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

[Dokimas]

You really should quit inferring an evidence you don’t have. It is very misleading in a dialogue such as these.

Most Catholics, especially converts, have already searched for evidence. Through scriptures and research we’ve been led to the Catholic Church, by the Holy Spirit.

Your disagreement is based on your own opinion when you present statements without support. We’ve shown you writings from the Church of the first century that support what we’ve been saying on these forums, but you’ve chosen not to respond to those writings.

Christ did not start a collection of Churches, with slight to great differences in doctrine. The only Church, supported by historical evidence, to have been in existence since the first century is the Catholic Church. This is a fact you, and others, have not been able to dispute with evidence. There’s a reason for that.

Thanks for your opinion.

BTW, I was at the health club this morning thinking about this discussion. It occurred to me that, I guess, you could say I was ‘playing a game’ with my first post, ‘Constintine’. It may have been a game in the sense that I have no clue and I don’t care who started the present form of the CC, it’s none of my business.

 

[Dokimas]

So you believe Christ started His house divided? I totally disagree.

You’ve not read carefully or with understanding. I did NOT say Jesus started His house divided!!

Check history and see the Catholic Church for hundreds of years with all Protestant Churches having roots through that Catholic Church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Thanks for your opinion.

BTW, I was at the health club this morning thinking about this discussion. It occurred to me that, I guess, you could say I was ‘playing a game’ with my first post, ‘Constintine’. It may have been a game in the sense that I have no clue and I don’t care who started the present form of the CC, it’s none of my business.

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

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You’ve not read carefully or with understanding. I did NOT say Jesus started His house divided!!

I understand, more than you think Doki.

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

What claims did my church make? Please take care NOT to put words in my mouth. If my church claimed to be THE church Jesus founded, and it has NOT made that claim, then my comment would apply.

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

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

True. However, I’ve seen no church that actually fulfills Paul’s (and Jesus) desire.

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

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

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t have to check I agree.

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

 

[Brian_Culliton]

We’ve shown you writings from the Church of the first century that support what we’ve been saying on these forums, but you’ve chosen not to respond to those writings.

I responded to the following claim and received no answer.

Peter WAS the first Bishop of Rome and it is testified to by the ECFs (Elvisman)

My question was:

Where did Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr testify that Peter was the first bishop of Rome?

Would you answer that for me?

 

[guanophore]

Interesting: Elvis said most protestant theologians don’t believe C started the CC. Who’s correct?

I don’t think the CC apostatized. But then again I don’t consider myself protestant. I’m just a Christian.

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

 

[guanophore]

I don’t know that I ever said Augustine’s view of the Eucharist was the original view…I will say that the somatic real presence surely wasn’t the original view.

You mean, you don’t think that this was Augustine’s original view, or the view of the original Church?

I am glad you think the early Fathers are good data. I think you will find, when you study them, that the Real Presence has been believed since the night of the Last Supper.

What I had said earlier is:

there is a growing consensus among those who have studied Augustine, that this “Doctor of the Church” didn’t believe in a real somatic presence. Such a possibility is, of course, unacceptable to the conservative Catholic b/c it is too improbable to declare that the (RSP) existed from the outset, but that a Doctor of the Church didn’t believe it…but, as I said, that building scholarly consensus is your problem and not mine.

I would add that these scholars of Augustine find it expedient to excise parts of his writings that sound “too catholic” and focus on passages that can be interpreted from a Protestant perpective. Many anti-Catholics will do this with Augustine, and like to pretend that the “catholic” passages don’t exist.

well, in my book Kilmartin keeps attributing the somatic real presence to the 4th century Antiochene School (see pages 6, 21) What Kilmartin describes is a theology in transition. A hodge-podge…it doesn’t appear to be a theology that orignated with Christ and was passed on, unaltered, down through the centuries.

Keep reading, Rad. You will get there.

Here is what you quoted from Kilmartin:

The theological meaning of the anamnesis, as it was explained by the Greek Fathers (and which was, in fact, more in line with biblical thinking), is not understood by these Western theologians ** [such as Augustine]**. This accounts in part for the tendency, in the effort to fill the void, to reduce the notion of anamnesis to allegory [as Augustine arguably did]. … in the Greek perspective, [the Eucharist] was grounded on the real participation of the eucharistic elements in the reality of the crucified and risen Lord who has his natural mode of existence at the right hand of the Father…"

Most people that study the eucharist seem to forget that, during the anamnesis of the Passover, the actually lamb was killed, blood drained, and physically consumed by the participants. Jesus did not give a "symbolic’ body on the cross, but his Real one.

hanks for demonstrating that these beliefs about Mary aren’t actually put forward in scripture, but that one must force a sketchy interpretation on to certain passages to try and remedy the silence. With such license any belief could be found (existing between the lines) in scripture.

You are starting out with a false premise, Radical. The Catholic faith is not, like those formed in the Reformation, extracted from scripture. The One Faith is received from the Apostles through the paradosis, and therefore, we have no need to “force” anything into, or out of scripture. No attempt was every made to make the Bible a full compendium of the faith, so elements of the Apostolic Teaching that are absent or not prominent is not a concern for us. Neither do we need to “read between the lines”. The Scripture was produced by the Catholic faith. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic, and there is nothing in Catholicism that contradicts it.

specifying that she was an obedient virgin hardly speaks to any of those Marian doctrines…and doesn’t at all contradict anything I claimed.

These writings compliment and support the constant teaching of the Church that the Mother of God is All Holy.

 

[guanophore]

Disagreeing is not being against. I’m not against catholics or catholism.

You may not realize it, Doki, but you have embraced anti-Catholic theologies. They were designed and developed to stand over and against Catholic teaching, so as to create a foundation upon which to reject the Catholic authority during the Reformaton.

BTW, REALLY!!!!!  No game playing, just not understanding.

I would strongly recommend, in this case, that you refrain from making assertions that you cannot support. The question of the OP is to name the man that founded the CC. You threw out “Constantine”, but when you were asked to provide support for your assertion, you failed to do so.

If you are going to spit it out, then you have to back it up.

Show us how Constantine started the Catholic Church.

 

[guanophore]

NO games and no submitting. Are you really interested in evidence?

Yes. Are you interested in producing any?

 

[guanophore]

Correct again.

I am sorry, I should have read up on the thread before I asked you for evidence. Clearly now you are admitting that you can produce NO EVIDENCE that Constantine started the Catholic Church.

It appears that you threw this out onto the thread just to be “lighthearted and funny”, and you are not at all interested in engaging in any serious discussion about the OP.

 

[guanophore]

I had no intention of playing games. If you want to argue this point, go right ahead. However, if you feel you need to continue to blast me for not responding as you wanted, why not do it in private. I’ll wait for you personal message. Thank you.

YOu posted this calumny on a public thread. You are responsible for backing up your assertions.

If you don’t want such calumny publicly confronted, then I suggest that you refrain from posting it on a discussion thread such as this.

As for ‘seeing anti…’ of course I don’t see something that is NOT there.

If you cannot “see” the Catholic Church, then your blindness is much more extensive than I imagined.

 

[guanophore]

Would you change your opinion if the evidence was strong enough?

Perhaps one might be able to do so if indeed it were opinion, but it is not. What we have received is the Deposit of Faith,handed down through the paradosis, not an opinion. Changing it (which is not possible because it is immutable) would require that we reject that the Word of God was given to the Church.

I agree that we should have reasons for belief.

It does not appear that the unreasonable assertion you made that Constantine started the Catholic Church is not even a belief of yours!

BTW, I don't care exactly when the CC in it's present state started.

Then what are you doing on this thread!

The evidence does not point to the first century.

That is the “evidence” we are waiting for, Doki. Out with it!

This does NOT mean that God doesn’t use it to His glory, it just means the church Jesus inagurated is far bigger than the CC, IMO.

The visible Church, certainly.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I responded to the following claim and received no answer.

My question was:

Where did Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr testify that Peter was the first bishop of Rome?

Would you answer that for me?

First go to scriptures. They have recorded Peter being singled out by Christ. Simon who became Peter/Kepha/Cephas. Name changes in scriptures have significance. Matthew 16:18,19

Christ told Peter He prayed for him so that his faith would strengthen the brethren. Luke 22:32.

Christ commanded Peter, three times, to feed His sheep/lambs, singling Peter out once again. John 21:17.

Mark 16:7 tells of angel appearing to announce the resurrection to the disciples and Peter. Peter is specifically named and the others are referred to as ‘disciples’.

Acts 1:13 - 26 Peter headed the meeting to replace Judas Iscariot.

Acts 2:14 Peter leads the Apostles in preaching on Pentecost. Acts 2:41 Peter receives the first converts to the Church.

Acts 3:6,7 Peter performs the first miracle after Pentecost.

Acts 5:1-11 Peter disciplines Ananias and Saphira.

Acts 8:21 Refuses Simon Magnus’ request to be able to lay hands and deliver the Holy Spirit.

Acts 10:44 - 46 Peter received Gentiles into the faith as per his revelation.

Acts 15:7 Peter leads the first council.

Acts 15:19 Peter announces a dogmatic decision.

Galatians 1:18 After Paul’s conversion, he visits the ‘chief’ Apostle.

Matthew 10:1 - 4, Mark 3:16 - 19, Luke 6:14 - 16 and Acts 1:13 Peter’s name always comes first in a ‘list’ of Apostles.

Luke 9:32 and Mark 16:7 Peter is identified and those that are with him are collectively referred too.

Peter’s name appears 195 times in the New Testament, more than all the others put together.

Christ built a Church and He chose and appointed men over that Church, with one particular man singled out with a name change and reference to the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Where did Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr testify that Peter was the first bishop of Rome?

Clement asserted the authority of his office.

Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius speaks of the authority of Rome.

Ignatius of Antioch
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 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus speaks of the succession of bishops of the Church known to all, founded by Peter and Paul.

Irenaeus
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]).

Let’s not leave out other early Church fathers or someone will think we’re trying to ‘pick and choose’ that which can be construed to fit a single view.

Clement of Alexandria
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

continued…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

Optatus

In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan

[Christ] made answer: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .” Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Augustine

Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

 

[elvisman]

My question was:

Where did Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr testify that Peter was the first bishop of Rome?

Would you answer that for me?

**Since you, refuse to believe like many Protestants who reject the writings of the Fathers, unless it suits your argument - I will give you 2 pre-Nicene examples of Peter’s presence and Primacy in Rome. **

Irenaeus lists the popes from the beginning to his time in Against Heresies, Book 3, Ch.3. He speaks of the Church neing founded in Rome by Peter and Paul. It shows that Peter ordained Linus the Bishop of rome after him, then Cletus (Anacletus), then Clement.

Tertullian also tells of Peter’s ordination of Clement after Linus and Cletus(Anacletus) - The Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:1.

**Even though you will reject the following because they prove you wrong about Peter - I’ll list them anyway so that others may see:

*****Eusebius (260-339), The History of the Church, Book 3, 324 AD
*“After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus. … Linus, who is mentioned in the Second Epistle to Timothy as being with Paul in Rome, as stated above was the first after Peter to be appointed Bishop of Rome. Clement again, who became the third Bishop of Rome … to Miltiades.”
**
***Eusebius (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42 [A.D. 303])
*“The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years.”

****Augustine (354-430), Letters, No. 53, 400 AD
“For, to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus, Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, … to Siricius Anastasius.”

 

[SyCarl]

Since you, refuse to believe like many Protestants who reject the writings of the Fathers, unless it suits your argument - I will give you 2 pre-Nicene examples of Peter’s presence and Primacy in Rome.

Irenaeus lists the popes from the beginning to his time in Against Heresies, Book 3, Ch.3. He speaks of the Church neing founded in Rome by Peter and Paul. It shows that Peter ordained Linus the Bishop of rome after him, then Cletus (Anacletus), then Clement.

Tertullian also tells of Peter’s ordination of Clement after Linus and Cletus(Anacletus) - The Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:1.

Even though you will reject the following because they prove you wrong about Peter - I’ll list them anyway so that others may see:

***Eusebius (260-339), The History of the Church, Book 3, 324 AD
***“After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus. … Linus, who is mentioned in the Second Epistle to Timothy as being with Paul in Rome, as stated above was the first after Peter to be appointed Bishop of Rome. Clement again, who became the third Bishop of Rome … to Miltiades.”

***Eusebius (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42 [A.D. 303])
***“The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years.”

***Augustine (354-430), Letters, No. 53, 400 AD
***“For, to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus, Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, … to Siricius Anastasius.”

What exactly is the succession?

Irenaeus and Terullian give Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clement

Eusebius and Augustine give Peter, Linus, Clement

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Since you, refuse to believe like many Protestants who reject the writings of the Fathers, unless it suits your argument - I will give you 2 pre-Nicene examples of Peter’s presence and Primacy in Rome.

Right out of the gate with a defensive accusation. This aught to be interesting.

Irenaeus lists the popes from the beginning to his time in Against Heresies, Book 3, Ch.3. He speaks of the Church neing founded in Rome by Peter and Paul. It shows that Peter ordained Linus the Bishop of rome after him, then Cletus (Anacletus), then Clement.

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

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

From your silence concerning the rest of the fathers I listed, I will assume that you admit there were no testimonies from them that Peter was the bishop of Rome.

Tertullian also tells of Peter’s ordination of Clement after Linus and Cletus(Anacletus) - The Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:1.

If I am to believe this account then I would have to believe that Peter was alive during the time from to appointment of Linus to the death of Anacletus. That puts Peter’s martyrdom at around 92 AD. Is that what you want me to believe?

Eusebius (260-339), The History of the Church, Book 3, 324 AD
“After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus. … Linus, who is mentioned in the Second Epistle to Timothy as being with Paul in Rome, as stated above was the first after Peter to be appointed Bishop of Rome. Clement again, who became the third Bishop of Rome … to Miltiades.”

It is getting more interesting with every quote. Now you have moved into the fourth century and giving me a reference that conflicts with the first two references. Now do you want me to believe that Peter was martyred before Linus was made bishop?

Also, why does Eusebius list clement as the third bishop of Rome if Peter is supposed to be the first. The math doesn’t work.

Now if Linus was the first after Peter in Rome, why do you think that makes Peter the bishop of Rome? Was he also the bishop of Antioch? Eusebius said he was the second in succession to Peter. (E.H. 3:36:2)

Eusebius (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42 [A.D. 303])
“The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years.”

From what I understand the portion you quoted does not exist in the Greek, nor in the Armenian. And don’t you find it peculiar that Eusebius never mentioned this in his history? It just doesn’t make sense. Perhaps Jerome decided to do a little editing.

Augustine (354-430), Letters, No. 53, 400 AD
“For, to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus, Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, … to Siricius Anastasius.”

Now the “testimony” you want me to believe places the succession in a different order from the other “testimonies” you want me to believe.

Your references are all over the place. They all testify of different things yet somehow you think you are proving the same thing. The only thing you are proving is that you don’t know what you are talking about.

Based on you fist statement I have to ask, which of these fathers do you reject, and which one suits your argument?

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

Right out of the gate with a defensive accusation. This aught to be interesting.

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

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

From your silence concerning the rest of the fathers I listed, I will assume that you admit there were no testimonies from them that Peter was the bishop of Rome.

If I am to believe this account then I would have to believe that Peter was alive during the time from to appointment of Linus to the death of Anacletus. That puts Peter’s martyrdom at around 92 AD. Is that what you want me to believe?

It is getting more interesting with every quote. Now you have moved into the fourth century and giving me a reference that conflicts with the first two references. Now do you want me to believe that Peter was martyred before Linus was made bishop?

Also, why does Eusebius list clement as the third bishop of Rome if Peter is supposed to be the first. The math doesn’t work.

Now if Linus was the first after Peter in Rome, why do you think that makes Peter the bishop of Rome? Was he also the bishop of Antioch? Eusebius said he was the second in succession to Peter. (E.H. 3:36:2)

From what I understand the portion you quoted does not exist in the Greek, nor in the Armenian. And don’t you find it peculiar that Eusebius never mentioned this in his history? It just doesn’t make sense. Perhaps Jerome decided to do a little editing.

Now the “testimony” you want me to believe places the succession in a different order from the other “testimonies” you want me to believe.

Your references are all over the place. They all testify of different things yet somehow you think you are proving the same thing. The only thing you are proving is that you don’t know what you are talking about.

Based on you fist statement I have to ask, which of these fathers do you reject, and which one suits your argument?

O.K. Brian… Please answer The op’s question already!
Please answer the question at hand please.

Matthew