-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
When do you think it was formed.
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
Fred Moritz
New Member
When it was formed
It developed over the first six centuries of church history. It was a combination of baptismal regeneration heresy, union of church and state, and power developing in major centers over that time among other things. Gregory the Great (590-604 AD) is generally recognized as the first Bishop of Rome to gather the full power of the papacy to himself.
In 1970 we were in St. Peter's in Rome. Our official Catholic tour guide told us that she did not believe that Peter was the first pope. She asked if any of us knew who the first real pope was. I responded: "Gregory the Great, 590-604." She said "where did you learn that?" I said: "In a Baptist seminary!"
She affirmed that I was right.
It developed over the first six centuries of church history. It was a combination of baptismal regeneration heresy, union of church and state, and power developing in major centers over that time among other things. Gregory the Great (590-604 AD) is generally recognized as the first Bishop of Rome to gather the full power of the papacy to himself.
In 1970 we were in St. Peter's in Rome. Our official Catholic tour guide told us that she did not believe that Peter was the first pope. She asked if any of us knew who the first real pope was. I responded: "Gregory the Great, 590-604." She said "where did you learn that?" I said: "In a Baptist seminary!"
She affirmed that I was right.
Darron Steele
New Member
1054: the year the split from the Orthodox was initiated from Rome's side.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
That is a good an answer as any, IMO. Before the 'split' it was just the catholic church (little 'c').
Another one for 1054.
...to add...1054 is the date historians generally attribute to the Great Schism, because that's the year Pope Leo sent 3 legates to the Patriarch in Constantinople with a papal bull of excommunication. But the cracks between the See of Rome and the other four sees began much earlier. But what really broke the relationship was the Western cruelty during the Crusades, the capture and sacking of Constantinople in 1204, and the imposition of Latin Patriarchs and when the Latins refused to help when Constantinople fell to Islam in 1453.
In XC
-
In XC
-
drfuss: When the Roman Empire split into east and west is when the church unofficially split. By then the Church was organized to reflect the government structure. The Bishop of Rome claimed to be the head bishop of the Western part and the Bishop of Constanople claimed to be the head bishop of the Eastern part.
Although the church officailly split in 1054, the church had unofficially split centuries before. There is some spectulation that one reason that the Roman Empire split is that the church already had two head bishops. Of course there were other reasons.
Although the church officailly split in 1054, the church had unofficially split centuries before. There is some spectulation that one reason that the Roman Empire split is that the church already had two head bishops. Of course there were other reasons.
Darron Steele
New Member
My understanding was that there were FIVE Metropolitan bishops; one at Rome, one at Byzantium, one at Alexandria, one at Antioch, and one at Jerusalem.
The Metropolitan at Rome had a first among equals status. It is sort of like how when several substitute teachers have a grade level and are together in one part of a school building: if a decision has to be made affecting multiple classes, the most qualified substitute is normally deferred to.
Over time, the Metropolitans at Rome began to feel entitlement to primacy of authority. Their counterparts did not share that sentiment. The insistences by the Metropolitans at Rome over time began to increase in intensity.
Finally, people representing the Metropolitan at Rome brought a message formalizing a split against those who did not accept his primacy. Hence, he is no longer a Patriarch or a Metropolitan, but Pope -- and the group he leads is the Roman Catholic Church.
The Metropolitan at Rome had a first among equals status. It is sort of like how when several substitute teachers have a grade level and are together in one part of a school building: if a decision has to be made affecting multiple classes, the most qualified substitute is normally deferred to.
Over time, the Metropolitans at Rome began to feel entitlement to primacy of authority. Their counterparts did not share that sentiment. The insistences by the Metropolitans at Rome over time began to increase in intensity.
Finally, people representing the Metropolitan at Rome brought a message formalizing a split against those who did not accept his primacy. Hence, he is no longer a Patriarch or a Metropolitan, but Pope -- and the group he leads is the Roman Catholic Church.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
I always thought it was when the devil possessed Constantine the Great who incorporated a favored Roman Military form of worship or Mythras with a fledgling Christian gnostic movement and made it the imperial "official" Religion of the Empire whilst he spent time killing the Donatist (baptist) movement. Later before his death he organized this combination of eastern mystery religion with gnostic Christianity after the Dominant form of Roman Government ensuring longevity through bureaucracy because the devil knew that when he possesses the anti - christ that the new world order will be governed by the Catholic Church and the pope would either be the "false prophet" or the "anti-christ" himself. I mean thats pretty accurate because there's all sorts of actual historical evidence to verify that! Right? Uh... wait no. Uh. :laugh::tongue3:
I'm too mischievious for my own good. Sorry.
I'm not certain but I wonder if the Schism of 1054 is an appropiate date. The papacy had claimed for many years before that the primacy or the first among equals long before. Yet even at that time I'm not sure the Eastern Churches called themselves Orthodox at that time. All Christian Churches considered themselves Catholic. Even the Orthodox. Yet the Western Churches even at that time had significantly different liturgy and traditions. My guess it became distinctively Roman Catholic earlier than 1054. The monarchial episcopate seems to have begun with Victor I.
I'm too mischievious for my own good. Sorry.
I'm not certain but I wonder if the Schism of 1054 is an appropiate date. The papacy had claimed for many years before that the primacy or the first among equals long before. Yet even at that time I'm not sure the Eastern Churches called themselves Orthodox at that time. All Christian Churches considered themselves Catholic. Even the Orthodox. Yet the Western Churches even at that time had significantly different liturgy and traditions. My guess it became distinctively Roman Catholic earlier than 1054. The monarchial episcopate seems to have begun with Victor I.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
The problem with a 300 AD date for Catholic is that the Edict of Milan didn't occur until 312 and the Council of Nicea did not occur until 325 AD. Also Ignatius in his letter dated between 98 AD and 117 AD used the Term Catholic. So there was already a universal view of the Christian Church. Or Ecclessiam Catholicam
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
What he said--Ignatius of Antioch spoke of the "catholic church" a good two centuries before Constantine.
mcneely2818
New Member
I suppose that depends upon what you mean by "catholic". As it is already well known, the word "catholic" translates to the word "universal". Which would render the literal meaning "The One Church", or "The Church". Which is how Ignatius meant it to be understood. So if you remove the elements that modern culture uses to characterize a church as "catholic", and look at the literal meaning of the word, most Christians would agree that the proper date would be the Pentacost of Acts 2. However, if you use the word in reference to what we now think of as "catholic", a specific date may be difficult to determine. Many factors come into play when determining how the "catholic" church came about, such as cultural influence, political activity, etc. As for the inception of the RCC, I would have to agree with the folks who say 1054.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
If you look up the term "Church of God" you find it in scripture - but that does not mean that the denomination going by that name today - was around in Bible times.
In the same way you can not take every reference to "Catholic" in history and suppose this to be a statement about the denomination today that goes by that name.
in Christ,
Bob
In the same way you can not take every reference to "Catholic" in history and suppose this to be a statement about the denomination today that goes by that name.
in Christ,
Bob
I realize that the word catholic means universal.
My basic question, If I may reword it is: When do you think the Roman Catholic church began notwithstanding the 1054 split?
Some say that Constantine was the driving force around 300 AD.
Also, I am aware that the RC officially declare Peter as the first pope (upon this little rock, I will build my church)
Do appreciate all the answers so far, has been very enlightening.
Salty
My basic question, If I may reword it is: When do you think the Roman Catholic church began notwithstanding the 1054 split?
Some say that Constantine was the driving force around 300 AD.
Also, I am aware that the RC officially declare Peter as the first pope (upon this little rock, I will build my church)
Do appreciate all the answers so far, has been very enlightening.
Salty
in a net shell, by 1054 there were 5 Patriarchates that made up the Church...Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria... Rome being "First among equals". After Rome excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Roman See became known as the "Roman Catholic Church" and the other remaining Patriarchates became known as the "Eastern Orthodox Church".
So there's no inventing of the "Roman Catholic Church", the Roman See was started just like the others, by Apostles, not Constantine, like some would like to believe, although he did play a major role in Christianity...the name "Roman Catholic" is just a name tag attached to the Roman See years after the Schism.
In XC
-
Marcia
Active Member
Source
http://www.gotquestions.org/Peter-first-pope.html
Source
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/denominations/catholicism.htm
Many of the doctrines in the Roman Catholic church today which sharply depart from non-Catholic beliefs, such as Transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Assumption of Mary, did not exist until the 10th or 11th centuries (I think that is when Transubstantiation came about). The Assumption of Mary was declared by a Pope around 1950 or so.
So the early Roman Catholic church did not have some of the beliefs that non-Catholic Christians find so troublesome.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Again, I think this would be a complex question to answer. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "Roman Catholic"--what distinguishes it from the rest of the historic Church. Historically, the primarily distinguishing mark would no doubt be in the increasing power/role of the 'papacy', and this took place gradually, but the expressions of such increasing power perhaps could be identified at various points even before 1054 (and in some cases before Constantine).
To begin with, the catholic church at Rome of course began in the first century AD. After the Apostles left the scene, it was led by a group of 'bishop/presbyters' with one among them at a given time (such as Linus and Clement) being more prominent (based on: [1] early lines showing the succession through these individual men--see Irenaeus, Hegesippus, etc; AND [2] specific dates listed for the duration of each one's office--see Eusebius) and apparently serving as the presiding 'bishop/presbyter'**. The church at Rome was highly regarded early on because of it's connections to Peter AND Paul and it's reputation for orthodoxy and because of it's position in the imperial capital.
The first sign of a Roman bishop trying to excommunicate folks in another city (ie another bishops's flock) seems to be the case of Victor in the late 2nd century who attempted to excommunicate some of the Asian churches who observed Easter (Pascha) on a different day than Rome and many others. For this he was rebuked by Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons (who happened to observe Easter the same day as the Romans), who pointed out that one of Victor's predecessors agreed to disagree with Polycarp (former bishop of Smyrna) about the date of observance.
Due to Rome's status in the empire, as well as it's apostolic pedigree and general reputation for orthodoxy, the Roman Church continued to enjoy a primacy of honor, but others were not afraid to express their disagreement with the Roman bishop (eg, Hippolytus, or Cyprian of Carthage, for example) in certain areas when needed. This primacy continued after Constantine granted peace to the Christians and was affirmed at the first two ecumenical councils. However, as time went by, that Church's connection to BOTH Peter AND Paul was deemphasized, while the claim that her bishop (alone) was the sole successor to Peter was more and more advanced...particularly by the bishops of Rome themselves. They therefore bristled at the decision of the Second Ecumenical Council to proclaim 'second place' of honor to Constantinople based on that city's increased importance, claiming at that point that Rome's perogatives were based on it's special connection to Peter and not merely to its position in the empire. Thus began the rivalry with Constantinople.
As the Western Empire fell, the 'papacy' (bishop of Rome) played a role in helping keep things from falling utterly apart in the West politically, which (along with Rome being the only 'patriarchate' in the West) led to further increases in its power. Gregory the Great is considered to be one who significantly expanded papal power during this time, but interestingly enough he referred more than once to the existence of THREE "Sees of Peter" in his correspondence (with Antioch and Alexandria being the other two Petrine sees). The increase in papal power and the ever increasing estrangement between the Latin West and the Greek East were among the factors that led to the split in 1054 which was more or less finalized when the Latin crusaders sacked Constantinople in 1204.
So to answer your question: When did the Roman Catholic church begin?
(1) as a local church founded on the apostles, the answer is "early/mid 1st century"
(2) as an ecclessial body separate from the rest of the church, 1054 is a convenient date.
(3) as to her distinctives from the rest of the apostolic Church (ie papalism), the answer is, "gradually". :smilewinkgrin:
(**in the East the distinction between the terms 'bishop' and 'presbyter' came earlier, with the term 'bishop' being exclusively used for the presiding 'bishop/presbyter' in Antioch and Asia Minor by early 2nd century, based on the evidence from Ignatius' epistles)
Interesting that these all occurred after 1054...go figure...