Did Jesus Start the Catholic Church?

[benedictus2]

I am starting this thread due to an invitation I extended to Rev Kevin to discuss his claim Jesus did not start the Catholic Church.

To avoid derailing the thread, please avoid discussions on Mary, Eucharist, Confession and other Catholic doctrines that have no bearing on the topic unless you can establish relevance.

It is important to keep to this so that we can have a truly fruitful discussion. We did that on the question of “Is Peter the Rock” and we got somewhere in a fairly short time by keeping the topic in mind.

To keep the opening argument short, I say Jesus started the Catholic Church based on Matthew 16:18, John 21 and Acts.
**
Peace and Joy of Christ to anyone who participates in the discussion and to all those who visit this thread!

May the Holy Spirit enlighten our minds and our hearts!
**

 

[Roy5]

I confess to doubts and confusion when it comes to Christ beginning the Catholic Church as it is today. Here he was, with hardly a place to lay his head, and here is the church with its huge cathedrals, its ornate vestments, its long processions, and such.

If Christ did start the church what does he think of it today? I sometimes have even wondered if the sex scandal and other problems could be a punishment? Or, maybe an alarm? I also have honestly wondered if the early Hebrew-Christian tradition was invaded by the Greco-Roman religion and the mystery cults. Don't know. Just wondering.

When I see the Pope and all the finery and ceremony and adulation connected with him I wonder: what would Jesus think? He would have loved the work of Mother Theresa and of the many others who seek to serve the have-nots in the world. But as for the other????

Too often Christians claim to embrace love, humility and peace while they project an image of bigotry, arrogance and hostility.

Am I wrong?

 

[Nicea325]

He did not found His church,then what did he build? He certainly did not give us a nicely compiled Bible.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

The Orthodox answer would be that he did start the Catholic Church, and that the institution which is commonly called the Roman Catholic Church today has historical continuity with that church, but that this organization broke away from the true Catholic Church, what is commonly called in English the Eastern Orthodox Church, a thousand years ago.

 

[lax16]

The Orthodox answer would be that he did start the Catholic Church, and that the institution which is commonly called the Roman Catholic Church today has historical continuity with that church, but that this organization broke away from the true Catholic Church, what is commonly called in English the Eastern Orthodox Church, a thousand years ago.

Do you recognize Peter as your first pope? Do you (Orthodox) have a pope?
(I’ve always wondered this and thank you in advance for your explanation).

 

[benedictus2]

I confess to doubts and confusion when it comes to Christ beginning the Catholic Church as it is today. Here he was, with hardly a place to lay his head, and here is the church with its huge cathedrals, its ornate vestments, its long processions, and such.

If Christ did start the church what does he think of it today? I sometimes have even wondered if the sex scandal and other problems could be a punishment? Or, maybe an alarm? I also have honestly wondered if the early Hebrew-Christian tradition was invaded by the Greco-Roman religion and the mystery cults. Don't know. Just wondering.

When I see the Pope and all the finery and ceremony and adulation connected with him I wonder: what would Jesus think? He would have loved the work of Mother Theresa and of the many others who seek to serve the have-nots in the world. But as for the other????

Too often Christians claim to embrace love, humility and peace while they project an image of bigotry, arrogance and hostility.

Am I wrong?

That does not say anything with regards the topic. Attending to what you have written will derail the thread.

The question is did Christ start the Catholic Church.

If your answer is no please give support.

If you are not well versed in history, since I presume your are a Christian then please provide Biblical support.

 

[Marie5890]

I hesitate to use the word “start”. He certainly didn’t start the formal organization that we today recognize as the Catholic Church.

What He did do was to continue on and fulfill the covenant that was made with Abraham and all the early prophets. They were promised that the Messiah would come, and indeed He did.

From there He continued onward to establish and fulfill His word. In time those action evolved into the more formal organization that we see and have today. It had to, the bigger that the Body of Christ, His Bride, became, the more formal organization it would need.

But did He “start” it. I guess I would only say yes, if “start” goes back even further than the Incarnation.

It’s what we call “Salvation History” and that did not start at the time He walked this earth. I

 

[Pax_in_Veritate]

Jesus created a basic organization of people, developed followers, who with a body of knowledge and revelation and a new covenant given to them by Jesus, established churches around the Mediterranean, including 5 major jurisdictions including Antioch, Byzantium, Rome, Jerusalem and Alexandria…

Peter, an apostle, probably went to Rome, the center of civilization, and became Vicar of Christ etc and the Church became centered there, as we know historically.

But leaving ROME aside. Remember, Christianity was not solely based in Rome, it was like a Federal System (abide me), with Bishops centered in major cities preaching and growing and developing further the organization that Christ began.

As far as I am concerned, before the schism, the faith being taught around the WHOLE Mediterranean was certainly the Catholic Church and it was began by Jesus. His Church, preaching His gospel… It was his apostles starting these churches.

So, Yes, as another poster said, the Catholic Church of today descends from this structure- it has continuity from Jesus. So he did start it.

I believe it is still the True Church and hold a high regard for Eastern Orthodox CHurches as well, who also descend from this structure.

Also, I am assuming that this thread is not to argue whether the Church has gone astray, but rather whether Jesus started it… They are not mutually exclusive questions but they are two different questions.

 

[Irish_Polock]

The Orthodox answer would be that he did start the Catholic Church, and that the institution which is commonly called the Roman Catholic Church today has historical continuity with that church, but that this organization broke away from the true Catholic Church, what is commonly called in English the Eastern Orthodox Church, a thousand years ago.

Will you please enlighten us to the historical facts that allowed you to come to this decision.

From my side of the Adriatic, the fault seems to lie in the East.

 

[ignatius777]

I confess to doubts and confusion when it comes to Christ beginning the Catholic Church as it is today. Here he was, with hardly a place to lay his head, and here is the church with its huge cathedrals, its ornate vestments, its long processions, and such.

If Christ did start the church what does he think of it today? I sometimes have even wondered if the sex scandal and other problems could be a punishment? Or, maybe an alarm? I also have honestly wondered if the early Hebrew-Christian tradition was invaded by the Greco-Roman religion and the mystery cults. Don't know. Just wondering.

When I see the Pope and all the finery and ceremony and adulation connected with him I wonder: what would Jesus think? He would have loved the work of Mother Theresa and of the many others who seek to serve the have-nots in the world. But as for the other????

Too often Christians claim to embrace love, humility and peace while they project an image of bigotry, arrogance and hostility.

Am I wrong?

The way I see it that in spite of all the human failings of the church its still here, THAT should tell you all you need to know.

 

[JackVk]

Of course He did. Matthew 16:18 says it plain as day. He told His disciples to go out and preach to all nations, so it makes sense that Peter, the disciple to whom Jesus gave supremacy, would go to Rome, the center of civilization, because that would maximize the number of people who would hear the Gospel.

Imagine if this were happening today. Jerusalem was the ancient equivalent to a small town in Timbuktu, while Rome was like New York or Washington. Which locale will draw more people in?

 

[rev_kevin]

I am starting this thread due to an invitation I extended to Rev Kevin to discuss his claim Jesus did not start the Catholic Church.

To avoid derailing the thread, please avoid discussions on Mary, Eucharist, Confession and other Catholic doctrines that have no bearing on the topic unless you can establish relevance.

It is important to keep to this so that we can have a truly fruitful discussion. We did that on the question of “Is Peter the Rock” and we got somewhere in a fairly short time by keeping the topic in mind.

To keep the opening argument short, I say Jesus started the Catholic Church based on Matthew 16:18, John 21 and Acts.

Peace and Joy of Christ to anyone who participates in the discussion and to all those who visit this thread!

May the Holy Spirit enlighten our minds and our hearts!

Hello Benedictus 2.

The Roman Catholic Church DID NOT start with Jesus telling Peter that he was His rock, and His (Jesus’) Church would be built on him ( Peter ). Peter was just an ordinary fisherman following Jesus at that time. Neither was he baptized, nor was he filled with the Holy Spirit. This Scripture has to be read in the CONTEXT of the preceding and proceeding Scriptures - ( Matthew 16:13 to 20 ). What Jesus was telling Peter was that The Revelation that He ( Jesus ) was the Son of God, was given to Peter by Our Father God in Heaven - or else he ( Peter ) would have never known that He ( Jesus ) is the Son of the Living God. It is not by man but by God, that the Son is Revealed unto us.

The Greek word commonly translated as “church” in English Bibles is ekklēsia (evkklhsi,a). BDAG indicates that ekklēsia means “a casual gathering of people, an assemblage, gathering,”and “people with shared belief, community, congregation.”4 It notes that “the term” ekklēsia“ apparently became popular among Christians in Greek-speaking areas for chiefly two reasons: to affirm continuity with Israel through use of a term found in Gk. translations of the Hebrew Scriptures, and to allay any suspicion, esp. in political circles, that Christians were a disorderly group.”5 The primary Hebrew equivalent of ekklēsia is qahal (lh’q’). BDB indicates that qahal means “assembly, convocation, congregation.”6 In the Greek Septuagint, or ancient translation of the Hebrew Scriptures produced approximately three centuries before the Messiah, the term qahal is usually translated as ekklēsia, the same term appearing in the Apostolic Scriptures (New Testament) translated into English as “church.”7 What is important to note is that the ekklēsia, or congregation/assembly of the Septuagint, is Israel—and the Apostles’ usage of ekklēsia is intended to connect one back to the qahal Yisrael (laer"f.yI lh;q.) of the Old Testament.

In Acts 7:23-39, Stephen specifically equates the ekklēsia or “church” as being Israel:
“This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, a prophet shall the Lord your
God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the church [ekklēsia] in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt” (Acts 7:37-39, KJV).

What is interesting is how the King James Version translators rendered ekklēsia as
“church” in Acts 7:38, whereas most other versions read “the congregation in the wilderness” (Acts 7:38, NASU; cf. NKJV, RSV, NRSV) or “assembly in the desert” (NIV).
This “wilderness church,” as we might call it, was Ancient Israel.
The proper rendering of the word ekklēsia is dependent on context. However, the very
fact that ekklēsia can and does mean in many places “an assembly of Israelites” should instigate some thinking for your average Christian—and whether or not “the Church” is an entity separate from Israel. The early Believers understood ekklēsia as being connected to the assembly of Israel.

 

[Carlan]

I am starting this thread due to an invitation I extended to Rev Kevin to discuss his claim Jesus did not start the Catholic Church.

To avoid derailing the thread, please avoid discussions on Mary, Eucharist, Confession and other Catholic doctrines that have no bearing on the topic unless you can establish relevance.

It is important to keep to this so that we can have a truly fruitful discussion. We did that on the question of “Is Peter the Rock” and we got somewhere in a fairly short time by keeping the topic in mind.

To keep the opening argument short, I say Jesus started the Catholic Church based on Matthew 16:18, John 21 and Acts.
**
Peace and Joy of Christ to anyone who participates in the discussion and to all those who visit this thread!

May the Holy Spirit enlighten our minds and our hearts!
**

Jn20:23 This would be Pentecost, the birthday of the Church. The Holy Spirit was truly given here and the breathing on the disciples was not merely symbolic.
This action recalls Gn.2,7. Where God breathed on man and gave him the natural spirit or life-force, in John it is the life-source for supernatural life that is given. The apostles are recreated as new men, sons of God.
The further giving of the Spirit in chapter 2 of Acts is more a public charism for the Church.
Peace, Carlan

 

[Pax_in_Veritate]

Of course He did. Matthew 16:18 says it plain as day. He told His disciples to go out and preach to all nations, so it makes sense that Peter, the disciple to whom Jesus gave supremacy, would go to Rome, the center of civilization, because that would maximize the number of people who would hear the Gospel.

Imagine if this were happening today. Jerusalem was the ancient equivalent to a small town in Timbuktu, while Rome was like New York or Washington. Which locale will draw more people in?

I agree with you about Rome and Peter, but they are such Contentious topics, as you can see by Rev Kevin’s post, I get sick of arguing about it.

This got me thinking though- was Peter Destined to go to Rome? What if he had gone to one of the other cities to lead from? I think it would still be the Catholic Church.

 

[Robbinson]

The Greek word commonly translated as “church” in English Bibles is ekklēsia (evkklhsi,a). BDAG indicates that ekklēsia means “a casual gathering of people, an assemblage, gathering,”and “people with shared belief, community, congregation.”4 It notes that “the term” ekklēsia“ apparently became popular among Christians in Greek-speaking areas for chiefly two reasons: to affirm continuity with Israel through use of a term found in Gk. translations of the Hebrew Scriptures, and to allay any suspicion, esp. in political circles, that Christians were a disorderly group.”5 The primary Hebrew equivalent of ekklēsia is qahal (lh’q’). BDB indicates that qahal means “assembly, convocation, congregation.”6 In the Greek Septuagint, or ancient translation of the Hebrew Scriptures produced approximately three centuries before the Messiah, the term qahal is usually translated as ekklēsia, the same term appearing in the Apostolic Scriptures (New Testament) translated into English as “church.”7 What is important to note is that the ekklēsia, or congregation/assembly of the Septuagint, is Israel—and the Apostles’ usage of ekklēsia is intended to connect one back to the qahal Yisrael (laer"f.yI lh;q.) of the Old Testament…

Yes, Rev Kevin - ekklesia means “assembly” and this word is translated as church -but a word study in greek reveals that this same word is used when Jesus talks about buidling his “church” and when jesus tells his disciples to take disputes to the “church” for resolution. Scripture clearly invisioned a visible church of authority. When there was a bona fide disptue among jewish believers in Acts over whether Gentiles would need to follow the mosaic law to become part of the “church” (assembly), why did all submit to the resolution of this issue by the Jerusalem counsel? Weren’t they yielding to “authority” of the church led by the apostles?

Where is that “authority” today (in your view) if you don’t believe the authority of the apostles as continued in succession - how do you distinguish between your baptist, pentacostal, calvinist (40,000 or so denomination) friends, all claiming guidance by the holy spirit in authoritatively resolving disputes of doctrine?

To me, since Hebrews speaks of the Old Covenant forming patterns to be more perfectly fulfilled in the new covenant - its interesting and significant that Moses was given authority. Just like today with those outside the Catholic Church, this authority was challegned by Miriam and Aaron and then by Korah (why are those stories there?). Jesus recognized the authority of Moses and its “succession” to the Pharasees saying they sat in the chair of moses (he respected their authority saying - do as they say, but not as they do) but criticized the pharasees for hypocracy.

In the new covenant this pattern is repeated with authority expressly given by Jesus to Peter and the apostles. We see this authoirty passed to successors with the designation of Matthies by the apostles as a succesor to Judas and in Paul urging Timothy to be careful on whom he lays hands.

So - yes, I believe Jesus estabished a “church” (and authoritative church) - we are all part of this assembly (all believers) some in full communion with its authority as held by the successors to the apostles, some in partial rebellion of that authority - but still “one”.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[dzheremi]

Yes, Christ founded the Catholic Church. No, today’s Roman Catholic communion is not the direct inheritor or continuation of the Church in Rome outside of the geographic placement of its largest component, having left the apostolic faith of Christ’s church either ~1000 or ~1600 years ago, depending on who you ask.

 

[Carlan]

Yes, Christ founded the Catholic Church. No, today’s Roman Catholic communion is not the direct inheritor or continuation of the Church in Rome outside of the geographic placement of its largest component, having left the apostolic faith of Christ’s church either ~1000 or ~1600 years ago, depending on who you ask.

Hmmm, and how sad it is. We pray every day in the Mass for Christ’s desire, the unity of His flock, Peace, Carlan

 

[rev_kevin]

Yes, Rev Kevin - ekklesia means “assembly” and this word is translated as church -but a word study in greek reveals that this same word is used when Jesus talks about buidling his “church” and when jesus tells his disciples to take disputes to the “church” for resolution. Scripture clearly invisioned a visible church of authority. When there was a bona fide disptue among jewish believers in Acts over whether Gentiles would need to follow the mosaic law to become part of the “church” (assembly), why did all submit to the resolution of this issue by the Jerusalem counsel? Weren’t they yielding to “authority” of the church led by the apostles?

Where is that “authority” today (in your view) if you don’t believe the authority of the apostles as continued in succession - how do you distinguish between your baptist, pentacostal, calvinist (40,000 or so denomination) friends, all claiming guidance by the holy spirit in authoritatively resolving disputes of doctrine?

To me, since Hebrews speaks of the Old Covenant forming patterns to be more perfectly fulfilled in the new covenant - its interesting and significant that Moses was given authority. Just like today with those outside the Catholic Church, this authority was challegned by Miriam and Aaron and then by Korah (why are those stories there?). Jesus recognized the authority of Moses and its “succession” to the Pharasees saying they sat in the chair of moses (he respected their authority saying - do as they say, but not as they do) but criticized the pharasees for hypocracy.

In the new covenant this pattern is repeated with authority expressly given by Jesus to Peter and the apostles. We see this authoirty passed to successors with the designation of Matthies by the apostles as a succesor to Judas and in Paul urging Timothy to be careful on whom he lays hands.

So - yes, I believe Jesus estabished a “church” (and authoritative church) - we are all part of this assembly (all believers) some in full communion with its authority as held by the successors to the apostles, some in partial rebellion of that authority - but still “one”.

Blessings,

Brian

Not saying the were not leaders of the church. The question is what church? As I stated
“The Greek word commonly translated as “church” in English Bibles is ekklēsia (evkklhsi,a). BDAG indicates that ekklēsia means “a casual gathering of people, an assemblage, gathering,”and “people with shared belief, community, congregation.””
This is the church that sent Paul and Barnabas to speak to the council of Jerusalem. The church is the people. They sent them because they disagreed that Gentiles did not need to be circumcized to be saved.

 

[rev_kevin]

Of course He did. Matthew 16:18 says it plain as day. He told His disciples to go out and preach to all nations, so it makes sense that Peter, the disciple to whom Jesus gave supremacy, would go to Rome, the center of civilization, because that would maximize the number of people who would hear the Gospel.

Imagine if this were happening today. Jerusalem was the ancient equivalent to a small town in Timbuktu, while Rome was like New York or Washington. Which locale will draw more people in?

Where in Scripture does it say Peter went to Rome?
Peters ministry: Peter traveled to the ancient crossroads town of Lydda. He traveled to Joppa and Caesarea.

 

[Tsuwano]

Yes, Jesus founded the Church, but he did not give the Church its present form or structure. This was the work of the Holy Spirit acting through St. Peter, St. Paul and the other disciples sent into the world to teach the Gospel. The communities founded by the disciples, including the Christian community in Rome, were guided by the same Holy Spirit which Jesus promised would always be present to us. Jesus gave St. Peter primacy over his fellow disciples and, according to the earliest traditions of the Church, it was St. Peter who ministered to the the community in Rome and served as their leader. The Roman Church and its bishop became the center of Christian faith in the Roman Empire, especially after the destruction of Jerusalem, and Rome continues to fill that role today.