Enigma: By the way, here is another one I made earlier.

https://www.nairaland.com/1057120/german-catholics-face-excommunication-over/2#12320908

If only the Roman Catholics would listen and pay careful attention to the words of somebody whom they would quickly lay claim to as "one of them".

From the words of Gregory I or Gregory the Great/the Dialogist then as simply Bishop of Rome (or according to Roman Catholics, "Pope" Gregory I).

now this is becoming interesting. I wish to ask you enigma DO YOU WISH TO BRING GREG MY FRIEND AS EVIDENCE? Please answer so we can discuss ur text if u cant answer this never bring greg into the discussion again.

chukwudi44: No one is saying rome is the only apostolic see.Antioch,Alexandria,Jerusalem and several others but none is reffered to having possessed supremacy.

Can you provide any link where st Augustine refers to any other church as having supremacy?

What do you understand by the terms 'supremacy' and supreme'?

pls enigma provide d quotes and dont forget to answer my question on whether or not u wish to bring greg as evidence.

To the op, please make responses to the view presented on your thread, please dont make the thread dull.

Ubenedictus: To the op, please make responses to the view presented on your thread, please dont make the thread dull.

I'm.really.very.sorry..My.activity.on.nairaland.is.no.longer.very.fluid.because.of.my.faulty.keypad (among.other.things). You can see that my space key is bad. It.works.only.intermittently.

Ihedinobi:

I'm.really.very.sorry..My.activity.on.nairaland.is.no.longer.very.fluid.because.of.my.faulty.keypad (among.other.things). You can see that my space key is bad. It.works.only.intermittently.

O boy, its high time you get a smartphone. Any blackberry or high-end nokia or even any android phone will do the job very well and make your internet experience such a breeze that you may not need to disturb your laptop too much for your internet needs again. We really need you around here, so dont let nothing stop you from getting around

Just saying.

cyrexx:

O boy, its high time you get a smartphone. Any blackberry or high-end nokia or even any android phone will do the job very well and make your internet experience such a breeze that you may not need to disturb your laptop too much for your internet needs again. We really need you around here, so dont let nothing stop you from getting around

Just saying.

Well damn!!!

On.it.though

"Supremacy" according to the Roman Catholic "Church" --- per "Pope" Boniface VIII (Unam Sanctam).

“We declare, state, define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.”

@enigma

Please we are discussing st Augustine's writing which I quoted above.what did st Augustine mean by the supremacy of an apostolic see.where did st Augustine refer to any other church as having supremacy?

Enigma: "Supremacy" according to the Roman Catholic "Church" --- per "Pope" Boniface VIII (Unam Sanctam).

Enigma, this one you are tormenting my brothers here, i don't understand. You just dey raise their blood pressure unnecessarily

By the way who be Pope Boniface? funny name

You better focus on st Augustine and stop derailing the discussion

Zikkyy:

Enigma, this one you are tormenting my brothers here, i don't understand. You just dey raise their blood pressure unnecessarily

By the way who be Pope Boniface? funny name

Bros, I been no mean say make this thing reach dis level --- but you sef don see how de thread evolve and wetin come cause all dis wey we dey see so.

Boniface na one "pope" for 13th century or thereabouts.

Meanwhile, I'm coming up with a modern version in a minute.

Anyway, here is a modern version of "Supremacy" according to the Roman Catholic "Church".

Cathechism of the Catholic Church/Lumen Gentium

"For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, "supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls"

Compare with "Pope" Gregory (quoted earlier)

I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others....You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of 'universal' upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God's will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren.

Above all, compare the words of Jesus Christ.

Matthew 20

25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

@enigma

The crux of our argument is whether st Augustine and other eastern church fathers before the schism believed in the notion of petrine or roman supremacy.we have to first settle this issue before progressing.

Did st augustine believe in the petrine and roman supremacy?

If not kindly provide quotations in his numerous writings where he stated such.

Kindly provide any link where he asserted any other church as having supremacy

^^^ Look, I'm not "arguing" anything with you.

Why don't you keep throwing abuses and I'll keep making whatever point I find "pertinent".

So you have finally accepted the fact that you have no case hence your resort to mischief

Another example of "Supremacy" according to the Roman Catholic "Church" - per "pope" Pius IX.

Also well-known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved [without] the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior."

As the "popes" said some of these things in 'Papal Bulls', I guess Christians are justified if they say that the "popes" were simply talking er, well, bull.

Ihedinobi:

I'm.really.very.sorry..My.activity.on.nairaland.is.no.longer.very.fluid.because.of.my.faulty.keypad (among.other.things). You can see that my space key is bad. It.works.only.intermittently.

oh, sorry, see a technician quickly.

Enigma:

Bros, I been no mean say make this thing reach dis level --- but you sef don see how de thread evolve and wetin come cause all dis wey we dey see so.

Boniface na one "pope" for 13th century or thereabouts.

Meanwhile, I'm coming up with a modern version in a minute.

somehow enigma has managed to make boniface a church father, weldone.

Enigma: Anyway, here is a modern version of "Supremacy" according to the Roman Catholic "Church".

Cathechism of the Catholic Church/Lumen Gentium






Compare with "Pope" Gregory (quoted earlier)




Above all, compare the words of Jesus Christ.

Matthew 20

enigma, u are really a dishonest person, i have asked u "do u wish to bring greg as evidence?" yet u kept ur mouth shut are refused to speak. You are simply quoting greg out of context and playing on emotion. Weldone

Enigma: ^^^ Look, I'm not "arguing" anything with you.

Why don't you keep throwing abuses and I'll keep making whatever point I find "pertinent".

this is d way a fool wu has no point argue (note:i didnt call u a fool). If u have a point as u claim and ur interpretations are true as u claim then y are u afriad that they b put to test? Enigma pls try some honesty.

Ubenedictus: enigma, u are really a dishonest person, i have asked u "do u wish to bring greg as evidence?" yet u kept ur mouth shut are refused to speak. You are simply quoting greg out of context and playing on emotion. Weldone

Ubenedictus: this is d way a fool wu has no point argue (note:i didnt call u a fool). If u have a point as u claim and ur interpretations are true as u claim then y are u afriad that they b put to test? Enigma pls try some honesty.

Well, you can say as much as you like about my "honesty"; the fact remains that the claims of the Roman Catholic Church to "universal jurisdiction" and the arguments used to support the claims are all based on fraud. That is the real dishonesty.

Misinterpreting, misquoting and misrepresenting Augustine etc to claim they say what they never said. We know the Roman Catholic tactics well ---- in fact later, I will post some statements of people who have well summarised the Roman Catholic tactics.

I am glad your full colours as an olodo has been finally unmasked.I cannot even believe this fool was one of my most respected fella's on this forum.Thank God for finally revealing your true nature

chukwudi44: I am glad your full colours as an olodo has been finally unmasked.I cannot even believe this fool was one of my most respected fella's on this forum.Thank God for finally revealing your true nature

You know, you approach this issue with fanaticism. It's unhealthy. The issue is: is it true and Christlike that anybody should claim supremacy over anybody else?

Is there such a principle as the principle of the remnant or not? If there is, is it consistent with the claim of the Roman Church?

Those questions should have come from you.

Typing on my phone is quite tedious because of what I have to do to get "space". But I'll try to answer Ubenedictus's post that bore upon those questions later.

Enigma: Another example of "Supremacy" according to the Roman Catholic "Church" - per "pope" Pius IX.



As the "popes" said some of these things in 'Papal Bulls', I guess Christians are justified if they say that the "popes" were simply talking er, well, bull.

u shuld stop dis emotion arguement, u took snipet from d pope so it can be easily misunderstood. Dat teaching isnt d same as petrine primacy, type into wikipedia "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" and u will get an explanation, u may want to see this.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-mean

This is all about having a honest discussion.enigma had claimed st augustine did not believe in the supremacy of peter and the roman church.after having provided irrefutable proof instead of him to accept he was wrong he is mischieviously trying to derail the thread.I used to take him as one of the most mature forum members here but honestly speaking I am disapointed in him.

We should not just argue for arguing sake rather we should all strive to learn form our debates.This is not a must win situation

Enigma:



Well, you can say as much as you like about my "honesty"; the fact remains that the claims of the Roman Catholic Church to "universal jurisdiction" and the arguments used to support the claims are all based on fraud. That is the real dishonesty.

Misinterpreting, misquoting and misrepresenting Augustine etc to claim they say what they never said. We know the Roman Catholic tactics well ---- in fact later, I will post some statements of people who have well summarised the Roman Catholic tactics.

would u discuss those topic instead of shout "catholics lied" can u show me one quotation that chukwudi did wrong?

^^^ Look don't waste my time; why don't you simply keep shouting "enigma is dishonest" or some similar nonsense.

I will post whatever I consider of "pertinence".

Well, back to the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 and the interpretation stances of the "church fathers" --- a basic summary.

1. First thing, as has already been noted, is that they did not see it as having anything to do with "papal supremacy".

2. In general they saw the authority given to Peter as also given to the other apostles, to other bishops and even "to some extent" to other Christians.

3. On the technical issue of the interpretation of "on this rock . . .", in general at least two approaches can be discerned: (a) the rock is Peter's confession of faith i.e. 'you are the Christ'; or (b) the rock is actually Jesus Christ Himself. In fact Augustine seems to have started with position (a) and later shifted to position (b).

Now there were all these shouts for "quotes" from the "church fathers" or for quotes not "lacking in pertinence" all of which I of course ignored initially since I considered them daft as the calls stemmed from inability to establish, ascertain, comprehend and acknowledge the truth. Anyway, in the end I gave a rather relatively small sampling but now more for the benefit of the honest and good faith participant I provide the following link to a piece titled "The Patristic Exegesis of the Rock of Matthew 16:18" and which according to its own heading provides:

Numerous Quotations Given for the First Time from the Original Latin and Greek

Documentation from the writings of the following Church fathers and theologians:

Augustine, Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, Aphraates, Apostolical Constitutions, Asterius, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Basil of Seleucia, Bede, Cassiodorus, Cassian (John), Chrysostom(John), Chrysologus (Peter), Cyprian, Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Didymus the Blind, Epiphanius, Ephrem Syrus, Eusebius, Firmicus Maternus, Firmilian, Fulgentius, Gaudentius of Brescia, Gregory the Great, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Hilary of Poitiers, Ignatius, Isidore of Pelusium, Isidore of Seville, James of Nisbis, Jerome, John of Damascus, Maximus of Turin, Nilus of Ancyra, Origen, Pacian, Palladius of Helenopolis, Paschasius Radbertus, Paul of Emessa, Paul Orosius, Paulinus of Nola, Prosper of Aquitaine, Tertullian, Theodoret, Comments of 6th Century Palestinian and Syriac Clergy from a Letter to Emperor Justin, Comments of Chrysostom, Cyril or Origen falsely attributed to Victor of Antioch

http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/fathersmt16.html


Beyond the above which mostly focuses on quotations/statements, here is also a link this time to an article on "The Church Fathers' Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18"

http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/mt16.html

At op,
is this the type of discussion u want on d thread?? All i can see is Enigma making claims and he wont accept a discussion becos he prefers to behave like a child. If this is d type of discussion u want simply say so and i will kindly unfollow. I do not discuss with people wu would prefer not to discuss but would instead rant.
No offence meant

Ubenedictus: At op,
is this the type of discussion u want on d thread?? All i can see is Enigma making claims and he wont accept a discussion becos he prefers to behave like a child. If this is d type of discussion u want simply say so and i will kindly unfollow. I do not discuss with people wu would prefer not to discuss but would instead rant.
No offence meant

"Behaving like a child" is at least better than lying.

You people have been lying for a long time and I let you get away with most of it out of politeness and because your argument could be deconstructed even despite all your lies. Do you realise that even in your post that I've just quoted you are lying?

And talk of "behaving like a child" ---- let us again expose your dishonesty. OK, first a test: go through the posts of yourself, chukwudi44 and your two cheerleaders/supporters and come back to tell us if you people were not "behaving like a child" ----- on many occasions!

Enigma:

"Behaving like a child" is at least better than lying.

You people have been lying for a long time and I let you get away with most of it out of politeness and because your argument could be deconstructed even despite all your lies. Do you realise that even in your post that I've just quoted you are lying?

would u show me where and where i have lied? Or would u show me anything chukwudi quoted that wasnt said by d person he quoted? Where is the lie?

And talk of "behaving like a child" ---- let us again expose your dishonesty. OK, first a test: go through the posts of yourself, chukwudi44 and your two cheerleaders/supporters and come back to tell us if you people were not "behaving like a child" ----- on many occasions!

and to my brilliant friend enigma, which of my posts were offensive? U have been refusing a discussion and busy pasting "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" instead of discussing peter and ihend principle of "d remnant". And my friend if as u claim i was very whatever, since when did two wrongs make a right?? Or more childishness equal maturity??
If u do not wish to discuss why are u on nairaland??

^^ Firstly, I stand by what I have said.

Secondly, I Have been discussing the topic of this thread and I have made posts directly on the topic. If you don't see them, there is nothing I can do really.

Thirdly, as far as I understand it, there is no obligation or particular reason to discuss a thread topic with any particular person. Any person can make a contribution to a thread without addressing or discussing specifically with any other person. Thus, I do not have to discuss with you or with chukwudi44 or any other specific person --- especially not with the attitude that has been displayed.

Finally, even when you had been saucy I tried to patiently summarise my argument for you ---- and what did you come back with? More rudeness e.g. accusing me of "dishonesty"! And now that you people saw my own hand small, you are complaining.

OK, below is that summary again. I don't particularly need to say anything again and, above all, you have the freedom to make whatever point you wish to make.

Enigma:

On this occasion I will assume you have misunderstood my point rather than accuse you of lying.

First of all the so-called "primacy of Peter" is not and does not mean primacy of the Roman Catholic Church.

Above all, this thread is about the interpretation of Matthew 16:18. Therefore my point with Augustine, Basil, John Chrysostom, Gregory Nazanzius etc etc etc is that they interpreted Mathew 16:18 as conferring authority on Peter as well as on all bishops worldwide and wherever --- and to some extent even on all Christians.

In short, these early "church fathers" (and who were mostly NOT Roman Catholics) did not apply Matthew 16:18 to "papal primacy".

And with them, I conclude that Matthew 16:18 does not provide any doctrinal basis for the claims of the Roman Catholic Church of "papal supremacy".

The Roman Catholic claim of "papal supremacy" is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ and of the apostles.

Go and read Chrysostom and the others on their interpretation of Matthew 16:18 and learn, with honesty and humility, how they interprete the passage.

Enigma: ^^ Firstly, I stand by what I have said.

oh! U stand by what u said and u still do not show me where i lied. Beautiful.

Secondly, I Have been discussing the topic of this thread and I have made posts directly on the topic. If you don't see them, there is nothing I can do really.

actually what i see above on this page is "extra ecclesiam nulla salus", is that also on topic? Is d salvation topic a part of petrine primacy?

Thirdly, as far as I understand it, there is no obligation or particular reason to discuss a thread topic with any particular person. Any person can make a contribution to a thread without addressing or discussing specifically with any other person. Thus, I do not have to discuss with you or with chukwudi44 or any other specific person ---

very true

especially not with the attitude that has been displayed.

Finally, even when you had been saucy I tried to patiently summarise my argument for you ---- and what did you come back with? More rudeness e.g. accusing me of "dishonesty"! And now that you people saw my own hand small, you are complaining.

is it not suprising that u gave us a dead goat to beat?? That discussion ended in d other thread but u decided to bring it here.
And i ask u again, since wen did two wrongs make a right?

OK, below is that summary again. I don't particularly need to say anything again and, above all, you have the freedom to make whatever point you wish to make.

i cant really quote a quote.