I just didn't expect the evidence to be that strong. I fully admit it. I'm not that weak-willed; Catholic apologetics does not simply consist in saying, "We're the true Church!" over and over. It's not crazy to conclude that the Catholic Church is the church Christ founded. But the floating husk of what is left of Reformation ecclesiology wants to spend its energy trying to nuance what was a series of very stark choices at the time, for both its ardent defenders and detractors. Sooner or later, you gotta pick a side.
I think most of the false middle positions arise from historical ignorance. You have to do an inadvertent injustice to the Reformers, or to the Catholic Church, in order to engage in this warm, winsome, Leithartian nonsense that passes for ecumenism today. Either the Catholic Church is the Church, or it is not. Either there is theological-sacramental significance to Holy Orders via apostolic succession, or there is not. Either the Bishop of Rome has primacy, or he does not. A "primacy of honor" is not a primacy; it's a false middle position made up by people who can't think clearly. I digress.
A few of my friends are simply confused. They're mad about Rome's exclusivity, but also her supposed infidelity. If she has usurped the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ and made herself a whore, you shouldn't care what she thinks about you. I have never understood this. I'd rather talk to a biblicist fundamentalist all day long instead of these "too catholic to be Catholic" people.
I think most of the false middle positions arise from historical ignorance. You have to do an inadvertent injustice to the Reformers, or to the Catholic Church, in order to engage in this warm, winsome, Leithartian nonsense that passes for ecumenism today. Either the Catholic Church is the Church, or it is not. Either there is theological-sacramental significance to Holy Orders via apostolic succession, or there is not. Either the Bishop of Rome has primacy, or he does not. A "primacy of honor" is not a primacy; it's a false middle position made up by people who can't think clearly. I digress.
A few of my friends are simply confused. They're mad about Rome's exclusivity, but also her supposed infidelity. If she has usurped the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ and made herself a whore, you shouldn't care what she thinks about you. I have never understood this. I'd rather talk to a biblicist fundamentalist all day long instead of these "too catholic to be Catholic" people.
Comments