Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Why does the Church in some cases use one term and in some cases the other when exclusively referring to the Roman Church, that is, the Church ruled exclusively from Rome? I understand that there are several “Apostolic Sees,” as in those of Rome, Antioch, etc.; and that “Holy See” is the term that applies properly to the Roman See alone. Why, then, do so many Church documents refer to the “Apostolic See” instead of “Holy See” when they are clearly discussing only the Roman Church and nothing relating to the Eastern Churches (other Apostolic Sees)?
On a related note, why was the Acta Sancta Sedes changed to the Acta Apostolica Sedes? As I alluded above, I reckon “Holy See” to be a more specific term than “Apostolic See” since there is more than one of the latter. The AAS refers only to those Acts of the Roman Church, and so why is it called the AAS? If it was just an opinion thing, I posit that “Sancta Sedes” sounds mightier, IMO, than “Apostolica Sedes.”
On a related note, why was the Acta Sancta Sedes changed to the Acta Apostolica Sedes? As I alluded above, I reckon “Holy See” to be a more specific term than “Apostolic See” since there is more than one of the latter. The AAS refers only to those Acts of the Roman Church, and so why is it called the AAS? If it was just an opinion thing, I posit that “Sancta Sedes” sounds mightier, IMO, than “Apostolica Sedes.”