The original statement he made concerning The Vatican not functioning in the same way as traditionally viewed bureaucracies is absurd.
Everything from disbursement of resources to a local parish, appointing Cardinals, Popes, deciding what constitutes a miracle, who is a Saint, etc....
It has all the same types of structure, process, politics, intrigue, and cronyism involved. To say otherwise denies the fact certain factions, some undermining, and decisions existed in its history. After pointing that out, he brought his credentials into play. I just observed that made the original statement more ludicrous. Someone like that should know better.
The question posed is irrelevant. Let me see if I can explain. Let's say I was having a debate with someone over the President using the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling on his own. Suppose that person said something directly contradictory to the Amendment language and I called them out on it. If they were to say, "Well.....I'm a PhD in history with an emphasis on Constitutional Studies....by the way, who was the first state to ratify The Constitution?"
Not only would I be right in questioning their credibility, I'd also be correct in saying the question has no relevance to the discussion....especially when I never claimed any expertise. The obvious deflection also makes the other person appear a bit petty. So, if "ducking" a question that is not germane provides someone with some sort of bizarre perceived vindication/satisfaction, I'll remain unconcerned. It doesn't change the original argument.
You are making the argument that the Vatican should be treated as a sovereign state. This means that discussions as to the origin of the Catholic church, is probably the most crucial starting point to this discussion.
I want to be sure that we are, actually, in agreement with how the Church began, before pursuing the discussion further.
Now, please, answer the question. When did the Catholic church begin, in your estimation.