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).
That’s your strawman.
if I have to explain it...
Well... logical people DO tend to explain things, when given the chance. I’m giving you the chance. So...?
"Protestants are not Christians". Judgmental.
That’s all very dramatic.
Perhaps you’d like to address the question instead of your side-show.
Your are entertaining, though.
Please show where what the Catholic Church calls tradition is written.
Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!
And please show where the apostles taught what the Catholic Church calls tradition and that they are the same things the apostles called "tradition".
If you can't answer both of those questions we must consider the Catholic Church accursed by God.
(??) You’re joking?
No “oops, I guess I *did* categorize Catholics as non-Christians, my bad”? Not even a mention of the question you just asked (in very indignant-sounding tones.. complete with bold-face type)?
It was in comment #60, if that helps you...
Good grief, man.
trinity
catholic
pope
eucharist
sacraments
annulment
assumption
immaculate conception
mass
purgatory
magisterium
infallible
confirmation
crucifix
rosary
mortal sin
venial sin
perpetual virginity
apostolic succession
indulgences
hyperdulia
catechism
real presence
transubstantiation
liturgy
free will
holy water
monstrance
sacred tradition
apostolic succession
Benefactress
Mediatrix
Queen of Heaven
Mother of God
beatific vision
invincible ignorance
Divine Office
guardian angel
Corporal Works of Mercy
Petrine authority
Your point is?
You seem angry.
I wonder what you’re like in person.
Maybe we’ll meet one day.
Maybe not.
In addition to the fact that you’re quite wrong on a few of those items in your list (I note “Eucharist” and “mortal sin”)... have you forgotten that Catholics are not the “sola Scriptura” people, and that you ARE?
Translated: if a “sola Scriptura” person believes in something which isn’t in the Bible, then they’re violating their own “core standard” and “norm of faith”. Catholics aren’t laboring under that disadvantage.
Does that clarify? Perhaps you might address rbmillerjr’s point, now that this misunderstanding has been happily resolved? :)
(*pfft!*) :) FRiend, you’ve annoyed me a bit, to be sure... but I’m not angry. Honestly. Believe me or not, as you like.
I do have to say: a huffy post is followed up by a “Wow, you’re angry!” post... and a complaint about “not sticking to the main topic instead of side-shows” is followed by a comment about what I’m like in person! Are you bucking for the “King of Irony” title for the week? (You’ll have to wrestle metmom, RnMomof7, and Iscool for it, though.) Are you kidding me?
Short answer: when someone gets all huffy with me, I do tend to get a bit more stern; but when they stop with the histrionics, I’m quite happy to chat amicably. Browse the comments I’ve made in the forum, and I think you’ll see that.
Alternately, take a look at your previous comment at #60; you don’t see anger, there? (Or do you just “bold” things at random, in your posts?) I’d gently suggest that you’re projecting a bit, here... in more ways that one.
“That’s your strawman.”
Again, proving you don’t understand the logical fallacies you listed.
“And none of this is found in the Bible either.....
trinity
catholic
pope
eucharist
sacraments”
You do realize the meaning of sola scriptura? The word and meaning of the word itself excludes itself as it is not in the Bible.
So, your exhaustive listing is not valid.
Please - tell me where the phrase "mortal sin" is.
Are there others on the list to "note?"
εὐχαριστέω!
Sure a LOT of guessin’, speculatin’ and imaginin’ going on here!
It is not in the Bible.
Didn’t you post the list of logical fallacies. Guess which one this is lol.
Again, proving you don’t understand the logical fallacies you listed.
If I don't understand; maybe it's because my guesser is broken.
Why don't you post the # of the fallacy that I've missed?
I'm sure the lurkers would like to know what is going on in your mind...
You do NOT realize the origins of Catholic Tradition? The words and meanings of the concepts expose themselves as being cobbled together from various disparate sources in the Bible as well as by visitations by untestable beings .
Isn't that kind of SOP?
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.