Posted on 02/03/2012 6:31:03 AM PST by NYer
I am married to a Korean national. I mention this not just because it is cool (and it is cool) but I’ve learned quite a few things about my Faith from being close to someone of a very different culture.
Because of my wife’s nationality I know quite a few Koreans by association. They come from education backgrounds that make your humble scribe feel quite inferior, or at least I’d feel that way if they weren’t so humble about it. And one of the core components of this education is learning the English language.
To me they do indeed speak English well. Some can even speak without the hint of a Korean accent. I know firsthand how difficult this is given my own extremely difficult time learning Korean.
(What does this have to do with the Magisterium? Please bear with me).
However despite their best efforts I have come to notice that no matter how fluent they were certain ways they would speak seemed…well..awkward. For example, almost to a man, when one of my wife’s friends say something like they were sick yesterday they would say “My condition was not good.” This was true regardless of how well any of them spoke English. I pointed it out to my wife and she noted that it was more or less a direct translation of the Korean expression for having been sick in the past. Despite the quality of their English, they were still speaking Korean using English words.
Another time my wife was telling me about her college days and describing a particular student and his relationship to the students in her freshman group. There literally is no English word for the particular position that this person held. It is something of a cross between a mentor, a Resident Assistant, and a full blown teacher. The attempt of my wife to explain this concept actually took a bit of time, and my above description is my best attempt to explain this position.
What I’m trying to say is that one’s culture has a powerful effect on one’s exposure to concepts as well as how one is going to express themselves. The ability to communicate with one another is heavily dependent on the concepts being discussed and the modes of expression that the communicants share. The greater the disparity in either, the more communication it takes to attempt to bridge the gap.
At one point this started me thinking about the Bible. The books are written a long time ago by a culture with wildly different concepts and modes of expression than we have in modern English. And the New Testament was a translation of one culture into another, from the Jewish culture and language (Aramaic) to the Common Greek. Not only are these cultures different from ours (the Jewish and the Greek) but both cultures have grown and developed over time.
Just to give one example is the notion of “brother” in Jewish culture. The original Aramaic that Jesus and His followers spoke had no concept of “cousin.” To describe the relationship of one cousin to another they would say something like, “He is the son of my father’s brother.” Given how wordy this is they would simplify it to “he is my brother.”
Now someone might object to this by pointing out that the Common Greek had a word for cousin and if the authors wanted to say “cousin” they would have. But to me this doesn’t fly for two reasons. First, that knowledge of a language does not bestow the modes of expression the language uses. As in my first example, the Korean expressing that they were sick still use the Korean wording of the concept rendered into English. Second, given that Jesus and his people used Aramaic to communicate, it is actually more accurate to have a word for word translation, complete with ambiguity, rather than to impose a meaning on the words by trying to translate the wording into something more friendly to the new language.
These things led me to realize that if the Body of Christ has to go at Faith with a Bible Alone approach we are doomed. The time, culture and language separations are a huge obstacle to getting at the actual meaning of the texts, with all the nuance and subtlety that comes with theological understanding and the development of those concepts. This is readily apparent with our Protestant brethren, who continue to split into numerous sects and sects within sects.
The Bible is a product of the times and cultures that produced it. Despite the fact that it is the inerrant Word of God it still uses human culture and language to communicate to us. And because of the limits of both human language and cultural concepts, the existence of the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition simply make sense.
Our Lord provided us with an authoritative body that can express the Truths of Revelation over time and cultures without error. A body that has the authority to interpret the Sacred Texts and present them to all cultures and times. A body that lives and breathes with the cultures in time but stands above them. That such a body, the Magisterim, exists is not only to my mind beneficial, but necessary for preserving the Word of God and revealing the Word to us using the concepts and modes of communication we use.
My exposure to a foreign culture as different as the Korean one only illustrates the need for the Sacred Tradition, and the need for the authority of the Magisterium to guarantee the transmission of that Tradition. There is more to the Truth of the Word than our cultures and languages can transmit. The Magisterium exists to teach us in the ways we communicate today, and will exist to teach the cultures of the future. Through the Magisterium we overcome the Tower of Babel now and in the future.
I've realized that providing any substantive responses to you is a waste of time. All that comes back in return in a non sequitur response ending is an insult to Protestants.
The second “in” s/b “is.”
I haven’t seen you provide a substantive response to anyone yet, so forgive my skepticism.
In that light, you’ll also forgive my belief your “non sequitur” detection is more a function of your limited capabilities than faults in my association of concepts.
Thanks for proving my point in #237.
Exactly what we see in the Protestant world: sheep straying all over the intellectual/philosophical/theological countryside...where "every man does what is right in his own eyes (Judges 21:25)."
Now THAT is a non sequitur....
That certainly has produced nothing but a structure that must inevitably must subjugate Scripture to tradition. Example?
Would you be kind enough to rewrite this sentence? I'm not sure I take your point.
Also, if you are asking about the Magisterium as an alternate to Sola Scriptura, please forgive my misunderstanding your question.
Perhaps it would be easier to think of Church governance like civil governance. Trying to maintain the Church using nothing but the Bible would be analogous to running the country using a Constitution, but doing so without any judicial mechanism.
And before one is tempted to note that Jesus is the head of the Church, let us recall it is beyond dispute there are many issues on which our Lord simply as decided not to give any clear direction.
Perhaps by illustration.
The Catholic church has as dogma that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven. Pope Pius XII made an infallible pronouncement and thus belief in the dogma is required of Catholics.
Tradition has it this occurred about A.D. 48. This would've a momentous event occurring before most of the NT was written down.
Yet not one word concerning it, not a hint, not the slightest notice is recorded in the Scriptures.
But corporeal assumption into heaven is not ignored as a subject since Paul said that flesh and blood cannot inherit the heavenly kingdom. (1 Cor. 15:50)
Paul makes the point that the physical, corporeal, corruptible body must be given up for the spiritual body for entrance into heaven in that same 15th. chapter.
The majesterium has spoken infallibly. Paul has spoken with the authority of Christ's revelation to him.
Will Scripture be made subject to tradition?
Okay. Gotcha. I think I have a handle on what you are saying.
You're saying Scripture gets superseded by Tradition in cases such as you outline regarding Mary and her bodily assumption.
Is that a fair restatement of your point? I'll proceed on the assumption ;o) you would agree.
First let us recognize the use of Scripture in your argument; specifically, that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the heavenly kingdom."
Now in order for your reading of 1 Cor 15:50 to present a problem to the bodily assumption of Mary, you are making assumptions about what that Scripture says that are NOT in Scripture.
The same rationale is used by the Pharisees in Matthew 12:1 and Mark 2:23 to make accusation against Jesus' disciples in that they presumed the apostles grabbing a snack on the Sabbath constituted a violation of the law against "harvesting." And of course, we know this deduction was fallacious.
The deduction Paul's remarks in 1 Corinthians constitute a Scriptural conflict with Mary's bodily assumption is just as fallacious, and for the same reasons. The Scripture being cited is NOT a categorical statement, as proven by the heavenly presence of Enoch, Elijah, and indeed Christ himself.
Now you could quibble the point, but such quibbling would also entail assumptions that are similarly not categorical statements.
And to be honest, is not citing that Scripture in that way for the express purpose of proposing a conflict between Scripture and Tradition, because one WANTS to find a conflict with Catholic teaching regarding the bodily assumption of Mary?
Does that seem like innocent Christian thinking to you?
Paul’s argument spoke to Christ’s resurrection, that of his being raised up as a spirit. And since Paul says, “So also is the resurrection of the dead....” he is speaking of a category, Christ being the prime example.
Christ is called the “first fruits” of the resurrection. So that would leave Enoch and Elijah where?
Jesus called himself the “way and the truth” and didn’t hesitate to show how traditions often conflicted with Scripture.
Since you mentioned the Pharisees it should be obvious they didn’t have any idea of what the sabbath was for since they asked if was lawful to heal a man’s withered hand and didn’t comprehend that being in the service of God was not work that violated the sabbath.
They had the Scriptures, they read the Scriptures so why didn’t they understand the Scriptures?
They too were measuring the Scriptures by means of their traditions.
Obvious to whom? Was Luke the Gospel writer wrong in writing his icon?
What is your scriptural basis for drawing that conclusion?
Christ himself clearly attributes their error to pedantry, not tradition, according to Matthew 12:27.
But if ye had known what [this] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
Similarly, if you had not been trying to use Scripture, instead of heeding Scripture, you might not have made such a glaringly fallacious statement.
Showing mercy and healing a man's hand on the sabbath was not against the Law even though it could have waited until the next day.
Hence Jesus quoted Prov. 21:3.
In John 5:10 it was not excessive attention to detail that caused the Jews to tell the healed man he could not pick up his cot on the sabbath, Jesus had shown acts of mercy were acceptable and certain works even on the sabbath, but their tradition. They added to the Law a commandment of men calling what the man did a working or labor thus forbidden on the sabbath.
The apostle Paul had been trained as a Pharisee and he attributed his progress in Judaism to being zealous for the traditions of his forefathers. (Gal. 1:14)
So I think my statement, “They too were measuring the Scriptures by means of their traditions.” is so.
Earlier you mentioned Enoch and Elijah. What happened to them? How do you know?
The traditions that are held so near and dear, for example, the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven, do just what the traditions of the Pharisees did....render the truth of God's word invalid.
It becomes necessary to argue that Paul's description of Christ's resurrection was not as a spirit, that flesh and blood can inherit the heavenly kingdom, that Mary's resurrection would not follow the pattern of Christ's, that long before Christ was offered as a sacrifice in heaven men were taken bodily to life in heaven...if one is to follow tradition.
So who is not paying heed to the Scriptures?
Showing mercy and healing a man's hand on the sabbath was not against the Law even though it could have waited until the next day.
Hence Jesus quoted Prov. 21:3.
In John 5:10 it was not excessive attention to detail that caused the Jews to tell the healed man he could not pick up his cot on the sabbath, Jesus had shown acts of mercy were acceptable and certain works even on the sabbath, but their tradition. They added to the Law a commandment of men calling what the man did a working or labor thus forbidden on the sabbath.
The apostle Paul had been trained as a Pharisee and he attributed his progress in Judaism to being zealous for the traditions of his forefathers. (Gal. 1:14)
So I think my statement, “They too were measuring the Scriptures by means of their traditions.” is so.
Earlier you mentioned Enoch and Elijah. What happened to them? How do you know?
The traditions that are held so near and dear, for example, the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven, do just what the traditions of the Pharisees did....render the truth of God's word invalid.
It becomes necessary to argue that Paul's description of Christ's resurrection was not as a spirit, that flesh and blood can inherit the heavenly kingdom, that Mary's resurrection would not follow the pattern of Christ's, that long before Christ was offered as a sacrifice in heaven men were taken bodily to life in heaven...if one is to follow tradition.
So who is not paying heed to the Scriptures?
I'll have to grant you the point. I meant to say post #241, not #237. (That's what I get for trying to post quickly before I had to run out the door.)
However, go back to your previous response and note that you can't respond to anything without slipping in an insult as I pointed out in #241.
Says who?
Jesus, if you believe the Bible.”If he won’t listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector.”
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/proving-inspiration
I demonstrated by the very words of Christ that you were wrong.
You choose to evade that fact, and continue positing your speculative theory .
There is no reason to continue this discussion with you, because you have demonstrated that even when you are conclusively shown to be in error you either can not, or will not, acknowledge it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.