Skip to main content

They Went Out From Us...

A little note on this new propensity for people to call themselves, "Reformed Catholics". It's dishonest. If you believe that the Catholic Church has distorted the gospel (and in all fairness and sympathy, this is what the children of the Reformation believe) then separation from a false 'Church' is an honest and principled course. In fact, if I may make a brief digression into Catholic moral theology, it is a sin to act against certain conscience, even if that conscience turns out to be badly misinformed. This is why a person who grows up in what was a schism is not a schismatic, properly speaking. If a person knowingly persists in schism, knowing that it is one, that's a different story. That's why Lumen Gentium, 14 is so carefully worded, with respect to knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ: If you know that, and refuse to enter or stay, you're rejecting Christ, not some guys calling themselves the 'Catholic Church'. If I were to leave, I give you permission to fear for my soul. What the Church does with the motives of credibility--that is the reasoned reasons to trust Christ and His Church--is question the credibility of those witnesses who believe other than what she teaches. That's what she did to me. If Leithart honestly believes that his differences with us are not significant enough to live in doctrinal and ecclesial contradistinction to us, then don't do it. If they are, then do. But you're not Catholic until you are.

Behind all the discussions I had about what 'catholic' really meant, (and actually, the whole time, we were discussing the disputed meanings of all 4 of the traditional marks of the Church), eventually, I heard God's voice in a certain way, saying, "This is the faith of My House; take it or leave it." (But more love, for sure.) Mother Church doesn't question anyone's earnestness or zeal; only God knows hearts. But she does question your authorities.

This is why I do not 'hate' the Reformed faith I once loved. I must vigorously protest this charge. I only questioned and do question those authorities from which we learned it, in this respect: their capacity and authority to speak for Jesus Christ with respect to what has been revealed. This is why a good Catholic can say to everyone in the world: "You are right in what you affirm, and wrong in what you deny."

Another quick note: There are lots of denominations, it's true. I've heard Catholic apologists mention this before, and it's not altogether invalid. But it's important to recognize what the true point of that is. It's not, "Stupid Protestants, HA, HA!" No, the point is, "How do I know where God has spoken, and what has He said?" The Noltie Conundrum is only a true crisis when you presume that the other guy is closer to God than you are. It becomes a theological problem in the strict sense. We can wax eloquent about the fallibility of man, but you kind of want to say, "OK, the Humility Cards have been played. Now, what did God say?"

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