Catholic church founded by

[Mannyfit75]

The Catholic Church Latin Rite was founded when Pope Leo IX finalized their schism in 1054 begun in 866 from the apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ. The Pope left behind the other 4 Patriarch’s to continue the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. So it depends how you look at it. They do have the same beginning as the apostolic church but then went their own way with new doctrines as did further divisions from them. Of course from one schism came others such as Luther’s, Henry’s and so on.

Partially true but it is not so. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ who build his Church upon Peter. The Latin Rite refers mainly to the Western Rite Christianity. Prior to the Schism, there were two Christian traditions. One was held in the West and the other in the East.

Overtime, the language develop. The Eastern Rite kept its liturgy in Greek while in the West, there rite was change from Greek to Latin since the West mainly speak Latin. The Eastern Rite was commonly refer to as the Byzantine Rite. During the Schism of 1054 AD, the cultural and political difference between the two Churches one in Rome and the other in Constantinople case a break.

Wikipedia explains the cause of the Schism.

Since its earliest days, the Church recognized the special positions of three bishops, who were known as patriarchs: the Bishop of Rome, the Bishop of Alexandria, and the Bishop of Antioch. They were joined by the Bishop of Constantinople and by the Bishop of Jerusalem, both confirmed as patriarchates by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (see Pentarchy). The patriarchs held precedence over fellow bishops in the Church. While the See of Constantinople would come to argue that it should be ranked 2nd because it was, “New Rome,” the See of Rome strongly disputed that point - the reason for Rome’s Primacy had always been that it was the See of the Successor of St. Peter, the first “Pope” and earthly head of the Church, from the standpoint of early Church Tradition.

Disunion in the Roman Empire further contributed to disunion in the Church. Theodosius the Great, who died in 395, was the last Emperor to rule over a united Roman Empire; after his death, his territory was divided into western and eastern halves, each under its own Emperor. By the end of the 5th century, the Western Roman Empire had been destroyed by the Germanic tribes, while the Eastern Roman Empire (known also as the Byzantine Empire) continued to thrive. Thus, the political unity of the Roman Empire was the first to fall.

Many other factors caused the East and West to drift further apart. The dominant language of the West was Latin, whilst that of the East was Greek. Soon after the fall of the Western Empire, the number of individuals who spoke both Latin and Greek began to dwindle, and communication between East and West grew much more difficult. With linguistic unity gone, cultural unity began to crumble as well. The two halves of the Church were naturally divided along similar lines; they used different rites and had different approaches to religious doctrines. Although the Great Schism was still centuries away, its outlines were already perceptible.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism

That does NOT mean the the Catholic Church (Rome) cannot trace itself back to the apostles. They certainly can in just the same way the Anglicans can.

Rev North

You should get your fact straight before you make false claim the Latin Rite Church was founded by Pope Leo XI. The Latin Rite was there before he was Pope.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I like to add that the Early Christian Church had what is called the Pentarchy.

The Pentarchy consisted of the five ancient patriarchates of the undivided Church of the first millennium of her history, including the Churches of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

These major centers of early Christianity, founded by the apostles, were looked to by their respective regions as leaders in Church life, and eventually their bishops came to be regarded as the primates of their areas. The members of the Pentarchy all participated in some form in the first eight Ecumenical Councils, from 325 to 880. Their relationship with each other, despite various periods of rivalry and dispute, was generally in terms of fraternal equality and conciliarity.
[edit] History

After the Ascension, the apostles dispersed to preach Christianity to the world. They each founded different patriarchates. Some of the most prominent disciples of Jesus founded the patriarchates that made up the Pentarchy.

* Jerusalem - James
* Antioch - Peter
* Rome - Peter
* Alexandria - Mark
* Constantinople - Andrew

After the seventh-century Arab conquests and the Byzantine loss of the Rome-Ravenna corridor, only Constantinople’s patriarchate remained securely within the capital of the Roman Empire—the Pope at Rome was independent (see Gregory the Great),

Jerusalem and Alexandria were under Muslim rule, and Antioch was on the front lines of hundreds of years of recurring border warfare between the Byzantine Empire and the Arab Caliphate.

Also during the Middle Ages, the center of gravity of Christendom had shifted northward, and the majority of Christians in Muslim-ruled Egypt and Syria were Non-Chalcedonians who refused to recognize the authority of either Rome or Constantinople.

Together, these historical-political changes meant that the original ideal of five great co-operating centers of administration of the whole Christian Church grew ever more remote from practical reality.

 

[Mannyfit75]

what about the preists and bishops and cardinals and possibly popes that were not truly good sexually abused children or did things like that, if i were asked that question how would i answer it?

Popes? At the time of the Abuse Scandal I highly doubt Pope John Paul II had done anything as grave as sexually abusing children. I also find that if anyone makes a claim, I would highly be offended.

At the time, Pope JPII was growing ill.

 

[RevDrNorth]

Partially true but it is not so. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ who build his Church upon Peter. The Latin Rite refers mainly to the Western Rite Christianity. Prior to the Schism, there were two Christian traditions. One was held in the West and the other in the East.

Overtime, the language develop. The Eastern Rite kept its liturgy in Greek while in the West, there rite was change from Greek to Latin since the West mainly speak Latin. The Eastern Rite was commonly refer to as the Byzantine Rite. During the Schism of 1054 AD, the cultural and political difference between the two Churches one in Rome and the other in Constantinople case a break.

Wikipedia explains the cause of the Schism.

Many other factors caused the East and West to drift further apart. The dominant language of the West was Latin, whilst that of the East was Greek. Soon after the fall of the Western Empire, the number of individuals who spoke both Latin and Greek began to dwindle, and communication between East and West grew much more difficult. With linguistic unity gone, cultural unity began to crumble as well. The two halves of the Church were naturally divided along similar lines; they used different rites and had different approaches to religious doctrines. Although the Great Schism was still centuries away, its outlines were already perceptible.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism

You should get your fact straight before you make false claim the Latin Rite Church was founded by Pope Leo XI. The Latin Rite was there before he was Pope.

I do have my facts straight. It is simply a matter of perspective. The Orthodox one makes iron clad sense to me and many others. Yours to you.

In any case ONE patriarch got up from the table and left the other FOUR. That one was the Pope. That ONE patriarch’s church kept inventing new doctrines that the other four did NOT have. The other 4 continued in the historic faith of the Councils. That is simply fact. Not saying that the RCC is bad (etc) anymore than the Lutherans are, etc.

Rev North

 

[kleary]

“For those who believe no explaination is necessary”.

For those who do not believe no explaination is possible."

I forgot who said that. My wife keeps quoting this person’s quote all the time to me. (I think it is Ricardo Montalban, not sure- maybe he was quoting someone else)

Ken

 

[Mannyfit75]

I do have my facts straight. It is simply a matter of perspective. The Orthodox one makes iron clad sense to me and many others. Yours to you.

In any case ONE patriarch got up from the table and left the other FOUR. That one was the Pope. That ONE patriarch’s church kept inventing new doctrines that the other four did NOT have. The other 4 continued in the historic faith of the Councils. That is simply fact. Not saying that the RCC is bad (etc) anymore than the Lutherans are, etc.

Rev North

Inventing doctrines. The doctrines are defined to make clear of certain truths founded in the Catholic Church. If you do claim new doctrines was made, then you might as well call the Trinity a new doctrine since it was not defined until 325 AD.

These so called new doctrines had to be defined to combat heresy. Others were made to clarify issues, especially those concerning the Assumption of Mary and Immaculate Conception, as well as the transubstantiation.

Orthodox Churches tend to keep as Mysteries. One Byzantine Catholic Church during his years in the seminary, say to his Latin Rite Catholic seminarians. “Why do you Latins, like to define doctrines?”

The Latin Rite Catholic responded, "Why do you call them mysteries?

 

[RevDrNorth]

Inventing doctrines. The doctrines are defined to make clear of certain truths founded in the Catholic Church. If you do claim new doctrines was made, then you might as well call the Trinity a new doctrine since it was not defined until 325 AD.

These so called new doctrines had to be defined to combat heresy. Others were made to clarify issues, especially those concerning the Assumption of Mary and Immaculate Conception, as well as the transubstantiation.

Orthodox Churches tend to keep as Mysteries. One Byzantine Catholic Church during his years in the seminary, say to his Latin Rite Catholic seminarians. “Why do you Latins, like to define doctrines?”

The Latin Rite Catholic responded, "Why do you call them mysteries?

orthodoxinfo.com/general/greatschism.aspx
(nice moderate article)

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx
(Patriarchical document on innovative doctrine)

Rev North

 

[FrankLawrence]

Look at the writings of the Church Fathers found on this very website. Look at the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 16:18-19. Read Chapter 15 of Acts. It is abundantly clear that Peter was made the Earthly leader of the Church, a title which became known as Pope. That is a clearly proven and documented fact that is not open to debate or opinion.
Now, in my understanding, the schism resulted from a prideful political/cultural resistance to the leadership of the Pope, the successor of Peter. That is why it is termed, “schism.” If doctrines were at the root of the separation, it would be called, “heresy.” The Anglican Church was founded, because Henry wanted his marriage annulled, but the Pope refused, as to grant him such would violate the true faith. Henry wanted to marry someone else, placing lust ahead of obedience to GOD, so he started the Anglican church. Thus, for the sake of the sin of lust, the Anglican Church was born. That is my understanding. If I am incorrect, I humbly ask that a Roman Catholic AND ONLY a Roman Catholic, correct me on what I have said. Regardless, however, the Roman Catholic Church is the one and only Church that was founded by Christ.

 

[Mannyfit75]

orthodoxinfo.com/general/greatschism.aspx
(nice moderate article)

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx
(Patriarchical document on innovative doctrine)

Rev North

They are fairly moderate articles. Fair and balance.

 

[RevDrNorth]

Look at the writings of the Church Fathers found on this very website. Look at the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 16:18-19. Read Chapter 15 of Acts. It is abundantly clear that Peter was made the Earthly leader of the Church, a title which became known as Pope. That is a clearly proven and documented fact that is not open to debate or opinion.
Now, in my understanding, the schism resulted from a prideful political/cultural resistance to the leadership of the Pope, the successor of Peter. That is why it is termed, “schism.” If doctrines were at the root of the separation, it would be called, “heresy.” The Anglican Church was founded, because Henry wanted his marriage annulled, but the Pope refused, as to grant him such would violate the true faith. Henry wanted to marry someone else, placing lust ahead of obedience to GOD, so he started the Anglican church. Thus, for the sake of the sin of lust, the Anglican Church was born. That is my understanding. If I am incorrect, I humbly ask that a Roman Catholic AND ONLY a Roman Catholic, correct me on what I have said. Regardless, however, the Roman Catholic Church is the one and only Church that was founded by Christ.

i) It is not abundantly clear that Peter was left as boss, not in terms of scripture and NOT in terms of history. Look at Acts. He in no way had the authority that the Pope has. He was doctrinally defective and St. Paul corrected him (look at the New Testament…there in black and white). I think whatver sense of primacy you could attribute to him it was nothing like the secular power grab of later popes.

ii) Henry had other political issues with the Pope besides the marital one. I would not attack Henry for lust after all the history of Popes in regard to lust, murder and so in is not clean.

From my perspective ( you certainly do not have to agree), the one and only Church founded by Jesus is not as you say the CC. It is the church that the CC left leaving the other 4 Patriarchs to continue on in the doctrine of the apsotles and the councils…while the CC went off and gave broth to other schismatic groups and new doctrines such as the Immaculate conception.

Of course from a Bishop John Shelby Spong perspective this is all nonsense since the church was founded and messed up by men. The bible is a human book, written by men interpreting life and events through their own paradigm and that needs reinterpretation. This nnoyance was shared by Tolstoy who was unamused by all the churches claiming to be the “true church”. He thought none of them were (not CC, not EO, and not Lutheran)

Rev North

 

[Mannyfit75]

i) It is not abundantly clear that Peter was left as boss, not in terms of scripture and NOT in terms of history. Look at Acts.

Rev North
Rev North

Not so. Take a look at the Scriptural Reference pointing to the Primacy of Peter.

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#scripture_I

 

[RevDrNorth]

Rev North
Rev North

Not so. Take a look at the Scriptural Reference pointing to the Primacy of Peter.

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#scripture_I

orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papal_supremacy.aspx

atlgoc.org/Frametopic.html

A couple of perspectives. Whatever idea of supremacy developed was not what was originally intended. Understandable because the Popes were normal men given to sinful attitudes and desires just the rest of humanity (ie power). Just like the apostles trying to be in charge of one another (make me number one lord…no me…etc).

Rev North

 

[mgrfin]

hello all
just wondering how 1 would be sure that JESUS found the catholic church, if i’m correct most would say it’s due to the tradition’s of mass, eucharist and others like that which were in the bible and traced back to JESUS.
if thats the case then woulden’t it be possible for someone to use those same traditions and start there own church?
i’m not trying to attack catholics, it’s just a question.
maybe if you could provide me with some bible quotes or the words catholic church in the bible.
i’m still reading the bible and have not finished, or maybe i’m wrong on the tradition thing.

thanks in advance.

“Catholic Church” doesn’t appear in the bible, but neither does “Christian”, “Protestant”, “Anglican”, “Methodist”, etc. You get the idea. But Christ chose Peter, and upon this man he built his Church, to whom the Catholic Church traces their origin.

Some bible quotes for this, I have quoted here before, but I will be happy to reproduce them for you:
Mt 18:21
Mk 8:29
Lk 8:45, 12:41
Jn 6:69
Mt 16:13-20
Mt 14:24-33
Mk 16:7
Lk 22:31-32
Lk 24:33-35
Jn 20:6
Jn 21:15-19
Acts 1:15-19
Acts 3:1-9
Acts 10-11
Acts 15”6-11
Gal 1:18

Simon Peter is mentioned 195 times in the New Testament. Next comes St. John, who is mentioned 29 times.
When all the twelve Apostles are named, Peter is always listed first; Judas Iscariot is always listed last.
Often: “Peter and the rest of the Apostles” or “Peter and his companions”.

peace,
mgrfin

 

[mtr01]

I do have my facts straight. It is simply a matter of perspective. The Orthodox one makes iron clad sense to me and many others. Yours to you.

In any case ONE patriarch got up from the table and left the other FOUR. That one was the Pope. That ONE patriarch’s church kept inventing new doctrines that the other four did NOT have. The other 4 continued in the historic faith of the Councils. That is simply fact. Not saying that the RCC is bad (etc) anymore than the Lutherans are, etc.

Rev North

St. Irenaeus:

“For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.”

Now, if Rome is the Church with which all others must agree, how can it leave communion? Honestly, given what what was believed of Rome as evidenced by St. Irenaeus, if Constantinople (and/or Antioch, and/or Alexandria, and/or Antioch, and/or Jerusalem, and/or Moscow) does not agree with Rome, who is doing the leaving? Certainly not the one Church with which “all Churches must agree”.

Furthermore, your “facts” are merely your opinions.

 

[Mannyfit75]

“Catholic Church” doesn’t appear in the bible, but neither does “Christian”, “Protestant”, “Anglican”, “Methodist”, etc. You get the idea. But Christ chose Peter, and upon this man he built his Church, to whom the Catholic Church traces their origin.

Christian is mention in the Books of Acts. It was the first time the followers of Christ were called Christians in Antioch.

 

[LaSalle]

We could probably debate using all the past records till the protestants come home … and we’ll probably still not reach any conclusion.

Rather than look at history, let’s take a pragmatic and realistic look at both Churches - The impression I get of the Eastern Orthodox is that they broke away from the main root and now are drying up. They’re mostly limited to the Eastern European countries … churches that have come out of Europe are extremely small … and hardly surviving (well, they sure aren’t doing well in my part of the woods … I don’t even think they have a church here, if they do, it’s way too small to notice)

They say the RCC has made up doctrines, but this is something I do not understand, don’t they realise that doctrine development is how we understood the divinity of Christ and received our full understanding of the Trinity? … They say we made up the Assumption, but they have the Dormition … isn’t that the same difference? It’s just we’ve officially declared it, and they have not … but they believe in it. In fact, all our dogmas seem to have an undefined equivalent in the EO in some form or other.

That’s probably because they cannot sit and agree with each other, no one wants to declare doctrines for fear of what I don’t know (they probably don’t want to come across as attempting to assert any hint of primacy?)… this doesn’t sound like the Church who can guide us as the Spirit said He would.

New moral issues arise from time to time (contraceptives, abortion, IFV, Homosexuality, genetic mutations, cloning etc) and Jesus left us a Church whom He guides, precisely to lead us to all truth … how are the EO supposed to do that if they don’t seem to have the wherewithal to concisely state a position either way?

It’s as if they had the teaching up to a point, but don’t have the means promised by God to lead us into the unchartered territory that is the future.

I mean look at them … they don’t look like what God’s church on earth should look like. They are splintered among themselves and seem to be grouped under nationalities … how big are they anyway? I know size shouldn’t matter … but seriously, wouldn’t you think God’s ONE church on earth would look a bit more organised and established?

 

[mgrfin]

Christian is mention in the Books of Acts. It was the first time the followers of Christ were called Christians in Antioch.

Yes, I was in error. You are correct.

peace
mgrfin

 

[ricmat]

From my perspective ( you certainly do not have to agree), the one and only Church founded by Jesus is not as you say the CC. It is the church that the CC left leaving the other 4 Patriarchs to continue on in the doctrine of the apsotles and the councils…while the CC went off and gave broth to other schismatic groups and new doctrines such as the Immaculate conception.
Rev North

The infamous 4 Patriarchs - you keep bringing them up. Aren’t these the same patriarchs who embraced Arianism (along with virtually the whole Eastern Church) in the 400’s? The Pope did in fact disagree with them then as well, and was willing to stand “alone.” For that reason, we’re all Christians and not Arians.

 

[nilofc]

That is your perspective. The Orthodox disagree and would say the same to you…study history and you will come to the Orthodox conclusion (it is inescapable).

As for Henry…please. Much Papal sin. Has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Anglicans can trace themelseves back to the apostles.

A little history for you my friend…

In 1054, the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were not the local bishops who used to rule from these sees (since all of the locals broke off with the Monophysites). Rather, the Orthodox bishops of these sees in 1054 were all Byzantine Melkites – Imperial appointees from Constantinople! Furthermore, they were presiding within Muslim countries; and their flocks were puny at best (most of the Christians in those regions being Monophysite, not Orthodox). So, they were no longer the great metropolitan sees of the ancient Church.

So, when the Orthodox say that there were 5 patriarchs and 1 broke off, that is not the case at all. It was not a 4 to 1 split. It was a 1 to 1 split – Rome and Constantinople. The sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem at this time (ruled by imperial-minded Greeks from Byzantium) did whatever Constantinople told them to do. And, if Churches like the Copts and the Jacobites turn out not to be Monophysite after all, then these men weren’t even the the legitimate bishops! But, the “Greek invaders” as the Copts and Syrians saw them.

So, in essence, the aforementioned Orthodox myth implies (nay, declares) that one must be Byzantine Greek in order to be in the Church. This is most anathema. And so much for the “poll of bishops” to determine orthodoxy. By 1054, Byzantium had done away with that replacing (rightly or wrongly) the legitimately-elected bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem when they did not agree with the Byzantine decisions at Chalcedon. So, if Orthodoxy truly believes that correct doctrine is determined by a poll of the teachings of all bishops everywhere, then Orthodoxy is guilty of hypocrisy (from about 451 on).

And by the way, I’ve traced the Anglicans back to henry the 8th, no matter how I tired they all came back to King Henry. You know that we can’t simply invent a line so we can trace them back to the apostles, or do you?

 

[mtr01]

And by the way, I’ve traced the Anglicans back to henry the 8th, no matter how I tired they all came back to King Henry. You know that we can’t simply invent a line so we can trace them back to the apostles, or do you?

Neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox consider Anglican Orders valid. At one point they did have Apostolic succession by virtue of Bishops being ordained in the Catholic Church. However, as Leo XIII concluded, a defect in their formula of consecration as well as a change in attitude concerning Holy Orders broke the line and rendered subsequent ordinations null.