The True Origin of The Catholic Church

[Albion]

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.

There's a consensus on the meaning of that exchange. Of course, Jesus was not accusing Peter of literally being Satan, but he was surely addressing Peter on that occasion. The rest of the passage would not make sense if it were otherwise.

 

[Albion]

So Peter revealed himself as being human, so Christ couldn't name him head of His Church? Well, other than Christ, who is perfect?

Those two ideas are not exactly linked, although that
is the way I'm reading your comment.

Jesus said what he did about Peter being given the keys (separate argument about that) and he also faulted Peter for being of little faith in his remarks that followed almost immediately, but the second of these isn't taken as meaning that the first of them was rescinded or anything like that. You don't have to convince yourself that Jesus was speaking to Satan himself rather than Peter.

 

[Root of Jesse]

There's a consensus on the meaning of that exchange. Of course, Jesus was not accusing Peter of literally being Satan, but he was surely addressing Peter on that occasion. The rest of the passage would not make sense if it were otherwise.

So you're saying that Jesus wasn't calling Peter Satan, which is what I was responding to. As for consensus, that's an odd word in the protestant world...
The point I was making to the implied"How could Peter be appointed to lead the Church when Jesus called him Satan shortly after?", was that Jesus wasn't calling Peter Satan.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Those two ideas are not exactly linked, although that
is the way I'm reading your comment.

Jesus said what he did about Peter being given the keys (separate argument about that) and he also faulted Peter for being of little faith in his remarks that followed almost immediately, but the second of these isn't taken as meaning that the first of them was rescinded or anything like that. You don't have to convince yourself that Jesus was speaking to Satan himself rather than Peter.

But that's what the poster was suggesting. Regarding Peter's faith, or lack thereof, Jesus knew none of the apostles had a full faith yet. They couldn't understand his parables, and ran away and hid at the crucifixion, among other things. Only when the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost did they have the complete faith and the strength to carry forward that faith.

 

[Albion]

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

You can say we agree if you choose to. That doesn't mean that we do.

The word Catholic means authentic or universal and most people know that. Along with One, Holy, and Apostolic, these are the marks of the Christian church.

But if the argument is that whichever denomination incorporated one of them into the legal name of their body thus becomes the only one to have that quality, we'd have quite a lot of contenders!.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You can say we agree if you choose to. That doesn't mean that we do.

The word Catholic means authentic or universal and most people know that. Along with One, Holy, and Apostolic, these are the marks of the Christian church.

But if the argument is that whichever denomination incorporated one of them into the legal name of their body thus becomes the only one to have that quality, we'd have quite a lot of contenders!.

In case you haven't figured it out, there is no distinction between big C and small c Catholic. Remember, we don't believe denominationalism to be a Christian concept. So catholic and Catholic are the same thing. What we mean by Catholic is, in fact, Universal.
I also understand that many people today do not use it that way, but honestly that's a false use of it.
You're right, too, that it is one of the four marks of the Church Christ created, and that's exactly how I mean it. I have often said on here, catholic is Christ's call to us, Catholic (or Baptist or Anglican or Presbyterian, etc) is our response to His call. And that is the Church's stance.

 

[Behold]

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.

The "Body of Christ" was long established by the Blood Atonement, before the CC decided to teach that this only meant them.......as the One True Church.

 

[Athanasius377]

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.

Yet the plain meaning of the text is the church is built on Peter the Rock. You have to do grammatical gymnastics to get the text to say anything other than what the text clearly states. However just because the church was built on Peter doesn't therefore follow that the entire Roman Catholic system suddenly has legitimacy. In fact, there is evidence there was more than one bishop in Rome until well into the second century. And yes Peter was a sinful human too but then again God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick.

 

[Albion]

Yet the plain meaning of the text is the church is built on Peter the Rock. You have to do grammatical gymnastics to get the text to say anything other than what the text clearly states.

At the time of this conversation between Peter and Christ, it is estimated that Christ had only several hundred followers in all of what is now Israel. We know, however, that Christ chose Peter to deliver that stirring speech to the thousands of Jews who had gathered from all across the area on the occasion we know now as Pentecost Sunday.

Thousands heard Peter speaking as though in the hearer's own language although the assembled spoke all sorts of different ones. That was a miracle. And it was also the occasion for thousands of them to convert and be baptized, becoming the first of many to join in new church.

It is no stretch at all to conclude that Peter was thus building the church as it had never been built before.

But at the same time, it would not be right to describe this as founding the church. And besides, Christ had already implied, in that that exchange with Peter, that he (Jesus) himself was the founder of his church.

just because the church was built on Peter doesn't therefore follow that the entire Roman Catholic system suddenly has legitimacy.

That's right.

In fact, there is evidence there was more than bishop in Rome until well into the second century.

It looks like a word was accidentally omitted from that sentence, but it is correct to say that Peter did not choose and install a successor to himself in Rome.

 

[Behold]

Yet the plain meaning of the text is the church is built on Peter the Rock. .

No, the clear meaning..... is.... the Body of Christ is built on Jesus as the Rock.
Its the revelation that Peter proclaimed as..."you are the son of the living God".. and Jesus said..."no man has given you this revelation of ME....but this has been shown you by my Father", and on this Revelation, that " I AM THE MESSIAH"< shall the church be built.
How do you know this? Try getting saved by "believing on the Lord Peter the Apostle"
Give that a shot, and see how many Sins can be purged by the one who denied Jesus 3 Times, as Christ was about to .. John 3:16

 

[Athanasius377]

But at the same time, it would not be right to describe this as founding the church. And besides, Christ had already implied, in that that exchange with Peter, that he (Jesus) himself was the founder of his church.

True. I did not mean to imply that Peter founded the Church. Only that Peter would bethe Rock on which Christ would build (that is Jesus being the doer of the verb) on Rock (Peter) at Pentecost. The confusion was how I worded the response.

 

[Athanasius377]

It looks like a word was accidentally omitted from that sentence, but it is correct to say that Peter did not choose and install a successor to himself in Rome.

corrected. Sloppy proofreading on my part.

 

[Albion]

True. I did not mean to imply that Peter founded the Church. Only that Peter would bethe Rock on which Christ would build (that is Jesus being the doer of the verb) on Rock (Peter) at Pentecost.

 

[Athanasius377]

I was objecting to reading a certain Roman allergy into the text. I say this as I am debating a RC believer in another thread. Lol.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yet the plain meaning of the text is the church is built on Peter the Rock. You have to do grammatical gymnastics to get the text to say anything other than what the text clearly states. However just because the church was built on Peter doesn't therefore follow that the entire Roman Catholic system suddenly has legitimacy. In fact, there is evidence there was more than one bishop in Rome until well into the second century. And yes Peter was a sinful human too but then again God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick.

Can you show evidence of more than one Bishop in Rome at any time, other than anti-popes?

 

[Root of Jesse]

At the time of this conversation between Peter and Christ, it is estimated that Christ had only several hundred followers in all of what is now Israel. We know, however, that Christ chose Peter to deliver that stirring speech to the thousands of Jews who had gathered from all across the area on the occasion we know now as Pentecost Sunday.

Thousands heard Peter speaking as though in the hearer's own language although the assembled spoke all sorts of different ones. That was a miracle. And it was also the occasion for thousands of them to convert and be baptized, becoming the first of many to join in new church.

It is no stretch at all to conclude that Peter was thus building the church as it had never been built before.

But at the same time, it would not be right to describe this as founding the church. And besides, Christ had already implied, in that that exchange with Peter, that he (Jesus) himself was the founder of his church.


That's right.


It looks like a word was accidentally omitted from that sentence, but it is correct to say that Peter did not choose and install a successor to himself in Rome.

Well, we know Christ founded the Church. Not Peter. Peter didn't even become head of the Church until after Jesus had ascended into heaven. Even then, it took the Holy Spirit to enflame the apostles to spread the faith and yes, build the Church. It took about 400 years to figure out everything.

 

[Albion]

Well, we know Christ founded the Church.

Yes, he founded his church. That's it, not a denomination, not one of many. His church.

It's often called the church of Christ and we know that the earliest term for it was "The Way." Early on, the disciples came to be called "Christians."

Not Peter. Peter didn't even become head of the Church until after Jesus had ascended into heaven.

He never was acclaimed as the head of the church by the whole church and certainly not in his own lifetime. Centuries later, the claim was made about the first century church, looking back, but it was just a claim that the bishops of Rome and their supporters wanted to promote.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yes, he founded his church. That's it, not a denomination, not one of many. His church.

We had one Church. Other people shattered into denominations. Catholic is not a denomination.

It's often called the church of Christ and we know that the earliest term for it was "The Way." Early on, the disciples came to be called "Christians."

And soon after, known as Catholic. By St. Ignatius of Antioch.

He never was acclaimed as the head of the church by the whole church and certainly not in his own lifetime. Centuries later, the claim was made about the first century church, looking back, but it was just a claim that the bishops of Rome and their supporters wanted to promote.

That's your story. Stick to it. But just because we only have items written a century or so later, other than the letter of Pope Clement to the Corinthians, doesn't mean that's what was believed. But St. Clement, St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, St. Victor, and even Tertullian, would express otherwise. Tertullian did so in denial of the primacy of the 'bishop of bishops'.

 

[Albion]

We had one Church. Other people shattered into denominations. Catholic is not a denomination.

All sorts of other denominations make the same claim, and they believe it as firmly as you believe your own denomination's version of history.

But here is the definition from the Cambridge dictionary.

denomination noun (RELIGIOUS GROUP)
[ C, + sing/pl verb ]
a religious group that has slightly different beliefs from other groups that share the same religion

 

[Root of Jesse]

All sorts of other denominations make the same claim, and they believe it as firmly as you believe your own denomination's version of history.

But here is the definition from the Cambridge dictionary.

denomination noun (RELIGIOUS GROUP)
[ C, + sing/pl verb ]
a religious group that has slightly different beliefs from other groups that share the same religion

By this definition, Catholicism is the religious group. Everyone else has a slightly different belief. Which is what the Catholic Church believes. Thanks.