What is the proof that Jesus started the Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter br4ndon21
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Simple answer - just look at the doctrimes. We know the original church founded by Christ and passed along His teachings. Reviewing the writings of the Christians of the first and second century (The Didache, Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyons, Justin Martyr), all of major doctrines of Catholics and Protestants disagree over (the Eucharist being the body and blood of Christ; adherence to the authority of the bishop, the primacy of the church in Rome, etc.) are present in their Catholic form. Also absent from those earliest writings are any mention of the uniquely Protestant doctrines such as sola scriptura and sola fide.

What that leaves is two possible scenarios:
  1. The Catholic Church is the original church Christ founded, doctrinally.
  2. The original church disappeared completely by the end of the first century, with its doctrines being replaced by Catholic teachings. The second generation would have had to have it completely backwards, even though they actually spent time with the apostles and presumably were able to question them at length if they didn’t understand something. Not only would they have had to get it completely wrong, but they would have had to try and suppress other doctrines of original Christianity so completely that no historical record of them has been found.
#1 is very reasonable and fits with the evidence in existence. #2 can only be accepted by ignoring all existing evidence or believing in a conspiracy theory of suppression that would be almost impossible to pull off in our modern age; much less two-thousand years ago.

To study church history is to cease to be Protestant.
 
What is the proof that Jesus started the Catholic Church?
It is a well documented historical fact. Even secular scholars recogize and attest to it and they have no dog in the fight.
The only objection comes from those who churches started in the 16th Century or later.
 
What is the proof that Jesus started the Catholic Church
?🤷
In addition to the answers you have already received, I’d like to hone in on this:
Matthew 16:18

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Either

A. Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church, just as He said He would.

or

B. Jesus Christ was a liar.

I choose A.

Which one do you choose?
Obvisously (right?) we know Jesus is not a liar. So, he founded a Church. You can look at this Scripture passage as God’s Word, or you can look at it as a testimony of history, or both. Historically, it’s more verifiable and reliable than most historical things we take for granted, no? So, evidence #1 - Christ defintely founded a Church.

So, how do we know the Catholic Church of today is that Church of the Bible? We can look back to the Bible, follow that Church through history, and see what that Church looked like, how it grew, and compare it to the Catholic Church of today (or the various other denominations/sects/etc. of today).

I’ll just post a snippet from the article and then a link to the article (it’s relatively short…so please take a look…it has the evidence you are looking for).

Catholics also believe that this Church is Apostolic. Jesus chose specific men to lead His Church (Jn 15:16), gave them His own mission (Jn 20:21), and conferred on them a Kingdom (Lk 22:29-30). Christ chose to build His Church on one of His Apostles, (Mt 16:18) and said that it would be One Flock with One Shepherd (Jn 10:16) and then He appointed a shepherd to tend His Flock on earth until He comes again (Lk 22:32, Jn 21:17). When one of them betrayed the Lord, he was replaced…succeeded (Acts 1:20, 25-26), and so this Apostolic Church has Apostolic Succession. We believe that the OT verses 2Chr 19:11, Mal 2:7 point to this and the NT verses Eph 2:20, 4:11, 1Cor 12:28-29, 1Tim 3:1,8 1Tim 5:17, Acts 14:23, 2Tim 2:2, Titus 1:5, etc…confirm it, even showing how that succession takes place. (Acts 6:1-6, 1Tim 4:14, 1Tim 5:22 and 2Tim 1:6)

Which Church is THE Church of the Bible?

As to how we know the Church has not altared the teachings of Christ. Again, you can use the testimony of history (if you want specifics, you need to ask specifcally) and you can take Christ at His Word when He told the Apostles that they speak with HIS very voice (Lk 10:16) and the Word of God shows us they spoke with the very voice and authority of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28) whom Christ promised would lead His Church into ALL truth for ALL time (Jn 16:13, Mt 28:20).
 
Peter screwed up. But there’s a little more to it than that.

On Peter, Paul and Hypocrisy

In their effort to deny the primacy of Peter and the doctrine of papal infallibility, many non-Catholics point to Paul’s rebuke of Peter over the issue of eating with Gentiles as recorded in the Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.

Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

In this passage, we see that Paul opposed Peter for not practicing what he preached. Although Peter may have been wrong to draw back from eating with the Gentile believers, we must note that is apparently James, and not Peter, who was the leader of the “circumcision group” in Jerusalem. Thus, those who assert that it was James, and not Peter, who was the real leader of the Church must answer for this error. However, Peter’s actions do not constitute formal teaching, and the doctrine of infallibility does not apply to Peter’s private opinions or behavior. Therefore, this passage does nothing to disprove either Peter’s primacy or the doctrine of papal infallibility. Peter, like his successors, was not above reproach nor impeccable.

However, it must also be noted that Paul was not above taking prudent measures out of fear of those who held to the tradition of circumcision, either. One such measure is found in the following passage:

Acts 16:1-3
1He came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was a Jewess and a believer, but whose father was a Greek. 2The brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 3Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Paul wrote that “circumcision means nothing” (1 Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 6:15). Moreover, in the same letter in which Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy and boasted of having opposed Peter to his face, he writes the following:

Galatians 5:2-3
2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.

Imagine how Timothy must have felt when he first heard these words. He had let himself be circumcised by the very man who condemned the practice. Was Christ of no value to Timothy at all as a result of being circumcised?

This was not the only time that Paul had acted out of fear of the Jews. Later in the book of Acts, we find the following:

Acts 21:17-26
17When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. 18The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” 26The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.

Clearly, the brothers in Jerusalem were concerned that some harm might come to Paul from those who knew that Paul taught against circumcision. Paul agreed to purify himself according to Jewish customs and to pay the expenses of those who were purified along with him rather than openly admit that circumcision was of no value. Was this a wise course of action? Assuredly as subsequent events indicate.

However, it cannot be denied that Paul was preaching one thing (at least in private to Gentile Christians) while practicing another—the very thing he accused Peter of doing.
Well put Randy, I had never heard or seen for myself that angle.
 
Well… A good way to figure this out is to look at all of the churches around today and look at their histories, and see who’s the oldest.

How Old Is Your Church?
If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex- monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.

If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.

If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.

If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.

If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as 'Church of the Nazarene," “Pentecostal Gospel.” “Holiness Church,” “Pilgrim Holiness Church,” “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century.

If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.

St. Ignatius of Antioch in a Letter to the Smyrnaeans said this in c. 107:
Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid.

He seems to be using the word “Catholic” as if it’s in wide use.

Hope this helps.
 
Well… A good way to figure this out is to look at all of the churches around today and look at their histories, and see who’s the oldest.

How Old Is Your Church?
If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex- monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.

If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.

If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.

If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.

If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as 'Church of the Nazarene," “Pentecostal Gospel.” “Holiness Church,” “Pilgrim Holiness Church,” “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century.

If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.

St. Ignatius of Antioch in a Letter to the Smyrnaeans said this in c. 107:
Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid.

He seems to be using the word “Catholic” as if it’s in wide use.

Hope this helps.
Very good argument for the legitimacy of the Catholic Church, rfournier. 👍
 
Jesus said, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” ,Therefore it’s universal.

The Catholic Church doesn’t claim to have the monopoly on Jesus. The power to turn bread & wine into the Body & Blood of Christ was passed on to the apostles & their successors by Jesus.
I said it back in post #18
 
Yes, he did refer to the church at that time as catholic but, as I understand it, that term referred to the church as a whole with the meaning of “universal.”
Correct.

And at the time the Catholic Church was the only church in town - therefore it was truly “the church as a whole” as you put it.

So, he really WAS talking about the Catholic Church.
 
The name of every single bishop of Rome is known to us. No one has ever produced any grounds for disputing that list even when disputes arose about the extent of his jurisdiction. No such other such list exists. Only the Roman bishops have ever made the claim to have jurisdiction; and only those in communion with him ever claimed that this was the Church that could not be overcome. The most basic reading of history shows that despite the great number of occasions when, by every account, the Church ought to have been destroyed, instead it continued.
If it isn’t the Church founded by the Risen Son of God, what then could it possibly be?
 
Can you give me the proof that Jesus started a Catholic Church?
“For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” 1 Cor 14:33

Christ did not start a Church of conflicting denominations, as in Protestantism. Even beyond mere Protestantism, Christ didn’t start a “church” where each person became their own Pope, Council, Magisterium, interpreting scripture as they personally see fit. All of that is a recipe for confusion and strife.

What is your view? What do you think Christ started? Protestantism?
 
“For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” 1 Cor 14:33

Christ did not start a Church of conflicting denominations, as in Protestantism. Even beyond mere Protestantism, Christ didn’t start a “church” where each person became their own Pope, Council, Magisterium, interpreting scripture as they personally see fit. All of that is a recipe for confusion and strife.

What is your view? What do you think Christ started? Protestantism?
Protestantism started as a “protest” or breaking away from the Catholic Church…eg. Martin Luther protesting the selling of indulgences; Henry VIII wanting a divorce, so he started his own church.
 
You beat me to this. But this book is not catholic, yet it states that the Catholic Church was started in times of the apostles. Can not be any more clear.
That’s neat, I never knew this. We had the whole set when I was a kid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top