Protestants - When did the Catholic Church Begin?

[ahem]

First Post on this site.

Think about this in a completely historical sight. There was no reason to define Christianity as Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant until the Schism and the Reformation. Until then everyone who was a Christian was a member of the Roman Church. The term Catholic had to be adopted to define the True Church from those who fallen away.

Some would say that everyone was part of the Jerusalem church before that (not I, however). Some have posited eschatalogical consummation to make a full-circle Jerusalem case. I don’t think there has ever been a time that geography fully defined the church, or ever shall be.

The beauty of the church is it’s international scope and transethnic efficaciousness. I won’t waste my breath defending Eastern, Western, Reformation, Coptic, or any other expression of the church. All of their histories are quite spotty.

There was a time I couldn’t say this (when young and combative), but it is wonderfully liberating to not be against any expression of the God’s kingdom. I enthusiastically refer to those who identified with historic Catholicism–among my heroes are Aquinas, Pedro Claver, et al. But I also appreciate everyone from Chrysostom, to MLK, to Desmond Tutu, all from very different traditions, and in my view, pillars of the one true church, ambassadors of the kingdom of God.

 

[Mannyfit75]

First Post on this site.

Think about this in a completely historical sight. There was no reason to define Christianity as Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant until the Schism and the Reformation. Until then everyone who was a Christian was a member of the Roman Church. The term Catholic had to be adopted to define the True Church from those who fallen away.

Before Schism and Reformation, everyone was member of the Catholic Church. They aren’t just Roman. They were members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The true Church of Christ have four marks.

 

[ronyodish]

My thought is that it most originally conceived with the filioque clause as it began to separate from the Eastern Church, but I doubt there is a single moment in time.

ahem,

The “filioque” or “and the Son” is not an original conception of the Latin Church. There was a primitive Eastern and Aramaic form of it at the Synod of Mar Isaac in 410, in the Church of the East of the Persian empire. This was how the Holy Spirit was confessed:

“And we confess the living and holy Spirit, the living Paraclete who (is) from the Father and the Son”

God bless,

Rony

 

[ahem]

ahem,

The “filioque” or “and the Son” is not an original conception of the Latin Church. There was a primitive Eastern and Aramaic form of it at the Synod of Mar Isaac in 410, in the Church of the East of the Persian empire. This was how the Holy Spirit was confessed:

“And we confess the living and holy Spirit, the living Paraclete who (is) from the Father and the Son”

God bless,

Rony

There are many debatable matters, which have contributed to the conclusions I’ve reached concerning God’s rule not finding necessary primacy in Jerusalem, Rome, or any other earthly location. As the apostle wrote, we are of the “Jerusalem from above.”

 

[ronyodish]

There are many debatable matters, which have contributed to the conclusions I’ve reached concerning God’s rule not finding necessary primacy in Jerusalem, Rome, or any other earthly location. As the apostle wrote, we are of the “Jerusalem from above.”

Your response does not address my response.

God bless,

Rony

 

[ahem]

Your response does not address my response.

God bless,

Rony

I was trying to avoid being drawn into a debate. The filioque phrase did not precipitate a great divide until much later. There are people who devote their lives to study of this element who do not agree. I feel no compulsion to defend or militate against either view.

 

[LutheranStudent]

The Catholic Church, if by that term you mean the Roman Catholic Church which is headed by the Pope in Rome, undoubtedly has its roots in Pentecost, when God sent the Holy Spirit to the disciples and thereby established his New Testament church. Of course, we also recognize that the Roman Catholic Church is an external thing, not the lone possessor of the Holy Spirit. If you’re seeking to contrast the Roman Catholic Church against other Christian churches, which I believe you are, I would move the date of her founding to at least to 1054 A.D, when she split with the Eastern Church, thus creating the need of a formal name to distinguish. Before that, there was merely the external Christian church.

The Lutheran Church teaches that the one true church is invisible and indivisible. It does not exist within denominational lines. In our own words, this Holy Christian Church exists wherever “the Word is preached and the sacraments are administered,” which would include the RCC, the Lutheran church, the Reformed churches, the Methodist and Episcopal churches, etc. Of course, we also recognize that the Word is preached more consistently and in purer form in some places than in others. Paul supports this interpretation in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Catholic Church, if by that term you mean the Roman Catholic Church which is headed by the Pope in Rome, undoubtedly has its roots in Pentecost, when God sent the Holy Spirit to the disciples and thereby established his New Testament church. Of course, we also recognize that the Roman Catholic Church is an external thing, not the lone possessor of the Holy Spirit. If you’re seeking to contrast the Roman Catholic Church against other Christian churches, which I believe you are, I would move the date of her founding to at least to 1054 A.D, when she split with the Eastern Church, thus creating the need of a formal name to distinguish. Before that, there was merely the external Christian church.

Not entirely true. If you want to describe the Church as just Roman Catholic Church to those who are in full communion with Rome that is not very accurate. For one, those in the** Eastern Rite Catholic Church** (all 22 Rites) are NOT Roman. It would be an insult to them to address them as Roman. They do not adhere to praying the rosary, doing the station of the cross and so forth.

In the beginning of Christianity, the Church resided in Jerusalem as Peter as the leader of the entire Church, and James as the bishop of Jerusalem. Overtime, the church community grow. From Jerusalem it went to Antioch, then Alexandria, Rome, and Constantinople.

These are commonly referred to as the Five Patriarchiates of the church, whose foundation is founded on the Apostles themselves. Peter & Paul founded the Church in Antioch, and Rome, Jerusalem for James, Mark for Alexandria, and Andrew for Constantinople.

Second, the foundation of Christ Church is not based on Rome. It is based upon the See of Peter. Where he is, the Church is there.

St. Ignatius of Antioch in 107-110 AD wrote the following letter:

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

“[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.” Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).

 

[Mannyfit75]

“…to be in honour however with the** Catholic Church **for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline…one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul’s name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church…But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.” The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).

“[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the **Catholic Church **possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,–in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,–and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200).

”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

“But for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance…**these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.” **Creed of Nicea (A.D. 325).

“Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church…” Council of Nicaea I (A.D. 325).

“Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, ‘That thou mayest know haw thou oughtest to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth’” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,18:25(A.D. 350).

 

[Mannyfit75]

In addition to St. Peter,

I. Peter is the Rock on which the Church is Built
“Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the church should be built,’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven…’” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200).

“And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail…” Origen, Commentary on John, 5:3 (A.D. 232).

“By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established.” Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 9 (ante A.D. 235).

“’…thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church’ … It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness…If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?” Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 (A.D. 251).

“…folly of (Pope) Stephen, that he who boasts of the place of the episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundation of the Church were laid…” Firmilian, Epistle To Cyprian, Epistle 75(74):17(A.D. 256).

“…Peter, that strongest and greatest of all the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others…” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:14 (A.D. 325).

“And Peter,on whom the Church of Christ is built, ‘against which the gates of hell shall not prevail’” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:25 (A.D. 325).

“…the chief of the disciples…the Lord accepted him, set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the church.” Aphraates, De Paenitentibus Homily 7:15 (A.D. 337).

“Peter, the foremost of the Apostles, and Chief Herald of the Church…” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,1 1:3 (A.D. 350).

“**lessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys of the kingdom…” Hilary de Poiters, On the Trinity, 6:20(A.D. 359).

“[F]or the good of unity blessed Peter, for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardon only, deserved to be placed before all the apostles, and alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to be communicated to the rest.” Optatus of Milevis, De Schismate Donatistorum, 7:3(A.D. 370).

“[T]he Lord spoke to Peter a little earlier; he spoke to one, that from one he might found unity, soon delivering the same to all.” Pacian, To Sympronianus, Epistle 3:2 (AD 372).

“Simon, My follower, I have made you the foundation of the Holy Church. I betimes called you Peter (Kepha), because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me…I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, have given you authority over all my treasures.” Ephraim, Homily 4:1, (A.D. 373).

“[T]he first of the apostles, the solid rock on which the Church was built.” Epiphanius, In Ancorato, 9:6 (A.D. 374).

“Peter upon which rock the Lord promised that he would build his church.” Basil, In Isaias, 2:66 (A.D. 375).

“As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!” Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15 (A.D. 375).

“Seest thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were exalted and deserving of choice, one is called rock, and is entrusted with the foundations of the church.” Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 32:18 (A.D. 380).

“[W]e have considered that it ought be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it…”…The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither the stain nor blemish nor anything like it.” Pope Damasus, Decree of Damasus, 3 (A.D. 382).**

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I noticed Protestants cannot agree when the Catholic Church started. History however, proves them wrong. Most historical books I read concerning Christianity has its beginning with Jesus Christ, and he established a Church. The Church had five patriarchiates, Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Antioch, and in 1054, the Christian Church split into Western Church (Catholic Church) and Eastern Church (Eastern Orthodox). The Western Church had its residency in Rome. The Eastern Church had its basis in Constantinople. This is the unbias info I got from a generic history book.

The problem being that what is meant by the term “the Catholic Church” has itself changed over the course of 2000 years of history. Today what is meant is what is known to some as the Roman Catholic Church, a institutional organization with its seat at Rome. But when Ignatius spoke of the Catholic Church he meant something different than that which is meant today:

The Catholic Church was first recorded in St. Ignatius of Antioch letter to the Smyrnaeans. In that Apostolic Letter, he wrote;

Chapter 8:

**See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, **wherever Jesus Christ ****is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

This is was written in 110 AD. I think Church Militant pointed out that in the Greek word, the word Catholic can also be found in Acts. I forgot which chapter or verse.

The Catholic Church also trace its history to St. Peter, who Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom too. Jesus founded the Catholic Church not mere human beings.

It was saying that no matter where one was in the world, it didn’t matter what country, what ethnicity, what bishop was presiding, that there was just one church that was universal and all Christians are one in it, no matter what other difference there might exist between them. Iraneus would put it like this:

The Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believed these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed one mouth.

This is what it means to be “catholic”, this is the “catholic Church” (small “c” on catholic, large “C” on Church) spoken of in the apostles creed. And this catholic or universal church still exists, not as headed by the Pope in Rome, but as headed by Christ in the hearts and minds of those who belong to him every local congregation and no congregation scattered around the globe.

So, how does anyone answer when the Catholic Church came into existence? I don’t think you can point to a precise time. The Catholic Church as the term is used today was NOT present when Jesus established the Church on Peter. I don’t think it was yet present with the passing of the apostolic age. I don’t think it was even present at the time of the writings of Ignatius and Iranesous, though you can see some of the things that would become foundation stones used by the Catholic Church in their writings. Yet, by the time of Leo IX and the Great Schism it was clearly institutionalized. I think one could make an argument for the transition occurring sometime around the time of Leo I, but there isn’t going to be any hard and fast date.

The Catholic Church evolved over time. It is like asking when did the wolf become a dog. There was a time when there was a canine that was not a dog that eventually became a dog. And there was a time when there was a catholic Church that was not the Catholic Church. And sometimes between then and now both evolved. But to put a date on it, and say that the first dog was born on this date or that the Catholic Church began on that date, it is an impossible question that one could not have answered even if you had been there. But just as it is clear that a dog is descended from a wolf but is not a wolf, so to it is clear that the Catholic Church is descended from the catholic Church but is not the same as the catholic Church spoken of by Ignatious.

 

[CentralFLJames]

In our own words, this Holy Christian Church exists wherever “the Word is preached and the sacraments are administered,” which would include the RCC, the Lutheran church, the Reformed churches, the Methodist and Episcopal churches, etc. Of course, we also recognize that the Word is preached more

I was OK with the conceptual definition until you got to the part where you started naming those who administer “the sacraments”. I am certain you know that Catholics do not accept that anyone except a consecrated Priest ordained in the Melchizedekian order through the “laying on of hands” through the apostolic succession granted by St. Peter’s authority is endowed by God with the grace to convert bread and wine to the Holy Eucharist. We Catholics don’t laugh but we do wonder about just how many Protestants and reformist perform 24/7 sacramental adoration in front of grape juice and crackers?

James

 

[abcd]

Hi, I agree that that was the first real mention of the Catholic church with the word ‘Catholic’. But St. Paul’s letter are full of him pleading with his congregations to follow the “tradition” that he and others had taught him. He can hardly mention scripture since the gospels hadn’t yet been written. But it strikes me that all the writings of the first century AD and through most of the second century are Catholic since they all ask the followers of Christ to follow the tradition that has been taught them and to follow their bishops. Cries to follow scripture didn’t arrive until around one thousand five hundred years after the death of Jesus.

God bless, Annem

Since the word “Catholic” only means universal, it is a streach to make it mean the "Roman Catholic church as we know it today. According to secular history I have read the Roman church became corrupt and apostate under the reign of Constatine around 350 AD. You won’t fine this history in Catholic history books but you will in the secular library books.

 

[mlchance]

According to secular history I have read the Roman church became corrupt and apostate under the reign of Constatine around 350 AD. You won’t fine this history in Catholic history books but you will in the secular library books.

Rubbish, and, yes, I am an historian. BTW, Constantine died in A.D. 337, which shoots your A.D. 350 date out of the water. Of course, we historians are picky about dates like that.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

According to secular history I have read the Roman church became corrupt and apostate under the reign of Constatine around 350 AD. You won’t fine this history in Catholic history books but you will in the secular library books.

The Church has always been and always will be “corrupt”. It is made up of corrupt sinful people. The Church has always been and always will be “holy”. It is made up of people redeemed by the blood of Christ with his righteousness credited to them. You can’t say it began with Constantine for the need for the apostles to appoint deacons to take care of the needs in the early church when some were accusing others of favoritism shows that the issues go back to the very beginning, but that doesn’t mean that the church is any less of God because of it.

 

[PinoyCatholic]

Since the word “Catholic” only means universal, it is a streach to make it mean the "Roman Catholic church as we know it today. According to secular history I have read the Roman church became corrupt and apostate under the reign of Constatine around 350 AD. You won’t fine this history in Catholic history books but you will in the secular library books.

Really? Could you cite one please?

 

[NotWorthy]

The Catholic Church evolved over time. It is like asking when did the wolf become a dog. There was a time when there was a canine that was not a dog that eventually became a dog. And there was a time when there was a catholic Church that was not the Catholic Church. And sometimes between then and now both evolved. But to put a date on it, and say that the first dog was born on this date or that the Catholic Church began on that date, it is an impossible question that one could not have answered even if you had been there. But just as it is clear that a dog is descended from a wolf but is not a wolf, so to it is clear that the Catholic Church is descended from the catholic Church but is not the same as the catholic Church spoken of by Ignatious.

I prefer to phrase it, “When did the mustard seed become a tree”!!! The tree is simply the later stage of the seed.

That wolf analogy just doesn’t cut it. The Church may have grown, developed Her doctrines, but it didn’t jump species.

BTW, how’s it going Grace Seeker? You haven’t run across our good friend Phil, have you?

 

[ronyodish]

I was trying to avoid being drawn into a debate.

There is no debate. In the Catholic Communion of Churches, Roman Catholics are allowed to recite the “filioque” in their liturgical Creed, while other Eastern/Oriental Catholics are allowed not to recite it in their liturgical Creeds.

For example, if you attend a Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgy on Sunday at 9:00, you will not hear the “filioque”, and when you’re done, you wish to attend the nearby Roman Catholic Mass at 11:00, you will hear the “filioque”.

This is allowed in the Catholic Church.

The filioque phrase did not precipitate a great divide until much later.

The filioque became a problem with the Latins and Greeks. We Chaldeans-Assyrians had no historical problems with it.

Nevertheless, our Chaldean liturgy was recently revised, and we were asked by Rome and our Chaldean Patriarchate to remove the “filioque” from our liturgical Creed.

There are people who devote their lives to study of this element who do not agree.

It’s mainly a polemic between Radical Traditionalist Romans and Non-Ecumenical Eastern Orthodox.

I feel no compulsion to defend or militate against either view.

There is no need. The Catholic Church allows both the recitation of it, and non-recitation of it.

God bless,

Rony

 

[NotWorthy]

Since the word “Catholic” only means universal, it is a streach to make it mean the "Roman Catholic church as we know it today. According to secular history I have read the Roman church became corrupt and apostate under the reign of Constatine around 350 AD. You won’t fine this history in Catholic history books but you will in the secular library books.

Thank you abcd!!! You are the first to give a date, as Metro hasn’t decided to join us.

What made the Church Apostate around 350AD, pray tell?

 

[NotWorthy]

Rubbish, and, yes, I am an historian. BTW, Constantine died in A.D. 337, which shoots your A.D. 350 date out of the water. Of course, we historians are picky about dates like that.

– Mark L. Chance.

So the Apostate Church was out of favor with Rome at this point and was once again being persecuted by the successors of Constantine?

Oh, I guess I should address this to abcd.