Option A: I cannot in good conscience stay with option A I because within Sola Scriptura, I have no way of knowing if I am in schism from Christ's church. Whether I am in schism or not, the situation will look exactly the same from my perspective. I will consider myself to be following the Scripture whether I was in schism or not! If I was in grave error, my circumstances would look no different from being in the fullness of truth. Either way I would be surrounded by a session of my own choosing that would be quick to reassure me I was on the right path.
Option D: This makes the most sense. Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiology takes into account the fact that people will disagree about the content of Divine revelation. Not that disagreement implies errancy or falibility, but without a magisterium that is supernaturally protected from error, there is no way for me to be sure I am getting the interpretation that is the right one. If I am able to toss out the 7th ecumenical council (as nearly all Protestants do) because it doesn't match my interpretation, where will the tossing out stop? If church councils themselves are to be judged by a 21st century layman, theologically untrained, and unordained Christian like me, what is the point then of church councils other than to provide some really good advise from some really great men from the history of our faith? If they were not being guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit in these councils, with the expectation that all believers should submit to their decisions, then what use are they other than to help me form my own interpretation to submit to? The ecclesiologies that claim to have living, breathing successors of the apostles which are Divinely gifted with the ability to define doctrine in certain situations are the only ecclesiologies that make sense. The Catholic Church is the only option left.
http://newchristendom.blogspot.com/2010/06/letter-to-gspcpca.html
Option A: I cannot in good conscience stay with option A I because within Sola Scriptura, I have no way of knowing if I am in schism from Beth Israel. Whether I am in schism or not, the situation will look exactly the same from my perspective. I will consider myself to be following the Scripture whether I was in schism or not! If I was in grave error, my circumstances would look no different from being in the fullness of truth. Either way I would be surrounded by a Sanhedrin of my own choosing that would be quick to reassure me I was on the right path.
Option D: This makes the most sense. Rabbinical polity takes into account the fact that people will disagree about the content of Divine revelation. Not that disagreement implies errancy or falibility, but without a magisterium that is supernaturally protected from error, there is no way for me to be sure I am getting the interpretation that is the right one. If I am able to toss out the Sanhedrin's conviction of Jesus because it doesn't match my interpretation of Messianic prophecy, where will the tossing out stop? If rabbinical councils themselves are to be judged by a 21st century layman, theologically untrained, and unordained Jew like me, what is the point then of the Sanhedrin other than to provide some really good advise from some really great Sadducees from the history of our faith? If they were not being guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit in these councils, with the expectation that all believers should submit to their decisions, then what use are they other than to help me form my own interpretation to submit to? The polities that claim to have living, breathing successors of Moses which are Divinely gifted with the ability to define doctrine in certain situations are the only polities that make sense. The Sanhedrin is the only option left.
I once ran an analogous argument past a well-known Catholic e-pologist who replied that, well, the Jewish priesthood in 33 AD rejected Jesus, so therefore they forfeited their authority. Forget all that "my sceptre shall not depart" stuff - it's apparently conditional upon "only as long as you sit in Moses' seat and espouse correct doctrine", whereas "Upon this rock..." contains no such implied preconditions.
ReplyDeleteCatholic e-pologists are also very fond of a quote from GK Chesterton about the absurdity of rushing into the temple, clearing out the priests and the altars, but keeping and venerating the sacred scrolls. You would think adherents of a church that retained the pagan Roman priest's title ("Pontifex Maximus"), and his base of operations, would be more sympathetic to the idea of "Test all things: hold fast to what is good", but no, apparently the only way Protestantism could be true is if the mediaeval Papacy had actually suppressed the New Testament as extracanonical. or something.
First, amen to Tom's thoughts. Also, along the same line as Steve's post, here's what we can do with RC reasoning:
ReplyDelete"[W]ell, the Jewish priesthood in 33 AD rejected Jesus, so therefore they forfeited their authority."
Well, the Catholic priesthood in 1563 AD rejected sola fide, so therefore they forfeited their authority.
No, I think Mark's position was that rejection had to take place while Jesus was alive on Earth (as a human, not just in the Eucharistic Host), so that, absent a scene a`la Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor, the Papacy's position is secure in perpetuo.
ReplyDeleteI do find the "How can you reject Unam Sanctam but venerate I and II Samuel as the Word of God?" to be... missing a few steps in the syllogism (How can you advocate the Chinese Rites while rejecting Confucianism?), but then that's Chesterton for you. When you're a master of poetic English prose, rigour in actual content is an optional.