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

[O.S.Luke]

This thread pops up ever so often - an attempt to goad and bait. It insults Catholics and Protestants alike, in my opinion.

 

[joe370]

This thread pops up ever so often - an attempt to goad and bait. It insults Catholics and Protestants alike, in my opinion.

How does it insult catholics and protestants??? No goading and no baiting going on; just a simple question, but feel free to ignore this thread if that’s what you feel.

 

[PbloPicasso]

This thread pops up ever so often - an attempt to goad and bait. It insults Catholics and Protestants alike, in my opinion.

I liked the unique way the question was asked. It is unique to me and I never thought to ask and compare. As far as baiting, I’ve seen baiting and this does not come even close compared to the other threads I’ve seen.

I think it would be a good description to state that CAF exists mostly for Catholics that are considering leaving the Church and for those of us that grew up confused. There were several websites I lurked and posted on during my reversion. Initially, my protestant upbringing made me so rude that I got banned several times. But I’ve found that after allowing my faith to sink in deeper I become less hostile and more at ease with my new faith, or return to it anyhow. I never knew what I’ve learned over the past 4 years. I’m embarrassed and ashamed for having said things so harshly. So, for me this is still new and inspiring.

 

[JustaServant]

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???

I doubt you will get an answer beyond some recent revisionist historian. I heard the Leo I arguement years ago. I has no foundation outside of an opinion.
The danger of revisionist history is that it conceals the truth. It only works in an atomosphere of historical ignorance.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

This thread pops up ever so often - an attempt to goad and bait. It insults Catholics and Protestants alike, in my opinion.

Yes, that is evident by the number of times my references were considered “irrelevant.” The response I received was exactly what I expected – nobody let me down there. But at least I was able to post a bit of real historical information. Most Catholics never see these references.

It is easy to see who is promoting revisionist history here. My comments are all based on facts and logical conclusions drawn from the facts. The Catholic response amounts to nothing more than explaining away the facts and telling us why the historical evidence is not what it appears to be. That is revisionist history.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Yes, that is evident by the number of times my references were considered “irrelevant.” The response I received was exactly what I expected – nobody let me down there. But at least I was able to post a bit of real historical information. Most Catholics never see these references.

It is easy to see who is promoting revisionist history here. My comments are all based on facts and logical conclusions drawn from the facts. The Catholic response amounts to nothing more than explaining away the facts and telling us why the historical evidence is not what it appears to be. That is revisionist history.

No, friend, your conclusions are based on your own assumptions regarding how the church functioned in ancient times. All of your arguments basically come down to “Bishop X did something, the pope wasn’t involved, therefore the pope had no jurisdiction.” Just because the jurisdiction is not exercised doesn’t mean there is no jurisdiction. The US Supreme Court doesn’t review even 1% of the cases, but that doesn’t mean the court is not supreme.

 

[joe370]

Yes, that is evident by the number of times my references were considered “irrelevant.” The response I received was exactly what I expected – nobody let me down there. But at least I was able to post a bit of real historical information. Most Catholics never see these references.

It is easy to see who is promoting revisionist history here. My comments are all based on facts and logical conclusions drawn from the facts. The Catholic response amounts to nothing more than explaining away the facts and telling us why the historical evidence is not what it appears to be. That is revisionist history.

Brian, I apologize if you believe that I was being discourteously terse; that was not my intent; far from it. I had little time to respond and was merely attempting to economize with what little time I had at my disposal. I meant no disrespect, but when I said, a few times, that your comments were irrelavent, they were. I asked you to give me the name of the man or men, that founded the Catholic Church, and when, and you did, but I simply did not see the relevance of the parochial history lesson leading up to your answer, and again, thank you for answering the question brother!

Your claim is that Leo founded the CC in communion with Rome in the 4th century, even though Leo was merely a successor of a succession of bishops in Rome, already belonging and leading the CC in communion with Rome, well before Leo came on to the scene. Do you really want me to agree with you when I don’t? I ask again my brother in Christ:

How can Leo be the founder of the CC in communion with Rome (in the 4th century) - considering the fact that Leo was merely a successor of a succession of Popes belonging to the CC in communion with Rome? The CC in communion with Rome did not begin with Leo. That would be analogous to claiming that Titus or Timothy, (who were successors of Paul) - were in fact the founders of the Church of Matthew 16, knowing full well that neither Paul, Timothy or Titus, were the founders of Jesus’ church. Again, if you can back up your claim, I will concede, otherwise, I have no other choice but to assume that Simon renamed Kepha, was the 1st century visible head with Jesus as the Divine founder. President Obama is the current authoritative head of the United States, but you would never claim, due to that authority, that he was one of the founding fathers of the US, would you? He is merely a successor of a succession of Presidents that came before him, as is the case with Leo.

Looking forward to some historical proof as to your claim, just as I have provided regarding the founders of the first Protestant churches.

Thanks brother.

 

[Carlan]

Yes, that is evident by the number of times my references were considered “irrelevant.” The response I received was exactly what I expected – nobody let me down there. But at least I was able to post a bit of real historical information. Most Catholics never see these references.

It is easy to see who is promoting revisionist history here. My comments are all based on facts and logical conclusions drawn from the facts. The Catholic response amounts to nothing more than explaining away the facts and telling us why the historical evidence is not what it appears to be. That is revisionist history.

Hello Brian, It is interesting to see a Protestant so interested in early Christian History, most unusual that I know of. We ordinary Catholics don’t go to your great lengths,usually anyway.
I wonder about your passion, what are you trying to prove with all of your surmising?
You seem to be more or less digging for anti -catholic material rather than an interest in the truth of it. Someone recently wrote that to study the early Church Fathers is to stop being Protestant. What do you think about that since it is obvious you do a lot of reading?, Peace, Carlan

 

[PbloPicasso]

Brian, I apologize if you believe that I was being discourteously terse; that was not my intent; far from it. I had little time to respond and was merely attempting to economize with what little time I had at my disposal. I meant no disrespect, …

OOOOO!!! GOOD POST! Can I use your words to describe my “terse” posts? I’m good at sticking my foot in my mouth trying to “economize” as well. i believe most of the seeming less charitable posts are actually caused from lacking time and pithy statements or responses.

 

[joe370]

OOOOO!!! GOOD POST! Can I use your words to describe my “terse” posts? I’m good at sticking my foot in my mouth trying to “economize” as well. i believe most of the seeming less charitable posts are actually caused from lacking time and pithy statements or responses.

Sure…It is so easy to misinterpret one’s spirit and intonation, when debating via on-line forum.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Hello Brian, It is interesting to see a Protestant so interested in early Christian History, most unusual that I know of. We ordinary Catholics don’t go to your great lengths,usually anyway.
I wonder about your passion, what are you trying to prove with all of your surmising?
You seem to be more or less digging for anti -catholic material rather than an interest in the truth of it.

I grew up in the Catholic faith, but Catholicism had nothing to do with why I started reading the early church fathers. The catalyst that brought me to that point was Dispensationalism. I couldn’t reconcile Catholic theology with Scripture, and then I found myself faced with more theology I couldn’t reconcile coming from the church I was attending. And that is what brought me to early church study. I wanted to know how early Christians understood the faith that was delivered to them. What I learned over the past ten years or so from my early church study is that many of the claims of the Catholic Church are unfounded. My goal is to try to bring people to that same place I found myself many years ago; a place that challenges them enough to drop their ideological thinking and approach history objectively. I don’t care one bit who believes me, it’s not about me. My hope is that folks will be inspired to dig into these things for themselves. It makes no difference to me what conclusions they come to. I can’t change people’s minds I can only challenge them.

Someone recently wrote that to study the early Church Fathers is to stop being Protestant. What do you think about that since it is obvious you do a lot of reading? Peace, Carlan

If I’m not mistaken, that comes from Cardinal John Henry Newman. He said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant” I have no idea how to define Protestant outside the context of the reformation. I know very little about the reformation or Protestant history. I find it disingenuous that many Catholics paint every non-Catholic Christian as Protestant, because doing so allows them to unfairly pit one group against another in order to demonstrate how screwed up Protestants are. A tree is known by its fruit.

 

[joe370]

Brian, you said:

And that is what brought me to early church study. I wanted to know how early Christians understood the faith that was delivered to them. What I learned over the past ten years or so from my early church study is that many of the claims of the Catholic Church are unfounded.

As a former non-Catholic, I realized the exact opposite. Different strokes for different folks…I think I saw you swimming the Tiber, on your way out, as I was on my way in. LOL…

 

[Carlan]

I grew up in the Catholic faith, but Catholicism had nothing to do with why I started reading the early church fathers. The catalyst that brought me to that point was Dispensationalism. I couldn’t reconcile Catholic theology with Scripture, and then I found myself faced with more theology I couldn’t reconcile coming from the church I was attending. And that is what brought me to early church study. I wanted to know how early Christians understood the faith that was delivered to them. What I learned over the past ten years or so from my early church study is that many of the claims of the Catholic Church are unfounded. My goal is to try to bring people to that same place I found myself many years ago; a place that challenges them enough to drop their ideological thinking and approach history objectively. I don’t care one bit who believes me, it’s not about me. My hope is that folks will be inspired to dig into these things for themselves. It makes no difference to me what conclusions they come to. I can’t change people’s minds I can only challenge them.

If I’m not mistaken, that comes from Cardinal John Henry Newman. He said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant” I have no idea how to define Protestant outside the context of the reformation. I know very little about the reformation or Protestant history. I find it disingenuous that many Catholics paint every non-Catholic Christian as Protestant, because doing so allows them to unfairly pit one group against another in order to demonstrate how screwed up Protestants are. A tree is known by its fruit.

Yes, well nothing or anyone in this world is perfect.
The perfection of it all is only in what Jesus Christ did on the cross for all God’s children. We in the Church pray everyday for that unity of perfection. God bless you with all Truth in your search,Brian.Peace, Carlan

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Yes, well nothing or anyone in this world is perfect.
The perfection of it all is only in what Jesus Christ did on the cross for all God’s children. We in the Church pray everyday for that unity of perfection. God bless you with all Truth in your search,Brian.Peace, Carlan

There lies our common ground. Thanks Carlan!

 

[josephdaniel29]

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.

Unless of course you were united to Rome during the reign of Honorius. It’s odd that your list doesn’t note that he subscribed to the heresy of monothelitism.

And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines. - Session XIII of the Sixth Ecumenical Council

To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema! - Session XVI

And by the way, I noticed your list doesn’t include the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Can you list the heresies that see has fallen to?

In Christ
Joe

 

[joe370]

Joseph, speaking as a former non-Catholic who almost considered the EOC, I can tell you that I have research the facts surrounding the controversial matter of Honorius and the following sums it up best:

catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp

What is your response to the OP by the way???

Unless of course you were united to Rome during the reign of Honorius. It’s odd that your list doesn’t note that he subscribed to the heresy of monothelitism.

And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines. - Session XIII of the Sixth Ecumenical Council

To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema! - Session XVI

And by the way, I noticed your list doesn’t include the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Can you list the heresies that see has fallen to?

In Christ
Joe

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

Brian,

As someone else pointed out, it’s not insignificant that Peter was the one who made the decision about the Gentiles in Acts 15. In Matt 16, Jesus is referring to the rite of succession described in Isaiah 22: 20-22. In Isaiah, Eliakim is succeeding Shebna in the office of prime ministry and he is given the keys of the House of David which “he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open”. Since Jesus is the king of the House of David, he gives Peter the Keys to the Kingdom appointing him as his first prime minister with the authority to bind and loose.

Since you mentioned Irenaeus, allow me to quote him here,
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

According to Irenaeus, Peter and Paul founded and organized the church at Rome. According to Irenaeus, the Roman church is the greatest and most ancient church of all. The church of Rome has a superior origin and all other churches must agree with her and she maintains the apostolic tradition. Here is another quote from Irenaeus,

“The blessed apostles, then having founded and built the Church (in Rome), committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate…To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric…In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethern at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians…To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then…Sixtus (the list continues)… In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the turth, have come down to us.” [Against Heresies III, 3, 3]

Given that according to Irenaeus Peter and Paul founded the church of Rome and handed the office of episcopate to Linus, I see no contradiction in holding that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. There are many other writings from Early church fathers that elaborate on this topic before the bible was canonized in the 4th century.

Pope Clement used his authority to quell the dispute in Corinth. What evidence is inconsistent with the claim that he had universal authority?

When you mentioned Ignatius’s letter to the Romans if you would have provided the entire quote, then your claim that his authority was limited to the region of the Romans wouldn’t be as persuasive. Here’s the whole quote,

“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

Later in the epistle he says, “You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1)

Ignatius says the See of Rome teaches others. Ignatius desires the see of Rome’s instructions to remain in force. Ignatius says the Church of Rome is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God and is worthy of honor, God, highest happiness, praise, credit, etc.

The claim that the Catholic church was started under Pope Leo 1 and not until him did the church have universal authority is refuted by the writings of the church fathers prior to Leo such as the quotes I have provided already and more writings from Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, etc.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Joseph, speaking as a former non-Catholic who almost considered the EOC, I can tell you that I have research the facts surrounding the controversial matter of Honorius and the following sums it up best:

catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp

That may in fact be the worst summary I’ve ever read on the subject. I can’t imagine that you dug very deep if you think that is a good summary.

What is your response to the OP by the way???

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church was founded on Pentecost. The modern Roman Church came into existence after a long, slow process of estrangement culminating with the excommunications of 1054 and finally the Latin sack of Constantinople in 1204. In short, you can’t point to a single person as the founder of the Roman Church as many, many individuals over many centuries contributed to the slow separation of the Roman See from the rest of the Church.

In Christ
Joe

 

[joe370]

josephdaniel29;7515908]That may in fact be the worst summary I’ve ever read on the subject. I can’t imagine that you dug very deep if you think that is a good summary.

Of course it is. I would expect nothing less from you. LOL…You tell me what really went down. I am no scholar; perhaps you are, and you can sum it up better??? Pm me if you want, for I do not want to derail the thread.

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church was founded on Pentecost. The modern Roman Church came into existence after a long, slow process of estrangement culminating with the excommunications of 1054 and finally the Latin sack of Constantinople in 1204. In short, you can’t point to a single person as the founder of the Roman Church as many, many individuals over many centuries contributed to the slow separation of the Roman See from the rest of the Church.

So you are suggesting that your church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded on Pentecost? To which EOC do you belong again??

By the way, it was a mutual excommunication.

I too could say: The modern and myriad Eastern Orthodox Churches came into existence after a long, slow process of estrangement culminating with the excommunications of 1054 and finally the Latin sack of Constantinople in 1204, but I can’t do that because they too can trace their lineage all the way back to the apostolic age.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Of course it is. I would expect nothing less from you. LOL…You tell me what really went down. I am no scholar; perhaps you are, and you can sum it up better??? Pm me if you want, for I do not want to derail the thread.

I am no scholar and have no desire to argue this again.

So you are suggesting that your church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded on Pentecost?

Yes of course.

To which EOC do you belong again??

The Orthodox Church in America.

To which of the myriad of Catholic Churches do you belong?

By the way, it was a mutual excommunication.

And?

I too could say: The modern and myriad Eastern Orthodox Churches came into existence after a long, slow process of estrangement culminating with the excommunications of 1054 and finally the Latin sack of Constantinople in 1204, but I can’t do that because they too can trace their lineage all the way back to the apostolic age.

You could, but that’s not really the topic of this thread is it?

In Christ
Joe