₦airaland Forum

chukwudi44: There is no history of the plurality of bishops in any church and paul was never bishop of rome. The list of all the bishops of rome has been repeatedly named by ss hegessipus,ireneaus,origen.eusebius ,Augustine,tertullian and several of the church fathers.Paul was never bishop of rome.Peter was succeded by linus in the see of rome.Any other thing is a figment of your imagination.

If you are referring to the post-apostolic age, you could have a point because it does seem that the idea of official title of "bishop" and apparently vested in a single person occurred early after the time of the apostles.

However, as I've told you before the Bible's teaching is of a body of bishops/elders/overseers; this is also corroborated to some extent in The Didache where you will read of the instruction: "appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons . . ." (note plurals)

chukwudi44: If you know of any instance of plurality of bishop in the early church kindly state it here including the names of the bishops,year and city involved.please stop making up histories.Give me historical writings by men who actually lived @ that time

Of course I do - Jerusalem!

This is my point that you have missed. As far as we read from the Bible, the apostles did not have "Bishop of This", "Bishop of That" or "Bishop of The Other". Rather, you had a collective of elders, i.e. a collective of bishops such as James, Peter etc. In fairness, you could say that there were instances where it seems one person appeared to be figure-head perhaps e.g. Timothy but (a) you did not find him referred to as "Bishop of . . ." and (b) what you mostly find in the Bible remains a collective of elders or deacons even in small assemblies.

First about Paul, the point is this: if he was in Rome at the same time as Peter and being an apostle, the expectation would be that he would be one of the "bishops" in the Roman Church. This is in accordance with the understanding of "bishops" in the Bible - a plurality.

Second about Peter's death in Rome, the point is this: if Peter appointed a successor after him as Bishop of Antioch, then he also left his authority there as you are claiming for Rome. Now further on this point is the argument that all the Sees that are Apostolic Sees were equal.

If Peter was Bishop of Antioch, he had successors in Antioch.

If Peter was Bishop of Jerusalem, he had successors in Jerusalem.

That he died in Rome is neither here nor there. And that is assuming even that he was ever 'Bishop of Rome'.

By the way, what about the apostle Paul --- was he ever 'Bishop of Rome' or was he ever bishop in Rome? {EDIT Afterall he is supposed to have been in Rome at about the same time as Peter}

And what authority did the apostle Peter himself claim over other apostles or even over other Churches (granted he knew what Jesus Christ said) unlike what his supposed successors i.e. the Roman "popes" claiming primacy were/are doing.

Also if Peter was first of all Bishop of Antioch and/or Bishop of/in Jerusalem, why is it not his supposed successors in either Antioch or Jerusalem that are the "popes" today?

NB this is without even as yet addressing the issue of the primacy of Peter; and again this is even assuming that Peter ever was 'Bishop of Rome'.

chukwudi44: In order words you are not able to present evidence from any of the pre-schism church fathers to support your own theory of the 'catholic' church.All these are just a figment of your imagination.Telling me victor was rebuked by ireneaus,was that the first time it was happening? Did paul not rebuke peter? How many times did ireneaus go to rome to confer wit the pope?

I used to respect you so much on nl but I never knew you could resort to such shameful tactics

You know very well that the above is nonsense. I have at least twice quoted even Ignatius who originated the expression "catholic Church" and explained what he meant. He like others knew no such thing as "popes" and the monolith that is now the Roman Catholic Church.

Only because repeating something I had posted on two other threads has some advantage if posted here, I repeat the post below that you should be aware of from two threads now.


Previously posted here https://www.nairaland.com/1016132/catholic-position-dont-point/3#11813883

Read these below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church

The term "catholic" is derived from the Greek word καθολικός (katholikos) meaning "universal" and was first used to describe the Church in the early 2nd century.[17] The term katholikos is equivalent to καθόλου (katholou), a contraction of the phrase καθ' ὅλου (kath' holou) meaning "according to the whole".[18] "Catholic Church" (he katholike ekklesia) first appears in a letter of St Ignatius written in about 110.[19] In the "Catechetical Discourses" of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, "Catholic Church" is used to distinguish it from other groups that also call themselves the church.

This according to the same Ignatius who coined "the Catholic Church" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_the_doctrine_of_Papal_Primacy

For Ignatius each church under a bishop is complete – the original meaning of "catholic". For Ignatius the church is a world-wide unity of many communities. Each has at its center a bishop "who draws together the local community in the Eucharistic celebration."[13] This then is the unity of the church – each church united to its bishop -each of these churches united to each other. There is no evidence of him accepting a single supreme bishop-of-bishops as the bishops authority is localised to a particular church.

Note this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentarchy

In the Apostolic Age (largely the 1st century) the Christian Church comprised an indefinite number of local Churches that in the initial years looked to the first church at Jerusalem as its main centre and point of reference. But by the 4th century it had developed a system whereby the bishop of the capital of each civil province (the metropolitan bishop) normally held certain rights over the bishops of the other cities of the province (later called suffragan bishops).

Check where Christians were first called "catholics"
ETA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_the_Bishop_of_Rome#Relationship_with_bishops_of_other_cities

Rome was not the only city that could claim a special role in Christ's Church. Jerusalem had the prestige of being the city of Christ's death and resurrection, and an important church council was held there in the 1st century. Antioch was the place where Jesus' followers were first called "Christians" {7} (as well as "Catholic"[48] and, with Alexandria, was an important early center of Christian thought.

Again, note this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church

The term Christian Church as a proper noun refers to the whole Christian religious tradition through history. The term does not correctly refer to a particular "Christian church" (a "denomination" or building).

. . . .

In the New Testament, the term ἐκκλησία ("church" or "assembly" is used for local communities as well as in a universal sense to mean all believers.[2] Traditionally, only orthodox believers are considered part of the true church, but convictions of what is orthodox vary.

The four traditional "notes of the Christian Church" or descriptors of the church, first expressed in the Nicene Creed are unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity.[

1. Do you still want to say there is no such thing as the catholic Church (small C) i.e. the universal Church?

2. When the Bible was being "compiled" did the catholic Church (deliberate small C) or even the Catholic Church (capital C) consist of just the RCC?

3. Was the Bible "compiled" before or after the Chalcedon that is being trumpeted here?

4. How would you classify the Eastern Orthodox churches?

5. Did the Eastern Orthodox church/es play a role in the "compilation" of the Bible or not?

6. Which See was first established: Jerusalem, Antioch or Rome?





EDIT Please note how I have modified my initial double post above.

NB This was originally an accidental double post but I am now using it to address some specific points in your post.

chukwudi44: In order words you are not able to present evidence from any of the pre-schism church fathers to support your own theory of the 'catholic' church. All these are just a figment of your imagination.

I address this in the post that follows this one.

chukwudi44: Telling me victor was rebuked by ireneaus,was that the first time it was happening? Did paul not rebuke peter? How many times did ireneaus go to rome to confer wit the pope?

Tell me which Roman Catholic bishop can rebuke the pope today in the same way.

About Peter and Paul: that is part of the point that you are missing! The Bible has no such thing as "pope"; what the Bible expects is that each Christian community would have "bishops"/"elders"/"overseers" ------ note plural and not one head honcho.

Even at the Council of Jerusalem, was there a "pope"? And why was it James who spoke for the Church and not Peter?

chukwudi44: I used to respect you so much on nl but I never knew you could resort to such shameful tactics

First, I have NOT resorted to any shameful tactics.

Second, if I no longer have your respect because I differ from your position on this particular issue, well I can only say "that is life".

^^^ The first thing is that the 'Apostolic Fathers' and the earliest 'Church Fathers' did not know and neither did they know of any "pope"!

By the way, if Victor was a "pope" in the way the Roman Catholics claim, especially now, how come he was rebuked by Irenaeus - a bishop in Lyons?

The second thing would be what you mean by primacy: as I have told you before the bishops of the other Sees/Partriarchates saw Rome as having a primacy of honour (for various reasons, even including political, with Rome being the capital of the Empire) but they saw all the Sees as equal and Rome was only primus inter pares i.e. first among equals.

It was Rome (and some particular "popes" ) that tried to claim that the primacy was not merely of honour but of jursidction. Now don't forget that it is this aggrandisement of Rome that contributed chiefly to the eventual Great Schism ----- if the Eastern bishops accepted Rome's claim of primacy of jurisdiction why then did the schism occur?

By the way, it is this same claim of Rome and its flawed doctrine of ecclesiology that is a major stumbling block today to full reconciliation not only with Orthodoxy but also with others including the Anglicans etc.

Ishilove:

Ishi, e get as e be!

First of all let me help you a little bit: the official title of the Eastern Orthodox Church is Orthodox Catholic Church.

Google it.

Second, remember that by calling me im.becile you are calling your father im.becile.

MacDaddy01: So the eastern orthodox church is now the catholic church? What noinsense

^^^ By the post above (and your other posts) you show that you are waaaaay out of your league in respect of the discussion on this thread.

Not belittling you per se --- just showing you a little kindness.

chukwudi44: I don't need any link telling me writings after the council of chalcedon or after the east-west schism.Show me writings from the church fathers who lived before the schisms who held any the same view about today's orthodox church about what you called the roman catholic church.

I never told you that today's othordox church shares the same view with th RCC.Even their doctrines are almost identical with exception of the papacy

If you will not read those links, I will not indulge you.

First, you have not answered several questions that I put to you on this and on the other two or so threads.

Second, I myself have a ton of questions for your position that I've been holding back e.g.

- Tell us when a bishop of Rome first used the title "pope"

- Tell us which pre-schism ecumenical council was called by a bishop of Rome

- Tell us which pre-schism ecumenical council was held within the partriachate of Rome


If you don't answer them though it doesn't really matter.

^^^ It is partly because of your quotes that I referred you to the link: read it and see how Orthodoxen interprete your quotes differently from the way Roman Catholics interprete them.

Let us start from there.

@chukwudi44

What did you do with all the information I gave you previously.

I also previously gave you this link on Eastern Orthodox opposition to papal supremacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_the_doctrine_of_Papal_Primacy

What did you do with that one?

Even now I'll give you one more bonus: here is one more Eastern Orthodox perspective especially after the 2007 paper in which the Roman Catholic Church said Eastern Orthodox Churches are "defective" and that all others are not even "churches" at all but "ecclessial communities".

http://www.antiochian.org/node/17076

^^^ Please don't mind him and misinformed others saying Eastern Orthodoxy is the same as Roman Catholicism. And specifically on the Bible, Eastern Orthodox churches have different canons from the canon of Roman Catholicism.

See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_biblical_canons#Eastern_canons

Pastor AIO: So you now know what I'm saying better than me. And you do so by taking what I'm saying out of context. Jayriginal was responding to a post I made earlier. This is the post:

In other words, you now agree that the catholic Church is not the Roman Catholic Church.

Oh, by the way maybe it is me but I think this thread is arguing that the catholic Church is different from the Roman Catholic Church and that it is the catholic Church that "compiled" the Bible and not the Roman Catholic Church.

[quote author=Bélla3]@ MACDADDY
according to history, al christains were catholics which meant 'universal'. catholic nt Roman catholic.
I asked u a question on another thread, bt u ran away. Am asking again.
Assuming Sir. Isaac Newton was working on a project everyone knew about. Bt died two weeks before completion (what is left is to compiling). Mac daddy helps to compile it. Does that make it mac daddy's work?[/quote]Correct! It was not the Roman catholic Church that gave us either the doctrine of The Trinity or that "compiled" the Bible; rather it was the catholic (i.e. the universal) Church or the Christian Church.

This is what is being discussed on the thread in following link (and some other threads too).

https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church

[quote author=Mr_Anony]. . . .

Without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sin (the price of sin is death)
God in order to grant us mercy and still punish sin, God had to come as a man and bear our sins upon Himself. By giving up His life, He paid the price for the sins of everyone.
Now when we stand before God, we stand forgiven already. By accepting God's forgiveness and forsaking our sins, God can legally dismiss our case and will not count our sins against us (that's the good news) .....but when we reject His forgiveness, you leave God no other choice than to give you your due punishment.

I hope you get it now.[/quote]Fabulous! This is a central theme of Christianity that many people simply do not grasp.

Bros, even in the Old Testament we often read of God complaining and "railing" about the unfaithfulness of Israel sometimes even threatening to punish them ---- but by the time we get to the end we see God saying something like "but I will have mercy on my people" or "for my own sake, I will have mercy" etc etc

chukwudi44: Ol boy you be lawyer.Do you want to know the truth abi you want to dance around nomenclatures.Maybe you may also ask which of the Gods was first addressed as chukwu in iboland whether it was amadioha or the God of abraham haba!!!!


I mentioned earlier in this thread that the pope is first bishop of rome before anything else.The main title of the office is called the bishop of rome.The pope is a latin word called father which was later used to address the office.it was initially used to equally address the other bishops but came to be restricted to the bishop of rome in the 11th century?

The pope has other title like first among equals,servant of servants,vicar of christ e.t.c

Yes peter was the first bishop of rome or pope as it is commonly called today.This fact was attested by thre early church fathers and was never disputed by anyone until by martin luther during the protestant reformation

Chukwudi bros

The apostle Peter did not take for himself the title "pope".

Sorry to say this particular line but the title "pope" is hardly any better than such things as "Daddy G.O.", "Papa" and such like.

In fact, "pope" means 'papa' and comes from Greek ---- not Latin.

In fact the Bishop of Rome was not the first to be addressed with the title "pope" ----- it was in fact the partriarch of Alexandria.

The Bishops of Rome did not use the title "pope" for the first 200 (?) years or so.

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.

Hmmm

Mr. A:

I'd ask people what denomination they were. If they said anything else but catholic, I would first ground them in christian history, to show them first that they had no leg to stand on. That was usually sufficient as I find that most people have no idea of where their religion comes from. They usually try to dispute these facts and end up looking bad eventually.

Mr. B:

You must have been lucky with the people that you've been debating with because some of the attackers that I know do 'usually try to dispute these facts and end up looking bad'

Questions:

Do you agree or disagree that any denomination (including the Anglican Communion) that is anything else but "catholic" has no leg to stand on?

Or is it the case that you now agree with me that "catholic" does not necessarily mean Roman Catholic Church?

Which "catholic" Church gave "us" the Bible ---- the Roman Catholic Church --- or something else?

"Desperate"? Don't make me laugh!

If you do not understand the implication of your own post that you have posted ----- that is your problem.

Actually I could be kind and help you a bit ------ only that either way it will be proving my case.

1. The atheist says a denomination which is anything but catholic "has no leg to stand on". (edited) On the interpretation of "catholic" that you have been arguing wrongly all over the place ---- that means that even the Anglican Church (which you claim to be part of) "has no leg to stand on". That is what you have agreed with.

2. On the other hand, you could always choose to adopt my interpretation of "catholic" and say that the word as used by the atheist does not refer to the Roman Catholic Church . . . . . .

^^ I have already given you the link, you mumu!

^^^ If I am full of "wuruwuru", you are full of ignorance and very poor comprehension.

In any event, I insist on saying you should go and deal with the fact that an atheist said that the Anglican Church (which you claim to belong to) has no leg to stand on --- and you agreed with him!

Since we are digressing a little bit, let me too put some questions to you.

1. Was the apostle Peter ever a "pope"?

2. What does "pope" mean, really?

3. Was the appellation "pope" first used for the patriarch of Alexandria or of Rome?

4. When did "pope" become a title for the Bishop of Rome?

chukwudi44: Mind you rome did not begin to get special recognition from the council of nicea.it has always wielded pre-eminent authourity even from the first and second centuries.

Pope clement presided over the crisis in the corinthian church as far back as 96CE.Even the highly revered bishop of smryna st polycarp had to travel to rome in 146 CE to confer with pope anicetus over the easter date controversy.furthermore Ireneaus bishop of lyons had to plead with pope vicor in 170CE when he threatened to excommunicate some north african bishops over this same easter controversy.Not to forget St ignatius who in 110CE calls it the church that takes precedence

Please read this entry on Eastern Orthodox historical opposition to the "primacy" of Rome which actually starts with the following quote by a Roman Catholic theologian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_the_doctrine_of_Papal_Primacy

"The East never accepted the regular jurisdiction of Rome, nor did it submit to the judgment of Western bishops. Its appeals to Rome for help were not connected with a recognition of the principle of Roman jurisdiction but were based on the view that Rome had the same truth, the same good. The East jealously protected its autonomous way of life. Rome intervened to safeguard the observation of legal rules, to maintain the orthodoxy of faith and to ensure communion between the two parts of the church, the Roman see representing and personifying the West...In according Rome a ‘primacy of honour’, the East avoided basing this primacy on the succession and the still living presence of the apostle Peter. A modus vivendi was achieved which lasted, albeit with crises, down to the middle of the eleventh century."

See also this link that I pointed you to previously.

http://truthsaves.org/doctrine/bible-from-catholics.shtml


And on the specific matter of Polycarp and Anicetus, here is what even the Catholic Encyclopedia says based on Irenaeus basically scolding "pope" Victor for his conduct asserting authority over other churches. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12219b.htm

The visit of St. Polycarp to Rome is described by St. Irenæus in a letter to Pope Victor written under the following circumstances. The Asiatic Christians differed from the rest of the Church in their manner of observing Easter. While the other Churches kept the feast on a Sunday, the Asiatics celebrated it on the 14th of Nisan, whatever day of the week this might fall on. Pope Victor tried to establish uniformity, and when the Asiatic Churches refused to comply, excommunicated them. St. Irenæus remonstrated with him in a letter, part of which is preserved by Eusebius (Church History V.24), in which he particularly contrasted the moderation displayed in regard to Polycarp by Pope Anicetus with the conduct of Victor. "Among these (Victor's predecessors) were the presbyters before Soter. They neither observed it (14th Nisan) themselves, nor did they permit those after them to do so. And yet, though not observing it, they were none the less at peace with those who came to them from the parishes in which it was observed. . . And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp ... nor Polycarp Anicetus . . . But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the Eucharist in the Church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace", etc.

chukwudi44: You seem to be contradicting yourself.first you started by claiming every see in the catholic church were independent now you are claiming hippo and carthage were assigned to alexendria.

Indeed Rome,Jerusalem and Antioch were accorded special status but no church was directly placed over them.
Why then did the church of alexandria not drag the churches of hippo and carthage along with them when it went out of communion with rome in 453 ce @ the council of chalcedon


The authourity rome wields today is only because of its link with peter

There is no contradiction.

Originally each "church" wherever was supposed to be independent and "whole" or complete: 'catholic' in that sense and 'catholic' in being part of the universal Church.

It was later that the idea of 'Metropolitan Sees' with 'oversight' over churches in particular regions came about. This does not mean that individual churches did not still maintain considerable independence.

Previously, I posted the following on the links I referred to.

This according to the same Ignatius who coined "the Catholic Church" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_the_doctrine_of_Papal_Primacy

For Ignatius each church under a bishop is complete – the original meaning of "catholic". For Ignatius the church is a world-wide unity of many communities. Each has at its center a bishop "who draws together the local community in the Eucharistic celebration."[13] This then is the unity of the church – each church united to its bishop -each of these churches united to each other. There is no evidence of him accepting a single supreme bishop-of-bishops as the bishops authority is localised to a particular church.

Note this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentarchy

In the Apostolic Age (largely the 1st century) the Christian Church comprised an indefinite number of local Churches that in the initial years looked to the first church at Jerusalem as its main centre and point of reference. But by the 4th century it had developed a system whereby the bishop of the capital of each civil province (the metropolitan bishop) normally held certain rights over the bishops of the other cities of the province (later called suffragan bishops).

chukwudi44: The see of hippo and carthage neither belonged to rome nor alexendria.The see of hippo belonged to the see of hippo governed by its own bishop ditto for carthage.The see of rome was only given preeminent authourity because it was the last see of st peter.The same thing applies to even the see of lagos.The pope is first bishop of rome before anything else.He is only allowed to take precedence over other bishops because of the link of peter to the roman see

Even after the split of the alexendrian church from rome at the council of chalcedon,the see of hippo did not go with them but rather remained aligned with the roman church until north africa was ravaged by the muslims

NO, this is wrong! At the Council of Nicea, three primary Sees were formally recognised: Antioch, Alexandria and Rome; Jerusalem was given a special place of honour and much later on the See of Constantinople was also recognised.

The See of Alexandria was given "oversight" of the some African Churches ---- [s]which would thus include Hippo and Carthage[/s]. It is just as the bishopric of Milan would also be under the "oversight" of the See of Rome.

Belated EDIT I was wrong on those points I have struck out; my apology regarding those specific points! True the See of Alexandria was given oversight of some "African" Churches, the areas included in that jurisdiction were narrowly defined and strictly speaking did not include Hippo and Carthage. Nevertheless, though Hippo and Carthage were not part of the See of Alexandria, they were in communion with both Alexandria and Rome.

I have answered all your questions in the past; even the Theodosian sense of "The Catholic Church" has been answered; see my posts in the links in the OP especially the second link (in that second link see my first two posts --- I think I only made about 5/6 posts in total on the thread.)

^^ You are the one who said you are not a "Nigerian Catholic" and later claimed the Roman Catholic Church.

My point was that Hippo and Carthage were not part of the Roman Catholic Church; they were not part of the See of Rome; rather they were part of the See of Alexandria.

chukwudi44: So you have finally accepted the fact that st Augustine who canonised the books of the bible subscribed to the roman catholic faith.if their generation decide to rebel against rome it still does not change the fact the bible was canonised under the authourity of the roman church.

Let's assume pastor bakare canonised the bible while he was @ redeemed if he dies and his children decides to form another church would you say the bible was not canonised by redeemed? This is just simple logic

See that bolded in Red ---- that is the problem. It is also what you yourself denied earlier on this thread when you said you worship in Lagos and you are not a Nigerian Catholic. (EDITED)

This is the point I have been making for a very long long long time! You and others have to be clear when you say "catholic" if you mean The Roman Catholic Church or if you mean the universal Church, the Church of Christ that was first called Christian at Antioch ---- The Christian Church.


The case of Augustine is unique: as Bishop of Hippo he was not part of the Roman Catholic Church or "faith"; however, as a younger person he was baptised by the Bishop of Milan ---- so in that sense he has some connection to the See of Rome. Most critically, at that time what we had was the catholic or universal Church (or at best The Catholic Church in the Theodosian sense) of which what is now the Roman Catholic Church was only a part.

Pastor AIO: It fell under the see of Constantinople when the French colonised it. (at least one and a half thousand years after the canonisation of the bible).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippo_Regius

The Vandals were Arians (If I remember correctly), and so they considered Catholic orthodoxy to be a heresy. They destroyed the Catholic tradition in North Africa, or rather those parts of it that they conquered (Vandalia).

And as for Carthage?


http://www.gcatholic.com/dioceses/former/t0414.htm

Hippo and Carthage were part of the Province of Africa [s]and thus part of the See of Alexandria and not part of the See of Rome[/s]. (Belated EDIT I made an error here: although Hippo and Carthage were part of the Province of Africa, that did not ipso facto make them part of the See of Alexandria. However, the key point remains that they were independent of Rome though of course then in communion with both Alexandria and Rome)




Edit Meanwhile an atheist said the Anglican Church (of which you claim to be a part) has no leg to stand on and you agreed with him; maybe you need to go and address that first!

https://www.nairaland.com/1006902/friends-want-me-catholic-thoughts/8#11970317

^^^ As of today, does the Church and See to which either Augustine belonged (i.e. where he was bishop) or to which Origen belonged accept the Roman Catholic Bible ---- or do they have a different canon?

I know; I saw 'your hand' somewhere else and by the way (to continue my showing off) I have also been to Padua.