INTRO:
Ah yes, the ultimate "it-doesn't-say-that-in-the-bible-so-therefore-it-isn't-Christian" line, a line that is sure to cut down any Catholic dead in his or her tracks, unless of course, we know what Scripture is talking about and why Scripture says what it says.
As any avid reader of my humble blog will attest to, I trumpet the 3 authoritative sources of the Catholic Church as proof for our beliefs. As I have already mentioned before, we are the ONLY Christian Church that can do this. As such, any time a Protestant or an athesist or an Anti-Catholic uses that line, we must first identify a few things:
1) The Catholic Church predates the Bible. That is, the Catholic Church is the ONLY Christian Church that came before the canonization of Scripture.
2) The Catholic Church never uses scripture alone as it's final authority. We are fortunate enough to have Sacred Apostolic Tradition as well as the teaching authority of the Magisterium in addition to Sacred Scripture.
3) The Catholic Church is the Christian Church of History. No matter which of the other 35,000+ Christian denominations you encounter, one thing is certain: none of them can prove their existance prior to the Protestant Reformation. In essence, even the oldest Protestant denomination is currently less than 500 years old.
It is this last fact that we will use to answer, as well as put to rest, why the Bible never mentions the word Catholic.
BIBLICAL PROOF FOR THE PROTESTANT POSITION?
Since the average Protestant has neither Tradition nor a centralized teaching authority, they are therefore beholden to interpret Scripture in whatever manner they deem appropriately inspired. However, this does not negate the Word of God and any good Protestant will most certainly use one verse found in Acts of the Apostles to demonstrate two things, 1) that the Early Church wasn't "Catholic" and 2) show that Catholicism isn't Scriptural.
Let's begin by looking at this ignorantly quoted verse. In Acts 11:26 which states:
"...and when he had found him he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a large number of people, and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians."
Uh, oh! You see, the disciples were called Christians NOT Catholics! It says it right there! I guess you're going to have to convert now, right? WRONG! As I stated, since our Church is the Church of history, let's first begin by observing certain historical facts and see that they lead directly to the Catholic position.
Historical Fact #1: Acts of the Apostles was written some time around the mid 60's A.D. and the book itself spans over the first 30 years of Christian history.
Just how do we know that it was written around the mid 60's? Well, to begin with there is absolutely no mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D., a very important historical fact. Another point of interest is that the Christian persecution under Nero isn't mentioned; Nero ruled from 54 A.D. to 68 A.D. with the persecution coming to a head in 64 A.D. when Rome's fire was blamed on the Christians. Additionally, there is no mention of St. Paul's death in Rome around 62 A.D. as mentioned by Eusebius in Book 2, Chapter 25 of his Church History. So, at the very least, we can say that Acts it was written between 62-64 A.D.
Why is this important? Well because if we are to take into consideration the Protestant position, then surely, we must find out what was going on in Antioch around the time Acts was written.
Historical Fact #2: St. Ignatius of Antioch was the 3rd bishop of Antioch.
Let's look a list* of the first 5 Patriarchs of Antioch:
St. Peter; 45-53 A.D.
St. Evodius; 53-68 A.D.
St. Ignatius; 68-100 A.D.
St. Heros; 100-127 A.D.
St. Corneilius; 127-151 A.D.
So, what we can clearly see is that when Acts was written, St. Evodius was the first leader of the church at Antioch after St. Peter and, St. Ignatius was the second bishop after Peter. As Eusebius states in Book 3, Chapter 22 of his Church History:
"At this time Ignatius was known as the second bishop of Antioch, Evodius having been the first. Simeon likewise was at the time the second ruler of the church of Jerusalem, the brother of our Saviour having been the first."
Later in Chapter 36, paragraph 2 he states:
"And at this time Papias, bishop of the parish in Hierapolis, became well known, as did also Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter, as who's fame is still celebrated by a great many."
Chapter 22 bears great witness to history for it is established historically that the first bishop of Jerusalem was James the Just, the same James that Paul called "the brother of our Lord" in Galatians 1:19 (James the Just IS NOT James the Apostle!). As Eusebius also states, Simeon was the second leader of Jerusalem which is also historically established. Of important note is that James the Just served as bishop of Jerusalem to about 62-65 A.D., which falls into the same time frame as the Book of Acts.
Since not very many writtings of St. Evodius have survived, it is of seminal importance to therefore look at St. Ignatius who's writings have survived to this day. St. Ignatius of Antioch was a student of John the Apostle and, as his epistles demonstrate, Ignatius most certainly thought Catholic. We clearly see that Ignatius saw the Eucharist not as bread and wine but as the actual body and blood of Christ as is written in his Epistles to the Smyrnaeans (6 & 8:1), Romans (Chapter 7), Philadelphians (4:1) and the Ephesians (20:2). He talks about the primacy of Rome in the intro to his Epistle to the Romans, additionally, in his Roman epistle it is very telling that never once does he attempt to correct nor reprimand the Roman church - unlike all of his other epistles to the other various churches. Of major importance is also the fact that he was the first Eastern patriarch that acknowledged the Church at Rome as having authority over all others. Furthermore, St. Ignatius not only knew John the Apostle but, Christian tradition maintains that he was ordained by St. Peter himself and that he was the child that Jesus called over in Matthew 18:2-4 & Mark 9:36.
Now, why is it so important as to who St. Ignatius was? Well, the fact of the matter is that he was the very first person to refer to this new and fledgling church as being "he katholikos ecclesia," that is, "the Catholic Church." In other words, demonstrating a correlation between the man who first referred to the Church as "Catholic" as well as being the head of the church where Christ's followers were first called Christians is crucial in our discussion.
Historical Fact #3: It was in Antioch that the Church of the first Christians was called Catholic.
Let's stop for a second and think about that statement and what we already know: Peter, the head of the Apostles was the first bishop of Antioch, in order to keep the church afloat he ordains St. Evodius and St. Iganatius. Peter leaves and Evodius becomes bishop of Antioch during the writting of the Books of Acts. About the time that the Book of Acts has been finished, there was a new bishop of Antioch, St. Ignatius. Under the persecution of Trajan, Ignatius writes a series of 7 letters as he is being lead to Rome to be martyred. In the 8 chapter of his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans he states the following:
"See that you follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything conncted to 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."
In other words, the leader of the church at Antioch, who was ordained by the head apostle himself and who preached out one of the biggest cities in the Roman Empire where the followers of Christ were first called Christians, was the first Church Father to use the term Catholic - which means universal - to define Christ's ONLY church! The term "Christian" had to, therefore, have been found apt and worthy by not only the faithful but by the leaders of the ONLY church dedicated to Christ; if in fact we are to take Acts 11:26 literally then we must accept that the church - which was THE ONLY source of authority at the time (no bible yet!) - had to have been okay with the usage of this term! As we shall shortly see, Ignatius wasn't in the business of accepting heretical words nor thoughts, we can thus conclude that if Ignatius used the term Catholic and the followers were called Christians at Antioch, then the Christians at Antioch were all members of the Catholic Church.
Historical Fact #4: St. Ignatius didn't tolerate heterodoxy nor heretical claims against the Church.
As stated, Antioch was one of the biggest cities of Rome at the time and the church of Antioch was home to Christian gentiles as well as numerous heretics that St. Ignatius fought. In his chapter 6 of his Epistle to the Trallians he says of heresy:
"I therefore...out of the love of Jesus Christ, entreat you that you use Christian norishment only, and abstain from herbage of a different kind; I mean heresy. For those [that] mix up Jesus Christ with their own poison [are] like those who adminster a deadly drug in sweet wine, which he who is ignorant does greedily take, with fatal pleasure leading to his own death."
In the chapters 4-7 of his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, he states the follow regarding heretics:
"...But I guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not recieve, but, if it be possible, not even meet with...I have not, however, thought good to write the names of such persons, inasmuch as they are unbelievers...if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation.
They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of his goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes."
In both of these examples, notice how he eludes to the sacrifice of the Eucharist in combatting against heresy; indeed, in chapter 11 of Trallians, he exorts the Christian faithful to repudiate the heresies of the Docetae sect, a sect that denied the Incarnation and viewed the human Jesus as less praise worthy then the divine Jesus. And in his Epistle to the Magnesians (chapter 3), Epistle to the Trallians (chapter 2), Epistle to the Philadelphians (chapter 1), Epistle to the Smyrnaeans (chapter 9) and his Epistle to Polycarp (chapter 6), he exorts the readers of his epistles to remain loyal to the bishops above all else; this is EXTREMELY telling about the nature of the early church in that the very same man that refered to this early church as "Catholic" never once appeals nor solicits his readers to use scripture alone to understand what Christ requires of them; on the contrary, he puts his readers' very souls into the hands of the bishops, i.e., the disciples of the Apostles! Very telling indeed...
At any rate, easily seen then is an orthodox bishop of one of Christianity's very first strongholds. Therefore it is very reasonable to suggest that not only were the faithful first called Christians in Antioch but, the faithful belonged to a church that it's own leader refered to it as "the Catholic Church." Furthermore, due to St.
Ignatius' steadfastness as a bishop - bishops were after all a source of authority - he must've been comfortable, as well as accepting of, the faithful laity being called Christians as well as calling the name of his beloved Church Catholic.
Why is this important? Well because if we are to take into consideration the Protestant position, then surely, we must find out what was going on in Antioch around the time Acts was written.
Historical Fact #2: St. Ignatius of Antioch was the 3rd bishop of Antioch.
Let's look a list* of the first 5 Patriarchs of Antioch:
St. Peter; 45-53 A.D.
St. Evodius; 53-68 A.D.
St. Ignatius; 68-100 A.D.
St. Heros; 100-127 A.D.
St. Corneilius; 127-151 A.D.
So, what we can clearly see is that when Acts was written, St. Evodius was the first leader of the church at Antioch after St. Peter and, St. Ignatius was the second bishop after Peter. As Eusebius states in Book 3, Chapter 22 of his Church History:
"At this time Ignatius was known as the second bishop of Antioch, Evodius having been the first. Simeon likewise was at the time the second ruler of the church of Jerusalem, the brother of our Saviour having been the first."
Later in Chapter 36, paragraph 2 he states:
"And at this time Papias, bishop of the parish in Hierapolis, became well known, as did also Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter, as who's fame is still celebrated by a great many."
Chapter 22 bears great witness to history for it is established historically that the first bishop of Jerusalem was James the Just, the same James that Paul called "the brother of our Lord" in Galatians 1:19 (James the Just IS NOT James the Apostle!). As Eusebius also states, Simeon was the second leader of Jerusalem which is also historically established. Of important note is that James the Just served as bishop of Jerusalem to about 62-65 A.D., which falls into the same time frame as the Book of Acts.
Since not very many writtings of St. Evodius have survived, it is of seminal importance to therefore look at St. Ignatius who's writings have survived to this day. St. Ignatius of Antioch was a student of John the Apostle and, as his epistles demonstrate, Ignatius most certainly thought Catholic. We clearly see that Ignatius saw the Eucharist not as bread and wine but as the actual body and blood of Christ as is written in his Epistles to the Smyrnaeans (6 & 8:1), Romans (Chapter 7), Philadelphians (4:1) and the Ephesians (20:2). He talks about the primacy of Rome in the intro to his Epistle to the Romans, additionally, in his Roman epistle it is very telling that never once does he attempt to correct nor reprimand the Roman church - unlike all of his other epistles to the other various churches. Of major importance is also the fact that he was the first Eastern patriarch that acknowledged the Church at Rome as having authority over all others. Furthermore, St. Ignatius not only knew John the Apostle but, Christian tradition maintains that he was ordained by St. Peter himself and that he was the child that Jesus called over in Matthew 18:2-4 & Mark 9:36.
Now, why is it so important as to who St. Ignatius was? Well, the fact of the matter is that he was the very first person to refer to this new and fledgling church as being "he katholikos ecclesia," that is, "the Catholic Church." In other words, demonstrating a correlation between the man who first referred to the Church as "Catholic" as well as being the head of the church where Christ's followers were first called Christians is crucial in our discussion.
Historical Fact #3: It was in Antioch that the Church of the first Christians was called Catholic.
Let's stop for a second and think about that statement and what we already know: Peter, the head of the Apostles was the first bishop of Antioch, in order to keep the church afloat he ordains St. Evodius and St. Iganatius. Peter leaves and Evodius becomes bishop of Antioch during the writting of the Books of Acts. About the time that the Book of Acts has been finished, there was a new bishop of Antioch, St. Ignatius. Under the persecution of Trajan, Ignatius writes a series of 7 letters as he is being lead to Rome to be martyred. In the 8 chapter of his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans he states the following:
"See that you follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything conncted to 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."
In other words, the leader of the church at Antioch, who was ordained by the head apostle himself and who preached out one of the biggest cities in the Roman Empire where the followers of Christ were first called Christians, was the first Church Father to use the term Catholic - which means universal - to define Christ's ONLY church! The term "Christian" had to, therefore, have been found apt and worthy by not only the faithful but by the leaders of the ONLY church dedicated to Christ; if in fact we are to take Acts 11:26 literally then we must accept that the church - which was THE ONLY source of authority at the time (no bible yet!) - had to have been okay with the usage of this term! As we shall shortly see, Ignatius wasn't in the business of accepting heretical words nor thoughts, we can thus conclude that if Ignatius used the term Catholic and the followers were called Christians at Antioch, then the Christians at Antioch were all members of the Catholic Church.
Historical Fact #4: St. Ignatius didn't tolerate heterodoxy nor heretical claims against the Church.
As stated, Antioch was one of the biggest cities of Rome at the time and the church of Antioch was home to Christian gentiles as well as numerous heretics that St. Ignatius fought. In his chapter 6 of his Epistle to the Trallians he says of heresy:
"I therefore...out of the love of Jesus Christ, entreat you that you use Christian norishment only, and abstain from herbage of a different kind; I mean heresy. For those [that] mix up Jesus Christ with their own poison [are] like those who adminster a deadly drug in sweet wine, which he who is ignorant does greedily take, with fatal pleasure leading to his own death."
In the chapters 4-7 of his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, he states the follow regarding heretics:
"...But I guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not recieve, but, if it be possible, not even meet with...I have not, however, thought good to write the names of such persons, inasmuch as they are unbelievers...if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation.
They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of his goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes."
In both of these examples, notice how he eludes to the sacrifice of the Eucharist in combatting against heresy; indeed, in chapter 11 of Trallians, he exorts the Christian faithful to repudiate the heresies of the Docetae sect, a sect that denied the Incarnation and viewed the human Jesus as less praise worthy then the divine Jesus. And in his Epistle to the Magnesians (chapter 3), Epistle to the Trallians (chapter 2), Epistle to the Philadelphians (chapter 1), Epistle to the Smyrnaeans (chapter 9) and his Epistle to Polycarp (chapter 6), he exorts the readers of his epistles to remain loyal to the bishops above all else; this is EXTREMELY telling about the nature of the early church in that the very same man that refered to this early church as "Catholic" never once appeals nor solicits his readers to use scripture alone to understand what Christ requires of them; on the contrary, he puts his readers' very souls into the hands of the bishops, i.e., the disciples of the Apostles! Very telling indeed...
At any rate, easily seen then is an orthodox bishop of one of Christianity's very first strongholds. Therefore it is very reasonable to suggest that not only were the faithful first called Christians in Antioch but, the faithful belonged to a church that it's own leader refered to it as "the Catholic Church." Furthermore, due to St.
Ignatius' steadfastness as a bishop - bishops were after all a source of authority - he must've been comfortable, as well as accepting of, the faithful laity being called Christians as well as calling the name of his beloved Church Catholic.
THE PROTESTANT REBUTTAL
"Just because Ignatius uses the word 'Catholic,' doesn't mean that the faithful at Antioch were anything like modern day Catholics. Catholic means universal, so he means to say that the faithful church of Antioch enjoyed being part of the Body of Christ."
Wrong, to state this is not to know who St. Ignatius was. As seen earlier, Ignatius stated that he believed that the Eucharist was the body of our Saviour, exactly the same as modernday Catholics. If there is any doubt of this, a quick reading of chapter 4 of his Epistles to the Philadelphians should set aside any disbeliefs.
"Ignatius is proof that the early church was pure until Catholicism crept in and started to pollute it. By your very own definition, you put Ignatius AFTER the writing of the Books of Acts, therefore, 'Catholicism' came AFTER true Christianity."
I'd say the opposite, it's clear that the early church was Catholic until heresy crept in and divided the Body of Christ! Anyone who says the aforementioned has to deal with the following questions:
1) Did Peter, who ordained Ignatius, fail in keeping true to what Jesus told him and the other Apostles in John 14:26? Did Peter mistakenly ordain a future heretic? If so, then how sure are you that 1 & 2 Peter don't have any mistakes in them and how do you know?
2) Ignatius' letters prove in the existence of the belief of Christ IN the Eucharist BEFORE he was martyred, can you prove that Ignatius "invented" this belief as he wrote his letters on his way to Rome for martyrdom?
3) If Ignatius' "Catholicity" did polluted the early church, then how is it that the 7th Patriarch of Antioch, Theophilus, was the very first Early Church Father who used the word "Trinity" to describe the relationship that God has within himself as early as 181 A.D.? Was Theophilus futher polluting Christianity when he "invented" this term in Book I of his Apology to Autolycus? Isn't it interesting that St. Ignatius writting 80 years before him in his Epistle to the Magnesians mentions:
"...Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time (chapter 6)...Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father, and is with and has gone to Him (chapter 7)...that so all things whatsoever you do, may prosper both in flesh and in spirit; in faith and love; in the Son and in the Father and in the Spirit (chapter 13)..."
In other words, St. Ignatius also drew upon basic knowledge as well as the inpired oral Tradition to make a very early attempt at reconciling the 3 persons of the Godhead. I would at this point suggest that Theophilus, writing one generation after Ignatius, as the new leader at Antioch, was simply echoing the teaching of the early Church at Antioch as it was passed on to him; Theophilus took this traditional concept to the next level when he formed the foundation of what would eventually become the Doctrine of the Trinity.
Therefore, I would like to ask: Is the Doctrine of the Trinity a pollution of Christianity that came 80 years after Ignatius? Or was this somehow inspired by the Holy Spirit - the same Holy Spirit that mistakenly inspired Peter to ordain a heretic, right? Isn't it interesting that the Doctrine of the Trinity was made dogma by a council of church leaders and not by using scripture alone?
While it's true that Ignatius wrote after the Book of Acts, it is crystal clear that he already had certain Catholic notions as we was being led to Rome for execution. So, if Ignatius was a heretic, then why did he have so much fame both during and after his life by the early Christians? If he was a heretic, why would the early church have circulated his epistles to the point that, at one time, they were up for consideration to be placed in the Bible? Why would the early Church even retain such documents that came from the mind of a heretic?
CONCLUSION
As clearly seen, it was from the leader of the church in Antioch that the church was first called Catholic and it was from Antioch that the followers of Christ were called Christians; as already stated, these Christians belonged to the early Catholic Church.
No comments:
Post a Comment