[boatbums]

The curious thing is Roman Catholicism relishes asserting her "Traditions" and claims that truths handed down orally as well as written are unchangeable. Yet when obvious changes and/or contradictions are noted the escape is Newman's invented "Development of Doctrine" process or a "Living Tradition". What we have observed many times, however, is that it really boils down to whatever they say. Here's an interesting explanation regarding this excuse I mean reason, I mean rationalization:

Rome’s New and Novel Concept of Tradition Living Tradition: (Viva Voce – Whatever We Say)

[metmom]

From your link......

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

It's true because we now say so.

How very convenient.

[daniel1212]

The curious thing is Roman Catholicism relishes asserting her "Traditions" and claims that truths handed down orally as well as written are unchangeable. Yet when obvious changes and/or contradictions are noted the escape is Newman's invented "Development of Doctrine" process or a "Living Tradition". What we have observed many times, however, is that it really boils down to whatever they say. Here's an interesting explanation regarding this excuse I mean reason, I mean rationalization:

Rome’s New and Novel Concept of Tradition Living Tradition: (Viva Voce – Whatever We Say)

Yes, and the argument is that without an infallible authority you cannot be sure what is of God or its meaning (even though souls such as knew Scripture and men as John the Baptist were of God before there was a church of Rome), but which means that Cath assurance of faith rests upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

Which they know is of God since