A Parish Priest Answers Nancy Pelosi
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:12am Mark Noonan
And, also, answers all of those who seek the name of “Catholic” while supporting in any way, shape or form the horribile, anti-human practice of abortion.
In last week’s Gospel we heard Jesus’ words to Peter:
I say to you, you are Peter [Rock], 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.”
But this week we find the incredible thing that happens right after that, as Jesus tells Peter: “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me.”
How does Peter go from being called the “Rock” of the Church to being compared to “Satan”?
First of all, see how Jesus tells Peter about the keys in response to Peter publicly proclaiming: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” But Jesus chastises Peter after Peter spoke to Him in private; Scripture says: “Then Peter took Jesus aside and began to rebuke him.” The keys relate to Peter’s public proclamation, the rebuke pertains to Peter’s private, personal words to Jesus.
Also, we see that Peter’s public proclamation was about a dogma of faith: that Jesus is the Christ and Son of God. But his private rebuke was about his personal desire for Jesus’ safety: “God forbid [you be killed in Jerusalem].”
And again, when Jesus gives Peter the keys, he blesses Peter for listening to God: “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.” But when he chastises Peter he says: “You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”
In all this Jesus teaches us that although many Popes would be less than perfect as individuals He, Christ, would always protect them in the public proclamation of the truths of the Gospel. Because of that all Catholics are bound, by Christ, to follow the definitive teaching of the Popes, And when do not hold ourselves bound by the Pope’s teaching the gates of hell will inevitably prevail against us.
Of course this can mean personal disaster: sin. But it can also mean social disaster.
Do read the whole thing.
Entry Filed under: Life Issues, Popular Culture, Religion, Social Issues
13 Comments
1. Dennis | September 2nd, 2008 at 1:01 am
How does Peter go from being called the “Rock” of the Church to being compared to “Satan”?
The disciple Peter never was “the rock” - he was a small pebble. Christ was describing himself as the cornerstone, also called the stone of stumbling in the Messianic prophecy of Isaiah 8:13, 14: “Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.”
Jesus knew his Scripture - and when he cited this prophecy from Isaiah to his disciple Peter (in Matthew 16:18) he was drawing the contrast between “the pebble” Peter and himself: “I say unto you, you are Peter, but upon this rock [myself] I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Why would the gates of hell not prevail against it? Simple: because the foundation was of divine, not human substance.
The “stumbling” aspect of the prophecy was symbolized by the huge, awkward stone the builders had rejected in collecting stones for the building of the temple in Jerusalem, which later was discovered to be the only stone fit for the cornerstone. Likewise, many in Christ’s day rejected him, but later discovered him to be the foundation of their Christian faith.
Peter later came to understand this parable, and recounts it in his New Testament epistle, 1 Peter 2:6-8: “To you therefore who believe HE [Christ] is precious: but to them who are disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense, even to them who stumble at the Word.”
And today many still stumble at Christ as the cornerstone, and still call the human pebble, the disciple Peter, the foundation of the church.
The church has one Foundation,
’Tis Jesus Christ her Lord;
She is His new creation,
Through water by the Word.
From heav’n He came and sought her
To be His holy bride;
With His own blood He bought her,
And for her life He died…
2. LiberalMind | September 2nd, 2008 at 1:22 am
You are free to cling to your aged fairy tales, which time and time again science has proven merely superstitions.
3. Dennis | September 2nd, 2008 at 1:43 am
Another erroneous presumption of the good Friar De Celles (from the NRO document): It is always a grave or mortal sin for a politician to support abortion.
Often when politicians are presumed to be in support of abortion, such is not the case at all. They are merely in support of the government butting out of what is essentially not a civil matter. Reproductive choices are a private matter in which a person is accountable neither to an all-powerful state or any church, but to God alone.
Such politicians show more respect to the sacred office of of God than those who presume to stand in the place of the Holy Spirit and dictate to the moral conscience of fellow human beings.
4. Jeremiah | September 2nd, 2008 at 2:08 am
Dennis,
You preach the truth in one post, but then go and do exactly the opposite in another post; by advocating that murder be permissible. God does not like a double-life, my friend…
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death–even death on the cross! Therfore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him th ename that is above every name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Pelosi should be more mindful of her purpose, and you as well, Dennis. Now to turn the page a bit…
The Law in Roe v. Wade, Dennis, has essentially placed their own authority above that of God. They create the law to becoming of seducing spirits, so to speak … do ever notice how all these so called rights groups really got organized after Roe v. Wade was passed to encourage women to have more abortions, essentially encouraging murder … they workly frantically in school teaching and encouraging pre-marital sex, and as the internet encourages it as well … but do you see what the law done, it encourages evil of all kinds. That’s not what the law of our Founders was intended to do, it was meant to stop evil such as abortion, and encourage people to do what is right. The Founders got their definition of the Law from the Bible, Thou Shall Not Murder, and in 1 Timothy in the New Testament.
5. Mark Noonan | September 2nd, 2008 at 2:20 am
Liberal,
Whatever they may be, Pelosi claims to be an ardent believer in them…this homily shows that she’s either being dishonest, or she’s very ignorant of the faith she claims to adhere to.
Pick one, there are not other options.
6. Mark Noonan | September 2nd, 2008 at 2:21 am
Jeremiah,
Be wary of Dennis - he apparantly subscribes to a very narrow theology which pretty much excludes from the Kingdom of God anyone who disagrees with him…
7. Mark Noonan | September 2nd, 2008 at 2:23 am
Dennis,
But that isn’t the point - the point is that Pelosi tried to make out that Catholic teaching is unclear…one doesn’t have to be Catholic, but Pelosi claims she’s a believer in it…and there in lies the problem; Pelosi is misrepresenting the faith, and one wonders why she would do such a dishonest thing.
8. Dennis | September 2nd, 2008 at 2:25 am
Jeremiah, I have never advocated that murder is permissible.
You canceled yourself out last week, my friend. Please don’t presume to lecture me, and if you put words in my mouth, they are your words, not mine.
I shake your dust off my feet.
9. Dennis | September 2nd, 2008 at 2:50 am
Mark, Ms. Pelosi may well be misrepresenting the Catholic church. You may be correct on that point - I am not qualified to speak for that institution.
But as for “excluding” anyone from the kingdom of God - no human being or institution has authority to do that. The heavenly invitation is from Christ and it stands.
As I read the Scriptures, and the statements of popes through the ages down to the current Benedict, it is the Roman Catholic institution that sets itself up as a tollkeeper and a barrier on the road to heaven.
Hence your theology is exclusive, while mine is inclusive. Nobody needs an intermediary or a human authority to reach Christ - He is the living high priest who lives and hears, and can be approached directly.
10. Dennis | September 2nd, 2008 at 3:10 am
A post scrip - I cannot for the life of me figure out why you guys are such fanatics for authoritarianism. It is like you need something or someone tangible to bow down to. Whether it is a kind of learned or inbred idolatry, I really don’t know.
I would encourage you to get up off your knees from before mere humans. Whether presidents like the strutting specimen of George W. Bush, rock stars, priests or popes - they are made of dirt, just like you and me. God alone is to be worshiped. All the rest are to be loved and respected, just as you love and respect yourself.
11. Mark Noonan | September 2nd, 2008 at 3:14 am
Dennis,
I’ve seen the source for your views on Catholicism, though you deny them…unless and until you offer specific assurances on the subject of who is Christian, I’m afraid my doubts about you on that subject will remain.
Be that as it may, as this thread it about Pelosi and her standing as a Catholic, it would be in your interest to familiarise yourself with Church teaching prior to commenting. You can go here and start learning at your convenience.
12. tiedye | September 2nd, 2008 at 9:59 am
It would be in your interest Mark Noonan to familiarize yourself with most subjects before you comment on them. However, as evidenced here daily, that is not something you do or are interested in doing. Try leading by example and practicing what you bitch before commenting next time.
13. Dennis | September 2nd, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Mark, my views on Catholicism are not derived from any website. I was taught from childhood what the Protestant Reformation was all about. That is why I am a strong proponent of the separation of church and state.
Around the time President Reagan appointed an ambassador to the Vatican I wrote an article on the history of Roman Catholic influence in world politics, which was published in 1983. I collected the quotes with which you have taken umbrage at that time. I did it the old fashioned way, by using the public library.
I repeat unequivocally what I have said here before - Christians are those who accept Christ’s atonement and follow his teachings in the Gospels. It is that simple. The Gospel, i.e. “good news”, is an invitation from God to fallen sinners that they may be forgiven, accepted and made righteous in Christ, and it needs no intermediation by human institutions.
I am not interested in Catholicism except as it gets in the way of people’s understanding of biblical Christianity, or presumes to dictate over the conscience or freedom of others. While you are concerned that Pelosi should rightly represent Catholicism, I am similarly concerned that Christians should rightly represent what Christ himself taught, and not twist or dishonestly use the Scriptures. Fair enough?