I agree with the Roman Catholic Church that it is the Church that Christ founded. That's what she teaches about herself; more fundamentally, that's what she believes about herself.
I suppose it could happen that a person becomes Catholic rashly, and is not entirely certain that they are submitting to the Church that Christ founded, and believing that what she teaches is revealed by God. Perhaps therefore, someone could leave without fault, and then return.
There is nothing which requires me to believe that some other set of truths is equally as good as that proclaimed by the Catholic Church. In fact, it would be an error for me to do so. Our graciousness and generosity toward those outside comes precisely from the reality of who Christ is, the certainty of the truth which He is.
My purpose, quite frankly then, is to remove the obstacles toward any one person's seeking full communion with the Catholic Church. Anything that we have in common I regard as a bridge to the realization of the Catholic Church as the true home of all Christians. I do not celebrate what we have in common simply for the sake of its celebration; rather, any appreciation that I have is in some sense the means to an end. I have a definition of "ecumenical dialogue" that is as follows: ecumenical dialogue is dialogue concerning the content of revealed truth, for the purpose of reaching agreement in that truth.
I was thinking about this in regard to someone who told me that they grew up Catholic, and are now Reformed. I appreciate a lot about Reformed theology; I used to live in those communities, obviously. There is a lot that is true. There is even more truth in some communities, and in particular Churches separated from us. But I cannot simply celebrate what we have in common, and not work to overcome where we disagree. In fact, it would be dishonest for me--even a bit patronizing--for me to pretend that it is I who must change my mind, if what I believe about the Catholic Church is actually true.
I haven't wasted too much time worrying about whether this makes me "extreme," because the truth is often extreme in comparison to what is false. That being said, I do not intend to trample upon anyone's conscience, and they are free consequently to believe whatever they judge to be correct. However, it seems to me that some people have an idea about "dialogue" which means that I have to be neutral about where it goes, and where it ends. It's almost as if the dialogue is the end, rather than the means to another end.
In saying all this, I am often ironically imagined to be some sort of hippie relativist, perhaps because sometimes I am easier on outsiders than I am my own brethren inside the Catholic Church.
In the end,--in all directness--I'll probably be less warm and fuzzy toward Rod Dreher or Chris Castaldo than I would be toward someone moving in the opposite direction; that is, toward me and toward the Catholic Church.
I suppose it could happen that a person becomes Catholic rashly, and is not entirely certain that they are submitting to the Church that Christ founded, and believing that what she teaches is revealed by God. Perhaps therefore, someone could leave without fault, and then return.
There is nothing which requires me to believe that some other set of truths is equally as good as that proclaimed by the Catholic Church. In fact, it would be an error for me to do so. Our graciousness and generosity toward those outside comes precisely from the reality of who Christ is, the certainty of the truth which He is.
My purpose, quite frankly then, is to remove the obstacles toward any one person's seeking full communion with the Catholic Church. Anything that we have in common I regard as a bridge to the realization of the Catholic Church as the true home of all Christians. I do not celebrate what we have in common simply for the sake of its celebration; rather, any appreciation that I have is in some sense the means to an end. I have a definition of "ecumenical dialogue" that is as follows: ecumenical dialogue is dialogue concerning the content of revealed truth, for the purpose of reaching agreement in that truth.
I was thinking about this in regard to someone who told me that they grew up Catholic, and are now Reformed. I appreciate a lot about Reformed theology; I used to live in those communities, obviously. There is a lot that is true. There is even more truth in some communities, and in particular Churches separated from us. But I cannot simply celebrate what we have in common, and not work to overcome where we disagree. In fact, it would be dishonest for me--even a bit patronizing--for me to pretend that it is I who must change my mind, if what I believe about the Catholic Church is actually true.
I haven't wasted too much time worrying about whether this makes me "extreme," because the truth is often extreme in comparison to what is false. That being said, I do not intend to trample upon anyone's conscience, and they are free consequently to believe whatever they judge to be correct. However, it seems to me that some people have an idea about "dialogue" which means that I have to be neutral about where it goes, and where it ends. It's almost as if the dialogue is the end, rather than the means to another end.
In saying all this, I am often ironically imagined to be some sort of hippie relativist, perhaps because sometimes I am easier on outsiders than I am my own brethren inside the Catholic Church.
In the end,--in all directness--I'll probably be less warm and fuzzy toward Rod Dreher or Chris Castaldo than I would be toward someone moving in the opposite direction; that is, toward me and toward the Catholic Church.
Comments