Skip to main content
Dangerous Jamie is at it again. Seriously, stop waiting around to read Bryan's essay on ecclesial deism; No, I don't care if you don't think Catholics are saved. You're wrong, anyway. The ecclesial infalliability claim bothers me too, but alas, I haven't read through Newman, so I reserve judgment at this time. This is THE question of the new decade: Is it time to go home? Co-belligerence is a failure; I'm telling you, non-Christians see right through it, and they wonder if it's just a ploy for a political program to "save America from the heathen" [read: Democrats, socialists, gays, peaceniks, and college professors. Yes, I know I repeat myself. Granted, in all seriousness, the only group I'd have no gripe with is the peaceniks, but the point is, "How's licking the boots of the GOP working out for you?" But I digress.]. The giant elephant in the room is: Can we sustain a protest on points of doctrine which we cannot verify, even among ourselves? The elephant's name is Unfalsifiable. The other elephant in the room, the Catholic one, is named Unfalsifiable (By Reason Of Undue Deference). In other words, what I'm still saying to the friendly neighborhood Catholic apologist re: papal and ecclesial infalliability is, "Prove it, Sparky." Since I have experienced Jesus Christ personally, the agnostic option isn't available in response to all this unfalsifiability. No, I don't care that this is not a word. If 'W' and Woodrow Wilson can make up words, so can I, by golly. Note to my readers: "Normalcy" is not a word; it wasn't until 1915, and I will not recognize it as such. What are you going to do, Woodrow, invade my house? Ha! I digress. I punt for right now, until such time as I can give due consideration to Newman's essay on doctrinal development, with the attendant ability (allegedly) to tell an accretion from organic development in a Catholic context. In case anybody wants my opinion, I don't think justification would be the only hurdle to reunion. A Protestant Reformer transplanted to the late 19th-early 20th century might well view (the good ones, Luther or Calvin) the papal definitions as simply convenient means to codify some fairly controversial Marian doctrine. (No offense "Mom," in case I am completely wrong, and you can hear me.) Ahem. Anyway, Jamie, you are crazy in a good way. You know, you don't have to follow me down the path of complete lunacy. I am enjoying the side benefit along with Jamie of helping to cure God's people of their neo-Gnostic anti-sacramentalism and anti-materialism...in our position as men with profound physical disabilities. Poetic, ain't it?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

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...
17 comments
Read more

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...
Post a Comment
Read more

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...
Post a Comment
Read more