Please give me the name of the man, or men, that founded the Catholic Church, and when...

[Cat_Herder]

Peter did what? Please show me where Peter ordained Linus the bishop of Rome after him.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3 Chapter 3
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great,** the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; **as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

1. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

Since you claimed that the ECFs testify to Peter being the bishop of Rome, you should know whether or not any of them did. I asked for proof of said testimony from well known fathers spanning the first two centuries and you come back with only one, and you didn’t even get your facts straight.

Against Heresies is dated to 180 AD so there you go. Please stop the ad hominem attacks.

 

[Petergee]

I’m not quite sure it’s been 2000 yrs, but that’s for another discussion. That being said, just because some one or organization makes a claim, doesn’t make it true. Isn’t that kind of circular reasoning?

 

[Dokimas]

Then is it your business to make sure you continue telling Catholics they are wrong, even if you can’t support the statement and now have admitted don’t care if it’s true or not? It is your business to continue to hammer your opinion as right and Catholic beliefs as wrong? That’s what I’d call ‘anti’…:tsktsk:

Why do you always take things to the extreme? I share what I believe to be true (except the Constintine thing, I was just sharing a possibility). Then you tell me how wrong I am. Using your logic, you make it your business to tell me how wrong I am. That means, in your eyes, we are the same, correct?

 

[Dokimas]

This is your response to my statement of, ‘Check history and see the Catholic Church for hundreds of years with all Protestant Churches having roots through that Catholic Church.’

correct

 

[Dokimas]

I understand, more than you think Doki.

Give a definition of His Church then. Is it all believer’s, with different doctrines, or a set of unified believers?

Coming here and espousing Catholic beliefs are wrong and your own opinions are correct is representing your Church.

Now, Christ built a Church and it seems you are saying your Church admits it’s not the one Christ founded? Why should we leave our Church for a man made Church? These are your words now, correct?

According to your own ‘interpretation’/observation/judgment?

You’ve made statements about the historical Church and then admitted, you have no evidence. How are you researching what was the fulfilled Church of Paul and Jesus? Where do you receive your authority?

You’re being unreasonable, IMO. As usual, I could be wrong.

 

[Dokimas]

You may not consider yourself this way, but you are. You stand against, and repudiate, the Teachings of the Catholic Church. This is the definition of what it means to be Protestant.

Do you repudiate anything I say that you disagree with?

BTW, I thought the word ‘protestant’ means protesting. Disagreement doesn’t mean protesting unless you’re willing to say you’re protestant with reguards to what I believe that is different to your beliefs.

If you’re protestant and I am, then what’s all the ‘to-do’ all about?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You’re being unreasonable, IMO. As usual, I could be wrong.

You didn’t answer any questions, as usual. Do you read the posts we place or just disagree because a Catholic posted them? Those questions were in response to your statements. I try to address every point and question you raise.

If you make statements, we are going to ask for supporting documentation with as much detail and you can provide. If I can make logical explanations, using scriptures and writings from the early Church fathers, to rebut your statements I am going to do so. I’m sorry if that offends you, because I consider it defending my faith and Church.

There are too many people who make short unsubstantiated statements against Catholicism for what seems to be for the sake of just disagreeing with Catholicism. IMHO, that’s ‘anti’.

Let me recommend you do more research and reflecting prior to posting.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Why do you always take things to the extreme? I share what I believe to be true (except the Constintine thing, I was just sharing a possibility). Then you tell me how wrong I am. Using your logic, you make it your business to tell me how wrong I am. That means, in your eyes, we are the same, correct?

You stated Constantine, without qualifying it as a possiblity. Then you implied that you had supporting evidence and toyed with us by asking if we really wanted to see the evidence. In these respects, we are different. When I feel someone is wrong I explain, in as much detail as possible with supporting evidence, why.

 

[guanophore]

Do you repudiate anything I say that you disagree with?

No.

BTW, I thought the word ‘protestant’ means protesting.

Actually it comes from the Latin protestare which means to stand up for something. It was used to describe those who embraced heresies, and stood up for them, over and against the Teaching of the Apostles preserved infallibly in the Catholic Church.

Disagreement doesn’t mean protesting unless you’re willing to say you’re protestant with reguards to what I believe that is different to your beliefs.

In the case of embracing doctrines over and against the Catholic faith, it describes those persons who take the protestare position, which I can assure you, you do,.

If you’re protestant and I am, then what’s all the ‘to-do’ all about?

If I have any disputes with the Catholic Church, I assure you they will not become evident on this forum.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

I am a late comer at this thread, but as far as I know, didn’t the Church in the East was in communion with the Church with the West also? Some churches remained like that even after the Great Schism, while some return from the patriarchs of Orthodoxy. So likewise, I don’t really see the difference between the Catholic Church as stated in the Apostle Creed and the ROMAN Catholic Church that some of you were talking about. Certainly there are a lot of Roman Catholic Church, but it is not the only Church there is. the Catholic Church has many rites, yet united in doctrines. The Bishop of Rome is only a bishop like all other bishops, but he is the team captain of the whole Church whose job is to maintain order and unity within his other bishop brothers.

 

[Dokimas]

I didn’t say that at all. I said that the Catholic Church claims that she and she alone is the true church founded by Jesus. You say that this is a lie, and in the same breath you csay that you think that the Catholic Church is “part of” the true Church founded by Jesus. How could an organisation which teaches as infallible dogma what you consider to be such a fantastic, whopping lie, possibly be part of the Church whioch Jesus founded which He promised would always hold and teach the truth? Your assertions contradict each other. If the Catholic Church was **not **founded by Jesus, then given the otherwise totally outlandish claims that she makes for herself, then she must have been founded by, and is sustained by, men under the influence of the Devil, not of God’s Spirit of Truth. Sorry but they are the only two logical alternatives.

Actually, churches are not part of the CHURCH, believers are.

Ok, so would you please list all of the oorganisations which you claim are “parts” of the Church founded by Christ, and please tell us how you distinguish between
(a) doctrinal contradictions between organisations, which are small enough for God to simply “deal with” and
(b) doctrinal contradictions between organisations, which are large enough that God cannot “deal with” them and which make those on the wrong side of the argument, unbelievers cut off from the Body of Christ?

Organizations are not part of the CHURCH people who’s hearts are given to Jesus are.

And in the case of (b), how do you decide which of the organisations contradicting each other on any grave matter has the right side of the argument and is “IN” the Body of Christ, and which side is wrong and is “out”?

I don’t decide. The dicision is God’s. It’s His CHURCH.

What in your opinion are the “correct similarities”, the absolutely essential doctrines which every organisation must teach in order for it to be a part of the Church founded by Jesus?

And what exactly do you mean by “deal with”? Do you think that God thinks that it’s OK that some people professing to follow Him are contradicting and opposing His Truth, as long as their lies are not “too big”? He said that His Spirit would guide the leaders of His Church into “all truth”. Not “most of the truth” or “the really important bits of the truth” or even 99% of the truth, but all truth.

Depends about the ‘truth’: saying Jesus did not die would be herecy. Things like that. Whether one should get baptized by immersion or sprinkled is not herecy, nor is being baptized in the Name of Jesus or in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit aren’t either.

 

[Dokimas]

You didn’t answer any questions, as usual. Do you read the posts we place or just disagree because a Catholic posted them? Those questions were in response to your statements. I try to address every point and question you raise.

If you make statements, we are going to ask for supporting documentation with as much detail and you can provide. If I can make logical explanations, using scriptures and writings from the early Church fathers, to rebut your statements I am going to do so. I’m sorry if that offends you, because I consider it defending my faith and Church.

There are too many people who make short unsubstantiated statements against Catholicism for what seems to be for the sake of just disagreeing with Catholicism. IMHO, that’s ‘anti’.

Let me recommend you do more research and reflecting prior to posting.

There’s some questions so out there that I have absolutely no answer.

 

[Dokimas]

No.

Actually it comes from the Latin protestare which means to stand up for something. It was used to describe those who embraced heresies, and stood up for them, over and against the Teaching of the Apostles preserved infallibly in the Catholic Church.

In the case of embracing doctrines over and against the Catholic faith, it describes those persons who take the protestare position, which I can assure you, you do,.

If I have any disputes with the Catholic Church, I assure you they will not become evident on this forum.

Ah, you stand up for the CC, therefore, by definition, you’re protestant. Now I think I understand.

I’ve not wanted to be called ‘protestant’. However, I want to make a stand that Jesus is God the Creator, the Savior of mankind by His precious Blood. I want to stand up for Him.

 

[Dokimas]

You stated Constantine, without qualifying it as a possiblity.

Already made my last comment on this.

Then you implied that you had supporting evidence and toyed with us by asking if we really wanted to see the evidence

.

No I didn’t. What I implied was that if there were evidence then you’d most likely not accept it, just like the rest of us that rejects things that go against what we believe.

In these respects, we are different. When I feel someone is wrong I explain, in as much detail as possible with supporting evidence, why.

Actually you seem to attack. That’s why I sent to you a private message. BIG difference.

 

[KathleenGee]

It is Christ Himself Who declared victory over the world in His death and resurrection, in choosing Peter as His rock, and demonstrating His victory over the world by placing Peter and the center or head of the authority of the universal Church in Rome, the capitol of the Roman Empire, and the most influential in the history of mankind, whose effects today are known.

The role of bishop as the local head of the churches was established in the Acts of the Apostles. We all know the Holy Spirit led Peter to Rome. The form of administration in various churches were mixed; some had councils, others followed the Jewish Christian practice of one bishop presiding over a local. In the end, it was the Jewish Christian model that best served the universal church at the local level.

Peter was sent to Rome and was head of the local church in Rome. Ancient Rome’s Christian base was quickly recognized throughout the Christian world as its center in part to its size of population and its ability to help in the provisions of other local churches/dioceses.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Ah, you stand up for the CC, therefore, by definition, you’re protestant. Now I think I understand.

I’ve not wanted to be called ‘protestant’. However, I want to make a stand that Jesus is God the Creator, the Savior of mankind by His precious Blood. I want to stand up for Him.

Now resort to deliberate twisting of what one says? Throw in an ad hominem worded statement to inflame? I cannot see an honest dialogue with those tactics.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
2. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

Where in any of that did Irenaeus say that Peter was the bishop of Rome and ordained Linus after him? You just showed me the evidence that it is NOT there. Irenaeus said the apostles built up the church and committed into the hands of Linus. Where do you get “Peter was the bishop of Rome” out of that?

Please stop the ad hominem attacks.

None of that going on my end. But I suppose being told at the onset that I reject the writings of the church fathers unless they agree with my argument isn’t ad hominem at all – that is, if it’s coming from a Catholic.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Where in any of that did Irenaeus say that Peter was the bishop of Rome and ordained Linus after him? You just showed me the evidence that it is NOT there. Irenaeus said the apostles built up the church and committed into the hands of Linus. Where do you get “Peter was the bishop of Rome” out of that?

that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; … the blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate

“The blessed apostles” refers to Peter and Paul. In paragraph 2, Irenaeus specifically said he wasn’t dealing with any other church (other than the Church of Rome) and any other apostles other than Peter and Paul.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; … the blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate

“The blessed apostles” refers to Peter and Paul. In paragraph 2, Irenaeus specifically said he wasn’t dealing with any other church (other than the Church of Rome) and any other apostles other than Peter and Paul.

He is saying that Peter and Paul founded and built up the church in Rome. He did NOT say that Peter and Paul were bishops in Rome. Linus was the first bishop of the church in Rome according to Irenaeus. You are claiming that Peter was the bishop of Rome and Irenaeus does not support that claim. You can believe whatever you want to, but people who look at this objectively will not find support for your claim.

 

[Cat_Herder]

He is saying that Peter and Paul founded and built up the church in Rome. He did NOT say that Peter and Paul were bishops in Rome. Linus was the first bishop of the church in Rome according to Irenaeus. You are claiming that Peter was the bishop of Rome and Irenaeus does not support that claim. You can believe whatever you want to, but people who look at this objectively will not find support for your claim.

The word “bishop” means overseer. Are you seriously claiming that Peter and Paul “founded” and “built up” the Church in Rome but did not oversee it?

The first AFL-NFL World Championship Game was not called the Super Bowl. However, it is universally acknowledged to have been the first Super Bowl because it had all of the characteristics of the Super Bowl and its successors were later called Super Bowls. You are essentially arguing that the first AFL-NFL World Championship Game is not a Super Bowl because no one called it a Super Bowl until some time later.

In fact your argument is even weaker than that, because the Bible records the Apostles as appointing successors who were actually called bishops in scripture. Hence the term bishop, unlike the term Super Bowl, was clearly in contemporaneous use.