RCC founded in the 15th Century?


I know a guy, pretty good guy for the most part, who thinks that the Roman Catholic Church was not founded until the 15th century. I asked him his source. Said it was a Roman Catholic archeologist, whose name he forgets, who said it at a talk.

Not wanting to argue anything, just wondering: Does anyone have ANY idea what he is talking about?


Don’t have any idea, but everyone here practically knows it’s bunk. Of course, you can lump that with the notions that the Church started Islam, and that Constantine is the first Pope.


Weird because most of our Catholic poo-pooers will at least grant that the RCC was founded in the 4th century by Constantine. :slight_smile:

Said it was a Roman Catholic archeologist, whose name he forgets

Well that’s convenient isn’t it? :whistle:


From what I know, the Catholic Church is called the Christian Church that time. Constantine legalized Christianity, not start it.


Well, given the number of Catholic churches which well predate the 15th century, he’s not much of an archaelogist!

The Catholic Church was founded in 33 AD, and began operations in earnest at Pentecost.

The first references to the term “catholic” with regard to the Church are in the 1st century.

I do sympathize—when I was a Protestant, it was awfully hard to rationalize why Protestantism was true when it didn’t come about till a millennium and a half after Christ founded his Church.


And I thought the Jay Leno “Jaywalking” interviews showed the general lack of historical and other knowledge. Is everybody that dumb and/or gullible?


Insist on him finding the arch’s name, and then google or look him up, and find out where his source comes from. If this guy is a good friend of yours, he should oblige you. Should be interesting and amusing to here this arch’s story…if there is one.


As it is not the case, ISTM like a garbling of something - did he mean a particular church building, perhaps ? :slight_smile: It would help if you knew the precise words of the remark attributed to the archaeologist. There’s probably been a very simple misunderstanding :slight_smile:


i say he’s pulling your leg.


What about the NAME the Roman Catholic Church?
Yes, the Church has been around since 33AD.
Yes, it’s been called Catholic at least as early as 110 with Ignatius.
Yes, it was legalized in the 4th century.

But didn’t Luther coin the term “Roman Catholic Church”? Could this be what the “Roman Catholic Archaeologist” was talking about? BTW, what is a Roman Catholic Archaeologist?


Luther couldn’t have used the term “Roman Catholic” since the term came out only in the 19th century or so; Luther would either use “Roman church” or, derogatively, “Papist”.


Perhaps he meant that the term ‘Roman Catholic’ was first used in the 16th century (the 1500s) when all the Protestant groups started to get going–although perhaps more often we heard Papist. Because technically speaking there is no such thing as “The Roman Catholic church”. However, it has become a convenient shorthand usage which is often understood to refer to the Latin rite (and also the Eastern churches in communion with the Pope).

It’s a lot like the term “Protestant Reformation”. The Protestants (who are the majority in the U.S.) are the ones who underwrote public schools and who provide school texts, so most non-Catholic students learn about the “Protestant Reformation” as this great positive thing that came about solely and simply in response to ‘reforming’ the ‘corrupt’ Catholic church.

As in most successful ‘distortions’ of the truth, there is a grain of truth in that there were some specific abuses going on at the time, and that, historically speaking, certain ‘waves’ of abuses would happen from place to place to place, all from individuals. Just as, in the beginning, Judas, while he appeared to be just as faithful a disciple as any other of the twelve, was lining his pocket and betraying the Lord. Did Judas’s abuses mean that Christ was wrong in ‘picking him’ or that the entire Christian faith was wrong because ‘1 out of 12’ of the apostles was corrupt? Of course not. And as time went on, we have various Christians (think Annianas and Sapphora, who lied about the money they made in selling their goods and tried to keep some for themselves) right in the middle of other good faithful Christians who fell into abuses, had ‘itching ears’, shacked up with a father’s ex-mistress, etc. Did that mean all Christianity was corrupted? Of course not.

There were many factors that brought about the Protestant break–anticlericalism was one, nationalism another, and plain old common greed yet another. In order to justify themselves and appear ‘righteous’, some went on not only to say that they were ‘stopping certain corrupt practices’ but even further to say that some practices weren’t just corrupt, but flat out doctrinally wrong. IOW, instead of acknowledging that they (the so-called reformers) went too far in their attacks on individual clergy, they started to claim that the whole idea of clergy wasn’t really Christian to start with. Thus, no longer would the ‘reformers’ have to feel ‘uncomfortable’. And once they started trying to whitewash over their own errors and justify themselves, some groups started to cherry pick Scripture here, and some tried to rewrite Scripture there. . .until you have not just one ‘group’ of ‘reformers’ but dozens and dozens of groups who differ on just about everything but their long rooted disobedience to authority.


It is probably a student working on his thesis. Reminds of a debate at UC Irvine over 10 years ago Between William Lane Craig and a Professor who did his doctoral on the twin brother of Jesus. One has to invent in order to achieve recognition as having come up with an entirely new theory in which to be published. The more outrageous the idea, the easier to be published.


This is a basically good guy, but I suspect he has a blind spot when it comes to anything before the Reformation. He doesn’t remember the gentleman’s name.

What bothers me is that I can’t figure anything about this 15th century founding. I don’t want to argue with him; I just want to understand him. Do you understand how hard it is to have a connection with someone, when you can’t figure out what they are talking about? Starting this thread may give an indication.

I have another Protestant friend, got in over his head on something. This friend has been a Godsend helping him.


Well, tell him that you heard from numerous people whose names you DO remember - beginning with Jesus, Peter, Matthew Mark Luke and John - that Jesus founded his Church on Peter in 33 AD - the very same that today goes by the name Roman Catholic and is headed by St Peter’s successor the Pope (and we have the lineage back to Peter to prove it!).

And then ask him to find out the archaeologist’s name if he expects you to listen to or believe him.


What was between the time Jesus last departed from Galilee ( and set off in search of lost tribes of house of Israel settled in Aghanistan, Norht Western Province of Pakistan, Kashmir and India) and between the 33 AD?


The term “Roman Catholic” is used only in the English-speaking world. It was originally an insult coined by members of the Church of England in the 16th century.

While one can find many, many church buildings with the term “Roman Catholic Church” and is almost always referred to as such in the secular media, there is no such thing as the “Roman Catholic Church”. There is the Latin Church, and the Eastern (Occidental) Churches.


Paar, where DO you get these notions? Did you get this information from the Roman Catholic Archaeologists?


While that is technically true, there was a period when the Church adopted it in official documents to refer to the whole Church–the “Roman” was a sign of fidelity to Rome–something to be acknowledge with joy, rather than shame. However, it was discarded when people tried to use it to promote “branch theory,” that the Roman Catholic Church was just part of the bigger Catholic Church, which included Anglicans, the Orthodox, and some others. It also allowed some people to cast the Church as something foreign, rather than universal. It was then that the Church dropped the Roman so no one got confused–we are the whole, universal, and full Catholic Church. :thumbsup:


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