The Catholic Church started in the 4th Century

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Malachi4U:
I work for the Feds, we know EVERYTHING.(Except where Osama is that is:whistle: ) The Holy Spirit directs our interpretation thats why we are allways right as government employees. God founded our nation!

Gods peace,
Click to expand...
I think I can help! I’ve narrowed Osama’s whereabouts to here:

http://bestsmileys.com/globes/4.gif
 
40.png
DavidB:
Based on that kind of logic, then Paul was the first Pope, not Peter. Paul preceded Peter and actually founded the Church in Rome, not Peter. Paul was martyred and buried there as well. And Paul was known as the Apostle to the Gentiles and Peter was the Apostles to the Jews, since Rome was a Gentile city, Paul must be it’s Apostle. See where using that kind of logic can get you?

Huh? Sorry, but no one has ever claimed “infallibility” is stated in scripture nor is “prime” stated. An argument can be made that scripture infers that Peter was first among equals, but no more.

David
Click to expand...
Paul did not precede Peter and did not found the Church in Rome. The Church in Rome already existed when he went to Rome. The Church in Rome was primarily Jewish, not gentile. Rome had the third largest Jewish population in the world at the time.
 
Ric-

Here is a timeline of the Catholic Church from 1-500 A.D.

davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_catholic_church.htm

And the timeline of every Pope from Peter to Benedict XVI:

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Here is an excerpt from a Catholic source regarding Evangelical vs. Catholic truth:

davidmacd.com/catholic/early_church_fathers.htm

Some Evangelicals might say that that the Bible is self-explanatory and needs no interpretation. My response would be that the Evangelical movement itself does not support that statement. There are presently dozens of conflicting interpretations of Bible passages by different Evangelical denominations and cell groups. (i.e., the Rapture) Everyone interprets Scripture the moment they pick it up. Sometimes the Holy Spirit reveals stuff to us as we study which is great. But almost all of the conflicting views among Evangelicals are claimed to be revealed by the Holy Spirit. If we believe that Truth is not relative then there is only one truth. Catholics think its better that it is interpreted by the authority to which Jesus gave the authority. (Mathew 16:18-19). The Catholic Church doesn’t claim that it understands everything about Scripture. Rather, it says that what** has** been revealed and defined as Dogma is true. The Church is on a pilgrimage of faith and its understanding of the mystery of God is evolving. More about the Church’s interpretation of Scripture here.
The Church Fathers believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, honoured Mary, had elaborate ceremonies, believed in Purgatory, respected the Church hierarchy, baptized babies, recognized Peter as the Rock, built the Church upon him with successors and followed a rich tradition of Christianity. That was the Christianity of the early days of Christianity and that is the Catholic Church of today. A timeline of the Catholic Church from 1-500 A.D. is here

So in short Catholics feel the Early Church Fathers were kicking Christians who were plugged into the teachings of Christ and knew what the apostles were saying about the faith. The Church Fathers propagated the Church and helped bring it to the world. Catholics feel it is very useful to study what they taught and wrote about the interpretation of Scripture. It is also noteworthy that the Early Church Fathers practiced a very Catholic theology.

Apostolic Fathers are those before 200A.D. and who were directly influenced or taught by the apostles. They include: Clement (d. 97) Bishop of Rome and Catholics believe third successor to Peter as Pope, Ignatius, (50-107), and Polycarp (69-155), Justin Martyr (100-165), St. Irenaeus (130-202), Cyprian (210-258) The Early Chruch Fathers lived between 200 and 800 A.D.

To read the Early Church Fathers go here
 
40.png
metal1633:
Paul did not precede Peter and did not found the Church in Rome. The Church in Rome already existed when he went to Rome. The Church in Rome was primarily Jewish, not gentile. Rome had the third largest Jewish population in the world at the time.
Click to expand...
Yep, you’re right. I did some more digging and you are correct, though the Jewish element was very quickly outnumbered as it spread through the Gentile population. While Paul did not “found” the Church, he did, via his letter to the Romans, exercise authority over that Church, something he would not have done if Peter were in charge.

David
 
40.png
DavidB:
Yep, you’re right. I did some more digging and you are correct, though the Jewish element was very quickly outnumbered as it spread through the Gentile population. While Paul did not “found” the Church, he did, via his letter to the Romans, exercise authority over that Church, something he would not have done if Peter were in charge.

David
Click to expand...
Why Not??
Peter exercised his authority at the Jerusalem Council, and James did likewise after Peter. (Wasn’t James the Bishop of Jerusalem?) The Apostles are in HARMONY as they are inspired by God. Unless Paul preached in opposition to Peter’s teachimg, he has every right to exercise his Apostolic authority wherever the Holy Ghost leads him.
Many priests teach in the dioceses which are Under the authority of the Bishop. So,
“exercise authority over that Church, something he would not have done if Peter were in charge.”
Click to expand...
is without foundation, Scripturally or thereafter.
 
40.png
TNT:
Why Not??
Peter exercised his authority at the Jerusalem Council, and James did likewise after Peter. (Wasn’t James the Bishop of Jerusalem?) The Apostles are in HARMONY as they are inspired by God. Unless Paul preached in opposition to Peter’s teachimg, he has every right to exercise his Apostolic authority wherever the Holy Ghost leads him.
Many priests teach in the dioceses which are Under the authority of the Bishop. So,
is without foundation, Scripturally or thereafter.
Click to expand...
Romans 15:20, “And thus I aspired to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, so that I would not build on another man’s foundation; but as it is written,“THEY WHO HAD NO NEWS OF HIM SHALL SEE, AND THEY WHO HAVE NOT HEARD SHALL UNDERSTAND.” For this reason I have often been prevented from coming to you; but now, with no further place for me in these regions, and since I have had for many years a longing to come to you.”

Paul never “built on another man’s foundation”. If Paul was exercising authority, as he did in his letter to the Romans, and if Paul longed to get to Rome, we can know that no other Apostle had yet to establish authority in the city.

David
 
40.png
DavidB:
Paul never “built on another man’s foundation”. If Paul was exercising authority, as he did in his letter to the Romans, and if Paul longed to get to Rome, we can know that no other Apostle had yet to establish authority in the city.
Click to expand...
We know by many Fathers that St. Peter went to Rome.

For example :

“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 succession 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.” (St. Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies)
 
Sarah Jane:
We know by many Fathers that St. Peter went to Rome.

For example :

“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 succession 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.” (St. Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies)
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree that Peter went to Rome, exercised Apostolic authority once he got there and was martyred there. No argument from me. I even accept that he appointed the first two bishops Linus and Clement, if I recall my history correctly. My point was simply that Peter was not responsible for establishing the Church at Rome, and apparently, neither was Paul. So Ireanous’s assertion that they “founded” the Church there is wrong. Paul was addressing a large Church in his letter before he or Peter ever arrived. If Peter had been there or if he had been the one to send forth those who established it, Paul would not have written as he did, he would have deferred to Peter and left room for Peter to exercise that authority.

David
 
40.png
DavidB:
The saints/believers in a town such as Ephesus. I refer to them as a local church or local expression of the Body of Christ. Local as a way to differentiate them from universal meaning the entire Church or Body of Christ. Did I answer what you were looking for?

David
Click to expand...
John Paul stated in Ut Unum Sint, that Peter was the first Pope and papal infallibly is made absolutely clear. I do suggest you read it.

www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html
 
40.png
DavidB:
Oh, I agree that Peter went to Rome, exercised Apostolic authority once he got there and was martyred there. No argument from me. I even accept that he appointed the first two bishops Linus and Clement, if I recall my history correctly. My point was simply that Peter was not responsible for establishing the Church at Rome, and apparently, neither was Paul. So Ireanous’s assertion that they “founded” the Church there is wrong. Paul was addressing a large Church in his letter before he or Peter ever arrived. If Peter had been there or if he had been the one to send forth those who established it, Paul would not have written as he did, he would have deferred to Peter and left room for Peter to exercise that authority.
Click to expand...
David,

Irenaeus wrote “Against Heresies” roughly 120 years after the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul. It is reasonable that he would not have known the names of anyone who might have predated Peter or Paul in the “Church” of Rome. His use of a word meaning “founded” for the role Peter and Paul played in building the Church of Rome is appropriate.

I hope you will read and consider my previous post to you.

Here’s a good link to 50 NT “proofs” for Petrine primacy you may want to consider:

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ112.HTM

Again, God bless.

jb
 
The Catholic Church started on around the year 33 AD after the resurection of Christ.
 
So…Where is Ric? Since this thread was created for his benefit when he went off topic on another thread.
Originally Posted by Eden
Ric never defended his statement on the thread that I started in the Apologetics forum.
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by Ric
And I’n not going to for two reasons…
  1. Last time I posted the truth in another forum on these boards the mods suspended me (truth hurts), so I stick to this forum (“Non-Roman Catholic Religions”).
  2. History is a true witness to it’s self (all sources that are not "Roman Catholic).
Click to expand...
My response :
  1. Your problem is your attitude and the fact that what you espouse is your perceived version of the truth.
“Truth hurts” always sounds good from n-Cs, but the hard fact is that guys like me have checked out all the bunk that guys like you allege and found it to be a load of just that. A load of unsubstantiated allegations with no real unbiased historical evidence. Name your sources Ric. I’ll wager that when we look ‘em over we’ll find that they are nothing more than some anti-Catholics’ rhetoric quoted from another a-C source. (For example: “Rev so & so says thus and so” and then when you look it up you find that he’s quoting Lorraine Boettner’s “Roman Catholicism” which is nothing but misinformation and rhetoric.)

“Truth hurts” alright Ric. Especially when you come in here and make statements like you have on this thread that can easily be shown from history are simply untrue.So the only truth that really hurts, is the truth that shows that you have either been honestly misinformed or have chosen to knowingly propound outright misinformation.
  1. "History is a true witness to it’s self (all sources that are not “Roman Catholic).” I can’t believe you said that, but here’s my response. There are two sides to every story and to buy into one just because the source agrees with your postion is not honest scholarship.** Again: Name your sources.** I was non-Catholic for over 34 years and so I know both sides of all these discussions and I’ve read about a ton of that weary a-C rhetoric (and even believed some of it for a time), but when I checked it out against “the other side of the story”, the teachings just fell to pieces. Just like the misbegotten allegation you have made on the other thread.
BTW, remember that discussion of moderators actions on the open forums is also a violation of the rules that you agreed to when you joined us here, so, having been previously been suspended I suggest that you not go for a stroll on those eggs if you intend to hang around here and preach to us. The mods here (as well as most of the members) are pretty tolerant of folks with divergent opinions, so long as they are respectful and charitable in their discussions. Beyond that you do not want to go.
Pax tecum,
 
40.png
DavidB:
No. The Orthodox have denied the legitimacy of the Pope as well, but that doesn’t mean he’s not the true bishop of Rome. Legitimacy comes from the Head, who is Christ Jesus, not from man.

David
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top