The false opinion that the Church is fundamentally invisible is an implicit concession that the individual is the arbiter of his own dogmas, because the visible community to which he "submits" only gains it by his consent, which can be given and withdrawn at any time, for any reason.
In like manner, he is the arbiter of history, because he can select--without a coherent principle--those episodes, people, and ideas which are most amenable to his own opinion. Does he believe he escapes the pity he heaps upon the Biblicist, because he decorates his cell ornately, while the fundamentalist prefers to sit alone among the drab cinders? But they are both in the prison of private judgment.
And many do not even consider what havoc this private judgment wreaks upon systems of doctrine in their particularity. They are known in that specificity by the communities from which they emerge. But those communities have been rendered inert by the prior decision that the true "Church" transcends them.
Shall Christian men dare to celebrate the minimum possible expression of their communion? How can we choose a room in the house, Mr. Lewis, when the rules of the house dictate denying that the room even exists? If God didn't say it, it doesn't matter. Even the opinions of men I respect and enjoy talking to are only opinions. This isn't good enough for the doctrine of God.
That's another way of saying that infallibility must enter the discussion. And if one is enamored of a certain agnosticism concerning the doctrine of God out of an ecclesiological magnanimity, one reaps what one sows; men will not give their lives for a 'maybe.'
And that leaves all who truly want to do the will of God in Christ desiring a visible, historically continuous, infallible communion, vouchsafed by God. It might be a fool's errand, but for the fact that one actually exists. The imperfect communion we have reveals how to find it, in the form of an ecumenical council.
In like manner, he is the arbiter of history, because he can select--without a coherent principle--those episodes, people, and ideas which are most amenable to his own opinion. Does he believe he escapes the pity he heaps upon the Biblicist, because he decorates his cell ornately, while the fundamentalist prefers to sit alone among the drab cinders? But they are both in the prison of private judgment.
And many do not even consider what havoc this private judgment wreaks upon systems of doctrine in their particularity. They are known in that specificity by the communities from which they emerge. But those communities have been rendered inert by the prior decision that the true "Church" transcends them.
Shall Christian men dare to celebrate the minimum possible expression of their communion? How can we choose a room in the house, Mr. Lewis, when the rules of the house dictate denying that the room even exists? If God didn't say it, it doesn't matter. Even the opinions of men I respect and enjoy talking to are only opinions. This isn't good enough for the doctrine of God.
That's another way of saying that infallibility must enter the discussion. And if one is enamored of a certain agnosticism concerning the doctrine of God out of an ecclesiological magnanimity, one reaps what one sows; men will not give their lives for a 'maybe.'
And that leaves all who truly want to do the will of God in Christ desiring a visible, historically continuous, infallible communion, vouchsafed by God. It might be a fool's errand, but for the fact that one actually exists. The imperfect communion we have reveals how to find it, in the form of an ecumenical council.
Comments