I have one question that I cannot seem to find an unbiased article on. Did Constantine or Jesus found the Roman Catholic Church? Please, no memes, no deus vult posting. I want an unbiased look at this, as it is a pretty important part of the Faith.
Jesus definitely didn't. If anything, the title of "1st Pope" is pegged on St. Peter, so you could say he founded the Catholic church. I believe Constantine oversaw the formation of the Nicene Creed though, so you could say he's fairly responsible for guiding the church towards the form it now takes.
Jesus established a sort of church consisting of his apostles. Along with Paul, the church quickly splintered into many pieces, which themselves splintered as a result of theological differences. The Roman Catholic Church was established centuries later and reframed history as one truth (that they happened to have) and many heresies (anyone who disagreed with them) instead of the actual plurality of interpretations that existed.
>>396901
Well, the claim by Catholics is that Jesus made Peter the first Pope, so technically that would mean Jesus founded the Church, which is why I asked it that way. I am just confused because there is not a pope mentioned in any of the epistles. When I look online all I find is biased protestant or biased Catholic articles, which is why I ask for an unbiased analysis of the situation. Basically, this is a question about the legitimacy of the Church.
>>396923
the title pope didnt exist at the time of the apostles. What did exist was the idea of a head of the Church that maintains the faith
>>396923
I'm honestly not 100 percent clear on the specific language and lore of the bible and church, but isn't the pope just another word for Father, as in father of the church? In that case Jesus would probably be considered the "father" of Christianity, but I'm not clear on why the catholic tradition places that role in Peter's hands.
Neither.
Constantine ordered the Council of Nicaea to take place which established Nicene Christendom which would later split off into the Orthodox and Catholic Churches as they exist today.
The word Catholic was used, but it didn't mean the same thing.
>>396970
Papa is a baby word for father which became applied to the Bishop of Rome.
Before the great Schism, the pope was one of Five Patriarchs of the Church. The Patriarchs were the Bishops of important cities of the Early Church.
Four of them were in the area around the Eastern Expanse of the Roman Empire, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, and Alexandria, while only one of them was in the West, Rome.
After the split between the Western and Eastern Roman Empires, the relations between them grew further apart and the Pope gained more power in the West than the other four had.
Eventually, all Western Powers turned towards the Pope in Rome even though all five Patriarchs ostensibly had the same theological Gravity.
>>396876
Jesus did.
Read Matthew 16:18-19
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
and compare with this prefiguring verse in Isaiah 22
20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias,
21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda.
22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.
23 And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father.
cont.
>>397007
>all five Patriarchs ostensibly had the same theological Gravity
Nice meme
>>397029
cont.
The thing here to note is that Christ is giving to Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Now to give someone the keys to the kingdom would not have been some special honorary thing.
Christ is creating an office which is shown created in the Davidic kingdom (the throne of David is that which Christ sits) and the 1st century Judeans would have immediately recognized this. To give the keys to the kingdom away was to give the recipient full authority over the kingdom in the King's absence. And this authority would be passed to every successor to that office. It did not die with Eliacim and it did not die with Peter. This office given to Peter by Christ is the papacy that has been passed down by each of Peter's successors from Linus to Anacletus to Clement to Pope Francis today.
>>397064
Peter still has the authority, he didn't lose it when he died. No pope has any claims to it, only Peter does.
>>397007
It should be noted that in the Early Church there only existed three patriarchs: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, and were held with honor because of their association with the apostle Peter, of which Rome had the highest honor and had the last word in matters of faith.
Jerusalem had honor, but the honor was not of the same kind as the three other Patriarchs.
Constantinople received the status of Patriarchate after the other two patriarchs had been dominated by the Muslims, even though it had fought to have its status recognized by the mainstream Church since the Council of Constantinople, because of it being the Imperial City founded by Constantine and not being Apostolic in nature
>>397075
That is incorrect. The authority is transferred to his successor. The office Christ created is the exact same one created in Isaiah 22, and Eliacim wasn't the last of Israel's royal stewards. The Church has always held and was taught by the apostles that apostle's offices would be passed down via the laying of hands.
The pagan priests of the mystery religions were called PATORS or PETERS. They had the power to interpret the heathen mysteries.
Notice references to these sacred PETRAS found throughout the pagan world.
At the temple of Delphi in Greece, the chief object in the ritual was the PETRA
The sacred book which was used in the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries, was entitled "Book PETROMA," PETER-ROMA -- PETER'S BOOK
The office of Pope or Papa was given to the head of the Mithras cult who resides at-you guessed it, the Vatican
>>396876
>Not acknowledging the fact that the Roman Catholic Church didn't formally exist as its own entity until after Rome split from the other 4 Patriarchs in the 11th century.
I will give the benefit of the doubt and assume you reference "Catholics" for convenience in place of the pre-schism Orthodoxy.
>>397187
Because that's not a fact.
>>397159
Exactly. It's more likely than not that the line of succession was an instruction by Christ himself in order to facilitate order and structure within His church.
>>396876
Jesus created the mystical church. A certain amount of flexible structure automatically appeared among first christian communities. That's THE church. Then Constantine made the first major step for a more formal institution that is more of a central authority organisation than a community. But the Church created by Jesus overlaps to a large extent with the church-organisation so it can be argued Constantine only added more structure to an existing community.
>>396876
Catholics will say that Jesus founded them.
Historically speaking though, I'd say that the Catholic Church is a part of this Church that Jesus founded alongside the Orthodox Churches.
Doctrinal differences that accumulated over time led to the two splitting up. Before the Great Schism, the Oriental Orthodox and Nestorians splited from the main body of the Church.
The branches of today that can trace Apostolic lineage back to Antiquity would be the descendants of that very Church Jesus founded. Now in splinters. To be fair, the OOs and EOs are quite close compared to the OOs and EOs to the Catholics.
With Protestantism, that's kinda like some new movement that emerged in response to corruptions in the Roman Church. The new movement departed from historical theology apart from the Medieval theology of their day.
Anglicanism is quite a special exception here. There's even debate whether Anglicanism should be its own separate branch all together instead of being Protestant. Still, Low Church Anglicans are pretty much Protestant.
Jesus.
>"You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church."
>"I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven."
>>396876
Jesus is to Christianity what Socrates is to philosophy. He's a guy who said a bunch of stuff but didn't write a whole lot of anything down, so his followers interpreted him in various ways.
>>399372
>in response to corruptions in the Roman Church
then why did Martin Crucius and Jakob Andrae try to convert the othrodox churches (who politely rebuffed the Lutherans, btw) even though they had little roman type corruption?
