No Ideology – Just Facts!
The Source of Sacred Tradition
The Roman Catholic Church indelibly asserts that their “sacred tradition” was truly transmitted by the apostles and preserved through the ages by the “teaching Authority.” The assertion is clearly stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia under “Tradition and Living Magisterium.”
“The Council [of Trent], as is evident, held that there are Divine traditions not contained in Holy Scripture, revelations made to the Apostles either orally by Jesus Christ or by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and transmitted by the Apostles to the Church.”
Yet when put those traditions to the test, nothing from ante-Nicene history can be found to support them but sketchy out-of-context evidence. And that’s for only a few of the doctrines, for most no evidence can be found at all. The Catholic Church, however, is not ignorant of this fact; in fact they justify the discrepancies in the same article.
“The designation of unwritten Divine traditions was not always given all the clearness desirable especially in early times… The living magisterium, therefore, makes extensive use of documents of the past, but it does so while judging and interpreting, gladly finding in them its present thought, but likewise, when needful, distinguishing its present thought from what is traditional only in appearance. It is revealed truth always living in the mind of the Church, or, if it is preferred, the present thought of the Church in continuity with her traditional thought, which is for it the final criterion, according to which the living magisterium adopts as true or rejects as false the often obscure and confused formulas which occur in the monuments of the past. Thus are explained both her respect for the writings of the Fathers of the Church and her supreme independence towards those writings–she judges them more than she is judged by them.”
In other words, the truth does not exist within the historical evidence, according the Catholic Church it resides in the mind, or present thought of the “teaching authority.” But it stands to reason that if the apostles passed on those doctrines, history must support it. It is not reasonable that present thought should contradict traditional thought and still be regard as truth. Why would the Holy Spirit lead early church leaders to believe something contrary to what He leads current leaders to believe?
The truth of history makes no difference to the Catholic hierarchy because they believe that they alone are the keepers of truth. They decide what is true or untrue regardless of the evidence. Since they alone are the true interpreters of the Bible, guided by divine assistance, according to them, they interpret Mathew 28:20 as applying to them. And in their ostentatious minds, they like to imagine that God has granted them infallibility. One might logically ask, as if logic has anything to do with it, why the Bible is not expanding with time. But I suppose that even the most pretentious have their limits.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Brian Culliton on December 9, 2009 at 9:51 pm, and is filed under Catholicism, Early Church, apologetics. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
No trackbacks yet.
John Martignoni’s video apologetics
about 2 months ago - 3 comments
Catholic apologist, John Martignoni decided to take his one-man apologetics show to You Tube. He intends to present a series called, “Questions Protestants can’t Answer.” He opens the series with this question: “Is a dead body really a body?” The analogy is that a body without a spirit is still a body though be it
Irenaeus’ incidental comment on the substance of the Eucharist
about 3 months ago - No comments
More evidence to refute the notion that the early church believed the Eucharist is the literal flesh and blood of Christ. “For when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practiced] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say
One man’s opinion on the Bread of Life Discourse
about 4 months ago - No comments
“He says, it is true, that the flesh profits nothing; but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with
The Prodigal Son: Not Conducive with Catholic Doctrine
about 5 months ago - No comments
The following quote is taken from John Martignoni’s latest newsletter where he attempts to unite Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son with the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation. The two have nothing in common so I thought I would provide a biblical and reasonable response. “The son was alive, he was a member of his
Why Catholics should stop listening to their apologists and read the Bible
about 6 months ago - 13 comments
The following was posted on the Catholic Answers forum on the topic of Peter as the foundation of the church. This quote represents fairly well the Catholic understanding of what the foundation of the church is. Out of everything discussed on that particular thread, this, believe it or not, was the most in-depth any Catholic
Response to Martignoni’s “Biblical Evidence” for the Catholic Mass (Part 2)
about 7 months ago - No comments
…Continued from part 1 Quote from Catholic apologist John Martignoni: In the New Testament, Paul also very clearly describes the Mass as being a sacrifice when he links the “bread” and the “cup of blessing” to the sacrifices of Israel and to the practice of the Israelites eating the sacrifice that has been offered (1
Response to Martignoni’s “Biblical Evidence” for the Catholic Mass (Part 1)
about 8 months ago - 2 comments
Catholic apologist, John Martignoni, in his latest newsletter asks his readers (of which I am one) to respond to an email he received from a non-Catholic. The email Mr. Martignoni received was rather brusque and only offered someone else’s article as a response to his earlier newsletter. Martignoni’s objection to his challenger’s email was that
Where do infants go when they die?
about 9 months ago - No comments
Q: Hi Brian, I was reading this article again [If a baby dies, does it go to Heaven or Hell?], and I was just thinking, what would be a Biblical answer to the question “Where do infants go when they die?” There doesn’t seem to be a clear answer in this article, but I see
Justification: The Power of Catholic Hierarchy
about 10 months ago - No comments
Most of us are not strangers to the often-heated disagreements between Catholics and Evangelicals on the topic of Justification. Are we saved by faith and works or by faith alone? These debates are often centered on James, Chapter 2. Since James plainly states that faith without works is dead, Catholics easily accept the notion that
The Truth behind Catholic Answers Early Church Quotes: Irenaeus on Apostolic Tradition
about 10 months ago - No comments
This is the second post in a series on Catholic Answers apologetics tracts. This week’s post continues in the topic of “Apostolic Tradition.” The second early church quote from Catholic Answers Apostolic Tradition track is from the second century bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus. The quote appears as follows. “As I said before, the Church, having
about 8 months ago
Brian:
I believe your conclusion to be faulty. The Church has millions of pages of documents from the past, and has to be the judge of what is right and what is not right. Remember that we have not recovered everything the Church Fathers wrote, only a portion of it. We know, however, that the Apostolic tradition was passed down from the original Apostles onto those who were to follow the 12. Even amongst the purest and earliest of the followers, some disagreement was evident. For instance, St. Jerome argued about the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical Books in the Holy Writ. Yet, he himself accepted the Church’s decision and admonished those who ridiculed him. Many discussions existed about the antilegomena of the New Testament, yet when the Council of Rome settled the matter, all agreed. The Church has to make prudent decisions as the power of Christ was passed down to the Apostles and onto their followers, the modern day Bishops. The difference is that all those Bishops, who might have disagreed at one time or another, eventually agreed or left the Church, because they understand that the power of the Holy Spirit rests within God’s Church, that He Himself built on the backs of the Apostles. God Bless.
about 8 months ago
What about the so-called apostolic traditions that cannot be traced to the apostles? Take for instance the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary; that did not come from the apostles yet your leadership calls it an apostolic tradition? And that is just one of many examples.
Jerome is not what I call an early follower; he was a Catholic at a time when Catholicism was well underway. The canon of Scripture was closed, not decided by the council of Carthage (the council of Rome is sometimes falsely attributed to this accomplishment). And when the council closed the cannon it was demanded that all obey. In other words, it became forbidden to read in church letters from Polycarp, Clement and others – letters that had historically been part of Christian gatherings.
about 8 months ago
Brian, St. Jerome was not the first to claim that Mary was ever virgin. As a matter of fact, the most clear statement we have comes from the “Protoevangelium of James” 120 AD where both Mary’s ever-virginity and her immaculate conception are explained. St. Jerome, a scholar of the Bible merely repeated what has already been believed for over 300 years by then.
As far as the Canon of Scripture being closed, that’s another matter. The Catholic Church never said that certain books are not canonical, She only said that certain Books are canonical. This did, by the way, happen in the Council of Rome, called for by Pope Damasus, and was repeated in the Council of Carthage as well as much later in the Council of Trent. Too much historical evidence exists for this to be challenged, though if you have evidence please present it. Here is my evidence from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“The first is the so-called “Decretal of Gelasius”, de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent.”
It goes on to say:
“The Synod of Hippo (393) and the three of Carthage (393, 397, and 419), in which, doubtless, Augustine was the leading spirit, found it necessary to deal explicitly with the question of the Canon, and drew up identical lists from which no sacred books are excluded.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
about 8 months ago
Erik,
I didn’t say Jerome was the first to claim that Mary was ever-virgin; what I said about Jerome was in response to your comment. And I agree with you that the Protoevangelium of James is the original source for the belief, but I would dispute the date you gave it since was never referenced before Origen mentioned it in his commentary on Matthew. And what Origen said was interesting because it is clear evidence that there was no apostolic or otherwise orthodox source for that information.
“But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or The Book of James, that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end.” (Origen; Commentary on Matthew; 17)”
What is also interesting is that Tertullian lived at that time and clearly he did not believe Mary remained in virginity after Jesus was born.
And Irenaeus, who wrote earlier than Origen, indicates in a rather mater-of-fact way that Mary did have sexual relations with Joseph after Jesus was born.
“To this effect they testify, saying, that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” (Against Heresies; 3:4)”
The doctrine is simply not apostolic in origin and was not universally believed by Christians in the early church.
about 3 months ago
Brian, St. Jerome was not the first to claim that Mary was ever virgin. As a matter of fact, the most clear statement we have comes from the “Protoevangelium of James” 120 AD where both Mary’s ever-virginity and her immaculate conception are explained. St. Jerome, a scholar of the Bible merely repeated what has already been believed for over 300 years by then.
As far as the Canon of Scripture being closed, that’s another matter. The Catholic Church never said that certain books are not canonical, She only said that certain Books are canonical. This did, by the way, happen in the Council of Rome, called for by Pope Damasus, and was repeated in the Council of Carthage as well as much later in the Council of Trent. Too much historical evidence exists for this to be challenged, though if you have evidence please present it. Here is my evidence from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“The first is the so-called “Decretal of Gelasius”, de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent.”
It goes on to say:
“The Synod of Hippo (393) and the three of Carthage (393, 397, and 419), in which, doubtless, Augustine was the leading spirit, found it necessary to deal explicitly with the question of the Canon, and drew up identical lists from which no sacred books are excluded.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
about 3 months ago
I don’t know why you think I made the claim that Jerome was the first to claim Mary as ever virgin; I never said that anywhere. You are right; the Protoevangelium of James is the origin of that belief, which is evident from Origen’s commentary on Matthew. I do, however, think your date of 120 A.D. is a bit early. The work is obviously fraudulent, but that has never stopped people from believing what it claims.
I stated in my article that the earliest council to address the canonical list is probably Hippo in 393. I have revised it to read, “The earliest council to make a formal pronouncement on the canonical list is probably Carthage in 397.” It is obvious from the article itself that the former statement is incorrect. Since the proceedings of the Hippo council are not extant, I opted to drop the mention of it from the article. The proceedings of Hippo were, however, summarized at Carthage. The evidence is that the council of Carthage forbade the reading of non-canonical books.