Skip to main content

Permission To Speak Freely

I don't know Peter Green that well; he was a TA in my Covenant Theology class when I was a student at The Old School. He's smart, and he was always friendly to me. So let me say that before anything else. Let me also add that we enthusiastically resisted together any attempts to burn Peter Leithart at the stake in those days, though sooner or later, Peter is going to have to give a good answer to the Catholic challenge. Say this for the Anglicans: their conceit of believing they are still (physically) part of the church catholic has a surface plausibility more convincing than anything he's offered. I digress.

Peter Green, meanwhile, hasn't been pleased since I became Catholic. I've been pretty vocal about it, to be sure. As actually one should expect any real Catholic to be.* But I'm not polemically the gentlest sort, and I know that. If there is fault, I'll take it.

I've got to wonder out loud, though: Doesn't Peter Green have a vested, personal interest in sowing as much doubt about whether there is in fact one Catholic position on anything? After all, if there isn't one, he can go on his merry way, believing what he will, and he can chuckle at the "real Catholics," who actually believe all that One True Church stuff. It's only when the Catholic Church has the ability to distinguish dogma from opinion, and dissent from faith, that one comes to realize that one is truly being stalked by the Hound of Heaven, and he's wearing the successor of Peter's funny hat while he does it.

Why wouldn't they tell us that the Roman Catholic Church, the home of about a billion Christians, who, oh, by the way, believes it is the Church Christ founded, believes Mark's Gospel ends after v. 20, and the case is closed? Isn't that at least relevant, before telling us the reason we believe it should have ended after v. 8? Then again, we didn't have a super-great answer as to why we weren't Catholic. It was essentially, "Sola Scriptura...because Borgia popes." If you're too intellectually honest about it all, you become Catholic. I hate it when that happens.

If the lack of an ancient (of a certain age) manuscript containing verses 9-20 is enough to override the presumption that the sacred text we had received is the one God wanted us to have, it seems to me we have allowed rationalism to stand in judgment of revealed truth. That's a heck of a lot more alarming than the prospect of becoming Catholic, for certain.

*real Catholic: someone who believes the Catholic Church is the one Christ founded, and accepts all that she teaches without exception, because it has been revealed by God.

Comments

Well, for the record, some of us have better reasons for not being Catholic. :-)

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...
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...

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p...