The True Origin of The Catholic Church

[Resha Caner]

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

We Lutherans do have a unique interest in the Reformation, seeing as it plays a central role in Lutheran identity. It's an elusive element of Lutheranism that took me awhile to understand, and I'm probably not good at explaining it.

 

[pescador]

Saint Peter.

Do you mean when Peter said that Jesus was the Messiah or when Jesus called Peter Satan?

 

[Bob Crowley]

As someone else pointed out, the term "Catholic" was not originally identical with the Roman Catholic Church. When we say the Apostles or Nicene Creed, the term "Catholic" did not mean what is usually implied today, when they were developed, well over a millennium before the Reformation.

From Wikipedia -

The word Catholic (usually written with uppercase C in English when referring to religious matters; derived via Late Latin catholicus, from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning "universal")[3][4] comes from the Greek phrase καθόλου (katholou), meaning "on the whole", "according to the whole" or "in general", and is a combination of the Greek words κατά meaning "about" and ὅλος meaning "whole".[5][6] The first use of "Catholic" was by the church father Saint Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans (circa 110 AD).[7] In the context of Christian ecclesiology, it has a rich history and several usages.

So when the OP asks about "The True Origin of the Catholic Church", what he really means is what is the true origin of the Roman Catholic Church.

For a start the term wasn't even used until the Reformation, when (again as someone else has pointed out) it was used initially as a derogatory term, just as "Hot Prot" or "Cattle Tick" might be used today.

The (Roman) Catholic claim about itself goes back to the debate about the Papacy when it's all said and done.

There are only three contenders as the "original Church". The Protestants don't even get a look in, as they broke away from the Catholic Church 1500 years after Christ gave the imprimatur to Peter, and in doing so set up an office.

The problem for the Orthodox Church is that it derives from the Byzantine Church, which was headquartered in Constantinople. The trouble with that is that the Holy Roman Emperors assigned themselves the role of church head, which had nothing to do with Christ's declaration to Peter, who went to Rome, and took on a bishopric role. Then in 1453 Constantinople was sacked, and it became Istanbul, a Turkish Moslem city. The last emperor Constantine XI perished in the fighting (although there is some uncertainty about how he died), and the Holy Roman Empire centred in Constantionople came to an end.

I used to wonder why Constantine was so willing to move the Empire's seat to Constantinople. It appears he was born in what is now Serbia, and had prior experience in living in the general area. He also was largely free of attachment to Imperial Rome itself, and was therefore more willing than most to make the move. So the Empire's governance effectively moved from Rome to Byzantium, or Constantinople as it later became known. The secular Roman Empire centred on Rome became the Holy (Christian) Empire centred on Constantinople.

Rome became a backwater for quite some time variously sacked by Vandals, Huns, Goths and the other Barbarian tribes. But the Roman Bishopric kept going, despite all that. Later it recovered, with Italy leading the Renaissance surge. It's been through thick and thin since then, sometimes attacked from without and sometimes attacked from within. But as Christ said, "The proud gates of Hell will not prevail against it".

As to the Papacy being regarded as the chief office, several of the earliest Church Fathers referred to it as just that -

Authority of the Pope — Church Fathers

Christ was setting up an office, and giving it authority when He spoke to Peter. It was my old Prostestant pastor who crystallised this in a conversation with me when he said, "Christ was setting up an office and giving it authority.... What's the use of having a church if you don't give it any authority!?"

 

[Bob Crowley]

I might as well throw in a personal footnote. The authority of the office I wrote about in the post above was encapsulated in Christ's statement to Peter.

From Wikipedia -

Mathew 16: 13-17

13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.[4]

- (Matthew 16: 13-20) (NIV^)

In this passage, the word "you" is singular in the original Greek, despite the other apostles being present. A mirroring passage, which does not mention the keys, is also found later in chapter 18, within the context of verses 18-20:

Note the word "loose". You can't "loose" something, until it has first been "bound". I for my part fully expect to see, within my own lifetime, the church's ruling on the Contraceptive Pill "loosed". It's currently "bound", which I think was a huge mistake. And I fully expect to the see the ruling "loosed".

As the old pastor put it, "I think it (the pill) was God's gift, given the at the very time that population pressures were becoming a real problem in some parts of the world."

I'll leave it at that. We'll just have to wait and see now.

 

[pescador]

Jesus said, after Peter's declaration, "on this rock I will build my church". A few verses later: "Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns." And later, Peter denied knowing Jesus three times.

Clearly Jesus did not intend His church to be built by a man whom He calls "Satan" and who will not admit that he knows Jesus. "The rock" that Jesus said He will build on is the confession that He is the Messiah, not a flawed human, who was even criticized by Paul for his cowardly behavior.

 

[Bob Crowley]

I think you better read the the whole verses in context, instead of cherry picking a couple of quotes to suit your predetermined position, namely your personal opposition to the Papacy.

Matthew 16:21
Jesus Foretells His Death
21From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. 22Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.” 23But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.”

Peter remonstrated with Christ because Christ had indicated he was going to suffer greatly, which offended Peter. But Christ put him in his place on that issue only. Peter did not understand it was God's will that Christ should suffer like that, and neither would you had you been there at that particular time. Christ would most likely have labelled you with the very same term had you been offended by the fact Christ had indicated He was going to suffer. But you've got the advantage of 2000 years of hindsight.

I'm well aware that Peter denied Christ three times. And that is precisely why when Christ called him from his fishing nets for the second and final time to share a meal on the beach, He asked Peter to affirm three times that he loved Him.

John 21:15-17, ESV
“15When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?' Peter said to him, 'Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.' Jesus said to him, 'Feed my lambs' (John 21:15, ESV).

“16He said to him a second time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' Peter said to him, 'Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.' He said to him, 'Tend my sheep' (John 21:16, ESV).

“17Jesus said to Peter the third time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, 'Do you love me?' and he said to him, 'Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.' Jesus said to him, 'Feed my sheep'” (John 21:17, ESV).

Not only did Christ expect Peter to affirm three times that he loved Him, but He also told Peter three times to "Feed my lambs", "Tend my sheep": and "Feed my sheep". He was reaffirming Peter's role as a shepherd for the church, despite Peter's blunders.

Stop cherry picking the bits and pieces you want to believe to suit your own opinion and read the whole lot in context.

The bit about Peter being the Rock on which Christ said He'd found His Church is in the Scriptures in black and white, and no amount of explaining away by anybody will change it. Full stop.

 

[pescador]

I think you better read the the whole verses in context, instead of cherry picking a couple of quotes to suit your predetermined position, namely your personal opposition to the Papacy.



Peter remonstrated with Christ because Christ had indicated he was going to suffer greatly, which offended Peter. But Christ put him in his place on that issue only. Peter did not understand it was God's will that Christ should suffer like that, and neither would you had you been there at that particular time. Christ would most likely have labelled you with the very same term had you been offended by the fact Christ had indicated He was going to suffer. But you've got the advantage of 2000 years of hindsight.

I'm well aware that Peter denied Christ three times. And that is precisely why when Christ called him from his fishing nets for the second and final time to share a meal on the beach, He asked Peter to affirm three times that he loved Him.



Not only did Christ expect Peter to affirm three times that he loved Him, but He also told Peter three times to "Feed my lambs", "Tend my sheep": and "Feed my sheep". He was reaffirming Peter's role as a shepherd for the church, despite Peter's blunders.

Stop cherry picking the bits and pieces you want to believe to suit your own opinion and read the whole lot in context.

The bit about Peter being the Rock on which Christ said He'd found His Church is in the Scriptures in black and white, and no amount of explaining away by anybody will change it. Full stop.

To use your words, "Stop cherry picking the bits and pieces you want to believe to suit your own opinion and read the whole lot in context." I worship God through Jesus Christ. I don't need an intermediary such as the Pope or anybody else in the Catholic hierarchy (or any hierarchy for that matter). That is Old Covenant thinking, that somehow there needs to be a priesthood between God and people. As Peter himself wrote, "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light."

I am "in Christ"; that's all that is necessary.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

It's a lot of reading but this shows the development of The 5 Patriarchal Bishops of The Church :

• Constantinople
• Rome "The Pope"
• Antioch
• Jerusalem
• Alexandria

Pentarchy - Wikipedia



.

 

[Bob Crowley]

Jude 1:3 - I think the link in your post isn't quite complete. I couldn't load it.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

Jude 1:3 - I think the link in your post isn't quite complete. I couldn't load it.

Oops, sorry about that.

I fixed the link.


.

 

[Bob Crowley]

I read the article. There was a lot of political infighting at times. But I suppose that's human nature.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

I read the article. There was a lot of political infighting at times. But I suppose that's human nature.

These were The 5 Patriarchs during the 1,054 Schism :


• Constantinople : Michael Cerularios (1043-1059 A.D.)

• Rome : Leo IX (1049-1054 A.D.)

• Antioch : Peter III of Antioch (1052-1056 A.D.)

• Jerusalem : Sophronios II (1040-1059 A.D.)

• Alexandria : Leontius (1052-1059 A.D.)


Or

• Constantinople : Michael Cerularius (1043-1059 A.D.)

• Rome : Leo IX (1049-1054 A.D.)

• Antioch : Peter III (1028-1051 A.D.), or John IV, V, or Dionysius (1051-62 A.D.)

• Jerusalem : Ioannikios (1048-?) or Sophronios II (?-1059 A.D.)

• Alexandria : Leontius (1052-1059 A.D.)

.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

And if you want to use the internet for an in-depth source, go to johnmichaelwitt.com. He is a Catholic monsignor, but he presented a series of a couple hundred audio episodes on the history of the Church. The first 12 generations is very interesting. He is the head of the history department at
Kenrick-Glennon Seminary

 

[Root of Jesse]

Do you mean when Peter said that Jesus was the Messiah or when Jesus called Peter Satan?

Jesus didn't call Peter Satan. He told Satan to get behind him. Did Peter then go stand behind Jesus? I don't believe anyone thinks that. Jesus often spoke to one person while addressing others.

 

[Root of Jesse]

As someone else pointed out, the term "Catholic" was not originally identical with the Roman Catholic Church. When we say the Apostles or Nicene Creed, the term "Catholic" did not mean what is usually implied today, when they were developed, well over a millennium before the Reformation.

From Wikipedia -

So when the OP asks about "The True Origin of the Catholic Church", what he really means is what is the true origin of the Roman Catholic Church.

For a start the term wasn't even used until the Reformation, when (again as someone else has pointed out) it was used initially as a derogatory term, just as "Hot Prot" or "Cattle Tick" might be used today.

The (Roman) Catholic claim about itself goes back to the debate about the Papacy when it's all said and done.

There are only three contenders as the "original Church". The Protestants don't even get a look in, as they broke away from the Catholic Church 1500 years after Christ gave the imprimatur to Peter, and in doing so set up an office.

The problem for the Orthodox Church is that it derives from the Byzantine Church, which was headquartered in Constantinople. The trouble with that is that the Holy Roman Emperors assigned themselves the role of church head, which had nothing to do with Christ's declaration to Peter, who went to Rome, and took on a bishopric role. Then in 1453 Constantinople was sacked, and it became Istanbul, a Turkish Moslem city. The last emperor Constantine XI perished in the fighting (although there is some uncertainty about how he died), and the Holy Roman Empire centred in Constantionople came to an end.

I used to wonder why Constantine was so willing to move the Empire's seat to Constantinople. It appears he was born in what is now Serbia, and had prior experience in living in the general area. He also was largely free of attachment to Imperial Rome itself, and was therefore more willing than most to make the move. So the Empire's governance effectively moved from Rome to Byzantium, or Constantinople as it later became known. The secular Roman Empire centred on Rome became the Holy (Christian) Empire centred on Constantinople.

Rome became a backwater for quite some time variously sacked by Vandals, Huns, Goths and the other Barbarian tribes. But the Roman Bishopric kept going, despite all that. Later it recovered, with Italy leading the Renaissance surge. It's been through thick and thin since then, sometimes attacked from without and sometimes attacked from within. But as Christ said, "The proud gates of Hell will not prevail against it".

As to the Papacy being regarded as the chief office, several of the earliest Church Fathers referred to it as just that -

Authority of the Pope — Church Fathers

Christ was setting up an office, and giving it authority when He spoke to Peter. It was my old Prostestant pastor who crystallised this in a conversation with me when he said, "Christ was setting up an office and giving it authority.... What's the use of having a church if you don't give it any authority!?"

St. Ignatius of Antioch referred to the Church as Catholic in his letters...

 

[Albion]

Jesus didn't call Peter Satan. He told Satan to get behind him.

He told it to Peter.

 

[Albion]

St. Ignatius of Antioch referred to the Church as Catholic in his letters...

Sure. Universal. Authentic.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Jesus said, after Peter's declaration, "on this rock I will build my church". A few verses later: "Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns." And later, Peter denied knowing Jesus three times.

Clearly Jesus did not intend His church to be built by a man whom He calls "Satan" and who will not admit that he knows Jesus. "The rock" that Jesus said He will build on is the confession that He is the Messiah, not a flawed human, who was even criticized by Paul for his cowardly behavior.

So Peter revealed himself as being human, so Christ couldn't name him head of His Church? Well, other than Christ, who is perfect?
His statement to Satan was that he was trying to tempt Him(Jesus) to not fulfilling his purpose.
Regarding denying Jesus 3 times, Jesus also forgave him 3 times. God is merciful.

 

[Root of Jesse]

He told it to Peter.

Peter’s refusal to accept Jesus’ predicted suffering and death is seen as a satanic attempt to deflect Jesus from his God-appointed course, and the disciple is addressed in terms that recall Jesus’ dismissal of the devil in the temptation account (Mt 4:10: “Get away, Satan!”). Jesus was performing an exorcism of sorts. Speaking to the devil inside Peter, which we all have.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Sure. Universal. Authentic.

Right. So we agree. There was only one Church that Jesus founded. The one Ignatius was talking about.