In the most recent issue of Dappled Things, Damian J. Ference provides an engaging assessment of the similarities between the works of Pope Benedict XVI and Flannery O’Connor. In his article, “No Vague Believer: The Specificity of the Person of Christ According to Flannery O’Connor and Benedict XVI,” Ference proposes that, although Benedict XVI and O’Connor are writing at different times and in different genres, they share a common thesis, namely:
That the person of Christ is not simply a religious figure, or prophet, or political leader, or moral teacher among many—but that he truly is the Son of God, the Savior of the world, and that all of human history and the entire meaning of human existence rises and falls specifically on him—without exception.
The specificity of God’s nature as both human and divine as it is revealed in the person of Jesus Christ is the point of convergence between Benedict XVI’s work and that of O’Connor’s, but the poignant comparison of these two authors comes to light with Ference’s demonstration that each author, in their respective literary genres, were combatting what Ference terms “vague belief.” Vague belief, he
writes, has usurped “specific belief” in Christ, and is characterized by the de-divinization of Jesus, diminishment of God’s personal nature, and triumph of spiritualism without doctrine, dogma or savior.
Ference argues that each author deals with the crisis of vague belief by, “addressing the power of God’s name and proposing an adequate understanding of the person of Jesus Christ as Son of God and Savior of the world.” While such an argument might be somewhat more traceable in Benedict XVI’s overt discussions of Christ, Ference gives memorable examples in O’Connor’s work to illustrate this point, unpacking the Christian symbolism in each passage.
Read Ference’s case for pairing these two authors here.
July 14th, 2012 | 9:14 am
A very wise RCIA instructor in our diocese begins every introductory class hammering home one point, or one dogma: Jesus Christ never was, is not now, and never will be a human person. About half of each classes jaws drop open, but as he continues to instruct, his students find that much confusion is banished as they learn the faith. When I learned this dogma many years ago, the Catholic Faith just came together for me. And I was easily able to see through people (especially priests) whose doctrine leaned to the squishy or modernist side. So, the next time some priest says in his homily that the real miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes is that everyone shared them, you can picture a large red gong ringing over the priest’s head warning you that he is at least implicitly denying the Divine Personage of Jesus Christ. A Divine Person does not have to rely on people sharing something to qualify as a miracle. The Divine Person who is Jesus Christ can feed five thousand, or fifty thousand, or fifty million with just a few loaves and fishes.
July 16th, 2012 | 11:59 am
Jordan Almond,
I may be missing something here, but in reading your quote from your RCIA teacher,I have to say that either you are leaving something out, or s/he was simply not stating received Christian orthodoxy. I hope what he or she meant was that Jesus was never nor shall ever be “only” or “merely” human. But any denial of the full humanity of Christ is sub-Christian at best.
I understand why (for a variety of reasons) teachers, preachers, theologians– all of us really, may tend to want to emphasize His divinity over His humanity, or vice versa, but the temptation s to do is ultimately a denial of the right understanding of Jesus. The “hypostatic union” is a mystery to be sure… much more to be affirmed by faith rather than confirmed by reason, but it’s mysteriousness and difficulty cannot become excuses to abandon the doctrine. It is essential to any orthodox Christian understanding of Jesus.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact