Skip to main content
It strikes me as important to say that why we hold something to be true is at least as important as the fact that we do, provided that thing we hold corresponds to true truth. Because the reason why will tell us if we are being principled and/rational in the holding. The whole Crossian notion of Protestantism as ecclesial deism rests on the claim/premise that to hold the Nicene Christology as true without the visible Church gifted with the charism that makes it true is unprincipled. To explore the basis for why Nicea is true is to discover the continuity at the heart of the Catholic Church.
But look at it another way: to hold it without a principled basis isn't the end of the world; in fact, it may well save your soul. The bad part is, there's nothing in the principles of Protestantism (which ultimately reduces to the primacy of individual Scriptural interpretation) to prevent a very opposite conclusion. We're not saying--I'm certainly not saying--that every Reformed guy is some separatist Arian Billy Sunday; far from it. I'm saying that when he decides to apply those principles consistently, you've got nothing in the toolbox to keep him orthodox. Every creedal Protestant Christian is inconsistently applying Reformational principles to his life and doctrine, and thank God. This is what it means to say, "there is no principled distinction between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura." It isn't just papist propaganda; if you reject the creed as authoritative as such, there's no guarantee you'll get Christ right. In fact, it's pretty likely you'll get some part of him wrong. Let me sum up: I'd rather you all be unprincipled, illogical, emotional windbag Protestants than logically consistent damnable heretics. That said, wouldn't it be better to be Catholic? I couldn't figure out why I'd kill a man before I'd give up the Nicene Creed, but I knew I had no good reason to believe that it was correct, and so many other councils--as impositions of apostolic ecclesiastical authority--were wrong. Thus begun the investigation of why and by what means my faith was true. This is why--even if swimming the Tiber sounds like an invitation to swim an acid bath--you might feel like slapping Mark Galli. We all instinctively know they didn't luck out; God did something. You've gotta seriously ask yourself if you'd largely agree with the ancient heroes in the faith on the person of Christ without this authority structure we see in the Fathers. What is an Ecumenical Council? What did the leaders of the church then believe about its function? How did they see themselves? I kept finding that I knew who I was supposed to root for--I knew the right answers--but how the heroes got there was very different than how I'd been taught to arrive at mine. The visible Church, with organs and means for discerning and maintaining the truth, began to be seen. And then you naturally ask where those means went, and if they still exist. And they do. I'm about to digress. Alright. It's really dumb to hector Protestants constantly about apostolic succession without a visible principle of unity--a guy in whom the whole line from the Apostles is fixed. What's the point of having a visible Church with no focal point, no beginning? Practically, where does the buck stop? And this is why, in one sentence or two, Orthodoxy makes no sense. Especially since the Big Cheese was there before the big fight. And everybody was cool with him as the Big Cheese, until they weren't. But he either has the Gooey Scepter, or he doesn't.
And what I need to say today was not that. What I came to talk about was Luther. I really appreciate him, in a way. I hope you believe me on that. Evil and corruption have no place in God's house. I think it's more than fair to say that we all share his outrage at a great many things. Trent spent most of its breath--may they be happily commemorated forever!--addressing those abuses which all Christians rightly abhor.
But the heart of the problem is the answer to the question "Can an ecumenical council err?" This can be answered quite apart from the time in which we live or the evil we may witness. If we answer 'yes,' we are not Catholic, and we weren't in 1517, either. I want to believe Luther backed himself into a corner with his anger and hubris, and that he didn't want to answer this way. But he did. And this is the paradigm difference in a nutshell. You don't need a symposium on sinners to figure it out. You don't need a guilt trip; the faithful, when asked if a promulgated Council could err, will shout in any age, "No!" What, are you crazy? Why don't you ask me if black is white?
I had to switch paradigms, because the truth transcending them both made no sense in the one. Nicea's true because God made it so; the bishops, together with their head, Peter's successor, were tasked by God to figure it out. If it was true then, it's true today. Now I understand why Catholics giggle like giddy schoolchildren when they hear we're having a Council. "God's gonna do something, we know it! It'll affect generations of us! We'll probably be dead before we see how. But He is so good." That's why the popes sound like they just won the lottery when they open one. They did. We all do.
It's really cool reading the history of this stuff when your heart is on fire, when you believe God acts through this Church in a special way. Before you hit the end of a story, you can guess what they're gonna say. Or rather, what the Holy Spirit will do. And that's fun. Good stopping point? Nah. But I'm done.

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