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 Gods 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 sourcesFr. Eymards 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 Eymards and Livius thinking:
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)
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)
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 Lords resurrection, and was the first to see, and believed. Mary Magdalene saw, too, though still wavered.' (Livius,191)
S. Peter Chrysologus speaking of Christs resurrection says: Mary [Magdalene] came. This is the name of Christs 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)
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 Ladys 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 Marys 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 isan extra-biblical source of revelation that complements the Scripturewithout 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 doesnt matter what Scripture revealse.g., that Mary Magdalene was first to witness the Resurrectionwhat 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 menPhiletus, Alexander and Hymenaeuswho 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).
And we should care about the opinions of man over the word of God for what reason?
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
You disagree and stay or leave.
Did you get this from STA??
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.
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.)
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.
No.
They've been SHOWN the Matt 16:18 thing over and over.
No cranial leakage noted.
I guess only their “traditions” count.
No not yet..I am looking for a scriptural source for this thought..
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
“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 Masters 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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
Why would we do that??....we wrote the words in the first place.
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..
As in "TAKE AND EAT, THIS IS MY BODY" and someone saying that isn't what He meant
Like that you mean???
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???
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.