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).
You are ignoring that sola scriptura is not scriptural. This is because it refutes itself. This is foundational to the very core of lies that is protestantism.
The point must be deflected away from, as nobody has a substantive answer, and it rocks protestantism to its very core.
On the other hand, Christ’s Church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. Compared the the many, vain, divided and rejecting of Truth breakaways.
No; it does not.
I do; however; applaud your dogmatism.
LOL...And I, yours.
Els, I was under the impression that you had PHD in guessing. Maybe I was mistaken. 😂😇😱😎😆
“For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. 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.]”
Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians,3(A.D. 110),in ANF,3:80
It was in dot connecting
In conclusion let us summarize this grand key, these “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet”, for our salvation depends on them.
1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.
I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true. If we want to know how well we stand with the Lord then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal captain—how close do our lives harmonize with the Lord’s anointed—the living Prophet—President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency.
Ezra Taft Benson
(Address given Tuesday, February 26, 1980 at Brigham Young University) http://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng
Can you be more clear in your pinging me to your selection of LDS text?
Could you give the scriptural foundation Ignatius used for this ??
Part of the reason I commented (and I tend to do this no matter what the subject) is that there IS no way to prove an “we/they always this, whereas they/we always that” assertion. These RF threads often go on for thousands of comments because people put a great deal of effort into proving their Doctrine, but it does ultimately come down to making a choice regarding what you will believe.
Scripture is truth and by being the very breathed out by the Holy Spirit word of God, it is inherently authoritative.
God Himself tells us that it is adequate for thoroughly equipping the man of God for every good work.
Catholics say this isn’t so.
Someone is right and someone is wrong and I’m throwing my lot in with God.
I know men can lie and God can’t.
So Catholics can repeat the lie of the enemy all they want by questioning what God really said, but it isn’t going to end well for people who insist that God is lying.
Excellent post.
People should mark it as a benchmark. It explains Sola Scriptura. It justifies Sola Scriptura.
The keywords to me are “thoroughly equipping.” Nothing else is necessary. The “good work” is the work of the “doulos” (the servant or slave who has been redeemed or bought with a price) and it follows the faithful trust in what God has already done: He sent His Son to pay the price we could not afford.
Good works do not justify us. We are bankrupt. Jesus Christ did everything for us. We are made righteous because of the righteousness of Christ.
That is the gospel. That is the truth. That is the very essence of what we need to know. It is the underlying story of the entirety of scripture. It is the story of God’s love for us.
If I add to it (or worse change it), then I am saying God’s Word is inadequate and insufficient. I am carving my own image of God and I am placing myself above him.
“Could you give the scriptural foundation Ignatius used for this ? “
” 2 Thessalonians 2:15, “Stand firm, and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
“1 Thessalonians 2:13: “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God...”
Here we see Paul putting oral tradition on the same level as written tradition. It seems such a leap for many modern day Christians, but when you think about it, our first Christians had Jesus Christ first, then the Church, then the Bible. So, it many spiritual sense as it is commanded of us and logical sense.
So, in your church, if you have a disagreement with your preacher or elder on a faith matter...What do you do?
no
If I did not agree with their plan of salvation, I wouldn't be in that church in the first place. If I disagree with them on such things as finances, or the menu for the Thanksgiving dinner, we simply confrontat them, and try to work things out.
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.]”
I don't think you will get a response mom, because there isn't one.
“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.
Your answer was non-responsive to my question. What do you do in your faith, if you have a disagreement with your preacher regarding serious matters of faith??
“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.
BTTT, brother, you speak the truth.
IOW, follow the church or go to hell.
That’s not what Jesus taught.
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.