ECF's on the Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Randy_Carson

Guest
Early Church Fathers on the “Catholic” Church

Ignatius of Antioch


Wherever the bishop appears, let the congregation be there also. Just as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would look upon the Lord Himself, standing, as he does, before the Lord. As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and presbyters. Be ye subject to the bishop as to the Lord, for ‘he watches for your souls, as one that shall give account to God.’ In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. He who honors the bishop has been honored by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Give ye heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. Be ye subject to the bishop, to the presbyters, and to the deacons.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

The Martyrdom of Polycarp

“When at last he had finished his prayer, in which he remembered all who had met with him ant any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 8:1, [A.D. 156]).

“And certainly the most admirable Polycarp was one of these [elect], in whose times among us he showed himself an apostolic and prophetic teacher and bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna.”(The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2, [A.D. 156]).

“Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Savior of our souls, the Governor of our bodies, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, [A.D. 156]).

Irenaeus

The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

“Where was [the heretic] Marcian, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago – in the reign of Antoninus [AD 138-161] for the most part – and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus [AD 175-189], until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled. . . . Afterward . . . Marcian professed repentance and agreed to the conditions granted to him – that he should receive reconciliation if he restored to the Church all the others whom he had been training for perdition; he was prevented, however, by death.” (Demurrer Against the Heretics, 20, [A.D. 200]).

Clement of Alexandria

“From what has been said, then, it seems clear to me that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one; and in it are enrolled those who, in accord with a design, are just. . . . We say, therefore, that in substance, in concept, in origin and in eminence, the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, gathering as it does into the unity of the one faith which results from the familiar covenants, - or rather, from the one covenant in different times, by the will of the one God and through the one Lord, - those already chosen, those predestined by God who knew before the foundation of the world that they would be just.” (Stromaties 7:17:107:3 [A.D. 202]).

“… There is one true Church, the really ancient Church into which are enrolled those who are righteous according to Gods ordinance… In essence, in idea, in origin, in preeminence we say that the ancient Catholic Church is the only Church …”

Cyprian of Carthage

“They who have not peace themselves now offer peace to others. They who have withdrawn from the Church promise to lead back and to recall the lapsed to the Church. There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering.” (Letter of Cyprian to All His People 43 (40), 5 [A.D. 251]).

“Peter speaks there, on whom the Church was to be built, teaching and showing in the name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not hear or obey may depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock which adheres to its pastor. Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” (*Letters *66 A.D. 253]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

[The Church] is called Catholic, then, because it extends over the whole world, from end to end of the earth, and because it teaches universally and infallibly each and every doctrine which must come to the knowledge of men, concerning things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly, and because it brings every race of men into subjection to godliness” (Catechetical Lectures18:23, [A.D. 350]).

“And if you ever are visiting in cities, do not inquire simply where the house of the Lord is - for the others, sects of impious, attempt to call their dens ‘houses of the Lord’ - nor ask merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church, for this is the name peculiar to this holy Church, the Mother of us all, which is the Spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God.” (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cathechetical Lectures 18:26, [350 A.D.])

Athanasius

“Let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian.” St. Athanasius, “Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuisc,” c. 360 A.D.

Augustine

“We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. When heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. They will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name, which the whole world employs in her regard.”(The True Religion 7:12, [A.D. 390]).

“[T]he very name of Catholic . . . belongs to this Church alone . . . so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation’ 4:5 [397 A.D.]).

“If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, “I do not believe”? Indeed, I would not believe the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.” (Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation’ 4:5 [397 A.D.]).

Vincent of Lerins

“What then will a Catholic Christian do if a small portion of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member?” (Notebooks 3:5, [A.D. 434]).

Council of Chalcedon

“Since in certain provinces readers and cantors have been allowed to marry, this sacred synod decrees that none of them is permitted to marry a wife of heterodox views. If those thus married have already had children, and if they have already had the children baptized among heretics, they are to bring them into the community of the Catholic Church.” (Canon 14, [A.D. 451]).
 
Just be sure that what the Fathers meant by “The Catholic Church” is exactly what we mean by “The Catholic Church”. We mustn’t look at the past entirely through Rome-coloured glasses, if we want to be honest, impartial, neutral, and unbiased historians. 🙂

Ambrose of Milan Exposition on Luke book 6 section 98 said:
‘they drank of the spirit rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ’. He did not deny the Grace of even this title to his disciple, so that he is a true Peter because from the Rock he has the firmness of constancy, the steadfastness of faith. Then strive that ye too may be a rock. Therefore, seek the rock, not outside you, but within you. Your action is a rock if your mind is a rock. Your house is built upon this rock, so that it cannot be shaken by any storms of spiritual wickedness. Your faith is a rock, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If ye will be a rock, ye will be in the Church, because the Church is upon a rock. If ye are in the Church, the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.
 
Just be sure that what the Fathers meant by “The Catholic Church” is exactly what we mean by “The Catholic Church”. We mustn’t look at the past entirely through Rome-coloured glasses, if we want to be honest, impartial, neutral, and unbiased historians. 🙂
Also, it’s good to remember that the “universal church” at that time included those we now call “Orthodox.”
 
Just be sure that what the Fathers meant by “The Catholic Church” is exactly what we mean by “The Catholic Church”. We mustn’t look at the past entirely through Rome-coloured glasses, if we want to be honest, impartial, neutral, and unbiased historians. 🙂
Agree! I think the problem with many today is they proof-read the Church Fathers’ writings and then interpret the words back then to mean how we understand them today. It’s wrong to do that with Scripture, its wrong to do that with the writings of the Fathers. Context is everything.
 
Just be sure that what the Fathers meant by “The Catholic Church” is exactly what we mean by “The Catholic Church”. We mustn’t look at the past entirely through Rome-coloured glasses, if we want to be honest, impartial, neutral, and unbiased historians. 🙂
Well put.

It happens all the time. In our own day we have a country calling itself “Macedonia” and it would be very easy to see that Alexander the Great was from “Macedonia” and therefore he’s from the same country now called that.

The Catholic Church calls itself ‘orthodox’ (as seen in Chesterton’s book “Orthodoxy”)

The Orthodox Church calls itself ‘catholic’ - which is why we recite in the Creed that we believe in a catholic church.

Romanides, an Orthodox writer also argued that the Orthodox Church was “Roman” - insofar as the Roman Empire continued with us for another 1,000 years.
 
Rom. 1:8
….and you belong to that Church whose faith St. Paul describes as being "proclaimed (KATanggeletai) in the whole universe (en HOLO to kosmo)”** **

Acts 9:31
“So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.”

There the words “church throughout all” is translated from the Greek words “Ecclesia kata holis”

Thus the word KATAHOLOS or Catholic in English originated from Scriptures.
 
Rom. 1:8
….and you belong to that Church whose faith St. Paul describes as being "proclaimed (KATanggeletai) in the whole universe (en HOLO to kosmo)”** **

Acts 9:31
“So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.”

There the words “church throughout all” is translated from the Greek words “Ecclesia kata holis”

Thus the word KATAHOLOS or Catholic in English originated from Scriptures.
I don’t see the connection.

As far as I’m aware Ignatius is the first person to use the term ‘catholic’.

For Ignatius the word meant complete. Ignatius wrote…
“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.”
Epistle to the Smyrnaeans. Chapter VIII. – Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.
 
Just be sure that what the Fathers meant by “The Catholic Church” is exactly what we mean by “The Catholic Church”. We mustn’t look at the past entirely through Rome-coloured glasses, if we want to be honest, impartial, neutral, and unbiased historians. 🙂
Cyprian said it well, when writing to the pope… c250 a.d.

"With false bishops appointed for themselves, they dare even set sail and carry their letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity (priestly unity) has its source; nor do they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the Apostle, to whom heretical faith cannot have access."

Those not in union with the chair of Peter, are also not in union with the Churches that are. A unity our Lord prayed for and I would suggest, insists on. Therefore, neither are they the Catholic Church.
 
Cyprian said it well, when writing to the pope… c250 a.d.

"With false bishops appointed for themselves, they dare even set sail and carry their letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity (priestly unity) has its source; nor do they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the Apostle, to whom heretical faith cannot have access."

Those not in union with the chair of Peter, are also not in union with the Churches that are. A unity our Lord prayed for and I would suggest, insists on. Therefore, neither are they the Catholic Church.
How many Sees are Chairs of Peter?
 
He was there but didn’t stay there. As Bp John states, Peter’s successors are the popes of Rome.
No one has argued against the fact he moved on to Rome 🤷

As Catholics and I have evidenced Antioch is still a Chair of Peter!
 
The two feasts were included in the Tridentine Calendar with the rank of Double, which Pope Clement VIII raised in 1604 to the newly invented rank of Greater Double. In 1960 Pope John XXIII removed from the General Roman Calendar eight feast days that were second feasts of a single saint or mystery: one of them was the January 18 feast of the Chair of Peter.[6] The February 22 celebration became a Second-Class Feast. This calendar was incorporated in the 1962 Roman Missal of Pope John XXIII, whose continued use as an extraordinary form of the Roman Rite is authorized under the conditions indicated in the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum In the new classification introduced in 1969 the February 22 celebration appears in the Roman Calendar with the rank of Feast. Those traditionalist Catholics who do not accept the changes made by Pope John XXIII continue to celebrate both feast days: “St Peter’s Chair at Rome” on January 18 and the “Chair of St Peter at Antioch” on February 22.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chair_of_Saint_Peter
 
No one has argued against the fact he moved on to Rome 🤷

As Catholics and I have evidenced Antioch is still a Chair of Peter!
Antioch was a chair of Peter for a short time.

Melkite Bp John, talks about Antioch, (the see) but not as the successor of Peter https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-j…ited-with-rome

If Antioch (the bishop) was the successor of Peter, like Rome (the bishop) is the successor of Peter, we should see the Church live and operate according to that fact…true? So, why is Rome 1st among sees and Antioch is 4th among the listing of sees?

The ancient listing of sees is
    • Rome
    • Alexandria
    • Antioch
    • Jerusalem
    After Byzantium became Constantinople
      • Rome
      • Constantinople
      • Alexandria
      • Antioch
      • Jerusalem
      As Bp John explaines in the link above

      When the Patriarchate of Antioch was divided into two branches in 1724, one branch kept the name Orthodox and the other branch which sealed its union with the Holy See of Rome, kept the name Melkite given to it since the Sixth Century and called itself Catholic. It became known as the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. In the Middle East, although both branches claim orthodoxy as well as catholicity, however being Catholic means not Orthodox and being Orthodox means not Catholic. To be a Catholic Christian means that one accepts the primacy of the Pope of Rome, because he is the successor of St. Peter*.** To be an Orthodox Christian means that one does not recognize the primacy of the Pope of Rome, but considers him as “first among equals.”*
      According to the Catholic teaching, Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome.
      The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)
      If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.


      Even in Orthodox terminology,
      • were the bishops of Antioch ever considered 1st among equals even in the East? No
      • if they were 1st, why are they listed 3rd ultimately moving to 4th.
      • if Antioch IS the successor of Peter, by the East moving Antioch from 3rd to 4th place demonstrates that your point can’t be taken very seriously.
      • Let’s say, even If this listing of sees is purely political, as many orthodox like to argue, why didn’t Rome get demoted to 2nd after Constantine moved from Rome to Byzantium? Obviously where the emperor is living didn’t change the way the Church looked at where the chair of Peter is.
      Therefore I would suggest, this discussion is always about where Peter’ is, and continues to be, not where he was
 
Antioch was a chair of Peter for a short time.

Melkite Bp John, talks about Antioch, (the see) but not as the successor of Peter https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-j…ited-with-rome

If Antioch (the bishop) was the successor of Peter, like Rome (the bishop) is the successor of Peter, we should see the Church live and operate according to that fact…true? So, why is Rome 1st among sees and Antioch is 4th among the listing of sees?

The ancient listing of sees is
    • Rome
    • Alexandria
    • Antioch
    • Jerusalem
    After Byzantium became Constantinople
      • Rome
      • Constantinople
      • Alexandria
      • Antioch
      • Jerusalem
      As Bp John explaines in the link above

      When the Patriarchate of Antioch was divided into two branches in 1724, one branch kept the name Orthodox and the other branch which sealed its union with the Holy See of Rome, kept the name Melkite given to it since the Sixth Century and called itself Catholic. It became known as the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. In the Middle East, although both branches claim orthodoxy as well as catholicity, however being Catholic means not Orthodox and being Orthodox means not Catholic. To be a Catholic Christian means that one accepts the primacy of the Pope of Rome, because he is the successor of St. Peter**.** To be an Orthodox Christian means that one does not recognize the primacy of the Pope of Rome, but considers him as “first among equals.”
      According to the Catholic teaching, Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome.
      The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)
      If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.

      Even in Orthodox terminology,
      • were the bishops of Antioch ever considered 1st among equals even in the East? No
      • if they were 1st, why are they listed 3rd ultimately moving to 4th.
      • if Antioch IS the successor of Peter, by the East moving Antioch from 3rd to 4th place demonstrates that your point can’t be taken very seriously.
      • Let’s say, even If this listing of sees is purely political, as many orthodox like to argue, why didn’t Rome get demoted to 2nd after Constantine moved from Rome to Byzantium? Obviously where the emperor is living didn’t change the way the Church looked at where the chair of Peter is.
      Therefore I would suggest, this discussion is always about where Peter’ is, and continues to be, not where he was

    1. Excellent! 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top