“Truth” received on no authority at all

White Horse Inn ^ | February 14, 2014 | Timothy F. Kauffman

[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.

[RnMomof7]

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.

So why would they go away?? The discourse on the bread was over when they went away ... Jesus had moved on with further teaching ...

Jhn 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
Jhn 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

If they were offended at that, he was saying wait until you hear the rest

Jhn 6:62 [What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
Jhn 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
Jhn 6:66 and walked no more with him.

They did not like hearing that salvation had to be given them and much like the manna in the desert, it was totally a gift of the Father. They could not do anything on their own to earn it, they only had access to it by faith ( remember the Jews could only gather enough manna for the one days meals, and for 2 days on the day before the sabbath, they had to have faith in God to provide what was necessary for their life) . The idea that salvation was all of God and not found in law keeping was blasphemy to the law oriented Jews that felt their salvation was based on their will, their law keeping etc

To make an attempt to make this a teaching on the Lords supper misses the mark. Christ was still alive and in His flesh and he was, by your reckoning , telling them to do something they could not do because the Lords Supper had not been instituted yet,it is a spiritual eating and drinking that is here spoken of, not a sacramental.
This was clearly a metaphorical teaching to Jews looking for a Physical savior like Moses, and for physical bread to meet their physical hunger. Jesus always used symbols that the Jews understood to make spiritual points.

[MamaB]

Thanks. The first surgeries went fine. I did not like the follow up appointments. Her assistant used drops to deaden my eye. Then. she used tweezers to stretch the muscles in my right eye. No fun at all. After my last one, she said I was her best patient because I did not move when she was using the tweezers. Who moves with tweezers in their eye? Not this great grandmother. This next surgery is for eye lifts so I can see better. It looks like I am squinting all the time. Have an appt Tuesday to set the surgery date. I will be so thankful when all of this is over.

[kinsman redeemer]

5 or 6 verses , taken out of context and then a 10 minute attempt to "explain it"

Or not. The last thing I remember about a RCC that I was attending (regularly... because expiation seemed bad, and I was afraid of it )... but I digress.

The last thing I remember was a series of "Homilies" (whatever.) that focused on how much money the local church needed. It didn't have a thing to do with the PRESCRIBED "readings". It had to do with business.

[RnMomof7]

The last thing I remember was a series of "Homilies" (whatever.) that focused on how much money the local church needed. It didn't have a thing to do with the PRESCRIBED "readings". It had to do with business.

Just about a year ago , an RC family member was receiving an "award" ..family was asked to attend.. once again I was reminded of the hollow nature of their homilies... They got a 10 minuet talk on the value of friendships.. ..Sad

[kinsman redeemer]

Good story.

Here's one: At a Catholic funeral, the priest went on and on about something unrelated to the dead one (dead in every way, but I'm not the judge). Then he talked about HIS OWN MOTHER's (not Mary) funeral.

He said, "She always loved the hymn 'Amazing Grace' - but I refused let the congregation sing the verse that says, '...saved a wretch like me!'"

He went on, "My mother was no 'wretch'!"

[kinsman redeemer]

Bingo

PERSONAL ATTACK!

[RnMomof7]

He went on, "My mother was no 'wretch'!"

LOL.....

[kinsman redeemer]

Wow.

[metmom]

Jesus is God with us. God incarnate.

Are you claiming, then, by calling Mary *mother of God* that His deity had a begging as the term says?

Or that GOD has a mother, as the term states?

[metmom]

Just what are those traditions Paul was referring to that he handed down that we are to keep that were not included in Scripture?

How do you know?

How do you know they’re from the apostles, Paul in particular?

How do you know they’ve been passed down faithfully?

What is your source for verifying all of the above?

Please provide the sources for verification purposes.

Still waiting for an answer from a Catholic. Any Catholic.

[Chicory]

You are simply an example of the misuse of Scripture that you condemn, as Jn. 2 is not about the Lord obeying Mary, a there was no command to obey, only an implicit request, which the Lord was free to reject. Did He do what she requested? Does that not show He held her in esteem rather than trying to put her down, as has been suggested to me by some Protestants? That was my point, not a quibble about obeying a command or acceding to a request. This humble should give Mary more esteem than if she was presented as one whose requests are like commands to God, as so many Caths profess. The Catholic Church does not teach that Mary commands God; if individual Catholics say or imply that, they do so in error. [i]Likewise when faced with the situation in which His mother was standing without desiring to speak with him, the Lord did not do as RCs have Him doing toward the fictional Mary of Catholicism and give her priority and go and see her, but instead to , but But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Matthew 12:48-50) I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted (officially or with implicit sanction) as Why would Mary, at that time espoused to Joseph, ask the angel how it would be that she would become a mother? Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted (officially or with implicit sanction) as... The author of this part of your post has made a lot of mistakes or strawman arguments which show that he or she does not understand Catholic teaching. One would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, even with adulation, attributes, glory and titles never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers addressed to them, and beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them. Which would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine by playing word games they avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship. Instead they should do what Mary and every believer in every prayer to Heaven did (and I should do more of), which was to pray directly to the Lord, not secretaries. But they must truly become born again for that. I have heard that Protestants ask one another to pray for them, and even call some people "prayer warriors." We ask Mary to pray for us, and consider her the greatest "prayer warrior" ever. You may recall that in earlier times in history people would go on their knees when asking for a really big favor. Even now, young men wil often go on one knee to ask a woman for the favor of her hand in marriage. Is he worshipping her? Instead Caths basically say, As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes... (Jeremiah 44:16-17) Shall I call Protestants "Prots"? Or maybe you can refrain from calling Catholics "Caths"? Anyway, it is merely a Protestant opinion that this is what Catholics are doing, and Protestants have no basis from which to make such a judgement.

[Chicory]

I am not the one who interpreted it that way. I have heard it from Protestants who object to the honor Catholics give to Mary.

[Chicory]

Sorry, Daniel, that my post to you came out with no paragraphs!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“...who object to the honor Catholics give to Mary.”

But they do not object to honor, of which Mary should receive.

They do object to idolizing blessed Mary and turning her in to a demigoddess, as Catholicism does.

[Chicory]

How do Protestants know what Scripture “REALLY” means? Among Protestants there is a wide variation in how one becomes a Christian—how does each person decide which is correct? What happens to those who pick the wrong opinion to agree with?

[Chicory]

MHG wrote: “The Apostles were led by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church? ... not so much.”

What evidence do you have for this assertion? The fact that Catholics believe different things? Among Protestants there are several ideas about how one becomes a Christian. So how do Protestants decide what is correct? Because if there is no basis for decision, how can any Protestant say any Catholic teaching is wrong?

[Chicory]

Kinsman wrote: “...so what the Apostles taught was what the Catholic Church erroneously calls Tradition.

“Fixed it for you.”

On what evidence is your assertion based?

[Chicory]

AMPU wrote: “They do object to idolizing blessed Mary and turning her in to a demigoddess, as Catholicism does.”

How do Catholics do this?

[Mark17]

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

Jesus did not preach cannibalism. It was forbidden to drink blood. Those unbelievers left him, because they were unbelievers, and took something literally, when it should have been taken figuratively. The Pharisees did not get it either, when he said destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up. I don't take Him literally, when he says he is the door, the lily of the valley, or the bright and morning star.

[Mark17]

Protestants also have a sort of tradition as well, which is why Protestants disagree about so many things.

Some Christians have different ideas, on things like speaking in tongues, pre trib/post trib and other issues, but agree on the only doctrine that matters over everything: the plan of salvation, salvation by faith alone. True Christians are not into faith plus works to be saved. We may differ on a few other things, but we are not into works based religions. We do not do good works to get saved, or to stay saved, but BECAUSE we are saved. This is a very easy concept to understand. If people do not get it, their blood is on their own hands.