S
Spyridon
Guest
Yes.
The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and the Acts of the Apostles.
The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and the Acts of the Apostles.
- Status
H
Hereiam
Guest
No, the Church demands faith…even demons cast out by Jesus recognized him as the Son of God, yet they had no faith of his supremacy…again, theologians can offer theories, and apologists can peddle books, but all their efforts are fruitless without faith.
R
russ1
Guest
Jesus started the Church. Some denominations believe that it was a generic Church, not Catholic. However, Peter was the leader of the Churches and Paul’s letters confirm that in several passages.
St. Ignatius was considered the first to use the Term “Catholic Church.” Ignatius lived from about 35 to 107 AD.
St. Ignatius was considered the first to use the Term “Catholic Church.” Ignatius lived from about 35 to 107 AD.
R
Rwirth1
Guest
I once heard a phrase that went "if the Eucharist is symbolic then the crucifixion was just a execution. Something to ponder.
N
Nicene
Guest
Good question, the term catholic is used in acts 9:31 as the ecclesia Kath’Oles. The first time it is used in an official capactity is in Ignatius to to the Smyrneans:
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
Ignatius was a bishop of Antioc, a disciple of John the Apostle.
However Going through the bible itself is easier than you think with regard to apostolic succession.
Just as a small reference:
Titus 1:5] This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you,
6 if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of being profligate or insubordinate.
7 For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain,
8 but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled;
However if you want more i could probably put something together, found in Ephesians, Philippians, Corinthians, John, Matthew, Hebrews, Acts, Isaiah and Exodus; extrabiblical: ignatius, Clement, (3rd Pope, mentioned in Phil 4:3) Iranaeus and Polycarp.
Basically the church started out smaller, with elders (Bishops) which was originally interchangeable with presbyter (priest) and deacons. As the church grew so did the hierarchy biblically, so they become different offices. The people were appointed (Acts- Timothy- Titus- Matthew) through the laying on of hands and charged with doing the same after them.
For example:
1 Tim:14 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you.
1 Tim:17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching;
18 for the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”
19 Never admit any charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.
21 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without favor, doing nothing from partiality.
22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate in another man’s sins; keep yourself pure.
Laying on of hands in this case biblically is conferring an office.
I tried to be brief, none the less a few pages can be written on the subject with biblical references to Christ fulfilling the old testament with the 12 and then the 70 and so forth…
Hope that helps a little.
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
Ignatius was a bishop of Antioc, a disciple of John the Apostle.
However Going through the bible itself is easier than you think with regard to apostolic succession.
Just as a small reference:
Titus 1:5] This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you,
6 if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of being profligate or insubordinate.
7 For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain,
8 but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled;
However if you want more i could probably put something together, found in Ephesians, Philippians, Corinthians, John, Matthew, Hebrews, Acts, Isaiah and Exodus; extrabiblical: ignatius, Clement, (3rd Pope, mentioned in Phil 4:3) Iranaeus and Polycarp.
Basically the church started out smaller, with elders (Bishops) which was originally interchangeable with presbyter (priest) and deacons. As the church grew so did the hierarchy biblically, so they become different offices. The people were appointed (Acts- Timothy- Titus- Matthew) through the laying on of hands and charged with doing the same after them.
For example:
1 Tim:14 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you.
1 Tim:17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching;
18 for the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”
19 Never admit any charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.
21 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without favor, doing nothing from partiality.
22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate in another man’s sins; keep yourself pure.
Laying on of hands in this case biblically is conferring an office.
I tried to be brief, none the less a few pages can be written on the subject with biblical references to Christ fulfilling the old testament with the 12 and then the 70 and so forth…
Hope that helps a little.
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
Last edited:
N
Nicene
Guest
As an afterthought there is also a negative from a biblical side which can be also extensively referenced citing the rebellion of Korah. Which sadly enough you almost hear verbatim today from many christians. Pretty sure it wouldn’t be acceptable though with regard to charity on the forum and might be offensive to non catholics.
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
B
BlackFriar
Guest
There was no such expression as “Catholics” for followers of Jesus in C1.
So the answer to your question is no.
But if you are asking the question of documentary evidence written by someone who knew Jesus started Christianity…
Well doesn’t the very name “Christianity” itself suggest who started this religion?
Look up Pliny the Younger.
So the answer to your question is no.
But if you are asking the question of documentary evidence written by someone who knew Jesus started Christianity…
Well doesn’t the very name “Christianity” itself suggest who started this religion?
Look up Pliny the Younger.
Last edited:
E
End_Timer
Guest
Actually, He started the “First Church of Christ”
no idea how the name got changed
no idea how the name got changed
D
DeSales111
Guest
The term Catholic describes the Church founded by Christ. There is no human founder, it is of Divine origin. There was never a need for Jesus to hang a title on His Church to differentiate it from other competing churches, there was only one Church, one Faith. Why search for some document that needed not to exist as some sort of proof? The Catholic Church has never needed any documents or human founder to come into existence.
Give it the human test…
Is there a single Mormon if Joeseph Smith never existed? No.
Is there a single Jehovah Witness if Charles Tazz Russell never existed? No.
Is there a single Muslim if Mohammed never existed? No.
Is there a single Luthern if Martin Luther never existed? No.
Do the same for every church, watch them disappear from history. No Wesley means no Methodist church, no Smith means no Baptist church, etc with them all. They can’t even trace their roots back to the Holy Land, let them name one representive of their faith in every century for the last 2000 years!
You can not yank a person from history to make the Catholic Church disappear, you won’t find any human responsible for its existence. You will not find a definitive title in the Bible, that is because it was understood. The term Catholic just became a way to describe the Church founded by Christ. And in time with so many heresies arising it became more and more relevant. But for anyone to say somone just decided to found the Catholic Church, one day, that is a lie, and that is against all of history.
Give it the human test…
Is there a single Mormon if Joeseph Smith never existed? No.
Is there a single Jehovah Witness if Charles Tazz Russell never existed? No.
Is there a single Muslim if Mohammed never existed? No.
Is there a single Luthern if Martin Luther never existed? No.
Do the same for every church, watch them disappear from history. No Wesley means no Methodist church, no Smith means no Baptist church, etc with them all. They can’t even trace their roots back to the Holy Land, let them name one representive of their faith in every century for the last 2000 years!
You can not yank a person from history to make the Catholic Church disappear, you won’t find any human responsible for its existence. You will not find a definitive title in the Bible, that is because it was understood. The term Catholic just became a way to describe the Church founded by Christ. And in time with so many heresies arising it became more and more relevant. But for anyone to say somone just decided to found the Catholic Church, one day, that is a lie, and that is against all of history.
C
Chaz_G
Guest
Tacitus touches on this in ‘The Annals of Imperial Rome’ Book 15 chapter 44.
D
dochawk
Guest
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Well we cannot actually prove that can we.
I mean, when the Church actually does split into two faiths each side says the other isn’t the real Church. Obviously many centuries later each side thinks there has only been one faith, one Church…which just happens to be the one they grew up in. Strange that.
In fact the Catholic Orthodox Church that we split from in 1024 is just as likely to be the one true Church isn’t it? They are the Orthodox ones afterall. We are the ones who went off the rails well before the Protestants did.
Last edited:
A
ajg
Guest
If you need historical evidence Jesus existed, there are numerous ways to prove that. Jesus is mentioned in the Qu’ran. Jesus is written about by Romans that were alive at the time and not followers. Most historians agree that the Bible can be used for Historical facts (minus the miracles and resurrection). Historians will use the Bible to assist in their research of that time period.
Now, if you want historical evidence that Jesus was catholic, you will not find any. Jesus was Jewish. He founded the Catholic Church (see Matthew 16:18).
Now, if you want historical evidence that Jesus was catholic, you will not find any. Jesus was Jewish. He founded the Catholic Church (see Matthew 16:18).
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
He is Jewish and Catholic. There a sense he is Catholic because he is the Head of his Body, which is the Catholic Church.
My first instinct would have been to say what you said, but I heard a Catholic Answers apologist (Jimmy Akin) give an answer, and it made sense to me.
Mary, Peter, and John were also Jewish, but they were Catholic, because they were members of Christ’s body, the Church. Christ, too, is a member – as its Head.
My first instinct would have been to say what you said, but I heard a Catholic Answers apologist (Jimmy Akin) give an answer, and it made sense to me.
Mary, Peter, and John were also Jewish, but they were Catholic, because they were members of Christ’s body, the Church. Christ, too, is a member – as its Head.
Last edited:
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
- Then why are you Catholic, if we “went off the rails”? (Just curious, no harshness intended by the blunt question)
- Historically, of course the Orthodox churches go back to Apostolic times, just like the Catholic Church. We were all once united, and all started out as the one Catholic Church. But it doesn’t follow that the Eastern Orthodox, “Oriental” Orthodox, and Catholic Churches are all equally likely to be the fullness of the Church, since antiquity is not the only requirement (albeit an essential one).
Last edited:
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Last edited:
D
DeSales111
Guest
How much proof would suffice? The Orthadox do not claim to be a different faith, they split over authority a thousand years later. There is a major difference between a schism and a heresy. And, in fact we did not split from the Orthodox church, they stopped recognizing papal authority.
Asking if Jesus was a Catholic is like asking if any of the Apostles were Christian’s before the term was used to describe them as such. It is a fact that they were indeed Christians long before the term was hung on them to describe who they were. They did not become a new religion or faith the day after the term Christian was applied to describe them. They were one faith and believed in one church. They did not compete preaching different faiths nor was their insistence on one faith lackidasial. They did not set out to found different churches to give parishioners options to fit whatever they thought was best for themselves.
Asking if Jesus was a Catholic is like asking if any of the Apostles were Christian’s before the term was used to describe them as such. It is a fact that they were indeed Christians long before the term was hung on them to describe who they were. They did not become a new religion or faith the day after the term Christian was applied to describe them. They were one faith and believed in one church. They did not compete preaching different faiths nor was their insistence on one faith lackidasial. They did not set out to found different churches to give parishioners options to fit whatever they thought was best for themselves.
Last edited:
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Mere tautology and self justification.
I am sure they argue that Catholics split by going authoritarian and exceeding any mandate Christ ever gave to a primate who is but first among equals.
Last edited:
- Status