Sure, he didn't fully embrace "historic" Christological orthodoxy, but he's just doing what a good Protestant should do: Wondering aloud just what is so "historic" about that particular interpretation. He's not bound to it, any more than you have bound yourself to the dogmatic conclusions of the Council of Trent. Oops. I'm seriously not messing with you when I say things like, "There is an irreconcilable conflict between the fundamental principle of the Reformation, and the imposition of ecclesiastical authority." If you want an "historic" faith, you are bound to those means by which it became the historic, true, and universal faith. When it's all said and done, you're either an atheist, or a child of the Catholic Church. Man alive, that is scary business! But it's enlivening, too.
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
Comments