Skip to main content
In this journey of mine that will most likely end in Rome [Don't bias it.--ed.] (fair enough), one dear friend of mine has taken to jokingly calling me a "papist dog." [Good friends, sheesh.--ed.] I think it's two-headed: first, we deeply regret many of the nasty things we said about Catholics over the centuries, in light of many faithful, biblical, Christ-loving Catholics we know (and the last two popes). And second, it demonstrates a great fear that particular Catholic distinctives (Mary, the saints, possibly Eucharist) are idolatry. Now, I have to say, my bias of experience spending loads and loads of time with "traditional" Catholics and learning Catholic theology pushes me in the direction of rejecting such a charge as unfounded. Still, idolatry is a serious charge for one Christian to make against another. In fact, it is so serious a charge that it puts the lie to much of our ecumenical talk these days. If Catholics are idolaters, we can have nothing at all to do with them. This means that we cannot reasonably hope to see any orthodox (according to them) Catholics in Heaven/New Earth. When I read John H. Armstrong's book "The Catholic Mystery" and the suggestion via Barna that perhaps 20% of Catholics have an evangelical faith as a conservative Protestant would understand it, I thought 2 things: 1) "Oh, crap, do we really want them to be as messed up as us?" (theologically, mostly) And 2) (after considerable time in their company) "That's preposterously low. Maybe even half, despite the weakness there." When we conservative Protestants say 'evangelical' we mean, "A living, active, saving faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ that affects the way I live, and God-willing, the world in which we live." If we attempt to define it any more precisely, our own biases (such as the means by which gospel truth is received, and where it is contained) begin to affect our vision, and it's little wonder we put the number so low; we're judging it by Protestant notions of authority and the nature of the Church! I don't think I realized this for a long time. On the other hand, there is a pernicious and debilitating Catholic culture that leads a great many to ignorance and presumption (and possibly, straight to Hell). No matter where I go, I hope and pray that renewal efforts continue and multiply in the Catholic Church. Still, the nature of being Catholic in the best sense is to accept what the Church teaches (and obey it) because it is the Church that Christ founded. To trust the Church is to trust Christ, and vice versa. In that case, then, some have levelled the charge of Sola Ecclesia ("the Church Alone") against the Catholic Church. [I already know what you're going to say, you papist dog.--ed.] Well, that's better than No Ecclesia. [So predictable.--ed.] Because Protestants struggle, to say the least, defining the boundaries of fellowship that they share in common despite their visible disunity, the inevitable result is/will be a complete loss of a dogmatic principle. It's as if the persistent egalitarianism at the heart of the Reformation ("priesthood of all believers") mitigates against the pursuit of truth! Because, unless ecclesiastical authority attains an authority it was never meant to have in such a setting, individual interpretation rules the day, only tenuously connected with love for Christ and holy living. It's this invocation of ecclesial authority at curious points that provokes a person like myself to ask what governing authority the Westminster Assembly was given in the first place. [Once you get there, it's almost over.--ed.] I guess we'll find out. But if our church bodies intend to govern with quasi-Catholic authority, there goes 'Mere Christianity.' It might be better if we all thought each other were doomed, because we'd abandon this kumbaya anti-intellectual crap we're doing now, which leaves us all vulnerable to heresy of the worst kind, because we're not specific enough. If you ran into some Nestorians or Arians with jeans, funny jokes, coffee, and a good youth program (gotcha there, didn't I?) would you recognize them? So, a deeper investigation into Mariology is warranted, because I cannot consent to practices which are contrary, it is alleged, to the worship of God alone, even if I wanted to for ecclesiastical/historical reasons.

Comments

Hmm, if, as you say, "In that case, then, some have levelled the charge of Sola Ecclesia ('the Church Alone') against the Catholic Church. [I already know what you're going to say, you papist dog.--ed.] Well, that's better than No Ecclesia."

Then, "Sola Scriptura" is better than "No Scriptura," right?

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...

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...

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...