It's not that I didn't enjoy Steve Ray's book Upon This Rock...because I did. It's just that mine was a long journey. I read that one toward the beginning. It seemed like he had an argument to settle with the fundies. He wanted me, in his text, to see the obvious truth of his conclusion. I wasn't ready to draw any conclusions then. But the book is great, because he does let the Fathers speak for themselves. Just reading the quotations would cause any reasonable person to wonder if has truly understood the Catholic position ecclesiologically and historically.
What I'm saying is that the evidence for this unique claim to authority is much stronger than I was prepared to admit at the time. It was all quite shocking, really. I could not think of a more sad commentary on the state of the Catholic Church in the US than this: I was surprised to find warriors for truth and holiness among them. More than this, I didn't think anyone cared enough about the truth--Christian truth--to offer it. They loved me enough to challenge me on my opinions. They believed what the Church taught, and they fought for it. Hard. I fought too, but I lost. And happily, at that. They didn't say, "I'm OK, you're OK, we're all OK." And you might think they'd back down, if you misread Vatican II and what it says about other religions and ignorance. They did not retreat to the odd entho-cultural enclave that is Catholicism and hope for the best. The Church really is the Borg Collective, only this time, the Borg win. And you don't lose your individuality; rather, you come alive.
I didn't know it, but I was fighting Jesus. I believed so strongly in parts of the things He taught us and who He is that I couldn't see other parts. I had to face the brutal reality of Sola Scriptura: that I was my own interpreter of what the Scriptures said, even as I invoked the Holy Spirit and belonged to a community that denied we were doing any such thing. What is really freeing is that, I can't be legitimately anathematized--God is not bound--by the determinations of a body that does not even claim to be the Church that He established! You wonder why I found it so easy to leave the PCA? Freeing for me, disastrous for you, in dogma and discipline. Or haven't you noticed? This 'catholicity' sounds great, until you can't truly (that is, in a principled way) distinguish between a disagreement between brothers in different visible expressions of Christ's invisible 'Church' and damned heretics and schismatics. Pardon the intrusion of that obvious truth. You end up sputtering, "But we really, really, mean it this time" as the dude leaves and starts his own "holiness chapel" with Arian bake sales and a harem of 30. But seriously, this means that humble theologians like myself start to wonder what the gospel itself is, if not enjoying the fruits of making it up myself.
But there is a modicum of creedal consensus, that is true. Which is not to say I agree with your minor edits and historical revisions. In fact, the clever ones are the fundies, who figured out that if me and the Holy Spirit can read the Bible, I don't need no bloody bishops, savvy? And then everything is on the table again, even if it comes out little by little. Welcome to Heresy Emporium, where the old hits are old but not forgotten! Don't blame me that the Reformer has no clothes. Whichever one or ones you prefer.
What I'm saying is that the evidence for this unique claim to authority is much stronger than I was prepared to admit at the time. It was all quite shocking, really. I could not think of a more sad commentary on the state of the Catholic Church in the US than this: I was surprised to find warriors for truth and holiness among them. More than this, I didn't think anyone cared enough about the truth--Christian truth--to offer it. They loved me enough to challenge me on my opinions. They believed what the Church taught, and they fought for it. Hard. I fought too, but I lost. And happily, at that. They didn't say, "I'm OK, you're OK, we're all OK." And you might think they'd back down, if you misread Vatican II and what it says about other religions and ignorance. They did not retreat to the odd entho-cultural enclave that is Catholicism and hope for the best. The Church really is the Borg Collective, only this time, the Borg win. And you don't lose your individuality; rather, you come alive.
I didn't know it, but I was fighting Jesus. I believed so strongly in parts of the things He taught us and who He is that I couldn't see other parts. I had to face the brutal reality of Sola Scriptura: that I was my own interpreter of what the Scriptures said, even as I invoked the Holy Spirit and belonged to a community that denied we were doing any such thing. What is really freeing is that, I can't be legitimately anathematized--God is not bound--by the determinations of a body that does not even claim to be the Church that He established! You wonder why I found it so easy to leave the PCA? Freeing for me, disastrous for you, in dogma and discipline. Or haven't you noticed? This 'catholicity' sounds great, until you can't truly (that is, in a principled way) distinguish between a disagreement between brothers in different visible expressions of Christ's invisible 'Church' and damned heretics and schismatics. Pardon the intrusion of that obvious truth. You end up sputtering, "But we really, really, mean it this time" as the dude leaves and starts his own "holiness chapel" with Arian bake sales and a harem of 30. But seriously, this means that humble theologians like myself start to wonder what the gospel itself is, if not enjoying the fruits of making it up myself.
But there is a modicum of creedal consensus, that is true. Which is not to say I agree with your minor edits and historical revisions. In fact, the clever ones are the fundies, who figured out that if me and the Holy Spirit can read the Bible, I don't need no bloody bishops, savvy? And then everything is on the table again, even if it comes out little by little. Welcome to Heresy Emporium, where the old hits are old but not forgotten! Don't blame me that the Reformer has no clothes. Whichever one or ones you prefer.
Comments
Sheesh, if he hadn't been excommunicated for saying things that had been said before without significant opposition, Luther probably would have stayed Catholic.
On the other hand, self-attestation, (entirely subjective) is very much in keeping with a radical position that could go anywhere.
Finally, that just isn't true. He was asked point blank whether councils could err, whether he recanted his views. And well before his excommunication. A saint came to talk to him, warning him about the results of his philosophy and doctrine. None of this was about corruption. Martin Luther was not excommunicated for whistleblowing; he was excommunicated for obstinately denying the faith (and schism).