God
Scripture
Faith
I just got home a bit ago and have a rapidly brewing headache, but I had a characteristically wonderful and very fruitful meeting with my spiritual director this afternoon, and he shined light on several of the conflicts I've been trying to resolve since this post. Notably:
I also asked him about different Bible translations, and whether he thought passages from, let's say, Esther, were added or removed. His reply: "Does it really matter? The New Testament was 'added later' too, but it's obviously canon. We [as Catholics] believe that the canon [in the Catholic Bible] was divinely inspired; what is or isn't in it reflects God's will."
On the drive home I also came to a resolution on another conundrum I was facing: what if something completely bonkers was added to Church teaching at an ecumenical council? In other contexts, I've heard examples like, "What if it was declared we should no longer believe in God?"
I read an example today from a Protestant church-- I can't recall which one-- where it was said that perhaps Jesus's resurrection "shouldn't be taken literally." That would be a concrete, real-world example.
On the one hand, Church teachings changed a lot in the very early centuries I've studied so far. But while I was driving, a distinction came to me: the Church teachings weren't really changing-- they were being refined; they were honing into a more finely pointed wedge.
So I think if the magisterium issued a teaching which was clarifying or offering elucidation on something we fundamentally know to be true, that would be valid. But if the Church did an about-face and completely overturned a teaching, like saying Jesus did not rise from the dead, that would be a different story.
I'm so early in this journey that I feel like my understanding is evolving on an hour-by-hour basis. It will be fun to look back on these posts in six months, a year, four years, and so forth. I will continue to bring all of you along for the ride, so we can all study and learn together.
- Regarding essential teachings: he explained that the sin wasn't being wrong-- the sin was being persistently disobedient when confronted with the truth. For example, Nestorius exhibited very near zero willingness to admit that he was wrong, and when he was point-blank asked to stop confusing the faithful, he persisted in his heresies.
- He asked me: "Is it important that someone knows the truth about Christology, even if accidentally haven mistaken ideas won't preclude you from salvation?" My answer was: "Of course! Who knows what crazy notions we would have." He replied: "Exactly! Knowing Jesus does matter, even if we can't all be experts in every nuance."
- Regarding my conflicted feelings about pulling back from certain things even though I know they would be fruitful: "Well, do you think it's a problem right now?" Oh! "Uhh, well, no actually, not at this time." "Ok! Then be aware of it, but don't worry about nothing either."
I also asked him about different Bible translations, and whether he thought passages from, let's say, Esther, were added or removed. His reply: "Does it really matter? The New Testament was 'added later' too, but it's obviously canon. We [as Catholics] believe that the canon [in the Catholic Bible] was divinely inspired; what is or isn't in it reflects God's will."
On the drive home I also came to a resolution on another conundrum I was facing: what if something completely bonkers was added to Church teaching at an ecumenical council? In other contexts, I've heard examples like, "What if it was declared we should no longer believe in God?"
I read an example today from a Protestant church-- I can't recall which one-- where it was said that perhaps Jesus's resurrection "shouldn't be taken literally." That would be a concrete, real-world example.
On the one hand, Church teachings changed a lot in the very early centuries I've studied so far. But while I was driving, a distinction came to me: the Church teachings weren't really changing-- they were being refined; they were honing into a more finely pointed wedge.
So I think if the magisterium issued a teaching which was clarifying or offering elucidation on something we fundamentally know to be true, that would be valid. But if the Church did an about-face and completely overturned a teaching, like saying Jesus did not rise from the dead, that would be a different story.
I'm so early in this journey that I feel like my understanding is evolving on an hour-by-hour basis. It will be fun to look back on these posts in six months, a year, four years, and so forth. I will continue to bring all of you along for the ride, so we can all study and learn together.