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.
Ah...
The twitching tail of the lizard...
Yes.
Is this like being excommunicated from Rome?
That; or an excess of it!
I’m glad I read ahead this time!
As you know, Catholics do not rely on Scripture alone—I am just trying to “explain the reasons for our beliefs.”
I would say that, this one incident notwithstanding, Christ would have honored His mother in a special way, because He would follow the commandments in an exemplary fashion, and one of those commandments is to honor one’s father and mother.
And no, the Church does not teach that Mary was taken up in a fiery chariot; nor do we define with an anathema every single jot and tittle of information. In fact, we formally define only what is in contention, which is why the timing of our definitions seems to confuse Protestants and non-Catholic Christians.
“Elijah was carried to Heaven in a whirlwind preceeded by a fiery chariot; would Christ do less for His mother?”
The Lord is not sentimental about Mary, that much is clear from Scripture. Didn’t she know he had to be about his FATHER’S business? The Marian folklore that Rome allowed to build up over the years turns out not to be so innocent, as principalities took advantage to speak THROUGH her, offering coy yet thoroughly demonic twists of TRUTH.
By effectively knee-capping Scripture, Catholics have opened themselves to demonic suggestion on many fronts. The invisible beings we are up against WILL take advantage of any departure from sound doctrine. Tradition? They love that and the creative control it allows.
You are engaging in a false dilemma. That the Lord met the need which she brought to her attention does not equate to holding her in unique esteem as per RC use of this text, and is not contrary to His mild rebuke in reminding Mary that He answered to a higher authority, and thus was under no compulsion to perform any deed.
And as said, a study of the response "what have i to do with thee" testifies to this meaning the supplicant lacks warrant for an action or for a request, and in the latter case that the object of entreaty is under no compulsion to accede to the request. (2Sam. 16:9;10; 19:22; 1Kg. 17:18; 2Kg. 3:13; 2Chr. 35:21;Lk. 4:34; 8:28; cf. 1Cor. 5:12)
And Elisha said unto the king of Israel, What have I to do with thee? get thee to the prophets of thy father, and to the prophets of thy mother. And the king of Israel said unto him, Nay: for the Lord hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hand of Moab. (2 Kings 3:13)
That was my point, not a quibble about obeying a command or acceding to a request.
Rather, you turned an implicit request into a command, and a deferment to Divine sovereignty to being obedience to Mary, which type of eisegesis is what abounds in Cath Mariolatry in their zeal to exalt Mary into a heavenly mother demigoddess, despite the Holy Spirit saying relatively little about Mary.
The Catholic Church does not teach that Mary commands God; if individual Catholics say or imply that, they do so in error.
So you say, but where is the censoring of such, with RCs trumpet their magisterium as necessarily providing? More extreme claims than this occur, as bu this they mean "as commands," in that the Lord never resists them because they always are so humble and conformed to His wil. Yet there is no evidence of even any created beings in Heaven even asking the Lord to do anything (only when judgment will come), let alone being prayed to.
don't understand what you are trying to say here.
It should be obvious. The Holy Spirit does not say the response by the Lord when informed that His mother wanted to see and speak with Him was to go to see her (though he might have later at that time, the Holy Spirit does not care to report it) but which a Catholic version surely would do, but instead the response was to equate all who do the will of His Father to being His mother, brethren, etc.
Just imagine what Caths would do with this event if it said that the Lord therefore left the crowd and went to see her. Yet the question is, why was she and His brethen standing without, rather than attending to what he said?
Most likely it was because "neither did his brethren believe in him," (John 7:5) if not Mary.
Likewise akin to Matthew 12:48-50 is Luke 11:27-28: .
And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
Here is another opportunity to afford Mary the special status Caths ascribe to her such as the holiest of all saints, blessed above all due to her sinless and excelling virtue, but once again she is grouped together will all who obey the word of God, and keep it, which she, among others, was an example of.
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.
Prove it, as in reality the author (me) provides substantiation for all these statements from uncensored Catholic authors, which proves Catholics teach such. No claim was made that all such are binding "official" Catholic teaching, and the details of which sees disagreement among RCs, as in fact what constitutes official binding Catholic teaching is subject to interpretation. Must you assent to all that an encyclical or papal Bull, teaches? If not, what is your basis, since RCs are not to engage in personal private interpretation in order to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching?
Some RCs even erroneously assert only infallible teaching is binding, yet just how many infallible teaching there are, and which ones, are also subject to interpretation.
How about the Catechism, and which one? Can they contain errors?
Moreover, since Scripture teaches that what one does and effects is the evidence of what one really believes, as Rome has not censored the multiplicity of unScriptural claims I sourced, some of which are from popes, then her implicit assent is communicated. You have opened up a can of worms by invoking Catholic teaching.
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?
You are confusing verbal or written communication between person in the earthly realm, which Scripture records, versus the ability to hear even multitudinous incessant simultaneous mental prayers in Heaven, which only God is shown able to do, even that of over 200 prayers to God. But not one prayer/supplication to any created being is made, except by pagans. In addition, you confuse mere obeisance with kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world with adulation, attributes, glory and titles never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), and making offerings to such. 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.
Shall I call Protestants "Prots"? Or maybe you can refrain from calling Catholics "Caths"?
That is what often do for both, no offense intended as it saves my stiff fingers from correcting even more typos due to that.
HMMMmmm...
Is mindreading CHRIST allowed on FR??
But only if you use NO HTML.
Hitting enter once takes you to the next line.
Once you use HTML it must be used throughout the reply.
< p > HTML example for paragraph break
< br > HTML code example for line break
At a very basic level some Catholics have a folksy, Sicilian/Latin Mamma fixation. How do you get to Papa? By going through Mamma.
I’ve heard this very reasoning hear on FR. They were not joking. Such reasoning is sensual, demonic, not from God.
Thank you so very much! This will be a big help!
Earlier you seemed to complain about the date of this article.
Yet you post over 80 links 90% of which are from 1 to NINE years old.
It seems quite hypocritical to try to censor simple Biblical Christian articles yet want people to read your massive amount of links some dating back to 2006.
Debating (instead of petty complaining about something that you actually do also) should be done instead.
Christian Truths will always shine the Light of Jesus into the darkness, trying to stifle it is like the spinning of wheels and counter productive to the commission of Christians to preach the Gospel of Christ in season and out.
Just stay out of my coffee! (obscure reference, posted for humor's sake only : > )
Looking through ‘Church History’ it does not appear to have started out that way. It was definitely not worship of the Mother of Jesus in the infancy of the forming Catholic Church. It has morphed into that by our epoch and for devout Catholics to deny that is a sign, in my honest opinion, that they are not yet born from above.
Satan is quite clever.
All of the apparitions calling themselves Mary are just fallen angels (1/3 of them followed satan when he was kicked out of heaven and are now demons) doing their impersonations of Mary to cause the gullible to look to Mary instead of Jesus.
I find that very dangerous because of the phrase “twinkling of an eye” from the Bible.
Imagine kneeling at a statue of Mary (I took a picture recently of a statue of Mary with a teen aged girl kneeling in front of her...at a Catholic high school) and meditating upon her being the way to Jesus.
That is why it is always a good rule to keep your eyes upon Jesus.
Popes have declared that Mary is the way to salvation and many bought into it to their everlasting peril.
I can see why in this case why it might be perceived as too personal (but not as mind-reading) as i meant to say "your post is simply an example of the misuse of Scripture," versus "You are simply an example of the misuse of Scripture" which grammatically is incorrect anyway.
But it seems such hair-trigger objections have been often seen since a certain poster was called out for a practice of daily making numerous posts to herself, which included many unattributed pastes. .
My experience with the mods over many years is that the RM rules are reasonable, and their intervention judicious, and their judgement fair and correct (in stark contrast to the reactionary heavy-handed mods at Catholic answers, and many others).
Reacting as if one has a vendetta after being cited does not help the issue, and only makes their job more difficult.
Ummmmmm how do you know that ???Could it be because God wanted it recorded ?? Would He not want His "mothers" assumption recorded to give her the same honor??..Would not the apostles want to record it for the new church??
...The fact is there is nothing to suggest that Mary's body will not be raised with those of all other believers ..
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.