So, in other words, no one group of ancient denominations (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, etc.) can claim to be "the one true and original church everyone must follow" because there are actually several regional churches? And, perhaps, Jesus doesn't care which one we claim to follow as long as we follow Him?
No, that was not my point.
I'm not talking about the various churches that exist today. I'm talking about the historical roots and usage of the word "catholic". My point was that the OP is right in the sense that Jesus is not a member of the Catholic Church (i.e., "in union with Rome", since that's a later definition of 'Catholic', which did not exist until after Christ returned to heaven), but not right if we're talking about the original use/understanding of the term -- "whole, complete" (e.g., Catholic doctrine is that which is believed
throughout the whole Church), because He fits the original use to a T: Christ is believed in by all who call themselves Christian -- i.e., throughout the whole Church. (And here I'm captializing "Church" to emphasize that this is true of Catholics, this is true of Orthodox, this is true of Protestants -- it is above any subsequent divisions into this or that camp; I don't mean to imply anything about them relative to Orthodox ecclesiology, which rejects the 'branch theory' of Christian organizations.)
The Catholic (i.e., in union with Rome), Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox (I don't know about the Nestorians in this regard) all consider themselves to be the sole true/faithful/orthodox (however you want to put it) continuation of the Apostolic Church started in the time of Christ and baptized into the world at Pentecost, though
what that means to each one is likely to be different, e.g., Catholics will argue that they are the sole true continuation for reasons XYZ, while Eastern Orthodox will do so for reasons ABC, and Oriental Orthodox will do so for reasons AB, and...I don't know...let's say M. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
So it's not a claim about continuation, but about the usage and understanding of terms. But, yes, you are right that the model that we see in the ancient world (and still today for the Orthodox, both OO and EO as far as I can tell) is one of regional/local churches, just as we can note that St. Paul's epistles were to the Church
as gathered in particular places (Rome, Galatia, Ephesus, Thessaloniki). What are today perhaps considered 'ethnic' churches (relative to the West, anyway), like the Coptic/Egyptian Church, the various Syriac churches, etc. are better thought of as local or regional in this fashion, as the canons of Nicaea, for instance, lay out the territories that were traditionally recognized as being under the oversight of the bishop of Alexandria (Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis), and frames these in light of the same privileges given to the bishops of Rome
and Antioch: "Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges." (Canon VI) So we can know from a very early date (325 AD) that not only were such local/regional churches (still) the norm, but the oversight of them had been set in such a way that it was referred to as 'ancient' even back then.
The
local church has
always been the catholic church (however you may want to capitalize that; I don't mean it in the "in communion with Rome" sense
). Reading St. Ignatius (early 2nd century, so within a few decades of the deaths of most of the apostles, and only a few years of that of St. John, the last to die), it's kind of hard to escape that conclusion, given the importance that he places on the gathering of the church around the bishop. This means, in practice, that when you or I go to our respective churches, if we are members of churches which are following the traditional ecclesiology, there is everything there that is proper to catholic worship. This is what it is to be 'catholic', as a parish and as a Church: we do not lack anything by virtue of submitting to and gathering around our local bishop(s), because this is what we are supposed to do to begin with. This is why the first century church manual the
Didache contains a lot about the qualifications and character of clergy and how to act towards them and towards one another in the Church: "Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Therefore do not despise them, for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers. And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in the Gospel. But to anyone that acts amiss against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear anything from you until he repents. But your prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as you have it in the Gospel of our Lord." (NB: I've never seen it happen, but was told by multiple people in my parish that one the reasons a person may not receive communion in our Church is if they have some grievance with or ill-will towards a brother or sister in the congregation, and it is known either within the congregation or within the person's conscience; this is our way of holding to these kinds of instructions.)
