How do we know that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus?

[andrew2101]

I can’t seem to find clear and convincing evidence that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus. The Orthodox say that Rome was one of the original patriarchates that tried to assert supremacy over the church in the 11th century, which caused the schism. I would like insight about this topic from someone who is more knowledgeable than me.

 

[thequeen]

Jesus said Peter thou art the rock and on this rock I will build my Church that is enough evidence for me.

 

[Nita]

Jesus said Peter thou art the rock and on this rock I will build my Church that is enough evidence for me.

And, in addition, it was to Peter alone that Jesus gave the keys of His kingdom. It is the Pope who can trace a direct line back to Peter - a direct line as successors in Peter’s position of authority. And that direct line of predecessors is in the Catholic Church.

I would add that the recording of Peter’s successors began long before the split between the East and West. See this Catholic Enc. entry for the various lists of popes throughout the Church’s history. newadvent.org/cathen/12272a.htm

 

[TheDoors]

Well, the Catholic Church traces it’s line of Popes back to the first, who was ordained by Jesus. Peter was invested, and passed down his authority to the next bishop of Rome, and so on to the current. All of the major Patriarchs claim Apostolic Succession, but Rome is where Peter, invested by God made Flesh, took his seat.

 

[pablope]

andrew2101:

I can’t seem to find clear and convincing evidence that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus. The Orthodox say that Rome was one of the original patriarchates that tried to assert supremacy over the church in the 11th century, which caused the schism. I would like insight about this topic from someone who is more knowledgeable than me.

There was only one Church…both Catholic and Orthodox or West and East…from the beginning…then the Schism of 1054 happened that separated the East, which became the Orthodox and the West…which is the Catholic Church, headed by the Bishop of Rome, the See of Peter.

 

[JRKH]

I can’t seem to find clear and convincing evidence that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus. The Orthodox say that Rome was one of the original patriarchates that tried to assert supremacy over the church in the 11th century, which caused the schism. I would like insight about this topic from someone who is more knowledgeable than me.

Don’t know how much help I can be…
From the Catholic perspective, both the RC and EO are recognized as legitimate parts of the Church founded by Christ. Each has valid Episcopal lineage and therefore valid sacraments. So - in this case it really isn’t a matter of “either?or”…

As to the matters surrounding and pertaining to the Schism they tend to stretch over a fairly long time of and really involve more issues with “governance” than with doctrine…

I can’t really help any further than this…I’m sure others will have links etc for you.

Peace
James

 

[lssanjose]

Before the schism, you could take a look at the early church fathers, namely St. Clement (who’s referenced in one of St. Paul’s epistles, or Acts). He was quoted as saying, where you’ll find Christ, you’ll find the holy Catholic Church. Now, the point of contention is when we think of the divide between Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church. Both churches claim catholicity. So, I think, in my mind, it’s a little loaded, in saying, “Jesus founded the Roman Catholic Church,” as there are other churches in addition to it. But, basing on Clement’s point of finding Christ in the holy catholic, and apostolic church, should be a good starting point.

 

[danfinocchio]

When the early church was forming, there were different hubs of gatherings (like a diocese). As time went on many of the Eastern regions formed their churches around their countries - which is why we have Greek, Ukrainian, etc rites today. Since they formed around countries, there was tension between them and papal authority - there is a disagreement on the procession of the Trinity. The Western church remained with Rome and goes back to Peter who was martyred in Rome under Nero and whose bones are under St. Peter’s Basilica. Peter was given the “keys to the kingdom” and told to “feed my sheep”, “strengthen your brethren”. After the Resurrection and into Acts, Peter plays a central role above the other apostles.

Check this out - ascensionpress.com/t/category/study-programs/church-history/the-early-church…also see anything by Scott Hahn, Tim Gray or Jeff Cavins on this subject

 

[JRKH]

Before the schism, you could take a look at the early church fathers, namely St. Clement (who’s referenced in one of St. Paul’s epistles, or Acts). He was quoted as saying, where you’ll find Christ, you’ll find the holy Catholic Church. Now, the point of contention is when we think of the divide between Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church. Both churches claim catholicity. So, I think, in my mind, it’s a little loaded, in saying, “Jesus founded the Roman Catholic Church,” as there are other churches in addition to it. But, basing on Clement’s point of finding Christ in the holy catholic, and apostolic church, should be a good starting point.

Amen -
We often get into trouble when trying to explain this because the “Roman Catholic” Church is often (incorrectly) used interchangeably as meaning the “Latin Rite” Church or the all of the “Churches (Rites) in communion with Rome”.
And of course these days - even the common term “Rome” is technically inaccurate since The Church is headquartered in the independent state of the Vatican…

Peace
James

 

[lssanjose]

When the early church was forming, there were different hubs of gatherings (like a diocese). As time went on many of the Eastern regions formed their churches around their countries - which is why we have Greek, Ukrainian, etc rites today. Since they formed around countries, there was tension between them and papal authority - there is a disagreement on the procession of the Trinity. The Western church remained with Rome and goes back to Peter who was martyred in Rome under Nero and whose bones are under St. Peter’s Basilica. Peter was given the “keys to the kingdom” and told to “feed my sheep”, “strengthen your brethren”. After the Resurrection and into Acts, Peter plays a central role above the other apostles.

Check this out - ascensionpress.com/t/category/study-programs/church-history/the-early-church…also see anything by Scott Hahn, Tim Gray or Jeff Cavins on this subject

I’m only going to parse the argument about Peter being above all the apostles. I don’t think there’s a question to his centrality, but here’s a generic point of discussion: When then are he, and St. Paul commemorated, at the same time? Again, this is just a generic question raised regarding Peter’s “ascension.”

 

[Julian0404]

I can’t seem to find clear and convincing evidence that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus. The Orthodox say that Rome was one of the original patriarchates that tried to assert supremacy over the church in the 11th century, which caused the schism. I would like insight about this topic from someone who is more knowledgeable than me.

Just to continue with the response from THE DOOR, seek out a complete lineage of Pope’s, from Peter to Benedict XVI and it will be quite amazing and humbling to view how actually short and small the list is. We (Catholics) can trace the roots of the Pope straight back to JESUS. And despite even the “bad” Pope’s over the course of that lineage, you do not see “The Keys” being lost to time forgotten - like the Ark - where is it today? The Key’s have never left the Popes side, and with those Key’s, which Peter first received from JESUS (start reading at Matthew 16, 13 ) The Catholic Church has never fallen as promised by JESUS, the FOUNDER of the Catholic Church.

 

[Fred_Bartels]

The answer to your question is both complex and simple. Perhaps the best proof available for the Catholic Church as divinely instituted by Jesus Christ, is history itself. In order for a church to claim Jesus as its founder, it must show uninterrupted historical continuity to Christ, thereby having possession of “deed and title” to the Christian religion, as Rev. O’Brien phrased it in his book “The Faith of Millions” (a very good book that lays out in detail the answers to your question). Only the Catholic Church is able to meet such a claim, backed by her continuity of doctrine and apostolic succession which flows right back to the apostles themselves and to Christ. For instance, the doctrines of the Church held at present are the same teachings held by the early Christians who lived in the first few centuries after Jesus. The writings of the early Church Fathers reveal that they were most definitely members of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. So, you’ll have to do some doctrinal research and some reading of the Church Fathers.

Reason also tells us that the Catholic Church is founded by Christ, since it is absurd that God would die on a cross and then leave us without an authoritative Church in order to carry on his mission of transmitting the Gospel to future generations. If it were true that Christ died and left us without the Church, then we would not have any way of learning the truth about him or his teachings, since all that we know of Jesus comes to us* through the Church*. Remember, the NT did not exist for many years after the death of Christ. Jesus did not leave us with a Bible, but with his Church.

Also, by looking at the errors of Protestantism, its disunity and constant state of division, we see with greater clarity the Catholic Church as divinely founded.

There is lots more that can be said, of course, but maybe that will help some.

 

[iProfess]

There are many quotes from the Church Fathers on this topic, and I will quote some of the most basic ones here.
(If you would like more references, I would HIGHLY suggest Jimmy Akin’s book “The Fathers Know Best” or googling the title to be taken to his webpage)

On Peter’s Successors

“The blessed apostles, then, having founded and build up the Church,** committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate**” Against Heresies 3:3:3 (c. A.D. 189)]. - St. Irenaeus of Lyons

“For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter” Perscription Against Heretics 32 (c. A.D. 189)]. - Tertullian of Carthage

On The Authority of the Pope

“You cannot then deny that you know that upon Peter first in the city of Rome was bestowed the episcopal cathedra, on which he sat, the head of all the apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one cathedra, unity should be preserved by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, **and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner . . . . Recall, then the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” **Schism of the Donatists @:2 (c. A.D. 367)]. - St. Optatus of Milevis

“You will write two books, and you will send the one to Clemens and the other to Grapte. And Clemens will send his to foreign countries, for permission has been granted to him to do so” The Shepherd 1:2:4 (c. A.D. 80)]. - Hermas of Rome

“The bishop of Constantinople however shall have the prerogative of honor after the bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is new Rome” [Canon 3 (A.D. 381)]. - Council of Constantinople

“Ignatius . . . to the Church that has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the most high Father, and Jesus Christ, his only begotten son; the Church that is beloved and enlightened by the will of him that wills all things according to the love of Jesus Christ our God,** that presides in the place of the Romans**, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and that presides over love, and is named from Christ, and from the Father” Letter to the Romans, Greeting (c. A.D. 110)].

This is only a small sample of the quotes on the papacy that the Church Fathers have left for us.
*One thing to keep in mind, the word Pope didn’t come around until much later (it was derived from the Latin word for Father, Papa)

Hope this helps

In Christ through Mary,
Billy

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I can’t seem to find clear and convincing evidence that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus. The Orthodox say that Rome was one of the original patriarchates that tried to assert supremacy over the church in the 11th century, which caused the schism. I would like insight about this topic from someone who is more knowledgeable than me.

You can read the history of the schism which resulted in the Orthodox church in the link below. This was toward the middle of the 9th century. Photius and his supporters in the Emperor’s houshold were clearly wrong and had been excommunicated. From that time the Eastern church rejected the authority of the Pope as the head of the Catholic church, which had formerly included the Catholics in the East. I am unaware of just when the Eastern church stopped calling itself Catholic.

But it would be clear to any objective observer the the Eastern hierarchy and the Emperor were clearly wrong. The sad part is that the ordinary Catholics in the East had no idea what had happened. So the entire Eastern church just drifted away because of the evilness of certain members of he hierarchy and the Emperial household. Some individual communities of the Eastern Orthodox have come back to union with the Catholic Church but not many. It has all followed more or less along political lines ever since. But it is clear that the Roman Catholic Church headed by the Pope is the church established by Christ. Evidence of that can be seen a number of other ways not least of which is by a comparison of the fruitful missionary activities of the two branches. The Roman Catholic Church clearly has out paced the Orthodox in that regard. They are still our brothers and sisters in Christ and they have valid orders and sacraments but a Roman Catholic may not partake of the sacraments in an Orthodox service unless absolutely necessary to fulfill his or her religious obligations or in case of a life threatening circumstance where a Roman Catholic priest may not be available on short notice. However, one may find that the Eastern clergy may be cold to any such needs - at least that is what I have heard anyway.

newadvent.org/cathen/12043b.htm

 

[lssanjose]

There are many quotes from the Church Fathers on this topic, and I will quote some of the most basic ones here.
(If you would like more references, I would HIGHLY suggest Jimmy Akin’s book “The Fathers Know Best” or googling the title to be taken to his webpage)

On Peter’s Successors

“The blessed apostles, then, having founded and build up the Church,** committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate**” Against Heresies 3:3:3 (c. A.D. 189)]. - St. Irenaeus of Lyons

“For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter” Perscription Against Heretics 32 (c. A.D. 189)]. - Tertullian of Carthage

On The Authority of the Pope

“You cannot then deny that you know that upon Peter first in the city of Rome was bestowed the episcopal cathedra, on which he sat, the head of all the apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one cathedra, unity should be preserved by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, **and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner . . . . Recall, then the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” **Schism of the Donatists @:2 (c. A.D. 367)]. - St. Optatus of Milevis

“You will write two books, and you will send the one to Clemens and the other to Grapte. And Clemens will send his to foreign countries, for permission has been granted to him to do so” The Shepherd 1:2:4 (c. A.D. 80)]. - Hermas of Rome

“The bishop of Constantinople however shall have the prerogative of honor after the bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is new Rome” [Canon 3 (A.D. 381)]. - Council of Constantinople

“Ignatius . . . to the Church that has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the most high Father, and Jesus Christ, his only begotten son; the Church that is beloved and enlightened by the will of him that wills all things according to the love of Jesus Christ our God,** that presides in the place of the Romans**, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and that presides over love, and is named from Christ, and from the Father” Letter to the Romans, Greeting (c. A.D. 110)].

This is only a small sample of the quotes on the papacy that the Church Fathers have left for us.
*One thing to keep in mind, the word Pope didn’t come around until much later (it was derived from the Latin word for Father, Papa)

Hope this helps

In Christ through Mary,
Billy

I really thank you for your citations.

 

[lssanjose]

You can read the history of the schism which resulted in the Orthodox church in the link below. This was toward the middle of the 9th century. Photius and his supporters in the Emperor’s houshold were clearly wrong and had been excommunicated. From that time the Eastern church rejected the authority of the Pope as the head of the Catholic church, which had formerly included the Catholics in the East. I am unaware of just when the Eastern church stopped calling itself Catholic.

But it would be clear to any objective observer the the Eastern hierarchy and the Emperor were clearly wrong. The sad part is that the ordinary Catholics in the East had no idea what had happened. So the entire Eastern church just drifted away because of the evilness of certain members of he hierarchy and the Emperial household. Some individual communities of the Eastern Orthodox have come back to union with the Catholic Church but not many. It has all followed more or less along political lines ever since. But it is clear that the Roman Catholic Church headed by the Pope is the church established by Christ. Evidence of that can be seen a number of other ways not least of which is by a comparison of the fruitful missionary activities of the two branches. The Roman Catholic Church clearly has out paced the Orthodox in that regard. They are still our brothers and sisters in Christ and they have valid orders and sacraments but a Roman Catholic may not partake of the sacraments in an Orthodox service unless absolutely necessary to fulfill his or her religious obligations or in case of a life threatening circumstance where a Roman Catholic priest may not be available on short notice. However, one may find that the Eastern clergy may be cold to any such needs - at least that is what I have heard anyway.

newadvent.org/cathen/12043b.htm

Visit a Orthodox church, when you’ve the time. I guarantee you, they’re anything but cold. If I hadn’t found the Byzantine church I’ve been going to, I could easily see myself going to the Orthodox church more consistently, aside from vespers.

 

[Chuck1]

Btw I found out today that The name “Peter” (Πέτρος in Greek) translates as rock !

 

[pablope]

Btw I found out today that The name “Peter” (Πέτρος in Greek) translates as rock !

And Cephas…in aramaic…the language of Jesus…see John 1:42……42 And he brought him to Jesus.

Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter[a]).

And look at the other significant name changes in the Bible and see the comparison and the command after the name change:

Name Change:

Abram to Abraham……Gen 17:15….Neither shall thy name be called any more Abram: but thou shalt be called Abraham: because I have made thee a father of many nations.

Jacob to Israel….Gen 35……. 10And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel………. 11And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;

Simon to Cephas/Peter…Matt 16…17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,** and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”**

 

[endrun]

There is a logical fallacy in the composition of the question. Jesus founded his church, which then became the Catholic church.** The Catholic church then, as was noted, was split (ie, “The Schism”), and later the Protestant Reformation occurred, which further separated Christendom into multiplicitous denominations and sects. Jesus did not order that His church bear the name “Catholic” any more than any other denominational name we know today. He did as a matter of logical conclusion via the establishment of apostolic succession, imply without stating so specifically that the name “Christian” be used as a generic term meaning follower of Himself and His teachings. It may then be insinuated that this likely was the name he would have preferred for his new church, inasmuch as he would not have preferred referral to his actual earthly name, ie, Yeshua or Jesus.
Priests of the Society of Jesus, or “Jesuits”, take the name of Jesus, however, and very specifically. It could be said that in so doing they disregard the fact that Jesus would not have wished to draw attention to Himself as an “Earthly King” nor would likely have had any part of that;thus the earthly title of “Christ” would likely have been preferred by Jesus, although of course we do not know for certain.

 

[TimothyH]

Jesus was clearly a king and clearly taught his disciples that he was to be king. The entire Gospel of Matthew is about the kingship of Jesus. Jesus has multiple parables about what his kingdom will be like Matthew 13. All the Old Testament kings forshadow Jesus kingship.

Jesus is an earthly king, and he established a kingdom on earth, and left a prime minister in charge of his kingdom until he comes again.

When Jesus says “Kingdom of heaven” he is using an evasive-synonym. Jews would not utter God’s name except for once each year when the high preist went into the Holy of Holies to atone for sin - that’s the only time any Jew would have ever spoken God’s name. They used to tie a rope around the high priest’s ankle when he went in to say God’s name in case he was struck dead and they had to drag his body out. Saying “Kingdom of Heaven” was a way to say “Kingdom of God” without uttering God’s name. No Jew would have uttered God’s name, not even Jesus. People used the word “Temple” the same way. They would swear by the Temply instead of swearing to God. “Temple” and “Heaven” were evasive synonyms for God’s name.

Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself. (John 6:15)

Jesus does not want the common people to know that he is going to remove authority from the “Chair of Moses” and establish a new kingdom on earth because they would have taken him away and executed him for treason before his work was done. But Jesus made it clear to the Apostles that he was establishing a earthly kingdom.

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. (Matthew 16:19-20)*

The “Keys to the Kingdom” would have been a crystal clear to the Jews - the Apostles - who heard Jesus. There would have been no question. The prime minister had the keys to the king’s treasury, and was responsible for paying workers and soldiers so that the kingdom could be maintained and defended. Jesus was using the evasive synonym here, telling Peter that he was to be given the keys to the Kingdom of God. And Jesus is God, so it is his Kingdom, and strictly orders his disciples to tell no one about the episode.

We can argue about what the name of that kingdom is, or when the name came to be, but the fact is that his Kingdom of God is the Church that we know today as the Catholic Church, which is Christ’s Body.

Christ had one body, and so he has one Church. Christ’s body was visible, and so the Church is visible. The Kingdom of God is spiritual in heaven, but it also present on earth - visible, hierarchical, one. Like the Kingdom’s of the Old Testament, Jesus’ kingdom has a prime-minister who operates with the authority of the king, runs the kingdom on behalf of the king, and has a clear line of succession back to the king himself.

So Pharaoh said to Joseph: "Since God has made all this known to you, no one can be as wise and discerning as you are. You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people shall dart at your command. Only in respect to the throne shall I outrank you. (Genesis 41:39-40)

***The Jew Mordecai was next in rank to King *Ahasuerus. (Esther 10:3)

One Jesus, one Body, one Church, one Kingdom - visible with a prime minister who acts on behalf of and with the authority of its king. It could change it’s name to any other name but it would not change the fact that there is only one, and that it exists today in the Holy Catholic Church, and that it is the moutpiece of Christ its king and his instrument of salvation in the world.

-Tim-