Skip to main content

A P.S. To The Last

I wanted to openly say in my last post that the part about Jesus wanting to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross really does trip the Reformation antennae that I still have, and God-willing, will never lose. When I stated the objection previously, I don't do it for the easy pickings; I want you to understand that I think the "once for all" objection to the theology of our Eucharistic faith is a good objection, one that I myself made. Let me belabor the point: I'm sympathetic to that objection; frankly, I'm sympathetic to the whole bloody Reformed faith, if you will pardon the pun. I do not consider myself to have renounced having been Reformed, insofar as it is true. In fact, if you are Reformed, everything we could disagree about is in that "insofar." You are talking to a man who loved and still loves everything about it...insofar. I'm sure Bouyer was the same way. Are you kidding me? I've loved so deeply, it's a wonder that I haven't died. If you didn't know, then I failed you, and I ask your forgiveness.

I really like Dr. Peter Leithart's insights (and those of others) as they endeavor to create (or recover) a more rooted, richer non-Catholicism. But that's just it: You're going to find Britain, to borrow a phrase from Uncle Gilbert. Maybe you don't even want to; I totally get that. But you will. It's not cheap apologetics, or manipulation; it's just the truth. And it's rooted in the reality of the one God in three Persons, and uniquely Him who became incarnate as our Savior. We are inevitably moving either toward doubt, alienation, fragmentation, atheism, and death, or toward Christ and His Church. As we enter more deeply into the work of recovery, we are actively opposing--doubtless unwittingly at first--the individualist principle intrinsic to the Protestant revolt.

I find it highly appealing, mind you. If I have sharply criticized any of its leading lights on these pages, it is not because I harbor animus, but rather the reverse. I do not want those who have greatly helped me to be like the man who has slammed right into the spiritual house of the Catholic Church--his own house--but continues to insist against all evidence that he has done so. He may well be a brilliant mind, a great ecclesial and theological John Nash, if I may, but he is alone, alienated by his idiosyncrasy, and charmed by his own cleverness.

I know this: Everything the Church calls "the motives of credibility"--the reasons to believe--is charged with the love of the Incarnate Word, who walked, lived, and died for us. Indeed, He ever lives! This is why I can say in full honesty that moving from Reformed to Catholic is not, and never will be, outright rejection of the former. Just call us Calvin's Catholics, for that is what we are.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

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...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...

What I Should Have Said

 I was functionally fired from my teaching job in November, 2024, after an unjust administrative "process" initiated by HR , and triggered by false accusations the content of which I was never told. My "defense" therefore could have no reasonable basis or direction. I won't say the name of the Local Education Agency, but the town where I lived and worked was Cheraw, South Carolina. I think that once I was on administrative leave, they could use nearly any indiscretion of mine as the final straw to remove me. I did connect with students on social media in protest, and I did express hope that I would quickly be returned to the classroom. The principal of the high school where I worked--a true lackey of the bureaucracy, and fully committed to educational ideas, methods, and solutions that don't work--also allowed his personal dislike of me to take the form of a belief that I was a substandard teacher. He gave me an unsatisfactory review on October 12, and we ha...