Skip to main content

LOL: "Entering The Catholic Church Will Solve All Your Problems!"

Buahaha. Buahaha. Seriously, that's hilarious. Has anyone ever actually said this? If you enter the Catholic Church, you're going to be crucified. "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me." If you don't know this, now you do. Is it worth it?

YES.

I love some of these Reformed guys; they sit around telling themselves that we converts have some deep-seated primal need for, well, anything that can be used to ignore the important questions that naturally arise. You want to know what's deep-seated? Our obligation to find the truth. Obligation. It's not like a desire for chicken wings, or sex, or Coca-Cola; reality demands that we live in accord with it, as the "is" that God created, whether it's morality, or dogma, or social ethics.

If Jesus Christ came into the world, then He is the Truth to which creation must conform. He has instructed, he has taught, and we must believe only that.

The trouble is, a great many Christians think that a new way of knowing what Christ taught us could be introduced, whilst leaving carefully selected bits in place. To those of us who find all that a tad arbitrary, well, we're just asking the wrong questions. Or so they say.

It'd be more than slightly odd for God to change what he has revealed in response to human moral failings, especially because God has been contending with human moral failings from the start. Here's the upshot, friends: If Luther was right, Augustine is in Hell. And Cyprian? He's good for a slogan, but he's in Hell, too. Not what you're intending to say? That's what your principles do say. There was only one deluge, and that was the Flood. The gospel cannot be lost, hidden, or otherwise corrupted. Why? Because Jesus gave it as the message and mission of His Church, and he promised us the Church wasn't going anywhere.

Reality does not care that I find Catholics creepy, provincial, or impious. I either live in accord with it, or face the consequences of not doing so. Some of those can be eternal. I do my best not to deny reality. I was never on a quest to find the pristine Church. We all know the pristine Church exists only in Peter Leithart's head.

We find as sinners that we do not love the truth that we know, but somewhere along the line, someone decided that we can't know the truth that God revealed completely. That dead Anglican leader sure wrote a lot of books, for a guy saying we can't be certain of these things.

Anyway.


Comments

Nathan Hall said…
Indeed we have an obligation to find the truth. But is it true that the gospel cannot be lost, hidden, or otherwise corrupted by religious organizations? How would you explain Momons, Jehovah's Witnesses, or (on your account) Protestants? Of course, the gospel cannot be destroyed, which is why I need not believe Augustine is necessarily condemned. Even in an age of false teaching God will have his elect. But was John wrong when he wrote that "no one who is born of God practices sin?" (1 John. 3:9) It is hard to believe that some of the popes were among the elect. And how could one not among the elect be the authentic head of God's church?
Jason said…
Dear Nathan,

It is actually likely that some of the popes are not among the elect. I would also grant that it is very possible for a religious organization to be corrupted, but not *dogmatically*, if in fact that organization is the Church that Christ established. Which leads to the dilemma: If the Reformation was a moral protest, then the distinct doctrines which emerged from it are not necessary. If it is a theological one, then the very means which established various points of commonality between us must be rejected. The holiness or not of a pontiff has no bearing on his jurisdiction. If Christ put him there, no wickedness can invalidate it. If Christ did not, then he could be the holiest who ever lived, and being subject to him even provisionally would be a monstrous sin. In either case, there we are.
Nathan Hall said…
I agree that the authority of Christ trumps all isi le works, but didn't Christ himself tell us that we shall know false teachers by their fruit? If the question is whether I can reject Christ's chosen because I think him unrighteous,I accept that the answer is no. But I think the depravity of some popes argues that Christ never did choose them.
Jason said…
You're equivocating on the word "choose." I agree with you that a person who sins with impunity and without repentance will not inherit the Kingdom, no matter who they are. But if Chairman Mao tells me God is one God in three divine Persons, I don't get a second opinion. If the successor of Peter is holding the keys of the Kingdom, then he is, and in that respect, nothing else matters. The dilemma mentioned earlier remains in force.
Jason said…
Pope Mao?

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