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.
Yes, I was interested in answering Daniel1212's statement to me.
(I pinged you as a courtesy as you were mentioned in my post.)
I just let him know that he was falsely accused of breaking the rules.
Do you want to apologize for that accusation?
I noticed the post of yours was removed, did you ask to have it removed?
I hope you did because that would show that the RM is not biased against those in your denomination.
I will pray for all of you.
Please pray directly to Jesus and not to Mary. Thanks. (see my tagline for the reason)
It's a good idea to confess any sins before praying also:
If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me...Psalm 66:18Remember the Bible says you can come straight to his Throne of Grace to confess sins, you do not have to go to a middleman like a priest or Mary.
Hebrews 4:16So now the groundwork is laid for effectual prayer.
King James Version (KJV)Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace...
First of all there is a problem answering that question because you must first define what a Protestant is. Catholics have defined most all who are not Catholics as Protestant. I for instance am not a Catholic but neither am I a Protestant nor any of the other denominational tags.
That said, I think the answer to your question for true Protestants would be a resounding NO. There is no "wide variation" in how one becomes a Christian. Across the board for all Protestants when one places their faith in Christ alone for salvation they become a Christian.
Is the belief that Elijah was carried to heaven a requirement by the Catholic Church with "anathema" proclaimed if one does not? The event concerning Elijah is recorded in scripture. Anything about Mary after Pentecost is not recorded at all either by religious or secular writings.
Jesus is no respecter of persons.
He wouldn't place His mother above others.
For that matter, He didn't.
Matthew 12:48-50 But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Jesus puts ALL of those who do the will of God on the same level as His mother.
So Mary was carried up to heaven in a fiery chariot?
Besides, that's about the weakest argument for something that I can imagine.
Show is some verses from Scripture where God tells us He took Mary up like that and you'll have a basis for your claim. Otherwise, it's just romantic, wishful thinking.
They’re huge differences only if you think they save anyone.
They do not.
It’s either faith in Christ or faith in something else, and THAT is the crux of the matter. It’s irrelevant what that something else is because the important part is that it’s not faith in Christ.
OK. I wasn’t aware of that.
That is pretty much the general view of FRoman Catholics on these threads, that Christians think that way, and it has been countered time an again, For years.
I just didn’t expect a Catholic to think differently.
Sorry.
I see the difference you are referring to.
When we say that someone becomes saved, we are referring to the one time event of being born again, being declared judicially righteous based on our faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross.
I can see how someone could think that becoming saved is the process of growing in holiness.
FWIW, for years after I got saved, I was also very confused about the terminology of *justification* and *sanctification*.
That has cleared up with good Scriptural teaching.
So it gets back to what I defined earlier.
Justified is being declared judicially pardoned by God. Sanctified is becoming more and more Christ like as I live out His life here on this earth, as He lives through me. He becomes greater and I become less.
Projection!
He's been taught indoctrinated that Mary was sinless; so, by extension, ALL mothers are.
Yeah...
Joseph’s ‘wife’ would not be caught DEAD in a Catholic church singing Amazing Grace!
Then fix it!
I thought I mentioned the CCC??
Because if there is no FOUNDATION shown for decisions, how can any Catholic say any Protestant teaching is wrong?
There you go again! -RR
I just KNOW this wasn’t for me!
I want to read BEFORE that, the stuff that the apostles taught.
Read what the Early Church Fathers say.
I've read what John wrote to The Early Church Fathers in the churches of Asia.
I don't think they'd be very good role models...
Nom wonder Catholics want to distance themselves from the CCC!
The Catholic Church does teach that we can “KEEP” our salvation through good works!
an individual vs the group
I have NEVER asked a DEAD person to pray for me!
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.