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:
“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 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)
“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).
Far more often than not we do NOT say 'that's not what those verses mean'...Usually what we say is, 'that's not what those verses say'...You guys constantly change the words of scripture to fit your theology...
And maybe you've been sniffing ether...
Millions of the Jaredites are slain in battle—Shiz and Coriantumr assemble all the people to mortal combat—The Spirit of the Lord ceases to strive with them—The Jaredite nation is utterly destroyed—Only Coriantumr remains.
1 And it came to pass when Coriantumr had recovered of his wounds, he began to remember the awords which Ether had spoken unto him.
2 He saw that there had been slain by the sword already nearly atwo millions of his people, and he began to sorrow in his heart; yea, there had been slain two millions of mighty men, and also their wives and their children.
3 He began to repent of the evil which he had done; he began to remember the words which had been spoken by the mouth of all the prophets, and he saw them that they were fulfilled thus far, every whit; and his soul amourned and refused to be bcomforted.
4 And it came to pass that he wrote an epistle unto Shiz, desiring him that he would spare the people, and he would give up the kingdom for the sake of the lives of the people.
5 And it came to pass that when Shiz had received his epistle he wrote an epistle unto Coriantumr, that if he would give himself up, that he might slay him with his own sword, that he would spare the lives of the people.
6 And it came to pass that the people repented not of their iniquity; and the people of Coriantumr were stirred up to anger against the people of Shiz; and the people of Shiz were stirred up to anger against the people of Coriantumr; wherefore, the people of Shiz did give battle unto the people of Coriantumr.
7 And when Coriantumr saw that he was about to fall he fled again before the people of Shiz.
8 And it came to pass that he came to the waters of Ripliancum, which, by interpretation, is large, or to exceed all; wherefore, when they came to these waters they pitched their tents; and Shiz also pitched his tents near unto them; and therefore on the morrow they did come to battle.
9 And it came to pass that they fought an exceedingly sore battle, in which Coriantumr was wounded again, and he fainted with the loss of blood.
10 And it came to pass that the armies of Coriantumr did press upon the armies of Shiz that they beat them, that they caused them to flee before them; and they did flee southward, and did pitch their tents in a place which was called Ogath.
11 And it came to pass that the army of Coriantumr did pitch their tents by the hill Ramah; and it was that same hill where my father Mormon did ahide up the records unto the Lord, which were sacred.
12 And it came to pass that they did gather together all the people upon all the face of the land, who had not been slain, save it was Ether.
13 And it came to pass that Ether did abehold all the doings of the people; and he beheld that the people who were for Coriantumr were gathered together to the army of Coriantumr; and the people who were for Shiz were gathered together to the army of Shiz.
14 Wherefore, they were for the space of four years gathering together the people, that they might get all who were upon the face of the land, and that they might receive all the strength which it was possible that they could receive.
15 And it came to pass that when they were all gathered together, every one to the army which he would, with their wives and their children—both men, women and children being armed with aweapons of war, having shields, and bbreastplates, and head-plates, and being clothed after the manner of war—they did march forth one against another to battle; and they fought all that day, and conquered not.
16 And it came to pass that when it was night they were weary, and retired to their camps; and after they had retired to their camps they took up a howling and a alamentation for the loss of the slain of their people; and so great were their cries, their howlings and lamentations, that they did rend the air exceedingly.
17 And it came to pass that on the morrow they did go again to battle, and great and terrible was that day; nevertheless, they conquered not, and when the night came again they did rend the air with their cries, and their howlings, and their mournings, for the loss of the slain of their people.
18 And it came to pass that Coriantumr wrote again an epistle unto Shiz, desiring that he would not come again to battle, but that he would take the kingdom, and spare the lives of the people.
19 But behold, the aSpirit of the Lord had ceased striving with them, and bSatan had full power over the chearts of the people; for they were given up unto the hardness of their hearts, and the blindness of their minds that they might be destroyed; wherefore they went again to battle.
20 And it came to pass that they fought all that day, and when the night came they slept upon their swords.
21 And on the morrow they fought even until the night came.
22 And when the night came they were adrunken with anger, even as a man who is drunken with wine; and they slept again upon their swords.
23 And on the morrow they fought again; and when the night came they had all fallen by the sword save it were fifty and two of the people of Coriantumr, and sixty and nine of the people of Shiz.
24 And it came to pass that they slept upon their swords that night, and on the morrow they fought again, and they contended in their might with their swords and with their shields, all that day.
25 And when the night came there were thirty and two of the people of Shiz, and twenty and seven of the people of Coriantumr.
26 And it came to pass that they ate and slept, and prepared for death on the morrow. And they were large and mighty men as to the strength of men.
27 And it came to pass that they fought for the space of three hours, and they fainted with the loss of blood.
28 And it came to pass that when the men of Coriantumr had received sufficient strength that they could walk, they were about to flee for their lives; but behold, Shiz arose, and also his men, and he swore in his wrath that he would slay Coriantumr or he would perish by the sword.
29 Wherefore, he did pursue them, and on the morrow he did overtake them; and they fought again with the sword. And it came to pass that when they had aall fallen by the sword, save it were Coriantumr and Shiz, behold Shiz had fainted with the loss of blood.
30 And it came to pass that when Coriantumr had leaned upon his sword, that he rested a little, he smote off the head of Shiz.
31 And it came to pass that after he had smitten off the head of Shiz, that Shiz raised up on his hands and afell; and after that he had struggled for breath, he died.
32 And it came to pass that aCoriantumr fell to the earth, and became as if he had no life.
33 And the Lord spake unto Ether, and said unto him: Go forth. And he went forth, and beheld that the words of the Lord had all been fulfilled; and he afinished his brecord; (and the chundredth part I have not written) and he hid them in a manner that the people of Limhi did find them.
34 Now the last words which are written by aEther are these: Whether the Lord will that I be translated, or that I suffer the will of the Lord in the flesh, it mattereth not, if it so be that I am bsaved in the kingdom of God. Amen.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/15
And yet the BOOK says...
Ether 14:22
And so swift and speedy was the war that there was none left to bury the dead, but they did march forth from the shedding of blood to the shedding of blood, leaving the bodies of both men, women, and children strewed upon the face of the land, to become a prey to the worms of the flesh.
No need to ping our FR Mormons; as they haven't been responding anyway.
But what IS in it is ENOUGH to save a person, clean him up, and send him to Heaven.
I still await any Catholic who can show me what the church at Rome provides that is ALSO needed to get the job done.
No need to 'defend' something that Catholics cannot show to be insufficient!
Pssst one of them is called the Bible, the Catholic Bible that is, not one of the abbreviated version prots like to use.
There are NO tanks in Baghdad!
NONE!!!
I just did. Scripture is the very God breathed word of God. It is authoritative because God is authoritative and it is truth because God is truth.
Jesus clearly thought the word was sufficient. When tempted by Satan in the wilderness, all He did was quote Scripture at him and that was the end of it.
and you have not showed one iota of proof that Catholics do not defend their own Doctrine.
I have one right now. You didn't answer my questions.
Interesting, isn't it, that sS is condemned for the very thing Catholicism does and is.
They claim that sS isn't adequate for salvation and yet cannot guarantee salvation to those who follow Catholicism.
I’m thinking that once again we will get crickets.
Sola scriptura is self-refuting.
It is not in the Bible.
The first: When we are challenged to support sS, we do it.
o Not hard to find evidence. There are a few posts right in THIS very thread. I'll point you to them if need be. You can get to them easily because they follow the principle that scripture is quoted. Look for quoted scripture.
By the way, if you want to take the "different interpretations" route, I welcome it. That is usually a charge that is made but hardly ever explored.
I welcome that challenge because I WANT to understand how to interpret scripture correctly. If anyone brings something that could change my interpretation (through proper hermeneutics), then I'M GOOD WITH THAT! But I will not explore the use of apocrypha. If this disturbs you, just don't respond.
The second: When Catholics are challenged to support sacred tradition, all we get is Crickets.
o Here's where the challenge is. The "evidence" given usually is an article of faith, as in this:
I choose the Catholic church with all of its sacraments, traditions, saints, devotions, universality, teachings, readings and anything else I want to through in there. I believe that the Catholic church was the one founded by Christ himself, I believe in the true presence in Christ in the Eucharist, I believe in the forgiveness of sins in the confessional, I believe in a hell and purgatory, I actually believe more people go to hell then heaven. I can choose to believe or not private revelations of Marian apparitions. Which I do believe the church approved apparitions of Fatima and Lourdes and her messages to pray for world peace. I believe Mary has her place in God's plan of salvation, and that is to lead everyone to heaven. I believe God wants us to pray for the world, and the rosary is a good means to do that. I believe Protestants are the ones who have been deceived by satan, just look at the fruits that have been produced, 30,000+ different denominations. He has done a great job of blinding the truth and deceiving many into the belief that Christ's true church is false. I will stay right where I am, in the one, universal, catholic and apostolic church of the Catholic Faith. No matter what happens on the outside, the truth of the faith will remain the same now and forever.
Another:
Again, you should thank the Catholic Church for following sacred tradition and preserving the Bible so that you can read it and dispute the words of God that you do not agree with.
Here, a poster made a challenge:
Please prove that what the Catholic Church teaches as "tradition" is exactly what the apostles were teaching that they called tradition. If you cannot we must understand that the Catholic Church teaches "another gospel" and is to be considered accursed.
Here's the response:
No replies.
I admit, I threw that in for fun. You could probably find many examples where a Christian is asked to prove sS and you get crickets. That's why I said at the top that you made an interesting challenge - to find "evidence" for the two assertions.
There's "evidence" of failure to provide "evidence" for both allegations to be found, I'm sure. This is easy to understand. A challenging post is missed. The other side has grown weary of responding. For me, I sometimes realize that I am very close to sin - so I repent from a bad attitude and back off.
I think the general rule is that Christians use scripture to defend scripture and Catholics use tradition to defend tradition. Both are acting out of faith.
I believe Scripture is perfect. My understanding may be flawed (but it is always getting BETTER.)
I believe man is inherently flawed - and to rely on the traditions of men is risky business.
...sorry I rambled on.
Ayup. Right on schedule... the anti-Catholic express.
I don’t suppose you’ve found the Scripture which teaches “sola Scriptura” yet, have you?
It is not in the Bible.
Mary's assumption is man made:
It is not in the Bible.
Right on schedule... the Catholic wannabe apologists..
"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours." — Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215)
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. — Vatican 1, Ses. 4, Cp. 1
“Sola scriptura is self-refuting.
It is not in the Bible.
Mary’s assumption is man made:
It is not in the Bible.
Didn’t you post the list of logical fallacies. Guess which one this is lol.
Anyway, glad to see you are admitting sola scriptura is not in the Bible and thus self-refutes itself.
Meaning...?
1. You like to point out words and twists of words. I've seen you do it over and over again.
Where do you see my post say, "Catholics are not Christians" - as you declare? Are you guilty of misquoting me? Who's worming words here, sir?
Now, you may rightly quote this:
I have no problem saying that I do not believe most Roman Catholics are headed for glory. THAT is exactly why I am active in these threads. I have been clear about that at every turn.
You will argue my assertion. And I will say, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." You will say that refers to me and I, you perhaps.
"...because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him until that day."
Here's something else you may quote:
I am not opposed to Catholics. I am opposed to Catholicism. I am not anti-Catholic. I am anti-Catholicism.
I KNOW the harm that the institution does and I oppose it.
2. Still, I made an attempt at discussing the challenge. Why don't you stick to the topic instead of attacking the messenger(s)? Is it so hard to have a civilized debate?
THAT would be "classy".
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.