“Truth” received on no authority at all

The sincere Roman Catholic will no doubt bristle at our summary of Tradition in our previous post:

It is nonetheless a true, and verifiable statement. John Henry Cardinal Newman, one of the most famous converts to Rome from the Church of England, was a prolific writer and, after his conversion, a staunch apologist for Rome. He provides one of the best examples in recent memory of an apologist who was committed to the circularity of Roman epistemology: “we already know this to be true, so there is no error in creating evidence to support it.” When commenting on A Legend of St. Gundleus, Newman not only allows for adding fictional dialogues to the gospel narrative—he insists that it is necessary. To confine the artist “to truth in the mere letter” would be to cramp his style.

Thus, placing words on the lips of Jesus, the apostles and other gospel characters is merely an aid to meditation on the “truth” already present in the passage. As was plain in our previous post, inserting dialogue in order to bring the narrative back to a “truth” already held by the expositor is precisely the purpose of the interpolation. The difference between the interpolation and the “truth in the mere letter” is the difference between “fact” and “fact as recorded,” Newman assures us. What harm is there in this? Newman acts as if there was no danger in this at all:

A clearer example of “we already know this to be true, so there is no error in creating evidence to support it,” can scarcely be imagined, yet Newman is among the chiefs of all Roman apologists in history. Of course, there is never any intent to deceive in these interpolations—there never is. The intent is only to bring the narrative back to the “truth” of Roman Catholic teachings that already exist in the mind of the expositor.

We object, of course, to the fabricated words of Jesus from the cross, “My Wounds are the sources of grace, but their streams, their currents, are spread abroad only by the channel of Mary.” We are at a loss to see how this “fact” can be superimposed on the “fact as recorded” in the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion. We object strenuously to the fabricated words of Jesus, “No one can come to Me unless My Mother draws him to Me,” and again, we cannot see how these words can justifiably be interpolated into Jesus’ sermon in John 6.

Newman saw no problem accepting “facts” received on no authority at all, or “facts” based “upon rumours issuing from the time and place.” Yet it is precisely these rumors and “facts received on no authority” that led to much error among the followers of Christ, who, basing their pious beliefs “upon rumours issuing from the time and place” of Jesus’ last appearance in the Gospel of John, concluded that John would never die:

Who can honestly believe that there is no harm in rumors so long as they emanate from a time and place where truth was once known to exist? Or that there is no error in placing on Jesus’ lips words that He did not say? The Roman Catholic may be offended at the summary of his church’s epistemology—”we already know this to be true, so there is no error in creating evidence to support it”—but his disagreement with with Cardinal Newman, not with us.

“Wrong! The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” -Sal

Wrong where? The list of Roman Catholic cultists proclaiming their version of Mary to be one who is looked to for salvation... Just a few below (Thanks, Daniel1212 for that list!)
***********

Catholic ascriptions to Mary (More can be seen at this link (The up mark ^ points to the last referenced source.).

We must never adore her; that is for God alone. But otherwise we cannot honor her to excess, because it is not possible to overestimate the privileges God gave her in making her His own Mother. “What the church teaches,” by Monsignor J.D. Conway/ Imprimatur of Ralph L. Hayes,, New York; Harper and Brothers; 1962 (He also states, “It seems manifest that Christians simply adapted the art of pagan Rome to their religious needs:” p. 218)

Pope Pius XII asserts in an address on the Queenship of Mary, “after your assumption into heaven, he crowned you Queen of the Universe....In your name, resounding harmoniously in heaven, may they recognise that they are all brothers. Receive, O most sweet mother, our humble supplication above all obtained for us, that on that day, happy with you, we may repeat before your throne that hymn which is sung today around your altars. You are all beautiful, O Mary, you are the glory, you are the joy, you are the honour of our people.’ Catholic Culture, Prayer of Pope Pius XII, Composed for the Marian Year, 1954

“The power thus put into her (Mary’s) hands is all but unlimited. How unerringly right, then, are Christian souls when they turn to Mary for help...How rightly, too, has every nation and every liturgy without exception acclaimed her great renown, which has grown greater with the voice of each succeeding century. Among her many other titles we find her hailed as ‘our Lady, our Mediatrix,’ — (St. Tharasius, Orat. in Praesentatione) ‘the Dispenser of all heavenly gifts.’ (On Off. Graec., 8 Dec.).” Pope Leo XIII, in Adiutricem (On the Rosary), Encyclical promulgated on September 5, 1895, #8. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13adiut.htm

When therefore we read in the writings of Saint Bernard, Saint Bernardine, Saint Bonaventure, and others that all in heaven and on earth, even God himself, is subject to the Blessed Virgin, they mean that the authority which God was pleased to give her is so great that she seems to have the same power as God. Her prayers and requests are so powerful with him that he accepts them as commands in the sense that he never resists his dear mother’s prayer because it is always humble and conformed to his will.... — St. Louis de Montfort, in Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, #27, 246. http://www.ewtn.com/library/Montfort/TRUEDEVO.HTM

Mary can be declared by the Church to be not only the “helpmate” of that Second Divine Person — Co-Redemptrix in Salvation, Mediatrix in grace — but actually “like unto Him.”...when she acts, it is also He who acts; and that if her intervention be not accepted, neither is His.... Her position as “the first of all creatures, the most acceptable child of God, the nearest and dearest to him,” (Cardinal Newman); As Mother of God, says Lepicier, Mary contracts a certain affinity with the Father; · The pre-eminent resemblance which she bears to the Father, which has fitted her to pour out into the world the everlasting light which issues from that loving Father.... He has no children but by her, and communicates no graces but by her...and through her alone does He dispense His favours and His gifts. A Marian Synthesis; http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/msynthesis.htm

Mary is the sealed fountain and the faithful spouse of the Holy Spirit where only he may enter...She is the sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity...the holy City of God, the greatness of the power which she wields over one who is God cannot be conceived...her prayers and requests are so powerful with him that he accepts them as commands...because it is always humble and conformed to his will, the dispenser of all he possesses...What immeasurable greatness...Mary has authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven...God gave her the power and the mission of assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels who fell away through pride....all the angels in heaven unceasingly call out to her...They greet her countless times each day with the angelic greeting, “Hail, Mary”, while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests...The whole world is filled with her glory,... Moreover, we should repeat after the Holy Spirit, “All the glory of the king’s daughter is within”.... Whatever desires the patriarchs may have cherished, whatever entreaties the prophets and saints of the Old Law may have had for 4,000 years to obtain that treasure, it was Mary alone who merited it and found grace before God by the power of her prayers and the perfection of her virtues.” — St. Louis de Montfort, in Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, miscl. http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/docs/true.doc

According to Eadmer (A.D. 1060–1124), an English monk and student of Anselm, “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary’s name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus...[who] does not at once, answer anyone who invokes him, but only does so after just judgment. But if the name of his mother Mary is invoked, her merits intercede so that he is answered even if the merits of him who invoked her do not deserve it.” Through her “the elements are renewed, the netherworld is healed, the demons are trodden underfoot, men are saved and angels are restored.” — Andrew Taylor, “Three medieval manuscripts and their readers,” University of Pennsylvania press; page 173

>In “Glories of Mary” by Liguori, whose writings were declared free from anything meriting censure by Pope Gregory XVI (1839) in the bull of his canonization, he teaches,
Beware, chosen soul, of thinking that it is more perfect to direct your work and intention straight to Jesus or straight to God. Without Mary, your work and your intention will be of little value. But if you go to God through Mary, your work will become Mary’s work, and consequently will be most noble and most worthy of God. - THE SECRET OF MARY, St. Louis de Montfort; http://www.ewtn.com/library/Montfort/SECRET.HTM

“He who is under the protection of Mary will be saved; he who is not will be lost . . . O immaculate Virgin, we are under thy protection, and therefore we have recourse, to thee alone, and we beseech thee to prevent thy beloved Son, who is irritated by our sins, from abandoning us to the power of the devil. - . . Thou (Mary) art my only hope. . . . Lady in heaven, we have but one advocate, and that is thyself, and thou alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation ... My Queen and my Advocate with thy Son, whom I dare not approach “ (From Judge Fairly, p. 5).

Richard of St. Laurence encourages sinners to have recourse to this great name, “because it alone will suffice to cure them of all their evils;” and “there is no disorder, however malignant, that does not immediately yield to the power of the name of Mary.” — St. Alphonsus de Liguori http://www.doctorsofthecatholicchurch.com/AL.html

The recourse we have to Mary in prayer follows upon the office she continuously fills by the side of the throne of God as Mediatrix of Divine grace; being by worthiness and by merit most acceptable to Him, and, therefore, surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven. — Iucunda Semper Expectatione, Pope Leo XIII, 1894

But by her compassion for her Divine Son she had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin. It was not only during the Passion that Jesus and Mary suffered for our sins, for all their lives that heartrending vision was before them in every detail, and never for a moment forgotten. — The Reign of Mary, Vol. 40; Issue 48

“We were condemned through the fault of one woman; we are saved through the merits of another woman. Just as Eve was the root of death for everyone, so Mary was the source of life for everyone. — Ten Series of Meditations on the Mystery of the Rosary,” by John Ferraro, Nihil Obstat John C. Hogan, Diocesan Censor; Imprimatur (1) - Richard Cardinal Cushing Daughters of St.Paul, 1964).

“After God, it is impossible to think of anything greater than His Mother.” p. 83^

..to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood...Next to God, she deserves the highest praise....no creature, can ever be compared to her:”To what shall I compare thee, or to whom shall I liken thee, O daughter of Jerusalem.” (Lam. 2:13) [another verse taken out of context, as it refers to the affliction of Jewish mothers in general due to the judgment upon Jerusalem.] —http://www.salvemariaregina.info/SalveMariaRegina/SMR-098.html

...all graces of the Precious Blood come through Mary. — http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/virgin-eucharist.htm

“O Christian who comest full of faith to receive the Bread of life, eat It worthily, and remember that It was fashioned out of Mary’s pure blood.” Mary can quite rightfully beckon to us and speak to us in the words of the inspired prophet, “Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared” (Prov. 9:5).

“The union between the Immaculata and the Holy Spirit is so inexpressible, yet so perfect, that the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse. This is why she is the mediatrix of all graces given by the Holy Spirit. And since every grace is a gift of God the Father through the Son and by the Holy Spirit, it follows that there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose.” — Manteau-Bonamy, Immaculate Conception, 91; F.X. Durrwell, The Holy Spirit of God (Cincinnati: Servant Books, 2006), 183-185.

...”Limitless is the difference between God’s servants and His Mother...Your honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation; your greatness places you above the angels...from her union with Christ she attains a radiant eminence transcending that of any other creature; from her union with Christ she receives the royal right to dispose of the treasures of the Divine Redeemer’s Kingdom;... she intercedes powerfully for us with a mother’s prayers, obtains what she seeks, and cannot be refused....Theologians and preachers...must beware of unfounded opinions and exaggerated expressions which go beyond the truth.” [an in-credible injunction if Scripture is to be held as the Truth, as going beyond the Truth us exactly what Pope Pius XII is doing. But Scripture is not the supreme authority for Rome, but is made into a servant for her purposes, and Truth to Rome can be whatever she autocratically declares.] — Ad Caeli Reginam, Encyclical of Pope Pius XII; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_11101954_ad-caeli-reginam_en.html

...”she is Mother of her Creator...through Whom the Holy Trinity is sanctified.” “...she mediates between God and men.” “ “Run through all creation in your thought and see if there be one equal or superior to the Holy Virgin, Mother of God.” (Works taken from “Letter to the Rev. E. B. Pusey” contained in Newman’s “Difficulties of Anglicans” Volume II); http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/newman-mary.asp

"...Pharisees who they assert had every right to revise the canon of Scripture in spite of what had been passed down to them from several hundred years prior to the birth of Christ."

If "Pharisees" were actually guilty of having revised their very own 'canon' of Scripture, then you would have something.

But you don't, for there is no real proof that these writings here again in dispute (the books of the Apocrypha, which during era of Council of Trent were there re-named deuterocanon) were ever "passed down to them" (the Scribes and Pharisees) and had ever been accepted by themselves as belonging to that corpus of writings which they would view as Holy Writ.

All of which results in your entire thesis here being built on error. Each supposition following which relies upon that same error, is therefore just so much continuation of the initial error(s), therefor the remainder of your overall contentions are false.

What there was, even near to time of Christ, was some amount of confusion among those either not themselves Jewish, (or else possibly of some portions of Jewish 'Diaspora') of what had been considered among Jewish religious authorities as having been "passed down to them from several hundred years before Christ", as you put it.

If there were some number of a Jewish Diaspora who were wrong to some extent as to what it was which should be considered genuine Holy Writ ---- who else but the Scribes and Pharisees would there have been who had standing to rectify that error?

For better or worse, the Scribes and the Pharisees were the religious "authorities" of the Jewish religion, of that time.

I find it interesting that those who claim "authority" for Rome (Alone) seem to deny there was any religious authority prior to themselves making that claim, even as they are also ignoring/overturning (by adding Apocrypha to what is nowadays referred to as Old Testament) what that previous authority had recognized, and what they had rejected.

To contemplate indiscriminate inclusion of books of OT Apocrypha as being Scripture, arguing that *some* Jews may have possibly considered those writings to be included, from standpoint of inclusion in later centuries copies of Greek Septuagint, would be like arguing for inclusion of writings such as Shepherd of Hermas for reason that *some* early Christian authors considered it to be worthy, while ignoring all evidence that it is not.

Writing in 70 AD Flavius Josephus explained that the Jews of Christ's era did not view any writings other than what Jews commonly accept today as being their own Holy Writ.

He mentioned also that the Jews did have a known assemblage of writings which they viewed as Holy Scripture as it were, stating that it was not some less-than precisely defined collection of writings, as some of his own era attempted to say. Which means his witnesses helps to establish that there was a set 'canon' of what Jews of Christ's own era would have regarded as Scripture.

The Apocrypha: Inspired of God? Wayne Jackson

(1) Philo, the Jewish philosopher of Alexandria (20 B.C. – A.D. 50), wrote prolifically and frequently quoted the Old Testament, yet he never cited the Apocrypha, nor did he even mention these documents.
(2) Josephus (A.D. 37-95) rejected them. He wrote: “We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine” (Against Apion 1.8). By combining several Old Testament narratives into a “book,” the thirty-nine of our current editions become the twenty-two alluded to by Josephus.
(3) The most ancient list of Old Testament books is that which was made by Melito of Sardis (ca. A.D. 170); none of the apocryphal books is included (cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.26.14).
(4) In the early third century A.D., neither Origen nor his contemporary, Tertullian, recognized the books of the Apocrypha as being canonical.

I could have gone deeper for the source materials, for the information outlined above, and will do so, if you would agree to actually READ IT --- and then consider how it bears upon (and annihilates) your own oft-repeated claims.

Yet why should I even bother? It's all been presented on these pages time and time again.

Why must you persist in denying truth in regards to how you try to portray things to have been?

Is it for reason to have something to hold against Jews, and those (so-called) pesky Protestants?

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.