I'm going to answer a comment from a previous post here. It was suggested that the divisions among protestants (permit me to poke you in the eye by failing to capitalize it; I would not mean to confer an undue legitimacy on the whole enterprise) are no worry because neither is the entire world Catholic. Having failed to convince every single person to embrace the Church must invalidate the Church's claim, or so this well-credentialed folly goes. I answer that, do you not also exclude those persons who are obstinate in their refusal to embrace Christ in the gospel from the right hand of fellowship? Granted, our dialogue is only analogous, for I presume the validity of your baptism, and thus, some real but imperfect communion with the People of God. In any case, does the dissent of the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Christadelphians invalidate the truths proclaimed at Nicea? Does the mere presence of that dissent legitimize its content? I should say not. Thus, the lack of uniform consent to the deposit of faith given to the Church does not invalidate its claim. The inquisitor fails to distinguish between schism and acceptable variance of opinion. It is to be expected, since the mental phantasm to which that inquisitor affixes the noble word "Church" does not permit that principled distinction to be made.
I would remind others that the sacramental unity of the visible Church is very real; it is not a thing to be hoped for and realized later. But indeed we all hope that all who claim Christ will share in the fullness of truth together. My ongoing point regarding this is as follows: Perhaps the revision of what constitutes the 4 essential marks of the Church and the alleged necessity of doing so was in error, since it neither unifies Christian people, nor shows any clear path for doing so. Revising one's assessment of what the "Reformers" did and judging it negative doesn't push one away from Christ, but in fact, where we still agree clarifies who Christ Himself is. But notice how sharp-edged this is: If what is essential to Christ and Christianity persists on either side of the Reformation, then the Reformation distinctives, and the particulars of each confessing community, are not essential to the Christian gospel.
Are you willing to die for Calvinian predestination or for consubstantiation? Are you willing to say that the PCA or the LCMS is itself the Church, and to separate from her invites the wrath of God? No? Then why do you hold any of those things? And insofar as you do not suggest such identifications, you do invite the honest onlooker to say, "In these things, the truth cannot be known, or is not significant." Is this what you mean to say? From whence does dogma come? The only dogma that apparently you will not relativize is that the Catholic Church cannot be Christ's own.
Update: I read the whole thing. I’m sorry, but what a weirdo. I thought you [Tom Darrow, of Denver, CO] made a trenchant case for why lockdowns are bad, and I definitely appreciated it. But a graduation speech is *not* the place for that. Secondly, this is an august event. It always is. I would never address the President of the United States in this manner. Never. Even the previous president, though he deserves it, if anyone does. Thirdly, the affirmations of Catholic identity should be more general. He has no authority to propound with specificity on all matters of great consequence. It has all the hallmarks of a culture war broadside, and again, a layman shouldn’t speak like this. The respect and reverence due the clergy is *always due,* even if they are weak, and outright wrong. We just don’t brush them aside like corrupt Mafia dons, to make a point. Fourthly, I don’t know where anyone gets the idea that the TLM is how God demands to be worshipped. The Church doesn’t teach that.
Comments
Would I tell people the "PCA" is the Church? Of course not. But, our theology doesn't require us to do so. Again, that's imposing Catholic assumptions on Protestant theology and then criticizing Protestants for being inconsistent... only by positions they don't claim.
You can't have a schism within the Catholic Church; oneness is one of her essential marks. You are either in union with the Church or not. Just because someone is "Catholic" by tradition or intent doesn't mean a schism refutes the teaching (or lets another schismatic off the hook, if of course it is willful and with full knowledge, meaning that people who start Protestant are not presumably guilty of schism, though they are part of one; see the CCC).