Would Saint Peter's-Rome be considered the mother church of Christianity?

In a manner [or is it matter?] of speaking, yes. But also no as well!

St. Peter's in Rome could be considered such a church. This is because Peter himself bore witness to what Christ said to him in Matthew 16:18 "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and against it, the gates of Hades [the netherworld] will not prevail." So the Christian Church of old has its place there, in Rome. Even though the Christian Church of then was basically the entire membership and not really founded in a structure or building, you could say that Rome is the location of the Mother Church of the Christian tradition. Possibly it might be better to say that in the nation of Israel, city of Jerusalem namely, the church also had the roots to "her" early history. But the whole idea of a mother church is a relatively new concept.

A little lesson in history:

For some 1,054 years plus, the Church was one holy Christian church, which is what historians now refer to it as. But at that time the Christian Church was about to change forever and thus created a great schism which continues today. The Orthodox Churches, primarily of their own rite or Nationalities, and the Roman Catholic and Uniate Churches, which are completely Orthodox, but are recognized as a full part of the Catholic Church and follow the Holy Father in Rome are the result of the 1054 Schism. Smaller denominations came about over the next 463 years, just as they came about during the previous 1,000 years or so, but none as great as what was then to happen in the Middle of the Sixteenth Century A.D.

It would not be until about 1517 that a change was going to happen, this was the beginning of the formation of [what was to be later called] the Lutheran Church. Then in 1534 the Calvinism movement started and created the Reformed Christians, and would go on to form the modern Presbyterians of today. In 1536, England would be severed from the Catholic Church in a great schism which in part lasts to this day. This is found in what is the Anglican/Episcopal Church or "Church of England" in that country. But the Anglican Church would have a direct shoot off of the Roman Communion. One of the last straws for England's Catholics occurred in 1570 with the excommunication of HM Queen Elizabeth I by HH Pope St. Pius V. This papal bull caused the queen to persecute Catholics, whereas she did not persecute as much before this event. But it would be a long road for the Catholic Church in England which was always present, and ever is to this day in England, Scotland, and Wales.

So for the Reformation part of this, we must look at this crucial point of this answer: After the Seventeenth Century (1600's) St. Peter's would not have been looked to by hundreds of thousands in Europe as a founding church of the faith.

To conclude my answer, I would say that you are correct in your statement about the historical recognition of the Christian faith being first and founded as a "Mother" church at St. Peter's in Rome. Even though as we see, that the church is just the body of membership in Christ Jesus, our Lord and Saviour. But as Christ was in the holy land, do not lose sight of the importance of the church's solid foundation in the homeland of the Jewish people, our homeland as Christian people, too.

No: that would have to be a church in Jerusalem. The earliest congregation of Christians described in the Bible was in Jerusalem.

I don't know how history could support a "yes" to this question, as it is well-known historically that Saint Peter's was completed in 1626 and "old" Saint Peter's in the late 4th century - hundreds of years after many other churches had already been constructed. How can St Peter's - which is a church building, by the way - be considered in any way the "mother church of Christianity"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_churches_in_th...

- Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/

the catholic church is the official name , not roman catholic. the churches that were around in the first 300 years all had the same theology , therefore being universal they were catholic , the orthodox churches broke away from rome in 1054, but are still tied in a liturgical way .

the heretical groups that sprung up soon disappeared , the one true church with many congregations is still vibrant today with headquarters in rome .

before the reformation in the 1500s. there were no other known christian religions

In the fist century, Rome was the capital of the known world, so God saw it fitting to use Rome as the capital of Christianity to better facilitate the spread of the Gospel. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what city St. Peter held his "diocese" in. It's the Chair of Peter that matters, and it could have been in any city. It was the AFrican councils that sent to Rome the final list of books of the Bible for approval by the Pope. (397 A.D.)The council of Florence refered to the same set, as did the council of Trent.

Everything that is true in Protestantism was borrowed from the Catholic Church.

No. From a purely Catholic perspective, it is not even the mother church of the Diocese of Rome. (

(That would be the Basilic of St. John Lateran, which - within the Catholic tradition - does have the title of ecumenical mother church.) And of course even if St Peter's were the primary church in Rome, non-Catholic Christians would hesistate to accord any kind of pre-eminence or primacy to the church of Rome. Their reluctance to do so is, after all, usually a large part of what makes them non-Catholic.

The occupants of St Peter's may speak for Catholics, but that's about all. The Protestant denominations certainly don't look to Rome, for any guidance. Believers such as myself, who are not affiliated with any denomination want nothing to do with Catholicism or any other form of organized religion.

How can Christian churches be "born" from the catholic church when in fact the catholic church did not appear until hundreds of years AFTER the Christian churches?

Read the Bible, no where is the catholic church mentioned. All the churches mentioned in the Bible are Christian churches.

No. That is specifically Roman Catholicism. And it is historically and theologically inaccurate to claim that other Churches were born from Roman Catholicism. There were Churches long before the Roman Catholic church came around.

I have no reason to believe that. Christianity was an indigenous movement that started in Israel. Rome merely claimed Christianity as a tool to use to lord their power over people. I rightly do not care whether or who is or is not offended by the relevation of fact.

ther is no such thing as a "mother" church in Christianity. the church is the body of believers in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and who do substitute for them the doctrines of men.