WHY THE MAGISTERIUM MAKES SENSE TO ME

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.

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.

If you look up every epistle/letter you will see it starts with a plural meaning Church or the Leader of the Church. Nowhere is it first address to the individual in the back row in it's title. It goes to THE Leader of the Church for the Church. Or from a leader to a Church.

The Leader of a Church or The Churches. Because of Geography it is really a Group of Churches meaning One Church (umbrella) as a Whole. Notice the City Churches. The Epistles/Letters Are addressed to Cities.

The New Testament: The Epistle of Paul to the Romans

The New Testament: The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians

The New Testament: The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians

The New Testament: The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians

The New Testament: The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians

The New Testament: The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians

The New Testament: The Epistle of Paul to the Colossians

The New Testament: The First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians

The New Testament: The Second Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians

The New Testament: The First Epistle of Paul to Timothy

The New Testament: The Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy

The New Testament: The Epistle of Paul to Titus

The New Testament: The Epistle of Paul to Philemon

The New Testament: The Epistle to the Hebrews

The New Testament: The Epistle of James

The New Testament: The First Epistle of Peter

The New Testament: The Second Epistle of Peter

The New Testament: The First Epistle of John

The New Testament: The Second Epistle of John

The New Testament: The Third Epistle of John

The New Testament: The Epistle of Jude

The New Testament: The Book of Revelation

Also Notice the end of the Bible.

REVELATION 22:

16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a] this testimony FOR THE CHURCHES. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

17 The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let the one who hears say, “Come!” Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life.

TO GIVE YOU[A] THIS TESTIMONY FOR THE CHURCHES.

It is Through The Churches.

Sadly, for all the talk about understanding context, Roman Catholics constantly miscomprehended the “sola in SS to mean the Bible alone is to be used, and as opposed the church magisterium, as if Westminster confession did not say things like,

“The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture... and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”

It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word. (CHAPTERs 1, 31)

And from Alister McGrath's The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism:

Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment. — James R. Payton, “Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings”

Also, THE SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION - Page 2 (Heinrich Bullinger: Calvinist confession; adopted by the Reformed Church not only throughout Switzerland but in Scotland (1566), Hungary (1567), France (1571), Poland (1578), and next to the Heidelberg Catechism is the most generally recognized Confession of the Reformed Church.) states,

Interpretations of the Holy Fathers. Wherefore we do not despise the interpretations of the holy Greek and Latin fathers, nor reject their disputations and treatises concerning sacred matters as far as they agree with the Scriptures; but we modestly dissent from them when they are found to set down things differing from, or altogether contrary to, the Scriptures. Neither do we think that we do them any wrong in this matter; seeing that they all, with one consent, will not have their writings equated with the canonical Scriptures, but command us to prove how far they agree or disagree with them, and to accept what is in agreement and to reject what is in disagreement.

Meanwhile, for all their talk of certainty, to repeat what i have said before, while Roman Catholics look to an assuredly infallible magisterium and its pronouncements, they have made a fallible choice to do so, and must use fallible human reasoning in deciding which ones are infallible, and at least some of what they mean, as well as much of the other teachings of Rome. In reality, while Catholics subscribe to a certain set of core beliefs, allowable and disallowable disagreements within Rome are substantial even if they do not result in as many formal divisions.

Furthermore, the basis for Rome's claim is derived from Scripture, Tradition and history, yet under this basis we still see still many divisions* between Catholic churches who like Rome claim an assuredly infallible magisterium based upon Scripture, Tradition and history.

Under Sola Scriptura, souls also make a human decision to trust in an assuredly infallible authority, that being the Divinely established Scriptures, and also must exercise fallible human reasoning, if prayerfully, in understanding what it means. And under which there usually is a denominational magisterium, which again, is effectively all that Rome has herself. However, even without a central magisterium, they overall subscribe and manifestly contend for a limited set of core beliefs, outside of which one is rendered a heretic, yet outside of which allowable and disallowable disagreements are substantial and even result in many formal divisions (although evangelicals manifest a remarkable degree of spiritual unity in manifold ways which transcends denominations.)

Finally, the quality if not quantity, of the unity based upon implicit assent to an assuredly infallible magisterium can hardly be said to be superior to the unity attained by the Berean hearts and method, even if relatively rare.

Therefore as said, division is only about degrees, with any superiority of Rome's model being that of organizational unity, which any single denomination can compete with, while exhibiting essential spiritual unity across the lines and evidencing more fruits of regeneration, as they preached not themselves but Christ Jesus the Lord.

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.