Did Jesus Start the Catholic Church?

[Tsuwano]

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.

Early Church tradition says that Peter traveled to Rome, not scripture, and believe it or not, that tradition is actually older than the Gospels.

 

[rev_kevin]

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

Well lets look at the Greek word, oikodomed translated as BUILD in Matthew 16:18 can mean, TO BUILD.However, it also means, BUILD UP AGAIN, RESTORE more notably, TO HELP IMPROVE ABILITY TO FUNCTION IN LIVING RESPONSIBLY AND EFFECTIVELY, STRENGTHEN, BUILD UP, MAKE MORE ABLE.
With this in mind, did Jesus establish something entirely new, or did he strengthen/rebuild something already existant?

 

[JVSantos]

YES, “Where the bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be;
even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church”
-Saint Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, 1st c. A.D.

As Catholics, we believe that the authority given to St. Peter did not end with his life but was handed on to his successors. The earliest writings attest to this belief. St. Irenaeus in his Adversus Haereses described how the Church at Rome was founded by St. Peter and St. Paul and traced the handing on of the office of St. Peter through Linus, Cletus (also called Anacletus), and so on, through 12 successors to his own present day, Pope Eleutherius. Tertullian in De Praescriptione Haereticorum asserted the same point as did Origen in his Commentaries on John, St. Cyprian of Carthage in his The Unity of the Catholic Church and many others.

 

[rev_kevin]

Early Church tradition says that Peter traveled to Rome, not scripture, and believe it or not, that tradition is actually older than the Gospels.

Why wouldn’t the Bible state that he traveled to Rome, if Peter was the rock?
Funny it mentions that Paul traveled to Rome in Acts 27 and that he arrives in Rome in Acts 28 and he wasn’t even the rock?
If Peter did travel to Rome, why didn’t he mention it in his writtings?
Wouldn’t it be important seeing he went there to start the church?

 

[rev_kevin]

YES, “Where the bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be;
even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church”
-Saint Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, 1st c. A.D.

As Catholics, we believe that the authority given to St. Peter did not end with his life but was handed on to his successors. The earliest writings attest to this belief. St. Irenaeus in his Adversus Haereses described how the Church at Rome was founded by St. Peter and St. Paul and traced the handing on of the office of St. Peter through Linus, Cletus (also called Anacletus), and so on, through 12 successors to his own present day, Pope Eleutherius. Tertullian in De Praescriptione Haereticorum asserted the same point as did Origen in his Commentaries on John, St. Cyprian of Carthage in his The Unity of the Catholic Church and many others.

Can you give evidence other then tradition/belief that he did go to Rome?

 

[Tsuwano]

Why wouldn’t the Bible state that he traveled to Rome, if Peter was the rock?
Funny it mentions that Paul traveled to Rome in Acts 27 and that he arrives in Rome in Acts 28 and he wasn’t even the rock?
If Peter did travel to Rome, why didn’t he mention it in his writtings?
Wouldn’t it be important seeing he went there to start the church?

Why would it be necessary for the Bible to state that Peter traveled to Rome if the knowledge was an established fact known by all Christians and readily acknowledged by all Christian communities? The Bible is not a travel diary. Besides, simply because it is not mentioned in the Bible doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. As I said in my previous post, established tradition says that Peter traveled to Rome. Would a book on Quantum Physics state the obvious equation that 2 plus 2 equals 4?

 

[rev_kevin]

Why would it be necessary for the Bible to state that Peter traveled to Rome if the knowledge was an established fact known by all Christians and readily acknowledged by all Christian communities? The Bible is not a travel diary. Besides, simply because it is not mentioned in the Bible doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. As I said in my previous post, established tradition says that Peter traveled to Rome. Would a book on Quantum Physics state the obvious equation that 2 plus 2 equals 4?

I didn’t necessarly say the Bible, I actually said, If Peter did travel to Rome, why didn’t he mention it in his writtings?

Now I know the Bible is not a travel diary but its funny that it is for Paul, Acts 27-28 and he was not the MAIN MAN the BIG KAHONA like Peter.

 

[AndyP2010]

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.

Where in Scripture does is say anything about Martin Luther or John Calvin? Where in Scripture does it say divide the church into thousands of pieces. You see catholics can point to John 21:15-17 and Matthew 16:17-19 and others besides. So far you have argued over semantics, but can you point to single line of scripture where it says Martin and John break the church to pieces?

 

[Heliotropium]

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?

I think Christ views the huge cathedrals, processions and ornate vestments in the same way as He viewed Mary’s pouring of the expensive perfume on His feet. God knows these things are done to glorify Him, and He does not have a problem with that. As for the scandals I think God does not approve of the actions of those who do not follow his Will but I don’t believe Christ is shocked by the fact that His Church will have to face attacks both from outside and within its walls. Christ did said say Himself that the gates of hell would not kill the Church and it hasn’t. Christ however did not say that hell wouldn’t try to take over His Church. Heck the devils attempt to ruin the Church has been happening since Christ founded it. One of his Apostles betrayed him for 33 pieces of silver, another denied Him three times, and all of them with the exception of John fled from Him during His Passion and crucifixion because they had a hard time accepting the cross (like many fallen away Catholics and non-catholic Christians), so we can see the Church has always been attacked by scandals.

As for the pagan influence I would have to ask you if you think everything that is not Christian is wrong? The Wise Men were pagan Kings who came to worship Christ because their religions foretold of Him. The search for God is in itself a good thing and in other religions there are parts of truth in them but NOT the fullness of truth. It’s not so much that other religions are wrong as it is that other religions only have parts of the truth and not all of it. Yet if they have parts of the truth why wouldnt they be likewsie apart of the Chruch that has the fullness of truth?

As for what would Jesus think about His followers giving adulation and honor to the Vicar he established on earth? I would say He is pretty happy about this, and I would also say if humble and pious women such as Mother Teresa didnt have a problem with it and understood the need for the Pope then why shouldnt we? The Popes position is one of great suffering and sacrifice. It is not a position of lazyness and gratification. The Pope serves Christ and then every Catholic and Christian in the whole world including Mother Teresa.

I think Christ loves His Catholic Church that he established and that he would like to see more of his followers practice the Faith He established and contiunes to protect. I think he would also like others to see the humility is a virtue that must be practiced in all states of life and offices.

In short yes I think your wrong but only because you dont know any better my friend.

 

[Heliotropium]

Can you give evidence other then tradition/belief that he did go to Rome?

catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp

Kevin the basilica of St. Peter is built ontop of Peters tomb! What more do you need? And you are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church…the Catholic Church fulfills this regardless if you take the verese symbolically or literally. Plus Christ changes Simons name to Peter and it just so happens that elsewhere in Scripture such a name change always denotes a change in status (Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel, and Saul to Paul). Simon to Peter because Simon is now Vicar or Pope.

 

[Cinette]

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.*Roy you must remember that when Jesus started the CC there were no motor cars, cellphones, high rise buildings etc etc etc. The Church grew and evolved, precisely why he knew that he had to establish a hierarchy. *

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.*Well Jesus did choose simple men as his Apostles.  He also chose Judas who betrayed Him.  He said that he came to save sinners and as the world evolved we got a lot more sinfull.  You must not judge the Church by the relatively few who betrayed the Church and their priesthood.  Look at the many holy and saintly Priests.  Don't wonder Roy - seek the truth and keep an open mind.*

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????*I confess that I sometimes cringe when I see finery but then I remind myself that with 2000 years of tradition the Church reflects pomp and ceremony of the times and has inherited much finery and custom.  The Pope does not ride around in a convertible, he does not frequent fancy restaurants, he does not indulge in consumerism - he is a hard working man who hardly leaves his desk except for Mass and such.  As for the CC, there is no other institution in the world who contributes to charity as it does.  By far!*

Too often Christians claim to embrace love, humility and peace while they project an image of bigotry, arrogance and hostility. *You are so right.  It is a constant battle to resist the modern world and all it has to offer!  The worldly things.  We have it in our face all the time.*

Am I wrong?

*You bring a good point to the thread. I would however say that I hope you will keep an open mind all the time. I must do likewise and hope all the other participants do so too.

God Bless
Cinette*

 

[Cinette]

*P.S. I want to add to the above:

1Cor1:26-31
Brothers and sisters, look and see whom God has called. Few among you can be said to be cultured or wealthy and few belong to noble families. Yet Gd has chosen what the world considers foolish, to shame the wise; he has chosen what the world considers weal to shame the strong. God has chosen common and unimportant people, making use of what is nothing to nullify the things that are, so that no mortal may boast before God.* But, by God’s grace you are in Christ Jesus, who has become our wisdom from God, and who makes us just and holy and free. Scripture says: Let him who boasts boast of the Lord.

It was the reading at Mass last Friday and I came home and read it again. It is so wise of God to choose the most humble, the weak, the childlike… He continues to do this to this day.

 

[Cinette]

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

*All these things took time to develop and grow.

*

 

[benedictus2]

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 ).

You are right. The Church did not start at Ceasaria Philipi but in the Upper Room at Pentecost

However, the promise was given there when Jesus said to Simon, you are Rock and upon this Rock I will be my Church.

Peter was just an ordinary fisherman following Jesus at that time.

Peter was an ordinary fisherman that Jesus CALLED to follow Him. He was Jesus’s choice along with the other apostles unlike the other disciples who were following Jesus around at that time.

Neither was he baptized, nor was he filled with the Holy Spirit.

Yes, he was at Pentecost.

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.

And you are right that part is very clear in the Bible.

But, it is also very clear in the Bible that it is because of this revelation to Peter by the Father that Jesus decided to build His Church upon Peter.

Peter was not only Christ’s choice. By revealing this to Peter alone (and not to the other apostles) the Father was making known His choice which the Son ratifies.

Here’s putting it into better context. I will paste here something I’ve posted before in other threads.

Matthew 16: 13-19*

When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.* For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,****and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.

Comment on above verses:

Caesaria Philipi is around 20 miles ( a rough two days journey up the mountains) from Galillee.

Now why does our Lord go to all that trouble just for this scene?

Caesaria Philipi which used to be called Panneas was dedicated to the Greek god Pan. When Philip Herod became tetrarch of that region he gave it to Augustus Caesar for some favour so it became Ceasaria Philipi, that is, Ceasar’s city from Philip.

In this region is a humongous rock around 500ft long and 200ft high.

On top of this rock is a huge marble temple with an idol of the god Pan. Philip Herod replaced that idol of Pan with the idol of the divine Ceasar Augustus (emperors were considered divine).

To the left of the rock is a cave and in the cave is a deep hole filled with water which is the source of the Jordan river. The pagans believed this to to be the gates of sheol - the doorway to the underworld.

So now we have Jesus standing next to this rock, on top of which, is a temple to a false god (two false gods as a matter of fact) next to which is a cave that is the gate to sheol. He is now saying that He will do something different. He will build the Church of the True God on top of the true rock and that rock is Simon barJonah and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

We even see here a parallel with the sheep/shepherd motif in the commissioning of Peter in John 21. This area and temple used to be dedicated to Pan, the god of shepherds. Here we have Chist the True God giving the promise to Peter who He will later commission to shepherd His sheep.

The water in the cave is the origin of the Jordan River, where He was baptised and went with His disciples when they went baptizing. Think of Peter being the rock and the water from this Rock now watering Gods’ people. You can see in this symbolism the whole salvation theology including that of baptism as a sacrament of incorporation into Christ’s Church.

Another thing, and this is very important, neither Jesus nor the Father made any teaching about Jesus’ true identity and mission. This teaching THEY caused to be pronounced through Peter.
Christ could have gone around proclaiming He is the Son of God but He didn’t. He let that be declared through Peter.

If you notice, even His apostles had no real clue as to who Jesus was. Peter cuts through all that speculation and pronounces the TRUTH about Jesus Christ.

 

[benedictus2]

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.”

The Greek dictionary defines ekklisia as " the Church a group called out".

Based on that and along with the part I highlighted in your post (people with shared belief) we get an insight of what church is before Paul brought in his theology.

So yes I agree with that definition. We say that the Church is the people called out by God and who share the same belief.

This defines the Catholic Church but it defines the other churches as well - Lutheran, Anglican,etc. They are groups with the same belief held among members of their group.

But in Matthew 16:18 Christ says MY Church. Not just any Church but my Church. So therefore, His Church will have to be the one where His will is clearly seen through her common belief.

So, having established indeed that these are all Churches, the question is which of these is Christ’s Church?

He was very clear about establishing only one Church. So now we have to determine which one it is.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

Peter did go to the other cities I think but His main see was in Rome which is why Rome had the primacy.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

Can you supply proof for this?

Please give factual support for this claim. **“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, **”

and also supply proof that the Catholic Church** “****left the apostolic faith of Christ’s church either ~1000 or ~1600 years ago, depending on who you ask” **I am assuming that you are Orthodox so maybe you can give support for the circa 1000 claim. Thank you.

 

[benedictus2]

Not saying the were not leaders of the church. The question is what church? As I stated

Yes, that is what we are trying to ascertain here - What Church?

Now, if Christ did establish a Church, that means that that very same Church exists till today because He promised that the gates of hell will not prevail.

“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.

Indeed the church that sent Paul and Barnabas to speak to the council of Jerusalem was a Church.

But, the fact that they needed to get an okay from the council in Jerusalem meant that this church must be part of the a bigger Church of which the church in Jerusalem is also only a part. Otherwise, the ruling of the council will not be binding on the Church in Antioch, the church that sent Paul and Barnabas.

So we see several churches in infancy : Smyrna, Antioch, Jerusalem, Rome, Ephesus, Galatia, etc. But, they all belong to that one Church that Christ established because these Churches were all founded by the Apostles and Paul. The foundation of these churches was in response to Christ commisioning: Make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Very early on, we see the Catholicity/Universality of Christ’s Church.

What we also see is that there is a central body that determines doctrines. Paul could not make a decision on his own, and neither could Barnabas. The Judaizers which belong to the church in Jerusalem could not impose their own decision too.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

The Bible does not contain all the truth about what the apostles did. After Acts, the Apostles were still alive but the book was already finished so this kind of reasoning is flawed.

For a fuller explanation of Peter’s travel to Rome, I hope you will take the time to read this link

catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp

 

[benedictus2]

Well lets look at the Greek word, oikodomed translated as BUILD in Matthew 16:18 can mean, TO BUILD.However, it also means, BUILD UP AGAIN, RESTORE more notably, TO HELP IMPROVE ABILITY TO FUNCTION IN LIVING RESPONSIBLY AND EFFECTIVELY, STRENGTHEN, BUILD UP, MAKE MORE ABLE.
With this in mind, did Jesus establish something entirely new, or did he strengthen/rebuild something already existant?

Going into this kind of definitions does not help because you need to reference back to the entire text of Matthew what this build was in context.

I gave a detailed explanation of that 4 posts above.