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,
The actual term used was "Logos" (Λόγος). It has an interesting history but around 500 BC became a philosophical term for a principle of order and knowledge. Along with Ethos and Pathos it has a deep and rich history within Greek philosophy and logic.
Its acceptance merely as synonymous with "word" is an unfortunate consequence of Sola Scriptura because the "Word" is so very much more than a collection of words.
The actual term used was "Logos" (Λόγος). It has an interesting history but around 500 BC became primarily a philosophical term for a principle of order and knowledge. Along with Ethos and Pathos it has a deep and rich history within Greek philosophy and logic.
Its acceptance merely as synonymous with "word" is an unfortunate consequence of Sola Scriptura because the "Word" is so very much more than a collection of words.
Boy that Sola Scriptura is just a catchall for all that's wrong in the theological world. Well there's that Martin Luther fellow too. Can't forget about him.
You do realize that the Bible was not originally written in English, right? That they didn't have the word "word" rather had "Logos" (Λόγος)...
Insightful, NL
Bipolar --> do you realise the error of just limiting the Word of God to just the written word and how the limitations of language mean that people have forgotten that the Word of God is Jesus Christ, order, knowledge, deep knowledge and wisdom, not just a collection of characters
Simple minds think that the Bible was originally written in English and argue "where is the word Catholic in the Bible" not realising that none of the English words are in the Bible -- English, especially late modern English is only a few centuries old.
Yes, I am quite aware the Disciples did not speak English and the Bible was not originally wrote in English. I was just pointing out one of the many details which are clues that your church is not The Church talked about being Christs Church. I’m just throwing little tidbits out there for those who wish to research it. I do not spend an inordinate time drooling and parsing over each individual words possible meaning. If there is something to look at, I look at it. For example the word “love” in the Bible. I will see which kind it refers to and move on. I think the Bible was wrote so that anybody can get its meaning. Sometimes a little background in Eastern thinking but nothing taxing. Spend your time straining at gnats and swallowing camels if you wish. I don’t care to do so.
Did you know that the original Bible didn't have the English word "Word" in it?
So, let's see what meaning you get from Apocalypse 22:19 19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.?
Before you give too great an endorsement of Martin Luther remember that he remained, at heart, a Catholic priest and theologian who lamented at the consequences of his actions. Those who focus on where he differed with the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church ignore the many, many areas that he embraced the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I am confident that Luther would not recognize and would be horrified by much of what Protestantism has become.
As for Sola Scriptura, Luther never proposed the Scriptural exclusivity than many Protestants today profess. Luther's Sola Scriptura was that of Sriptural sufficiency.
The Catholic Faith is defined by the Athanasian Creed. While the faith as defined in that creed is presumably held by most members of the Roman Catholic Church, it is likewise held by members of other orthodox Christian denominations.
Revelation 22:18 and 19 go together. One is describing the plagues that will apply to those that add to the words of Johns prophecy and the other concerning those who subtract from them. Here God has placed a curse on those who might be tempted to alter Gods Word. It is apparent God places a premium on His Word. Not so much mans traditions though.
Thanks for supporting my views on Catholics obsession with Sola Scriptura and Martin Luther. Martin Luther was fallible and had a great conflict with separation from his church but he could not ignore the plain Truths of the Bible. The church teachings were so ingrained in him, he could only go so far in challenges.
You do understand, right? The Bible is a collection of books....
My statement has not been proven false. You fail read and comprehend my postings. Whether that is intentional or not only you can say. If you are that bad at reading postings maybe you do need someone to read and explain the Bible to you. The normal person does not.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| Church | Year Established | Founder | Where Established |
| Gods own | Beginning of time | Jesus Christ | Garden of Eden |
So, was the meaning of Baptism to be Baptism for infants or not?
and should women not talk in Church?
You know as well as I do that Adam and Eve sinned and were cast from the garden. Now who was the figurative (but real when fulfilled) person who would crush the serpent’s head with his heel?
Sure you can go back to the Old Testament, but the OT was all fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ.
Do you need to read all the prophecies in Isaiah again?
Why ask me? You think me incapable of reading and understanding on my own. But I'll give it a try. Baptism is for the purpose to make a public confession and commitment to Jesus Christ. Infants are incapable of that decision making. So no to infant baptism.
No to women talking in church in the Middle East at the time of Jesus. In fact women in the Middle East best beware at all times. At your church, I'm sure it's okay.
You know as well as I do that Adam and Eve sinned and were cast from the garden. Now who was the figurative (but real when fulfilled) person who would crush the serpent’s head with his heel?
Sure you can go back to the Old Testament, but the OT was all fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ.
Do you need to read all the prophecies in Isaiah again?
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.