When did the Roman Catholic Church really begin?

[onejayhawk]

They claim to date back to the time of Christ. IIRC it is the point where Jesus told Peter that he had the power to bind, or loose, things in Heaven, commonly called the Office of the Keys.

On the other hand, during the Roman persecution, it was too difficult to communicate between churchs, for their to be any real central authority. This was shown forcefully in the Council of Nicea, which we discussed at length last winter.

So when did the RCC really begin. Was it at the election of the first Pope? Was that election simply a ratification of what already existed? Was the real start later, and merely claimed the election as it claimed Peter, for verisimilitude?

J

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

As far as your Pope question, the first Pope was Peter, the bishop of Rome. He was killed in the Colleseum by Nero, though. I would imagine that the Pope really started to "matter" in the Empire after the Edict of Milan in 323(?) AD.

 

[Israelite9191]

The Roman Catholic Church as a seperate institution from the rest of Christianity began when it seperated from the older institution of the Eastern Orthodox Church on July 16, 1054 when the Papal Bull of excomunication was handed over to the Patriarch of Constantinople. Of course, this is also the date of the founding of the Eastern Orthoox Church as a fully seperate institution, though I and many others would set the date for the begining of the Eastern Orthodox Church to 451 and the Council of Chalcedon when it and the Latin rite churches seperated from the much, much older Oriental Orthodox Church. The Oriental Orthodox Church could be concidered the oldest institution of Christianity as its churches (those in Israel, Syria, Egypt, Armenia, Ethiopia, etc.) where the first ones founded, although the first fully independent institution with Christianity was the Assyrian Church of the East (or innapropriately the Nestorian Church) which seperated with the so called Nestorian Schism after the Council of Ephesus.

 

[Plotinus]

It depends entirely on how you define "Roman Catholic Church". Define that and you have your answer. Which means, of course, that there is no single correct answer.

I'm not sure why you cite the Council of Nicaea as showing how hard it was for churches to communicate during Roman persecutions, given that this council was held not only after the end of those persecutions but at the order of the Roman emperor. Of course, the churches in Persia were undergoing a very severe persecution at that time; but Arianism never reached Persia anyway, so I doubt they'd have been very interested in the council.

I don't understand why Israelite9191 says that the Orthodox Church is older than the Catholic Church, and the non-Chalcedonian churches older than both; they are all equally old, in that they were all originally one organisation which subsequently split. You might as well say that the Church of England is older than the Catholic Church, by that reasoning. Note also that there is no such thing as "the Oriental Orthodox Church" - the Church of the East, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Jacobites, and the rest are all completely distinct from each other. In fact, given that half of them are Monophysites and the other half are Nestorians, they are actually opposites, theologically speaking.

 

[sydhe]

The separation of the Catholic chuch was really an evolution, the Schism of 1054 being a culmination. Another important date is 592, which is about when Gregory I started to behave independently of the Byzantine Emperor. The influence of the emperor on Rome was already greatly weakened by the Lombard invasion.

 

[Israelite9191]

It depends entirely on how you define "Roman Catholic Church". Define that and you have your answer. Which means, of course, that there is no single correct answer.

I'm not sure why you cite the Council of Nicaea as showing how hard it was for churches to communicate during Roman persecutions, given that this council was held not only after the end of those persecutions but at the order of the Roman emperor. Of course, the churches in Persia were undergoing a very severe persecution at that time; but Arianism never reached Persia anyway, so I doubt they'd have been very interested in the council.

I don't understand why Israelite9191 says that the Orthodox Church is older than the Catholic Church, and the non-Chalcedonian churches older than both; they are all equally old, in that they were all originally one organisation which subsequently split. You might as well say that the Church of England is older than the Catholic Church, by that reasoning. Note also that there is no such thing as "the Oriental Orthodox Church" - the Church of the East, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Jacobites, and the rest are all completely distinct from each other. In fact, given that half of them are Monophysites and the other half are Nestorians, they are actually opposites, theologically speaking.

I was going by two things: when the original patriarchates/local churches were founded and, in relation to such, whether a church split off or was split off from. The churches in Israel, Syria, Egypt, Armenia, etc. were the very first founded and their patriarchs the first to hold office. Thus, the seperation between them and the Eastern Orthodox/Catholics should be seen as the Eastern Orthodox/Catholics leaving the older churches behind. And yes, I recognise that each of the national churches within Oriental Orthodoxy has a very seperate body, but they are all in full communion in the way that the Eastern Orthodox are and the various Eastern Rite Catholic churches are. And yes, I recognise that some are Miaphysite and some Nestorian with the two groups not in full communion, which is why I listed them seperately with the Assyrian Church of the East et all being seperate from the Oriental Orthodox given tha they are not in full communion. Kapeesh?

 

[Naskra]

The Roman Catholic Church is eternal. It exists outside of time with neither beginning or end. Next question?

 

[onejayhawk]

It depends entirely on how you define "Roman Catholic Church". Define that and you have your answer. Which means, of course, that there is no single correct answer.

I'm not sure why you cite the Council of Nicaea as showing how hard it was for churches to communicate during Roman persecutions, given that this council was held not only after the end of those persecutions but at the order of the Roman emperor. Of course, the churches in Persia were undergoing a very severe persecution at that time; but Arianism never reached Persia anyway, so I doubt they'd have been very interested in the council.

I don't understand why Israelite9191 says that the Orthodox Church is older than the Catholic Church, and the non-Chalcedonian churches older than both; they are all equally old, in that they were all originally one organisation which subsequently split. You might as well say that the Church of England is older than the Catholic Church, by that reasoning. Note also that there is no such thing as "the Oriental Orthodox Church" - the Church of the East, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Jacobites, and the rest are all completely distinct from each other. In fact, given that half of them are Monophysites and the other half are Nestorians, they are actually opposites, theologically speaking.

For our purposes, at what point or points did the split(s) irrevocably occur? Was this before, or after, the Roman church hailed its Bishop as the supreme authority over all Christians everywhere.

As to Nicea, I was refering to a discussion of the subject, in this forum, which delved into the history under persecution a fair amount. As I recall there was a comment, by some writer of the 4th century, about the roads being unsafe because of galloping Bishops.

J