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.
I’ve tried several times to access that link but cannot get it to open.
Remember that the Apostles were commissioned to teach/preach all that Christ had taught them. Christ had taught them things which were not in or only alluded to in the OT, right? And Christ taught them by telling them, not by handing them a book... so what the Apostles taught was what the Catholic Church calls Tradition. Before there were writings about what Christ taught (NT), the Apostles were teaching, and what they were teaching is what we call Tradition.
So you are correct that we hold Tradition to be the equal of Scripture, along with the authority to teach which Christ also gave the Apostles.
Protestants also have a sort of tradition as well, which is why Protestants disagree about so many things, and some believe what they have been taught without having come to that conclusion on their own.
The Apostles were led by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church? ... not so much.
Fixed it for you.
I'm not going to wade through all of that in a needle in the haystack sort of search.
This is becoming tedious, quite rapidly.
The authors from the White Horse Inn, were not making it out to be that Newman was being quoted, as far as I could tell.
What is appeared to be was themselves instead quoting themselves from a yet previous article.
Now that may have been one of those "so in essence he was saying" whatever it was, but still not was being presented as direct quote.
To: ealgeone
We did not “add” the deuterocanonical books... we included them long before Martin Luther took them out.
We do not consider the CCC as Scripture, either.
136 posted on 6/12/2015 7:57:51 AM by Chicory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Well, well, well....which is it....equal to Scripture or not??
Oops! Wonder what goes through the mind of such an one the moment they read such a question? ...
Thanks, I have so many things on my plate that this morsel is now on ignore.
Found it immediately: http://www.newmanreader.org/works/saints/gundleus.html
I smile when Catholics tell us that they hear scripture at the mass..
They do of course .. 5 or 6 verses , taken out of context and then a 10 minute attempt to "explain it"
I have shared this before.. the day I decided I could no longer go to the Catholic church ...the priest read from Mat 13, on the sower and the seed.. such a beautiful passage on the work of God in salvation..
The priest then went on to use it to encourage parents their attempt to teach table manners was not wasted .. just sow the seeds..
I wanted to run out of that church as he spoke.. he was/is so lost ..the gospel is foolishness to him
And most Catholics know nothing of the scriptures, they know nothing of the early NT church ( Christ's church) and that there was no pope, no priesthood, no mass, no 7 sacraments, no holy water, no confessionals , no prayer to the dead, no "indulgences "etc..
The also know nothing about the reformation ...One told me that Luther left because the pope would not give him a divorce.. they have no idea of the doctrinal or spiritual issues that forced the split .
So tell us who interprets the scripture for you?? Do you understand that the Magisterium has only "infallibly" interpreted 5 or 6 scriptures?? So the truth is...when you go to mass, when you attend a bible study, when you read a RC book.. what you are hearing/reading is that persons private interpretation of that scripture... yep..no infallible teaching there..
that is scary
I do my own research on many different sites, both secular and religious including catholic ones. Just maybe y”’all should do the same instead of relying on tradition. Good ole traditions can be man made and not mean a thing. Sure, there are mistakes out there and that is why I do not accept what one site says. I learned that doing genealogy research. I would find one site which had dates wrong. Children would be born before parents or when the mother was 8/9 years old. Other sites would have the same info. That is when I dug deeper and used the census, too. I also do my own research on candidates, too. Every voter should do that.
Wow...just wow..... is this another "infallible" teaching of the "one true church"???
“Words such as “false” “error” “wrong” “inaccurate” “misstatement” do not attribute motive and are not “making it personal.”
Courtesy Religion Moderator Rules.
Sorry, I lost my head, and exaggerated a little. He only explained it 1 million times. 😂
Bingo
Jerome, who translated the Hebrew scriptures, did not believe they were canonical (infallible )... He placed them in a separate section for "meditation"
The fact is until Trent Rome did not have an official cannon ..people were free to accept them or not..
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.