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,
you mean like Clement writing an Epistle to the Corinthian Church in the late 1st century ( while St John was still alive ) correcting them and the Corinthians read the Epistle in Church as Scripture for 100 years?
The Ark is where the ACTUAL Spirit of the Living God resided on earth while he was amoung His people.
>>That’s not the point. It was adorned with cherubim, and the Temple was similarly adorned showing that the prohibition against images was not absolute.
The Muslims and radical Anabaptists like the Amish reject depicting any living form.
Which faith in Christ are you talking about?
I don’t venerate or even think highly of them. I’ve been flat broke and still now that God supplies. When hurricane Ike came through and sunk both our yacht and the fishing boat not once did I worry about what was coming.
Some local churches considered 1 Clement to be scripture as late as the 5th century.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/apostolic.html
No I don’t. That was specifically commanded by God as His “seat” in the Temple. Nor was it something that “represented” God.
If you have a bible... turn to John 3:16 and tell me what Christians are dead?
Let's start with these:
From James the 6th:
Hebrews 9:27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
You might want to include:
1)those that are currently decomposing after assuming room temperature.
2)thoses that have been cremated without generating murder charges
3)Any baptised resident of the University of Tennessee body farm Remember, Jesus said "This, then, is how you should pray: "'Our Father in heaven." Never a mention about praying to Saint Whatzhizname.
If you have a bible... turn to John 3:16 and tell me what Christians are dead?
Let's start with these:
From James the 6th:
Hebrews 9:27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
You might want to include:
1)those that are currently decomposing after assuming room temperature.
2)thoses that have been cremated without generating murder charges
3)Any baptised resident of the University of Tennessee body farm Remember, Jesus said "This, then, is how you should pray: "'Our Father in heaven." Never a mention about praying to Saint Whatzhizname.
Prior to the Great Schism, there were 5 Apostolic Patriarchates...Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Each Patriarch/Pope was considered equal. But the Pope of Rome wanted to be the “first amongst equals”. The other 4 Patriarchs were not pleased with that arrangement. The churches split into the Roman/Western Catholic Church, while the other 4 patriarchates became what is considered the Eastern (Orthodox) Church.
The Jews were given VERY a specific “blueprint” as to what the Ark should look like straight from God Himself. Please show me where GOD, and not a pope or other church father, instructed man to kiss rings, medals, and pray to statues? I really am not trying to be disrespectful. Honest, but I just want you to show me in scripture where those things were authorized?
“But the Pope of Rome wanted to be the “first amongst equals”. The other 4 Patriarchs were not pleased with that arrangement.”
That is correct, and that is how the term Roman Catholic started. It was western, and Latin based in Rome. It was a term used to distinguish between the western and eastern branches of the “catholic’ church.
Scripture is always a matter of interpretation. An idol is something you worship in place of God, not something you use as a commemoration that aids in the worship of the one true God.
The Ark and the Temple establish a precedent. Even the Jews used iconography depicting Old Testament saints like King David and the prophets, as archaeology has revealed.
The Patriarchate of Antioch frequently remained in communion with both Rome and Constantinople after the schism of 1054 until the formation of the Melkite Catholic Church in 1724.
The Melkites still assert patriarchal authority against the papacy today despite their union with Rome.
“The Melkites still assert patriarchal authority against the papacy today despite their union with Rome.”
How do they work disputes out with this arrangement?
You wrote:
“I think the meaning of the term Roman Catholic, goes back much further than the Protestants.”
What you think is irrelevant. “Roman Catholic” is essentially a Protestant term.
“It is a reflection of the divergent early church between the Latin church centered in Rome and the Eastern Orthodox (Greek)church centered in Constantinople.”
That’s neither a coherent thought nor a logical possibility. Since the Church in Rome existed 300 years before Constantinople existed there was no mutual “divergence”. Rome was, and Constantinople simply came along much, much later.
“This divergence resulted in the Great Schism in 1054.”
Which still has nothing to do with the fact that “Roman Catholic” is essentially a Protestant term. Check the O.E.D.
You wrote:
“That is correct, and that is how the term Roman Catholic started. It was western, and Latin based in Rome. It was a term used to distinguish between the western and eastern branches of the “catholic’ church.”
According to whom? Seriously, are you suggesting that Eastern Orthodox used the term “Roman Catholic” in the 11th century?
The Rites of the Catholic Church [Catholic Caucus]
One and Many Churches (origins of the Church)
THE RITES OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH -- There are many!
(Cardinal) Newman on Rites and Ceremonies
We govern ourselves and thumb our noses at Rome when we think it exceeds its bounds.
Rome says there are 21 Ecumenical Councils, but our Church only accepts 7. Rome’s not about to do anything about it because it doesn’t want to antagonize the Orthodox.
Our Holy Synod proclaimed its union with Orthodoxy in the 1990s, but the Orthodox said “No thanks.” And Rome said unity with the Orthodox on a corporate level must come first.
I was referring to the common use of the term in the West, but Roum Orthodox is the more common usage.
So you don’t believe in the quoted word of the Bible regarding ‘everlasting’ or ‘eternal life.’
Who cares about the rest of it if you ignore John 3:16.
There are much more advanced things you might want to read in John Chapter 6... that Jesus makes clear he ‘really, really’ means too.
But if you can’t grasp John 3:!6... you don’t have a whole lot of theological hope in this world.
May the Lord provide his Grace so you might understand in the next.
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.