Help With This Statement

[Will_Pick]

Although I understand your rhetorical use of the phrase “The Catholic church might well have been the first church”, historically this is simply not the case even by a stretch of imagination. The first historically recorded formal church assembly was just north of Jerusalem (Jebus) and the second was just north of there (Antioch). Each of these was long in advance of Paul’s journey to Rome. Whether Peter went to Rome or not, (anonymous dusty bones withstanding). They would be considered “Syrian” Churches today but they, nor the Roman church today bear any resemblence to the ancient Churches of the era. It is paramount to Baptists stating that they were the first church because John the “Baptist” was the first baptizer. None of this warrants too much notice to any serious student of the New Testament or Church history. It is time to put away fables of such things and seek the Author and Finisher of our faith.
THANK YOU

 

[Rebecca_New]

Just as the apostles fought over who was first, so do the Churches. But Peter was given the church by Jesus, and the Papal succession has been unbroken.

St. Anthony of Padua was a priest, and his power and miracles are still happening today. St. Anthony knew the Truth, it was what he strived for his entire life. We know he found it in Heaven-and through his intercessions he makes this known.

 

[USMC]

The Catholic Church is called the Roman Catholic Church because that is where its headquarters is located. Initially, Peter, who was the leader of the Church from the beginning, was bishop of the Church at Antioch. In about the year AD 42, under divine inspiration, Peter proceeded to Rome and established the Papal See in that city.

St. Jerome: “Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and** himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero**. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord” (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).

I have found that the best way to prove that the Catholic Church is the first Church - or at least to eliminate all but the Anglican’s and Eastern Orthodox - is to show the historical records of apostolic succession, beginning with the quotes found in the Bible, and then showing what the Church fathers taught (beginning with the epistles of Clement, from AD 80). This is hard eveidence that Protestants really can’t deny.

Then, to eliminate the Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans, you will need to establish that Peter was the head of the apostles, and that his successors have always been considered the head of the Church. This too, is really pretty easy to do, unless, of course, the person you are dealing with is willfully blind.

If you need help with this, let me know.

 

[Eden]

It is St. Peter that is the key, not specifically Rome, as Rome was his final stop in the history of his ministry:

"For roughly its first decade of existence, the Church was made up exclusively of Jews in the area of Jerusalem. But as the Church grew and spread across the Roman Empire, it incorporated Jews and Gentiles, rich and poor, Romans, freemen, and even slaves—men and women from every tribe and tongue. By the third century, one out of ten people in the Roman Empire was a Catholic. Just as the word Trinity was appropriated to describe the nature of God, so the term catholic was appropriated to describe the nature of Christ’s mystical body, the Church.

But let’s get back to the history of the word catholic. The first recorded use of the word is found in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, who was a young man during the time of the apostles and was the second bishop of Antioch following Peter, who went on to become bishop of Rome. Ignatius was immersed in the living traditions of the local church in Antioch, where the believers in Christ were first called Christians (cf. Acts 11:26). He was taught and ordained directly by the apostles. From the apostles Ignatius learned what the Church was—how it was to function, grow, and be governed.

History informs us that Peter was the bishop of Antioch at the time; in fact, Church Fathers claim that Ignatius was ordained by Peter himself. Ignatius must have worshiped with Peter and Paul and John. He lived with or near them and was an understudy of these special apostles. Ignatius is known and revered as an authentic witness to the traditions and practice of the apostles.

In the existing documents that have come down to us, Ignatius is the first to use the word catholic in reference to the Church. On his way to Rome, under military escort to the Coliseum, where he would be devoured by lions for his faith, he wrote, “You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8).”

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0501fea4.asp

In the final quote above in bold, you can see that the Bishop of Antioch affirms that the Catholic Church is the True Church.

 

[Aureole]

True, the Church wasn’t based in Rome in the beginning. There were earlier churches, such as the ones in Jerusalem and Antioch as mentioned. This person is either confusing or dividing the universal (Catholic) Church with individual churches (Such as those in Jerusalem or Antioch). Rome became the base of the Church because that’s where the Chair of Peter is (That is, Peter’s see was in Rome). He was foremost among the Apostles, the Rock which Christ built His Church on (He had the final say, much like popes do today). The Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter, following the long, unbroken line of Apostolic Succession.

As for their allegation that the Church today bears no resemblance to the ancient churches: maybe physically they don’t, we aren’t worshipping in catacombs, for instance. But the Catholic Church of today bears a strong resemblance to the ancient Church. The Didache and Church Fathers cover this part very well. You can find the actual writing of the Didache here. I can’t say what particular writings of the Church Fathers you should look up, I’m not terribly familiar with them yet, but I can direct you to a website that may be able to help. Catholic Answers also provides numerous tracts the Church and Papacy that you can find here. (You may want to browse through the site some more since there’s a wealth of information on it. Maybe take a stroll through the radio programs as well, I’m sure there are numerous shows covering this.)

I’m sure there’s plenty of information that I’m missing, but someone on these forums will bring it to your attention. Have fun, always remain charitable.

God bless.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

the mere size of the churches alone show that baptist churches are a recent thing. There are over 300 baptist denominations, with very few of the churches in there body being considered mega-churches. They are no historical archieves that can be pointed to.

Where are the writtings by baptists in history?

 

[MonkeyTape]

If you are really interested in writings of the Early Chuch Fathers on the Primacy of Peter you can start with Scripture Catholic.

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

They have topics, things people often question, and provide references for Scripture, and Tradition and the Church Fathers.

Read them carefully before you cite them anywhere else.

I use them as a starting point, they cite the work they pull the Church Fathers from and you can look up the whole document to get the complete context.