EUCHARIST, BISHOP, CHURCH: THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH IN THE DIVINE EUCHARIST AND THE BISHOP DURING THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES
PART II
FORMATION
Unity in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop, and the Formation of the "Catholic Church"
Chapter
Two:
THE DIVINE EUCHARIST, THE BISHOP AND THE UNITY OF THE
"
THE IMPLICATIONS OF UNITY IN THE
EUCHARIST AND THE BISHOP FOR THE FORMATION OF THE
The fact that each Church was united in one Eucharist
"which is under the leadership of the Bishop" had a decisive influence on the
formation of the Catholic Church during the first three centuries. Already from
its first appearance in the sources, the term "Catholic Church" is inseparably
bound up with the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop who led it. This is attested
by the well-known passage from St Ignatius' Epistle to the Smyrneans:
“See that you all follow the Bishop, as Christ does the Father, and the
presbyterium as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as a command
of God. Let no one do anything connected with the Church without the Bishop,
Let that be considered a certain (bebaia) Eucharist which is under the
leadership of the Bishop, or one to whom he has entrusted it.
Wherever the Bishop appears, there let the multitude of the people be; just as
wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the catholic Church. It is not
permitted without the Bishop either to baptize or to celebrate an agape;
but whatever he shall approve of, that is well-pleasing also to God, so that
everything that is done may be assured and certain”.103
The connection to be observed in this fundamental
passage between the term "Catholic Church" and the Eucharist "under the
leadership of the Bishop," gives rise to the following question: what is the
relationship between unity in the Eucharist and in the Bishop and the
catholicity of the Church in the first three centuries of the formation of the
Catholic Church? In order to give an answer to this question, it is necessary,
first, to define the content of the term "Catholic Church" on the basis of the
sources from the first three centuries. This content is usually taken by
scholars to be self-evident, and this perhaps accounts for the fact that at
least so far as we know no one has yet fully examined the history of this term
on the basis of the sources. But any conclusions as to the formation of the
Catholic Church which are not based on the history of the term "catholic church"
cannot be reliable. This is why we need to look closely at the influence of
unity in the Eucharist and the Bishop on the formation of the Catholic Church on
the basis of the history of the term "catholic church." This will oblige us,
more particularly, to examine the relationship of the unity of the Church in the
Eucharist and in the Bishop to:
a) the
catholicity of each local Church,
b) the
position of the Catholic Church viv-a-vis heresies and schisms, and
c) the
unity of the "Catholic Church throughout the world."
These three themes cover all aspects of the "Catholic
Church," as will be shown in our investigation of the history of this term.
1. The Divine Eucharist, the Bishop and the catholicity
of the local Church
It is the prevailing view that the term "Catholic
Church" denotes principally the universal or world-wide Church, and refers to
the local Church only secondarily and by extension. This view, which has become
established in recent years when cosmopolitan ideals have formed in people's
consciousness the scheme of "locality" versus "universality,"104 has its roots in the time and the theology of the Blessed Augustine who
was the first to give the catholicity of the Church the sense par excellence of
"universality."105 But if we examine the sources of the first three centuries carefully, we
shall see that the catholicity of the Church did not make its appearance as a
geographical or quantitative notion, and should, therefore, not be tied in
principle to the world-wide or universal character of the Church.106 In order to define the exact content of
this term, we must begin with the supplementary question of the ancient Greek
language from which church literature borrowed this term and the primary
question of the ecclesioiogy of St Ignatius in whose work this term first
occurs. Thereafter we shall need to compare the meaning given to the term by St
Ignatius with the ecclesioiogy of the generations preceding him from whom he
draws his conceptions of catholicity and also with that of later times in which
his influence was decisive especially as regards the connection of the term
"Catholic Church" with each local Church.
1. The adjective katholiké in Greek comes
from the Aristotelian sense of kath'olou, which is used by
Aristotle sometimes in contradistinction to
ßï kata
meros107
and sometimes to kath' ekaston,
108 understood not only as an adverb but also
as an adjective of manner so that it can mean the same as the adjective
katholikos.
109 Aristotle did not give katholou
a geographical sense so as to mean "world-wide" or "universal" nor a
quantitative sense which would take it to mean a sum or total of the
"particulars" (epi merous or kath' ekaston). It is notable that whenever
he defines it he gives it a qualitative sense denoting what is
full, whole, general or common: "That which is true of a whole class
and is said to hold good as a whole (which implies that it is a kind of whole),
is true of a whole in the sense that it contains many things by being predicated
of each, and by ail of them (e.g. man, horse, god) being severally one single
thing, because all are living things."110 Aristotle precludes the geographical or
quantitative sense of katholou still more clearly when he uses the
example: "As 'man' belongs to the general (kath' olou) and
'Kallias' to the particular (kath' ekaston)."
111 Through the comparison of the "general" (katholou)
with man in a generic sense and of the particular (kath' ekaston)
with the particular human being, the meaning of the term katholikos
becomes clear. The kath' ekaston is in no way a segment of the
katholou, but constitutes its actual concrete form. Each actual man
is as much full man as is man in a generic sense {katholou), which
he encompasses in himself, constituting the only actual, personal expression it
has in space and time.
This sense of the term katholou or
katholikos was preserved after Aristotle, as its use by Polybius,112 Dionysius of
2. Of Christian literature, neither the New Testament
nor the Septuagint uses the term "Catholic Church." The
which he conceived of and expressed the unity of the
Church in his time as revolving around two centres: the Bishop for the local
Church, and Christ for the universal Church. In keeping with this interpr
In parallel, there developed the view that
katholou and epi merous in the consciousness of the early
Church were used express not so much as an opposition between locality and
universality, but mainly as an opposition between the Church and the heresies or
schisms: the Catholic Church represents the whole, in contrast with the heresies
and schisms which represent the part. Thus "catholicity" can also be applied to
the local Church. The assumption underlying this view is that the term appears
in the texts from the beginning in a sense of opposition to heresy and schism,
and its ultimate conclusion is that for the early Church catholicity meant
orthodoxy.124
Beginning with an examination of these presuppositions,
we observe that the scheme of an antithesis between locality and universality,
often used to interpret the early Church's self-awareness, represents, as we
have already observed,125 a later, cosmopolitan outlook foreign to the mentality of the early
Church. For precisely this reason, it is very risky to begin an investigation
into the origins of catholicity with the scheme "locality versus universality."
The other idea, according to which the consciousness regarding catholicity was
born out of the Church's polemic against heresy and schism, makes an equally
risky starting-point for research, because there is nothing to convince us that
Ignatius - our most ancient reliable source - uses the term to make a
distinction between the "catholic" Church and the heresies. As the whole of the
eighth chapter of the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans testifies, Ignatius is referring
to those within the Church not those outside. It is necessary, then, to pose
anew the question: what content has the catholicity of the Church according to
Ignatius?
In the text where the term "Catholic Church" first
occurs, we observe that it is talking about being devoted to the Bishop as
Christ showed Himself devoted to the Father, and to the presbyters as to
Apostles, and to the deacons as to a "command of God." Nothing relating to the
Church can exist without the Bishop. The only assured (vevaia)
Eucharist is that which is performed by the Bishop or his representative.
Wherever the Bishop appears, there should the local Church ("the multitude of
the people")126
be, exactly as where Jesus Christ is, there is the "Catholic Church." It is not
permitted either to baptize or to "celebrate an agape" without the
Bishop. But whatever he approves, this is well-pleasing also to God so that
whatever is done may be assured and certain. It is quite obvious that the whole
text refers to the unity of the local Church which revolves around the Bishop.127 It is he that sums up and incarnates the
entire unity of the local Church. Whatever takes place, and above all those
elements which are expressions par excellence of unity, namely baptism, the
agape and the Divine Eucharist, acquire ecclesial substance (they are "assured
and certain") only when they are expressed through the Bishop. This is summed up
in the phrase: "where the Bishop is, there is the multitude," i.e. the local
Church. But Ignatius also adds to this conclusion the comparison: "just as
wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." What is the meaning of
this "just as" (hosper) placed between the local Church and the "catholic"
Church? Does it introduce a relationship to a reality different from what
precedes, or is it an expression of the same thing in another form?
Linguistically, either sense is possible. The "just as" can mean either that the
local Church is united around the Bishop whereas the Catholic Church is united
around Christ, or that the local Church constitutes a reality exactly the same
as that of the Catholic Church. Therefore, no definitive conclusion can be drawn
from the narrow hermeneutic method. This passage has to be placed in the more
general context of Ignatius's thought (broader hermeneutic method) and then
within the historical reality of its period (historical method) in order for
definite conclusions to be drawn.
We begin with the question: how does Ignatius
understand the local Church and its relation to the Church generally? First of
all, we observe that he, too, uses the Pauline phraseology128 and speaks of the Church "which is" in a
certain city,
129 and, as we have seen, refers clearly to
one Eucharist in each city. It is, however, striking the way he
describes each local Church at the beginning of his letters. In the Epistle to
the Ephesians, for instance, he writes: "Ignatius who is also called the
God-bearer, to the Church which is in Ephesus in Asia, deservedly most happy,
being blessed in the greatness and fullness of God the Father, and
predestined before the ages for an enduring and unchangeable glory, united and
chosen through the true passion and through the will of the Father and
of Jesus Christ our God."130 The
Having just described the unity of the local Church as
the unity of the Church with Christ and of Christ with the Father,132
Ignatius writes: "Let no one deceive himself: if anyone is not within the altar,
he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or
two possesses such power, how much more does that of the Bishop and the
whole Church? Therefore he who does not come into the same place
{epi to auto) has already shown pride and passed judgement on himself,
for it is written, 'God opposes the proud'. Let us be careful, therefore, not to
oppose the Bishop, that we may be subject to God.
133 This passage is of great importance
because it is so comprehensive. Coming immediately after the description of the
unity of the local Church as expressing the unity of the Church with Christ and
of Christ with the Father, in a certain sense it provides an analysis of the
elements which make up this unity by virtue of which the local Church is
identified with the whole Church. We should, therefore, take these elements one
by one and examine them.
At the centre of all Ignatius' thinking, lies the
Divine Eucharist. Coming together, epi to auto, is the usual
expression to indicate the Divine Eucharist,134
and here it is quite clear that this is what it means. The Divine Eucharist is
Ignatius's passion.135
He advises the faithful to come together frequently to celebrate it.136 This insistence on Ignatius's part seems
to stem from his ecclesiology.137 The Divine Eucharist is the body of Christ, the very flesh of the
historical Christ which suffered and is risen.138 The unity of the Church should be not only
spiritual, he says, but also physical.139 Through this physical unity which is
realized in the Divine Eucharist, the local Church takes on historical
substance. This is also why he identifies the local Church with the gathering
for the Divine Eucharist, and not simply the local Church, but the "
Both the local Church and the "
The Divine Eucharist is closely bound up with the
Bishop as he is in turn with "the whole Church." These elements are so
deeply bound up with one another that they are not clearly distinguished in
Ignatius' thought. Thus, when he is talking about the Altar, he suddenly
introduces the prayer of the Bishop and of the whole Church. And when he is
saying that one who does not participate in the Divine Eucharist is showing
pride, he immediately adds that in order to avoid pride we should be subject to
the Bishop. He indicates the same connection of the Altar with the Bishop more
clearly when he says that anyone who does something "apart from the Bishop and
the presbyters and the deacons" is the same as one who is outside the Altar.146 This most profound bond between Bishop and Eucharist in Ignatius'
thought has as a consequence another, more striking identification: the
Bishop is identified with the entire local Church. Thus, we reach the
classic passage "where the Bishop is, there is the multitude..." Judging from
the whole of Ignatius' theology, it appears that this passage does not have a
merely hortatory sense - or if it has such a sense, it is no more than an
expression and affirmation of a reality which is understood ontologically.
Ignatius does not hesitate to say that the whole multitude, i.e. the whole local
Church, appears before him in the person of the Bishop.147
The "whole multitude" of the
"Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude be,"
because according to Ignatius the Bishop incarnates the multitude, the local
Church. But the local Church is a full, complete entity, the whole
What we have said already sets out the essence of the
"catholicization" of the Church. The further consequences of these statements
are drawn out by Ignatius himself. The unity of the Church is not simply
Eucharistic, but because of the relation of the Bishop to the Eucharist it
becomes hierarchical as well. The Church of the Philadelphians realizes her
"oneness" when she is "with the Bishop and the presbyters and deacons who are
with him."157 Not only that, but the community cannot even be called a church
without the clergy, i.e. the Bishop, presbyters and deacons: "without
these, it cannot be called a church."158
The further consequences now follow naturally: whatever
is accomplished in the Church is valid only when it is approved by the Bishop.159 The Bishop is not from men or through men,
but from Christ.160 And unity around the Bishop is not the will of man, but the "voice of
God161.
The Bishop, in other words, is appointed as such by divine law, and unity around
him is recognized as the will not of man but of God. Thus the "catholicization"
of the Church leads to the sequence: will (gnomé) of the Father -
will of Jesus Christ - will of the Bishop.162 The Catholic Church, as the whole Church, is such by virtue of the fact
that she has the whole Christ. But the local Church too is likewise
catholic, because she has the whole Christ through the Divine Eucharist. The
Bishop as being directly connected with the Divine Eucharist represents
the local Church in the same way as the whole Christ represents the generic (katholou)
or catholic Church. But given that both the whole Christ and the Bishop
are connected with the Church in the Divine Eucharist, the kath' olou or
Catholic Church is to be found where the Divine Euchanst and the Bishop
are. Thus the Bishop, as it has been most aptly observed, comes to be "the
centre of the visible and also the true Church.163 and the local Church comes to be
the "Catholic Church" herself.
Thus, neither universal consciousness nor polemic
against heresies can explain the origin of the "Catholic Church." Its presence
in history follows the line which Ignatius presents to us in such a remarkably
concise and comprehensive way, and which, curiously, has been overlooked by
scholarly research: one Church, one Eucharist, one flesh and one cup, one altar,
one Bishop with the presbyterium and the deacons.164 Thus, in conclusion, the "Catholic Church"
is identified according to Ignatius with the whole Christ, and the whole Christ
is to be found and is revealed in the most tangible way in the Eucharistic
synaxis and communion of all the members of each Church under the leadership of
the Bishop. In consequence, the local Church is catholic not because of her
relationship with the "universal" Church, but because of the presence
within her of the whole Christ in the one Eucharist under the leadership of the
Bishop. In this way, each local Church having its own Bishop is catholic
per se; that is to say, it is the concrete form in space and time of the whole
body of Christ, of the "generic" (kath' olou) Church.
From all this it is clear that the Aristotelian sense
of the kath' olou which is inherent and takes its concrete form in
the kath’ ekaston165 has been preserved in Ignatius' use of the
term. Just as for Aristotle, each actual human being is the full incarnation of
man as a whole, so for Ignatius each local Church forms the incarnation of the
whole Christ and the Church as a whole. This incarnation is full and real, so
that it cannot be understood in terms of Plato's or Philo's philosophy,166 and is expressed par excellence in the one
Eucharist "under the leadership of the Bishop." But if Aristotle's sense of
kath' olou has been taken up and preserved by church literature, this
happened because this term adequately expressed a consciousness which already
existed prior to the use of the term "Catholic Church." What was this
consciousness which Ignatius had inherited, and for the expression of which
The same applies to recapitulation (anakephalaiosis).
Although the term is used by Paul in a cosmological sense, it is not devoid of
ecclesiological significance. The term seems to be used in the sense of the new
Adam.171 The human being par excellence includes
within Himself the whole of humanity172 and recapitulates all things in Himself.173 The "many" are united in Him, and through
the many He constitutes not only the one Adam par excellence, but
also the full and completed new Adam, in other words his fullness. But as the
Apostle Paul himself explains,174 recapitulation in Christ applies above all to the Church, "which is His
body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all." Therefore, however, much these
two Epistles show tendencies to interpret the body of Christ in a cosmological
rather than a strictly ecclesiological sense (and for this reason are considered
deutero-Pauline by some scholars), the fact that the "fullness" refers par
excellence to the Church is quite dear. This fullness of the body of Christ is
recognized both by the Epistles mentioned above and by those to the Corinthians
as existing in each local Church. The
Going on to examine other texts belonging to the period
prior to Ignatius, we have no difficulty in drawing the same conclusion from the
first epistle of Clement. There too, the Pauline and Ignatian idea that the
local Church is identified with the
Exactly as in Ignatius, so in 1 Clement, unity in the
Divine Eucharist is the expression par excellence of the catholicity of the
Church. First Clement does not of course develop this theme as broadly as
Ignatius does because this epistle represents a period which is facing different
problems, specifically the major problem of transition from the apostolic to the
post-apostolic age through the link of apostolic succession, something that does
not appear as a problem in Ignatius.
But, it is noteworthy that in confronting with this
problem too, 1 Clement reveals a consciousness that the "catholicization" of the
Church is accomplished on the basis of the "gifts of the episcope" which is to
say the Eucharist. Thus while the Bishop is absent from this text, for
linguistic rather than substantive reasons,181 the institution of the episcopé
is present, and is connected in a notable way with the Eucharist.
"Their" ministry (i.e. that of the Apostles) or of those appointed by them
consists essentially in offering the Eucharist. Although the term
leitourgia ("liturgy" or "ministry") is used by Clement in various
different ways,182 (it is noteworthy that in the case of the "presbyters" who had been
deposed and those whom they had succeeded) it is used par excellence in the
sense of "offering the gifts."183 The dismissed "presbyters," then, had as
their main task the offering of the Gifts. This alone is mentioned in connection
with their dismissal which for this reason is considered "no small sin" (44:4).
In its concern to preserve the characteristics of catholicity in the Church of
Corinth, 1 Clement, like Ignatius, links her Bishop and clergy with the Lord
through the Apostles;184 not in any abstract way or for any other
reason, nor on a theoretical and theological level, but in relation to the
Divine Eucharist which is offered by them. And, even if it is supposed that with
1 Clement certain Roman categories creep into the way the characteristics of
catholicity are interpreted of (see for instance the use of the term
"legitimate" in 40:4), this does not give the historian the right to speak of
catholicity appearing with 1 Clement. On the contrary, from what
we have maintained here, it is clear that there is no conceivable relationship,
let alone identity, between the Roman spirit and catholicity around the time of
Ignatius because catholicity arises out of the local Church's consciousness of
constituting the whole Christ. The external marks which express this
consciousness are essentially and primarily the Divine Eucharist as the body of
Christ, and the Bishop who offers it ("with the presbyterium and the deacons").
These form the indisputable historical expressions of catholicity which 1
Clement does not invent, but upholds at a period which was, as we
have seen, highly critical for the history of the Church. In consequence, 1
Clement is not innovating and does not, as has been maintained, introduce the
Roman spirit into the teaching about catholicity. But in response to the urgent
historical needs of its time, when the Apostles were starting to disappear, it
connects two generations through an existing link, that of the
Divine Eucharist with which the Bishops or "presbyters" who offered it had
always been inseparably connected. Without a doubt, in doing so, it is making an
interpr
Similar conclusions can be drawn from study of another
text which probably represents the same period as 1 Clement. Judging from the
fact that both these texts are gravely concerned with the same problem: the
transition from the apostolic age to a situation where the Apostles were
gradually disappearing, but had not yet all gone. This is the Didache.188
In regard to two points of the greatest interest for
our study, the way this problem in addressed is common to both these texts. Just
as 1 Clement recognizes the fullness of the local Church on the theoretical
level, identifying her with the very Church of God, so the Didache
recognizes the fullness of the local Church on the practical level setting her
as judge over the itinerant charismatics and thus in essence above them.
We find the same in another text from about the same period: the third Epistle
of John. This text speaks of a certain Diotrephes "who loves to have
pre-eminence" who clearly presided over a local Church and did not "acknowledge
the authority" of the Apostles.189 The fact that this is condemned by John does not alter the situation
from an historical angle. The question of whether we have here a clash between
"spirit" and "hierarchy" is of only secondary importance for history. The
reality is that at the time of 3 John the local Church was able, through the
Bishop who represented her, to judge the charismatics and decide whether or not
to receive them. In the same way, ail that the Didache says about the
charismatics being judged by the local Church should be understood not as a mere
desire on the part of its author or compiler, but as a reflection of a certain
state of affairs that did exist and was widely spread. In keeping with this,
every charismatic had to be subject to approval by the local Church,190 and she would judge whether he was a
genuine apostle or prophet and should be received. This is the first point that
testifies to the fullness of the local Church.
The other problem for this transitional generation,
namely the succession to the ministry of the apostles who were no longer there,
is solved as in 1 Clement:
a) "Bishops and deacons" are ordained, that is
"presbyters" or "Bishops -presbyters - deacons"191 and
b) - most importantly for us here - the transition or
"succession" from the apostolic to the subapostolic age take place through
the Divine Eucharist.
When 1 Clement speaks of the succession of the
Apostles, it refers to the "offering of the gifts" as their "ministry." The
Didache, also speaking about the ordination of the "Bishops and
deacons," says, "for they also serve for you the ministry of the prophets and
teachers" (15:1). What is this "ministry of the prophets and teachers"?192 Previously, when speaking about the Divine
Eucharist (chs. 9-10), the author of the Didache has clearly
alluded to the prophets offering the Divine Eucharist whenever they were present
in the local Church: "allow the prophets to make thanksgiving (Eucharistein)
as much as they want." It is precisely this ministry that he seems to have in
view also when he speaks of the ordination of the "Bishops and deacons." This is
apparent from the fact that immediately before this (ch. 14) he has spoken at
length about the Divine Eucharist, and still more from the conjunction
"therefore" with which he links what has been said about the Divine Eucharist
with the passage concerning ordination of "Bishops and deacons" as ministers to
serve the ministry of the charismatics. It is also noteworthy that this is done
not by introducing a new institution to replace one which was disappearing, but
simply by emphasizing and reinforcing an office which already existed but was
often overshadowed by the Apostles and other charismatics. This is indicated
clearly by the passage: "Do not therefore despise them" (literally "overlook,"
hyperidete). For they are your honored ones, together with the
prophets and teachers" (15:2). The phrase "do not despise them" testifies to
their preexistence. Thus, the connection of the subapostolic age to the
apostolic is achieved here too through the already existing link
that expressed par excellence the catholicity of the local Church namely the
Divine Eucharist and the ministers who led it. The Eucharist is of tremendous
ecclesiological significance also for the Didache because
according to this text too it is inseparably bound up with the unity of the
Church.193 Thus in confronting, with 1 Clement and 3
John, the gradual loss of the Apostles and other charismatics, the Didache
preserves the conviction that despite the lack of Apostles and charismatics, the
existing Eucharist and the permanent ministers who lead it represent the local
Church in her fullness as the "
From study of these texts, it can be concluded without
difficulty that the three generations known to Ignatius, which go back to the
apostolic age itself, believed that through the one Eucharist "which is under
the leadership of the Bishop" each local Church is revealed in history as the
full body of Christ and, therefore, as "the whole Church," as the Apostle Paul
puts it. It was precisely this consciousness that Ignatius gave expression in
his use of the term "Catholic Church." Derived from the Aristotelian sense of
kath' olou, this term provided with the greatest precision the verbal
form required to express this consciousness given that the kath'olou
is understood as being fully incarnate and made concrete through the kath'
ekaston.
Thus each local Church has come to be the concrete form
in history of the
4. The historical conditions in which the generations
following Ignatius lived obliged the Church to connect her catholicity with the
element of Orthodoxy as we shall see at greater length shortly. Nevertheless,
even at that period, the term "Catholic Church" did not cease to refer
principally to each local Church. The following examples from the history of the
term are sufficient to demonstrate this:
a) In the Martyrdom of Polycarp, which belongs to the first or
second generation following Ignatius,194 the term "Catholic Church" now appears
clearly as a technical term, but again used of the local Church. Thus in 16:2,
we read that Polycarp was Bishop of "the Catholic Church in
Each local Church constitutes a "paroikia of the Catholic Church.
197As a paroikia, the local
Church does not constitute a segment of the Catholic Church, but the place
in which the whole Catholic Church dwells.
198 The meaning of the term, in consequence,
is no different from that given it by Ignatius: in each place the Church
kath' olou, the whole Christ, is made a concrete historical reality.
Thus, the Church in
But in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, we also find the phrase: "of
the Catholic Church throughout the world" (8:1). This passage is usually
adduced as proof that the "Catholic Church" was identified in Polycarp's time
with the "universal" Church.200
On the contrary, however, this passage proves that the phrase "Catholic Church"
did not mean "universal Church." This is shown, we consider, by the position of
the phrase "Catholic Church" alongside the designation "throughout the world."
For if it is accepted that "catholic" is to be interpreted as "universal" (oikoumenike)
then we are confronted with a curious tautology which would yield the
meaningless phrase "and of all the universal (oikoumenike) Church
which is throughout the universe (oikoumene).201
b) The first or second generation after the Martyrdom of
Polycarp continued to apply the term "Catholic Church" to each local
Church. Thus, Tertullian uses the term in the plural, writing of "Catholic
Churches,"202
which obviously precludes the identification of this term with the "universal"
Church.
c) Even in the third century, the term "Catholic Church" continues
to refer to the local Church. This is shown by two typical examples.
The first comes from Cyprian's well-known work De
catholicae ecclesiae unitate, which by "catholica ecclesia" means the
local Church of Carthage;203 the unity of which Cyprian was trying to protect by this work. This
becomes highly significant for the history of the term "Catholic Church" if we
take into account the fact that the title most likely belongs to Cyprian
himself.204 In consequence, there is no basis for the view205
that Cyprian was the first to formulate the idea of church organization on the
basis of the Roman empire; in other words as a world-wide unity of which the
local Churches form parts complementary to one another.
The second example comes from other texts of Cyprian's
time. Thus, the Roman confessors of whose declarations Cornelius informs Cyprian
use the term "Catholic Church" as follows: "Nor are we ignorant of the fact that
there should be one Holy Spirit, one bishop in the Catholic Church."206 If in this passage catholica is translated "universal," it
automatically yields the impossible sense "there should be one Bishop in the
universal Church"!207 It is clear that here "catholic" refers
once again to the local Church. The evidence of this passage takes on special
significance for the historian because it comes not only from Cyprian but also
from other Churches of the West (Rome and Africa), and is linked also with the
Churches of the East as is shown by the exact translation of the passage in
Cornelius' letter to Fabius of Antioch.2081 A similar use of the term "catholic" is
to be found in other texts of the same period.209 Thus, the identification of the "Catholic
Church" with the episcopal diocese, and indeed with the Bishop, is more than
clear in Cyprian's words to Antonianus: "You also wrote that I should pass on a
copy of this same letter to Cornelius our colleague, so that he may put aside
all anxiety and know at once that you are in communion with him, that is,
with the Catholic Church.210
The declaration of the confessors of Rome "that there
should be one Bishop in the Catholic Church" combined with Cyprian's fundamental
ecclesiological principle which prevailed at that time: "the Bishop is in the
Church and the Church in the Bishop,"211 ties in Cyprian's time fully with that of
Ignatius from the viewpoint of consciousness concerning the catholicity of the
Church. Just as for Ignatius, the Bishop forms the centre not only of the
visible "but also of the true Church," so also for the Church of Cyprian's time,
the whole Church (this is the meaning of the term ecclesia) is present in the
Bishop. And just as for Ignatius there is "one Bishop" in the Church, so also
for Cyprian's time "there should be one Bishop in the Catholic Church." Only one
difference is evident between these two periods which is a difference not of
substance but of emphasis: whereas in Ignatius' time, the local Church united in
the person of the one Bishop was "the whole Church" herself by reason of being
united in one Eucharist, this latter element - although, as we have seen, not
absent as an historical fact in the period after Ignatius - had faded in the
consciousness of later generations as an element in catholicity. Thus in
Cyprian's time, the one Bishop is no longer emphatically connected with the one
Eucharist. Such changes in emphasis which do not affect the substance of things
are normal in history. And this change occurred because, as we shall see below
the dangers from heresies and schisms obliged the Church to concentrate her
attention on other elements of her catholicity.
2. The Eucharist, the Bishop and the position of the "Catholic Church" vis-a-vis heresies and schisms
1. From the time of the Martyrdom of Polycarp onwards, the attentive student of the sources will observe that the catholicity of the Church is now emphatically connected not so much with the Eucharist as with the orthodoxy of the Church.
This change is attested mainly by the way in which the
texts refer to the institution and function of the Bishop. While, as has been
observed,212 "curiously, Ignatius does not consider
preaching an indispensable attribute of the Bishop (Philad. 1:2),"213 a generation or two later the emphasis is
placed precisely on the Bishop's teaching work. The Martyrdom of Polycarp
(16:2) refers to the Bishop Polycarp in the following terms: "The most wonderful
martyr Polycarp, who became in our times an apostolic and prophetic
teacher, Bishop of the Catholic Church in
The same emphasis on the teaching authority of the
Bishop can be seen in the rest of the texts from the latter half of the second
century. In the fragments of Hegesippus (c. 175 AD), preserved in Eusebius'
Ecclesiastical History (IV.22), each local Church appears united in
her Bishop who is regarded as the authoritative bearer of the true apostolic
tradition: "in every succession and in every city that is held
which is preached by the law and by the prophets and by the Lord."215 From historical research and also his own
personal knowledge,216 Hegesippus goes on to give the names of Bishops going back to the
Apostles themselves through a continuous succession. A few years later (around
the year 185), Irenaeus continues Hegesippus' line of argument.217
True gnosis consists in the teaching of the Apostles and the
agreement existing from the beginning in the Church throughout the whole world
and the extension of the body of Christ through the succession of the Bishops to
whom the Apostles had entrusted the various local Churches.218 Furthermore, according to Irenaeus, the Bishop is the authoritative
teacher not simply by virtue of his apostolic succession, but also by virtue of
his ordination. This element, appearing in the sources for the first time,
serves to combine teaching authority with charismatic authority in general in
the Bishop. In contrast to the heretics who maintain private assemblies, the
"presbyters" of the Church were not, like them, merely teachers, but had the
infallible "charisma" of truth.219
What caused such prominence to be given to the teaching
authority of the Bishop, and what implications did this have for the history of
the term "Catholic Church"? Once we have given an answer to these questions, we
shall examine how unity in the Eucharist and in the Bishop relates to this new
stage in the consciousness of catholicity during the first three centuries.
It is not an accident that this emphasis on the
teaching authority of the Bishop coincides with the time of Polycarp's
martyrdom. With the death of Polycarp, the last living bearers of the memory of
the apostolic teaching disappear. The final, rather modest attempt at referring
back to apostolic times by way of memory is to be found in Irenaeus who speaks
of his own and Florinus' shared recollections of what Polycarp had told them of
his contact with the Apostles in his youth.220
But, as we have seen, Irenaeus by no means confines himself with this sort of
argument, and subsequent generations no longer use living memory at all as a
proof of the orthodoxy of the Church. The disappearance of the living and
immediate bearers of this memory created of itself the clear need to stress the
teaching authority of the Bishop, just as at another time (see 1 Clement and the
Didache), the disappearance of the Apostles had required stress to be laid on
the lifelong and permanent priesthood of those who offer the Eucharistic Gifts.
But apart from this reason, the stress on the teaching
authority of the Bishop also became imperative as an answer to the challenge of
the Gnostic heresy. If the heresies of those times can be regarded as
anti-historical,221 then Gnosticism more particularly can be
said to constitute the most intellectualized form of religion. For the history
of the notion of Catholicism, it is a fact of especial importance that it was
the Gnostics and not the Orthodox who first introduced the idea of apostolic
succession. This indicates that the expression of the consciousness of
catholicity did not have orthodoxy as its focal point from the beginning. The
first reference to apostolic succession is to be found in the Gnostic epistle of
Ptolemy to Floras (165 AD)222
who appears again reiterating the claim of his teacher Valentinus to apostolic
succession. This is explained if one takes into account that the Gnostic
heresiarchs remained within the Church for a long time while they were already
preaching their heresy.223
But what is characteristic in the present instance is
that they understood this succession as a succession of teaching,
(the type of succession that existed from the teachers of the Greek
philosophical schools) which forced the Church to stress the already existing,
but not greatly emphasized, capacity of the Bishop as teacher and of the Church
as the storehouse of truth.225
This prominence given to the teaching authority of the
Bishop, combined with the central place that he held in the Church's
consciousness regarding catholicity, brought with it corresponding developments
in the notion of the "Catholic Church."
Previously, as we have seen, the Church saw herself as
"catholic" in the sense of the full presence within her of the whole Christ
through the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop who offered it. Now, because of the
increased emphasis in the meantime on the teaching work of the Bishop who
expressed the Church's unity, "catholic," little by little, took on the meaning
of the orthodox Church. Characteristic examples of such a development are the
conceptions of the "Catholic Church" in Irenaeus, Tertuilian, the author of the
Muratori Canon, and Clement of Alexandria, who all lived around the end of the
second century.
According to Irenaeus, "the
In Tertullian, it is equally clear that "Catholic
Church" is a technical term denoting the "Orthodox Church" in contradistinction
to the heresies.233
The term "Catholic Church" also has the sense of "orthodoxy" in the fragments of
the so-called Muratori Canon. In this text, a distinction is made between those
books of the New Testament which the "Catholic Church" accepts and uses and
those which the heretics accept and which, therefore, "cannot be accepted by the
Catholic Church."234 Here, too, the term "Catholic Church"
means the true and Orthodox Church which possesses the correct canon of Holy
Scripture in contrast to the heretical groups. It should be noted that the term
does not indicate the "universality" of the Church in this text either, given
that, when it is a matter of her "universality," the Church is described as "one
Church, spread over all the world."235
After Irenaeus and at the beginning of the third
century, the term "Catholic Church" continues to be connected mainly with the
notion of orthodoxy. Thus according to Clement of Alexandria, the "Catholic
Church" means the true and Orthodox Church in contrast with the heresies.236
The heresies are later human assemblies.237 The "Catholic Church" is the true and ancient Church whose walls the
heretics have "clandestinely" dug through238 and which they "are eager to cut asunder
into many [churches]."239 But in contrast with the divisive efforts of the heretics, the unity of
the Catholic Church is stressed: "We say that the ancient and catholic Church is
one only."240
Such was the history of the term "Catholic Church" from
the middle of the second century to the beginning of the third. The threat of
heresies and of Gnosticism in particular obliged the Church to give increased
emphasis to the element of orthodoxy, in such a way that the "Catholic Church"
was contrasted with the heresies, and the Bishop was seen as the successor of
the Apostles not so much in leading the Eucharist, as was the case earlier, but
rather in apostolic teaching.
This gives rise to the question: what was the meaning
of unity in the Eucharist and the Bishop during this period in the history of
the "Catholic Church"?
Despite the increased emphasis on the component of
orthodoxy, the Divine Eucharist continued even in this period to be inseparably
bound up with the catholicity of the Church. This connection appears in the
sources under two aspects. Firstly, orthodoxy is unthinkable without the
Eucharist. This is expressed emphatically by Irenaeus who more than
anyone else stresses the element of orthodoxy at this period. Connecting
orthodoxy with the Eucharist, he writes, "our doctrine (i.e. the
orthodox faith) is agreed on the Eucharist, and the Eucharist confirms our
doctrine... For we offer Him [God] His own, consistently proclaiming
communion and union and confessing the rising of flesh and spirit."241 Besides, it is well-known that Irenaeus
attributes immense importance to the Eucharist in the Church's struggle against
heresies especially against the dualism of the Gnostics. According to Irenaeus,
the Eucharist constitutes the strongest affirmation of the value of creation and
of the material world,242 and also the expression par excellence of the unity of the
Church in the body of Christ.243
The second aspect under which orthodoxy appears in
connection with the Eucharist in the sources of the period under examination is
expressed clearly in these sources through the principle that the
Eucharist without orthodoxy is an impossibility. This principle requires
particular examination because it is the most decisive factor in the position of
the Catholic Church vis-a-vis heresies.
Orthodoxy had of course always been a precondition in
the Church for participation in the unity of the Eucharist as shown by the
confessions of faith incorporated into liturgical texts which are known already
from New Testament times.244 The same precondition was preserved insistently in the early Church
especially in the East.245 But the most decisive period for the establishment of this principle in
the Church's consciousness proved to be the second half of the second century
and the beginning of the third. A contributory factor in this was the
development in the phenomenon of heresy itself which took place in the meantime.
Heresy appears as a threat to the unity of the Church
even from New Testament times (Acts 20:29-30).246 But during the second half of the second
century, heresy starts to be characterized by a tendency to take on an ecclesial
shape. From the notion of a personal opinion or choice, which was the original
meaning of the term airesis,247 or that of a "school of thought" which it
took on subsequently on the model of the Greek philosophical schools,248
during the period we are looking at heresy began to develop into organized
groups on the model of the Catholic Church.
Thus, an effort can be observed on the part of
heretical groups at this period to put bishops at their head, as shown by the
case of the Theodotians at the time of Pope Zephyrinus (199-217), who persuaded
the confessor Natalius to become their Bishop in return for a salary.250
This effort on the part of the heretical groups occasioned further clarification
of the Church's catholicity in her consciousness and thus brought about the
following very important development: the catholicity of the Church now began
clearly to take shape as an expression of that Church which in the person of her
own Bishop, who preserved the historical and charismatic continuity of her
being, combined at once right liturgical life and right faith. This
consciousness which forms one of the most decisive stages in the development of
ecclesial catholicity begins with Hippolytus and comes to completion with
Cyprian.
Of Hippolytus's works, the Philosophumena
or Refutation of All Heresies shows that the "Catholic Church" of
the beginning of the third century saw herself as one in each city,
distinguished from the other groups in that they were simply "schools" or places
of teaching, while the Catholic Church was a liturgical community, centreed on
the Divine Eucharist which preserved strictly defined boundaries around itself.
Thus Hippolytus, being unable to accept more than the one Church in Rome, calls
Calhstus' group a "school" which is outside the communion of the Church251
and cannot be called a "Catholic Church."252
Thus at this period, the consciousness was clearly
formed that the "Catholic Church" was a notion necessarily including, apart from
orthodoxy, a strictly ecclesial or liturgical communion. This is why Origen
speaks in his writings of two groups in Christianity which he contrasts with one
another: one is called "churchmen" (ekklesiastikoi) and the other
"those from the heresies,"253
and he prides himself on belonging to the group not simply of "Christians" but
of "churchmen."254
One who belongs to the groups of the heretics calls himself a "Christian" ("professione
quidem christianus est, intellectu fidei haereticus et perversus est" -
"he is professedly a Christian, but in his understanding of the faith he is a
heretic and perverse"), while on the contrary the "churchman" is not called
simply "Christian" but also "catholic": "fidei credulitate et professione
nominis christianus est et catholicus" ("by belief in the faith and
profession of the name he is a Christian and a Catholic"). "Churchman" and
"catholic" are identified and the one explains the other. The "heretic" fighting
against the "churchman" is fighting the "catholic," as once, the Egyptian who
was an Israelite only on his mother's side fought against the true Israelite: "adversus
ecclesiasticum, adversus catholicum litigat."255 This identification of "churchman" with
"catholic" is a characteristic mark of the way the term "Catholic Church" is now
used to indicate "ecclesial communion" not only in faith, but also in the Divine
Eucharist. As is shown by a later text which, however, reflects an earlier state
of affairs, in order for strangers to gain entry into a paroikia,
it was not enough to ask them whether they were "believers"; they also had to be
asked whether they were "churchmen"256
meaning in regular communion with the Catholic Church.
A typical example of the connection between Eucharist
and orthodoxy at the beginning of the third century is the Greek text in the
Toura papyrus, of great interest for the history of dogma and liturgy, entitled
"Discourses of Origen to Heracleides and the Bishops with him ion the Father and
the Son and the Soul], published in 1949 by J. Scherer.257 This is the major part of the Acts of an
episcopal council including the discussion between Origen and a certain Bishop,
Heracleides, whose ideas had precipitated the calling of the council. What is of
importance for us here is that in the course of the discussion about the Son's
relationship to the Father, Origen refers to the Eucharistic prayer in order to
stress that the content of prayer and the content of faith should be in total
harmony. The relationship of the Son to the Father is one of unity in nature in
a distinction of persons, and hence "the offering [of the Eucharist] is to God
Almighty through Jesus Christ as He who offers [or is offering258] His divinity to the Father; not twice,
but let the offering be to God from God..." (2.24; he. cit. p. 62). Thus the
orthodox faith and the Eucharistic offering, which most likely occasioned
discussion, are mutually dependent, and the unity of the Church depends on the
harmony between the two in such a way that whoever disagrees, be he a Bishop or
a presbyter, "is not a Bishop nor a presbyter nor a layman. If he is a deacon,
he is not a deacon nor a layman. If he is a layman, he is not a layman, nor does
he come together" {synag
The way the consciousness of the Church's catholicity
was shaped by the now decisive joining of Eucharistic communion with orthodoxy
is clearly illustrated by the manner in which the Church in the period under
discussion accountedfor the institution of the episcopate. Earlier, as we have
seen, the institution of episcopacy was connected in the beginning chiefly with
the Divine Eucharist (Clement of Rome, Ignatius) and, later on, chiefly and
emphatically with its teaching function (Martyrdom of Polycarp,
Hegesippus, Irenaeus). At the beginning of the third century, these two elements
are joined into one, and the Bishop is clearly the expression of both
simultaneously- This is illustrated in the Apostolic Tradition of
Hippolytus,259 a text of great value for the history of
this period. A careful examination of the evidence this text gives concerning
the Bishop tells us that the Bishop, who was alter Christus and
alter apostolus for his Church,260 concentrates in himself the power both to "shepherd the flock" of his
Church, that is to teach her members with authority, and to "offer to Thee the
gifts of Thy holy Church," that is to perform the Divine Eucharist.261
Thus, around the beginning of the third century and
under pressure from heresy, which already showed a tendency to clothe itself in
ecclesial garb, unity in the Divine Eucharist is combined with unity in
orthodoxy while the Bishop through his ordination is clearly made the successor
of the Apostles both in the offering of the Eucharist and in the preservation of
orthodoxy, hi the same way, this period sees a synthesis of the elements which
earlier expressed the notion of the "Catholic Church." This synthesis is
expanded and matures still further in the time of Cyprian and under pressure
from another negative factor, that of schism.
2. "Schism" occurs as a term even in the earliest texts
of the New Testament, but the meaning it has there is simply that of a temporary
disagreement262
or of quarrels between individuals, not between organized groups.263
Later "schism" is confused with "heresy," in place of which it is often used,
and this ended finally in the definition of heresy as wrong belief, and schism
as a division of an administrative or moral kind.264
Under pressure from schism, which was a most acute
problem in the third century, the consciousness concerning the Church's
catholicity was clarified still further. This clarification was passed down to
history mainly through the personality of St Cyprian who for this reason
represents a milestone in the history of the unity of the Church.
Continuing the tradition and mind of the Church of the
time of Hippolytus and Origen, the
Cyprian's generation further clarified the components
of this catholicity both for itself and for history in general, because thanks
to Cyprian and the controversies of his time, the history of ecclesiology in
this period can be studied easily. Thus we receive on the one hand an almost
complete description of the composition and organization of the local Church,
and on the other, a clarification and an ecclesiological expression of the
catholicity of each local Church.
The local Church comprises two basic components bound
together in complete unity and order: the people (plebs) and the clergy (ordo
or clerus).
265 The clergy consists of various degrees.
Among the laity, by contrast, there are no degrees.
266 Within the clergy, we find clearly
distinguished the three hieratic degrees (bishop, presbyter, deacon) and also
the lower clergy267 with the responsibilities of each defined.
All are dependent on the Bishop and owe obedience to him. In his absence, both
the clergy and the deacons can be given a mandate to represent him in his
responsibilities and his work.268 When he is present, however, they may only be in obedience to him.269 The laity similarly owes obedience to the
clergy and in particular to the Bishop. This obedience does not preclude their
participation in church affairs mainly in the form of giving an opinion on
serious issues270
and electing clergy.271
But as in antiquity (1 Clement - Ignatius), this participation was approbatory
in character and not by way of a precondition: while from the other clergy the
Bishop seeks consilium (advice), from the laity he merely seeks consensus
(consent).272
These are two different things.273 It is possible for the rest of the clergy and the laity to participate
in the election of a Bishop, but the election depends on and receives its
validity from the participation of the Bishops.274
All this is a consequence of the ancient consciousness that the catholicity of the local Church is expressed by the Bishop. It is he that incarnates the local Church (as we have already seen in Ignatius).275 When, therefore, Cyprian writes to a particular Church, he addresses her Bishop alone (Cyprianus Cornelio fratri, Cyprianus Jubaiano fratri, etc.). If the episcopal throne is vacant, he addresses the clergy (Cyprianus presbyteris et diaconis Romae consistentibus). Only when he is addressing his own Church, because of course he is not addressing her entirety, does he write to her clergy and laity (Cyprianus presbyteris et plebi universae). Cyprian gives an ecclesiological explanation of this position of his. For him it is a fundamental and inviolable principle that the Church has been founded upon the Bishop:276 for the Church is nothing other than the people united around their Bishop and the flock bound to their shepherd (Ecclesia plebs sacerdoti adunata et pastori suo grex adhaerens). The Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop, and if anyone is not with the Bishop, he is not in the Church.277 Whoever separates himself from the Bishop, separates himself from the Church.278 Such are the essential and inviolable ecclesiological principles of Cyprian's time.
One might reiterate here that this period presented
nothing essentially new from the viewpoint of ecdesiology. This can be seen from
a careful examination of what has been said up to this point. But as has been
done, hitherto, in the course of our investigation, so now, too, we have to
compare the period we are looking at with earlier times and establish what
shifts of emphasis or interpr
The schism occasioned by the "lapsed" which rocked the
Church of Cyprian's time, and which arose after only the first year of Cyprian's
episcopate (249 AD - persecution of Decius), had brought up for discussion the
problem of the jurisdiction of the Bishop of each local Church, and the
relationship of this jurisdiction to the authority of the martyrs (another form
of the very ancient problem of the relationship between the charismatics and the
permanent ministers). The problem had been posed in the form of the question:
did the martyrs have the right and the authority, on the basis of their
sacrifices for the faith, to pardon those who had lapsed, releasing them from
the penance imposed by the Church? The right to pardon those who were in a state
of penance belonged to the Bishop. There was a belief in some circles that the
martyrs had within them the Holy Spirit who had strengthened them in the hour of
martyrdom.279 As Spirit-bearers, then, did they not have the authority to act at least
as the Bishop did? The answer from Cyprian and the other Western Bishops was
negative. Only in the case of those on their deathbeds could the lapsed be given
such pardon by economy (and anyway this presupposed the knowledge and approval
of the Bishop). Others were obliged to await the return of the Bishop to his
see. Yet again, the "Catholic Church" showed a consciousness that her unity and
catholicity rested on the Bishop. It should be noted mat this took place before
the schism of Novatus which Harnack makes the ground and starting-point for
Cyprian's conviction that "ecclesia super episcopos constituatur
["the Church is founded on the bishops"].280
This is evidence that Harnack is wrong because the above-mentioned decision by
Cyprian and the other Western Bishops came before Novatus, and reflects very
ancient beliefs which we have already looked at. This, then, was the first
historical event of Cyprian's time which led to the clarification of
episcopocentric catholicity.281
After Cyprian's stance against the martyrs pardoning
those who had lapsed, there followed the schism of Felicissimus around whom a
part of the laity ("portio plebis") had gathered. Such a group of
Christians living apart from the Bishop was not even called a Church by Cyprian.
When the lapsed sent him a letter "in the name of the Church" ("ecclesiae
nomine"), Cyprian described them as impudent for wanting to call
themselves a "Church" ("ecclesiam se volunt esse..."). There was a
strong consciousness that the Catholic Church could not be found outside the
Bishop. But in the meanwhile and before Felicissimus was condemned and unity in
Carthage restored (251 AD - Council of Carthage), Rome was faced with the
Novatianist schism in which Novatus, a presbyter from Carthage belonging to the
faction of Felicissimus, took part, having an interest in seeing Novatian made
Bishop of Rome, since the latter would support Felicissimus' faction. The
election of Cornelius as Bishop of Rome was supported without hesitation by
Cyprian, and this contributed to the further clarification of his ecclesiology
through letters and through his work De catholicae ecclesiae unitate.
The notion of catholicity is used repeatedly by Cyprian: the election of
Novatian took place "contra ecclesiam catholicam"282
(again, the Church of Rome is meant, and not the universal Church). The
"Catholic Church" in
What understanding of the Catholic Church underlies
these convictions? This is elucidated for us by (a) the work De catholicae
ecdesiae unitate, and (b) the texts written in response to the events
which took place towards the end of Cyprian's life.
According to the De Unitate, the Catholic
Church is that which concentrates in herself of all the means of salvation. The
emphasis is not placed only on her orthodoxy or only on the celebration of the
Divine Eucharist or simply on these two as happened in the times before Cyprian.
The consciousness concerning catholicity had now matured considerably, and under
pressure of historical events, it reached the fullness of its expression. The
Catholic Church is that which incarnates orthodoxy, the Divine Eucharist and
every other means of salvation, every sacrament: Priesthood and Baptism. These
will be developed more clearly towards the end of Cyprian's life in response to
the controversies over baptism.
But they are already expressed in principle and in a
negative way in De Unitate: outside the Catholic Church there is
no baptism {"non abluntur illic homines"), nor Eucharist ("falsa
sacrificia"), nor Bishop ("episcopi nomen") nor indeed a
"cathedra" of right teaching.288 Can someone maintain that he has a right
faith, asks Cyprian, if he is not connected with the cathedra of
Peter which is occupied by the Bishop in each local Church?289 Faith and orthodoxy for Cyprian are
ecclesiological concepts: right faith cannot form a self-sufficient means to
salvation, but is a component in the believer's more general dedication to the
Catholic Church. He clarifies these principles still further when, around the
year 255, the issue arises of the validity of baptism by heretics. This issue
first appears in a letter of Cyprian's to a certain distinguished layman named
Magnus who had asked, at Cyprian's own instigation, whether the Novatianists
were able to perform valid baptisms. Cyprian answers in the negative: heretics
and schismatics do not have the right and the power to baptize.290 This position of Cyprian's and the way he
justifies it reveal much about the then prevailing consciousness as to what
exactly constitutes the Catholic Church which is our immediate concern here. Why
are heretics and schismatics unable to perform valid baptisms? For Cyprian there
is one answer: because they are outside the Catholic Church. To the question of
whether the Novatianists do not have the same faith as the Catholic Church, he
replies in the negative: their Creed is not the same as ours because in our
Creed there is a reference to belief in the Church whereas the Novatianists do
not have a Church. Similarly there is a reference to remission of sins, but the
Novatianists do not receive this through the Church.291 As to faith in the Holy Trinity in the
name of Whom they baptize, he asks: did not Korah and Dathan and Abiram have the
same faith as Moses, but were punished by God nonetheless?292 This line of argument of Cyprian's bears
witness that right faith is not sufficient to constitute the "Catholic Church."
Orthodoxy no longer forms the criterion for the "Catholic Church," but the
"Catholic Church" is the criterion for orthodoxy: belief in the Church forms an
essential and necessary element in orthodoxy. The catholicity of the Church,
then, is a wider concept than orthodoxy: it includes orthodoxy, without being
coextensive with it. What does this broader reality consist in? This is the
climax of our investigation on this subject. As a result of the baptism issue,
Cyprian gives the first full expression in history to the catholicity of the
Church; an expression which is, therefore, of decisive importance, summing up
the consciousness of previous generations of Christians on this subject not by
adding together various points, but as a flowing and organic whole. Here is what
he says.
Heretics and schismatics, being outside the Catholic
Church and not obedient to her, do not have the Holy Spirit. Even supposing,
then, that they could baptize, they could not bestow the Holy Spirit. But this
is not enough; for one who does not have the Holy Spirit cannot even baptize.293 Baptism forgives sins, and sins are
forgiven only by those who possess the Holy Spirit in accordance with Jn 20:22.
But it is precisely this that those outside the Catholic Church lack: "all of
these, heretics and schismatics, do not confer the Holy Spirit."294
What then is the deeper reason for this inability on
the part of schismatics and heretics to perform "valid" sacraments? At this
point, the unity of the Church comes into play as a factor of decisive
importance in the relationship of the Catholic Church to schism and heresy.
For Cyprian, just as for Paul and Ignatius (see above),
the Eucharist constitutes the sacrament of Church's unity in such a way that the
Eucharist acquires ecclesiological content. We see this chiefly in the
remarkable letters 63 and 69; the basic ideas in which are characteristic of the
whole of Cyprian's ecclesiology. Interpreting the symbolism of the mingling of
the water and the wine in the Eucharistic Cup, and of the grains of wheat from
which the Eucharistic Bread is made, he observes that just as Christ bears all
of us in Himself so in the mingling of the water and the wine in the cup the
multi-rude of the faithful (populus) are united into one
indissoluble unity. Therefore, the Church too, united in the Eucharist, is
inseparably united with Christ in such a way that the two become one being. When
the holy Cup is consecrated, it is necessary that neither wine alone nor water
alone should be offered. For if we offer the water alone, the people appear
without Christ. The same goes for the union of the grains of wheat for preparing
the bread. Just as the multitude of grains of wheat are collected together and
ground together and mixed so as to become one loaf of bread, so also in Christ,
who is the heavenly bread, there is but one body in which our multiplicity is
joined together and united.
Precisely because the Eucharist possesses this
ecclesiological content, the schismatics and heretics who do not participate in
it cannot perform "valid" sacraments. For Cyprian, this is the basis for the
"validity" of the heretics' baptism: if they participated in the unity of the
Eucharist, they would participate also in the whole charismatic life of the
Church. This understanding, which sets up Eucharistic unity as the fullness of
ecclesial unity in general, is clearly expressed by Cyprian:
If Novatian were united in this bread of the Lord, if he were mingled with the others in the people of God, then he could maintain that he possessed the grace of the one baptism, because he would be within the unity of the Church... How indivisible is the mystery of unity and how hopeless the destruction of those who provoke the wrath of God by creating a schism and making another bishop in place of their own Bishop, is described by Scripture in the Book of Kings, in connection with the ten tribes who separated themselves from Judah and Benjamin and forsook their king in order to enthrone another.295
This important passage reveals that for Cyprian who
broadens the concept of the catholicity of the Church by making a synthesis of
all the elements he had inherited from previous generations that unity in the
one Divine Eucharist and the one Bishop296
forms the criterion for the catholicity of the Church. A second Eucharist and a
second Bishop in the same geographical area constitute a situation "outside the
Catholic Church." Here too, the supreme mark of remaining within the Catholic
Church is unity in the one Eucharist "under the leadership of the Bishop." Such
unity describes the bounds of catholicity which in the synthetic exposition
given by Cyprian means that living fullness of the body of Christ in which
through the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit, doctrinal life {orthodoxy), and
sacramental life (Eucharist, Baptism, Priesthood) form mutually dependent
elements and an unbreakable unity which defines the boundaries and the substance
of the Church. This fullness subsists in each Church which is led by a canonical
Bishop.
Was this understanding of catholicity Cyprian's
consciousness only, or that of the Church in general around the middle of the
third century? This is difficult to answer, because at that period there did not
yet exist the criterion through which the consciousness of all the Churches
around the world could be expressed at the same time, namely, the ecumenical
council. We do, however, know that many Churches became involved in the
discussion about baptism, and this helps us to know their views relative to
Cyprian's position. First of ail, we note that all the Churches of Africa had
sided with Cyprian's views in two Councils, one in the autumn of 255 and one
shortly before Easter in 256. Present, at the latter, were 71 Bishops from
Africa and
It remains to examine the position on this subject of
the Church of Rome which in the person of her bishop Stephen was strongly
opposed to the views of Cyprian. On what exactly did Stephen disagree with
Cyprian? Our concern here is to see whether and to what extent
These views can be taken as those of the Church of Rome
and her Bishop Stephen because they come to the conclusion that the rebaptism of
those returning to the Catholic Church is not required which is exactly as
Stephen of Rome maintained. The point which interests us here, however, is not
that of rebaptism, but that of the ecclesiological presuppositions behind it. On
these both the treatise De Rebaptismate (and Stephen of Rome) and
Cyprian seem to be in essential agreement; for both accept that the Holy Spirit
is not given to those who are baptized outside the Catholic Church.307 We can in consequence accept that the
consciousness of the "Catholic Church" which Cyprian formulated as a result of
the schisms did not differ in essence from that of those who disagreed with him
on the issue of baptism. And, therefore, that, insofar, as the sources allow us
to know, this consciousness was that of all the Churches of the middle of the
third century.
Summarizing the information we have, we observe that
the clarification in the Church's consciousness of catholicity, which took place
as a result of the acute problem of schism and with the help of the great figure
of Cyprian, consisted in the following basic principles:
(a) In contrast to the schismatic group, the Catholic Church possesses the
fullness of the body of Christ (original meaning of catholicity) which, however,
is manifested not simply as unity in the Eucharist or in orthodoxy and in the
Bishop, but as fullness and self-sufficiency in every saving operation of the
Holy Spirit expressed through the unity of each Church around the Bishop in whom
the Church resides (ecclesia in episcopo).
(b) Schismatics are outside the Church, and in consequence, there can be no
question of their participation in the sphere of the body of Christ. Hence,
there is no essential distinction from an ecdesiological viewpoint between
schism and heresy. What interests Cyprian is that both are outside the Church.
Given that the Church is the one and only body of Christ, anyone who is outside
the Church is outside Christ and outside salvation.308
It is not hard to see that such an "ecclesiology of
schism" arises out of the ancient identification of the Church with the
Eucharistic synaxis and the oneness of that synaxis in each Church. A basic
presupposition of Cyprian's position is the coincidence between the
canonical boundaries of the Church and her essential boundaries. This
coincidence was achieved, as we have seen, through the unity of each Church in
one Eucharist under one Bishop. Hence anyone who does not participate in this
unity and establishes a second Eucharist under a second Bishop within the
geographical boundaries of a given Church (the creation of a schism) is
establishing a second Church not only in a canonical sense but also in an
essential dogmatic sense. Given, however, that the Church according to Cyprian's
basic understanding is one only, any communion in another Eucharist and under
another Bishop bears no relation to the body of Christ. To have two or more
Eucharistic communities under two or more Bishops in each city is unacceptable.
Without this presupposition, the "ecclesiology of schism" developed by Cyprian
would not be possible.
Was the problem of schism solved through this
ecclesiology of Cyprian's? From an historical and perhaps also from a
theological viewpoint/ the answer is negative.309
The coincidence between the canonical and essential boundaries of the Church was
not accepted by Stephen of Rome, and was later rejected totally by Augustine.
After him, this negative position towards Cyprian's ecclesiology was followed
almost unanimously by the West which preferred to make a distinction between the
charismatic and canonical spheres of the Church, and to accept the possibility
that even those who by reason of schism did not participate in the latter, might
participate in the former. The East, apart from a very few exceptions, seems to
have followed Cyprian without yet having solved this fundamental problem from
either a theological or an historical viewpoint. The final answer as regards
history will be given only once the sources after Cyprian in both East and West
have been examined. Cyprian's position, which we have examined here, covers the
situation regarding the relation of schism to the unity of the Church only in
the first three centuries.
3. The Eucharist, the Bishop and the unity of the
"Catholic Church throughout the world"
We have seen above that the term "Catholic Church" was
not identified with the "worldwide Church" in the sources of the first three
centuries. The connection of the catholicity of the Church with her universality
can be seen only from the fourth century onwards although the connection between
these two concepts was not formed into a full identification until the time of
the Blessed Augustine.310 In order, however, for this connection to
have taken place in the fourth century, the way must certainly have been
prepared for it during the first three centuries. We propose to look at this
preparation here because of its direct relationship with the unity of the Church
in the Eucharist and the Bishop.
The consciousness that all Christians form one
Church despite being scattered "throughout the world" is evident from the first
days of the Church. This consciousness should be connected with two basic
factors. The first factor is external to the Church, and consists in the fact
that when Christianity first appeared, it was confronted with a widespread
"universal" unity - the unity of the oikoumene - the idea of which
was cultivated by the Greeks of Christ's time.311 During the first three centuries, the
Church never lost the consciousness of living within this oikoumene,
and her sacred mission, as carried out indeed by the Apostle to the Gentiles,
very early revealed her universal spirit.312 The second factor contributing to the unity of Christians all over the
world is internal to the Church and consists in the Church's self-awareness of
forming a people, the Israel of God, which is scattered to the ends of the
earth. In the same way, there was formed very early the consciousness of a
Church of the diaspora, which is clearly expressed in the first
Epistle of Peter,313 and which, later, through the sharp
differentiation of Christianity from both Judaism and Hellenism, took on the
form of characterizing the Church as a third race.
The consciousness of the unity of the Church throughout
the world was connected early with the Divine Eucharist. We see this in the
Didache which preserves in the original Eucharistic prayers the image
of the unity in the Eucharist not only of each Church, but also of the whole
"Catholic Church throughout the world": "Just as this loaf was scattered all
over the mountains and was brought together and made one, so let Thy
Church be gathered from the ends of the earth in Thy Kingdom."314
It repeats the same prayer a little later (10.5) with the petition:
"...and gather her together from the four winds..." We see this
connection of the Eucharist with the consciousness of the unity of Christians
ail over the world also in the Epistle to Diognetus. In this text,
the spread of the Church all over the world is heavily stressed.315
The concept of the Church in this epistle is that of the new
In the second half of the second century and arising
out of the Paschal controversies, we are confronted with a particular emphasis
on the consciousness that the Churches all over the world form a unity.317 At the same period, and as a result both
of these disputes,318 and of Montanism,319 the first councils of Bishops make their appearance, an event which
brings into history once and for all a concrete external criterion for
expressing the unity of the Catholic Church throughout the world.
It is a notable fact that even at this period the unity
of the Catholic Church throughout the world is combined with unity in the
Eucharist and in the Bishop. The institution of councils, as it appears during
the years we are looking at, has in view in the final analysis nothing other
than "communion," i.e. the unity of the Churches in the Eucharist. This is
evident from a careful reading of the first text to give us any information
about councils: "The faithful in Asia came together often and in many parts of
On the universal level too, this unity in the Eucharist
was a unity through the Bishop. This was shown in various ways.
The communication of members of one Church travelling to another required them
to be provided with a special letter from the Bishop confirming their position
in their own Church322 to the end that they should be received into eucharistic communion. This
is shown even more characteristically in the practice, which appears also in the
canonical sources, whereby each Bishop "concedes" the Eucharist to the Bishop of
another Church who is visiting him. (* Transl.note: i.e. he allows the
visiting bishop to take his place as celebrant.)
We know that this took place in Rome when Polycarp
went there to deal with the question of Easter323 while the Syriac Didascalia
around the beginning of the third century presents it as a normal practice at
least in that area.324
In this way, it was demonstrated in the most graphic
manner that there was essentially one Eucharist and one episcopate in the
whole world. Thus, the differences over the manner of performing the
Eucharist were very few and of secondary importance while the basic structure of
the Eucharist was amazingly the same in all geographical regions, as we see from
a comparison between the outline of the liturgy in Justin's First Apology and
the eastern liturgies of the fourth century. The fact that the Eucharist in Rome
could be performed with no difficulty by Polycarp from Ephesus, and the evidence
of Egeria's account of her travels in Jerusalem and elsewhere, together with
that of Abercius of Hierapolis who travelled through almost all the then known
world, finding everywhere the same "infinitely great and pure fish from the
spring, whom a pure virgin caught and gave to His friends to eat forever, having
a mixed wine that is good and giving it with the bread."325
But if, as appears from the above, there was but
one Church in all the world according the consciousness of unity in the
first three centuries, how is the existence of many full and Catholic
Churches around the world to be understood? How, in other words, could
the Christians of those days conceive of the one "Catholic Church throughout the
world" despite the multiplicity of Churches in various places especially when
they regarded the latter as full Churches? Here we come up against
the most fundamental problem of all. This is the problem of how
the Catholic Churches in various places relate to the Catholic Church throughout
the world in the consciousness of the Church of the first three centuries. On
this question, the existing sources permit the following observations.
If the information in the sources is examined
carefully, it shows that the strong unity among Christians all over the world
was necessarily manifested through the local Church. No Christian
believer could participate in the unity of the Church throughout the world if he
did not first belong to the unity of a particular local Church. This raises the
fundamental problem of the relationship that existed, both ecclesiologically and
canonically, between the unity of the local Church and that of the Church
throughout the world. What has already been written about the catholicity of the
local Church precludes an understanding of the Catholic Church throughout the
world as a unity of parts complementing each other, given that
each local Church, having her own Bishop as a genuine successor to the Apostles
both in the leadership of the one Eucharist and in orthodox faith, was a
full and complete Church which had no need of any complement. In this
case, how are we to understand the unity of the particular Churches in the one
Catholic Church throughout the world?
Already from the beginning of the second century, as Ignatius testifies, there was the consciousness that "the Bishops who are at the ends of the earth are in the mind (gnome) of Jesus Christ." 326 This is of particular importance for the unity of the Church throughout the world and the expression of this unity through the institution of councils. 327 But if this is placed in the light of Ignatius' ecclesiology, according to which, as we have seen, the whole Christ is revealed in the unity of each Church, the unity of the Bishops who are at the ends of the earth can mean nothing other than mystical identity: given that according to Ignatius' ecclesiology the Church under each Bishop is united and presented in him as the body of Christ, then all the Bishops, coinciding in the same centre, are "in Jesus Christ." Universal unity, therefore, consists not in a mutual complementarity of parts or in a democratic "majority" but in the coincidence of the local Churches with each other in the same place, i.e. "in the gnome of Jesus Christ."
A similar understanding of the unity of the Churches
throughout the world in one Church is also expressed by St Cyprian. In agreement
with the entire tradition before him, he regards the Bishop, as we have seen, as
the centre of the Church's unity as the one on whom the Church is
based. How does he view the unity of the "Bishops who are at the ends of the
earth," however? Here we should observe, with E. Mersch,328 that it is not possible to find in Cyprian
any external criterion for the unity of the local Churches. While he keeps on
talking about the unity within each Church, especially in the De
Catholicae Ecdesiae Unitate, he does not by any means speak clearly
about the unity of all the Churches in various places. It is mainly negative
conclusions on this subject that can be drawn from a careful examination of his
works. Thus is it perfectly clear that, despite his recognition of the primacy
of Peter, he does not recognize in any of the Bishops the right to express the
unity of all the Bishops. This is demonstrated, besides, by his constant
struggles against
The concept of unity in identity is the
underlying basis for the consciousness of universality in all the Churches
during the first three centuries. This was the spirit behind both the insistent
rejections of any intervention by
But how was it made certain that the Churches were
identical with each other in the same centre, i.e. in the "mind of Jesus
Christ"? What criterion was used to establish that the local Churches were
united in the one "Catholic Church throughout the world"? This leads us to
examine the deeper meaning of the catholicity of the Church which appears in the
sources of the first three centuries as having the following three dimensions.
First of all, the chronological or historical
coincidence of the local Churches with the past, and in particular with the
original apostolic Church, was regarded as indispensable. This element of
reference back through history was so strong in the Church's
consciousness during the first three centuries that the terms one Church
and ancient Church are linked together and interpret each
other.340
For Hegesippus, this historical reference back to the original Church, and the
identity of each Church with this original Church, was the strongest argument
against heresies.341 For Tertullian, each local Church is fully
apostolic and catholic precisely because she is none other than "the primitive
apostolic Church herself."342 It is not without significance, then, that all the ancient Councils,
including indeed the Ecumenical Councils, grounded their decisions in what the
Scriptures and the Fathers had in the past expressed as the faith of the Church.
A second point seen as indispensable was the
spatial or geographical verification of the identity of
the Churches in the same faith and life "in the mind of Jesus Christ." This
meant that in order to be "catholic" each Church had to be identified with the
other Churches and live in full communion with them. The necessity for this
verification led to the appearance and establishment of the institution of
Councils. The ultimate import of which during the first three centuries is
revealed in the light of Ignatius' phrase: "the Bishops who are at the ends of
the earth are in the mind of Jesus Christ."343 But this element of geographical or
spatial catholicity was not in itself sufficient for the unity of the
"Catholic Church throughout the world." Its importance was absolutely dependent
on the existence of the first criterion, i.e. that of going back chronologically
and historically to the primitive Church, and the verification through this of
the identity of each Church with the original apostolic Church. Thus, supposing
that the majority of the Churches coincided with each other but did not coincide
with the original apostolic Church, then the opinion of the "majority" would
have no force.344
This meant that the "Catholic Church throughout the world," united through the
Councils, did not form a unity by addition in which "catholic"
would coincide with "majority," but a qualitative and organic
unity in which what was "catholic" was identified with what was "true" and
"original" as this appeared in the first apostolic Church.
Yet both the geographical or latitudinal dimension of
the "Catholic Church" and the chronological or retrospective referral and
connection with her original state of being remained unable to verify the
identity of the Churches in the "mind of Jesus Christ" without a third component
of catholicity, the charismatic or sacramental. It
should be noted that both the reference back to the historical memory of the
Church and the meeting of the Churches around the world in the same place (epi
to auto) took place in the person of the Bishop. Thus, the
reference of the Churches to the past was effected by drawing up lists of
Bishops from which it was evident that each Church went back without a
break to the Apostles while the meeting of the local Churches in the same
place was effected through episcopal Councils. This event was not
coincidental, but should be connected with the notion, clearly expressed by
Irenaeus, that the truth of the Church is unbreakably bound up with the charism
of the Priesthood, and is therefore preserved by the Bishops "who with the
succession of the episcopate have received the certain charisma of
truth, according to the goodwill of the Father."[qui cum episcopatus
successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt]345 But in this way the catholicity of the Church was organically and
unbreakably bound up, in the ultimate analysis, with the unity of the Eucharist
given that the "charisma" of the Priesthood346
was bestowed only within the Eucharist.
These observations lead us to the conclusion that
according to the sources of the first three centuries, the unity of the local
Churches in the one "Catholic Church throughout the world" understood as their
identity with the one whole Christ, was expressed in history:
a) as a vertical relationship of each Church with the one and whole Christ
mystically present in the one Eucharist, to which the Bishop was connected as
the visible head, possessing the "charism of truth";
b) as a historical reference back to the past and the full identity
of each Church with the primitive apostolic Church; and
c) as a latitudinal extension of each Church to the inclusion and
communion of the Churches everywhere on earth, if and insofar as the first two
conditions held good for them. This tripartite identification of the Churches
with each other and with the whole Christ was the ultimate and essential arbiter
of the "common union of the Churches" through which the one, holy, catholic and
apostolic Church was preserved and expressed.347
Summarizing the conclusions of Part Two, we may make
the following observations:
The identification of the Divine Eucharist with the
Church of God which is in a particular place, which as we saw in Part One was
firmly established in the consciousness of the early Church, entailed
maintaining one Eucharistic synaxis "under the leadership of the
Bishop" in each Church. From historical research into the sources, we have
established that Ignatius' exhortation to maintain one Eucharist
under one Bishop at one altar corresponded to an
historical state of affairs. It was thus established that there was in fact only
one synaxis to perform the Eucharist and one Bishop in each Church. This fact
was not altered by the existence of "household" churches because, as has been
established, there was not more than one such Church in each city (so that the
household Church was "the whole Church" according to Paul), nor by the spread of
Christianity into the countryside given that at the beginning and up to the
middle of the second century the Christians from the countryside came together
into the Church of the nearest city, and later they formed Churches of their own
with their own Bishops, the chorepiscopi, who were initially full
Bishops. This principle of one Bishop presiding over the one Eucharist in each
Church held good for all geographical areas, and the doubts about it implied at
certain points of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History have been
proved by our research here to be groundless.
Such a unity of the whole
This catholicity of each episcopal Church does not make
her ecclesiologically and historically independent of the other Churches around
the world. The consciousness which early appeared concerning the "Catholic
Church throughout the world" (Mart. Polyc.) meant that although
there were Churches around the world nevertheless there was in essence but one
Church. This one Church throughout the world was not a sum total of parts, for,
as we have seen, each Church in particular was the whole Church, and this for
reasons connected not with the geographical extent of the Church but with her
nature which is revealed especially in the one body of the one Eucharist. This
one Church throughout the world was manifested in history as a unity not of
parts but of full circles obliged to be essentially
identified with one another. This unity in identity was manifested in
time through identity with what the Lord and the Apostles taught (apostolic
succession of bishops) and in space through identity with what the other
Churches around the world lived and taught (institution of councils) while the
absence of this identity automatically meant the creation of a schism.
The ultimate form of expression of such a Church throughout the world was unity in the Divine Eucharist and in the Bishop. "Communion" was the ultimate link in the "common union" (Eusebius), while each Eucharist was offered for the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church from one end of the earth to the other, each Bishop being able to "concede" the Eucharist to the Bishop of another Church (Anicetus of Rome to Polycarp) and each believer able to partake in the Eucharist of another Church with the introduction and permission of his own Bishop. In this way, the unity of the faithful around the world was nothing other than a unity through the Bishop and the Church to which each belonged. The living cell of church unity was the one Eucharist under the leadership of the Bishop and the "Catholic Church" expressed therein. It was only through the life of this cell that each Christian lived and all Christians together in all corners of the world who make up the one Catholic Church. Through this consciousness of unity, the Church of the first three centuries recognized the Lord Jesus Christ as the one centre of the unity of the Catholic Church throughout the world. It was with Him that the "Bishops who are at the ends of the earth" had to be identified, and Him that each Bishop mystically and truly personified, in a full and catholic manner, as he presided over the Divine Eucharist through which the Church of God was revealed in each place.
103. Smyrn. 8.
104. See above, Introduction.
105. Augustine did this in his desire to combat
the provincialism of the Donatists. Cf. P. Batiffol, he
106. Immediately after the third century, Cyril
of Jerusalem gives the first synthetic definition of the catholicity of the
Church, in which the concept of universality forms merely a part of the meaning
of the term "Catholic Church": "She is called catholic because she extends
throughout all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because
she teaches universally (katholikos) and completely all the doctrines that
should come to men's knowledge... and because she brings into subjection to
godliness the whole race of mankind... and because she universally treats and
heals the whole species of sins... and possesses in herself every form of virtue
which is named..." (Catechetical Orations 18.23, PG 33:1044). From the fourth
century on, the term requires particular study. Cf. A. Gopfert, Die
Kathoiizitat. Eine dogmengeschkhtliche Studie,
107. Aristotle, Rhetoric 1,2,15.
108. Aristotle, On Interpr
109. Aristotle, M
110.
Aristotle, M
111.
Aristotle, On Interpr
112.
Polybius 6,5,3: "general (katholike) exposition" in contrast to "d
113.
On Composition of Words 12: "For it is not in the nature of the thing to admit
of general (katholiken) and technical comprehension."
114.
Life of Pompey, where "general (katholou) inquiry" is used in the sense in which
Aristotle uses "general proof" (Prior Analytics 1,1).
115.
Philo, Life of Moses II, 32 (ed.
116.
H. Wolfson, Philo, II, 1947, p. 181.
117.
Cf. G. Konidaris, On the Supposed Difference p. 45ff.
118.
See above p. 87.
119.
Patres Apostolki 1,1901, p. 283.
120.
The Apostolic Fathers - Ignatius and Polycarp, 1,1889, p. 310. Cf. E.C.
Blackman, Marcion and his Influence, 1948, p. 15.
121. op. cit. p. 166ff.
122. La
Theologie de I'Eglise de s. Clement de Rome
Ü
s. Irinee, 1945, p. 64ff.
123.
The view that catholicity=universality seems to have prevailed in Roman Catholic
theology. See e.g. H. Moureau, "Catholicite," in D.T.C. II/2 (1939), col. 1999,
and H. Leclercq, "Catholique," in D.A.C.L H/2 (1910), col. 2624. This view is of
course an inevitable consequence of Roman Catholic ecclesiology which takes each
local Church to be a segment of the worldwide Church. Hence the efforts of Roman
Catholic theology to interpret ancient catholicity too in this sense, as does
e.g. P. Galtier, who writes in reference to Polycarp's time (and in total
contempt of the highly significant passage from the Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16,
2) that: "each of the local Churches is like a section of the great universal
catholic Church" ("Ad his qui sunt undique," in Revue d'Histoire ecciesiastique
44 (1949), 425.
124.
This was the conclusion drawn by H. Genouillac, L'Eglise
chretienne au temps de s.
Ignace d'Antioche, 1907, p.
125.
See above p. 13.
126. "The multitude" (to plethos) is a
technical term for the local Church.
See F. Gerke, Die
Stetlung des I. Clemensbriefes innerhalb der Entwkklung der altchristlichen
Gemeinde-Verfassung und
des
Kirchenrechts, 1931, p. 132.
Elsewhere "the multitude"
seems to mean the laypeople as opposed to the clergy and particularly the
Bishop. See, in Magn. 6:1, Tral. 1:2 and 8:2.
127. Cf. Ignatius, Eph. 2:2,4:1; Magn.
7:1,13:2; Tral. 2:1,13:2; Philad. inscr., 2:1,7:1-2 (concerning the character
of priesthood by divine law. Cf. also 1:1:
"Which Bishop, I know, obtained the ministry... not of himself, nor by men...");
Polyc. 4:1, 5:2, where marriage is explicitly added to those rites which have to
be performed by the Bishop.
128. He was fully aware that he was imitating
Paul in this matter, as evidenced by the passage in the Epistle to the Trallians
(inscr.): "which also I greet in its fullness, in apostolic character."
129. An exception is the phrase "the Church in
130.
Cf. Trallians and Romans, preamble. Cf. also P. Chresti True Life according to
the Teaching of Ignatius the God-bearer [in Greek] 1951, p. 36.
131.
"Most worthy of God and most holy," etc.
132.
Ignatius, Eph. 5:1: "I reckon you [the Ephesians] happy being joined to him [the
Bishop] as the Church is to Jesus Christ and as Jesus Christ is to the Father."
133.
Ignatius, Eph. 5:2-3.
134.
Cf. p. 48 above.
135.
Cf. especially Ignatius, Eph. 20:2: the Eucharist is the "medicine of
immortality."
136.
Eph. 13:1. To Polycarp 4:2.
Cf. P. Chrestou, op. cit. p.
38.
137.
Cf. J. Romanides, The Ecclesiology of St Ignatius of
138. Smyrn. 7:1: the Docetists abstain from the
Eucharist "in order to avoid confessing that the Eucharist is the flesh of our
Saviour Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His
goodness raised up."
139.
Magn. 1:2; Eph. 10:3.
140.
Tral. 2:3. For the identification of Church and altar see also Philad. 4;
Magn. 7:2; Ephes. 5:2 and Tral. 7:2.
141.
See p.
142.
Eph. 4:2.
143.
Smyrn. 1:2.
144.
Smyrn. 7:1.
145.
Eph. 4:2 and Tral. 11:2.
146.
TraL 7:2.
147.
Tral. 1:1: "so that I see the whole multitude of you in him (Polybius)."
148. Eph. 1:3. Cf. also Magn. 6:1, where the
presbyterium with the deacons are added to the Bishop. This does not indicate an
diminution in the significance of the Bishop, who, as it appears from the other
passages, is the only person able to represent the Church - characteristically,
Ignatius never says this of the presbyterium or the deacons, while he says it
several times about the Bishop alone.
149. Magn. 3:1-2.
150. Magn. 3:2.
151.
To Polycarp, preface.
152.
Rom. 9:1. The interchange of the names "God" and "Christ" is usual in Ignatius
and does not create an issue here.
153.
Smyrn. 9:1: "You should honor both God and the Bishop; one who does anything
without the knowledge of the Bishop is worshipping the devil."
154.
To Polycarp 6:1.
155.
Philad. 3:2.
156.
See above p. 89, n. 70.
157.
Philad., preamble.
158.
Tral.3:l.
159. Baptism, the agape, the Eucharist,
marriage etc. Cf. Magn. 4:1: "It is fitting not just to be called Christians,
but actually to be such; just as some give a man the title of Bishop, but do
everything without him. It seems to me that such people are not in good
conscience, because they are not gathered together in an assured manner
(bebaios) according to the commandment."
160.
Philad. 1:1.
161. Philad. 7:1-2.
162. Eph. 3:2: "I have therefore taken it upon
myself first to exhort you to concur with the will (gnome") of God. For Jesus
Christ... is the will (gnomi) of the Father, as the Bishops too... are according
to the will (or "in the mind - en gnomi) of Jesus Christ." [Translator's note:
since the term gnomi has the sense of will, purpose and mind, there is no one
English word which can translate it idiomatically in all cases. Thus when the
last part of the above passage is quoted hereafter as "the bishops... are in the
mind of Jesus Christ," it should be borne in mind that the phrase carries
connotations of being "according to the will and purpose."]
163.
Bonis,op.cit.p.21.
164.
Philad. 4.
165.
See above, p.
166.
As it is for example by E. von der Voltz, Ignatius von Antiochen ah Christ und
Theologe, 1894, p.
167. 1 Cor. 14:23; Rom. 16:23; cf. above, p. 96.
168. 1 Clem. 46:7, echoing Paul (Eph. 4:4-6).
169. Eph. 1:22,1:10; Col. 1:19.
170. See V. Ioannidis, "The Unity of the Church" p.
171.
Cf.
172.
Cf. also the term "Son of Man," on which see above, p.
173.
Col. 1:16.
174.
Eph. 1:22-23.
175.
Eph. 4:4.
176.
Col. 3:15.
177.
1 Clem., preamble.
178.
1 Clem. 2:2.
179.
Thus the Coptic text has agion meris, ("portion of the holy ones/of the holy
things"), the Latin has "holy portion" and the Constantinopolitan codex has agia
mere, ("holy places"). All these, and especially the phrase in the Coptic text,
are probably references to the Eucharist.
180.
37 and 46:7: "Why are there discords and outbursts of anger and dissention among
you?... Why do we rend and tear apart and rebel against our own body, and reach
such a point of madness that we forget that we are members one of another?"
181.
The reason is that use of the term "Bishop" came in late in the West; the
institution of Bishops was, however, indicated by the collective term "the
presbyters." See G. Konidaris, On the Supposed Difference, p. 35.
182.
Elsewhere he speaks of Enoch and Noah as "ministering" (leitourgountes)
(9:3-4), as also of the angels (34:5), or of the Old Testament prophets as
ministers (ieitourgoi) of the grace of God (8:1).
183.
1 Clem. 44:2-4.
184.
J. Danielou (Theologie du Judeo-Christianisme, p.
185.
1 Clement 40:3 and 42:1-2. Cf. G. Konidaris, On the Alleged Difference p.
31.
186.
14:1,21:5 and 57:1.
187.
40:5 and 41:7: the clergy and the laity form "orders," each of which has
its own spheres of responsibility which it may not go beyond.
188.
The problem for the Didache consists in the gradual but almost complete
disappearance of the charismatics. See Didache 13:4: "If you have no
prophet...."
189.
3 John 9.
190.
Didache 12:1-13:7.
191.
Didache 15:1. The similarity with 1 dement is shown also in the use of the term
"tested {dedokimasmenoi) men" for those who are to be ordained (Ú Clement 44). As to the preference for the term "Bishops and deacons" and
its meaning, see G. Konidaris, On the Supposed Difference p.39f. According to
Konidaris, the preference for the term "Bishops and deacons" is due on the one
hand to the geographical area to which the Didache originates, namely the West
(cf. Phil. 1:1), and on the other to its scriptural character (1 Clement, Paul)
which suits the character of the Didache as a "m
192. The expression should be taken in an
inclusive sense indicating the charismatics as a whole and consequently also the
Apostles.
193. Didache 9:4 and 10:5. For the connection
of the "Bishops and deacons" with the Eucharist in the Didache cf. also A.
Theodorou, History of Dogma I/I (1963), p. 260.
194. Polycarp's martyrdom has been dated to
22/23 February 156 through research done by E. Schwartz, Abhandlungen der
koninglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschafien zu Gotttngen, VTII (1905), p.
195.
Lightfoot's view that the word "catholic" should be replaced with "holy" has no
serious arguments in its favor since it rests on a single manuscript in Moscow
which has probably altered the original text. On this see Funk, Patres
Apostolici I (1901), p. 334 and Leclercq in D.A.C.L. 1/2, col. 2626.
196. Mart. Polyc. inscr..: "the
Paul: "the
1 Clement: "the
Ignatius: "the
Mart.Polyc. "the
197.
Mart. Polyc. inscr.: "to all the paroikiai of the holy and catholic
Church in every place."
198.
This was the meaning of paroiko (translated above "sojourn") at that time. See
the relevant article in Kittel, T.W.N.T.
199.
This also serves to refute the views of G. Bardy (
200.
Thus for example inter alios Leclercq in D.A.C.L.
Ð/2,
col. 2626 and F. Heiler, Urkirche und Ostkirche, p.3f.
201.
The fact that this passage clearly implies the unity of the Churches all over
the world is another matter, and we shall deal with this later. Here we are
looking at the meaning of the term "Catholic Church," which, as this text
clearly shows, had not yet become identified with the "universal Church."
202.
De Prescr. Haer. 26:4
(P.L. 2:38): "diversam et contrariam (regulam
fidei) illi quam catholice (=catholicae) in medium proferebant." [They
brought in (a rule of faith) different from and contrary to that put forward by
the catholic (Churches)] "Ecclesiae" should be understood after the plural
"catholicae" according to the interpr
203.
The contrary view of C. Butler ("St Cyprian on the Church," Downside Review 71
(1953), pp. 263-66) has not found support. It was disputed both by P.-Th.
Camelot ("St Cyprian et la primaute' in Istina 1957, p. 423) and P.M. Benevot
(Si Cyprian. The Lapsed- The Unity of the Catholic Church (Ancient Christian
Writers No. 25), 1957, pp. 74-75). This view had earlier been disputed by
another Roman Catholic historian, P. Batiffol (op. cit. pp. 437-9), who observed
that "the treatise De unitate ecclesiae... does not include a system of a
universal Church, in other words of Catholicism." How the fact that the term
"catholicae ecclesiae" appears in the title of Cyprian's work can be reconciled
with Batiffol's unfounded assumption that catholicity is identical with
universality is impossible to understand.
204.
The existing manuscripts create problems as to the genuineness of the word
"catholic" in the title of the work. Some of them omit the term, which is why H.
Koch (Cyprianische Untersuchungen, 1926, pp. 102-107) placed this work before
the schism of Novatus when it is believed that Cyprian did not use the term
"Catholic Church." But as C.H. Turner observes in his review of the above work
of Koch's (in English Historical Review, 1928, p. 247), the term "Catholic
Church" was already very widely used even in the West by the second century. To
this, it should be added that only very few manuscripts lack the term "catholic"
in the title of the work while the majority have it, as has been shown by H.
Janssen, Kultur und Sprache. Zur Geschichtc der alien Kirche in Spiegel der
Sprachentwicklung: von Tertullian bis Cyprian (Latinitas Christiana primaeva:
Studia ad sermonem latinum pertmentia, No. 8), 1938, p. 18 n.2. According to
these mss., the term "catholic" belongs as a genuine part of Cyprian's work.
205.
As maintained by N. Afanassieff, "
206.
Cyprian, Letter 49 (46).2.4: "Nec ignoramus unum Sanctum Spiritum, unum
episcopum in catholica esse debere." We find precisely the same phrase in
Cornelius' letter to Fabian of Antioch (Eusebius, Led Hist. VI.43.11): "For the
avenger of the Gospel did not understand that there should be one Bishop in the
Catholic Church." [Translator's note: numbering of Cyprian's Epistles is
according to Hartel's edition (1871), with Migne's numbering in brackets. Where
only one number is given, it refers to Hartel's numbering. The English
translation in Ante-Nicene Fathers follows Migne's numbering, but see ANF vol.
5, p. 301, note 3.]
207.
This sense is impossible because nowhere in the sources for the first three
centuries does there occur the idea of one Bishop for the whole world. The term
"episcopus episcoporum" is used by Tertullian ironically. See below.
208.
(1 See above, n. 206.
209.
See e.g. Cyprian's Letter 45 (42).l.
210.
Letter 55 (52) 1.2: "Scripsisti etiam ut exemplum earundem litterarum ad
Cornelium collegum nostrum transmitterem, ut deposita omni solicitudine jam
sciret te secum, hoc est cum catholica ecclesia, communicare."
211.
Cyprian, Ep. 66 (69).8.3: "episcopum in ecclesia esse et ecclesiam in
episcopo."
212.
By Prof. Bonis, op. cit. p. 40.
213.
The same goes for both 1 Clement and the Didache, where, as we have seen, the
Bishop, implied within the term "presbyters" or "Bishops and deacons," is
connected emphatically with the offering of the Eucharistic Gifts and not with
preaching. Even Justin (c. 150 AD), who refers plainly to the liturgical
preaching of the Bishop (1 Apol. 76), sees no need to stress his teaching
authority as is done from the Martyrdom of Polycarp onwards.
214.
Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2.
215.
Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. IV.22.3,5. We have underlined "in every succession" and
"in every city" because of their importance for the catholicity of each local
Church: apostolic succession appears as "successions" in the plural exactly as
catholicity presents itself as "Catholic Churches." Each local Church possesses
both the whole succession of all the Apostles and catholicity, i.e. the fullness
of the Church. This consciousness is expressed at the same period in connection
with the Paschal controversies by Polycrates of Ephesus who writes to Victor of
Rome that the Roman Church cannot impose her local traditions upon the other
local Churches because the other Churches too have a self-sufficiency in
tradition as being connected with "great luminaries" (Eusebius, Church History
V.24.2-8). In the same spirit, Irenaeus also writes to Victor, observing in
conclusion that "the disagreement over the fast demonstrates our agreement in
faith" (Ibid. 12-13).
216.
He personally knows of three generations including the first successors of the
Apostles. Cf. Konidaris, Historian, Church... (in Greek), p.
217.
See e.g. Adv. Haer.
ÉÐ.3.3 (PG 7:849ff.)
218.
Adv. Haer. IV.23.8 (PG 7:1047f.)
219.
Adv. Haer. IV.26.2. On the nature of the episcopal office according to Irenaeus
see also H. Alivizatos, "The Significance of the Episcopal Office According to
Irenaeus" (in Greek), in Nea Sion, 10 (1910), 336ff.
220.
Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. V.20.4f. See G. Dix, "Ministry," loc. cit. p.
221.
See C. Schneider, Geistesgeschichte des
Christentums 1,1945, p.
222.
Quoted in Epiphanius, Adv. Haer. 33.6.7 (PG 41:568). Cf. B.Reynders, "Paradosis:
Le progres de l'idee de Tradition jusqu'a saint Irenee," in Rech. de Theol. anc.
et mediev. 5 (1933),
223.
Cf. Tertullian, Adv. Valent. 4, where we learn that Valentinus was an
unsuccessful candidate for Bishop of the Church of Rome.
224.
See Clement of
225.
The creation of the New Testament canon passed through the same development.
When the Church of Rome defined the four Gospels and the Pauline Epistles as the
"canon of truth," this was nothing other than an "anti-canon" set against the
canon formed by Marcion to prove the "apostolicity" of his doctrines. Cf. G.
Dix, "Ministry," p.
226. E.g. Adv. Haer.1.6.2 and IU.3.4, as also 1.16.3.
227. op. cit. 1V.33.8 (PG
7:1077).
228.. "The Gospel is the pillar of the Church."
op. cit. IH.10.8 (PG 7:835).
229.
E.g. opxif. 1.10.1-2.
230.
op. cit. III.12.5. Cf. 1.10.3: 'The whole existing Church having one and
the same faith."
231. Adv. Haer. 11U25.
232.
Adv. Haer.
ÉÐ.3.3 (PG 7:850).
233.
De Prescr. haer. 30.2
(PL 2:42): "constat ilios [Marcion et al.] et
catholicae primo doctrinam credisse apud ecclesiam Romanensem" ["It is
known that (Marcion et al.) at first believed the doctrine of the Catholic
(Church), in the Church of Rome."] Adv. Marc. IV.4 (PL 2:365): "Marcion pecuniam
in primo calore fidei cathoiicae ecclesiae contulit" [ "In the initial ardour of
his faith, Marcion brought money to the Catholic Church."]
234.
"In
honorem tamen ecclesiae
catholicae in ordinationem
ecclesiasticae disciplinae
sanctificaie sunt..." "In catholicam ecclesiam recipi non potest." H. Lietzmann,
Das Muratorische Fragment und die Monarchianischen Prologe zu den Evangelien,
1933.
235.
"una tamen per omnem orbem terrae ecclesia diffusa esse."
236.
Cf. F. Heiler, op.
cit. p. 4.
We cannot, however, see what basis there
can be for the view that Clement makes a distinction between "local heresies und
schisms" and a "universal worldwide Church (Weltkirche)." The contrast between
locality and universality does not exist in the passage of Clement which Heiler
adduces or in other texts of this period. The distinction is simply between
heresy and orthodoxy.
237. Strom. Vn.17 (ed. Staehlin, III p. 75.1.8. PG 8:548A): "Their human assemblies were later than the Catholic Church."
238.
Ibid.: "chopping up the tradition and
clandestinely digging through the wall of the Church."
239.
Strom. VI1.17 (PG 8:552A).
240.
Ibid., (PG 8:552B).
241.
Adv. Haer. IV.18.5 (PG 7:1028).
242.
Cf. A.W. Ziegler,
"Das Brot von unseren Felder. Bin Beitrag zur Eucharistielehre des hl.
Irenaus," in Pro mundi vita, Festschrift
zum Eucharistischen Weltkongress 1960. Herausgegeben von der theologischen
Facultat der Ludwig-Maximilian Universitat, 1960,
pp. 21-43.
243.
See Adv. Haer. V.2.3 (PG 7:1126-1127).
Cf. also P. Gaechter,
"Unsere Einheit mit Christus nach dem hi. Irenaus," in Zeitschrift fur
katholische Theologie 58 (1934), 516.
244.
Cf. above, p. 17.
245.
See the sources in
246.
The problem of heresy per se does not concern us here given that it is
investigated at length in a study to follow on the Church's unity in faith
during the first three centuries. For the present, see H.E.W. Turner, The
Pattern of Christian Truth. A Study in the Relations between Orthodoxy and
Heresy in the Early Church, 1954; S.L. Greenslade, Schism in the Early Church,
(no date), and also eiusdem "Der Begriff der Haresie in der alten Kirche," in
Schrift und Tradition, ed. K.E. Skydsgaard und L. Vischer (WCC) 1963, pp. 2444.
247. In the New Testament the term has this
meaning so that Paul can write "there must be factions (aireseis) among you..."
(1 Cor. 11:19); but it was not long before it became a technical term indicating
a belief which is false and dangerous to the Church (Ti. 3:10).
248.
Hence, the heretics were regarded by the church writers of the second century as
offspring of the philosophers. See H.E.W. Turner, op, cit. p.
249.
See G.
250.
1 Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. V.28.10.
251.
Philos. 9.12.21 (PG 15:3386. Ed. Wendland, p. 249.1. 20-21): "They were
ejected from the Church by us, and attached them selves to them [the followers
of Callistus] and swelled the numbers of his school."
252.
He regards it is a scandal that "they, past all shame, try to call themselves a
Catholic Church." Philos. 9.12.25 (PG 15:3387; Wendland p. 250.1. 21-23).
253. Against Celsus 6.27 (PG 11:1333A). Cf.
Homily on Isaiah 7.3 (PG 13:291): "haeretici sunt... sed nos ecclesiastici
sumus."
254. On the Gospel of Luke 16 (PG 13:1841B):
"Ego quid opto esse ecclesiasticus et non ab heresiarcha aliquo sed a Christi
vocabulo nuncupari... cupio esse et did Christianus." - "Because I want to be a
churchman and be named after Christ and not after some heresiarch... I want both
to be and to be called a Christian."
255. On Levit. 14 (PG 12:553-554).
256. "Inquiring whether they are believers,
whether they are churchmen, whether they are not sullied by heresy." From the
Didascalia of the Apostles, as transmitted by the Apostolic Constitutions 11.58
(ed. Funk, p. 167).
257. J. Scherer, Entretien d'Origene avec
Heraclide et les Eveques ses Collegues sur le Pere, le Fils et I'Ame, 1949. Also
in Sources Chretiennes No. 67,1960, to which references are given here.
258.
According to P. Nautin, op. cit. p. 231, reading prosferousa (the feminine
participle agreeing with "the offering of the Eucharist") instead of prosforou
agreeing with "[dia] Iesou Christou."
259. See below, Part
ÉII.
260. See the prayer of ordination for a Bishop
(ed. Dix, pp. 4-6), where the Bishop receives through it (a) the very "guiding
spirit" which, according to the Christological sense of Ps. 51/50:14,
strengthened the Lord in carrying out His messianic work, and (b) "the power
which Thou gavest to the Apostles."
261.
Ibid. Other powers of the Bishop are added to these in the prayer: "And in the
highpriestly spirit to have power to remit sins according to Thy commandment, to
ordain according to Thy command, and to loose every bond according to the power
which Thou gavest to the apostles."
262.
See Jn. 7:43; 9:16; and 10:19, where "schism" means not a permanent division but
a temporary disagreement. Specifically on Paul, see J. Dupont, "Le Schisme
d'apres
263.
See 1 Cor. 1:10, where the subject is a disagreement between individuals rather
than groups (cf. J. Munck, Paulus und die Heilsgeschichte, 1954), and also
11:18, where Paul is talking about selfish divisions involving, not groups, but
"each one" (11:21) at the Lord's Supper. Similarly 12:25, where the "schism"
likewise refers to the individualism of certain the members of the
264.
See S.L. Greenslade, op. cit. p.
265.
Epist. 59 (55).2O: "florentissimo illic [in
266.
See Epist. 80(82).l, where the orders of Christian citizens dealt with by
the decree of Valerian (257 AD) {senatores, cgregii, viri, equites romani) do
not constitute orders in the Church.
267.
An epistle of Cornelius of Rome to Fabius of Antioch (251 AD) informs us that at
that time the Church of Rome had 46 presbyters, 7 deacons, 7 subdeacons, 42
acolytes, 52 exorcists and readers and "innumerable" laity. For the Church in
Carthage, we do not have precise figures, but we have evidence of the existence
of a Bishop, presbyters, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes, exorcists and readers
(Epist. 29(24); 34(28).4; 45(42).4; 49(46).3 etc.).
268.
Epist. 12(37),!: "Officium vestra diligentia repraesentet" ["Let your diligence
be the representative of my office"] Cf. also Epist. 5(4).l.
269. He writes characteristically of the
presbyters that their obedience to the Bishop is such that only when they rebel,
as did Novatus in Carthage and Novatian in Rome, do they acquire independence
and a history of their own: "quando aliqui de presbyteris, evangelii nec loci
sui memores, sed neque... nunc sibi praepositum episcopum cogitantes, quod
numqam omnino sub antecessoribus factum est, cum contumelia et contemptu
praepositi, totum sibivindkent" ["since some presbyters, mindful neither of the
Gospel nor of their own place, and not even... considering the bishop now set
over them, claim for themselves complete [authority] in a contemptuous affront
to the bishop - something that was never in any way done under our
predecessors"], Epist. 16(9).l.
270.
Epist. 14(5).l.
271.
Epist. 57(54).3. Cf. also 49(46).l.
272.
Epist. 34 (28). 3-1.
273.
The difference between consilium and consensus has already been pointed out by
R. Sohm (Kirchenrecht p. 234): "The assembly of the community simply says yes."
274.
Epist. 55 (52). 8: "Et factus est episcopus a plurimis collegis nostris qui tunc
in urbe Roma aderant." ["He was made bishop by many of our colleagues who were
present in
275.
The Bishop was not understood as the "representative" of his Church
during the first centuries. In his person, as we see in Ignatius, the Church was
not "represented" - by way of delegation - but expressed and presented in her
entirety. Cf. the correct observations of Archim.
276.
"Ecclesia super episcopos constituatur." Epist. 33 (27).
277.
"Episcopum in ecclesia esse, et si qui cum episcopo non sit in ecclesia non
esse" - Epist. 66 (69). 8; a clear echo of Ignatius, Smyrn. 8.
278.
De Unitate 17.
279.
See A. Phytrakis, Reactions Against the Veneration of Saints in the
280.
Dogmengeschichte vol. 1 (fourth edition), p. 417. According to Harnack's view,
the prevailing belief before the schism of Novatus was that the Church was not
episcopocentric but a consortium of bishop, clergy and laity.
281.
The highly significant passage is this: "Dominus noster, cujus praecepta metuere
et servare debemus, episcopi honorem et ecclesiae suae rationem disponens in
evangelio loquitur et dicit Petro: Ego tibi dico quia tu es Petrus, et super
istam petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam, et portae inferorum non vicent eam, et
tibi dabo claves regni caelorum, et quae ligaveris super terram erunt ligata et
in caelis, et quaecumque solveris super terram erunt soluta et in caelis. Inde
per temporum et successionum vices episcoporum ordinatio et ecclesiae ratio
decurrit ut ecclesia super episcopos constituatur et omnis actus ecclesiae per
eosdem praepositos gubernetur." ["Our Lord, whose precepts we should fear
and observe, setting out the honour of the bishop and the order of His Church,
speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter:
º say to thee that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my
Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, and I will give unto
thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and what thou shalt bind on earth shall
be bound also in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed
also in heaven.' Hence through changing times and successions the ordination of
bishops and the order of the Church flow on, so that the Church is founded upon
the bishops and every action of the Church is directed by those same bishops who
are set over her."] Epist. 33 (27). I. Cf. also Epist. 66 (69). 8. It should be
noted that this passage implies that every Bishop (and not only the Bishop of
Rome) is a successor of Peter given that the above saying of the Lord refers to
"the honor of the bishop and the order of His Church."
282. Epist. 44 (41). 1.
283. Epist. 45 (42). 1: "ut ad catholicae
ecclesiae unitatem scissi corporis membra conponerent" - ["to bring together the
members of the divided body into the unity of the Catholic Church."]
284.
"contra institutionis catholicae unitatem alium episcopum fieri consensisse; id
est, quod nec fas est nec licet fieri, ecclesiam alterant institui." Epist. 46
(44). 1.
285.
De Unit., 5.
286.
de Unit., 6: "Qui alibi praeter ecclesiam colligit Christi ecclesiam
spargit."
287.
Epist. 66 (69). 8: "Si qui cum episcopo non sit, in ecclesia non esse...."
288.
The term cathedra connotes the symbol of authoritative teaching. Irenaeus,
Evang. Dem. 2.
289. In more d
290.
Epist. 69 (76). 1. The same view had already been expressed about 30 years
previously by Councils in Africa (220 AD, Council of Carthage, as indicated in
Epist. 73,3 and 71,4), Asia Minor (Epist.75,9f., Council of Iconium around 235
AD mentioned by Firmilian in a letter to Cyprian),
291.
Epist. 69 (76). 7.
292.
De unit. 8 or Epist. 69 (76). 8.
293.
Epist. 69 (66). 10.
294.
Epist. 69 (66). 11: "cuncti haeretici et schismatici non dant Spiritum
sanctum."
295.
Epist. 69 (76). 5-6.
296.
The oneness of the priesthood is inseparably joined to the oneness of the
Eucharist and cannot be understood in any other way. See Epist. 43 (40). 5:
"Aliud altare constitui aut sacerdotium novum fieri praeter unum altare et unum
sacerdotium non potest." ["No other altar can be instituted, no other priesthood
can be established apart from the one single altar, the one single priesthood."]
Cf. De Unit. 17 and 14 (PL 4:513 and 510).
297.
Epist. 70,3.
298.
The same agreement among the African Churches was expressed in 256 at a Council
of 87 bishops (see Sententiae episcoporum in Hartel's edition of the works of
Cyprian, vol. I p.
299. Epist. 75A.
300. Hence, the harsh
language it uses in several places against the primacy of
301. He who is outside the Catholic Church is
"alienus a spiritali et deifica sanctitate" Qbid., 8) which suggests that the
Catholic Church is the only Spirit-bearing and sanctifying communion.
302. Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. VII.5.3-5) testifies
to Dionysius of Alexandria's disagreement with Stephen of Rome.
303.
Epist. 75,6. It is not, however, certain that Firrnilian is here referring
specifically to the ecclesiology under discussion.
304.
Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. VII.5.5. The ecclesiological isolation of
305.
Right before the African Council of September 256. J. Quasten (Patrology II, p.
368) takes the years between 256 and Cyprian's death as the time of its
composition.
306.
De Rebaptismate, ed. W. Hartel as an appendix to the works of Cyprian.
307.
A basic presupposition in the ecclesiology of De Rebaptismate is the distinction
between the baptism of water and that of the Spirit. As a curious consequence of
this distinction, the idea appears in this text that the Church is in exclusive
possession of the Holy Spirit (whence she can baptize in the Spirit), but not of
the Lord (with whom the baptism of water is clearly linked here).
308.
The idea that outside the Church there is no salvation was first formulated by
Origen (Horn, on Joshua son of Nun 3.5, PG 12:841 B).
309. Fr. Georges Florovsky poses this problem
sharply and analyzes the difficulties it presents from the viewpoint of
ecclesiology in his article "The Doctrine of the Church and the Ecumenical
Movement," in The Ecumenical Review 2 (1950), 152-161.
310.
Cyril of
311. On this see the d
312.
Ibid.,p.257.
313. 1 Pet 1:1: " to the elect, the exiles of
the dispersion...." Likewise at 5:9: "Knowing that the same experience of
suffering is required of your brotherhood throughout the world."
314. Didache 9.4.
315. To Diogn. 6.1f.: 'To put it simply, what
the soul is in a body, so are the Christians in the world. The soul is scattered
throughout all the members of the body, and [so are] the Christians throughout
all the cities of the world... and Christians... hold the world together."
316. Ibid. 12.1 and 8. The text is obscure.
Nautin (Lettres et Ecrivains, p. 169), after some delicate textual work,
reconstructs it as follows: "You will always reap from God what is desirable,
what the serpent does not touch, nor does error defile; nor Eve is corrupted,
but believed to be virgin [alla parthenos pistev
317. Cf. H. Alivizatos, The Cause of the Disputes over Easter in the Second Century (in Greek), 1911, pp. 14,16 and 103: the root cause was the catholicization of the Church and not simply the question of fasting (or of the duration of the fast, as B. Lohse has tried to prove (Das Passafest der Quartadecimaner, 1953, p. 113).
318. Cf. G. Konidaris, The
Formation..., p.
319. Cf. P. de Labriolle,
320.
n anti-Montanist, quoted in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. V,16.10.Cf. Ibid. 28.6 and 9:
"having been excluded from communion."
321.
usebius, Eccl. Hist. V.24.9.
322.
See the evidence for this in W. Elert, op. cit.
323.
Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. V.24.14-17.
324.
Syriac Didascalia 12 (ed.
Connolly, p. 122).
325.
See P. Trembelas, "Contributions to the History of Christian Worship," in
E.E.Th.S. (1958/60), 1963, p.
326.
Ignatius, Eph. 3.2.
327.
Cf. G. Konidaris, The Formation, p.27; here we have the "prelude" to the
Ecumenical Council.
328.
Le Corps Mystique, II, p. 30.
329.
See in E.W. Benson, op. cit. pp. 197-199, and A.D. d'Ales,
330.
De Unit., 6.
331.
Epist. 66 (69). 5: The Lord's words to the Apostles (Lk 10:16) were addressed to
all the Bishops. It should be noted how Cyprian refers to the Apostle Peter as
the foundation of the Church's unity: "God is one, and Christ is one, and the
Church is one, and one is the throne (cathedra) which the Lord's word founded
upon Peter" ("Deus units est et Christus unus et una ecclesia et cathedra una
super Petrum Domini voce fundata") (Epist. 43 (40). 5). The nature of this one
Church founded upon Peter is made clear by a careful study of the passage
immediately following: "no other altar can be instituted, no other priesthood
can be established apart from the one single altar, the one single priesthood"
("Aliud altare constitui aut aliud sacerdotium novum fieri praeter unum altare
et unum sacerdot non potest") (Ibid.). From this it is quite clear that Cyprian
has in mind here the proliferation of altars within one and the same 1 Church
because of schisms (besides, it is clear from the whole of the letter that this
is what it is talking about); and consequently the ecclesial unity founded on
the one throne of Peter is to be fïund in the episcopal Church which does not
admit a second altar. In consequence, each bishop sits on the one throne of
Peter. Cf. De Unit.,
332.
See J. Zeiller, "La conception de l'Eglise aux Quatre Premiers Siecles," in
Revue d'Histoire Ecclesiastique 29 (1933), 582.
333.
Adv. Haer. 1.10.2: "For the languages around the world are different, but the
force of the tradition is one and the same. The Churches established in Germany
do not believe differently or hand down anything different, nor do those among
the Iberians, nor those among the Celts, nor those in the East, nor in Egypt nor
in Libya, nor those established in the central regions of the world. But as the
sun, God's creature, is one and the same all over the world, so also the
proclamation of the truth shines everywhere and illumines all who wish it to
come to knowledge of truth. Neither will the very powerful speech of those who
preside over the Churches say anything different from this (for no one is above
the teacher), nor will one who is feeble in speech diminish the tradition. For
since the faith is one and the same, one who can say much about it has not
increased it, nor has one who can say little diminished it." Cf. A. Benoit,
Saint Irenee: Introduction a l’Etude de sa Theologie, 1960, p.
334.
See Adv. Haer. V.20.1: "Those who preside over the Church, to whom the whole
world is entrusted, watchfully guard the apostolic tradition, testifying to us
that they all preserve one and the same faith... the same spiritual gifts...
they live according to the same laws..." The repetition of "the same" is
indicative of their unity in
identity.
335.
De Praescr. 20. 5-7; cf. ibid. 21.4-7.
336.
It is worth noting the way in which Tertullian refers to the Church of Rome,
placing it on the same level as any other apostolic Church: "Are you in
337.
We cannot here concern ourselves in d
338.
Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. V.16.10.
339.
It is noteworthy that Tertullian uses the title "episcopus episcoporum"
ironically (De Pudic. 1.6. Cf. De Monog, 17) in reference to the Bishop of Rome
(or of Carthage, according to E.W. Benson, op. cit. pp. 30-31, H. von
Campenhausen, Kirchliches Ami, pp. 251 and 259, and W. Telfer, The Forgiveness
of Sins, 1960, pp. 62 and 67).
340.
This is to be observed particularly in the works of Irenaeus and Clement of
Alexandria. See passages in J. Danielou, "Mia Ecclesia," p. 139.
341.
See above, p.
342.
De Praescr. 20.5-7 and 21.4-7.
343.
Ignatius, Eph. 3.2. See above, n. 216.
344.
The principle of majority decision, formulated for the first time in the 6th
Canon of the First Ecumenical Council, related to questions of order. Could it
be applied also to substantive issues such as those of faith on which numbers
never seem to have been a criterion for decisions? Many Councils, even ones
which were ecumenical as to their composition, such as that of
345. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. IV.26.2: "qui cum
episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris
acceperunt."
346. That the term "charisma" in this passage
of Irenaeus should be understood as meaning the Priesthood, which is always
bound up with the Eucharist, see G. Dix, "Ministry," pp. 209-210. Cf. also A.
Ehrhardt, op. cit. pp. 107-24. Contrary views are expressed by scholars such as
K. Mueller, "Das Charisma Veritatis und der Episcopat hex Irenaeus" in Z.N.T.W.
23 (1924), 216-22; D. van den Eynde, Us Normes de l’Enseignement Chretien, 1933,
p. 187 and E. Molland, "Irenaeus of Lugdunum and the Apostolic Succession," in
journal of Ecclesiastical History 1 (1950),
347. "The common union of the Churches," an
expression highly characteristic of the theses in this work, is used by Eusebius
(Eccl. Hist. V.24.9) of the second century Councils, and reveals the deeper
meaning of the institution of Councils when it first appeared. The truly supreme
importance of this institution lies in the fact that through it the Churches in
various places are shown to be in essence one Church only in the whole world
without ceasing to be in themselves full "Churches."
348.
Cf. the remarks of Metropolitan Dionysius of Servies and Kozani in Oikodomi,
Ecclesiastical and Literary Bulletin 2 (1959) (in Greek), 126: Each single
Church united with her Bishop, in which the mystery of the Divine Eucharist is
celebrated, "is not simply a part of the whole within the one, holy, catholic
and apostolic Church; but inasmuch as she communes in the whole in the unity of
the Holy Spirit, she is herself one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, i.e.
the 'fullness' and the Body of Christ.'" Again, Prof. N. Nissiotis rightly
observes ("Worship...," p. 198) that through the Divine Eucharist "a local
community does not pray alone, but as part of the universal, Catholic Church in
the world, and as a part which contains the whole truth in its fullness by
offering the one Eucharist." Cf. also J. Meyendorff, "Sacrements et Hierarchie
dans I'Eglise," in Dim Vwant 26 (1954), pp. 81-91, and P. Evdokimov,
L'Orthodoxie, 1959, p. 130. This fullness of each local Church at least in the
sources from the first three centuries is now recognized, albeit without being
linked with the Divine Eucharist, by certain Roman Catholics such as B. Botte, "
| Contents |
Article published in English on: 19-2-2008.
Last update: 5-5-2008.