Prove When Catholicism Started

[Reuben_J]

I agree, but “in my heart, I believe” does not work when talking about history

Agreed.

 

[Deconi]

If you’re searching for the Origin of The Catholic Church, then by right, you should be examining the records of The Catholic Church, and use human history as the comparison markers.

If you’re searching for a secular source, you’re searching for OPINIONS of when The Church commenced, and CONCLUSIONS from those opinions. They are, mostly, defective and limited.

What is accepted by most scholars, Catholic and Non-Catholic, is that Peter was THE FIRST POPE. The fact is, Peter WAS the first Pope, whether anyone accepts it or not.

But he was not the origin of Catholicism. That mantle, belongs to The Guy Who change his name (and nature) from Simon to ‘Rock’ and built a church upon him, whether he liked it or not!

 

[Peter_J]

Hi CatherineofA,

I think that “prove when Catholicism started” is kind of a roundabout way of approaching the question.

There clearly was a Church way back in the first centuries of Christianity; the issue that causes disagreements is that the Church had a “Great Schism” (in 1054 AD, to use the most commonly given date), so which of the 2 resulting sides was the true continuation of the Church? In other words, is Catholicism the One True Church, or is Orthodoxy the One True Church? Naturally, each side claims to be. (To take it even a step further, Catholics and Orthodox both say that the Oriental Orthodox split off from the One True Church back in the 5th century, but the Oriental Orthodox claim that they are the One True Church, and everyone else split off from them.)

 

[narrowpath]

Before the end of the first century, christians were already referring to the “one holy catholic and apostolic church”. read the church fathers, and you can see the word “catholic” used over and over.

As to when the church began, it began at pentcost, w/ the descent of the Holy Ghost.

 

[CatherineofA]

I don’t hink that is what she is looking for. Pentecost is undeniably Christian, yes, but can we point at that from an unbiased historical stanpoint and say it is unargualbly Catholic? We, as Catholics, believe that our CHurch was founded bu Jesus himself, but she is looking for a secular, non-apologetic point in history.

Exactly! Thanks for clarifying!

 

[CatherineofA]

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. Any additional information would be appreciated.

 

[BSHoop96]

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. Any additional information would be appreciated.

I don’t know whether you will find exactly what you are looking for. Not to the point where it will satisify people who don’t want to believe it in the first place. Remember, the Church would call a Council to clarify things when they felt a heresy or something needed to be clarified. They didn’t just say on the day of Pentecost, "okay, now we’re officially the Catholic Church (Latin Rite) and let’s set it all down on paper. As the centuries rolled by they had to make definitive statements to deal with problems as they started to develop or threaten the Church. In the end, we do have a continuous line back to Peter and that really should pretty well make the point.

btw, I love British history and what got me started was interest in 16th century England.

 

[guanophore]

Let me begin by saying that I am Protestant from the Southern Baptist denomination. I became aware of the church’s role in history when I developed an interest in 16th century England AND the medieval era. It was at that time that I realized what a long and dominant role the church played in the history of western Europe. Due to this, I am VERY defensive of Catholicism when it’s attacked by fellow Christians who are anti-Catholic. In my experience, most of it is an ignorance of history and misconceptions about the teachings.

You are one of the most open minded Southern Baptists that I have ever had the pleasure to meet!

Due to my being a friend to Catholicism, I try to go back as early as possible in time to discuss apologetics. I’m aware of Ignatius’ use of the term Catholic, but I’ve found that many secular historians or non Catholic Christians argue that the term could have been referring to the univeral community of Christians and not what we know as the Catholic Church. I mentioned this because I am aware of some Catholic claims to the very early Christian past.

You are right, Ignatius used this term to refer to the universal community of Christians. This is what “Catholic” means, and the Church has been described this way since Apostolic times. Ignatius did not coin the term, though, the credit for that goes to Luke.

"Meanwhile **the church throughout **Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and was built up. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it increased in numbers."Acts 9:31

The “church throughout” comes from the Gk. kath holos = Catholic. Ignatius, writing many decades later, uses this description coined by Luke in the book of Acts.

This is my question-Do you know what event or date or person has been accepted by most historians to be the earliest example of Catholicism?

There was no other Church.

I’m looking for something that’s not been up for argument. Does anyone know when this first person or event occurred? Thanks! To stress, I am looking for what’s been accepted by the community of historians at large that might be taught in a college classroom.

From the second century, what distinguished the true communities of believers from heretics are the four signs of the Church. One. Holy. Catholic. Aposotolic.

In 1054 there was a schism between the East and West parts of the Church. At that time, the Eastern Church, though they still consider themselves Catholic, use the term “Orthodox” to distinguish themselves from Catholics, who they believe fell away from the true catholic faith.

Thanks for the information. However, I’m looking for history that would be taught in a college classroom. That is, what’s univerally accepted by experts (with or without Christian or Catholic affiliation). Does this book do that?

The only historical evidence to any other groups claiming to be Christian until 1054 refers to heretical groups. These include Judiazers, Pelagians, Arians, Gnostics, etc.

I am looking for when a historian would say 'this was the Catholic Church". It know it was seen as such by the Middle Ages, but how long before?

As has been said, since Pentecost. The Church in the book of Acts, and addressed by all the letters of the NT is the Catholic Church.

When do we see the people saying they are part of the Catholic Church and have a pope?

The first part of this I addressed before with Luke’s reference in Acts. As for the Pope, this is a Latin term meaning “father”. Although the Catholic Church traces the papacy back to Peter, this term did not become popular until the fourth century. All of the Patriarchs all over the world were referred to as “father” The term “Pope” is the Latin translation of this term.

If I were asking a historian, he might say this person X or event X was debatable, but this event X was definitely what we know as the church. It can’t be argued. Even an Evangelical or athiest might say, that was the earliest accepted time of the church. A univerally accepted event or time as Catholic Church.

Yes. I think what throws people off is that the Catholic Church does not look today like the one described in the NT.

May God richly bless your research.

 

[JimG]

It occurs to me that, at least from a Catholic standpoint, if one could prove a particular point post-Pentecost and say, ‘THIS is when the Catholic Church started,’ one would be proving too much.

For the whole idea is that there has been a continuity, with the Church growing organically from that first Pentecost. From the NT, one sees that the Church had bishops, priests, and deacons. (episkopos, presbyturos, deakonos), and these are the exact degrees of Holy Orders in the Church even today.

Some might point to Constantine or some other event, and say, “this is where the Church started.” But that would indicate some definitive break with the past, and no such break is apparent.

The point is, that the Church began with its hierarchical organization even in NT times, and out of the times of persecution to tolerance to formal recognition, there was never a point at which one could say, now they are organizing the Catholic Church. Someone would have objected if there had been a change. It was just a continuity.

All the early fathers and the early Church history can do is to show the continuity.

But it is late and I am rambling. …

 

[King_of_kings]

this is a link , it show you the list of the popes from saint peter up to today.
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Saint Ignatius was a bishop so it is only normal for a bishop if he is refering to the catholic church that it is the church we have today. if you read his writings especially on the Holy Eucharist you will see that he was catholic .Also we have lot of the writings of the early chruch fathers that were catholics, the counsels,we know alot about how the early christians .actually there is a good book called the Mass of the Early Christians.that book talk about lot of documents and inscriptions we have especially on mass the first 4 centuries.

 

[ralphinal]

Hi CatherineofA,

I think that “prove when Catholicism started” is kind of a roundabout way of approaching the question.

There clearly was a Church way back in the first centuries of Christianity; the issue that causes disagreements is that the Church had a “Great Schism” (in 1054 AD, to use the most commonly given date), so which of the 2 resulting sides was the true continuation of the Church? In other words, is Catholicism the One True Church, or is Orthodoxy the One True Church? Naturally, each side claims to be. (To take it even a step further, Catholics and Orthodox both say that the Oriental Orthodox split off from the One True Church back in the 5th century, but the Oriental Orthodox claim that they are the One True Church, and everyone else split off from them.)

This is the one heretical statement that I will make. All are right, all are wrong. They are both the one true Church IF taken together. Neither is the One true Church apart from the other.

However, they clearly left Rome, so they are more wrong.

 

[Peter_J]

However, they clearly left Rome, so they are more wrong.

Well actually, some of them left Rome; others were never in Rome to begin with. You have to keep in mind that modes of travel were pretty limited in those days.

 

[reteeks21]

If you’re searching for the Origin of The Catholic Church, then by right, you should be examining the records of The Catholic Church, and use human history as the comparison markers.

If you’re searching for a secular source, you’re searching for OPINIONS of when The Church commenced, and CONCLUSIONS from those opinions. They are, mostly, defective and limited.

What is accepted by most scholars, Catholic and Non-Catholic, is that Peter was THE FIRST POPE. The fact is, Peter WAS the first Pope, whether anyone accepts it or not.

But he was not the origin of Catholicism. That mantle, belongs to The Guy Who change his name (and nature) from Simon to ‘Rock’ and built a church upon him, whether he liked it or not!

The exact same things could be said of your arguement. I know of people, doctors of history to be exact, who say that of course the rcc can say that history should be measured against their records, but history is written by the victors. In short, anyone can write what they want to write, but that doesn’t always make it so. That is exactly why there are so many differing, and sometimes spiteful opinions on what has taken place thoughout history.

 

[Peter_J]

The exact same things could be said of your arguement. I know of people, doctors of history to be exact, who say that of course the rcc can say that history should be measured against their records, but history is written by the victors. In short, anyone can write what they want to write, but that doesn’t always make it so. That is exactly why there are so many differing, and sometimes spiteful opinions on what has taken place thoughout history.

I think most people know to be critical of claims they hear from sources that may or may not be trustworthy, such as strangers posting on the internet. But unfortunately, there are exceptions. Like if someone says “The Catholic Church teaches Z” (or “The Orthodox Church” or “Protestantism”) then usually non-Catholics reading that will not automatically assume that Z is true, but often times they will automatically assume that Z is the teaching of the Catholic Church (or the Orthodox Church, or Protestantism, respectively), just because someone on CAF said that it was. (See also the thread CAF does NOT represents Catholicism.)

 

[KingAlfred]

Let me begin by saying that I am Protestant from the Southern Baptist denomination. I became aware of the church’s role in history when I developed an interest in 16th century England AND the medieval era. It was at that time that I realized what a long and dominant role the church played in the history of western Europe. Due to this, I am VERY defensive of Catholicism when it’s attacked by fellow Christians who are anti-Catholic. In my experience, most of it is an ignorance of history and misconceptions about the teachings.

Due to my being a friend to Catholicism, I try to go back as early as possible in time to discuss apologetics. I’m aware of Ignatius’ use of the term Catholic, but I’ve found that many secular historians or non Catholic Christians argue that the term could have been referring to the univeral community of Christians and not what we know as the Catholic Church. I mentioned this because I am aware of some Catholic claims to the very early Christian past.

This is my question-Do you know what event or date or person has been accepted by most historians to be the earliest example of Catholicism? I’m looking for something that’s not been up for argument. Does anyone know when this first person or event occurred? Thanks! To stress, I am looking for what’s been accepted by the community of historians at large that might be taught in a college classroom.

Both Christianity and Judaism spread extensively throughout the Roman Empire, taking adavantage of that period of its history known as the Pax Romana – over 200 years of peace, prosperity and unity within the empire. The two religions spread together, with Christianity tending to follow the path of Jewish synagogues, which were so important to the maintenance of the Jewish identity throughout the Empire during the Diaspora. With Rome serving as the center of that powerful, ‘singular’ world, major Christian figures journeyed there directly, Peter and Paul included. In fact, they both died there. As the Church grew, Christians in Rome began to consider themselves its natural leaders, for reasons involving the primacy of Rome and execution of Peter, the fabled ‘stone’ of Christ’s church, in that city, as well. There is no way to ignore the Roman dimension of the ascendancy of Christianity to world-religion status.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

The most proof that anyone will ever see that everything was Catholic in belief, is on the walls of the Catacombs of Rome:

**The Sacred Heart is the most frequently represented symbol in the Catacombs.
In the Catacombs of Priscilla, there are a few paintings of the Virgin Mary in which she has Jesus on her lap with the Magi approaching which were painted as early as the third Century of Mary’s image.
In the Catacombs of St. Callixtus are symbols of the Eucharist and Baptism. There is a priest that is drawn with a small table which has a fish and a loaf of bread which is clearly a sign of the Consecration.
The Catacombs of St. Sebastian are prayers for Peter and Paul that say “Paul and Peter, pray for Victor–Peter and Paul pray for Sozomenon”.
At the entrance of the crypt of the popes in St. Callixtus, the wall is covered with prayers “O St. Sixtus, remember in your prayers Aurelius Repentinus”.
There are thousands of inscriptions with prayers of the living for the dead or with requests to the dead that they pray for those still alive.

**I think every non-Catholic Christian should go and visit these walls…You’ll think differently when you return.

 

[Luke65]

Ignatius did not coin the term, though, the credit for that goes to Luke.

"Meanwhile **the church throughout **Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and was built up. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it increased in numbers."Acts 9:31

The “church throughout” comes from the Gk. kath holos = Catholic. Ignatius, writing many decades later, uses this description coined by Luke in the book of Acts.

Nice pearl!

 

[ROBIN97]

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. Any additional information would be appreciated.

CatherineofA

The best proof is from a secular source. I am not sure of the exact dates but you can look up Pliny the Younger. Pliny the Elder lived from 23 to 79 AD. Pliny the Younger was his Nephew. But when the pagan Emperor of Rome told Pliny the Younger to check out what “those Christians were about”, he dutifully went to spy on them and came back to report:

“These Christians are very strange. They Drown their babies [Infant Baptism] and eat their God!” Eucharistic Belief.

The Didicha proves that the Early Christians were the same Catholics as Todays Catholics

The early Writings Beginning with the Didicha - found in the Dead Sea Scrolls date to about 80 AD at the latest - While Apostle John of the Book of John and the Apocalypses (Revelation) was still alive as was John’s great teacher and friend Early Father of the Church -Polycarp. Polycarp lay hands on Ignatius of Antioch the Bishop of the Antioch Church that Peter had founded, and ordained Ignatius. The Didicha states how to run a local church. It was written in John,s time.

“Baptize in running water. If you have no river - pour on the forehead a little.
If you don’t have that much water - sprinkle.” etc. Not all writings of the early church were labeled scripture. One of the very early popes was even mentioned in scripture (Clement) but his writings didn’t make the cut when the Catholic Church delineated scripture from just Pius writings and put the Bible together in 387. All 72 books in one Library (Bible). However, these early writings, even though not Scripture - show that the Church was definitely “Catholic” as we know it Today. 2000 years later.

Remember, the Didicha is dated almost during the time and maybe Before, the last book of the Bible was written! Isn’t that Amazing? Oh why didn’t they teach me that in Catechism Class! I have a fallen away friend who asks
me the same thing. But I think he was more interested in the girls in the class than really learning about the Church so It would have probably fallen on deaf ears anyway. But that’s another story.

The Catholic Church as Universal - What it Means

They really begin to use the term Catholic - to callthemselves Catholic as a group identifier to separate themselves from the onslaught of heresies immediately in the first centuries. , I believe, when the Church had to fight the early heresies. Arianism, Gnosticism, Monism in the 1st and 2nd centuries. They all called themselves Christians.

Kind of like when the King John separated the English Catholics from the Pope during the English Reformation by calling Their Church the Anglican Catholic Church and The “Other” Catholic Church the “Roman Catholic Church”.

That back-fired, because while the Official name of the church is the “Catholic Church”. Unofficially we of the “Latin Rite” kind of Like the “Roman Catholic Church” name -a lot! Even though there are 22 Rites of the Catholic Church that have small changes in the liturgy and how we decorate our churches, they all call themselves the Catholic Church - and they have every right to. We ALL submit to the Pope and believe in identical beliefs on Faith and Morals. Everything you want to know about the Catholic Church can be found the World Around by looking in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. 1.2 billion around the world united in the Faith Christ preached to us and as the Apostles handed down to us through His Bishops and Popes and Priests and Brothers and Sisters and Us. Catholics.

You can walk into a Catholic Church in US, South America, Europe, Asia … the world around and you immediately feel at home in the Liturgy of the Mass. And can Follow the same identical mass. It’s the same as at home in its ritual though the preaching of the same Gospel for Today, The same Epistle Readings, The Readings and Homilies and Psalms sung may be in a foreign language, but you will watch and follow and participate in the same identical mass, from the Liturgy of the Word to the Crescendo -The Liturgy of the Eucharist and then the final ending of Mass. "Go (out into the world and spread the gospel) “the Mass is ended” The Mass is the Core of Catholicism where Christ becomes present Physically in the Eucharist. Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity - just as he promised until the end of time. You can’t get any more personal with Christ than that!

When Ignatius uses the term “Catholic Church” in his letters to the Churches along the way to his death in the Flavious Circus and the lions, he uses “Catholic” in a very familiar way. As if this term had been around for at least several years. Scholars think maybe as early as 75AD. He describes how to identify the Catholic Church. - and he doesn’t make any attempt to define it to his readers as he leaves a letter to the Catholic Church in every port that he stops. 7 stops. 7 Churches. 7 letters. Polycarp, Apostle Johns personal friend, is to be follow him shortly. When the Romans attempt to burn Polycarp at the stake, (you probably thought only Calvinists and Catholics done that) he failed to be harmed. They then stabbed him to death.

Ignatius says in his "Letter to the Smymaeans-8’. “Whereever the Bishop appears, let the people be; as whereever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius uses the word Episcopha for Bishop. As century’s went by Episcopha became in Old English *Biscoph *and finally in Modern English - Bishop. Much as Presbyter in the Bible became Presbyt in Old English and then finally Priest in Modern English. [Changed to *Elders in Protestant Bibles] “Deacons” are still “Deacons”.

So there is my contribution. Hope it helps Catherine.

Robin

 

[Deconi]

The exact same things could be said of your arguement. I know of people, doctors of history to be exact, who say that of course the rcc can say that history should be measured against their records, but history is written by the victors. In short, anyone can write what they want to write, but that doesn’t always make it so. That is exactly why there are so many differing, and sometimes spiteful opinions on what has taken place thoughout history.

Here’s a tid-bit of free information, if or when you want to devote some lifetime to research;

Those ‘doctors of history’ as esteemed as they may be, only focus on their OPINIONS and the ‘validations’ for them. The RCC is not insular or HIDDEN. She is history. She is Universal in scope. EVERYTHING She claims as objective truth, is verifiable by all else in existence at any given time of relevance.

Where She claims Her origin as being spoken into existence by a Divine Jew, 'Lo, there is one such as He as attested to by those who follow Him and those who do not believe in Him!

Where She proclaims Her chosen Scriptures as God Breathed, 'Lo, there is in existence, Holy Writ as She canonized, attested to by those who follow The Book and those who misuse them against Her and others.

At ANY given point in history, where dissenters provide subjective exaggerations, She retains the accurate records of ALL that She has suffered, enjoyed, endured and maintain until the end. She does not edit or ammend the adverse, for the sake of ‘perception.’

Whilst a multitude of charges are levelled at Her from era to era, She simply remains silent with the patience of a mother awaiting her wayward children to cease squabbling and return Home.

Very much like the Mother of Her Founder!

The point is, history itself, whether RCC or secular, whether Christian or anti-Christian, cannot help but corroborate, validate and authenticate Her “life” throughout and will continue to do so, until…

…The End!

 

[guanophore]

The exact same things could be said of your arguement. I know of people, doctors of history to be exact, who say that of course the rcc can say that history should be measured against their records, but history is written by the victors. In short, anyone can write what they want to write, but that doesn’t always make it so. That is exactly why there are so many differing, and sometimes spiteful opinions on what has taken place thoughout history.

This is true. That is why it is powerful testimony that the Orthodox, who have no love lost on Rome, also share and testify to the same history.