Posted on 06/10/2015 7:44:27 AM PDT by RnMomof7
St. Paul still holds out the written Word of God to His people.
The Roman Catholic Church believes that the Word of God is transmitted to the Church by Tradition, the Scriptures and the Magisterium (i.e., popes, councils, etc ). According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (81),
Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.
Christians hold to Sola Scriptura (the written Word of God alone) while Roman Catholics hold to Sola Verbum Dei (the Word of God alone), as transmitted by Tradition, etc Roman Catholic apologist, Scott Hahn, makes this point nicely in his book, Rome Sweet Home (p. 74). The Roman Catholic Church sees Tradition as part of the Word of God, and thus, it makes little sense (to Roman Catholics) when Christians say that Romes Tradition goes against the Word of God. Tradition, to them, is the Word of God.
Therefore, to the Roman apologist, there is no tension when Tradition includes doctrines not explicitly included in the Bible. Tradition merely helps us understand what Scripture means. This leads to some interesting arguments, like this one from Roman apologist Robert Sungenis, who says, if Roman Catholic teachings are in the Bible, then I should be able to find them somewhere else. This is like saying, If apples are at the grocery store, then I should be able to find them at the hardware store next door. Listen to his reasoning from his talk, How the Bible Converted Me to Catholicism:
But over and over again, I was making the stunning discovery that all of these teachings were rooted in Sacred Scripture. Now, I thought, if they are in Scripture, then I would expect the immediate successors of the writers of Scripture, those who succeeded the Apostles, who took over for them in governing the churches of the first century, and the second, and the third, I would expect their teaching to be in line with the teaching of Scripture.
Lets dismiss (or rather, let Paul dismiss) one aspect of Sungenis reasoning from the outset. Paul warned explicitly that the next generation after the apostles would be one in which dangerous doctrines emerged even from within the Church. Grievous wolves from outside the church and from within it, would immediately start to deceive the flock: They shall enter in among you, Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them (Acts 20:29-30). Paul warns explicitly that we must not trust those who succeeded the Apostles, who took over for them in governing the churches of the first century, and the second, and the third. Rather, he commends the church to trust in Gods word (Acts 20:32), thus distinguishing between the Word of God and Tradition taught by the successors of the apostles. They are clearly not the same thing. Sungenis, facing a choice between the two, trusts those about whom Paul warned us with impassioned pleas. The title of Sungenis talk should have been How the people Paul warned us about converted me to Catholicism. Yes, that would be a much more fitting title.
But there is another problem with Sungenis observation. He suggests that those who succeeded the Apostles, [in] the first century, and the second, and the third should be the source of our doctrines, because surely what they taught ought to be in line with the Scriptures.
Along those lines, I have been reading a delightful book by a Thomas Livius, a Roman Catholic priest and Marian devotee from the 1800s. His book, The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries, is an exceptionally helpful compilation of writings of the Church Fathers. This is where Sungenis thought he could find the real meaning of Scripture, and where the Catechism informs us that the Word of God has been transmitted to the successors of the Apostles.
In Luke 2:35, Simeon tells us that a sword shall pierce Marys soul. What precisely does this mean? Only Tradition, says the Roman Catholic Church, can inform us! Whatever its meaning, Sungenis says the churches of the first century, and the second, and the third will tell us! Very well. Keeping in mind that what follows are the earliest expositions in the history of the church on the sword that pierces Marys soul, let us see what the sword means. Surely Tradition wont mislead us!:
Origen (185-254 AD): What! Are we to suppose that when the apostles were scandalized, the Lords Mother was exempt from scandal? If she suffered not scandal in the Lords Passion, Jesus did not die for her sins. But if all have sinned, and need the glory of God, being justified and redeemed by His grace; assuredly Mary was at that time scandalized. And this it is that Simeon now prophesies even thee [Mary] shall the sword of unbelief pierce, and thou shalt be struck with the spear of doubt, and thy thoughts shall tear thee asunder
Basil (330 379 AD): Since every soul at the time of the Passion was subject to some doubting, Simeon predicts even of Mary herself, that there would be, he says, a certain wavering even about her soul also. Therefore thyself, too [Mary] shall some doubt reach.
Cyril of Alexandria (376-444 AD): perhaps [Mary] knew not at all that He would be superior to death, and rise again. [W]onder not if the Virgin knew it not, since too in this we shall find the holy apostles but of little faith.
Romes doctrine on Mary is that she was not only sinless, but incapable of unbelief. Yet, these esteemed men of the first three centuries after the apostles believed that the sword that pierced Marys soul was unbeliefand further that we should not be shocked, because nobody is without sin, not even Mary. It is no surprise to find that Tradition has failed Rome. Whats surprising is Livius response: To the Scriptures! Livius writes:
Origens interpretation of the sword that should pierce the Blessed Virgins soul, as one of doubt and unbelief, is not only entirely arbitrary on his part, but also altogether opposed to the obvious tenor of Simeons words: there being nothing in them to suggest such a view, but everything rather to the contrary. Origens interpretation is, moreover, opposed to whatever else is written of Mary in the Gospels. (Livius, 150).
Cheers to Livius who here summarizes our objections to Romes many other unbiblical traditions. Livius goes on trying to reconcile Roman Tradition with the the writings of the early church fathers, as have many others besides he. But his struggle to make his faith logically consistent is not my immediate concern. My point here is to expose Tradition for the historical revisionism that it is.
This will ultimately lead us to the concept of Sola Ecclesiawhich is Romes real epistemology. For now, I wanted to demonstrate that, in a crunch, even the die-hard Roman apologist knows that going back to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd generations after the apostles is not sufficient to guarantee truth. You have to go all the way back to the Scriptures.
ping
Yes, the savage wolves! When challenged:
“Nobody in here but us chickens.”
Oh, goody -- the same "general apostasy" argument made by the Mormons and JWs.
Paul warns explicitly that we must not trust those who succeeded the Apostles, who took over for them in governing the churches of the first century, and the second, and the third.
Dead wrong. Heb 13:15 and 2 Timothy 2:2. Kauffman cherry-picks scripture like the cultist he is.
You mean the 1st, 2nd and 3rd generations when they were written, provided you don't mean the OT.
Is your comment really the best rebuttal you have available? On second thought is must be, because by your standard your own catechisms cannot be used.
An old one, huh?
Nope, not general apostasy. Simply acknowledging that apostasy was possible, so closeness in time or association to the apostles would not be mistaken for apostolic authority. This allows for a continuity of truth while admitting the correctness of Paul’s admonition to be careful and stay true to the apostolic Gospel.
Peace,
SR
What exactly are ‘my own catechisms’ that you referring to?
Please reference the last line of this post before it too gets deleted.
I have many things I agree with Rome about!
I do as well, but there are many key substantial things that Rome advocates that I find absurd and sacrilegious.
Me too...
It gets dark at night (in a lot of places)...Sugar is sweet...Horses have four legs...........
Just as enthusiastically as I handed the nails to the centurian, I handed them to Luther as well.
Is the bible out of date??? Opinion is opinion...not news
And RC doctrine is dated when??
You will have to ask a Roman Catholic about that.
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.