Skip to main content
I'm going to answer a comment from a previous post here. It was suggested that the divisions among protestants (permit me to poke you in the eye by failing to capitalize it; I would not mean to confer an undue legitimacy on the whole enterprise) are no worry because neither is the entire world Catholic. Having failed to convince every single person to embrace the Church must invalidate the Church's claim, or so this well-credentialed folly goes. I answer that, do you not also exclude those persons who are obstinate in their refusal to embrace Christ in the gospel from the right hand of fellowship? Granted, our dialogue is only analogous, for I presume the validity of your baptism, and thus, some real but imperfect communion with the People of God. In any case, does the dissent of the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Christadelphians invalidate the truths proclaimed at Nicea? Does the mere presence of that dissent legitimize its content? I should say not. Thus, the lack of uniform consent to the deposit of faith given to the Church does not invalidate its claim. The inquisitor fails to distinguish between schism and acceptable variance of opinion. It is to be expected, since the mental phantasm to which that inquisitor affixes the noble word "Church" does not permit that principled distinction to be made. I would remind others that the sacramental unity of the visible Church is very real; it is not a thing to be hoped for and realized later. But indeed we all hope that all who claim Christ will share in the fullness of truth together. My ongoing point regarding this is as follows: Perhaps the revision of what constitutes the 4 essential marks of the Church and the alleged necessity of doing so was in error, since it neither unifies Christian people, nor shows any clear path for doing so. Revising one's assessment of what the "Reformers" did and judging it negative doesn't push one away from Christ, but in fact, where we still agree clarifies who Christ Himself is. But notice how sharp-edged this is: If what is essential to Christ and Christianity persists on either side of the Reformation, then the Reformation distinctives, and the particulars of each confessing community, are not essential to the Christian gospel. Are you willing to die for Calvinian predestination or for consubstantiation? Are you willing to say that the PCA or the LCMS is itself the Church, and to separate from her invites the wrath of God? No? Then why do you hold any of those things? And insofar as you do not suggest such identifications, you do invite the honest onlooker to say, "In these things, the truth cannot be known, or is not significant." Is this what you mean to say? From whence does dogma come? The only dogma that apparently you will not relativize is that the Catholic Church cannot be Christ's own.

Comments

Well, first, it should be noted that my argument had an important nuance you don't respond to and thus it could not be applied in a broader "why hasn't the whole world become Christian" sort of context. My point is this: if Protestants are wrong because "my" Protestants can't convince other Protestants we are right, then why does this standard you've set not apply to the schisms the Catholic church faces? Apply the same standard within the Catholic church and you see your requested standard is untenable.

Would I tell people the "PCA" is the Church? Of course not. But, our theology doesn't require us to do so. Again, that's imposing Catholic assumptions on Protestant theology and then criticizing Protestants for being inconsistent... only by positions they don't claim.
Jason said…
On the contrary; I'm asking what open communion (and the basic ecclesiology you're using) does to the reasonableness of the particular claims. On the one hand, it seems that this relativizes the significance of those distinctives, as Barth himself stated when advocating for open communion. But see what that means? It means that those distinctives can't be the reason not to be Catholic, at least not on the same terms. You've already said by the action/ecclesiology that it's not a first-order issue. But I'd ask Barth if he'd turn his pulpit over to a Methodist or a Lutheran if he really believes this.
You can't have a schism within the Catholic Church; oneness is one of her essential marks. You are either in union with the Church or not. Just because someone is "Catholic" by tradition or intent doesn't mean a schism refutes the teaching (or lets another schismatic off the hook, if of course it is willful and with full knowledge, meaning that people who start Protestant are not presumably guilty of schism, though they are part of one; see the CCC).

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