Catholic

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

The wordCatholic (katholikos fromkatholou — throughout the whole, i.e., universal) occurs in the Greek classics, e.g., inAristotle and Polybius, and was freely used by theearlier Christian writers in what we may call its primitive and non-ecclesiastical sense. Thus we meet such phrases as the"the catholic resurrection" (Justin Martyr), "the catholicgoodness ofGod" (Tertullian), "the four catholic winds" (Irenaeus), where we should now speak of "the general resurrection", "the absolute or universal goodness ofGod", "the four principal winds", etc. The word seems in this usage to be opposed tomerikos (partial) oridios (particular), and one familiar example of this conception still survives in the ancient phrase "Catholic Epistles" as applied to those of St. Peter, St. Jude, etc., which were so called as being addressed not to particular local communities, but to theChurch at large.

The combination "the CatholicChurch" (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: "Wheresoever thebishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as whereJesus may be, there is theuniversal [katholike] Church." However, in view of the context, some difference of opinion prevails as to the precise connotation of the italicized word, and Kattenbusch, theProtestant professor oftheology at Giessen, is prepared to interpret this earliest appearance of the phrase in the sense ofmia mone, the "one and only" Church [Das apostolische Symbolum (1900), II, 922]. From this time forward the technical signification of the wordCatholic meets us with increasing frequency both East and West, until by the beginning of the fourth century it seems to have almost entirely supplanted the primitive and more general meaning. The earlier examples have been collected by Caspari (Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols, etc., III, 149 sqq.). Many of them still admit the meaning "universal". The reference (c. 155) to "thebishop of the catholic church in Smyrna" (Letter on the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, xvi), a phrase which necessarily presupposes a more technical use of the word, is due, some critics think, to interpolation. On the other hand this sense undoubtedly occurs more than once in theMuratorian Fragment (c. 180), where, for example, it is said of certainheretical writings that they "cannot be received in the CatholicChurch". A little later,Clement of Alexandria speaks very clearly. "We say", he declares, "that both in substance and in seeming, both in origin and in development, the primitive and CatholicChurch is the only one, agreeing as it does in the unity of onefaith" (Stromata, VII, xvii; P.G., IX, 552). From this and other passages which might be quoted, the technical use seems to have been clearly established by the beginning of the third century. In this sense of the word it implies sounddoctrine as opposed toheresy, and unity of organization as opposed toschism (Lightfoot,Apostolic Fathers, Part II, vol. I, 414 sqq. and 621 sqq.; II, 310-312). In factCatholic soon became in many cases a mere appellative--the proper name, in other words, of thetrueChurch founded by Christ, just as we now frequently speak of theOrthodox Church, when referring to the established religion of the Russian Empire, without adverting to the etymology of the title so used. It was probably in this sense that theSpaniards Pacian (Ep. i ad Sempron.) writes, about 370: "Christianus mihi nomen est, catholicus cognomen", and it is noteworthy that in various early Latin expositions of the Creed, notably that of Nicetas ofRemesiana, which dates from about 375 (ed. Burn, 1905, p. lxx), the word Catholic in the Creed, though undoubtedly coupled at thatdate with the words Holy Church, suggests no special comment. Even inSt. Cyprian (c. 252) it is difficult to determine how far he uses the word Catholic significantly, and how far as a mere name. The title, for instance, of his longest work is "On the Unity of the Catholic Church", and we frequently meet in his writings such phrases ascatholica fides (Ep. xxv; ed. Hartel, II, 538);catholica unitas (Ep. xxv, p. 600);catholica regula (Ep. lxx, p. 767), etc. The one clearidea underlying all isorthodox as opposed toheretical, and Kattenbusch does not hesitate to admit that inCyprian we first see how Catholic and Roman came eventually to be regarded as interchangeable terms. (Cf. Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, II, 149-168.) Moreover it should be noted that the wordCatholica was sometimes used substantively as the equivalent ofecclesia Catholica. An example is to be found in theMuratorian Fragment, another seemingly inTertullian (De Praescrip, xxx), and many more appear at a later date, particularly among African Writers.

Among the Greeks it was natural that while Catholic served as the distinctive description of the one Church, the etymological significance of the word was never quite lost sight of. Thus in the "Catechetical Discourses" ofSt. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 347) he insists on the one hand (sect. 26): "And if ever thou art sojourning in any city, inquire not simply where the Lord's house is--for thesects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens, houses of the Lord--nor merely where the church is, but where is the CatholicChurch. For this is the peculiar name of the holy body the mother of us all." On the other hand when discussing the word Catholic, which already appears in his form of thebaptismal creed, St. Cyril remarks: (sect. 23) "Now it [theChurch] is called Catholic because it is throughout the world, from one end of the earth to the other." But we shall have occasion to quote this passage more at length later on.

There can be nodoubt, however, that it was the struggle with theDonatists which first drew out the fulltheological significance of the epithet Catholic and passed it on to theschoolmen as an abiding possession. When theDonatists claimed to represent the onetrue Church ofChrist, and formulated certain marks of theChurch, which they professed to find in their own body, it could not fail to strike theirorthodox opponents that the title Catholic, by which theChurch of Christ was universally known, afforded a far surer test, and that this was wholly inapplicable to asect which was confined to one small corner of the world. TheDonatists, unlike all previousheretics, had not gone wrong upon anyChristological question. It was their conception of Church discipline and organization which was faulty. Hence, in refuting them, a more or less definite theory of theChurch and its marks was gradually evolved bySt. Optatus (c. 370) andSt. Augustine (c. 400). Thesedoctors particularly insisted upon the note of Catholicity, and they pointed out that both the Old and theNew Testament represented theChurch as spread over all the earth. (See Turmel, "Histoire de la théologie positive, 1904, I, 162-166, with references there given.) Moreover,St. Augustine insists upon the consensus ofChristians in the use of the name Catholic. "Whether they wish or no", he says, "heretics have to call the CatholicChurch Catholic" ("De vera religione", xii). "Although allheretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet if any one ask where is the Catholic place of worship none of them would venture to point out his own conventicle" (Contra Epistolam quam vocant Fundamenti, iv). Of later exponents of this same thesis the most famous is Vincent of Lérins (c. 434). His canon of Catholicity is "That which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all." "This", he adds, "is what is truly and properly Catholic" (Commonitorium, I, ii).

Althoughbelief in the "holy Church" was included in the earliest form of the Roman Creed, the word Catholic does not seem to have been added to the Creed anywhere in the West until the fourth century. Kattenbusch believes that our existing form is first met with in the "Exhortatio" which he attributes to Gregorius of Eliberis (c. 360). It is possible, however, that the creed lately printed by Dom Morin (Revue Bénédictine, 1904, p. 3) is of still earlier date. In any case the phrase, "Ibelieve in theholy CatholicChurch" occurs in the form commented on by Nicetas ofRemesiana (c. 375). With regard to the modern use of the word,Roman Catholic is the designation employed in the legislative enactments ofProtestantEngland, butCatholic is that in ordinary use on the Continent ofEurope, especially in Latin countries. Indeed, historians of allschools, at least for brevity's sake, frequently contrast Catholic andProtestant, without any qualification. InEngland, since the middle of the sixteenth century, indignant protests have been constantly made against the "exclusive and arrogant usurpation" of the name Catholic by theChurch ofRome. TheProtestant, Archdeacon Philpot, who wasput to death in 1555, was held to be very obstinate on this point (see the edition of his works published by the Parker Society); and among many similar controversies of a later date may be mentioned that between Dr. Bishop, subsequentlyvicar Apostolic, and Dr. Abbot, afterwardsBishop ofSalisbury, regarding the "Catholicke Deformed", which raged from 1599 to 1614. According to some, such combinations asRoman Catholic, or Anglo-Catholic, involve a contradiction in terms. (See theAnglicanBishop ofCarlisle in "The Hibbert Journal", January, 1908, p. 287.) From about the year 1580, besides the termpapist, employed with opprobrious intent, the followers of the old religion were often called Romish orRoman Catholics. Sir William Harbert, in 1585, published a "Letter to a Roman pretended Catholique", and in 1587 an Italian book by G.B. Aurellio was printed inLondon regarding the different doctrines "dei Protestanti veri e Cattolici Romani". Neither do the Catholics always seem to have objected to the appellation, but sometimes used it themselves. On the other hand,Protestant writers often described their opponents simply as "Catholics". A conspicuous instance is the "Pseudomartyr" of Dr. John Donne, printed in 1610. Moreover, if only for brevity's sake, such burning questions as "Catholic Emancipation" have commonly been discussed by both sides without any qualifying prefix. In connection with this matter we may call attention to a commonAnglican view represented in such a popular work of reference as Hook's "Church Dictionary" (1854), s.v. "Catholic" — "Let the member of theChurch of England assert his right to the name of Catholic, since he is the onlyperson inEngland who has aright to that name. The English Romanist is a Roman Schismatic and not a Catholic." Theidea is further developed in Blunt's "Dictionary of Sects and Heresies" (1874), where"Roman Catholics" are described as "asect organized by theJesuits out of the relics of the Marian party in the reign of Queen Elizabeth". An earlier and less extreme view will be found inNewman's "Essays Critical and Historical", published by him as anAnglican (see No. 9, "The Catholicity of the Anglican Church"). TheCardinal's own note on this essay, in the last revised edition, may be read with advantage.

So far we have been considering only the history and meaning of the name Catholic. We turn to itstheological import as it has been emphasized and formalized by latertheologians. Nodoubt the enumeration of four precise "notes" by which theChurch is marked off from thesects is of comparatively recent development, but the conception of some such external tests, as pointed out above, is based upon the language ofSt. Augustine,St. Optatus, and others, in their controversies with theheretics of their time. In a famous passage ofSt. Augustine's treatise "Contra Epistolam quam vocant Fundamenti", directed against theDonatists, the holy doctor declares that besides the intrinsic acceptability of herdoctrine "there are many other things which most justly keep me within the bosom of theChurch", and after indicating the agreement in thefaith among her members, or, as we should say, her Unity, as well as "the succession of priests from the installation of Peter the Apostle, to whom our Lord after His resurrection entrusted His sheep to be fed, down to the present episcopate", in other words the quality which we call Apostolicity,St. Augustine continues in a passage previously cited in part, "Lastly there holds me the very name of Catholic which not without reason so closely attaches to theChurch amid theheresies which surround it, that although allheretics would fain be called Catholics, still if any stranger should ask where the Catholic service is held, not one of theseheretics would dare to point to his own conventicle" (Corpus Scrip. Eccles. Lat., XXV, Pt. I, 196). It was very natural that the situation created by the controversies of the sixteenth century should lead to a more exact determination of these "notes". Englishtheologians likeStapleton (Principiorum Fidei Doctrinalium Demonstratio, Bk. IV, cc. iii sqq.) and Sander (De Visibili Monarchia, Bk. VIII, cap. xl) were foremost in urging this aspect of the question between the Churches, and foreign scholars likeBellarmine, who engaged in the same debates, readily caught the tone from them. Sander distinguished six prerogatives of theChurch instituted byChrist.Stapleton recognized two primary attributes as contained inChrist'spromises--to wit, universality in space and perpetuity in time--and from these hededuced the other visible marks.Bellarmine, starting with the name Catholic, enumerated fourteen other qualities verified in the external history of the institution which claimed this title (De Conciliis, Bk. IV, cap. iii). In all these varying schemes, it may be remarked, the universality of theChurch was given a foremost place among her distinctive marks. However, already in the fifteenth century thetheologian John Torquemada had set down the notes of theChurch as four in number, and this more simple arrangement, founding upon the wording of the familiar Mass Creed (Et unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam), eventually won universal acceptance. It is adopted, for instance, in the "Catechismus ad Parochos", which in accordance with adecree of theCouncil of Trent was drawn up and published in 1566 with the highest official sanction (seeCHRISTIAN DOCTRINE). In this authoritative document we read:

The third mark of theChurch is that she is Catholic, that is, universal; and justly is she called Catholic, because, asSt. Augustine says, 'she is diffused by the splendour of onefaith from the rising to the setting sun'. Unlike republics of human institution, or the conventicles ofheretics, she is not circumscribed within the limits of any one kingdom, nor confined to the members of any onesociety ofmen, but embraces within the amplitude of herlove, allmankind, whether barbarians or Scythians, slaves or freemen, male orfemale.

In confirmation of this, various prophetic utterances ofHoly Scripture are quoted, after which the Catechism proceeds: "To this Church, built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets (Ephesians 2:20) belong all the faithful who have existed from Adam to the present day, or shall exist in the profession of thetruefaith to the end of time, all of whom are founded and raised upon the one cornerstone,Christ, who made both one, and announced peace to them that are near, and to them that are afar. She is also called universal, because all who desireeternalsalvation must cling to and embrace her, like those who entered the ark to escape perishing in the flood. This, therefore, is to be taught as a most just criterion to distinguish thetrue from afalse church."

This multiplex and somewhat confused presentment of the note of Catholicity undoubtedly finds its warrant in the equally wide interpretation of some of the early Fathers. Thus, for example,St. Cyril of Jerusalem says: "The Church is called Catholic because she is diffused throughout the whole world [i.e. the habitable world,oikoumenes] from one end of the earth to the other, and because she teaches universally and without curtailment all thetruths offaith which ought to be known to men whether they concern visible or invisible things, heavenly things or the things of earth; further because she brings under the yoke ofGod'strue service all races of men, the mighty and the lowly, the learned and the simple; and finally because she tends and heals every kind ofsin committed by body orsoul and because there is no form of virtue, whether in word or deed or in spiritual gifts of any kind whatever, which she does not possess as her own" (Cateches., xviii, 23; P.G., XXXIII, 1043). In similar terms speaksSt. Isidore (De Offic., Bk. I), among the Fathers of the West, and a variety of other explanations might also, no doubt, be appealed to.

But of all these various interpretations, which, after all, are not inconsistent with one another, and which are probably only characteristic of a fashion ofexegesis which delighted in multiplicity, one conception of Catholicity is almost invariably made prominent. This is theidea of the actual local diffusion of theChurch, and this is also the aspect which, thanks nodoubt to the influence ofProtestant controversy, has been most insisted upon by thetheologians of the last three centuries. Someheretical andschismatical teachers have practically refused to recognize Catholicity as an essential attribute ofChrist's Church, and in theLutheran version of theApostles' Creed, for example, the word Catholic ("Ibelieve in theholy CatholicChurch") is replaced byChristian. But in the majority of theProtestant professions offaith the wording of the original has been retained, and the representatives of these various shades of opinion have been at pains to find an interpretation of the phrase which is in any way consistent with geographical and historical facts. (For these seeCHRISTENDOM.) The majority, including most of the olderAnglican divines (e.g. Pearson on the Creed), have contented themselves with laying stress in some shape or form upon the design of the Founder of theChurch that His Gospel should be preached throughout the world. This diffusionde jure serves its purpose sufficiently as a justification for the retention of the word Catholic in the Creed, but the supporters of this view are of necessity led to admit that Catholicity so understood cannot serve as a visible criterion by which thetrue Church is to be distinguished fromschismaticalsects. ThoseProtestant bodies who do not altogether reject theidea of "notes" distinctive of thetrue Church consequently fall back for the most part upon the honest preaching ofGod's word and the regular administration of thesacraments as the only criteria. (See the "Confession of Augsburg", Art. 7, etc.) But such notes as these, which may be claimed by many different religious bodies with apparently equal right, are practically inoperative, and, as Catholic controversialists have commonly pointed out, the question only resolves itself into the discussion of the nature of the Unity of theChurch under another form. The same must be said of that very large class ofProtestant teachers who look upon all sincereChristian communions as branches of the one CatholicChurch with Christ for its invisible head. Taken collectively, these various branches lay claim to worldwide diffusionde facto as well asde jure. But clearly, here again the question primarily involved is that concerning the nature of the Unity of theChurch, and it is to the articlesCHURCH andUNITY, that the reader who wishes to pursue the matter further must be referred.

As against these and other interpretations which have prevailed amongProtestants from theReformation until quite recent times, the scholastictheologians of the last three centuries have been wont to put forward the conception of the note of Catholicity in various formal propositions, of which the most essential elements are the following. Thetrue Church ofChrist, as it is revealed to us in prophecy, in theNew Testament, and in the writings of the Fathers of the first six centuries, is a body which possesses the prerogative of Catholicity, i.e. of general diffusion, not only as a matter of right, but in actual fact. Moreover, this diffusion is not only successive--i.e. so that one part of the world after another should in course of ages be brought in contact with the Gospel-- but it is such that theChurch may be permanently described as spread throughout the world. Further, as this general diffusion is aproperty to which no otherChristian association can justly lay claim, we are entitled to say that Catholicity is a distinctive mark of thetrueChurch ofChrist.

It will be seen from this that the point upon which stress is laid is that of actual local diffusion, and it can hardly be denied that both Scriptural and Patristic arguments adduced byBellarmine,Thomassin, Alexander Natalis, Nicole, and others, to take but a few prominent names, afford strong justification for the claim. The Scriptural argument seems first to have been developed bySt. Optatus of Mileve against theDonatists, and it was equally employed bySt. Augustine when he took up the same controversy a few years later. Adducing a large number of passages in the Psalms (e.g. Pss. ii and lxxi), with Daniel (ch. ii), Isaiah (e.g. liv, 3), and other prophetic writers, the Fathers and moderntheologians alike draw attention to the picture which is there afforded of the Kingdom of Christ theMessiah as something gloriously and conspicuously spread throughout the world, e.g. "I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession", "He shall rule from sea to sea", "All the nations shall serve Him", etc., etc. Moreover, in combination with these we have to notice our Lord's instructions and promises: "Go ye therefore and teach all nations", "You shall be witnesses unto me . . . even to the uttermost part of the earth" (Acts 1:8), orSt. Paul's words quotingPsalm 18, "Yes, verily, their sound went out over all the earth and their words unto the ends of the whole world" (Romans 10:18), etc. But the real strength of the argument lies in the patristic evidence, for such words of Scripture as those just quoted are cited and interpreted, not by one or two only, but by a large number of different Fathers, both of the East and of the West, and nearly always in such terms as are consistent only with the actual diffusion over regions which to them represented, morally speaking, the whole world. It is indeed particularly important to note that in many of these patristic passages the writer, while insisting upon the local extension of theChurch, distinctly implies that this diffusion is relative and not absolute, that it is to be general indeed, but in a moral, not in a physical or mathematical sense. ThusSt. Augustine (Epist. cxcix; P.L., XXXIII, 922, 923) explains that the nations which formed no part of the Roman Empire had already joined theChurch, which was fructifying and increasing throughout the whole world. But he adds that there will be always need and room for it still to grow; and, after quoting Romans 10:14, he adds:

In those nations therefore among whom theChurch is not yet known it has still to find a place [in quibus ergo gentibus nondum est ecclesia, oportet ut sit], not indeed in such a way that all who are there should become believers; for it is all nations that are promised, not all the men of all nations. . . . Otherwise how shall that prophesy be fulfilled, 'Ye shall behated by all for my name's sake', unless among all nations there are those who hate as well as those who arehated?

Lastly, it should be said that among some confused thinkers of theAnglican communion, as also among certain representatives ofModernist opinions, an interpretation of the Catholicity of theChurch has lately come into fashion which has little connection with anything that has hitherto fallen under our notice. Starting with the conception familiar in such locutions as "a man of catholic tastes", meaning a man who excludes no rational interest from his sympathies, these writers would persuade us that acatholic church either does or should mean a church endowed with unlimited comprehensiveness, i.e. which is prepared to welcome and assimilate all opinions honestly held, however contradictory. To this it may be answered that theidea is absolutely foreign to the connotation of the phraseCatholicChurch as we can trace it in the writings of the Fathers. To take a termconsecrated by centuries of usage and to attach a brand-new meaning to it, of which those who through the ages had it constantly on their lips never dreamed, is to say the least extremely misleading. If this comprehensiveness and elasticity ofbelief is regarded as a desirable quality, by all means let it have a new name of its own, but it is dishonest to leave the impression upon theignorant or the credulous, that this is theidea which devout men in past ages have all along been groping for, and that it has been left to the religious thinkers of our own day to evolve from the namecatholic itstrue and real significance. So far from theidea of a nebulous and absorbent substance imperceptibly shading off into the media which surround it, the conception of the Fathers was that the CatholicChurch was cut off by the most clearly defined of lines from all that lay outside. Its primary function, we might also say, was to set itself in acute opposition to all that threatened its vital principle of unity and stability. It istrue that patristic writers may sometimes play with the wordcatholic, and develop its etymological suggestiveness with an eye to erudition or edification, but the only connotation upon which they insist as a matter of serious import is theidea of diffusion throughout the world.St. Augustine, indeed, in his letter to Vincentius (Ep. xciii, in "Corpus Scrip. Eccles. Lat.", XXXIV, p. 468) protests that he does not argue merely from the name. I do not maintain, he declares equivalently, that theChurch must spread throughout all the world, simply because it is called Catholic. I base myproof of its diffusion upon the promises ofGod and upon the oracles ofHoly Scripture. But thesaint at the same time makes it clear that the suggestion, that theChurch was called Catholic because it observed allGod's Commandments and administered all thesacraments, originated with theDonatists, and he implies that this was a view in which he did not himself concur. Here again the demonstration of theunity of the Church as built upon a dogmatic basis is fundamental, and the reader must be referred to the articleCHURCH. TheAnglicanBishop ofCarlisle, in an article published in the Hibbert Journal for January, 1908, and entitled "The CatholicChurch, What Is It?", seems to carry the modern formula, Catholic = comprehensive, to its most extreme lengths. No principle of cohesion seems to be left except this, that the CatholicChurch is that which bans nothing. Thebishop conceives of it, apparently, as an institution invested by Christ with unlimited power to add to its numbers, but no power to expel. It must surely be plain that practical common sense pronounces against such a conception not less strongly than the plain words of our Lord in the Gospel or the consistent attitude of the Fathers.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT