A friend recently sent me a book review with the following paragraph in it:
"I once asked in confession what was the very least, the minimalist interpretation of that great promise [of Christ that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church]. I was told that at its very least, in order for it to be fulfilled, at the Parousia there would be one Catholic left on earth. I was instructed to make sure that even if there was no one else left, I would be that last one. I suggest that the same instruction goes for all of us."
5 comments:
Vatican 1
The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by
summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by
special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with sacred scripture and the apostolic traditions.
For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and
reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60] .
We know from the promises of Jesus Christ and the infallible Doctrine of His One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church that the Holy See - the See of Peter - will remain Faithful until the Parousia.
Cateba Aurea Matt 16:18
Cyril [ed. note: ‘ This passage is quoted in the Catena from ‘Cyril in Lib. Thes.’ but does not occur in any of S. Cyril’s works. On the subject of this interpolation, vid. Launoy’s Epistles, part i. Ep. 1-3. and v. Ep. 9. c. 6-12. From him it appears that, besides the passage introduced into the Catena, S. Thomas ascribes similar ones to S. Cyril in his comment on the Sentences, Lib. iv. cl. 24. 3. and in his books ‘contr. impugn.reliq.’ and ‘contra errores Graee.’ He is apparently the first to cite them, and they seem to have been written later than Nicholas I. and Leo IX. (A. D. 867-1054.) He was young when he used them, and he is silent about them in his Summa, (which was the work of his last ten years,) in three or four places where the reference might have been expected.]
According to this promise of the Lord, the Apostolic Church of Peter remains pure and spotless from all leading into error, or heretical fraud, above all Heads and Bishops, and Primates of Churches and people, [p. 586] with its own Pontiffs, with most abundant faith, and the authority of Peter. And while other Churches have to blush for the error of some of their members, this reigns alone immoveably established, enforcing silence, and stopping the mouths of all heretics; and we [ed. note: The editions read here, ‘et nos necessario salutis,’ the meaning of which, says Nicolai, it is impossible to divine], not drunken with the wine of pride, confess together with it the type of truth, and of the holy apostolic tradition.
We know that Jesus is not a liar. We know He keeps his promises; thus, we can have complete trust in His words and when one throws into the mix the infallible teaching of Vatican 1, how can the sspx have, for so many years, not trusted in the promises of Jesus Christ, our Creator, Redeemer, and Savior; King of Heaven and Earth; Jesus who has always been and will always be the head of His One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church?
Saint Vincent of Lerins teaches us that the time of our testing (and temptation) were going to come and that is the way God tests us to see if we love Him.
How can the sspx be said to love God when they do not trust the promises of His Son, Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ? He who created the sspx was infamous for being so emotionally labile that he went back and forth on what he should do or not do vis a vis the Pope and the Church (loyalty of rebellion?) but he did describe he who was Canonised, Pope Saint John Paul Il as an antiChrist.
Of course, ABS has been nothing if not similarly emotionally labile - and even flirted with sedevacantism - but ABS would have, in a New York second, accepted the Protocol that Lefebvre signed his name to - and then later reneged on - but ABS thinks by then the poor man was prolly confused and lacking capacity (see his sermon for the consecrations) and , thus, proly not culpable for his actions.
It is a pleasing thing to imagine how much better off the Church would now be had he not reneged on the Protocol.
ABS:
"He who was canonized..." You pause into Harry Potterisms! But JPII is a perfect case in point. In sainting him the Church essentially redefines its definition of a saint, it seems to me. Good and holy, but uniformly exemplary, when he taught a form of universalism? Lefebvre gave mixed signals because he understandably suffered from cognitive dissonance. Most of us conservative Catholics still do. The Bishops are above "heretical fraud"? I'd almost goad you with, 'On what planet?' You have to be willfully in denial to argue Vatican II as a council text is not discolored with toxic underpinnings. So in what sense ins the Church infallible? In that it cannot formally and officially mispronounce technically on a doctrine. That is a small piece of turf on which to erect the obelisk to Indefectibility. Yes, I will help fund such a project, and visit it. But in my book the Church of todays has proven itself unreliable in its discipline and in its administration. In fact, I think its leaders have lost faith in dogma as a concrete idea. So they can't even really take a stand -- they don't believe in even doing so.
I am not sedevacantist. But I also no longer believe apostolic succession as the *only* source of valid sacraments. As the new Church so happily reminds us, we are bound, God is not... If other Churches have to blush, ours should turn deep purple if it still thinks it alone reign immoveably established, enforcing silence, and stopping the mouths of all heretics. Quite seriously,I am not at all sure we would have survived as we have without Evangelicals having our backs on Biblical authority, as a key example. The Church will *survive.* That is the promise. She may also rot, and go seriously off the rails. The SSPX keeps the Catholic faith whole and intact, as far as I can see. Rome, its Pope and its Bishops.... that's what I hope and pray, but I cannot see it. If SSPXrs chose to temporarily make some distance to save the air they and their kids breath, I'd argue they are in fact helping save the earth in the same way the Holy Father encourages us to do in his latest encyclical. So maybe they gave practical rather than literal obedience. Sounds right up Modern Rome's alley!
Just over-sharing on my perspective. Sill very much respect yours. Simply cannot share it without my own brain exploding.
Dear JM One has to not only overlook but effectively ignore a mountain of evidentiary sources from Tradition which prove the sspx is a schism and that schism is entirely and completely opposed to Catholic Tradition and why they are a clear and present danger is evinced by your defense of them; and you are obviously a good man.
The sspx is a schism that is now considered not only permissible but worthy of praise.
That is a noxious novelty that can only lead more and more men into permanent estrangement from the One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church.
For about a decade ABS (under a different S/N) warred against this noxious novelty at Free Republic and he saved all of his citations/sources in a very lengthy file that he could reproduce here but he concedes he has lost the fight and the disingenuous propaganda of the schism has won to its ideology the majority of men self-described as Traditional.
C'est la vie.
Dr. Kopp, is that you?
Post a Comment