One of the common misconceptions amongst some Catholics is that when a Baptist cites scripture he does so because he is proclaiming that only things found in Scripture are allowed; that is not so, we use Scripture as the canon – as the measure. If something is not in Scripture and is not against it, then fine. But if something is in Scripture and what you want goes against it, then what you want is, however much you want it, wrong. It isn’t, in short, using the Bible as a manual, it is using it as a rule to check whether what your deceitful heart tells you is so, really is so.

Thus Bosco, perhaps wilfully, perhaps not, goes on about graven images, citing the ten commandments. God bans the worship of graven images, not the making of then for aesthetic purposes. So, if I see Mexicans kneeling before an image of the Virgin Mary and I am an idiot, I say ‘she’s worshipping that statue’ and cite Exodus; if I am a sensible person I see this is a Christian, assume she knows it is wrong to worship a lump of plaster, and think that this is a part of her culture. What I don’t do, unless I like judging, is to make the assumption she’s really a pagan. By extension, I do not assume that the church to which she belongs is worshipping statues; I do not do this because I am not a fool. By banging away as he does on this, Bosco just looks like a clown.

But that does not mean there is not a point in what he is saying; just that he can’t quite find it. The point is that across time, space and culture, men do add things; the question is not whether they do, it is whether what has been added runs counter to Scripture?

Bosco appears, from one of his recent comments not to understand liturgical worship. A common Protestant error is to assume that the early Christians simply worshipped in house churches, but why do we assume that? Many of them were Jews, used to liturgical services, and to assume they simply dropped ceremony to stand and say a few prayers and listen to the Bible is to import into the past modern assumptions. We know from the earliest records that there were services and that they centred around the Eucharist.

The Didache, a document that may be earlier than some of the New Testament Canon, is clear:

14:1 And on the Lord’s own day gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.
14:2 And let no man, having his dispute with his fellow, join your assembly until they have been reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled;
14:3 for this sacrifice it is that was spoken of by the Lord;

We also learn something of the manner of that service:

9:1 But as touching the eucharistic thanksgiving give ye thanks thus.
9:2 First, as regards the cup:
9:3 We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the holy vine of Thy son David, which Thou madest known unto us through Thy Son Jesus;
9:4 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
9:5 Then as regards the broken bread:
9:6 We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou didst make known unto us through Thy Son Jesus;
9:7 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
9:8 As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom;
9:9 for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever and ever.
9:10 But let no one eat or drink of this eucharistic thanksgiving, but they that have been baptized into the name of the Lord;
9:11 for concerning this also the Lord hath said:
9:12 {Give not that which is holy to the dogs.}

This is not standing around saying whatever comes into your head; there is a clear structure based around the Eucharist.

It is also clear on Baptism:

7:6 But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able;
7:7 and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.

Hope those babes in arms were listening and fasted; wouldn’t like to have been the parent trying that one out.

So there are traditions, and because Bosco once saw the word in a Bible and saw Jesus saying he didn’t like some traditions, he thinks it meant Jesus didn’t like any, ignoring, as he always does, the fact that the Canon – that is the Bible itself, is part of tradition. We only know it is the Bible because the early Church says it is; so not all traditions (as Paul makes clear) are wrong.

That takes us to the nub of all of this. Our faith is about trust in Christ and being reborn in Him. That is a powerful and person thing. But we are not the first person to have this experience, and if we do not orientate ourselves with the lives of others who have had it, we run the grave risk of pridefully assuming that we, and we alone, can interpret the sacred texts.

In the end we submit, each of us, to some authority; where what that authority teaches chimes with what the earl church taught, we do not go wrong by our own fault. But we do if we assume that we can disregard the plain meaning of Scripture. So, for me, our recent discussion about baptism was not about saying I am right and you are wrong (despite many telling me I was wrong and they were right) it was about explaining that what we do goes with Scripture and in no wise contradicts it. I do not say those who follow a long tradition of infant baptism are wrong to do so, but I do lay claim to the view that since what Baptists do is not against the plain meaning pf Scripture, we should not be condemned by those who do otherwise.