Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
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.
First of all, the "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur" do NOT imply some kind of infallible stamp of approval on a work of art (writing) by the Catholic Church. Those things merely reflect the opinions of the persons whose names are attached to them concerning some specific work of art, not the infallible approval of Magisterium of the Church.
This is a matter of interpretation, and yours is to much a minimization and restriction of it. Some other RCS will object to anything without the stamps while in reality it pertains to more than art, as,
“The Nihil obstat and Imprimatur are a declaration that a book or pamphlet is considered to be free from doctrinal or moral error.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia Revised and Updated (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987), p. 288)
“The Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat are official declarations that a work is free from doctrinal or moral error. In a sense, this represents a negative approbation. It says the work contains no doctrinal or moral error. No implication is given, however, that the work has been endorsed by those who have granted the ecclesiastical approval or that they agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed in the work.” — http://old.usccb.org/catechism//update/spring98.shtml
This latter part is interpreted by a Roman Catholic site,
While at first glance this statement might seem contradictory, an example might be that of a Roman Catholic work that offered parenting advice — the advice may not be morally wrong or contradict Roman Catholic doctrine, but it might not reflect the views on parenting of the censor or bishop.) Imprimaturs are not automatically transferrable to later versions of a work. Any new edition also requires a new imprimatur to be obtained. The imprimatur can be revoked if, upon further examination, any doctrinal or moral error is found to be contained in the work. http://aquietmoment.wordpress.com/2007/07/25/imprimi-potest-nihil-obstat-imprimatur/
I think the caveat allows Bishops to approve works that are judged to be faithful to church teaching even if the bishop may disagree with it, as they sometimes do. And while this represents a negative approbation, that the work contains no doctrinal or moral error, it also can also be a positive affirmation to some degree when the work makes interpretive doctrinal statements based on what Rome has taught.
It also means that despite the assurance these stamps are supposed to provide, due to the fallible nature of the bishops then “works that are free from doctrinal or moral error and have received ecclesiastical approval from an individual diocesan bishop will not necessarily be found to be in conformity with the Catechism.”- http://old.usccb.org/catechism//update/spring98.shtml
And these stamps have quite a history, “To prevent the incursion of opinions that conflict with the church's teaching, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, created in 1542, has the authority to ban books which it adjudges to be dangerous to the faith and morals of the faithful. The catalog of such books is called the ‘Index of Prohibited Books’ and Roman Catholics are prohibited from reading any book on the Index without permission.
In addition, the members of the church may not read or even sell any book that is dangerous to faith and morals, even if it is not on the Index. Wherever faith and morals are involved, the church claims the right of censorship over books. No Roman Catholic may publish a book dealing with doctrinal or moral matters without having it censored. The Imprimatur which appears at the beginning or the end of a Roman Catholic book is the official notice that the book has been censored and that permission for its publication has been duly granted. It does not mean that the church assumes responsibility for every statement of fact and opinion in the book, but only that the book does not contain anything inimical to the faith and practice of the church. The Index prohibits, the Imprimatur protects. (Jaraslov Pelikan, historical scholar, later Orthodox layman “The Riddle of Roman Catholicism “(1959); http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/08/imprimatur-watch-what-youre-reading-my.html)
The huge change that led to the Index Librorum Prohibitorum was the change in the way books were being produced. As the manufacturing of books increased the production of books, the Church could no longer condemn each individual book. “The deluge of printed works that swept across the Continent from Germany, Switzerland, England and the Netherlands rendered explicit condemnation of each forbidden book quite impractical” (Burke 1952, p. 6). To try and solve the new problem the Church came up with new methods to suppress heretical books. “In 1467 Innocent VIII decreed that all books must be submitted to the local Church authorities for examination and permission before being issued for general reading… The license to publish was to be printed in each book… A similar decree was issued by Leo X at the Fifth Lateran Council on May 4, 1515, and addressed to the entire world. It is the first general decree of supervisory censorship that was universally accepted” (Burke 1952 p. 6-7). Soon after this the Index was created. — http://capping.slis.ualberta.ca/cap07/CeraSchachter/precursors.html
In any case, your own Catechism places significant weight on such approval:
The Church, given teaching authority by Christ and as the conduit for fullness of Truth on this earth, has the obligation to preserve Her sheep from deviations from the Truth and to to guarantee them the “objective possibility of professing the true faith without error” (Catechism, No. 890). Because of this, the Bishops will look at books published by Catholics on Catholic matters in their dioceses, giving them their “okay” if nothing therein is found to be contrary to the Faith (relevant Canon Law: “Title IV: The Means of Social Communication,” 822-832)
Cannot law also states, “Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.” 9 825 §1) — http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2Q.HTM
Also, if you genuinely want to know the real, official teachings of the Catholic Church, and many of the extensive Scripture references that support those teachings,
Are you saying the Catechism is an infallible document, that cannot err? And or that it is infallibly interpreting the (relative cursory) Scripture references it provides, and that these teachings do not require some interpretation?
And as you look to infallible pronouncements, can you tell us how many there are for sure, or is this a matter of interpretation, and which can also apply to some extent to their meaning?
Have you ever debated a sedevacantist?
How many Bible verses have been infallibly interpreted?
Please answer these yourself, while in regards to “the many glaring misconceptions you have about the Church that Jesus Christ founded” that Roman Catholics often charge their opponents with having (not without some warrant), i find RCs themselves can vary somewhat in their interpretation of what Rome officially teaching, and even on what is “official” teaching.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
This again is interpretation. The CE affirms that the Bull teaches submission to the Pope as being required in order to attain salvation, which Lumen Gentium”reformulated” and which RCs have different interpretations of.
Nor does your providence of historical context refute my contextual statement on “the ethos of Rome during times when it wielded its unScriptural sword of men against theological adversaries,” as the fact is that while you can fault our interpretation of Rome’s desire, Rome did advocate torture, etc. or killing of theological opponents. And we have good reason to assume it would still do so if it had not lost its physical sword, and which some of your Traditional RCs advocate it should use.
Liberal Muslims also argue that the sanction and example of physical harm to enemies by Muhammad was contextual, but the fact remains he sanctioned it and they have good ground for physical Jihad.
Did he?
I’m glad you were patient enough to let this post; it’s a good one. A half-hour! I never could have waited that long. haha
After 5 min, I probably would have copied the post to a Word document or something (to save it) then X’ed out the browser window that was hanging, then reposted it with a new window.
Anyway, thanks for hanging in to post it! Unfortunately, I think the salient point you made (about the de Montfort quote being part of a larger devotional to Mary) is probably lost on “deaf” ears, at least it appears to be by the responses. Hopefully some lurker benefited from that though.
What a beautiful shrine to Our Lady! Thanks for posting that!
Such shrines are useful for quiet meditation, here in the glorious nature Our Lord creates. They are useful for meditation about the Mystery of the Incarnation, which is precisely how they ultimately glorify God, all the while giving the honor Mary is due. (”All generations shall call me blessed”).
At least this is what I get out of such shrines. I don’t see how this is elevating Mary over God. Again, speaking for myself, when I meditate in front of such shrines, I know for a fact I am not “worshipping” the statue or even Mary, as my thoughts in such circumstances are always, ultimately, about Jesus.
Anymore, I laugh at (yes, at, not “with”) anyone who claims differently, as if they can read my heart and/or mind.
More than 2/3 and ALL the doctrinal/vital parts.
The 4 Gospels, and the Epistles of Paul, according to ALL available evidence have always been accepted by Christians since the 1st Century. 2nd & 3rd John, 2nd Peter, (very minor books) Hebrews (with its anonymous authorship) and Revelation (the Apocalypse of John) and a few other less important books, were doubted and debated about—but even these were widely accepted, from the earliest days. ALL of the key doctrines of Christianity can be proven from ONLY the books that were always accepted.
It’s an incredible lie that the Church was without the Bible until AD 420. Formal recognition of something...and its existence and use, are two different things.
Roman Popes didn’t even rise into predominance until after the 400s anyway....and Rome was one of only 5 Provinces (the other four stayed with the Eastern Orthodox, when Rome did a schism from them in AD 1054).
The claim that the Roman Catholic church wrote the Bible is an ignorant lie on its face.
That argument sounded familiar, and so i searched and found that i had addressed it a couple years ago, (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2404901/posts?page=93#93), the answer basically being that Lk. 2:26 does not refer to oral revelation being passed down thru eons of time,, but to revelation which was subsequently written. And which is the norm, as i know of no place in Scripture where “the word of God/the Lord refers to revelation which was not subsequently written.
http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Bible/2Tim_3.html#Partial
While it is Scripture which attests that the Word of God can refer to information or revelation beyond what it written, (2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4; Jn. 21:25) yet Scripture is the assured word of God, being wholly inspired, and is the supreme judge of all, while oral tradition by nature is supremely subject to unverifiable corruption, and is used by a self-proclaimed assuredly infallible esoteric office of men to channel this amorphous revelation into doctrine. And in which they disagree with another body which likewise justify themselves as being the OTC based on Tradition, and their infallible interpretation.
And while attacking evangelicals for their lack of assured infallibility, RCs themselves make a fallible decision to trust in their infallibly proclaimed assuredly infallible magisterium, and engage in fallible interpretation of the nature of multitudes of pronouncements, and to some degree their meaning, in addition to other teachings and the Bible.
This is why serious, unguided, bible reading and study has always proven fatal to Roman Catholic authority.
And why, sooner or later, the Roman church ALWAYS discourages bible reading and study. The contrast between New Testament Christianity and what Rome calls Christianity...is just too great, for the honest reader.
“And why, sooner or later, the Roman church ALWAYS discourages bible reading and study. The contrast between New Testament Christianity and what Rome calls Christianity...is just too great, for the honest reader.”
What a laugh. Actually there is an indulgence connected with reading the Bible. So I think that it is possible that you are completely wrong.
Lot of info, and a lot well above my paygrade, but I will happily try. Bear in mind I am no priest, not theoligan and this is my personal truth, not Gospel (sorry, could not resist that!)
Mary deserves our respect and love as the bearer of our Lord made flesh. More because we know she testified both before and after the crucifixion. This was a time when women were possessions, remember. Not people. The lady had guts and grace.
Now, as for individual points:
Mary is crowned Queen of heaven and earth, dispenser of all graces . . . .
Jesus is often referred to as King of Kings. Does that not make his mother a queen? It certainly did in the 5th century.
4 - She became Queen of Purgatory, where she exercises her power as mediatrix in behalf of these suffering souls. . 5 - She became Queen of us sinners, to assist us through the dangers of this life and to help us in difficulties. .
All souls suffer. She is there to help us, that is all. You don't waste the general's time when you have a stomach ache, you talk to your seargent. Catholics are very hierarchical. One of the reasons I am happy here.
6 - She became the ruler of hell, that trembles at her slightest gaze and is defeated by her power. .
This one puzzles me badly. Provisionally, I'd say hell fears and flees from purity. Mary is most definitely pure, we are told that. Odd way of putting it though. This one I need to pray upon further.
"Mary is the tree of life to those who grasp her, and he is happy who hold her fast." --Prov. 3:18 .
This one, on the other hand, is easy. Tree was used extensively as a metaphor in scripture. Think of "by their fruits you shall know them" for one. Her fruit was our Savior - who is the way, the truth and the life.
1 - "Hail Mary, beloved daughter of the Father, Mother of the Divine Son, Spouse of the Holy Spirit, complement of the most august Trinity!" .
It simply states she was a daughter of God (as we all are - or sons of course!), the mother of our savior who was impregnated by the Holy Spirit. All straight from the gospels. To be slightly crude, back then, you got a girl pregnant you were considered wed. End of story. Something maybe we should go back to. Side note - please don't ask me about the Holy Trinity, that makes my brain hurt!
9 - God loved Mary so much that He gave her the keys to His heart. 'No one can go to God without Mary drawing him.'
First part, well, he did choose her of all his chosen people to bear our saviour. Second part - I do not know, but suspect it is the literal truth. Without Mary, no Jesus. Without Jesus, no salvation.
5 - "She desired the safety of everyone, went in search of it, and obtained it; it was also through her that this salvation was wrought."
Again. Salvation is from God through his spirit made flesh. You have to grow flesh somewhere - a woman is usually used. (and that comment will earn me a penance for sure!)
4 - "By becoming Mother of God, Mary belongs to the order of hypostatic union; hence she participates IN the infinite sanctity of God."
We all do. Anyone who accepts the Holy Spirit becomes one with God. She just happened to be head of the queue.
The other points, I either do not have any idea or really need to talk them over with the priest first. Probably racked up enough penance to keep me busy all week as it is!
Posted a bit in the other thread where we were talking that you may find interesting too: Thread is http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2841259/posts?page=270#270
As always, good talking to you!
Daniel, et al,
What are y'all's predictions on whether the Pope will order RC officials in the USA to comply with Obama's plan to insert the Mark of the Beast chip implant into all Americans by the end of 2012? LUB,
God's best to all who Seek Him.
!MARANATHA!
BE SURE you are ready to meet The Lord, folks . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXIrfjLsmaU
Thanks for giving it your best.
I understand your ‘reasoning,’ though it doesn’t track with my notion of words and meanings.
And, I’m saddened to see you seemingly more or less excuse such outrageous assertions.
Sigh.
I appreciate the dialogues with you, too.
I enjoyed it very much! It took a lot of thought even to answer those few - stretching the brain is good!
Some of them - the ones I could not answer - troubled me greatly. The queen of hell one was a literal slap in the face, though I made a very weak stab at it.
The problem is we have The Word. No one said it would be easy to understand. Some is totally easy, some is so frustrating to read that is might as well be in Martian. And since we are all different, I might have no problem with something you need to pray long over, and you might sail through a section that is an impenetratable thicket of thorns to me.
Discussion and study helps, but not always.
Figure that is where faith, prayer and listening to God come in, and why I will never insult someone who has taken a different path to Truth (teasing is a different story!). God talks to me, sure, but he doesn’t tend to gossip about what he has told others.
Bless you and yours!
Well put.
Likewise.
God’s best to you and those you love.
Thank you cloud - I must reiterate - Jesus’ death on the cross is all you need - no bible - the works are perfect. The works alone do it- and we must emulate the works!! (sorry - had to bring that in)
Men have short and fallen memories (Thanks Eve) so the bible had to be written and the Holy Spirit knew this.
PS I love history, by the way - anything written before 1960 Hillaire Belloc here we come.
Dear Not gonna Take it anymore ..
Your post made me cry and I do not cry easily.
Sure. However, he was predestined to do it. The s'mores were pretty good, I hear.
How old are you anyway?
I did swing a stick at a hornet's nest, didn't I?
I normally spend my time contending with the non-Nicene crowd (the Mormons) rather than with Nicene-believing brothers. While I believe that Roman Catholics have erroneous beliefs, at least they worship the true triune God. However, sometimes, I let myself get too annoyed by the "Mother Church" dogmatists.
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.