Catholic Church 33 A.D.

[lonnienord]

this morning i was writing a letter i plan to send to local people who say they are christian and have no church asking them to join my church and i got to thinking about this old discussion. If i remember correctly it started with a question by the moderator. When and by whom did your church start. then i remember the discussion going along the lines that i was being arragant saying JESUS started the Catholic church. so i have a question: When and by whom do you think the Catholic Church began?

all for JESUS!!
lonnie

[Don]

I would think most any church would claim to be started by God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) at Pentecost.

But it depends critically on what one means by 'church'. Members of a 'one true church' (RCC, EOC, LDS, some prots, etc.) would say they are the only true church started at Pentecost and that all others are deviations to lesser or greater extents (or at least this is my understanding). Others (myself included) say the church is composed of all believers, in whatever denom, and that this church started at Pentecost.
Don

[Darth_Bill]

I would put the RCC creation as a structure began in the 4th century by command of the Emperor. However, that isn't to say that christian churches didn't exist before then (even that term requires more definition). It was around this time that Rome demanded obediance. I didn't get that feel from, say, Clement. I am quite comfortable, to some degree, with what Clement wrote on church organization about 150ad.

I believe that Jesus did start a church and continued until the death of the apostles. After that, it drifted away. Even during the lives of the apostles, the church was being lost to false teachings. My view of the "end of the church" was when bishops started ordaining bishops, even if that was the natural tendency of the church after the departure of the apostles. I don't consider the "end of the church" as malicious intent necessarily. My view of loss of authority is strictly my own. My church doesn't make a doctrinal stand on the timing, just that it was gone by 1820. Even then, it might be considered imposing my current knowledge of church organization to the past.

My thinking is more "dispensational" than others and the idea of a wide apostacy for extended period of time doesn't reflect on the nature of God or his mercy and grace.

[rpminz]

I think the church began the very day that Jesus addressed Peter in the presence of the other disciples and said that he would build his church (not churches) on the 'rock' i.e. Peter, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Jesus also gave Peter the authority to take and impose decisions. He also promised to remain with his church till the end of time. Therefore, the church as an organisation had begun as a single organisation under the authority of a single person that day. Peter was authorised to guide his flock i.e. to interpret the teachings of Jesus and instruct the members of his church. This church organisation came to be officially recognised and patronised by the Roman Emperor Constantine after his conversion to Christianity. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that the Roman Emperor established the Roman Catholic Church in the fourth century. We can say that Jesus used the Roman Emperor to keep His promise to support the Church.

It is true that even during the time of the Apostles their were differences of opinion e.g. on the Jewish custom of cicumcision and the gentiles, but these differences were sorted out 'in house'. How can we say that any particular teaching is 'false' unless we have a body of teachings that have been accepted by some valid authority as true and proper? Peter had been given this authority by Jesus Himself and if Jesus and His true teachings are to continue till the end of time then that authority must also continue in his Church till the end of time. This authority existed even prior to the existence of the Bible which is itself a product of that authority. The child can not be greater than the father, therefore, the Bible needs the Church to interpret it. Jesus would never have intended that His Church should disintegrate and dissipate by everyone making his own interpretation and going his own way. (For many centuries the Bible was not in existence, at least to the common man who could not read or write let alone understand and interpret it.) Jesus had instructed that the Church, his followeres, should be one just as God is one.

Bob

Originally Posted by Darth_Bill

I would put the RCC creation as a structure began in the 4th century by command of the Emperor. However, that isn't to say that christian churches didn't exist before then (even that term requires more definition). It was around this time that Rome demanded obediance. I didn't get that feel from, say, Clement. I am quite comfortable, to some degree, with what Clement wrote on church organization about 150ad.

I believe that Jesus did start a church and continued until the death of the apostles. After that, it drifted away. Even during the lives of the apostles, the church was being lost to false teachings. My view of the "end of the church" was when bishops started ordaining bishops, even if that was the natural tendency of the church after the departure of the apostles. I don't consider the "end of the church" as malicious intent necessarily. My view of loss of authority is strictly my own. My church doesn't make a doctrinal stand on the timing, just that it was gone by 1820. Even then, it might be considered imposing my current knowledge of church organization to the past.

My thinking is more "dispensational" than others and the idea of a wide apostacy for extended period of time doesn't reflect on the nature of God or his mercy and grace.

[Don]

rp gives the standard RCC interpretation. My understanding is as follows:
1. Jesus is making a pun and the rock he is building the church on is Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah, all who confess that become members of His church.
2. In Acts 15 at the Jerusalem Council, Peter is A leader, not THE leader. Peter is the Apostle to the Jews and a fellow elder, as he says in his letters.
3. There were more than a handful of evil, immoral RCC popes, by failing to "expel the immoral brother" (as commanded in the Bible) from the RCC any supposed chain of authority back to Peter was broken. Authority in the Kingdom of God is based on character and being a servant.
Don

[Darth_Bill]

Good answer rp. My take on the Matt verse is a bit different.
1. Jesus would never build his church on Peter. Peter was a man, and quite a normal one at that. Christ would build his church on himself. He was the Son of God.

2. Don't take the verse out of the context. Jesus was talking about revelation, that Peter learned of Jesus' status by revelation, by his Father. Revelation was the power of the church.

3. The verse does not claim that the church would stay forever. In fact, it says the opposite. The gates of Hades would not hold the church. Gates only have any effect if you are behind them. They don't reach out and grab you. Just as Jesus died and the grave could not hold him, the church died, and the gates could not hold it, and it is restored today.

Your mileage may vary.

[Don]

NIV Ephesians 2:19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

Jesus is the cornerstone "rock" of the church. Notice also that apostles and prophets are plural, whereas Peter was one apostle (to the Jews), along with many others, including Paul, apostle to the Gentiles.

Matthew 16:18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

"gates of Hades" refers to death, this says that those in the church inherit eternal life. The church overcomes death, as death does not overcome the church.
Don

[Symeon]

Originally Posted by lonnienord

this morning i was writing a letter i plan to send to local people who say they are christian and have no church asking them to join my church and i got to thinking about this old discussion. If i remember correctly it started with a question by the moderator. When and by whom did your church start. then i remember the discussion going along the lines that i was being arragant saying JESUS started the Catholic church. so i have a question: When and by whom do you think the Catholic Church began?

all for JESUS!!
lonnie

Just saw this, sorry for the delay!

To be fair, it's going to be tough to get the same answer to that question from everyone here -- that is, *if* everyone can even agree to focus on your key phrase, "the Catholic Church".

Here are some of the roadblocks:

Should the start date be, when Christianity began? Or should it be, when the Catholic Church became identifiable as a separate organization from other Christian Churches?

If the former, then is the Catholic Church actually the source or fountainhead of *all* "other" Christian churches? I think all Eastern Orthodox Christians would bridle at that notion, just as I did back in March or whenever when this thread started.

If the latter, then, which date of separation should be used? The date of separation from the Protestants? Or the date of separation from the Orthodox? Or some other date?

Some non-Catholics might bridle at the implications of the answer, if they can be honest enough to realize that the same style of answer might not please *them* if it were directed at *their* church.

For example, I don't think any Orthodox Christians would be happy at saying that the Orthodox Church was started at (or by) the Great Schism in 1054, when (what is now called) Orthodoxy and (what is now called) Catholicism took the first formal step toward parting company.

And some other non-Catholics would also be unhappy at such an approach. I know most Anglicans bridle at statements that Anglicanism and/or the Church of England "started" in the 1530s or "was founded" by King Henry VIII ... most of them favor the view that it started when Augustine of Canterbury arrived in 590-something to start the mission in Anglo-Saxon England.

I think we just ought to acknowledge that any statement that identifies a modern-day institutional church with the Christian community at the first Pentecost is inherently going to be a partisan statement -- a statement by someone who is "for" that particular institutional church and "against" all those other institutional churches that do exist nowadays.

Sometimes it's OK to make such a statement -- if only for its entertainment value! (There's a bumper sticker that says something like, "The Orthodox Church -- founded in 33 AD and still going strong!")

But we ought not to make it *without realizing* that it's inherently partisan, that it inherently favors one of the modern-day institutional churches over the rest of the modern-day institutional churches.

And incidentally the moderator's question, although well-meant, was really the kind of question that one Protestant would ask another. Because there are many Protestants who have no problem saying, "Oh yes, the X Church (denomination) began when Rev Fred Bloggins started holding camp meetings in the backwoods in 1809" (or whatever).

It's not a question that is really safe to ask Catholics *or Orthodox* -- since each of our groups claims a direct institutional connection to the community gathered in the upper room at Pentecost.

My tuppence-worth response to the question that I think you were really asking, lonnie.

[rpminz]

Taking each of the points raised by Don:

1. Jesus is making a pun on Peter but His words addressed only to Peter are quite clear that He (Jesus) intends to appoint him (Peter) as His deputy when He says,"And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven..." While Jesus was saying this He was not talking in general to all those who believe because He adds,"..and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

2. Peter begins to take the lead in witnessing for Jesus (Acts 2:v.4). Again he takes the lead in settling the dispute regarding circumcision of Gentiles (Acts 15: v.7). In his second letter he promises to appoint someone in his place after his death "to ensure that you always have a reminder of these things after my decease" (2 Peter Ch.1:v.13-15). So, Peter was quite aware of the responsibility that was given to him by Jesus which he wanted to continue after his death.

Historically speaking, there were Christians in Rome at least by 49 AD. St. Paul preached there 61-63 AD and was executed there in 67 AD. St. Peter, by tradition, also preached and died there around the same time. So the city could claim an ancient Christian lineage.

There is no evidence this early of a bishop in Rome. Those who governed the Christian churches were called episcopos or presbyter (both Greek words -- the early Church was strongest in Greek lands), and those words were never applied to Peter or Paul.

The first list of bishops of Rome that exists date from 160-185 AD they make St. Paul and St. Peter the founders of the church of Rome. Not long after, there are documents that claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. These same documents claim that Peter made Clement his successor by a laying on of hands—a transferral of spiritual powers.

The first bishop to claim primacy was Stephen I (254-257). There were several persecutions during this century and they hit the Church of Rome hard. Pope Xystus II (257-258), along with most of the members of the church of Rome, was martyred by the emperor Valentinian.

After Constantine's conversion, the church at Rome was saved. But he created an even more serious threat by removing the capitol to Byzantium.

Pope Damasus I (366-384) was first to claim that Rome's primacy rested solely on Peter, and was the first pope to refer to the Roman church as "the Apostolic See".

3. There have been 78 canonized popes in the history of the Church, and 9 others who are currently blessed. This gives a total of 87 canonized or blessed out of a total of 264, or a percentage of about 32 percent. The most recent members of this group are:

Saint Leo IX (1049-1054)
Saint Gregory VII (1073-85)
Bl. Victor III (1086-7)
Bl. Urban II (1088-99)
Bl. Eugenius III (1145-53)
Bl. Gregory X (1271-6)
Bl. Innocent V (1276)
Saint Celestine V (1294)
Bl. Benedict XI (1303-4)
Bl. Urban V (1362-70)
Saint Pius V (1566-72)
Bl. Pius IX (1846-78)
Saint Pius X (1903-14)
Bl. John XXIII (1958-63)

There have been no more than about ten corrupt popes, giving a percentage of about 4 percent. The most infamous pope in history was probably pope Alexander VI (1492-1503) who had seven illegitimate children as a cardinal, which he openly acknowledged. As the newly-elected 61 year-old pontiff, he had an affair with the 19-year -old Giulia Farnese, who was herself a married woman.

The popes in general have shown a great deal of sanctity in their lives. 32 percent have been declared to be in heaven officially by the Church, others have shown holiness also. Only a handful (4 %) have been truly corrupt. Even those corrupt popes never taught anything against faith or morals. Pope Vigilius (6th century) had even agreed with the Emperor to heresy if he bacame pope, and when he was in fact elected, he didn't go through with it.

We must distinguish the person from his office. By saying that some popes were corrupt we can not discredit the papacy which as an institution has withstood internal and external ravages for nearly 2000 years. No dynasty or government has lasted so long. Even out of the twelve disciples selected by Jesus one of them, Judas Iscariot, turned out to be a traitor but this does not discredit the disciples or Christianity. Instead of looking at the pope as an office of gain, as some of the corrupt popes did, we must look at the pope as the chief servant among all the servants of Jesus. In general, the Catholic Church as an institution has nurtured some of the noblest men and women and created a vast communion of saints who humbly followed all the teachings of Jesus.

May all of us be united in the love and fellowship of Jesus Christ our Saviour and pray that he may give us humility to obey and follow the commandment of Jesus to love one another.

Bob

Originally Posted by Don

rp gives the standard RCC interpretation. My understanding is as follows:
1. Jesus is making a pun and the rock he is building the church on is Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah, all who confess that become members of His church.
2. In Acts 15 at the Jerusalem Council, Peter is A leader, not THE leader. Peter is the Apostle to the Jews and a fellow elder, as he says in his letters.
3. There were more than a handful of evil, immoral RCC popes, by failing to "expel the immoral brother" (as commanded in the Bible) from the RCC any supposed chain of authority back to Peter was broken. Authority in the Kingdom of God is based on character and being a servant.
Don

[Darth_Bill]

Just a couple of comments. I'll try hard not to make this a debate as this is a debate free zone.

I find it interesting that there are so many interps of Matt 16. I know of many more that haven't been mentioned. I'm glad we have such a book of scripture that is so amazingly clear and concise. Not to be seen as taking a low view of the bible, but to see such diversity from something that some declare as clear as day. Perhaps it isn't so easy.

On Rpminz.
#1. Never have really understood the pun on Peter's name. Anyway, I, as LDS, have no disagreement on rpminz's take on it. It just comes down to who really came after Peter.

>Historically speaking, there were Christians in Rome at least by 49 AD. St. Paul preached there 61-63 AD and was executed there in 67 AD. St. Peter, by tradition, also preached and died there around the same time. So the city could claim an ancient Christian lineage.

Really beside the point.

>There is no evidence this early of a bishop in Rome. Those who governed the Christian churches were called episcopos or presbyter (both Greek words -- the early Church was strongest in Greek lands), and those words were never applied to Peter or Paul.

Now I'm confused. Perhaps Symeon can help. I thought episcopos was the word that was used as "bishop". And I've heard Peter referred to in those terms by many RCCs. Also, as to the relative strength of the Greek. Isn't that pretty subjective? I mean, most of western christianity came from that area as well as most of our NT. That shows a bias as christianity flourished in other lands too, but didn't have virtue of being the "winners" of history. There is clear evidence of strong christian communities outside of the hellenized lands.

>Not long after, there are documents that claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome.

he might have been. I don't hold that the bishopric and apostleship(right of presidency) are the same at all. Peter might have been a bishop, but his bishopric sucessors had no right to claim the apostleship or the rights thereof.

>These same documents claim that Peter made Clement his successor by a laying on of hands—a transferral of spiritual powers.

Laying on of hands was common, even for the lower offices. It depends on what people are being ordained to. Peter, as apostle, could appoint bishops. However, I think it presumptuous to think that he gave clement the right of presidency. Clement never claimed it. I would think that more was involved in ordaining people to the power of apostle than just Peter. I would think that the other apostles would have been involved. John lived on long after Peter. I would think that the mantle of authority would more logically fall to him. And if revelation was written by John, he didn't even hold Rome to be worthy of mention. (I realize that this is a particular reading, but in some degree valid)

>The first bishop to claim primacy was Stephen I (254-257).

Bingo. why wait so long if primacy was so clear? Even then, primacy wasn't given until that sun-worshipping emperor threatened the other bishops into compliance.

All the following discussion of fallen popes is of no consequence. I find it odd to think that since only 4% were bad, then... seems like kind of a poor arguement. That being said, to mention that the RCC also likes its popes to the point of some sort of blessed status isn't really all that pursuasive either. I certainly hope they would like thier leaders.

I still hold my contention that the RCC is a 4th century product of the Roman Empire. While there may be some interesting history before then, its claim is suspect.