Someone said the Catholic Church was founded in the 3rd century and killed lots of people

Regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary, consider the following:

In the Book of Revelation we see the legitimate Queen of Heaven in Ch. 12 (BibleGateway):

12 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve starson her head .

5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter .”[a]

Only one woman gave birth to the One prophesied in Ps. 2:9 to rule the nations with an iron sceptor: that woman, crowned Queen of Heaven in Revelation 12, is the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Why is she the Queen of Heaven?

In the 10 Commandments (Exodus 20), we read the following:

12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.

Here is the Hebrew for “honor” from Strong’s Concordance Online (BibleHub):

Further on down the page under Brown-Driver-Briggs , we read the following:

So in essence when we “honor” our parents, we “glorify” them. How much more so the Lord as the King of Kings - the King of David - so glorifying His Mother in this way! She being a descendant of King David as the Mother of the Messiah is the legitimate Gebirah :

From Wikipedia - Gebirah:

Sounds like it’s ripped straight from The Trail of Blood

1 Like

From Wikipedia on Catholic Church:

Some Protestants use the word “catholic” with a different meaning than that historically used from the Church’s beginnings. Ask that person what they mean by the word “catholic”.

Usually whenever people refer to Catholics as Roman Catholics, they normally assume that all Catholics are “Roman” (i.e. Latin Rite) Catholics. They don’t realize that there are other Rites within the Catholic Church:

From Wikipedia - Catholic Particular Churches and Liturgical Rite :

Correct me if I’m mistaken but you believe Catholicism is the Church referenced by Jesus right? I’m aware of the faith and morals aspect when relating to the Pope being infallible.

Jesus established a Church. That Church can trace their lineage back to Peter.


Hi Rosie - you posted a lot of similar topics a year ago.

Just curious - is this the same person who keeps challenging you? If so I suspect he or she is not interested in your reply. Best not to get in a back and forth with such a person.

1 Like

Jesus did start The Church which in time took the name of the Catholic Church to distinguish itself from the rising heretical sects that challenged the faith.

Acts 5:11 & Acts 15:22

" holen ten ekklesian " a derivative of the same root as katholicos is in the nominative translated as “The Whole Church”

Acts 9:31

“εκκλησια καθ’ολης” (" ekklesia kathholes" ) - here Catholic is also an adjective, but here it modifies the words following it, translated as “the Church throughout the whole of…”

No one denies the glory due to God. Catholics affirm this. Does this person also consider that in being spiritually adopted sons & daughters of God, we are being conformed to the image of Christ, & that we share in His life, His ministry, His suffering, His death, & one day, in His glory (See Romans 8)?

Let this person know that the Scriptures speak of tradition as spoken against by Jesus when it is used to nullify the Law as the religious leaders of His day did, & Tradition as spoken of by the NT writers is the Teaching handed down by Christ to His Apostles & to His Church. Catholics accept Tradition - not tradition.

Jesus established a way for everyone, both Jews and Gentiles to enter the kingdom of Heaven. This is the cross road to which we are going to disagree. I take Peter at his word when he teaches all believers and followers of Christ are lively stones that make up the bride or church of Jesus. Jesus never claimed one man made institution was to be followed in order to reach Heaven.

I’m well aware of the claim by Catholicism of apostolic succession. This is part of the tradition that Catholicism deems infallible and true. This is not found in scripture and so Catholicism has to say this is something taught by Jesus orally to his disciples and never written down. The problem with this idea is scripture refutes it in Acts 1. This is scripture after Christ had been resurrected and was speaking to all the disciples, not just Peter. Jesus spent 40 days with them. What is their last recorded question to Jesus? “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?"

There are several things clearly obvious by their question. Again, he’s speaking to all the disciples, but this question clearly means they had no idea when Jesus was going to restore Israel. They clearly weren’t given instructions to follow Peter and do as he says. They all clearly don’t have any idea of an apostolic succession for they’re all told the exact same instructions. Once all of them had received the Holy Spirit they were to preach the message of Jesus to the utter most ends of the earth.

Surely, after Jesus spending 40 days with them, if all of them had been instructed on apostolic succession, they would never have posed that question to Christ. It simply wouldn’t make sense. Imagine this. You are one of the disciples and you spend 40 days with Christ getting instructions on how Peter is now going to be the head of all Christendom and there will be a clear power transfer from generation to generation, but then asking Jesus if he’s going to restore Israel and be their King.

They simply had no clue at that point that Jesus was not going to return to earth during their lifetimes. None of them, Peter included. This can’t be refuted by scripture.

Why was it so important to appoint Matthias as an apostle, to replace the position vacated by Judas? (Acts 1:20-26)

1 Like

Jesus taught in Matthew and Luke there would be 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. These 12 thrones were to be seated by the 12 apostles. Obviously, the apostles saw their office as a unique office, and perceived that their ministry was to begin with the full number Christ had established.

Another point is all 12 were eye witness of Christ’s resurrection. It’s important to point out Matthias wasn’t going to be an apostle after some of the other 11 had died but was assuming all the responsibilities of the other 11 and at the same time.

??? Where is this written?

Responsibilities, such as leadership of the Church, with Peter acknowledged as the head on earth.

1 Like

I’m not sure why you bolded part of my sentence? I said “Matthias wasn’t going to be an apostle after some of the other 11 had died”. Meaning he was appointed right then. Verse 26 of Acts 1 says “26 And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”

He became the 12th then and not in some future time.

I don’t wish to debate every nuance of Catholicism in this thread. We simply are not going to agree that Peter was in some way above the other apostles.

I don’t understand what you mean by, he wasn’t going to be an apostle.

My understanding is he would be an apostle until he died, same as the others, and replaced by others in leadership roles to hand on the faith.

EDIT: I get it now. :woman_facepalming: and also get that you won’t accept that the 12 took on the role that present day bishops have in apostolic succession, and that Peter was the first Pope, with Pope Francis as his successor. :slightly_smiling_face: Cheers. God bless. :pray:

1 Like

It’s also extremely difficult to enter into a conversation with a Protestant who thinks they know what the Church means by “infallibility”, but is quite wide of the mark.

(BTW – ‘infallibility’ just means that the Church believes that it is protected by God from proclaiming false doctrine. It’s not a claim that “everything that the Catholic Church says is infallibly true”. In fact, the Church pretty much has to stand on its head and say “ok – what’s coming next is a doctrinal assertion protected by the charism of infallibility” for that statement of doctrine to be understood as “infallibly proclaimed.”)

Well, ask yourself: which Church is the one founded by Jesus which includes the leadership of Peter and the apostles? :wink:

Quite right. Jesus himself founded a single institution, and commanded his apostles to make disciples from all nations part of it.

No, that’s not what the Catholic Church teaches.

So, actually, Scripture does tell the story of the first successor to the apostles, namely Matthias. In other words, apostolic succession is found in the Bible! Moreover, in Paul’s epistles, we see that Paul himself ordains apostolic successors (episkopoi, or what today we’d call “bishops”). So, apostolic succession is a very highly Scripturally attributed notion!

The question “when are you going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” is not a question of succession, but of the Parousia.

But, as you point out, they didn’t ask “will this happen within my lifetime?”; rather, they merely asked “will this happen now ?”


This topic was automatically closed after 43 hours. New replies are no longer allowed.

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