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 ίο 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 Halicarnassus¹¹³ and Plutarch¹¹⁴ testifies. Philo who had a decisive influence on the world which surrounded the early Church does not deviate from the Aristotelian sense of the term. Thus, for him too, the word katholikos does not have a geographical or quantitative meaning, but denotes what is complete, full and general.¹¹⁵ As a distinguished specialist on the subject observes,¹¹⁶ in all these cases Philo follows Aristotle. Such was the prevailing sense of the term katholikos in secular literature. The Aristotelian sense of katholou survived and was preserved up to the time of early Christianity. How far the ecclesiastical literature of the first three centuries preserved the Aristotelian sense of this term is the question that will concern us next.

2. Of Christian literature, neither the New Testament nor the Septuagint uses the term "Catholic Church." The Church of Antioch, in which other basic technical terms such as "bishop" and "Christian" were first used,¹¹⁷ is the first to use this term in the passage from Ignatius' Epistle to the Smyrnaeans quoted above.¹¹⁸ The precise meaning of the term "Catholic Church" in this passage has repeatedly been a bone of contention. The main question that has been posed is whether the distinction here is between the universal and the local Church, or the invisible and the visible Church. Funk saw in this passage a distinction between the visible and the invisible Church, the term applying to the invisible,¹¹⁹ while Lightfoot equated "catholic" with "universal."¹²⁰ Roman Catholic historians such as P. Batiffol,¹²¹ and more recently G. Bardy,¹²² also consider that "catholic" here means "universal."¹²³ This view presupposes that in the text of Ignatius the "Catholic Church" is in contradistinction to the local Church. It is assumed, in other words, that Ignatius' thinking involved the scheme "locality-universality," through

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 interpretation, catholicity is applied here not to the local Church, but to the "universal" Church.

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 Church of Philadelphia he calls the "Church of God the Father and of the Lord Jesus Christ." He uses the same style to describe the Church of Smyrna.¹³¹ Unless these epithets are taken as empty rhetorical hyperbolae, which is altogether improbable, their use by Ignatius shows that the local Church is the very Church of God, predestined before the ages, chosen and glorified. If, then, we allow a conceptual distinction between the Church of God and the local Church in Ignatius's consciousness, the Church of God is to be found fully and in all her glory in every place. The Church of God which "is" or "sojourns" somewhere does not merely reside among the faithful of the local Church as a special sort of invisible state, but is identified with the faithful, i.e. the local Church. This is why Ignatius calls the Ephesians "all God-bearers and temple-bearers, Christ-bearers, bearers of holiness" (9:2). This is why these very Ephesians are identified by Ignatius with the "Church renowned unto the ages" (8:1). Here, then, is the first fundamental conclusion: the local Church, according to Ignatius, is the very Church of God, the eternal, full, and whole Church. Why?

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 "Church of God": the deacons, being ministers of the Divine Eucharist, are ministers of the Church of God.¹⁴⁰

Both the local Church and the "Church of God" are expressed historically (in space and time) through the Divine Eucharist. We find ourselves confronted once again with the Pauline ecclesiology.¹⁴¹ The Church is the body of Christ.¹⁴² Ignatius is quite clear on the justification for this consciousness which he interprets fully: the Church is the body of Christ because the body of Christ is the historical Christ Himself¹⁴³ and the historical Christ is the flesh of the Divine Eucharist.¹⁴⁴ The local Church, then, is the whole Church for no other reason than because the whole historical Christ is made incarnate within her through the Divine Eucharist. Precisely because of the Divine Eucharist, the local Church can be regarded as the Church of God, the whole Church, and can be addressed as such through the epithets that we have seen; because through the unity of the body of Christ, she "partakes of God."¹⁴⁵ This leads Ignatius to stress another element in this passage.

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 Church of Ephesus is present for Ignatius in the person of her Bishop Onesimus.¹⁴⁸ This incarnation of the local Church in the Bishop - the result, as we have seen, of the connection between the Bishop and the Divine Eucharist - leads to further consequences for the position of the Bishop in the Church. In these consequences,  the characteristics of the "catholicization" of the Church find their completion.

"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 Church of God, because the whole Christ is to be found in her and makes her a unity, the one body of Christ, through the Divine Eucharist. In consequence, Ignatius does not hesitate to go on to link the Bishop with Jesus Christ. The Lord is called "Bishop."¹⁴⁹ Whatever happens to the visible Bishop of the Church is transmitted to the invisible Bishop, Jesus Christ. The Bishop forms a "type" and icon of Christ or of the Father Himself, an icon and type not in a symbolic but in a real sense: "It is fitting to obey in no hypocritical fashion; since one is not deceiving this visible Bishop, but seeking to mock the One who is invisible."¹⁵⁰ This realist view of the relationship between the Bishop and the Lord allows Ignatius easily to interchange these two persons:¹⁵¹ when he is being led to martyrdom and is away from Antioch, the Lord is the Bishop of that local Church.¹⁵² Two different worlds are thus created: God with the Bishop, and those who are apart from the Bishop with the devil.¹⁵³ Unity around the Bishop is a unity around God and in God.¹⁵⁴ 'Tor as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ, these are with the Bishop."¹⁵⁵ In the same way, union with the Bishop constitutes union with Christ, and vice versa.¹⁵⁶

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 Antioch chose the term "Catholic Church"? Our information on this will come from the ecclesiology of the generations immediately preceding Ignatius or contemporary with him to which the few surviving sources bear witness.

3. In our investigation of the origins of the unity of the Church, we saw that the Church first made her appearance as Jesus Christ Himself. By virtue of the inclusion in Him of the "many" for whom He was crucified and raised up, the Church constituted the unity of the very body of Christ in which the "many" become One person. This unity was expressed historically in its fullness through the Divine Eucharist. There the One and the "many" meet regardless of their numbers because Christ was regarded as being present even if only "two or three" were gathered together (Mt. 1850). The full presence of Christ, the whole Christ, was not tied to numbers or quantity, the indifference to which is expressed in the conjunction "or." This was manifested from the beginning as a reality in the local Church. From the moment when the Church was united around the Divine Eucharist, which means from the beginning, she believed that she constituted the whole Christ and therefore the whole Church. Thus, Paul calls the local Church of Corinth during the synaxis of the Divine Eucharist the whole Church.¹⁶⁷ With the consciousness of oneness (one Lord - one Divine Eucharist) there developed also the consciousness of wholeness, of the kath' olou {the whole Christ - the full and certain Divine Eucharist - the whole or Catholic Church). Paul is a clear witness to the connection between the oneness and the katholou of the Church through the Divine Eucharist. The early Church had a sensitivity about dismemberment of the whole which deserves our attention: "let us not tear the members apart. ¹⁶⁸ This shows that she understood herself not only as one, but also as wholeness and fullness. Hence, there arose the consciousness of the Church as the fullness of Christ which is manifested in Paul's letters to the Ephesians and Colossians. ¹⁶⁹  How should the "fullness" (pleroma) and the recapitulation of everything in Christ be understood in these Epistles? The opinions of commentators differ. ¹⁷⁰  At any rate, it is highly doubtful whether they can be understood quantitatively, as Christ being "complemented" by the Church. It is more likely and more accurate, even where the language is that of Christ being "complemented" by the Church, that this should be understood not as a matter of addition but as an expression of the full presence of the one within the other. The Church is the fullness (pleroma) of Christ because she constitutes Christ in His fullness.

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 Church of Ephesus is regarded as "one body,"¹⁷⁵ and the Colossians are likewise called to be one body.¹⁷⁶ Thus, the consciousness that the local Church constitutes the full body of Christ, the catholicity of which does not need complementing by the other local Churches, appears widespread in the Pauline Epistles certainly on the evidence of those which are addressed to local Churches. Hence, the Church of Corinth is called by Paul "the whole Church" (Rom. 16:23 and 1 Cor. 14:23). Thus from the "whole Church" of Paul, we have arrived naturally at the "Catholic Church" of Ignatius.

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 Church of God is widespread. The Church of Rome and the Church of Corinth are each separately called the "Church of God,"¹⁷⁷ and their faithful are "elect and sanctified." There was a "full outpouring of the Holy Spirit" on all the Christians of Corinth¹⁷⁸ so that the Church of Corinth can without hesitation be called a "portion of the holy" {meris agiou). As variations in the codices attest, it is not impossible that this is an indirect reference to participation in the Divine Eucharist.¹⁷⁹ But 1 Clement gives clearer expression to the consciousness that the local Church forms the whole body of Christ when in reference to the disturbances in Corinth it develops the Pauline idea of the body of Christ.¹⁸⁰ From the viewpoint of consciousness, then, the antiquity of the Church's catholicity goes back to the earliest texts, and from Paul's time to that of Ignatius continues to be understood as the fullness of the body of Christ in each Church. What can we say about the outward marks of this catholicity?

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 interpretation and speaking theologically. It develops teachings such as those of a priesthood which exists by divine law and is understood iconically,¹⁸⁵ obedience to the clergy as to God,¹⁸⁶ a clear distinction between clergy and laity¹⁸⁷ etc. But this theology does not create either the consciousness of catholicity or new external characteristics of catholicity. These already existed: 1 Clement merely interprets them. Thus, the "presbyters" and apostolic succession were recognized as characteristics of the Catholic Church before Ignatius during the crucial generation when the Apostles were disappearing; and for that generation as for Ignatius, the recognition came from the Church's consciousness shaped in the celebration of the Divine Eucharist that she constitutes the whole and full body of Christ.

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 "Church of God."

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 katholou Church, the Catholic Church herself.

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 Smyrna”. ¹⁹⁵This is in accordance with the whole ecclesiology of this text, in which the local Church, just as in Paul's Epistles, 1 Clement and Ignatius, is identified with the very "Church of God.¹⁹⁶

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 Smyrna is called in the Martyrdom of Polycarp the "Catholic Church."¹⁹⁹

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 Smyrna." As this passage shows, the Bishop already concentrates in himself all the properties of the charismatics (he is "apostolic" and "prophetic"); but while these properties include the offering of the Eucharist, the emphasis is placed heavily on his teaching authority: "for every word that went out of his mouth has been and will be accomplished." ²¹⁴

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 Rome was full of teachers and philosophical schools in the second century AD; and heresiarchs such as Marcion, Basileides and Valentinus contrived for years to be in contact with the Church while they were teaching heretical doctrines. Why did the Gnostics claim apostolic succession? The reason should be sought in the fact that the primary and most grave accusation against them was that they were teaching "new things." In order to refute this accusation, they maintained that they possessed a secret and "hidden" tradition going back to the Apostles.²²⁴

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 Church of God" is usually understood as contrasted with the heretics.²²⁶ The Church is presented as possessing her own system of teaching,²²⁷ and furthermore, which is more important, as supported by her teaching mission as by a "pillar."²²⁸ For this reason, wherever there is a reference to the Church as a whole, this is always done almost exclusively in order to emphasize her preaching and teaching.²²⁹ "The whole Church" (tota ecclesia) in Irenaeus' time is used as an expression and proof of orthodoxy in contrast with heresy. Thus the college of the Apostles was not only the Church par excellence, but also the whole Church (tota ecclesia) "from which every Church had its origin."²³⁰ It is characteristic that "the whole Church" is not connected here in any way with the concept of universality. But it is equally characteristic of the development which had taken place in the meantime that it does not appear as in Paul and Ignatius in reference to the synaxis of the Divine Eucharist but as proof of the Church's orthodoxy: the whole Church was incarnate in the college of the Apostles, free of heretics, because "there was no Valentinus there then, nor any of the others who destroy themselves and their followers."²³¹ Similarly the understanding of the external marks of catholicity takes on a new emphasis as we believe is shown in the following example. Irenaeus mentions 1 Clement at one point²³² and refers incidentally to apostolic succession. But the interpretation of it that he gives is noteworthy and forms a clear picture of the development that had taken place in the understanding of the marks of catholicity. Whereas Clement, as we have seen, connects apostolic succession with the offering of the Gifts, meaning the Divine Eucharist - the dismissal from which of the Apostles' successors had prompted the composition of the letter - this is overlooked by Irenaeus who sees the purpose of 1 Clement as being instead the renewal of apostolic faith in Corinth. The disturbance in Corinth which 1 Clement attempts to quell is for Irenaeus a matter of faith rather than of liturgy. Because apostolic succession, for the Church of his time, meant principally the guarantee of orthodoxy and the transmission of the apostolic tradition.

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. Rome, for example, was the scene of an historically unprecedented coexistence of heretical groups²⁴⁹ which did not content themselves with a teaching mission, but, perhaps in order to counter the arguments of the Catholic Church, sought to obtain ecclesial status themselves.

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.