Skip to main content

Another Possibility

To follow up on some comments in yesterday's post, I don't suppose one has to account for the ancient Church, if one simply equivocates on the term. If one assumes a fundamentally invisible Church, one could be referencing any one set of people at any time. Sure, it's begging the question with respect to the Catholic Church, since the Catholic Church holds to a fundamentally visible Church (and that she is that Church).*

By the way, the argument is not, "Submit to the pope, because he says so!" It is, "The Catholic Church's claim to universal jurisdiction over all Christians flows from its being continuous and synonymous with the ancient Church." If I had only the word of Pope Francis and my beloved Archbishop, without any reason, no one would be Catholic, least of all me.

But as I wrote before, Petrine primacy, apostolic succession, and transubstantiation of the Eucharist are fairly easily established. At that point, there are two things I cannot do, if I am to be intellectually honest: 1. I cannot ignore the obvious challenge this poses to my claim (as Reformed) that my community has better recapitulated the faith of the Church fathers; 2. I cannot reject the ecclesiology of the fathers, whilst agreeing with some other point. For them, ecclesiology (the study of the Church) and soteriology (the study of salvation) are the same thing.

Indeed, the very reason we cannot pick-and-choose from this history is because Christianity is a faith received. If I am adjudicating what is truly "catholic" from the mass of data, it's possible I have not submitted myself to the Church or to its revealed truth at all, but rather, to myself.

*Please see Pius XII's "Mystici Corpus Christi," paragraphs 64-65. (encyclical on the mystical Body of Christ)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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
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

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un