What is the meaning of life?

Faith & Science Conversation
, ,
141

But who decides what is the correct interpretation? According to the early Christians, as thouroughly documented here Salvation without Christ - #103 by 1Cor15.54 , the interpretation didn’t belong to the single individual. And the interpretation of single individuals is what led in the next years and centuries to major deviations such as the reduction of the Eucharist to a mere symbol (Zwingly), female bishops, multiple marriages, blessing of gay marriages and now even queer theologies.

But it’s only natural, when the individual becomes the final arbiter of the interpretation of Scripture anything goes. Especially because the Gospel is demanding and we would all wish (MYSELF more than anyone else) to accommodate it in order to appease us and to make it less demanding.

Look, there are some gray areas where the Church didn’t weigh in, such as the controversia de auxiliis. I’ve studied it for years and I can tell you that I absolutely, viscerally, thoroughly, comprehensively LOATHE Banez’ interpretation. I find it offensive both morally and philosophically.

But let me tell you this: if the Church finally established that Banez was right (which would also mean that Molina or even modern excellent theologians such as Fr.Most would be wrong) I would accept it and I would also accept (in that case) that I AM WRONG AND THAT I WAS WRONG ALL ALONG (even if, currently, I absolutely don’t think I am).

Because I don’t consider myself the final arbiter of the truth, I don’t give myself such authority and I’d rather die ten times, but even 100 times, before being personally responsible (not that I would have such power, bytheway) of a division and a schism within the Church.

Because 100 deaths would be a better fate that what would await me once I kick the bucket if I were responsible of having divided God’s Church.

142

Sola Scriptura is about faith, specifically the Christian faith.

So how does the Christian faith come into being? Is it solely from reading Scripture? That would be the implication if not the stated meaning.

It would appear that the Catholic Church refutes it on the grounds that there is no justification for it within Scripture, nor is it stated, and therefore it is self defeated.

However, the argument seemed to be justifying the authority of the Catholic Church and historic beliefs, rather than the inclusion of Science or Social and cultural considerations.

I guess also that it might depend on whether you see there being any sort of faith in accepting science.

Perhaps your view is so tainted.

Richard

143

This is one of the matters where we (apparently) agree about the words but the interpretations of the meanings of those words differ.

The bread is the flesh of Jesus.
The wine is the blood of Jesus.
I assume that we agree on this.

Does this mean that the essence of the bread changes into the flesh of Jesus, or the essence of the wine into blood? Here is where our interpretations about the expressions seem to differ. I do not believe that the essence of the bread or wine transforms.

The doctrine of transubstantiation is a later addition to the teaching. It is a genuine attempt to explain what happens in the Eucharist but I do not agree with that speculation. If that doctrine would not have been added to the teaching, I suppose that a wider group of churches/denominations could have agreed about the words. From an ecumenical viewpoint, it is safer to stick to the wordings of the NT scriptures than try to invent detailed explanations of what happens in the invisible world. Churches may agree about the original wordings but disagree about the detailed speculations.

144

The difference is that I don’t put much stock into “my” interpretation. The world doesn’t revolve around me. Much less God and godly things.

What matters to me is how it was interpreted by the Church in the first centuries and in the first millennium. Especially if there are definitive acts of the Magisterium on the subject.

I swear it, I don’t consider myself important to the point that I think that my own interpretation supersedes that of the Church.

See the example on Banez (who to me is basically Calvin with catholic makeup on) I made above.

145

We should ask ourselves how the Christian faith came into being when 99% of people couldn’t read and the Canon was far from established, with even foundational books, such as the Gospel of John, having their authenticity doubted.

1 Like
146

Not more than the Trinity with the addition of homoousios, for example. The early Christians, as witnessed by Pliny the younger (and by countless early Church Fathers, Pliny is precious because he is an extra-ecclesial witness) in his letter to the emperor, already worshipped Jesus as God.

HOW Jesus was the one God (the early Christians never drifted into politheism) and at the same time a distinct person from the Father was yet to be clarified and yet this is what they believed. The same goes for the Eucharist.

The dogmas are nothing more than clarifications of things which had already been believed, even if more confusely and without being capable of connecting all the dots yet. And usually dogmas are necessary when a fundamental truth is challenged by heretics.

Christians knew Jesus was God, they also knew the Eucharist was Christ Himself, they felt the need to go into details once said truths were being attacked.

147

I do not either think that my opinions have much weight but I do not swallow the claims of various denominations without thinking what is claimed. And yes, I do think that RCC is just one denomination among the many that have roots in the early Christianity.

The Christians of the first centuries were not infallible. I do not think that even the ecumenical councils were infallible. I take seriously what they decided, assuming that the decisions seem to agree with the earlier apostolic teachings. If some parts of the decisions are questionable or seem to disagree with the earlier apostolic teachings, I put those parts aside.

I do not doubt that the early Christians used expressions like ‘bread is the flesh of Jesus’ or ‘wine is the blood of Jesus’. What I doubt is that there was a wide support for the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation seems to be a big issue for the RCC. For me, it is just one interpretation among many. Not so important that I would be willing to spend much time and energy into debates about it. If RCC teaches it, they teach it. If I would be the only person disagreeing with the interpretation of the RCC, I would assume that I have made an error. It seems that the majority of the churches do not support the doctrine of transubstantiation, which suggests that.I am not alone.

148

I don’t buy the claims of various denominations either. Especially since there was no such thing as ‘different denominations’ during the first millennium. You keep speaking as if the last five centuries were the standard. No, sir. Far from it.

That much was clear, which is why you are indeed placing your own interpretation above that of the Church. I mean, you absolutely have the right to do so. But that is subjectivism at its finest, and it can only lead to what we are witnessing today with queer theology and that sort of thing (which isn’t even the most egregious example).

Personally, when the Church rules dogmatically on matters of faith and morals, I follow the old saying: ‘Roma locuta, causa finita’. I’m just not a subjectivist, and I don’t think that subjectivism is compatible with Christianity at all, not more than, say, Wicca. What can I do about it?

That’s… nice. It really is. The problem is that then there is Robert who thinks that those parts don’t disagree at all and he finds some other parts which, according to his private judgment, disagree. And then we have a completely different individual, say…I don’t know, Jason, who disagrees with both you and Robert and finds some other things that he thinks disagree with the Bible and the apostolic teaching, things which you and Robert find perfectly ok.

Which, incidentally, is why we have what? 7000 different denominations today?

How all of this is supposed to be coherent with JESUS saying “the Spirit will guide you into all truth” and then praying for all to be one is yet to be seen but I won’t hold my breath.

Edit: whoops I was waaayyyyy off. 47.000 different denominations, just checked.

The doctrine of transubstantiation, as formalized later on, didn’t exist yet, but the underlying concept was already believed. It’s just like how first-century Christians weren’t ‘Trinitarians’ in the modern sense and didn’t know what the hell homoousios meant, but they still believed that Jesus was God and yet distinct from the Father, all while remaining strict monotheists

149

You seem to think that interpretations deviating from the doctrines of RCC are subjectivism. Some might be but that is not a general rule.

During the last decades I have mainly experienced churches where people are encouraged to study the scriptures and use their brains. Nothing is to be accepted simply because the leaders tell so. Simultaneously, no alternative interpretation is accepted because someone thinks subjectively so. Both the leaders and the other interpreters need to be able to justify their interpretation. That is challenging for the teachers but keeps the teaching from stucking on a wrong trail. Even if a whole generation would end up on a wrong track, the next generation may correct their error.

From this background, I take it granted that I am still learning and some of my subjective interpretations may need correction. I have needed to change my interpretations in some matters after someone has been able to show and justify a better interpretation. Nothing is correct just because I think so (subjectivism), a more correct path is likely to be found through the collective effort and credible justification. If another church, for example RCC, can credibly show that they have a much better justification for some interpretation, then I should change my previous interpretation in that matter. The justification should agree with the original apostolic teaching. With that limitation, the justification is more important than the source (denomination or person).

1 Like
150

A question has little use without an answer, or even a suggested answer.

Richard

Edit

It is “funny” how faith diversified when Scripture became available to the masses instead of being told what to believe by the favoured few.

There is at least one person on this forum who sees the (ancient/ formalised) church as being power crazy and more interested in indoctrination than truth. (My phraseology)

1 Like
151

47.000 different denominations. How many different denominations were there in the first millenium?

Do you think that 47.000 denominations aren’t the end product of subjectivism?

152

What do you mean, Richard? In this case there is the answer to that question.

153

You haven’t actually given it.

Richard

1 Like
154

But which fundamental truths of the faith were deformed? I genuinely ask. I have also provided quite an extensive documentation on the early Church, providing also all the sources. Regarding the Eucharist, for example, why John cared about using sarx instead of soma? Soma was much more generic and could be used in symbolic ways. Why then? Perhaps because, guided by the Spirit, he felt the need to get the point across more clearly?

155

But the leaders are neither here nor there. Sometimes our leaders have been utter trash, scumbags even. Our faith certainly isn’t in them (even if obviously there are leaders much more credible than others and a GPII cannot be compared in any way shape or form with Borgia), but in the Spirit who guides the Church and prevents her from going astray and from leading the faithfuls into heresy (which doesn’t mean that sometimes the leaders haven’t done horrible stuff). Only in the Holy Spirit rests our Faith.

If our faith was built upon men…

We simply believe in Jesus words when He states that He would have guided us into all truth. In other words we believe that the Holy Spirit assisted, assists and will assist the Church until the end of times, in order to prevent fundamental errors. We certainly don’t believe that we are protected from fundamental errors because we trust our human leaders, lol.

156

I did Salvation without Christ - #103 by 1Cor15.54

157

:smiling_face_with_sunglasses:

Every assertive Christian claims the backing of the Holy Spirit.

Both sides of the Great War declared the backing of God and the Holy Spirit.

If everyone who claims the Holy Spirt was true then the Holy Spirit is not consistent in what is revealed.

I pass Paul’s test on the inspiration of the Holy Spirt in my declaration of Christ, but that does not mean that every word I speak, even in the Pulpit, comes from the Holy Spirit. God does not (usually) take over our minds when ever we are speaking about Him.

Try again

Richard

1 Like
158

Yeah which is why I trust only in Jesus when He said “I will send you the Spirit, he will guide you into all truth” and then prayed as follows ““My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.”

I put zero stock in other humans on matters of faith, myself included.

159

:woozy_face: good luck with that.

At some point we have to decide for ourselves what we believe.

My beliefs are my own, not dictated by the Church, or any human body.

If i cannot even believe myself, what chance have I to convince others and

“Make Disciples of all men”

Richard

160

But I did. I believe the Church founded by Jesus. And I trust wholeheartedly His promise regarding the Holy Spirit guiding the Church (not the single individual) and the gates of Hell not prevailing.

What can I do if I’m such a simpleton? At least I can rejoice since Jesus since said the last will be the first .