Posted on 06/11/2015 8:19:28 AM PDT by RnMomof7
The sincere Roman Catholic will no doubt bristle at our summary of Tradition in our previous post:
The pattern for Rome is this: “we already know this to be true, so there is no error in creating evidence to support it.” This is why I call ‘Tradition’ the historical revisionism that it clearly is.
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.
In like manner, if we would meditate on any passage of the gospel history, we must insert details indefinitely many, in order to meditate at all; we must fancy motives, feelings, meanings, words, acts, as our connecting links between fact and fact as recorded. Hence holy men have before now put dialogues into the mouths of sacred persons, not wishing to intrude into things unknown, not thinking to deceive others into a belief of their own mental creations, but to impress upon themselves and upon their brethren, as by a seal or mark, the substantiveness and reality of what Scripture has adumbrated by one or two bold and severe lines. Ideas are one and simple; but they gain an entrance into our minds, and live within us, by being broken into detail.
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:
Who, for instance, can reasonably find fault with the Acts of St. Andrew, even though they be not authentic, for describing the Apostle as saying on sight of his cross, “Receive, O Cross, the disciple of Him who once hung on thee, my Master Christ”? For was not the Saint sure to make an exclamation at the sight, and must it not have been in substance such as this? And would much difference be found between his very words when translated, and these imagined words, if they be such, drawn from what is probable, and received upon rumours issuing from the time and place?
And when St. Agnes was brought into that horrible house of devils, are we not quite sure that angels were with her, even though we do not know any one of the details? What is there wanton then or superstitious in singing the Antiphon, “Agnes entered the place of shame, and found the Lord’s angel waiting for her,” even though the fact come to us on no authority?
And again, what matters it though the angel that accompanies us on our way be not called Raphael, if there be such a protecting spirit, who at God’s bidding does not despise the least of Christ’s flock in their journeyings? And what is it to me though heretics have mixed the true history of St. George with their own fables or impieties, if a Christian George, Saint and Martyr, there was, as we believe? (Emphasis added)
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:
Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
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.
I agree. Your issue is not with me then, but once again it is a case of Catholic vs Catholic.
"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.
Of COURSE not!
It's much, MUCH better!
It teaches what Scripture REALLY means!
Hebrews 13:24 Greet all of your leaders and all the saints. Those from Italy greet you.
It begins with the word greet and also says greet all the saints which are all believers. There is no word in that verse that means obey. Why would you try to change the words of scripture? Surely your not using words to deceive are you?
http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/02/14/truth-received-on-no-authority-at-all/
As the church the Lord referred to was His body, as usually is the case except when particular organic bodies are being refereed to, and which body is the only one true church since it alone 100% consists of only believers, while tares as well as wheat express their faith in the visible churches.
And as one can be saved despite holding to numerous doctrinal errors, as long as such lays hold of the crucified and risen Lord Jesus to save him on His account, for,
The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit. (Psalms 34:18)
And as within her trappings the the Catholic church yet contained (and contains) basic Scriptural salvific Truths by which the humble could find Christ, then the body of Christ continued to persevere, despite the Catholic church of progressively becoming as the gates of Hell for multitudes,
Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; (2 Corinthians 4:9)
Even RCs must allow for this in the period preceding the Reformation, in which:
Cardinal Bellarmine:Concio XXVIII. Opp. Vi. 296- Colon 1617, in “A History of the Articles of Religion,” by Charles Hardwick, Cp. 1, p. 10,)
Ratzinger: "For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196).
“Probably as many as half the men in orders had ‘wives’ and families. Behind all the New Learning and the theological debates, clerical celibacy was, in its own way, the biggest single issue at the Reformation. It was a great social problem and, other factors being equal, it tended to tip the balance in favour of reform. As a rule, the only hope for a child of a priest was to go into the Church himself, thus unwillingly or with no great enthusiasm, taking vows which he might subsequently regret: the evil tended to perpetuate itself.” (Catholic historian Paul Johnson, "History of Christianity," pgs 269-270)
Did Luther start it 500 years ago after Gutenberg invented the printing press, making Luther’s non-biblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura possible?
Sola Scriptura is not non-biblical, except for the Cath straw man of it, but it is a result of the primacy of Scripture, which alone is contrary to Rome. Sola Scriptura does not claim to be operative during the period of its enscripturization, and there was a time when there was no church either. Yet " unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required." (Lk., 12:48)
Before Scripture began to be written, express Divine revelation was . by direct revelation and to a very limited and to a very limited amount of people, and passed on under oral tradition, before the truths of it it would be written as wholly inspired words. But when God began to address an entire nation, and by them to speak to the world, then as is abundantly evidenced , the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if subsequently, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
And Scripture first began to be written by Moses, whose veracity was based upon his holiness and constant unmistakable supernatural attestation, such as Rome, which presumes to be as Moses, can only wish for. And evidence testifies to additional complementary conflative writings of God being recognized and established as being so, essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation, as were men of God. And thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)
Therefore, while the sufficiency aspect of SS (which holds that it is sufficient to provide all that the Christians needs to know for salvation and growth in grace, under its formal and material aspects) was not fully realized until after all Scripture was written, yet the primacy of Scripture incontestable, and the supremacy of its words as being the wholly inspired and assured word of alone refutes the presumptuous premise of Catholicism to be the supreme authority.
And the RC idea of an infallible magisterium is totally foreign to Scripture, and is power play by Rome which effectively exalts her above Scripture.
In contrast, since Scripture is shown therein to be the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and for the establishment of Truth claims, while its sufficiency pertains to both its formal and material aspects, the latter of which allows for natural revelation, and Divine illumination, and the Lord's leading, and for the teaching office, etc., then it is Scriptural.
But Protestants know next to nothing about Christ’s Christ’s Church and the history of Christendom.
Actually, Scripture reveals the true Church of Christ, and how that of Rome is a severe deformation of it. In addition, it is Caths who continue to post propaganda that manifests they know next to nothing about the history of Christendom as per modern research, even by RCs.
• Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4, finds:
“New Testament scholars agree..., The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative.
That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.”...
If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no."...
“We probably cannot say for certain that there was a bishop of Rome [in 95 AD]. It is likely that the Roman church was governed by a group of presbyters from whom there very quickly emerged a presider or ‘first among equals’ whose name was remembered and who was subsequently described as ‘bishop’ after the mid-second century.”
• Paul Johnson, educated at the Jesuit independent school Stonyhurst College, and at Magdalen College, Oxford, author of over 40 books and a conservative popular historian, finds,
With Cyprian, then, the freedom preached by Paul and based on the power of Christian truth was removed from the ordinary members of the Church, it was retained only by the bishops, through whom the Holy Spirit still worked, who were collectively delegated to represent the totality of Church members...With Bishop Cyprian, the analogy with secular government came to seem very close. But of course it lacked one element: the ‘emperor figure’ or supreme priest...
[Peter according to Cyprian was] the beneficiary of the famous ‘rock and keys’ text in Matthew. There is no evidence that Rome exploited this text to assert its primacy before about 250 - and then...Paul was eliminated from any connection with the Rome episcopate and the office was firmly attached to Peter alone... ...There was in consequence a loss of spirituality or, as Paul would have put it, of freedom... -(A History of Christianity, by Paul Johnson, pp. 61,63. transcribed using OCR software)
• Johnson also writes,
Eusebius presents the lists as evidence that orthodoxy had a continuous tradition from the earliest times in all the great Episcopal sees and that all the heretical movements were subsequent aberrations from the mainline of Christianity.
Looking behind the lists, however, a different picture emerges. In Edessa, on the edge of the Syrian desert, the proofs of the early establishment of Christianity were forgeries, almost certainly manufactured under Bishop Kune, the first orthodox Bishop, and actually a contemporary of Eusebius...
• Catholic theologian and a Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that,
Hence I stand with the majority of scholars who agree that one does not find evidence in the New Testament to support the theory that the apostles or their coworkers left [just] one person as “bishop” in charge of each local church... — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 222ff
• American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar Raymond Brown (twice appointed to Pontifical Biblical Commission), finds,
“The claims of various sees to descend from particular members of the Twelve are highly dubious. It is interesting that the most serious of these is the claim of the bishops of Rome to descend from Peter, the one member of the Twelve who was almost a missionary apostle in the Pauline sense – a confirmation of our contention that whatever succession there was from apostleship to episcopate, it was primarily in reference to the Puauline tyupe of apostleship, not that of the Twelve.” (“Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections,” Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, 1970, pg 72.)
John F. O'Grady, priest of the Diocese of Albany New York and professor of biblical theology at Barry University in Miami, and author of seventeen books, states:
The study of the New Testament demonstrates that the apostles, in fact, had no successors, nor did the twelve.
Many Roman Catholics assume that after the death of Peter every bishop of Rome was aware of the special authority he inherited as the successor of the chief of the apostles. To explain the lack of any evidence of the exercise of such a universal power, apologists replied that the circumstances did not merit any intervention..
.Contemporary theologians are more aware of the lack of conclusive evidence documenting any understanding in the early Church of a universal role for the bishop of Rome. The earliest fathers of the Church cited to support these views, Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Irenaeus, do not offer undisputed evidence and therefore their arguments cannot be used without some reservation.” pp. 119 ,125
The progressive deformation of the church must include Pope Damasus 1 (366-384) who began his reign by employing a gang of thugs in seeking to secure his chair, which carried out a three-day massacre of his rivals supporters. Yet true to form, Rome made him a "saint."
Damasus was indefatigable in promoting the Roman primacy, frequently referring to Rome as 'the apostolic see' and ruling that the test of a creed's orthodoxy was its endorsement by the Pope.... This [false claim to] succession gave him a unique [presumptuous claim to] judicial power to bind and loose, and the assurance of this infused all his rulings on church discipline. — Kelly, J. N. D. (1989). The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 32 ,34;
Eamon Duffy (Pontifical Historical Commission, Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge, and former President of Magdalene College) states: “Self-consciously, the popes began to model their actions and their style as Christian leaders on the procedures of the Roman state”. — Eamon Duffy notes (“Saints and Sinners”, ©2001 edition)
Moreover,
• The sixth century found Rome sunk too low by war and pestilence for many churches to be built; but at this time took place the transformation of ancient buildings into Christian shrines. Instead of despising the relics of paganism, the Roman priesthood prudently gathered to themselves all that could be adopted from the old world. Gregorovius remarks that the Christian religion had grown up side by side with the empire, which this new power was ready to replace when the Emperor withdrew to the East.
The Bishop of Rome assumed the position of Ponlifex Maximus, priest and temporal ruler in one, and the workings of this so-called spiritual kingdom, with bishops as senators, and priests as leaders of the army, followed on much the same lines as the empire. The analogy was more complete when monasteries were founded and provinces were won and governed by the Church. - Welbore St. Clair Baddeley, Lina Duff Gordon, “Rome and its story” p. 176
This is why Christians reject catholic claims to tradition. It leads to such false teachings as these.
Talking about changing and adding to check out my post 143 and the post I was responding to.
It's part of "catholic tradition" which we've been told too many times on this board is just as good, if not better, than scripture.
See Jerome regarding the apocrypha.
Obey your prelates, and be subject to them.
Help me with this. I don't see anything about "obey" here. Various versions render (i) as "Greet", "Salute" (even Douay Rheims), and "Give words of love from me". You could go to vvs. 7 and 17 to see the idea of submitting to these leaders. We can discuss what that means in the context of those verses but here in v.24, I find no reason to support your interpretation/translation.
At best, the writer was reinforcing what he said in 7 and 17 since he makes the distinction of "leaders" and "saints". Hebrews 13:24 (i)
g0782. ἀσπάζομαι aspazomai; from 1 (as a particle of union) and a presumed form of 4685;
to enfold in the arms, i.e. (by implication) to salute, (figuratively) to welcome:— embrace, greet, salute, take leave.
AV (60)- salute 42, greet 15, embrace 2, take leave 1; to draw to one's self to salute one, greet, bid welcome, wish well to to receive joyfully, welcome- Used of those accosting anyone; of those who visit one to see him a little while, departing almost immediately afterwards; to pay respects to a distinguished person by visiting him; of those who greet one whom they meet in the way (even not in the East, Christians and Mohammedans do not greet one another); a salutation was made not merely by a slight gesture and a few words, but generally by embracing and kissing, a journey was retarded frequently by saluting.
Maybe you just made a mistake.
Salvation....will you and other catholics publicly repudiate these writings from fellow catholics posted in #102 as false teachings?
It wasn't presented as being a direct quote from Newman.
Yes, thank you pointing that out.
It wasn't attempting/pretending to be direct quote-unquote, other than from their own previous comments, where they had used the literary device.
And the general impression, going by a wide array of evidence is --- RCC apologetic is not at all free from "pious fraud".
What fraud (here and there) that more precisely would be, or was claimed to be in this article (and the ones previous, one linked to, yet others possibly alluded to?) I could likely guess at, but did not delve into this particular series of essays in hopes of finding out...
But now, since the strange mistake (of one individual person, and since that comment, now possibly more) apparently thinking that Newman said such a thing in those exact words, I am tempted to find out more precisely just which information in regards to pious fraud was written about -- this time.
As for strange mistakes...
I wrote
When I should have put it more like;
g2233. ἡγέομαι hēgeomai; middle voice of a (presumed) strengthened form of 71; to lead, i.e. command (with official authority); figuratively, to deem, i.e. consider:— account, (be) chief, count, esteem, governor, judge, have the rule over, suppose, think. AV (28)- count 10, think 4, esteem 3, have rule over 3, be governor 2, misc 6; to lead to go before to be a leader to rule, command to have authority over a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches used of any kind of leader, chief, commander the leader in speech, chief, spokesman to consider, deem, account, think
Hmmm, the books of Scripture were indeed written at many different times—the Gospels were written quite a long time before Revelation, does that mean Revelation should not be in the Bible?
And isn’t it amazing how accurate we think the media is on those rare occasions when it agrees with us! And how terrifically slanted we think it is when we don’t agree.
You do not believe that Jesus is God?
He tries to rationalize Roman Catholicism's decisions to deviate from the standard. They proudly tout him as a convert to RCC and yet, he only made a small step from Anglican. He just added the Pope to his/their pantheon of pretenders and idols.
HERE the author says, he "endeavors always to be faithful to the Catholic Church and its teachings".
BTW, I would not want to be held accountable for everything that every Protestant has ever written... but I would quickly refute error and use Scripture to present the Truth.
What do we get? Crickets.
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.