It all began when a friend asked me to look at a book (nice phrase, 'look at a book') for his class--what Mizzou was calling Religious Studies 104 at the time--"The Many Faces of Christology" (the study of interpreting Christ and His work). The introduction struck me, because the author said that he had wrestled through doubt in his twenties, proclaiming himself a Marxist. Yet, he continued to receive Holy Communion, saying that it eventually became a confirmation of his identity. The discovery was union with Christ, and it had never been broken truly. (Marxism in truest form is openly hostile to the gospel; incidentally, so is the humanistic basis of some forms of libertarianism, e.g. Objectivism) As I realize that the plain offer of the gospel is manifest in the bread and cup, it is also apparent that the eucharistic celebration is the confirmation of my identity, of my place in the body of Christ, and the heart of our mission. We cannot make disciples if we do not know whether we are disciples. Fellowship, indeed! But the Protestant caveats regarding the Supper are wise; shortcutting the obligation of faith by way of the sacrament is arguably a more damaging error than bare memorialism. Zwingli (and others) should acknowledge their errors, and join us at the card table. Exhibits 1 and 2 in the Church Museum of Destructive Errors should be memorialism, and the Council of Trent. You Catholics out there know very well that the earliest Protestant Reformers weren't heretics! Bother dogma. A certain German friar may have been impetuous, uncharitable, and downright ornery, but he had a point, in doctrine and in practice. (Did you type 'obligation of faith' up there? What sort of Calvinist are you?--ed.) The Arminian kind! Just kidding, Missouri Presbytery! (God-willing, my future colleagues.) Should I start submitting this website to my elders? Crap, I hope not.
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con
Comments