Catholic Church founded by Jesus?

[TheIttyBitty]

I think I still don’t understand what you’re asking for. In one post, you said you wanted others thoughts, but you’ve come down hard on those that know less than you. I’m not only bowing out of this conversation, I’m telling you: when a person asks for information, sometimes it is helpful to gauge why, in order to know in which way to tackle it. This looks more educational to me, and that’s not being judgmental, but matter of fact. I was raised to be very blunt, as that’s how my dad is. I understand that it feels like it lacks charity, but if I truly lacked charity, it would’ve been a very short post since I’m trying to keep hundreds of animals and my mom alive right now.

I really do hope you find what you are looking for, but I cannot be part of this or any further conversations of yours. I am very regrettably sorry for any true and tangible damage I might’ve caused. I am sorry that you felt unwelcome here by my words, especially. I will try to do better with others. I do hope for the best for you. God bless.

 

[StudentMI]

I recommend the book If Protestantism is True By Devin Rose. Not directly related to the question in the OP but worthwhile.

 

[StudentMI]

First, he refers to the Church at Rome as “the greatest and most ancient Church known to all.” My specific question here is what he meant by “most ancient Church.” My understanding is that the most ancient Church would have been considered the Church in Jerusalem.

My guess would be he was referring to the Apostolic origin of the Church.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

My specific question here is what he meant by “most ancient Church.”

While Jerusalem indeed was most ancient Church, it was a place that held no authority over other Bishops at first… only “Patriarchates” were Antioch, Alexandria and Rome (Petrine Sees). But it is also true that Antioch is more ancient than other two, so Irenaeus couldn’t have meant that. What I think he meant is in regards to faith- the most ancient Church is in Rome, because Church that now has seat in Rome is Church that was built on Peter. So therefore Church that is now Church of Rome was born day our Lord and Savior told Peter “govern my lambs” and where he assured him that his Faith wouldn’t fail. It wasn’t Church of “Rome” at the time, but it became it later on.

Here again, I think back to the Church in Jerusalem, where Peter was also a leader, apparently along with James.

James was Bishop of Jerusalem, but Peter was not leader of Church of Jerusalem. What Peter was leader of was Universal Church. While Church was completely located in Jerusalem and not outside, Peter headed it but there was not yet any local distinction. When Apostles went farther, they established many Sees and thus local distinction formed. Peter established Antioch and was Bishop there until he went to Rome. He also sent his disciple Mark to establish Alexandria and that is why those three are called “Petrine Sees”. Their order was Rome, Alexandria, Antioch. Later Patriarchs were sort of Greek innovation, but that isn’t as important in this topic.

 

[BartholomewB]

My understanding is that the most ancient Church would have been considered the Church in Jerusalem.

By Irinaeus’ time, there was no longer a church in Jerusalem.

 

[Montrose]

Whew! A lot to dig through…

Yes, but start with the Apostolic Church Fathers.
Clement was a disciple of Peter and Paul.
Polycarp was a disciple of John.
Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp.
Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of Peter and John.

 

[OddBird]

My guess would be he was referring to the Apostolic origin of the Church.

That’s what I’d say too.

@Glenn, “superior origin” probably refers to saint Peter. He held a special status among the Apostles, more so than James.

Rome – not Jerusalem – is where saint Peter was martyred and buried. That gave Rome a special status from the outset. There also was a Christian community here; a community which developed so early that saint Paul writes to the Roman Christians (an epistle commonly dated from 57-58) before he had ever set foot in Rome.

Jerusalemite Christians, at the same time, were already struggling. Paul mentions the collect in their favor in the epistle.

 

[TMC]

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.

Well, yes, obviously this is the Catholic viewpoint. I am talking about what can be said historically. I think there is an obvious and strong connection between Jesus’ movement and the religious movement(s) led by Peter, Paul and James. It can certainly be argued that is enough to say that the early Christian churches were founded by Jesus, but I think there is an equal argument to say they were founded by followers of Jesus in the manner they believed Jesus would find appropriate, which is similar but not the same.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

It can certainly be argues that is enough to say that the early Christian churches were founded by Jesus, but I think there is an equal argument to say they were founded by followers of Jesus in the manner they believed Jesus would find appropriate, which is similar but not the same.

Terminology matters. We know that movement of “Followers of Jesus” (which we consider “Church”) was founded by Jesus. Local Churches… not so much.

 

[Glenn]

Could the Constantinian shift perhaps be the hypothetical discontinuity that is causing you concern?

No, I understand that the Church, although it is Christ’s, is still full of sinners. It seems that there is a lot of continuity in the Catholic Church today with the ancient Church. But did Christ found the Catholic Church, or just His Church, knowing that his Body would realize, but not perfectly because of sin, the unity for which he prayed. I know believers in many different denominations who differ on some theological issues, but we are still brothers and sisters in Christ.

Does one Church have it ALL right? I’m not disputing the need for some visible manifestation of the Church, but we know that there is a mystical body of Christ that includes everyone in the kingdom, including those outside of Church of Rome. Is that sufficient? Is that the unity Christ prayed for.

It is definitely discouraging to see all of the disunity and division, and I have tried to focus on those things that have united us, traditional orthodoxy and the creeds as the foundation of those things that we know to be true. I do not consider myself as part of one denomination or another, because there is just so much division, I cannot figure out who is right. Each group has its arguments, and they are often biblically based. So I often feel that I just need to rest in what I know, and not worry about those things that I can’t figure out.

I love what I am reading from Catholic authors and doctors, and I think they have offered me the deepest theology that I know, but it would be a giant step for me to come to the point where I can say that the Catholic Church is 100% right on every issue. But then again, I have questioned my own willingness to submit my understanding to the understanding of the Church. I really need the Holy Spirit here.

 

[TMC]

Terminology matters. We know that movement of “Followers of Jesus” (which we consider “Church”) was founded by Jesus. Local Churches… not so much.

Sure, I agree terminology matters. Certainly Jesus had followers, and its probably fair to say He led a movement. There is an obvious connection between that movement and the Churches that came after. But I am not sure that is enough (without adding faith and tradition) to say that Jesus founded those Churches. And, of course, we still have to directly connect those Churches with the Catholic Church, as we understand it today.

I am not trying to say the Catholic Church is not real, or not legitimate, or can’t trace itself back to biblical times. But I think its important to be factual. And, particularly when trying to talk to or convince those of other faiths, its important not to overreach or misstate the facts and evidence - its unhelpful in so many ways.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

But I also just finished reading Four Witnesses by Rob Bennett.

I read that last year and found it to be an excellent resource. Steven Ray has a book called “Upon this Rock” which is another good one for summarized evidence. There’s a book called “Jesus, Peter and the Keys” which I haven’t read but came recommended.
I think books like that are a better option for you than to suggest that you go directly and “read the Fathers”. I can’t see that as necessary for a solid understanding of the evidence of the Catholic Church.
Instead, some of the evidence to consider, think about, pray about …
The Catholic Church exists today - that’s a fact. We have church locations in the ancient parts of the world, where the community of believers still exist, still believing the same things as is found in the writings of the Fathers. That’s evidence of continuity.
We can look at the architecture. The tomb of St. Peter is in Rome. The scholarly evidence indicates this. The altar of St. Peter’s Basilica is built over that tomb.
So, there’s ancient, archeological evidence of a connection between St. Peter and the Church of Rome. As you mention, St. Irenaeus speaks of the greatness of the Church of Rome. St. Clement of Rome represented this Church, as a pope.
You also have a process of elimination to work with.
In the same way that some would consider Jesus’ claims, and then be able to eliminate other prophets as being equal to Him (He said that he forgives sin, that all must believe in Him, etc)- we can do that with Catholicism.
As mentioned by others, Protestantism is eliminated in this process. Those churches cannot have been the Church founded by Jesus. Their history cannot be traced back to the apostles.
That leaves Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Both of those churches were united for 1000 years so we have some good evidence here. We look at the similarities. What they believe in common must have apostolic authority.
But only one of those asserts that it is the Church founded on the See of St. Peter - the Catholic Church. This is something the Church of the East accepted for centuries.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I see. I agree that to link Church and movement of Jesus of Nazareth as historical figure does require certain faith. From secular point of view, one can’t guarantee Apostles did not misunderstand the teaching.

Though if that were even possible, Christianity would itself be a lie. I understand what you mean about discussing with someone of different faith, but this particular topic is made by someone whose faith is listed as Baptist. It means he Apostles being faithful to True Faith, accepts Bible and so on. If I were discussing with Muslim, I wouldn’t be able to resort to Bible for example. If I were discussing with Catholic, I can argument from Papal declarations (though I guess if Catholic asked this question then there wouldn’t be point in using them because he doesn’t necessarily accept their authority?).

 

[Glenn]

And I’m sorry also if I offended you. I was feeling like I was having to constantly defend myself, and I know that is not Christ-like on my part. I wish you the best in your care for animals and with your mom. I am sorry to others as well whom I may have offended. Hopefully, we can move forward from here.

God bless.

 

[mcq72]

The Catholic Church is the only church that can trace its lineage all the way back to Christ’s declaration to Peter on that day

We all know where this is headed, the justification of a current church today over others.

Certain Jewish leaders also justified themselves before Jesus by claiming lineage all the way back to Moses and Abraham. It should count for something but not always the case in all things.

 

[TMC]

From secular point of view, one can’t guarantee Apostles did not misunderstand the teaching.

I guess that depends on how you define “Church.” The Apostles could understand Jesus’ theological teachings and still form a Church that would not look like the Church He would have formed. Even for Christians who accept the Gospels as recording Jesus’ sayings and teachings, there is not much in the Gospels about ecclesiology.

Though if that were even possible, Christianity would itself be a lie.

This I don’t understand. The Apostles could make mistakes without invalidating all of Christianity. We know they disagreed strongly on some very important topics, for example, so they couldn’t all of understood everything correctly.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

This I don’t understand

What I claimed was that “if Apostles misunderstood the teaching, Christianity is a lie”. St. Paul writes infallibly for Christians that Church is “Pillar and Foundation of Truth”. If indeed this Early Church was incorrect, all Christianity today is.

there is not much in the Gospels about ecclesiology

I agree. Christianity teaches that Apostles were Divinely Inspired in their work and that Church was led by Holy Spirit, which is why our conclusion is that Church is inerrant. But yes, it requires faith.

Certain Jewish leaders also justified themselves before Jesus by claiming lineage all the way back to Moses and Abraham. It should count for something but not always the case in all things.

Matthew 23:1-3
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

 

[Glenn]

We all know where this is headed, the justification of a current church today over others.

I thought that was the topic we have been discussing. If it was the Catholic Church that was founded by Jesus, then it is the one true Church.

 

[Glenn]

Matthew 23:1-3
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you . But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

This seems to be a precedent for an authoritative Church, not just an authoritative Book.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

This seems to be a precedent for an authoritative Church, not just an authoritative Book.

True. Catholicism is not really a religion of the book. For the first centuries, it was a community taught by pastors. The book of the New Testament was not needed, and did not exist in the apostolic age. Jesus did not write a book. He told the apostles and by grace, they communicated what they learned.