A Bit of This, A Bit of That
A classmate from college recently posted on his blog concerning a line of doctrinal thought known as "Federal Vision." It involves people in the Reformed wing of the Church who are content to use biblical language about sacraments and the nature of the Church, without as much explanation and qualification as most Reformed Protestants give. For example, using the term "baptismal regeneration" in a context other than condemning it. This has caused a stir in certain quarters. Ya might say.
But on a different topic, namely, the audacity of many protestants in rejecting long-held doctrines of the Church based on their own reason, I offered him my comment to the effect that rejecting the Roman teaching on the nature of Christ in the Mass (which is not what the fathers taught) is not the same as rejecting the Virgin Birth, since the latter is creedal while the former is not. Or I should say with Turretin, "The latter we affirm, the former we deny."
He (who is a RC in the Byzantine rite) replied,
"Anything defined by the extraordinary Magisterium of the Church (i.e. by particular Papal decree on matters of faith and morals or a council of the all the Bishops of the Church in union with teh Bishop of Rome) is as binding as anything defined in the 4th century. The Magesterium and its boundaries never changed. The same authority that wrote the Nicene Creed and closed the Cannon of Sacred Scripture defined the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin into Heaven. There is no difference."
But isn't the point who and not when? I'm not arguing that because the Nicene Creed was formulated in the 4th century, it's therefore more binding, but that it is the product of the whole church, not one bishop. Otherwise, why the council at Jerusalem if Peter could've just solved the problem? Even the main foundation stone of the church doesn't make the whole.
posted by A. Steinberg @ 11:38 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
I am reminded of my reading of the gospel a few nights ago when Jesus tells the disciples that whatever they loose on earth is loosed in heaven, etc. How far does this go? How far are the decisions of the church binding? What is necessary to make a decision binding in heaven as well as on earth? Could the church in fact make a decision to instill its power in one man?
The Church does not define doctrine anymore than it defines reality. If the Church Catholic held a council and decided to vest all authority in George Bush, it would not establish any spiritual reality of ecclesiastical organization. The heirarchy of the Church is already establish by Christ who does have the authority over His body. We believe that God leads the Church in truth in the interpretation of scripture to set forth true doctrine in time. This also leaves the possibility that the church could make doctrinal errors during a given era. Orthodoxy has been driven "underground" (think Athanasias) to only resurface, sometimes years later, by God's providence.
The binding of things on heaven and earth, I believe, is usually associated with the administration of discipline (i.e. excommunication). In Mathew 18, this connection is directly made. It is interesting, in the context of the original post, to note that it takes two agreeing together to invoke this provision, not one - as in a pope - but I've stepped on toes (and I don't think papal claims are directly about this subject).
It is also interesting to note that in Matt. 16, the image of the "keys of the kingdom" fits nicely with the idea of church discipline. Peter is not given the ability to define doctrine as is seen immediately after when Christ rebukes him strongly for hindering the eternal purpose of God.
ok so I don't know how to spell Athanasius.
Post a Comment
<< Home