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.
From Kinsman Maybe you just made a mistake.
Douay-Rheims Bible- Salute all your prelates, and all the saints. The brethren from Italy salute you.
Young's Literal Translation- Salute all those leading you, and all the saints; salute you doth those from Italy:
It wasn’t presented as being a direct quote from Newman.
I agree that it was not presented in the article as being a direct quote from Newman. The source was not provided at all. Which prompted me to ask:
“Who made this statement? When was it made? In what context was it made? What is the source of the statement?”
My comment that ‘it just does not seem like a statement that Newman would make’ was in response to a FReeper who wrote that the quote is Newman’s words.
When he posts a fairly long post with a lot of scriptural Biblical information, if a poster does not want a large amount of truth posted that goes against his/her particular belief system's traditional beliefs, the post will be gone through with a fine tooth comb to try to find some infraction of the RF rules in order to keep the truth hidden from members here.
It's been going on for literally centuries.
It's traditional...
Y’all should learn how to do searches for yourselves. It is quite simple. Really, a child knows how. : )
Your post 100: “Wrong!”
If that is allowed, why not point out error?
Rules are for everyone, not just those that disagree with your belief system.
If pointing out error is a personal attack, so is posting Wrong! to another poster.
Please be consistent in your accusations.
Reminds me of that old meme, “Caution! Don’t fiddle on the roof, it may be made out hot tin with a cat on it!”
How do you figure that He meant this figuratively? Many of His followers took it literally and left Him, but He did not correct them; He didn’t call them back and say, Hey, that was just figurative. No, they were unable to accept the literal meaning of His words, and so He let them go.
And St Paul does not sound like he thinks of the Eucharist in a figurative sense; see 1 Cor 11:27: “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord;” and he reiterates this 2 verses later: “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.”
Y’all should learn how to do searches for yourselves. It is quite simple. Really, a child knows how. : )
I am quite adept at doing searches, thank you very much.
Try this one for yourself. Type in Newman.org and see what you come up with.
Then do a search on Newman and “we already know this to be true, so there is no error in creating evidence to support it.”
Come back when you find where Newman wrote this comment.
Do you know that Jesus existed BEFORE He took on human flesh?
You just powerless; I guess...
Go and sin no more.
Frankly, I do not give a hoot. Whatever he said happened way before my time. I have more important things to worry about like 2 more eye surgeries. My problems started about 3 years ago when I fell in a bathroom, hit my head on the counter, knocked myself out for a little while. I tore eye muscles in both eyes which caused me to see double. It is no fun driving and realizing I was seeing 2 cars coming at me on the Natchez Trace. Took a year to even get an appointment with one of the best eye surgeons in the country. But, Jesus is the answer.
One can NOT make this stuff up!
Um.....NO....He explained that they were not believers in the first place. “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.” John 6:65. Don't make stuff up when the answer is right there in scripture.
Luther did a really poor job!
Ol’ King James slipped them back in!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_of_the_King_James_Version
I’ll tell you!
I don’t know.
It appears that Rome has mindread those folks and then taught you the tale.
And never defines UNWORTHY
Okay, fine. Don’t try to do a search. But before telling someone to learn something, one should find out for themselves what is involved. It may not be as simple as one thinks. Especially if what one is searching for does not exist.
Having said that, I am sorry to hear about your eye problems. My sister-in-law is going through similar issues with her eyes. Not fun. I will keep you in my prayers.
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.