Rome's New and Novel Concept of Tradition Living Tradition (Viva Voce - Whatever We Say)

Monergism.com ^ | 12/17/2012 | William Webster

[RnMomof7]

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.

[CynicalBear]

I’ll repeat. There is no place in the New Testament where there is any hint or any record of any kind that Peter was in Rome. He was the apostle to the Jews and spent most of his time in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire. He wrote his epistle from the city of Babylon.

When Paul wrote to the Romans around 58ad and greets many and mentions many people but never mentions Peter even being in Rome. Paul wrote from Rome and to Rome and never even mentions Peter who the Catholics say started the church there.

Now show me the passage that you believe proves that Peter was in Rome at all let alone enough time to start a church there.

[smvoice]

While vastly intriguing, your post, what does the Bible say?

"And Saul was consenting unto his (Stephen's) death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem, and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, EXCEPT THE APOSTLES." Acts 8:1.

According to this, Peter was in Jerusalem, not Rome. Along with the other 11 apostles. Preaching the Kingdom gospel. To Israel. In the temple. Daily.

Now, we know for a Biblical FACT that Paul went to Rome. But Peter? Not so.

[boatbums]

It definitely does!

[CynicalBear]

>> As for St. Peter in Rome, St. Igntaius of Antioch, St. Irenauas all affirm him being in Rome<<

And they were both in error. Irenaeus claimed that Paul and Peter preached together and started the church in Rome. Eusebius also claims that Peter founded the church at Antioch which is not true. When Paul writes to the Romans in 58AD he mentions and greets many by name but never names Peter. He says in Romans 1:7 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, … an apostle to all who are in Rome, Beloved of God, called to be saints. He didn’t even mention Peter and calls himself the apostle to all who are in Rome.

Peter was the apostle to the Jews and spent most of his time in the eastern part of the Roman Empire. He was never in Rome.

[RitaOK]

Peace be with you, NL, and may Mary strike his heel, soon, and Christ Jesus be with us, availed to us ever in the Holy Eucharist, body, blood, soul and divinity.

This is one of the worst attacks I’ve seen on FR, and in the Holy Season approaching the coming of our Lord, astonishing.

Where was it I read of “silly women”? The devil is alive and increasing.

Blessed be the holy and undivided Trinity, now and forever more. Blessed be the Holy Mother of God, the holy saints and angels.

Blessed be Saint Michael, Saint Gabriel, Saint Raphael.

[CTrent1564]

As for the Bishop of Rome holding a “Primacy” in the early Church, there is plenty of evidence. Now, you say the 1st 50 years after Christ which would put us around 80-85AD.

If we assume the above dating is correct, this would mean that Saint John the Apostle was still alive. So while I can’t provide anything definitive from the Church Fathers as the fist group of them are called the Apostolic Church Fathers because of their connection to the Apostles. One such is St. Clement of Rome who wrote an authoritative Letter to the Church at Corinth. I have provided a link below which is from Calvin College [Reformed University] and has the German Reformed Church History Scholar Phillip Schaff’s translation of Saint Clement of Rome’s Letter [which you can read yourself]. What I have linked is Professor P. Schaff’s introductory Note on St. CLements Letter

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.i.html

Now of interest here is that the testimony of later 2nd Century Church Fathers indicates that Saint Clement new the Apostles [Philip Schaff’s introductory note comes to that conclusion, for the record] as Saint Ireneaus of Lyons states that St. Clement “had seen the blessed Apostles” ....had been conversant with them....and might be said to have their preaching echoing in his ears and their traditions before his eyes...

Now we are at the end of the 1st century and what has to be asked here is What does Saint Clement’s intervention into the internal affairs of a Church in the East, i.e. Corinth mean. If we assume an eccelisiology of modern independent Protestantism, then it makes no sense. Corinth would tell Saint Clement to “go take a hike” However, we don’t see that. However, given that Clements letter was recieved by the Church of Corinth, implies that the Church of Rome had a role in calling back the Church at Corinth into orthodoxy. Thus, it is entirely an historical record that the Church of Rome was exercising some “Primacy” at the end of the 1st century.

In addition, in St. Clement’s Letter you will find a 1) clear distinction between the role of the clergy and layman, not that they are in opposition, but all serve in different capacities in the Church, the Body of Christ, 2) and Outline of Apostolic Succession, and 3) Strong Eucharistic Doctrine as he writes “Our sin would not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrafices.

Clement’s letter is usually dated around 95-97AD. Some 10 years after, we get St. Ignatius of Antioch’s Letters [7 authentic] which show strong ecclessiology like the Catholic Church, strong Eucharistic Doctrine and of course the line “The Church of Rome...presides in Love [some translations state Holds the Presidency in Love”. Again, I have linked Schaff’s Introductory note, of course he does downplay that statement while acknowleding that the Church of Antioch and Rome had “Fraternal Relations”, which is a way of avoiding using the word “Communion”. Scaff’s note is honest enough to point out that many in the Protestant world questioned all of the Ignatian corpus because it so clearly laid out a model that is what the Catholic Church looks like and is, and thus many questioned all of it, although he concedes that 7 Letters of Ignatius are now all recognized as authentic by scholars.

So within 75 years of Christ death perhaps within Saint John the Apostles Lifetime [given Clements Letter] there are 2 clear references to the Church of Rome holding some form of “Primacy in the early Church.” On that point, anyone here on FR who doubts that now who has read this thread is being intellectually dishonest. If one wants to question whether Vatican I in its definition of Papal Infallability defined it in a way that was not necessary or was too much of a reach by Rome, then that is a legitimate point to make and discuss, not that I agree with it, but I can understand the argument, particulary from the Eastern Orthodox point of view. But to debate that the Church of Rome had a Primacy is putting your head in the sand and not being honest [which many FR Protestants, not going to name them, do all the time].

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.i.html

[CTrent1564]

CynicalBear:

And you know they were wrong How? How does Paul not mentioning Peter suggest he was not in Rome or did not eventually get to Rome. Nothing you cite from Romans 1 suggest that Peter never was in Rome. If you want to say, Peter was not in Rome in 58AD, that is about all you can say.

Those closer to time all indicate Peter was in Rome.

[RitaOK]

You are sounding ignorant, arrogant and obnoxious, inciteful and definitely flatulent. It must be handy to incite and insult the Church hiding in anonymity, defiling sacred scripture with your alien interpretations, based on old wives tales and your barbaric manners.

[CynicalBear]

>>If you want to say, Peter was not in Rome in 58AD, that is about all you can say.<<

I think you really need to do some study on when the RCC claims Peter was in Rome. I believe you will find that they claim that Peter was in Rome some 16 by the time Paul writes to the Romans saying he will establish them. I suppose I assumed wrongly that you knew what you were talking about rather then just parroting what the RCC states.

[CynicalBear]

>>defiling sacred scripture with your alien interpretations, based on old wives tales and your barbaric manners.<<

Oh my!!

Daniel 12:1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people--everyone whose name is found written in the book--will be delivered.

Michael is indeed the guardian of Israel and will protect them during the tribulation.

[Natural Law]

"You are sounding ignorant, arrogant and obnoxious, inciteful and definitely flatulent."

Do not resort to name calling, but respond in love and respect. We are to forgive RnMomof7 70 x 7 times. If we love only those who look, sound, act and think like us, only those who respect us, those who show us kindness, and those who exhibit all of the Fruits of the Holy Spirit it is no more than an expression of self love. Real love is the unconditional desire of good for another solely for the sale of the other. The worse they are the more they need our love and forgiveness. Every antagonistic and hateful anti-Catholic posting can be a blessing because it gives us another chance to forgive.

"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you." - Luke 6:27-31

I assure you, Jesus cares more about how we understand this than what the definition of a saint is.

Peace be with you.

[CTrent1564]

CynicalBear:

And you are saying was not in Rome based on What? Your conclusion that Paul makes not mention of it. That does not mean he is in Rome at the time. For one, perhaps Paul did not want to state that he was in Rome given the fact that if the Letter to Rome was intercepted, the Roman Authorities would use it to persecute and Kill Peter, which is what happened. and for the record, your writings seems to be based on the writings of some Protestant internet apologist named Allison Lewis that I have seen linked by Prots before. His arguments are just that and of course, he goes on to say that Didache is heretical because its views of Baptism don’t fit his are what he thinks the NT says.

St. Clement of Rome strongly implies that both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome in his letter. Rather than me continue to debate you, I will defer to Philip Schaff’s translation of St. Clement of Rome’s Letter to the Church at Corinth which indicates that both St. Peter and Paul were killed in Rome. Schaff’s footnote in the link I provided clearly comes to that conclusion.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.v.html

St. Ignatius of Antioch, a pupil of St. Polycarp, who was a pupil of St. John the Apostle states in is letter to the Church at Rome, not as Peter and Paul do I command you....which only makes sense in the context of both St. Peter and Paul being in Rome.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.v.iv.html

[metmom]

You are sounding ignorant, arrogant and obnoxious, inciteful and definitely flatulent. It must be handy to incite and insult the Church hiding in anonymity, defiling sacred scripture with your alien interpretations, based on old wives tales and your barbaric manners.

Instead she should be a sweetheart like you, eh?

[RitaOK]

Thank you. I’m sure you are correct, as you say, these are hateful and antagonistic creatures, enemies of good, and the Church, of Christ Jesus, weherein He resides, but I won’t call names either. I will leave the fires of Ghenna to receive whom they will in their flames and pray that I can stand, undeserving as I am, a friend to goodness and to God, and to his ONE, Holy and Apostolic Church, by the kind Grace and the Gift He has entrusted to me, and to try and keep.

Forgive me for striking back in words, as Peter did to the mob of Christ killers and naysayers, taking an ear with his sword.. Set me aright, Guardian Angel, on the path of patience when set upon by enemies.

[CTrent1564]

CynicalBear:

Another Church History scholar,Henry Chadwick in his The Early Church [Pengiun Books, Revised Edition, 1993] writes that Peter and Pauls relationship was ambigous and their disagreement recorded in Galatians must have been exceptional. Regardless, in death they were united in tha both were killed during the reign of Nero, although we have no definitive record of how long Peter was in Rome. In the footnote on page 18 of this version, Professor Chadwick comes to the same conclusion as Philip Schaff in that Peter’s martyrdom taking place in Rome is “Highly Probable” given the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians and Ignatius Letter to the Romans and consistent testimoney of 2nd Century Fathers and the fact that a monument dating 160AD to Peters memory was built. Now, Prof. Chadwick does state that Peter being in Rome for 25 years is 3rd century legend so this statement by Prof Chadwick and his scholarship is consisent with Prof. Philip Schaff’s view that both Peter and Paul were killed in Rome and suggest that Peter did not arrive in Rome until after Paul’s Letter to the Church at Rome written most likely between 56-58AD.

Jaroslav Pelikan in his the Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine Volume 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600AD) writes (p.354) that Rome was where both Peter and Paul were buried and this had given the CHurch of Rome a unique eminence as early as the time of Tertullian...The Churches of the East owed a special allegiance to Rome...by hailing the authority of Leo, the fathers of Chalcedon gave witness to the orthodoxy of Rome. One See after another had capitulated in this or that controversy..Rome had a special position. The Bishop of Rome had the right by his own authority to annul the acts of a synod.

Now, Prof. Pelikan was a Lutheran when he wrote this, he eventuall became Orthodox because of his Eastern European Heritage but always longed for reunion between the TWO historic Apostolic Churches. Nevertheless, his scholarship is excellent and his conclusions are the same as Schaff and Chadwicks, that is Peter was in Rome. In addition, it is interesting about his statments regarding the eminence of the Church of Rome and the rights of the Bishop of Rome, by his own authority, could annul a Synod. This is only possible in the context that the Church of Rome based on Apostolic Succession draws that authority due to the fact that “both” Peter and Paul were killed in Rome.

[RobbyS]

If Mry is supposed to “take the place of God,” then why are there so few references to her in the mass? Once in the Creed, “Incarnate of the Virgin Mary,” and later in the canon at the head of the list of Saints.

[RobbyS]

If Mry is supposed to “take the place of God,” then why are there so few references to her in the mass? Once in the Creed, “Incarnate of the Virgin Mary,” and later in the canon at the head of the list of Saints.

[Natural Law]

"Forgive me for striking back in words..."

For what? You did not sin against me. Ask RnMomof7 for forgiveness. If she believes the Word she will forgive you as you have forgiven her.

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’will be liable to the hell of fire. So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift." - Matthew 5:22-24

Peace be with you

[RobbyS]

And of course, we do not know who, or when , or for what purpose.

[RobbyS]

And since they are not available...? Some thought it was the work of Paul, but, in fact, it is uncertain who did write it. It sounds nothing like Paul.