Follow
The Roman Catholic Church believes that the Word of God is transmitted to the Church by Tradition, the Scriptures and the Magisterium (i.e., popes, councils, etc…). According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (81),
Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.
Christians hold to Sola Scriptura (the written Word of God alone) while Roman Catholics hold to Sola Verbum Dei (the Word of God alone), as transmitted by Tradition, etc… Roman Catholic apologist, Scott Hahn, makes this point nicely in his book, Rome Sweet Home (p. 74). The Roman Catholic Church sees “Tradition” as part of the Word of God, and thus, it makes little sense (to Roman Catholics) when Christians say that Rome’s “Tradition” goes against “the Word of God.” Tradition, to them, is the Word of God.
Therefore, to the Roman apologist, there is no tension when Tradition includes doctrines not explicitly included in the Bible. Tradition merely helps us understand what Scripture means. This leads to some interesting arguments, like this one from Roman apologist Robert Sungenis, who says, if Roman Catholic teachings are in the Bible, then I should be able to find them somewhere else. This is like saying, “If apples are at the grocery store, then I should be able to find them at the hardware store next door.” Listen to his reasoning from his talk, How the Bible Converted Me to Catholicism:
But over and over again, I was making the stunning discovery that all of these teachings were rooted in Sacred Scripture. Now, I thought, if they are in Scripture, then I would expect the immediate successors of the writers of Scripture, those who succeeded the Apostles, who took over for them in governing the churches of the first century, and the second, and the third, I would expect their teaching to be in line with the teaching of Scripture.
Let’s dismiss (or rather, let Paul dismiss) one aspect of Sungenis’ reasoning from the outset. Paul warned explicitly that the next generation after the apostles would be one in which dangerous doctrines emerged even from within the Church. Grievous wolves from outside the church and from within it, would immediately start to deceive the flock: They shall “enter in among you, … Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:29-30). Paul warns explicitly that we must not trust “those who succeeded the Apostles, who took over for them in governing the churches of the first century, and the second, and the third.” Rather, he commends the church to trust in “God’s word” (Acts 20:32), thus distinguishing between “the Word of God” and Tradition taught by “the successors of the apostles.” They are clearly not the same thing. Sungenis, facing a choice between the two, trusts those about whom Paul warned us with impassioned pleas. The title of Sungenis’ talk should have been “How the people Paul warned us about converted me to Catholicism.” Yes, that would be a much more fitting title.
But there is another problem with Sungenis’ observation. He suggests that “those who succeeded the Apostles, [in] the first century, and the second, and the third” should be the source of our doctrines, because surely what they taught ought to be in line with the Scriptures.
Along those lines, I have been reading a delightful book by a Thomas Livius, a Roman Catholic priest and Marian devotee from the 1800s. His book, The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries, is an exceptionally helpful compilation of writings of the Church Fathers. This is where Sungenis thought he could find the real meaning of Scripture, and where the Catechism informs us that the Word of God has been transmitted to the successors of the Apostles.
In Luke 2:35, Simeon tells us that a sword shall pierce Mary’s soul. What precisely does this mean? Only Tradition, says the Roman Catholic Church, can inform us! Whatever its meaning, Sungenis says the “churches of the first century, and the second, and the third” will tell us! Very well. Keeping in mind that what follows are the earliest expositions in the history of the church on “the sword” that pierces Mary’s soul, let us see what “the sword” means. Surely Tradition won’t mislead us!:
Origen (185-254 AD): What! Are we to suppose that when the apostles were scandalized, the Lord’s Mother was exempt from scandal? If she suffered not scandal in the Lord’s Passion, Jesus did not die for her sins. But if all have sinned, and need the glory of God, being justified and redeemed by His grace; assuredly Mary was at that time scandalized. And this it is that Simeon now prophesies… even thee [Mary] shall the sword of unbelief pierce, and thou shalt be struck with the spear of doubt, and thy thoughts shall tear thee asunder…
Basil (330 – 379 AD): Since every soul at the time of the Passion was subject to some doubting, … Simeon predicts even of Mary herself, that … there would be, he says, a certain wavering even about her soul also. … Therefore thyself, too [Mary] … shall some doubt reach.
Cyril of Alexandria (376-444 AD): …perhaps [Mary] … knew not at all that He would be superior to death, and rise again. … [W]onder not if the Virgin knew it not, since too in this we shall find the holy apostles but of little faith.
Rome’s doctrine on Mary is that she was not only sinless, but incapable of unbelief. Yet, these esteemed men of the first three centuries after the apostles believed that “the sword” that pierced Mary’s soul was unbelief—and further that we should not be shocked, because nobody is without sin, not even Mary. It is no surprise to find that Tradition has failed Rome. What’s surprising is Livius’ response: “To the Scriptures!” Livius writes:
Origen’s interpretation of the sword that should pierce the Blessed Virgin’s soul, as one of doubt and unbelief, is not only entirely arbitrary on his part, but also altogether opposed to the obvious tenor of Simeon’s words: there being nothing in them to suggest such a view, but everything rather to the contrary. … Origen’s interpretation is, moreover, opposed to whatever else is written of Mary in the Gospels.” (Livius, 150).
Cheers to Livius who here summarizes our objections to Rome’s many other unbiblical traditions. Livius goes on trying to reconcile Roman Tradition with the the writings of the early church fathers, as have many others besides he. But his struggle to make his faith logically consistent is not my immediate concern. My point here is to expose Tradition for the historical revisionism that it is.
This will ultimately lead us to the concept of Sola Ecclesia—which is Rome’s real epistemology. For now, I wanted to demonstrate that, in a crunch, even the die-hard Roman apologist knows that going back to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd generations after the apostles is not sufficient to guarantee truth. You have to go all the way back to the Scriptures.
Okay Tim, I’m up to your challenge. Let us go back to the scriptures. Skip all development of doctrine in Mariology, theories of the Atonement, the return of Christ, whatever. Tell us your spin on the prophecy of Simeon since it Mary seems to be a topic you like to address.
I’ll just say that it appears to me ( no Church Fathers for me! ) that Mary is offering her Son in the temple as a sacrificial victim. Further, it looks like the piercing Jesus is going to suffer just may be shared by the one person capable of entering into His Passion as no other.
Think of it; down through the centuries, martyrs have died for Christ enduring unspeakable sufferings. They were strengthened in their ordeals by thinking of the sufferings of their Lord. His Passion made their martyrdoms bearable.
Now think of Mary. Jesus’ stripes, nails, thorns, and mockings did not comfort her as she stood at the foot of the cross. On the contrary, they were the source of her sufferings.
Mothers often share in the suffering of their children so much that they actually take on their ailments. They may develop the limp or the cough of a crippled or tuberculous child.
Mary new from the day of her Son’s conception that He was to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah. She new He was to suffer for the sins of mankind. Not only was He her only child but she was His only human parent. Their bond of suffering was sui generis, like no other. And their degree of suffering was like no other. Add to this the fact that Jesus and Mary were capable of feeling the evil of sin as no others can. Most of all, they willed to allow this sufferings for the salvation of the world.
As we are in the Lenten season, I participated in the Way of the Cross earlier this evening. Between each of the the fourteen stations my wife accompanied the parishioners on the organ by playing the Stabat Mater. It goes something like this. Enjoy,
Thanks, Jim,
I will get back to this. Thanks for your patience—busy weekend here.
Tim
Tim,
How does your argument differ from that of the Mormons?
How would you refute their claim that the Church fell into apostasy right after Christ went back to heaven and needed restoring until Joseph Smith fixed things?
You claim the very early Church father but not those after 350 A.D. How can you be sure about them ( as they taught baptismal regeneration and the Eucharist )?
Tim,
It is not like you to neglect your fans for two days. I hope all is well with you and yours.
Or, hopefully, you have been routed by my barrage of attacks on several fronts and you are ready to concede your system is a bankrupt fiasco.
I’s nothing to be ashamed of. I chased James Swan up a tree on his own Boogers All blog. Steve “GabbY” Hays and John “Bugsy” Bugay tremble at the sound of my Guy Fawkes pen name. Lane “Keester” Keister of Green Bigotsrefuses to deal with me out of fear of the logic of my arguments. Turretinfanfare too.
None of them have come to repentance though so you can be the first. You have an open field. Seize the day!
Jim,
I am hoping that Tim has just decided to ignore all your silly posts as they are really time consuming to faithfully respond, at all times knowing that the responses are ignored and generally never even read by you.
I feel sorry for all those blog owners in your list above that get hit with the barrage of smoke and mirrors coming from your keyboard. Whew, it is painful. 🙂
Walt,
Once again you assert. You never actually make an argument. Oh, for sure, you copy and paste long and boring excerpts from Protestant creeds, but you never actually supply a thought of your own. Do you have one?
Over on the Melito discussion you revealed that you had never even heard of the term “Penal Substitution”. This is huge. You admit you know zero about the Protestant understanding of how Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary brought about redemption ( FOR ALL MEN ) and yet you are sure the Catholic position is right out of hell. How is that?
Blah, Blah, Blah. Can you actually pick up the gauntlet gathering dust at your feet day I threw down days, nay, weeks, ago?
You bray on and on about satanic this and satanic that as if you had a clue what you are even talking about. You make the stupidity of Kevin Falloni look intelligent.
Defend the Calvinist blasphemy of the Father loathing Jesus. Explain how the Second Person of the Trinity could have feared going to hell. Explain how, despite the crystal cleat teaching of the Bible, that Christ died only for some or that God does not desire the salvation of all men. Show me one passage from the OT where a sacrificial victim was punished in lieu of the owner. Explain why Jesus is not now burning in hell if he was our substitute in the Calvinist scheme. ( Tim just posts ridiculous new articles about Catholic theologians denying the cross as his way of defending Calvinism. Can you do any better? )
Do something, anything, but take Kevin’s place as resident boot licker to Tim. Stop trashing my religion until you can defend your own. If you don’t know why Protestantism is true, how can you know Catholicism is wrong or “satanic”.
And for the last time, put your pants on. Get out of that silly kilt and drop the Scottish nonsense.
1Tim 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, 1Tim 1:2 To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. 1Tim 1:3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, 1Tim 1:4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. 1Tim 1:5 The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 1Tim 1:6 Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, 1Tim 1:7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions. 1Tim 1:8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 1Tim 1:9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 1Tim 1:10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 1Tim 1:11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. 1Tim 1:12 I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, 1Tim 1:13 though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, 1Tim 1:14 and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. 1Tim 1:15 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. 1Tim 1:16 But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life. 1Tim 1:17 To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. 1Tim 1:18 This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, 1Tim 1:19 holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, 1Tim 1:20 among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.