Skip to main content

"Derivative Authority" Is A Sham

I've said this many times, notably here. The "arbiter/receiver Rule," stated by me as, "One cannot be both the arbiter of divine revelation, and a humble receiver of it at the same time," is a wordier, less quippy version of, "If I submit only when I agree, the one to whom I submit is me." A fundamentally invisible Church deals with the twin problems of ecclesial pluralism, and the charge of schism. You can't be in schism from an invisible Church. You can't be in heresy, either, from a Church defined by you, big enough to contain the opinion you happen to hold.

That's why the divine authority of a visible community becomes of primary importance, and why reason suggests that such a community would have to be infallible in certain circumstances. If some group isn't the Church, what are they going to say when someone calls their bluff? "You are wrong! You are in heresy! We really, really, mean it this time"? Once more, wasn't Arius basically theorizing an invisible Church? "Well, this group of fallible men isn't the Church! I'm right, and they are wrong!" Pretty easy to do, eh?

That's why Mere Christianity leads back to Mere Catholic Church, or Mere Whatever I Want. Or I could call it the Galli Incoherence. I see why this would be attractive, but I'm surely not the first person to say this is more ad hoc than a Dave Matthews Band concert.

Food for thought.

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