Which means we can think about things other than the Scriptures. Not contradict them, mind you. But the last line here just annoys me. I don't think anyone confuses a book--an admittedly fallible human product--with divine revelation. I think evangelicals say, "But it's not the Bible" once again to avoid thinking about, or even enjoying, anything. Also, this is why Jesus gave us the Magisterium in the first place: so we know whether something is in accord with what he taught us. We of Christ and Peter's flock do indeed find stupid things to fight about, but our being petty is generally known on all sides. Anyway, Catholics definitely are not averse to visions and things; we were into God doing weird things well before they inspired reactionary conferences from John MacAurthur. [Zing.--ed.]
In fact, I'm such an anti-rationalist that I'm more inclined to believe a vision than not believe it, provided it is not obviously contrary to the faith on the face of it.
Being Catholic is nothing less than the freedom to rest in unchanging Truth, but it is also the freedom to embrace the weird. I have to wonder if some of the caution is because biblicism circles back around to kiss rationalism in the end. Which is not to say the book is good or true. It is to say that, more than likely, the verdict on this book will vary, according to judgments of prudence and personal sanctification.
In fact, I'm such an anti-rationalist that I'm more inclined to believe a vision than not believe it, provided it is not obviously contrary to the faith on the face of it.
Being Catholic is nothing less than the freedom to rest in unchanging Truth, but it is also the freedom to embrace the weird. I have to wonder if some of the caution is because biblicism circles back around to kiss rationalism in the end. Which is not to say the book is good or true. It is to say that, more than likely, the verdict on this book will vary, according to judgments of prudence and personal sanctification.
Comments