Versions Compared

Old Version 1

changes.mady.by.user Lashyia Meeks

Saved on

compared with

New Version 2

changes.mady.by.user Jennifer Heise

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Scanned PDF

Wiki MarkupFor Some time now, I've been bothered by the way I expressed myself in a passage from pp. 97 f. of Is There Only One True Religion or Are There Many? Were I to rewrite it, I would write something like this (indicating changes of words, phrases, or sentences by caps, and omissions by square brackets):

Panel

Wiki Markup
This means, however, that one not only cannot, but also need not, think and speak of

...

Jesus merely as prophet, sage, or saint. One _can_ not so think and speak of him because prophets, sages, and saints can never be constitutive of a faith or religion in the UNIQUE way in which Jesus is constitutive of Christianity. In the nature of the case, they are always only one among others -- EVEN IF THE FIRST AND FOREMOST -- AND ARE dependent for their

...

authority upon the explicit SELF-

...

UNDERSTANDING/understanding of existence that alone is thus constitutive of the faith they RE-

...

PRESENT. In the specific case of

...

Christianity, however, this \[ \] SELF-UNDERSTANDING/ understanding OF EXISTENCE is not

...

MADE

...

EXPLICIT, IN THE PRIMAL INSTANCE, IN some law or teaching or word of wisdom, but IN Jesus himself, through whom the meaning of ultimate reality for us is decisively re-presented. Consequently, the only way in which Jesus can be thought and spoken of consistently with his UNIQUE constitutive significance for the Christian religion is not as one more authority among others, even the first and foremost thereof, but as the EXPLICIT primal authorizing source by which all Christian authorities, be they prophets, sages, or saints, are \[ \] authorized as such.

...

But 
...
 Jesus 
...
 also 
...
need
...
 not 
...
 be 
...
 understood 
...
 otherwise, 
...
 since 
...
 there 
...
 is 
...
 the 
...
 obvious 
...
 alternative 
...
 of 
...
 thinking 
...
 and 
...
 speaking 
...
 of 
...
 him 
...
 with 
...
 Rahner 
...
 and 
...
 others 
...
 as 
...
 the 
...
 primal 
...
 Christian 
...
 sacrament. 
...
 By 
...
 'sacrament' 
...
 here, 
...
 of 
...
 course, 
...
 I 
...
 mean 
...
 what 
...
 is 
...
 better 
...
 referred 
...
 to 
...
 more 
...
 generally 
...
 as 
...
 'means 
...
 of 
...
 salvation' 
...
 (IF 
...
 NOT, 
...
 MORE 
...
FORMALLY, 
...
 AS 
...
 'MEANS 
...
OF ULTIMATE TRANSFORMATION'). 
...
 In 
...
 my 
...
 view, 
...
 ( 
...
 ] 
...
 sacraments 
...
 in 
...
 the 
...
 ordinary 
...
 sense 
...
 are 
...
 rightly 
...
 thought 
...
 of 
...
 together 
...
 with 
...
 word 
...
 as 
...
 equivalent 
...
 SUCH 
...
 MEANS 
...
 in 
...
 that 
...
 they 
...
 are 
...
 equally 
...
 valid 
...
 ways 
...
 of 
...
 REPRESENTING 
...
 Jesus 
...
 Christ 
...
 as 
...
 the 
...
 explicit 
...
 gift 
...
 and 
...
 demand 
...
 of 
...
 God's 
...
 love. 
...
 Thus 
...
 it 
...
 would 
...
 be 
...
 equally 
...
 appropriate 
...
 to 
...
 develop 
...
 an 
...
 analogy 
...
 between 
...
 the 
...
 word 
...
 of 
...
 preaching 
...
 and 
...
 Jesus 
...
 and 
...
 to 
...
 think 
...
 and 
...
 speak 
...
 of 
...
 him, 
...
 accordingly, 
...
 as 
...
 the 
...
 primal 
...
 Christian 
...
 word, 
...
 rather 
...
 than 
...
 as 
...
 the 
...
 primal 
...
 Christian 
...
 sacrament. 
...
 In 
...
 either 
...
 case, 
...
 the 
...
 point 
...
 of 
...
 the 
...
 analogy 
...
 would 
...
 be 
...
 to 
...
 assert 
...
 both 
...
 the 
...
 similarity 
...
 and 
...
 the 
...
 difference 
...
 between 
...
 ALL 
...
 ordinary 
...
 means 
...
 of 
...
 salvation 
...
 and 
...
 Jesus 
...
 Christ. 
...
 Like 
...
 both 
...
 word 
...
 and 
...
 sacraments, 
...
 he 
...
 does 
...
 not 
...
 constitute 
...
 God's 
...
 love, 
...
 but 
...
 RE-PRESENTS 
...
 it. 
...
 But 
...
 whereas 
...
 they 
...
 RE-PRESENT 
...
 God's 
...
 love 
...
 by 
...
 also 
...
 RE-PRESENTING 
...
 him, 
...
 he 
...
 RE-PRESENTS 
...
 God's 
...
 love 
...
 by 
...
 also 
...
 constituting 
...
 them. 
...
 Because 
...
 this 
...
 analogy 
...
 is 
...
 undoubtedly 
...
 available, 
...
 however, 
...
 there 
...
 is 
...
 no 
...
 need 
...
 to 
...
 think 
...
 and 
...
 speak 
...
 of 
...
 Jesus 
...
 merely 
...
 as 
...
 prophet, 
...
 sage, 
...
 or 
...
 saint. 
...
 On 
...
 the 
...
 contrary, 
...
 one 
...
 can 
...
 very 
...
 well 
...
 think 
...
 and 
...
 speak 
...
 of 
...
 him 
...
 as 
...
 savior, 
...
 in 
...
 the 
...
 precise 
...
 sense 
...
 that, 
...
 being 
...
 the 
...
 primal 
...
 Christian 
...
 word 
...
 and 
...
 sacrament, 
...
 HE 
...
 HAS 
...
 THE 
...
 UNIQUE 
...
 SIGNIFICANCE 
...
 FOR 
...
 THE 
...
 SPECIFICALLY 
...
 CHRISTIAN 
...
RELIGION AND 
...
 ECONOMY 
...
 OF 
...
 SALVATION 
...
 THAT 
...
 HE 
...
 IS 
...
 NOT MERELY REPRESENTATIVE BUT CONSTITUTIVE OF IT.
3 June 2009
In Is There Only One True Religion or Are There Many?, I argue that religion is to be understood as "the primary form of culture, or ... the 'cultural system;' in terms of which human beings are given to understand themselves in an explicit way." Thus "religion essentially involves not only an understanding of our existence, but also, and just as essentially, the particular concepts and symbols through which the question of our existence can alone be asked and answered in an explicit way" (10).
But I also argue there that "the term 'religion' by its very meaning always has an objective as well as a subjective reference – analogously to the way in which, on a traditional theological analysis, the term 'faith' refers to the 'faith which is believed' (fides quae creditur) as well as to the 'faith through which (it) is believed' (fides qua creditur)" (10). In fact, the way I argue this second point betrays my assumption that it somehow follows from the first. (Note the "Thus" connecting what I say about the two points.) Perhaps it does. But, as I now think about it, it seems rather to note yet a further characteristic of religion, that, in addition to essentially involving particular concepts and symbols as well as the explicit understanding of our existence that they serve to mediate, religion is constituted, in its objective sense, by just such an explicit understanding, and, in its subjective sense, by understanding oneself accordingly.
 Wiki Markup
 MERELY REPRESEl'-'TATIVE BUT CONSTITUTIVE OF IT.
3 June 2009
In Is There Only One True Religion or Are There Many?, I argue that religion is to be understood as "the primary form of culture, or ... the 'cultural system; in terms of which human beings are given to understand themselves in an explicit way." Thus "religion essentially involves not only an understanding of our existence, but also, and just as essentially, the particular concepts and symbols through which the question of our existence can alone be asked and answered in an explicit way" (10).
But I also argue there that "the term 'religion' by its very meaning always has an objective as well as a subjective reference-analogously to the way in which, on a traditional theological analysis, the term 'faith' refers to the 'faith which is believed' (fides quae creditur) as well as to the 'faith through which (it) is believed' (fides qua creditur)" (10). In fact, the way I argue this second point betrays my assumption that it somehow follows from the first. (Note the "Thus" connecting what I say about the two points.) Perhaps it does. But, as I now think about it, it seems rather to note yet a further characteristic of religion, that, in addition to essentially involving particular concepts and symbols as well as the explicit understanding of our existence that they serve to mediate, religion is constituted, in its objective sense, by just such an explicit understanding, and, in its subjective sense, by understanding oneself accordingly.
In any event, in my later argument in the same book, that Jesus, although representative and not constitutive of the possibility of salvation, is constitutive of everything specifically Christian, I maintain that "prophets, sages, and saints can never be constitutive of a faith or religion, in the way in which Jesus is constitutive of Christianity/,' because "\[i\]n the nature of the case, they are always only one among others, dependent for their authority upon the explicit understanding of existence that alone is thus constitutive of the faith they represent" (97). The clear implication, then, is that "\[i\]n the specific case of Christianity, ... this explicit understanding \[_sc_. that alone constitutes it as a religion in the objective sense of the word\] is not, in the first instance, some law or teaching or word of wisdom, but Jesus himself, through whom the meaning of ultimate reality for us is decisively re-presented" (97).
2

But   what,   exactly,   does   it   mean   to   say   that   Jesus   himself   is   the   explicit   understanding   of   existence   that   alone   is   constitutive   of   Christianity   as   a   religion   in   the   objective   sense?   First   of   all,   it   does   not   mean   that   Jesus   is   simply   identified   with   a   certain   understanding   of   human   existence.   One   must   say,   instead,   that   Jesus   is   the   bearer,   or   vehicle,   of   such   an   understanding,   and   therefore   what   alone   makes   it   an  explicit  understanding,   analogously   to   the   way   in   which   the   element   of   a   sacrament   alone   makes   it   a  means  of   salvation.   But   to   say   that   Jesus   himself   is   the   explicit   understanding   of   existence   that   constitutes   Christianity   is   to   say   that   he   himself   is   the   primal   concept   and   symbol   through   which   the   Christian   understanding   is   mediated,   and   thus,   by   analogy,   the   primal   Christian   word   or   sacrament,   i.e.,   means   of   salvation.
 Wiki Markup

In this sense, one may say that, "in its essence, in the presence in our human history of Jesus Christ, \[Christianity\] is simply the representation to man and the world of their ultimate significance within the encompassing mystery of God's love" (_The Reality of God:_ 69).

4   September   1999