What is the name of that Church which was established in Rome by Sts. Peter & Paul which is currently headquartered at the Vatican?

[jmcrae]

.

Since there is no evidence that either St. Paul or St. Peter founded ANY church in the city of Rome, it could not have been called anything. Then or now. It’s just that simple.

You keep repeating this, as if repetition will cause it to become true.

Sts. Peter and Paul were the leaders of the whole (aka Catholic) Church, from its very beginnings. They operated out of various different places between 33 and 67 AD. In 67 AD, they were captured and taken to Rome. They then led the Church (the same one that Christ founded in Jerusalem in 33 AD) from Rome. It continues to reside there, even until today.

If it were to move to some other city for any reason, it would not thereby cease to be the same Catholic Church that was founded by Jesus Christ in 33 AD in Jerusalem.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Sts. Peter and Paul were the leaders of the whole (aka Catholic) Church, from its very beginnings.

Well, I think they were among the leaders of the catholic church, I know nothing that remotely suggests they were leaders of any denomination. But we are WAY off topic. The question here is not who were some of the leading Christians of the first century, the question is what was the name of the congregation in the city of Rome that St. Paul and St. Peter founded? Since there’s ZERO evidence that they founded ANY congregation in that city (indeed, it would seem neither even set foot in that city until decades AFTER that congregation was begun), then the obvious answer to the question is none. It had no name; it still doesn’t. They never founded a church in Rome.

In 67 AD, they were captured and taken to Rome.

Then, when Paul wrote to it in 57 AD - TEN YEAR earlier - how could he have founded the congregation there? Did he do so retroactively? And how could Peter have founded the church in that city is he, too, wasn’t even there? And if they didn’t establish the church in that city, how could the church they never founded have a name - then or now?

.

 

[jmcrae]

Well, I think they were among the leaders of the catholic church, I know nothing that remotely suggests they were leaders of any denomination.

That’s true. There were no denominations until at least a thousand years later - everyone was Catholic until then.

But we are WAY off topic. The question here is not who were some of the leading Christians of the first century, the question is what was the name of the congregation in the city of Rome that St. Paul and St. Peter founded?

Yes, and even though she phrased the question anachronistically, we all know what she meant to say.

Since there’s ZERO evidence that they founded ANY congregation in that city (indeed, it would seem neither even set foot in that city until decades AFTER that congregation was begun), then the obvious answer to the question is none. It had no name; it still doesn’t. They never founded a church in Rome.

What do you hope to accomplish, by continually repeating this? Do you hope to convince people that the Catholic Church does not really exist?

Then, when Paul wrote to it in 57 AD - TEN YEAR earlier - how could he have founded the congregation there?

He didn’t, and nobody claims that he did. The Church that came about in Rome after 67 AD was the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and this is what St. Irenaeus was referring to, in Adverses Haeresies.

And if they didn’t establish the church in that city, how could the church they never founded have a name - then or now?

It’s the Diocese of Rome - it always has been.

Sts. Peter and Paul brought the leadership of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church there, and from there, they spread it to the whole world. Why are you finding this so difficult to grasp?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

What do you hope to accomplish, by continually repeating this?

I’m doing what we are suppose to do here: discuss the issue, in this case, answer the question. The question is this: What is the name (the moniker) of the church establish/begun/founded by St. Paul and St. Peter in the City of Rome?

MY point is: neither of them founded a congregation there; it preexisted the arrival of both of them in that city. Thus, since they founded none there, it could not have had a name, and could not now. This seems sound and logical to me. And it is historically accurate.

Sts. Peter and Paul brought the leadership of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church there, and from there, they spread it to the whole world. Why are you finding this so difficult to grasp?

Well, I’d dispute that, but that’s not the issue before us. The issue before is in the moniker of the church in the City of Rome that St. Paul and St. Peter founded there. Since it appears they didn’t found one there, how could it have a moniker? Why are you finding that so difficult to grasp?

.

 

[jmcrae]

I’m doing what we are suppose to do here: discuss the issue, in this case, answer the question. The question is this: What is the name (the moniker) of the church establish/begun/founded by St. Paul and St. Peter in the City of Rome?

MY point is: neither of them founded a congregation there; it preexisted the arrival of both of them in that city. Thus, since they founded none there, it could not have had a name, and could not now. This seems sound and logical to me. And it is historically accurate.

Point made. Move on. How about an answer to the question that she meant to ask.

 

[rinnie]

That’s true. There were no denominations until at least a thousand years later - everyone was Catholic until then.

Yes, and even though she phrased the question anachronistically, we all know what she meant to say.

What do you hope to accomplish, by continually repeating this? Do you hope to convince people that the Catholic Church does not really exist?

He didn’t, and nobody claims that he did. The Church that came about in Rome after 67 AD was the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and this is what St. Irenaeus was referring to, in Adverses Haeresies.

It’s the Diocese of Rome - it always has been.

Sts. Peter and Paul brought the leadership of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church there, and from there, they spread it to the whole world. Why are you finding this so difficult to grasp?

 

[rinnie]

That’s true. There were no denominations until at least a thousand years later - everyone was Catholic until then.

Yes, and even though she phrased the question anachronistically, we all know what she meant to say.

What do you hope to accomplish, by continually repeating this? Do you hope to convince people that the Catholic Church does not really exist?

He didn’t, and nobody claims that he did. The Church that came about in Rome after 67 AD was the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and this is what St. Irenaeus was referring to, in Adverses Haeresies.

It’s the Diocese of Rome - it always has been.

Sts. Peter and Paul brought the leadership of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church there, and from there, they spread it to the whole world. Why are you finding this so difficult to grasp?

Maybe if I keep re-summiting your post they will really read it, and then they can get their answers. There is no better response possible.

 

[jmcrae]

Maybe if I keep re-summiting your post they will really read it, and then they can get their answers. There is no better response possible.

Good luck - I have been restating the same thing over and over for several days, now, and it is not getting through, yet - but I like your plan!