This article, Is the Catholic Church a House of Cards, is a good one. The basic message must be true, at least since Christ said the Church will never be overcome by the gates of hell. But while we are reminding ourselves that the Church won’t be overcome, are we being consistent in the amount of destruction that we do think is capable of settling in? In other words, I notice that some Catholics online (Blogs, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Podcasts, etc,etc) feel that the Catholic Church is capable of sustaining so much failure and collapse while also maintaining its status of being the true Church of Christ, the sole custodian of divinely revealed truths. I thought of an imaginative dialogue between a traditionalist Anglican and a traditionalist Catholic that perfecty illustrates how articles like this, as good a reminder as they are, are still only nibbling around the edges of the criticial discussion that needs to be had.
TRAD-CATHOLIC: “How can you possibly be in the Anglican Church? They ordain females to the priesthood, and now ever to the Episcopate and Archepiscopate. They have changed the moral law on sexuality. This is all heretical, and I just don’t understand how you remain in it?”
TRAD-ANGLICAN: “Yes, all these things you mention are lamentable. However, if you pay close attention, you’ll notice that all those synodal events where the Anglican hierarchy decided to allow females into the clergy and homosexuality to be normalized, they were enacted through non-infallible means. Therefore, it doesn’t really impugn the truth of Anglicanism”
There are some parts of Holy Scripture that, when read by the average Christian, cause one to briefly pause over what sounds like a wrong note in the music of the orchestra. One such instance in Acts 4:24-29 where King David and Jesus are both referred to as “Servants” or “children” (παιδός) of God: “For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed.. (etc, etc). In the King James Version, both David and Jesus are said to be God’s “child,” but other translations say “servant”. One could easily argue that since both David and Jesus are “kings”, they are sons of God in a unique way. In any case, it is apparent that, on first reading, one is caught by the necessity of humanizing our reading of Jesus.
When I first read through St. Luke’s Acts over 15 years ago, I read the Bible with so much of an emphasis on the deity of Jesus that it took a pause to humanize him in order to understand Scripture. I think it had something to do my door-to-door evangelizing encounters where disassembling the theology of the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” (modern day Arians) took up a large habit. In any case, one word that some folks also don’t realize requires a keen awareness of Jesus’ humanity is “Christ”. We say Jesus Christ, and sometimes we overlook that this very word requires the humanity of Jesus.
As you know, “Christ” is another way of saying “Messiah,” and both mean “one who is anointed”. But this absolutely shines the temporal humanity of Jesus. For all Christs or Messiahs are persons who are elevated or “anointed” from a common and mundane status to a special office or function. Human beings are annointed! Priests, Prophets, and Kings were anointed, because they were taken from a common life and elevated to a special status and function.
The human Jesus was “Christened” through his mission beginning with His incarnation, his ministry from the baptism of St. John the Forerunner, and ultimately by His violent death by the hands of men. Through this process, Jesus defeated death and was elevated to everlasting glory and dominion over all of creation, and was then ascended on high to be enthroned at God’s right hand. What is so interesting about this is that we, as those who are baptized *into* Christ, and thereby become “Christians,” are also anointed to share in the priesthood, prophetic office, and kingship of Jesus. The sacraments of Baptism and Christmation engraft us into the Christening of Jesus.
Ultimately, we will see the full fruit of our Christening when we rise from death and are fully enthroned alongside Jesus. So next time you say or hear Jesus “Christ”, take a moment and medidate on how this shines the humanity of Jesus, because it signifies His descent into the incarnation and the transition that could only happen to a temopral human being, namley, from flesh to Glorified-Flesh, a transition that He offers to share with all who believe and are baptized. His Christening becomes our christening, because we, with Jesus, partake of the fallen order and are annointed/elevated to the high status of being Sons of God in the only Begotten.
I have never followed John Zmirak. But here is a piece someone of high repute sent to me for the purpose of being edified. Of course, the article is all in the title. The idea here is that Pope Francis is the “New Teacher” ready to revise the doctrine of Jesus Christ. That isn’t what really caught my attention. I will share what caught my attention. Zmirak wrote:
“Yes, Catholics will defer to a pope if he ever uses his supreme power to declare something as infallible. That has happened maybe eight times in history. The rest of the time? We’ll judge what he says on its merits. Compare it to Scripture, sacred Tradition, and Natural Law.Then make up our minds for ourselves.”
Read that last part again – “Then make up our minds for ourselves.”
This is rather ironic. My readers have been aware of my recent “brain twisting” posts which seek to highlight how some of the most intelligent Traditional Catholics can enter into a logical paralysis when it comes to explaining the current situation in the Catholic Church since the 2nd Vatican Council, and especially under Pope Francis. And I don’t think this is a result of any lack of intelligence. On the contrary, some of the brightest people I know can fall into this, and so the cause is to be found elsewhere than in “low IQ”. But I’m not a pyschologist. Anyway, read this statement from Zmirak a few times. And then, read the below statements taken from Pastor Aeternus, which happens to be a document produced from the extraordinary authority of an Ecumenical Council, the Council of Vatican 1 (1870):
“That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ’s authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time… Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received. For this reason it has always been necessary for every church–that is to say the faithful throughout the world–to be in agreement with the Roman church…For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. …This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.”
The above are statements made by the 1st Vatican Council. And yet, according to Zmirak, outside of 8 times in history, the Papal ministry has been open to be a source of error and potential heresy. In other words, despite the fact that he believes that Christ established the Papal Office for the perrmanent, perpetual, and everlasting guardianship of the Apostolic Faith, such that this Office, as the Rock of the Church, would “of necessity remain forever… firm until the end of time”, he also thinks that, outside of MAYBE “8 times” (presuming he thinks even this is open for question), the Papal Office could potentially be a source of erroneous departure from Christ and His Gospel, to which he must apply his own private judgment in discerning whether he will believe it or not. Another way of putting it, this flavor of “Recognize and Resist” holds that the successor of Peter can perpetually lead the flock of Christ to back waters/grass, but only when he speaks ex Cathedra must he be obeyed.
One prominent contact of mine (an editor of an academic magazine/journal), via e-mail, who is a Protestant responded with two words to Zmirak’s article – “Welcome Home!” .
What an apt response. Meaning, welcome to the state where Protestants found themselves in the 16th century, is what he means.
Folks. Whatever it is you have to do to clean the clutter of your mind, please get to a point where you can, after rubbing your eyes once more, realize this makes as much sense as one’s online purchase from an Ad displaying ocean-side condos for cheap in Kansas state (to borrow a quip from a friend). It makes absolutely no sense to affirm what is said in Pastor Aeternus, and then turn around and say that 99.9% of the Papal Ministry could have been a force of error and pestilence. Bishop Vincent Gasser, who will be known by my trad readers, already did the logic for us here folks. While being in the flesh present at the Council of Vatican 1, where he delivered the famous “Relatio” on Papal power, he stated the following criteria of falsification for the Papacy. Trads today do well to clean their ears, rub their eyes, and give this a fresh look:
““This prerogative [of infallibility] granted to St. Peter by the Lord Jesus Christ was supposed to pass to all Peter’s successors because the Chair of Peter is the center of unity in the Church. But if the Pontiff should fall into an error of faith, the Church would dissolve, deprived of the bond of unity. The Bishop of Meaux speaks very well on this point, saying: ‘If this Roman See could fall and be no longer the See of Truth, but of error and pestilence, then the Catholic Church herself would not have the bond of a society and would be schismatic and scattered — which, in fact is impossible‘….But Christ instituted nothing of this sort; rather He placed Peter and his successor as an immobile bulwark of faith, as the heir of a confirmed faith and as the one who confirms his brothers, and, finally, as the pastor of the whole flock of the Lord, ruling it in such a way that it lacks nothing and leading it to good pastures. “
(Excerpted from the Relatio of Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser on July 11th, 1870 – translation taken from “The Gift of Infallibility” by Rev. James T. O’Connor)
So ask yourself. Has the See of Peter become a “See of Pestilence”? If yes, then from the very 1st Vatican Council, you have met its own criterion of falsification. Now what? Ball is in your court. Oh, and do spare the fine tuning conditioning of “ex Cathedra” so that this becomes so technically complex that it might as well be a needle in a haystack. Either the words of the Vatican Council above are true, or they are not. Use common sense, here. Not legal gymnastics.