Language matters. Our commentator and occasional author, Bosco, uses the language of conversion – ‘I am saved’ in a way Evangelicals have for centuries, but without the context in which that phrase has been used by Christians since the beginning; it is, perhaps, historical ignorance, it is, perhaps, the excitement of immature faith, but whichever, there are those other Christians to whom this seems like an unwarranted, and an unwanted, claim to a kind of exclusivity. In claiming, as he does, that Jesus tells him how to read the Bible, Bosco at least takes this sort of thing to its logical conclusion, claiming a kind of personal infallibility. Excluding, as it does, not only most other Christians now, but nearly every Christian who has ever lived, it has something very contemporary about it: only me and my feelings/personal revelation matter. It is a form of thinking which has most impact on those who lack either an historical or a personal context in which to receive the gift of faith. Unlike some, I do not say it cannot be so, I simply suggest that it is, at best, an invitation to learn more about what Christ has done in the world these last two thousand years; at worst, it is off-putting and does much harm – but then that is hardly confined to one expression of Christianity.
What such language neglects is that Grace is bestowed upon us in baptism – at least so the Church has held from the beginning. That we are justified by faith is so, but if we view it so narrowly, we forget that sanctifying Grace leads us into actions; good works do not save us, but they are the inevitable sign of real Grace; if our hearts cannot keep from singing the joy of the Risen Lord when we know Him, neither can our hards keep from doing His work in this fallen world. The language of assurance can lead, as St Paul warned the Corinthians and Galatians, to complacency, to the thought that since I am saved, I may do what I want, whereas, as Paul made plain, we work out our salvation in fear and trembling. Setting forth to read the revealed Word of God from sacred scripture by the light solely of one’s own intellect (or pretended inspiration) breeds individualism which breeds error; like the Ethiopian, we cannot know these things unless someone explains them to us.
The age of the Enlightenment taught man to prefer the light of his own wisdom to the accumulated wisdom of posterity, indeed, it taught that the past was full of people who in many ways were less bright than we were because they had not the advantages of modern science. At this remove, we may be less easily duped into supposing that everything that science has given us is for the better, and we are certainly better placed to see that the early Church was liturgical in its worship, thought confession and spiritual direction useful, and paid reverence to the Virgin Mary, as well as to reject the myth that all these things were there only from the time of Constantine. This will not stop the Boscos of this world continuing to spread ancient falsehoods given fresh life by the Internet, but then nothing will, because such people are driven by forces which are beyond our control.
For the rest of us, language can unite as well as divide. If we really know what the Catholic Church means by justification, we shall not find ourselves very far from what Lutherans and Anglicans mean, and the same is true for the Orthodox. That does not mean things do not still divide us, or that they are not important, but it does mean that this kind of dialogue has a use in helping clean the mirror in which we look at God in ourselves.
Gareth Thomas said:
Some very useful food for thought here, and I find this very helpful. At times in our faith journey we experience moments of “crisis” (Gk. etymology = turning point) and such moments should be welcomed as opprtunities to reflect and re-engage. My experience in these past few years, as recounted in the piece I wrote last week, has been one of belonging to a small group of traditionalists with an outlook that gradually became too suffocatingly narrow to allow an energetic pilgrim – long into his journey towards the Heavenly Jerusalem – to breathe or drink of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, I am surprised and energized by a new and powerful sense of re-dedication to Catholic Tradition, following that little upset. I return again to the essay of T.S.Eliot, Tradition and the Individual Talent, which I read and studied carefully while reading the Four Quartets in the time leading up to my conversion to Christianity. http://seas3.elte.hu/coursematerial/RuttkayVeronika/tradition_and_individual_talent.pdf
If Bosco wants to see how even a poet, who wishes to be a successful poet, must be part of a community and a tradition; the lesson can then be applied to the Christian tradition, and how much more important to mature beyond your individual untutored experience, to begin learning from the centuries old tradition that went before you. We do not start out in our life’s journey having to discover the principle of gravity for ourselves, nor discover through disfiguring personal accident that fire burns our skin, nor – with the exception of the great mystics – how to understand the teachings of the Christ. Perhaps Bosco is a great mystic? If so, his words should conform to the teachings of other great mystics, as part of tradition, but unfortunately there is a real disconnect.
In my view there can be a similar disconnect in the rambling paranoid schemings of some traditionalists. Like the broad autistism spectrum, we are all positioned somewhere on the scale, but the degree of obsession may vary considerably. The extreme end of the knee-jerk traddy commentariat meets the utterances of Bosco perfectly, and they both rejoice in the ensuing fight, and “rage against the dying of the light.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Thank you, Gareth, for a comment which bears much hard-won wisdom. What you say about a specturm where both ends actually meet – and need each other – can be witnessed in almost any comment column anywhere our faith is expressed; I have often wondered what Dawkins would do without the Boscos of this world – and vice versa.
If our faith, at nowhere in its expression, touches on what those who have believed before us have said, thought, taught, written or composed, then I think we ought to open ourselves to the idea that there could be something amiss. Similarly, if we so tightly confine ourselves in the thought-patterns of the past that there is no room for the workings of the Holy Spirit, we might ask what it is we are fightened of? The Magisterium allows for more play here than some think, whilst remaining firm on what it is necessary to believe for salvation. Jesus reserved some of his harshest words for those who knew the letter of the Law but not its spirit. That this has been used by some to argue for novelties which are not in our tradition, should not blind us to the truth of it – which is that we should not put too heavy a yoke on believers.
LikeLike
NEO said:
And no, we are not far apart. Interestingly one of the great proponents of Lutheran (especially Confessional Lutheran), Anglican, and Roman Catholic dialogue was Benedict XVI, as a post from 2013 shows:
“In 1976, Joseph Ratzinger”then still a professor”suggested “it might be possible to interpret [the Augsburg Confession (CA)”i.e., the primary Lutheran confession] under the laws of the empire as a catholic confession.” He continued: “Efforts are underway to achieve a Catholic recognition of the CA or, more correctly, a recognition of the CA as catholic, and thereby to establish the catholicity of the churches of the CA, which makes possible a corporate union while the differences remain.”
While Ratzinger”now Benedict XVI” would not continue a campaign for such acceptance, it is nevertheless a striking comment from the man who would be pope. At the very least, it demonstrates a particular interest in Roman Catholic-Lutheran dialogue which has continued into the present.
This past September, for example, Pope Benedict XVI met with former students in Castel Gandolfo, Italy, to discuss the subject of Roman Catholic dialogue with Lutherans and Anglicans. This get-together between the pope and his former students is an annual tradition that dates back to the 1970s, and the topics of discussion are chosen by the pope himself. Benedict even invited an emeritus Lutheran Bishop, Ulrich Wilckens, to lead the discussion.”
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/02/roman-catholics-and-confessional-lutherans-explore-deeper-ties
It strikes me that there is an interesting parallel here. Much of the traditional Catholic doctrine expressed here, is expressed in the words and writings of Newman, and both the Missouri Synod (LCMS) and Anglo-Catholicism owe much to Pusey. Perhaps Oxford, and the Tractarians define the way forward for the traditional Christian church.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Interesting, I hadn’t realised he had gone quite that far, although I knew he approved of the statement about settling past differences. What a shame so many Anglicans and Lutherans seem to have taken leave of orthodoxy!
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Yes, that is much of the problem in our churches as well. In Lutheranism, we don’t yell as much because we tend to have separate synods. Incidentally, there is an (effectively) LCMS seminary in Cambridge. The history is that a group of Dutch dockworkers in 19th century London asked the LCMS for a pastor, and it grew from there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I didn’t know that either!
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
I was curious, about the few Lutherans in England, the other bunch which align with our ELCA started as Scandinavian Maritime missions,
Still there is little to distinguish Lutheran from Anglican. Which perhaps figures since many say Anne Boleyn was a Lutheran. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
“recognition of the CA as catholic, and thereby to establish the catholicity of the churches of the CA, which makes possible a corporate union while the differences remain.”
Religions.
LikeLike
NEO said:
Yep, the church Christ established, Bosco. You should try being a Christian, some day.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Im not aware if the roman run state religion has allowed Lutherans to go to heaven yet. Until they do, you are damned to hell, so says the church that Christ founded, at Rome.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Hey Bosco, you’re right – sort of. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus -outside the Church, there is no salvation. All persons properly Baptised are members of the Body, the Church. How well they live out their Baptisms determines their final destination upon arriving at eternity. I may well find a person who was a Lutheran in Heaven when I get there, but with this qualifier: all persons in Heaven are Catholic. Some folks renounce their Baptisms and live in heresy and schism or simply fallen away in sins and stuff. But God waits patiently and lovingly for the sinner to repent and return or in the case of converts, to turn to Him for Mercy in sincerity of heart. Your spit and vinegar is a result of your bitterness over missing Jesus. You claim to know Him, but you lack the intimacy we have as Catholics who receive Him Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity as we can in the Eucharist. United to Christ we experience a foretaste of Heaven and it is heavenly. Somewhere in the cobwebs of your memory you have a stored knowledge of your own personal encounters with Christ in Communion. I lies beneath the surface. Unfortunately its memory cause you to react in a bitter way instead of opening up to it with longing. You could ya know. Many have. Worse sinners than you are have returned. Look at St. Paul – Patron Saint of all converts. He rounded up Christians to hand them over to death! Hello? Look what God did with him when he handed himself over to Him! Come on, Bosco you can get over yourself. All that needs busting is your ego. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
catholics.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I know your reading age is that of a first-grader when it comes to comprehension, but that one wasn’t terribly hard.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
My yoke is easy and my burden is light.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
So, we know you can cut and paste and type. DO you want a smiley face or a gold star for your efforts?
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Hey! Wait a minute!!! I WANT the GOLD STAR! Not fair. If Bosco gets one, I get one! No! Wait! I want TWO gold stars. You’re a teacher. Cough ’em up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
🌟🌟🌟😊
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Gee, Whiz. I feel so much better now. Take that you Bosco you! I’ve got THREE stars! Nah Nah Nah na boo boo.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
Ahhhh, stuff a sock in it.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
The term Enlightenment is proof that the fallen angel Lucifer, who was an angel of light, spread his wings over the intellects of that age. The result is history and hindsight being as sharp as it is shows this. The light of Lucifer only blinds the eyes and dulls the senses. Enlightenment indeed. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
cathy said:
I am not sure where you got the header image from, but it is rather disturbing. Perhaps it is just me,but it looks like someone peering through the window either into or out of a church. That would be fine if she looked happy, but she doesn’t.
It is probably just me.
Yes, language matters. So do pictures.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
It is an image of us looking through the glass darkly at Jesus, and if he doesn’t look too happy, perhaps we might ponder the reason? If it bothers you, and I am happy to replace it.
LikeLike
cathy said:
No, you don’t have to replace it; I can see what you mean. I hope I don’t look like that when I see the Lord. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
It’s more the fear that the Lord might look at me like that which worries me 🙂
LikeLike
cathy said:
How do you look at your sons and daughters? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
It depends in part what they’ve been up to – but, of course, always with love in my heart 🙂
LikeLike
cathy said:
‘xactly! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
🙂
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Actually Chalcedon, I found it a bit creepy myself. Even IF someone told me it is supposed to be Christ, it makes no sense to have a stained glass window between myself and Him. Might be more suggestive of a Boscovite theology, as in leave the Church and find Christ, or perhaps Calvinism as in I’m separated and there’s nothing I can do. Yeah. Oh well. Just my opinion and it is worth all you’ve paid for it. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
It is meant to represent ‘looking through a glass darkly’ – but remind us that glass is two way 🙂
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Okie dokie. I’m an artist so I kinda notice little things, perhaps a little differently than some, but here goes. The eye on the right side of the picture appears to have heavy black eyeliner on its lid. The eye on the right seems a bit effeminate with its freshly plucked arched eyebrow. Yes, a perfectly androgynous Christos. Yes, Chalcedon you’ve gone a bit far without uttering one word. The colors you picked are also telling. You’d like to think fire as in Holy Spirit, but this fire could also be Hell’s flames as in guess where your Savior is starting at you from? No. I wouldn’t want this picture on the front of the missalette in the pews. And once again, this is only my opinion and it is worth exactly what you’ve paid for it. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Interesting what you see there – but not what I thought was there 😀
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Jesus is one the outside of the roman temple, looking in.
My friend said his uncle is a catholic priest. he said his uncle sat him down one day and told him that the catholic church and god are two separate things. He fleshed it out by saying that what the CC teaches and does is against god and the scriptures. Now, no need to run me up a flagpole, this is what a state run religions priest said.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
No, this is what one of your friends told you his uncle said. You constantly offer false witness. Can You point to anyone in the NT who is saved and spreads slander and gossip the way you do?
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Hes not the type to make this kind of stuff up. he likes that snake pit called the roman state run religion, and he thinks Mary is gonna be nice to him. His uncle told him this.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
It is quite amazing what people make up Bosco, and nothing we’ve had from you makes you in any way a credible witness.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Perhaps even a divided Christ? Is that the notion you’d like to convey with it Chalcedon? Christ divided. Or is it representative of the myriad ways in which come members of His Body by their Baptism view Him? I’m trying to get it, but it is still creepy. Perhaps you could find a stunning Pieta? I think that artwork may send a clearer message of what you are trying to say. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
No, more that we see Christ imperfectly now, but he sees us perfectly.
LikeLike
Steve Brown said:
“We believe? For the rest of us, language can unite as well as divide.” C, good post, as you also mention Dawkins as being rather void without our collective voice. Stephen Fry comes to mind also. How to pierce that vale of intellectual non-belief? As I read somewhere, we need to ask ourselves if there is anything that will help? in other words, what goes Athens have to do with Jerusalem? I’m going to mass, will continue later. In others words, better to come!
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Thanks Steve. I think tomorrow’s Gospel reading throws some light on Dawkins and Fry!
LikeLike
Steve Brown said:
Well, of course it does. The bread of life discourse makes us answer the question, was Jesus Christ a raving manic or the Son of God? Jesus says He is the bread of life and will give us his flesh to eat. Wow, but we know Him as the son of Joseph and Mary, how can this be? Eat His flesh?! And most walked away.
I recently went to a funeral of a man who because I was so close to the family all of my life, I considered him my brother. The day after the funeral, the four of us, “my sister”, “brother-in-law”, the doctor, and me, got into a discussion about faith that went on for about 4 hours. I was out numbered 3 to 1. We all have college educations and the doctor is a retired neuroradiologist.
The assault began: Have you heard voices from God? Then how can you prove your beliefs? Science can prove everything. You must have grabbed faith when you had lost everything else. In your extensive reading of myth (about Jesus Christ and Catholicism), you failed to read credible atheistic literature. My “brother-in-law” had traveled to South America and had been in many small to medium size towns. What he saw in most towns was a large Catholic Church, and across the square, the town government. (the 2 seats of power who, he said, worked hand-in-hand to control the people) He stated that the sacrament of confession was where the govt. obtained lots of its knowledge of the town folks. In one ancient Church he saw an altar with gold hammered into its edges and marble floors stained red. The story he was told was the parishioners walked on their knees to the altar where they would nail their gold into it. The gold and blood are still there, but having no concept of worship and sacrifice, all he could do, then and now, was shake his head in disbelief.
Well, I think I held my own. When the doctor was explaining that at some point the universe will stop expanding (now how does he know this?) and begin to shrink into itself until the “clap” will happen again, I asked, who or what clapped? Silence. When I asked him what proof would cause him to change his mind, he said that was impossible, because their was none. I asked them about the randomness of atoms forming perfect cockroaches, bald eagles, cheetahs, flamingos, giant redwoods, and man. Very quickly, evolution was the answer! And what or who started that? Silence.
Very rarely do we have chances to plant our seeds on fertile or rocky ground, but we must do so in season or out. Now, I have to admit that being 63 and not giving too much concern to whether I remain “friends,” makes it much easier.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ginnyfree said:
Ah. but Steve, true love tells the beloved the truth. That is true charity. I love my neighbor as myself and loving myself means keeping me on the right path to redemption and making sure I stay on it, why would you even care if a friend gets mad because you tell him or her the truth about sin and sanctity and the Church? You’re right – in season and out of season, always. But you might try a different tact: simply preface your explanations with a statement such as: “I.m telling you this because I love you,” or “You really matter to me so I thought I should tell you,” If you ask, God will give you the right words to express the love first. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Steve Brown said:
Hello Ginny. Thanks for the advice and I do know you mean well. But, I need to ask you a question. I have heard you, many times, state that you keep your mouth shut to keep the peace. Then why do you think it is as simple as the, I love you phrase? And then, why are you still a sockpuppet? These are just some things to think about…no need to answer.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
“Jesus tells him how to read the Bible,”
Where did you get that from?
My big sister taught me how to read.
One word after another. That’s how I read. After one is born again, one is still left up to ones own devices. But the difference is, one can now read and see Jesus in the words. The words come alive.
The religious have some man in some silly costume stand on stage and read a sentence or two, then solemnly close the book and pretend to look spirit filled and the audience thinks they just did god a favor. that’s sad, and I used to have to sit thru that stuff. Even befor I was saved, I knew it was hollow. But when one doesn’t know who Jesus is, that’s the best you got, I suppose.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
You are misled Bosco. Show me where Jesus says to the Apostles, you will be able to understand everything I say in the Bible? You can’t, because he didn’t say anything like it. He founded a Church, he told us, you don’t believe him, and you delude yourself into thinking you have some special insight when, as anyone reading anything you write can see, you haven’t a clue.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
The apostles layed out the specifics of the holy ghost. And im not going to tell you where. if you don’t know by now, me telling you wont help.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
They did, but you said it was not the Holy Ghost who came to you? Are you not keeping an account of the story you are telling us. The only Spirit that comes from Jesus is the Holy Spirit, and you have said it was not the Holy Spirit; make your mind up!
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
we work out our salvation in fear and trembling.
One has to be saved befor one can work out salvation.Paul wasn’t talking to the unsaved.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
He was only writing to the saved,Bosco. The letter went to members of the Church in Corinth, they were allsaved. Epic fail. You have just shown what it means to read out of context. This is why you fail, you preach a false gospel which is not of Christ.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
OK, tell me what was out of context? Then put it in the proper context for me. Thanks in advance.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Paul is writing to those who are saved, and he is warning them that by their behaviour they will lose their salvation. He is warning them not to take God’s Grace for granted – they need to work out their salvation in fear and trembling. You cannot see this because you are not a Christian and you do not know how to understand God’s Holy Book. You preach the false idea of ‘once saved. always saved’, which St Paul contradicts here. There were Corinthians who believed as wrongly as you do, Paul corrected them, he corrects you, but you refuse to believe him and make up an explanation which suits what you want to believe. So do all heretics.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
So what. You and yours bow befor graven images and vainly repeat prayer and call men Father. You want to throw stones at me? You and your troops of graven images.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Repeating error does not make it truth. God forbids graven images in the OT because back then people made them of false gods and worshipped them; this is what is being forbidden. This comes before the Incarnation, when God was made man. Nowhere in the NT does it say we might not make an image of the real God, indeed, nowhere in the Bible does it say we cannot make an image of the real God. Like all extremists, you read what is on the line with no understanding. Like so many, you imagine that you can rely on your own fallen humanity to understand the word of God in full. We see, across the world, the damage done by people like you. The sad thing is you all think you are doing God’s work – and yet not one of you can point to how Jesus, who is love, justifies the bile and the hatred you spew forth. You’re a sorry excuse, not just for a Christian, but for a human being.
LikeLike