What does it typically mean when someone says the church was founded in Jerusalem not Rome?

If there is a typically and when the person is not Catholic🙂

Also how should a Catholic respond to this ? thank you

Welcome! I agree that the Church was founded in Jerusalem. However - the Lord commanded the Apostles to make disciples of every nation. Rome was the pagan oppressor - so naturally it was where much of early Christian evangelizing took place.

EDIT: While the Church was founded in Jerusalem, it was founded on Peter - and he travelled to, and was martyred at Rome.


Q: Which bible are you reading???

With charity.

Jesus lived in and traveled to many places. His most important acts (Last Supper, Passion, Crucifixion, Death, and Resurrection) took place in Jerusalem, which is also where the Church was “born” on Pentecost.

Why not agree with those who say it was founded in Jerusalem?


Whoever flagged Bundinnie’s post, maybe you can enlighten us about what forum rule he violated. While I do not concur with his post, it doesn’t seem necessary or appropriate to flag.


Just a quick question?

Where do you believe the new kingdom on earth will appear?

As we await the Lords return on Earth.

It’s written three times in revelation, the new kingdom will be formed on earth when Jesus returns to Jerusalem.

No mention of Rome.

I don’t think anyone is arguing otherwise, are they?

1 Like

What does it typically mean? It typically means the person is in full agreement with Catholic teaching. The Church was founded in Jerusalem at Pentecost, seven weeks after the Crucifixion. You’ll find a graphic report of the memorable event in Chapter 2 of the Acts of the Apostles.


Jesus never touched foot in Rome nor Italy.

His rock was St Peter who was brought to Rome to give testimony.

The first true church and last church will be in Zion not Rome.



You’re just making that up.


Due to historical events the Church in Jerusalem would barely survive, much less flourish. Other than that the Church is more than a physical location, and it’s made up of all the various Churches scattered throughout the world. Antioch, I believe, is older than Rome. Either way God can place the seat of authority for the Church wherever He deems right-doesn’t make a whole lot of difference.


“Ah, I never thought of that. Is YOUR church headquartered in Jerusalem? And do the Israeli authorities approve of that?”


Jesus predicted the total destruction of Jerusalem. He also said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church that he founded. So it follows that the Church would not remain centered in Jerusalem. There is no issue.

I’d reply “they were called ‘Christians’ first at Antioch”. Founded means different things in different ways.

We do not know this. Such a tiny fraction of Jesus’ life on earth was recorded.

And in any case did Christ not tell us to go to all the earth, to teach all nations?


The Scripture says so.

1 Like

The Kingdom is already here and has been here.

“Thy Kingdom Come”, occurs each time we receive the Eucharist. We are subjects of the Kingdom via God (all 3 persons) being “in us”.

“The Church” is the “New Jerusalem”.

If the Church is seated in Jerusalem, where are its decrees of the Kingdom?

The administrative center of the Church currently resides in Rome. That does not contradict the Scriptural description of the Church as “new Jerusalem”.

The way I heard it, Rome is the place of the Pope because Saint Peter died in Rome.

Is this like saying the capital of the United States should be in Philadelphia instead of Washington, DC, because the United States was born in Philadelphia?

(I like the suggested reply to a Protestant–is the headquarters of your church in Jerusalem?)

1 Like
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.