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,
Nontheless, the earliest documents show that the Church of Rome held a pre-eminence among the local Churches that comprised the Universal Church from early on.
“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:3:2 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:1415-416
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/primacy.htm If it weren't for this fact, I'd be Eastern Orthodox.
Because you have a definition of a deviant doesn't mean you are right. Jehovah Witnesses have those they shun as deviants but they are far from right. The main thing you have going for you is that you think that you are right.
If your Pope is an Apostle where are his many miracles or do you have something to explain that away?
Also, if your many Popes are Apostles why aren't there gates in the Holy City of God with all of their names on them. There are only twelve gates with the names of the twelve Apostles on them. Also, the Apostles are the foundation of the Church which has been laid. Excuse me but the foundation lies under the Church not throughout it. _____________________________________________
Act 5:12 And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.
__________________________________________
Act 13:52 And the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost.
Act 14:1 And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.
Act 14:2 But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren.
Act 14:3 Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands.
Act 14:4 But the multitude of the city was divided: and part held with the Jews, and part with the apostles.
_____________________________________________
Act 5:15 Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid [them] on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.
_________________________________________________
Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
_______________________________________________
Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];
Are you aware of how many other “rites” there are in the Catholic Church other than the Latin (what you call Roman Rite)?
You lost me on that one. What in the world are you trying to say?
Acts 26:28
Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.”
Romans 12:9
[ Behave Like a Christian ] Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.
Galatians 5:1
[ Christian Liberty ] Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.
Colossians 3:18
[ The Christian Home ] Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
Colossians 4:2
[ Christian Graces ] Continue earnestly in prayer, being vigilant in it with thanksgiving;
1 Peter 4:16
Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter.
Mathew 16:18
18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
Quick Search Results: Catholic
Passage lookup results
Keyword search results
0 Results
Not only is the word Catholic not in Mathew 16, it's nowhere in the bible.
Bam. Good post. Thanks
Hi Narses and Bellflower-Technically I believe Bellflower is right. I do not have all the Data but from the catholic sources I read she is a christian if valid baptism.
Does anything you quoted above put the word Catholic in the bible? Does the fact that the word “bible” doesn't appear in the bible mean there is no bible?
As I pointed out the word “Christian” appears in what everyone knows as the bible many times, but NOT the word Catholic. Whether Trinity or (you forgot) rapture appear in the bible has NOTHING to do with the fact that Catholic doesn't. Lots of words don't appear in the bible. Catholic happens to be one of them. The bible says they were “Christians” not Catholics. Get your facts right.
Technically known as "poisoning the well," this is a great example of a question that assumes an incriminating falsehood ("start ignoring the direct access to the Throne of Grace") before positing the actual question. Of course, the time-honored exemplar of the kind is, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
But to answer your question, Christians started "praying to dead Christians" for help once they realized that (a) there are no "dead Christians"; believers who have fallen asleep are alive in Christ Jesus and in the presence of God; and (b) the Church is the Body of Christ, whose bonds of charity are not sundered, broken, or destroyed by the power of death.
Absolutely, a valid Baptism is the very first Sacrament of the Holy, Apostolic Church. That many receive that Sacrament and none other is a shame.
Not only is the word Catholic not in Mathew 16, it's nowhere in the bible.Really? And I bet Netflix isn't there either. Nor is Trinity.
Good One!! FUNNY!! ROFL!!
Catholic Christians were calling themselves “Catholic Christians” 300 years before they were in agreement about the books that make up your New Testament, and less than 20 years after the death of the last Apostle.
Acts 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
faucetman:
Rapture does not appear in the Bible and is a heresy. Nobody believed or proposed that nonsense until the 19th century. So lets get your facts straight.
The word Trinity is in fact not in the Bible, the Doctrine of the Trinity is implcit in the Sacred Scriptures and is pointed to, but it was not formally defined until the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. And it does have to do with what is in the Bible or not because you are imposing your protesant notion of priesthood of all belivers sola scriptura on the scriptures which itself is nonsense.
The arrogance of many American protestants to think that Christiantity, which grew up in a Roman-Greek Culture looked like modern American Fundalmentalist-evangelical protesantism is a joke.
The Church was termed Catholic well before the NT canon was definitively defined and that is a “FACT” which has been pointed out many times here [I have done it myself so many times that My head spins]. And that NT canon was defined by, shhhhhh, sorry to tell you, but the Catholic Church.
Oh look, the bear returns!
Yep the odd 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 CynicalBear APPEARS to view the world, why should anyone pay attention to his odd, often incomplete and often heretical cut-n-pastes?
Sure. I was brought up in a Protestant Episcopal Church that simply used the Book of Common Prayer without any real discussion of any of these principles. Then I went to an Episcople Prep School that was, at that time, effectively High Anglican. We genuflected to the altar.
Then, while I was at Harvard, I attended what they called the Mass at the Cowley Father’s church in Cambridge, and served at the altar. It was pretty much like a Catholic Church, although they had to hide the Eucharist when the Bishop of Boston paid them a visit, since he didn’t believe in genuflecting.
Still, the problem remains, that the Church of England effectively broke away from the Catholic Church, and that kind of High Anglicanism wasn’t really seen again until the Oxford Movement brought it back.
In effect, the Cowley Fathers seemed to believe in transubstantiation. But the 39 Articles of the Church speak of consubstantiation, and no one has really been able to explain exactly what that means. In fact, Queen Elizabeth encouraged a certain vagueness in the Elizabethan Settlement, in hopes that the various factions could be included in one Church, provided that no one got too specific about such things. But the Puritans broke loose after she died.
Because he uses scripture and Catholic teaching to refute what Catholics try to tell us. Catholics tell us that the RCC doesn’t teach that they believe the church has replaced Israel but then the RCC tells us different
877 Likewise, it belongs to the sacramental nature of ecclesial ministry that it have a collegial character. In fact, from the beginning of his ministry, the Lord Jesus instituted the Twelve as "the seeds of the new Israel and the beginning of the sacred hierarchy." Chosen together, they were also sent out together, and their fraternal unity would be at the service of the fraternal communion of all the faithful: they would reflect and witness to the communion of the divine persons. For this reason every bishop exercises his ministry from within the episcopal college, in communion with the bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter and head of the college. So also priests exercise their ministry from within the presbyterium of the diocese, under the direction of their bishop. [http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/877.htm]
Just as the Old Testament is full of foreshadows of the New Testament (typology), Catholics believe the Bible is clear that the New Jerusalem of the Book of Revelation is not the historic city of Jerusalem. We do not believe that present day Israel is the same spiritual entity as the historic Israel before the time of Christ. After the crucifixion, the curtain of the Jewish sanctuary was torn in two (Mk 15:37-39, Lk 23:44-46, Mt 27:51) which was God tearing his cloths. At that point, a transfer of authority happened and we believe that the fledgling Church became the New Israel. [http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/why_did_the_catholic_church_move_to_rome_from_jerusalem.htm]
bookmark
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.