LOL have you seen the movie The Passion Of The Christ?
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.
Well, the apostles are all dead and not alive on this earth any more.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
That has been shown to be wrong so many times that it's not funny. I can't believe that people are still falling for that fable.
What do you call TRADITION if not adding to the bible??
BTW Luther did not add to the scriptures no matter how much Rome insists he did
Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):
Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).
Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).
Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).
Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).
John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).
Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).
Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.
Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).
To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):
Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).
Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).
See further:
Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.
Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).
Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.
Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.
Even some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “allein durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.”
LOL have you seen the movie The Passion Of The Christ?
But they have made "tradition" = to Scripture...giving themselves an immaculate conception, a perpetual virginity , and an assumption ...
In some cases > than Scripture.
That sure sounds like global warming. “They” already know it’s true so they create evidence to show it, even if they have to fudge....a bit.
A movie was made based on the work of the local prescription druggist in the little town close to where I live.
I have not watched the movie but I heard the druggist Tell some ladies who had watched it that there were no truth to some of the things in the movie.
No truth means lies.
Is essay any less true just because it is dated to a previous year? Sheesh, you will take any twist to defend the heretical teachings of your beloved religion. But you will not have ears to hear and eyes to see. Reminds me of the cripple at the Bethesda pool.
The true Bible (Catholic one) has the deuterocanonical books in it which the KJV doesn’t have.
Stunning! Simply stunning!
12/5/2014
3/7/2014
2/5/2014
1/29/2014
1/14/2014
10/28/2013
9/30/2013
1/23/2013
8/30/2010
7/15/2008
2/4/2006
Surely you weren't insinuating that something with an older dated shouldn't be posted were you?
Do you burn fish hearts to chase away demons like it says to do in your Bible?
Is the assumption of Mary dogma?
Protestants do not claim "infallibility"... This is something to chew on.. if you disagree you are free to say what you think is error and why....its called debate
Thanks mom
I agree 100%. That is why when Jesus said this is my body, He meant it figuratively, not literally. 😎
An assertion that blasphemes the Holy Spirit by denying the perfection of the Holy Spirit. Protestants insist the Holy Spirit cannot and did not protect His Holy Word from the including error for nearly eighteen hundred years then want other people to believe that the same Holy Spirit they claim is imperfect and inept is guiding each and every one of them to the proper interpretation of Scripture.
Given the Protestant insistence that the Holy Spirit is imperfect, it follows that the Holy Spirit cannot be a member of the Trinity which means Protestant folks implicitly reject the existence of the Trinity no matter what they explicitly state.
Who knows, the truth maybe? What does anyone have against the truth?
In both of these proclamations it took a long time....and a lot of ground swell for the pope to proclaim these. So what we see is given time, a "tradition" that builds support overtime can become "ex cathedra".
I predict this will happen with the fifth marian dogma.
http://www.fifthmariandogma.com/
The proclamation of the Dogma of Mary Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate by the Holy Father will enable the Mother of Jesus to shower the world with a historic outpouring of grace, redemption, and peace in a new and dynamic way—an event which Marian apparitions like Fatima refer to as the “Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.”
In the 1910’s, Cardinal Mercier of Belgium began a petition movement to the Holy Father for the papal definition of Mary’s universal mediation. In the early 1920’s, St. Maximilian Kolbe added his voice for the solemn definition of Mary as Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces. As was the case in the movements leading up to the last two papal definitions of Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Assumption, millions of petitions from cardinals, bishops, clergy, religious and the lay faithful the world over have been sent to Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI in support of this solemn dogmatic proclamation of Mary’s spiritual motherhood.
(See....if you push something long enough in the catholic church, whether it's supported by the Word or not, it can rise to the level of dogma)
The Church-approved apparitions of the Lady of All Nations in Amsterdam, Holland (1945-1959; Church approval, May 31, 2002) confirm that only with the proclamation of the Dogma of Mary Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate will Mary be able to intercede for “true peace for the world” (May 31, 1954 message). The Lady of All Nations also called all peoples to “petition the Holy Father” for this fifth Marian Dogma (May 31, 1954 message), and to pray daily the “Prayer of the Lady of All Nations” for the accomplishment of this Fifth Dogma:
“Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Father, send now your Spirit over the earth. Let the Holy Spirit live in the hearts of all nations, that they may be preserved from degeneration, disasters, and war. May the Lady of All Nations, the Blessed Virgin Mary, be our Advocate. Amen.”(Feb. 11, 1951).
Aside from the obvious abuse of Scripture, we already have an Advocate.....the Holy Spirit.
And then there's this.....you'd think a group that claims the pope has this "teaching authority" would write down what is and is not ex cathedra.
There is no complete list of papal statements considered infallible. A 1998 commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published on L'Osservatore Romano in July 1998[71] listed a number of instances of infallible pronouncements by popes and by ecumenical councils, but explicitly stated (at no. 11) that this was not meant to be a complete list.http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM
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.