Skip to main content
To Peter Leithart and others, let me take the risk of being rude and say that I'm crying crocodile tears that you judge me in schism from the personal mental phantasm you call "the Church." When you come anywhere close to figuring out what your ragtag band believes to be the most essential doctrines (and agree among yourselves that you're not going to hell, at a minimum) you let me know. I'm super gratified that despite your vehement disagreements with the Church of Rome, many of you consider me part a true "branch" of your mental phantasm, but oddly enough, opinions on that vary almost as numerously as the thousands of separate visible communities in which you have gathered yourselves.

I suppose that an open communion table is a worthy goal among you, but doing this indicates of itself that those doctrinal particularities have been relegated to a sphere of secondary importance, a statement contradicted by both your visible separations, and the vehemence of your ongoing discussions.

Mother Church of course has always held the same Eucharistic doctrine from the beginning until now, and reminds the lot of you that your eucharistic celebrations are invalid, owing to the lack of episcopal succession from the Apostles. The earnest attempt to find the apostolic faith from the Scriptures alone--which had never been done in the history of the Church, ever--obviously turned into a fiasco, as I pointed out above.

And I'm sorry, Anglicans. Close, but no cigar. Someone went with Thomas Cranmer for the block a while back, and circle most definitely does not get the square. But if you come back, Papa said you could keep your liturgy. How cool is that? [You just compared the Anglican/Catholic split to a game of 'Hollywood Squares.' I'm not sure how much more of this I can take.--ed.] That I did. But the point is made.

The Pope is kind of like Admiral Adama. There are commanders on other ships, and he doesn't tell them how to run those ships, day-to-day. But for something that affects everyone, or when the Cylons attack, (Satan and his minions) he's running the show. And that makes sense. Captain of the flagship battlestar, and our only real hope to make it home. [Battlestar Galactica now? You know that guy was a Mormon?--ed.] Look, I'm making analogies, not writing a textbook. And isn't that perilously close to an ad hominem? [Mayhaps.--ed.] Not you too! Bah!

Comments

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...

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...

What I Should Have Said

 I was functionally fired from my teaching job in November, 2024, after an unjust administrative "process" initiated by HR , and triggered by false accusations the content of which I was never told. My "defense" therefore could have no reasonable basis or direction. I won't say the name of the Local Education Agency, but the town where I lived and worked was Cheraw, South Carolina. I think that once I was on administrative leave, they could use nearly any indiscretion of mine as the final straw to remove me. I did connect with students on social media in protest, and I did express hope that I would quickly be returned to the classroom. The principal of the high school where I worked--a true lackey of the bureaucracy, and fully committed to educational ideas, methods, and solutions that don't work--also allowed his personal dislike of me to take the form of a belief that I was a substandard teacher. He gave me an unsatisfactory review on October 12, and we ha...