Origins of the RCC

[GandalfTheWhite]

I’m trying to discuss the origins of the Catholic Church with a Protestant. How do you explain him that it was created by Jesus and that RCC is indeed the catholic church? I don’t want to make any mistakes and spread heresies so I want to check with you guys first.

Thank you and God bless.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

I’m trying to discuss the origins of the Catholic Church with a Protestant. How do you explain him that it was created by Jesus and that RCC is indeed the catholic church? I don’t want to make any mistakes and spread heresies so I want to check with you guys first.

Thank you and God bless.

Gandalf:

First, you can’t worry about making mistakes, because all apologists make them.

If you Get EWTN on your Cable, watch it, esp. these shows; The Journey Home, Crash Course in Catholicism, EWTN Bookmark, Gospel of John, Sacraments through the Ages, The Seven Sacraments, Threshold of Hope and Web of Faith. If you can’t watch the shows on cable, try viewing them on the website:
ewtn.com/

Get to know the Scriptures so you can show the Protestants where the Catholic Doctrines are found in Scripture. If you know the Book of Acts, you will be able to show how St. Peter was called on to lead or finish the first 2 Councils in Jerusalem. If you get to know the book of John and what St, Paul has to say on the Eucharist, you’ll be able to point out how the Protestants’ positions aren’t Scriptural and require a tortured reading of scripture.

And so forth…

Then try learning about what the Post-Apostolic, Ante-Nicene and the other Early Church Fathers have to say on the issue as much as you can. I’d just try finding the places where all or part of the term “One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” is mentioned, along with the Sacraments. Gradually, you’ll get an idea of what the Fathers say and where you can find it. This isn’t something you can do in 4 days or 4 weeks, but you might get a good start in 4 months.

Meanwhile, your protestant friends will be impressed that you are studying the Scriptures and getting to know the history of the early Church.

I hope this helps, because you will have your work cut out for you.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[levi86]

I’m trying to discuss the origins of the Catholic Church with a Protestant. How do you explain him that it was created by Jesus and that RCC is indeed the catholic church? I don’t want to make any mistakes and spread heresies so I want to check with you guys first.

Thank you and God bless.

Sorry mate, but I’d have to say you’ve already made a mistake.

Don’t let yourself be put on the defensive by people like this. Why should we have to prove our validity as the “catholic” church? Protestants are the ones making the claim against us, it is their responsibility to prove there assertions, not the other way round.

It is my experience that any “evidence” used to disprove the authority of The RCC is pure propaganda, and has no historical basis.

 

[Liberian]

Gandalf,

Levi86 has raised a good point; it’s not up to you to prove the origins of the Catholic Church. You can start with Matthew 16:18, where Jesus says to Simon bar-Jona, “You are Peter (Rock), and on this rock I will build My Church.” If they choose to interpret “rock” as something besides Peter, it is up to them to prove their interpretation correct–which they cannot do without wrenching the grammar very badly.

You can then say that the Catholic Church traces her descent directly from the Apostles. All Protestant churches have a discontinuity in their histories where they broke off from the Catholic Church. Evangelical churches, if they claim they did not break off from anybody, are not descended from the Apostles. And again, if the Protestant wants to disagree with you, it is up to him to prove his point.

Protestants will frequently say that the Catholic Church has fallen away from the Apostolic Church. If this point comes up, then you need to ask when this “falling away” occurred. Different Protestants give different dates and some say that there is no specific date.

Depending on how stubborn you and the others are, the discussion could go on forever. I suggest that you not get into an argument; they tend to be counterproductive.

• Liberian

 

[levi86]

You can then say that the Catholic Church traces her descent directly from the Apostles. **All Protestant churches have a discontinuity in their histories **where they broke off from the Catholic Church. Evangelical churches, if they claim they did not break off from anybody, are not descended from the Apostles. And again, if the Protestant wants to disagree with you, it is up to him to prove his point.

• Liberian

Matthew 28
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Matthew 16
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jesus promised that he would remain with his church forever, not just for the first hundred years or so. Your protestant friend may assert that “true Christians” always existed under the shadow of The RCC.

If one was to take this line of defence one would have to prove that protestant Christianity is a continuation of these true Christians. This is not the case, there is no evidence of such a group existing. Protestant tradition arose from the teachings of men, first John Wyclif, and then Martin Luther.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

It’s simple.

Just show them the starting date for their denomination.

Lutheranism 1517 AD Martin Luther
Methodism … John Wesley
Anglicanism 1527 Henry VIII
Baptists (in the colonies) 1634 Roger Williams
Presbyterians … John Calvin
Church of Christ early 1800’s … Thomas and Alexander Campbell

If your friends don’t believe it, ask them to look up their starting date in any encyclopedia. None of their founders is Jesus Christ. Only the Catholic Church reaches that far back.

 

[R_McGeddon]

None of their founders is Jesus Christ. Only the Catholic Church reaches that far back.

What about the Eastern Orthodox Church?

 

[Bwavenit]

this might help.
scripturecatholic.com/history.html

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Thank you all. Here is what the Protestant says:

Unfortunately, this is where your argument falls down… Jesus is not talking about what has become the “Roman Catholic” church, but Christianity. He is talking about his church - his people - not some specific form of it, that RC is. So, Christianity was founded by Jesus, yes. But Catholicism, and Roman Catholicism, were not.

I think the problem is that he doesn’t accept the concept of apostolic succession.

Except, of course, that there is no “apostolic sucession”. (I note you did not show a verse for that one )

As a point against the idea (aside from the fact that it simply does not exist in the Bible), check out Matthew 8:14. Surely, if jesus was setting up an apostolic succession, he would make sure that the first “pope” followed all the rules that the others would have to. Such as, oh, not being married…
hey, even Paul rebukes him, too, doesn’t he? Not a great first “pope”, really…

But then, it wasn’t until the bishop of rome, Leo, in the 5th century, commanded that people should obey the bishop of rome, that the “primacy of St. Peter” ever really developed. And people fought that back even then.

And then, pope’s weren’t infallible until that one pope decided that they should be…and from then on, they were…

It is clear that Jesus gave power to lead their church on Earth. It is also pretty clear that Peter was the head. Now, logically they had the power to hand over their power and privileges. They did appoint others (bishops).

Still, I think that I need to add something else. Could you help me to construct a good argument?

So far I have this:

Before I start I will ask you to look at Christianity - look at how many denominations there are and all claim to hold the truth. Don’t you think that Jesus would wound one church that would hold to one truth? Of course this doesn’t prove anything, but it is a thought to ponder upon.

I claim that Jesus established a church - The One True Church - and that Martin Luther along others left it and established new churches which are no longer part of the one founded by Jesus upon Peter. Let’s look at it more closely.

Jesus said to Simon: “You are Rock, and on this rock I will build My Church.” Jesus specifically appointed Peter to be the visible head of the Church. He spoke about the church that was founded on Peter.

Second, Jesus gave Peter and the apostles the power and authority to carry out His work. He told them: “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.”(Matthew 16:19; 18:18). “Receive the Holy Spirit, whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven, whose sins you retain, they are retained.”(John 20:23)

Jesus also said the the Apostles what work they should do. He commanded, “Do this in memory of Me.” (Luke 22:19) He commanded them to “Make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19), and to “Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature.” (Mark 16:15)

The early church had a hierarchical structure as it has today. (Acts, chapter 15) We can also observe that Peter was regarded as the visible head of the Church. “Went up to Jerusalem to confer with Kephas [Peter] and remained with him fifteen days.” (Galatians 1:18)

I think we can agree on this - it is clear that the church started as “apostolic”. The question is, I think, whether the apostles had the power and authority to pass on to others what they had received from Christ. Well, of course they had the power to do so and the historical evidence tells us that they did so. New Testament even tells us about that they appointed their successors (bishops). (Titus 1:5-9)

This church I’m referring to (Catholic Church) can be traced back into Apostles. All the Protestant churches have a discontinuity in their histories where they broke off from the Catholic Church.

Any help would be appreciated.

God bless you all!

 

[thistle]

catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp
catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp
catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp
catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp
catholic.com/library/Peter_Roman_Residency.asp
catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp
catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp
scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html
scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html
scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

 

[Verita]

Gandalf (great name by the way), I have found that protestants have many ways of arguing around the “on this rock” verse. Their arguments may not be very good, but denial will tell them otherwise. What I would focus on if I were you is the “keys to the kingdom” bit. That has well known significance. Any Jew would have immediately recognized what Jesus was doing. Point out the corresponding passages in Isaiah 22:20-22 and in Revelation 3:7. Jesus did give Peter the power of the keys. That cannot be denied.

 

[R_McGeddon]

this might help.
scripturecatholic.com/history.html

No this doesn’t help, it is also inaccurate. Up to the schism, it was just The Church. After the schism it split (schism is taken from the Greek meaning to split) into Orthodox and Catholicism.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

R McGeddon

Up to the schism, it was just The Church.

Not correct. Where do you get your history source?

Does this help?

newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm

 

[R_McGeddon]

R McGeddon

Up to the schism, it was just The Church.

Not correct. Where do you get your history source?

Does this help?

newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm

Follow this it backs me up, about there being one church until the schism.

 

[Verita]

Follow this it backs me up, about there being one church until the schism.

And what scholar produced that timeline?

Of course no one here is suggesting that there was not one Church originally from which all others split. You seem to be saying that this Church was not the Catholic Church. If you read the link previously provided you will see that the words “Catholic Church” were used as early as AD 110.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Thank you. After looking at this site :www.scripturecatholic.com, I realized that it makes no sense in me writing anything. This site says a lot more then I can produce. I just pointed him to this link and I sincerely hope he’ll find the truth.

 

[R_McGeddon]

And what scholar produced that timeline?

Is it, somehow, inaccurate?

Of course no one here is suggesting that there was not one Church originally from which all others split. You seem to be saying that this Church was not the Catholic Church. If you read the link previously provided you will see that the words “Catholic Church” were used as early as AD 110.

That isn’t what I’m saying. The way I see it, is that the first church wasn’t The Catholic Church (by name) it was A catholic church (for everyone).

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

That isn’t what I’m saying. The way I see it, is that the first church wasn’t The Catholic Church (by name) it was A catholic church (for everyone).

There was a Church founded by Jesus on Peter. It doesn’t matter what it was (or is) called - what matters that Catholic Church is direct continuation of that Church (the ones who left it are not).

FACT = The church that is now days referred to as Catholic Church was founded by Jesus. The Catholic Church (by name) is a catholic church (for everyone).

Names do not matter. If next day you wake up and decide to call it The Uber-awesome Church nothing will really change.

 

[Verita]

Is it, somehow, inaccurate?
That isn’t what I’m saying. The way I see it, is that the first church wasn’t The Catholic Church (by name) it was A catholic church (for everyone).

Well, it seems to support an Eastern Orthodox interpretation that the Catholic Church of today split from them. I would say that is inaccurate.

As Gandalf says, the name isn’t the important thing. A name is just an official description. So the word originally used to describe the church (catholic) went on to become it’s official name. The Church that the words were describing never changed. Mostly through history, until the various schisms, there was no need to call it anything other than “The Church”. The name did become necessary later but the Church didn’t change. The Church that is called Catholic today is the same Church that Christ founded. That is the point.

 

[R_McGeddon]

There was a Church founded by Jesus on Peter. It doesn’t matter what it was (or is) called - what matters that Catholic Church is direct continuation of that Church (the ones who left it are not).

The same could be said about the Orthodox Church.

FACT = The church that is now days referred to as Catholic Church was founded by Jesus. The Catholic Church (by name) is a catholic church (for everyone).

Again, the Orthodox Church makes the same claim.

For approximately 1000 years the Church was one and in harmony, then east and west fell out with eachother. I know that each side will blame the other, but it seems to me that this could have been the beginning of the gates of hell prevailing against it.