1. If a person is unknowingly in mortal sin, and takes the Eucharist, what are the dangers? Should those in such a state simply be excused for being ignorant of the gravity of their state?
In order for a sin to be a mortal sin, one of the conditions is the person must be willfully aware that it is a sin and commit it anyway. For example, "You shall not commit adultery" is one of the Ten Commandments. For a Christian person to engage in an adulterous relationship it is a mortal sin for every Christian knows the Ten Commandments, and to participate in such a relationship is clearly contrary to God's Law and an utter rejection of His Authority in one's life. They choose self pleasure and lust over God. No Christian could possibly NOT be aware of this sin as it is foundational to the Judeo-Christian faith. In short, one cannot be in mortal sin without KNOWING they are in mortal sin and in need of reconciliation.
2. Where does the Roman Church outline these dangers?
The Catholic Church teaches this in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (I can post references if you wish) and straight from Scripture (ditto on references).
3. Should a priest be concerned about the possibility of giving someone the Eucharist who should not have it? If so why? If not why?
Yes, a priest should be concerned and if he KNOWS the person approaching him for Eucharist is in mortal sin, he should refuse that person. If the priest has no knowledge of the person's state, then he should not refuse the Eucharist and if one is receiving is not "receiving worthily" then this is between that person and God, and that person eats and drinks judgment upon him/herself.
I hope this helps.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
Reference
Qui Locutus - Formerly The CathApol Blog - a Catholic Apologetics Blog Defending the Faith and keeping Catholics Catholic! Scott Windsor, MEd. - aka: CathApol
Responding to James Swan on Sola Fide
I found a blog which "challenges" a statement from my website. That blog can be found here: beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com - by James Swan. James responded to my article over a year ago (March 1, 2007) but I did not see it until recently. I meant to respond when I saw it, but lost track of it. I found it again tonight so will respond now. Let's look at what he said, and I will add my responses here now.
> Scott says,
>
> “One of the mainstays of Protestantism is the
> concept of “sola fide.” Two very straight-forward
> words which translated mean “faith alone.” The stand,
> foundationally started with Martin Luther, is in
> opposition to the Church's position that true
> “saving faith” is never alone. True “saving faith”
> is always accompanied by good works, the first and
> foremost of these works is believing. Believing in
> Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior is the foundational
> work of faith in our lives. That is the Catholic
> position. Now what Protestant really disagrees with
> this position? I am not aware of any, yet they have
> this “doctrine” of “sola fide!”
>
> James replies:
> It should be noted that Luther believed “true
> ‘saving faith’ is never alone,” and “True
> ‘saving faith’ is always accompanied by good works.”
> “Faith,” wrote Luther, “is a living, restless thing.
> It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works;
> but if there be no works, there must be something
> amiss with faith.” Luther scholar Paul Althaus notes:
> “[Luther] also agrees with James that if no works
> follow it is certain that true faith in Christ does
> not live in the heart but a dead, imagined, and
> self-fabricated faith. The book of James describes
> a real true faith in Christ: a real saving faith is
> a living faith. If no works are found in a person,
> that faith is a dead faith (c.f. James 2:17). James
> then describes a dead faith: the faith of a demon.
> A demon has faith that God exists, that Christ rose
> from the dead- I would dare say a demon knows
> theology better than you or I. But is the faith of
> this demon a saving faith? Absolutely not. Luther
> says, “Accordingly, if good works do not follow, it
> is certain that this faith in Christ does not dwell
> in our heart, but dead faith…”
To which I reply:
Thank you James! You have confirmed what I said in that article, which you have linked to my "featured" article - one which changes periodically. The permanent link to that article on sola fide can be found by clicking here. It was and is my contention that "saving faith" is never alone - which is what Luther clarifies as well. The confusing factor is that this invented doctrine of "sola fide" gets attributed to Luther, when in actuality - he didn't believe in it either! When Luther clarifies, his position really IS the Catholic position. Let's continue with what James (Swan) wrote:
> James continues:
> Scott went on to revise his paper after I provided
> him with these quotes and a link to my paper, which
> goes into this in great detail. Of the first quote Scott
> says, “…this quote (which TQuid cited only a secondary
> source to a secondary source, not giving the primary
> source of the quote)…” . Yes, I cited a secondary source,
> Roland Bainton, who cited the primary source. Normally,
> I would not do this- however the evidence of Luther’s
> position on this is overwhelming, and I liked the way
> the quote was phrased.
I reply:
Thank you again James for admitting to the use of a non-
primary source. Regardless of the rationalization for
doing so, and that you "liked the way the quote was
phrased" - it's still a "secondary source to a secondary
source." I do appreciate you clarifying this fact.
> Had this been my only quote to prove Luther’s view,
> I would agree that such methodology is spurious.
Quoting a secondary source to a secondary source is
always spurious methodology when such is not pointed
out up-front.
> If you read this blog regularly, you know I have a
> field day with context-less quotes from secondary
> sources.
I do not read your blog regularly, I stumbled upon it and now am responding to it. Again, regardless of what you do regularly, to cite a secondary source to a secondary source and not let the reader know up-front is spurious.
> Had Scott read section 6 of the link I gave him
> “Quotations from Luther on Faith and Works”, he
> would have read dozens of quotes from Luther
> substantiating the position I outlined.
Again, I do not deny that Luther upheld the Catholic position on a true "saving faith."
> James continues:
> Scott makes a big deal out of the “sola” in sola fide,
> because the classic Protestant position states
> justification is by faith alone, it is not by a faith
> that is alone. Scott says, “What I find even more
> ironic is that few, if any, Protestants see the
> double-speak of that statement! Is it “alone” or not?
> If it is by faith alone, then nothing – and we must
> insist that nothing – stands next to it for
> justification.” Theological terms can’t be handled
> the way Scott Windsor insists.
James is backpedaling now, as just about every Protestant apologist does when confronted on this subject. Why CAN'T theological terms be handled this way? After all, WORDS MEAN THINGS! If it is "sola" then it should truly be "alone," and not, as Luther said, "always accompanied by good works," and whom also states "it is never alone." Hence my question remains! "Is it alone or not?!"
And now the diversion tactic:
> James continues:
> Roman Catholics should especially know this. They
> have nuanced certain theological concepts to make
> them say, or not say, whatever will best suit Rome.
> For example, take the Roman Catholic phrase, "no
> salvation outside the church." Try dialoging with a
> Roman Catholic on this concept and watch how nuanced
> the explanation becomes.
James, the subject here is sola fide, not extra ecclesiam nulla salus! I am more than willing to discuss and debate THAT subject with you, but I will not be distracted/diverted into that subject here and now.
Then comes what I found to be quite typical when I was on the NTRMin webboard regularly:
> I find Scott's argument to be the typical double
> standard approach put forth by Roman Catholics.
What "double standard" is James talking about? The terminology "sola fide" is not a "nuanced" phrase! Translated to "Faith Alone" - it is a simple phrase, but when we ask about it we find Protestant apologists who hold to it start saying, "it's alone, but it's not alone." Yes, that would be a classic example of double speak. They will give us all sorts of rationalizations, but it boils down to double speak. James claims that if you ask Catholics about EENS you will find us using all sorts of nuances. Well, I disagree. Again, I will not venture into a debate on EENS here and now, as that is purely a distraction from the FACT that to say "we are justified by faith alone, but not by faith which is alone."
> James continues:
> Protestants arrive at what Windsor calls “double speak”
> because they seek to be faithful to the Biblical text.
> Our best efforts are tainted with sin. If God demands
> perfection in order for one to be justified before Him,
> no one would ever be justified. Justification is actually
> totally of works, but those works were perfect and
> performed by the perfect savior, Jesus Christ. These
> works are acquired by faith, imputed to the sinner.
> Grace, faith, and the work of Christ are essential
> ingredients that justify, and that justification is a
> gift as well as the very faith involved. As Paul says in
> Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace have ye been saved through
> faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
> not of works, that no man should glory.”
And above we see that James (Swan) has added even MORE to the "sola" making it even LESS ALONE! James doesn't even mention "good works" in the above explanation, but "grace, faith and the work of Christ are essential ingredients that justify, and that justification is a gift as well as the very faith involved." So on top of what Luther said, that "good works" always accompany "saving faith," James is adding grace and the work of Christ. We're finding this "sola fide" is less and less "sola" all the time!
It should also be noted that Ephesians 2, as with nearly all times which St. Paul is speaking out against works, is speaking about works of the law, of the Old Covenant. The context of Ephesians 2 deals with the work of circumcision, and confirms that whether circumcised or uncircumcised - that work doesn't justify. Otherwise, the "work" of circumcision would be one men could boast of.
> James continues:
> If God judges a man by Christ’s perfect works, why
> should any Christian ever care about leading a
> righteous life? If grace, faith, and justification are
> God’s gifts, what is left for us to do? Eat, drink,
> and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
Perhaps James can explain what drawing Ecclesiastes 8:15 into this context has to do with the subject? The FACT is that each of us WILL be judged according to our works - and that judgment will be by fire! If any works are burned up, we shall suffer loss - but for those works which remain, we shall receive reward (1 Cor. 3:14-15). Again, I do not see the connection James is trying to make here, perhaps he will see this and qualify what he's trying to say. It seems to me to be yet another distraction from the fact that "saving faith is never alone."
> James continues:
> Paul answers in Ephesians 2:10, “For we are His
> workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works,
> which God afore prepared that we should walk in them.”
> Faith performs good works, not to keep one justified,
> but out of heartfelt gratitude to God graciousness.
> Salvation is unto good works. Note what this means:
> good works are not unto eventual salvation. We are
> saved in order to perform good works, not by
> performing them.
It seems Mr. Swan is just adding "fluff" now (another distraction tactic). Nothing said in the above statement confirms or contradicts sola fide. It seems rather a straw man he's building up here so that he can easily knock it down. Catholics do not deny that justification through faith and good works go hand in hand - in fact, THAT IS THE POINT! The point is - saving faith is not alone, period. Again, James fundamentally agrees with me on this point! MY point is that the terminology of "sola fide" gets lost in double speak when they go to explaining themselves.
> James concludes:
> The catch phrase "justification is by faith alone, it
> is not by a faith that is alone" is just a way to
> describe a living faith. I'm not going to quibble with
> Scott over this. The phrase was coined to try to point
> out, as simply as possible, the relationship between
> justification and good works.
It is good that James is not going to quibble with me over this - for it is a lost cause for him to do so! He's already, with Luther, conceded the Catholic truth here the only question is why hold on to the terminology of "sola fide" - when a "true saving faith is never alone?!"
The REAL clincher though remains - and no Protestant apologist can get around this one. The ONLY PLACE the words "faith" and "alone" are used together in Scripture is found in James 2:24 - and it is in flat out DENIAL of sola fide!
James 2:24:
"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." (NASB - emphasis added).
AMDG,
Scott<<<
> Scott says,
>
> “One of the mainstays of Protestantism is the
> concept of “sola fide.” Two very straight-forward
> words which translated mean “faith alone.” The stand,
> foundationally started with Martin Luther, is in
> opposition to the Church's position that true
> “saving faith” is never alone. True “saving faith”
> is always accompanied by good works, the first and
> foremost of these works is believing. Believing in
> Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior is the foundational
> work of faith in our lives. That is the Catholic
> position. Now what Protestant really disagrees with
> this position? I am not aware of any, yet they have
> this “doctrine” of “sola fide!”
>
> James replies:
> It should be noted that Luther believed “true
> ‘saving faith’ is never alone,” and “True
> ‘saving faith’ is always accompanied by good works.”
> “Faith,” wrote Luther, “is a living, restless thing.
> It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works;
> but if there be no works, there must be something
> amiss with faith.” Luther scholar Paul Althaus notes:
> “[Luther] also agrees with James that if no works
> follow it is certain that true faith in Christ does
> not live in the heart but a dead, imagined, and
> self-fabricated faith. The book of James describes
> a real true faith in Christ: a real saving faith is
> a living faith. If no works are found in a person,
> that faith is a dead faith (c.f. James 2:17). James
> then describes a dead faith: the faith of a demon.
> A demon has faith that God exists, that Christ rose
> from the dead- I would dare say a demon knows
> theology better than you or I. But is the faith of
> this demon a saving faith? Absolutely not. Luther
> says, “Accordingly, if good works do not follow, it
> is certain that this faith in Christ does not dwell
> in our heart, but dead faith…”
To which I reply:
Thank you James! You have confirmed what I said in that article, which you have linked to my "featured" article - one which changes periodically. The permanent link to that article on sola fide can be found by clicking here. It was and is my contention that "saving faith" is never alone - which is what Luther clarifies as well. The confusing factor is that this invented doctrine of "sola fide" gets attributed to Luther, when in actuality - he didn't believe in it either! When Luther clarifies, his position really IS the Catholic position. Let's continue with what James (Swan) wrote:
> James continues:
> Scott went on to revise his paper after I provided
> him with these quotes and a link to my paper, which
> goes into this in great detail. Of the first quote Scott
> says, “…this quote (which TQuid cited only a secondary
> source to a secondary source, not giving the primary
> source of the quote)…” . Yes, I cited a secondary source,
> Roland Bainton, who cited the primary source. Normally,
> I would not do this- however the evidence of Luther’s
> position on this is overwhelming, and I liked the way
> the quote was phrased.
I reply:
Thank you again James for admitting to the use of a non-
primary source. Regardless of the rationalization for
doing so, and that you "liked the way the quote was
phrased" - it's still a "secondary source to a secondary
source." I do appreciate you clarifying this fact.
> Had this been my only quote to prove Luther’s view,
> I would agree that such methodology is spurious.
Quoting a secondary source to a secondary source is
always spurious methodology when such is not pointed
out up-front.
> If you read this blog regularly, you know I have a
> field day with context-less quotes from secondary
> sources.
I do not read your blog regularly, I stumbled upon it and now am responding to it. Again, regardless of what you do regularly, to cite a secondary source to a secondary source and not let the reader know up-front is spurious.
> Had Scott read section 6 of the link I gave him
> “Quotations from Luther on Faith and Works”, he
> would have read dozens of quotes from Luther
> substantiating the position I outlined.
Again, I do not deny that Luther upheld the Catholic position on a true "saving faith."
> James continues:
> Scott makes a big deal out of the “sola” in sola fide,
> because the classic Protestant position states
> justification is by faith alone, it is not by a faith
> that is alone. Scott says, “What I find even more
> ironic is that few, if any, Protestants see the
> double-speak of that statement! Is it “alone” or not?
> If it is by faith alone, then nothing – and we must
> insist that nothing – stands next to it for
> justification.” Theological terms can’t be handled
> the way Scott Windsor insists.
James is backpedaling now, as just about every Protestant apologist does when confronted on this subject. Why CAN'T theological terms be handled this way? After all, WORDS MEAN THINGS! If it is "sola" then it should truly be "alone," and not, as Luther said, "always accompanied by good works," and whom also states "it is never alone." Hence my question remains! "Is it alone or not?!"
And now the diversion tactic:
> James continues:
> Roman Catholics should especially know this. They
> have nuanced certain theological concepts to make
> them say, or not say, whatever will best suit Rome.
> For example, take the Roman Catholic phrase, "no
> salvation outside the church." Try dialoging with a
> Roman Catholic on this concept and watch how nuanced
> the explanation becomes.
James, the subject here is sola fide, not extra ecclesiam nulla salus! I am more than willing to discuss and debate THAT subject with you, but I will not be distracted/diverted into that subject here and now.
Then comes what I found to be quite typical when I was on the NTRMin webboard regularly:
> I find Scott's argument to be the typical double
> standard approach put forth by Roman Catholics.
What "double standard" is James talking about? The terminology "sola fide" is not a "nuanced" phrase! Translated to "Faith Alone" - it is a simple phrase, but when we ask about it we find Protestant apologists who hold to it start saying, "it's alone, but it's not alone." Yes, that would be a classic example of double speak. They will give us all sorts of rationalizations, but it boils down to double speak. James claims that if you ask Catholics about EENS you will find us using all sorts of nuances. Well, I disagree. Again, I will not venture into a debate on EENS here and now, as that is purely a distraction from the FACT that to say "we are justified by faith alone, but not by faith which is alone."
> James continues:
> Protestants arrive at what Windsor calls “double speak”
> because they seek to be faithful to the Biblical text.
> Our best efforts are tainted with sin. If God demands
> perfection in order for one to be justified before Him,
> no one would ever be justified. Justification is actually
> totally of works, but those works were perfect and
> performed by the perfect savior, Jesus Christ. These
> works are acquired by faith, imputed to the sinner.
> Grace, faith, and the work of Christ are essential
> ingredients that justify, and that justification is a
> gift as well as the very faith involved. As Paul says in
> Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace have ye been saved through
> faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
> not of works, that no man should glory.”
And above we see that James (Swan) has added even MORE to the "sola" making it even LESS ALONE! James doesn't even mention "good works" in the above explanation, but "grace, faith and the work of Christ are essential ingredients that justify, and that justification is a gift as well as the very faith involved." So on top of what Luther said, that "good works" always accompany "saving faith," James is adding grace and the work of Christ. We're finding this "sola fide" is less and less "sola" all the time!
It should also be noted that Ephesians 2, as with nearly all times which St. Paul is speaking out against works, is speaking about works of the law, of the Old Covenant. The context of Ephesians 2 deals with the work of circumcision, and confirms that whether circumcised or uncircumcised - that work doesn't justify. Otherwise, the "work" of circumcision would be one men could boast of.
> James continues:
> If God judges a man by Christ’s perfect works, why
> should any Christian ever care about leading a
> righteous life? If grace, faith, and justification are
> God’s gifts, what is left for us to do? Eat, drink,
> and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
Perhaps James can explain what drawing Ecclesiastes 8:15 into this context has to do with the subject? The FACT is that each of us WILL be judged according to our works - and that judgment will be by fire! If any works are burned up, we shall suffer loss - but for those works which remain, we shall receive reward (1 Cor. 3:14-15). Again, I do not see the connection James is trying to make here, perhaps he will see this and qualify what he's trying to say. It seems to me to be yet another distraction from the fact that "saving faith is never alone."
> James continues:
> Paul answers in Ephesians 2:10, “For we are His
> workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works,
> which God afore prepared that we should walk in them.”
> Faith performs good works, not to keep one justified,
> but out of heartfelt gratitude to God graciousness.
> Salvation is unto good works. Note what this means:
> good works are not unto eventual salvation. We are
> saved in order to perform good works, not by
> performing them.
It seems Mr. Swan is just adding "fluff" now (another distraction tactic). Nothing said in the above statement confirms or contradicts sola fide. It seems rather a straw man he's building up here so that he can easily knock it down. Catholics do not deny that justification through faith and good works go hand in hand - in fact, THAT IS THE POINT! The point is - saving faith is not alone, period. Again, James fundamentally agrees with me on this point! MY point is that the terminology of "sola fide" gets lost in double speak when they go to explaining themselves.
> James concludes:
> The catch phrase "justification is by faith alone, it
> is not by a faith that is alone" is just a way to
> describe a living faith. I'm not going to quibble with
> Scott over this. The phrase was coined to try to point
> out, as simply as possible, the relationship between
> justification and good works.
It is good that James is not going to quibble with me over this - for it is a lost cause for him to do so! He's already, with Luther, conceded the Catholic truth here the only question is why hold on to the terminology of "sola fide" - when a "true saving faith is never alone?!"
The REAL clincher though remains - and no Protestant apologist can get around this one. The ONLY PLACE the words "faith" and "alone" are used together in Scripture is found in James 2:24 - and it is in flat out DENIAL of sola fide!
James 2:24:
"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." (NASB - emphasis added).
AMDG,
Scott<<<
Summary of Luther's Schism
(Posted with permission from Phil, originally posted on the Catholic Debate Forum ).
I am not so sure that Martin Luther was protesting against abuses in the Church as much as he was fighting against a local prince-bishop seeking to raise money so he could become an absentee bishop of another diocese.
The guy that got Luther's back up was a Dominican friar named John Tetzel who had been hired by the prince-bishop and who was preaching about indulgences. The indulgence being preached was for donating money or goods for the good work of building saint Peter's basilica in Rome. Tetsel's preaching apparently sounded like extortion to Martin Luther so he got angry and wrote a few tracts against the practise and also the famous 95 theses that in legend was nailed by Luther to the Castle Church door at Wittenburg on 31st October, 1517. Around three years later Luther was excommunicated for writing a number of books and tracts against the Pope and the Church.
The whole affair was mixed with the politics of the German states, the Holy Roman Empire, and unfortunately some corrupt popes. It was a bad time for the Church, yet Luther's action did not help matters. He managed to precipitate a peasant's revolt and series of wars in Germany that lasted for about thirty years and helped to reshape the map of northern Europe. Sweden became a major power as a result of these wars. France gained power at the expense of Spain - one of the saddest signs of the corruption of power within some parts of the Church is the fact that the French Cardinal Archbishop Richelieu funded and aided the protestants in the Germans wars, he did so to disadvantage Spain, it was a very sordid period in European history.
Henry VIII motive was to get rich as well as to divorce a wife he no longer was attracted to; he raided the monasteries for land to sell to the nobility of England and used the money to fight wars in France. The wars didn't work out well, so the money was almost gone by the time Henry died. His Son Edward VI was tutored by protestants who shared much of Luther's theology and that is when the English church became protestant in theology. After a brief return to Catholicism under Mary I, Elizabeth I ascended the throne and England became the protestant nation that we know today.
Nobody should harbour the myth of protestant faith being freely accepted by the people of Europe. In England the Church of England was a state church and membership was enforced upon the whole population by law. In Sweden, Norway, and Denmark the Lutheran Church was the state Church and membership was enforced upon the whole population by law. In the north eastern parts of Germany similar laws enforced membership of the Lutheran Church. Catholic states acted in similar ways, enforcing Church membership by law.
It was a cruel time. Many good people died because they would not yield to the laws that demanded that they violate their conscience. We should all be glad that such cruelty has past in the west.
Phil
I am not so sure that Martin Luther was protesting against abuses in the Church as much as he was fighting against a local prince-bishop seeking to raise money so he could become an absentee bishop of another diocese.
The guy that got Luther's back up was a Dominican friar named John Tetzel who had been hired by the prince-bishop and who was preaching about indulgences. The indulgence being preached was for donating money or goods for the good work of building saint Peter's basilica in Rome. Tetsel's preaching apparently sounded like extortion to Martin Luther so he got angry and wrote a few tracts against the practise and also the famous 95 theses that in legend was nailed by Luther to the Castle Church door at Wittenburg on 31st October, 1517. Around three years later Luther was excommunicated for writing a number of books and tracts against the Pope and the Church.
The whole affair was mixed with the politics of the German states, the Holy Roman Empire, and unfortunately some corrupt popes. It was a bad time for the Church, yet Luther's action did not help matters. He managed to precipitate a peasant's revolt and series of wars in Germany that lasted for about thirty years and helped to reshape the map of northern Europe. Sweden became a major power as a result of these wars. France gained power at the expense of Spain - one of the saddest signs of the corruption of power within some parts of the Church is the fact that the French Cardinal Archbishop Richelieu funded and aided the protestants in the Germans wars, he did so to disadvantage Spain, it was a very sordid period in European history.
Henry VIII motive was to get rich as well as to divorce a wife he no longer was attracted to; he raided the monasteries for land to sell to the nobility of England and used the money to fight wars in France. The wars didn't work out well, so the money was almost gone by the time Henry died. His Son Edward VI was tutored by protestants who shared much of Luther's theology and that is when the English church became protestant in theology. After a brief return to Catholicism under Mary I, Elizabeth I ascended the throne and England became the protestant nation that we know today.
Nobody should harbour the myth of protestant faith being freely accepted by the people of Europe. In England the Church of England was a state church and membership was enforced upon the whole population by law. In Sweden, Norway, and Denmark the Lutheran Church was the state Church and membership was enforced upon the whole population by law. In the north eastern parts of Germany similar laws enforced membership of the Lutheran Church. Catholic states acted in similar ways, enforcing Church membership by law.
It was a cruel time. Many good people died because they would not yield to the laws that demanded that they violate their conscience. We should all be glad that such cruelty has past in the west.
Phil
Running Water!
No more dependence on fossil fuels?
You decide! I realize that this and the last posting I presented here are not directly related to Catholic apologetics - but I saw this and felt it needed to be shared:
You decide! I realize that this and the last posting I presented here are not directly related to Catholic apologetics - but I saw this and felt it needed to be shared:
Rush Exposes Speaker Pelosi
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Let’s go to Pelosi. This was on Meet the Press yesterday. I want you to hear this, and we’ll comment after it. Tom Brokaw said, "Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his ‘pay grade,’ when whether you’re looking at it ‘scientifically or theologically,’ if he were to come and say, ‘Help me out here Madam Speaker,’ what would you tell him?"
PELOSI: As an ardent practicing Catholic, uh, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition, and, uh, senator—uh, I’m—senator—Uh, St. Augustin’ (sic) said at three months. We don’t know. The point is is that it shouldn’t have an impact on a woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child—uh, eh, er, first trimester, certain considerations second trimester, not so third trimester. The—the—there’s very clear distinctions.
RUSH: You know, folks, this is just embarrassing. As I’ve often wondered, is she genuinely this uneducated, uninformed, silly, stupid, whatever—and I’ve concluded there isn’t a word to describe the status of her brain. The Catholic Church doesn’t know? The Catholic Church hasn’t stipulated? The "doctors" at the Catholic Church? You mean the pope goes and consults the doctors to find out when life begins? Really? The doctors have more to say than God-d? I mean, Nancy, cite anybody. Don’t cite the Catholic Church. You’re putting them in an untenable position. You’re fixing it so every priest, no matter how wacko left the priest might be, cannot support you. Good grief, ladies and gentlemen! Life begins a conception. Where else can it begin? Peggy Noonan had a great way—I’m going to have to paraphrase what she wrote—of reducing this to its most simple, its most elemental. If life doesn’t begin at conception, then why the hell wear a condom? If life doesn’t begin at conception, then why the hell take the pill? Well, the church doesn’t allow the pill. I know the church doesn’t allow the pill because life begins at conception—and the church is not cool on condoms, either, logoed or otherwise. But that’s the point. This is not something that we’ve been arguing about for centuries. St. Augustine said life begins at three months? St. Augustine knew that Roe vs. Wade was going to come along and basically say the same thing? Ed Morrissey, writing at the Hot Air blog, has done yeoman’s research into this. He writes today: "The notion that the Catholic Church declared abortion a sin at the same time as the Pill is patently absurd, and shows that Pelosi has either lied about studying the issue in terms of Church history or lied about what she found. Church writings specifically naming abortion as murder appear as early as 70 AD in the Didache, the first written catechism of the Christian church: ... ‘Tertullian, sometimes known as the Father of the Latin Church, wrote with equal clarity and force: "In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance.’" This is AD 179, the year 179, following year 70. "The Catholic catechism is extremely clear on the nature of its position on human life, and has been remarkably consistent on this point for almost 2,000 years, and it finds that position in the Old Testament. Human life begins at conception, not at birth, and not at some point consistent with Roe for convenience. "In Psalm 51, David refers to his sinfulness beginning at the moment of conception, and sinfulness requires physical life and a soul to exist." So there you have it in the Old Testament. The Catholic Church has not thrown the Old Testament under the bus, the last time I looked. This is a giant embarrassment, or ought to be. Where’s Brokaw? Where is the media on this? She got away with this kind of inane, insane rambling, trying to fit one of the most sacred religious beliefs held by Catholics all over the world into a political issue that would conform with a rogue Supreme Court decision called Roe vs. Wade in 1973. Now, that is hubris. That is arrogance like I cannot believe. She has placed herself above the doctors of the church, above "St. Augustin," as she said. She has placed herself above the pope and everything the Catholic Church has ever said about this. And of course Brokaw just sits there, "Heh, heh, heh. Oh. Good." Well, that’s not entirely true. Brokaw did challenge her on this. I have to be honest. It’s with the natural gas business that he just sat there. He said, "But wait a minute, the Catholic Church at the moment feels she strongly that life begins at the point of conception."PELOSI: (mumbling) And this is, like, 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history, uh, of the church, this is an issue of, uh, controversy.RUSH: No, it’s not an issue of controversy in the church. It’s an issue of controversy with the followers, with the parishioners, with the flock like you. Note the 50 years. I’ve always said, "A person’s historical perspective begins with the day they were born." So her use of 50 years there, "Well, it’s been a bone of contention, a controversy in the church for 50 years," meaning her adult life. That’s what she is relating it all to. Th-th-th—(sigh) I’m sorry to stutter, folks. I’m in stunned bewilderment and disbelief over what I consider to be not just stupidity and silliness but arrogance and hubris, and the ignorance that these people have over how this kind of comment is going to come back and bite her presidential nominee. I guess she thinks that she has to provide some sort of Democrat Party interpretation of Catholicism that permits Obama to get away with his infanticide belief.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, look, don’t misunderstand me on this, folks. You’ve got a lot of liberal politicians who, for their own purposes, from Mario Cuomo to John Kerry to any number of them, will twist the Catholic Church’s doctrine abortion to fit their own personal desires to attach firmly the Democrat political policy dogma and this sort of thing. The way Cuomo did it, he did it at Notre Dame University, he went to Notre Dame University, and he said, "Of course I understand the sanctity of life, I’m pro-life and so forth, but I cannot impose my political will, my religious views on people. I cannot impose my religious views on the rest of the country." Yet he was perfectly comfortable imposing his tax views on the rest of the country and every other view he had. But it was just a cop-out to allow him to remain pure to Democrat policy. But Cuomo nor Kerry nor any of the others has ever come along and spoken for the Catholic Church like Pelosi did yesterday on Meet the Depressed. That’s the arrogance and hubris. I don’t care whether she said the Catholic Church’s doctors or doctrines, some people say she might have been saying doctrines, doesn’t matter. She was speaking for the Catholic Church, and that’s brazen. This is going to come back to bite. The, quote, unquote, third most powerful woman in the United States of America telling the world what the Catholic Church’s official position on life is, the church cannot let this stand. How they deal with it, we’ll just have to wait and see.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Joseph in Palm Coast, Florida, it’s great to have you on the program, sir.
CALLER: Hi.
RUSH: This place was in the path of Fay. You guys got a lot of rain up there, right?
CALLER: Turn it off. Hi.
RUSH: Hi.
CALLER: I’m a former Catholic priest and a Jesuit, and—
RUSH: Wait a minute. You have to educate me. What’s a former Catholic priest?
CALLER: I was dispense bid Pope Paul VI about 35 years ago from the automations of the priesthood.
RUSH: I see. Okay.
CALLER: But I’m still a priest, and times of emergency I can absolve from sin when someone’s in danger of death.
RUSH: I see. Last rites.
CALLER: Yeah. Yeah. But as to the theology, listening to Pelosi, she is misrepresenting what the Catholic church teaches. For one thing, the theologians don’t teach what the Catholic Church teaches unless it’s accepted by the church.
RUSH: I know.
CALLER: St. Augustine—
RUSH: You can go to Catholic encyclopedia, you can go anywhere you want. This is just a flat-out expedient political lie.
CALLER: Right but people don’t know that, the people don’t know how the church works.
RUSH: Well, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait. Just a second here, Joseph. Catholics know it, and there are a lot of them, and the Democrats are going to need ‘em, and that’s one of the reasons they put Biden on the ticket, ‘cause he’s a Catholic.
CALLER: Right.
RUSH: But this isn’t going to fly. The Catholics know what’s what.
CALLER: Right.
RUSH: They may get mad at the pope now and then, but Nancy Pelosi is not going to be accepted as redefining church doctrine no matter what their political points of view are.
CALLER: I don’t know. Some people might go along with her, but she’s misleading the public about where the church’s teaching comes from. The pope—
RUSH: She’s not "misleading." She’s lying!
CALLER: Okay. If you want to say that.
RUSH: I do want to say that.
CALLER: You know, Jesus Christ would not start a church that would lead men into error. That’s why the pope is "infallible in matters of faith and morals," and you can’t make an error when he officially teaches the Catholic doctrine. He can’t make an error. He can’t tell people something that’s going to lead them into error. And when the council defines something, it must first have the approval of the pope before it becomes official—
RUSH: Exactly.
CALLER: —Catholic doctrine.
RUSH: And the pope, as we all know, is not Nancy Pelosi. And we know that Pelosi would never be the pope. The question is, Pope Benedict is going to hear about this if he hasn’t. He cares. He’s the pope. He cares about the Catholic Church. The most powerful woman in the United States of America has just lied about his church. Something has to happen here at some point. I don’t know what. I don’t know what steps publicly the Catholic Church takes in a situation like this. But the first thing that is going to happen is, American Catholics are going to hear about it on this program, just like we have not forgotten, do you know that the Drive-By Media nowhere, no place, no how, has played Barack Obama when the cameras had shut down in Chester, Virginia, last week, praising China and its infrastructure? That has not made it to the Drive-Bys. It will, and if it doesn’t make it to the Drive-Bys it’s going to make it to the American people because we’re not going to let go of that, just like we’re not going to let go of this. This is not just about abortion. This is about the hubris, brazen arrogance of a foolish, dangerous woman who as Speaker of the House is on a mission total folly; making a mockery of not only sacred beliefs, but common sense and intelligence on a daily basis. This is the woman who said that Obama is "a gift from God." His leadership and talents are a gift from God. So if that’s how they’re going to appeal to the values voters and if they want to bring abortion up, if they want to bring it up in this campaign we’re going to welcome it. We will welcome them bringing it up again. They cannot win on this, no matter how they fool themselves. The American people did not vote Roe vs. Wade. A bunch of liberal judges on the Supreme Court wearing black robes did it, and the American people have never had their say on it. And this is another way of liberals fool themselves into thinking they are the majority, when they are not.
END TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Let’s go to Pelosi. This was on Meet the Press yesterday. I want you to hear this, and we’ll comment after it. Tom Brokaw said, "Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his ‘pay grade,’ when whether you’re looking at it ‘scientifically or theologically,’ if he were to come and say, ‘Help me out here Madam Speaker,’ what would you tell him?"
PELOSI: As an ardent practicing Catholic, uh, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition, and, uh, senator—uh, I’m—senator—Uh, St. Augustin’ (sic) said at three months. We don’t know. The point is is that it shouldn’t have an impact on a woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child—uh, eh, er, first trimester, certain considerations second trimester, not so third trimester. The—the—there’s very clear distinctions.
RUSH: You know, folks, this is just embarrassing. As I’ve often wondered, is she genuinely this uneducated, uninformed, silly, stupid, whatever—and I’ve concluded there isn’t a word to describe the status of her brain. The Catholic Church doesn’t know? The Catholic Church hasn’t stipulated? The "doctors" at the Catholic Church? You mean the pope goes and consults the doctors to find out when life begins? Really? The doctors have more to say than God-d? I mean, Nancy, cite anybody. Don’t cite the Catholic Church. You’re putting them in an untenable position. You’re fixing it so every priest, no matter how wacko left the priest might be, cannot support you. Good grief, ladies and gentlemen! Life begins a conception. Where else can it begin? Peggy Noonan had a great way—I’m going to have to paraphrase what she wrote—of reducing this to its most simple, its most elemental. If life doesn’t begin at conception, then why the hell wear a condom? If life doesn’t begin at conception, then why the hell take the pill? Well, the church doesn’t allow the pill. I know the church doesn’t allow the pill because life begins at conception—and the church is not cool on condoms, either, logoed or otherwise. But that’s the point. This is not something that we’ve been arguing about for centuries. St. Augustine said life begins at three months? St. Augustine knew that Roe vs. Wade was going to come along and basically say the same thing? Ed Morrissey, writing at the Hot Air blog, has done yeoman’s research into this. He writes today: "The notion that the Catholic Church declared abortion a sin at the same time as the Pill is patently absurd, and shows that Pelosi has either lied about studying the issue in terms of Church history or lied about what she found. Church writings specifically naming abortion as murder appear as early as 70 AD in the Didache, the first written catechism of the Christian church: ... ‘Tertullian, sometimes known as the Father of the Latin Church, wrote with equal clarity and force: "In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance.’" This is AD 179, the year 179, following year 70. "The Catholic catechism is extremely clear on the nature of its position on human life, and has been remarkably consistent on this point for almost 2,000 years, and it finds that position in the Old Testament. Human life begins at conception, not at birth, and not at some point consistent with Roe for convenience. "In Psalm 51, David refers to his sinfulness beginning at the moment of conception, and sinfulness requires physical life and a soul to exist." So there you have it in the Old Testament. The Catholic Church has not thrown the Old Testament under the bus, the last time I looked. This is a giant embarrassment, or ought to be. Where’s Brokaw? Where is the media on this? She got away with this kind of inane, insane rambling, trying to fit one of the most sacred religious beliefs held by Catholics all over the world into a political issue that would conform with a rogue Supreme Court decision called Roe vs. Wade in 1973. Now, that is hubris. That is arrogance like I cannot believe. She has placed herself above the doctors of the church, above "St. Augustin," as she said. She has placed herself above the pope and everything the Catholic Church has ever said about this. And of course Brokaw just sits there, "Heh, heh, heh. Oh. Good." Well, that’s not entirely true. Brokaw did challenge her on this. I have to be honest. It’s with the natural gas business that he just sat there. He said, "But wait a minute, the Catholic Church at the moment feels she strongly that life begins at the point of conception."PELOSI: (mumbling) And this is, like, 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history, uh, of the church, this is an issue of, uh, controversy.RUSH: No, it’s not an issue of controversy in the church. It’s an issue of controversy with the followers, with the parishioners, with the flock like you. Note the 50 years. I’ve always said, "A person’s historical perspective begins with the day they were born." So her use of 50 years there, "Well, it’s been a bone of contention, a controversy in the church for 50 years," meaning her adult life. That’s what she is relating it all to. Th-th-th—(sigh) I’m sorry to stutter, folks. I’m in stunned bewilderment and disbelief over what I consider to be not just stupidity and silliness but arrogance and hubris, and the ignorance that these people have over how this kind of comment is going to come back and bite her presidential nominee. I guess she thinks that she has to provide some sort of Democrat Party interpretation of Catholicism that permits Obama to get away with his infanticide belief.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, look, don’t misunderstand me on this, folks. You’ve got a lot of liberal politicians who, for their own purposes, from Mario Cuomo to John Kerry to any number of them, will twist the Catholic Church’s doctrine abortion to fit their own personal desires to attach firmly the Democrat political policy dogma and this sort of thing. The way Cuomo did it, he did it at Notre Dame University, he went to Notre Dame University, and he said, "Of course I understand the sanctity of life, I’m pro-life and so forth, but I cannot impose my political will, my religious views on people. I cannot impose my religious views on the rest of the country." Yet he was perfectly comfortable imposing his tax views on the rest of the country and every other view he had. But it was just a cop-out to allow him to remain pure to Democrat policy. But Cuomo nor Kerry nor any of the others has ever come along and spoken for the Catholic Church like Pelosi did yesterday on Meet the Depressed. That’s the arrogance and hubris. I don’t care whether she said the Catholic Church’s doctors or doctrines, some people say she might have been saying doctrines, doesn’t matter. She was speaking for the Catholic Church, and that’s brazen. This is going to come back to bite. The, quote, unquote, third most powerful woman in the United States of America telling the world what the Catholic Church’s official position on life is, the church cannot let this stand. How they deal with it, we’ll just have to wait and see.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Joseph in Palm Coast, Florida, it’s great to have you on the program, sir.
CALLER: Hi.
RUSH: This place was in the path of Fay. You guys got a lot of rain up there, right?
CALLER: Turn it off. Hi.
RUSH: Hi.
CALLER: I’m a former Catholic priest and a Jesuit, and—
RUSH: Wait a minute. You have to educate me. What’s a former Catholic priest?
CALLER: I was dispense bid Pope Paul VI about 35 years ago from the automations of the priesthood.
RUSH: I see. Okay.
CALLER: But I’m still a priest, and times of emergency I can absolve from sin when someone’s in danger of death.
RUSH: I see. Last rites.
CALLER: Yeah. Yeah. But as to the theology, listening to Pelosi, she is misrepresenting what the Catholic church teaches. For one thing, the theologians don’t teach what the Catholic Church teaches unless it’s accepted by the church.
RUSH: I know.
CALLER: St. Augustine—
RUSH: You can go to Catholic encyclopedia, you can go anywhere you want. This is just a flat-out expedient political lie.
CALLER: Right but people don’t know that, the people don’t know how the church works.
RUSH: Well, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait. Just a second here, Joseph. Catholics know it, and there are a lot of them, and the Democrats are going to need ‘em, and that’s one of the reasons they put Biden on the ticket, ‘cause he’s a Catholic.
CALLER: Right.
RUSH: But this isn’t going to fly. The Catholics know what’s what.
CALLER: Right.
RUSH: They may get mad at the pope now and then, but Nancy Pelosi is not going to be accepted as redefining church doctrine no matter what their political points of view are.
CALLER: I don’t know. Some people might go along with her, but she’s misleading the public about where the church’s teaching comes from. The pope—
RUSH: She’s not "misleading." She’s lying!
CALLER: Okay. If you want to say that.
RUSH: I do want to say that.
CALLER: You know, Jesus Christ would not start a church that would lead men into error. That’s why the pope is "infallible in matters of faith and morals," and you can’t make an error when he officially teaches the Catholic doctrine. He can’t make an error. He can’t tell people something that’s going to lead them into error. And when the council defines something, it must first have the approval of the pope before it becomes official—
RUSH: Exactly.
CALLER: —Catholic doctrine.
RUSH: And the pope, as we all know, is not Nancy Pelosi. And we know that Pelosi would never be the pope. The question is, Pope Benedict is going to hear about this if he hasn’t. He cares. He’s the pope. He cares about the Catholic Church. The most powerful woman in the United States of America has just lied about his church. Something has to happen here at some point. I don’t know what. I don’t know what steps publicly the Catholic Church takes in a situation like this. But the first thing that is going to happen is, American Catholics are going to hear about it on this program, just like we have not forgotten, do you know that the Drive-By Media nowhere, no place, no how, has played Barack Obama when the cameras had shut down in Chester, Virginia, last week, praising China and its infrastructure? That has not made it to the Drive-Bys. It will, and if it doesn’t make it to the Drive-Bys it’s going to make it to the American people because we’re not going to let go of that, just like we’re not going to let go of this. This is not just about abortion. This is about the hubris, brazen arrogance of a foolish, dangerous woman who as Speaker of the House is on a mission total folly; making a mockery of not only sacred beliefs, but common sense and intelligence on a daily basis. This is the woman who said that Obama is "a gift from God." His leadership and talents are a gift from God. So if that’s how they’re going to appeal to the values voters and if they want to bring abortion up, if they want to bring it up in this campaign we’re going to welcome it. We will welcome them bringing it up again. They cannot win on this, no matter how they fool themselves. The American people did not vote Roe vs. Wade. A bunch of liberal judges on the Supreme Court wearing black robes did it, and the American people have never had their say on it. And this is another way of liberals fool themselves into thinking they are the majority, when they are not.
END TRANSCRIPT
Power of the Keys
A friend of mine in the Catholic Debate Forum posted this article, I repost here with his permission:
Power of the Keys
"A type is a person, thing, or event in the Old Testament that foreshadows something to come later in time, either later in the Old Testament itself or in the New Testament. It is like a taste or hint of something that will be fulfilled or realized. Types are like pictures that come alive in a new and exciting way when seen through the eyes of Christ's revelation." The type is always lesser than the anti-type. The anti-type (New Testament event) is always greater than its type (shadow of an event in the Old Testament). And both are independent of each other.
"Types" are explained in Rom 5:14 and Heb 9:9, as a figure, 1 Cor 10:6 and 2 Thess 3:9 and 2Pet 2:6, as examples, 1 Cor 10:11 and Heb 11:19, as a type.
The Egyptian Exodus told in Hosea 11:1 is quoted exactly in Matt 2:15 when speaking of Jesus' return to Israel from Egypt: "where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son.""
What Matthew has done here is he took an historical event and interpreted it as a shadow of something greater to come in the future, which he sees as 'fulfilled' in the person of Jesus the Messiah.
Adam and Kind David are other examples of types of Christ. By their very nature Old Testament types are imperfect since they only prefigure the ultimate reality that is made known by and through Jesus Christ. Types of Christ find their perfection in the New Testament anti-type, Jesus Christ.
So when we read the Bible, we need to read it on two levels at once. We read the Bible in a literal sense…But we read it also in a spiritual sense, searching out what the Holy Spirit is trying to tell us through the words…
We do this in imitation of Jesus, because this is the way He read the scriptures. He referred to Jonah (Mt 12:39), Solomon (Mt12:42), the temple (Jn 2:19), and the brazen serpent (Jn 3:14) as "signs" that prefigured Him.
The king of Judah had a throne and this throne symbolized Yahweh's kingship over Israel (1 Chron 28:5; 29:23). The king was a consecrated and recognized as chosen by God (1 Kings 2:15, 1 Chron 28:5). As king, Saul is recognized as Yahweh's anointed, and therefore is a sacred person (1 Sam 24:7,11; 26:9,11,23 2 Sam 1:14,16).
The words "anointed" and "messiah" are synonyms being respectively the translation and the transliteration of the same Hebrew word "mashiah." The word "Christ" is the Greek translation of this word. Therefore, Hezekiah as an anointed king of Judah prefigured Jesus Christ.
This typology is also seen in several parallels in King Hezekiah's life with that of Jesus Christ. Let us consider one of the most striking parallels between Jesus Christ and the good King Hezekiah. We read in 2 Kings 20 that the King is mortally ill and that he prays to the Lord. Then the Lord speaks through his holy prophet Isaiah that the king is to go up to the temple on the third day and his life will be saved and the city will be saved as well. Thus, Christ's own resurrection on the third day was foreshadowed and how He brought His own Body back to Life and saved the city, the New Jerusalem, the Church.
A very important thing happened in the life of King Hezekiah that Jesus Christ later alludes to.
Isaiah 22:19-23
"I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station. On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open. I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family"
Compare Isaiah 22 with Matthew 16:18-19 which states:
"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 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."
This title, or position was also known in non-Jewish governments and we can see that the power that the holder of the keys actually has can be determined by reading Gen 41:39-40 "So Pharaoh said to Joseph: '…You shall be in charge of my palace,…Only in respect to the throne shall I outrank you.'" Gen 41 seems to suggest that he ruled not by exercising his own private judgment, but rather was in charge of executing the will of the king.We see this confirmed in Isaiah 22:22 when we read that the Master of the palace will rule such that when "he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open." This passage presupposes that he will just be executing a judgment in keeping with the will of the king, or else it would have said, "what he opens, no one shall shut, except for the king." The Master of the palace is, so to speak, the agent or mouthpiece for the king.
One important point in Isaiah 22 is that it is the transfer of the keys that designates Eliakim as the new master of the palace, "I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder…" King David had been dead many years when this took place. Therefore, this verse shows that the office of key holder/master of the palace, was an office with successors just as the office of king was. It was the transferring of the keys that denoted the transfer of power to the new successor of this office as the king's representative, his regent, the master of the palace.
It was God the Father who had picked Peter to be the one to proclaim Jesus as the Messiah. And it was upon hearing this that Jesus alludes to that passage in Isaiah 22 above and gives the keys to Saint Peter. Matthew 16:13, 19 "'You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God... , you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'"
The keys represent absolute power to rule. They are owned by the King of Israel who entrusts them to his representative the "master of the palace." Christ is the true King of Israel. Just as in Isaiah 22 above where the keys are handed down to the successors of the king's prime minister we see Christ giving His keys to his designated "master of the palace," his chief minister, his vicar, St. Peter.
That the "gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it" also implies succession for Peter's office just as the holders of the keys of David had successors. Peter died. Yet, Christ's promise is true. Peter who became the Bishop of Rome has a successor. The future tense used in Matthew 16, "will build" and "will give you the keys," refers to what Christ will give to St. Peter after the Resurrection.
Since we find many instances when Jesus is comparing the kingdom of heaven to a field, a mustard seed, leaven, and a net (Matt 13:24-52) demonstrate that the kingdom Jesus is talking about the universal Church on earth, not the eternal state of glory. Jesus comparing the kingdom of heaven to ten maidens, five of whom were foolish (Matt 25:1-2), further shows that the kingdom is the Church on earth. This kingdom cannot refer to the heavenly kingdom because there are no fools in heaven! Again, the "kingdom of God" is like the seed which grows and develops (Mark 4:26-32). The heavenly kingdom is eternal, so the kingdom to which Peter holds the keys of authority is the earthly Church. The one Jesus Himself founded.
Let's put it all together with what we've learned today. God promises to establish the Davidic kingdom forever on earth (2 Sam 7:16; Psalm 89:3-4; 1 Chron 17:12,14) and Matthew clearly establishes this tie of David to Jesus in the first line of his Gospel. Jesus is the new King of the new House of David, and the King will assign a chief steward to rule over the house while the King is in heaven. We see that the keys of the kingdom pass from Shebna to Eliakim (Isa 22:22). Thus, the keys are used not only as a symbol of authority, but also to facilitate succession. We see in the early Church that successors are immediately chosen for the apostle's offices (Acts 1:20). Just as the Church replaced Judas, it also replaced Peter with a successor after Peter's death. The keys of Christ's kingdom have passed from Peter to Linus all the way to our current Pope with an unbroken lineage for almost 2,000 years.
God Bless
Nathan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Feast of the Assumption
The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary - another example of "not-so-ordinary" days! These are COUNTING days - and...
