One of the real joys of spending time reading and studying the writings of the earliest Christians (aka the Early Church Fathers) is gaining a bit of insight into what life was like those who professed to be Christian.Posted on 01/15/2012 2:36:04 PM PST by narses
One of the real joys of spending time reading and studying the writings of the earliest Christians (aka the Early Church Fathers) is gaining a bit of insight into what life was like those who professed to be Christian.
One of the real surprises (at least to me) was how early the term “Catholic” came to be used to refer to all Christians.
How early? How about the year 107 … maybe even earlier!
From the Letter to the Smyrnaeans by St. Ignatius of Antioch:
Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid.
Note that St. Ignatius is a real hero of the early Church – both a bishop and a martyr at the hands of the Romans, he left an awesome written legacy of letters to local churches … primarily encouragement as he marched to his martyrdom.
The current wiki article presents a good overview of the life of St. Ignatius of Antioch. From that article comes this paragraph:
It is from the word katholikos that the word “catholic” comes. When Ignatius wrote the Letter to the Smyrnaeans in about the year 107 and used the word “catholic”, he used it as if it were a word already in use to describe the Church. This has led many scholars to conclude that the appellation “Catholic Church” with its ecclesial connotation may have been in use as early as the last quarter of the first century.
While this may seem like a small point, I think it’s rather significant – the sense of universality, of all Christians belonging to the church that they themselves called katholikos … this gives us some real insight into what Christians thought important.
An Opposing View
Notice it is in direct contrast to the probably well-intentioned, but definitely historically inaccurate perspective of those who oppose the reality of the one Church founded by Jesus Christ. Typical of this perspective is a recent post by Thomas H., who writes from a Baptist perspective:
The application of the word “catholic” was not used in reference to all supposed Christians until the Council of Trent. This word was used by catholics to beat over the heads of non catholics in the sence of saying you do not belong to the true church. This resulted in the murder of hundreds of thousands of Christians who were not Roman Catholics by the emissaries of Rome.
I think you get the idea … the only real problem with all that is it doesn’t square with the historical record on any level, starting with the word catholic.
The Historical Reality
I can empathize with folks like Thomas – when you have spent your whole life being told bits and pieces of what happened, along with stuff that’s simply not true by folks who spent their lives in the same circumstances, it must be hard to be open to the reality that contradicts what you believe.
Yet, the historical record is clear, and provides an eloquent testimony to the truth … from its earliest days the Church understood that unity and universality were basic marks of the Church founded by Jesus Christ.
It began calling itself katholikos around the end of the first century, at most a few years after the death of the last apostle (John). It did not begin with the Council of Trent (late 16th century – nearly 1500 years later) or any other time. In fact, by the time the canon of Scripture – what we call the Bible – was settled Christians had been calling themselves Catholics for almost 300 years … longer than the United States has even been a country!
That Church remains Catholic to this day, and will remain so until the end of time (Matthew 16:18+).
An Invitation
If this does not seem right to you, please investigate on your own. Look into the historical record – pagan, Jewish, or Christian – and see what evidence supports each side. What you’ll find is exactly what the Church has always understood … it is katholikos, and has been so from the beginning.
The writings of the Early Church Fathers are widely available, with treatments ranging from the easily-accessible to the more in-depth, scholarly works. A good place to start for most folks is Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett – a very readable account, well-grounded in current scholarship,
“All Christians believe in the Catholic Church. Not all believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the totality of the Catholic Church.”
A rather odd pronouncement considering that ALL protestant branches of Christianity believe in less rather than more Catholic Christian teaching, incuding the incarnation, the virgin birth, the immaculate conception, the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, the primacy and infallibility of the pope, the assumption, the sacraments and means of redemption (good works), celibate priesthood, and the list could go on and on. Those churches that disagree with the Roman church, then, can’t rightly be called catholic because their divergence makes them less than universal.
Let me ask you this. What, exactly, unites all believers into the Body of Christ?
“The arrogance of many American protestants to think that Christiantity, which grew up in a Roman-Greek Culture looked like modern American Fundalmentalist-evangelical protesantism is a joke.”
When -everybody- knows it really looked more like a feudal monarchy, complete with castles, swiss guards, a body of law, lawyers to interpret that law, and a structural hierarchy of lesser offices, and diplomats to governments. The only reason they dont have hereditary sucession is that they don’t believe in marriage.
Those guys in the temple Christ busted up were pikers compared to the Roman church.
Excellent: The references to “Christian” is a deep message:
First they were called “Christians” (they did not call themselves such)
Second: Felix said: “Amost thou persaudeth me to be a Christian.”
Third: “If any man suffer as a Christian.”
And in Revelation in the letters to the Churches, one was given a message: “Thou hast a name that liveth, but thou art dead.”
Excellent: The references to “Christian” is a deep message:
First they were called “Christians” (they did not call themselves such)
Second: Felix said: “Amost thou persaudeth me to be a Christian.”
Third: “If any man suffer as a Christian.”
And in Revelation in the letters to the Churches, one was given a message: “Thou hast a name that liveth, but thou art dead.”
When -everybody- knows it really looked more like a feudal monarchy, complete with castles, swiss guards, a body of law, lawyers to interpret that law, and a structural hierarchy of lesser offices, and diplomats to governments. The only reason they dont have hereditary sucession is that they don’t believe in marriage.
Those guys in the temple Christ busted up were pikers compared to the Roman church.
>>Ad hominem attacks are poor substitutes for actual substantive arguments.
“Which denomination does not respect that image?”
Orthodox doesn’t for one,, they don’t do the statue thing.
Then maybe the cherubim on the Ark of Covenant and the images inside of Solomon’s Temple were idols too using your definition.
“Orthodox doesn’t for one,, they don’t do the statue thing.”
But they do Icons. It was an issue which was hotly debated during the iconoclastic period, which was resolved in favor of Icons.
This is the center of the argument, the term catholic represented the whole early church, but even then there was much disagreement on the meaning and interpretation of early Christian leaders.
>>The first major lasting schism in the Church took place in the 5th century following the Council of Ephesus over the condemnation of Nestorius and Dioscoros at the Council of Chalcedon.
The Catholic church we think of now, slowly evolved and represents the western (Latin) influence of Christian thought and structure.
>>If you are referring to the centralization of power in Rome then you are correct.
The Eastern Orthodox church, represents the other branch of the early Christian movement, which would remain until the Protestant Reformation.
The Eastern Orthodox still exist as do Eastern Catholics who formerly were Orthodox, but reunited with Rome in the aftermath of the Council of Trent.
My own Melkite Church formerly was Eastern Orthodox until 1729 when our Pope Benedict XIII recognized our patriarch as a Catholic.
Nope. The problems had already started during the life of the apostles.
Acts 19: 24For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain unto the craftsmen;
25Whom he called together with the workmen of like occupation, and said, Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth.
26Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands:
27So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.
28And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.
29And the whole city was filled with confusion: and having caught Gaius and Aristarchus, men of Macedonia, Paul's companions in travel, they rushed with one accord into the theatre.
30And when Paul would have entered in unto the people, the disciples suffered him not.
31And certain of the chief of Asia, which were his friends, sent unto him, desiring him that he would not adventure himself into the theatre.
32Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was confused: and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together.
33And they drew Alexander out of the multitude, the Jews putting him forward. And Alexander beckoned with the hand, and would have made his defence unto the people.
34But when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.
35And when the townclerk had appeased the people, he said, Ye men of Ephesus, what man is there that knoweth not how that the city of the Ephesians is a worshipper of the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Jupiter?
36Seeing then that these things cannot be spoken against, ye ought to be quiet, and to do nothing rashly.
37For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.
38Wherefore if Demetrius, and the craftsmen which are with him, have a matter against any man, the law is open, and there are deputies: let them implead one another.
39But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.
40For we are in danger to be called in question for this day's uproar, there being no cause whereby we may give an account of this concourse.
41And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.
It would appear that at the council of Ephesus in 431 the “church” leadership capitulated.
If you study a little further you will learn that when the Israelites began to “venerate” those images God destroyed them.
DesertRhino:
Theologically and Liturgically and culturally it was Catolic. It was from the time of the Apostles and the pre-Nicene Fathers and post Nicene Fathers clearly Catholic in the sense empracing both Latin West and Greek East. The fact that architecture and swiss guards are extensials and can change over time, diplomats only reflect that times have evolved thus mechanisms to deal wth modern culture have changed.
So back to my point, it was from the Theological that I was stating it was Catholic and looked nothing like the yahoo American Protestant rural culture.
Just stating the facts. It’s so wrong as to be comical to assert that the Roman church resembles ANYTHING Christ ever hinted that he wanted to create.
It’s like in math class as a kid, when you learn to check your work. The first step is to just look and see if your answer even makes sense. If you are dividing 9 by 2, you don’t need to know 4.5 is the answer to know that .0045 is incorrect.
The Eastern Orthodox church is an interesting church. So little is written about it, despite its rich history. Possibly because they do not have a strict figurehead as a dominate leader. Also because so much of the church was under the rule of communism for so long.
“everybody was considered Catholic”
you can only be considered Catholic if you hold the Catholic FAITH.
many departed from this Faith in the 16th century over Baptism, the Eucharist, Predestination, the Bible, Apostolic Succession, etc etc.
“>>Ad hominem attacks are poor substitutes for actual substantive arguments.”
But i notice you seem to be ok with photos of trashy camper trailers and refernces to “single wides” when protestants are mentioned.
So little is written about it, despite its rich history. Possibly because they do not have a strict figurehead as a dominate leader. Also because so much of the church was under the rule of communism for so long.
>>There’s a lot written about Eastern Orthodoxy, but most non-Orthodox don’t pay attention.
I’m Catholic, but most of my theological studies have been of Eastern Orthodox theologians. Eastern Orthodoxy is devoid of scholastic influences and the pesky infighting among Western Christians dating to the Protestant Revolution.
Who are these ‘dead Christians?’
If you have a bible... turn to John 3:16 and tell me what Christians are dead?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.