The True Origin of The Catholic Church

[DaughterofTheKing1029]

Hello All,
I am here because I want to know what the TRUE beginnings of the Catholic Church were. In my attempt to do research, the Catholic church claims that the church started from Peter and he had a successor named Pope Linus and then after him was Pope Clement. While you can find the names the of these successors in the bible, they are in the writings of Paul and not Peter. In addition to this, wouldn't Peter have had to remain in Rome for yeeeeaaars to establish such a church/papacy? It's so confusing and just want a straight forward answer. Hopefully someone can help!

 

[tampasteve]

You will not find a truly straightforward answer. The truth is "lost to the mist of time" as they say. We can say with reasonable certainty who the first few leaders of the church in Rome were, but the extent of their power is questionable. We can say for sure that Peter was in Rome and founded a church, Clement followed after with Linus and Anacletus/Cletus between (probably), they had authority in Rome and the surrounding area and were people of high regard outside of Rome as we can tell from the letters of Clement. How much actual historical authority they had or how much influence is up for debate until a couple of hundred years later when it becomes more clear.

The development of the church is not really a straight line history. There are ebbs and flows and players that were very influential but have been drowned out to time and history. The Eastern and Western (not to mention the Church of the East) churches all have a solid claim to history, and trying to push an agenda of any of them to seem to be the original faith just does not hold up to history IMO. The fact is that the faith developed and took on new characteristics and practices over time, that is not bad, but it would be a fallacy to think that one church holds the monopoly on being the original.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

Hello All,
I am here because I want to know what the TRUE beginnings of the Catholic Church were. In my attempt to do research, the Catholic church claims that the church started from Peter and he had a successor named Pope Linus and then after him was Pope Clement. While you can find the names the of these successors in the bible, they are in the writings of Paul and not Peter. In addition to this, wouldn't Peter have had to remain in Rome for yeeeeaaars to establish such a church/papacy? It's so confusing and just want a straight forward answer. Hopefully someone can help!

The true beginning is not important as shown by tampasteve's post above what is important in these end times is to find the patience of the saints as reveled by GOD in his word
Revelation 14:12
Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

 

[Norbert L]

From what clarity I understand about the subject you may want to look at the writings of the Church fathers about the relationship between Polycarp (a bishop from Smyrna) and Anicetus (bishop from Rome) about the Passover.

Quartodecimanism - Wikipedia

Given this historical event, the conclusion is a Christian does not have to follow the RCC in order to be a Christian.

 

[tampasteve]

From what clarity I understand about the subject you may want to look at the writings of the Church fathers about the relationship between Polycarp (a bishop from Smyrna) and Anicetus (bishop from Rome) about the Passover.

Quartodecimanism - Wikipedia

Given this historical event, the conclusion is a Christian does not have to follow the RCC in order to be a Christian.

Indeed, the dating on Easter is something that crops up rather frequently in disagreements among the churches.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

Hello All,
I am here because I want to know what the TRUE beginnings of the Catholic Church were. In my attempt to do research, the Catholic church claims that the church started from Peter and he had a successor named Pope Linus and then after him was Pope Clement. While you can find the names the of these successors in the bible, they are in the writings of Paul and not Peter. In addition to this, wouldn't Peter have had to remain in Rome for yeeeeaaars to establish such a church/papacy? It's so confusing and just want a straight forward answer. Hopefully someone can help!

the starting point for the RCC of today was "When Constantine moved his capital to Constantinople (330 AD), the Pope inherited the power, prestige, and even titles of the Roman emperors."

Papal Rome takes Pagan Rome's Power | The Papacy and the Roman Empire

 

[GreekOrthodox]

In all honesty, I would drop the internet and find a decent book on church history. For a brief overview, I recommend Justo Gonzalez's "The Story of Christianity". His two volume set reads easily and is factual and historical rather than stuff you find on the web. No conspiracy theories that the Papacy was founded by priests of Babylon, or that the Popes have all been mystically guided and all are in heaven. Just good old-fashioned history of the early church, how it grew despite persecution, the good, the bad and the ugly of church history.

 

[ewq1938]

Hello All,
I am here because I want to know what the TRUE beginnings of the Catholic Church were.

The early church was persecuted by pagan Rome for a long time before Constantine semi-converted to Christianity so The Roman Catholic church could not exist until Rome eventually accepted Christianity. That means the Christian church existed prior to the Roman version of the Christian church.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The truth is - the Church (no designation) was founded by Jesus Christ and was born at Pentecost with the descent of the Holy Spirit.

Rome was one of the original early sees - along with Antioch and Alexandria, and soon after Jerusalem, and Constantinople. (And St. Peter was a bishop of Antioch first btw - IIRC it's not certain that he was ever a bishop of Rome? But was martyred there.)

The beginnings of the Catholic Church as a separate entity were slow in coming. Rome was a distance away and faced different political pressures. The Church always struggled with internal conflicts based on divergent ideas because human beings are involved. This shows up in the Book of Acts.

Tensions and differences began to become acute around the sixth century, and the official Schism between west (Rome) and the east (now Eastern Orthodox) occurred in 1054.

That's not the whole story though. There was an earlier major split at Chalcedon which led to the Oriental Orthodox/Coptics/etc. being separated (though they are very highly similar to EO).

There is a lot of pseudo history surrounding Constantine, for example.

If one is trying to determine whether Catholicism is the "true" Church, the papacy would probably be the main issue.

Orthodoxy (EO) takes large issue with the Filioque inserted into the Creed by Rome, as well as the nature of the papacy and the idea of changing or developing doctrines.

And the OO's concerns go back to Chalcedon (but those disputes are very hard to tease out).

That's a very bare bones assessment. I'd agree with good books on history, but there are a lot of bad/inaccurate ones out there too.

 

[GaveMeJoy]

From what clarity I understand about the subject you may want to look at the writings of the Church fathers about the relationship between Polycarp (a bishop from Smyrna) and Anicetus (bishop from Rome) about the Passover.

Quartodecimanism - Wikipedia

Given this historical event, the conclusion is a Christian does not have to follow the RCC in order to be a Christian.

The Roman Catholic didn’t allow for non RCC Christians until Vatican II council in 1962. Before then it was impossible according to catholic doctrine

 

[Resha Caner]

Hello All,
I am here because I want to know what the TRUE beginnings of the Catholic Church were. In my attempt to do research, the Catholic church claims that the church started from Peter and he had a successor named Pope Linus and then after him was Pope Clement. While you can find the names the of these successors in the bible, they are in the writings of Paul and not Peter. In addition to this, wouldn't Peter have had to remain in Rome for yeeeeaaars to establish such a church/papacy? It's so confusing and just want a straight forward answer. Hopefully someone can help!

The answer depends on what you're asking. The term "Roman Catholic" came out of the Reformation, and was originally intended as an insult by Protestants - an emphasis on the usurpation of church power by the Bishop of Rome. It was really at that time, via the Council of Trent (1545 -), that the RCC emerged as we know it today.

The term "catholic" is much older, and has no connection to what people think today when they hear the term. Catholic was first used in the first century, and merely means the universal church ... in other words the entire Christian church. Some Lutherans still use the term catholic in their worship, and still refer to a catholic church. In that regard, the church began when Adam was created.

If you mean the first use of the word "Christian", that occurred during the time of the Acts of the Apostles, and like "Roman Catholic" was originally a term applied to Christians by outsiders.

If you mean the church of western Europe, it has it's historical beginnings in the Great Schism of 1054.

In the end, though, it seems you're asking about the RCC claim that Peter was the first Pope. There is little historical evidence to support that. There are some indications Peter was considered the first Bishop of Rome, and Rome quickly became very important and very influential in the early Christian church (for obvious reasons). But all the claims the RCC attaches to that are unfounded.

 

[Resha Caner]

In all honesty, I would drop the internet and find a decent book on church history.

There is a sense in which this is very true. However, finding a good book on church history can be difficult - partly because what you really need is a good library of books about church history.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Saint Peter.

 

[GaveMeJoy]

There is a sense in which this is very true. However, finding a good book on church history can be difficult - partly because what you really need is a good library of books about church history.

If you don’t have time to read a book you can listen to my podcast episode on church history with a church history professor

 

[Albion]

Hello, Daughter of the King,

The Catholic Church may be said to have begun with the Apostles, but only to the extent that Catholics can trace an historic continuity from their church today back to that early time--which is what a slew of other denominations can also claim. That's because they all descend from what is called the "undivided church" of the first few centuries AD, before divisions into the rival denominations or communions began to occur.

As for Peter and the Papacy, Peter does appear to have been the leader of the church at Rome and vicinity, but Linus wasn't even in town when Peter died and he was made the successor to Peter by the townspeople of Rome, not by Peter. In short, the claims to 200+ popes in a line from Peter on down is false. There is no Scriptural basis for it, and the bishops of Rome didn't even try to claim any until ca. 400 AD.

To the extent that the Roman church was the most prominent of the Christian centers, that doesn't owe to any recognition of a Papacy but rather to the fact that Rome was the wealthiest city in the Empire, the seat of government, and the church there benefitted from these factors along with the prestige that came from both Peter and Paul having ministered there.

 

[Resha Caner]

If you don’t have time to read a book you can listen to my podcast episode on church history with a church history professor

No thanks. I have an M.A. in history and know some good professors who specialize in church history. My point was that church history is vast, difficult to capture in a single volume, and nearly impossible to separate from personal viewpoints.

 

[tz620q]

Hello All,
I am here because I want to know what the TRUE beginnings of the Catholic Church were. In my attempt to do research, the Catholic church claims that the church started from Peter and he had a successor named Pope Linus and then after him was Pope Clement. While you can find the names the of these successors in the bible, they are in the writings of Paul and not Peter. In addition to this, wouldn't Peter have had to remain in Rome for yeeeeaaars to establish such a church/papacy? It's so confusing and just want a straight forward answer. Hopefully someone can help!

When I was studying the history of the Reformation, I listened to the course lectures for that history from an obviously Protestant church historian. Recognizing his bias, I listened to a second course from a Catholic perspective. It has a similar; but opposite bias. Finally, I found a course written by an academic professor with little bias. That was the best of the bunch. I would recommend finding a book on early church history from an academic professor with as little bias as possible.

 

[Resha Caner]

When I was studying the history of the Reformation, I listened to the course lectures for that history from an obviously Protestant church historian. Recognizing his bias, I listened to a second course from a Catholic perspective. It has a similar; but opposite bias. Finally, I found a course written by an academic professor with little bias. That was the best of the bunch. I would recommend finding a book on early church history from an academic professor with as little bias as possible.

It's impossible to determine who is without bias. Most professional historians do try, but one can't eliminate all bias. With that said, I commend your approach and would recommend the same to others. Read a Reformation history by a Catholic, by a Lutheran, by an unbeliever. The truth lies somewhere in the midst of all of them.

But, hey, you studied the Reformation. Cool. One of the professors on my committee specialized in Reformation history. He was one awesome dude. I have a great deal of respect for him.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Hello All,
I am here because I want to know what the TRUE beginnings of the Catholic Church were. In my attempt to do research, the Catholic church claims that the church started from Peter and he had a successor named Pope Linus and then after him was Pope Clement. While you can find the names the of these successors in the bible, they are in the writings of Paul and not Peter. In addition to this, wouldn't Peter have had to remain in Rome for yeeeeaaars to establish such a church/papacy? It's so confusing and just want a straight forward answer. Hopefully someone can help!

read Development of the Papacy by Burn Murdoch

 

[Albion]

It's impossible to determine who is without bias. Most professional historians do try, but one can't eliminate all bias. With that said, I commend your approach and would recommend the same to others.

Interestingly enough, three of the best are Lutherans--Paul Maier, Roland Bainton, and Martin Marty.