Follow-
“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).
Tim, I clicked on “Eucharistic Adoration” and got this. 9???)
Anyway, elsewhere I asked you about the Shew Bread in the Holy Place and if you consider it to have been a “shadow of good things to come”. I guess you haven’t had time to answer.
Also, under “About This Blog ” you mention having once been a follower of Fatima, Lourdes and Guadalupe.
As a devotee of Fatima, did you make the 5 First Saturdays?
Please tell me you did.
Tim, you wrote:
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.
Would you say this is another reason to support the WCF statement…”which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary” ?
Eric,
Thanks for writing. I wouldn’t state it as a “reason to support” the Westminster confession statement. Rather, I would say that when it comes to epistemology, there has to be a singular starting point, and axiom (that first unprovable assumption), from which everything else is logically deduced.
Either you assume what the Church Fathers said is true, and use them to arrive at the correct interpretation of the Scriptures, or you assume that the Scriptures are true, and use them determine the fidelity of the Church Fathers. Either you start from the assumption that the Roman Church is the True Church, and use that to arrive at the proper interpretation of the Scriptures, or you start from the assumption that the Scriptures are true, and use them to arrive at a proper understanding of the Church. What is circular about Roman Epistemology is that it tries to have it both ways. Livius, for example, went to the Church Fathers to determine the correct teachings of the Church, and ended up using the teachings of the Church (an an apparition) to correct the Church Fathers.
When a teaching of a church father agrees with the teachings of the Roman Church, the Roman apologist will point to the father and claim apostolicity. When a teaching of a church father disagrees with the current teaching of the Roman Church, the Roman apologist will point to the teaching of the Church and claim that the Church father was not aware of Church teachings. This is circular, to be sure, but it also reveals that Rome, too, has an axiom of its own, and it is this: Sola Ecclesia. It basically comes down to this: The Roman Catholic Church is the True Church. It is by means of this axiom—this first unprovable assumption—that The Scriptures, Church Councils, Church Fathers and even papal statements are judged. And if your axiom is “The Roman Catholic Church is the True Church,” it is logically impossible to arrive at any other conclusion than that the Roman Catholic Church is the True Church.
However, I do not believe that Rome has the correct axiom. The correct axiom is: “The Scripture Alone is the Word of God.” You cannot start at that point and arrive at the Roman Catholic religion, but from that starting point, the Roman Church, Councils, Church Fathers, Papal Statements and yes, even Apparitions of Mary, can be judged. All the Westminster Divines did was acknowledge their axiom. Rome never does.
Thanks,
Tim
Hi Tim,
Glad to see you wrestling with this. I explained it to Eric on “the other blog”some days ago but he wasn’t satisfied.
Tim, rather than stressing what “Roman Apologist” have to say, why not go elsewhere for authority as neither of them are the Pope.
Have you perused the posts I submitted to Walt yesterday? May I stick them to you too Tim?
For example, I must ask you about this ;
“However, I do not believe that Rome has the correct axiom. The correct axiom is: “The Scripture Alone is the Word of God.”
Could you help me see that in scripture itself? And after attempting to do so, could you explain why it isn’t circular reasoning?
Can you show me how it would have been possible before Gutenberg;s time?
As for the fruits of your assertion, I give you Walt’s link in his letter to me this morning. It is proof positive that your axiom is a blue print for disaster.
Tim, I can see clearly now, I should have sent you the stuff I sent to Walt. Walt appears to be using a Catholic Bible ( with Deuterocanonical books ) so he is a bit ahead of you on this issue.
So, as I asked Walt, I will ask you why a simple man like myself should be calling papal statements on Marian apparitions before the bar of scripture?
Did the Bereans put Peter under scrutiny? At the Council of Jerusalem did any Bible Christians demand to know why Peter and the Bishops in union with him had the authority to abrogate the law of circumcision? Did Ananias and Sapphira demand to know how Peter could speak for the Holy Spirit as they were being carried out? Did Peter have to submit his vision of the great net to a panel of yokels like myself with Bibles in my hand?
Ciao
Jim,
Thanks for writing. You made several interesting observations that I will touch on briefly here, and hopefully will expand on in later posts.
I would go to the pope if you could help me understand what papal statements are infallible. Because it is a certainty that some Papal statements are fallible, and it is also a certainty that you do not know which ones are infallible, the Pope serves no purpose in Rome except to project the appearance of infallibility where there is in fact none to be found. If it really is as simple as appealing to his infallible teachings, Rome would produce a list of infallible papal statements before the sun sets today. No such list exists within the deposit of faith. Therefore it is impossible for me to “go to the Pope.”
As you know, it is my pleasure to read your posts, and I will be sure to do so.
Regarding my statement, “The correct axiom is: ‘The Scripture Alone is the Word of God,'” you wrote,
An axiom is a premise, or a starting point for reasoning. A postulate. An assumption. If there were proof for an axiom, it would not be an axiom. It is not circular reasoning to have a starting point. Rome has a starting point of its own, but I don’t believe you know what it is.
The Scriptures predated Gutenberg, Jim. Therefore it was possible to go to the Scriptures before Gutenberg.
Because, among other reasons, “the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple” (Psalms 19:7).
Hi Walt,
I am going to shoot some more stuff over to you to disprove the myth that the Bible is all we need.
Just scroll past Eric W’s post. There is nothing there worth the eye strain.
Walt, probably the nail in the coffin of Bible Alone is that the Bible doesn’t teach it. On the contrary. The Bible ponts to extra-biblical authority. The CHurch, is the “Pillar and foundation” of Truth” in the Bible.
The Bible also established the authority of Tradition. Yes, Walt ,most Protestants are so used to hearing about the “traditions of men”verse that they just skim past what St. Paul says about the authority of Tradition.
I told you just to scroll past Eric’s post. That is because, on another blog, I buried him in scripture about the extra-biblical authority known as the Papacy. He didn’t even give a serious attempt at addressing the tons of stuff I sent him so I don’t even look at his posts anymore.
Walt, Jesus put Peter and his successors in charge as the visible head of His Church. That Church was given assurances by Christ that He wouldn’t let her fall away into error. Since the Church is inerrant/infallible/ the final court of appeal, the Papacy, must be too. The Bible is oh so clear on this.
I am a Bible Christian, Walt. I follow the whole Bible and not just a few verses of ” Paul that the unstable misinterpret to their destruction” ( Pope Peter said this in an encyclical found in the New testament ).
I am going to keep an eye out for your response. While I am going to scroll past silly comments just looking to take up my energy, I do want to continue this with you.
Your brother in Christ, Jim
Jim wrote:
The Bible ponts to extra-biblical authority. The CHurch, is the “Pillar and foundation” of Truth” in the Bible.
Response:
The Bible points to extra-biblical believers. Is the RC willing to identify themselves as a believer.
_______________is a believer by the infused virtue of faith.
Jim, the scripture says the word of God is God breathed. God’s word created the world in Genesis, it called abraham out of a moon worshiping family, it called Lazarus from the dead, and Paul says that men come to faith thru the word of God. The word created the church and not vice versa. So the fact that Rome perverts the gospel and is under the anathema of Galatians and opposes God’s word, it cannot be the true church.
Tim, you wrote:
What is circular about Roman Epistemology is that it tries to have it both ways. Livius, for example, went to the Church Fathers to determine the correct teachings of the Church, and ended up using the teachings of the Church (an an apparition) to correct the Church Fathers.
Do you distinguish between material and formal circles ? I think both sides have material circles, but the formal (vicious) is another issue.
——————–
The correct axiom is: “The Scripture Alone is the Word of God.”
What is the theological status of this statement ? Is it deduced from other axioms ? What apologetical methods do you use to show the truth of this axiom ?
Eric,
Axioms are not deduced from other axioms. They are the starting point. A first assumption. A postulate. If an axiom could be deduced or proven from another axiom, it would not be an axiom.
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.
My reasoning would be circular if I started with “Scripture alone is the Word of God” in order to prove that the Scripture alone is the Word of God. I cannot prove that assumption to be true, and I do not try.
Rome’s arguments, however, are circular. When Livius, for example, attempts to prove Church Teachings from the Church Fathers, he is ostensibly arguing from an assumption that the Church Fathers are the source of Roman Catholic teachings. When he ran into a conflict between the church fathers, he used the Church Teachings to judge between the teachings of Church Fathers and determine which ones are true. This is how he revealed his true axiom. It is apparent that his initial assumption is not really “that the Church Fathers are the source of Roman Catholic teachings.” Clearly, his first assumption, rather, is that the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings are true, and he used that zxiom to judge to Church Fathers, and then concluded, unsurprisingly, that the Catholic Church is indeed teaching the truth. Because he began by assuming what he thought to prove, his argument is circular.
Roman Catholics do not acknowledge that their first assumption, their first unprovable axiom, is that Roman Catholicism is the True Church. This is what I call “Sola Ecclesia.” But the truth is that every argument they make proceeds from that assumption, and the conclusion of every argument is that the assumption is true. That is the very definition of circularity.
Thanks for writing,
Tim
Alright, now prove to me that the books of the Bible are in fact Scripture. It does no good to say, “Scripture alone is the Word of God,” if one does not know for sure what is and is not Scripture.
Eric W, Does not the idea of infuse faith go against what faith is ? Forced faith, can that be faith?
Tim,
Thanks for the reply. I enjoy this blog because you have intimate knowledge of Rome.
——————–
Kevin, you asked:
Does not the idea of infuse faith go against what faith is ? Forced faith, can that be faith?
Response: I don’t think it does. There is a rich heritage of Reformed Scholastic theology that prevents me from being adverse to words like “infuse or habit.” I usually refer to faith as an “abiding principle.” The WCF and RC theology have something in common. It is the formal motive of faith:
By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsover is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking…
———————-
I wrote this
_______________is a believer by the infused virtue of faith.
to reflect RC vocabulary.
Faith is a revealed truth from the deposit of faith. If God gives it to a person, then that person becomes a theological subject. By writing their name in the blank, they are affirming the truth of being a theological subject. They are indirectly interpreting John 17:20.
So what ? Their authorities never infallibly identify “those who believe in Me”, yet the fallible RC who fills in the blank attempts identification. They act like the Pope.
Eric W, got it. that is an interesting instatement in 17:20 ” those who believe in me thru their word.” does this as well as Romans 10: 9-10 and Romans 9:32, strike at the heart of works in justification? Eric W, Is this not the antithesis to Roman justification? And is it not true that those who believe and cooperate ( work) to justification are the people that Paul addresses in 9:32?
Not at all, and if you knew the Scriptures, you would know the difference. It is written, “See that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” Paul concurred, teaching salvation by faith, but not by faith alone, but rather faith working through love.
Tim, I read the most interesting interview with a former Catholic Priest the other day. He said I had basically understood my salvation coming form my good works and sacrifices. He said I used to judge the bible by my church and when the Holy Spirit lifted the veil on my eyes I knew my salvation came form faith alone in christ alone. And I started to judge the church by the bible.
Tim, You have got it wrong. First, Catholics go to the Bible as just an accurate historical document. Not as inspired.
From that historical document we can prove the existence of the Church as started by a man named Jesus Christ. I have read that some say Peter’s office is easier to prove than the Divinity of Christ. I am hesitant to say that but I think it is easier to prove than the Divinity of the Holy Spirit.
Throw in the Fathers, Jews and Roman history and we see the body of believers called Christians being led by a Pope in Rome.
That Body of believers ( led by Peter and successors ) said Jesus was Divine and that He imparted the Holy Spirit to keep the Church from error.
Now we are ready to circle back but this time not to see the Bible as mere history but inspired. Peter is not just the leader of a group of believers in a crucified Jew who made some claims but as an infallible leader protected by God.
Not circular but more of a spiral.
The way you guys approach the Bible is circular.
The Bible points to extra biblical authority Tim. Without that authority, you can’t even say which documents are the Bible. Or, in the words of Kevin’s hero, R.C. Sproul, ” The Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books”.
Jim, Paul wrote Romans in 49 AD and he doesn’t even mention Peter. He greets tons of people in the roman church and in his other Epistles he wrote from Rome and never mentions Peter once. Peter was never in Rome. Paul said Peter was charged with the gospel to the Jews as Paul was to the gentiles.
Kevin,
See how many times “believers” are mentioned in Jim’s post. A fallible RC can only provide a fallible list of “believers with infallible faith.”
Eric W, I get it. Great point.
Kevin,
“Jim, Paul wrote Romans in 49 AD and he doesn’t even mention Peter. ”
Again, Paul did not mention the Virgin Birth of Jesus either. Are we to assume he therefore denied it?
By the way Kevin, it sure is nice over on the other post without you. We are actually having a serious discussion without having to stop and deal with your icky “death wafer” comments. ( You vomited up on that little jewel yesterday on this blog . I forgot to respond in kind to your spicing up the conversation so I should do so now. )
As for your bro’ Robert, we are going to have him swimming the Tiber. I have already got a scapular picked out for him.
We are going to get him eating that death wafer as does Tim’s mom any day now. We will make him “strap Christ down to the altar” and have him ‘replace the savior with bread”. He is all alone without you and we are ganging up on him.
Tim, I hope you read this. You know, I have encouraged readers from the “other blog” to come over and enter the discussion more than once. To date, only Debbie has. Why? Probably because I warned them that Kevin was a “contributor” here. That is enough to scare anyone away.
Dump the guy Tim!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kevin,
Tim has a nice new website. He promotes his publications( yes, Tim is an author ) on it. He has been a featured guest on various Protestant venues as he is an expert on Romanism. He speaks with authority because he has “been there”. Tim is a scholar steeped scripture, philosophy and Church history. He has degrees.
Tim wants to build up his site as a forum for serious discussion.
And then along comes Kevin! Shooting from the lip such low brow things as “death wafer”, you are an embarrassment. Tim wants all the top guns here ( Bryan, Nick, Scott, Jason, etc. ) and what he gets is a Klansman. Tim wants to do rapier like apologetics and you bring an axe to his discussion board. You want Tim to prosper don’t you Kevin? You want Tim to catch the big Catholic and Protestant fish don’t you?
Go away Kevin. You are dragging Tim down. You are a heckler. You have nothing to say. Tim ‘s mom told him about bigots like you when he was a boy. You can lurker on his blog. Just don’t open your mouth.
You have a great day. Your bro’ in Christ, Jim