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,
:-)
Why do you insist on arguing against a point I didnt make?
You wrote:
“Our Holy Synod”
Which one?
The Melkite Holy Synod.
The Melkite Holy Synod.
The Arabs refer to the Greeks as the Roum, or Romans because the Byzantine Empire referred to itself as the “Roman Empire” until it fell in 1453
“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.”
I think you need to keep the history of the church in relation to the history of Europe. I know the church in Rome existed before Constantinople, and was moved there to be the new “Rome”. But to say there was no difference in the church in these areas and times, ignores the point. Rome was Latin and saw its future not with its earlier structure and alliances, with the east and Greek Constantinople, but with the newly emerging powers of European descent. Constantinople was directing its efforts towards the Ottoman threat, the western church worried about the Lombards in Italy.
If the term was Protestant in origin, why does the Roman Catholic church call itself that/ They let the Protestants determine their own name?
If the term was Protestant in origin, why does the Roman Catholic church call itself that/ They let the Protestants determine their own name?
>>It’s sort of like how groups absorb derogatory names to blunt their effectiveness. The homosexuals are a good comparison with all of the derogatory names they now wear with honor.
“It’s sort of like how groups absorb derogatory names to blunt their effectiveness. The homosexuals are a good comparison with all of the derogatory names they now wear with honor.”
I see where you are coming from. I guess I was referring more to the definition and differences of the two locations and cultures of these two regions and not focusing upon the history of the literal term “Roman” applied to Catholics.
You wrote:
“The Arabs refer to the Greeks as the Roum, or Romans because...”
I was talking about the specific Protestant invented term “Roman Catholic” which has nothing to do with any Arab anywhere.
Yes I do believe in it. I just don't attach all the extra biblical gymnastics to it. The issue is praying to someone other than God. The temple veil was ripped open at the Crucifixion giving us direct access God. There's nothing that stand between us and God now, not a priest, not our sin (now covered by the blood of Christ), nothing. Why should we insult God's sacrifice by taking our needs to someone other than the Lord himself?.
You wrote:
“I think you need to keep the history of the church in relation to the history of Europe.”
I see no logical reason to believe you know anything about the history of Europe or the Church.
“I know the church in Rome existed before Constantinople, and was moved there to be the new “Rome”.”
Your comment is incoherent and logically impossible. The Church of Rome (please note the proper preposition) was never moved to Constantinople.
“But to say there was no difference in the church in these areas and times, ignores the point.”
You made no coherent point. How did I ignore your incoherent point?
“Rome was Latin and saw its future not with its earlier structure and alliances, with the east and Greek Constantinople, but with the newly emerging powers of European descent.”
No. Rome was Roman, not Latin. Latin is a language. It is neither a culture nor a place. Also, the Church is the Church. The Church of Roman simply stayed what it always was - the Church of Rome. The Bishop of Rome at time, and for the preservation of the faith and Church, made alliances with potentates in the West (and East for that matter), but converted the West rather than became something different than it always was.
“Constantinople was directing its efforts towards the Ottoman threat, the western church worried about the Lombards in Italy.”
And there’s proof of your lack of knowledge about history. The Ottomans were no threat to Constantinople until the turn of the 14th century. The Lombards were through as a threat to the Church of Rome centuries before that.
“If the term was Protestant in origin, why does the Roman Catholic church call itself that/ They let the Protestants determine their own name?”
The Catholic Church calls itself the “Catholic Church”. In relation to those influenced by modern Protestant propaganda, the Catholic Church sometimes uses the phrase “Roman Catholic”. Note, however, the use of the title “Catechism of the Catholic Church”. Note how it is not “Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church”? Yeah. Also, if you want to know that what I am saying is true - and everyone else who has ever contested this with me lost each and every time by doing this one thing - go look at the Oxford English Dictionary (the full 20 volume set). The editors - all Protestants by the way - made it clear that “Roman Catholic” was a Protestant term.
You can’t even refute this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm
Did you read the whole passage from Ignatius? Not only does he use the word, “Catholic,” but identifies that which is Catholic as that which is done under the authority of the bishop.
Add to that I Clement, written between 60 AD and 97 AD (likely earlier than parts of the bible!), who states that such bishops have authority granted to them by the disciples, including the authority to appoint more bishops to succeed themselves, presbyters, and deacons.
Like several other churches, Anglicans do claim apostolic succession, but as for making the claim that it is the only legitimate church to the exclusion of all others - I’ve never heard that claim by anyone in the Anglican church, as your first statement would seem to imply: “I concluded that there was no way that it could be the universal Church, throughout the world and through all time since its founding by Christ.”
No. Some Anglican theologians over the course of time have made use of the idea of the “Church Invisible.” That’s where the Church went until Luther’s appearance on the scene, and it continues to be the case now. There was another book on the idea not too long ago.
In a sense, it’s kind of like the deliberate vagueness of some of the 39 Articles. “I know there is a Church, because Christ has said so, and He continues to watch over it. But it is not visible as a single institution in this world.” Or words to that effect.
I think that’s perfectly OK for those who don’t feel called to find the real Church. I got a great deal of good from my years in the Episcopal Church, and I still have many friends there, and seem to attend someone’s memorial service or wedding at least once a year. Several of my current friends are Anglican clergy. I regret all the problems that have invaded that Church.
Catholics believe that there is only one true Church, and that it is visible to be seen—warts and all on the surface. But unlike some Protestant extremists who seem to want to see all Catholics damned, I believe that God extends His grace to those in other churches who sincerely respond to that grace and try to do His will. It would be wrong to resist a call to convert, but not all seem to experience that call.
I no more support calling Roman Catholics damned than I do calling Protestants “weirded out backwoods preacher types”. Seems like there are extremists on both sides.
well, yes and no. Everybody who followed the Apostolic faith (catholics, orthodox, orientals, assyrians) were Catholic. Gnostics, Paulicians, Marcionites, etc. were not...
The original bibles didn’t have the word “word” in it either — as it’s not a word in Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic/Latin....
Does the fact that the word “Catholic” doesn’t appear in the bible mean there is no such thing? Does the fact that the word “bible” doesn’t appear in the bible mean there is no bible?
Is that a fact. I did not know that. My Bible (Book of John) has " In the beginning was the WORD. The WORD was with God, and the WORD was God."
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.