Skip to main content
Dangerous Jamie is at it again. Seriously, stop waiting around to read Bryan's essay on ecclesial deism; No, I don't care if you don't think Catholics are saved. You're wrong, anyway. The ecclesial infalliability claim bothers me too, but alas, I haven't read through Newman, so I reserve judgment at this time. This is THE question of the new decade: Is it time to go home? Co-belligerence is a failure; I'm telling you, non-Christians see right through it, and they wonder if it's just a ploy for a political program to "save America from the heathen" [read: Democrats, socialists, gays, peaceniks, and college professors. Yes, I know I repeat myself. Granted, in all seriousness, the only group I'd have no gripe with is the peaceniks, but the point is, "How's licking the boots of the GOP working out for you?" But I digress.]. The giant elephant in the room is: Can we sustain a protest on points of doctrine which we cannot verify, even among ourselves? The elephant's name is Unfalsifiable. The other elephant in the room, the Catholic one, is named Unfalsifiable (By Reason Of Undue Deference). In other words, what I'm still saying to the friendly neighborhood Catholic apologist re: papal and ecclesial infalliability is, "Prove it, Sparky." Since I have experienced Jesus Christ personally, the agnostic option isn't available in response to all this unfalsifiability. No, I don't care that this is not a word. If 'W' and Woodrow Wilson can make up words, so can I, by golly. Note to my readers: "Normalcy" is not a word; it wasn't until 1915, and I will not recognize it as such. What are you going to do, Woodrow, invade my house? Ha! I digress. I punt for right now, until such time as I can give due consideration to Newman's essay on doctrinal development, with the attendant ability (allegedly) to tell an accretion from organic development in a Catholic context. In case anybody wants my opinion, I don't think justification would be the only hurdle to reunion. A Protestant Reformer transplanted to the late 19th-early 20th century might well view (the good ones, Luther or Calvin) the papal definitions as simply convenient means to codify some fairly controversial Marian doctrine. (No offense "Mom," in case I am completely wrong, and you can hear me.) Ahem. Anyway, Jamie, you are crazy in a good way. You know, you don't have to follow me down the path of complete lunacy. I am enjoying the side benefit along with Jamie of helping to cure God's people of their neo-Gnostic anti-sacramentalism and anti-materialism...in our position as men with profound physical disabilities. Poetic, ain't it?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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
17 comments
Read more

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Post a Comment
Read more
My wheelchair was nearly destroyed by a car last night. That's a bit melodramatic, I suppose, because it is intact and undamaged. But we'd left my power chair ("Red Sam" in the official designation) in-between the maze of cars parked out front of Chris Yee's house for Bible Study. [Isn't that a Protestant Bible study?--ed.] They are good friends, and it is not under any official auspices. [Not BSF?--ed.] They're BSF guys, but it's not a BSF study. Anyway, I wasn't worried; I made a joke about calling the vendor the next day: "What seems to be the problem, sir?" 'Well, it was destroyed by a car.' As it happened, a guy bumped into it at slow speed. His car got the worst of it. And this only reinforces what I've said for a solid 13 years [Quickie commercial coming] If you want a power wheelchair that lasts, get a Quickie. They're fast, obviously, and they're tanks. Heck, my old one still would work, but the batteries ar
13 comments
Read more