Have some NEW stuff!
http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Vatican-to-share-tax-info-with-US-in-new-6318032.php
Father; I have sinned.
How so; my son?
I used a tax haven.
Too bad; my son; but now I have to report you.
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.
The link in the article to Newman’s original article is broken, and google couldn’t find it either. I could only find it in snippets from others who criticized it.
Nevertheless, looking only at the snippets included in this article, it seems that the author is confused between mediation and doctrine.
At least in the snippets provided, Newman does not say that the details and embellishments are “evidence” of anything. He says they are aids to meditation.
A quick example will illustrate the difference: if I meditate Luke Ch. 1 26-38, I read:
In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary.
When I meditate on this passage I picture it, like many painters have done, taking place in a house. I picture Mary alone perhaps in her bedroom when the angel appears.
But scripture does not say that the angel came to Mary in a house. It might have happened outside at the well or elsewhere.
If there were a raging debate over the issue of whether this scene took place inside or outside my picture of this scene would not constitute “evidence” that it took place inside and contrary to what the author of this article believes, Newman is not claiming that it does.
Is this all you can do.....provide links to catholic sources?? Good grief.
Go easy on the use of the word “proddie”....
Why are you grief stricken?
Wikipedia discusses this here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther%27s_canon
(Sorry, I don’t know how to do links here.)
He wanted to remove the Epistle of James and called it an epistle of straw, quite possibly because it is the only place where the words “faith alone” are found: James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
And Luther added the word alone to Romans 3.28 **in order to change the teaching,** which is, of course, more along the lines of what is being erroneously and without evidence criticized on the part of Catholics.
Why are you avoiding the question?
I had some Protestant books for children when they were young, and they had all kinds of additions to the Bible stories. They even included pictures of things which were not minutely described in Scripture!
The OP is a strawman argument which makes little sense at all.
That's a very good point. Taking the author's offense to embellishment to its logical extreme you would be inclined to burn all works of religious art, destroy all stained glass with lead pipes, and set fire to libraries "on a scale that far outstrips the modern efforts of Islamist extremists."
Oh wait, they already did that:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2013/10/08/a-sad-reminder-of-the-art-lost-in-the-years-after-the-reformation/
You're actually attempting to equate a child's book with the Word??
Place mark
Don’t you have a pope to complain about?
You have not noticed that there are books written about their religion by Protestants? That there are publishers who publish books by Protestants, and even bookstores which specialize in those books? Many are called “Christian,” but since they exclude Catholic books and sometimes even include books which slander the Church, they cannot be considered “Christian” per se. Hence, yes, Protestant.
Well, no, but the Catholic Church has not changed the Word in this way—even the OP does not claim that.
Have some NEW stuff!
http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Vatican-to-share-tax-info-with-US-in-new-6318032.php
Father; I have sinned.
How so; my son?
I used a tax haven.
Too bad; my son; but now I have to report you.
What are they going to do when they realize that a lot of this stuff was written in the 1800s???
Well, you have changed the Word in that you’ve added to it with the apocrypha and the CCC.
I don’t accept the word of someone who claims to have authority simply because they make that claim.
Their claim that they have it does not mean they do.
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
God did not have a mother.
Jesus did.
So what?
You know what?
Nobody really cares.
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.