The goal of every Christian is to know the will of God and do it. It is the harmony of faith and action that is called holiness. Why would we believe anything that obscures the truth about God and is contrary to His will: "that they may be one"? Even today, Christians fail to maintain the unity we are called to. My challenge is not simply to hold the Catholic Church up as some kind of paragon. Rather, it is to ask all Christians to re-examine those principles which make reunion impossible. Sola Scriptura and the rest of the Reformation-era principles are just such principles.
Let's cut the mess: All the chatter about, "We could attain unity, if only the Catholic Church wasn't so separatist" is just nonsense. If you dress the dissent of the 16th century up in gentler words, you're still asking most Christians in the world to accept a new ecclesiology and new doctrine just to get your preferred schismatic off the hook. And it's an ecclesiology when applied consistently that makes for no dogma at all. Who holds the keys? If your denomination called you a heretic, does that mean, "You're out of accord with the doctrine of this particular branch of the body of Christ" or, "You have no part with Christ at all"? Who's to say? Me? And why should I care, if they don't even bother to claim infallibility?
It's also quite possible I could simply be mistaken about the doctrine of Christ indavertently; then my error would be overlooked. But why should I even bother with a system that cannot know, and for the sake of muting the cognitive dissonance caused by the lack of consensus, now says, "We don't care to know, Kumbaya" or, if you like, "Hakuna Matata"?
But I don't have to. Because I knew that what I had already known in basic terms had not been lost. Idiot Question: Whence did the truths I know indisputably come? What if those means were normative, and not presumed fallible? [From the Bible.--ed.] Yes, the Bible. From whence did that come? Who gave it to us? Obvious Follow-Up: What do I do, and what do I say, if my "biblical" doctrine is assuredly the product of an ecclesiastical authority I have rejected? Am I not the most arrogant of individualists to pick and choose when I will submit to that authority? Even if I have lots of friends who do the same? Conclusion: The ecumenical councils are the most solemn invocations of the Catholic Church's authority. Nicea and Chalcedon are 2. Trent is another. The orthodox Christology of these 2 Councils is a treasure of the Catholic Church. It only prevailed because of that divinely-appointed ecclesiastical authority. Who am I to say it was wrong, in any century? Why did Luther and the others not ask that same question?
Is not the common truth, freed from the biases of factions and their founders, impelling us toward unity? Isn't it at least possible that I must set aside cherished "truths" that prevent it? When I ended my protest, I gained truth in a real sense. That which I already had was more greatly adorned, and it made sense. It was not an ad hoc patchwork of truth from authorities whose standing to speak was never established, whose continuity with the Church was a mirage, or a throw-away line. And so, I left the Reformation. Next time is about resources.
Let's cut the mess: All the chatter about, "We could attain unity, if only the Catholic Church wasn't so separatist" is just nonsense. If you dress the dissent of the 16th century up in gentler words, you're still asking most Christians in the world to accept a new ecclesiology and new doctrine just to get your preferred schismatic off the hook. And it's an ecclesiology when applied consistently that makes for no dogma at all. Who holds the keys? If your denomination called you a heretic, does that mean, "You're out of accord with the doctrine of this particular branch of the body of Christ" or, "You have no part with Christ at all"? Who's to say? Me? And why should I care, if they don't even bother to claim infallibility?
It's also quite possible I could simply be mistaken about the doctrine of Christ indavertently; then my error would be overlooked. But why should I even bother with a system that cannot know, and for the sake of muting the cognitive dissonance caused by the lack of consensus, now says, "We don't care to know, Kumbaya" or, if you like, "Hakuna Matata"?
But I don't have to. Because I knew that what I had already known in basic terms had not been lost. Idiot Question: Whence did the truths I know indisputably come? What if those means were normative, and not presumed fallible? [From the Bible.--ed.] Yes, the Bible. From whence did that come? Who gave it to us? Obvious Follow-Up: What do I do, and what do I say, if my "biblical" doctrine is assuredly the product of an ecclesiastical authority I have rejected? Am I not the most arrogant of individualists to pick and choose when I will submit to that authority? Even if I have lots of friends who do the same? Conclusion: The ecumenical councils are the most solemn invocations of the Catholic Church's authority. Nicea and Chalcedon are 2. Trent is another. The orthodox Christology of these 2 Councils is a treasure of the Catholic Church. It only prevailed because of that divinely-appointed ecclesiastical authority. Who am I to say it was wrong, in any century? Why did Luther and the others not ask that same question?
Is not the common truth, freed from the biases of factions and their founders, impelling us toward unity? Isn't it at least possible that I must set aside cherished "truths" that prevent it? When I ended my protest, I gained truth in a real sense. That which I already had was more greatly adorned, and it made sense. It was not an ad hoc patchwork of truth from authorities whose standing to speak was never established, whose continuity with the Church was a mirage, or a throw-away line. And so, I left the Reformation. Next time is about resources.
Comments