Check out Erik's thoughts on the matter at his blog:
Catholicity Part I
A section:
Might there remain the possibility that the catholic nature of the church presupposes and necessitates something more than the elusiveness of orthodoxy; the possibility of which must, itself, hinge on its relation to the orthopraxis of the community?
Right belief has little efficacy when dispersed among a vast array of disparate individualities. For orthodoxy to have teeth it must be embodied, incorporated into the kerygma of a community living with liturgical consistency and corporeality.
Could it be, then, that catholicity is dependent upon a physical and visible component for its very legitimacy? To answer in the positive is to agree that in order to be meaningfully catholic, the church must be capable of being located on more than just a creedal level, it must be visible liturgically; viz. in its lived life as a community—in its acts of worship.
Let me point out that the "physical and visible component" suggested here is very un-evangelical. Evangelicalism almost always focuses on the internal, subjective, private, and individual appropriation of the Bible's message as the meassure of one's faith and relationship with Christ. To say that there is something (or someone, Erik?) that is visible, touchable, and physical...well it's not very evangelical.
In other words you're sounding more and more like a "Christian" and less and less like a "believer." (Let the reader understand.)
No comments:
Post a Comment