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.
Interesting word study on the word church....
In 1 Timothy 3:15 “if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.” (ESV)
http://biblos.com/1_timothy/3-15.htm
The Greek word is ekklésia: an assembly, a (religious) congregation
http://concordances.org/greek/1577.htm
Yes, actually ekklesia was a widely used, regular term describing any gathering, sometimes public, sometimes private, but simply the assembling of people together. Rome has morphed this into a trademarked term as a figment of their imagination. But, biblically, there are no governmental structures, no bishoprics (that term is simply “older men”), and certainly no papacy.
“Was St. Paul speaking of the entire NT, including the books that had not yet been written?”
He was speaking, I am sure, to the Scripture that existed at that point.
***************
“More fundamentally, How do you know that these are the words of St. Paul, if the Church that wrote, preserved and canonized these Scriptures is fallible?”
I recognize the the early church was give the privilege of identifying the presence of God’s Spirit in the sacred writings - much like John the Baptist was give the privilege of recognizing Jesus as the Messiah. But note: John the Baptist did not have the authority to choose the Messiah - only to recognize the one God had already chosen. Likewise, the church conferred nothing on the Scripture except to recognize the presence of God’s Spirit therein.
*****************
“Am i free to reject your fallible interpretation of St. Paul?”
You are. Freedom of conviction is something strongly present in the New Testament - and sadly lacking in the Catholic Church. There is always the implied threat of violence with the Romans.
****************
“Yes, but this begs the question of What constitutes Scripture? Catholics offer a coherent answer: The Church that Christ founded tells us.”
Now to turn your argument on itself...
How do you KNOW that Christ founded the church and gave it the claimed authority - apart from the Scriptures?
Because the Church says that He did?
Circular reasoning.
*********************
“Who is “the man of God”? Some believe that this is a reference to priests.”
Ah yes! Those who are paid to be “good” while the rest can relax and act like the sons of the devil. No doubt the Priests put forth this idea. Sorry, there are now “tiers” is Christianity, remember when Jesus said, “...and ye are all brothers.”
****************
““Is useful for” does not mean “all that is necessary for.””
“But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”
Specifically:
“equipped for every good work”
************
“Because this passage does not refer to faith, which is also necessary for salvation, this passage does not prove that scripture alone can supply us with everything that is necessary for salvation.”
It does. Here...
“from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through FAITH in Christ Jesus.”
If you are really interested in the Marian doctrines, you can go to the Vatican and look it up. They can explain it better than I can...that's their job. http://www.vatican.va/
If you are merely baiting me....GET A LIFE.
Thanks, NYer.
I didn't say that the Bible suddenly appeared.
I did say that it was collated at a certain date: 380, 400 and 420 A.D. The Magesterium hadn't done the deed before because of the persecutions of the Romans. When the Romans finally made Christianity the state religion, THEN the Magesterium could come out of hiding, so to speak, and organize, collect, investigate and get all those documents OUT of hiding, together, with all the current bishops and rationally collate the new works of Jesus.
It's not rocket science or special information; it's just history.
Been there done that. No Biblical support. The whole thing is built on maybe could be. One of the most ludicrous contentions is that all of the apostles were transported to the funeral but never once mention that in any of their writings.
If Peter was the first Pope and could speak God's Word infallibly, why does history tell us this?:
Why just five verses after the verse you so love to misinterpret (Matthew 17: 17-19) does Jesus call the "Pope" Satan and an offense to Christ? (Matthew 17:23)
Why, if Peter is Pope, did the Church have the Jerusalem Council? Wouldn't Peter just tell them what's what? Seems like a wonderful missed opportunity to show Peter's preeminence.
Since history has established that James ran the show at the Jerusalem Counsel, did he usurp Peter's position? Why would impetulent Peter sit quietly by and allow it to happen?
If Peter is Pope, why did he deny Christ three times? Kind of messes up his infallibility.
If Peter is Pope, why did he allow Paul to publicly dress him down on a theological issue? Doesn't Paul know his place? Would a modern-day Pope allow a Bishop or Cardinal to do that today?
If Peter was the first Pope, why was Paul the one who wrote most of the New Testament books?
If Peter is the first Pope, why did he have trouble understanding some of Paul's writings? (2 Peter 3:15-16)
These hardly fill one with confidence that Peter was the appointed Vicar of Christ. He didn't act like he knew it or that his contemporary Church leaders did either.
Details, details......
Once a pope, always a pope, you know.....
The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It’s also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary "ascended" into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power.
The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life" (note the silence regarding her death), "was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven."
The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: "[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many." Did all these Old Testament saints die and have to be buried all over again? There is no record of that, but it is recorded by early Church writers that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into that temporary state of rest and happiness often called "paradise," where the righteous people from the Old Testament era waited until Christ’s resurrection (cf. Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1–40; 1 Pet. 4:6), after which they were brought into the eternal bliss of heaven.
There is also what might be called the negative historical proof for Mary’s Assumption. It is easy to document that, from the first, Christians gave homage to saints, including many about whom we now know little or nothing. Cities vied for the title of the last resting place of the most famous saints. Rome, for example, houses the tombs of Peter and Paul, Peter’s tomb being under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. In the early Christian centuries relics of saints were zealously guarded and highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Coliseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up and preserved—there are many accounts of this in the biographies of those who gave their lives for the faith.
It is agreed upon that Mary ended her life in Jerusalem, or perhaps in Ephesus. However, neither those cities nor any other claimed her remains, though there are claims about possessing her (temporary) tomb. And why did no city claim the bones of Mary? Apparently because there weren’t any bones to claim, and people knew it. Here was Mary, certainly the most privileged of all the saints, certainly the most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere.
Nice try. What you don’t tell the people is that not in one of those verses does the word used refer to an organization. Each and every one refers to a “called out assembly”. An assembly of those who have accepted Jesus as their savior.
Matthew 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
This does represent a dilemma, doesn't it?
Most privileged, I'll buy. Most saintly? It sounds like her son said it was John the Baptist:
"I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” (Luke 7:28)
You build your faith on perhaps?
>>Some people think Catholics believe Mary "ascended" into heaven.<<
Yeah, change the subject. No one ever said assumption unless they were using the wrong word. Either way it’s a myth.
>>The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not<<
That’s not what the question is. Stop trying to deflect.
>>people from the Old Testament era waited until Christ’s resurrection<<
Mary wasn’t part of the group. She was still alive when Christ arose so would be included in the New Testament saints.
>>There is also what might be called the negative historical proof for Mary’s Assumption.<<
Catholics do like their myths built on “it doesn’t say it didn’t happen” don’t they.
>>It is agreed upon that Mary ended her life in Jerusalem, or perhaps in Ephesus.<<
Prove it. perhaps? Again you’re building you faith and eternal future on perhaps?
>>but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere.<<
Take a hint. She wasn’t supposed to be venerated or the apostles would have written about it. As I said earlier, the entire myth of Mariology is just that. Myth. Not sanctioned by scripture.
They fiercely fight to keep those chains of bondage. And they have read the Truth here over and over and it has no effect. The lies/deception they were fed have taken deep roots. They have no one to blame when the time comes. Time is better spent on those who want to hear/learn The Truth, IMO.
BTW,
I need a Greek scholar’s help with
John 10:35-37
King James Version (KJV)
JOHN 10:
35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
37If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
Some . . . curious thought process sort on ATS is insisting that the verse is SAYING that Christ is saying that the person referred to blasphemed BECAUSE they said Christ was the Son of God! Absurd, I know but I need a Greek expert to help document how absurd it is.
Sadly, 2 Cor. is completely ignored. "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more." 5:16.
Once He ascended into heaven, everything became spiritual. Our baptism into His body, our conversation, our promises, our blessings, our position in Him.
The flesh profits nothing. Except deceit. We are told to put no confidence in the flesh. Those 5 senses that have led more men astray than we could possible imagine.
"For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. ...That no flesh should glory in his presence." 1 Cor. 1:26-29.
They not only glory in his presence, they believe that they can consume His glory in their bodies at mass. Completely OPPOSITE of God's Word. Not just not close, but diametrically opposed.
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.