Skip to main content
Being a Christian is about Jesus Christ; we ask and discover who he is in order to discover what he'd like us to do, in general and in the particular. As I have said many times, the two most important questions you will ever ask--to yourself or anyone else--are, "Who is Jesus Christ?" and, "What is the Church?" Once you realize that whatever answer you give to the second question is awfully ad hoc and presumptuous, that question becomes, "Where is the Church?"

It seems rather obvious to me now, to realize that the denomination I had been a part of had no connection whatsoever of a necessary kind to that insvisible notion of "Church" we held so dear. That is, to separate from that body was no grave crime, and it may well not have been a crime at all. To play the trump card all Protestants have but never acknowledge using is one of the more dangerous and liberating things a person can do. My church, my denomination, could be wrong. To say otherwise, to invest said leaders with anything more than the provisional authority which they hold would be to invite the very historical scrutiny which any Protestant community cannot survive. So, having willingly and by neccessity chosen to conceive of the "Church" as the invisible group of all the elect, one faces two obvious problems: 1. explaining why one has the ability to define "the Church" in the first place, and 2. explaining what this far-flung, disconnected group of people not only believes, but must believe by necessity in order to attain salvation. The funny part is, you can't answer the second without answering the first. In all that, I wish you luck. None of this has anything whatever to do with the Catholic Church: its claims upon our lives, or the fact that I am now her loyal son.
So don't distract from the issues. Answer the question(s). Even if by exegesis you could attempt an answer to the second question, the real answer to the first is a question: "Who asked me?" Since denominations or families of denominations exist to promote and preserve one interpretation of the Scriptures, the obvious question--especially in light of opposing ecclesiastical assemblies with their disparate views quite in evidence--is why any one of them can be held correct. It is not reasonable to believe that my imperfect, fallible, reading of the Scriptures--by a mere invocation of the Holy Spirit--is any more or less plausible than the next man's. Is it any more reasonable to assume that our collective reading of those same Scriptures, as one denomination or family of them, escapes the problem? To the extent that one conceives that the Body of Christ extends outside the community one inhabits, to even those who disagree on fundamental points while remaining full members, to that extent must one be uncertain about what the Body of Christ believes. Ecclesiology and dogma are inextricably linked. More than that, there are as many ecclesiologies as there are interpretations of the sacred text. And that makes sense, since the individual determines not only what is most important to believe, but also the shape of that spiritual communion of those who hold it.

There is nowhere near this level of uncertainty in the Catholic paradigm, by the way. Looking at the paradigms themselves, there is no doubt which one is superior on those terms. It only remains to see if there is evidence in history to support the notion that this Catholic Church is that which enjoys the divine charism of infallibility.

If these guys come to your door and start arguing that you aren't even reading your New Testament correctly, can you appeal to any act of Holy Mother Church to back you up, knowing that you do not do so in a principled fashion? I'm just asking. This very truth drove me to discover the bases of what I did hold, and this led inoxerably to the Catholic Church.

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