Back on March 25, I
wrote this. It came in the midst of discussions of ecclesial visibility and
authority. I do have to say that there is always a risk that I will reply with
more heat than light, as it were. All the more reason to let the ideas presented
by my interlocutors stew, and perhaps to let the passionate, personal edge that
can be a part of such discussions be blunted.
A commentor said this: "There were no doubt times when God had
appointed someone to do something. But, it was always specific. The priests and
kings were at times rejected by prophets who had authority not derived from the
priests and kings, but from God. And, it is clearly not the splitting off of
the Northern Kingdom from the Southern, but what they do afterwards that gets
them in trouble. Even then, when God appoints new lines of kings, he also ends
those lines and even continuing lines are challenged by those rogue Reformers, err,
prophets.
More to the point, those most clearly appointed to lead by God in, say, 30 AD were opposed by the Son of God himself. In the subsequent years, Christ's followers -- both Apostles and not (see Stephen, for example) -- boldly challenged the clearly appointed authorities with the authority of the Law and the Prophets... and ultimately, the authority of Paul's letters. Stephen didn't say, "Well, you may disagree with me, but I have the Apostles on my side." He laid out Biblical history in his challenge to the authorities."
More to the point, those most clearly appointed to lead by God in, say, 30 AD were opposed by the Son of God himself. In the subsequent years, Christ's followers -- both Apostles and not (see Stephen, for example) -- boldly challenged the clearly appointed authorities with the authority of the Law and the Prophets... and ultimately, the authority of Paul's letters. Stephen didn't say, "Well, you may disagree with me, but I have the Apostles on my side." He laid out Biblical history in his challenge to the authorities."
One
obvious reply is that he still assumes that there is some definable word of God
by which the Jewish authorities of the first century could be judged. But the
word of God to Israel was always a word in community. When Israel had failed to
keep the covenant, it was God himself who spoke to correct the error. That's
what makes the parallel between the Pharisees and the medieval Catholic Church
fall apart: I do not recall any prophetic sanction given to any one or all of
the so-called reformers. If they were prophets, why did they contradict each
other? If they were prophets, which one should we follow? If they were
prophets, God's people would not be confused and divided, even if those
divisions are well-intentioned, and have a significant covering of cultural
anti-Catholicism to hide the internal disagreement.
Moreover,
even if we grant that the Pharisees were corrected by the long-established word
that God had given to his people, it still remains that his people are visibly
marked out as such. And the reply seems to ignore the obvious: God Himself came
in the flesh to correct the errors of the established authorities. He never
said they were not the established authorities; in fact he said the opposite.
But we do not mistake his prerogatives to revise and even reinterpret and
reconstitute the people of God as some sanction for mere men to do the same, as
if they are the Incarnate Word.
Finally,
were we to see the Old Testament Scriptures as a stable norm from which to draw
in correcting the Pharisees, the same logic convicts the so-called reformers in
their unjustified innovations. The Sacred Tradition that had been expressed in
all the ecumenical councils up to that point would have been part of that
stable norm to which all of us are bound. This is why Luther was asked about
the councils when the controversy began. It is not impossible for God to
sanction a whole new interpretive framework for Christians, but I daresay that
he would do it in person, as he had done for his people before.
Apostolic
succession, communion with the successor of Peter, and a true Eucharist had
been the boundary lines for the people of God from the very beginning. Whatever
reforms need to take place must take place in the Church. One cannot reform
something from the outside. Even if that definition is far from clear, one
cannot create a new definition, and then use it to critique the Church. This is
why I said that one cannot be the arbiter of divine revelation and a humble
receiver at the same time. I do not define "the Church" and then
presume to mold her to my whims; I either receive what she teaches, or I do
not. If I do not, however, I presume to have a part with Christ, and in vain at
that, if that presumption is culpable.
Comments