₦airaland Forum

Pastor AIO: I believe it is a lot more than mischief. It is a struggle for inner peace.

Cool. And yours is a struggle to free yourself from lies and know the truth and even perhaps The Truth.

chukwudi44: Fortunately what enigma views as catholic is not important.Once the catholic church is mentioned,the average man on the street knows the church you are talking about.

Of course --- and that is why it is a pity that the "intellectuals" on Nairaland are as ignorant as the average man on the street.

chukwudi44: ironically the man who presided over the canonisation has declared "ROME HAS SPOKEN THE CASE IS CLOSED"

Perhaps at some point I will deal with this quote in more detail but for now let me tell you just a little bit about that quote: what you have quoted is false and a misrepresentation of what Augustine actually said! It is the kind of thing I would exect of "the average man on the street".

Here try this, it is what Augustine actually said:


"Jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est: Utinam aliquando finiatur error."

Translation

" . . . for already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts (reports) have come. The cause is finished, would that the error may terminate likewise."

See here http://vintage.aomin.org/Sermo131.html
and here http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/windsorandaugustine.html

chukwudi44: Even st ignatius who first used the term 'catholic church' calls the church of rome 'the church that PRESIDES in love'

And you are still running away from defining "the primacy" of Rome.

And of course Ignatious talks of presiding in love and NOT the primacy of power/jurisdiction claimed by Rome.

Pastor AIO: My conscience remains clear. Perhaps, in tow with the subject of this thread, you can explain to us why you feel that the Roman Catholic Church has nothing to do with the Biblical Canon.

This post is either another reflection on your honesty or at least on your comprehension skills.

Read the first two posts of the thread.

Then let us see if you will still be asking the question.

What is more, let us see what "Truth" you are really committed to.

Pastor AIO: In that case I'll leave it. Once again, I would rather limit myself on this thread to the relationship between the Canon of the bible and the Roman catholic church. If you want to know what I understand by Catholic that bad feel free to open a thread on the subject.

I don't particularly care to know what you understand by "catholic" and I am not surprised that you are running away from the issue.

interestingly, here are a couple of things you have said:

On this very thread

Pastor AIO: And where did I agree with him that anything but Roman Catholic has no leg to stand on. Especially considering the mention of the eastern orthodox churches. I was referring to the 'attackers' of the catholic church. These attackers that I know are mostly pentecostals and such ilk.

And only a little earlier elsewhere https://www.nairaland.com/934799/reasons-why-obama-not-christian/14#11041995

Pastor AIO: . . . For me there are only two positions. Truth or Deception. I have always sought to seek and express the Truth of a matter. Where I am wrong I am open to correction. If at any point the Truth is making you to shake your head in sadness then you have to figure out how you are going to deal with it.

If I point out that the bible was compiled by the Catholic Church then that statement is either True or False. If the Truth of it is giving outsiders ammunition to attack your beliefs then you need to question why your beliefs are at odds with historical facts. . .

Funny about the reference to "Truth" ---- unless it is to "truth" in the same sense as Jonathan Aitken before his repentance.

Anyway, you don't need to explain here what you mean by "catholic church" in those examples; it is sufficient for me to leave you to your conscience.

^^^ The Edict very much did that; ask those who know about legal interpretation.

If you are a person really committed to "truth" you will tell us what you understand by "catholic" and whether it means the Roman Catholic Church.

chukwudi44: . . .
An argument that should strictly be historical and theological has been reduced to mere semantics.You are now playing with nomenclatures.To the ridiculous extent of even calling evangelicals catholics . . . .

Evangelicals are catholic and they do indeed call themselves catholic.

For example, here is an extract from the Westminster Confession of Faith

http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html

CHAPTER XXV.
Of the Church.

I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

III. Unto this catholic and visible Church, Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world; and doth by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.

IV. This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less, visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error: and some have so degenerated as to become apparently no Churches of Christ. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth, to worship God according to his will.

VI. {deleted by Enigma because it is inflammatory}.

chukwudi44: @

Who told you I ran away. I am working in an office and would thus leave to attend to any pressing issue or when I simply get tired from typing.I can't spend my entire day on nl you know.

That was not referring to you at all; please read my post again.

chukwudi44: Back to your question.

The primacy of the Bishop of Rome is an ecclesiastical doctrine concerning the respect and authority that is due to the Bishop of Rome from other bishops and their sees.

Firstly, you have not explained what you mean by "the primacy" of Rome.

Secondly, even as an "ecclesiastical doctrine" the understanding of every other part of the catholic Church is different from that of the Roman Catholic Church.

Thirdly, it is the Roman Catholic understanding that is a major cause of the Great Schism and an obstacle to reconciliation.

chukwudi44: Honestly I can't believe the enigma I have known on NL all this years could resort to such vilest of mischiefs.

Sorry bros, I have not resorted to any mischief at all.

chukwudi44: I no fit laughoo !!! Even evangelicals are now catholics!! This thread is indeed interestering!!!

They are catholics together with the rest of the body of Christ everywhere and in all ages. It is to distinguish itself from that catholic Church that the RCC calls itself the Roman Catholic Church.

As Ignatius said (which I already pointed out on page 4):

. . . even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church*

* another translation:

even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal Church

ETA http://www.jhu.edu/gcf/lessons/IgnatiusSmyrnaeans.pdf


And of course more importantly:

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them

Pastor AIO:
It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our Clemency and Moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven we shall decide to inflict.

—Codex Theodosianus


Sebi I said I was leaving the thread? ehn . . . whatever!

This Edict is not a church document but was issued by the Emperor. 'Catholic' was a word already in use for a long time before it was issued. Further it does NOT provide a definition for what a catholic is but rather says that only those that believe in the trinity would be allowed to call themselves Catholic. Or even to call their group a Church.

Since our friend has now run away after my question on this post, I should point out that this post is another demonstration of ignorance. We are talking of the edict that is seen widely as the law that made Christianity the state religion of Rome the Roman Empire ---- in which sense its own particular significance in that respect is even greater than that of a "church document".

Sometimes, and rather sadly, it is really difficult to escape that feeling of 'casting pearls' and all that .

chukwudi44: Hahahahaha

I laugh in latin

I am really enjoying this.

Could you please tell me any early church father that contested the primacy of rome

Another wayo, after I had explained this to you several times.


OK, let us play your game: define what you mean by "the primacy" of Rome.

Pastor AIO:
It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our Clemency and Moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven we shall decide to inflict.

—Codex Theodosianus


Sebi I said I was leaving the thread? ehn . . . whatever!

This Edict is not a church document but was issued by the Emperor. 'Catholic' was a word already in use for a long time before it was issued. Further it does NOT provide a definition for what a catholic is but rather says that only those that believe in the trinity would be allowed to call themselves Catholic. Or even to call their group a Church.

So provide us with the definition of "catholic" ---- and tell us again that it refers to the Roman Catholic Church.

^^^ That wayo does not work!

Pre-Schism, communion with Rome did not make you a Roman Catholic; rather it indicated at best that you were a catholic Christian.

Today, it is the same: every Church which accepts Nicea, even if not in communion with Rome, is part of the catholic Church. Hence, Anglicans, Evangelicals, Orthodox etc all say: "we believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church".

See this thread https://www.nairaland.com/1032312/scandal-church


In fact in that quote what you see is the Roman Catholic Church using the word "Roman" to distinguish itself from the rest of the catholic Church, from the rest of the universal Church.

chukwudi44: . . . Enigma could you please give me your own definition of who is a roman catholic?. . .

The Roman Catholic Church is the 'descendant' of the historical Church of Rome especially since the Great Schism; even if it is preferred to say that the Roman Catholic Church is the historical Church of Rome of which the Bishop of Rome (later aka The 'Pope') is traditionally the human "head", that too will be fine.

And see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church

Church [addendum: i.e. Roman Catholic Church] documents produced by both the Holy See and by certain national episcopal conferences occasionally refer to the Roman Catholic Church. The Catechism of Pope Pius X published in 1908 also used the term "Roman" to distinguish the Catholic Church from other Christian communities who are not in full communion with Rome.

^^^ He was Bishop of Hippo (in Africa) and not a bishop in/of the Roman Catholic Church.

Ihedinobi: Thank you, sir. And, yes, they do add up. It seems to me that St Augustine's position on the primacy of Rome deteriorated rather than improved. Bokenkotter says that St Augustine "on several occasions. . .complained very bitterly about Rome's exercise of its appelate powers - even threatening to resign if Rome reinstated a young priest whom (he) had suspended." He ends with "we simply can't say what his final views on the primacy of Rome might have been."

Bokenkotter says that the pope's formal claim to "primacy over all other churches in virtue not of conciliar decisions but of the Lord's promise to St. Peter" came from Pope Damasus at a council in 382.

This is an interesting point and there is a reason for it.

There is a particular underlying reason for the situation concerning "pope" Damasus. In 380 Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire due to Emperor Theodosius.

In the Edict of Thessalonica, it was declared that only those churches that are part of the "Catholic Church" are to be recognised. But what did the Edict mean by "Catholic Church"? What the Edict itself says is that "the Catholic Church" consisted of the churches that accepted the doctrine of The Trinity. Simples! Even that did not just mean the Roman Catholic Church but also applied to the other Sees outside Rome.

Now the point is this, with the official adoption of the "Catholic Church" politically by the government some of the Bishops of Rome saw an additional basis for their claims of "primacy" of power; as Rome was the capital of the empire, the "popes" of course considered that they who were the church of the capital had extra (this time, political) basis for their "primacy" of power.**

An interesting aside, historians say that it was because of this feeling of 'self-importance' and association with political power that led clergy to start wearing "copes" and things in the same way as the governing elite.



** Edit, this devil was later to challenge the Church of Rome itself when Constantinople became the new capital, was given a See of the same status as the historically recognised primary Sees of Alexandria, Antioch, Rome (and essentially even above Jerusalem) and Constantinople began to flex muscles against Rome itself!

Edited: I still need to learn to type faster!

chukwudi44: For the umpteenth time I have told you if you have any direct quotation from any of the pre-schism church father challenging the primacy of rome kindly spill it here.

I have given you direct quotations from ireneaus,cyprian,Augustine,John chrysostom professing the primacy of rome but you have so far failed to give quotations from church fathers backing up your own accounts

And I have told you for the umpteenth time of a number of things

(a) the challenges to Roman Catholic and your interpretation of the statements you quoted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_the_doctrine_of_Papal_Primacy and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_the_Bishop_of_Rome#Opposition_arguments_from_orthodox_doctrine


(b) that the rest of the catholic Church (the Church catholic or the universal church) did not accept Roman Catholic interpretation of the "primacy of Rome"; they saw the other Sees as equal with Rome and Rome's "primacy" as one of honour only; it is only the Roman Catholic Church that have ever claimed a "primacy" of power and/or jurisdiction

(c) it is this claim of "primacy" of power/jurisdiction by the Roman Catholic Church that acted as a major contributor to the Great Schism of the universal catholic Church and that is a major obstacle to reconciliation today.

(d) many of the people called "Church Fathers" were not even Roman Catholics at all!

(edit: Sorry this post is in relation to Oga Ihedinobi's last post; before I saw Oga Chukwudi's subsequent post)

"The church that meets in your house"; "appoint for yourselves 'bishops' (or elders) and deacons" etc.

Above all: ". . . where two or three are gathered in my name there I am in the midst of them."

@ Ihedinobi

Superb post!

And specifically on this part

Ihedinobi: . . . As for the movements that culminated in claims and rebuttals of primacy, he says in pp 45 & 46,

"There still remains the question of how the individual churches were related to one another. From the beginning they were deeply conscious of their unity and oneness in Jesus Christ, and this sense of unity was fostered by the great amount of intercourse that took place among them. The missionaries and their converts kept the churches in touch with each other by frequent visits. It was only slowly and by degrees, however, that these informal and personal relations were translated into institutional and organizational ones.

The first steps in this direction occurred, it seems, when the bishops of a particular region began to meet in symmes to discuss their common problems and adopt common solutions. The first synod of which we have knowledge took place in Asia between 160 and 175. Gradually certain churches assumed authority over other churches. Some of them acquired so-called metropolitan status, which elevated them over the churches of a province, while others - Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, to be specific - acquired suprametropolitan status, by which they exercised a primacy over these metropolitan churches. Political factors were mainly responsible for these differentiations, the political preponderance of a town inevitably securing its ecclesiastical preponderance. So the bishop of the capital of a Roman province was granted a certain superiority over the other bishops of that province; he had the right to convoke synods and to preside over the debates. The fourth canon of the Council of Nicaea (325) officially sanctioned this principle when it recognized the primacy of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch.". . .

compare this passage in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippo_Regius

Three councils were held at Hippo (393, 394, 426) and more synods - also in 397 (two sessions), June and September and 401, all under Aurelius.

The synods of the Ancient (North) African church were held, with but few exceptions (e.g. Hippo, 393; Milevum, 402) at Carthage. We know from the letters of St. Cyprian that, except in time of persecution, the African bishops met at least once a year, in the springtime, and sometimes again in the autumn. Six or seven synods, for instance, were held under St. Cyprian's presidency during the decade of his administration (249-258), and more than fifteen under Aurelius (391-429). The Synod of Hippo of 393 ordered a general meeting yearly, but this was found too onerous for the bishops, and in the Synod of Carthage (407) it was decided to hold a general synod only when necessary for the needs of all Africa, and it was to be held at a place most convenient for the purpose. Not all the bishops of the country were required to assist at the general synod. At the Synod of Hippo (393) it was ordered that "dignities" should be sent from each ecclesiastical province. Only one was required from Tripoli, because of the poverty of the bishops of that province. At the Synod of Hippo (393), and again at the Synod of 397 at Carthage, a list of the books of Holy Scripture was drawn up, which survives to the current day as the Catholic canon (including some books considered apocrypha by Protestants).

Pastor AIO: Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace according to thy word. . . . .


I am satisfied. I was under the impression that RCC was being denied any involvement in the establishing of biblical canon. Since it is now clear that that isn't the case I can leave this thread with a certain measure of satisfaction. . . . on to more interesting topics . . . now what was that about some edo woman delivering a horse in church . . .

I am satisfied too that the falsehoods being spread all over the forum that the Roman Catholic Church gave us the Bible, canonised the Bible, gave us the Trinity doctrine and other such nonsense have now been shown for what they are.

And for people claiming to be committed to "truth" --- it is pathetic to be involved in the spread of such falsehoods.

It is a red herring to ask whether Irenaeus accepted the "primacy" of Rome?

The more relevant questions are inter alia:

- Did the Christian Church that established the canon of the Bible consist of only the Roman Catholic Church?

- What did the other parts of the early Church that were not Roman Catholic understand by the "primacy" of Rome?

@ Ihedinobi

Just a quick note to say that I had deliberately kept quiet about Bokenkotter because I calculated that your approach about his authority would have the greatest impact --- in particular with the fact that, as you have now indicated, Bokenkotter is himself not only a Roman Catholic but also a Catholic priest; even the University of Louvain (Leuven) is/used to be called the Catholic University of Louvain (Leuven).

(Edited)

^^^ Self-contradiction, lol!

plaetton: I had been reading from the sidelines watching you demonstrate the depth of your knowledge on the above subject, while at the same time, laughing to myself as I watched your opponent dribble himself into his own goal posts. You are obviously a staunch catholic who knows his onions. . . . .

Meanwhile just a few posts before on the previous page

plaetton:

Ihedinobi:
You guys know that I've been watching from the sidelines. This is because I don't know very well the details of the current discussion. For this reason, I began to reread the history of the catholic church according to Bokenkotter. But without the details even, possessing knowledge of the Principles of Church Life alone, I see no sense in the claim of the Roman Catholic Church upon primacy or even universality.

I have covered about eight chapters of the book I mentioned and can tell that the concept of primacy conferred upon Rome (or anywhere else for that matter) is unBiblical, unreasonable and completely counterproductive to the interests of Christ. I can also tell that whatever whoever said, it is untrue that Jesus Christ conferred primacy upon any member of His apostles. His words about founding the Church upon Rock were not meant for Peter. Peter was never never the Rock that Jesus spoke of. Yes, Jesus instructed Peter to feed His sheep and tend His flock, but was that a special commission given to Peter or was it Jesus restoring a fallen servant of His after said servant denied Him? Said words of Jesus were said to the whole apostles in other forms.

What is more, since it's God's Way to win the one in order to get the many, is it not just that in restoring Peter the loud, brash talker, Jesus restored His whole company of apostles? That makes Peter nothing more than one of the many still.

Also, Enigma is right about the multiple-bishop/overseer/elder argument. The apostle travelled to cities to precipitate those whose hearts were seeking the Lord out of the multitudes to become the Church. Then they appointed the most spiritually mature among them to serve the others. These appointed ones were the bishops or elders. Paul and Barnabas were numbered among those at Antioch, Peter and James numbered among those at Jerusalem, Priscilla and Aquila probably among others presided over the church in their own house. I think it was Gaius or something that the elder to whom John wrote his third letter was called, that was another example.

Primacy, authority over others such that one issues orders and others obey, and one amounts to a mediator between God and the Christian is a position that supplants Christ. Christ gave that position to no man. From the beginning till now, the head of the woman has been the man, the head of the man Christ and the head of Christ God. There is no other arrangement recognized by the Scriptures. That arrangement that became today's church hierarchies is rooted in man's selfishness, not the need for preservation of doctrine as Bokenkotter's history and arguments for hierarchies in the Church submit.

[size=14pt]This is very correct[/size].

^^^ Bros

Don't waste your time!

He copied and pasted from the other conspiracy theory nut called Gardner and pretended he wrote the stuff. Shameless plagiarist kawai. And of course after the rubbish was countered he doesn't have the integrity to own up and, if honourable, apologise.

And they will come here forming "intellectual"!

Oh and about the Lawrence Gardner guy? Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Gardner

Laurence Gardner's first book Bloodline of the Holy Grail was published in 1996. . . . . He used his books to propose several theories, including a belief that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had married and had children, whose descendants included King Arthur and the House Of Stuart. In Lost Secrets of the Sacred Ark he claimed that the Ark of the Covenant was a machine for manufacturing "monatomic gold" - a supposed elixir which could be used to extend life. His books also included theories about Freemasonry, the Knights Templar, The Holy Grail and proposed connections between Atenism and Judaism.

Gardner referred to himself as "Chevalier Labhran de Saint Germain", and "Presidential Attache to the self-styled European Council of Princes" also "Prior of the self-styled Celtic Churches Sacred Kindred of Saint Columbia". He also claimed to be Jacobite Historiographer Royal of the Royal House of Stewart. He was a supporter of Michael Lafosse, in particular his claims to be descended from the House of Stuart, which Gardner claimed was descended from Jesus Christ.

Historians and scholars regard him as a conspiracy theorist, and treat his work as pseudohistory. Michel Lafosse's claims have been dismissed.

plaetton: . . . In his one of his tirades against percieved heretics, Iraeneus of Lyon wrote a treatise titled Against Heresies, where he went as far as to imply that Jesus himself was a heretic who had been practicing the wrong religion
Jesus, he claimed, was personally mistaken in his beliefs.

Here is an excerpt from the treatise:
They, like jesus as well as the essenes and Zadokites of two centuries before,expounded on he prophetic books of the old testament: They reject the pauline epistles and reject the apostle paul, calling him a apostate of the law!

. .

^^^ The above is some lunacy put out from the league of conspiracy theorists - in this case by Lawrence Gardner, yeah that notable "scholar". :rolleyes:

Here is the full claim made by Gardner:

Additionally, he (i.e. Irenaeus) wrote of the Nazarenes, whom he classified as ebionites . . .

They, like Jesus as well as the Essenes and Zadokites of two centuries before, expounded on the prophetic books of the old testament. They reject the Pauline epistles and reject the apostle Paul, calling him an apostate of the law.

Anyone with any ounce of intelligence and intellectual honesty can see what even the quoted statement is saying:

1. Jesus expounded on the prophetic books of the Old Testament
2. The Nazarenes also expounded on the prophetic books of the Old Testament
3. The Nazarenes reject the Pauline epistles
4. The Nazarenes called Paul an apostate of the law



(Edited & further edited for clarity)

Although I had intended to continue on from my second post that seems unnecessary now and it seems that this thread has really run its course.

For me, a good place to round up is this:

First I return to Ignatius who was the one who coined and the first to use the expression "the catholic Church". While Ignatius was a strong supporter of the role of a bishop in worship, he also believed that each individual church was in itself complete and a part of the universal church.

However, even whilst still expounding/extolling the role of a bishop (possibly even questionably somewhat), Ignatius said another interesting thing in his Epistle to The Smyrnaeans:

. . . even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church*

* another translation:

even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal Church

ETA http://www.jhu.edu/gcf/lessons/IgnatiusSmyrnaeans.pdf



Now where have I heard something similar before? Oh, here (Matthew 18:20):

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them

In 1 Peter 1, we see the apostle Peter writing to encourage Christians in a number of places; these Christians had been converted through the work of some other 'evangelists' and 'missionaries'.

1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Then we get to 1 Peter 5 and in the same letter the apostle addresses the "leaders" of these Christian communities.

1The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. 5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

So what do we have here?

- Peter addresses "elders"!
- Peter calls himself also an "elder" (granted he started in chapter 1 by calling himself an apostle)
- Asks the elders to "feed the flock" ('poimanate/poimnion) taking oversight (episkopountes): meaning in modern lingo = act as pastors in the roles of bishops"!

Also:

- Do we notice that Peter does not address himself as "Bishop of xyz"?
- Do we notice that Peter calls himself a fellow "elder" alongside what we today will probably see as the "far far far more lowly" leaders of some communities far away from the original centre of action in Jerusalem?

@ aletheia, Ihedinobi etc (& even Frosbel)

Just to say that na exasperation dey do me make I just dey looku (I no really fit lafu dis one); as some will know, I have been there before with Frosbel and in rather less polite terms and manner too.

Smh in pity and sadness.

@ Ihedinobi

Thanks for that.

The primacy of Rome issue (using the pretext of the "primacy of Peter" ) is, in my view, a vey sad and unnecessary idea that has fostered (and is still fostering) disunity and of course in part helped the degeneracy that eventually led to the Protestant Reformation.

Interestingly, the Eastern Orthodox Church has a rather more conciliatory attitude to the primacy of Peter and its later consequences for the Church ---- but unfortunately it is not acceptable to the Roman Catholic Church.


And thanks also for the specific examples of plurality of eldership/oversight/'bishophood' in the Bible. Those were indeed the things I had in mind. In addition, the idea and practice of the collective 'episkopoi' (which I think is even naturally plural) is both explicit and implicit throughout the Bible. There is the Jerusalem example and the others.

But then let us think of the epistles. in his letter to the Philippians, we read the apostle Paul in these terms: Philippians 1

Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

So in Philippi alone they had bishops and deacons (both plural)!


Again in Acts 20:28 we see Paul having sent for the elders (presbutero) of the Church at Ephesus charge them as follows:

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers*, to feed the church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood.

*overseers = episkopoi = bishops

Again we see that the Church at Ephesus had a plurality of elders and bishops.

Also if we read the epistles of Paul in the Bible to Churches in Colossae, Galatia, Corinth etc, he does not even address the letters to the bishops let alone to a bishop; rather he addressed the letters either to the 'brethren' or to the Church or 'Churches'

There is one more of these things which I hope to post separately and later ------- and that one concerns the apostle Peter himself.

^^ That is indeed one of the passages that help us understand the nature of the authority that Jesus gave to Peter and to the apostles collectively.

Also, the apostle Peter would have naturally recalled Jesus scolding them for seeking "primacy", Himself washing their feet, telling them to be like servants, telling them to be like children etc.

Then read the apostle Peter in a letter to a young Christian assembly in 2 Peter 1:1 and see whether that is someone seeking aggrandisement of his office or position.

italo: @chukwudi44,

Perhaps you should save yourself the stress...until Enigma has something new and relevant to say. For now, it seems he has no option than to be beating around the bush by regurgitating irrelevant and already answered questions.

Here on nairaland, that is their way of saying, "I was wrong."

In all the recent discussions, I have tried to be polite to individual catholics and very deliberately to maintain a tone of respect for the Roman Catholic Church. Even when chukwudi has thrown some mild personals my way, I have tried to overlook them; even you, specifically, italo have always enjoyed politeness from me in the past. Personally, I would prefer things to remain cordial ---- and mercifully this your post is very very mild so let us keep it cordial.

chukwudi44: All the apostles were given authourity but primacy was vested on st Peter. . . . .

And I have asked you to explain how the apostle Peter himself exercised this supposed "primacy"?

What authority or "primacy" did Peter claim over the other apostles?

What authority or "primacy" did Peter exercise over the other apostles?

What authority did Peter claim over individual Churches?

What authority did Peter exercise over individual Churches?

Did Peter ever claim or exercise authority over the other apostles or over other Churches in the same way that the Roman Catholic "popes" tried to do over other Churches?

Is not the claim of authority by the Roman Catholic "popes" a major cause of schism in the catholic Church?

And was Peter ever a "pope" or did he know of such a thing as a "pope"?


Look, I have deliberately tried to focus on the primacy claimed by Rome and not to dwell on the issue of the "primacy of Peter" because it is not key to the question of whether the catholic Church is a different thing from the Roman Catholic Church.

Even the Roman Catholic popes say at least that the "Church" consists of its two lungs i.e. The Roman Catholic Church and The Eastern Orthodox (the Orthodox Catholic Church).

Is that not a recognition and admission that at least the historic catholic Church did not consist of just the Roman Catholic Church?

The Eastern Orthodox (Orthodox Catholic Church) then even reply to that, saying to claim that the Church consists of its two lungs is to then say that neither of the "lungs" is catholic! In other words, that it would mean neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Catholic Church is catholic.

Is that not then saying that the Roman Catholic understanding/use of the word "catholic" is wrong?