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

[joe370]

Leo I

Please provide the historical evidence and I will believe you brother. Otherwise, it is no different than me saying that Martin Luther is the founder of the CC in communion with Rome, or that I am the founder of the CC.

Looking forward to your historical proof…

By the way, thanks for responding to the OP. No one ever responds…

 

[Cat_Herder]

It would be tedious, says Irenaeus, to show the apostolic succession of all the churches founded by apostles, but for the sake of conciseness he chose to use the church in Rome as his example. Catholics will interpret this quote as the faithful everywhere must agree with the church of Rome because it is preeminent over all the churches. But that is not all what Irenaeus was saying. The preeminent authority he was referring to is the apostles, not the Roman church. ]

He names a specified and singular church, the Roman Church, and cites specific Apostles, Peter and Paul, as having superior authority to all other apostles, then imputes this authority to the Roman Church. There is no other way to rationally read the passages.

Every single one of the apostolic sees fell into heresies such as Nestorianism except for Rome. Clearly the other ancient sees cannot have the same authority as Rome or we would all be Nestorians.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I’m hardly an expert on the history. But everything I remember reading tells me for its first several decades, Methodism was very much a movement within the Church of England.

You don’t have to be an expert in history. You just have to be willing to check the historical facts. Had you checked the historical facts of Methodism, you would have known when the first Methodist community was established – 1739, as was stated correctly in the OP.

I quite agree

Since you agree that these denominations didn’t exist until the 16th century or later, why do you say that they were included in the original Catholic Church (paraphrase)?

Well that depends on how you define your words. Were (are) the Orthodox a denomination? The Arians? The Nestorians?

The ancient Orthodox are sister Churches to the Catholic Church; they are in schism, not in heresy. They have valid Apostolic Succession, validly ordained clergy, and valid Sacraments (which they call Mysteries).

The Arians and Nestorians were/are heresies.

To de-nominate means to break away from an original named organization and to give oneself a new name. In religious context, it means a sub-species of the original. The Catholic Church is the nomination from which all Christendom has ultimately denominated.

I know, it doesn’t matter who exactly founded the Roman Church. Some mortal, whoever it was.

Hey, you wrote that the Church at Rome was founded by Peter in A.D. 50. if you write it, I assume you have some reason for believing it.

Sorry for sounding abstruse. I mean that, in my opinion, the organization which calls itself “the Catholic Church”, while it is indeed part of the Catholic Church, is not the entire thing.

Hmmm. It’s your opinion that the Catholic Church is only part of the Catholic Church? :whacky: Well, in your opinion, what is “the entire thing”?

Thanks for answering my Qs.

Jim Dandy

 

[TimothyH]

Point of interest. Many have stated that the Holy Catholic Church was started at Pentacost. It was actually born of Christ’s pierced heart on the cross.

**CCC 766

The Church is born primarily of Christ’s total self-giving for our salvation, anticipated in the institution of the Eucharist and fulfilled on the cross. “The origin and growth of the Church are symbolized by the blood and water which flowed from the open side of the crucified Jesus.” “For it was from the side of Christ as he slept the sleep of death upon the cross that there came forth the ‘wondrous sacrament of the whole Church.’” As Eve was formed from the sleeping Adam’s side, so the Church was born from the pierced heart of Christ hanging dead on the cross.**

The formation of the first Christian community happend at Pentacost where the Bible says that about 120 were gathered. 120 was the number of people needed to form a new Jewish city with its own synagogue. Pentacost was the formation of the visble Church. The sacramental presence of the Church in space and time occured when water and blood flowed from Christ’s side. A technicality, perhapse interesting only to theologians.

Sorry for the interruption. Carry on.

 

[rev_kevin]

The only answer that will be accepted is JESUS AND PENTACOST.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Leo I

Leo I, August/September 440 to 10 November 461, was preceded by Sixtus and succeeded by Hilarus. At the time he was elected, he was on a diplomatic mission to Gaul for the imperial court and wasn’t even in Rome. He was elected pope in August and consecrated on September 29, upon his return to Rome.

Leo I the Great is one of only three “Great” Popes. The others are Gregory I and John Paul II.

Reference: Protestant scholar J.N.D. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 1989, p. 43.

Jim Dandy

 

[joe370]

The only answer that will be accepted is JESUS AND PENTACOST.

That is NOT true. Kevin, I will humbly accept any other answer if that answer can be demonstrably proven. Again, please tell me who you believe founded the CC in communion with Rome, as opposed to telling us that the only answer that will be acceptable to us, is Jesus? Thanks brother…

 

[Cat_Herder]

Further to my post above and the statement that each patriarchal see other than Rome fell into heresy, here is the list of the bishops of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople from 314 to 655 AD and the applicable heresies.

Then as now, the only way to avoid heresy is to be united to Rome.

 

[yosephdaviyd]

I see some lists name Michael Cerularius, (d. 1054) as the founder of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Isn’t that given him too much credit for a very old, complex, exasperated political tension between the east and west?

 

[rev_kevin]

That is NOT true. Kevin, I will humbly accept any other answer if that answer can be demonstrably proven. Again, please tell me who you believe founded the CC in communion with Rome, as opposed to telling us that the only answer that will be acceptable to us, is Jesus? Thanks brother…

Go to the other thread and you will see my answer.

 

[Formosus]

Leo I, August/September 440 to 10 November 461, was preceded by Sixtus and succeeded by Hilarus. At the time he was elected, he was on a diplomatic mission to Gaul for the imperial court and wasn’t even in Rome. He was elected pope in August and consecrated on September 29, upon his return to Rome.

Leo I the Great is one of only three “Great” Popes. The others are Gregory I and John Paul II.

Reference: Protestant scholar J.N.D. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 1989, p. 43.

Jim Dandy

Actually, the three “Great Popes” are St. Leo, St. Gregory, and Nicholas I. I do not think the consensus is out on JPII as being “the Great” despite what some may say.

If I were Eastern Orthodox (which I am not) I would be tempted to say Pope Nicholas I started the Roman Catholic Church when he (attempted) to institute Papal supremacy over the Eastern Churches.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Actually, the three “Great Popes” are St. Leo, St. Gregory, and Nicholas I. I do not think the consensus is out on JPII as being “the Great” despite what some may say.

If I were Eastern Orthodox (which I am not) I would be tempted to say Pope Nicholas I started the Roman Catholic Church when he (attempted) to institute Papal supremacy over the Eastern Churches.

Thanks for the correction. I relied on Kelly’s book, which was not correct in this instance. Here’s what Catholic Answers had to say on the subject::

QUOTE:
Since the death of our beloved Pope John Paul II on April 2, 2005, many have been hailing him as “John Paul the Great.” Three Popes have had “the Great” appended to their names: Pope St. Leo I (reigned 440–61), Pope St. Gregory I (590–604), and Pope St. Nicholas I (858–67). But the Church has never officially pronounced these Popes as “great”; rather, they have been identified as great both by popular acclamation at the time of their deaths and by history itself.
END QUOTE

My money is on JPII’s title enduring.

The name of the Church is not “Roman.”

Jim Dandy.

 

[Formosus]

Would you prefer your church being called the latin or the frankish church? Personally I see nothing to be ashamed in the title Roman. Your patriarch is archbishop of Rome . Hence Roman catholic.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Please provide the historical evidence and I will believe you brother. Otherwise, it is no different than me saying that Martin Luther is the founder of the CC in communion with Rome, or that I am the founder of the CC.

Looking forward to your historical proof…

No, you won’t, but I will give you the evidence anyway.

I apologize for the long post, but I wanted to be as complete as possible without going too overboard.

By “in communion with Rome” I am going to assume you mean when Rome was recognized as having universal authority. And when I say “Roman Catholic Church” I am referring to the church where Rome has universal authority. The question is, when did that church begin and who is responsible for it? I answered the question and now I will provide the evidence.

No one in Rome was even aware of what happened at Pentecost in 33 AD, so we know the RCC was not founded then.

In about 50 AD there was a dispute over whether or not gentiles should convert to Judaism to be saved. The apostles met in Jerusalem and there was no appeal to the church in Rome, which probably didn’t exist yet. So in 50 AD there was no RCC.

Sometime over the next decade Paul wrote a letter to the church in Rome. According to Irenaeus, Peter and Paul co-founded the church in Rome and placed it in the hands of Linus. Now since Paul was no longer in Rome, and the church in Rome was obviously well established, Linus, not Peter, must have been the bishop there. My guess is that Peter was off doing what he was supposed to doing, laying the foundation of the church in other places. Whether or not Peter was the bishop of Rome is crucial to your claim and it appears that he was not.

Around 95 AD, there was a dissention in the Corinthian church and the church in Rome was consulted. One could argue that this is evidence for Rome having universal authority at that time; the problem is it’s not consistent with other evidence.

About 15 years later, Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, was taken to Rome for martyrdom. In transit, Ignatius wrote five letters to churches in his jurisdiction, one to Rome where he was headed, and one to his friend and fellow bishop, Polycarp. In his letter to the church in Rome, Ignatius referred to it as “presiding in the region of the Romans,” thus indicating that Rome’s jurisdiction was limited to the region of the Romans in the west.

Furthermore, the church in Antioch, the foundation of which was laid by Peter and Paul, was left without a bishop when he was taken. Ignatius told the church in Rome that Jesus Christ alone will oversee it in his absence, and that their love, i.e. prayers, would regard it. It was Polycarp that Ignatius asked to handle his replacement in the see of Antioch. If Rome held universal jurisdiction this process would have certainly been handled through them.

About 30 or 40 years later, Polycarp traveled to Rome and met with Anicetus, the bishop of Rome, to convince him to follow after the custom he received from the apostles, namely to celebrate the Passover on which ever day it fell. However, Anicetus remained steadfast in the customs he received from his predecessors. The two departed unable to persuade the other and each held to their own tradition. While Polycarp was in Rome, “Anicetus conceded the administration of the Eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect.” (Eusebius, E.C. 5:24)

So Anicetus demonstrated no authority over Polycarp or the churches in Asia. In fact, he displayed an act of subordinates in the company of Polycarp.

Fast-forward to the early third century and we see evidence that the church in the west rejected the epistle to the Hebrews while the Eastern Church accepted it as Scripture. There was certainly no sense of any universal authority in play there.

Later that century, around 265, an enormous scandal hit the church in Antioch. The bishop there, Paul of Samosata, was found to be teaching heresy. He was deposed and excommunicated by a synod of bishops that did not include the bishop of Rome. The church in Rome was merely informed of the outcome. This clearly demonstrates the absence of Roman authority in the third century.

Just before the “Great Persecution” under Diocletian and Galerius, Eusebius described the church as being filled with “monstrous hypocrisy and dissimulation rising to the greatest height of wickedness.” (E.H. 8:1) He described the church as being sharply divided into various parties. If there was any central authority at this time is apparently lost whatever control it might have had. Add to this the Arian Controversy and one can see why Eusebius blamed his own brothers, the Christians, for the evils that befell them.

Then, after Constantine comes to the rescue and learns how divided the church is he calls a council of bishops to meet in Nicea. From that we see irrefutable (though try as you may) evidence that the church in Rome possessed no greater authority than Antioch or Alexandria (Canon 6).

After Nicea Rome made inroads to universal authority, but it wasn’t until Leo I that the goal was finally reached.

And there you have it, the official birth of Roman Catholicism under the reign of Leo I.

 

[Reuben_J]

The Church was founded by Jesus, built on Peter the rock. Where was Peter, there the church would be. It does not matter whether it was Rome or not. The route taken by Peter eventually led to Rome but the Church started when Jesus pronounced he built his Church upon Peter.

That may be a good chronology that you gave though I have not verified its accuracy but you are wrong to say that the church started in Rome. Saying that is a mistake because clearly you are thinking of associating the Roman Church with it. This is not the understanding of the catholic Church, ‘Roman’ came as some later addition to distinguish it from new Protestant churches.

So no, the Church that we have now started with the apostle Peter and it did not matter where he was at the time it started, so it is safe to say the Church started when Jesus conferred upon Peter the Church that he was going to build. It may start from nothing but nevertheless it was the Church then.

 

[Reuben_J]

Similarly, Moses received the tablets in Mount Sinai. They were kept in the Ark of the Covenant and moved from place to place and sometimes in tents. Eventually a temple was built for it in Jerusalem but it does not mean that it was Jerusalem Judaism. The analogy perhaps not perfect but you may see the idea.

The journey of the apostles began in Jerusalem and in the case of Peter, it ended in Rome. The catholic Church is the Church regardless of where Peter was because it was built upon him (as a human representative) not upon Rome.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Brian’s dissertation claiming that the Church had no universal authority before Leo I looks pretty, but it just isn’t true.

No one in Rome was even aware of what happened at Pentecost in 33 AD, so we know the RCC was not founded then.

In about 50 AD there was a dispute over whether or not gentiles should convert to Judaism to be saved. The apostles met in Jerusalem and there was no appeal to the church in Rome, which probably didn’t exist yet. So in 50 AD there was no RCC.

Both of these are irrelevant because the city of Rome is not the source of the pope’s authority. The office of Peter the Apostle is. And that’s why Peter was the one who made the decision about the Gentiles (Acts 15).

Sometime over the next decade Paul wrote a letter to the church in Rome. According to Irenaeus, Peter and Paul co-founded the church in Rome and placed it in the hands of Linus. Now since Paul was no longer in Rome, and the church in Rome was obviously well established, Linus, not Peter, must have been the bishop there. My guess is that Peter was off doing what he was supposed to doing, laying the foundation of the church in other places. Whether or not Peter was the bishop of Rome is crucial to your claim and it appears that he was not.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Peter 5:13[/BIBLEDRB]

“Babylon,” where Peter writes from, is a byword for the city of Rome.

About 15 years later, Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, was taken to Rome for martyrdom. In transit, Ignatius wrote five letters to churches in his jurisdiction, one to Rome where he was headed, and one to his friend and fellow bishop, Polycarp. In his letter to the church in Rome, Ignatius referred to it as “presiding in the region of the Romans,” thus indicating that Rome’s jurisdiction was limited to the region of the Romans in the west.

of the Romans (as opposed to their city) was several thousand miles wide.region

Furthermore, the church in Antioch, the foundation of which was laid by Peter and Paul, was left without a bishop when he was taken. Ignatius told the church in Rome that Jesus Christ alone will oversee it in his absence, and that their love, i.e. prayers, would regard it. It was Polycarp that Ignatius asked to handle his replacement in the see of Antioch. If Rome held universal jurisdiction this process would have certainly been handled through them.

It is ridiculous to expect that the Pope would be flying or telecommuting to every episcopal ordination (in 50 AD or now).

Ancient monarchs in general did not micromanage their realms, in part because they could not. Did Caesar get involved with the trial of Jesus? No. Does it then follow that Pontius Pilate had no authority? No. Did Caesar get involved with the trial of Paul? Yes, but only after Paul appealed to Caesar and actually went to Rome with an aim to an imperial audience. Does it then follow that Caesar had no authority? No.

About 30 or 40 years later, Polycarp traveled to Rome and met with Anicetus, the bishop of Rome, to convince him to follow after the custom he received from the apostles, namely to celebrate the Passover on which ever day it fell. However, Anicetus remained steadfast in the customs he received from his predecessors. The two departed unable to persuade the other and each held to their own tradition. While Polycarp was in Rome, “Anicetus conceded the administration of the Eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect.” (Eusebius, E.C. 5:24)

So Anicetus demonstrated no authority over Polycarp or the churches in Asia. In fact, he displayed an act of subordinates in the company of Polycarp.

And the Pope doesn’t preside at every Mass where he is present. So what?

Fast-forward to the early third century and we see evidence that the church in the west rejected the epistle to the Hebrews while the Eastern Church accepted it as Scripture. There was certainly no sense of any universal authority in play there.

No one had raised the issue. There is no evidence that the pope or anyone else beyond local bishops had passed on the issue until the synods of the third century.

Later that century, around 265, an enormous scandal hit the church in Antioch. The bishop there, Paul of Samosata, was found to be teaching heresy. He was deposed and excommunicated by a synod of bishops that did not include the bishop of Rome. The church in Rome was merely informed of the outcome. This clearly demonstrates the absence of Roman authority in the third century.

See above explanation about micromanaging monarchs.

Then, after Constantine comes to the rescue and learns how divided the church is he calls a council of bishops to meet in Nicea. From that we see irrefutable (though try as you may) evidence that the church in Rome possessed no greater authority than Antioch or Alexandria (Canon 6).

Canon 6:

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges…

Just because the Bishop of Alexandria has jurisdiction in one region and the Bishop of Rome in another does not mean that the Bishop of Rome does not also have authority in the Alexandrian region. Just because the governor of Texas has authority in Texas, as the President of the United States has authority in Washington, D.C., doesn’t mean that the President of the United States does not have authority in Texas. You’re reading something into the canon that isn’t there.

 

[joe370]

Brian Culliton;7513544]No, you won’t, but I will give you the evidence anyway.

Okedoke…

I apologize for the long post, but I wanted to be as complete as possible without going too overboard.

Makes sense…

By “in communion with Rome” I am going to assume you mean when Rome was recognized as having universal authority. And when I say “Roman Catholic Church” I am referring to the church where Rome has universal authority. The question is, when did that church begin and who is responsible for it? I answered the question and now I will provide the evidence.

Okedoke…You have clearly overlooked the fact that he had a predecessor, who was the leader of the CC in communion with Rome which rules Leo out as the founder of the CC.

No one in Rome was even aware of what happened at Pentecost in 33 AD, so we know the RCC was not founded then.

If you don’t mind, proof please?

In about 50 AD there was a dispute over whether or not gentiles should convert to Judaism to be saved. The apostles met in Jerusalem and there was no appeal to the church in Rome, which probably didn’t exist yet. So in 50 AD there was no RCC.

Proof please, that the Catholic Church in Rome did not exist?

Sometime over the next decade Paul wrote a letter to the church in Rome. According to Irenaeus, Peter and Paul co-founded the church in Rome and placed it in the hands of Linus. Now since Paul was no longer in Rome, and the church in Rome was obviously well established, Linus, not Peter, must have been the bishop there. My guess is that Peter was off doing what he was supposed to doing, laying the foundation of the church in other places. Whether or not Peter was the bishop of Rome is crucial to your claim and it appears that he was not.

Proof please? It appears…does not cut it. I can provide proof though, if quotes will suffice.

Around 95 AD, there was a dissention in the Corinthian church and the church in Rome was consulted. One could argue that this is evidence for Rome having universal authority at that time; the problem is it’s not consistent with other evidence.

Evidence please?

About 15 years later, Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, was taken to Rome for martyrdom. In transit, Ignatius wrote five letters to churches in his jurisdiction, one to Rome where he was headed, and one to his friend and fellow bishop, Polycarp. In his letter to the church in Rome, Ignatius referred to it as “presiding in the region of the Romans,” thus indicating that Rome’s jurisdiction was limited to the region of the Romans in the west.

To which church in the world today, did Ignatius belong?

" Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

continued…

 

[joe370]

About 30 or 40 years later, Polycarp traveled to Rome and met with Anicetus, the bishop of Rome, to convince him to follow after the custom he received from the apostles, namely to celebrate the Passover on which ever day it fell. However, Anicetus remained steadfast in the customs he received from his predecessors. The two departed unable to persuade the other and each held to their own tradition. While Polycarp was in Rome, “Anicetus conceded the administration of the Eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect.” (Eusebius, E.C. 5:24)

So Anicetus demonstrated no authority over Polycarp or the churches in Asia. In fact, he displayed an act of subordinates in the company of Polycarp.

Many have displayed acts of subordination to the Pope. Polycarp recognized that the Pope spoke with the authority of Peter as head of the Church, but that’s not what this thread is about.

Fast-forward to the early third century and we see evidence that the church in the west rejected the epistle to the Hebrews while the Eastern Church accepted it as Scripture. There was certainly no sense of any universal authority in play there.

Rome eventually codified the canon of scripture. The east rejected books as well, back then, that are now in our bible today. Irrelevant though, to the thread.

Later that century, around 265, an enormous scandal hit the church in Antioch. The bishop there, Paul of Samosata, was found to be teaching heresy. He was deposed and excommunicated by a synod of bishops that did not include the bishop of Rome. The church in Rome was merely informed of the outcome. This clearly demonstrates the absence of Roman authority in the third century.

As is the case today, if doctrinal matters can be resolved without involving Rome. Still irrelavent.

Just before the “Great Persecution” under Diocletian and Galerius, Eusebius described the church as being filled with “monstrous hypocrisy and dissimulation rising to the greatest height of wickedness.” (E.H. 8:1) He described the church as being sharply divided into various parties. If there was any central authority at this time is apparently lost whatever control it might have had. Add to this the Arian Controversy and one can see why Eusebius blamed his own brothers, the Christians, for the evils that befell them.

Dissension in the church has occurred in every century…This does not answer the OP.

Then, after Constantine comes to the rescue and learns how divided the church is he calls a council of bishops to meet in Nicea. From that we see irrefutable (though try as you may) evidence that the church in Rome possessed no greater authority than Antioch or Alexandria (Canon 6).

Start a thread and bring this up…this too is irrelavent.

After Nicea Rome made inroads to universal authority, but it wasn’t until Leo I that the goal was finally reached.

And there you have it, the official birth of Roman Catholicism under the reign of Leo I.

Gee, I wonder what all Leo’s predecessors would have to say about the notion that Leo founded the CC in communion with Rome??? His predecessors must have belonged to a different church; is this what you believe?

it’s your opinion that Leo is the founder of the CC in communion with Rome, even though the CC in communion with Rome existed long before Leo was even born. If that works for you, then that is all that matters. Thanks for the feedback though.

By the way, let’s say you are right:

Please give me the name of the church founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem on Pentecost, that spanned the centuries, from Pentecost to the 4th century RCC leader, Pope Leo, who supposedly founded the RCC around that time, and let’s keep all of the protestant churches out of the discussion for obvious reasons???

 

[PbloPicasso]

I’ve heard some pretty interesting theories in my time, but this one takes the cake.

Heresies have always existed. That did not constitute a “new Church” but rather a break off, a sinful break from the one holy catholic and apostolic church. Ignatius refers to the Church as Catholic…dated around 105 to 115 A.D. (I use 107 A.D.). Reading the early church fathers convinced me of the ridiculous claims my brothers in Christ taught us in the Church of Christ…ironically the Catholic Church is also called the Church of Christ. The Orthodox Church came up with the name Orthodox in arguing against heresies and ultimately against the "first of many’ or bishop or Rome’s authority. All of it was mostly cultural and lots of bad choices on both sides. I like the term orthodox Catholic to mean what it says. No where is the Catholic Church called the Roman Church until the Protestant Reformation, from my readings. “Roman” was not a positive label added to the Catholic Church, but rather one created to insult and trivialize the authority of the papacy - thus my reasons for loathing the term. I use the term “Church of Christ” because it too is a name used by early Christians. It also happens to be the faith from which my family came.

Protestantism started as a dissent against the Church to believe what they wanted to believe, not what was handed down through apostolic authority teaching. The teaching is not something they just made up. It was taught from the beginning. The real issue most people seem to have is development of doctrine. None of what the Catholic Church teaches by her authority ever goes against the bible, since the bible comes from church tradition - not man made tradition.

It is only logical to note that there were no men responsible for creating the Catholic Church, only those that utilized various terms for her. They used to call us cannibals. Ever asked yourself “why”? The Eucharist. Why did St. Ignatius of Antioch (the place where the term Christian was first used) say:

Chapter VIII.-Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution55 of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper56 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. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.”

Notice Church authority as well? All stems from the bishop. So we now have a minimum of the Catholic Church being established by Ignatius of Antioch in around 107 A.D. He wrote this on his way to be put to death. He had nothing to gain except eternal life by doing the right thing - tell the truth.