Essay on the Papacy

The following is an essay on the Papacy, taken from an exchange between myself and others on a forum.

"Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ."
-Matthew 16:18

There are a couple of things that have to be presumed when reading this text.

1. Christ is King

"He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever."
-Luke 1:32

2. The Church is the Kingdom of God (compare the eternity of the kingdom described below with Matthew 16, and the interchangeability of Church and Kingdom above):

"But in the days of those kingdoms the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, and his kingdom shall not be delivered up to another people, and it shall break in pieces, and shall consume all these kingdoms, and itself shall stand for ever."
-Daniel 2:44

I don’t think our Lord used terms or phrases that had no meaning behind them. The phrase "keys to the kingdom" is fairly loaded and has a particular meaning.

"This is what the Lord, the LORD Almighty, says: ’Go, say to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the house: What are you doing here and who gave you permission to cut out a grave for yourself here, hewing your grave on the height and chiseling your resting place in the rock?... I will depose you from your office, and you will be ousted from your position. "In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will be a seat of honor for the house of his father. All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars."
-Isaias 22:15-16, 19-24

Israel and Judah did not exist in a vacuum, as they modeled their kingdom on those of other nations (primarily Egypt).

"Then all the ancients of Israel being assembled, came to Samuel to Ramatha. And they said to him: Behold thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: make us a king, to judge us, as all nations have... But the people would not hear the voice of Samuel, and they said: Nay: but there shall be a king over us. And we also will be like all nations: and our king shall judge us, and go out before us, and tight our battles for us."
-1 Samuel 4-5, 19-20

Did Egypt have a similar office to that of steward in Israel?

"And again Pharao said to Joseph: Behold, I have appointed thee over the whole land of Egypt. And he took his ring from his own hand, and gave it into his hand: and he put upon him a robe of silk, and put a chain of gold about his neck. And he made him go up into his second chariot, the crier proclaiming that all should bow their knee before him, and that they should know he was made governor over the whole land of Egypt. And the king said to Joseph: I am Pharao; without thy commandment no man shall move hand or foot in all the land of Egypt. And he turned his name, and called him in the Egyptian tongue, Zaphnah-paaneah (saviour of the world). And he gave him to wife Aseneth the daughter of Putiphare priest of Heliopolis. Then Joseph went out to the land of Egypt."
-Genesis 41:41-45

What our Lord is talking about is a royal office, that of the steward (vizier, majordomo). It is a single office, occupied by one person at a time, whose symbol of authority are the keys (Israel) or a signet ring (Egypt), etc. The authority that the steward had was over all of the king’s subjects, without exception. It was not limited to any precinct, territory, region, etc.

The power of binding and loosening is something different. That too is a loaded phrase, and I would turn to the Jewish Encyclopedia for clarity:

Rabbinical term for "forbidding and permitting." The expression "asar" (to bind herself by a bond) is used in the Bible (Num. xxx. 3 et seq.) for a vow which prevents one from using a thing. It implies binding an object by a powerful spell in order to prevent its use (see Targ. to Ps. lviii. 6; Shab. 81b, for "magic spell"). The corresponding Aramean "shera" and Hebrew "hittir" (for loosing the prohibitive spell) have no parallel in the Bible.

The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus ("B J." i, 5, § 2), "became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind." This does not mean that, as the learned men, they merely decided what, according to the Law, was forbidden or allowed, but that they possessed and exercised the power of tying or untying a thing by the spell of their divine authority, just as they could, by the power vested in them, pronounce and revoke an anathema upon a person. The various schools had the power "to bind and to loose"; that is, to forbid and to permit (Ḥag. 3b); and they could bind any day by declaring it a fast-day (Meg. Ta’an. xxii.; Ta’an. 12a; Yer. Ned. i. 36c, d). This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age or in the Sanhedrin (see Authority), received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice (Sifra, Emor, ix.; Mak. 23b).

In the New Testament.

In this sense Jesus, when appointing his apostles to be his successors, used the familiar formula (Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18). By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees who "bind heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but will not move them with one of their fingers"; that is, "loose them, " as they have the power to do (Matt. xxiii. 2-4). In the same sense, in the second epistle of Clement to James II. ("Clementine Homilies, " Introduction), Peter is represented as having appointed Clement as his successor, saying: "I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall bind what ought to be bound and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the church." Quite different from this Judaic and ancient view of the apostolic power of binding and loosing is the one expressed in John xx. 23, where Jesus is represented as having said to his disciples after they had received the Holy Spirit: "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." It is this view which, adopted by Tertullian and all the church fathers, invested the head of the Christian Church with the power to forgive sins, the "clavis ordinis, " "the key-power of the Church."

Our Lord only gave the keys to Peter. When we look at the power to bind and loosen, that too is given to Peter individually (the Greek is singular in Matthew 16), and the Apostles as a body (the Greek is plural).

"And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven."
-Matthew 18:17-19

Aside from Peter who was given the authority to bind and loosen, all of the other Apostles have to work together. At least two or three... none (aside from Peter) can act individually. Limits of territorial jurisdiction, are the byproduct of the power to bind and loosen, and not a Divine mandate itself (as the Petrine Ministry or Apostolic authority are) but is rather a custom which developed into law, in order to provide smooth governance. Revelation tells us that there is one Church ruled by many bishops:

"Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."
-Acts 20:28

"And I have so preached this gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation."
-Romans 15:20

It was not until the Council of Nicaea that clergy were absolutely restricted to their diocese (i.e. limits of jurisdiction) concerning ordinary affairs:

"On account of the great disturbance and the factions which are caused, it is decreed that the custom, if it is found to exist in some parts contrary to this canon, shall be totally suppressed, so that neither bishops nor presbyters nor deacons shall transfer from city to city. If after this decision of this holy and great synod anyone shall attempt such a thing, or shall lend himself to such a proceeding, the arrangement shall be totally annulled, and he shall be restored to the church of which he was ordained bishop or presbyter or deacon."
-Council of Nicaea, Canon XV

Odour of Sanctity?

Have you ever wondered what the Pope smells like? Have you ever wanted to walk around with an "air of authority". Well, you can now thanks to The Pope's Cologne, brought to you by Excelsis Fine Fragrances!

I'm gunna buy a few thousand bottles and do a backstroke in an Olympic size swimming pool...

We forgive you, John Lennon?

Apparently the Vatican has "forgiven" John Lennon for saying The Beatles were more popular than our Lord. Prior to this moment, I (and I'm sure the Vatican) was unaware that animosity existed between the two parties. I don't even think that the Holy See knew who The Beatles were in 1966, but if they did I'm sure they just laughed at John's comments, the song Imagine, etc.

Oh, how magnanimous of the Church of Rome to put aside such hurt and offense... and liberal of the press to put words in the mouths of others.

I know, I know...

I keep taking shots at Obama, but that's only because he won (McCain would get the same shit from me). Here's my attempt at "fair and balanced":

Planned Parenthood and Cardinal O'Malley

As it turns out, Cardinal O'Malley recently stuck his thumb in the eye of Planned Parenthood over their origins as a racist organization (please see my post Humanity, Natural Law, and Eugenics). They were none too thrilled with his comments, but oddly enough refused to dispute his accusation that they were founded to eliminate African Americans.

Apart from that, I found this passage interesting:

"Perhaps Cardinal O’Malley should spend less time sharing political opinions and more time listening to the reality of life for his own constituency."

Clearly they are particularly inept, because the Cardinal does not cater to a "constituency", but is entrusted with the care of a flock. Do they look at everything through the myopic lens of politics? Perhaps those people need to reconnect with their faith, as religion is about transforming individuals... not individuals perverting the faith.

STFU

The "Black Pope" (a.k.a. the Jesuit Superior General) needs to shut the hell up. As a priest used to say to one of my friends, "If you don't open your mouth no one will ever know how truly stupid you are."

The Black Pope has been mouthing off that Liberation Theology “is a courageous and creative response to an unbearable situation of injustice in Latin America. As with any theology, it needs years to mature. It’s a shame that it has not been given a vote of confidence and that soon its wings will be cut before it learns to fly. It needs more time.”

"Along these lines, some go so far as to identify God Himself with history and to define faith as 'fidelity to history', which means adhering to a political policy which is suited to the growth of humanity, conceived as a purely temporal messianism. A radical politicization of faith's affirmations and of theological judgments follows inevitably from this new conception. The question no longer has to do with simply drawing attention to the consequences and political implications of the truths of faith, which are respected beforehand for their transcendent value. In this new system, every affirmation of faith or of theology is subordinated to a political criterion, which in turn depends on the class struggle, the driving force of history."
-CDF, Libertatis nuntius

Roma locuta est, causa finita est. Move the fuck on... After all, Judas Iscariot was looking for a socio-political messianism...

Sin of Indifference

So, I've blogged in the past on The Bridge (movie), and this is my second post on the topic of suicide. Well, not so much on suicide itself...

Yesterday a 19 year old killed himself in front of a web cam, broadcasting his death over the internet via a live feed. Some low lives coaxed him on, others tried to talk him out of it, and others doubted whether the cocktail he took was lethal. How long was he broadcasting before the cops showed up? Twelve hours. All this reminds me of the sermon from the movie Boondock Saints:

"And I am reminded, on this holy day, of the sad story of Kitty Genovese. As you all may remember, a long time ago, almost thirty years ago, this poor soul cried out for help time and time again, but no person answered her calls. Though many saw, no one so much as called the police. They all just watched as Kitty was being stabbed to death in broad daylight. They watched as her assailant walked away. Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men."

The Summers Effect

So our President-elect is in the process of staffing his Cabinet. Hillary Clinton for the State Department, Tom Daschle for Health and Human Services, Robert Gates to be a hold over for the Defense Department... and Larry Summers at the Treasury? Sure, he's held the post before (can you smell "change" in the air?) and has the backing of many in the Congress, but given the economic crisis, I have reservations:

"In 1990, Lithuania, a restive Soviet republic seeking independence, hired Summers to advise on that country's economic transformation. Poor Lithuania had no idea what it got itself into. This was Summers's first opportunity to tackle a country in economic crisis and put his wunderkind theories into practice. The results were literally suicidal: in 1990, when Summers first arrived, Lithuania's suicide rate was 26.1 per 100,000 and falling. Just five years after Summers got his hands on Lithuania's economy, life became so unbearable under the economic transition that the suicide rate nearly doubled to 45.6 per 100,000, worse than any other ex-Soviet republic in transition. In fact, it was the highest suicide rate in the world, suggesting something particularly harsh and brutal about the economic transition in that country as opposed to the others, where suffering and pain were common. Things got so bad that in 1992, after just two years of Summers-nomics, the traumatized Lithuanians voted the communist party back into power, the first East European nation to do so--even though just a year earlier Lithuanians actually died on the streets fighting communism."
-Mark Ames, The Summers Conundrum

Chinese Democracy

For the longest time I didn't know which would come first, the album or the real thing. But thirteen, fourteen... hell, seventeen years, $13,000,000, and the gutting of an entire band has finally yielded the release of Guns N' Roses' Chinese Democracy. Sure it pales in comparison to Appetite for Destruction, but at least I'll get a free Dr. Pepper.

Win-win either way, baby!

Call me the prophet...

Khaled Sheikh Timmy Ba-Ba... Senator Stevens has lost his reelection bid, is a convicted felon, is as old as water... and George W. Bush will be departing from the White House soon. What does that spell? PARDON!!! Or at least a commutation.

Four ugly ducklings

Word on the street is the Panzer Pontiff is going to declare the excommunication of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Alfonso de Galarreta, and Richard Williamson null and void (or at least that there is a draft of that decree on his desk). If he follows through on this, I would be seriously disappoined.

"And that servant who knew the will of his lord, and prepared not himself, and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more."
-Luke 12:47-48

I am a big fan of that principle. Justice and mercy are intimately related, and I would say the schismatics who masquerade as traditionalists certainly know better. Should these bishops be absolved from the censure of excommunication? If they are penitent, yes. Should the censures be declared null and void? Absolutely not, because they did something VERY wrong, while asserting they are as innocent as Christ. The Panzer Pontiff seems to be bending over backward for the SSPX bishops, when there is absolutely no promise of obedience in the future (they are not even obedient in the present).

I dunno, maybe I'm just a little disgusted by Tissier de Mallerais accusing the Pope of being a material heretic and that incident when I attended a symposium and listened to Williamson proclaim, "Ratzinger is a modernist, his mind is mush."

My solution to the problem? Summon the four ugly ducklings to be tried before the Roman Pontiff and the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Sugnatura. If they don't yeild, break off all contact and declare the sentence of excommunication valid. Then proceed to systematically interdict and excomunicate all clergy and laity associated with the Society (as Bruskewitz has done). If they attend and are found guilty, give them the opportunity to do penance. If they don't, crush them. If they are innocent, then they are innocent.

Just don't give them a free pass... please, most Holy Father.

"Change"

Reflecting on our recent election, there is no doubt in my mind that the number one issue in the campaign was government reform. That of course was not the deciding factor (which was the economy), but obviously the chief issue in the campaign. Obama was all about "change", McCain was the "maverick"... hell, eight years ago W. was a "uniter, not a divider". But for W., any hope of uniting went out the window on December 12, 2000 when he "stole" the election.

People are fed up with partisanship, and when change does not come (as it certainly won't)... I'm wondering how long it will take before we listen to the Father of our Republic:

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

"This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

"It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

"There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."
-George Washington, Farewell Address

I'm not looking for a "bipartisan" D.C., but a post-partisan one. I can dream, can't I?