What is the church?

[Catholic Apologist]

WHAT IS “THE CHURCH?”

Defining the word

What do we mean when we say ‘Church?’ We often hear or use such
expressions as: “There is no salvation outside the Church,” “The Church of
Russia,” “The Greek Orthodox Church,” “The Roman Catholic Church,”
“The Church is the Body of Christ,” or “Christians should go to Church.”
All contain the term ‘Church,’ but obviously in a very inconsistent way.
It is agreed that properly speaking, the word ‘Church’ refers to people, not
to a building. Secondly, it is reasonable to argue that the meaning of the
word ‘Church’ should be defined by the Scriptures and its apostolic
interpretation found in the writings of the Early Fathers, not by modern
usage.
By searching the New Testament for every occurrence of the word
‘Church’ (or ‘Churches’), one can obtain a clear picture of what it is that
God established “by the price of the blood of his own [Son].”a
On the one hand, the Church is an eschatological reality that transcends
space and time. It could be said that God knows, foreknows and has a
relationship with us that is not constrained by the here and now (1 Cor.
13:12). He knows his elect from “before the foundation of the world.” The
early Christian (and orthodox) doctrine of the so-called ‘pre-existence’ of
the Church is well established.b For instance, the Shepherd of Hermas
teaches that “She [the Church] was the first of all creation… and the
world was made for her”.c The early homily known as 2 Clement is even
more explicit:

a
Acts 20:28
b
This doctrine has nothing to do with the Origenistic or Mormon belief in the pre-existence of spirits.
We are dealing here with an eschatological reality above space and time, not a temporal sequence.
See Pre-existence, Wisdom, and the Son of Man: A Study of the Idea of Pre-existence in the New Testament,
by R. G. Hamerton-Kelly
c
Hermas – Vision, 2:4

[Catholic Apologist]

Moreover, the books and the Apostles declare that the Church belongs not
to the present, but existed from the origin [beginning, source].a
In order to understand reality properly, that is according to the mind of the
Spirit, we must discern within time and creation a dynamic movement
towards its telos or end.b On the one hand, our human consciousness
experiences the universe as ‘purpose-driven.’ But could it be that our
experience of the arrow of time is only an icon or foretaste of the reality
that already exists in God? A beautiful exposition of this profound truth is
found in the writings of St. Maximus the Confessor who summarized it in
these words: “The things of the past are shadow; those of the present icon;
the truth is to be found in the things of the future.”c
In his classic Being as Communion, Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of
Pergamon makes the point that the Eucharistic liturgy is also “a
remembrance of the future,” because the Church belowd is a manifestation
of the Church beyond.e The great Orthodox theologian compares us with
trees “with branches in the present and roots in the future.”f This is why
the great prayer of consecration of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom can
say:
Remembering, therefore, this command of the Savior, and all that has come
to pass for our sake, the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day,
the ascension into heaven, the sitting at the right hand of the Father, and
the second and glorious coming…
In the Church, we are already “new creatures in Christ,”g and even in our
present chronos (time), we are revealed as foreknown, predestined, called,
justified and glorified. The apparent contradiction between ‘pastoral free
will’ passages and those stressing eternal divine electionh simply reflect the
tension between two perspectives on reality.
Clement of Alexandria aptly summarized the relationship between the
Church of the elect above and the Church below in these words:
The earthly Church is the image of the heavenly.i

a
2 Clement 14
b
1 Corinthians 15:24
c
Scolion on the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, 3.3.2; See also James 1:17
d
The ‘catholic’ Church in its Eucharistic gathering
e
See Hebrews 12:23-24 and Revelation 4
f
John Zizioulas – Being as Communion, p.64-74
g
1 Corinthians 5:17
h
John 6, Romans 9, Ephesians 1
i
Bercot – Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, p. 147

[Catholic Apologist]

Scholarly research in the origins and meaning of early Christian worship,
which was itself based on Temple worship, confirms this approach. In a
paragraph fittingly entitled Time and Eternity, one such scholar documents
how “beyond the veil” of the Holy of Holies, the whole history of the world
appeared in one glimpse, as a literally ‘omni-present’a picture:
In the world view of the temple, there was another, timeless state beyond
the veil which was not ‘future’ but always present.b
In the perspective of our experience of time, of our eon or ‘age,’ the Church
is “the body of Christ,”c the means by which temporal creatures can be
united to the eternal God-Man and become “partakers of the divine
nature”d now and in “the age to come.” The purpose of the Church is that
the many creatures would be one with God the Father in Jesus Christ, so
that “God may be all in all.”e The Church is the means by which human
beings can enter in this new mode of existence not “born of the flesh” but
“of the Spirit.”f To describe this reality, the expressions “eschatological,g
pre-eternal, fulfilled or supra-temporal Church” are all fitting.
This definition can sound identical with that of ‘Universal Church.’ For
instance, the Catechism of the Orthodox Church contains this question and
answer:
Q. Why is the Church called Catholic, or which is the same thing, Universal?
A. Because she is not limited to any place, time, or people, but contains true
believers of all places, times, and peoples.
In this sense, both concepts are identical, even though the early Church use
of ‘catholic Church’ was usually reserved for the manifestation of the pre-
eternal Church in space and time. The problem is that ‘Universal /
Catholic Church’ is mainly used to refer to all believers now alive on earth.
This is especially usual in Roman Catholic terminology (and theology),
both for ‘Catholic Church’ and ‘Universal Church’.
ÿ
Hence, the mystery of the Church is the mystery of Christ himself and the
Eucharistic gathering is what constitutes and manifests the Church in

a
Omnipresent is an interesting word which means all-pervading, either in space or in time.
b
Margaret Barker – The Great High Priest, p. 336
c
Colossians 1:24-28, also Ephesians 5
d
2 Peter 1:5-9
e
1 Corinthians 15:28
f
John 3:6
g
Eschatological means “of the last things”

[Catholic Apologist]

space and time, ‘this side of the curtain.’ In the Eucharist, we experience an
intersection of the eternal “lamb slaughtered from the foundation of the
world”a with our ‘here and now.’ The very institution of the Eucharist
makes the connection, indeed the identity Eucharist-Church obvious: “this
is my body” refers to both interchangeably. In 1 Corinthians 11, a chapter
entirely dedicated to the Eucharistic life of “the Church of God that is at
Corinth,”b we find this significant expression: “when you come together as
[a] Church.”c In other words, it is the gathering of the people of God to
celebrate the Lord’s Supper that makes the Church be – in the sense of a
manifestation of the eschatological Church and Lamb. It is the same Holy
Spirit who is called upon to manifest the Christ, both in the waters of
Jordan and in the Eucharistic assembly.
In the liturgy of St. Basil, we pray:
That thy Holy Spirit may come upon us and upon these gifts here set forth,
and bless them and hallow them and show this bread to be itself the
precious Body of Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, and this cup to be itself
the precious Blood of Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ…
We now understand why St. Paul uses the
expression “the whole Church”d (o[lhj th/j
evkklhsi,aj) to refer to the local Church. The
local Church is the whole Church, and Paul
always uses the singular (“to the Church of
God that is in Corinth”) when he mentions
the local Church. By contrast, Churches
(plural) refers to regional or organizational
groups. In other words, 1 “whole Church” +
1 “whole Church” + 1 “whole Church” = the
“whole Church” in 3 places or 3 “Churches.”
Paul does not say “the Church in Galatia” or
“the Church of Achaia (Greece)” because it is
improper terminology!e There is no one Eucharist in Galatia or in Achaia
and therefore we cannot consider all the Christians in those areas ‘in bulk’

a
Revelation 5 and possible translation of 13:8
b
1 Corinthians 1:1
c
1 Corinthians 11:28 – or “as Church.”
d
Romans 16:23; Acts 15:22
e
The only possible exception is Acts 9:31. It seems that the original text may have read “the Church
throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and was built up” (RSV). Based on older
manuscripts, other versions read “the Churches.” Even if the original was “church” (or rather
“Church”), which is likely, the fact that this text has “throughout” (kaqV o[lhj – the root expression
for ‘catholic’) indicates an early ‘distributive class usage’ as opposed to the th/| ou;sh| evn used for the
local Church.

[Catholic Apologist]

and call them ‘a Church.’ “Exiles” and “saints” in Asia or Galatiaa certainly,
but not as Church. The same can be said of our modern use of ‘Church’ (as
in ‘Orthodox Church’) to refer to a worldwide communion of local catholic
Churches, what we often call ‘the universal Church.’ As in the case of
regional Churches, there is no ‘universal (worldwide) Eucharist.’ Because of
this, using the word ‘Church’ in the expression ‘universal Church’ (or to
say ‘the church needs a new roof’) is certainly convenient and
commonplace, but it also improper and potentially misleading.
ÿ
To summarize, the Church, strictly speaking, is the Body of Christ, the
eschatological unity of all those who have been united to Christ’s life in all
times and places. This is the foundational use of ‘Church’ in the New
Testament. The other proper use for ‘Church,’ in a way that connects with
our realm, is in reference to the gathering of Christians from a specific area
to celebrate the Eucharist. If in Matthew 16:18, the meaning of Church is
uncertain, Matthew 18 undoubtedly uses the same word to describe the
local community. This “whole Church” is the manifestation of the
eschatological Church in our world, in our town. Beyond that, we have
“Churches.”

Church (eschatological = pre-eternal
or metaeonic = total). Could also be called
space-time universal (STU).
= All the saints or elect throughout space and
time. Also called ‘Catholic Church’ in the Catechism of
the Orthodox Church (COC).
Church (catholic = local) (a
manifestation of the Church in space and
time, by the Holy Spirit. In RC terminology,
a ‘particular Church.’
= the saints in a particular city or area, defined by
their unity in the Eucharist presided by the bishop
(now called a diocese or eparchy).
Churches (regional, space-universal) = the saints in an area, who do not gather at the
same place and under the same bishop for one
Eucharist.

There is a great risk of equating (and confusing) the eschatological Church
with the sum of all the local Churches in existence on earth at one
particular point in time, i.e. the so-called ‘universal Church.’b The idea that
all Christians alive on earth form a universal organism or society called
Church is a central element of Roman Catholic ecclesiology. According to

a
1 Peter 1:1
b
In other words, confusing space-universal and space-time universal.

[Catholic Apologist]

this view, the Church, the “whole Church” is first and foremost “the faithful
everywhere.” Hence, the unity of the Church depends on all the local
Churches being joined to their ontological head (in this case the Roman
Church), to form a single worldwide body called “the Catholic Church.”a
However, before discussing the ecclesiological paradigm more at length, let
us first try to understand what the word ‘catholic’ originally meant.
The catholic Church as a hologram
When we confess our faith in the “Church,” or the “one, holy, catholic and
apostolic Church,” we are confessing the existence of the Church, both ‘pre-
eternal’ and ‘manifested’ in our world, as something essential for our
salvation. But what does “catholic” mean? Does it mean universal or whole
or both? And how do we recognize and identify this catholic Church
confessed in our creed?
Eucharistic theology is the view that the catholic Church is fundamentally the
local Eucharistic assembly, gathered around its bishop. Thus, the ‘Church of
God which is at Ephesus or Corinth’ is the “whole Church” and the
“catholic Church.”
In terms of etymology, ‘catholic’ comes from kat’holon, a cognate of holis. In
other words, catholic means ‘according to wholeness.’ Catholic is also
connected with ‘holographic’ inasmuch as the word ‘hologram’ is based on
the same root as ‘catholic.’ A hologram can be described as follows:
A hologram is a three-dimensional photograph made with the aid of a
laser… When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of
light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by
another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object
appears. The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only
remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half
and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the
entire image of the rose. Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each
snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version
of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram
contains all the information possessed by the whole.
The “whole in every part” nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely
new way of understanding organization and order. For most of its history,
Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand
a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study
its respective parts.

a
See the decrees of Vatican I, Session 4: Chapter 2

[Catholic Apologist]

A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend
themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed
holographically, we will not get the partial pieces from which it is made, we
will only get smaller wholes.a
Indeed, the relationship between Church and Eucharist is significant as we
recall the words of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom:
Broken and distributed is the Lamb of God; broken, but not divided; forever
eaten yet never consumed; sanctifying all who partake.b
The similarity with holographic objects is striking. By contrast, the
paradigm of Western science is also that of Western theology, and we can
paraphrase Michael Talbot as follows:
Western theology has labored under the bias that the best way to
understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom (or the
Church), is to dissect it and study its respective parts.
In other words, conventional Western ecclesiology used to tell us that
there is one big worldwide universal Catholic Church, of which local
Churches are only parts. According to this view, the parts are not “whole”
individually, one has to take all the parts to have the whole. Reflecting this
approach, the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses traditional Western
terminology:
[The bishops should] rule well their own Churches as portions of the
universal Church.c
Likewise, in an unpublished article entitled What Does Catholic Mean? A
History of the Word “Catholic,”d Roman Catholic apologist Steve Ray
explains:
However, we have yet to define the word catholic. It comes from the Greek
katholikos, the combination of two words: kata- concerning, and holos- whole.
According to the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, the word
catholic comes from a Greek word meaning “regarding the whole,” or more
simply, “universal” or “general.” Universal comes from two Greek words:
uni – one, and vertere – turning. In other words, a “one turning,” “revolving
around one,” or “turned into one.” The word Church comes from the Greek
ecclesia which means “those called out,” as in those summoned out of the
world at large to form a distinct society.

a
Article The Amazing Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot, electronically published. See also, The
Holographic Universe, Michael Talbot, HarperPerennial, New York, 1991
b
Prayer at the fraction of the consecrated bread
c
CCC, 886
d
Published electronically on http://www.catholic-convert.com

[Catholic Apologist]

The Orthodox can only agree with this presentation, although care is
required to properly understand what is meant by “those summoned out of
the world at large to form a distinct society.” From an Orthodox
perspective, the problem arises when Steve Ray concludes:
So the Catholic Church is made up of those called out and gathered into the
universal visible society founded by Christ.
But universal is an imprecise word. It can mean “not limited to any place,
nor time, nor people, but contains true believers of all places, times, and
peoples,” which can be called eschatological or pre-eternal.a But this does
not seem to be the intended meaning. Instead, “universal visible society
founded by Christ” conveys the idea of ‘worldwide visible society founded
by Christ.’
Hence, if the Church is disconnected from its Eucharistic nature, the
temptation is great to define ‘Catholic Church’ in a space-universalb sense.
However, there is no single universal Eucharist and no single universal
bishop, and hence no universal (worldwide) Church. From an Orthodox
perspective, a more accurate conclusion to the above quoted article would
be:
So the catholic Church is made up of those called out and gathered (to
manifest the Church) through a visible, local community that participates in
and offers the Eucharist under the presidency of its bishop.
‘Space-universal catholic ecclesiology’ is based on imprecise terminology
and can easily be misleading. More importantly, it does not offer a faithful
witness to the ecclesiology of the New Testament or of the early Church.

a
Or space-time universal (ST-U)
b
Not space-time universal. Space universal means worldwide and now. Space-time universal means all
those in Christ at all times and all places, i.e. the fullness of the Church.
Image: the primitive approach: ontological
Eucharistic ecclesiology.
Each diamond represents “a catholic
Church” or “the catholic Church.”
The tip of the diamond represents the
bishop. The other three tips represent the
deaconate, the presbyterium and the
people.

[Catholic Apologist]

If we used the illustration of holographic objects, the catholic Church (the
local Eucharistic assembly) is a complete whole which stands on its own. It
contains the basic ‘pattern’ or ‘code’ and it is capable of manifesting the
“whole picture.” Moreover, if we look at several Churches, we do not have
parts or portions coming together like a jigsaw puzzle or a mosaic. We
have whole units revealing the eschatological picture with increased
accuracy, and the original that is being revealed is the heavenly Church,
not the so-called ‘universal (worldwide) Church.’
As a result, the catholic Church is meant to be “one” by its very own
nature.a If the pattern is there, we have “the whole Church;” if not, there is
either nothing or a different picture.
A universal ontology or vocation?
In his important essay on ecclesiology entitled Called to Communion:
Understanding the Church today, Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)
offers a clear exposition of the Roman Catholic understanding of ‘Church’
and ‘catholic Church:’
The Church embraces the many languages, that is, the many cultures, that
in faith understand and fecundate one another. In this respect it can be said
that we find here a preliminary sketch of a Church that lives in manifold
and multiform particular Churches but that precisely in this way is one
Church. At the same time, Luke expresses with this image the fact that at
the moment of her birth, the Church was already catholic, already a world
Church. Luke thus rules out a conception in which a local Church first arose
in Jerusalem and then became the base for the gradual establishment of
other Churches that eventually grew into a federation. Luke tells us that
the reverse is true: what first exists is the one Church, the Church that
speaks in all tongues – the ecclesia universalis; she then generates Church in
the most diverse locales, which nonetheless are all always embodiments of
the one and only Church. The temporal and ontological priority lies with
the universal Church; a Church that was not catholic would not even have
ecclesial reality.b
This short paragraph presents the emphasis of Roman Catholic
ecclesiology. Yet, the problem is the potential lack of clarity of the words
we use: ecclesia universalis seems to be both a “world Church” and, perhaps,
the eschatological Church, in which case the Orthodox would
wholeheartedly agree. However, where the Orthodox would say that every
(local) Church has a universal, missionary vocation, Roman Catholics tend

a
In a sense, the catholic Church cannot be cut. In another sense, the presbyters can be geographically
distributed to parishes which can be considered “parts” of the catholic Church, but these parts
always include the bishop.
b
Ratzinger – Called to Communion, pp. 43,44

[Catholic Apologist]

to see universality or internationalism as an ontological fact from the start.
The result of this second view is that the Church (Catholic or universal) is
first and foremost a “world Church,” not the local Church. In other words,
the reality of the Church is the big picture, the worldwide organism which
is being made manifest as more local Churches are created. Indeed, Called to
Communion rejects the Orthodox idea that the universal mission of the local
Church generates a federation of Churches that should not be called
‘Church’ in the proper sense.
UNITY IN THE (LOCALa) CATHOLIC CHURCH
Who presides over the Eucharist?
The first occurrence of the expression ‘catholic Church’ in the early
centuries is worth considering. This significant text is found in the Epistle
of Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyneans:
Let no one do anything regarding the Church, apart from the bishop. Let
that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid (assured) which is held
under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the
bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is
the catholic Church. It is not permitted without authorization from the
bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape; but whatever he approves is
also pleasing to God.
In this text, the catholic Church is the local Church, the gathering of the
people of God around the bishop to offer the sacred Eucharist, not a
‘universal (or worldwide) visible society founded by Christ.’ In Ignatius and
for most early Christians, we have the sequence:
CHRIST-CHURCH > INCARNATION > EUCHARIST CATHOLIC
CHURCH > PRESIDENT-BISHOP
This is a sequence which makes perfect sense, if, like the early Christians,
we understand the Eucharist to be both a meal and a sacrifice. If “God’s
own people” is “a royal priesthood,”b and if the Lord’s Supper is an
“anamnesis,”c the logical consequence is the offering of “sacrifices.”d The

a
Precision required by the use of capitalization in the title.
b
1 Peter 2:9
c
Luke 22:19 – the Greek av na,mnhsin conveys the idea of sacrifice or invocation in the LXX.
d
Hebrews 9:23 – Christian sacrifices include “a sacrifice of praise” (Hebrews 13:15), “the offering of
our bodies a living sacrifice” (Romans 12:1), “the priestly service of the gospel of God” (Romans
15:16) and the offering of bread and wine.

[Catholic Apologist]

resulting question is “who will offer the sacrifices on behalf of the people?”
Who will stand up in the middle of the assembly to preside over the
Eucharistic liturgy and utter the sacred words of institution? Even in the
Jewish mindset, there must be ‘an order’ by which some say the “Amen”
and the “Alleluia” while others “serve at the altar.” In the context of the
Eucharist, the Church did not choose to have a ‘randomly picked’ president
of assembly or even a ‘rotational presidency.’ In keeping with biblical
pattern, one was set aside to be the institutional celebrant. Among the
presbyters, a presiding-presbyter was elected and consecrated. The term
‘bishop’ soon became normative to refer to that office.a Hence, the bishop,
as president of the Eucharistic assembly, is the living symbol of the catholic
Church and the guarantee of its unity.b
Presbyters and bishops
It is likely that Peter‘s role among the Apostles (protos) made him the
senior-celebrant whenever the Apostles were gathered. Every order has its
protos, and Peter was that first-Apostle among the Twelve. Likewise, the
bishop (who is essentially a presbyter ‘ordered’ or ‘ordained’ as protos)
occupies “the place of Peter” in the Church.c
In other words, presbyters (including the bishops) are “priests” (i`ereu.j –
hiereus) in the sense that only they can offer the bloodless sacrifice on behalf
of the people. Yet, a particular presbyter is set aside as the visible and
permanent sign of unity, as Peter was set aside among the Twelve.
Regarding the relationship between presbyteros and episcopos, two positions
are possible: these two views were masterfully (albeit subjectively)
expounded at the turn of the twentieth century by Charles Biggs:
In the fourth century there were in the Church two divergent theories of
the origin of the Episcopate. The first is that of Theodore of Mopsuestia,
the second is that of St. Jerome.
Theodore starts from the observation that Bishop and Presbyter were
originally equivalent terms, and asks how the former had come to designate
a special and superior grade… According to Theodore, then, the
Episcopacy existed from the beginning, though there has been a shifting of
titles; the first bishops were specially consecrated by the Apostles and by
the Apostles alone…

a
See Appendix A
b
This is why Orthodox bishops wear a ‘panagia’ around their necks, i.e. an icon of the Mother of
Christ who is herself the icon of the Church.
c
In modern Orthodox usage, ‘protopresbyter’ is an honorary rank or title bestowed on a senior priest
by his bishop.

[Catholic Apologist]

This may be called the accepted view… The essential point is whether the
Apostles by a distinct act of consecration instituted a distinct class of
ecclesiastical officers whom they intended to step into their own places and
wield their own authority.a
Briggs then contrasts this view with that of St. Jerome (we have already
quoted from his Epistle to Evangelus):
St. Jerome… also starts with the observation that originally bishop and
presbyter were convertible titles.
The Presbyter, therefore, is the same as the Bishop, and until parties arose
in religion by the prompting of the devil, so that it was said in the
communities, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, I of Cephas, the Churches were
governed by the common council of the priests. But when each teacher
began to think that those whom he had baptized were his own, not Christ’s,
it was decreed throughout the world that one of the priests should be
elected and set over the others, and that on him should rest the general
supervision of the Church, so that the seeds of division might be
destroyed…
As therefore the presbyters know that by the custom of the Church they are
set under him who is put over them, so let bishops know that rather by
custom than by the Lord’s arrangement are they greater than presbyters.’
(Commentary of Titus 1:5)
According to Jerome, therefore, Episcopacy was not directly instituted by
our Lord, and it is clearly implied in his words that it was not directly
instituted by the Apostles. It rests upon the ‘custom of the Church,’ and was
devised by the Church for a particular object—the maintenance of unity.
At this point, let us clearly express our options.
Option 1: the original biblical pattern is that presbyters and bishops are
one and the same, both in terminology and in fact. If one presbyter was
elevated to a higher office (then called episcopate), this was a practical
decision of the Churches for the sake of unity, not an apostolic institution.
Depending on how strongly one feels about the authority of the Church,
this ‘change’ is more or less binding.
Option 2: the biblical terminology that equates presbyter and bishop does
not negate the fact that one presbyter was in fact the institutional

a
Biggs – The Origins of Christianity, pp.63-71.
The question can be expressed differently: did Christ and the Apostles intend that one man would be
the permanent president of the Eucharist, and if so what would be the ecclesiological significance of
this role? Charles Bigg is typically assuming that it would be the bishops only who would ‘succeed’
to the Apostles, not the presbyters. However, the real question is, did the Apostles intend that one
presbyter should hold the place of Peter – protos – in the (local) Church.

[Catholic Apologist]

Eucharistic president of the community, i.e. the bishop. Regardless of what
title was given to this role or office, it was of apostolic and divine origin. In
this context, divine means that if Christ chose Peter to be protos (arche is
not used) among the Apostles, the identification of the bishop with Peter
would be based on a divine order, not on ecclesiastical policy.a
It is true that the terms presbyteros and episkopos were interchangeable, both
in the New Testament and in 1 Clement, but we have analyzed this issue in
detail in Appendix A. Whether called ‘bishop’ or not, there always was a
presbyter designated as ‘head of the table’ for the Eucharistic community.
This office of presidency gave him a powerful representative and symbolic
role: the bishop stood at the altar on behalf of the clergy and people. Christ
and the Church intersected in his personal office because the people are
‘Christ’ and the bishop speaks on behalf of the Great High Priest the words
of institution.
What remains somewhat of a mystery is the nature of the relationship
between the protos and his fellow-presbyters. As Jerome rightly remarked, a
presbyter can do everything a bishop does except ordain. As early as the
third century, the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome makes the
distinction between the authority of the presbyter to “seal” and that of the
bishop to actually “ordain:”
When one ordains a deacon, he is chosen according to what has been said
above, with only the bishop laying on his hand in the same manner. In the
ordination of a deacon, only the bishop lays on his hand, because the deacon
is not ordained to the priesthood, but to the service of the bishop, to do that
which he commands… Upon the presbyters, the other presbyters place
their hands because of a common spirit and similar duty. Indeed, the
presbyter has only the authority to receive this, but he has no authority to
give it. Therefore he does not ordain to the clergy. Upon the ordination of
the presbyter he seals; the bishop ordains.b
Hence, the bishop is first among equals, but in a way that gives him unique
privileges, indeed powers, in the Church and “on behalf of the Church.”c On
the other hand, the bishop depends on other bishops to perform an
episcopal consecration, and likewise needs the assent of the presbyterium and
the people:
With the assent of all, the bishops will place their hands upon him, with the
council of presbyters standing by, quietly…d

a
Peter was always called “an apostle” or “the fellow-presbyter” and “first.” There was no
distinguishing title for his role of presidency and leadership among the Apostles.
b
Apostolic Tradition, 8
c
This expression is used of the letter called 1 Clement in Eusebius.
d
Apostolic Tradition, 2

[Catholic Apologist]

Summary
The need to have an established presiding presbyter at the head of the
Eucharistic assembly is obvious for practical reasons. It seems equally
evident that the early Christians, following the apostolic pattern for
Jerusalem, did not opt for a ‘rotational’ type of Eucharistic presidency. Just
as Peter, an apostle, had status of protos and the privilege to preside
whenever the Twelve were gathered,a likewise a presbyter was designated
to have this special role (as “bishop”).
THE STRUCTURE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
“One bishop in the catholic Church”
Perhaps the most striking confirmation of Orthodox Eucharistic
ecclesiology and terminology comes from an early bishop of Rome:
Cornelius (†252). Eusebiusb has preserved for us the content of Cornelius’s
letter to Fabian of Antioch:
[Referring to Novatian who attempted to seize the bishopric at Rome]
This avenger of the Gospel then did not know that there should be one
bishop in the catholic Church;c yet he was not ignorant that in it there were
forty-six presbyters, seven deacons, seven sub-deacons, forty-two acolytes,
fifty-two exorcists, readers, and janitors, and over fifteen hundred widows
and persons in distress…
This early bishop of Rome confirms the holographic ecclesiology of
Ignatius: because the bishop is the living symbol of the unity of the Church,
“there should be one bishop in the catholic Church.” Clearly, Cornelius uses
the expression ‘catholic Church’ to refer to the local Church without any
doubt of being misunderstood.
Another early instance of the word catholic is associated with St. Polycarp,
Bishop of Smyrna, who used the word many times. The Martyrdom of
Polycarp, written at the time of Polycarp’s death, reads:
The Church of God which sojourns in Smyrna, to the Church of God which
sojourns in Philomelium, and to all the dioceses of the holy and Catholic
Church in every place… When Polycarp had finished his prayer, in which

a
Except, perhaps in Jerusalem, after James was ordained bishop.
b
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, translated by Paul Maier, p. 240 (6.43)
c
Most translations have “in a catholic Church” but the original Greek is better translated “in the
catholic Church” (see Zizioulas, Eucharist, Bishop, Church, pp. 126-127).

[Catholic Apologist]

he remembered everyone with whom he had ever been acquainted . . . and
the whole Catholic Church throughout the world…
These quotes, often poorly translated, are clear enough to establish that
‘Catholic’ could not possibly mean ‘universal’ or ‘worldwide.’ If it was the
case, ‘Catholic’ would mean “which is in every place” and this leads to the
conclusion that the Martyrdom of Polycarp would talk about ‘the [which is
in every place] Church in every place,’ a meaningless tautology.a
The evidence, then, is that there was no universal ecclesiology in the
second and third century.b When the Western model appeared and
developed, the result was to postulate only one ultimate bishop (the pope)
in the ‘catholic Church’ (the universal Church).
St. Peter, “head” of the catholic Church
Having a correct understanding of what the catholic Church is enables us
to think with the mind of the Fathers on this issue, without being affected
by the so-called ‘Peter syndrome.’c
We have already expressed primitive Orthodox ecclesiology with this
formula:
INCARNATION > EUCHARIST CATHOLIC CHURCH > PETER
> PRESIDENT-BISHOP = ESSENTIAL / ONTOLOGICAL / DIVINE
ORDER
By comparison, Roman Catholic ecclesiology is explained in Jesus, Peter and
the Keys whose introduction by Kenneth Howell offers the universalist
equivalent. In this model, the bishop is unavoidably absorbed by the
papacy:
INCARNATION > CHURCH > PAPACYd
The major difference resides in what we mean by Church. If the Church is
in fact a universal, worldwide organism or society, then the Roman
Catholic model makes sense. Orthodox scholar Alexander Schmemann was
very lucid on this point:
If the Church is a universal organism, she must have at her head a universal
bishop as the focus of her unity and the organ of supreme power. The idea,
popular in Orthodox apologetics, that the Church can have no visible head

a
Also in the Liturgy of St. Basil: “we pray to You, be mindful of Your holy, catholic, and apostolic
Church, which is from one end of the inhabited earth to the other.”
b
John Zizioulas’ Eucharist, Bishop, Church offers an in-depth examination of the primary sources.
c
The “Peter Syndrome” is the automatic (and unjustified) application of anything about Peter to the
bishop of Rome exclusively. This is deeply rooted in Roman Catholic consciousness.
d
Butler et al. – Jesus, Peter and the Keys, Introduction, xiv

[Catholic Apologist]

because Christ is her invisible head is theological nonsense. If applied
consistently, it should also eliminate the necessity for the visible head of
each local Church, i.e. the bishop.a
Of course, saying that the bishop is in some sense the “head” of the (local)
catholic Church (now called diocese) or that the Patriarch of Moscow is the
“head” of the Russian Orthodox Church (or more accurately the Moscow
Patriarchate) requires some clarification. This headship is that of a
representative or primate, according to the spirit of the 34th apostolic canon
which reads:
It is the duty of the bishops of every ethnic area to know who among them
is the first, and to recognize him as their head, and to refrain from doing
anything unnecessary without his advice and approval. Instead, each
[bishop] should do only whatever is necessitated by his own district and by
the territories under him. But let not [the primate] do anything without
the advice and consent and approval of all. For only thus there be concord,
and will God be glorified…b
However, such ‘headship’ cannot in any way be identified or in competition
with Christ’s ontological headship over the pre-eternal Church.
In summary, the New Testament and pre-Nicene use of ‘Church,’ ‘whole
Church’ and ‘catholic Church’ assumes Eucharistic ecclesiology. Moreover,
the identity of etymology and concept between ‘catholic’ and ‘holographic’
is both illuminating and significant.
The bishop as successor of St. Peter
The role of a presiding-presbyter (later called bishop) as successor of Peter
who was protos among the Twelve is significant. This is without doubt the
patristic perspective.
St. Ignatius is the first explicit advocate of what has come to be called the
‘doctrine of the monarchical episcopate.’ However, Ignatius does not make
any connection between Peter and the bishop in a ‘successive’ or symbolic
sense. Origen, on the other hand, makes a clear identification between the
Petrine promises of Matthew 16 and the office of bishop. In fact, this
identification is not presented as a theological speculation: Origen tells his
readers that it was the standard claim of all bishops to have received the
power of the keys:

a
Meyendorff – The Primacy of Peter (hereafter TPOP), p. 151
b
The Rudder of the Holy Orthodox Christians or All the Sacred and Divine Canons, D.Cummings, Chicago,
1957

[Catholic Apologist]

Consider how great power the rock has upon which the Church is built by
Christ, and how great power every one has who says, “Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the living God”… But when those who maintain the function of
the episcopate make use of this word as Peter, and, having received the keys
of the kingdom of heaven from the Savior, teach that things bound by them,
that is to say, condemned, are also bound in heaven, and that those which
have obtained remission by them are also loosed in heaven, we must say
that they speak wholesomely if they have the way of life on account of
which it was said to that Peter, “Thou art Peter…” But if he is tightly bound
with the cords of his sins, to no purpose does he bind and loose.a
It seems that Origen had traveled extensively by the time he wrote his
Second Commentary on Matthew. As a result, we must assume that he
accurately reported what he heard: bishops were quoting Matthew 16 to
establish the prerogatives of their office.
With Cyprian, we have an unambiguous exposition of Eucharistic
ecclesiology combined with the identification Peter = Bishop. In the words
of the great African bishop:
Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing
the honor of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel,
and says to Peter: “I say unto thee that you are Peter, and upon this rock
will I build my Church, etc.” And so, through the changes of times and
successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow
onwards, so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of
the Church is controlled by these same rulers… The Church is established
in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the Faith.b
This is not speculative theology – these are basic theological arguments
used by Cyprian to dissuade the lapsed from separating from their bishop.
The same Petrine arguments are expressed in his Epistle to Florentius:
Peter answered Him: “You are the Son of the living God.” Peter speaks
there, on whom the Church was to be built, teaching and showing in the
name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of
those who will not hear and obey may depart, yet the Church does not
depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the
priest,c and the flock which adheres to its pastor. And so, you should know
that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any
one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those
flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s
priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the
Church, which is catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed

a
Second Book of the Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew, Book XII, 14
b
Epistle XXVI, to the Lapsed
c
‘Priest’ (hiereus or sacerdotus) always referred to the bishop, not to the presbyter(s).

[Catholic Apologist]

connected and bound together by the cement of [bishops] who bond with
one another.
This is Eucharistic and episcopal ecclesiology par excellence. Yet, Cyprian is
even more explicit in his famous Treatise on the unity of the catholic Church.
The source of unity of the catholic Church, he writes, is Peter, that is the
episcopate:
There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord
speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that you are Peter; and upon this
rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against
it. And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and
whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and
whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And again
to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep.” And although
to all the Apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and
says, “As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy
Spirit: Whosesoever sins you remit, they shall be remitted; and
whosesoever sins you retain, they shall be retained; “yet, that He might set
forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as
beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the Apostles were also the same
as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honor and power; but
the beginning proceeds from unity… Does he who does not hold this unity
of the Church think that he holds the Faith? Does he who strives against
and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church?
The episcopate is one, the parts of which are held together by the individual
bishops. The Church is one which with increasing fecundity extends far and
wide into the multitude, just as the rays of the sun are many but the light is
one, and the branches of the tree are many but the strength is one founded
in its tenacious root, and, when many streams flow from one source,
although a multiplicity of waters seems to have been diffused from the
abundance of the overflowing supply nevertheless unity is preserved in
their origin.a
The episcopate is the locus of unity of the catholic Church and every bishop
sits on Peter’s chair.

[NickHassan]

Hi CA,
Cobblers.

Jesus did not come to set up religion and ritualism.
Men have substituted that for a relationship in Jesus with God worshipping in spirit and truth.

[GeneBalthrop]

CA………..a whole lot of nothing, still equals nothing. Nick is right we are call to worship GOD the FATHER in the spirit and truth. Jesus did not tell us to seek GOD through (ANY) Church or man made organizations. That the problem in the world Men let there organizations replace GOD in their live and that gives them control over them, as proved by their bloody history. IMo

gene

[Author]

Posts