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

[guanophore]

Quoting something from the late fourth century that expresses what was generally believed at that time is not valid tradition of the origins of the Roman church.

Why do you suppose it was “generally believed”?

yep, but the problem with this chest thumping is that the historical evidence (NT included) does not establish (to the satisfaction of those nasty scholars) that Peter was ever the bishop of Rome or that he appointed a successor in Rome to possess the claimed primacy…tis odd how the posters on this thread seem to be at odds with Catholic historians (as to what can be established by the historical evidence).

Can you imagine any condition in which Peter and Paul were laboring together in Rome and they would NOT be perceived as episkopos? Are there any "elders’ that may have been in Rome at the time that might have thought they had more authority than Jesus gave to Peter and Paul?

Well, we can rule out Cyprian and Irenaeus. What else you got?

I must have missed a post. Why would we rule them out?

 

[guanophore]

(quoting Sullivan):

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)

Part of the problem with this is that the role of bishop here seems to be conflated with that of presbyter. The Apostles appointed episkopos, and charged them with appointing presybeters and deacons.

Do you honestly believe that a group of elders, if visited by an Apostle or one an Apostle sent, would not yield to their authority?
"sullivan:

"There exists a broad consensus among scholars, including most Catholic ones, that such churches as those in Alexandria, Philippi, Corinth and Rome most probably continued to be led for some time by a college of presbyters, and that only during the course of the second century did the threefold structure become generally the rule, with a bishop, assisted by presbyters, presiding over each local church.

I agree that the structure of the leadership did develop, including the role of the bishop. However, I can’t imagine any college of presbyters (unless they are heretics and schizmatics) not yielding to an Apostle when he was present. To apply this model to Rome would necessitate Peter and Paul NEVER being in Rome, much less laboring there together until they were martyred.

sullivan:

One conclusion seems obvious: Neither the New Testament nor early Christian history offers support for a notion of apostolic succession as ‘an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today.’

Do you not see apostolic succession in the NT and the early church?

sullivan:

Clearly, such a simplistic approach to the problem will not do.

Two questions. One, what is the “problem” perceived here. Second, in what way is an unbroken successon of bishops a “simplistic approach”?

sullivan:

On the other hand, many reputable Catholic scholars, who share the consensus regarding the gradual development of the episcopate in the early church, remain convinced that we do have solid grounds for holding that bishops are the successors of the apostles.

There is no doubt that the role and duties of the bishop developed in both understanding and importance.

sullivan:

Such scholars agree that along with the evidence from the New Testament and early Christian documents, one must invoke a theological argument based on Christian faith to arrive at the conclusion that bishops are the successors of the apostles ‘by divine institution.’

I find this the most surprising statement in all of your quote. I just am totally flummoxed that anyone can read the NT and not see that the installation of bishops as successors to the Apostles is a divine institution. Is he saying it is not there, or that it is there, but did not come from God?

sullivan:

At the same time, they insist that the evidence from the New Testament and early Christian literature is crucial, and must be treated with scholarly integrity. It is counterproductive to put forth arguments that will not stand the test of critical exegesis or historical investigation."

It seems odd to say this and then not follow it…

So there you have it… among historians the idea that, from historical evidence, one can prove that the Papacy was established by Peter installing a bishop in Rome (and a lineage of legitimate successors continued therefrom) is as good as dead.

Was anyone here claiming this?

Jesus is the one who chose Peter, and installed him with certain gifts and responsibilities. Jesus is the one who gave him the responsibility to feed and care for the sheep. It happened a couple decades before Peter ever got to Rome!

All the Apostles appointed successors. There is a Petrine succession of bishops from Antioch that is older than the one in Rome.

I am going to wait until I hear from you on succession in scripture so I don’t make assumptions that you agree with these “scholars”.

As Sullivan points out, there are theological reasons to believe in the Papacy, but as such, it is a belief one arrives at through faith and not through historical evidence.

For most of us, it is both.

 

[guanophore]

a) Why would it follow that the Holy Spirit guided the Church in properly establishing its governance by bishops merely because the Holy Spirit guided the Church so that it could properly identify the NT canon (the two matters being very different in nature);

It was the other way around. The bishops that were in the apostolic succession are the ones who were used by the HS to close the canon of scripture. If they really had no apostolic authority, then we can’t depend upon the canon, either.

and

b) Why would it follow that governance by bishops is the divine plan for all time when it wasn’t the method of governance immediately following the passing of the apostles?

Since I see this method of governance in the NT and the early fathers, I have no reason to believe that it would be “discontinued” before He comes again.

hopefully it is something that can be intelligently discussed after both sides have fulfilled their duty to look after the orphans and widows in their distress.

Good point.

BTW an intelligent discussion does not include insistence that “the gates of hell passage” means that the CC can’t err, b/c from over here, that appears to be about as self-serving and as forced as an interpretation can get.

The church did not make it up, so how can it be self serving? It was Jesus’ promise. Don’t you think He can keep His promises? Teaching error causes the flock to pass through the gates of hell.

The reason the Church cannot err is because her Head is Christ, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. These divine elements of the Church make her infallible.

 Tell you what, since I have the authority on my side, why don’t you start by listing a scholar who has put forward the claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and that he appointed Linus as his monarchical successor (in the last 25 years in a work intended for peer review).

I have always had trouble with this notion. The Apostles were appointed by Christ Himself, and their role was distinct and above all the others. Bishops are those who succeeded them.I also just cannot picture an Apostle coming to Rome,and the local Church not being in submission to them.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Very interesting topic; ask any Jewish authority today and they will reveal that Jesus Christ founded the Roman Catholic Church. See the secular britannica encyclopedia under “papacy” and you will find the Roman Catholic popes succeeded from Peter. These religious and secular historians both agree that Jesus founded the Roman Catholic Church. In fact a secular Jewish columnist records Jesus founded the Roman Catholic church under Ann Landers. Does your scholars predate Jewish and secular history to make such a denial? when facts prove that those who lived in these time periods record a pope succeeded from Peter in every age of their history both Jewish religious and secular.

History has more witnesses proving Jesus founded the Roman Catholic church upon Peter than a scholarly opinion from afar who did not live during these times, which limits your scholars to only what he/she can view from ones limited resources from a library research. This does not equate with fact from those who lived in this time period.

Radical;7533184]

You want me to list those who constitute the consensus? Well, that is kinda the reason one cites an authority, so one doesn’t have to list the details. Tell you what, since I have the authority on my side, why don’t you start by listing a scholar who has put forward the claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and that he appointed Linus as his monarchical successor (in the last 25 years in a work intended for peer review).

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Brian Culliton, what I have gathered is, you believe that the CC was founded by either Pope Leo or, Peter and Paul, as opposed to Jesus Christ. Here is a simple question deserving a simple answer:

You said that the Catholic Church was not founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, and I can prove that Jesus Christ is not the founder of any of the non-Catholic churches circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, so where in the world today, can you and I find the church founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost?

It’s everywhere. And the fact that you can’t see it explains why you swam the Tiber.

 

[joe370]

Brian Culliton, as I suspected, your answer to the following question is, “It’s everywhere. And the fact that you can’t see it explains why you swam the Tiber.”

By saying* “And the fact that you can’t see it explains why you swam the Tiber”* - is rather presumptuous but that’s OK; I understand why you said it. From where you stand, I would expect nothing less.

Your answer to the question, where in the world today, can you and I find the church founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost - is **“everywhere.” **

Brian, thank you for admitting that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ for the Catholic Church is everywhere, more so than any other church!

 

[Cat_Herder]

It’s everywhere. And the fact that you can’t see it explains why you swam the Tiber.

What I saw on the other side of the Tiber were divisions and various deviations from the Bible. Divorce when the Lord said man must not separate a husband and wife. Abortion when the Lord said not to kill or sacrifice children. Squabbling over whether and when to baptize, and whether to use wine or grape juice in the Lord’s Supper, and what the meaning of the word “is” is. Absolutely no penance.

That’s not to say that there is no good to be found in Protestantism. But there is no cohesive effort within Protestantism to actually engage in spiritual warfare. Anyone can run a charity; not everyone can deliver from demons. The only ones who even realize there is a war going on are the Pentecostals and some of the Baptists but they are too busy fighting each other and trying to go it alone to put on any serious offensive against the real enemy.

At some point our egos must yield and we must deny ourselves, take up our crosses and follow the Lord–and that means doing everything He did, not just what is easy and convenient. And you can’t do that as a Protestant.

 

[Radical]

Part of the problem with this is that the role of bishop here seems to be conflated with that of presbyter. The Apostles appointed episkopos, and charged them with appointing presybeters and deacons.

as indicated, the book is available for preview at google books…If you search in the book for “Jones” one result should be page 219. You could start reading there where Sullivan deals with “episkopos”.

Do you honestly believe that a group of elders, if visited by an Apostle or one an Apostle sent, would not yield to their authority?

I believe that they would yield…maybe Paul would have to remind them of his position, before they would do so. I don’t see how this establishes anything for your position. I don’t think any congregation would have thought that they had the authority to remove an apostle, but the congregation at Corinth most certainly thought it had the authority to remove its leaders (see 1st Clement). Clement never argues that a congregation can’t toss out its leaders, but argues that the leaders at Corinth were wrongly tossed out (b/c they had preformed well).

I agree that the structure of the leadership did develop, including the role of the bishop. However, I can’t imagine any college of presbyters (unless they are heretics and schizmatics) not yielding to an Apostle when he was present. To apply this model to Rome would necessitate Peter and Paul NEVER being in Rome, much less laboring there together until they were martyred.

You seem to be equating the position of “apostle” with that of “bishop”. Why?

Do you not see apostolic succession in the NT and the early church?

Not as presented by the Vatican…not in the NT, nor in the Apostolic fathers

Two questions. One, what is the “problem” perceived here.

I am at work now, don’t have my book here, but IIRC it would be justifying the authority claimed by the CC for its bishops.

Second, in what way is an unbroken successon of bishops a “simplistic approach”?

b/c the idea that Peter presided as a bishop in Rome and that he then appointed Linus to succeed him etc. is not the way the majority of scholars think it actually happened (after having examined the evidence)…it is simplistic and inaccurate.

I find this the most surprising statement in all of your quote. I just am totally flummoxed that anyone can read the NT and not see that the installation of bishops as successors to the Apostles is a divine institution. Is he saying it is not there, or that it is there, but did not come from God?

Flummoxed? Are you flabbergasted as well? Perhaps you need to listen more to those who don’t share your point of view…b/c that is exactly what Sullivan is saying; namely that the NT and Apostolic fathers (the evidence) do not establish the “installation of bishops as successors to the Apostles”…let alone that it was a divine institution…and please keep in mind Sullivan is describing the general consensus of the scholars.

It seems odd to say this and then not follow it…

I am not sure what you think Sullivan said and didn’t follow.

Was anyone here claiming this?

I believe so, but if it isn’t what you would claim, please note that Sullivan would not endorse this claim: the NT demonstrates that the Apostles installed bishops as their successors …which seems to be your claim and he would add that the scholarly consensus is in agreement with him. Please also keep in mind that Sullivan believes (for theological reasons, but not for historical reasons) in the Catholic form of governance. Talk to protestant scholars and they will be even less sympathetic to your claims.

Jesus is the one who chose Peter, and installed him with certain gifts and responsibilities. Jesus is the one who gave him the responsibility to feed and care for the sheep. It happened a couple decades before Peter ever got to Rome!

And? The apostles were subordinate to Jesus. The first leaders appointed by the apostles were subordinate to them. If you want to use the first two links in the chain as a precedent you are stuck with ever diminishing authority…or, said another way, the apostles were of a different class from Jesus and the first leaders were of a still different class from the apostles. How, in your opinion, does Jesus choosing Peter establish apostloic succession?

All the Apostles appointed successors. There is a Petrine succession of bishops from Antioch that is older than the one in Rome.

is there any good proof of this claim? By “good proof” I mean proof that would satisfy scholars and not proof that would satisfy those who want to justify the Catholic claims.

I am going to wait until I hear from you on succession in scripture so I don’t make assumptions that you agree with these “scholars”.

I agree with them

For most of us, it is both.

that is Sullivan’s point…it has to be both, b/c the historical evidence simply isn’t good enough to make the case by itself…you have to buy into Catholic theological arguments in order to arrive at the Vatican’s position WRT apostolic succession.

 

[Cat_Herder]

that is Sullivan’s point…it has to be both, b/c the historical evidence simply isn’t good enough to make the case by itself…you have to buy into Catholic theological arguments in order to arrive at the Vatican’s position WRT apostolic succession.

Jesus said:

[BIBLEDRB]Mt 24:35[/BIBLEDRB]

Jesus promises quite clearly that none of His words–His teachings–will pass away. One needs only to look at the doctrinal spats between all of the denominations to realize that no one agrees on what His Word is; this church claims this teaching is His Word and that one claims another.

Apostolic succession is not just a succession of bishops, it is a succession of teaching and that sense is clear from the Bible. Only the Catholic Church has been around since day one and only the see of Rome has been free of heresy since day one (see for yourself).

 

[Radical]

Very interesting topic; ask any Jewish authority today and they will reveal that Jesus Christ founded the Roman Catholic Church… In fact a secular Jewish columnist records Jesus founded the Roman Catholic church under Ann Landers.

Ann Landers? Your authority is Ann Landers? …are you kidding me? How could one possibly refute an appeal to Ann Landers (unless, of course, Oprah has weighed in on the matter…she does weigh in a fair bit, you know)

 

[Radical]

Jesus said:

[BIBLEDRB]Mt 24:35[/BIBLEDRB]

Jesus promises quite clearly that none of His words–His teachings–will pass away. One needs only to look at the doctrinal spats between all of the denominations to realize that no one agrees on what His Word is; this church claims this teaching is His Word and that one claims another.

Apostolic succession is not just a succession of bishops, it is a succession of teaching and that sense is clear from the Bible. Only the Catholic Church has been around since day one and only the see of Rome has been free of heresy since day one (see for yourself).

This is exactly the sort of argument that won’t be accepted by historians…yes, you quote an ancient historical text, but to it, you apply a self-serving interpretation that simply wouldn’t fly in “open court”. Your interpretation must be above debate in order to establish anything remotely approaching a proof.

 

[Cat_Herder]

This is exactly the sort of argument that won’t be accepted by historians…yes, you quote an ancient historical text, but to it, you apply a self-serving interpretation that simply wouldn’t fly in “open court”. Your interpretation must be above debate in order to establish anything remotely approaching a proof.

So you don’t care about what Jesus did or didn’t actually teach and whether your church does or doesn’t keep those teachings. You’d rather hear it from the History Channel.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I would say Celestine I, styled “Bishop of the Roman Church” (c. 430), who helped precipitate the split between the Roman and Byzantine Churches with the Churches of the East.

I would argue that we see here first a particularly vivid illustration of the exercise of Roman authority over against other churches–in a similar way that the Catholic Church sees itself and views its own authority today.

 

[joe370]

I would say Celestine I, styled “Bishop of the Roman Church” (c. 430), who helped precipitate the split between the Roman and Byzantine Churches with the Churches of the East.

I would argue that we see here first a particularly vivid illustration of the exercise of Roman authority over against other churches–in a similar way that the Catholic Church sees itself and views its own authority today.

I understand. Of course you are not claiming that Celestine I was the founder of the CC?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I understand. Of course you are not claiming that Celestine I was the founder of the CC?

As a self-understood, distinct ecclesial entity with authority instilled in the Bishop of Rome over, above, and apart from the other bishops of the world, then yes. As the church universal, then no; of course not.

 

[joe370]

As a self-understood, distinct ecclesial entity with authority instilled in the Bishop of Rome over, above, and apart from the other bishops of the world, then yes. As the church universal, then no; of course not.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding but it seems that you are suggesting that the Catholic Church to which I belong was founded by Celestine I?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding but it seems that you are suggesting that the Catholic Church to which I belong was founded by Celestine I?

I guess it all depends on how you see yourself as part of the church, or how you define the Catholic Church. As we have discussed before, I think history clearly shows several churches with apostolic origins co-existing, basically from the beginning of Christianity, which can all also be understood as component parts of the universal church, but with independent leaders that may or may not have consulted with each other on various matters (such as the canon of the OT, as we have discussed.)

Basically, the church prior to Ephesus could be understood as one church, at least at some level, but once Celestine I decides on his own, independent of a council (i.e., the Pope teaching in union with the world’s bishops), to take actions which in essence excommunicate the Churches of the East–we’re talking about entire churches here, not just some heretical groups or individuals; c.f., the schism of 1056–then I see the beginnings of a Roman Church that defines itself over against (and/or above) other parts of Christendom–maybe somewhat like we would view the origins of a separate denomination today as a result of a major theological or political split. I would argue that this is that particular historical moment–but I’d be open to other arguments.

 

[Irish_Polock]

Ann Landers? Your authority is Ann Landers? …are you kidding me? How could one possibly refute an appeal to Ann Landers (unless, of course, Oprah has weighed in on the matter…she does weigh in a fair bit, you know)

So would you consider the source that you have been referring to any better of an authority then this Ann Landers?

Is Francis A. Sullivan SJ a reputable source for catholic theology? Is he not a critical scholar of the Catholic faith and theology? I seem to remember him being rather bent on ecclesiastical unity, and considerably heterodox in his own scholarly work… yet you have been using his “scholarly work” to refute the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Ann Landers should be a non-issue for you Radical - heck, even “Oprah” should be in the same realm of the scholars that you have been citing within this thread.

 

[adrift]

You want me to list those who constitute the consensus? Well, that is kinda the reason one cites an authority, so one doesn’t have to list the details. Tell you what, since I have the authority on my side, why don’t you start by listing a scholar who has put forward the claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and that he appointed Linus as his monarchical successor (in the last 25 years in a work intended for peer review).

I do not know of anyone who has said that Peter appointed his successor.:nope:

As for a work intended for peer review, try Warren H. Carroll history series. It is well researched and documented. The footnotes alone constitute a book.

 

[Radical]

I do not know of anyone who has said that Peter appointed his successor.

You are right, I described it poorly…I should have said: why don’t you start by listing a scholar who has put forward the claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and that Linus was appointed as his monarchical successor (in the last 25 years in a work intended for peer review).

As for a work intended for peer review, try Warren H. Carroll history series. It is well researched and documented. The footnotes alone constitute a book.

Was that for peer review and does Carroll actually go as far as saying that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and that Linus was appointed as his monarchical successor? In any event, it isn’t as if the “general consensus among historians” means total unanimity…the Jones fellow that Sullivan mentions in his book would be another. Those on the outside (of the consensus) would be diehard Catholics (or the like) and would likely be seen as “Catholics first and historians second”. I believe that Carroll is quite candid about admitting his bias…and it likely shows. How about naming a secular scholar who has put forward the claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and that Linus was appointed as his monarchical successor? Protestant scholars would be reluctant to grant such, but a secular scholar shouldn’t have any such reservations (if that is indeed where the evidence led)…who knows, maybe you can find one.