The Catholic Church started in the 4th Century

[Eden]

In the non-Catholic religions forum, Ric made the following post:

No, Jesus started His Church, not the Roman Catholic church (which started in the 4th century). :tiphat:

Here is the link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=62575

 

[ZAROVE]

Another subscriber tot he “Constantine the Pagan funded the Cahtolci CHurch” devotee… wonder what iraneus’s 2nd century quote does to this???

 

[Church_Militant]

He can’t prove this because history counters him right off the top. This is from the letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrneans and was written between 107 and 110 AD.
Letter to the Smyrneans
**
“Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; 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.”**

 

[michaelgazin]

Church Militant:

He can’t prove this because history counters him right off the top. This is from the letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrneans and was written between 107 and 110 AD.
Letter to the Smyrneans

"Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; 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."

Yes, Ignatius always saves the day! :clapping: A friend of John, Peter and Paul…and a friend of mine.

 

[adventistnomore]

Let him prove his own outrageous claim. We have no need to get defensive.

 

[DavidB]

Church Militant:

He can’t prove this because history counters him right off the top. This is from the letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrneans and was written between 107 and 110 AD.
Letter to the Smyrneans

"Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; 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."

Yep, that certainly proves it . . . oh, but wait, there was a bishop over each of the Churches and this says nothing of the bishop of Rome or a pope. Obviously, Ignatious was simply describing that the Church universal was an episcopal church - as in led by bishops, not ONE bishop. It does coin the term “Catholic” as in “universal” alright, but since it has no reference to a papacy-led Church, sounds like it really has nothing to do with proving that the “Catholic Church” as we know it today, led by a pope, was in effect back then.

David

 

[MonicaC]

DavidB:

Yep, that certainly proves it . . . oh, but wait, there was a bishop over each of the Churches and this says nothing of the bishop of Rome or a pope. Obviously, Ignatious was simply describing that the Church universal was an episcopal church - as in led by bishops, not ONE bishop. It does coin the term “Catholic” as in “universal” alright, but since it has no reference to a papacy-led Church, sounds like it really has nothing to do with proving that the “Catholic Church” as we know it today, led by a pope, was in effect back then.

David

You seem to forget that Jesus ordained Peter as the First Pope. So I guess we can provide proof of the Catholic church from the start. Matthew 16:18

 

[Sarah_Jane]

DavidB:

Yep, that certainly proves it . . . oh, but wait, there was a bishop over each of the Churches and this says nothing of the bishop of Rome or a pope. Obviously, Ignatious was simply describing that the Church universal was an episcopal church - as in led by bishops, not ONE bishop. It does coin the term “Catholic” as in “universal” alright, but since it has no reference to a papacy-led Church, sounds like it really has nothing to do with proving that the “Catholic Church” as we know it today, led by a pope, was in effect back then.

David

The answer by John Henry cardinal Newman, former Anglican :

forum.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=735774&postcount=57

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

DavidB:

Yep, that certainly proves it . . . oh, but wait, there was a bishop over each of the Churches and this says nothing of the bishop of Rome or a pope. Obviously, Ignatious was simply describing that the Church universal was an episcopal church - as in led by bishops, not ONE bishop. It does coin the term “Catholic” as in “universal” alright, but since it has no reference to a papacy-led Church, sounds like it really has nothing to do with proving that the “Catholic Church” as we know it today, led by a pope, was in effect back then.

David

Peace be with you!

I will refer you to Steve Ray’s book, Upon this Rock, where he spends 300 pages defending the papacy from the time of St. Peter in Gospels. I’ll also let you know that other than St. Peter being ordained by Jesus (as Monica just mentioned) St. Peter also ordained St. Clement in Rome.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[michaelgazin]

DavidB:

Yep, that certainly proves it . . . oh, but wait, there was a bishop over each of the Churches and this says nothing of the bishop of Rome or a pope. Obviously, Ignatious was simply describing that the Church universal was an episcopal church - as in led by bishops, not ONE bishop. It does coin the term “Catholic” as in “universal” alright, but since it has no reference to a papacy-led Church, sounds like it really has nothing to do with proving that the “Catholic Church” as we know it today, led by a pope, was in effect back then.

David

Irenaeus
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (*Against Heresies *3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Linus, the second pope, is the same Linus which some argue, that is found in 2 Tim. 4:21 “Do your best to come before winter. Eubu’lus sends greetings to you, as do Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brethren.”

Clement the fourth pope, some argue, is the same Clement found in Phil. 4:3 “And I ask you also, true yokefellow, help these women, for they have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.”

 

[Roman_Army]

As Church Militant pointed out, St. Ignatious of Antioch has the first recorded writing of the word “Catholic” in around 110 AD. Still, the Catholic Church existed prior to that date. The Apostles were the Catholic Church with Peter as the first and prime. However, many secular history books and encyclopedias might date the Roman Catholic Church based on the recorded starting of the Patriarchate of Rome or based on the first Ecumenical Council. It is impossible to accurately date the actual starting of the Catholic Church.

 

[DavidB]

Rand Al'Thor:

Peace be with you!

I will refer you to Steve Ray’s book, Upon this Rock, where he spends 300 pages defending the papacy from the time of St. Peter in Gospels. I’ll also let you know that other than St. Peter being ordained by Jesus (as Monica just mentioned) St. Peter also ordained St. Clement in Rome.

In Christ,
Rand

And I would refer you to *The Matthew 16 Controversy: Peter and the Rock *and *The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, *both authored by William Webster.

Peter also ordained bishops in other churches. That’s because it’s an episcopate and bishops lead the Church. How does that prove a papacy?

David

 

[Roman_Army]

DavidB:

And I would refer you to *The Matthew 16 Controversy: Peter and the Rock *and *The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, *both authored by William Webster.

Peter also ordained bishops in other churches. That’s because it’s an episcopate and bishops lead the Church. How does that prove a papacy?

David

How does it prove a Papacy? Peter was in Rome. He was in charge of the church in Rome. He was martyred in Rome along with Paul. Peter’s tomb is in Rome. St. Peter’s Bascilica is built on top of Peter’s tomb in Rome. St. Peter is prime and infallible as stated in the scripture and therefore as well as his successors in office. Fullfilling Christ’s prophesy:

16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”-Matt. 16:16-19

 

[DavidB]

Irenaeus
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (*Against Heresies *3:3:3 [A.D. 189])…"

OK, so how does this prove a papacy? It talks about establishing the Church in Rome and setting up it’s leader a bishop. They did that in every Church they started. It doesn’t say anything about making the bishop of Rome in charge of the other bishops in the other Churches.

michaelgazin:

Linus, the second pope, is the same Linus which some argue, that is found in 2 Tim. 4:21 “Do your best to come before winter. Eubu’lus sends greetings to you, as do Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brethren.”]).

And the point is . . . by the way, he was the 2nd bishop, not “pope”, “pope” was the affectionate name given to ALL bishops over all of the Churches for the first 9 centuries. And that was only according to one early list, but was the first bishop of Rome according to the earliest list which left Peter off of it since he was an Apostle, not the bishop. And there’s strong evidence that Rome had more than one bishop at some points.

michaelgazin:

Clement the fourth pope, some argue, is the same Clement found in Phil. 4:3 “And I ask you also, true yokefellow, help these women, for they have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.”

Same exact response as to previous, so the point is . . . ?

David

 

[DavidB]

**How does it prove a Papacy? Peter was in Rome. He was in charge of the church in Rome. He was martyred in Rome along with Paul. Peter’s tomb is in Rome. St. Peter’s Bascilica is built on top of Peter’s tomb in Rome. **

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?

**St. Peter is prime and infallible as stated in the scripture **

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

 

[DavidB]

MonicaC:

You seem to forget that Jesus ordained Peter as the First Pope. So I guess we can provide proof of the Catholic church from the start. Matthew 16:18

Sorry, but that’s not what Jesus did in Matt 16:18.

 

[Sarah_Jane]

DavidB:

And I would refer you to *The Matthew 16 Controversy: Peter and the Rock *and *The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, *both authored by William Webster.

Some refutations of Webster’s claims :

web.archive.org/web/20030210220337/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ423.HTM

catholicconvert.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=77

 

[Sarah_Jane]

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.

Peter AND Paul founded the Church in Rome.

“Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church” (St. Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies)

 

[DavidB]

Sarah Jane:

Some refutations of Webster’s claims :

web.archive.org/web/20030210220337/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ423.HTM

catholicconvert.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=77

Yes, and Webster has provided links that address these refutations. The argument has been relentless between Ray and Webster. I’ve read them and find Webster’s case much stronger. I don’t expect to “win” this argument. It actually been going on non-stop for centuries. It’s an argument where each side sees itself clearly as the winner with all of the necessary documentation to prove their case. Yet it remains intractable. Oh well. No use continuing it here. We’ve all been through it several times already and I’ve only been visiting the forum a few weeks.

David

 

[Fidelis]

DavidB:

And I would refer you to *The Matthew 16 Controversy: Peter and the Rock *and *The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, *both authored by William Webster.

Peter also ordained bishops in other churches. That’s because it’s an episcopate and bishops lead the Church. How does that prove a papacy?

David

As Webster is a notorious anti-Catholic, and has had his work refuted by everyone from Steve Ray to Dave Armstrong, I think I have better things to do.