Meaning of "one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church"

[spl_cadet]

"We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church." First Nicean Council

Catholics claim that this refers to the Catholic Church (commonly known as the Roman Catholic Church), Protestants say that it refers simply to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is not also an institutional Church, though there is the question of how or why the Mystical Body of Christ would be apostolic.

"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. For 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. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard" (St. Augustine, The True Religion 7:12)

[Solly]

"We believe in one - Christ's body is one, and all who are united to him are one. Eph 4.4

holy - set apart, separated from the world, and sin. Sanctified by his blood.

catholic - universal, that which appears everywhere

and apostolic Church. - Acts 2.42, Eph 2.20

[spl_cadet]

Yet the quote from Augustine clearly shows that the word Catholic, while a general description, was also a specific term for Christ's Church.

[Ulmo]

Yet the quote from Augustine clearly shows that the word Catholic, while a general description, was also a specific term for Christ's Church.

Catholic- yes
Roman Catholic- no

[spl_cadet]

And you back that assertion up how? By asserting that somehow St. Augustine was not a Roman Catholic?

[Rusty T]

He's a Saint in the Eastern church as well.

my .02

Rusty

[themuzicman]

Yeah, the Catholic church may have been fairly universal until the schism, but at that point, neither church had an exclusive claim to "catholic", even though they'd been engaged in a power struggle to take charge of Christ's church for many centuries.

However, after much struggle and error, the catholic church became many smaller pieces, with the advent of protestantism, which was an unhappy but necessary development, given the state of the two major parties attempting to wrest control of the catholic church from Christ.

And, as such, the Catholic in the Roman Catholic Church is simply a wish of what could have been, had they let Christ run His church, instead of the Pope.

Likewise with the "Orthodox" in Eastern Orthodox.

Certainly it would be wonderful to see a unity in fellowship between churches, but I fear that the pride of men will prevent it, until Christ comes again.

Michael

[elysian]

And you back that assertion up how? By asserting that somehow St. Augustine was not a Roman Catholic?

Some of Augustine's ideas are actually more congruent with Lutheranism (http://orthodoxlutheran.fws1.com/relations/Augustine.html) than with today's Roman Catholicism. After all, Luther was an Augustianian monk.

[Rusty T]

The Eastern Orthodox do not acknowledge a branch theory, or that Christ's church has been "broke up". In fact, "we" have another name. It's the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. It's unfortunate that politics, personalities, and Satan have taken many away from Orthodox beliefs. In fact, we pray each Sunday that all may be one. But Christ's Church is still Catholic, it is still present and true and real and vibrant. There has not been a more persecuted group of Christians in history, yet our Church remains - because even the gates of Hell cannot prevail.

I hate to quote Fr. Hopko so much, but his introductory texts to the Orthodox Church are so succinct. Here's his wonderful passage describing what Catholic means:

Even before the Church was spread over the world, it was defined as catholic. The original Jerusalem Church of the apostles, or the early city-churches of Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, or Rome, were catholic. These churches were catholic -- as is each and every Orthodox church today -- because nothing essential was lacking for them to be the genuine Church of Christ. God Himself is fully revealed and present in each church through Christ and the Holy Spirit, acting in the local community of believers with its apostolic doctrine, ministry (hierarchy), and sacraments, thus requiring nothing to be added to it in order for it to participate fully in the Kingdom of God.
To believe in the Church as catholic, therefore, is to express the conviction that the fullness of God is present in the Church and that nothing of the "abundant life" that Christ gives to the world in the Spirit is lacking to it (Jn 10:10). It is to confess exactly that the Church is indeed "the fullness of him who fills all in all" (Eph 1:23; also Col 2:10).

[VFarris01]

Exactly when did Jesus Christ established the Roman Catholic Church? Can anyone quote me some evidence?


after much struggle and error, the catholic church became many smaller pieces, with the advent of protestantism, which was an unhappy but necessary development, given the state of the two major parties attempting to wrest control of the catholic church from Christ.

And, as such, the Catholic in the Roman Catholic Church is simply a wish of what could have been, had they let Christ run His church, instead of the Pope.The bishop of Rome wanted all of the "power" for himself (Peter was NEVER the bishop of Rome BTW for all you RCs out there.).

[Ulmo]

And you back that assertion up how? By asserting that somehow St. Augustine was not a Roman Catholic?
I think we are somehow hung up on terms. Augustine, the ECFs, and all belivers are catholic. The church was "one" catholic till 1054, aside from heritical movments like the Arianism. After that time you still had the catholic church, one east, the other west. It was'nt till the Protestant Reformation and the counter response of Trent that you have what you now know as the ROMAN Catholic Church.
Again as others have so aptly put catholic means universal.
To underline this point, the first recorded use of the term was by Ignatius of Antioch(c.112) in his letter to the church in Smyrna. He wrote, "Wherever Christ is, there is the catholic church"

[Ulmo]

Exactly when did Jesus Christ established the Roman Catholic Church? Can anyone quote me some evidence?

The bishop of Rome wanted all of the "power" for himself (Peter was NEVER the bishop of Rome BTW for all you RCs out there.).

Are you sure you'r not Jude3b.

[smilax]

A slightly different approach...

See John Zizioulas's Eucharist, Bishop, Church. Merely reducing "catholic" to "universal" does not do justice to the pre-Augustinian usage of the word. He contends that in the first three centuries, the word "catholic" generally refers to the local church partaking in eucharistic celebration. "Katholikos" comes from "kath' holou," "of the whole," so the local church is the "catholic" ("whole" or "full") church in that it is not merely part of a larger institution, but embodies completely everything that Scripture says of "the church." The term gradually changed in meaning because of its juxtaposition against rival groups, i.e. the catholic church versus the heretical and schismatic churches.

Zizioulas rejects the idea that the church can be legitimately defined merely historically, i.e. by appeals to apostolic succession. There must also be an eschatological dimension to the church, which is brought about by the Spirit working in and through the sacraments. In this way, the institution of the church is to be distinguished from its constitution. To do otherwise forces a wedge between Pneumatology and ecclesiology.

Needless to say, if Zizioulas is to be believed, we have a problem for Roman Catholic ecclesiology, (or any ecclesiology that is institutional rather than sacramental in essence.) No less a Roman Catholic theologian than Henri de Lubac in his The Motherhood of the Church recognizes a distinction between "catholic" and "universal" as well: "'Catholic' says something more and different: it suggests the idea of an organic whole, of a cohesion, of a firm synthesis, of a reality which is not scattered but, on the contrary, turned toward a center which assures its unity, whatever the expanse in area or the internal differentiation might be." That center is (equivocally) the bishop, the eucharist, and, of course, Christ Himself. "Catholic" has the sense of fullness gathered together, whereas "universal" has the sense of scattering apart.

So "catholic" has to do with the efficacy of the Lord's supper to constitute the fullness of the church within a local congregation as per I Corinthians x, 16-17. (Hence "ekklesia" in the singular refers to a local body, and never a region or diocese as in modern denominational nomenclature. There is one church per city, and when dealing with a region like Galatia, we can only speak of plural "churches.") This does not allow for subordination of churches, e.g. the primacy of Rome.

Martyrdom of Polycarp 16: "All the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the catholic church which is in Smyrna."

"The universal church in Smyrna," or "the full church in Smyrna"?

19: "For, having through patience overcome the unjust governor, and thus acquired the crown of immortality, he now, with the apostles and all the righteous in heaven, rejoicingly glorifies God, even the Father, and blesses our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of our souls, the Governor of our bodies, and the Shepherd of the catholic church throughout the world."

Zizioulas notes that if "catholic" means "universal," then the clause "throughout the world" is redundant. In his model, this refers rather to the fullness of the one eschatological church, which every local congregation manifests in the supper. An analogy to the Trinity may be drawn: the Father is fully God, the Son is fully God, and the Spirit is fully God, just as the church in Jerusalem is fully the church, the church in Antioch is fully the church, and the church in Rome is fully the church.

If this is the case, then "catholicity" cannot be defined only in terms of historical continuity.

[Rushing Jaws]

A slightly different approach...

See John Zizioulas's Eucharist, Bishop, Church. Merely reducing "catholic" to "universal" does not do justice to the pre-Augustinian usage of the word. He contends that in the first three centuries, the word "catholic" generally refers to the local church partaking in eucharistic celebration. "Katholikos" comes from "kath' holou," "of the whole," so the local church is the "catholic" ("whole" or "full") church in that it is not merely part of a larger institution, but embodies completely everything that Scripture says of "the church." The term gradually changed in meaning because of its juxtaposition against rival groups, i.e. the catholic church versus the heretical and schismatic churches.

Zizioulas rejects the idea that the church can be legitimately defined merely historically, i.e. by appeals to apostolic succession. There must also be an eschatological dimension to the church, which is brought about by the Spirit working in and through the sacraments. In this way, the institution of the church is to be distinguished from its constitution. To do otherwise forces a wedge between Pneumatology and ecclesiology.

Needless to say, if Zizioulas is to be believed, we have a problem for Roman Catholic ecclesiology, (or any ecclesiology that is institutional rather than sacramental in essence.) No less a Roman Catholic theologian than Henri de Lubac in his The Motherhood of the Church recognizes a distinction between "catholic" and "universal" as well: "'Catholic' says something more and different: it suggests the idea of an organic whole, of a cohesion, of a firm synthesis, of a reality which is not scattered but, on the contrary, turned toward a center which assures its unity, whatever the expanse in area or the internal differentiation might be." That center is (equivocally) the bishop, the eucharist, and, of course, Christ Himself. "Catholic" has the sense of fullness gathered together, whereas "universal" has the sense of scattering apart.

## "Scattered", only in the sense of being "dispersed throughout the world :smile:

I can't imagine for one second that the Church is an institution, *unless* one understands the visibility of the Church as a manifestation of its being "incarnate" in the world; IOW, as a manifestation of its sacramental character.

Otherwise, IMO, it would be just one more earthly power - but that would make it something other than the seed of the Kingdom of God; which would fit very badly with "RC" teaching: especially that of Vatican II. ##


So "catholic" has to do with the efficacy of the Lord's supper to constitute the fullness of the church within a local congregation as per I Corinthians x, 16-17. (Hence "ekklesia" in the singular refers to a local body, and never a region or diocese as in modern denominational nomenclature. There is one church per city, and when dealing with a region like Galatia, we can only speak of plural "churches.") This does not allow for subordination of churches, e.g. the primacy of Rome.

Martyrdom of Polycarp 16: "All the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the catholic church which is in Smyrna."

"The universal church in Smyrna," or "the full church in Smyrna"?

19: "For, having through patience overcome the unjust governor, and thus acquired the crown of immortality, he now, with the apostles and all the righteous in heaven, rejoicingly glorifies God, even the Father, and blesses our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of our souls, the Governor of our bodies, and the Shepherd of the catholic church throughout the world."

Zizioulas notes that if "catholic" means "universal," then the clause "throughout the world" is redundant. In his model, this refers rather to the fullness of the one eschatological church, which every local congregation manifests in the supper. An analogy to the Trinity may be drawn: the Father is fully God, the Son is fully God, and the Spirit is fully God, just as the church in Jerusalem is fully the church, the church in Antioch is fully the church, and the church in Rome is fully the church.

If this is the case, then "catholicity" cannot be defined only in terms of historical continuity.

## Most certainly it can't - that would be a sort of materialism. like having a purely human Christ :smile: (It goes without saying that it is Christ Who is the Primordial & Exemplar Sacrament.) ##

[smilax]

## Most certainly it can't - that would be a sort of materialism. like having a purely human Christ :smile: (It goes without saying that it is Christ Who is the Primordial & Exemplar Sacrament.) ##And I do believe an Incarnational ecclesiology is a much needed corrective to a lot of the bureaucratic nonsense that exists these days.

On the same token, any theory of an "invisible church," if by this we mean something independent of and parallel to the "visible church," would be essentially Docetic, which is much more of a temptation for Protestants.

[Jezz]

...though there is the question of how or why the Mystical Body of Christ would be apostolic.
If you thought about this for half a second, the answer to this question would come to you. Apostolic = "adhering to the teachings of the apostles". (Disclaimer: I believe in the usefulness of apostolic succession and believe that all churches should have it. I just wanted to point out that this was yet another feeble,


"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. For 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. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard" (St. Augustine, The True Religion 7:12)
Of course, the Church was also called "Orthodox" (= right worship/glory) as a way of distinguishing the Nicenes from the Arians. Being "catholic" is pretty useless unless the church is also "orthodox" - it's no good universally (ie, catholically) worshipping God the wrong way (ie, non-orthodox).

[Rusty T]

I'm reading John Zizioulas's Being As Communion right now. Perhaps a little too advanced for me, but he's a good author (as well as being the Metropolitan of Pergamon in the Orthodox Church). I've also started Alexander Schmemann's For the Life of the World which came heavily recommended- it too is about the Sacramental being of the Church.

Two thumbs up, Smilax.

Rusty

[VFarris01]

Are you sure you'r not Jude3b.I am sure I am not J3b, but thank you for the complement.

This all must be a "creed thing." Nowhere in the Bible is the church said to be or implied to be "one, holy, Catholic and apostolic;" this is a RC thing.

Nowhere in the Bible is the church said to be the Roman, Orthodox, or Lutheran church... it is said to be "the church of God" (1 Corinthians 1:2, 10:32, 11:22, 15:9, 2 Corinthians 1:1, Galatians 1:13, and 1 Timothy 3:5) and the church of Christ (Romans 16:16).

[Jude3b]

There is no "Catholic" church or "Roman Catholic" church mentioned in scripture.

"Despise ye the church of God?"

(I Cor. 1:2; 11:22; 2 Cor. 1:1, etc. will show you the church name for the body of Christ, and its not Roman Catholic!)

[Rusty T]

Catholic is an adjective - not a Title.

[VFarris01]

Catholic is an adjective - not a Title.My dictionary must be different...

Catholic Church n. The Roman Catholic Church.

Roman Catholic Church n. the Christian church that is characterized by... (need I go on?).

When a word is used within a title, no matter what part of speech it started out as, it "becomes" a noun.

[Rusty T]

"I believe in one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." Now, why doesn't the Roman Catholic Church call itself by this Title?

[spl_cadet]

"I believe in one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." Now, why doesn't the Roman Catholic Church call itself by this Title?

We do. However, that isn't the popular usage, similar to how the popular name for the Eastern Churches is Eastern Orthodox though they claim the same title.

[elysian]

The holy, catholic and apostolic church consists of the Body of Christ, i.e. all baptized believers.

Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.
And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4, 5. 6.

So it's not a question of the Roman Catholic Church, or the Eastern Orthodox, or the Lutheran Church or even Rev. Willie Johnson's Apostolic Holiness Church- it's the Body of Christ: all baptized Christian believers.

[Dave G]

When a word is used within a title, no matter what part of speech it started out as, it "becomes" a noun.
:rofl:

[spl_cadet]

Both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches believe themselves to be the Body of Christ however.

[elysian]

Both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches believe themselves to be the Body of Christ however.


Shhhh...don't tell that to our friends in the Missouri Synod... :lol:

[spl_cadet]

Shhhh...don't tell that to our friends in the Missouri Synod... :lol:

They still hold to the belief that the pope is the anti-Christ :ahem:

[VFarris01]

:rofl:What do you find so funny?

Though "technically" still an adjective, catholic, when used in a title (titles are "proper" nouns) such as "The Roman Catholic Church" is part of a "proper" noun and is both an adjective (because is modifies "church") and a noun because it is a part of the "proper" noun "The Roman Catholic Church."

[elysian]

They still hold to the belief that the pope is the anti-Christ :ahem:

In all fairness there are varying opinions in the Missouri Synod on that issue. I have heard some in the MS who are opposed to any kind of ecumenism (the word they use is "syncretism") and believe that there is no salvation outside of the Missouri Synod. That's the really extreme view- the ones who do not recognize other Lutherans who belong to other church bodies as being confessional. Most people in the MS are not that inflexible, but they do tend to be far more rigid in their interpretation of both the Confessions and of Scripture than those in the ELCA (the majority of American Lutherans.)

The leadership of the ELCA tends to be extremely liberal (though this is slowly changing) but individual congregations vary from extremely conservative (to the point of being "ethnic preservation societies") to extremely liberal. Most are of some degree of "moderate." I would say my own church would be in the "leans to the right" category but not extreme. I am conservative for an ELCA Lutheran and could likely fit in to a Missouri Synod church easily, but I belong in the church where I am until the Holy Spirit reveals otherwise.

So not all MS Lutherans believe the Pope is the Anti-Christ, and even though it's not the official stance of the ELCA, I would wager there are some ELCA Lutherans who do think the Pope is the Anti-Christ. Personally I think he's a good guy and he's done a lot for the relationship between RC's and Protestants. He's a good Christian in other words, and we regard him simply as the Bishop of Rome.

[spl_cadet]

He's a good Christian in other words, and we regard him simply as the Bishop of Rome.

You don't also regard him as Archbishop of the Roman Province, Primate of Italy, and sole Patriarch of the West, and as Soveriegn of the Holy See? :teeth:

[Rusty T]

But you missed the point. You asked why the term Catholic isn't in the Bible, but that's like asking why the word "Trinity" isn't in the Bible. The concept is there.

[Dave G]

What do you find so funny?

Though "technically" still an adjective, catholic, when used in a title (titles are "proper" nouns) such as "The Roman Catholic Church" is part of a "proper" noun and is both an adjective (because is modifies "church") and a noun because it is a part of the "proper" noun "The Roman Catholic Church." I realize this is going off topic, but since you asked me a question...

Both Roman and Catholic would be proper adjectives. The proper noun is The Church. Proper adjectives are necessary for the title to be distinguished from other churches. I suspect usage makes it easier for a dictionary to define what is essentially a noun phrase without the determiner as a single noun, but that is only a guess.

I do believe, however, that your insistence that the adjective is both an adjective and a noun (a proper adjective and a proper noun? Would that more accurately represent your argument, as long as the word is both?) is simply an assertion. Unless you can give a source that says an adjective in a title functions as both. I tried to find one myself, no luck.


When a word is used within a title, no matter what part of speech it started out as, it "becomes" a noun. You left out the quote that made me laugh. There are only certain types of proper adjectives, place names being one of them. Like Roman. You seem to think any part of speech can be used in a title. What about a possessive, like "yours?" The First National Yours Bank. Or maybe a pronoun. The Lakeridge It Baptist Church.

You can look up the rules for proper nouns and proper adjectives if you like.

And you should be "careful" emphasizing "too many" "words," or you might "break" a finger.

:smile: