₦airaland Forum

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.

^^^ 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".

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.”

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.

"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.”

Yep, Augustine called Rome an apostolic see; or in his words it had the supremacy of an apostolic chair.

However, of course Augustine like many others of the early "church fathers" also recognised the supremacy of an apostolic chair in other places. They never said that Rome was the only apostolic see; rather there were a number of known apostolic sees.

Per Augustine

"You cannot deny that you see what we call heresies and schisms, that is, many cut off from the root of the Christian society, which by means of the Apostolic Sees, and the successions of bishops, is spread abroad in an indisputably world-wide diffusion..."

Ah, are you now departing from the approach of idiocy?

Do you now wish to discuss in civil terms? Are you going to show me the respect that I had showed you?

Otherwise, you should know by now that I am very capable of ignoring you completely if you maintain the approach that you have so far adopted on this thread ---- even with your very first post directed to me (and which of course started on the other thread).

Posted previously by Enigma on page 1


Encore per Augustine of Hippo (who was NOT a Roman Catholic Bishop)

Its clear, you see, from many places in scripture that Peter can stand for, or represent, the Church; above all from that place where it says, To you will I hand over the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Mt. 16:19). Did Peter receive these keys, and Paul not receive them? Did Peter receive them, and John and James and the other apostles not receive them? Or are the keys not to be found in the Church, where sins are being forgiven every day? But because Peter symbolically stood for the Church, what was given to him alone was given to the whole Church. So Peter represented the Church; the Church is the body of Christ.

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).

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.

^^^ I simply ignored you because you had resorted to idiocy (which you started on the other thread) perhaps out of desperation and the realisation of the hopelessness of your position since the Roman Catholic argument is simply based on fraud. In the same way, once your supporters resort to idiocy it is not worthwhile wasting much time on them.



PS I had tried very hard to be "politically correct" and respectful to the Roman Catholic "Church" but it is becoming necessary to hit you people with real home truths.

Oh well, here once again is Augustine on Matthew 16 (repeated from an earlier post!)

So let us love him, let there be nothing dearer to us than he. So do you imagine that the Lord is not questioning us? Was Peter the only one who qualified to be questioned, and didn’t we? When that reading is read, every single Christian is being questioned in his heart. So when you hear the Lord saying ‘Peter, do you love me?’ think of it as a mirror, and observe yourself there. I mean, what else was Peter doing but standing for the Church? So when the Lord was questioning Peter, he was questioning us, he was questioning the Church. I mean, to show you that Peter stood for the Church, call to mind that place in the gospel, ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her; to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 16:18-19). One man receives them; you see, he explained himself what the keys of the kingdom mean: ‘What you all bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what you all loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 18:18). If it was said to Peter alone, Peter alone did this; he passed away, and went away; so who binds, who looses? I make bold to say, we too have these keys. And what am I to say? That it is only we who bind, only we who loose? No, you also bind, you also loose. Anybody who’s bound, you see, is barred from your society; and when he’s barred from your society, he’s bound by you; and when he’s reconciled he’s loosed by you, because you too plead with God for him.

We all love Christ, you see, we are his members; and when he entrusts the sheep to the shepherds, the whole number of shepherds is reduced to the body of one shepherd. Just to show you that the whole number of shepherds is reduced to the one body of the one shepherd, certainly Peter’s a shepherd, undoubtedly a pastor; Paul’s a shepherd, yes, clearly a pastor; John’s a shepherd, James a shepherd, Andrew a shepherd, and the other apostles are shepherds. All holy bishops are shepherds, pastors, yes, clearly so. And how can this be true: And there will be one flock and one shepherd (Jn 10:16)? Then if there will be one flock and one shepherd is true, the innumerable number of shepherds or pastors must be reduced to the body of the one shepherd or pastor

Where does that support the fraudulently claimed "universal jurisdiction" of the Roman Catholic "pope"?

Of course, this "argumentation by quotation" should not really be necessary and I have only condescended to that level for the sake of those who do not understand the debate or the wider context.

Just to demonstrate why I never felt it necessary to quote beyond Augustine which I did earlier on in a specifically relevant context, let me take some of the "quotes" that the apologists of the Roman Catholic "Church" are relying upon.

“Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.”
Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18 (A.D. 393),GCC 51

Where does that suggest support for the fraudulently claimed "universal jurisdiction" of the Roman Catholic "pope"? 

“Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church.”
Christian Combat, 31:33(A.D. 397), in JUR,3:51

Where does that suggest support for the fraudulently claimed "universal jurisdiction" of the Roman Catholic "pope"?

“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of ‘mountain men,’ or Cutzupits, by which they were known.”
To Generosus, Epistle 53:2(A.D. 400), in NPNF1,I:298

Where does that suggest support for the fraudulently claimed "universal jurisdiction" of the Roman Catholic "pope"?

“When, therefore, He had said to His disciples, ‘Will ye also go away?” Peter, that Rock, answered with the voice of all, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.’ “
Homilies on John, Tract 11:5(A.D. 417), in NPNF1,VII:76

Where does that suggest support for the fraudulently claimed "universal jurisdiction" of the Roman Catholic "pope"?

“And the Lord, to him to whom a little before He had said, ‘Blessed thou art, and upon this Rock I will build my Church,’ saith, ‘Go back behind, Satan, an offence thou art to Me.’ Why therefore ‘Satan’ is he, that a little before was ‘blessed,’ and a ‘Rock’ ?”
In Psalms, 56[55]:14[PL 36, 656] (A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:223

Where does that suggest support for the fraudulently claimed "universal jurisdiction" of the Roman Catholic "pope"?

“Peter, who had confessed Him as the Son of God, and in that confession had been called the rock upon which the Church should be built.”
In Psalms, 69:4[PL 36, 869] (A.D. 418), in Butler, 251

Where does that suggest support for the fraudulently claimed "universal jurisdiction" of the Roman Catholic "pope"?

“And if a Jew asks us why we do that, we sound from the rock, we say, This Peter did, this Paul did: from the midst of the rocks we give our voice. But that rock, Peter himself, that great mountain, when he prayed and saw that vision, was watered from above.”
In Psalms, 104[103]:16(A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:513

Where does that suggest support for the fraudulently claimed "universal jurisdiction" of the Roman Catholic "pope"?

Per Eusebius

. . . as Scripture says: ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’; and elsewhere: ‘The rock, moreover, was Christ.’ For, as the Apostle indicates with these words: ‘No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.’ Then, too, after the Savior himself, you may rightly judge the foundations of the Church to be the words of the prophets and apostles, in accordance with the statement of the Apostle: ‘Built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.’ These foundations of the world have been laid bare because the enemies of God, who once darkened the eyes of our mind, lest we gaze upon divine things, have been routed and put to flight—scattered by the arrows sent from God and put to flight by the rebuke of the Lord and by the blast from his nostrils. As a result, having been saved from these enemies and having received the use of our eyes, we have seen the channels of the sea and have looked upon the foundations of the world. This has happened in our lifetime in many parts of the world

Is that interpreting Matthew 16:18 to mean that the Roman Catholic "pope" has some fraudulently claimed "universal jurisdiction"?


Per Cyprian

Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her

Again, is that interpreting Matthew 16:18 to mean that the Roman Catholic "pope" has some fraudulently claimed "universal jurisdiction"?


Per Ambrose

Jesus said to them: Who do men say that I am? Simon Peter answering said, The Christ of God (Lk. ix.20). If it is enough for Paul ‘to know nothing but Christ Jesus and Him crucified,’ (1 Cor. ii.2), what more is to be desired by me than to know Christ? For in this one name is the expression of His Divinity and Incarnation, and faith in His Passion. And accordingly though the other apostles knew, yet Peter answers before the rest, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of God’...Believe, therefore, as Peter believed, that thou also mayest be blessed, and that thou also mayest deserve to hear, ‘Because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father who is in heaven’...Peter therefore did not wait for the opinion of the people, but produced his own, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God’: Who ever is, began not to be, nor ceases to be. Great is the grace of Christ, who has imparted almost all His own names to His disciples. ‘I am,’ said He, ‘the light of the world,’ and yet with that very name in which He glories, He favored His disciples, saying, ‘Ye are the light of the world.’ ‘I am the living bread’; and ‘we all are one bread’ (1 Cor. x.17)...Christ is the rock, for ‘they drank of the same spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor. x.4); also He denied not to His disciple the grace of this name; that he should be Peter, because he has from the rock (petra) the solidity of constancy, the firmness of faith. Make an effort, therefore, to be a rock! Do not seek the rock outside of yourself, but within yourself! Your rock is your deed, your rock is your mind. Upon this rock your house is built. Your rock is your faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If you are a rock, you will be in the Church, because the Church is on a rock. If you are in the Church the gates of hell will not prevail against you...He who has conquered the flesh is a foundation of the Church; and if he cannot equal Peter, he can imitate him

Again, is that interpreting Matthew 16:18 to mean that the Roman Catholic "pope" has some fraudulently claimed "universal jurisdiction"?

Here an interjection with the fraudulent claim of the Roman Catholic "Church" to "universal jurisdiction".

(From Vatican I)

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 [48].

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.

Oh and the other nonsensical claim of "papal infallibilty"

. . . we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility . . .

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

Of course sensible and knowledgeable Christians know that all the above is rubbish.

Hmm, ok.

Per Origen

And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.

Is that interpreting Matthew 16:18 to mean that the Roman Catholic "pope" has some fraudulently claimed "universal jurisdiction"?


Encore per Origen

But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?

Again, is that interpreting Matthew 16:18 to mean that the Roman Catholic "pope" has some fraudulently claimed "universal jurisdiction"?


Encore per Origen

‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him...he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters...And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock

Again, is that interpreting Matthew 16:18 to mean that the Roman Catholic "pope" has some fraudulently claimed "universal jurisdiction"?

Hmm, interesting.

Well, excerpts from 2 Timothy 3

6 . . . the kind . . . who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7 always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. 8 . . . these men oppose the truth—men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. 9 But they will not get very far because . . . their folly will be clear to everyone.

Nice.

plappville: Brother Frosbel na waoooh

Lets take a good look at this verse.

“Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness” (Gen. 1:26).

You will agree with me that when God said this, He was nt talking to Himself na . Abi you won tellme say He been confused?. Of course not.
God is plainly more than one Person. The Hebrew word used here is elohim. A uni-plural word. THEREFORE, one God, but meanin' more than one Person. God and Christ represent two separate Beings, As plainly illustrated in the start of John's writting.
Together, they represent the “Us” and “Our” of this verse.

But plappville if you can say all of these, then what is your problem or fight with "Trinitarians" ---- you are not much different from them afterall!

The bit that I've bolded in blue is basically saying the same thing as the "Trinitarians".

The bit that I've bolded in red will need adjustment. The "Trinitarians" put it this way: the Father is one Person, Jesus is one Person but both of them are of one Being or of one substance or of one essence ---- so they are not "two separate Beings".

plappville: Back to John writing....You have been giving it several meaning in your comments forgetting thet,the only way the "WORD" could both be God and be “with” God is if there were two separate Beings. One Being, the Word who became Jesus Christ, came to earth and “dwelt among men,” until His crucifixion as the Savior. The other Being, the Father, remained in heaven and was the One to whom Jesus Christ prayed. He (Christ's Father) was the One who resurrected Him from the dead so that He could return to His throne in heaven. The Muslims always say to trinitarians:

If Jesus is God then who does He pray to? , A good question indeed no? Jesus left Heaven to earth.
He left His Father in Heaven for the sake of Mankind. So while He was on earth, He prayed to His father. If He was Yahweh Himself, He definately cannot pray to Himself. John 1 told Us He was the word. And that He was in the beginning/Debut.


I take to your advise when you say we should becareful in the way and manner we interprets Scriptures.
But sometimes even when the scripture esplains itself, you still try harder to fit it with a meaning.
This baffles me alot. Bros Frosbel, Maybe you can explain what Christ meant here in the verse below as well.

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Notice that I have marked the word "Being" in red three times; from the point of view of the "Trinitarians", the word "Being" should be replaced with "Person".

Consider the words of that song:

Holy Holy Holy
Lord God Almighty
. . . .
God in Three Persons
Blessed Trinity.

Ubenedictus: enigma i thought u said chysostom was against d primacy of peter, u have been smoked.

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.

@Kenya28

As one of those who challenged you back then, I want to wish you well and to wish you every strength. I wish you God's healing and comforting hand.

I recognise that for you to come back with the actions of today, something serious must be happening; accordingly, I pray very sincerely that the Almighty God will stand with you and yours, give you strength, comfort and peace.

Genuinely with best wishes.
Enigma

Again, going back to the opening post: further scriptural basis for the approach taken by Augustine and other "church fathers" about the 'dissipatory' nature of the "authority" of Peter can be found in Ephesians 2

19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

In relation to Augustine and others, I'd like to c&p here something I first posted on another thread* together with a relevant link ---- attesting to their interpretation of the 'Primacy of Peter' in which they see the "authority" of Peter being vested in all the apostles, in all bishops everywhere, and for some of them even in all Christians.

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

Many of the Eastern Fathers who are rightly acknowledged to be the greatest and most representative and are, moreover, so considered by the universal Church, do not offer us any more evidence of the primacy. Their writings show that they recognized the primacy of the Apostle Peter, that they regarded the See of Rome as the prima sedes playing a major part in the Catholic communion—we are recalling, for example, the writings of St. John Chrysostom and of St. Basil who addressed himself to Rome in the midst of the difficulties of the schism of Antioch—but they provide us with no theological statement on the universal primacy of Rome by divine right. The same can be said of St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. John Damascene . . . .

It does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later {addendum: Roman Catholic} Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16–19. 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.

I believe that the East had a very poor conception of the Roman primacy. The East did not see in it what Rome herself saw and what the West saw in Rome, that is to say, a continuation of the primacy of St. Peter. The bishop of Rome was more than the successor of Peter on his cathedra, he was Peter perpetuated, invested with Peter’s responsibility and power. The East has never understood this perpetuity. St. Basil ignored it, as did St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. John Chrysostom. In the writings of the great Eastern Fathers, the authority of the Bishop of Rome is an authority of singular grandeur, but in these writings it is not considered so by divine right

.

* Previously posted here https://www.nairaland.com/1057120/german-catholics-face-excommunication-over/2#12318807

@ Ihedinobi

Further in relation to the key points of the opening post, it is worth bearing in mind:

(a) that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself was a servant King and taught Peter and the other apostles to be servants too, to be like children, to not seek "primacy"!

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.”

and (b) that what appeared to be said to Peter alone in Matthew 16:18-19 is indeed dissipatory is demonstrated by the clearly collectiveness of the same delegation in other parts of the Bible e.g. John 20:21-23 and especially as below -

Matthew 18

18 “I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

19 “Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”

So Augustine and the other "church fathers" had a point when they saw the "authority" given to Peter as "authority" given to the Church i.e. to the body of Christ.

Encore per Augustine of Hippo (who was NOT a Roman Catholic Bishop)

Its clear, you see, from many places in scripture that Peter can stand for, or represent, the Church; above all from that place where it says, To you will I hand over the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Mt. 16:19). Did Peter receive these keys, and Paul not receive them? Did Peter receive them, and John and James and the other apostles not receive them? Or are the keys not to be found in the Church, where sins are being forgiven every day? But because Peter symbolically stood for the Church, what was given to him alone was given to the whole Church. So Peter represented the Church; the Church is the body of Christ.

okeyxyz: 17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it...

Following the above bible reference "literally", it would be easy for anybody to conclude that authority was handed over to Simon "peter". like I said: "literally", But infact Jesus was making a perfect(spiritual) statement here, meaning: on this knowledge(rock) will I build my church... rather than the person of Simon 'peter' himself. The spirit(knowledge\Rock) is made available to anybody that believes. And if ever somebody could be given authority over the rest, judging by how much revelation\knowledge of christianity they'd delivered, then it should be Paul. According to the records we have today, it was Paul who revealed the most of christian principles that Jesus spoke of in parables, He gave the perfect interpretations Jesus's messages, which is even helped most by the fact that paul was educated and a student\teacher of the jewish law, therefore had more 'library' to interpret and reveal.

Also, in this context: "Peter" is a title for the believer, rather than the sole reference to the person of Simon.

^^^ This is a line of interpretation favoured by many of the "church fathers". In fact it was also expounded by Augustine of Hippo and you can easily find his statement that I quote below readily on the Internet.

So let us love him, let there be nothing dearer to us than he. So do you imagine that the Lord is not questioning us? Was Peter the only one who qualified to be questioned, and didn’t we? When that reading is read, every single Christian is being questioned in his heart. So when you hear the Lord saying ‘Peter, do you love me?’ think of it as a mirror, and observe yourself there. I mean, what else was Peter doing but standing for the Church? So when the Lord was questioning Peter, he was questioning us, he was questioning the Church. I mean, to show you that Peter stood for the Church, call to mind that place in the gospel, ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her; to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 16:18-19). One man receives them; you see, he explained himself what the keys of the kingdom mean: ‘What you all bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what you all loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 18:18). If it was said to Peter alone, Peter alone did this; he passed away, and went away; so who binds, who looses? I make bold to say, we too have these keys. And what am I to say? That it is only we who bind, only we who loose? No, you also bind, you also loose. Anybody who’s bound, you see, is barred from your society; and when he’s barred from your society, he’s bound by you; and when he’s reconciled he’s loosed by you, because you too plead with God for him.

We all love Christ, you see, we are his members; and when he entrusts the sheep to the shepherds, the whole number of shepherds is reduced to the body of one shepherd. Just to show you that the whole number of shepherds is reduced to the one body of the one shepherd, certainly Peter’s a shepherd, undoubtedly a pastor; Paul’s a shepherd, yes, clearly a pastor; John’s a shepherd, James a shepherd, Andrew a shepherd, and the other apostles are shepherds. All holy bishops are shepherds, pastors, yes, clearly so. And how can this be true: And there will be one flock and one shepherd (Jn 10:16)? Then if there will be one flock and one shepherd is true, the innumerable number of shepherds or pastors must be reduced to the body of the one shepherd or pastor

With regard to the second part of the post (quoted below), though I appreciate the point being made the fact of history remains that it was adamantly NOT the Roman Catholic Church that compiled or even preserved the Bible.

okeyxyz: [color=#990000]As regards who gave us the current bible we read, I'd say it dosen't matter. Whether the Catholic church or not, they were just a custodian of the bible, it dosen't mean they can deliver the correct message or doctrine of the bible. They just hold on to it until the right person(people) for whom this message is destined comes along. It's like a postman who delivers your mails, It dosen't mean he wrote the mails or that he understands the context of the message, even if he has read or translated them for the recipient.

Two or three quick points

1. The question of the nature of the "authority" given to Peter has been the subject of issues of interpretation and one interpretation holds that the same "authority" was given to the rest of the apostles and to some extent to every Christian.

2. It is a misconception and a falsehood to say that the Roman Catholic Church "compiled" the Bible. That issue has already been addressed in a recent thread. https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church

3. The Nicea Council had more or less nothing to do with the compilation of the books of the Bible; it is another myth and falsehood peddled by the misinformed. The papers/proceedings of the Council are still available on the Internet and can be consulted to see the agenda that the Council dealt with.

@plappville, do you know that if you read that John 1:18 in other Bible versions, it actually expressly refers to Jesus as God?

Examples (from an old post of mine)

John 1:18

NIV

No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

ESV

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

NASB

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

KJV (funny enough the KJV which is oft reviled here is the one that uses "Son" for 'God')

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

truthislight: my friend enigma, you guys seems to be developing an untoward skills in posting this days.

You make your post in quoted format so that quoting it is impossible, is there anything to hide?

Hope their is nothing to hide then one will not need to come up with unnecessary vices.

My friend, you are talking out of ignorance and making a false accusation. Go and ask about this issue in the "Ask a moderator" section and they will explain to you.

^^^ You are not reading my posts carefully!

And you do not understand the arguments of the "Trinitarians".

If you were reading my posts carefully, you will see that I support and agree with John 1:18 that you are mentioning. I even quoted part of it on this very thread. I suggest you read this earlier post of mine on this very thread very very carefully. https://www.nairaland.com/1077335/trinitarians-ignorant-what-moses-said/1#12635381

In particular I suggest you note the last passage I referred to i.e. John 14:9 then compare it and try to understand or work out its relationship to John 1:18 that you mentioned.

Second, I suggest you examine how John 12:41 explains how it was possible for Isaiah to see God. Then relate it again to what Jesus said in both John 14:9 AND John 1:18.

Perhaps then you will see why it is not difficult for us "Trinitarians" to accept that Jacob wrestled with God.

@plappville

You are doing two very bad things.

1. You are making a false accusation (I don't want to say you are lying) when you accuse me of twisting ----- because all I have done is to set out Bible passages. You are the one that has been doing the "interpreting" and twisting as a matter of fact.

2. You can pretend not to see the passages where Isaiah said he saw God or which say that Jacob wrestled with God. Well, they will still be there in the Bible.

Honestly Image123, you don catch me baaad! I didn't want to make a single post on this thread at all since the "unitarians", JWs, "Jesus is a godists" (and Moslems etc) say that they want to discuss among themselves "lovingly", "brotherly" etc.

But the question you asked has been screaming to be asked!

Interestingly, I notice that the JWs have not so far made clear to their "friends" and "brothers" that they believe Jesus is the same as the angel Michael.

1 Peter 1

10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11 trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.

Acts 16

6 Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. 7 When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to.

Galatians 4:6

Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father."