Origin and History of Catholicism [Part I]
Often Catholics make two important assertions: (1) The Catholic Church
is the oldest church. [Catholics are firmly convinced that the Catholic
Church is much older than any Protestant group that exists today. Although this assertion is historically correct, is it true that the Catholic Church is the oldest church?]
(2) The Catholic Church is the biblical church. [Catholics claim that
their church is the one described in the Bible and, therefore, the
church which God approves.]
These two claims bear some serious implications. First, if the Catholic
Church is the oldest church, then: (a) there could not be any church
prior to it; (b) the first church, which Christ promised He was going to
establish, must be the Catholic Church; and (c) all biblical and/or
historical record of the first church should point to Catholicism.
Second, if the Catholic Church is the biblical church, then: (a) the
Bible should have a record of this church; and (b) its teachings and
practices should be approved by the Bible.
ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY
To determine whether the Catholic Church is the oldest church, we must
go to the Bible to find a record of the first church. The prophet Daniel
said that
...the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which
shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other
people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it
shall stand forever (2:44, emp. added).
God had a plan for the followers of His Son to be part of a kingdom
different from any other, a spiritual kingdom that would stand forever:
the church (cf. Colossians 1:13). But when did this divine institution
begin?
Matthew 16:18 records the first time the term “church” is introduced in
the New Testament. Jesus said: “And I also say to you that you are
Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (emp. added). The term “church,” from the Greek ekklesia,
was generally used by the Greeks to refer to a political assembly (cf.
Acts 19:41). This term is used for the first time to describe the
followers of Christ in Matthew 16:18.
When Jesus spoke of His church in this verse, He declared three very important things. First, Jesus said, “I will build
my church.” The future tense of the verb indicates that the church was
not yet established. It did not exist at that time. Second, Jesus said, “I will build,” indicating that Christ Himself would establish the church and be its foundation. Third, Jesus said, “My church,” indicating that the Church would belong to Him.
Notice again Jesus’ statement to Peter, “And I also say to you that you
are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church” (Matthew 16:18).
Using two Greek terms—petros and petra—the New Testament makes clear that this “rock” (petra)
would be the foundation upon which Jesus would build His church. But to
what or to whom does this “rock” refer? Matthew tells us that Jesus had
asked His disciples who they thought He was. “Simon Peter answered and
said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God’” (Matthew 16:16).
Because of this declaration, Jesus made the statement mentioned above
(Matthew 16:18). Therefore, it can mean only one thing: Jesus was going
to build His church on the confession that Peter had made about Him.
In other words, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” would
be the foundation upon which the church was to be built. Jesus promised
Peter that he would be the blessed person to open the doors of
Christianity (or the church), but Peter (petros) would not be the rock (petra) of the church.
Although these verses in Matthew 16 do not give us the beginning of the
first church, they do give us an exact prediction of its origin,
including the following:
-
This church was not yet built at the time Jesus was speaking (vs. 18).
-
This church would be built by Christ, Who would also be its foundation (vs. 18).
-
This church would belong to Christ (vs. 18).
-
This church would be built on the confession that Jesus is Christ (vss. 16,18).
-
Peter would open (symbolically) the doors of this church (vs. 19).
So then, when did these things happen, and when did the first church come into existence?
Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them (Acts 2:41).
This verse, recorded by Luke, tells us the result of the sermon Peter
and the other apostles preached on Pentecost. The Bible notes that the
apostles had stayed in Jerusalem after Jesus’ ascension, waiting for the
promise of the Father (i.e., the arrival of the Holy Spirit; cf. Acts
1:4,12; 2:1). When the Holy Spirit was sent, the apostles began to speak
in different languages (Acts 2:4-11). Many people believed, but there
were also some who mocked (Acts 2:13). Then, Peter, standing with the
eleven, raised his voice and preached to those who were listening to him
(Acts 2:14). After showing convincing evidence of the Messianic
veracity of Jesus, Peter declared, “Therefore let all the house of
Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36, emp. added).
Luke’s account takes our minds back to the words of Jesus. Jesus had
predicted that Peter would open the doors of the church, and that the
church would be built on his confession (Matthew 16:16-18). In Acts
2:36, Peter not only opened the doors of Christianity, but he also
confessed once more that Jesus was the Lord and the Christ (i.e., the
rock on which the church would be built). Therefore, it was on this
exact day that the words of Jesus were fulfilled. Acts 2:41 indicates
that those who believed “were baptized; and that day about three
thousand souls were added to them.” The question then becomes, “To what
were the people who believed and were baptized added?” Verse 47 gives us
the answer: “the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.” [NOTE: The ASV
omits the word “church” and notes “them,” but the idea is the same.
Concerning this rendering, Boles stated that the meaning is that those
who were baptized, “were by this process added together, and thus formed
the church” (1941, p. 52)]. This is the first biblical text that speaks
of the church as being in existence; it is at this exact moment in
Scripture that the presence of the first church is
noted. Peter had opened the doors of the church through the preaching of
the Word. He had confessed once more the deity of Jesus. And the Lord
had added to His church the people who obeyed.
Which church, then, is the oldest church? The answer is, of course, the
church that Christ built in Acts 2. But what church was this? Was this
the beginning of the Catholic Church (as Catholicism teaches)? Note that
Christ said He was going to build His church (Matthew 16:18), not the Catholic Church.
Greet one another with a holy kiss. The churches of Christ greet you (Romans 16:16, emp. added).
Although there were various congregations that praised God in many
parts of the world when the apostle Paul wrote his letter to the Romans,
there was still a unique characteristic about them: all of them
belonged to Christ (i.e., they were churches of
Christ), for Christ said that He would build His church. Therefore, all
of them honorably bore the name of their Founder—Christ.
Acts 2 informs us that the church of Christ was established in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost (c. A.D.
30). It had a unique foundation, Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11).
Christ, not Peter, was the cornerstone of the church (cf. 1 Peter
2:4-8). The church was comprised of a group of believers who took the
title “Christians” (not “Catholics”) by divine authority (Acts 11:26;
cf. Isaiah 62:2). They made up the only body of Christ (Ephesians
1:22-23; 4:4). The church also was considered the bride of Christ (2
Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:24; Revelation 19:7). Christ was its
authority and its Head (Colossians 1:18); it had no earthly head. In its
organization, human names and divisions were condemned (1 Corinthians
1:10-13). This was the wonderful, divine institution that God
established on Earth—the church of His Son, the church of Christ (see
Miller, 2007).
ORIGIN OF CATHOLICISM
If the Catholic Church is not the oldest church, how
and when did it become a historical entity? When the church of the Lord
began in Acts 2, it grew rapidly. According to Acts 2:41, about 3,000
people believed the preaching of Peter and the other apostles, and were
baptized. Acts 4:4 tells us that shortly thereafter the number of
believers was at least 5,000, and Acts 6:7 informs us that “the number
of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem.”
At the beginning, the Roman government considered Christians to be one
of several insignificant Jewish sects. The book of Acts concludes by
noting that even in Roman custody, Paul continued preaching and teaching
“with all confidence, no one forbidding him” (Acts 28:31). The Romans
underestimated the power and influence of Christianity, allowing the
church time and opportunities to grow in its early years (Acts 18:12-16;
23:23-29). However, there was always great opposition from the orthodox
Jewish leaders of that time who intellectually, psychologically, and
physically persecuted the apostles and other Christians (e.g., Acts
4:1-3,18; 5:17-18; 9:1-2,22-24; 13:45,50; 17:4-5,13; 21:27-31;
23:12-22).
Although persecution was a terrible scourge for Christians, they had
been warned about it and knew how they should react. Jesus had warned
His disciples on different occasions about the coming persecutions for
His name’s sake (Matthew 10:22). He told them that they would be
persecuted in the same ways He was persecuted (John 15:19-20). In fact,
persecution from the Jews became a reality shortly after the church
began (Acts 8:1). Because of their hypocrisy and ignorance of the
Scriptures, the hard-hearted Jews hated the Gospel message.
Jesus also had advised His disciples to escape to other cities when
they were persecuted (Matthew 10:23). He wanted them not only to seek
safety but also to preach the Gospel in other places. At first,
Christians did not want to leave the safety and security of their
homelands, but persecution forced their departure (Acts 8:1; 11:19;
etc.). As they scattered, Christians began to obey the Great Commission
given by the Lord to “go into all the world and preach the gospel,”
announcing the arrival of the kingdom of heaven (Mark 16:15; Matthew
28:19; cf. Acts 8:4; 14:4-7; et al.).
As a result of their worldwide efforts to teach and the jealousy of
Jews in many of the places to which Christians traveled, Christianity
gained not only religious interest but also political attention. The
Roman government began to pay more attention to this “new religion”
which frequently was accused of being troublesome and blasphemous toward
the government (cf. Acts 17:6-9; 19:23-27).
Suetonius, a Roman historian, seems to confirm this fact by writing the
following about Claudius Caesar: “He banished from Rome all the Jews,
who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus”
(1890, p. 318). Clearly, by the time of the Emperor Claudius (A.D.
41-54), efforts to intimidate and discredit Christians were already a
serious matter (cf. Acts 18:2). When Claudius died, the infamous Nero
took over. He had grand dreams of building a magnificent Rome to satisfy
his own pleasures. Many historians believe that Nero was responsible
for the great fire that consumed Rome in A.D. 64
and killed many of its inhabitants (e.g., Suetonius, Dio Cassius, et
al.; cf. Nelson, 1985, p. 450). Many of his contemporaries also believed
Nero was responsible. To suppress these rumors, Nero unfairly charged
Christians with the crime and punished them in unbelievably horrible
ways. His actions encouraged hatred toward Christians (cf. Tacitus,
1836, pp. 287-288). Christians never had enjoyed the approval of the
Roman Empire, but Nero was the first emperor to instigate an intense
persecution against them. Excessive, intense persecution continued for
centuries. As James Baird wrote, “In actuality, Christianity was opposed
more vigorously than any other religion in the long history of Rome”
(1978, p. 29).
But beside the misfortunes brought upon Christians by the opponents of
divine justice, there was another danger on the horizon, a danger even
worse than the persecution itself: the predicted apostasy.
In His earthly ministry, Jesus taught His disciples to live for the
truth, to teach the truth, and even to die for the truth. The truth of
His Word (John 17:17) was an invaluable treasure. Jesus knew that after
His ascension, the truth would be challenged, and many would depart from
it. On one occasion, Jesus warned His disciples, “Beware of the false
prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are
ravenous wolves” (Matthew 7:15). Paul confirmed what Jesus said when he
wrote, “For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come
in among you, not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:29). The apostle John
wrote about the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy as a present reality (1
John 4:1). The apostasy which Jesus predicted existed then, and many
already had left the faith (cf. 2 Timothy 4:10).
However, the influence of the apostles still was strong and they
guarded the purity of the truth. Many of the apostolic writings
preserved in the New Testament were directed toward correcting false
teachings, defending the faith, and warning new Christians of dangerous
theological doctrines that would arise (cf. Galatians 1:6-10; 1 Timothy
4:1-3; 1 Peter 3:15; 1 John). To set in order some things that were
lacking in some congregations and to defend “the faith which was once
for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), God commanded (through the
apostles) that a plurality of elders (also called “bishops” or
“pastors”—Acts 20:17,28; Titus 1:5,7; 1 Peter 5:1-4) be appointed in
each congregation of the church (Titus 1:5-9; cf. Philippians 1:1; 1
Timothy 3:1-7). The elders were in charge of guiding and feeding the
Lord’s flock (Acts 20:28). It was their responsibility to watch over the
church which Christ bought with His own blood (Ephesians 5:25; Hebrews
7:26-27).
Upon the death of the apostles (who left no apostolic successors), the
elders, along with the deacons, evangelists, and teachers, took total
responsibility of defending the faith. Many of them had been instructed
directly by the apostles, and thus they were a fundamental part of the
spiritual development of the church. [NOTE: Some
of these men sometimes are called the “church fathers” or “apostolic
fathers.”] In his book, The Eternal Kingdom, F.W. Mattox wrote:
During the first fifty years after the death of the Apostle John, the
church struggled to maintain Apostolic purity. The literature of this
period, written by men who are commonly called the “Apostolic Fathers”
and “Apologists,” shows clearly the efforts made to maintain the New
Testament pattern and the trends that later brought on apostasy (1961,
p. 107).
Although monumental, many of these early apologists’ efforts to unify
the church were based erroneously upon mere human rationality. Little by
little, new ideas began to be accepted, which instigated changes in the
church. The first main change had to do with the organization of the
church, specifically with the authority of the elders. As we have noted,
in the early days of the church each congregation had a plurality of elders who simultaneously
watched over it. Nevertheless, many began to consider one elder as
greater than the others, and eventually he alone was given the title of
“bishop.” Disputes and contentions for power began. Later, “bishops”
began to preside individually over various congregations in a city,
which they called a “diocese” (Latourette, 1965, p. 67).
One of the people who strove to unify the church under only one man
(i.e., “the Bishop”) was Ignatius of Antioch. In his letter to the
Ephesians, he wrote:
For if I in this brief space of time, have enjoyed such fellowship
with your bishop—I mean not of a mere human, but of a spiritual
nature—how much more do I reckon you happy who are so joined to him as
the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father,
that so all things may agree in unity!... Let us be careful, then, not
to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be
subject to God (Roberts and Donaldson, 1973, 1:51).
This new structure (i.e., one bishop having authority over others)
began as a call to defend the truth, but it caused such a departure from
the divine pattern that by A.D. 150, the
government of many local congregations differed completely from the
simple organization outlined in the New Testament. This “innocent”
change in the organization of the church was the seed which preceded the
germination of the Catholic movement many years later.
In time, the bishops who exercised authority in certain regions began
to meet together to discuss matters that concerned all of them.
Eventually these meetings became councils where creeds and new ideas
were declared formally binding on all Christians, and alleged heretics
were condemned.
Constantine, Emperor of Rome, assembled the first of these councils, the Council of Nicea (A.D.
325). By the time of his reign, the Christian population had grown
tremendously. In spite of constant persecution and the growing apostasy,
many Christians had remained faithful to God, and their influence was
growing. The faith, influence, and courage of these Christians (which
led many to die for love of the truth) were obvious to Constantine.
Christianity was thought to be, in some ways, a potential threat to the
Empire if it continued to grow. Therefore, there were only two options:
(1) try to eradicate Christianity from the Empire by increasing
opposition to it (a tactic which had failed for almost three centuries),
or (2) “go with the flow” so that Christianity would help unify and
strengthen the Empire. Constantine decided not only to stop persecution
against Christianity but to promote it. To help the church, Constantine
ordered that 50 hand-written copies of the Bible be produced, and he
placed some Christians in high positions in his government (Miller and
Stevens, 1969, 5:48,51). Additionally, he restored places of worship to
Christians without demanding payment (see “The Edict...,” n.d.).
Under Constantine’s direction, more changes were made—especially in the
organization of the church. Since the end of persecution was something
that Christians thought impossible, and since favoritism from the
government seemed even less attainable, many Christians allowed
themselves to be influenced by the government to the point that they
deviated more and more from the truth. Under Constantine’s influence, a
new ecclesiastical organization began to develop, modeled after the
organization of the Roman government. Although “Christianity” thrived
under his influence, it is ironic that Constantine himself was not a
Christian. However, just before his death—and surely with the hope that
his sins would be removed—he agreed to be baptized for the Christian
cause (see Hutchinson and Garrison, 1959, p. 146).
Although Catholicism did not actually come into existence during the
time of Constantine, certainly his influence and his legacy were
fundamental stones upon which Catholicism soon built its power. As the
church obtained benefits from the government, it became more and more
similar to the government and moved further from the divine pattern. By
the seventh century, many Christians, accepting the model of the Roman
government, installed one man, the pope, in Rome to exercise universal
ecclesiastical power. According to the model of the counselors for the
Roman emperor, a group of cardinals was chosen to be advisors to the
pope. According to the model of the Roman governors, bishops were
appointed over dioceses. And, in accordance with the model of the Roman
Universal (i.e., catholic) Empire, a new church—the Roman Catholic
Church—was established. Consequently, the Catholic Church was
established at the beginning of the seventh century, under the
leadership of the first man to be called “pope” universally, Boniface III.
REFERENCES
Baird, James O. (1978), “The Trials and Tribulations of the Church from the Beginning,” The Future of the Church, ed. William Woodson (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman College).
Boles, H. Leo (1941), A Commentary on Acts of the Apostles (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
“The Edict of Milan” (no date), [On-line], URL: http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/edict.htm.
Hutchinson, Paul and Winfred Garrison (1959), 20 Centuries of Christianity (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.).
Latourette, Kenneth S. (1965), Christianity through the Ages (New York: Harper & Row)
Mattox, F.W. (1961), The Eternal Kingdom (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
Miller, Dave (2007), What the Bible Says about the Church of Christ (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Miller, Jule and Texas Stevens (1969), Visualized Bible Study Series: History of the Lord’s Church (Houston, TX: Gospel Services).
Nelson, Wilton M., ed. (1985), Illustrated Dictionary of the Bible [Diccionario Ilustrado de la Biblia] (Miami, FL: Editorial Caribe), fourteenth edition.
Roberts, Alexander and James Donaldson, eds. (1973 reprint), Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Suetonius Tranquillus (1890), The Lives of the Twelve Cæsars, trans. Alexander Thomson (London: George Bell and Sons).
Tacitus, Cornelius (1836), The Works of Cornelius Tacitus (Philadelphia, PA: Thomas Wardle).
has been intrigued by a particular statement found there. The text
says: “To Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his
days the earth was divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.” What
does the statement, “the earth was divided” mean in this verse? In light
of the modern idea of Pangea (see 
