“Truth” received on no authority at all

White Horse Inn ^ | February 14, 2014 | Timothy F. Kauffman

[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.

[Mark17]

But they have made "tradition" = to Scripture...giving themselves an immaculate conception, a perpetual virginity , and an assumption ...

Yes, that "perpetual virginity" thing, probably came as a bit of a surprise to Mary, Joseph, and all their many natural born children. Can you imagine one of Mary's other children asking her, mom, if you were supposed to be a perpetual virgin, did the stork bring me? 😱

[kinsman redeemer]

What are catholics afraid of?

• the Truth
• dying out of grace
• dropping the host
• missing a "holy day of obligation"
• having a personal relationship with Jesus
• missing the latest change to sacred tradition
• gay people
• lawsuits
• confession
• seeing a priest... at the track
• seeing a priest... at the hospital
• the tribulation
• nuns with weapons
• what the Pope might say next
• purgatory and expiation
• spiritual warfare
• "born again" Christians

These are just off the top of my head.
I guess there is more...

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

The Church is the best source for Church teaching.

What does the Bible call “the pillar and foundation of truth”?

Who said, “If he will not listen to the Church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector.”?

What did the Old Testament Jews mean by the phrase, “to bind and loose?”

Finally, can you explain the verses in my tag line?

If you can’t answer these questions off the top of your head, you might ask why you’ve never heard any preaching on these things.

[Salvation]

**the Truth
• dying out of grace
• dropping the host
• missing a “holy day of obligation”
• having a personal relationship with Jesus
• missing the latest change to sacred tradition
• gay people
• lawsuits
• confession
• seeing a priest... at the track
• seeing a priest... at the hospital
• the tribulation
• nuns with weapons
• what the Pope might say next
• purgatory and expiation
• spiritual warfare
• “born again” Christians
**

A one word answer:

NOT!

[kinsman redeemer]

The Church is the best source for Church teaching.
No. It's Scripture. Qualified teachers who "rightly divide" the Word are also invaluable. The indwelling Holy Spirit is absolutely vital!

What does the Bible call “the pillar and foundation of truth”?
The Bride of Christ - His Church, of which I am a member (Rom 12, 1Cor 12). Are you?

Who said, “If he will not listen to the Church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector.”?
Christ. That section of Mt 18 has reconciliation as its prime goal after a brother sins against you .

What did the Old Testament Jews mean by the phrase, “to bind and loose?”
Punishment and release from punishment. It was also used to advance the lie that God's Will could only be understood by through the exclusive right of the leaders. Your magisterium does not have that right either.

Finally, can you explain the verses in my tag line?
You can't? - Change it to something you can explain.

If you can’t answer these questions off the top of your head, you might ask why you’ve never heard any preaching on these things.
I can so I won't ask the question. But here's a hint for you:

.

[Rashputin]

And don't forget Hebrews 13:24 that begins :
             Obey your prelates, and be subject to them.

Prelates that Protestant folks do not have since like Korah and his followers Protestant folks embrace the heresy of, "Let it be enough for you, that all the multitude consisteth of holy ones . . . .

The very same heresy God the Father Himself punished Korah and his followers for by opening the earth underneath them and swallowing them alive into Hell.

[kinsman redeemer]

Ready?

1. If Peter was the first Pope, why did he refer to himself as only a fellow elder? 1 Peter 5:1

2. Why does the Catholic church allow and even encourage prayers to Mary, designated saints and angels when the Bible strictly forbids it? (Revelation 22:9; Matthew 6:7)

3. If Mary was born without sin, why did she take a sin offering to the temple? (Luke 2:24) And why did it take until the early 1950’s for the Church to begin teaching this important doctrine?

4. Why does the Church teach that there is a second chance for salvation through Purgatory and Masses for the Dead when the Bible teaches the direct opposite? (Hebrews 9:27; Luke 16:26)

5. The Bible teaches that Baptism means immersion, not sprinkling, why doesn’t the Catholic church? (Romans 6:3-7)

6. The Bible teaches that Baptism is for those who can repent (Acts 2:38), believe (Acts 16:31), and confess Jesus (Romans 10:9). How exactly does an infant fit any of these requirements for baptism?

7. Ephesians 2:8,9 teaches that it is by grace you are saved through faith, why is there a need to add sacramental requirements?

8. The Catholic church offers the sacrifice of Jesus on a weekly basis through the Mass. The Bible says that the sacrifice of Christ was: Hebrews 9:11-15 – Once for all. Hebrews 9:26 – Once to remove sin. 9:28 – Offered once. 10:10 Once for all. 10:11-12 One sacrifice for sins. 10:14 – One offering 10:15-20 – No longer any need for a sacrificial offering. Why do the Catholics continue to offer to God that which He calls unnecessary?

9. The Bible mentions God’s providing apostles, prophets, preachers and teachers why is there no mention of Sacramental priests? Where do you get that?

10. The Bible says that Scripture is the authority over the Church (2 Timothy 3:16), why does the Catholic church claim the opposite? (As you just attempted to do)

11. The Bible says that for those who are in Christ, there is no condemnation. (Romans 8:1) The Catholic church teaches that the grace of justification is lost each time a mortal sin is committed and that Penance, sacraments and good works must be offered to recover that lost grace of salvation? Why?

.

Especially this:

12. In John 12:48, Jesus says that it His word, not the church, not tradition, sacraments or good works, but His Word which will be the judge for the one who hears and rejects it. Are you listening to Christ’s word, or to the Catholic church’s?

[kinsman redeemer]

NOT!

Oh! Well that was persuasive!

< /sarc>

[Mark17]

Christ. That section of Mt 18 has reconciliation as its prime goal after a brother sins against you.

Thanks for explaining that one, for, oh maybe 5 million times now. It appears to me, you might need to explain it another 3 million times. 😎

[WVKayaker]

If you can’t answer these questions off the top of your head, you might ask why you’ve never heard any preaching on these things.

Plenty of us have heard teachings on the entire collection of Scriptures, including those Apocryphal books not included as acceptable to many believers.

But, the twisting required, by the Roman Catholic cult, to justify their positions and proclamations bear little resemblance to the proper exegesis of those same Scriptures, WHEN INCLUDED IN CONTEXT. It has no foundation other than to take random passages and hobble them to make their philosophy.

These things you question are not the basis for a church. The church is the ecclesia, not a bunch of buildings in Rome and around the world. It is those souls who have given over to the calling of the Holy Spirit and have proclaimed faith in the Salvic Works of Jesus Christ. In Him is found all the fullness of God.

You can't make a cake without all the ingredients. If you want to keep your faith in your organization, you have missed on what Scripture has told us about God's plan. It is only by faith in Jesus Christ that delivers us from the burdens of our sinful nature.

Your tagline may be fine to you, but does not make it the WHOLE truth. It is only by blind allegiance to an organization, based on years of indoctrination and fear of excommunication from your source of salvation, that you can swallow the Roman Catholic hook, along with all the line and sinkers! Christians do not get saved by eating breading and drinking grape juice...

Our authority comes through living by faith. Our burden is light!

Romans 10: 10 Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

5 Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.” 6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”

16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?” 17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.

[ealgeone]

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.

I don't know about these protestants you're talking about but the Christians I know rely upon the Holy Spirit,παράκλητος....our Advocate and Helper. Jesus is also called our Advocate in 1 John 2:1.

But that is insufficient for roman catholics apparently as they are pushing this false idoloatry of relying upon the false idol of Mary....not to be confused with Mary of the Bible.

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).

If roman catholics have their way they will no longer have a need for Jesus or the Holy Spirit. Very dangerous ground for roman catholicism.

[Rashputin]

Comments about Christianity from people who blaspheme the Holy Spirit are worthless.

Comments from folks of that sort are especially worthless when they try to interpret the anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Pharisee Approved Luter Subset of Scripture they claim to accept but then each twist to siut their own pereferences.

Such folks rely on their Self and Self Alone so whatever such folks say is at best dust in the wind and at worst false doctrine that leads others to their own destruction

have a nice day

[rwa265]

I’m somewhat confused by this article. It shows the following quotation, but does not cite the source.

“we already know this to be true, so there is no error in creating evidence to support it.”

Who made this statement? When was it made? In what context was it made? What is the source of the statement?

There are several other quoted items in the article that do not show the source of the quotes. How are we to take this article seriously if the writer does not source the quotations he uses?

[WVKayaker]

I’m somewhat confused by this article. It shows the following quotation, but does not cite the source.

Maybe if one reads an article, questions like that do not arise...

But then, squirrels are what some are seeking!

"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. ..."

Look! Squirrel! (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain TRUTH!)

[metmom]

Imagine that....

Who would ever have guessed?

[metmom]

Once again we see the Protestant admission that they accept as their highest authority anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Pharisees who they assert had every right to revise the canon of Scripture in spite of what had been passed down to them from several hundred years prior to the birth of Christ.

Kind of like adding the assumption of Mary as truth after 1900 years?

The Catholic church does it all the time and calls it *sacred tradition*.

"Oh," they say, "but we don't change SCRIPTURE itself." but they sure to add to it with that so-called *sacred tradition* and *infallible magisterium* and the popes *ex catherdra* pronouncements.

So in effect, the Catholic church does plenty of adding to what God has handed down to us.

[metmom]

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.

Prove it. Post links and quotes.

[ealgeone]

Yeah....coming from a catholic who worships Mary....’nuff said.

[ealgeone]

You know....for a group that claims to have the teaching magisterium they've only pronounced a handful of things to be "ex cathedra".....most of these seem to involve Mary....and one prior to 431 AD.

Imagine....it took four hundred years for the error to officially begin and it continues to this day and will continue if the Fifth Marian Dogma is passed....and I predict it will.

[metmom]

Which is NOT a command of Jesus to believers to obey the Catholic church.

Posting it as if it were will lead someone to the wrong interpretation of that passage.

What Jesus said when He spoke those words, is: Matthew 18:15-18 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

For all the criticism non-Catholics receive about cherry picking verses and taking them out of context, there is simply no way anyone is going to one up this abuse of Scripture.

Taking a fragment of a sentence and posting it as a command of Jesus' is the ultimate in cherry picking verses to support a doctrine.

It will lead to deception.

This passage is only about settling personal disputes between individual believers, and the taking it to the church part is the LAST step in in process.

What it most certainly is NOT is a blanket command by Jesus to listen to, or submit to, the Catholic church.