Mormons and accommodation -Reply

[Sanford Levinson]

I don't know that the elaboration of already received wisdom, including
arriving at quite surprising conclusions, is the same as "revelation."
Actually, insofar as Emily refers to my "own typology," this is probably
most relevant to my writings on constitutional change and the ostensible
distinction between "interpretation" and "amendment."  Most "mainstream"
American lawyers, after all, resist the argument that we can understand our
own constitutional history only by recognizing the presence of non-Article V
amendment (the analogue to revelation) and the consequently bogus nature of
some of the "interpretations" that have been issued by the Supreme Court or
other "interpreters."  No Orthodox Jew would *ever* say that there has been
*any* revelation in the past 2000 years--I put it this way only because I'm
uncertain about the theological status of prophetic pronouncement; it may
well be the case that for Jews revelation closes with Moses, but I'm just
not sure--and I would be very surprised if papal pronouncements are
described within the Church as "revelations" to the Pope rather than
"realizations" of what is already the case (even if it has not bee properly
grasped until now).

And, of course, the fact that *I* would describe something as "continuing
revelation" or, for that matter, fraudulent "interpretation," may only
establish me as an "outsider" insofar as all insiders would say, "oh now,
that is the way our 'interpretive process' works and you just don't
understand its complexities."

Sandy

Emily wrote:
>The issue of continuing revelation is just that: an issue in Christianity.
>Remember from your own typology, Sandy, that tradition plays a key
>(revelatory, perhaps) role in Catholicism.  My pope says that if he really
>gets a direct zap, he can say "ex cathedra" and speak infallibly....I'd
>count that as continuing revelation, wouldn't you?
>
>Emily Fowler Hartigan
>St. Mary's Law School
>San Antonio, TX 78228
>210-431-2273 (fax 436-3717)
>