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.

[RitaOK]

Who ARE these swine! I swear I envision fire red where their eyes should be! Disgusting fishwrap! I am so devastated, I would love to take a round house swing at these serpent heads, wrapping themselves in sheepskin and sacred scripture, knowing nothing and devouring.

Does this get to stand, on FR? I am shocked. So many fine Catholics on this website, excluding me on the “fine”. I have irrefutable evidence that I am a work in progress.

Okay, I got that off my chest. God, dear Father, deliver me.

[Natural Law]

"Does this get to stand, on FR?"

It only stands if we are on FR to witness it. Satan does not care how or why we resort to ungodly actions, he is only happy that we do. If contact with the anti-Catholics, the heretics and the kooks causes you to anger or stoop to their level in response recognize them and FR as a near occasion of sin and avoid it. Just don't expect this to be a loving environment. The world hates us because it hated Him first. If your light can continue to shine in this mud storm, more power to you, but don't lose all to win here.

Peace be with you.

[RitaOK]

Oops. NL, that last post of mine to you was meant for “mail”, not the thread. I guess what I wanted to get off my chest went a little round in the house. Sorry about that. I just never have seen it get so vicious and stand. Yikes.

[daniel1212]

You cannot possibly be right, as Rome has infallibly declared that she is infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined scope and content-based criteria, thus rendering her declaration of infallibility infallible, and potentially whatever may be needed for support (though arguments and reasons behind an infallible teaching are not themselves necessarily infallible).

Thus as according to her interpretation (or decree), only her interpretation can be right in any conflict, you cannot be.

I am sure you understand this, as those who claim to be the instruments and stewards of the Oracles of God, and the teachers of it, and the inheritors of Divine promises of God’s presence and guidance, cannot be wrong when they say they are right, and no dissenters can have any authority to correct them by Scripture.

Even though after that manner of dissent against a historical entity which presumed more than what is written, is how the church began and continue when necessary.

“For the kingdom of God is not in word [self-declaration], but in power.” (1 Corinthians 4:20)

[RitaOK]

After reading your page, I see why you are whacked out with the Catholic Church and with Catholics who know and love Holy Mother Church. I came from the charismatic movement, a huge non-denominational sect, but was first baptized and raised in the First Christian Church - Disciples of Christ. It was from the charasmatic sect that I converted to the Catholic Church.

My diocese is the image of what you left. I am not a Catholic because it feels good, it’s warm and fuzzy or salvation assured, as you seem to believe, but because the Church is Truth, regardless of the poorly catechized, the pompous, and the devious who regularly reside in the Church, trying hard to dilute both Sacred Scripture and Tradition.

I certainly am sorry to have spoken to you in anger, especially if by any words of mine you are further estranged from, and more entrenched than ever against the Catholic Church, I certainly beg your forgiveness.

Rita

[BlueDragon]

Yes we understand that Rome long ago conflated some early respect given that bishopric for some of it's timely assistance, to become something not otherwise in THE LEAST accepted by the rest.

The church of Rome wasn't yielded to on a regular basism in later centuries. The history is spotty. Other bishops had their days or moments of great influence, too.

[CTrent1564]

BlueDragon:

Ok, so you are now baiting and switching. Implicitly, you have no answer to Prof. Chadwick [Anglican Church History scholar]. Pelikan [Lutheran at the time of his work on Church History-Scholar nor P. Schaff [German-Swiss Reformed Church History Scholar] all whose scholarly work concludes that Peter [and Paul] were both martyred at Rome.

Rome’s influence on Church Councils extended well beyond the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD [which is some 360 years are so after the death of the Apostle John]. You can try and kid yourself and deny that fact, which doesn’t surprise me. the 3rd Council of Constantinopile was heavily directed by Pope Agatho, the 2nd Council of Nicea was directed by Pope Adrian I’s personal legates and dealt with the Inconoclastic heresy which had started in the East. So that gets you to the 8th century and these last 2 councils were the last 2 that dealt with Christological heresies, Monothelite [2 Wills of Christ vs. one Will] and Inconoclastic heresy which was seen as an attack on the orthodox understanding of Incarnational theology. On all those up to 2nd Nicea, the Bishop of Rome was instrumental and gave the definitive acceptance to the Councils for the entire Catholic Church.

So “We” whoever “we is” seems to think at some point, Rome which was the bedrock of Orthodoxy [as Pelikan, while he was a Lutheran acknowledges in his work as I noted before, see page 354 of his Volume 1 of the Christian Tradition] was no longer the bedrock. At what point in time did that happen and who made the decision to say that Rome fell from Orthodoxy and for those who make such claims, on what authority do they make such claims and how do their views reconcile with the continuity of the Catholic Faith from Christ, via the Apostles, via the 1st/2nd Century Apostolic Fathers, via the pre-Nicene Church Fathers, via the later 4th and 5th century Church Fathers [Ambrose, Hilliary of Potiers, Augustine, Jerome, Pope Leo the Great] up to the Councils of 3 Constantinopile in 680-81AD and 2nd Nicea in 787AD.

[BlueDragon]

You are sounding ...blah, blah, blah... and definitely flatulent.

I didn't hear anything did you hear anything? it must have been the dog.

Time for what we call "the family friend"

[narses]

My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen

Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.

Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.

Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.

Amen.

She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.

(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)

[BlueDragon]

There's no "baiting and switching" from me. I think you've mixed me up with another poster here.

The rest of your stuff is just so much noise, demanding I contend on some grounds of your own choosing. Fat chance.

Continuity from Christ via the Apostles. At first...then off it went.

The first few centuries are usually skipped over by Romanist apologists. But that doesn't stop information from the 4th century being passed off as "unchanged" or presented "as handed down by Christ". With cherry picking of quotes (ignoring those which challenge or refute) from the 3rd & 4th centuries. I've seen it all before.

[narses]

My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen

Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.

Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.

Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.

Amen.

She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.

(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)

[Running On Empty]

RitaOK-—it’s Ok, Rita. You have asked forgiveness.

There are times when we fall. It’s in those moments that we learn about our own flaws and weaknesses. Praise God for that.

Often when I read on this forum I can see descent into sarcasm and snide comments, and addressing people in a way that we wouldn’t to the person in front of us in line at the supermarket.

That’s the snare of internet communication. And it truly is a snare.

I, too, am a convert to Catholicism. My father was a non-practicing Wesleyan Methodist (would that be termed a back-slider?). My maternal grandmother was a Calvinist. So was my mother until shortly before she died, when she joined with Evangelical Presbyterians. My two sisters, now deceased, were Baptists.

I’m grateful that God provided us all with the grace to treat each other with respect about our differences in faith choices.

I thank the Lord that He gave me the grace to have a grateful attitude for the younger years of my life as a Protestant. I am fortunate that I don’t have any bitterness about my upbringing, that I remember with gratitude the Sunday school teachers I had and the time spent reading the Bible.

Rancor and bitterness not only does damage to our souls but also to our witness for the Lord.

So, you, too, Rita, can ask the Lord to remove any of that from your life.

As for all the “discussions” here-—many times I just go away from it.

Yes, we must think (ponder) his Truth, study His words to strengthen us, and speak of Him to others. Loving Him, we are compelled to think of Him and learn of Him and speak of Him. But still, nowhere in the Sacred Scriptures does Jesus say explicitly to us: “think much—study much-—talk much”.

Rather, He says to us: “Love much” because love conquers everything and in the end, as St. Paul tells us, Love is what endures.

May the Holy spirit enlighten our minds, sanctify our lips and purify our hearts.

Lord, bless us all.

[narses]

[mitch5501]

Amen R.O.E.good post.

The RF does indeed get fiesty and angry and sometimes downright ugly.The flesh crouches at the door desperate for some glory.I don't think any here would deny that he who must decrease still has way too much to say for himself! It's that very reason I don't post much.I read the replies and find myself beginning to barrack for one over the other and I have a fair idea of what He who must increase thinks of that.Well that and the fact I aint no Einstien either.Still,I do sometimes post through gritted teeth.

I'd suppose that in the end we will all be brought down to "I have determined to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified" and that will,praise God,be enough! "For all who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved"

God bless us all indeed.

[nickcarraway]

The apostolic traditions were codified in writing in the New Testament.

Who decided what the New Testament was? The New Testament does no list which books are part of. So according to you, the new Testament doesn't exist.

[BlueDragon]

So why would Rome be the seat of everything, when the church began in Jerusalem? because both Peter & Paul were there at one time? Somehow, due to that, the Holy Spirit would focus more there than with ALL others, for all time afterwards? That doesn't make much sense, except for those whom already have that etched onto their eyeballs, so "see" it in all which can be gazed upon.

It's easy enough for anyone to see that the Spirit surely seemed to be ignored on many occasion, too. Right there, by Romish authorities. Some foul persons have held that bishopric. Not that that alone makes everything else rotten, but by the same token, some good, even a lot of "good" does not equate with "all good", either. Should we need remind everyone of certain excesses AGAIN? Wholesale murder even!?! burning people alive, like it's normal or something, and approved of by God? Where in the book does it say "burn those whom oppose your claim to authority in my name"? Where was the infallible leading of the spirit at those times? It was still accepted as a "right" thing for the church to support, through the time of Luther. That's why he himself burned a copy of the canon, damning it all to hell (for it's hellish aspects) for it was being threatened to be employed against him, to quite literally burn him, possibly alive.

We are still talking about human beings being involved here. They have proven themselves, over & over, to not be completely trustworthy. For that sort of complete trustworthiness, we must look elsewhere.

What of the times Rome has reversed itself? You want me to answer plenty of YOUR questions, yet continually dodge the tougher one's I present. Like--- the opposition the papist contingent faced from within the Latin church, itself, when the last big grab at ultimate authority was made. Did you seriously consider a word of what was in the link provided? Address those issues.

I refuse to play along by your rules. You can play by mine, instead.

[Rashputin]

One, don’t worry about a justifiable reaction and two, someone who routinely lies in their comments would be posting lies in their “about” page as well.

[boatbums]

Another look at the idea of primacy in the early church and the process of development. From http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/08/this-bridge-should-be-illuminated.html:

"This Bridge Should Be Illuminated"

Here's what Vatican I infallibly pronounced about the papacy:

On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time.

2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood.

3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received.

4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body.

5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

Note that there is not any sense of doubt in the language used here. This is the reason for Fortescue's sense of assurance. Christ himself instituted this office, and it was, in every age, clearly evident, that there was a primacy over the whole church.

It will be no wonder, then, to see the screechiness with which our partisan Roman Catholic friends will respond.

What follows is the conclusion of Peter Lampe's extensive work, "From Paul to Valentinus," chapter 41, pages 397 ff:

Thesis: The fractionation in Rome favored a collegial presbyterial system of governance and prevented for a long time, until the second half of the second century, the development of a monarchical episcopacy in the city. Victor (c. 189-99) was the first who, after faint-hearted attempts by Eleutherus (c. 175-89), Soter (c. 166-75), and Anicetus (c. 155-66), energetically stepped forward as monarchical bishop and (at times, only because he was incited from the outside) attempted to place the different groups in the city under his supervision or, where that was not possible, to draw a line by means of excommunication. Before the second half of the second century there was in Rome no monarchical episcopacy for the circles mutually bound in fellowship.

It would be presumptuous here to wish to write again a history of the ecclesiastical offices that are mentioned especially in 1 Clement and Hermas. My concern is to describe the correlation between fractionation and one factor of ecclesiastical order, the monarchical episcopate. This bridge should be illuminated. What happens across the bridge in the field of history of ecclesiastical offices can only be here briefly sketched – and perhaps motivate one to further investigation.

1. Fractionation into house congregations does not exclude that the Christian islands scattered around the capital city were aware of being in spiritual fellowship with each other, of perceiving themselves as cells of one church, and of being united by common bonds.

Paul writes to several house communities in Rome (Rom 16; see above, chap. 36) and presupposes that these send his letter, with the greetings, from one to another (cf. similarly Col 4:16). The continually repeated (Greek: aspasasthe “greetings”) receives meaning if there were messengers between the various, topgraphically separate groups. In other words, not only were Eucharistic gifts sent to and fro (see above, chap 40), but also letters and greetings from outside the city were exchanged.

That means that people writing from outside of Rome could address the Roman Christians as a unity. Not only Paul but also Ignatius and Dionysius of Corinth did this. Conversely, the Roman Christians as an entirety could send letters to those outside: 1 Clement and a further letter to Corinth around 170 C.E. (Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. 4.3.11). The totality of Roman Christianity undertook shipments of aid to those outside (see above on Dionysius, in Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. 4.23.10). People from the outside consequently spoke of the Roman church (e.g., Ignatius, Rom. Praescr.).

It was useful to assign to someone in Rome the work connected with external communication. Hermas knows such a person by the name of Clement. In Vis. 2.4.3, Hermas prepares two copies of his small book and sends (pempo, “send, dispatch” within the city) one of them to Clement, who forwards it “to the cities outside, for he is entrusted with that task”.

It is important to note that Hermas’s “minister of external affairs” is not a monarchical bishop. In the next sentence, Hermas describes how he circulates his little book within the city. He makes it known “to this city together with the presbyters who preside over the church” (emphasis added). A plurality of presbyters leads Roman Christianity. This Christianity, conscious of a spiritual fellowship within the city, is summed up under the concept of “ecclesia,” but that changes nothing in regard to the plurality of those presiding over it. In Vis. 3. 9.7, Hermas also calls them (Greek proegoumenoi or protokathedipitai – leaders or chief seats).

Hermas knows to report the human side of the presiders: they quarrel about status and honor (Vis. 3.9.7-10; Sim. 8.7.4-6). What are proteia? Are the presbyters wrangling” for first place within their own ranks, for the place of primus inter pares? Whatever the answer may be, Hermas – in the first half of the second century – never mentions the success of such efforts, the actual existence of a single leader. Instead he speaks of (Greek, leaders or chiefs), all in the plural (Vis. 2.4.2f.; 2.2.6; 3.1.8).

Correspondingly, we find in Paul’s and Ignatius’s letters to the Romans nothing of a Roman monarchical leader, even though Ignatius knew of a monarchical bishop’s office from his experience in the east. (Note: whether the monarchical episcopacy was established everywhere in the east is, however, questionable. Ignatius, Phil. 7- (cf. Magn. 6-8) presupposes Christians who do not wish to be under a bishop. In Ancyra around 190 C.E. there was still no bishop presiding but only a group of presbyters; anonymous, in Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. 5.16.5). In the year 144 Marcion, at the Roman synod meeting that he initiated (see above, chap. 40), also saw himself facing “presbyters and teachers” and not a monarchical bishop.

First Clement presupposes the same presbyterial governance: hagoumenoi (1:3), proeoumenoi (21.6) presbuteroi (44.5, 47.6, 54.2, 57.1) episkopoi, (42:4f=Isa 60:17; LXX). As in Hermas (Vis. 3.5.1; Sim. 9.27.1; cf. 9.31.5f.), the word “bishop” is in the plural. And First Clement 44:5 clarifies who exercises episkope: the presbuteroi! A number of them, who simultaneously had episkope in Corinth, were dismissed by the Corinthians. In 47:6, 57:1 the dismissed men are called presbuteroi. In short, by presbuteroi and episkopoi 1 Clem designates the same persons. The two terms are interchangeable, as in Hermas (Vis. 3.5.1).

“Bishops” are presbyters with a special function. With what function are they entrusted? Hermas in Mand. 8.20., Vis. 3.9.2, Sim. 1.8 uses the verb episkeptesthai not in relation to an office but referring to all Christians in the sense of “to care for the needy, to visit them. (Hermas) Sim.9.27.2.f. portrays the official “bishops” correspondingly as those who care for (diakonia) the needy and the widows. In this work they are supported by the deacons (Sim. 9.26.2). Our comparison of episkeptesthai and episkopoi shows that Hermas with the functional term “episkopos” still clearly associates episkeptesthai and its social-diaconal content. The wordkplay episkopoi--eskepasan in Sim.9.27.2 demonstrates the same.

This type of analysis goes on for a number of pages, and if there are questions, then I can provide that analysis on particular points.

To the scoffers, keep in mind that this is a 500 page book, and the analysis provided here has much, much foundational work (literary and archaeological and more) supporting it. It is no wonder that Eamon Duffy says that any future work that deals with this period must begin with this work. I've published selections such as this one in various places, and I've had some Catholics tell me that this is an obscure work, that it will soon be forgotten. But this body of factual information isn't going anywhere. Rome has re-calibrated its discussion of the papacy since the heady days of Vatican I and Adrian Fortescue, to lead off with the fact that they are aware of "development." It is clear from the language of Vatican I that they had no concept of development in mind. It is clear from Fortescue, some 50 years after Vatican I, that "Clement commanded" with the assurance of any modern pope. But the situation was far, far more questionable than that. Roman boastfulness has been caught in a snare, and it is evident that it does not know how to squirm out of this.

[Cronos]

The RCC needs to get with the program.

So says Obama and the Dimocrats. No thank you, we don't want priestesses or "gay marriage pastors". The "get with the program crowd" can keep them with their sola scriptura continuous reinterpretations

[Cronos]

Typical OPC ite post

OPC against Pentecostals	from the OPC doctrinal website {the OPC} sharply contradicts the view popularized today by the neo-Pentecostal movement. In essence this view would have us believe that we can have the same charismatic gifts that we read about in the age of the Apostles - such as prophecy, speaking in tongues, and healing - today. This is a very serious error (of the Pentecostals). In essence it is a result of a failure to grasp the Biblical teaching concerning the history of salvation.
OPC against Pentecostals and Methodists:	From the opc doctrinal website: . Are Arminian (Methodists, Pentecostals, Baptist etc) preachers heretics? yes . Is Arminianism (Methodism, Pentecostalism, Baptists) a damnable heresy? Yes. . the teachings of Arminianism are contrary to Scripture, they are manifestly false. They are serious perversions of the gospel of Jesus Christ "we see the inherent Satanism of Free-Will Arminianism" (accusing Methodists, Pentecostals, etc. who disagree with Calvin of preaching a gospel of Satan

The OPC is no more than a larger version of the Westboro Baptists -- and like them they do not serve Christ.

and of course they believe in “The devil and wicked men are so held in on every side with the hand of God, that they cannot conceive, or contrive, or execute any mischief, any farther than God himself doth not permit only, but command. Nor are they only held in fetters, but compelled also, as with a bridle, to perform obedience to those commands.” (Calv. Inst., b. 1, c. 17, s. 11.)