I've said this many times, notably here. The "arbiter/receiver Rule," stated by me as, "One cannot be both the arbiter of divine revelation, and a humble receiver of it at the same time," is a wordier, less quippy version of, "If I submit only when I agree, the one to whom I submit is me." A fundamentally invisible Church deals with the twin problems of ecclesial pluralism, and the charge of schism. You can't be in schism from an invisible Church. You can't be in heresy, either, from a Church defined by you, big enough to contain the opinion you happen to hold.
That's why the divine authority of a visible community becomes of primary importance, and why reason suggests that such a community would have to be infallible in certain circumstances. If some group isn't the Church, what are they going to say when someone calls their bluff? "You are wrong! You are in heresy! We really, really, mean it this time"? Once more, wasn't Arius basically theorizing an invisible Church? "Well, this group of fallible men isn't the Church! I'm right, and they are wrong!" Pretty easy to do, eh?
That's why Mere Christianity leads back to Mere Catholic Church, or Mere Whatever I Want. Or I could call it the Galli Incoherence. I see why this would be attractive, but I'm surely not the first person to say this is more ad hoc than a Dave Matthews Band concert.
Food for thought.
That's why the divine authority of a visible community becomes of primary importance, and why reason suggests that such a community would have to be infallible in certain circumstances. If some group isn't the Church, what are they going to say when someone calls their bluff? "You are wrong! You are in heresy! We really, really, mean it this time"? Once more, wasn't Arius basically theorizing an invisible Church? "Well, this group of fallible men isn't the Church! I'm right, and they are wrong!" Pretty easy to do, eh?
That's why Mere Christianity leads back to Mere Catholic Church, or Mere Whatever I Want. Or I could call it the Galli Incoherence. I see why this would be attractive, but I'm surely not the first person to say this is more ad hoc than a Dave Matthews Band concert.
Food for thought.
Comments