I recently had occasion to quote this to our long-time commentator, Bosco: “Whatever is not consistent with love of God and neighbour cannot be a right interpretation of Scripture.” St Augustine was the author of this wise saying, and it is the key to our understanding of Scripture.
One reason, politeness apart, that I interact with Bosco here is that beneath the unappealing surface of what he writes, there is a child of God and a man who believes that he is “saved” and has a concern for the rest of us. Ironically, when he criticises St Thomas More and others in the Church for the way they treated heretics in the past, he fails to see that they were motivated by much the same thoughts that motivate him, namely the view that someone else is teaching “another gospel” and putting their soul in peril, as well as the souls of others. More, like his Protestant successors, had the power of the State on his side and could use it to correct error. Bosco only has the internet, which he uses to scarify the Catholic Church, which he believes is in error. And so it goes on.
The Bible is not a text-book, it is not a history book, it is not a work of scientific accuracy, and yet we believe, nay we know, that it contains everything we need to know in order to attain salvation. But how are we to understand it? Bosco tells us confidently that it explains itself to the person of faith, and follows that up by demonstrating that it doesn’t, by coming to conclusions the diametric opposite of others who read it. Now, it is of course, just possible that a small group of American Fundamentalists understand the Book Canonised by the Church better than the Church which Canonised it, but on the balance of probabilities, it would be unwise to bet the farm, let alone your soul, on it.
At this point in internet “dialogue” it is common to get into proof-texting. Well, I can speak only for myself and I don’t kow about you, but I am heartily sick of Christians from different Churches throwing proof texts at each other.
In her post yesterday, Audre advised us that she was a “big picture” person, and that is good advice. Once we realise that the biggest picture is that God is love, and therefore any interpretation of Scripture inconsistent with love of God and neighbour cannot be correct. It follows that in our dealings with each other, whilst love might lead us to be alarmed that x or y is “wrong” in their interpretation, so might we be.
It is for that reason that Catholics, Anglicans and Orthodox look to the teaching of the Church to support the readings which their own reasoning suggests. No-one who knows anything about the Catholic Church could believe what only those who know nothing about it propound when they suggest that it seeks to tell its members how the read the Bible in every aspect of its richness. That is not, and never has been, the function of the Church.
The Church is the repository of the “rule of Faith”. It is the guardian of the Creeds through which it interprets what it received from the hands of the Apostles themselves. So, to take one example, you can argue about what you think the Trinity is, and you can support yourself with proof-texts, but the Church knows that heretical positions were, in the past (as now) supported by clever men (and it is always men … just saying) with arguments of their own devising, and so, if we are wise, we will turn to the Church to see what it has to say on the matter. There we discover the wisdom of the ages, guided by the Holy Spirit. We can then measure our own conclusions against that collective wisdom. If we think we are right, then of course, we shall act on that. But if we are wise, we will pray for discernment. I don’t know about you, but I lack whatever spirit it is that leads people to believe that they know better than the mind of the Church.
Love is the guide for how we should read Scripture. We bring to it emotional and cultural baggage which is bound to influence how we read and interpret, and it is right that should be the case; even were it not right, it is inevitable. But then let us measure our thoughts against the yardstick that God is Love. The Holy Spirit speaks to us in love, but in the struggle to translate that into words, we can miss the deeper level at which He communicates to us. God abides with us always. Of course we will feel ourselves “unworthy”, and we are – by our standards. If we look at us through God’s eyes, we are the reason that Christ suffered, died, was buried and rose again, we are loved that much. Do you get it? I don’t in my head, but I do emotionally. It makes no sense to my earthly standards, but that just tells me how far those are from God’s.
The Holy Spirit speaks through the Church, and He speaks to all of us if we have ears to hear and a heart open to receiving Him. I am unworthy, and yet Christ died for me, so I am worthy. Yes, I see the distance between this weak and fallible person and the infinite goodness of the Trinity, but then through prayer and through Grace, I have faith that the gap will narrow and I can enter more deeply into the ultimate reality of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
I try to distinguish between necessary and contingent and use other structures to help keep the bond of unity to the extent possible. At least we don’t live in the Wars of Religion or under the Test Acts (although I don’t think we should outright decry the TAs, as historical analysis should permit shades of grey). But, well…on some days I find myself asking, “Why bother?” I guess it is part of faith in God to believe He can make us one.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you, Nicholas, that’s why I find St Augustine’s advice helpful – if we read inconsistent with love of neighbour and God, we’re probably getting it wrong – as usual!
LikeLiked by 2 people
More, like his Protestant successors, had the power of the State on his side and could use it to correct error.
more strapped ppl to the rack for simply being caught with a bible, and had them pulled apart. this is what you call”correcting error”?
LikeLike
Let us suppose that you believe in God. Let us further suppose you believe that those preaching “another Gospel” imperil their souls and the souls of others, and let us further suppose you live in an age where capital punishment was the penalty for serious crimes; your explanation is there Bosco.
LikeLike
jesus said if someone preaches another gospel…send them on their way. the gospel is the good news that christ took our sins, died and rose again and is with the father.
i fail to see where burning someone to death over the gospel is part of gods plan. these unfortunate victims of the Cc, what was their other gospel? you forgot to mention what it was. then i will be able better to agree on if a red hot poker to the eyes is justified. thanks in advance.
LikeLike
Bosco, I just told you. Those who read the Bible and tell men and women they are saved and cannot lose that salvation teach a gospel not taught by Jesus and His Church.
Back then people believed in burning heretics. Now heretics rant on the Internet.
LikeLike
telling folks that when they get saved they cant loose salvation after that. thats why im called bosco the heretic. fitting name. persoally good brother, i was expecting something more dramatic than believing salvation doesnt wear off as the reason for being strapped to a pole and burned alive. i feel cheated.. are you sure there isnt something juicier than that to get ones tongues torn out?
LikeLike
Helping people lose their souls seems pretty serious.
LikeLike
bravo good brother. i knew you had it in you.impale draw and quarter those heretics , and whats left , burn at the stake. now that a catholic in the raw. good show.
LikeLike
Poor Bosco. Read what I wrote.
LikeLike
i did
LikeLike
What I will say, having reflected on your posts about women in leadership, is that I believe the Anglicans have destroyed their own church. Anglican as a single term to describe the different streams that now exist is an inaccurate, if not false term.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have never been happy with the term Anglicanism, even when I was one. It seems at once too narrow and too broad.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hmmm … I’m going to have to think about that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, my gosh, Chalcedon! This is simply beautiful! You’ve hit it square on the head. Standing ovation, sir!
I would be remiss if I didn’t share this: “…(and it is always men … just saying) …” made me laugh out loud!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you so much Audre – and yes, I did wonder whether some of my female readers might not notice that comment!
LikeLiked by 2 people
This is a beautiful explanation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you 🙏🏼
LikeLiked by 3 people
if i didnt love you my catholic friends, i wouldnt be here.
everywhere i go catholics tell me how the church gave us the bible, and i should be grateful.brave good brother chalcedon did what i rarely hear…admit the CC burned people for having bibles, or just burning people period. befor i go on i want to clear something up…the first protestants were catholic. thats why they too tortured and burned ppl, because thats how they thought to handle things.
lets forget the fancy talk about who formulated the bible lets talk about human lives.good brother chalcedon and all other catholics will tell you that the makers of unauthorized bible were leading men to hell. unauthorized by a greedy murderous cult. anyway, i call upon anyone, and good brother chalcedon, to give a few examples of what was in these horrible bibles that led men astray.not once in my short but sweet life has any catholic ever said what was wrong in those books. not once. not on these pages, not in catholic answers.com, you tube, or any site ive ever had the privilege of being kicked off of. the claim has been made that it was in the best interest of the population to have red hot daggers shoved in the eyes of heretics who had bad bibles. i ask again…what was so wrong in those bibles?
i maintain nothing was wrong.
LikeLike
It would be hard to think of a set of statements which misrepresent their own argument.
No one argued that there was anything “in the books” which was wrong; it was the use men made of the Bible. If you believe that there is a Church, and if you believe that it guides you correctly, and if, further, you believe these things are a matter of salvation, then how would you regard someone who told you to believe “another Gospel”?
LikeLike
ok, so what was this another gospel? thanks in advance.
LikeLike
Two examples: that an individual can know with complete assurance that he is saved; not one of the Evangelists says so; and that, as Luther held, some books of the Bible, like the letter of St James can be omitted.
LikeLike
hmmmm, i see now. if someone thinks they have complete assurance they are saved, they need to be boiled in oil. alright, ill go with that.
good brother luther thought the book of james shouldnt be in the bible…..well, i can understand ripping his arms and legs off would be a just punishment. thanks for clearing that up for me good brother. no one else has ever given me an answer to that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The point is simple. In bygone eras people treated matters of salvation very seriously. They also used punishments we think barbarous. On the other hand, our civilised society murders millions of babies in the womb.
LikeLike
um, one question…is selling indulgenses, get out of pergatory tickets considered taking salvation serious? thanks in advance
LikeLike
It is.
LikeLike
ive got some go to heaven tickets left over. ill send you my paypal info and and ill mail the the tickets when payment it confirmed. $2000 should be worth a life of bliss in heaven.
LikeLike
Poor Bosco. Read what I wrote.
LikeLike
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.
Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen…….jude 24
38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord…..romans 8
seems pretty clear nothing can take away gods salvation. my god doesnt have butter fingers like your god has. you have a form of godliness but deny the power there of. time to get saved my good brother.
LikeLike
As I say, Bosco, you misread Scripture to your own peril.
LikeLike
ok then, i will surrender myself to you to pour molten lead down my throat poke my eyes out and then burn me to death. one request old friend…be gentile.
LikeLike
Chalcedon, I have some thoughts percolating at the moment about ecclesiology and the layers of Scripture. I doubt you will get much further with Bosco, but your use of Irenaeus has made me see protopapacy material where I did not know or remember it existed, and that from the beginning of the sub-Apostolic period. I think it might be well for you to write more about the Papacy and the Magisterium to explain what they are, how they safeguard the Church doctrinal,lay, and where Catholicism stands to today in light of this post as distinct from actions and teachings of the past that even some traditionalists find repugnant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Nicholas, good idea.
LikeLiked by 1 person