Posted on 06/03/2015 8:54:19 AM PDT by RnMomof7
M. C. Escher’s Drawing Hands shows two drawn hands drawing each other, each hand getting its power to draw from the other. True to Escher’s style, a paradox is presented to the eye of the beholder, and the paradox is never resolved—the eye must continually move from one object to the other. Each time the eye settles on an apparently solid 3-dimensional object that can make sense of the rest of the picture, the paradox reappears. The search for the original, “authoritative” hand never ends.
We believe this is a good illustration of Roman Catholicism’s view of Tradition because Tradition is based on what Rome teaches, and what Rome teaches is based on Tradition. We gave an example of this in our recent post, All the Way Back. In that post, Roman priest and Marian devotee, Fr. Thomas Livius, showed the origins of Marian doctrines from the Fathers of the first six centuries. When he arrived at the teachings of Origen, Basil and Cyril—that the sword that pierced Mary’s soul (Luke 2:35) was the sword of doubt and unbelief—rather than accept that the early church understood that Mary was sinful, Livius spends his next three pages correcting Origen, as well as Basil and Cyril who agreed with him.
This raises the obvious question: if Tradition, according to Rome “transmits in its entirety the Word of God … to the successors of the apostles” (Catechism, 81), then how did Livius “know” that this tradition in particular was wrong? The answer is that only “traditions” that are consistent with Roman Catholic teaching are correct, and Roman Catholic teachings are based only on those “correct” Traditions. This is a paradox worthy of Escher himself. Tradition that is inconsistent with Roman Catholic teaching is just not considered Tradition.
For an illustration of this, consider how Fr. Juniper Carol resolved the paradox of Origen’s, Basil’s and Cyril’s teaching on “the sword of unbelief” that pierced Mary’s soul:
How to resolve our original paradox? It would seem that before [the Council of] Ephesus some prominent churchmen and some of the laity in Alexandria and Caesarea of Cappadocia, in Antioch and Caesarea of Palestine, … were not aware of an obligation to represent the Mother of God as utterly sinless…(Fr. Juniper Carol, Mariology, vol 2, p. 136, ©1957)
Yes, that is how Fr. Carol resolves the paradox—these “prominent churchmen” must not have been aware of the teachings of the church!
Of course, when Origen posits that Mary is “the New Eve” (p. 47), when Basil acknowledges that sacred relics ought to be venerated (p. 311), and when Cyril of Alexandria writes that “every faithful soul is saved” through Mary (p. 70), Fr. Livius finds them to be fully informed on the teachings of the church, and therefore authoritative as regards Tradition. Even though none of these doctrines are found in the Scriptures, the teachings are confidently offered as a basis for Roman Catholic beliefs and practices.
So Frs. Juniper and Livius really have not resolved the paradox at all—they have merely changed their focus to a different part of Escher’s Drawing Hands. We find it particularly ironic, therefore, that Origen believed emphatically that his view on Mary’s sinfulness “differs in no respect from … apostolic tradition”:
…so, seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the apostles, and remaining in the Churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition. (De Principiis, prol, ii.)
How ironic that Rome seeks to prove the ancient doctrine of its own infallibility at least in part based on this statement from Origen. It is indeed a tribute to Rome’s churchcraft that she can dismiss Origen for not being aware of ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition, while at the same time appealing to Origen to prove that the Roman Church is the sole repository of “ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.”
When Roman apologists try to convince you that Roman Catholic teachings are based on Tradition as taught by the successors to the Apostles, show them Escher’s Drawing Hands, but label one hand “apostolic tradition” and the other hand “the teachings of the church.” Then ask which hand is the drawing hand. To answer the question will require a discipline that is completely foreign to the Roman apologists, for they must only choose only one. The truth is, the Roman apologist will not choose one hand or the other. Perpetuating, rather than resolving, the paradox, is the Roman apologists’ arme de choix. Christ’s sheep, however, are not fooled by this.
ping
Thanks.
“It would seem that before [the Council of] Ephesus some prominent churchmen and some of the laity in Alexandria and Caesarea of Cappadocia, in Antioch and Caesarea of Palestine, … were not aware of an obligation to represent the Mother of God as utterly sinless…”
Yeah, kind of hard to be aware of an obligation that hadn’t been invented yet.
Except we know Escher’s famous drawing is an apparent not a real paradox. Because we know in the real world there’s a third hand that is the source for the actual drawing—Escher’s own.
Similarly, there is no recursion in the Church’s reliance on tradition and tradition’s reliance on the Church because both are actually relying on the same source, which is Christ Himself.
Reverse the polarity of the neutron flow, and disengage the Heisenberg dampeners?
....Roman priest and Marian devotee, Fr. Thomas Livius, showed the origins of Marian doctrines from the Fathers of the first six centuries. When he arrived at the teachings of Origen, Basil and Cyril—that the sword that pierced Mary’s soul (Luke 2:35) was the sword of doubt and unbelief—rather than accept that the early church understood that Mary was sinful, Livius spends his next three pages correcting Origen, as well as Basil and Cyril who agreed with him.
This raises the obvious question: if Tradition, according to Rome “transmits in its entirety the Word of God … to the successors of the apostles” (Catechism, 81), then how did Livius “know” that this tradition in particular was wrong? The answer is that only “traditions” that are consistent with Roman Catholic teaching are correct, and Roman Catholic teachings are based only on those “correct” Traditions. This is a paradox worthy of Escher himself. Tradition that is inconsistent with Roman Catholic teaching is just not considered Tradition.
Interesting conundrum. Ping to follow the thread.
Nice. More Catholic hating threads!
....”Nice. More Catholic hating threads!”....
Did you even read the article?... Why not comment what is so it with catholic teachings you adhere to to disprove it instead of knee jerk reacting like Muslims do when anyone confronts their belief system, calling everyone who opposes their teachings islamaphobias..
RnMomof7 has made something of a name for herself with threads which attack the Catholic Church; were you unaware of that? (There’s a little link on any FReeper’s home page which says “In Forum”, which might be of use to you.)
And are you seriously suggesting that no one has TRIED to respond cogently to her (and to other anti-Catholics on this forum)? Her posts are like a broken-record: canard, obfuscate, dodge, rinse, repeat on new thread. The short, dismissive answers you see to her posts are the result of fatigue and (with all due respect, and no offense intended) the “no more pearls before swine” phenomena... not of out-of-hand dismissal. Don’t take my word for it; look back on the other threads.
Ask her if she’s found a Scriptural proof for “sola Scriptura”, yet; I haven’t gotten her to answer that one, but maybe a new and friendly face will coax her to do it...?
Change "tradition" to "Scripture interpretation" and "Roman Catholic" to "Protestant" ... and this statement is just as correct. That's why, for instance, you do not consider JWs to be Protestant.
Kauffman also makes the usual error that Protestants make in regard to the Catholic/Orthodox understanding of the Fathers, which is to assume that Catholics think a citation from an individual church father is on par with Scripture and can be taken as authoritative in isolation.
That's the wrong understanding. Church fathers, with the exception of Popes teaching infallibly, are fallible teachers who serve principally as witnesses of the belief held by the Church, which belief is guided by the Holy Spirit. Sometimes they're accurate witnesses, sometimes not so much. (Origen in particular needs to be treated with care, since he is well documented to have held heretical positions on some topics, which is why he is not "St. Origen".)
Given the number of times the Usual Suspects have been corrected, complete with exhaustive references, it's not a mistake. It's a deliberate misstatement of the fact due to either the strong delusion they're under or a desire to mislead.
I have not seen her titles as anything but information and open for debate to those who might disagree with the article. Be it Protestant, Catholic or others these are all open for debate.
I do know the ,like myself, RnMomof7 will always oppose false teachings as we are called by Jesus to do. I think the problems often begin because catholics called by their Popes and leadership to defend their church and what it teaches so of course they get their pants in a knot and passions rise. That is not the same as defending the faith of Jesus Christ and the Word He has taught us.
It is altogether different when one defends Gods teachings according to his written word instead of a churches traditions or teachings. Especially that of the Gospel message of Grace.
So I will disagree...I find her posts and thread discussions informative...no matter who she might be addressing or what faith.
Well that you would have to ask again I would imagine, but not what this thread is actually about as you know.
However I don't think any Christian who knows the Gospel message and believes it would dare to argue against the Scriptures as the ultimate authority....to do otherwise would be like setting another authority over God... and that simply can't be anything more than upsurping his authority over believers as the body of Christ.
BY the way....the title is how to resolve the paradox presented...and challenges to do so....care to take it up and respond?
Similarly, there is no recursion in the Church’s reliance on tradition and tradition’s reliance on the Church because both are actually relying on the same source, which is Christ Himself.
You guys say some of the craziest things...
Well you're off to a bad start by calling articles anti-catholic, especially since I mentioned that already .... Catholics need to quit sounding that ‘worn out excuse’ as a reason not to debate, it makes them look like they're afraid to defend their beliefs....so they loose from that stance by default......
However I do understand catholics have difficulty not calling articles that oppose catholic ‘teachings’ as anything but anti-catholic for it goes hand in glove with their indoctrination and calling by their leadership to defend the church and it's teachings regardless if false or truth.
Christian debates have gone on since the time of Christ and before so our day should be no different, in fact as that time approaches all the more reason to present the truth as we believe it to be to.
If you've grown tired of debates then it's perhaps time to step back.....and not unusual people do so. Even Jesus went away to a solitary place from time to time. BTW There have also been plenty of Protestant and others posted besides Catholic articles, perhaps unfortunately some catholics only notice those that irritate them...which evidences itself they're heavily indoctrinated to react and stuck in that mode.
Exactly. The Church is an organic community united by the sacraments and under the Apostles and then the bishops they appointed.
The body of Christ is united first and foremost by the Body of Christ....and everything else (Scripture, Tradition, etc.) is a human manifestation of that existing unity.
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.