What is the origin of the Catholic Church?

In spite of this history of development in doctrine and practice over a period of centuries, the Church of Rome claims to be the first Church and that which Christ established on earth with Peter as the first pope. As Romanism has greatly revived and presses its claims with great activity in our present day, many are becoming ensnared and led astray by its subtle propaganda. Therefore it is necessary that we speak out clearly and faithfully in warning souls as to this false and evil system of Jezebel teaching which the Lord condemned in Thyatira. The true Church, founded by Christ on Himself as the Rock foundation (Matt.16:16-18; 1 Cor.3:11), is found in the book of Acts and in the Epistles of the New Testament. It is "the church, which is His body" and the glorified Christ is its only head. It is the "church of the firstborn," those born again and baptized by the Spirit of God into this divine body, and whose names are written in heaven (Eph.1:21,22; 1 Cor.12:13; Heb.12:23). In the Epistle to the Romans, written by the apostle Paul around 60 AD, we can see what characterized the first Church there and note how vastly different are the doctrines and practices of the Papal system at Rome today. The Church of Rome developed out of the evils which came into the professing Church in the Pergamos period. It is the first corrupt and idolatrous Church, where the elements of Judaism and heathenism were combined into a fixed, systematized teaching under the garb or cloak of Christianity.

I have already tried to point out that every one of these names seems to be significant. Thyatira is perhaps the most difficult of all to define. Scholars tell us that it comes from two words, one meaning a sacrifice, or an incense-offering; the other, that which goes on continually. A suggested interpretation, therefore, is "continual sacrifice." And this is very significant, because Thyatira undoubtedly sets forth the period which was the result of the union of church and State, already noticed. It was in the 7th century that the Bishop of Rome was first regularly recognized as Christ's vicegerent, and visible head of the church. This was, properly speaking, the beginning of the papacy. There was no Roman Catholic church, in the full sense, until the Pope was the acknowledged head of Christendom. It is important for Protestants to keep this in mind. You will often hear papists say, "You know the first church was the Roman Catholic church, and all the different branches of the Protestant church have simply broken off from Rome. There was no Protestant church until the days of Luther." That is an absolute sophistry. There was no such thing as the papacy until the 7th century of the Christian era. For six centuries before that, the church was becoming more and more corrupt -- had been drifting further away from the Word of God until, in the 7th century men professing themselves to be servants of God were ready to acknowledge the Pope as head of all Christendom. A Roman Catholic once asked a bright Protestant school-girl, "Where was your church before the days of Henry VIII?" "Why, sir, where yours never was, in the Bible," was her sensible and correct reply. It is a far cry from the simplicity of early Christians, when in the 7th century they were ready to own the pretensions of the bishop of Rome.

As to Rome, no apostle founded the church there; Paul, the first apostle who went there, went there as a prisoner. This has been always the place a full gospel has had there. When the church fell into Judaism, which nothing but Paul's energy saved it from as long as he lived, then they naturally began to look for the apostle of the Jews, as their original founder, and Paul had the second place in their minds — his gospel, as he calls it, none. But they should have gone to Jerusalem — it was impossible — it had fallen. Its principles, once instructive as figures, were really the same as heathenism now; and to that Christendom consequently gave itself up. It turned again, as the apostle speaks in Galatians, to the beggarly elements to which it had again desired to be in bondage. They kept days, and months, and years; Gal. 4. The Roman system is merely a return to heathenism founded on Jewish forms (which God has judged), and claiming the name of Peter, the apostle of the Jews. It is that against which Paul was struggling all his life, and foretold would come in when he was gone. Voluntary humility, worshipping of angels, keeping days, and months, and years, trusting in works, he has long ago pointed out and denounced as signs of abandoning Christ. Of these Rome is the source, and Rome has the heritage. It is a mystery of iniquity fully developed, which is fleshly religion; just as the great mystery of godliness is God manifest in the flesh, and the true people of God marked by boasting in Christ Jesus, worshipping God in spirit, and having no confidence in the flesh.

116 As to the keys of heaven, it is nonsense. He had the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and opened the door on Pentecost to Jews, and, in letting in Cornelius, to Gentiles. When Hilary says Peter believed first, the good man makes a mistake. It was Andrew (John tells us, in the first chapter of his gospel) who sought him, and brought him to Jesus. Jesus gave him the place of eminency he had among the apostles. Saint Ambrose owns that Paul was to learn nothing from him; but Peter, to know that the same power was given to him as to himself. The truth is, that Paul, and not Peter, had the doctrine of the church revealed to him — its unity and union with Christ. This is not the subject of Peter's teaching. Paul declares he had it by express revelation, as a mystery and dispensation committed to him, and that he was minister of the church as well as of the gospel to fulfil, that is, complete, the word of God by this wonderful truth of the one body united to Christ from among all, Jews and Gentiles. See Colossians 1:24-25, 26; Ephesians 3:1-10; Romans 16:25, 26, and, indeed, other passages.

But also within the church things changed. Some bishops exerted spiritual authority over surrounding areas so that a system of mother and daughter churches came into being. The bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople were now metropolities, which means that they were recognized (by the Council of Nicaea in 325) as preeminent in their own areas. Meanwhile the growth in the authority of the bishop of Rome WAS of vital significance. In Rome the bishop claimed the primacy not because of the status of his city in the empire, which was seen as an historical accident, but asserted that Rome's position was due to its bishop's position as successor to Peter, seen as the founder of the Roman church, on whom Christ had promised He would build His church. This view, though not for some time accepted even in the West, was the foundation for the eventual supremacy of the bishop of Rome in the Middle Ages.

The withdrawal of the emperors from Rome, as the royal residence, was thus favourable to the development of the ecclesiastical power there; for, though deserted by her rulers, she was still venerated as the real capital of the world. Hence Rome possessed many advantages as the seat of the supreme bishop. But that which chiefly pushed on and consolidated the power of the Roman See was the growing belief, all over Christendom, that St. Peter was its founder. The Roman bishops denied that their precedence originated in the imperial greatness of the city, but in their lineal descent from St. Peter. This dogma was generally received about the commencement of the fifth century.

In the year 313, the first edict in favour of Christianity was published. Constantine had entered into a secret alliance with Licinius, to accomplish the overthrow of the usurper Maximus; and he used the occasion to induce Licinius to revoke the persecuting edicts of Diocletian, and to unite with him in framing a new edict in favour of Christianity. Licinius consented, and when the two emperors met at Milan, they drew up the famous Edict of Milan, sometimes called the Magna Charta of Christendom. It was a proclamation of universal toleration, and contained, among other things, the following important sentences: "We have thus granted the Christians a free and absolute liberty of exercising their religion. And not only is this liberty absolutely granted to them, but all others who wish for it have also the privilege allowed them of following their own religious profession." "Also, that as to any of the places of worship where the Christians were accustomed formerly to convene, if they shall have been purchased by any person, either from our exchequer, or from any one else, they shall restore the same to the said Christians without fee or demand of the price paid for them, and without impediment or evasion." The church welcomed with extravagant joy this sudden turn in her affairs, and, in the blindness of excessive gratitude, withdrew the confidence which belonged to her Head in heaven, and nestled comfortably down under the wing of the Roman eagle. Yet there could never be a complete amalgamation of the two parties. One or the other must assume the pre-eminence, and for awhile the church was content to take the lower place. The gold had but just emerged from the furnace, and could afford to remain awhile amongst the ashes, whatever might be the future that awaited it.

With the death of Constantine, however, the strife for supremacy commenced; and the bishops of Rome, as a preliminary step, boldly put forth their claims to universal government in the church, as the successors of St. Peter. It seems, indeed, to have been a growing belief among Christians, that St. Peter was the founder of the Roman see; and when Leo I. asserted, that "the apostle was called Petra, the rock, by which he is constituted the foundation," and admonished the brethren "to acknowledge that he is the primate of all bishops, and that Christ, who denieth His gifts to none, yet giveth unto none except through him," he found thousands who were ready to receive the statement, and to listen submissively to the admonition.

These pretensions would certainly have surprised the early bishops of Rome, for the idea of supremacy and apostolic succession never entered their heads. Indeed, it is a significant fact that, though their names are known in history, the order in which they succeeded each other is not known, and their histories — if ever they were written — have been lost in the mist of ages. True they had a certain pre-eminence, but this was only because of the political importance of the city; and the same pre-eminence was given to the bishops of Antioch and Alexandria. Indeed, these three cities were respectively the capitals of the European, the Asiatic, and the African divisions of the empire, and it was for this sufficient reason that their bishops took precedence of the rest. Nearly a century and a half later, Gregory the Great (the pope whose history we are about to consider) acknowledged an equality of rank in the three bishops; a fact which shews how far the roots of the papacy were removed from the primitive sources of Christianity. In the course of an epistle to the bishop of Alexandria he says, "And thus, though the apostles may be many, yet the see of the chief of the apostles (which belongs to me though it is in three places) prevailed in authority solely by virtue of his (Peter's) chiefship. For it is he which exalted the see (Rome) on which he condescended to take his rest and finish the present life. It is he who adorned the see (Alexandria), to which he sent the evangelist, his disciple. It is he who established the see (Antioch) in which he sat for seven years, though he was to leave it." In another letter to the same bishop, who had addressed him as "Universal Pope," he says, "I pray your most sweet holiness to address me no more with the proud appellation of 'Universal Pope,' since that which is given to another beyond what reason requires is subtracted from yourself. If you style me 'Universal Pope,' you deny that you are at all that which you own me to be universally. Away with words which puff up vanity and wound charity." These quotations, however carry us somewhat in advance of our subject, which is rather to prove the progress of the apostasy, than the feeble efforts of pious popes to avert it.

Constantine, in the fourth century, was the first emperor to be favourable to the Christians. He repealed the persecuting edicts of former emperors, placed Christians in high positions in place of pagans, and generally corrupted Christianity by his favours and patronage. True he was not actually baptized as a nominal Christian till a few days before his death, but his attitude towards Christianity throughout began that unholy alliance between Church and State. His influence made the Church a political power in the world, thus destroying its proper character and wrecking its true testimony.

Accordingly Constantine, A.D. 324, and frequently afterwards, issued edicts against paganism, and sought with might and main to force Christianity on the empire as its one and only religion. Pagans were banished from the court, and Christians advanced to posts of honour. Constantine offered his gold and patronage to the Church, and it eagerly swallowed the bait, sacrificed its conscience and allegiance to its Lord, and the Church and the world, which had hitherto walked apart (John 17; 2 Cor 6:14-16), were soon locked in each other’s arms. Fatal union! From this period we date the unhappy alliance of Church and State, and the rise of Church establishments endowed by the State. Christianity was in many instances forced upon unwilling subjects at the point of the sword. It was either the sword or baptism, although the august ruler himself put off observance of the Christian rite till a few days before his death at Nicomedia. The gorgeous heathen temples and vestments of the priests were consecrated for Christian service. Instead therefore of the plain and unpretending meeting rooms and halls, in which the early Church assembled, grand buildings and ostentatious display became the order of the day. Christianity walked in golden slippers. In order to reconcile the priests and people of the ancient superstitions to the new order of things many of the pagan rites and ceremonies were adopted by the Church. Thus it falsified its character as a witness for holiness and truth. The effects of that unholy alliance remain to this day, and although God has governmentally used it in checking the tide of infidelity, yet it has wrought incalculable mischief to the Church viewed as the body of Christ, and has done much harm in lowering the holy and unworldly character which the Church ought to show in this Christ-rejecting age. The true union of Church and State awaits the revelation of another day (Rev. 21:9; 22:5). The Church thus at her ease in the presence of the “throne” and “dwelling” of Satan, who is the god of this world, enables us to see the force of the unusually strong expressions in verse 13. Satan has both a “throne” and “dwelling” on earth, and for the Church to sit down thereon or therein is truly awful. There are enumerated twenty-eight items in chapter 18 of the Apocalypse as characteristic of the false Church: the first is “gold,” and the last “souls.”

Origin of the Assembly in Rome. — Written by Paul from Corinth during his third great missionary tour, and when he was on his way to Jerusalem, accompanied by the alms-bearers from the Churches of Galatia, Macedonia, and Achaia (Rom. 15:25-26; 1 Cor. 16:1), it was the latest in date of those six apostolic letters that we possess written before his first imprisonment, which commenced at Jerusalem and ended at Rome. The Church of the Thessalonians, as well as that at Corinth and those in Galatia, had all been founded by the personal labours of the Apostle Paul. With that at Rome, however, which in this resembled the Church at Colosse, it was different. God had begun the work in those cities without the direct intervention of any of the apostles, and to the assemblies in each of these cities Paul, when he wrote, was personally a stranger. The assembly, or Church, in Rome owed its origin to the labour of one or more saints of God, whose names and works recorded and remembered on high, have not found a place in history upon earth. The Apostles Paul and Peter are said to have died there, martyred about the same time by the Emperor Nero; but neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church in that city, though Rome was comprised in the especial province of labour committed to the latter (Rom. 1:13; 15:15-22). Many years indeed before our epistle was written, there had been Christians in Rome (Rom. 15:23). And remembering its position as the capital of the empire, which in boastful language was called in Greek oikoumene, i.e., the inhabited earth (Luke 2:1), it is not difficult to suppose that, with a constant flow of people from various parts of the empire up to the capital, some Christians may have reached it in very early days, and have formed the nucleus of that company in Rome, designated by the apostle as "beloved of God."

We all know the taunt of the Traditionalist devotee: “Where was your Church before Martin Luther?” And what is the answer? The Scriptures were in existence before there was any Church of Rome. The Church of God is older than the Church of Rome. The Church of Rome contains very many members who are not members of the Church of God. The Church of God was founded on the Day of Pentecost, and consists of every true believer on the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord and who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God. The answer to the question, ‘Where was your Church before Martin Luther?’ is answered by the retort, ‘Where was your face before it was washed?’ Evidently the Church’s face badly needed washing when the Reformation arrived and the face of the Church was washed by that wonderful movement of the Spirit of God. The Church existed before the washing and goes back without a break before the Romish church existed at all.