Tags
Our friend Bosco does not like religions. He knows Jesus personally and can’t see why it is necessary to have what he calls ‘costume holymen’ who misuse their infleunce over what he takes to be the credulous. It is a variation on a theme one often hears from atheists and even agnostics – one can be ‘spiritual’ without going to church. If the question were to be asked ‘are you spiritual?’ there would be more positive responses than there are to the question ‘are you religious?’ All of this supposes a spiritual practice centred on oneself – a form, if you will, of ‘well being’ – something which, if one if to judge by the book shops, is a popular genre. We live in a western world very much focussed on ‘me’, but from a very particular angle, one which might be characterised as ‘me as consumer’. One is either consuming goods, or conserving oneself in order to do so; the good life is defined in largely material terms. If it were otherwise, it might be that not quite so much ‘stuff’ needed to be consumed – and where should the current economic model be then? That may be a trifle cynical, but it is not a million miles removed from where we are.
The traditional Christian model does not start from me, it starts with the truth that God exists, that he has manifested himself at various times and in various places, and that the fullest revelation he has given us is through Jesus Christ. It does not proceed from what might be call a privatised view – that is that each of us has his or her own personal revelation, but from what might be called a corporate point of view, which is that Jesus founded a church, and did so for a reason for a reason. He did not, though he might have chosen to, write a book in the manner Mohammed did. The Church preceded written scripture, and that Church was able to determine which of the many writings surviving from the early days of the church were authentic revleations of the Apostolic deposit. Paul himself commended written and oral tradition to his churches; indeed, Paul founded churches. There is no recond of any of the Apostles saying to anyone ‘get on with it as the Spirit moves you’? Indeed, we see constant warnings from the writers of the New Testament about the dangers of unahgtorised teaching – ‘another gospel’ Paul called it. We see in St John’s anguished letters other teachers daring to say that even the’ beloved disciple’ had got it wrong.
What they thought he had got wrong was the issue which would cause controversy for centuries – which is who Jesus was? It was easy, because it was comprehensible by the human mind’ to say he was the ‘Son of God’. That meant he was a creature, the best of the creatures, but not God himself. John called those who taught thus ‘antichrists’, and his teaching, like that of the other evangelists was that Jesus was God. How could that be without positing more than one God? It was around that question that most of the bitter early dispute centred. The Church wobbled from time to time, but thanks to St Athanasius and other brave men and women, it held to that truth passed on. It formulated the dogma of the Trinity, which no one would be so unwise as to say was easily comprehensible by the human mind; but then is is probable that the vastness that is God would be easily grasped?
My point here is a simple one. It might be that a human could come to these truths by direct revelation, but history shows God working through his church. Our religion is about God, who loves us and who redeems us through his son. It is not simply a private affair to be decided by our feelings. That runs counter to the modern fashion of course, but so much the worse for modern fashion.
NEO said:
Cynical? No, if anything you understate it.
This has been our underlying theme this week, starting when Jessica wrote this,
“In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male or female. Why? Because Christ loves each of us for the unique individual we are. He also calls us to follow him, and in doing that we are part of a community of ‘saints’, and we have a common duty to each other; we are called to love one another. That is not to pity each other, or to replace a hierarchy of class or race with one of victimhood, but to love each other because we are all uniquely valuable in God’s eyes.”
Which led me to write this in the next post,
“She is exactly on point. Christianity brought to us the concept of individuality. But, and this is important, it brought us the concept of individuality within a community. Often that is something we forget, that we owe a duty, we have an obligation to the others in our community, whether it is our family, our church, our town, our state, our nation, or even our world. Granted as it spreads out, it becomes rather diffuse, but it remains.”
And that is key I think, consumerism has made man, not so much king, as it has put him in place of God. Much has also been lost as we have made credit over available, so that one does not have to work for things before one receives them. God just doesn’t deal in instant gratification, nor is it healthy for us, or our societies.
LikeLiked by 3 people
chalcedon451 said:
All excellent points Neo – thank you for them – and thanks to Jess too
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
You’re very welcome, of course. I’m quite sure she is pleased as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicholas said:
A good piece, C, and this is obviously a very important question for evangelism in the West. Indeed, in France this question is at the heart of the reconciliation that needs to take place between the parts of the nation’s soul, and between the nation and God.
Re: the Trinity, it is an unfortunate part of history that Rabbinic Judaism rejected previous Jewish consensus in order to build a case against Trinitarian theology. Modern scholarship has recovered the Second Temple (and earlier) belief in Yahweh and the Angel of the Lord in whom the Name (haShem) dwells (developed from Exodus). This doctrine also helps us to understand why books such as 1 Enoch were an important part of discourse in the early days of the Church. While not accepted as canon, they were understood as consistent with the worldview of the believing community.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
Excellent points, Nicholas – might make an interesting post.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicholas said:
Yes, and i can recommend scholars if people are interested, although some works may not be easily accessible. In general, Mike Heiser is a good place to start and he does his best to provide access to articles since most people can’t afford JStor subscriptions.
My thinking on this topic has shifted somewhat after thinking about it more deeply. I don’t think a lot of Jesus’ contemporaries had a conceptual problem with His claims (except perhaps for the Sadducees who appear to have been tending towards materialism). I think their real problem was that they didn’t like the consequences of accepting His lordship.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
Excellent – thank you, Nicholas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicholas said:
I have scheduled a post on the topic for tomorrow morning.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Excellent – thank you Nicholas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
This is probably a stupid question but alas, I have found no answer for it as yet. St. Isaac the Syrian makes arguments which seem to indicate that everything in creation is to receive God’s mercy (perhaps salvation) including the beasts and even demons. From that standpoint I cannot understand his acceptance theologically with the teachings of the Church on justice, salvation for humans alone and/or any reason for religion [rules of conduct or moral mandates] as we all get to the promised land sooner or later due to the infinite Mercy of God.
With Bosco, it seems that he differs with St. Isaac only in the saved part. For Bosco nobody goes to heaven unless they are saved in like way that he himself thinks he was saved. For St. Isaac it seems that everybody is saved (or might be if we all pray for them) regardless of any other consideration outside of God’s mercy. Color me confused . . . how did the Church reconcile St. Isaac’s words with the constant teaching of the Church; for instance the eternal ramification of the decisions of the Fallen Angels to refuse service to God (in full understanding of the consequences)?
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
St Isaac occupies a strange position in the West. There’s a good thread here which explores it:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=334900
Broadly speaking, the Church does not forbid our believing that everyone might be saved, but it does forbid our holding it as an article of faith.
As for Bosco, well, let us hope for enlightenment.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Scoop said:
Thanks C. It does seem like such a contradiction that I baffled. I have no doubt that the saint was holy man that loved God . . . but as to his theological assertions I find it rather strange though he wouldn’t be the first saint that muddled his theology along the way. I will read the thread and see if it mediates my doubts or explains things in a sense that I can reconcile the anomalies. Thanks C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
My pleasure – fortunately we are free to hope 😊
LikeLiked by 2 people
Scoop said:
I’m sorry but the thread left me with as many questions as it did speculated answers to the conundrum . . . especially in regard to demons and irrational animals . . . which have definitive statements by the Church in our catechisms. So I will simply have to admire the love and the hope of this man whilst viewing his speculative theology with some mistrust. I don’t know any other way to assimilate the various opinions of largely laymen who speak from their wants and desires rather than from magesterial teaching that has been handed down for thelast 2000 years. It seems a bit muddy to say the least. 🙂 No doubt it would be comforting to know that all my friends [and enemies for that matter] will eventually be saved due to mercy alone and that justice of God is hung upon a shelf that is purely human and has no place in the attributes of God . . . but that seems to oeverturn constant teaching and bursts our understanding of the uniqueness of God’s mercy to men. Animals and demons do not seem to made any rational sense. The first are innocent for they are not rational operate on instinct without any malice . . . which would be easier to accept than the latter. For these bodiless spirits sure understood every consequence of their rejection of God . . . it seems quite permanent due to the fact that had what we do not have . . . a pure vision of what they are getting into by denying or defying of the All Mighty God. And this something that the Church has taught us from the beginning and seems rather biblical and apostolic. It would be nice to have a reputable theologian and Pope settle this seeming denunciation of Catholc Teaching so we will know whether we should applaud the saint for his love of God’s mercy and reject his over-enthusiastic hope that all will be saved . . . even animals and demons. I can’t wrap my head around such thoughts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Of course, when St Isaac wrote there was no catechism, and indeed, where he was – what we now call Iraq – there was little, if any knowledge of what a church in far away Europe was saying and doing; we don’t even know whether he was aware of the various Councils – and of course, at that stage – the 600s, there was no tradition of magisterial teaching to speak of, apart from Leo’s Tome, which if it had reached the East, had done so only in a corrupted version.
Since then, the Catholic Church has decided that whilst we can hope for the redemption of all, we cannot hold it as an article of faith. We should not, I think, judge past saints on what they could not know, but rather on what they have given us by way of insight into God’s mercy and love.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Scoop said:
Indeed, and you said it better than I. I certainly applaud a saint who lived with great focus on the love of God. That to me is his gift to all of us and our manner of living out the life of faith. Theological truths, not so much.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
Oh yes, wonderful…pat on back. Everyone, lets do a group pat on back.
One turd in the punch bowl is the history of this church you all CLAIM Christ founded.
Jesus stands at your door. He is alone. He isn’t there with thousands of child molesters in fish hats. He is at your door by himself. Its just you and him if you open the door. I know that pisses of the Mary worshippers. Too bad.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
As I know no one who worships Mary, I’ve no idea who you have in mind here.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
The CC here in the USA is mimicking Christianity. Well, that’s a good thing. People can actually come to the Lord thru the CCs preaching. Well, at least thru the radio ministry of Catholic Answers. But one has to ignore the Mary worship and the saint worship. Stop kidding yourself….these adoration festivals with people bowing befor the female statue is nothing but worship. What I had in mind here is the history of the church you claim Christ founded.
If one just feels the need to be in a religion, one should at least consider its history befor making a choice.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
No one worships Mary or saints. You know this, so why bother lying?
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Youre lucky to have two wonderful spirit led sons.
Praying to something is an act of worship. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, as the policemen tell me.
Im sure you will let us know the moment you are born again.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
We pray to God, as you know
LikeLike