Message from @Deleted User
Discord ID: 586891765626437643
I'm saying what Mike is saying.
He is just appointed to a task
**I'M SAYING THE EXACT SAME THING MIKE IS SAYING, YOU TOOK ONE WORD AND WENT INTO THE DEEP END CALLING ME A COMMUNIST**
Paul is telling us he is equal among the apostles, and that even though the Galatians were holding *some* apostles in high esteem, *God* doesn't show favoritism.
Which is then entirely irrelevant to the question of papal primacy
If all Apostles are equal then Papal Primacy doesn't exist.
Then Matthew 16:17-19 doesn't exist
The papacy is just the bishop of Rome
Nor does all of the writings of the Early Church
nothing more or less
Then Mathew 18:18 doesn't exist when all apostles were given that authority.
Were they all called the rock?
Were they all given the keys?
"You are peter and on this rock."
He didn't call peter *the* rock.
Unless some meaning was lost in translation, enlighten me.
Peter means rock
It's you are rock and on this rock
Your argument sounds like a Protestant
ܐܴܦ݂ ܐܷܢܳܐ ܐܴܡܰܪ ܐ̱ܢܳܐ ܠܴܟ݂ ܂ ܕܱ݁ܐܢ̄ܬ݁ ܗ̄ܽܘ ܟܻ݁ܐܦ݂ܳܐ ܂ ܘܥܰܠ ܗܳܕ݂ܶܐ ܟܻ݁ܐܦ݂ܳܐ ܐܷܒ݂ܢܶܝܗ ܠܥܺܕ̱݁ܬ݁ܝ܂ ܘܬ݂ܱܪ̈ܥܶܐ ܕܱ݁ܫܝܽܘܠ ܠܴܐ ܢܶܚܣܢܽܘܢܳܗ܂
Christ is the head of all the churches
ܟܺܐܦܳܐ
ܟܺܐܦܳܐ
ܟܺܐܦܳܐ
ܟܺܐܦܳܐ
And my argument still stands, until 1053 all bishops were equal
After 1053 the Bishop of Rome waged war to the other churches by demanding conversing or closing them up
Where was his right to this?
Is that Aramaic @Deleted User
@Iakovos yes
OHHHHHHHHH
John 1:42
Christ literally named him Rock.
"You are Simon and you will be called Cephas."
@Deleted User if your statement is taken as entirely true at face value, and there is no missing knowledge, then I would say no it is not right to close down a liturgical rite if it is doctinally sound
Also Rag.
You know I'm a lover of Scripture, and so that is where you will win my heart over what any man has written.
If Christ changed the name of Peter, then it stands.
Peter is the rock of the Church.
However the bishops were not considered to be of equal standing prior to 1053, primacy has always been recognized.
Then we wouldn't have the ecumenical councils
The bishop of rome would just accept what he wants to accept
I think that's misinterpreting Papal Infallibility.
"The see of blessed Peter the Apostle has the right to unbind what has been bound by sentences of any pontiffs whatever, in that it has the right to judge the whole church. Neither is it lawful for anyone to judge its judgment, seeing that canons have willed that it might be appealed to from any part of the world, but that no one may be allowed to appeal from it." - Pope Gelasius I, reigned 492-496 AD