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.
“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.”
I suppose then, if you are asking Mary to marry you, you have issues. It remains idolization.
“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!”
Yes, the prayer warrior part is made up. But you do not even know if dear Mary can hear a prayer from earth. Scripture neither commands nor teaches us to pray to the departed. Again, made up.
“3. & 4. Can you show me where the Church teaches these things?”
I didn’t say the Church teaches those things. I said Catholics do them.
“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?”
Again, made up.
Once you reach a point where your justification for a doctrine is “God can do anything”, you got nothing.
I agree after going back and reading the text of the Newman site.
Thank you for acknowledging that the quote was not from Newman. It was driving me crazy trying to find where he wrote it.
I said: “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?”
Metmom responded: “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?”
First, like what I mentioned: Protestants have a wide variety of ideas regarding what is necessary to be saved, from saying a little prayer and one is saved for life to the necessity of sacramental baptism. Obviously, how one takes the first step towards Heaven is **vitally important,** no?
Specific differences among Protestants regardinf baptism:
Baptism: 1. sacramental (imparts faith); 2. sacramental (offers the recipient to God; 3. symbolic of being born again; 4. symbolic sign of obedience to God;
5. full immersion necessary; 6. water poured over head;
7. infants can and should be baptized; 8. infants should jot be baptized;
9. baptism is necessary for salvation; 10. baptism is not necessary for salvation.
Now I hope you will answer the questions I asked which were quoted at the beginning of this post.
That misrepresentation of *Protestant* theology has been disproved time and again on these threads and is STILL trotted out as if anyone actually says that and believes it.
Please, stop using is. It only costs you credibility to accuse Christians of something they don't believe in and have clearly stated so.
Do you have another term to describe someone who eats human flesh?
In addition to Scripture and Tradition, we also have the teaching authority, the first instance of which we saw when Simon declared Jesus the Messiah, and Christ explained that this was not knowledge from men but from Heaven. The teachings about Mary which were declared later were declared on the basis of what was taught in these verses, but the teachings themselves flow from what Christ revealed to us and were considered from verg early on in the Catholic Church’s history, except for the Assumption of Mary, which probably has also as its basis the fact, now somewhat lost to history, that Mary’s body disappeared/seems to be no longer on earth.
Elijah was carried to Heaven in a whirlwind preceeded by a fiery chariot; would Christ do less for His mother?
Those are not *wide variations* on how to be saved.
You presented two options.
One is by faith.
One is by baptism (works).
How the baptism is done is inconsequential.
You either trust Christ or you trust something else.
What the something else is doesn’t matter because NOTHING else can save. You’re just as lost trusting one religious activity as another.
That was really the least of my concerns considering the differences in our beliecs. Heretics, dead minds, and other things you said in that post went far beyond what I was called out for.
I don’t mind my having had the rules explained to me when I broke them; I just don’t think it is right for you to write like that, which seems worse.
No, but such are considered so binding to many RCs that objecting to such as unScriptural results in being charged with hating Mary.
Those are huge differences! If baptism is required for salvation and someone relies on the sinner’s prayer, or the people who advocate full mmersion are correct and others have only water poured over their heads, or those who say infant baptism does not suffice and one has only been baptized as an infant, then what happens to those who went the wrong way?
The reason I added that part about Protestants’ being closer to the Catholic view than they realize is that I know the general Protestant view is *not* “I’m saved so now I can do what I want.” I apologize for having been so unclear.
You mean someone cited me for a post on this thread? I must have missed it.
You continue to conflate Justification and Sanctification. Is it because of a lack of education?
pingalingaling
I don’t know what you are referring to, so it’s hard for me to say what it’s cause is.
Justification and Sanctification are not the same thing. By faith we are justified before the Throne of God. By faith in Jesus we WILL enter into Heaven, not by any works. Sanctification is the process of 'faithing' in God indwelling us to 'raise us up in the way that we should go'. Jesus told Nicodemus he must be born from above. As a newborn God's Holy Spirit earnest of our inheritance works in you to build wood, hay, or stubble? Or is He working to build Gold, silver, and precious stones, so the Justified believer/faither has something surviving at the Bema seat IN HEAVEN?
Does that help you any at all, or are you still clueless?
Thank you for your explanation. We think about things a little differently in the Catholic Church, but I see that what you explained about sanctification is similar to what we call growing in holiness.
I had always heard phrases like becoming saved, which seemed to mean being in a state wherein one would go to Heaven if one died that night. I guess that is analogous to what you are calling justification?
Thanks again for explaining the difference. I am still not sure how that relates to what I was saying, tho. I’ll have to go back and see if I used either of those words...
Pax vobiscum
Yes, Salvation accused you of mindreading over Post #96
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3299206/posts?page=96#96
Her complaint was removed.
I think your post 96 overloaded the thread with Truth from the Bible (for certain factions here) and it was a feeble attempt to get you...and Biblical Truth...censored.
Thank you pinging me since you seem to be interested.
I will pray for all of you.
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.