Rome's New and Novel Concept of Tradition Living Tradition (Viva Voce

In the history of Roman Catholic dogma, one can trace an evolution in the theory of tradition. There were two fundamental patristic principles which governed the early Church's approach to dogma. The first was sola Scriptura in which the fathers viewed Scripture as both materially and formally sufficient. It was materially sufficient in that it was the only source of doctrine and truth and the ultimate authority in all doctrinal controversies. It was necessary that every teaching of the Church as it related to doctrine be proven from Scripture. Thomas Aquinas articulated this patristic view when he stated that canonical Scripture alone is the rule of faith (sola canonica scriptura est regula fidei). (1) Additionally, they taught that the essential truths of Scripture were perspicuous, that is, that they were clearly revealed in Scripture, so that, by the enablement of the Holy Spirit alone an individual could come to an understanding of the fundamental truths of salvation.

The second is a principle enunciated by the Roman Catholic Councils of Trent (1546-1562) and Vatican I (1870) embodied in the phrase 'the unanimous consent of the fathers.' This is a principle that purportedly looks to the past for validation of its present teachings particularly as they relate to the interpretation of Scripture. Trent initially promulgated this principle as a means of countering the Reformation teachings to make it appear that the Reformers' doctrines were novel and heretical while those of Rome were rooted in historical continuity. It is significant to note that Trent merely affirmed the existence of the principle without providing documentary proof for its validity. Vatican I merely reaffirmed the principle as decreed by Trent. Its historical roots hearken back to Vincent of Lerins in the fifth century who was the first to give it formal definition when he stated that apostolic and catholic doctrine could be identified by a three fold criteria: It was a teaching that had been believed everywhere, always and by all (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est). (2) In other words, the principle of unanimous agreement encompassing universality (believed everywhere), antiquity (believed always) and consent (believed by all). Vincent readily agreed with the principle of sola Scriptura, that is, that Scripture was sufficient as the source of truth. But he was concerned about how one determined what was truly apostolic and catholic doctrine. This was the official position of the Church immediately subsequent to Vincent throughout the Middle Ages and for centuries immediately following Trent. But this principle, while fully embraced by Trent and Vatican I, has all been but abandoned by Rome today in a practical and formal sense. This is due to the fact that so much of Rome's teachings, upon historical examination, fail the test of unanimous consent. Some Roman Catholic historians are refreshingly honest in this assessment. Patrologist Boniface Ramsey, for example, candidly admits that the current Roman Catholic teachings on Mary and the papacy were not taught in the early Church:

Sometimes, then, the Fathers speak and write in a way that would eventually be seen as unorthodox. But this is not the only difficulty with respect to the criterion of orthodoxy. The other great one is that we look in vain in many of the Fathers for references to things that many Christians might believe in today. We do not find, for instance, some teachings on Mary or the papacy that were developed in medieval and modern times.(3)

At first, this clear lack of patristic consensus led Rome to embrace a new theory in the late nineteenth century to explain its teachings—the theory initiated by John Henry Newman known as the development of doctrine. In light of the historical reality, Newman had come to the conclusion that the Vincentian principle of unanimous consent was unworkable, because, for all practical purposes, it was nonexistent. To quote Newman:

It does not seem possible, then, to avoid the conclusion that, whatever be the proper key for harmonizing the records and documents of the early and later Church, and true as the dictum of Vincentius must be considered in the abstract, and possible as its application might be in his own age, when he might almost ask the primitive centuries for their testimony, it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem.(4)

The obvious problem with Newman's analysis and conclusion is that it flies in the face of the decrees of Trent and Vatican I, both of which decreed that the unanimous consent of the fathers does exist. But to circumvent the lack of patristic witness for the distinctive Roman Catholic dogmas, Newman set forth his theory of development, which was embraced by the Roman Catholic Church. Ironically, this is a theory which, like unanimous consent, has its roots in the teaching of Vincent of Lerins, who also promulgated a concept of development. While rejecting Vincent's rule of universality, antiquity and consent, Rome, through Newman, once again turned to Vincent for validation of its new theory of tradition and history. But while Rome and Vincent both use the term development, they are miles apart in their understanding of the meaning of the principle because Rome's definition of development and Vincent's are diametrically opposed to one another. In his teaching, Vincent delineates the following parameters for true development of doctrine:

But some one will say. perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ's Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged n itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.(5)

First of all, Vincent is saying that doctrinal development must be rooted in the principle of unanimous consent. That is, it must be related to doctrines that have been clearly taught throughout the ages of the Church. In other words, true development must demonstrate historical roots. Any teaching which could not demonstrate its authority from Scripture and the universal teaching of the Church was to be repudiated as novel and therefore not truly catholic. It was to be considered heretical. This is the whole point of Vincent's criticism of such heretics as Coelestius and Pelagius. He says, 'Who ever before his (Pelagius) monstrous disciple Coelestius ever denied that the whole human race is involved in the guilt of Adam's sin?'(6) Their teaching, which was a denial of original sin, was novel. It could not demonstrate historical continuity and therefore it was heretical.

But, with Newman, Rome redefined the theory of development and promoted a new concept of tradition. One that was truly novel. Truly novel in the sense that it was completely foreign to the perspective of Vincent and the theologians of Trent and Vatican I who speak of the unanimous consent of the fathers. These two Councils claim that there is a clear continuity between their teaching and the history of the ancient Church which preceded them (whether this is actually true is another thing altogether). A continuity which can they claimed could be documented by the explicit teaching of the Church fathers in their interpretation of Scripture and in their practice. Vatican I, for example, teaches that the papacy was full blown from the very beginning and was, therefore, not subject to development over time.
In this new theory Rome moved beyond the historical principle of development as articulated by Vincent and, for all practical purposes, eliminated any need for historical validation. She now claimed that it was not necessary that a particular doctrine be taught explicitly by the early Church. In fact, Roman Catholic historians readily admit that doctrines such as the assumption of Mary and papal infallibility were completely unknown in the teaching of the early Church. If Rome now teaches the doctrine we are told that the early Church actually believed and taught it implicitly and only later, after many centuries, did it become explicit.

From this principle it was only a small step in the evolution of Rome's teaching on Tradition to her present position. Rome today has replaced the concept of tradition as development to what is known as 'living tradition.' This is a concept that promotes the Church as an infallible authority, which is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who protects her from error. Therefore, whatever Rome's magisterium teaches at any point in time must be true even if it lacks historical or biblical support. The following statement by Roman Catholic apologist Karl Keating regarding the teaching of the Assumption of Mary is an illustration of this very point. He says it does not matter that there is no teaching on the Assumption in Scripture, the mere fact that the Roman Church teaches it is proof that it is true. Thus, teachings do not need to be documented from Scripture:

Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.(7)

This assertion is a complete repudiation of the patristic principle of proving every doctrine by the criterion of Scripture. Tradition means handing down from the past. Rome has changed the meaning of tradition from demonstrating by patristic consent that a doctrine is truly part of tradition, to the concept of living tradition—whatever I say today is truth, irrespective of the witness of history. This goes back to the claims of Gnosticism to having received the tradition by living voice, viva voce. Only now Rome has reinterpreted viva voce, the living voice as receiving from the past by way of oral tradition, to be a creative and therefore entirely novel aspect of tradition. It creates tradition in its present teaching without appeal to the past. To paraphrase the Gnostic line, it is viva voce-whatever we say. Another illustration of this reality relates to the teaching of the Assumption of Mary from the French Roman Catholic historian, Joussard:

In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought-as some theologians still do today under one form or another-to transmit to us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an attitude would not fit the facts...Patristic thought has not, in this instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission.(8)

The editors of the book which references these statements from Joussard offer the following editorial comments:

A word of caution is not impertinent here. The investigation of patristic documents might well lead the historian to the conclusion: In the first seven or eight centuries no trustworthy historical tradition on Mary's corporeal Assumption is extant, especially in the West. The conclusion is legitimate; if the historian stops there, few theological nerves will be touched. The historian's mistake would come in adding: therefore no proof from tradition can be adduced. The historical method is not the theological method, nor is historical tradition synonymous with dogmatic tradition.(9)

The historical method is not the theological method, nor is historical tradition synonymous with dogmatic tradition? Such a view is the complete antithesis of the teaching of Vincent of Lerins and the Councils of Trent and Vatican I. This is an apt illustration of the concept of living tradition. This new perspective on tradition is also well expressed by Roman Catholic theologian and cardinal, Yves Congar. In light of the lack of historical support for a number of the Roman Catholic dogmas, Congar sets forth this new approach of living tradition:

In every age the consensus of the faithful, still more the agreement of those who are commissioned to teach them, has been regarded as a guarantee of truth: not because of some mystique of universal suffrage, but because of the Gospel principle that unanimity and fellowship in Christian matters requires, and also indicates, the intervention of the Holy Spirit. From the time when the patristic argument first began to be used in dogmatic controversies-it first appeared in the second century and gained general currency in the fourth-theologians have tried to establish agreement among qualified witnesses of the faith, and have tried to prove from this agreement that such was in fact the Church's belief…Unanimous patristic consent as a reliable locus theologicus is classical in Catholic theology; it has often been declared such by the magisterium and its value in scriptural interpretation has been especially stressed. Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level. In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is rare. In fact, a complete consensus is unnecessary: quite often, that which is appealed to as sufficient for dogmatic points does not go beyond what is encountered in the interpretation of many texts. But it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter's confession in Matthew 16.16-18. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical. This instance, selected from a number of similar ones, shows first that the Fathers cannot be isolated from the Church and its life. They are great, but the Church surpasses them in age, as also by the breadth and richness of its experience. It is the Church, not the Fathers, the consensus of the Church in submission to its Saviour which is the sufficient rule of our Christianity.(10)

Congar affirms that unanimous consent is the classical position in Roman theology. But he honestly admits that for all practical purposes it is nonexistent. It is a claim that has been asserted for centuries but lacking in actual documentary validation. As Congar says: 'In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is rare.' And he uses the fundamental passage for all of Rome's authority as an example, that being the rock passage of Matthew 16 in which he candidly admits that the present day Roman/papal interpretation of that passage contradicts that of the patristic age. But, according to Congar, the problem is really not a problem because it can be circumvented by a different understanding of consensus. The Fathers must be interpreted in light of present day teaching. Congar says: 'The Fathers cannot be isolated from the Church and its life.' And by the Church and its life, he means the Church as it is today. He says: 'It is the Church, not the Fathers, the consensus of the Church in submission to its Saviour which is the sufficient rule of our Christianity.' In other words, what matters is what the Church teaches now. That is the criterion of truth and Tradition because the Church is living and Tradition is living. He continues:

This instance shows too that we may not, at the doctrinal as distinct from the purely historical level, take the witnesses of Tradition in a purely material sense: they are to be weighed and valued. The plain material fact of agreement or disagreement, however extensive, does not allow us to speak of a consensus Patrum at the properly dogmatic level, for the authors studied in theology are only "Fathers" in the theological sense if they have in some way begotten the Church which follows them. Now, it may be, that the seed which will be most fruitful in the future is not the most clearly so at present, and that the lifelines of faith may not pass through the great doctors in a given instance. Historical documentation is at the factual level; it must leave room or a judgment made not in the light of the documentary evidence alone, but of the Church's faith.(11)

Note carefully the last two sentences of that paragraph. Congar postulates that in the future the Church could be teaching doctrines which are completely unheard of today and which will therefore not be able to be documented historically. As he puts it: 'The lifelines of faith may not pass through the great doctors in a given instance.' Historical documentation must leave room for judgment that is not restricted to documentary evidence alone but transcends the historical record in light of the present day Church's faith. In other words, the truth of ecclesiastical history must be viewed through the lens of whatever the faith of the Church is at the present moment.

This in effect cuts the Church off from any kind of continuity as far as real documentation is concerned or accountability. It allows the Church to conveniently disregard the witness of history and Scripture in favor of a dynamic evolving teaching authority. History in effect becomes irrelevant and all talk of the unanimous consent of the fathers merely a relic of history. This brings us to the place where one's faith is placed blindly in the institution of the Church. Again, in reality Rome has abandoned the argument from history is arguing for the viva voce (living voice) of the contemporary teaching office of the Church (magisterium), which amounts to the essence of a carte blanche for whatever proves to be the current, prevailing sentiments of Rome. Never was this more blatantly admitted and expressed than it was by the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, Henry Edward Manning (1808-1892) who was one of the leading proponents for the definition of papal rule and infallibility at Vatican I. His words are the expression of sola ecclesia with a vengeance:

But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. How can we know what antiquity was except through the Church?…I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. . . . The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour (emphasis mine). (12)

So, in effect, the new teaching of tradition in Rome is no longer that of continuity with the past but living tradition, or viva voce - whatever we say. Instead of sola Scriptura, the unanimous principle of authority enunciated by both Scripture and the Church fathers, we now have sola Ecclesia, blind submission to an institution which is unaccountable to either Scripture or history. That blind submission is not too strong an allegation is seen from the official Roman teaching on saving faith. What Rome requires is what is technically referred to a dogmatic faith. This is faith which submits completely to whatever the Church of Rome officially defines as dogma and to refuse such submission results in anathema and the loss of salvation, for unless a Roman Catholic has dogmatic faith, he or she does not have saving faith. Rome's view is based on the presupposition that the Church is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and is therefore infallible. She cannot err. But the presupposition is faulty. Historically, the Roman Church has clearly proven that she can and has erred and is therefore quite fallible. Her gospel is a repudiation of the biblical gospel.

This is where we ultimately arrive when the patristic and Reformation principle of sola Scriptura is repudiated for the concept of living tradition and an infallible magisterium—the embracing of teachings which are not only not found in Scripture or the teaching of the early Church, but which are actually contradictory to Scripture and in many cases to the teaching of the Church fathers.

(1) It should be noted that though many might write concerning Catholic truth, there is this difference that those who wrote the canonical Scripture, the Evangelists and Apostles, and others of this kind, so constantly assert it that they leave no room for doubt. That is his meaning when he says 'we know his testimony is true.' Galatians 1:9, "If anyone preach a gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be anathema!" The reason is that only canonical Scripture is a measure of faith. Others however so wrote of the truth that they should not be believed save insofar as they say true things." Thomas's commentary on John's Gospel, Super Evangelium S. Ioannis Lectura, ed. P. Raphaelis Cai, O.P., Editio V revisa (Romae: Marietti E ditori Ltd., 1952) n. 2656, p. 488. Latin Text: Notandum autem, quod cum multi scriberent de catholica veritate, haec est differentia, quia illi, qui scripserunt canonicam Scripturam, sicut Evangelistic et Apostoli, et alii huiusmodi, ita constanter eam asserunt quod nihil dubitandum relinquunt. Et ideo dicit Et scimus quia verum est testimonium eius; Gal. I, 9: Si quis vobis evangelizaverit praeter id quod accepistis, anathema sit. Cuius ratio est, quia sola canonica scriptura est regula fidei. Alii autem sic edisserunt de veritate, quod nolunt sibi credi nisi in his quae ver dicunt.

(2) Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicece and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), Series II, Volume XI, Vincent of Lerins, A Commonitory 2.4-6.

(3) Boniface Ramsey, Beginning to Read the Fathers (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1986), p. 6.

(4) John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., reprinted 1927), p. 27. (5) Nicece and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), Series II, Volume XI, Vincent of Lerins, A Commonitory 23.54.

(6) Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), Volume XI, Vincent of Lerins, A Commonitory, Chapter XXIV.62.

(7) Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

(8) Joussard, L'Assomption coropelle, pp. 115-116. Cited by Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 154. Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 154.

(9) Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 154.

(10) Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), pp. 397-400.

(11) Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), pp. 397-400.

(12) Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.

boatbums:

As for Peter Lampe, I am aware of who he is and his work, as it was making its rounds on the blogs several years ago. He is very similar in methodology to the liberal higher critics found in much of mainstream Protestantism and the dissident types in the Catholic Church who write over at NCR, aka Fishwrap [national Catholic Repoter{Distorter]. He challenges the NT in that it was a written tradition put in much later, i.e Paul did not write most of the epistles attributed to him.

I will not waste my time reading his work as I know the type too well. Chadwicks Church History and Pelikans are two in my library that I find are more honest and written not with historical critical methodology used by the higher critics.

What I find interesting and disingeneous is that most of the FR Protestants on this site usually rail against the higher critic types found in mainstream-liberal Protestantism which leads me to question why would you rely on it. Higher critics have been going after the Catholic Church since the 19th century.

For the record, I think there are better Protestant Scholars out there who have done work on the early Church, Chadwick, JND Kelley, Pelikan [Lutheran turned Eastern Orthodox] and Phillip Scaff’s History of the Christian Church and his work on the Church Fathers.

Lampe’s work, largely rooted in the liberal higher criticism methodology, doesn’t appeal to me.

"Most of the American Catholics ARE part of the World since they voted in our current President, twice..."

Your math is as troublesome as your history and theology. For reasons I won't go into here, only half of all Catholics bothered to vote in the last two elections and of those that did vote only slightly more than half voted Democrat. One half of one half is one fourth (0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25). That my FRiend is not most.

As to the world hating us, it has and does because it hated Him first. Even those who profess to be Christians hate us because of how we choose to adore and worship God. We are truly blessed.

"Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man. - Luke 6:22

Peace be with you

First, you have no objective standard by which to judge the truth or falsity of anyone's teachings. All you have is your personal interpretation of the Scriptures, which were given to you by means of the Church.

Ohh yes i do on theological matters..it is called the word of God

Just show me were I am misreading texts that actually SHOW the assumption, papal infallibility or prayer to saints..

,Second, the article hinges on the assumption that the Magisterium - the teaching authority of the Church - is a concept newly invented with John Henry Cardinal Newman, and that prior to his writings the Church believed that the only authentic teaching was based on patristic consensus.
This was not and has never been the case, as Paul himself clearly taught: the Church is "the pillar and ground of truth."

That is your personal interpretation..that scripture says noting about infallibility..infact we actually see error entering the new church from the beginning

A pillar is something that HOLDS up things..rhe church is to HOLD UP Christ and His word.. it is to teach the ground we stan on..CHRIST and Him crucified ..Rome has used that scripture to justify non biblical teaching ...that does not fly...In this letter, Paul is reassuring Timothy that he (paul_)is not essential ...

he also points out in Galc 2:9 that ther are some THAT"seemed to be pillars" but are false teachers..In this letter, Paul is reassuring Timothy that he (paul_)is not essential ...

He also points out in Galc 2:9 that ther are some THAT"seemed to be pillars" but are false teachers..

Webster also contradicts himself fut facts and truth don't matter to the anti-Catholic crowd. Otherwise, they wouldn't insist Babylon is code for Rome where doing so suits their fantasies but doesn't represent Rome when Scripture refers to Peter being in Babylon.

Yes if we do not like the message we attack the messenger..LOL

the quest is not about Webster..or babylon it is Viva Voce - Whatever We Say) true? Does your church develop "sacred tradition " that has no historic teaching? The answer is of course they do....the assumption and papal authority and infallibility are "living examples "

"Ohh yes i do on theological matters..it is called the word of God.

You possess nothing every other living person does not have.

"You will tell me that infallibility is too great a prerogative to be conferred on man. I answer: has not God, in former times, clothed his Apostles with power far more exalted? They were endowed with gifts of working miracles, of prophecy, and inspiration; they were the mouthpiece communicating God's revelation, of which Popes are merely the custodian. If God could make man the organ of his revealed Word, is it impossible for Him to make man its infallible guardian and interpreter? For, surely, greater is the Apostle who gives us the inspired Word than the Pope who preserves it from error.

"Let us see, sir, whether an infallible Bible is sufficient for you. Either you are infallibly certain that your interpretation of the Bible is correct, or you are not.

"If you are infallibly certain, then you assert for yourself, and of course for every reader of Scripture, a personal infallibility which you deny the Pope, and which we claim only for him. You make every man his own Pope.

- James Cardinal Gibbons (Faith of Our Fathers, 1917)

Call me Cynical, Bear, but the Scriptural references to "Babylon" clearly describe Rome rather than to any other city of that age:

It is the city ruling over the kings of the earth (Rev. Rev. 17:18);

It is descibed as sitting on seven mountains as does Rome (Rev. 17:9);

It is described as the center of the world’s merchandise (Rev. Rev. 18:2, Rev. 19:2); It is described as the persecutor of the saints (Rev. Rev. 17:6).

So you can't have it both ways; you can't say on one hand that Rome is the "Whore of Babylon" when it fits your agenda and then deny it is when it doesn't.

Peace be with you.

Sometimes debate sounds harsh, put it is NEVER PERSONAL.. it is theological

I happen to really like some of the RC's on this forum..like "Salvation"...

i like them so much that I want to see them come to Christ and have the assurance scripture gives in our salvation..

I have catholic family and friends.. I love them and grieve for their lostness... I know you meant well

There are millions of people that go to protestant churches every sunday and are lost..sleeping in a garage does not make one a car, Going to church on Sunday does not mean one is a Christian or saved.. holding protestant theology does not mean one is saved..mental assent saves no one.. One is only saved by having an encounter with Christ.. and scripture tells us that happens through the preaching/reading of the word

Eph 2:1 ¶ And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
Eph 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
Eph 2:6 And hath raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus:
Eph 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in [his] kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Well duh! Go re-read my post again. I succinctly said that Babylon was still a city when Peter was there. In Revelation it is no longer an existing city but a symbol of the evil of that city.

Now, as to your point about Rome being the city described in Revelation. A rather damning statement for the RCC isn’t it. Thus my exhortation found in Revelation 18.

Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

The evil and control that was the original city of Babylon in Peter's day has been moved to the city of Rome and the control the RCC has from there over the entire world.

BlueDragon:

Not a dodge at all, it is a principle of Catholic Theology. Not that there are essentials and everything not an essential is to be rejected. Economics and Usury would be a teaching that falls under Prudential judgment that can be reformed as it is not clearly a Level 1 Defide Doctrine. Clerical Celibacy is taught by Rome as a norm in terms of Discipline, it is not Dogma/Doctrine, but I nevertheless accept the teaching of the Church that Celibacy is the “norm” for the sacramental priesthood. While I accept that teaching, it in no way is on the same level as the Holy Trinity, Divinity of Christ, etc. I think you will agree with that anlaysis, even if you reject the Catholic Church’s Celibacy discipline. Below is an article from Professor Bushman on the nature of hiearchy of Truths and another from an RCIA website

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/dbushman_hiertruths_sept05.asp

http://rciablog.com/2010/08/the-5-foundational-truths-of-revelation/

A 3rd article from the Blog “Shameless Popery” does a real good job of detailing the difference between said hierarchy of Truths

http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/09/catholic-voting-and-order-of-truths.html

Now as to you question about Papal Infallability, I do believe it to be both consistent with Sacred Scripture [Peter was always listed 1st among the Apostles and Certain Gospel passages in Mt, LK and John support Peter being 1st among the Apostles] and Sacred Tradition as expressed by the Fathers of the CHurch and later Councils [See Nicea Canon 6 which indicates Rome has a Primacy and then states let Alexandria and Antioch have a Primacy similar to Rome, implicit is Rome has the earlier Primacy, but we need not debate that point].

Now what I think is reformable is the notion of Papal Sumpremacy to use that term and make sure that Papal Infalliability can be exercised say for example, with a reunion of Rome and the Orthodox Church. Are there ways for “Papal Infallability” to be exercised in practice that fits into the ecclesiogly of the Orthodox. I think it can, Papap Supremacy does not mean that Rome has the authority to go in and tell the Orthodox how to celebrate the Liturgy or the Sacraments. The East has a venerable Tradition of celebrating the Liturgy and Sacraments as old as Rome. So that would be an abuse of Papal Infallability.

So Papal Infallability, to me, would recognize the Church of Rome and thus the Bishop of Rome being the First Among all the Bishops thus Rome would be the only Church that could call an Ecumencial Council [consistent with Papal Infallability], Rome would be the Church that would be one that had to give its acceptance, or rejection of a Council, for it to be binding on the entire Catholic Church [which was the case in the 1st millenium, as I noted earlier as cited by J. Pelikan Volume 1 of his work] and if there were disputes between say the Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Church, Rome would be the Church that would be Court of appeals, so to speak to make sure the 3 Churches maintain fraternal Communion with each other.

A Universal Primacy and Papal Infallability does not have mean Papal Supremacy in the terms that you think it means.

Ohh yes i do on theological matters..it is called the word of God

Which is variously interpreted in thousands of ways. Including your own flawed personal spin.

That is your personal interpretation.

It is the Church's view. If it were my personal interpretation only, it would have no value.

As St. Peter says: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation."

He also points out in Galc 2:9 that ther are some THAT"seemed to be pillars" but are false teachers..

St. Paul is not accusing them of false teaching - quite the opposite - but of not acting according to the courage of their convictions.

He is specifically saying that they should live what they teach, not that what they teach is false. That would be bizarre, because he teaches the same things, and also lives them.

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.