Who founded the Catholic Church, in union with the Bishop of Rome?

[Lapey]

When things like this is said it only shows you can’t back up what you are calming? People resort to this kind of action when they don’t have the answers. PROVE ME WRONG Annabelle Marie.

When you disregard the op’s initial question and change the subject it is because you can’t prove differently nor can you admit it to be truth. If you would your faith would crumble.

Peter didn’t “start” the Church as you stated, Jesus did. Scripture, Tradition and magisterial teachings are in agreement, but to see that and admit that you would have to accept the Church as truth. Therefore your Baptist tradition would be pointless.

Answer the op’s questions before you place your own requests.

PS. Constantine converted to Catholicism on his death bed; Catholicism did not convert to Constantine’s beliefs on its death bed:thumbsup:

 

[josephdaniel29]

Leo IX.

I guess that one slipped by.

 

[Louie1983]

good morning. i have a little question for your answer here, i’ve been reading through to see what everyone had to state and how it is in agreement with the bible. How did peter fit into the picture as the first pope as it will suggest that he first instituted the idea of celibacy, i suggest he should’ve been unmarried, but why did the bible stated in two different places something suggesting the opposite? please read 1st Corinthians 9:5 for the start. thank u

Good Morning,

Who cares if he was married, the church had only just been founded (or very close to being founded). The bible says Jesus called to him “those he desired”, are you questioning Jesus’ judgement here?

Here’s one question for you also, can you tell me where it says it has to be in the bible to be true?

 

[James_Miller]

It is to soon to say that the OP is no longer participating. As for the sentence, what makes you think it is not a complete thought and even so what does it matter? His question has been asked before. Basically he is asking if Jesus did not start the Catholic Church who do you say did?

Dear Adrift,
The op posted on the first page but not on the second or third. So how is he now participating? English is the language of this forum. Placing English words together does not make a sentence. A complete thought requires a subject and verb. What does it matter? Only that it cannot be understood. I return to his curious use of the passive voice. We use the passive when we do not know the agent, the agent is not important or we are trying to conceal the agent. So he may have been told by marxists, freemasons, or anybody else. He is hardly being transparent with us.
If the question has been asked before, why ask it again?
“Basically he is asking if Jesus did not start the Catholic Church who do you say did?” You are interpreting his dangling phrases. Maybe you are correct. If so, is this a suitable question for a Catholic forum?

 

[James_Miller]

No need to angry…I am just looking for an answer to this question brother. I am told by non-Catholics that the CC in union with the bishop of Rome was not founded by Jesus, so now I am attempting to find out who did start it.

Dear Joe,
Why look for something that does not exist? Don’t ask us, ask your non-Catholic associates. By the way “angry” is not a verb.

 

[James_Miller]

Ok people. Here it is again. I only gave options ok. I never said I believe them. Yes one of you are correct it was called the WAY.

Dear Rev Kevin,
I fear “the Way” is not the name of a person and will not satisfy the OP who asked when.

 

[James_Miller]

That does not answer my question… I now know that it is Jesus (I’m catholic) - but my protestant friends tell me that it was not Jesus…

Dear Joe,
You know as a Catholic that it is Jesus, But you want another answer to give to protestant friends. That answer a priori will be wrong. So we are searching for a wrong answer to please your protestant friends, is that right? The are millions of wrong answers. How about George Burns?

 

[rev_kevin]

There…better?

Thank you

 

[rev_kevin]

Ok people. Here it is again. I only gave options ok. I never said I believe them. Yes one of you are correct it was called the WAY.

Dear Rev Kevin,
I fear “the Way” is not the name of a person and will not satisfy the OP who asked when.

I know that the WAY was not a name of a person it was what the first Christians called themselves. Besides the WAY part was in responce to adrifts correction of me in post 27.

 

[rev_kevin]

You are still being silly.

The Church is the same Church no matter what name. Just like Abraham is the Father of the Jews even though he was never called a Jew. The Christians of the first century eventually were called Catholics. We have existed since Pentecost. No this is not historically correct.
Since you like the name game.
The Catholic Church was not referred to as the RCC only as the Catholic Church. The term RCC is a term that is used mostly in English speaking countries. As you said to someone else,

You are correct that Abraham was never called a Jew because in his time the term “JEW” was not used. Instead the term “HEBREW” was used. The term “JEW” didn’t come until after the “Syro-Ephraimite” wars of 735-721 BC. Abraham started Judaism when he made a Covenant with God and his name was changed from Abram to Abraham.

Yes this is true that the Catholic Church was not referred to as the RCC but only as the CC. But I am correct that Constatine in 312-313 wanted to unite the Roman Empire under a “universal” church thus began the RCC. So I’m not playing name games as you claim.

 

[KathleenGee]

You can’t look at the Bible…after the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and then invalidate His entire mission implying He left nothing but the Bible to interpret.

You have to look at the people, where they lived, how their faith developed in conjunction with all the different churches — regions/dioceses.

The Jews have their salvation history, and so do we.

 

[James_Miller]

---

Kevin, it was not Constantine or Theodosius. Is that your final answer?​

Joe 370 : On what basis can you say it is wrong? You admit that to satisfy your requirements it must be a wrong answer. The right answer, according to your criteria, must be wrong. I can only say parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. I am astonished that the moderators allowed such an incoherent op to exist.
On a more profound level I think we do a disservice to our protestant brethen in giving them wrong answers instead of the truth.
This thread has been off subject since the start.

 

[jmcrae]

Dear Joe,
You know as a Catholic that it is Jesus, But you want another answer to give to protestant friends.

No. He wants Protestants to clarify their thinking, unify their voice, and say, "Jesus did not start the Catholic Church in 33 AD. [This person] started the Catholic Church in [this year] and in [this place]. Here’s what happened: [give the history and circumstances of how the Catholic Church started].

If Protestants prove incapable of doing so, then Protestants need to consider that perhaps their version of history is incorrect - that Jesus, indeed, started the Catholic Church, and wants all human beings to be members of it - and to come out of their Protestant churches and join Jesus’ Church, which is the Catholic Church.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes this is true that the Catholic Church was not referred to as the RCC but only as the CC. But I am correct that Constatine in 312-313 wanted to unite the Roman Empire under a “universal” church thus began the RCC. So I’m not playing name games as you claim.

No, this is incorrect.

Constantine wanted to unify the Empire under the already-existing Catholic Church. He did not create the religion. He simply took the already-existing religion, legalized it, and made it the official religion of the Empire.

Nothing changed with regard to the beliefs, hierarchy, or structure of the Church other than the fact that it was now legal, and could now be practiced openly - which resulted in a lot of Church-building projects - but the buildings are not the Church.

 

[Publisher]

It was started by those who eventually became to be known as the ECF’s toward the middle to the end of the 2nd century, some modern scholars…yes…I used the word “scholar”, assert that the Synoptic Gospels were written by those Gentile Christians who didn’t understand Judaism nor undertood the Hebrew scriptures they quoted and developed what came to be called the Orthodox and Catholic churches. The ECF’s came from this group of Christians and gained prominence.

The “proto-orthodox/catholic” fathers worked to spead their version of Christianity as the dominant version and by the 4th century finallty achieved it’s ends…they came to be the dominant version of Christian belief…still troubled by “heretics” and “schismatics”…but eventually assimilated most forms of Christianity into it’s realm.

I know…it’s a “goofy idea”…but you did ask.

 

[jmcrae]

It was started by those who eventually became to be known as the ECF’s toward the middle to the end of the 2nd century, some modern scholars…yes…I used the word “scholar”, assert that the Synoptic Gospels were written by those Gentile Christians who didn’t understand Judaism nor undertood the Hebrew scriptures they quoted and developed what came to be called the Orthodox and Catholic churches. The ECF’s came from this group of Christians and gained prominence.

The “proto-orthodox/catholic” fathers worked to spead their version of Christianity as the dominant version and by the 4th century finallty achieved it’s ends…they came to be the dominant version of Christian belief…still troubled by “heretics” and “schismatics”…but eventually assimilated most forms of Christianity into it’s realm.

I know…it’s a “goofy idea”…but you did ask.

How do you explain why there are Bishops, deacons, and presbyters mentioned in almost every Epistle of the New Testament? Or are you suggesting that none of the New Testament was written prior to the middle of the second century?

Edited to add: you do realize, don’t you, that the heretics and schismatics of the first and second centuries had almost nothing in common with modern day Protestantism, right?

 

[Publisher]

How do you explain why there are Bishops, deacons, and presbyters mentioned in almost every Epistle of the New Testament? Or are you suggesting that none of the New Testament was written prior to the middle of the second century?

Edited to add: you do realize, don’t you, that the heretics and schismatics of the first and second centuries had almost nothing in common with modern day Protestantism, right?

Acts and the “pastoral epistles” were among the latest of “pseudo-Paul” written…1st and 2nd Peter were toward the end of the 1st end beginning of the 2nd…as was Revelation. The three tiered “office of ministry”…aka what became “priesthood” had been established by then in many congregations to be sure…that it was one of the key reasons for the formation of the “proto-orthodox/catholic” tradition is not in dispute…“overseers”, “elders” and “deacons” in the NT were a “primitive heirachy” later developed into a more strict “heirarchy” and adopted by the fledgling “orthodox” movement within the 2nd century.

Oh, no doubt early Christian “heretical belief” was different…Protestant theology came from the victorious “proto-orthodox/catholic” group… that’s why many Protestants accept the Creed…they have an historical connection with the church started by the ECF’s.

 

[jmcrae]

Acts and the “pastoral epistles” were among the latest of “pseudo-Paul” written…1st and 2nd Peter were toward the end of the 1st end beginning of the 2nd…as was Revelation. The three tiered “office of ministry”…aka what became “priesthood” had been established by then in many congregations to be sure…that it was one of the key reasons for the formation of the “proto-orthodox/catholic” tradition is not in dispute…“overseers”, “elders” and “deacons” in the NT were a “primitive heirachy” later developed into a more strict “heirarchy” and adopted by the fledgling “orthodox” movement within the 2nd century.

Oh, no doubt early Christian “heretical belief” was different…Protestant theology came from the victorious “proto-orthodox/catholic” group… that’s why many Protestants accept the Creed…they have an historical connection with the church started by the ECF’s.

So, do you believe that the original Church has been irretrievably lost, or where do you find it in the world today?

 

[Publisher]

So, do you believe that the original Church has been irretrievably lost, or where do you find it in the world today?

I do not believe there was an “original church”…all the surviving expressions of Christianity stem from the 2nd century…Christianity pretty much was an insignificant sect of Judaism until the destruction of the Temple…in the mid 2nd century the various forms of Christian belief “exploded” upon the scene…the “victors” of the internal struggles between the sects of the people called Christians ended up the “orthodox/catholic” tradition as dominant.

The “religion of Jesus” in the first century became the “religon about Jesus” by the 2nd century.

 

[adrift]

It is to soon to say that the OP is no longer participating. As for the sentence, what makes you think it is not a complete thought and even so what does it matter? His question has been asked before. Basically he is asking if Jesus did not start the Catholic Church who do you say did?

Dear Adrift,
The op posted on the first page but not on the second or third. So how is he now participating? English is the language of this forum. Placing English words together does not make a sentence. A complete thought requires a subject and verb. What does it matter? Only that it cannot be understood. I return to his curious use of the passive voice. We use the passive when we do not know the agent, the agent is not important or we are trying to conceal the agent. So he may have been told by marxists, freemasons, or anybody else. He is hardly being transparent with us.
If the question has been asked before, why ask it again?
“Basically he is asking if Jesus did not start the Catholic Church who do you say did?” You are interpreting his dangling phrases. Maybe you are correct. If so, is this a suitable question for a Catholic forum?

I think how many pages depends on how your computer displays. For me there is only one page. The OP last posted four days ago. I think that is to short of time to say he is no longer posting. Although I can see why you say that and perhaps he will not post again. I believe that at least two weeks should past before you conclude that someone is not posting anymore.

Non-Catholics, who founded the Catholic Church, in union with the Bishop of Rome?

I think it is the puncuation that is throwing you. His question is Who founded the Catholic Church in union with the Bishop of Rome. He addresses this question to Non-Catholics. It is ackward. I disagree with you in that it does have subject and verb.

There have been many on this forum who claim that the Church was founded by Constantine. Just take a look at the Rev Kevin post.