Were all christians once catholic?

• ben1xy

  3 Oct 06, 23:10

  Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:

  He did have a lot in common with them, but I don't think he is one.

  i'm quite sure he isn't
• Icemoon

  3 Oct 06, 23:12

  Originally posted by ben1xy:

  yup
  
  i have a URL to the whole thing
  
  u want?

  I googled for it just now to verify the author.
  
  I heard his work quite hard to read and they attribute it to the poor translation. I think they translated his work from Greek to Latin?
• ben1xy

  3 Oct 06, 23:15

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  I googled for it just now to verify the author.
  
  I heard his work quite hard to read and they attribute it to the poor translation. I think they translated his work from Greek to Latin?

  most early works with our Church Fathers are pretty hard to read because of translation i guess
  
  always takes a long time to digest
• vince69

  3 Oct 06, 23:32

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  Calling people non-christians is worse. It means they are not in Christ.
  
  Calling people heretical is not so bad, after all charismatics like to use this line - they call us heretical for our works of the Spirit never mind ,we have Christ can liao.

  ahem...
  icey, you do read church history, right? by definition, heretics are condemned to hell.
• Icemoon

  4 Oct 06, 00:01

  Originally posted by vince69:

  ahem...
  icey, you do read church history, right? by definition, heretics are condemned to hell.

  this is not biblical.
  
  so they can choose to disagree with your labelling.
  
  Whereas if you accuse someone of not being in Christ, you are directly telling them they are going to hell. This is biblical.
  
  Imagine Catholics relate so much to Christ (Blessed Sacramanet and all that), then you tell them they are not in Christ. Can you imagine their hurt?
  
  
• zer0kool

  4 Oct 06, 00:22

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  Catholics like to present their magistrium as having descended from the Apostle Peter, but this argument is tenuous at best.
  

  Why's it tenuous then?
• Icemoon

  4 Oct 06, 00:34

  Originally posted by zer0kool:

  Why's it tenuous then?

  I will answer this from another angle.
  
  1. Do you know why they like Peter so much?
  
  2. Do you know there are other churches that trace their lineage to other apostles who are not descendants of Peter?
• SingaporeMacross

  4 Oct 06, 00:37

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  I will answer this from another angle.
  
  1. Do you know why they like Peter so much?
  
  2. Do you know there are other churches that trace their lineage to other apostles who are not descendants of Peter?

  1. But we also like Paul what...
  
  2. Obviously Peter cannot travel to every part of the world to set up the Church right? Let his Apostles do it lor.
• Icemoon

  4 Oct 06, 00:43

  Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:

  1. But we also like Paul what...
  
  2. Obviously Peter cannot travel to every part of the world to set up the Church right? Let his Apostles do it lor.

  1. But Paul never got the honour he rightly deserved.
  
  2. His apostles? He has no power over them, only Jesus has. Furthermore Apostle Paul didn't really like him.
  
  And my pet peeve - Peter wasn't even the head of the Jerusalem Church!
• ben1xy

  4 Oct 06, 00:55

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  But Paul never got the honour he rightly deserved.
  
  

  Paul is help in very high esteem in the Catholic Church. Most of the painting of the apostles feature Peter and Paul together.
• ben1xy

  4 Oct 06, 00:59

  hmm, actually my gf made the same comment some years back abt the Peter n Paul thing. I brought her to the Vatican exhibition and she was quite surprised at how highly held Paul is in the Catholic Church
• Icemoon

  4 Oct 06, 01:00

  Originally posted by ben1xy:

  Paul is help in very high esteem in the Catholic Church. Most of the painting of the apostles feature Peter and Paul together.

  It is all part of a plot to distract us from the bad relationship.
  
  Peter is evil. Let Paul do all the saikang then he reaps all the benefits?
  
  
• ben1xy

  4 Oct 06, 01:02

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  It is all part of a plot to distract us from the bad relationship.
  
  Peter is evil. Let Paul do all the saikang then he reaps all the benefits?
  
  

  tsk
  
  
• Icemoon

  4 Oct 06, 01:03

  Originally posted by ben1xy:

  hmm, actually my gf made the same comment some years back abt the Peter n Paul thing. I brought her to the Vatican exhibition and she was quite surprised at how highly held Paul is in the Catholic Church

  Next I wanna go into John. Do you hold high esteem for the most beloved disciple?
• ben1xy

  4 Oct 06, 01:04

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  Next I wanna go into John. Do you hold high esteem for the most beloved disciple?

  tonight u have an axe to grind is it??
  
  hmm .. John ... the only paintings that i have seen of John was the last supper 1 and another depiction that i can vaguely remember.
  
  r u into art icey?
• Icemoon

  4 Oct 06, 01:05

  Originally posted by ben1xy:

  tsk
  
  

  Let it be known Paul wrote the letter to the Romans.
  
  Peter just assumed the bishop title in Rome.
• ben1xy

  4 Oct 06, 01:10

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  Let it be known Paul wrote the letter to the Romans.
  
  Peter just assumed the bishop title in Rome.

  i'm sure you've already heard the posited argument on Peter being the Vicar and stuff right
• Icemoon

  4 Oct 06, 01:11

  Originally posted by ben1xy:

  tonight u have an axe to grind is it??
  
  hmm .. John ... the only paintings that i have seen of John was the last supper 1 and another depiction that i can vaguely remember.
  
  r u into art icey?

  I just feel the importance of Peter is overstated. If not that Catholics can use the keys of Peter to justify their God ordained origin, I think he would be as ulu as John.
  
  I am not into art.
• ben1xy

  4 Oct 06, 01:12

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  If not that Catholics can use the keys of Peter to justify their God ordained origin, I think he would be as ulu as John.
  
  

  i see you are well versed in the Catholic ways
• vince69

  4 Oct 06, 01:17

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  Let it be known Paul wrote the letter to the Romans.
  
  Peter just assumed the bishop title in Rome.

  actually, by and large, this part is claimed by the Roman Catholic church, the scriptures have no records of this, thought it may be possible that he died in Rome.
  (note: no evidence does not means did not happen)
• Icemoon

  4 Oct 06, 01:21

  Originally posted by vince69:

  actually, by and large, this part is claimed by the Roman Catholic church, the scriptures have no records of this, thought it may be possible that he died in Rome.
  (note: no evidence does not means did not happen)

  Hmm .. I remember there are records in early church writings that say so.
• ben1xy

  4 Oct 06, 01:23

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  Hmm .. I remember there are records in early church writings that say so.

  yup. i remember i attended a talk that touched on this issue and showed the different documentations by the Church Fathers
• SingaporeMacross

  4 Oct 06, 01:40

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  1. But Paul never got the honour he rightly deserved.
  
  2. His apostles? He has no power over them, only Jesus has. Furthermore Apostle Paul didn't really like him.
  
  And my pet peeve - Peter wasn't even the head of the Jerusalem Church!

  1. What honour do you suggest we give him, if the title of Saint is not sufficient?
  
  Tsk, Jesus words to Peter not good enough for you lah?
• vince69

  4 Oct 06, 02:02

  Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:

  1. What honour do you suggest we give him, if the title of Saint is not sufficient?
  
  Tsk, Jesus words to Peter not good enough for you lah?

  there are 2 views to that passage
  1) the rock on which the church is build, is Peter (the person)
  2) the rock on which the church is build is Peter's confession, "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of living God"
  
  one thing had puzzled me, If our Lord, Jesus Christ is alive, why would He need a sucessor? If He is not, what are we doing here?
• ben1xy

  4 Oct 06, 02:20

  Originally posted by vince69:

  there are 2 views to that passage
  1) the rock on which the church is build, is Peter (the person)
  2) the rock on which the church is build is Peter's confession, "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of living God"
  
  one thing had puzzled me, If our Lord, Jesus Christ is alive, why would He need a sucessor? If He is not, what are we doing here?

  -