Skip to main content
This is a great response to Leithart, on my exact point about idolatry, from an Orthodox guy.

That said, the Church is Orthodoxy? (from the comments) How? No principium unitatis, no definition of what an ecumenical council is, no definitive doctrines about anything, (ethnic Church doctrinal free-for-all) and no way to find them. Oh, yeah, WHERE'S THE BISHOP OF ROME?

I digress. Certain enthusiastic Lutherans (let the reader understand) will just have to man up and realize Leithart was wrong on the point. What is the Eucharist? If it is bread, then we of the Catholic Church (and a large number of others) are Idolaters, not cutesy, evangelical, Calvin, your-heart-is-an-idol-factory idolaters, and you should be glad we're excluding you from our covenant-shattering damnable practices, not mad because we won't let you in.

On the other hand, you wouldn't have this problem if you weren't bizarrely committed to the idea that you were a snow-covered dung heap who commits damnable offenses just by breathing, that is somehow loved by God anyway for Christ's sake, even though if you don't respond, it's still your fault, even though whether or not you do respond was determined beforehand by the decretal election of God before you existed. But don't worry! When it's your turn, God will make you think it matters what you do! Oh, and feel free to work out the blatant contradiction between WCF Chapter 11 and Chapter 15 when you get a chance. To wit: God cannot forgive the same sins twice. If 11 is true, I need not repent of sins committed after I am in Christ by faith, because that's what imputation means: The Father sees Christ, not me. If 11 is not true, well then, I'm not sure what theology that is, but it ain't Reformational. Not that I care if a theology is Reformational, but still. Over here, we would call an error that didn't damn one an attachment, or a venial sin. Anything else...just don't do that, OK?

I have to be a little rougher on the Reformed, because their theology makes the least sense of any, outside the Church, properly speaking. No; I don't think any of you are damned; I might think your leaders are not validly ordained ministers of Christ. I might even say the forefathers of your communities were rebellious, preening charlatans if I'm in a really bad mood, but a few of their descendants charm me with their warmth and humanity, even as theologians, despite themselves. Karl Barth, looking in your direction.

Anyway, I know I'm in full snark mode today. In all seriousness, though, love to you, wherever you are.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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
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

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un