Catholic Church founded by Jesus?

[Glenn]

Okay, @Glenn. I think we’re on the same wavelength now. Let me break down your original question into two parts, to see if this will help us move forward.

1. What is the evidence showing that Jesus founded a church?
2. What is the evidence showing that the church that Jesus founded is the same church that calls itself the Catholic Church today?

May we assume that you know the answer to question 1 and are only seeking the answer to question 2?

Correct.

But I realize that it may involve more than “historical” evidence. I also realize that because of my Protestant background, I have not been schooled very well in the need to submit to authority. I feel the need to no longer go it on my own, to accept things that I might not fully understand intellectually.

 

[BartholomewB]

I come from a Protestant background too, the Church of England in my case, so that should be a help. I have to take some time off now to go and feed the dogs. I’ll back in an hour or two.

 

[Glenn]

Not really.

Do you do this with all historical things or just this?

Sources vs Evidence

 

[Irishmom2]

O kaaaay. That doesn’t answer my question.

 

[Glenn]

O kaaaay. That doesn’t answer my question

Did you read the article? I think that was pretty clear.

 

[Glenn]

It is simply terminology, distinguishing the sources of the evidence from the actual evidence. These definitions are not explicitly about “historical” evidence, but I think they apply. I never insinuated that historical evidence regarding Christian beliefs is any different than any other type of historical evidence, and I don’t understand why the distinction between the terms continues to be an issue.

Sources are artifacts, books, documents, film, people, photographs, recordings, websites, databases, etc. Our evaluation of a source begins with its physical form: that is, whether it is an original or a derivative. Within this context, we consider such physical qualities as the condition of the record, the legibility of the image or the penmanship, or the skill with which the derivative was made.

Evidence is our interpretation of a piece of information that is relevant to our research problem. If the evidence explicitly addresses our problem, it is direct evidence—which may or may not be true; we still need to support it with other evidence, independently created. If our evidence is in some way relevant to our problem but it does not explicitly state a solution, then we have indirect evidence . In that case, we might combine it with other evidence to build a case.

 

[Irishmom2]

Look, I didn’t ask for a big dissertation on all of the differences and terms that you care about, and no one needs you to treat us like we are in middle school English class and talk down to us. All I asked was if you personally, do this with all things or just the topic of Jesus and the Catholic church. Simple question.

But never mind now, I don’t care to engage in this thread any longer.

 

[TMC]

TBH, I don’t see how we can say with any degree of historical certainty that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. I think the most that can be said is that prominent early leaders of the Christian movement believed they were participating in a Church that was founded by Jesus, and that Catholics today believe that the Catholic Church is in continuity with those early leaders. The two other steps - between Jesus and that early Church, and between that early Church and us, are based on faith and Tradition, not on historical scholarship. At least that is how I see it.

 

[OddBird]

Evidence is our interpretation of a piece of information that is relevant to our research problem

Ok, that’s where we misunderstood each other. To my mind, evidence is defined as the available body of facts supporting or negating the truth of a proposition. It is not in itself a matter of interpretation, although it does need to be interpreted to make sense.

It’s bedtime here where I live, but if, as I think, I’m understanding you now and you’d like to know what we think about what the Early Church says She is - and founded by whom - I’ll try to come up with something tomorrow.

 

[Glenn]

All I asked was if you personally, do this with all things or just the topic of Jesus and the Catholic church. Simple question.

I have been asked over and over to explain my terminology, as if it was somehow weird or deceptive. And I tried my best to explain what I meant, to no avail. What else was I to do but to gather some objective definition that might help to lend some clarity. And then you imply that not only am I treating the topic of Jesus and the Catholic Church in this weird way, but you wondering if I am weird “with all things.” Your question was not simple; it was derogatory.

 

[Glenn]

TBH, I don’t see how we can say with any degree of historical certainty that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. I think the most that can be said is that prominent early leaders of the Christian movement believed they were participating in a Church that was founded by Jesus, and that Catholics today believe that the Catholic Church is in continuity with those early leaders.

I think this makes sense.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Because I’m Catholic, I think. Guess that makes me untrustworthy.

 

[adamhovey1988]

in middle school English class

May I get a hall pass to use the restroom?

 

[Cruciferi]

Only if you can prove that such passes existed.

I’m waiting for suitable evidence…

 

[Glenn]

To my mind, evidence is defined as the available body of facts supporting or negating the truth of a proposition. It is not in itself a matter of interpretation, although it does need to be interpreted to make sense.

The only reason I’m going over this again is because it caused such a firestorm. The following is the way in which I used to the terms “evidence” and “source.”

Historical Evidence is not the facts. That is why we call it evidence. The facts are the objective truth, whether we have evidence for it or not. We try to discern what the historical facts were by looking at the evidence for those facts. We read the evidence to determine the facts.

Historical Sources are the ancient documents, the archeological artifacts, the journals, the memoirs of historical personages, etc. These sources provide us with evidence, and based on the weight of that evidence, we determine whether or not a particular “view” or interpretation of the facts is warranted.

I was told that we have “sources like the Didache, Clement of Rome, and Ignatius of Antioch.” Agreed. I then responded, “Those are the historical sources. What is the actual evidence?”

I was merely asking, “What was the evidence that these sources presented?” What did they say that shows that the Church founded by Jesus was the Catholic Church. I thought is was a simple question. And I assumed it could be answered with “the Didache said…,” or “Clement said…,” or Ignatius wrote…"

How this simple question got all bent out of shape, I don’t know. But I think one respondent would key off of another, instead of trying to clearly understand my question.

 

[Glenn]

Are you trying to prove someone wrong in your life? Prepping for a debate? Class credit for speech or English + Religion Class?

Have you even read the whole thread? I have been asked over and over and over again to explain myself. And then when I try to explain the meaning of my terms, which everyone totally misinterpreted, I’m accused of lecturing them.

Folks, you really need to rethink how you treat visitors.

 

[on_the_hill]

I think the most that can be said is that prominent early leaders of the Christian movement believed they were participating in a Church that was founded by Jesus,

I don’t think they believed they were participating, I think they were participating, because they were there at the Last Supper. They knew what they were doing.

 

[on_the_hill]

What I’d like to know is how sola scriptura believers can ever doubt the primacy of the Church when the direct word of God said, ‘You are Peter, and upon you I will build my church,’ and there is a direct lineage of every pope from then until now.

 

[Hume]

How do we know that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus?

You can’t know. It’s an article of faith.

The church was reasonably united until Chalcedon, so you’d have to ask yourself if the Greek/Latin church was Christ’s or was his church that of the Orientals?

If the Greeks/Latins were your choice, which of them carry the banner after the Great Schism?

If you go with the Latins, then who carries it after the Reformation?

Past that, you have denominational concerns to parse - like the Sedes who think there hasn’t been a pope in decades…

So, TL;DR-

Article of faith.

 

[Hume]

What I’d like to know is how sola scriptura believers can ever doubt the primacy of the Church when the direct word of God said, ‘You are Peter, and upon you I will build my church,’ and there is a direct lineage of every pope from then until now.

Well, including God calling Peter “Satan” a few lines later and the idea that the power of the keys was also transferred to the others just a bit beyond that is what drives most of the doubt.

As to the maintenance of papal lineage, well, there are hazy spots. Happy to take that up in another thread. Just wanted to address the “How could they even begin to rationally believe otherwise?” tone I perceived.