Rcc

[prodromos]

You'll note that I'm not Orthodox either. I have great respect for Orthodoxy (and, in fact, for Catholicism). But I don't think that the Orthodox bishops are heirs to the apostles any more than Catholic (any other) ones.

You do, however, share our conclusions with regards to the writings of the church fathers. That said, I confess that my previous post to you was made with tongue firmly planted in cheek

John

 

[PaulAckermann]

Can you show where the church prior to Constantine taught papal infallibility and purgatory, not to mention "etc" which presumeably contains such doctrines as the immaculate conception of Mary and that submission to the Pope is necessary for salvation.

John

Purgatory, pre-Constantine

"And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again receives her. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: Mother, thou shaft have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the just."
Acts of Paul and Thecla(A.D. 160)

Falconilla, after her death, appears to her mother and asks her to pray for her. For those in hell, prayer will not help, for those in heaven, prayers are not needed

"lest this Judge deliver you over to the angel who is to execute the sentence, and he commit you to the prison of hell, out of which there will be no dismissal until the smallest even of your delinquencies be paid off in the period before the resurrection. What can be a more fitting sense than this? What a truer interpretation?"
Tertullian,A Treatise on the Soul,35(A.D. 210)

"Accordingly the believer, through great discipline, divesting himself of the passions, passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, viz., to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance from the sins he has committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more--not yet or not quite attaining what he sees others to have acquired. Besides, he is also ashamed of his transgressions. The greatest torments, indeed, are assigned to the believer. For God's righteousness is good, and His goodness is righteous. And though the punishments cease in the course of the completion of the expiation and purification of each one, yet those have very great and permanent grief who are found worthy of the other fold, on account of not being along with those that have been glorified through righteousness."
Clement of Alexandria,Stromata,6:14(post A.D. 202)

"For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones(1 Cor.,3);but also wood and hay and stubble,what do you expect when the soul shall be seperated from the body? Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God;or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones; Neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials;for our God to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire. But this fire consumes not the creature,but what the creature has himself built, wood, and hay and stubble.It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our trangressions and then returns to us the rewardof our great works."
Origen,Homilies on Jeremias,(A.D. 244)


It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory: it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord."
Cyprian,To Antonianus,Epistle 51(55):20(A.D. 253)

 

[PaulAckermann]

Can you show where the church prior to Constantine taught papal infallibility and purgatory, not to mention "etc" which presumeably contains such doctrines as the immaculate conception of Mary and that submission to the Pope is necessary for salvation.

John

Primacy of the Bishop of Rome - pre-Constantine

"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger."
Clement of Rome,Bishop of Rome,1st Epistle to the Corinthians,1,59:1 (c.A.D. 96)


"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:3:2 (A.D. 180)


"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided."
Cyprian,The Unity of the Church,4-5 (Primacy Text,A.D. 251/256)

"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare--a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics--to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access."
Cyprian,To Cornelius,Epistle 54/59:14(A.D. 252),

 

[PaulAckermann]

Can you show where the church prior to Constantine taught papal infallibility and purgatory, not to mention "etc" which presumeably contains such doctrines as the immaculate conception of Mary and that submission to the Pope is necessary for salvation.

John

Immaculate Conception, pre-Constantine

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption."
Hippolytus,Orat. Inillud, Dominus pascit me(ante A.D. 235),


"This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one."
Origen,Homily 1(A.D. 244)

 

[freespiritchurch]

Primacy of the Bishop of Rome - pre-Constantine

"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger."
Clement of Rome,Bishop of Rome,1st Epistle to the Corinthians,1,59:1 (c.A.D. 96)


"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:3:2 (A.D. 180)


"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided."
Cyprian,The Unity of the Church,4-5 (Primacy Text,A.D. 251/256)

"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare--a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics--to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access."
Cyprian,To Cornelius,Epistle 54/59:14(A.D. 252),

I would like to point out that there is no good evidence to show that "1 Clement" was written by a man named Clement, or that Clement was the bishop of Rome. Unlike the letters of Paul, 1 Clement is written by "the Church at Rome," not any individual.

 

[Trento]

I would like to point out that there is no good evidence to show that "1 Clement" was written by a man named Clement, or that Clement was the bishop of Rome. Unlike the letters of Paul, 1 Clement is written by "the Church at Rome," not any individual.

In his History of the Christian Church Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., iii. 16) AD330

There is one acknowledged Epistle of this Clement , great and admirable, which he wrote in the name of the Church of Rome to the Church at Corinth,sedition having then arisen in the latter Church. We are aware that this Epistle has been publicly read in very many churches both in old times, and also in our own day.” Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., iii. 16)

The first Epistle was read in numerous churches, as being almost on a level with the canonical writings. And its place in the Alexandrian ms., immediately after the inspired books, is in harmony with the position thus assigned it in the primitive Church.

Some of the most respected professional (Protestant) Church historians:support the Catholic thesis that there is exercise of authority from the Church of Rome in this letter that has it's origin from the Apostles!


On St. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD), reckoned as the fourth Pope from St. Peter, Schaff states --

"...it can hardly be denied that the document [Clement to the Corinthians] reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked (as far as appears), gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome." (Schaff, page 158)


​

What is the source of that =instinct= that led the Church of Rome to intervene with the squabble at the Church of Corinth?




Protestant J.B. Lightfoot Church historian--

'It may perhaps seem strange to describe this noble remonstrance as the first step towards papal dominion. And yet undoubtedly this is the case'
St. Clement of Rome, pg 698.


Adolf Harnack another Protestant exegete/historian remarks,

'This letter to the Corinthians proves already at the end of the first century the Roman Church ... kept watch with the maternal care for the distant churches, and that at that date she knew how to utter the word that is an expression of duty, of love and authority at the same time'
History of Dogma.




​

Another Protestant scholar T. Jalland



​

'Yet it might not be unreasonable to infer from these words that the Roman Church was already conscious of some degree of external responsibility, such as does not appear to have been realized by geographically neighboring churches of Thessalonica or Phillipi...As we shall it will not be long before the thought, which seems to underlie this Clementine consciousness of responsibility, acquires a greater measure of precision in papal correspondence...If it is true to say of the Roman intervention that "the authority is implicit, it being left to subsequent generations to make explicit the reasons which prompted an instinctive reaction"(1st Epis of Clem, Lowther Clark, p 20), we are still left with the question as to the source from which the instinct itself was derived. Instincts are usually traceable to habits of past generations. Was the source in this case merely the habituation of the Roman people to government of others; or was it not rather, as the whole tone of the epistle would suggest, some custom which would claim a sanction apostolic or even Dominical in origin?'​

T. Jalland 'The Church and the Papacy',p103




​

Protestant historian/exegete JND Kelly writes:

'It was a letter of remonstrance addressed c.96 to the Church at Corinth...'​

Oxford Dictionary of the Popes, pg 8

 

[freespiritchurch]

Yes, it's clear that the church of Rome has some sense of authority over the church of Corinth. But we don't know why they felt that way, or whether the Corinthians also believed that Rome had some authority over them.

But that isn't the issue I raised: rather, I pointed out that there's no good evidence linking the letter to Clement, or describing Clement as the bishop of Rome. The citation of Eusebius, who is writing 230 years after the fact, isn't what I would call good evidence.

 

[Trento]

Yes, it's clear that the church of Rome has some sense of authority over the church of Corinth. But we don't know why they felt that way, or whether the Corinthians also believed that Rome had some authority over them.

But that isn't the issue I raised: rather, I pointed out that there's no good evidence linking the letter to Clement, or describing Clement as the bishop of Rome. The citation of Eusebius, who is writing 230 years after the fact, isn't what I would call good evidence.

Early authorities unanimously ascribe it to Clement. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, wrote c. 170 to the Romans in Pope Soter's time: "To-day we kept the holy day, the Lord's day, and on it we read your letter- and we shall ever have it to give us instruction, even as the former one written through Clement"
Hegesippus attributed the letter to Clement. Irenaeus, c. 180-5 says: "Under this Clement no small sedition took place among the brethren at Corinth and the Church of Rome sent a most sufficient letter to the Corinthians, establishing them in peace, and renewing their faith, and announcing the tradition it had recently received from the Apostles" (III, iii). Clement of Alexandria, c. 200, frequently quotes the Epistle as Clement's, and so do Origen and Lightfoot and Harnack Protestant Historians.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

(oops)

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

(Continued)

Now, as a more direct answer to your question, I submit the following for your consideration.

Do you have any idea when your church was founded and by whom? You may find this enlightening:
If you are of the Catholic faith, Jesus Christ founded your Church in the year A.D. 30.
If you are Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk in the Catholic Church, in 1517.
If you are Anabaptist, your religion was founded by Nicholas Storch and Thomas Munzer in Germany in 1521.
If you belong to the Church of England (Anglican), 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 belong to the Mennonites, your church was started in 1536 by Menno Simons in Switzerland.
If you are a Calvinist, Jon Calvin started your belief system in 1555 in Switzerland.
If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded when John Knox brought the teachings of John Calvin to Scotland in the Year 1560.
If you are Unitarian, your group developed in Europe in the 1500s.
If you are a Congregationalist, your religion branched off Puritanism in the early 1600s in England.
If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1607.
If you are Dutch Reformed, Michaelis Jones founded your church in New York in 1628.
If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.
If you are an Episcopalian, your church came from England to the American colonies. It formed a separate religion founded by Samuel Seabury in 1789.
If you are a Campellite Christian Church, your religion was started by Thomas and Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone at a revival held at Bushy Creek.
If you are a Mormon (Latter-day Saints), Joseph Smith started your church in Palmyra, N.Y. in 1830.
If you are Seventh Day Adventist, your religion was founded by Ellen Whitein 1844 in Washington, New Hampshire.
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 your religion was founded by Mary Baker Eddy.
If you are a Jehovah's Witness, your religion was founded by Charles Taze Russell in Pennsylvania in the 1870s.
If you’re Church of Christ, your church broke of from the Campellites in 1906.
If you are Pentecostal, your religion was started in the Topeka, Kansas in 1901 by Charles F. Parkham
If you are Assemblies of God your church grew out of Pentecostalism in 1914 in Hot Springs, Az.
If you are a member of Four-square Gospel, your church was started by Aimee Semple McPherson in L.A. in 1917.
If your Church of Christ, your church broke of from the Campellites in 1906.
If you are Calvary Chapel, Chuck Smith founded your church in Costa Mesa, Ca, 1965
If your organization is “evangelical nondenominational Christian” your group started in the 1970s by protestant evangelists.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[prodromos]

Yes, it's clear that the church of Rome has some sense of authority over the church of Corinth. But we don't know why they felt that way, or whether the Corinthians also believed that Rome had some authority over them.

Yes we do. Corinth was a Roman colony, the original Greek inhabitants having been put to the sword or sold into slavery after a failed uprising over a century before. As such they had very strong ties to Rome.

John

 

[freespiritchurch]

Yes we do. Corinth was a Roman colony, the original Greek inhabitants having been put to the sword or sold into slavery after a failed uprising over a century before. As such they had very strong ties to Rome.

I realize that's a likely explanation, but when I say, "we don't know," I mean that there's nothing in the text or the secondary sources that gives us any information about it.

Trento, both your 2nd-century quotes are interesting because they don't describe Clement as the author: in one the letter is written "through Clement" (not "by Clement") and the other notes that the letter was written in his time.

When the apostles wrote letters, they identified themselves as apostles because it gave them authority. A lot of people wrote documents in the name of the apostles because they wanted to take advantage of that apostolic authority. If Clement were recognized as a successor to the apostles, with apostolic authority, it stands to reason that he would have named himself as the author. However, the authority in 1 Clement is given to "the Church of Rome," not "Clement, successor of Peter and Paul." Especially at a very early date, when people in both Corinth and Rome would have remembered meeting Paul himself, apostolic authority would most likely have been used if it had been recognized.

 

[Trento]

I realize that's a likely explanation, but when I say, "we don't know," I mean that there's nothing in the text or the secondary sources that gives us any information about it.

Trento, both your 2nd-century quotes are interesting because they don't describe Clement as the author: in one the letter is written "through Clement" (not "by Clement") and the other notes that the letter was written in his time.

When the apostles wrote letters, they identified themselves as apostles because it gave them authority. A lot of people wrote documents in the name of the apostles because they wanted to take advantage of that apostolic authority. If Clement were recognized as a successor to the apostles, with apostolic authority, it stands to reason that he would have named himself as the author. However, the authority in 1 Clement is given to "the Church of Rome," not "Clement, successor of Peter and Paul." Especially at a very early date, when people in both Corinth and Rome would have remembered meeting Paul himself, apostolic authority would most likely have been used if it had been recognized.

HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH*
Protestant Scholar Phillip Schaff
CHAPTER XIII:

ECCLESIASTICAL LITERATURE OF THE ANTE-NICENE AGE, AND BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF THE CHURCH-FATHERS.


162. Clement of Rome.
This first Epistle to the Corinthians was sent by the Church of God in Rome, at its own impulse, and unasked, to the Church of God in Corinth, through three aged and faithful Christians: Claudius Ephebus, Valerius Biton, and Fortunatus.1200 It does not bear the name of Clement, and is written in the name of the Roman congregation, but was universally regarded as his production.1201 It stood in the highest esteem in ancient times, and continued in public use in the Corinthian church and in several other churches down to the beginning of the fourth century.1202 This accounts for its incorporation in the Alexandrian Bible Codex, but it is properly put after the Apocalypse and separated from the apostolic epistles.


From this Clement we have a Greek epistle to


the Corinthians. It is often cited by the church fathers, then disappeared, but was found again, together with the fragments of the second epistle, in the Alexandrian codex of the Bible (now in the British Museum), and published by Patricius Junius (Patrick Young) at Oxford in 1633. A second, less ancient, but more perfect manuscript from the eleventh century, containing the missing chapters of the first (with the oldest written prayer) and the whole of the second Epistle (together with other valuable documents), was discovered by Philotheos Bryennios, in the convent library of the patriarch of Jerusalem in Constantinople, and published in 1875. Soon afterwards a Syriac translation was found in the library of Jules Mohl, of Paris (d. 1876). We have thus three independent texts (A, C, S), derived, it would seem, from a common parent of the second century. The newly discovered portions shed new light on the history of papal authority and liturgical worship, as we have pointed out in previous chapters.

 

[lmnop9876]

If you are of the Catholic faith, Jesus Christ founded your Church in the year A.D. 30.
If you are Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk in the Catholic Church, in 1517.
If you are Anabaptist, your religion was founded by Nicholas Storch and Thomas Munzer in Germany in 1521.
If you belong to the Church of England (Anglican), 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 belong to the Mennonites, your church was started in 1536 by Menno Simons in Switzerland.
If you are a Calvinist, Jon Calvin started your belief system in 1555 in Switzerland.
If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded when John Knox brought the teachings of John Calvin to Scotland in the Year 1560.
If you are Unitarian, your group developed in Europe in the 1500s.
If you are a Congregationalist, your religion branched off Puritanism in the early 1600s in England.
If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1607.
If you are Dutch Reformed, Michaelis Jones founded your church in New York in 1628.
If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.
If you are an Episcopalian, your church came from England to the American colonies. It formed a separate religion founded by Samuel Seabury in 1789.
If you are a Campellite Christian Church, your religion was started by Thomas and Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone at a revival held at Bushy Creek.
If you are a Mormon (Latter-day Saints), Joseph Smith started your church in Palmyra, N.Y. in 1830.
If you are Seventh Day Adventist, your religion was founded by Ellen Whitein 1844 in Washington, New Hampshire.
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 your religion was founded by Mary Baker Eddy.
If you are a Jehovah's Witness, your religion was founded by Charles Taze Russell in Pennsylvania in the 1870s.
If you’re Church of Christ, your church broke of from the Campellites in 1906.
If you are Pentecostal, your religion was started in the Topeka, Kansas in 1901 by Charles F. Parkham
If you are Assemblies of God your church grew out of Pentecostalism in 1914 in Hot Springs, Az.
If you are a member of Four-square Gospel, your church was started by Aimee Semple McPherson in L.A. in 1917.
If your Church of Christ, your church broke of from the Campellites in 1906.
If you are Calvary Chapel, Chuck Smith founded your church in Costa Mesa, Ca, 1965
If your organization is “evangelical nondenominational Christian” your group started in the 1970s by protestant evangelists.

a few problems...
"if you are Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther". what about the Evangelical Churches of Sweden and Finland, which maintained unbroken the Apostolic Succession and the teachings of the seven ecumenical councils, while reforming their church from mediaeval abuses and no longer submitting to the Pope of Rome?
"if you are Anglican, &c."
no serious historian believes this. the Anglican Church was founded well before the year 300, in the Magna Carta, it is said, "The Church of England is, and ever shall be, free."
"If you are Dutch Reformed, Michaelis Jones founded your church in New York in 1628."
this is, again, incorrect. the Reformed Church of the Netherlands, as with the Church of Scotland, remained a single national Church, independent from the Pope of Rome, and reformed in doctrine and worship. I could say to a Catholic in Australia, "if you are catholic, your church was founded in 1788, by catholic missionaries." that would be incorrect, because the global organisation of catholicism is far older than that. because a person brought the faith to a certain place, according to the way he had learnt it, does not make it a new faith.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

oops.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

a few problems...
"if you are Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther". what about the Evangelical Churches of Sweden and Finland

If you sincerely want to know the truth, it is very simple to find out what men founded them and when.

"if you are Anglican, &c."
no serious historian believes this. the Anglican Church was founded well before the year 300

Nice try at spinning it, but King Henry was baptized into the Catholic Church and broke away because the Pope would not give him his way.

"If you are Dutch Reformed, Michaelis Jones founded your church in New York in 1628."
this is, again, incorrect. the Reformed Church of the Netherlands, as with the Church of Scotland, remained a single national Church, independent from the Pope of Rome, and reformed in doctrine and worship.

Deny it if you like. That does not change the fact the the Catholic Church is the Church that was founded by Jesus Christ and was the only Christian Church for sixteen hundred years.

 

[lmnop9876]

If you sincerely want to know the truth, it is very simple to find out what men founded them and when.




Nice try at spinning it, but King Henry was baptized into the Catholic Church and broke away because the Pope would not give him his way.



Deny it if you like. That does not change the fact the the Catholic Church is the Church that was founded by Jesus Christ and was the only Christian Church for sixteen hundred years.

i agree 100%. the Catholic Church is the one founded by Jesus Christ. He or His Apostles never said anything about leadership under one Bishop of the entire Catholic Church. all the different national Churches together constitute the Catholic Church. each of these Churches is independent, and under the jurisdiction of their own bishops. i have no doubt whatsoever that the Church at Rome is still the one "founded and organised by the glorious Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul" and that the Church of Antioch and Syria is still that one that had St. Peter as its first Apostolic Bishop, and that the Church in England is still the one founded in the second century, and evangelised by St. Augustin, and that the Church of the Lowlands is still the one founded by St. Boniface, and that the Church of Scotland is the one founded by Columba, and that the Church of Ireland is still the one founded by St. Patrick, and that the Churches of the Balkans are the same ones founded by Sts. Cyril & St. Methodius, &c. &c. &c. of this, i have no doubt. though some of these have deviated to certain extents from the Apostolic faith, so that some of them can no longer rightly be called Christian Churches, yet they are still the same organisation as they were when they were originally founded, all stemming from the original Church founded by Christ Himself in Jerusalem.
the Church of Scandinavia was founded in the 10th century, and has continued ever since, maintaining traditional doctrines and practices such as the Apostolic Succession, real Presence, efficacy of baptism, &c.
the Church of England was founded in the 2nd century, and has continued ever since, maintaining traditional doctrines and practices such as the Apostolic Succession, real Presence, efficacy of baptism, &c.