About 2,000 years ago, Jesus taught and commissioned 12 apostles prior to his death and resurrection. He clothed them in the power of the Holy Spirit and sent them out to make disciples of all nations; the start of the Christian Church on earth. This is the same Church we know today as the Roman Catholic Church.

The early Church followed the same hierarchical structure as the Catholic Church does today. Priests of local congregations overseen by bishops with a primary bishop as the head of the church. You can see evidence of this in Scripture and throughout the writings of the early church fathers. Acts Chapter 15 shows the council of Jerusalem where Paul and Barnabas travel to meet with the elders (bishops) to settle a dispute in which it is Peter who makes a ruling on matter. This not only shows the hierarchy but also shows the unity of the early church, which is a hallmark of the current Catholic Church.
Ignatius of Antioch wrote:

"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

Here again we have a clear distinction that a bishop is a leader in the church; bishops and those he ordains, are what makes up the Catholic Church.

There is a record of all the bishops of Rome (Popes) going back to Simon Peter; an unbroken line of apostolic succession from the times of Christ.


In another thread, festeringZit implied that the Catholic Church could not be the Church Christ founded as evidenced by the corruption within the Catholic Church throughout time. I fail to see the connection. Corruption doesn't in any way threaten the historical claims I have merely touched on above. Such a measuring stick is ironic anyway, as the Catholic Church and every Christian church believes by default that all mankind is corrupt and needs saving.

I'm on board as long as it's all the churches. I mean, there are so many Coptics and other variants popping up back then and they all trace themselves to Jesus.

Jesus was no longer present, so we have to say the builders of Catholicism were inspired by him, and so was everyone else.

Actually though, I think the pagan remnant in Catholicism places it closer to the beginning times. Catholics can pray to Mary and all manner of saints, which is polytheistic in all but name. If I could believe, I'd be a Catholic because it's a more interesting imaginaire. Although pissing people off by becoming a Muslim has an appeal, as does birthright if I were a Jew, especially since I'm past draft age.

Yes, there are other churches who can claim apostolic succession. The early councils of the church debated and settled doctrinal disputes. Those who didn't want to accept the councils left the church. Many have returned and are now if full communion with the Catholic Church and the Bishop of Rome.

Prayer to the Saints isn't polytheistic at all. The Saints can only hear our prayers by the power of God. Just because the Saints in heaven can do supernatural things, doesn't make them Gods. Many Apostles performed miracles and Moses and Elijah appeared on the Mount Transfiguration. By praying to a Saint, I am only asking for help through their prayers as well.

Rev 5:8
8 When he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell before the Lamb, each holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

Yes, I know there are theological claims to that effect, but I'm looking at the church as an historical object, not as doctrinal faith. Like all world religions, Christianity is syncretic. It grew in part by mixing with localized beliefs. So when missionaries first arrived inf Central America they thought they were converting the Maya at an incredible rate because the Indians were displaying the saints in their homes and praying to them. Then it emerged that the Maya had slapped the names of saints onto their traditional gods and were praying to something quite different than the missionaries thought. The Virgin of Guadalupe in Mexico was sighted on a hill sacred to the local religion and the shrine to her stands were pagan structures had been. The Catholic church appropriated a site that was already sacred, that's how it got over. But echoes of polytheism remain.

So to non-Catholics, the trinity and the saints all appear rather dodgy, although I understand that's not what it means to you. I find the pagan strains in Abrahamic faiths fascinating. The reason the Qur'an pounds and pounds away at the "only one God but Allah" theme is because Muhammad's task was to convert Arab polytheists. Christians were a little less successful at extirpating every trace of paganism, so you've got the Trinity and all the saints.

I would argue that the Church spread by mixing with local customs rather than beliefs. And if your point is that the remenants of the pagan customs appear to outsiders as polytheistic or "dodgy" then your point is taken.

However, this sentence seems to imply that the Catholic Church borrowed the ideas of the trinity and prayer to the Saints from paganism and that simply isn't the case. Christianity and Judaism before it have always believed in only one God. The doctrine of the trinity was developed because of the seemingly contradictory words of Jesus. Jesus says that God the Father sent him. Jesus says that he himself is God. Jesus says that the Holy Spirit is God. Jesus says there is only one God. The Churches answer is the Trinity: 1 God in 3 Persons.

Regarding the Saints, again from the roots of Judaism, the Church understood the power of intercession of those in the presence of God. Namely angels in the Old Testament, but also now the Saints after the redemptive work of Christ.

We are using different tests for the presence of polytheism. You use the doctrine of your church which you believe out of faith. You do not accept historical origins for your beliefs because they come from God. To me, it is obvious that Christianity is syncretic and was influenced by its surroundings. The religion developed out of historical forces, not received truths from a deity.

These methods of analysis are not compatible.

Catholics pray to distinct entities (saints) that have supernatural powers. If it were any other religion, I think you would agree that people are addressing different gods or demigods. It isn't polytheistic in Catholic doctrine, but to anyone making generalities about religions, it sure looks polytheistic. To me it's an obvious point that when a world religion enters an area, people don't drop old beliefs full scale, they have a mix of practices and mystic figures that they importune for assistance. Christianity provides a rich group of saints that can take over the duties of previous deities. This mixing is going on in peoples minds, not in cannon scripture. You say the saints are important because of doctrine, I say it's because they are useful figures with a lot of pagan momentum. This isn't something we will remotely agree on.