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,
and under the Ottomans!
Toothfairy. How perfect a name in light of this comment:
“People need to quit confusing “Catholic”, which means universal, with “Roman Catholic”.”
No, people need to stop using the term “Roman Catholic”. I’m Catholic. “Roman Catholic” was originally a Protestant term.
DesertRhino:
and you can tell us what Christ wanted and created. that is the problem with American Fundies, No understanding of the Incarnation. As Pope Benedict stated in Spirit of the Liturgy, Incarnational Theology means we don’t do as we please. On the contrary, it binds us to the history of a particular time. Outwardly, that history may seem fortuitous, but is the form of history willed by God.
The history that God willed is for Christ to become incarnate in the context of Roman-Greek culture, not American yahoo Protestant culture. The history of Christianity and Doctrine is expressed in the Church Fathers, both Latin-West and Greek-East, and that is Catholic and can also be claimed by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
tsk, tsk
The problem with Eastern Orthodoxy is its decentralized nature has led to frequent schisms that have more to do with nationalism than Christ.
Take Ukraine. There are 3 churches that each claim to be the authentic Orthodox Church in the Ukraine. In Greece, you have the myriad of schisms between the New Calendar state Church and the dozens of Old (Julian) Calendar factions.
That’s why I’m an Eastern Catholic and not an Eastern Orthodox.
The main differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy reminds me of the old Abbott and Costello skit “Who’s on first.”
I’m not sure of your exact argument, but it seems to me, and correct me if I’m wrong, you are trying to equate early worship of statues and trinkets dedicated to Diana on the same scale as Christians decorating their churches with icons and statues of Christ or Saints.
There is a large gulf of difference here. we as humans use our gifts as artists and sculptures in a reverent and humble way to show respect as best we can. We have built magnificent churches in honor of God. The one true god we believe in. Again this is not an exercise in idolatry but an expression of love and respect rendered and expressed by human hands.
“I was stating it was Catholic and looked nothing like the yahoo American Protestant rural culture.”
Oh, but you don’t understand,,you see, American protestant architecture and other things that you call “yahoo” are extensials and can change over time, and only reflect that times have evolved, thus mechanisms to deal wth modern culture have changed.
LOL
funny, when i went to Mass today to receive the Eucharist as Christians have done for 2,000 years, i didn’t see any castles, swiss guards, lawyers, diplomats, etc.
the Church is Universal, it was here in 95ad, 295ad, 646ad, 908ad and 2012ad.
desertrhino, do you agree with Joseph Smith that the Church went apostate in the late 1st century?
“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.”
Mach9, I understand your point. It is a different point than my own.
All Christians believe in one universal church, if they believe the words of Scripture - the body and bride of Christ - made up of all who have trusted in Christ’s sacrifice, resurrection and ascension on their behalf. Universal is the meaning of catholic, and they would agree with that revelation.
Many Christians would disagree on quite a few of the items you listed that are taught by the Roman church. Many of those things were not taught during the first 100 years of the Church. That is a different proposition than whether they believe there is one universal church, founded by Christ.
“you can only be considered Catholic if you hold the Catholic FAITH.”
Again, the initial premise was about the term Catholic, not the Roman Catholic church. There is a different meaning and history.
Faith
“and under the Ottomans!”
Yes I forgot, they have had a hard history throughout time.
The term Roman Catholic was invented by Anglican controversialists as an insult to those Catholics who remained loyal to Rome.
“roman” Catholic is a term never used before the Great Schism in 1054ad.
what you call “roman” Catholic is the same Catholic Church that has been here for 2,000 years.
if you don’t believe this, please tell me who founded the “roman” Catholic Church?
“No, people need to stop using the term “Roman Catholic”. I’m Catholic. “Roman Catholic” was originally a Protestant term.”
I think the meaning of the term Roman Catholic, goes back much further than the Protestants. 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. This divergence resulted in the Great Schism in 1054.
Follow your bureaucracy,, follow your pope, knock yourself out. We pray for our separated bretheren who have fallen into error. It’s not that we generally doubt your salvation (which we are warned by the bible not to do). It’s that we think you are incorrect about some things, and are wasting time kissing the ring of some guy on earth.
“Faith” is a beautiful word. But what kind of Faith? Faith in WHAT?
“The history that God willed is for Christ to become incarnate in the context of Roman-Greek culture”
I think I read somewhere that Christ was born as a Jew. I think they also had a culture...
Then you believe the Ark of the Covenant was idolatrous.
But why should I care what heretics think?
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.