I'm not applying Catholic ecclesiology to Protestants and criticizing them for inconsistency; it's way deeper than that. I'm pointing out that dogma within a particular Protestant tradition can't be defended with ecclesial authority when the "Church" is fundamentally invisible. Add to that the fact that the individual has final authority over what the Church and catholicity means anyway. I don't care whether you use my Catholic ecclesiology; I'm charging you with being inconsistent with your own. Either catholicity does not require agreement on fundamental matters of doctrine (which is what open communion indicates) or it does. What I'm saying is that you can't stand apart from the Catholic Church on the ground of an issue or issues that you have said is not vital to full communion with respect to yourselves.
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
Comments