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.
Whatever the local assembly of believers is.
Because they use the same Scripture.
Matthew 18:15-17 15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
And what might doctrinal differences have to do with dealing with a person who sins against you?
What is and is not sin is pretty well spelled out in Scripture.
What Jesus is simply doing here is giving the procedure for settling issues of sin, when someone has sinned against another. The person offended is responsible to approach the one who offended him and try to make it right.
If that doesn't work, then they are to get two or three witnesses.
The step after that is to go to the local assembly to try for reconciliation.
Why would doctrinal issues between churches enter into it? How would they be relevant?
That's just an assumption, an opinion.
It enjoyed authoritative teaching authority.
No it didn't because Jesus was still walking the planet at that time and HE was the authoritative teacher.
When He left, He gave believers the Holy Spirit as the authoritative teacher, and Scripture was available.
The church had no power, however, until the day of Pentecost as the Holy Spirit had not come yet, so the church could not have had authoritative teaching privileges.
And it must still exist.
Of course the body of Christ still exists. Where ever there are believers there is the church.
And It must teach inerrant doctrine, since God is truth.
Only Scripture is inerrant. Any one person or groups interpretation of Scripture for doctrine cannot be inerrant because God is beyond our comprehension. To claim that one's doctrine is inerrant is to lock God in a church box.
1 Corinthians 12:12-27 12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22 On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, 25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.
27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.
AlLso read Revelation chapters 2 & 3. The letters from Jesus addressed individual churches in separate cities, each with their own partiuclar strengths and weaknesses. There is NOTHING in those letters that refers to or appeals to a central authority. And THAT is NT church history.
Except for the implicit understanding the CHRIST is the authority and the same implicit understanding that his designates are similarly authorized.
I never cease to be amazed at the "heads I win, tails you lose" interpretations of Protestant quasi-scholars.
They misapply scriptures as badly as any pharisee, and call it "biblical," (bearing more than a little resemblance to the accusation of "harvesting on the Sabbath" laid on the apostles) then willfully deny scriptures like Matthew 16:18 with "interpretations" that are nowhere authorized in that same bible.
This is the quintessential example of what I referred to in my last post.
This assertion has no more biblical authority than a Cambell soup label. In fact, it is incredibly stupid.
One can not say Scripture is inerrant, but somebody's interpretation can not be inerrant, unless the person saying so claims inerrancy.
Such a person commits the same act they criticize the Catholic Church for, but simply isn't smart enough to recognize that fact.
:-)
Jumping into a thread i have not been following recently, but did you mean to say “one can say Scripture is inerrant?” The “but” seems to be making a distinction.
No.
My point in the sentence you ask about is you can not claim both the first clause AND the second clause without the third clause being true.
Questions:
Was metmom claiming a special charism of assured infallibility, as like the pope (which your response seems to charge her with claiming), or was she expressing a belief, that the Scriptures are inerrant/infallible based upon its statements and attestation?
And are you saying that no one can have Scriptural certitude (and thus believe and speak the same) except by confidence in the magisterium of Rome when it speaks infallibly?
Thanks
On the face of it, I have to question the relevance and/or probity of your questions: at least the one to me.
Simply stated, I’m pointing to what I call the Pat Robertson fallacy.
If Pat Robertson announces God told him something, the only way you can logically claim God DIDN’T speak to Pat Robertson is to for God to tell YOU he didn’t speak to Pat Robertson. So unless you are willing to claim God spoke to YOU, you can NOT logically claim he didn’t speak to Pat Robertson.
I think both the questions are completely relevant. If mm was claiming assuredly infallibility, then she could be charged with making herself a pope, but if she was expressing a belief (based on evidence) in the Bible as being inerrant, then she herself in not claiming such, but only presenting a judgement based upon evidence, being dependent upon a greater authority than herself to persuade people by manifestation of the truth. (2Cor. 4:2)
And which appeal to a greater authority is what you yourself do in asserting that Rome is the One True Church, based upon Scripture, Tradition and history, rather than the Orthodox or others who also appeal to their church as effectively being the supreme authority on doctrine.
This assertion of Rome as being the OTC flows from your fallible faith decision to submit to her, and which fallible human reasoning you must exercise on discerning which of many pronouncements and parts thereof are infallible (and thus require implicit assent of faith), as well as (to varying degrees) the meaning of these and those from the Ordinary magisterium, which most of what RCS believe and practice is said to belong to. And in which there are many differences beyond a unity in core essentials.
Thus neither adherents of SS and SE (sola ecclesia) believe they are assuredly infallible, but appeal to greater authorities which claim to be, and under both models there is division, the differences being in degrees, as well as a wide unity in core essentials.
The question then remains, are you saying that no one can have Scriptural certitude of truth (and thus believe and speak the same) except by confidence in the magisterium of Rome when it speaks infallibly?
Instead of throwing up a cloud of words which, given the way it’s written, tends to obscure the subject, why not just demonstrate the flaw in my logic?
There is a great epistemological gap between saying “I believe x” and being qualified to say “your belief in y is wrong.”
Good job, daniel. Obviously not able to be refuted based on the response.
I never claimed to be infallible in my interpretations. Scripture is inerrant and infallible, a claim Catholicism makes so I don’t see why MY also acknowledging that should be an issue.
I have been addressing the conclusion of the logic (and the argument behind it) which apparently holds that making a statement as fact based upon an inerrant source is a claim to assured inerrancy in speaking infallibly under certain conditions, if they indeed are engaging in the same act which we criticize Rome for, as you charged.
Which is not that Rome cannot speak truth - even if it be something as basic as “there is a Creator” and other Scriptural truths which we also affirm - but the epistemological basis for Rome’s presumption of assured infallibility and certain teachings which flow from it.
The issue is authority, and thus my question to you regarding your underlying argument was and is, are you saying that no one can have Scriptural certitude (and thus believe and speak the same) except by confidence in the magisterium of Rome when it speaks infallibly?
No, you are not.
You are denying an inescapable conclusion, positing a different argument, and treating that argument as if it were mine.
The is no "underlying" argument.
Of course you didn't. That has been my point from the beginning.
Maybe it would be easier for you to understand if I use an analogy.
You know what an analogy is, right?
What you are saying is:
I know this car runs, even if it's not running right now. (the bible is infallible)
I don't know everything there is to know about cars. (I am not infallible.)
YOU don't know everything there is to know about cars. (the Catholic Church is not infallible)
Now this is where you go off the rails: in order for you to be able to honestly say I don't know all there is to know about cars, you really DO have to know all there is to know about cars.
You are demonstrating the same well known (and admitted by honest ones) flaw of atheist thought. They assert there is no God, but readily admit they are not omniscient. But by admitting they are not omniscient, they admit they can't say with 100% confidence there is no God, because he could be hiding behind any of those things the atheist doesn't know.
This is all such well travelled ground in religious discussion, to deny it is to mark oneself a functional illiterate on the subject.
One can not say Scripture is inerrant, but somebody's interpretation can not be inerrant, unless the person saying so claims inerrancy. Such a person commits the same act they criticize the Catholic Church for, but simply isn't smart enough to recognize that fact.
Your poorly worded statement has a polemical context, and while i do not deny one can state somethings which are without error, based on evidence, I do deny that one must claim to be protected from error for their interpretation to be without error (Paul quoted a pagan writer as expressing truth). Or that in claiming to be stating Truth they are doing so after the manner of Rome with her infallibly declared assured infallibility.
The is no "underlying" argument.
Well, when you start posting things supporting an argument then you can let us know what that is.
I think you are forgetting which one of us is doing the rhetorical rope-a-dope.
My argument stands on its own.
And honestly, you really have no room to criticize "poorly worded" statements....
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.