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

[Petergee]

I don’t automatically take offence, and I don’t claim that every or even most uses of the term are deliberately pejorative, but when the opportunity arises I charitably correct those who are, presumably innocently, using it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

You make a good point Petergee. For those who will only believe what is written in scriptures, we also find it was a unified, universal, Church.

Act 15:22 Then it pleased the apostles and ancients, with the whole church, to choose men of their own company and to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas, who was surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren.
Act 15:23 Writing by their hands: The apostles and ancients, brethren, to the brethren of the Gentiles that are at Antioch and in Syria and Cilicia, greeting.
Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard that some going out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, to whom we gave no commandment:
Act 15:25 It hath seemed good to us, being assembled together, to choose out men and to send them unto you, with our well beloved Barnabas and Paul:
Act 15:26 Men that have given their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Act 15:27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also will, by word of mouth, tell you the same things.

Catholic was derived from the Greek ‘kata holos’

G2596
κατά
kata
kat-ah’
A primary particle; (preposition) down (in place or time), in varied relations (according to the case [genitive, dative or accusative] with which it is joined): - about, according as (to), after, against, (when they were) X alone, among, and, X apart, (even, like) as (concerning, pertaining to, touching), X aside, at, before, beyond, by, to the charge of, [charita-] bly, concerning, + covered, [dai-] ly, down, every, (+ far more) exceeding, X more excellent, for, from . . . to, godly, in (-asmuch, divers, every, -to, respect of), . . . by, after the manner of, + by any means, beyond (out of) measure, X mightily, more, X natural, of (up-) on (X part), out (of every), over against, (+ your) X own, + particularly, so, through (-oughout, -oughout every), thus, (un-) to (-gether, -ward), X uttermost, where (-by), with. In composition it retains many of these applications, and frequently denotes opposition, distribution or intensity.

G3650
ὅλος
holos
hol’-os
A primary word; “whole” or “all”, that is, complete (in extent, amount, time or degree), especially (neuter) as noun or adverb: - all, altogether, every whit, + throughout, whole.

kata holos
kat-ah’ hol’-os
Catholic is an adjective derived from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning “universal”.

We find the terms ‘kata holos’ in scriptures.

Acts 9:31

(IGNT+) αιG3588 THE μενG3303 INDEED ουνG3767 THEN εκκλησιαιG1577 ASSEMBLIES καθG2596 THROUGHOUT οληςG3650 WHOLE τηςG3588 THE ιουδαιαςG2449 OF JUDEA καιG2532 AND γαλιλαιαςG1056 GALILEE καιG2532 AND σαμαρειαςG4540 SAMARIA ειχονG2192 [G5707] HAD ειρηνηνG1515 PEACE, οικοδομουμεναιG3618 [G5746] BEING BUILT UP καιG2532 AND πορευομεναιG4198 [G5740] GOING ON τωG3588 IN THE φοβωG5401 FEAR τουG3588 OF THE κυριουG2962 LORD, καιG2532 AND τηG3588 IN THE παρακλησειG3874 COMFORT τουG3588 OF THE αγιουG40 HOLY πνευματοςG4151 SPIRIT επληθυνοντοG4129 [G5712] WERE INCREASED.

 

[Radical]

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?

Notwithstanding what evolved later, Ignatius was just a bishop and not a patriarch, right? …and that was the office from which he wrote. Is it that unusual for an older more experienced bishop to advise younger bishops?

If there were no higher rank than bishop,…

are all bishops of the same rank or is it, that by age, experience and/or achievement, a bishop might distinguish himself among his peers?

…he would be committing grossly inappropriate interference in the local churches ruled by other bishops.

It seems to me that your categorization here would be true only if bishops at that time were extremely territorial and protective of their own power. On the other hand, if they were true servants they just might welcome “godly” instruction (for their flock) from a respected source. Also, even if they were a territorial and protective lot, they might be rather pleased (and not think it inappropriate in any way) to receive a letter that instructs their flock to treat them as monarchs…they might even solicit such endorsements, b/c such a letter might even help them in their territorial and protective inclinations.

 

[bare_bones]

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.

Firstly you shouldn’t ask a layman such questions, but I will reply after the best of my ability.

To your argument, it is invalid and mashing up the timeline. Also and more importantly what it means - as far as I’m aware - that bishop is the highest rank, is that the bishop has ‘competence’ or whatever to call it enough for the Church to be present in fullness where he (or his entrusted priest) administers the Eucharist, as I already said. There is no exclusion in that of one bishop sometimes taking good advice from another bishop, as Radical also explained.

[In response to (name removed by moderator)] 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.

That’s quite simply not true (the latter statement, i.e.), no matter where you got that information. The term is used in Swedish, where it is inoffensive in usage and proper enough. It also serves a purpose. If you only say “the Catholic Church”, the meaning is ambiguous. If you want to make sure that you mean the Church governed by the Roman Pope, then Roman Catholic comes in handy. Unless you want to insert at least one whole sentence each time, I don’t think there is any other way to express that.

[In response to (name removed by moderator)] 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.

I see. That sentiment does not exist in Sweden though, or at least I have never encountered anything like that.

[In response to Petergee] Is it that unusual for an older more experienced bishop to advise younger bishops?

No, I wouldn’t think so.

 

[Mickey]

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.

Too many times I see St Ignatius’ quote being used to justify the existence of the modern day Latin Catholic Church. There was one Church…and it was universal (catholic). That was my point.

Let us pray that the wounds will be healed one day soon…in truth…without compromise.

 

[Bluegoat]

I’d answer what I think the question is this way. There are several groups that use the word “Catholic” in their titles. Old Catholics use it, the Orthodox use it sometimes calling themselves the Orthodox Catholic Church, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there are others.

Additionally, the early Protestant Reformers didn’t see them as going outside the Church. The Germans I believe saw themselves as the loyal remnant within the Church, and when they were expelled and the Catholics refused to back down on certain issues they understood it to mean that the Catholics were no longer in the Church. So from their perspective, the Lutherans were then the catholics, and the Catholics were not!:whacky:

In England you see something similar - they did not really see themselves as a new institution - just as the Catholic Church minus a few unfortunate and misguided theological developments.

So both really thought of themselves as the Reformed Catholic Church. But the name being taken, it wasn’t really practical to call themselves that.

So what I am getting at, is what is meant by Catholic Church when used by Ignatius. He wasn’t saying it just as a proper name, he thought it corresponded to an institution with certain characteristics. The modern Catholic Church says that it is the same institution with the same characteristics. But that would be the case even if they were somehow compelled to change their name to something else.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’d answer what I think the question is this way. There are several groups that use the word “Catholic” in their titles. Old Catholics use it, the Orthodox use it sometimes calling themselves the Orthodox Catholic Church, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there are others.

Additionally, the early Protestant Reformers didn’t see them as going outside the Church. The Germans I believe saw themselves as the loyal remnant within the Church, and when they were expelled and the Catholics refused to back down on certain issues they understood it to mean that the Catholics were no longer in the Church. So from their perspective, the Lutherans were then the catholics, and the Catholics were not!:whacky:

In England you see something similar - they did not really see themselves as a new institution - just as the Catholic Church minus a few unfortunate and misguided theological developments.

So both really thought of themselves as the Reformed Catholic Church. But the name being taken, it wasn’t really practical to call themselves that.

So what I am getting at, is what is meant by Catholic Church when used by Ignatius. He wasn’t saying it just as a proper name, he thought it corresponded to an institution with certain characteristics. The modern Catholic Church says that it is the same institution with the same characteristics. But that would be the case even if they were somehow compelled to change their name to something else.

There is a huge timeline between Ignatius using the term and the ‘reformation’, during which there was only 1 Catholic Church, not counting the shism that happened around 1054.

The problem I have with a ‘reformed’ Catholic Church is the fact that Christ commissioned a Church and said He would be with that Church until the consummation of the world and that even the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Secondly, that ‘reformed’ Catholic Church has segmented even further leaving us with many claiming to be the ‘true’ Church, with just as many doctrines. Scriptures are clear, to me anyways, that the Church was meant to be one.

Now, with that stated, I believe there are many differences ‘discussed’, more like argued, on these forums that really may not have an impact on one salvation. Christ prayed for those that persecuted Him and said, ’ Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ This should give us hope that he will have mercy on those who faithfully followed Him according to what they know. Faith is a growth experience and no one should feel they know and understand Him fully.

 

[Bluegoat]

There is a huge timeline between Ignatius using the term and the ‘reformation’, during which there was only 1 Catholic Church, not counting the shism that happened around 1054.

The problem I have with a ‘reformed’ Catholic Church is the fact that Christ commissioned a Church and said He would be with that Church until the consummation of the world and that even the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Secondly, that ‘reformed’ Catholic Church has segmented even further leaving us with many claiming to be the ‘true’ Church, with just as many doctrines. Scriptures are clear, to me anyways, that the Church was meant to be one.

You are missing the point my friend. If the Lutherans were correct on this way back when, there was no time that the gates of Hell prevailed. There were always true Christians in the Catholic Church and they continued on in what was called the Lutheran Church. God doesn’t care about the name - it is really a historical accident. In the same way that you as a Catholic think that the Lutherans et al moved outside the Church, the Lutherans thought that you did.

I would also be careful with the argument that the Protestants segmented further. I actually think this is an arguable point, but you have to actually show that it is a result of their doctrine. Because in the first place, the Protestants segmented from the Catholics. Does this show that Catholic doctrine must be inadequate, or that it is a fault in the nature of Catholicism itself that caused Protestantism? Well, clearly as Catholic you don’t believe that, but it is the same kind of claim.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You are missing the point my friend. If the Lutherans were correct on this way back when, there was no time that the gates of Hell prevailed. There were always true Christians in the Catholic Church and they continued on in what was called the Lutheran Church. God doesn’t care about the name - it is really a historical accident. In the same way that you as a Catholic think that the Lutherans et al moved outside the Church, the Lutherans thought that you did.

I would also be careful with the argument that the Protestants segmented further. I actually think this is an arguable point, but you have to actually show that it is a result of their doctrine. Because in the first place, the Protestants segmented from the Catholics. Does this show that Catholic doctrine must be inadequate, or that it is a fault in the nature of Catholicism itself that caused Protestantism? Well, clearly as Catholic you don’t believe that, but it is the same kind of claim.

The segmentation of the Protestant Church seems to be easy to see, from my perspective; predestination, infant baptism, tongues (some say required), divorce, abortion, contraception, sola scriptura, Church attendance (required or not) and the list can go on and on. It just doesn’t seem to be of the same mind and judgment as scriptures indicate it should be.

I understand what you’re trying to say about the reformation. I feel it makes Christ’s promises incomplete and is against what He taught while on earth. God can protect His truth, even through sinful men. He demonstrated this when He taught the people to do whatsoever they, those that sat on the chair of Moses, said to them, but do not as they do. I just can’t find anywhere in scriptures that it was taught to leave the appointed men and do what one felt was a ‘better’ job.

As I said, it is the hopes and prayers of many that we all have faith necessary to warrant the mercy of Christ when He judges mankind.

I am a convert to Catholicism and have gone through many changes in my spiritual growth. I don’t discount being able to learn or understand more from any Christian. I do my best to discern any teaching, from any ‘man’, no matter what Church they are with. For myself, I believe in the authoritative Church, which includes authoritative scriptures and traditions, however I try not to judge anyone from any Christian Church. The Father’s house is made up of many mansions. Are all mansions the same?

 

[wmscott]

You are missing the point my friend. If the Lutherans were correct on this way back when, there was no time that the gates of Hell prevailed. There were always true Christians in the Catholic Church and they continued on in what was called the Lutheran Church. God doesn’t care about the name - it is really a historical accident. In the same way that you as a Catholic think that the Lutherans et al moved outside the Church, the Lutherans thought that you did.

I would also be careful with the argument that the Protestants segmented further. I actually think this is an arguable point, but you have to actually show that it is a result of their doctrine. Because in the first place, the Protestants segmented from the Catholics. Does this show that Catholic doctrine must be inadequate, or that it is a fault in the nature of Catholicism itself that caused Protestantism? Well, clearly as Catholic you don’t believe that, but it is the same kind of claim.

You state “There were always true Christians in the Catholic Church and they continued on in what was called the Lutheran Church”. Are you saying that Catholics are not true Christians Just curious about this statement.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Ignatius of Antiochs 7-letters at the Vatican are dated 104. They explain the Christain Church and in fact its structure in chain of command, which he left before the festival of Rome and his being fed to the Lions.

Being these words were written in 104 than the reality of that which Ignatius wrote predated this time and would date directly back to the teachings from the Apostle Peter? No?

 

[Bluegoat]

You state “There were always true Christians in the Catholic Church and they continued on in what was called the Lutheran Church”. Are you saying that Catholics are not true Christians Just curious about this statement.

No. I do not think that.

If you read back the question was raised - if the Protestants were right in their views which caused them to leave the Catholic Church, wouldn’t that mean that the “gates of Hell had prevailed” against the Church (that is the true church).

The Lutherans (and other Protestants) back in those days thought that they were the True Church, and they came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church was “outside” of it. Just the opposite of what the Catholics thought. But I would guess that most members of both groups would admit that the others were Christians - just Christians separated from the Church.

 

[wmscott]

No. I do not think that.

If you read back the question was raised - if the Protestants were right in their views which caused them to leave the Catholic Church, wouldn’t that mean that the “gates of Hell had prevailed” against the Church (that is the true church).

The Lutherans (and other Protestants) back in those days thought that they were the True Church, and they came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church was “outside” of it. Just the opposite of what the Catholics thought. But I would guess that most members of both groups would admit that the others were Christians - just Christians separated from the Church.

Thanks for the clarification

 

[GaryTaylor]

No. I do not think that.

If you read back the question was raised - if the Protestants were right in their views which caused them to leave the Catholic Church, wouldn’t that mean that the “gates of Hell had prevailed” against the Church (that is the true church).

The Lutherans (and other Protestants) back in those days thought that they were the True Church, and they came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church was “outside” of it. Just the opposite of what the Catholics thought. But I would guess that most members of both groups would admit that the others were Christians - just Christians separated from the Church.

I’m not sure how you arrive at ths opinion. Luther and his Thesis 95 and other writtings became no so much a bone of contention of the Catholic Church. But in fact a raised eyebrow to specific practices he in fact took issue with and many were simply administrative practice with no seperation of Church and State. Thus his friendship initially with Erasmus.

Or the Holy Stairs and kneeling on every step to pray to reduce purgatory time.

Yet there wasn’t a total fault he found in church doctrine. he found error in HUMANs that took their authority and used it for monetary gain. And there where issues that existed within the church then

There are issues existing in the Lutheran church today as the Catholic. Lets not shine a light on one and not find fault on the other, This was a Two Way street. research of Luthers youth and early adulthood clearly shown behavior issues which today would require Theropy.

 

[guanophore]

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

This term is also found in the NT, though it is not used adjectively as it was just a few years later. Luke uses “kath holos” in Acts 9:31 to mean the Church “throughout”. It is where we get the understanding of Catholic as “universal”. Clearly it did not take long for the term to be used consistently and descriptively for the Church founded by Christ.

 

[mardukm]

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.”

If one were to take the word “Catholic” out of the statement, it would have the exact, same sense. The word “Catholic” must have been the official name of the Church (not just a descriptive) if St. Ignatius used it with “Church.” I think it was Tertullian or Irenaeus who stated that the name “Catholic Church” was used to distinguish themselves from heterodox assemblies calling themselves “Christian.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Deconi]

If one were to take the word “Catholic” out of the statement, it would have the exact, same sense. The word “Catholic” must have been the official name of the Church (not just a descriptive) if St. Ignatius used it with “Church.” I think it was Tertullian or Irenaeus who stated that the name “Catholic Church” was used to distinguish themselves from heterodox assemblies calling themselves “Christian.”

Blessings,
Marduk

Agreed!

Ignatius wasn’t ‘naming’ The Church. He was stating something that had been in use prior to him ‘repeating’ it. His point seems to be stating WHICH specific church he was speaking of, and DIFFERENTIATING (Her) from some others claiming Christ’s approval.

If you read the caption of the letter, this steps forth, clearly.