The question is important not only for the more accurate definition of the aims and intentions of Jesus and therefore for the complete understanding of His historical figure, but also and more urgently for the authentication of the claims of the Church. The Pentecostal experience of the disciples would have been without roots, had it not been preceded by their historical association with Jesus, which prepared the way for their faith. And, similarly, the authority of the Church would be without a secure historical basis, if it were derived only from purely supernatural experiences. “Grace presupposes nature,” which in this case means that the supernatural experiences presuppose historical facts. Experiences which rest in no way upon natural facts, cannot lay claim to any absolute validity, because they cannot be tested and controlled. The Catholic Church is therefore vitally interested in the establishment of the fact that she was not called into existence exclusively by the Pentecostal faith of the disciples, but that she is rooted in the thoughts and intentions of Jesus, which may be historically ascertained. She is the creation not only of the glorified, but of the “historical” Jesus.

The so-called “critical” theology positively denies any direct connection between Jesus and the Church. It regards it as scientifically proved that “Jesus of Nazareth did not found the universal Church of later centuries. There is no inward connection between Jesus and the Roman Church; they are separated by a profound gulf.[1] Yet it does not wish to deny that the deep gulf between Jesus and the Church is “exiguous and narrow,” and that it even “seems in the end to close entirely.” “The interval of time between Jesus and Catholicism is exceedingly small. The Christianity of the apostolic age is incipient Catholicism, and the catholicizing of Christianity begins immediately after the death of Jesus.”[2]

Now that is a somewhat strange position. A mere historian might well be forgiven if he considered it odd that there should be a gulf between Jesus and the Church which is so narrow that it “seems in the end to close up entirely.” It might well appear marvelous to him that the first disciples of the Lord, those who had seen and heard Him and must have known His mind, should “immediately after His death” set about catholicizing Christianity. And one might suspect, on “a priori” grounds, that there was some mistake in the “critical” argument. In order to get the matter clear, let us first examine our Lord’s relations with Jewish worship and the Jewish Church, so that we may determine His attitude towards institutional religion. And, secondly, let us examine the fundamental ideas of His Gospel and see if they are really inconsistent with His foundation of a church. In this connection we propose to examine the scriptural texts themselves which testify to a direct foundation of the Church by Jesus.