Skip to main content

Why Catholic? Further Thoughts

It seems to me that the real implied meaning of Newman's "To be deep in history..." statement is that there is theological significance to the visible ecclesial continuity of which the facts of history give ample testimony. A Protestant position is exactly the opposite: there is no theological significance to any visible ecclesial continuity, whether real or perceived.

As appealing as that Protestant position may be on certain occasions, reflection surely indicates that if visible ecclesial continuity has no theological significance, then the exercise of authority to maintain orthodoxy in faith and morals ultimately is a fruitless undertaking, even in those Protestant communities. It is the revenge of a bad principle, applied consistently. "If I submit only when I agree, the one to whom I submit is me." In other words, there is no golden mean for the principle of individual interpretation; it will destroy the supposed authority of Willow Creek Community Church as truly as it did to Catholic Europe in the 16th century.

It's the frank recognition of that truth that leads to the binary choice between the Catholic Church or atheism. So intermingled is the witness of Christian history with the alleged authority of the Catholic Church that we must in all honesty consider if that authority is divine.

It's of course possible to believe that a great apostasy overtook the Christian people soon after the death of the last apostle, but in the martyrs we are forced to consider that the ones in error are in fact us.

For Christ and His Vicar did they die, not some nebulous concept. When the heathen took the head of Pope Fabian, they knew exactly whom they were attacking. He was not simply one among many; he was in some sense the head of the Church.

There is no reason to profess anything that has no conceivable claim to be true. If the biblical story is the story of God's faithfulness to His people in spite of their unfaithfulness, then the unfolding story of that faithfulness in the New Covenant must be the Catholic Church. The God who sent His only Son for us does not, and could not, hide His gospel after the coming of Christ for more than 1500 years. The New Covenant is about splendor, not beleaguered remnants. Daniel 2 says nothing about secrets. It's pretty clear who and what that Rock is. We may suffer, but it seems that the Church has been suffering in plain sight all this time. Just like her Lord.

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