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

[joe370]

You are going to have to define what you mean by “in communion with Rome.” Otherwise we are just talking two different languages.

And don’t you mean 5th century?

The church to which catholics here at CAF belong - is the church to which I am referring. And yes, I meant 5th century; thanks for the correction.

Your claim is that Leo founded the CC in communion with Rome in the 5th century, even though Leo was merely a successor of a succession of bishops in Rome, already belonging to, and leading the CC in communion with Rome, well before Leo came on to the scene.

How can Leo be the founder of the CC, in communion with Rome (in the 5th century) - considering the fact that Leo was merely a successor of a succession of Bishops belonging to leading the CC in communion with Rome?

 

[frnate]

Yeah, let’s get that one out of the way. I know of no one in the protestant sphere who is willing to suggest that Constantine was the founder of the Catholic Church, so we can move on…

Try John MacArthur. I have heard it from his own lips.

++N

 

[joe370]

try john macarthur. I have heard it from his own lips.

++n

lol…lol…

 

[frnate]

Try John MacArthur. I have heard it from his own lips.

++N

Actually I must make a retraction. It was not a tape of John MacArthur that my friend forced upon me when I told him I had become Catholic. Rather it was David Jeremiah who told a most fantastical version of Church history that included Constantine as the founder of the “Roman Catholic Institution.” I might add that I had heard bits and pieces of this all my life having been born and raised in the Independent Baptist tradition. My apologies to Mr. MacArthur. (Though it wouldn’t surprise me to hear that he believed it as well. I just haven’t heard it from his own lips.)

++N

 

[Brian_Culliton]

The church to which catholics here at CAF belong - is the church to which I am referring. And yes, I meant 5th century; thanks for the correction.

Your claim is that Leo founded the CC in communion with Rome in the 5th century, even though Leo was merely a successor of a succession of bishops in Rome, already belonging to, and leading the CC in communion with Rome, well before Leo came on to the scene.

How can Leo be the founder of the CC, in communion with Rome (in the 5th century) - considering the fact that Leo was merely a successor of a succession of Bishops belonging to leading the CC in communion with Rome?

I’m still not getting you. If you are referring to the church in Rome as a universal authority over the other churches, I will have to go with Leo I because he was the one that secured the authority. (The Copts might have a different take on this however) That authority was greatly reduced at the time of the reformation.

If you are referring to the church in Rome, which is what you alluded to by pointing to the succession of bishops, then I will say the apostles, Peter and Paul, founded that church and appointed Linus to the episcopate. Likewise, the same two apostles founded the church in Antioch and appointed Evodius to the episcopate. (References: Irenaeus and Eusebius)

Final answer.

 

[joe370]

I’m still not getting you. If you are referring to the church in Rome as a universal authority over the other churches, I will have to go with Leo I because he was the one that secured the authority. (The Copts might have a different take on this however) That authority was greatly reduced at the time of the reformation.

If you are referring to the church in Rome, which is what you alluded to by pointing to the succession of bishops, then I will say the apostles, Peter and Paul, founded that church and appointed Linus to the episcopate. Likewise, the same two apostles founded the church in Antioch and appointed Evodius to the episcopate. (References: Irenaeus and Eusebius)

Final answer.

I am not sure why you were not getting me? The idea that the church in Rome has universal authority over the other churches is irrelevant to the OP, but thanks for answering the question.

So, Peter and Paul founded the Catholic Church in Rome and Antioch. No doubt they started many more churches as well. Do you believe that these catholic churches can trace their lineage all the way back to Pentecost?

 

[Radical]

If you are referring to the church in Rome, which is what you alluded to by pointing to the succession of bishops, then I will say the apostles, Peter and Paul, founded that church and appointed Linus to the episcopate. Likewise, the same two apostles founded the church in Antioch and appointed Evodius to the episcopate. (References: Irenaeus and Eusebius)

Final answer.

Brian, I am sure that if you thought about it, you would conclude that Paul and Peter didn’t found the local church at Rome…Paul writes to the Roman Church (w/o mentioning Peter) before he goes there…which would indicate that some other guy was the first to establish a church at Rome.

 

[Radical]

I am not sure why you were not getting me?

Try looking at it from this perspective…Who invented (founded) the game of American Football? Like the CC it started from something and developed with innovative changes being made to the rules (doctrines)…It isn’t the same game that was first called football in the US…a player from 1890 wouldn’t be at home on the field today, nor would a bishop from 4th century Carthage be at home in a Catholic Church today.

 

[guanophore]

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

Actually, it is quite possible that there were Jews from Rome at Pentecost, and they were among th 3000 that day. When the returned to Rome, they fellowshipped together, though they had not yet been visited by an Apostle.

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.

There was a church alive and well in Rome, though the Magesterium was still located in Jerusalem.

Sometime over the next decade Paul wrote a letter to the church in Rome.

Testifying in that letter that their faith was known “throughout the world” and that he had not yet visited the Church there.

He also refers to not planting in another’s field, which seems to be a reference to another Apostle or designate that had labored in Rome prior to his letter.

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.

You lost me here. What do you mean “no longer in Rome”? He died 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.

There are bishopric lines from Peter in Antioch, also, that were established before the Apostolic line of Peter was started in Rome.

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.

No, and neither does Rome claim that “universal authority” means that valid authority does not exist elsewhere It was just that, because of the foundation laid there by Peter and Paul, the doctrinal base was so solid that all churches were expected to be in communion with 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.

The fact that Rome was the central see for the Latins does not subtract from the universal influence of the see.

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.

This does not mean that Jesus would not work through people to govern the Church. Are you suggesting that the bishops served apart from Jesus overseeeing His Church?

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.

No. Bishops in all the early communities were appointed and succeeded locally. Rome was only sought when the settlements of disputes was needed.

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.

This is certainly consistent with the Apostolic instruction that they “submit to one another”.

Jesus was quite clear that they were to serve one another, and not “lord it over” as the Gentiles did.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I dont think this assertion can be substantiated. Individual opinions are not the same as the church.

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.

NOt at all, Brian. All it clearly demonstrates is that local problems can be authoritatively handled locally. the presence of authority in other places does not equat to an “absence” of authority in others.

If there was any central authority at this time is apparently lost whatever control it might have had.

No, Brian. You are looking back into history and making assumptions based upon your own experience. On the contrary, at that time, it was illegal for Christians to gather, much less have ecumencal councils. If they were caught corresponding, or in posession of the Scriptures, they got the death penalty. They did not have the civil freedom to practice any “central authority”.

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).

I think your are looking at this from a secular point of view. The fact that all the Apostolic sees posessed the same authority does not mean they tried to subjugate one another.

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

And that had to do primarily with the Edict of Milan, which removed the criminal penalty from being Christian.

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

Nice try Brian

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Brian, I am sure that if you thought about it, you would conclude that Paul and Peter didn’t found the local church at Rome…Paul writes to the Roman Church (w/o mentioning Peter) before he goes there…which would indicate that some other guy was the first to establish a church at Rome.

I don’t think there is any doubt that Peter was not in Rome when Paul wrote that letter, and I stated such in an earlier post. But I think we need to give credence to the tradition that Peter was in Rome around the time the church there was established – at least for the sake of argument since it is supported by credible sources. It is quite possible that Peter had nothing to do with founding that church, but I am going to accept the tradition as a valid possibility.

If we accept Irenaeus’ tradition that both Peter and Paul founded the local church in Rome, and consider the implications of Paul writing to that church while Peter was still alive, we have irrefutable evidence that Peter was never the bishop of that church.

Since Paul was no longer in Rome when he wrote his letter, and the church there was obviously well established, the act of appointing Linus to the episcopate must have already taken place. I see no way around that.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Guanophore,

Please tell me which of these opposing views of yours is the one you actually believe.

“Testifying in that letter that their faith was known “throughout the world” and that he had not yet visited the Church there. He also refers to not planting in another’s field, which seems to be a reference to another Apostle or designate that had labored in Rome prior to his letter.”

“No, and neither does Rome claim that “universal authority” means that valid authority does not exist elsewhere It was just that, because of the foundation laid there by Peter and Paul, the doctrinal base was so solid that all churches were expected to be in communion with Rome.”

Who founded the church in Rome Guanophore?

On the contrary, at that time, it was illegal for Christians to gather, much less have ecumencal councils. If they were caught corresponding, or in posession of the Scriptures, they got the death penalty. They did not have the civil freedom to practice any “central authority”.

On the contrary, it was not illegal for Christians to gather at that time. In fact, Christians were enjoying great liberty according to Eusebius who lived at the time. He even credits that liberty as the catalyst for all the problems the church encountered. Maybe you didn’t understand that I was referring to the time just before the Great Persecution.

The following is from Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 8:1:

“1. It is beyond our ability to describe in a suitable manner the extent and nature of the glory and freedom with which the word of piety toward the God of the universe, proclaimed to the world through Christ, was honored among all men, both Greeks and barbarians, before the persecution in our day.

1. The favor shown our people by the rulers might be adduced as evidence; as they committed to them the government of provinces, and on account of the great friendship which they entertained toward their doctrine, released them from anxiety in regard to sacrificing.
2. Why need I speak of those in the royal palaces, and of the rulers over all, who allowed the members of their households, wives and children and servants, to speak openly before them for the Divine word and life, and suffered them almost to boast of the freedom of their faith?
3. Indeed they esteemed them highly, and preferred them to their fellow-servants. Such an one was that Dorotheus, the most devoted and faithful to them of all, and on this account especially honored by them among those who held the most honorable offices and governments. With him was the celebrated Gorgonius, and as many as had been esteemed worthy of the same distinction on account of the word of God.
4. And one could see the rulers in every church accorded the greatest favor by all officers and governors. But how can any one describe those vast assemblies, and the multitude that crowded together in every city, and the famous gatherings in the houses of prayer; on whose account not being satisfied with the ancient buildings they erected from the foundation large churches in all the cities?
5. No envy hindered the progress of these affairs which advanced gradually, and grew and increased day by day. Nor could any evil demon slander them or hinder them through human counsels, so long as the divine and heavenly hand watched over and guarded his own people as worthy.
6. But when on account of the abundant freedom, we fell into laxity and sloth, and envied and reviled each other, and were almost, as it were, taking up arms against one another, rulers assailing rulers with words like spears, and people forming parties against people, and monstrous hypocrisy and dissimulation rising to the greatest height of wickedness, the divine judgment with forbearance, as is its pleasure, while the multitudes yet continued to assemble, gently and moderately harassed the episcopacy.”

 

[joe370]

Brian Culliton what is your response to post 105?

 

[Brian_Culliton]

I am not sure why you were not getting me? The idea that the church in Rome has universal authority over the other churches is irrelevant to the OP, but thanks for answering the question.

So, Peter and Paul founded the Catholic Church in Rome and Antioch. No doubt they started many more churches as well. Do you believe that these catholic churches can trace their lineage all the way back to Pentecost?

I don’t know. I also don’t see why a lineage matters. Is that what you think matters?

 

[joe370]

I don’t know. I also don’t see why a lineage matters. Is that what you think matters?

What matters to me here, on this thread, is the question: Who do protestants believe, founded the catholic church! I have started another thread regarding apostolic succession if lineage is something you want to address? As former protestant, I simply could not identify the name of the man that founded the catholic church, as I could with every protestant church. So far you have suggested Leo and then the apostles Peter and Paul, as the founder of the RCC.

 

[guanophore]

Guanophore,

Please tell me which of these opposing views of yours is the one you actually believe.

"guanophore:

“Testifying in that letter that their faith was known “throughout the world” and that he had not yet visited the Church there. He also refers to not planting in another’s field, which seems to be a reference to another Apostle or designate that had labored in Rome prior to his letter.”

“No, and neither does Rome claim that “universal authority” means that valid authority does not exist elsewhere It was just that, because of the foundation laid there by Peter and Paul, the doctrinal base was so solid that all churches were expected to be in communion with Rome.

I am sorry, Brian. I do not see these as opposing points, but two complimentary peices of information. Perhaps you can help me understand how you see that they “oppose” each other?
”

Who founded the church in Rome Guanophore?

That depends upon what you mean by “founded”. If there were Jews from Rome in Jerusalem at Pentecost, and they were among those converted and baptized, they returned to Rome as a fledgling Christian community.

Clearly at the time of Paul’s epistle, he had not yet been to Rome, and it was commonly accepted that no other Aposlte had either.

It is also historically demonstratable that Peter and Paul both ended up in Rome, giving Apostolic foundation to that community that was unmatched anywhere in the Empire.
Clearly there was a Christian community already in existence when they arrived.

 

[Heliotropium]

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

Oh so now it’s the Roman See that separated from the rest of the Church? Must be why the Roman See stopped presiding over those ecumenical councils…oh wait that’s the EOC that no longer participated in those because they separated from the rest of the Church and are no longer in communion with the bishop of Rome. Well can’t wait until you come back:thumbsup:

 

[Radical]

I don’t think there is any doubt that Peter was not in Rome when Paul wrote that letter, and I stated such in an earlier post. But I think we need to give credence to the tradition that Peter was in Rome around the time the church there was established – at least for the sake of argument since it is supported by credible sources.

what credible sources do you have in mind?

If we accept Irenaeus’ tradition that both Peter and Paul founded the local church in Rome, and consider the implications of Paul writing to that church while Peter was still alive, we have irrefutable evidence that Peter was never the bishop of that church.

It seems that (with respect to the situation at the time of 1st Clement) there is a “general agreement among scholars that the structure of ministry in the church of Rome at this time would have resembled that in Corinth: with a group of presbyters sharing leadership, perhaps with a differentiation of roles among them, but with no one bishop in charge.” (Sullivan in From Apostles to Bishops p 100) The idea that Peter was the first bishop (aka Pope) and then appointed Linus as his successor is not well received (any more) by the historians (who have studied the traditions/sources). I am inclined to agree with the scholars rather than give Catholic claims the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Irish_Polock]

It seems that (with respect to the situation at the time of 1st Clement) there is a “general agreement among scholars that the structure of ministry in the church of Rome at this time would have resembled that in Corinth: with a group of presbyters sharing leadership, perhaps with a differentiation of roles among them, but with no one bishop in charge.” (Sullivan in From Apostles to Bishops p 100)

I feel you are taking Sullivan out of context here, could you cite the entire context?

The idea that Peter was the first bishop (aka Pope) and then appointed Linus as his successor is not well received (any more) by the historians (who have studied the traditions/sources). I am inclined to agree with the scholars rather than give Catholic claims the benefit of the doubt.

Would you mind referencing or citing your said historians? Understandably this would be a difficulty; after all even the a few ECF’s disagreed with one another on the matter - although, weather it was Linus, or Clement, the Roman Churches apostolic succession is valid and I am sure the historians (who have studied the traditions/sources) could not honestly disagree with said validity.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

what credible sources do you have in mind?

It seems that (with respect to the situation at the time of 1st Clement) there is a “general agreement among scholars that the structure of ministry in the church of Rome at this time would have resembled that in Corinth: with a group of presbyters sharing leadership, perhaps with a differentiation of roles among them, but with no one bishop in charge.” (Sullivan in From Apostles to Bishops p 100) The idea that Peter was the first bishop (aka Pope) and then appointed Linus as his successor is not well received (any more) by the historians (who have studied the traditions/sources). I am inclined to agree with the scholars rather than give Catholic claims the benefit of the doubt.

I said give credence to the ancient tradition, not to Catholic claims. Catholic claims are all over the place. Some claim that Peter was in Rome during the reign of Claudius. This comes from Eusebius’ E.H. 2:14. Others say that Barnabas was the first to preach the Gospel in Rome. This comes from Pseudo-Clementine literature and tends to support what you and Guanophore are saying. Others accept the idea that both Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome. This comes from Irenaeus’ A.H. 3:1.

There is no doubt that Irenaeus promoted some false views, for example, Jesus being 50 years old at the time of His crucifixion. It is entirely possible that Irenaeus was just propagating false tradition when he said Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome. The point is I don’t know, and he seemed to believe it.

We do know that Paul preached in Corinth and there were certain persons who heard him there and went to Rome, namely, Epaenetus (Rom. 16:5). The fact that Paul can mention over 50 people in his letter to the church in Rome says something about his influence in the founding of that church, whether physically there or not. The fact that Paul “desired” to preach the Gospel to the church in Rome indicates that he had not done so before. But evidence from the same letter also indicates that Paul’s preaching did reach Rome. And that may be why he is attributed with the founding of that church. The traditions of Peter being in Rome, one of which I mentioned above, may very well have merged with other traditions which culminated in Irenaeus’ claim.

But having said all that, there is not one single tradition that supports the dogmatic claim of the Roman Catholic Church that says Peter was a bishop of Rome. Not one! You can present you case any way you like, but for me, I’m going to follow the Apostle Paul’s example, who became “all things to all people.” If giving credence to a viable tradition that was believed by a well known second century bishop allows me to demonstrate the folly of a Catholic claim, I’m going to do it.