Reformation Rule of Faith

POSTED BY KEPHA

In re-reading chapter three of MacCulloch's The Reformation, one of the things that caught my attention was Luther's appeal to the secular rulers to correct the corrupt Church hierarchy. It made me reflect more on some thoughts I had from Elder Hoss' recent blog entry on Cullman's relfections on Scripture and Vatican II, as well as ones I had in a recent conversation on the topic of whether or not Christian truth is propositional. My thoughts can be summed up in the following section of the conversation I had.

I was affirming that Christian truth is primarily propositional, my conversant (a Protestant) was denying. In the course of the conversation, he appealed to Pseudo-Dionysius' portrayal of the Church hierarchy as made in the image of the hierarchy of angels in Heaven. In keeping with this otherwordly understanding of the hieratchy, he made the case that the bishop is a living bearer of what has been handed down. The bishop, he said, is "traditioned." Thus, the truth of charity, for example, is not something that the bishop hands on propositionally, but is instead a reality that the bishop hands on by his own person.

I informed him that this was a common Catholic ecclesiological understanding today. The then-Cardinal Ratzinger, for example, in his Called to Communion, wrote that the word and the witness (apostolic successors) can never be seperated. Further, because of the unique, supernatural relationship between Jesus and the witness, the witness is enabled to act as an altus Christus or in persona Christi. This is the basis for the Catholic contention of a "living Magisterium."

The problem, I point out, was that these "living witnesses" (or, one could even refer to them as "life-givers of Tradition") often fail or fall in their calling. And when they do, I pointed out, their is something that stands over and against them, namely, the Truth, a Truth that is not inextricably bound to them. The Apostolic Propositions stand over and against the leaders of the Church. Because all of the leaders of the Church are not impeccable, talk of them as "living witnesses" or a "living Magisterium" must be incredibly cautious and take into serious consideration the theological implications of such language, espeically in light the numerous warnings throughout the New Testament to beware of false teachers who will come from within the Church. The Apostles should themselves set the example for all church leaders. The Apostle Peter was vehemently rebuked in public by the Apostle Paul because "he stood condemned" for not having stood fast in "truth of the Gospel." The "truth of the Gospel" was, at least in the Apostle Paul's mind, the Rule of Faith by which both Peter and himself were held accountable.

This brings me back to Luther. I see Luther's appeal to the secular authorities to correct the ecclesiastical authorities as an alarming example of what happens when their is not a recognized standard to stand over and against the ecclesiastical authorities. Luther, a monk, priest, and professor, saw that the ecclesiastical leaders "stood condemned" because they had not been walking in accordance with "the truth of the Gospel." He painfully sought out some legitimate means to correct these ecclesiastical leaders. The Reformation that resulted from Luther's desperate plea reveals that there was more than one conscience that could no longer take any more. What reigned supreme for Luther, it seems to me, was the Gospel. This was why he could see a hierarchy in the Canon, gradually reject certain teachings, withstand both ecclesiastical and secular authorities, and maintain his status as an Evangelical.