Question from a Muslim work colleague

I told a work Muslim work colleague that I went to Mass for lunch he started making claims against Catholic Church (none of which I agree with and sounds like 3rd Century Heresy) but I would like to here the opinions of the members and admin of this forum.

He stated that the Catholic Church had nothing to do with Christ and the apostles was the state religion of the Roman Empire, established in the 3rd Century and persecuted early Christians.

Can anyone shed light on this I would greatly appreciate it.

Many Thanks and God Bless :knight1:

There are tons of sources on the net that refute his claim. Try new you can search the site.

Well his religion comes from the 6th century, was started by a man and persecuted Jews and Christians.

Of course the Church was not established in the third century.

You can begin with the apostle Peter who was the first Pope and his succession was not interrupted since then. You can show him the long list of Popes from Peter to Francis. You can easily google it.

Whether the Church was undergorund or state religion, it does not negate the fact that it has been in existence since the day of Pentecost. One reason why we consider apostolic succession very important as one of the characteristics of the Church.

Brethren I agree it absurd , I meant to say he claimed that the Catholic Church was 3rd Century BC just to clarify. I just to find if anyone knows where these claims come from or was it just from there fevered imaginations.

It’s from fevered imaginations :slight_smile:

The teachings of the Church align with the Bible, with the Early Church Fathers, and with the Didache. The popes stretch back to Peter.

You better be clear with your dating system there, :smiley:

BC = Before Christ which is kind of absurd. possibly you meant AD or even CE which all refer to AFTER Jesus’s birth.

As a matter of fact ask him how it is possible that a mere man could command that the dating system used by most of mankind is based in the birthdate of Him.
As for Islam I will be charitable and just shut up :rolleyes:

Peace :thumbsup:

LOL! That’s funny. because I didn’t notice the before / after Christ mistake either :yeah_me:

Nope that is what he stated he that Roman Catholicism was set up by the Roman Empire as a state religion in the 3rd Century BC and apparently “took over”:rolleyes: early Christianity.

As for being Charitable to Muslims, I wished that Islamists could match your Charity look how Christians are treated in Egypt & Syria and elsewhere in Muslim held countries.

May be Pope Francis could take a page out of Pope Urban II book?:knight2:

This was written for a slightly different audience, but it still applies to your Muslim friend.

Christian History

Christ established one Church with one set of beliefs (Eph. 4:4–5). He did not establish numerous churches with contradictory beliefs. To see which is the true Church, we must look for the one that has an unbroken historical link to the Church of the New Testament. Catholics are able to show such a link. They trace their leaders, the bishops, back through time, bishop by bishop, all the way to the apostles, and they show that the pope is the lineal successor to Peter, who was the first bishop of Rome. The same thing is true of Catholic beliefs and practices. Take any one you wish, and you can trace it back. This is just what John Henry Newman did in his book An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

He looked at Christian beliefs through the ages. Starting with the nineteenth century (he was writing in 1844), he worked backward century by century, seeing if Catholic beliefs existing at any particular time could be traced to beliefs existing a century before. Back and back he went, until he got to New Testament times. What he demonstrated is that there is a real continuity of beliefs, that the Catholic Church has existed from day one of Church history, that it is in fact the Church established by Christ.

Newman was not a Catholic when he started the book, but his research convinced him of the truth of the Catholic faith, and as the book was finished he converted. Fundamentalist leaders make no effort to trace their version of Christianity century by century. They claim the Christianity existing in New Testament times was like today’s Protestant Fundamentalism in all essentials.

According to modern Fundamentalists, the original Christian Church was doctrinally the same as today’s Fundamentalist churches. When Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in A.D. 313, pagans flocked to the Church in hopes of secular preferment, but the Church could not assimilate so many. It soon compromised its principles and became paganized by adopting pagan beliefs and practices. It developed the doctrines with which the Catholic Church is identified today. Simply put, it apostatized and became the Catholic Church. Meanwhile, true Christians (Fundamentalists) did not change their beliefs but were forced to remain in hiding until the Reformation.

The trouble with this history is that there are no historical facts whatsoever to back it up. Distinctively Catholic beliefs—the papacy, priesthood, invocation of saints, sacraments, veneration of Mary, salvation by something besides “faith alone,” purgatory—were evident long before the fourth century, before Constantine. They were believed by Christians before this supposed “paganization” took place. Another difficulty is that there are no historical records—none at all—which imply an underground Fundamentalist church existed from the early fourth century to the Reformation. In those years there were many schisms and heresies, most now vanished, but present-day Fundamentalists cannot find among them their missing Fundamentalist church. There were no groups that believed in all or even most, of the doctrines espoused by the Protestant Reformers (e.g. sola scriptura, salvation by “faith alone,” and an invisible church). No wonder Fundamentalist writers dislike discussing Church history!

Since the Christian Church was to exist historically and be like a city set on a mountain for all to see (Matt. 5:14), it had to be visible and easily identifiable. A church that exists only in the hearts of believers is not visible and is more like the candle hidden under the bushel basket (Matt. 5:15). But any visible church would necessarily be an institutional church that would need an earthly head. It would need an authority to which Christians could turn for the final resolution of doctrinal and disciplinary disputes. Christ appointed Peter and his successors to that position.

Christ designated Peter head of the Church when he said, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18). Fundamentalists, desiring to avoid the natural sense of the passage, say “rock” refers not to Peter, but to his profession of faith or to Christ himself. But Peter’s profession of faith is two sentences away and can’t be what is meant. Similarly, the reference can’t be to Christ. The fact that he is elsewhere, by a quite different metaphor, called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4–8) does not mean Peter was not appointed the earthly foundation. The apostles were also described as foundation stones in a sense (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14), meaning that Christ is not the only person the Bible speaks of as being the Church’s foundation. In one sense the foundation was Christ, in another it was the apostles, and in another it was Peter. In Matthew 16:18 Christ has Peter in mind. He himself would be the Church’s invisible foundation since he was returning to heaven, from where he would invisibly rule the Church. He needed to leave behind a visible authority, one people could locate when searching for religious truth. That visible authority is the papacy.

Whatever facts CAF arms you with, your co-worker will have something he believes legitimate to refute them with. The best thing to do may be to recommend he continue to research the subject on his own, and while he does that you do what Mother Angelica said and just do your best to make Jesus present through common everyday charity. In the end, that’s the only thing (according to her – and I tend to agree) that really converts people’s opinions: loving your neighbor.

It is the usual relentless anti-Catholic propaganda. With patience tell him of the reason for your hope.

Thanks Brother Randy for that confirmation & :blessyou:

his problem with the Catholic Church or with Christianity in general?


I love Mother Angelica, she is so wise.

When someone makes an outrageous claim like that, it’s their responsibility to provide the proof.

His problem was with both but the questions he raised was pacifically against Catholic Church. I think he is trying to undermine my faith may be convert me to Islam. :rolleyes: :rotfl:


You can start with asking where it shows Mohammed even knew anything about Constantine in the first place. :rolleyes:


Constantine was being kind of silly in the third century then, establishing the evil roman catholic church in rome and then moving to Constantinople and having a new patriarchate established.

That was a rude remark.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit