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,
Ok, so if they are there in the presenced of God isn't kind of rude to ignore God and ask a favor of a lesser being?
So what!
?
2 Cor. was written about 60 AD, so I would say that Catholics were around at least by that point.
“Because he uses scripture and Catholic teaching ...”
Nope. Sorry.
The odd views of a poster who claims that Catholics are idolaters, that those who celebrate Easter and Christmas are pagans and that claims that the idea of church on Sunday is a man made tradition and apparently not either Christian or Biblical. Given that this is the point of view from which you view the world, why should anyone pay attention to your odd, often incomplete and often misread cut-n-pastes?
Check out what scripture says about those who say they are Jews and are not.
BTW, the fact that Catholics are idolaters, that those who celebrate Easter and Christmas are pagans and church day being Sunday or ANY day and not EVERY DAY is not an odd view. I know you won't believe this, but there are very many people who believe those same things. We are called "non-Catholics".
Don’t need to.
We are called “non-Catholics”.
>>Correction. Heretics.
BTW, the fact that Catholics are idolaters, that those who celebrate Easter and Christmas are pagans and church day being Sunday or ANY day and not EVERY DAY is not an odd view.Wow, another one. That Trailer Park Church grows!
“All Christians believe in the Catholic Church. Not all believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the totality of the Catholic Church.”
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 Catholic church we think of now, slowly evolved and represents the western (Latin) influence of Christian thought and structure.
The Eastern Orthodox church, represents the other branch of the early Christian movement, which would remain until the Protestant Reformation.
Hos 13:2 And now they sin more and more, and have made them molten images of their silver, and idols according to their own understanding, all of it the work of the craftsmen: they say of them, Let the men that sacrifice kiss the calves.
Catholics do kiss their trinkets don’t they?
Zing. LoL
I wonder how many will think of us when next they kiss their rosary or their statue?
Well, it is easy to see where he would get those ideas.
Christmas and Easter are both celebrated during the same time as pagan celebrations, whom the Christians were trying to convert.
Jews celebrate the Sabbath from Friday to Saturday, and I doubt Jesus celebrated on a different day.
And prayers to Saints and Mary could be seen as idolatry.
Yeah...as soon as the apostles all died out....men came along and corrupted the Church...just like Jesus said they would.
You sure can trust The Word of God.
So are you trying to unite everyone into the body Christ by saying that everyone who doesnt follow your bureaucracy is trailer trash? You should try reading Colossians 3.
I don’t know why I’m jumping in here on an otherwise beautiful Sunday evening, because it’s hopeless, but here goes:
If I kiss a picture of my mother, am I worshipping her?
“Hos 13:2 And now they sin more and more, and have made them molten images of their silver, and idols according to their own understanding, all of it the work of the craftsmen: they say of them, Let the men that sacrifice kiss the calves.”
I’m not Catholic, but this is a stretch. To criticize a belief, based upon the creating of statues and “trinkets”, is to view the practice in a very narrow light.
The use of statues is a form of reverent respect and acknowledgement of something or someone greater then themselves. Its not worship of that object, but what it represents, as is the cross. Which denomination does not respect that image?
Depends. Does she represent God or a way to God to you?
Add to those that the “mother of god” concept was decided in the city that had the temple to Diana “queen of heave” and Christians were having problems with merchants who sold the trinkets used to worship her. All coincidences of course.
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.