[RnMomof7]

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 "

[CynicalBear]

Viva Voce does apply here. Babylon was still a city when Peter was preaching and writing from there. Many other references to Babylon like in Revelation it no longer is but is a symbol of the evil of Babylon. The RCC claims Peter was in Rome when clearly scripture states he was in the real city of Babylon in the region that Peter was known to be the apostle too.

[Rashputin]

A fine attempt to change subjects, but a failed attempt nonetheless.

I made a point regarding the stupid assertion that Peter was never in Rome, something not addressed by the comment to which I reply.

If anyone is attacking the messenger it's the person who pretends that the messenger is addressing a point they in fact were not addressing.

LOL, LoL, LOl, lOL, lol, ha ha, and so on

[RobbyS]

The historic bases of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are just as firm as the the Incarnation. Many western Christians today are apologetic about the Virgin Birth, but Mary is our anchor in both the old testament and the New . When Constantine rebuilt Jerusalem, making it a Christian city, he of course, built a basilica over the Empty Tomb of Jesus. But the largest bascilica he built was dedicated to the Virgin. The reason for this is that the Virgin is the linchpin in the doctrine of the Trinity.