Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When the Word just isn’t enough
Out of His Mouth ^ | February 11, 2014 | Timothy F. Kauffman

Posted on 06/04/2015 6:28:34 AM PDT by RnMomof7

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

The Christian who must wrestle with Roman Catholic apologists (trained and untrained) will often hear them appeal to the ancient, non-scriptural, sources as proof of what the Apostles taught. We dealt with a part of that issue in a prior post about going all the way back to the written Word, instead of just going back to the first few post-apostolic generations. We acknowledge that some foundational Roman Catholic errors emerged early in the post-apostolic era, as Paul predicted they would (Acts 20:30-32), but we deny that those errors must be canonized along with God’s revelation to us in the Holy Bible. Ancient unbiblical teachings do not become more biblical with the passage of time.

What will be interesting to the Christian reader, however, is just how often “Tradition” is created through fabricated conversations and statements. Lacking any evidence for a certain teaching from the Bible, some of the sources (ancient and otherwise) simply create the teaching by placing words “on the lips” of Jesus, Mary and John.

This post draws from two sources—Fr. Eymard’s Month of Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament (1903), and Thomas Livius’ The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries (1893)both of which attempt to show support for Roman Catholic doctrines of Mary. Read their words below, and see if you can detect a pattern in Eymard’s and Livius’ thinking:

On Mary’s mediation:

“Contenson places on the dying lips of Jesus these merciful words: ‘0 men, be hold your Mother! My Wounds are the sources of grace, but their streams, their currents, are spread abroad only by the channel of Mary.'” (Eymard, 204)

“This law is invariable, so much so that Richard of St. Laurence felt authorized to place on the lips of Our Lord the following words, ‘No one can come to Me unless My Mother draws him to Me.'” (Eymard, 207)

“The Scripture account of the conversion of the penitent thief requires some tradition to clear it up. …Now it is an ancient tradition that the penitent thief  was on the right hand of the Cross; and it seems likely that Mary, if she moved about, would yet stand most upon that side, as S. John would feel it the place of honour, and yield it to her. S. Ephrem attributes the conversion of the thief to her intercession.” (Livius, 299)

On transubstantiation:

“Long ago, M. Olier, in order to offer us the most perfect model for Communion, had an exquisite picture drawn, representing St. John [administering communion to] Mary, laying upon the trembling lips of the Mother the Adorable Body of the Son: ‘Ecce Filius tuus! [Behold, your Son!]'” (Eymard, 172)

“St. Ambrose, even in his day, laid the first foundations of our devotion when he placed on the lips of the Saviour, instituting the Holy Eucharist, these memorable words: ‘This is truly My Flesh for the life of the world. Believe it firmly. This is absolutely the same Flesh, which suffered on the Cross, and which issued glorious from the tomb. It is the same, I repeat to you: ‘Haec, inquam, ipsa est.’ ‘[This, I say, it is]'” (Eymard, 193)

On Jesus’ mother being first to witness to the empty tomb and the Resurrection (Scripture records that she was not):

“S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Gregory of Nyssa and Deulius speak of the Blessed Virgin as having gone with the other women to the sepulchre on the morning of the Resurrection. Sedulius writes thus:

The Virgin Mother at first break of day,
And other matrons in her company,
Their harvest of sweet spices carrying,
Come mourning to the well-known sepulchre;
And see it of the Body now bereft.” (Livius, 190)

“The words of St. Ambrose are: ‘Mary saw the Lord’s resurrection, and was the first to see, and believed. Mary Magdalene saw, too, though still wavered.'” (Livius,191)

“S. Peter Chrysologus … speaking of Christ’s resurrection … says: ‘Mary [Magdalene] came. This is the name of Christ’s Mother. Thus, in the name, there came a Mother … that it might be fulfilled what is written, This is the Mother of the living.'” (Livius, 191)

On whether Jesus gave Mary a view of His Transfiguration at His Birth:

“There is room here for reflecting whether the body of the Incarnate Word, thus the subject of such great miracle in His Conception and Birth, might not have exhibited itself in a  glorified state upon His birthday to His Mother. …[T]he following words of S. Ephrem are intelligible: ‘How shall I bring to swaddling clothes, One wrapped round with glory-rays?’ These words he puts in our Lady’s mouth at the Nativity, and they seem scarcely capable of bearing any other plain meaning.” (LIvius, 192-3)

Did you notice a pattern? It is quite simple: lacking Biblical evidence for their traditions, the ancient sources simply place the teachings on the lips of Jesus, Mary and John, or invent the facts necessary to support a belief or practice in which they are already engaging. Richard of St. Laurence already believed that Mary is the mediator of all graces, and therefore “felt authorized” to put the doctrine on Jesus’ lips. Ambrose already believed that Mary, was worthy of being first to witness the resurrection, and therefore simply invented the “fact” that she was. S. Ephrem already believed that Mary was worthy of seeing Jesus transfigured, and therefore simply invented Mary’s eye-witness to it. Peter Chrysologus already believed Mary was present at the Resurrection, and therefore simply assumed that she must have been present in the person of Mary Magdalene. In every case, the belief came first, and the evidence followed. 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.

The Roman Catholic reader may well object that I have merely defined what tradition is—an extra-biblical source of revelation that complements the Scripture—without actually refuting it. But that is the point. Tradition is nothing more than this: historical revisionism in order to make the data consistent with an already determined belief or practice. It simply doesn’t matter what Scripture reveals—e.g., that Mary Magdalene was first to witness the Resurrection—what matters is what Roman Catholics believe to be true. The data can always be fabricated later to support it. This what Jesus meant when he said, “ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.” (Matthew 15:6) The Christian must have a very different approach: What is taught in the Scripture must be the source of what we believe.

We will remind the reader in closing that gross errors originated with men—Philetus, Alexander and Hymenaeus—who were directly exposed to the Apostles’ teachings (1 Timothy 1:20, 2 Timothy 2:17); and the rumor that the beloved disciple would not die came from men who “felt authorized” to place on Jesus’ lips the words: “He shall not die.” (John 21:20-23).



TOPICS: Apologetics; Evangelical Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: epistemology; eucharistic; mariolatry; mary; moacb; presbyhate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-145 next last
To: rbmillerjr

And we should care about the opinions of man over the word of God for what reason?


101 posted on 06/06/2015 8:10:04 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

Just what are those traditions that Catholics claim have been orally passed down from the apostles?

How can you be sure that they are indeed from Paul?

How do you know they’ve been faithfully paased down with no change?

Please proof of your claim and provide documentation to support your claim


102 posted on 06/06/2015 8:14:31 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

You disagree and stay or leave.


103 posted on 06/06/2015 8:15:37 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr
“and if he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican” (Matt., xviii, 17);

Did you get this from STA??


STA apparently CHOOSES to give a false imprssion every time he writes:
 
"If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector." --Jesus
 
 

Matthew 18:15-17 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA) 

15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.

16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.

17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

104 posted on 06/07/2015 3:16:39 AM PDT by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr
So, in your church, if you have a disagreement with your preacher or elder on a faith matter...What do you do?

It's the same as we do here on FR; but a bit more private.

First; determine as to whether the P/E disagrees with the churches/denomination's PUBLISHED stand on the matter.

If they match; you AIN'T gonna win!

Second; we sit down and examine where we disagree and WHY.


Who knows?

You might be holding the minority opinion on the matter in that church.


Remember:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 King James Version (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.


(I doubt that 'tradition' has been given this supreme standard; but who knows.)

105 posted on 06/07/2015 3:25:41 AM PDT by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Hey MM, Els. I just had an epiphany, an historic moment of Einstein type brilliance just flashed across my highly accurate brain. 😎 We keep asking those other folks, for a list of the oral traditions that the apostles allegedly handed down. What if one of the oral traditions, was sola scriptura? 😱🙉 Do you think heads might explode if that is true? 😂😆
106 posted on 06/07/2015 3:44:58 AM PDT by Mark17 (Through all my days, and then in Heaven above, my song will silence never, I'll worship Him forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Els, I was attending a church in Fairfield, CA some years ago. There was a youth pastor, who I thought was pretty cool. Suddenly, him, his wife, his brother and his parents just disappeared. After a few months, I finally asked the pastor what happened to all of them. He said they were asked to leave, over a MAJOR doctrinal difference. They did not accept the deity of Christ. They thought he was just a mere man, and they would not budge on it. For a minute, I thought I was in the INC. They don’t accept it either. You talk about the tares among the wheat.


107 posted on 06/07/2015 3:57:50 AM PDT by Mark17 (Through all my days, and then in Heaven above, my song will silence never, I'll worship Him forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Mark17
Do you think heads might explode if that is true?

No.

They've been SHOWN the Matt 16:18 thing over and over.

No cranial leakage noted.

108 posted on 06/07/2015 4:14:28 AM PDT by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Mark17

I guess only their “traditions” count.


109 posted on 06/07/2015 5:32:54 AM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr
“if any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.]”
The other Scripture was related more to the root of error. This Scripture is related directly. Now, I have responded specifically.

No not yet..I am looking for a scriptural source for this thought..

110 posted on 06/07/2015 6:02:18 AM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr; Salvation; metmom
Sola scriptura is self-refuting.
It is not in the Bible.

Like the Trinity it is there ..

But what amazes me that Romanists love to chew on this bone when 75% of RC beliefs are not scriptural

111 posted on 06/07/2015 6:06:27 AM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

“I am looking for a scriptural source for this thought.”

“Who is not with me is against me” (Luke, xi, 23); “and if he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican” (Matt., xviii, 17); “he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mark, xvi, 16). The Apostles acted upon their Master’s directions. All the weight of their own Divine faith and mission is brought to bear upon innovators. “If any one”, says St. Paul, “preach to you a gospel, besides that you have received, let him be anathema” (Gal., i, 9). To St. John the heretic is a seducer, an antichrist, a man who dissolves Christ (I John, iv, 3; II John, 7); “receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you” (II John, 10). St. Peter, true to his office and to his impetuous nature, assails them as with a two-edged sword: “... lying teachers who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction.


112 posted on 06/07/2015 7:24:18 AM PDT by rbmillerjr (Reagan conservative: All 3 Pillars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

So, in your church, if you have a disagreement with your preacher or elder on a faith matter...What do you do?

“It’s the same as we do here on FR; but a bit more private.
First; determine as to whether the P/E disagrees with the churches/denomination’s PUBLISHED stand on the matter...”

And this is why since the 1500s, the Protestants have been in a constant state of schism, devolving and falling away, disunited from Christ’s Church, breaking up into thousands of disparate pieces. There is no argument on their part for being “...one, holy, catholic and apostolic church”.


113 posted on 06/07/2015 7:30:28 AM PDT by rbmillerjr (Reagan conservative: All 3 Pillars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Salvation; Grateful2God; georgia girl; NYer; Steelfish; Arthur McGowan; goodwithagun; ...
The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

GREAT please show us this definition in the Bible along with chapter and verse.

BTW thank you for FINALLY giving James white credit for this definition.

114 posted on 06/07/2015 1:32:54 PM PDT by verga (I might as well be playng chess with pigeons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr
And this is why since the 1500s, the Protestants have been in a constant state of schism, devolving and falling away, disunited from Christ’s Church, breaking up into thousands of disparate pieces.

Oh?

And this is why since 33AD, the Catholics have been in a constant state of schism, devolving and falling away, disunited from Christ; breaking up into GOD only knows disparate pieces.

115 posted on 06/07/2015 7:19:26 PM PDT by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: metmom
How do you know what is taught today is what was taught then? IOW, prove to us that they were handed down faithfully, without corruption?

How do you know that the new testament scriptures and books which were handed down to you by the Catholic church were done faithfully and without corruption?????same way....you take their word for it.

116 posted on 06/07/2015 8:48:16 PM PDT by terycarl (COMMON SENSE PREVAILS OVERALL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
You guys constantly change the words of scripture to fit your theology...

Why would we do that??....we wrote the words in the first place.

117 posted on 06/07/2015 8:50:20 PM PDT by terycarl (COMMON SENSE PREVAILS OVERALL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Mary's assumption is man made: It is not in the Bible.

The story of the Nativity is in the Bible, Bethlehem, no room at the inn, manger in a stable, angels singing on high, shepherds milling about.etc. etc..

118 posted on 06/07/2015 9:01:31 PM PDT by terycarl (COMMON SENSE PREVAILS OVERALL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: metmom
I know men can lie and God can’t.

As in "TAKE AND EAT, THIS IS MY BODY" and someone saying that isn't what He meant

Like that you mean???

119 posted on 06/07/2015 9:09:55 PM PDT by terycarl (COMMON SENSE PREVAILS OVERALL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Mary's assumption is man made: It is not in the Bible.

The story of the Nativity is in the Bible, Bethlehem, no room at the inn, manger in a stable, angels singing on high, shepherds milling about.etc. etc..

who do you think narrated that story to the evangelists, Mary or Joseph??....They were the only 2 people on Earth who could have.......and when???

120 posted on 06/07/2015 9:13:34 PM PDT by terycarl (COMMON SENSE PREVAILS OVERALL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-145 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson