"One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church"

[ITS]

We confess that we believe in "one holy, catholic, and apostolic church." What did this mean for the ancient church? What does it mean for today?

[cajohnson]

The most important word in this confession for the early church was probably “one” because the true orthodox church was constantly struggling against heresy and schism. The term holy meant that the church was established and nurtured by the Holy Spirit and the Sacraments, set apart as the body of Christ and the reflection of the Kingdom proclaimed by Jesus. It was catholic, or universal, in that its members were to ideally be from every tribe and nation, proclaiming the same faith. Finally, the church was apostolic in that its traditions had been given by Jesus to the apostles, and handed down by the succession of bishops and deacons that had been ordained by God to serve the church. Today, unfortunately, it seems that this confession is spoken only in the most conservative and orthodox of churches. With all of the divisions that the church has experienced, especially since the Reformation, this phrase may not seem to hold much weight at all. Nonetheless, there is yet, in all the churches that claim to be “Christian” the profession of Jesus, so that even with all their differences in practice and doctrine, they are in some sense still the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

[SJ Hatch]

I find myself in full agreement both with cajohnson's description of what it meant to ancient Christians to confess in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church and what it means for us today. I would just add in a few additional thoughts, for whatever they are worth. First, what is striking to me in going through the material on the ancient church is how much of that unity was not simply doctrinal but sacramental as well. The ancient Christians saw themselves as one in Christ and that was reinforced every Lord's day in the sacrament of the Lord's Table. I think that that understanding has largely, though not entirely, been lost in many Protestant Churches today and I think that should give us pause for reflection. Second, I think that the ancient church's view of itself that it was to be marked by holiness also ought to give us pause for reflection. The evangelical interest in reaching out to non-believers has tended to obscure the fact that we, as a community of believers, need to be marked not only by individual holiness but also an abiding sense of the holiness of Church and a willingness to holy--i.e. set apart--from the world. This does not mean that we need to retreat into monasticism but we do need to dare to be different and not be conformed to the likeness of this world, as we are increasingly becoming.

[Brad]

The part of the creed that read, ?one holy, catholic, and apostolic church? meant something quite different as recited in the ancient church than it does in many modern evangelical churches. My particular church tradition does not generally recite a creed; some churches recite their mission statements so it would mean something quite different to members of my church. To the members of the ancient church, the word ?holy? of the creed reminded them first that they were ?called out of darkness into His wonderful light.? It reminded them that they were a ?chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God that [they] may declare? God?s praises. The word ?catholic? would bring to mind a particular denomination to the members of my church. To the ancient church ?catholic? meant universal. It reminded them that they were connected to something bigger than the group that met in their locale. This was a world- wide move of God. The word ?apostolic? meant that they were faithful to maintain the same traditions that the Lord?s apostles had handed down to them. To members of my church ?apostolic? may remind them of the name of a particular denomination. To the ancient church, the ?one holy, catholic, apostolic church? was more of a visible, tangible, easily identifiable body. Christians today living in a culture with thousands of denominations understand the ?holy, catholic, and apostolic church? to be the body of true believers, that are not easily identifiable, contained within the many orthodox churches. The phrase ought to remind us that true believers of any church background share a common faith and Lord and can experience authentic Christian fellowship.

[flodoman]

The Church is a divine institution, not a human institution. It is a supernatural entity, and
all the members are knit together by a supernatural kinship. It is a divine assembly of people who have their history and future in God’s divine grace.
The Church is one. It is a complex organism that has tremendous unity in the midst of diversity. It is one boy with many members all united around a common good. Jesus spoke of building “My Church” in Matthew 16:18. Jesus prayed that His disciples would experience unity modeled on the unity that He has with the Father (John 17:11,21-23). Paul referred to us as a one body of Christ, which transcends human labels and denominations (Gal 3:28; Eph 2:14-15; 3:6)
The Church is holy because God made her so (Ephesians 5:25-27). Holy has an implication of being separated from the world, living by a totally different standard from that of the world. The Church marches to a different drumbeat and is definitely not conformed to the world. The Church is to reflect the holiness of God (1 Pet 1:15; Heb 7:26; Heb 10:10). Holiness is God’s will for every believer (1 Thess 4:3-7); it is God’s provision for every believer (Col 1:22) and it is God’s requirement for every believer (Rev 22:11).
The Church is catholic, meaning universal – whole and total. The Church is universal because it embraces all the people of the world who believe – people from every land, tribe, tongue, and nation are all included. It is the totality of all believers everywhere and in every generation. It is trans-denominational. Every Christian has a mystical oneness with every other Christian.

The Church is apostolic because it teaches what the apostles taught. Its faith, worship, and doctrine can be traced directly back to the apostles. Its foundation is built upon the apostles and prophets, with Christ being the Chief Cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20). Preaching of the apostolic gospel down through the centuries and around the globe is a sign of the true church. Paul repeatedly urged Timothy and Titus to hold on to sound doctrine and avoid those things that excise curiosity and vain wranglings and do not edify the Church. Similarly, Paul’s concern was that the Corinthians retained the tradition in the words he proclaimed (orthodox teaching – the untainted apostolic tradition) (1 Cor 15:2). Another mark of the apostolic Church is that it possess a supernatural ministry. God authenticate the apostolic witness to the Words of Jesus with signs and wonders (2 Cor 12:12).

For the ancient church this creed meant a lot. They originated it in their struggles against heresy and schism as a way of crystallizing what the believed and also to instruct new believers. Unfortunately, the phrase does not seem to hold much weight today as evidence by the thousands of divisions and denominations esp. since the Reformation. The confession is spoken in conservative and orthodox churches but not in many Protestant churches. Perhaps it should be recited again to sensitize us to what the Church should be and what kind of Church the Lord is coming back to get so that we can once more flesh it out.

[flodoman]

I agree with cajohnson’s concepts of the phrase and its significance for the early church. I think churches today all agree in theory about the need for oneness, holiness and catholicity. But we err when it comes to being apostolic and as a result we create divisions among ourselves (not holy), place more emphasis on the happenings in our denomination and lose our global outlook on the entire body of Christ (not catholic). We compete with one another rather than see ourselves as aiming for the same goal and in so doing show that we are no different from the people of the world (not holy). If our contemporary church identifies with the Christian faith and practice of the church of the apostles we may be more successful in reaching our world with the Gospel.

[tdecker]

We confess that we believe in "one holy, catholic, and apostolic church." What did this mean for the ancient church? What does it mean for today?

Original posting
Although the the terms may each be misapplied, the true meaning of each remains the same between the ancient church and the church today. Though the church began to divide between the East and West (plus additional schisms), there was one catholic, or universal Church. I suspect that “holy” has a double meaning; (1) purity of morals, and (2) purity of doctrine (heretics cast outside of orthodoxy). By apostolic, we refer to the apostolic teaching and founding of the Church.
Today the term “apostolic” is skewed by the concept of apostolic succession (perhaps starting with Leo I) and a confusion of “catholic” with “Catholic”. Nonetheless, the real meanings still ring true.

Reply Posting
I agree with SJ Hatch's posting, but not with the unqualified agreement with Cajohnson. I don't fully disagree with cajohnson, but I don't think that the ecclesiology of that time was as clear as indicated in the post.
I appreciate the emphasis upon the function of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. However, we should not omit Baptism. Though the doctrine had not been fully developed, it seems that the ancient church tended to view baptism as vital for salvation.

[dbpittsmd]

I have just started the course on the Ancient Church. Some books on church history that I have found very helpful include: 1. "The Story of Christian Theology" by Olson; 2. "A History of Christian Thought" by Gonzalez. Also, I found a book by P.F. Bradshaw called "The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship" to be very interesting. Many of the collateral readings are either hard to find or very expensive.
David Pitts MD

[srmaas]

Regarding what was meant in the ancient church and what is meant in the church today by the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church" is somewhat subjective to the person reciting the creed, especially today. In the ancient church the authority of the state was enforcing and determining the creed and its meaning even if it came from a Council. Even in understanding that reality, there is a sense from the Emperor to the baker on the street knew of the church as one in its catholic connectness. They understood the holiness in the sense of the church coming from Christ himself passing through the Apostles to the bishops. Even with its schisms, it stood as entity made up of its believers. Today the creed is used in some churches and unkown in many evangelical churches and yet in a powerful and holy way the church remains one universal and apostolic living body of Christ whether the creed is spoken or unknown. I think very few people that call themselves "Christians" today would not be in agreement with the creed even if they do not recite it.

[srmaas]

Second, I think that the ancient church's view of itself that it was to be marked by holiness also ought to give us pause for reflection. The evangelical interest in reaching out to non-believers has tended to obscure the fact that we, as a community of believers, need to be marked not only by individual holiness but also an abiding sense of the holiness of Church and a willingness to holy--i.e. set apart--from the world. This does not mean that we need to retreat into monasticism but we do need to dare to be different and not be conformed to the likeness of this world, as we are increasingly becoming.
I find myself in agreement with SJHatch that the evangelical church has become a place of so called individual holiness that is really a pious hypocrisy with little accountability to the universal church or anyone else. This type of wanton freedom in the West that allows individual churches the ability to pursue their own definitions of church doctrine matched with the affluence of the culture has left us with heresies of many types and materialistic defined doctrine and greed orientated living that is anything but holy, completely separated and certainly
not universal in either application or function. Still in view of these types of churches, this is not to say on the other hand that there is still not a wonderful functioning living body of Christ in the universal church that somehow remains holy by the Holy Spirit throughout the world.

[jphillips]

For the ancient church, the phrase "one holy, catholic, and apostolic church" basically implied unity. The early church fathers knew that the only way the church was going to survive was if it was unified. Division among any institution almost guarantees failure. The early church believed that it was holy. In other words, it was separated from the rest of the world in its worship, dogma, sacraments, and so forth. They also believed that all believers were united by one common universal belief in Christ. At that time the term "catholic" simply referred to the universality of believers. Finally, the ancient church considered itself apostolic since the early church fathers were known to have been pupils of some of the original followers of Christ. Furthermore, some denominations still subscribe to creeds which declare their commitment to being a holy catholic church. While the recitation of creeds does not exist in all denominations, most protestant churches still believe they are to live a holy life, that is to be separated from the world, and that the unity of all believers is paramount to the life and growth of the church.

[jphillips]

For the most part I tend to agree with cajohnson. The student coherently and precisely described the meaning of a "holy, catholic, and apostolic church." I do not believe that there would be too man people who would disagree with his or her definition. Furthermore, in today's society we absolutely have an incredible amount of divisions among the Christian church. It is difficult to say whether or not all denominations would adhere to being considerred catholic or apostolic in the truest meanings of the words. I hope, however, that any church that claims to be Christian still holds itself to the meaning of the word "holy" so that it can still be a beacon of light to a dark world.

[mja]

This Creedal statement was written, adopted and recited by the Church primarily in response to heresies being advanced by the Gnostics, Arians and others. Politically the Roman Empire was being threatened at that time as well. Recalling that the Church and State had effectively merged, Emperor Constantine deemed it appropriate for the sake of unity of power to call the Council of Nicaea. Thus the Creed was not only founded on theological grounds but political and legalistic grounds as well. Division in the Church constituted division in the Empire. In contrast the modern church views this Creed in a purely theological sense declaring the universality of the Church based on Apostolic tradition and set apart unto God. A lack of unity within the Church today would have little political impact on the survival of the State.

[mja]

Srmass response of 10/4/07 suggests that few would call themselves Christian that are not in agreement with the Creed. I concur that to legitimately be called a Christian there must be agreement with Creed. The Creed remains vital today to discern what constitutes a “Christian.” Can the recitation of the Creed be uttered in earnest belief of its content? If not, I would suggest that perhaps further reflection on one’s beliefs is warranted. This could be crucial for the Church given the ever expanding philosophies witnessed today. There are many organizations that profess to be members of the Church but find their theology is anchored in Post-Modern precepts. Inserting “church” at the end of a name does not by itself make it part of the “Church.”