Safe Haven

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

Sorry I've been away; I was on a trip to Madison, WI. Before I left, I had the distinct privilege of watching and celebrating with Fr. Fadi Thomas Maria Auro in his ordination to the priesthood (as I may have mentioned). Having been left to the tender mercies of the Cross children, I was, shall we say, inquisited as to the nature of my food selection. You might say it is highly selective. In any case, any number of ridiculous life-threatening scenarios was put forward, naturally involving the three foods I will not eat. They are eggs, onions, and most varieties of melted cheese. I realize that this is completely preposterous. [You eat pizza, after all.--ed.] Most pizza. In one, I was starving in a prison in Siberia. I foolishly conceded that I'd eat the egg if it was scrambled. This did little to appease my tormentors, who conjured ever more unlikely and unfortunate circumstances for me. Next, I was in the jungles of Bolivia, being chased by zombies. Of course the Zombie Apoca

With respect, you're missing the point, Protestant. We're not after the essence of God in our hermeneutical process. Certainty need not be absolute, for anyone. But the point is, if you can't prove to other Protestants that you're obviously right in the particularities of your confession , (and neither can he) how are any of you gonna answer the charge of schism from Rome or Constantinople? I can't hold a particular doctrine to be true unless there's good reason to believe it's true. And the Fathers are utterly unanimous: don't believe anything that didn't come from a successor to the Apostles. Even then, if he goes against Tradition, he's wrong.

Everyone's talking about hipsters. There's this book , this show , and unnecessary thick glasses everywhere. I'm not saying they're all bad. I like many hipsters. But, in the tradition of holding very little, if anything back on this blog, I should tell you that my working definition of "hipster" (in a Christian context) is: "pretentious, semi-leftist, city-dwelling, white evangelical." Ouch. [Audrey Assad's definitely a hipster.--ed.] Probably so, but I can abide hipster tendencies as long as they don't add up to a big storm of You Suck. Just understand that I'm defined, hipster, by everything you hate. Consider: --I like the suburbs. --Aside from war and the death penalty, I've never felt the slightest discomfort being a Republican. --I like Michael Bolton, and can even tolerate Celine Dion. (not ironically) --In fact, I don't have a single piece of music that wasn't popular at some point. You've heard of them. --I

Five men were ordained to the priesthood of Jesus Christ yesterday in the Archdiocese of St. Louis; as a friend of them, I was in attendance. It was a lavish outpouring of grace upon all of us. I'm honored to be acquainted with most of them, and I'd say pretty close to one of them. It reminded me of one of my lurking insights from the journey, one thing I was very right about: "Why would the New Testament be less sacramental than the Old?" Answer: It's not. Not even close. If J.B. Lightfoot had been right in his commentary on Galatians, that the ordained clergy in the Church has always been understood functionally and not sacramentally--following upon Luther's basic rejection of the sacramental hierarchy and the levelling of clergy and lay--it seems to me we should be Plymouth Brethren, Zwinglians, or Restorationists on the point. If we truly believe, on the contrary, that grace is communicated by these sacred signs, and that certain men are called by God for