirit of deception it’s Satan just in a different package.
Yep, that’s what I was thinking. I think Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz, were the unholy Trinity, as Satan’s counterfeit, to the real Trinity. As they were scattered, at the Tower of Babel, they took their false religion with them. I think the religion of Nimrod, was widespread in the world, at the time of Jesus.
The queen of Heaven, was mentioned in Jeremiah, and also, when those dudes said, great is Diana of the Ephesians.
You are right. Same deception, different package. There is nothing new under the sun. 👍
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.