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.
What does “slipping” in and insult have to do with the veracity of my statements?
I do not suffer fools, easily. That’s not the same as lacking the ability to respond in a cordial fashion.
Try mounting an argument instead of merely defacing what I’ve written and you’ll be engaged on that basis rather than as an intellectual graffiti artist.
If, IF you cannot avoid becoming personal that might be your best course. Thanks for your comments.
"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"
IOWs, the Church says so. Jesus did not say the Church was infallible, nor would He ever endorse such a claim. Your partial quote left out the fact that "the church" spoken of, would be simply deciding to back the some accuser. If what you say is true, then infallibility can be found in democratic action and that proposition is ridiculous.
Also note that proof only applies in mathematics. only evidence applies in all other cases.
I’m joining you, CYC. Anyone who constantly answers with insults is admitting that the substance is lacking.
I think anyone looking over the comments posted would agree with you. Cheers!
That’s your interpretation, and here we are.
Interestingly, if the Church that wrote, preserved and canonized the Bible is fallible, then...
If Jesus founded a Church, which Scripture calls “the pillar and foundation of truth,” is it fallible?
The most significant question begged is the definition of infallibility, which the Church has the authority to define:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
Wishful thinking on your part, and also a non sequitur. "Substance" has nothing to do with demeanor.
Furthermore, the book of Proverbs is replete with derision for those who are wise in their own eyes.
That said I'm sure you take great comfort in such empty cliches, so enjoy!
God's WORD is the FINAL Authority. There is only ONE Truth, God's Word. There is only ONE worthy, JESUS!
Deception comes in man made teachings.whether it is catholicsm, mormonism, or Islam.
The Church has no such authority. Infallibility has only one rational meaning and it is not, nor was it ever defined by the Church. Infallibility means a persons logic can not be wrong, because of some special characteristic of their rational machinery that makes error impossible. The characteristic is that evidence and rational processing of evidence are not needed to determine truth. Truth is simply announced as such and is so, because of that miraculous nature of the machinery of mind possessed by the special person(s).
Every person is fallible and that is generally recognized in rational analysis. Infallibility only applies to those instances where rational analysis is rejected for the purposes of promoting some claim that has no rational support.
"If Jesus founded a Church, which Scripture calls “the pillar and foundation of truth,” is it fallible?"
Scripture doesn't call the Church, a collection of fallible beings, any such thing.
1 Timothy 3:15
"if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."
Logic applies. The living God is "the pillar and foundation of truth", else a collection of men are, as the infallible would claim. All others through an exercise of rational analysis would conclude the living God is "the pillar and foundation of truth", and that they are only students of and in no way any real foundation-especially an infallible one.
"That’s your interpretation, and here we are."
English and rational analysis are not to be interpreted. Interpretation is for those that reject rational analysis, and claim both infallibility and the authority to make up the meaning of words.
1) Did Jesus found a church?
2) If yes, can His Church teach false doctrine?
>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?" <
No, I'm saying that if a person wants to attack the teachings and beliefs of the Catholic Church, they should at least make use of the best document available which clearly explains what those teachings and beliefs are, which is "The Catechism of the Catholic Church".
If that is what you meant then i understand that “the real, official teachings” of the (Latin) Catholic Church does not mean the reader must be certain that all that is taught is infallible truth, or that Catholic teaching cannot open to some degree of interpretation, but that the CCC works to limit that, and that there may not be some errors or faults in a CCC which need correction.
Now, regarding your phrase "the (relative cursory) Scripture references it provides", I certainly hope you are being facetious there. In the "Index of Citations" section, in the back of the Catechism, there are 32 pages (with double columns), listing all the direct scriptural references in the Catechism. There are many references listed for every single book in the New Testament, and the same for nearly every single book in the Old Testament.
The issue is not how many there are, but how many in relation to the scope of its teaching and whether they really do substantiate it. You are right that the CCC gives many references (if hard to find online as one collection and linked to the subject), but cursory in one sense refers to being “not thorough” in sometimes only giving superficial support to what is taught. An instance i had in mind is in support of purgatory (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2N.HTM) in which it lists only 5 verses (1Cor. 3:15, 1Pt. 1:7, Mt 12:31, 2 Macc 12:46 and Job 1:5) and the first two only support fire as being cleansing, yet while it is a given that fire purifies, the doctrine it is supporting is one that has believers being purified and sins expiated (satisfaction made) “through fire and torments or purifying' punishments.” (INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA; cp. 1. 1967) And (without getting into this as extensively as i have before), 1Cor. 3:15 contextually refers to the material which a believer built the church with being burned up, and which test happens to all, and occurs at the Lord's return, not commencing at death, and the ones who suffer loss are saved despite that, not because of it.
The second reference (1Pt. 1:7) is to the faith of believers being purified during their sojourn on earth, which is where Scripture always shows is where it takes place, so that “it might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ,” which is when “every man have praise of God,” (1Cor. 4:5) and after which all believers shall “forever be with the Lord.” (1Ths. 4:17) Thus the approved notes in the official Roman Catholic Bible (for America) says “The text of 1 Cor 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.” (http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/3)
Mt 12:31 is the only text given to support sins before forgiven in a postmortem purgatory, though the text should really be or include Mt. 12:32, and it is good they only include one, as postmortem suffering and forgiveness is not what is taught in the wresting attempts others make, and “the world to come” in Mt 12:32 was not an postmortem state, but an age (aiōn) to come, and can be easily seen to refer to the Lord's reign on earth, God having dealt with the Jews once again (which aspect the CCC teaches), and in which the temple Ezekiel describes is rebuilt, and those who do not worship the King are punished. (Zech. 14:16,17) Meanwhile, all descriptions of the postmortem state of N.T. believers are that they are with the Lord. (Lk. 23:43; 2Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23; 1Thes. 4:17)
The apocryphal book of 2 Macc 12:46 is the closest Rome can come to a text supporting a purgatory, yet this problematic as those who had offerings made for them were slain due to idolatry, (2Mac. 12:40) a mortal sin, thus requiring RCAs to minimize the consecrated idols which caused their death, or postulating they may have repented at the last. However, the New Catholic Answer Bible, as well as my NAB on 12:42-46 states, “The statement is made here, however, only for the purpose of proving that Judas believed in the resurrection of the just (2 Mc 7,9. 14. 23. 36)....His belief was similar to, but not quite the same, as the Catholic doctrine of purgatory.
Finally, support for helping those who have died is sought from Job 1:5, which simply refers to Job acting as a proto Levitical priest of his family in offering up sacrifices for his living sons, while what is conspicuously absent in any of the laws regarding sacrifice for sins, or in any sanctioned example, is that of offering sacrifices to the dead, which was a pagan practice as was offering up prayers for them, which some in Jews apparently fell into shortly before the birth of Christ. (http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/purgatory_history_1.htm)
Thus, while the CCC gives an appearance of Scriptural support in this case, what it has done is shows references which do not teach what they are referenced for, either by themselves or as a whole.
I am sure i could go with others, but “relative cursory” was also in relation to the breadth and scope of what is covered, which often needs more comprehensive Scriptural support, though i will say my characterization was overbroad and i should have qualified it as here as i does supply many, and often just as we would in the many things we concur with.
(If you were actually being serious, I would simply challenge you to show me one Protestant book with that many Scripture references in it, such as the books of Billy Graham, or Jimmy Swaggart, or Joel Osteen, or any single Protestant denomination, or anybody.)
This indicates a lack of familiarity with the teachings of the opposition, as the teachers you list hardly represent classic comprehensive Protestant Bible scholars or teachers (versus message preachers), especially the perfectly pleasing preacher Joel Osteen, while classic Bible commentators teaching Protestant doctrine such as Mathew Henry, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Adam Clarke, John Gill, Albert Barnes, Keil & Delitzsch, etc. provide abundant supporting Scripture references as they comprehensively go through the Bible verse by verse, of which comprehensiveness Rome has little that comes close (Haydock), and for sheer number of supporting verses you will find far more Scripture references in the beloved Matthew Henry's commentary (for one) than in the CCC. I would suggest the free E-sword Bible program to which you can add these free resources and many more,, and which offer more (as in book and chapter comments) than the one line version.
But to compare with the CCC what you are looking for is a statement and explanation of beliefs, which the second edition of the Westminster confession (1647) is a well known example of. And in which you will find plenty of Scripture references relative to its size, though they also could be more comprehensive, yet providing many accompanying Scripture references does seem to be a recent practice among past catechisms, Catholic or Protestant.
>"Have you ever debated a sedevacantist?"<
No. While there are a number of differing small groups of them here and there, there aren't really that many of them around, even in all such groups taken together, and I view them as just being a different flavor of a sort of modern "Protestantism". Even the "SSPX" folks believe the sedevacantists are plainly wrong in their views, and they argue on the web against those peculiar views. (Do a search on "SSPX" and "sedevacantist" to read their arguments.)
I mentioned them as the Roman Catholic argument is one that conveys there is no such substantial variations due to interpretations, as the magisterium works to prevent that, yet when one digs deeper then you find not only different interpretations of what is official teaching, and whether the catechism or some of Vatican Two is consistent with past infallible teaching, or past catechisms and teachings, but also which teaches are infallible. And then you have groups not in full communion with Rome, and which are represented here on FR.
Both the sedevacantist and the SSPX are not accepted by Rome as in full communion, and while the former are in formal schism as the more radical, and interpret “Cum ex apostolatus officio” as disallowing modern popes. In summing up his analysis of sedevacantism, Richard Cure states, “So we see today that in standing against the modernists who are in control of the Church one may be required to look like a schismatic in order to practice the one true Faith. The line is very thin and hard to define. The hard-core sedevacantists are way over the line even though they may not be able to see it.”
However, they both see modern Roman Catholicism to be in critical conflict with historical Roman Catholicism.
SSPX pages (http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q14_new_catechism.htm; http://sspx.org/New_Catechism/new_catechism__is_it_catholic_I.htm) criticize the 92 catechism on different grounds and many aspects, concluding, “this Catechism is not an authority of Catholic belief because of the modern deviations which it encompasses.”
(http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacantism/is_sedevacantism_catholic4.htm)
Regarding your views on "infallibility", I respectfully have to say that I believe you are looking at that term in the wrong way. That pertains to very limited areas of "faith and morals", where the Magisterium, guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit, and making full use of pertinent Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, express some teaching on faith and morals to the faithful of the Church.
I am quite aware of the criteria, but my point was that in contrast to what is too often conveyed when attacking Protestants for their lack of assured infallibility, the fact is that Catholics not only make a fallible decision to trust in an asserted assuredly infallible magisterium, but they make fallible judgments as to which out of potentially hundreds of infallible statements are infallible, as well as to varying degrees some of what they and non infallible teachings (which may make up the bulk of Catholic faith and practice) mean.
And that thus Roman Catholics can and do substantially disagree with each other (including priests), in addition to dissent which is not supposed to be allowed, but which overall sees no real discipline can be said to even fostered by honoring the Ted Kennedy type Catholics in life and in death.
Therefore you have the angst of the SSPX types, which i somewhat respect as i think they have a good case in this issue, but whose more fundamental stance makes the unScriptural nature of certain Roman Catholics teachings more manifest than the Vatican Two type versions and its mixed-multitude statements by committee, which at best allows both sides to use them. (http://www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html)
">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." <
For starters, consider the misconception that a number of posters here have been erroneously expressing, that the Catholic Church teaches the worship of Mary as some sort of "goddess". Please show me in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (again, the official teachings of the Church) where that is taught. (I'll tell you now -- it isn't there. It is a falsehood, and you know who the father of all falsehoods is...)
You have a misconception of what they are expressing, which is not what Rome officially teaches, but what it effectually does, in this case that of fostering a hyperdulia of Mary that in many cases is indistinguishable from “latria,” and overall is contrary to Scripture. While little that is typically understood as infallible is taught on Mary, unless all that is in encyclicals are, as some seem to hold, yet outside that we see Mary being given more adoration, more honorific titles and more praise than to Christ without any real restraint to, and instead we see this as fostered, while what is censured is reproof of such excess as being Scriptural unwarranted, thinking of her above that which is written. (1Cor. 4:6)
For therein we see no one bowing down to Mary in particular, but worshiping the child (Matt. 2:11; cf. Lk. 2:16) and which Peter would not even allow towards himself, and which does not refer to her as sinless, and assumed and enthroned as Queen of Heaven with almost unlimited power and having the ability and function to process virtually unlimited prayer requests, and even a more immediate and superior recourse for help than Christ Himself.
(I really wanted to answer your questions before I have to return to work now, but I will try to check back in sometime later today or maybe tomorrow to see if you replied here or in FReep Mail.)
That is fine. Its been covered here before by me more than what is said here, and i have other things needing attention by God's grace.
No. Church's are founded by men and built on faith. Faith is belief in what someone says based on some evidence. The degree to which what is said and taught is accurate regarding what God taught and is true in general determines how closely the adjective His fits when referring to any particular church. His refers not to something that is owned, but to faith in what He said and believes and cherishes, not to what someone else says.
"2) If yes, can His Church teach false doctrine?"
Any and all churches can teach falsehoods. If they are His, they will admit that and provide evidence instead of claims of infalibility.
He never said He was going to FOUND a church, He said He would BUILD it. There's a difference there.
2) If yes, can His Church teach false doctrine?
There is no entity of the church that can speak for itself; there are believers (or not) who can speak for the church, or who claim to speak for their local assembly, who can be wrong, but that is not the *Church* speaking.
The only things that speak to us are Scripture and the Holy Spirit.
Individuals can teach false doctrine, which is why Scripture is so critically important. It cannot change since it is written down. It's always the same and there to be appealed to if a disagreement arises. That's why IT needs to be the final authority vs. a clique of self-proclaimed mouthpieces for God.
-—He never said He was going to FOUND a church, He said He would BUILD it. There’s a difference there.——
Did he ever complete it, or did he fail?
It’s hard to imagine a Perfect Being not fulfilling his promise.
This interpretation of Scripture is also hard to believe because Jesus commands us to take disagreements “to the church.” I assume that:
1) He was referring to His Church.
2) The Church referred to was visible and identifiable. Otherwise Jesus’ claim would have been nonsensical.
So Jesus founded a visible, identifiable church, to which He commanded us to take our disagreements, which Scripture calls, “the pillar and foundation of truth,” and which “the gates of hell” would not prevail against.
Since we know that Jesus founded a visible Church, and since He stated that the gates of hell would not prevail against it, we an only conclude that,
Jesus’ visible Church exists today.
Since God is Truth, His Church cannot teach false doctrine.
History tells us that this Church is Christ’s Universal (Catholic) Church.
I’m late to this thread
Anyhow, thanks for this post.
STA: Did he ever complete it, or did he fail? It’s hard to imagine a Perfect Being not fulfilling his promise.
You think he's finished? What if He's not done yet? Are you still going to accuse Him of not fulfilling His promise because of how it appears to you?
The body of Christ, His church, is comprised of all believers for all of the church age. Until the church age is completed, the church is still being built.
So, no, it's not done and no, God has not not fulfilled His Promise. He's STILL in the process of fulfilling it. In HIS time, not ours.
This interpretation of Scripture is also hard to believe because Jesus commands us to take disagreements “to the church.” I assume that:
Matthew 18:17 Church = ekklesia: an assembly, a (religious) congregation
http://biblos.com/matthew/18-17.htm
Which does not by default mean the RCC.
More specific definition of ekkelsia.... 1577 ekklesia(from 1537 /ek, "out from and to" and 2564 /kaleo, "to call") – properly, people called out from the world and to God, the outcome being the Church (the mystical body of Christ) – i.e. the universal (total) body of believers whom God calls out from the world and into His eternal kingdom.
[The English word "church" comes from the Greek word kyriakos, "belonging to the Lord" (kyrios). 1577 /ekklesia ("church") is the root of the terms "ecclesiology" and "ecclesiastical."]
Since we know that Jesus founded a visible Church, and since He stated that the gates of hell would not prevail against it, we an only conclude that, Jesus’ visible Church exists today.
The church is not an entity which can speak for itself, as in a being. It's an assembly of believers and is visible only in that people who make it up are visible.
There are people within local assemblies who claim to speak for *the church* but that is only a claim and does not by default mean speaking for God. He did that Himself in Scripture.
-— The church is not an entity which can speak for itself, as in a being. It’s an assembly of believers and is visible only in that people who make it up are visible.——
So when Jesus commanded us to take disputes “to the church,” which “assembly of believers” did He mean?
How could he be speaking of any “assembly of believers,” if they taught contradictory doctrines?
The only logical possibility is that He was referring to the Church that He founded, “the pillar and foundation of truth,” the Church that the gates of hell would not prevail against.
Clearly, if during His public ministry He instructed His followers to take their disagreements to the Church, His Church was existant —it was built. It enjoyed authoritative teaching authority. And it must still exist.
And It must teach inerrant doctrine, since God is truth.
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.