Skip to main content

Good Outside the Church?

It's usually not long into some conversation or other, after I've been humorously direct about something theological or otherwise, that someone asks the question, "Do you like anything non-Catholic?" To which I can only reply with equal befuddlement, "Um, do you read my blog?" Most posts here link something which is of interest to my almost entirely Christian audience, most of whom, I daresay, are non-Catholic Christians. If I link it and don't critique it, that means I like it. It means I think you can read this with great profit, regardless.

If I have occasion to say that a certain theologian-commentator makes me want to scream and steal toys from small children, (for example) it either means he is in no wise speaking truth, (rare) or he is in Catholic denial. That means if we were face-to-face, and we had become friends, I would say, "You know that God is calling you into the Catholic Church, and you need to do it. Right now." I wouldn't just say that to anyone. That's my hope for the lot of you, but do you hear a difference? Many of us Christians enter into dialogue with different terms for things, and different ways of speaking, acting and living. But if it is good, true, and beautiful, it comes from Christ. Our task is to try to understand the different terms we are using, to inquire as to whether we mean the same thing,(not assume that we do, mind you) and to do everything possible to surmount our divisions, while respecting the consciences of all.

In other words, for me to say that to someone is the rough equivalent of me saying to a dear friend, "You know God does not approve of your watching that pornography, and you need to stop it. Right now." It's not an argument; it's a direct appeal to a conscience. To do otherwise after hearing it would be a grave sin.

And frankly, I have no compunction about saying it, even if the man writes for a large and well-respected magazine, and is loved by the Reformed. At least some of them. And if I struggle to read his dispatches because I firmly believe this, you'll have to forgive me. The Church teaching is clear: If you know the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation, and refuse to enter or remain in it, you're endangering your soul.  "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved." (LG, 14)*

*Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, from the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (Vatican II). Numbers refer to paragraphs.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
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

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un