When was the Church "Catholic?"

[PJM]

=RKO;10106435]Was Jesus Catholic? Was Peter? Or, was it the Christian Church in the beginning and became "the “Catholic” Church later? Did Constantine found the Catholic Church? Was the Orthodox Church originally part of the Catholic church, or vice versa, or were they both considered to be the Christian Church for a time?

NO! The Catholic Church [One God; Only His One set of Faith beliefs and Only One Church] are recorded in the First Gospel: Matthew Written in 50/60 AD.

Mt. 10:1-8; Mt. 15:15-19; Mt. 18:18 and Mt. 28:16-20 verify this FACT.

ALL that Constantine did was permit FREEDOM of religioud practice after nearly 300 years of SEVERE Roman persecution.

The Orthodox church[In “Schism”] around 1010 AD came from and through the Roman Catholic Church

ALL the Apostles were in FACT “catholics” even though that term would not exist for another 50+ years.

God Bless,

pat /PJM

Here’s the progression of terms:

“The Way” the first term applied to Christ new Church:

Mark 1:3 “A voice of one crying in the desert: Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight his paths” Acts.9: 2 “and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem”

“Christians” Acts.11: 26 “and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church, and taught a large company of people; and in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians.” Late but B4 100 AD

CATHOLIC. Its original meaning of “general” or “universal” has taken on a variety of applications in the course of Christian history. First used by St. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 35-107) (Letter to the Smyrneans, 8, 2), it is now mainly used in five recognized senses: 1. the Catholic Church as distinct from Christian ecclesiastical bodies that do not recognize the papal primacy; 2. the Catholic faith as the belief of the universal body of the faithful, namely that which is believed “everywhere, always, and by all” (Vincentian Canon); 3. orthodoxy as distinguished from what is heretical or schismatical; 4. the undivided Church before the Eastern Schism of 1054; thereafter the Eastern Church has called itself orthodox, in contrast with those Christian bodies which did not accept the definitions of Ephesus and Chalcedon on the divinity of Christ. First Used in the Early Second Century

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Was Jesus Catholic? Was Peter? Or, was it the Christian Church in the beginning and became "the “Catholic” Church later? Did Constantine found the Catholic Church? Was the Orthodox Church originally part of the Catholic church, or vice versa, or were they both considered to be the Christian Church for a time?

Well I think you’re looking at it from the wrong perspective. “Catholic” and “Orthodox” weren’t simply names of the Church, they were descriptions of what adherents believed the Church to be.

“Catholic” because it was universal (as many have already mentioned, “catholic” comes from the Greek language, meaning “universal”), and “Orthodox” because it was orthodox (another Greek word, meaning “correct belief”). Both were used to refer to the Church to separate it from other religious communities claiming to be the true Christian Church. Eventually, the appellations stuck.

What we know today as the separate Catholic and Orthodox churches were indeed the same thing. 1054 is when the formal split occurred (who broke off from whom is of course the subject of endless debate between Catholics and Orthodox believers). You will notice that the Orthodox still very much style themselves as “catholics.”

 

[ConstantineTG]

1054 is when the formal split occurred

Actually it wasn’t a formal split. Records show that Latins still received communion at Hagia Sophia up until the Fall of Constantinople (in the 1200s). There was a disagreement with the Patriarch of Constantinople and the legate of the Pope, there were mutual excommunications exchanged but only on the persons, not the Church (though some would argue that excommunicating a bishop means excommunicating all those under him. But there is an equally valid argument that the Church never pressumed this). There was no formal schism. The relations just went downhill from there and it was the 1200s when they realized that the two Churches were already so far apart that the Emperor needed to step in and try to reunite the Churches. The schism was more or less formalized at the Fall of Constantinople.

 

[Anthony_V]

I should note that, in the days of the early Church, “orthodox” and “catholic” were used interchangeably, as they meant the same thing.

Orthodox means “of right faith”, and catholic obviously means “universal”. So for the early Church, the holy orthodoxy of the Church was that which made it catholic, and the catholicity of the Church was that which made it orthodox. It’s very much a mutual relationship.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Actually it wasn’t a formal split. Records show that Latins still received communion at Hagia Sophia up until the Fall of Constantinople (in the 1200s). There was a disagreement with the Patriarch of Constantinople and the legate of the Pope, there were mutual excommunications exchanged but only on the persons, not the Church (though some would argue that excommunicating a bishop means excommunicating all those under him. But there is an equally valid argument that the Church never pressumed this). There was no formal schism. The relations just went downhill from there and it was the 1200s when they realized that the two Churches were already so far apart that the Emperor needed to step in and try to reunite the Churches. The schism was more or less formalized at the Fall of Constantinople.

Very interesting to know. I always thought 1054 was the formal split between the two Churches.

Either way, still a sad turn of events.

 

[joe370]

See this is the heart of the question. Seems like something as simple as the working name of the Church for the first 1000 years would be readily known to all.
some say it WAS the Catholic Church, some say it wasn’t. What did the early popes call it in their writings? What about the Eastern Bishops prior to 1054?

Well, we know that Jesus did not establish any protestant churches stemming from the 16th century reformation and therefore the apostles did not belong to a protestant church. That leaves us with 2 options: eastern orthodoxy or catholicism, both of which can trace their lineage back to the apostolic age.

Ignatius of Antioch, was actually taught by the apostles themselves and was the first Christian to use the word catholic in reference to Jesus’ Church. On his way to Rome, under military escort to the Coliseum, he wrote the following; many more quotes out there from ante-Nicene fathers referring to Jesus’ church as catholic:

“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ there is the Catholic Church” (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Was Jesus Catholic? Was Peter? Or, was it the Christian Church in the beginning and became "the “Catholic” Church later? Did Constantine found the Catholic Church? Was the Orthodox Church originally part of the Catholic church, or vice versa, or were they both considered to be the Christian Church for a time?

Jesus and the apostles were Jews as were all the earliest believers…

Earliest Use of the Name “Catholic Church”

The early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as “the Way” (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those individuals who followed Christ began to be called “Christians” beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26). As early as 107 A.D., those same individuals referred to themselves collectively as the “Catholic Church”. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote, “You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery (priest) as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

Notice that Ignatius does not introduce the term “Catholic Church”; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. In other words, the Christian assembly was calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century. John, the beloved disciple, may have thought of himself as a member of the Catholic Church!

The Catholic Church began with Peter and the Apostles and continued without interruption or cessation through their disciples (Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, etc.) down to the present day. As a side note, it appears that the believers in Antioch may have coined both terms still in use today: “Christian” and “Catholic Church” – terms they used to describe the one body of believers in Christ.

 

[RKO]

Actually it wasn’t a formal split. Records show that Latins still received communion at Hagia Sophia up until the Fall of Constantinople (in the 1200s). There was a disagreement with the Patriarch of Constantinople and the legate of the Pope, there were mutual excommunications exchanged but only on the persons, not the Church (though some would argue that excommunicating a bishop means excommunicating all those under him. But there is an equally valid argument that the Church never pressumed this). There was no formal schism. The relations just went downhill from there and it was the 1200s when they realized that the two Churches were already so far apart that the Emperor needed to step in and try to reunite the Churches. The schism was more or less formalized at the Fall of Constantinople.

This makes sense of everything. I also agree with most of the other comments. I’m just trying to decide if either of the 2 have a sole claim to being the “True” or original christian church. I think the answer is that both ARE the original Church.

Edit- It just occurred to me that my comment will probably rile EVERYBODY in this thread. Sorry, but it’s what I think is the case…

 

[JRKH]

This makes sense of everything. I also agree with most of the other comments. I’m just trying to decide if either of the 2 have a sole claim to being the “True” or original christian church. I think the answer is that both ARE the original Church.

Edit- It just occurred to me that my comment will probably rile EVERYBODY in this thread. Sorry, but it’s what I think is the case…

You have not riled me…I agree with you.

In an address to the Eastern Orthodox Archbishop of Cyprus, Pope Benedict XVI invoked the language of Pope John Paul II and clearly refers to the Eastern Orthodox Church as one of the two lungs of the Church:
“Thank you, Your Beatitude, for this gesture of esteem and brotherly friendship. In you, I greet the Pastor of an ancient and illustrious Church, a shining tessera of that bright mosaic, the East, which, to use a favorite phrase of the Servant of God John Paul II of venerable memory, constitutes one of the two lungs with which the Church breathes.”
Link
Some may be riled…but to me, rehashing old wounds serves no purpose - so we should try to start afresh and pray for progress in God’s good time.

Peace
James

 

[GaryTaylor]

I should note that, in the days of the early Church, “orthodox” and “catholic” were used interchangeably, as they meant the same thing.

Orthodox means “of right faith”, and catholic obviously means “universal”. So for the early Church, the holy orthodoxy of the Church was that which made it catholic, and the catholicity of the Church was that which made it orthodox. It’s very much a mutual relationship.

I believe so, the contingent is the belief system, Nicene Creed, Sacraments, Councils etc. This we see today perhaps not in total harmony.

 

[R_C]

In an address to the Eastern Orthodox Archbishop of Cyprus, Pope Benedict XVI invoked the language of Pope John Paul II and clearly refers to the Eastern Orthodox Church as one of the two lungs of the Church

Luckily, this statement can be seen as nothing more than a courtesy, and certainly not an infallible declaration of any sort. The Orthodox church remains a schismatic church, and that does not change just because time passes by. It can only change when they return in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Pope Pius XI had this to say:

Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion.

For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, “the Mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful?”

Let them hear Lactantius crying out: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this is the house of Faith, this is the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.

 

[JRKH]

Luckily, this statement can be seen as nothing more than a courtesy, and certainly not an infallible declaration of any sort. The Orthodox church remains a schismatic church, and that does not change just because time passes by. It can only change when they return in full communion with the Catholic Church.

And as I said…Let us pray for eventual reconciliation.

Peace
James

 

[R_C]

Indeed

 

[RKO]

Pope Pius XI had this to say:

Right, and Patriarchs say the opposite. I think praying for reconciliation is our best bet.

 

[KathleenGee]

The original Christian body was called the Nazarenes who followed Christ, and attended at the Jewish synagogue, including the apostles, and particularly S. Peter.

In time, more disputes came out between the Orthodox Jews and the Nazarenes, to the point that the Nazarenes left and started their own synagogues. They rejected out of protest the 40 day fast and worshipping on Saturday and moved to Sunday worship.

St. James the Lesser, apostle, was the first bishop of Jerusalem.

The Romans called the Nazarene Christians, Galileans.

With the Diaspora, following Christ’s words in regards to Jerusalem, the members of the Church of Jerusalem fled out of the city. In this diaspora, St. Peter and the apostles who left were led by the Holy Spirit to go out to form new churches, where Peter was eventually led to Rome to found the Church there.

Greek was the international language of the Apostles, and after the Church was founded in Rome, then Latin was added to the language of the Church.

 

[KathleenGee]

Various American non-denominational communities, who are anti-Catholic, with a draw to some gnostic readings – using them as proof the Church is not the true church, are creating a new spin that Constantine started the Catholic Church.

You don’t find such folly in Europe because they live with their ancient roots. It is so tragic to see them fall away from faith completely to comprise life in the secular state.

Likewise, they also are representing various teachings of our faith, taking quotes from the Universal Catholic Catechism and other sources. Certainly that is not the work of Christ, Who is Truth, at work.

The Church is preparing teachers to counter act such misrepresentations at the present.

 

[R_C]

Right, and Patriarchs say the opposite.

That’s none of our concern It is they who need to reconcile to us, not the other way around. We don’t expect the Church at any time to say: “alright, you are right, we are no longer going to elect a Pope and we are going to take down the dogmas and we are also going to say that the Holy Spirit, contrary to 10 centuries of theology, proceeds solely from the Father”. At least, I don’t see that happening.

 

[JRKH]

That’s none of our concern It is they who need to reconcile to us, not the other way around. We don’t expect the Church at any time to say: “alright, you are right, we are no longer going to elect a Pope and we are going to take down the dogmas and we are also going to say that the Holy Spirit, contrary to 10 centuries of theology, proceeds solely from the Father”. At least, I don’t see that happening.

R_C…Please…let us drop this for now. It is off topic here.

Peace
James

 

[joe370]

Was Jesus Catholic? Was Peter? Or, was it the Christian Church in the beginning and became "the “Catholic” Church later? Did Constantine found the Catholic Church? Was the Orthodox Church originally part of the Catholic church, or vice versa, or were they both considered to be the Christian Church for a time?

Jesus founded the catholic church. Jesus said,** I** will build my church…

Peter belonged to the catholic church. Eventually, in the first century, the name catholic was adopted to make a distinction between other competing groups.

Constantine absolutely did not found the catholic church. That is a historical fact.

There was one church and then that one church, over time, split giving way to the EOC and the CC.

 

[R_C]

R_C…Please…let us drop this for now. It is off topic here.

Peace
James

No problem I don’t feel very at ease mentioning these things either, and I am sorry if I sounded exceedingly harsh. You know, sometimes love can make us react too abruptly I really, really wish we were one big family, as silly as that may sound