Ignatius of Antioch's early use of the word "Catholic"

[Curious_Hobbit]

The earliest use of the word Catholic we see is from Ignatius of Antioch around 107-110AD in his letter to the Smyrnaeans. Here’s the quote:

“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.”

From the way he phrases his words it doesn’t sound like he is introducing the term “Catholic Church” for the first time right here. Rather, it sounds like it is a term that will be familiar to the people he is writing to. This letter was written about a decade after the last books of the New Testament were written. Ignatius and Polycarp were associates and they were both disciples of St. John the Apostle.

Obviously I’m Catholic and to me these facts suggest that the Catholic church was the first church, but I’d like to hear what other people think. For instance, one time on these forums I heard someone say that the term Catholic didn’t mean the same thing before the 4th century as it does today. What do you think? Thanks

 

[JustaServant]

The earliest use of the word Catholic we see is from Ignatius of Antioch around 107-110AD in his letter to the Smyrnaeans. Here’s the quote:

“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.”

From the way he phrases his words it doesn’t sound like he is introducing the term “Catholic Church” for the first time right here. Rather, it sounds like it is a term that will be familiar to the people he is writing to. This letter was written about a decade after the last books of the New Testament were written. Ignatius and Polycarp were associates and they were both disciples of St. John the Apostle.

Exactly.
You have to historically put yourself into the shoes of the Christians of the first century, where literacy was rare and books even more rare. In his day it was unthinkable to call yourself a ‘church’ without the proper leadership.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

The earliest use of the word Catholic we see is from Ignatius of Antioch around 107-110AD in his letter to the Smyrnaeans. Here’s the quote:

“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.”

From the way he phrases his words it doesn’t sound like he is introducing the term “Catholic Church” for the first time right here. Rather, it sounds like it is a term that will be familiar to the people he is writing to. This letter was written about a decade after the last books of the New Testament were written. Ignatius and Polycarp were associates and they were both disciples of St. John the Apostle.

Obviously I’m Catholic and to me these facts suggest that the Catholic church was the first church, but I’d like to hear what other people think. For instance, one time on these forums I heard someone say that the term Catholic didn’t mean the same thing before the 4th century as it does today. What do you think? Thanks

Yes, it would appear to have been common terminology in the early second century. However, I think you might be misunderstanding what he was saying. Ignatius referred to the church as “catholic,” which simply means “universal.” Catholic apologists want you to believe that Ignatius is somehow confirming that the Catholic Church of today is the same church that existed in his time. If the church had remained unchanged then that would actually be true, but since there is little comparison between Roman Catholicism and the Ante-Nicene church, it means nothing.

Now if you want to establish validity for your church, you should go and research the term “Roman Catholic Church” and see when that phrase was first used.

 

[Timothy17]

Yes, it would appear to have been common terminology in the early second century. However, I think you might be misunderstanding what he was saying. Ignatius referred to the church as “catholic,” which simply means “universal.” Catholic apologists want you to believe that Ignatius is somehow confirming that the Catholic Church of today is the same church that existed in his time. If the church had remained unchanged then that would actually be true, but since there is little comparison between Roman Catholicism and the Ante-Nicene church, it means nothing.

Now if you want to establish validity for your church, you should go and research the term “Roman Catholic Church” and see when that phrase was first used.

Dear Brian,

I believe you have distanced yourself from one extreme by going over to another. I agree with you that the wording and context of St Ignatius’ letter could easily be rendered or understood as “the universal Church” or “the Church everywhere,” however, it is also clear that he is refering to them singularly, as being a united whole in their Faith and testimony, much like today we might say, “as everyone knows” on matters of common sense, truth or established fact.

In scripture we know that “Christianity,” (which word mind you not once appears in Scripture), is refered to as “the Way,” or other description until we are informed that observers began to call “the followers of the Way,” “Christians.” Obviously “Christ” was so intimately connected to the “followers of the Way,” that even outside observers thought it best and easiest to differentiate them from others by that title/name. This name (Christian) was then adopted and accepted by us Christians at a time when we already know certain suspect persons were beginning to cause troubles and dissensions in the Church, such as Simon Magus.

So we know for a fact that the followers of Jesus were never called Christians during Jesus’ ministry. We know that the Church did not invent the title and then enforce it, but rather willingly and freely accepted and used it, as Scripture says, “it was there they began to be called Christians.” But what about those then exiting the Church or breaking with fellowship from the Apostles - even outright betraying them - as so many letters of St Paul mention and we lament ? Were those “wolves in sheep’s clothing” to be confused with the Apostles and their obedient followers, the early Churches they themselves established and governed ? Certainly not. Clearly, it would appear that even very early on it was necessary to differentiate between those who only claimed to be Christian or masqueraded as Christians and those who were legitimate disciples of Christ’s very Apostles.

At this point, St Ignatius provides us with a word to guide those who are sincerely and faithfully seeking membership in the True Church : he says to seek “the catholic Church,” which is to say, “the Church everywhere.” He said this because he knew the Apostles had so laboured with such unity of mind and purpose that their doctrines were, like seeds, planted in Churches throughout the world, and their great unity in Faith, doctrine and testimony even over vast distances, and across so many cultures, and nations, bore witness to being by and of the Church the Apostles founded. To this day, for us Catholics, this rule still holds accurate nearly 2,000 years later : if you desire to find out our Church and our teaching, survey all the Churches and see which agree, and the greatest body thereof, those are the very Churches the Apostles built.

Pax,
Tim

 

[Mickey]

At this point, St Ignatius provides us with a word to guide those who are sincerely and faithfully seeking membership in the True Church : he says to seek “the catholic Church,” which is to say, “the Church everywhere.” He said this because he knew the Apostles had so laboured with such unity of mind and purpose that their doctrines were, like seeds, planted in Churches throughout the world, and their great unity in Faith, doctrine and testimony even over vast distances, and across so many cultures, and nations, bore witness to being by and of the Church the Apostles founded. To this day, for us Catholics, this rule still holds accurate nearly 2,000 years later : if you desire to find out our Church and our teaching, survey all the Churches and see which agree, and the greatest body thereof, those are the very Churches the Apostles built.

At the time of St Ignatius, the Church was one, and he used the term to mean universal. But sadly, the great schism ocurred and Rome separted herself from the other Patriarchates.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

As I recall there are now four or five churches claiming succession to the true patriarchate of Antioch–founded by St. Peter. And it seems to me the various schisms there go back to at least the fifth, if not fourth century.

 

[Rolltide]

As I recall there are now four or five churches claiming succession to the true patriarchate of Antioch–founded by St. Peter. And it seems to me the various schisms there go back to at least the fifth, if not fourth century.

It is interesting, however, that many of those early schism churches have vastly improved their relations with the Catholic Church in the last few years, and one, the Assyrian Church of the East, recently had portions reunify with the Catholic Church. The other branches of the Assyrian Church of the East are in more preliminary talks to reunify as well.

 

[mark_a]

Now if you want to establish validity for your church, you should go and research the term “Roman Catholic Church” and see when that phrase was first used.

No need. That term was used by Anglicans as an insult to Catholics, just as the term “Christian” was first used as a slur.

 

[bare_bones]

The earliest use of the word Catholic we see is from Ignatius of Antioch around 107-110AD in his letter to the Smyrnaeans. Here’s the quote:

“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.”

From the way he phrases his words it doesn’t sound like he is introducing the term “Catholic Church” for the first time right here. Rather, it sounds like it is a term that will be familiar to the people he is writing to. This letter was written about a decade after the last books of the New Testament were written. Ignatius and Polycarp were associates and they were both disciples of St. John the Apostle.

Obviously I’m Catholic and to me these facts suggest that the Catholic church was the first church, but I’d like to hear what other people think. For instance, one time on these forums I heard someone say that the term Catholic didn’t mean the same thing before the 4th century as it does today. What do you think? Thanks

In my opinion it does not mean what you think it means. The definition of Catholic Church in that quote of Ignatius of Antioch seems in fact to match the definition of Catholic that the Orthodox Church has, namely that in principle there is no higher rank than bishop: wherever there is a Eucharist administered by a bishop (properly so called) or his entrusted priest, there Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church is also present in fullness: there let also the multitude be; go there and receive Him.

I apologize if I said something wrong or if what I said was not clear enough. I’m just a layman.

 

[Rolltide]

Now if you want to establish validity for your church, you should go and research the term “Roman Catholic Church” and see when that phrase was first used.

As far as I can determine, the term “Roman” Catholic Church was first used by Protestants in the 1500s as a slur against Catholicism, and was still used that way in some regions as recently as the 1840s. However, the term eventually lost it’s pejorative meaning and simply fell into common use, even among Catholics. Interestingly, it’s not entirely an accurate term, as some feel it leaves out the Eastern branch of Catholicism.

 

[Nicea325]

Yes, it would appear to have been common terminology in the early second century. However, I think you might be misunderstanding what he was saying. Ignatius referred to the church as “catholic,” which simply means “universal.” Catholic apologists want you to believe that Ignatius is somehow confirming that the Catholic Church of today is the same church that existed in his time. If the church had remained unchanged then that would actually be true, but since there is little comparison between Roman Catholicism and the Ante-Nicene church, it means nothing.

Now if you want to establish validity for your church, you should go and research the term “Roman Catholic Church” and see when that phrase was first used.

Not exactly,there is some flaws with your position. How can you state Ignatius was simply stating the church was “universal” but not referring to the Catholic Church? What other church was he referring to if it was NOT the Catholic Church? I can assure all of my life savings it is not any Protestant,evangelical or fundamentalist church which exist today.

If the church had remained unchanged then that would actually be true, but since there is little comparison between Roman Catholicism and the Ante-Nicene church, it means nothing.

False! Little comparison? There is a lot of comparisons and more than any ‘johnny-come-lately’ church.No where does Jesus or the Apostles teach the church should remain ‘unchanged.’ The church is a living organism and like all living organisms it changes. That is like saying when Thomas Jefferson referred to the U.S. in the 18th century,it is NOT the same U.S. country of today. The U.S. has changed in many aspects,but it is false to say it is not the same country.

Now if you want to establish validity for your church, you should go and research the term “Roman Catholic Church” and see when that phrase was first used

And simply because the term Roman was used later does not prove it is not the same Catholic Church.

 

[Mickey]

That term was used by Anglicans as an insult to Catholics,

I see the words “Roman Catholic Church” on many church signs all over America!

 

[mark_a]

I see the words “Roman Catholic Church” on many church signs all over America!

I and I see “Greek Orthodox Church” around too.

Check post #10 for the whyfors.

I’m ecstatic w/ “Roman”.

 

[Mickey]

I and I see “Greek Orthodox Church” around too.

And?

I’m ecstatic w/ “Roman”.

:clapping:

 

[Mickey]

Interesting.

 

[mark_a]

And?
:clapping:

I like it when folks lay all their cards on the table.

 

[Mickey]

I like it when folks lay all their cards on the table.

Wha?

 

[Timothy17]

At the time of St Ignatius, the Church was one, and he used the term to mean universal. But sadly, the great schism ocurred and Rome separted herself from the other Patriarchates.

Dear Mickey,

Unfortunately I don’t understand why you felt your comment would be edifying and further do not see the connection to the points in my original post intended for, and directed to, my seperated brother, Brian.

Please recall that in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy we share a realized belief in what the “boundary stones” mentioned in the Old Testament law mean spiritually (spiritual jurisdictions, for example), and Our Lord’s command not to remove these boundary stones. The Protestants, as other Orthodox posters openly have professed to believe, are the “progeny” of the Church of Rome. I would further say, in fact, that it is the Orthodox who most strongly adhere to this idea of the realized spiritual jurisdiction of the particular Churches and their lawful shepherds, the Bishops, the Patriarchs, etc. Placing potential stumbling blocks, great or minor, explicit or implicit, on the path of Christian dialogue would appear to be, at least in my opinion, not a little counter-productive to our shared mission of evangelization and spiritual edification.

Finally, I would kindly ask that, in the spirit of Christian charity and the desire to fulfill Our Lord’s desire for Christian unity, that we avoid over-generalizing or simplifying the cause for the wounds of our two Churches ultimate seperation : you must know that there are two sides to every story, and that Catholics view the Great Schism differently than do the Orthodox, but that both sides certainly lament this outcome. Today most clearly it appears that the general leadership of both our Churches openly and actively desire some kind of reconciliation and reunion in Christian Truth ; therefore, I believe we are both being guided by our lawful Bishops to dialogue with one another in a spirit of charity, with the aim being of reconciliation in Truth.

Pax,
Tim

 

[Petergee]

In my opinion it does not mean what you think it means. The definition of Catholic Church in that quote of Ignatius of Antioch seems in fact to match the definition of Catholic that the Orthodox Church has, namely that in principle there is no higher rank than bishop:

If that were true, then why is St Ignatius, who holds the office that would later be called “Patriarch” of Antioch, writing multiple letters to people in cities under the jurisdiction of other bishops? If there were no higher rank than bishop, he would be committing grossly inappropriate interference in the local churches ruled by other bishops.

 

[Petergee]

I don’t know about the USA, but it is very common that anti-Catholics in Australia and Britain most definitely quite deliberately insert the word “Roman” (the word is sometimes even spat out as if it were an obscenity) before every mention of the word “Catholic”, with the intention of implying that Catholics are traitors to their country and to true Christianity and that they are superstitious blindly unthinking followers of a secretive and malicious foreign power, and that they are therefore people who cannot be trusted.

Note that official Catholic Church documents never use the term “Roman Catholic” except in documents issued jointly with the Anglicans. And the term is completely unknown in languages other than English.