This is kind of abstract but see this through.
In a debate between Karl Keating and Dr. Peter Ruckman the latter stated the
following:
“If your church was built on Simon Peter you have a rough
foundation.”
The thing is that God can use anyone he wants to do his will
without defeating their own free will, but he always chooses the least so they
can be seen as magnifying his glory.
Consider the following examples:
Gideon’s remaining army
David
St. Mary Alacoque
St. Bernadette
Protestants tend to believe that Jesus wouldn’t use such a
broken vessel like Peter who can do such good then have to be corrected sternly
by Paul. It would be easy for God to take hold of Alexander the Great or a
great Paraoh to do his will, but how much more amazing is it for him to use a
sinner like you and I to change the whole world?
There is a beauty in God’s plan that we cant see often
because our sin has darkened our vision.
I think GK Chesterton out of all people takes on and answers the Why
Peter question the best in his book Heretics:
“Now this is, I say deliberately, the only defect in the
greatness of Mr. Shaw, the only answer to his claim to be a great man, that he
is not easily pleased. He is an almost solitary exception to the general and
essential maxim, that little things please great minds. And from this absence
of that most uproarious of all things, humility, comes incidentally the
peculiar insistence on the Superman. After belaboring a great many people for a
great many years for being unprogressive, Mr. Shaw has discovered, with
characteristic sense, that it is very doubtful whether any existing human being
with two legs can be progressive at all. Having come to doubt whether humanity
can be combined with progress, most people, easily pleased, would have elected
to abandon progress and remain with humanity. Mr. Shaw, not being easily
pleased, decides to throw over humanity with all its limitations and go in for
progress for its own sake. If man, as we know him, is incapable of the
philosophy of progress, Mr. Shaw asks, not for a new kind of philosophy, but
for a new kind of man. It is rather as if a nurse had tried a rather bitter
food for some years on a baby, and on discovering that it was not suitable,
should not throw away the food and ask for a new food, but throw the baby out
of window, and ask for a new baby. Mr.
Shaw cannot understand that the thing which is valuable and lovable in our eyes
is man—the old beer-drinking, creed-making, fighting, failing, sensual,
respectable man. And the things that have been founded on this creature
immortally remain; the things that have been founded on the fancy of the
Superman have died with the dying civilizations which alone have given them
birth. When Christ at a symbolic moment was establishing His great society, He
chose for its corner-stone neither the brilliant Paul nor the mystic John, but
a shuffler, a snob a coward—in a word, a man. And upon this rock He has built
His Church, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it. All the
empires and the kingdoms have failed, because of this inherent and continual
weakness, that they were founded by strong men and upon strong men. But this
one thing, the historic Christian Church, was founded on a weak man, and for
that reason it is indestructible. For no chain is stronger than its weakest
link.”
I was just on the road doing the typical runabout for my job
and during this time the part in the gospel where Christ leaves the last supper
with the three came to me. Specifically
speaking, when Christ tells them to being with them a sword. Peter shows them his, and Jesus tells him
that will be enough.
I must admit I am rather confused on this part of
scripture. Christ knew he was going to
die, yet he tells them to be armed. Now
I’m no theologian and I have zero experience in any classroom with regards to
the faith, but I’m just going to wing it because I like to think things through
out loud, usually just among friends but hey don’t take me too seriously with
what I write and correct me if you think I’m way off. I accept criticism with gratitude!
So anyways Christ tells some of his followers to bring
swords with them as he heads off to Gethsemane, to which Peter revels his
sword, Christ approves and they leave.
My initial take on this action in revealing the sword that
is called for by God we see a foreshadowing of the Church Militant, called to
battle by God. Christ’s order to bring
the weapon contrasts with his “Learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart”. Many people would say that this is a contradiction,
how can one at the same time be meek and yet willingly violent? Do you remember when Christ told his
followers to turn the cheek when someone slaps them and let them slap the
other. Yet how many of us realize that
when Christ stands before the Sanhedrin and is slapped his meekness remains as
does his humility, but he questions the man who slapped him, questioning the
motive and calling the person out for their action. Here we see violence, perhaps not physically,
but a verbal and mental violence where the person is confronted and attacked in
his environment. In his humility Christ
demands the person to cease, forcing him out of the comfort of mockery into a
moment of clarity where a path must be choosen, a dividing point like the edge
of the blade. In the garden when Peter
reveals the sword it seems to me that a new division is underway. That the Apostles don’t hesitate to bring
forth a blade is also telling. We are
called the Church Militant for a reason, and its not so people can pose for
pictures with the Knights of Columbus playing dress up when seeking
fraternal. Our weapons may not be
physical but they are indeed real. The
Rosary is the greatest weapon our Lord has granted to us, and he tells us
through is Blessed Mother to make this a daily devotion. I cant tell you how important this is, JUST
DO IT!
The sword is then revealed again when Christ is confronted
by the Sanhedrin guard. Here we see
Peter in a moment of confusion pull the dagger and strike the servant of the
high priest. Jesus then repremends him
telling him to put the sword back in the scabbard, that those who live by the
sword with surely die by it.
Now if you are anything like me you are scratching your head….”But
Jesus didn’t you have him bring the sword for a reason? I don’t get it. Is it but only a decoration? Something to look fierce with?”
It seems to me that in this moment of savagery Our Lord is
reminding Peter that different times call for different reactions. For Christ knew that he was going to his
death but he encouraged his followers to bring a sword. In other words violence has its time and
reason, and God is not against such action for the right reason. Hence he involves the weapon in the
matter. So too in his providence he knew
Peter would strike at the servant and would have to be reprimanded. But think about that for a second. Later Peter will deny our Lord, but here
perhaps in a moment of confusion and self defense thinking of his own well
being he moves to action. Is his
thinking about Christ here? Im not
sure. It seems like his own desires are
first and foremost in his mind when striking.
Just as when he was rebuked after Proclaiming Christ and being named the
Rock. In other words his mind is not on
Christ, but on selfish desires.
We are then struck with how God can take a moment of
confusion and trial and turn it into something good. He heals the servant of the High Priest who
was against him more than likely. So it
was ordained from time immemorial that God would bring good out of such
confusion and violence. Think about the
crusades here, but I wont delve into that today, perhaps another time. Many of you know that this servant later left
this band of henchmen and his own priest and took up fellowship with the
Apostles. So in a moment of disaster
when chaos reigns Christ in his own action of calling for the sword to be
brought influenced how this servant would later be brought to faith.
Now I know some might object that one cannot bring good by
perpetrating evil, but that’s not what I am getting at. The slicing of the servants ear was a turning
point a literal severing of what was into what is to come, Christ entering into
his life.
So I am again going to point out another false attempt by the modernists (condemned by pontiffs like Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XII specifically) to create unity for unities sake and all in the spirit of Vatican II, saying the documents allow this but doesnt quote anything and appeals to revolutionary ideas and novelties to condone their standing and opinions on the matter. Enjoy! [My comments]
CWR: Most
Catholics probably envision future unity between the Orthodox Churches and the
Catholic Church as a re-installment of one world Church organization with the
pope of Rome at the top of the governing pyramid. A look at history shows that
such a model never existed, so what could Orthodox-Catholic communion actually
look like if it were achieved? A renewal of Eucharistic communion? The possibility
of an eighth ecumenical council? A resolution for the dating of Pascha/Easter?
[Considering that Peter was the
earthly head of the church with the Keys to loose and bind the heavens and the
Earth and acted on this commission throughout scripture and the sacred history
of the Church, yeah I do expect that there is a singular head, a visible sign
of unity which Peter is. To say that
such a model never existed where the Bishop of Rome didn’t in fact hold primacy
over all the other Bishops is to blatantly disregard history, one need only read
Clement, Leo and the Early councils and Popes and see that Popes where not
merely first among equals, but the rock of the faith. The difference rests in the application of
the office not in the actual understanding of the office, that is solemly defined
by Vatican One under infallible decree, to deny that Peter is the visable head
of the church is not merely to be sismatic, but to be heretical because as
Catholics we must profess all the decrees handed down. The Orthodox might claim it wasn’t solemnly
proclaimed when they split so they might say they are only systematic, but
denying truth is to be in error, thus hertetical. Heaven knows what we don’t need now is
another ecumenical council when the vaugness, and yes Mr. Mira the Vatican II
documents are vague if they weren’t they wouldn’t require a strict hermanutic
of continuity (see trent and Vatican I documents then compare). The dating of the Pascal feast is another
issue, see the link below for information on this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm]
Taft: What it would look like is not a
“reunion” with them “returning to Rome,” to which they never belonged anyway [considering that there is One Church with Peter as its head,
and this is clearly seen in scripture and in the History of the Church from the
beginning this is a false statement] ; nor us being incorporated by
them, since we are all ancient apostolic “Sister Churches” with a valid episcopate and
priesthood and the full panoply of sacraments needed to minister salvation to
our respective faithful [Hmmm so having valid
episcopates and sacraments is the only thing needed to be in the church; wow I
guess we should tell the Polish National Church and the Old Catholic Church
they really never left since they have valid sacraments], as is
proclaimed in the renewed Catholic ecclesiology since Vatican II [where does Vatican II call for a new ecclesiology? And where does Vatican II state that it is to
be held by the faithful as de fide? This
is more spirit of Vatican II garbage where the power play is to create a
situation where the pontiff is merely a symbol, but not different then anyother
Bishop in substance, thereby denying Vatican I.
Pope Paul VI is said to have been made aware of this collegial power
grab and quashed it, feeling deeply saddened by the actions of the other
Bishops] and enshrined in numerous papal documents from Paul VI on [so disregard anything before Paul VI, even if it is
infallible teaching. I mean really!
First things what are you? CWR what are
you? Modernists giving lip service to a
hermanutic of continuity, but practicing the hermanutic of rupture], as
well as in the wonderful Catechism of the Catholic Church.
[But not the
Catechism of Trent, because that’s not friendly enough]So we just need to restore our [our, wait we broke communion with them? I don’t seem to remember this, we have Peter
they don’t. They continue to fall into
error allowing divorce, contraception and other innovations from the top of
their episcapates, but we need to be in communion with those perpetuating
error? Please] broken communion and the rest of the problems you mention
can be addressed one by one and resolved by common accord.
. . .
CWR: How could the papal claims of Rome be
modified in a way that would be both acceptable to the Orthodox Churches and
faithful to the tradition of the Catholic Church? Do you think the jurisdiction
issue really is a hang-up for the Orthodox since they also practice
cross-jurisdiction throughout Western Europe, the Americas, Australia, and East
Asia?
Taft: The new Catholic “Sister Churches”
ecclesiology describes not only how the Catholic Church views the Orthodox
Churches. It also represents a startling revolution [Yippie
a novelty, spirit of Vatican II! Lord
please when will the modernists be exiled from the Holy Church. He is admitting a Heremantic of Rupture
here! Wake up people and see shes under
attack by those within!] in how the Catholic Church views itself: we are
no longer the only kid on the block [so we are not the
one true faith in which the gates of Hell would not prevail? Again these “sister churches” as he likes to
call them are all ok with error. We are
literally the only kid on the block that has upheld truth in the face of
mounting evil. Playing semantic games
like the whole church or the only kid on the block is creating a new novelty against
the faith and denies the no salvation outside the Church dogma, and yes I know
the nuance but still they will only be saved by the one church not being a
sister church which is confusing the structure of the early Christians before
the great schism], the whole Church of Christ, but one Sister Church
among others. Previously, the Catholic Church saw itself as the original one
and only true Church of Christ from which all other Christians had separated
for one reason or another in the course of history, and Catholics held,
simplistically, that the solution to divided Christendom consisted in all other
Christians returning to Rome’s maternal bosom [And
where in Vatican II does it deny this fact?
I will admit that Bishops have become cowardly especially with the
Russian Orthodox playing semantic games that they would protestalatize, but how
is this actually church teaching?
Writing a treaty is not a teaching, but an indult, to not act on truth,
but not to deny it either].
Vatican II, with an assist from those Council Fathers with a less naïve
Disney-World view of their own Church’s past, managed to put aside this
historically ludicrous, self-centered, self-congratulatory perception of
reality [This is such a stink bomb its incomprehensible
that CWR and First things are making these statements public when they will
cause confusion and scandle. Again where
is this idea in Vatican II? Saying that
the fullness of Truth subsists in the Catholic Church necessarily means that
all other bodies are lacking to some degree or another and must come into
communion with the fullness]. In doing so they had a strong assist from
the Council Fathers of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church whose concrete
experience of the realities of the Christian East made them spokesmen and
defenders of that reality [Where? Where is this novelty introduced and does it
even carry with it a de fide statement?
Vatican II is a valid ecumenical council and where it restates Catholic
truth it is indeed infallible, but where novelties are introduced without a
statement defining it to be held by all the faithful as can be seen in previous
councils then it is a matter of being ambiguous and not actual de fide teaching.
Such statements require a heremanutic of continuity to be in line with the
whole tradition of the Church].
In this context I would recommend the excellent new book by Robert Louis
Wilken, The First Thousand Years: A Global History of
Christianity (New Haven & London: Yale U. Press 2012).
Professor Wilken, a convert to Catholicism who is a recognized expert on Early
Christianity and its history and literature, shows that Early Christianity
developed not out of some Roman cradle but as a federation of local Churches,
Western and Eastern, each one under the authority of a chief hierarch who would
come to be called Archbishop, Pope, Patriarch, or Catholicos, each with its own
independent governing synod and polity, all of them initially in communion with
one another until the vicissitudes of history led to lasting divisions. [The Clement letter itself denies this possibility, just
because a professor writes a book doesn’t make it correct].
So I was looking through the news and what a shock THE NUNS ARE UNDER ATTACK, oh wait its just more propaganda, so since this story was in my local paper (originating from NYT) I feel inclined to say something
Catholic nuns are not the prissy traditionalists (of course one must reference Urban dictionary to find prissy's common definition: stuck up, goody-two-shoes, self-centered, all-knowing, hard to please biatches; I guess we are just far too self centered to want to see them proclaiming the full Gospel, what a bunch of biatches)of caricature. No, nuns rock!(like these guys to the right:)
They were the first feminists, (women set apart for Christ or the world one must wonder) earning doctorates or working as surgeons long before it was fashionable for women to hold jobs. As managers of hospitals, schools and complex bureaucracies, they were the first female CEOs. (see ladies thats what will make all your dreams come true just ask men, money, thats right money power and on and on)
They are also among the bravest, toughest and most admirable people in the world. In my travels, I've seen heroic nuns defy warlords, pimps and bandits. (The Lord is their Shepard) Even as bishops (all those wretched bishops were in on it... remember when she was talking about caricatures in the first paragraph, liberal slim) have disgraced the church by covering up the rape of children (thats not to say shilling for the murder of Children is ok, right? Im confused. Lord have mercy on us all), nuns have redeemed it (Christ redeems his Church through people, perfect time for catechisis, people sin, God saves) with their humble work on behalf of the neediest.
So, Pope Benedict, all I can say is: You are crazy to mess with nuns. (ask Ananias and Sapphira about Peter)
The Vatican issued a stinging reprimand of American nuns this month and ordered a bishop to oversee a makeover of the organization that represents 80% of them. In effect, the Vatican accused the nuns of worrying too much about the poor and not enough about abortion and gay marriage(correction they were so focused on political issues like lining their own pockets so as to provide welfare that they activly taught against the churches doctrines (teachings) thats why, because its the Bishops responsibility as a successor to the Apostles to Loose and Bind, and finally they do so. Glory to God).
What Bible did that come from? Jesus in the Gospels repeatedly talks about poverty and social justice, yet never explicitly mentions either abortion or homosexuality(wrong, you try to seperate Christ, he is Eternal, the same God who spoke through the Old Testiment that condemned such acts (not the attraction, but the act), is the same one who speaks through the Gospels lifting marrage to its true place of importance between a man and a women, and through Paul and elsewhere here). If you look at who has more closely emulated Jesus' life, Benedict or your average nun, it's the nun hands down.(I seem to remember Arch-Bishop Fulton Sheen talking about the Patron saint of Social Justice here
Since the papal crackdown on nuns, they have received an outpouring of support. "Nuns were approached by Catholics at Sunday liturgies across the country with a simple question: 'What can we do to help?' " The National catholic (fixed, AKA Fishwrap) Reporter counted. It cited one parish where a declaration of support for nuns from the pulpit drew loud applause and another that was filled with shouts like, "You go, girl!" (is this what the Mass is a gathering of people to discuss, this doesn't sound Catholic, sounds rather touchy feely protestant to me. Its a Holy Sacrifice, not a get together, bow your heads and ask for forgiveness)
At least four petition drives are under way to support the nuns (I seem to remember Jesus' take on democracy: here, notice his acceptance of who people thought he was, and yet it continues to this day, silly pagans). One on Change.org has gathered 15,000 signatures. The headline for this column comes from an essay by Mary E. Hunt, a catholic theologian (better pronounced Heretic, but I digress) who is developing a proposal for Catholics to redirect some contributions from local parishes to nuns.
"How dare they go after 57,000 dedicated women whose median age is well over 70 (praised be Jesus Christ, the Young Nuns want nothing to do with the socialists, and actually know Pope Leos Writings on Social Justice, not just parts) and who work tirelessly for a more just world?"(notice how justice isn't defined its like Jello you see) Hunt wrote. "How dare the very men who preside over a church in utter disgrace due to sexual misconduct and cover-ups by bishops try to distract from their own problems by creating new ones for women religious?"(Is this really what constitutes an argument now? Come on really. Those Bishops who did such terrible things have long since been gone leaving their successors to clean up their Mess, you dont leave Jesus because of Judas)
Sister Joan Chittister, a prominent Benedictine nun, said she had worried at first that nuns spend so much time with the poor that they would have no allies. She added that the flood of support had left her breathless.
"It's stunningly wonderful," she said. "You see generations of laypeople who know where the sisters are - in the streets, in the soup kitchens, anywhere where there's pain. They're with the dying, with the sick, and people know it." (and if you read the CDF's letter they commend this over and over again, this is not an argument)
I have a soft spot for nuns because I've seen firsthand that they sacrifice ego, safety and comfort to serve some of the neediest people on Earth.(agreed, but if they are leading people into error they are not leading them to Christ, the two go hand in hand)
I'm betting on the nuns to win this one. (Win what a popularity contest, Christ didnt promise popularity: And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved)After all, the sisters may be saintly, but they're also crafty(serpent like ehh?). Elias Chacour, a prominent Palestinian archbishop in the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, recounts in a memoir that he once asked a convent if it could supply two nuns for a community literacy project. The mother superior said she would have to check with her bishop.
"The bishop was very clear in his refusal to allow two nuns," the mother superior told him later. "I cannot disobey him in that." She added: "I will send you three nuns!" (He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me; dissenters and Heretics have disobeyed since the beginning, see Judas, see Arius, see all the Heretics throughout the Church's History and one thing is clear, She burys her enemies, Peters sword is sharp you know).
Nuns have triumphed over an errant hierarchy before. In the 19th century, the Catholic Church excommunicated an Australian nun named Mary MacKillop after her order exposed a pedophile priest. MacKillop was eventually invited back to the church and became renowned for her work with the poor. In 2010, Benedict canonized her as Australia's first saint. (notice how she knew it was wrong and followed church teaching, for more on her watch the video below, oh by the way that Terrible Benedict cannonized her, wow he must be really odd hes both evil and Good, try harder libs you get tangled in twine)
"Let us be guided" by MacKillop's teachings, the pope declared then.
Amen to that. (and for those of you that really want to read Pope Pius X on such: here
“If your church was built on Simon Peter you have a rough
foundation.”
