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.
John 6: 6326 Jesus answered them, "Most certainly I tell you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves, and were filled. Don't work for the food which perishes, but for the food which remains to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For God the Father has sealed him."
They said therefore to him, "What must we do, that we may work the works of God?"
Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."
They said therefore to him, "What then do you do for a sign, that we may see, and believe you? What work do you do? 31Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness. As it is written, 'He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.'"
Jesus therefore said to them, "Most certainly, I tell you, it wasn't Moses who gave you the bread out of heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world."
They said therefore to him, "Lord, always give us this bread."
Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will not be hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. But I told you that you have seen me, and yet you don't believe. All those who the Father gives me will come to me. Him who comes to me I will in no way throw out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. [Here is the key to the passage, and it is not a cannibalistic, blood-frinking gastronomic heresies such as the Catholic Chruch teaches in the Eucharist. The bread and wine are IN REMEMBRANCE at the Lord's table. What the faux Christianity Catholicism teaches violates the very nature of God! From the beginning God told mankind not to drink the blood of any animal. The Life is in the blood. We are to let the life, in the blood, go out upon the ground. ] This is the will of my Father who sent me, that of all he has given to me I should lose nothing, but should raise him up at the last day. This is the will of the one who sent me, that everyone who sees the Son, and believes in him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." [This is not a cannibalistic heresy, it is the plan of Salvation, the means of Justification. Yet Catholicism drives it home into catholic minds to commit an act contrary to God's own nature! And to do this over and over again, as if somehow the catholic heresies can renew salvation, renew God's Grace, over and over and over! Enough already. You heretics are modern cannibals, not Christians! Get this through your dead minds, that Jesus even starts the passage exposing you cannibals: v26 "Most certainly I tell you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves, and were filled."]
v47 Most certainly, I tell you, he who believes in me has eternal life. ['By faith/belief are ye saved not of works lest any repetitive cannibalistic catholic should boast'; Jes us was not teaching them to be cannibals for that is contrary to God's nature. Jews knew it then, but apparently blind and dumb catholics are ignorant of Whom God IS.] I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, that anyone may eat of it and not die. [Anyone may eat of this bread BY BELIEVING IN HIM, not by cannibalizing His body and blood, over and over and over and over, in a rite designed to Nicolaitanize Christianity.]
How can you be so double minded, to miss the lesson so completely? If you are saying the literal meaning is to cannibalize, eat transubstantiated (transmogrified, like Calvin's imaginary monsters) bread and wine as flesh and blood of Jesus, and those disciples who left were leaving because the literal meaning is contrary to God's nature, then the ones who left were obeying what they had been taught regarding YHWH.
But if the meaning is to practice this rite of bread and wine in REMEMBRANCE of His sacrificing His body for us on the Cross, and His blood upon the Mercy seat, and the disciples could not abide this offering which meant He would die soon, well then you are on the proper track to Honor The Grace of God in Christ!
One can NOT make this stuff up!
Roger that. Isn't that kind of like saying what one of them said before, I don't interpret scripture, I just read it and tell you what it says. I don't remember who said that, but it brought lots of laughter and derision. 😂😇😀😱 I figure if I am going to be an instigator, I might as well be a good one. 😎
well, I should have read to the end of the thread before scribbling out more. You nailed it, m’Lady!
Here is wisdom!
The gospel is pretty much foolishness to all followers of works based religions. I know it was to me. I only stayed with the Catholic Church for about a month, after being saved. I couldn't take it anymore, so I beat feet to the door, and never looked back.
Re: Source of Apostolic Tradition: Read what the Early Church Fathers say.
Yes, MamaB, Catholics are well aware that there are man-made traditions in addition to the teachings which have down to us from Christ through the Apostles.
Just out of curiousity, which Catholic sources do you use?
We might disagree on secondary (e.g. eschatology) and tertiary (e.g. "style") questions but the essentials of the faith bind us together in the family of God.
The debates that we typically have on these threads are matters of orthodoxy. They are of primary importance and are necessary to have a right understanding of God's will and God's Truth (e.g. grace and works.) They are matters that define whose we are.
If all of the Protestant Christians were to meet and spend time together, we would discover those secondary and tertiary areas of disagreement - but those matters would not cause us to separate from each other. These might drive us to different denominations but we would still call each other "brothers and sisters" in Christ.
“AMPU wrote: “They do object to idolizing blessed Mary and turning her in to a demigoddess, as Catholicism does.”
“How do Catholics do this?
............
1. Bowing before her
2. Setting her up as an intermediary between men and God
3. Giving her magical powers
4. Making up falsehoods that go beyond what God declared about her.
5. Calling her names and titles God Himself never gave her.
Because Scripture is clear in forbidding the eating of blood, and Jesus Himself said that the words He had been speaking were SPIRITUAL truths, that the flesh profited nothing but it was the SPIRIT who gave life.
So which is it? The Spirit who gives life or eating Jesus?
Like what? Catholics keep making comments about the widely divergent views on topics that Prots are supposed to have but never come through with concrete examples.
Would you care to be the first?
So what is that wide variation?
From the Catechism of the Catholic church....
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p6.htm
969 “This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation .... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.”510
Names of God from the Bible. Compare them to the names given to Mary in the above prayer.
Jesus
Hope (our) - 1 Timothy 1:1
Counselor - Isaiah 9:6
Advocate - 1 John 2:1
Mediator - 1 Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 9:15, Hebrews 12:24
Holy Spirit
Comforter - John 14:26
Helper – John 14:16
This is worship of Mary if ever there was.....Attributing to her the attributes of God is idolatry.
Where is the assumption of Mary taught there?
And her perpetual virginity?
And *immaculate conception*?
Were the ECF’s contemporaries of the apostles and do they cite their direct teachings with direct quotes?
The evidence is the historical record.
The sequence is this: Christ's ministry (including the training of His disciples), His death and Resurrection, more teaching of His disciples, Pentecost (the birth of the Church) and the Holy Spirit indwelling those who believe, the transmission by "oral tradition" of the events and truths, and then the inspired writing of what we know as the New Testament.
I said "erroneously" because the RCC hangs so much on "sacred tradition" that it falsely says has continues to evolve since the 1st C. and, indeed, continues to evolve even now. My belief is that "oral tradition" bridged the events to the inspired writing and is no longer an active part of what determines essential truths. In deed, it hasn't been since the end of the 1st Century (about 95 A.D., IIRC.)
I also believe that even the period of "oral tradition" was protected and guided by God until it could be recorded.
HERE is something that might be useful - I just found it a moment ago.
The link might or might not align perfectly with my response. If it leads you to a useful response or question, I invite the conversation.
The Catholic Church does not teach that we can “earn” our salvation through good works—in fact, this idea is a heresy (Pelagianism) condemned by the Church in the 400s. However, the Church does teach that we must cooperate with God and not say, Well, I’m saved, so now I can do whatever I want. (Sometimes I think Protestants are a lot closer to the Catholic position than they realize, just using different language to explain their idea.)
And when birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away. As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. (Gen 15:11,12)
Please read the whole thing for context. Also read Ch 12)
ONLY THEN could the Abrahamic Covenant be established. It (and the "New") was ("is") an unconditional covenant. God made promises to Abraham that required nothing of Abraham - not even keeping the birds away (a relatively simple work, right?).
We (all of us!) can't do anything to help with the covenant! God does it all!
Afterwards, however, we are VERY USEFUL to him as we follow the Great Commission of this Age. We are at work cooperating with God to grow and strengthen His Church.
Whatever we do apart from Him is junk.
I agree after going back and reading the text of the Newman site. It is a synopsis of what he touts. It is so far from Scripture that it leads itself to the conclusions of the author of this article.
But, regardless of the source, the sentiment and underlying truth is revealed. Scripture does not change. God does not change. The Roman Catholic cult changes daily and Newman demonstrates that with lofty claims but little facts!
I got in trouble for saying “you think...” and you are saying things like “You heretics are modern cannibals, not Christians! Get this through your dead minds....”
aMPU wrote why he thinks Catholics idolize or worship Mary:
“1. Bowing before her
“2. Setting her up as an intermediary between men and God
“3. Giving her magical powers
“4. Making up falsehoods that go beyond what God declared about her.
“5. Calling her names and titles God Himself never gave her.”
1. As I said, young men kneel to women whose hand they are asking for in marriage... Bowing was a part of our culture not so long ago that it should seem completely unreasonable or foreign to someone as a sign of respect.
2. Even Protestants ask others to pray for them, and that is what we do with Mary. To us, she is the ultimate prayer warrior, so of course we want to ask her to pray for us!
3. & 4. Can you show me where the Church teaches these things?
5. I assume you are talking about things like her Immaculate Conception. Does it not make sense to you that God would want a perfect “tabernacle” for His Son? Do you think God cannot do that?
The reference is to Christ’s living body—a body quickened by the presence of His spirit, the re-uniting of which occurred at the Resurrection.
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.