Read. And then frankly ask yourself, "Who ultimately decides what Scripture says, given Sola Scriptura?" Isn't it the individual? Aren't entire denominations of "conservative" Christians holding whatever line on doctrine or morals on the sheer inertia of their agreement with each other? It's time to face these hard questions. If the "Church" is fundamentally invisible, no visible body's decision has to be respected. And it isn't. That's the real story. Doctrine and practice WILL be sacrificed for the unity of the "Church." It's old hat to me. But if there is "classic Christian orthodoxy," it came from somewhere. You seek it out, examining the context in which it was forged, you abandon your ad hoc tendencies to presume to fashion it to taste...and then you enter RCIA. Don't say I didn't warn you.
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
Comments