I've got a hope for unity, too. I sought communion with the Catholic Church in order to realize it. And the reason--indeed, the only reason I did--is because my hope absolutely could not be realized on the "Reformers'" terms. The big lie of the fig-leaf of "derivative authority" is that there is a difference between "me and my Bible" and Sola Scriptura. There isn't. Leithart is the perfect embodiment of the more perfect fundamentalist; his interpretive skills are better than most. And he appears to take history seriously. That's a major step forward. But it makes it harder for someone like him to realize that, after all the shell games, he's submitting to himself. I must be able to tell the difference between a fallible opinion (like my own) and the Word of God. And on Protestant terms, if my community does not have a charism of infallibility, there is little point in pretending submission in the first place. And if the Church is fundamentally invisible anyway, the determinations of any one visible community mean precisely 2 things: Jack and Squat. If God didn't say it, it doesn't matter. You need also to distinguish between heresy and schism, and you can't really do it, because you can't say, "Your separation from this visible manifestation of the invisible Body of Christ is a horrible sin!" Obvious Retort: "According to Scripture passages, etc. this doctrinal determination is incorrect, and we're leaving!" ad infinitum. "If I submit only when I agree, the one to whom I submit is me." This insight kills Protestantism, and any possible legitimacy for "cafeteria" Catholicism. [You gonna break it to the Anglicans?--ed] No. They know. They've known since at least the 1890s that the party's over.
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