Skip to main content

The Outcome Of My Investigation vs. The End Of All Striving

In my post on dogma, I was attempting to articulate how the primacy of the individual as represented by Sola Scriptura would impact the knowledge and the use of dogma within ecclesial communities. To say once again that Mathison has failed to distinguish between solo and sola is actually to say that the visible community has ceased to function as an organ for the communication of divine truth, at least in terms of the individual as one who submits unequivocally to its dictates.

 

That is, my so-called Tyranny of the Plausible becomes a tyranny only insofar as each competing theology is derived from the same hermeneutical process, using the same tools, with the same starting assumptions. It is a restatement of Fred's problem, from a slightly more global ecclesiological viewpoint. The Noltie Conundrum, as we have termed it, asks about the truth value of a particular set of theological assertions, given the reality of theological pluralism. As I continue to reflect in a hopefully fruitful way upon this problem, my contribution is to assume the good faith horn of that dilemma, and then take stock of where we are. The other horn of the dilemma leaves in play the notion that the individual could arbitrate the theological problems. My own experience is of having a faith that was received, or better said, a faith that was taught. In such a case, the authority of the presumptive teachers is precisely at issue.

 

But the reason the tu quoque is inapt as an objection to the Catholic Church is that investigating the claims of the Catholic Church using reason is quite distinct from submitting to the Catholic Church and doing theology as a son of the Catholic Church. The best possible outcome of an investigation of the claims of the Catholic Church is to say that such claims are reasonable. It is not inherently irrational to conclude that the Catholic Church is the church that Christ founded. In fact, it may be irrational to conclude otherwise. Yet this is not synonymous with, "I prefer the  Catholic Church" or, "the Catholic Church agrees with me". A person who talks this way may be Catholic by name, but has not fully understood and accepted what it means to be Catholic. Such a person is also vulnerable to some discovery that would cause him to withdraw his affirmation of any or all Catholic doctrines of which he is aware. That is not faith, and that is not the basis for anything the Catholic Church claims for itself or those who claim to be its members. When I became Catholic, I used the fact that the Catholic Church's claims were reasonable (and that other claims were not consistent with the evidence, or were hideously implausible) to decide to become a member of the Catholic Church. After having decided, my relationship to that evidence is very different. I may use my reason to bring order to it, to explain how the data coheres, but I do not subject it to a rationalistic scrutiny, as though its truth were in doubt. Rather, the truths of Catholic faith, given the authority of the Church which handed them on, are the irrevocable starting-points for future reflection and possible development in theology. It always seems a little odd when people ask me which parts of Catholic faith I deny, because the question makes no sense in true Catholic ears. I cannot deny that which is my only hope in this life or the next. For the Catholic, the Church is itself an object of faith in a secondary sense; we cling to her as the mother Christ gave her to be.
 
That which is common to all Christians stands outside competing paradigms as a monument to the faithfulness of the incarnate Word. It remained for me to discern where exactly that commonality originated, and to forthrightly ask if I stood in the proper relation to that origin-point, which is in fact the Church, by the mercy of Christ. The Church is not an idealized concept into which I pour my spiritual hopes and dreams; it is in fact the visible, hierarchical supernatural society intended by Christ. The corporate reality of sin is no less real than the personal, yet our mistake was to assume that the indefectible truth could not be communicated through humanity. Divine and human are not opposites, as Our Lord demonstrates, though an almost infinite chasm exists between them. I say "almost" because God wills them to be united in Christ and in the Church. This is why I asked myself if the Council of Trent could be true, despite any number of failures to embody Truth. That goes for all ecumenical councils, before and after. There is nothing wrong with what God said; there is something rather wrong with us.

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