Question about the "One True Church"

[elvisman]

What I do not understand from non-Catholics is why is it okay for them to have their minister/pastor succeed another,but the same practice cannot be applicable to the Catholic Church? Nothing but double standards to me.

**Interesting, isn’t it? Especially since it was the Catholic Church that set the precedent in Acts 1:20-26 when replacing Judas with Matthias . . .

 

[scottm]

**Interesting, *isn’t ***it? Especially since it was the Catholic Church that set the precedent in Acts 1:20-26 when replacing Judas with Matthias . . .

It wasn’t the Roman Catholic Church, though. You could just as well say it was the ORTHODOX Church that did that in Acts chapter 1.

You (and other people) show an unhealthy, divisive bias when you attribute things in Acts and the early centuries as “Catholic” things. Those things were as much “Orthodox” as they were “Catholic.”

Actually with regard to every city except Rome it might be more fair to specifically call them Orthodox, because when the E/W split occurred all those cities went East.

Just a thought.

 

[Eutychus123]

Kepha question.

In Aramaic, do nouns have gender?

Is the Greek “you” a singular or plural?

How would “you” have worked in Aramaic?

 

[Nicea325]

It wasn’t the Roman Catholic Church, though. You could just as well say it was the ORTHODOX Church that did that in Acts chapter 1.

You (and other people) show an unhealthy, divisive bias when you attribute things in Acts and the early centuries as “Catholic” things. Those things were as much “Orthodox” as they were “Catholic.”

Actually with regard to every city except Rome it might be more fair to specifically call them Orthodox, because when the E/W split occurred all those cities went East.

Just a thought.

Elvisman did not say the Roman Rite,but moreover,the Catholic Church,which includes many rites and defends and practices orthodoxy.

Nothing biased what elvisman posted, it is all scripturally sound.

 

[elvisman]

It wasn’t the Roman Catholic Church, though. You could just as well say it was the ORTHODOX Church that did that in Acts chapter 1.

You (and other people) show an unhealthy, divisive bias when you attribute things in Acts and the early centuries as “Catholic” things. Those things were as much “Orthodox” as they were “Catholic.”

Actually with regard to every city except Rome it might be more fair to specifically call them Orthodox, because when the E/W split occurred all those cities went East.

Just a thought.

**When did I say that the Orthodox weren’t part of the Catholic (worldwide, universal) Church in the early centuries?

 

[elvisman]

Kepha question.

In Aramaic, do nouns have gender?

**Not really sure why this matters. The text is in Greek - and there was no masculine for Petra before this was written. **
Large mass of stone was Petra - and Petra only.

Is the Greek “you” a singular or plural?

It appears to be singular. Jesus was speaking to Simon (Peter) and Simon (Peter) alone. Why would he speak in plural form to a singular man? Common sense alone dictates that he spoke to a singular person.

How would “you” have worked in Aramaic?

See the answer above . . .**

 

[scottm]

When did I say that the Orthodox *weren’t *part of the Catholic (worldwide, universal) Church in the early centuries?

“Catholic Church” with capital letters in that context can easily be read as inclusive, you know. The name “Catholic Church” back then did not carry the same meaning as it carries today. The word “catholic” in the Nicene Creed is an adjective, you know, not a name.

 

[elvisman]

“Catholic Church” with capital letters in that context can easily be read as inclusive, you know. The name “Catholic Church” back then did not carry the same meaning as it carries today. The word “catholic” in the Nicene Creed is an adjective, you know, not a name.

The name “Catholic” is what it has always been:
The Universal Church.
The meaning hasn’t changed one bit - except for in the eyes of those who are not Catholic.

The word in St. Ignatius’ ante-Nicene Letter to the Smyrnaeans was both an ajective and a name.

 

[jerome_ky]

I haven’t posted on this forum much. This is my take on the discussion here.

We have to accept two facts. First, that Jesus established His Church upon Peter (Kepha). Jesus, after all, was the One Who named him Kepha. His birth name was Shimon, or Simon. Why would Jesus call Shimon “Petros” or “little rock” and then use “Petros” and “Petra” in the same sentence to refer to two separate things? You’d have to believe Jesus wanted to confuse us with pointless word play.

Second, Paul did establish churches. He said he didn’t build on another man’s foundation. Revelation speaks of “the churches.” So there are two ideas. There is The Church, the undivided Body of Christ, and then there are the various churches, or local places of worship for different communities.

So, needing to accept these ideas because they are Scriptural, we need to put them together. There are several churches that are part of The Church. The several churches have successors of the Apostles as their heads. Primacy HAS to be given to one of these, or they will separate into differing sects with differing ideas. (Evidenced by history.) So which apostolic church has the primacy? Well, obviously that of Peter/Kepha, as stated above. So it is no contradiction to say that the Catholic Church is the True Church and that other churches get their legitimacy from their relationship with the True Church.

I know on a Catholic forum I am preaching to the choir, but we are called to properly discern. That’s the central struggle of Christianity, to properly discern the Truth. If you have to twist and bend Scripture to make your point, you’re probably wrong, and it’s up to you to right yourself. God demands this of you, not me.