“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.

[metmom]

Yes, the *Church* (meaning Catholic church) is the best source for Catholic church teaching.

The best teaching about Jesus comes from Scripture, which testifies about Him.

If you want to know about Catholicism, by all means, go to the Catholic church and avoid the Bible.

If you want to know about Jesus, go to the Bible and forget fractured fairy tales (aka sacred tradition).

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Where did Jesus’ church go?

Did Luther start it 500 years ago after Gutenberg invented the printing press, making Luther’s non-biblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura possible?

Protestants criticize Catholics for being ignorant of Scripture, when Protestants are at least as ignorant.

But Protestants know next to nothing about Christ’s Christ’s Church and the history of Christendom.

All Luther did was destroy Christendom. What a guy.

[metmom]

The body of Christ in an organism, not an organization.

It didn’t go anywhere. It’s still growing as born again believers are still being added to it daily as they come to saving faith in Jesus Christ.

The body of Christ is still here for those with eyes to see.

Everything for them has to be physical, earthly, and concrete, has to be touched, smelled, heard, seen and tasted with the physical body.

Catholics simply have no understanding or concept of spiritual reality.

[metmom]

If *Christendom* can be destroyed by one man, then it wasn’t much of a belief system.

If the gates of hell will not prevail against the church, then no one man can destroy it either.

It’s too bad Catholics adhere to such a fragile belief system.

They should try Jesus and the living God, whom NOTHING can overcome.

[Rashputin]

People who rely on their Self and Self Alone to interpret Scripture after blaspheming the Holy Spirit must have their own personal interpretation of what the word "lie" means just like the good Protestant Bill Clinton had multiple definitions for the word "is".

Of course, Protestant folks are in the habit of claiming that when God Himself, Jesus Christ, said, This is my body the word "is" had a different definition from when it was used in, This is my son in whom I am well pleased so maybe the words, "is" and "lie" are special cases for such folks that can take on whatever meaning is convenient for them at the moment.

Then again, there's always a chance that such folks know what words actually mean, believe that when God said, This is my son . . . it was just a figure of speech, and that Scripture saying not to lie is just a suggestion, not a commandment.

[Old Yeller]

The true Bible (Catholic one) has the deuterocanonical books in it which the KJV doesn’t have.

The Apocryphal Books

[rwa265]

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

---

Come on, Kayaker, give me some credit. I did read the article. It doesn’t include a reference to where that statement was made.

What is the source of the statement, “we already know this to be true, so there is no error in creating evidence to support it”?

[ealgeone]

People who rely on their Self and Self Alone to interpret Scripture after blaspheming the Holy Spirit must have their own personal interpretation of what the word "lie" means just like the good Protestant Bill Clinton had multiple definitions for the word "is".

Unless you are prepared to tell me that every time roman catholics meet on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, etc that the message from the priest is exactly the same worldwide with no deviation whatsoever, that every Sunday School teacher(?) who teaches a lesson is teaching the same thing worldwide with no deviation whatsoever, that every little mission group that meets is teaching the same thing worldwide with no deviation whatsoever, that every poster on FR is posting the exact same thing with no deviation whatsoever regarding the Word, that there is a definitive explanation for each and every verse in the OT and NT from the Vatican that everyone reads and follows......well, you know what they say on the playground.....

BTW....Clinton learned about womanizing from roman catholic Kennedy.

You really don't want to play this game.....back to the playground.

[RnMomof7]

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.

Actually the OT scriptures belong to the Jews not Rome .. Rome had no authority to add books to the Jewish Canon...

Jerome, that translated the OT did not believe they were canonical.. and placed them apart from the inspired scriptures..

[RnMomof7]

Truth

[daniel1212]

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.

You own logic indicts you, since if rejecting books as being Scripture which were preserved is denying the Holy Spirit then Rome is guilty of this as she did the same, even Palm 51 of the EO canon that Rome rejected, or Enoch that the historical Ethiopic Orthodox Church holds as Scripture. Who, consistent your reasoning, could charge Rome with blasphemously insisting the Holy Spirit cannot and did not protect His Holy Word from including error for nearly eighteen hundred years.

In addition, rejecting anything the Pharisees believed is not tenable simply because the Pharisees as a group rejected Christ. For He himself affirmed the validity of their authority, and enjoined general obedience to it. (Mt. 23:2) However, as with all authority, such obedience is conditional upon conformity with Scripture, which Rome violates.

Yet the Lord never had an issue with the 22 (=39) canon the Pharisees are seen as holding to, and no apocryphal book was ever quoted to as being the word of God/the Lord, as was true of the Hebrew canon.

The issue is whether Rome's Tridentine canon was/is infallible, which was not defined as such until 1546, and which parts of which Prots reject as does Rome of other books.

Protestants insist the Holy Spirit cannot and did not protect His Holy Word

They do not such thing, as instead your Roman reasoning is demonstrably perverse.

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.

What manner of absurd assertions are these? Talk about a false dilemma!. Rejecting preserved literature as being Scripture, which even Rome did, and we do to the apocrypha, does not equate to insisting that the Holy Spirit cannot and did not protect His Holy Word from including error. Only if they held Rome's Tridentine canon was infallible would this be the case.

But God's ability to protect Truth and His people does not equate into disallowing competition, else God would have had to disallow books that some early "fathers" held as Scripture as well as tares from being part of His church.

As Jews and early churchmen rejected certain writings many held to be as Scripture, as did Rome, so also did reformers. None of which equates into blaspheming the Holy Spirit by denying He can and did not protect His Holy Word, but again, instead the issue is whose judgment is right as to what He did protect.

And in this regard there simply was no indisputable definition of the canon until after the death of Luther, and thus there simply was no indisputable canon for Luther to dissent from. Instead, scholarly disagreement continued down thru the centuries and right into Trent over certain books. And thus contrary to RCs private interpretation of Rome and Scripture, Luther's view of the apocrypha was not one of the charges against him in his excommunication.

But consistent with your reasoning, Rome also must be charged with blaspheming the Holy Spirit by insisting the Holy Spirit cannot and did not protect His Holy Word during over 1400 years that it failed to recognize with certainty that the Holy Spirit protected the apocrypha, but sanction disputes.

.. Thus it remains that the real issue is whether the canon of Rome is wholly of the Holy Spirit. And that being the historical magisterium and steward of Scripture means that such is the infallible judge of what is of God. Yes, no?

Given the Protestant insistence that the Holy Spirit is imperfect...

As your reasoning behind your premise is fallacious, so is your conclusion, for all to see.

[Rashputin]

Playing a game?

Ok, not playing the game of redefining words to suit the occasion means that in both passages of Scripture I quoted, both of which are direct quotes of God Himself, the exact same definition of the word "is" applies and therefore the body and blood of Christ are truly present in the Eucharist.

Good, we've made progress and now that we have an admission that the Catholic Church has always been about His real presence at the sacrifice of the Mass we can move on to several other glaring denials of what Scripture says.

First, having an admission that the Catholic doctrine of the real presence is absolutely true, we need to deal with the silly little game Protestants play when they deny that God the Father Himself punished Korah and his followers for the exact same doctrine and practice Protestant folks insist is correct, the heresy that there is no established priesthood granted specific authorities directly by Christ.

After that we can work through why anyone would actually fall for the fable that anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Pharisees had any right to throw part of the Old Testament into the garbage, a practice Protestant folks revived when they accepted the Jewish Pharisees as their highest authority and likewise threw a large portion of the Old Testament into the garbage.

[ealgeone]

As you cannot, or I guess will not, confirm or deny my question to you about the uniformity of catholic teaching, I really don't have time to play your little word game. That you won't answer tells me what I need to know.

But here's a suggestion. Go study some Greek and learn about the tense and mood of a verb.

Meanwhile, have a good evening.

Don't forget the playground.

[WVKayaker]

Come on, Kayaker, give me some credit. I ...

Why? As with so many of the Roman Catholic cultists, they seek to divert attention away from the article. You can find the quote at the Newman.org site.

Do your own homework, FRiend! I found it quite easily...

[daniel1212]

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.

Do you have a short memory and fail to remember these arguments by you being refuted, by God's grace, or do you just post refuted parroted polemics as if they were not?

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

The church of the living, not mainly dead, church, which eliminates Rome from being the one True one. Yet your question is a polemical one, which, to be of any use to you, must mean that what the church says is the supreme authority on Truth, not Scripture

However, as asked you before with no reply, just where does this text (1Tim. 3:15) teach that ekklēsia zaō theos stulos kai hedraiōma ho/hē/to alētheia (church living God pillar and ground the truth) mean that the church is the supreme infallible standard for Truth, as perpetual magisterial infallibility is essential for the preservation of the Truth and faith?

Where do we see this as God's established means in Scripture, and where is this text infallibly defined as meaning what you have it mean?

And if it is not, then it is disputable, and relying on it is contrary to the Roman ethos, which censures relying on one's own interpretation in ascertaining Truth, versus looking to Rome apart from which we are told we cannot even know for sure what Scripture consists of, let alone mean.

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

Which also is a polemical question, and which also was refuted. It was the Lord who spoke what Mt. 18:15-17 says to the church. Yet as said ,

Actually, Mt. 18:15-18 refers to judicial judgments on personal disputes, while the spiritual power extends to all believers, as also in Ja. 5. But in principal it affirms magisterial judgment, and Westminster states,

"It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." - http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm

Thus once again the issue remains that is not magisterial authority that is at issue, but perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, which is not promised or provided, but which Rome reads into Scripture based upon fallacious premises and presuppositions.

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

>Which also is a polemical question, and which also were refuted, as since the NT church began in dissent from them [the OT magisterium], then how does this support the ensured magisterial infallibility of Rome, which excludes valid dissent, rather than upholding the Scriptural principle of magisterial authority as manifested therein?

As said, "The judgment of the OT magisterium was binding, disobedience even being a capital crime, (Dt. 17:8-13) and to not absolve a person in his case was to leave him guilty. There is nothing radically new here [Mt. 18:15-17), or anything requiring ensured infallibility for authority, any more than there was before." Even civil authorities can judicially and physically bind or loose persons. (Rm. 13:1-7) As could husbands toward toward their wives and fathers toward their daughters as regards vows they made to God. (Numbers 30:5.8)

"And the manifest example of binding and loosing in the NT reveals that its spiritual aspect of binding/loosing souls extends to all righteous believers, such as offer fervent prayer like Elijah, who bound the heavens from raining for 3.5 years and loosed them again. (Ja. 5:16-18) Even though such prophets were persecuted by those in power whom they reproved, as has been the case in the history of the church of Rome." For binding/loosing also pertains to healing )Lk. 13:16) and other things.

"The binding and loosing was also that of Peter indicting two liars to the church, unto death, (Acts 5) and Paul, together with the church delivering an impenitent incestuous man over to the devil for chastisement, (1Cor. 5) as well as personally doing so to two heretics." (1Tim. 1:10)

"Meanwhile, the text RCs invoke for support of their practice of forgiving sins is supposed to be promising healing, (Ja,. 5:14,15) while instead it is usually a precursor of death."

"In reality, Rome has basically bound multitudes from personally reading Scripture for centuries (while many of her note mislead them to this day), and loosed the unholy sword of men upon those who did or enabled it, among others tortured and or murdered simply for theological deviations. Which early Prots had to unlearn."

Isaiah 22:22

See post to you here

Matthew 16:19

Which was not unique to Peter, nor flowed as from him to them, nor was it unique or as conveying perpetual perpetual infallibility of office, nor restricted to the magisterium in spiritual application, as hitherto explained.

Revelation 3:7

Which is clearly referring to Christ, not Peter, and who is consciously never mentioned in any of these letters, nor is corporate submission to his purported supreme distinct papal office enjoined or commended (not even in any of the letters to the churches). Thus trying to read that into this text is egregious eisegesis

[daniel1212]

I know that some Protestants, for they have told me so, take Christ’s words to His mother at the wedding of Cana to be a put-down of her because He calls her “woman.” They then use this against Catholic teachings about the importance of Mary, the Mother of God, despite the fact that He clearly obeyed her afterwards!

You are simply an example of the misuse of Scripture that you condemn, as Jn. 2 is not about the Lord obeying Mary, a there was no command to obey, only an implicit request, which the Lord was free to reject.

And the phrase, "what have I to do with thee" is rather common in Scripture, (2Sam. 16:9; 1Kg. 17:18; 2Kg. 3:13; 2Chr. 35:21; Lk. 4:34; 8:28) and can mean, "what concord have I with you regarding this issue," or "what reason have you for coming to me (or us)." And which affirms the one being petitioned is under no compulsion to grant the request or protests against an action as having no real need.

The response thus calls one to recognize this lack of standing or warrant and perhaps make a case. But having been reminded by the Lord that He answered to a higher authority, and was under no compulsion to perform he request, Mary affirmed this and wisely replied, "Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it."

This humble should give Mary more esteem than if she was presented as one whose requests are like commands to God, as so many Caths profess.

Likewise when faced with the situation in which His mother was standing without desiring to speak with him, the Lord did not do as RCs have Him doing toward the fictional Mary of Catholicism and give her priority and go and see her, but instead to , but

But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Matthew 12:48-50)

Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted (officially or with implicit sanction) as

• an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,

• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,

• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"

• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"

• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"

• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"

• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"

• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."

• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"

• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"

• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"

• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"

• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"

• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"

• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"

• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more.

One would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, even with adulation, attributes, glory and titles never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers addressed to them, and beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them. 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.

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

Instead Caths basically say,

As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes... (Jeremiah 44:16-17)

[ealgeone]

Good grief. Do you run to the RM on every little thing??

[Salvation]

**• so that “the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse.” **

Wrong!

The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.