Name of the Church

[Jack_Bauer]

Where does the name of your church come from and when was it first used. Evidence would be nice. So many people erroneously refer to the Catholic Church as “Roman” Catholic Church without realizing where the term derived. It’s Catholic Church, folks. It may work but it’s not the official name of the Church. It’s just been adopted.

Example: Do the Orthodox call themselves Eastern Orthodox or Orthodox? If it’s Eastern Orthodox, then what happened to the Western Orthodox?

I see:
Baptist, First Baptist, Southern Baptist
Disciples of Christ, Christian Church, Church of Christ
Assemblies of God, Church of God,
Methodism: World Methodist, United Methodist, etc.
Lutheran: 3 or 4 synods that I know about
Church of the Nazarine
Church of the First Born
Dancing Church
Cowboy Church

I can think of many more, but will stop there. There are many spiritualities within the Church, evident by the presence of religious orders. Even the Charismatics are a spirituality. But all must follow the precepts and teachings of the Church. Divergence is dissent, and thus separates oneself from the Church…

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Where does the name of your church come from and when was it first used. Evidence would be nice. So many people erroneously refer to the Catholic Church as “Roman” Catholic Church without realizing where the term derived. It’s Catholic Church, folks. It may work but it’s not the official name of the Church. It’s just been adopted.

That depends on what you mean when you say “Catholic Church”. What many call the Roman Catholic Church is correctly called the Latin Catholic Church. Please remember there are 23 Catholic churches.

 

[Publisher]

The earliest names given to those who believed in Jesus of Nazareth was…“Church of God”…“Church of Christ”…“Bride of Christ”…“Body of Christ”…“Church of the Firstborn”…“Temple made with Living Stones”…In all seriousness is anyone concluding that because an early church father used “universal ecclesia”…“catholic church”…THAT became the formal name AND because the Catholic church uses the “Catholic” part in their name…that this somehow proves the Catholic church of today is what the ECF had in mind when he wrote “catholic church”?

 

[Barbkw]

"In all seriousness is anyone concluding that because an early church father used “universal ecclesia”…“catholic church”…THAT became the formal name AND because the Catholic church uses the “Catholic” part in their name…that this somehow proves the Catholic church of today is what the ECF had in mind when he wrote “catholic church”?

No… the belief and practice of the veneration of the Eucharist as the Body of Christ by the Early Church Fathers proves that.

 

[Publisher]

No… the belief and practice of the veneration of the Eucharist as the Body of Christ by the Early Church Fathers proves that.

You lost me there friend.

 

[TypesAndShadows]

I find this distinction between an ‘official’ name and ‘a name that was adopted’ strange. I mean, yes, calling the Church ‘Roman’ is often, and has often been, decidedly pointed: here in England, it was clearly a name given by non-Catholics to emphasise its foreignness. However, again here in England and Wales, there’s no such thing as an ‘official’ name really: your name is whatever people call you. If my birth certificate says I am Gloria Mundi, but everyone calls me Glory Be, and I put that down on bank forms and job applications, then that’s my name. [small]Of course, I may have difficulty proving it when applying for a driving licence or a passport unless I change it by deed poll…[/small]

Which is to say that if the Church is called ‘Roman Catholic’, however misleading that might be, then that’s just as much its name as the self-determined name ‘Catholic Church’. It would be polite for outsiders to call the Church by its preferred name, but it isn’t really true that other names are somehow not ‘Official’. It certainly gets called ‘Roman Catholic’ on enough official documentation in this country!

 

[Barbkw]

You lost me there friend.

Belief in the True Presence. It was central to what the Early Church Fathers taught. If a Bishop didn’t believe it or didn’t teach it then that church was no longer within the universal church.

 

[joe370]

The earliest names given to those who believed in Jesus of Nazareth was…“Church of God”…“Church of Christ”…“Bride of Christ”…“Body of Christ”…“Church of the Firstborn”…“Temple made with Living Stones”…

Therefore Jesus’ church was not referred to as Quaker?

In all seriousness is anyone concluding that because an early church father used “universal ecclesia”…“catholic church”…THAT became the formal name

 

[joe370]

wrote “catholic church”?

It wasn’t just Ignatius and it is clear that they agree with Protestant scholar N. D. Kelly:

"The church of God that sojourns at Smyrna, to the church of God sojourning in Philomelium - and to all of the congregations of the holy and Catholic Church in every place." St. Polycarp, “The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp,” c. 135 A.D.

“Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Savior of our souls, the Governor of our bodies, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world.” St. Polycarp, “The Martyrdom Of St. Polycarp,” c. 135 A.D.

“The Catholic church is one.” St. Victorinus, “Against Arius,” c. 280 A.D.

** “It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the Earth to the other**; and because it teaches universally and completely one end and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly…” St. Cyril of Jerusalem, “Catechetical Lectures,” c. 350 A.D.

“Let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian.” St. Athanasius, “Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuisc,” c. 360 A.D.

“Where was [the heretic] Marcion, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago—in the reign of Antonius for the most part—and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherius…” Tertullian 200 AD

“They alone have remained outside [the Church] who, were they within, would have to be ejected.
. . . hey vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priest of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and catholic, is not split or divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere to one another” Cyprian of Carthage 253 AD

Council of Nicaea I

“But those who say: ‘There was [a time] when he [the Son] was not,’ and ‘before he was born, he was not,’ and ‘because he was made from non-existing matter, he is either of another substance or essence,’ and those who call ‘God the Son of God changeable and mutable,’ these the Catholic Church anathematizes” (Appendix to the Creed of Nicaea [A.D. 325]).

“Concerning those who call themselves Cathari [Novatians], that is, ‘the Clean,’ if at any time they come to the Catholic Church, it has been decided by the holy and great council that, provided they receive the imposition of hands, they remain among the clergy.” (Canon 8).

"Concerning the Paulianists who take refuge with the Catholic Church, a decree has been published that they should be fully baptized…after being baptized, let them be ordained by the bishop of the Catholic Church" (Canon 9).

** “[The Church] is called catholic, then, because it extends over the whole world, from end to end of the earth, and because it teaches universally and infallibly** each and every doctrine which must come to the knowledge of men, concerning things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly, and because it brings every race of men into subjection to godliness, governors and governed, learned and unlearned, and because it universally treats and heals every class of sins, those committed with the soul and those with the body, and it possesses within itself every conceivable form of virtue, in deeds and in words and in the spiritual gifts of every description” Cyril of Jerusalem 350 AD

The Apostles’ Creed

“I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen” (Apostles’ Creed [A.D. 360 version, the first to include the term “Catholic”]).

 

[joe370]

Council of Constantinople I

"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who spoke through the prophets; in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" (Nicene Creed [A.D. 381]).

“We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, **which is catholic and which is called catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. ** when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard” Augustine 390 AD

"“If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel, what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, ‘I do not believe’? Indeed,** I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church** did not move me to do so” (ibid., 5:6). Augustine

"…The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]). Augustine

"I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity… first, by the authority of the divine law [Scripture], and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church. …Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various errors, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of ecclesiastical and catholic interpretation." Vincent of Lerins 434

Council of Chalcedon

“Since in certain provinces readers and cantors have been allowed to marry, this sacred synod decrees that none of them is permitted to marry a wife of heterodox views. If those thus married have already had children, and if they have already had the children baptized among heretics, **they are to bring them into the communion of the Catholic Church” (**Canon 14 [A.D. 451]).

 

[Publisher]

Therefore Jesus’ church was not referred to as Quaker?

 

[joe370]

joe370;8583734:

Therefore Jesus’ church was not referred to as Quaker?

I understand, By the way, I was just joking around…

 

[Ridgerunner]

Example: Do the Orthodox call themselves Eastern Orthodox or Orthodox? If it’s Eastern Orthodox, then what happened to the Western Orthodox?

I don’t think there was ever anything called the “Western Orthodox”. If I am not greatly mistaken, the “Eastern Orthodox” adopted that designation to distinguish themselves from the “Oriental Orthodox” after the split between the two.The official name of the Eastern Orthodox is “The Orthodox Catholic Church”.

The “Russian Orthodox Church” is actually part of the “Eastern Orthodox Church”, and is the biggest part of it. I think the former is simply a term of convenience.

But perhaps some Eastern Orthodox on here will clarify it further.

 

[joe370]

I don’t think there was ever anything called the “Western Orthodox”. If I am not greatly mistaken, the “Eastern Orthodox” adopted that designation to distinguish themselves from the “Oriental Orthodox” after the split between the two.The official name of the Eastern Orthodox is “The Orthodox Catholic Church”.

The “Russian Orthodox Church” is actually part of the “Eastern Orthodox Church”, and is the biggest part of it. I think the former is simply a term of convenience.

But perhaps some Eastern Orthodox on here will clarify it further.

I wonder why they didn’t stick with the word catholic?

 

[Jack_Bauer]

I wonder why they didn’t stick with the word catholic?

I believe that they did it to "distinguish between the heretics and themselves by claiming to be orthodox. What better way than to include it in your new name. Frankly, I believe there serious sin on both sides Eastern and Western Catholics… Orthodox are catholic, they just hate to use the name because of us papists. They sound like SSPX or Sedevantists in many ways. And in some ways I actually understand, but not all.

Actually, I found my way back to the Catholic Church by studying the Eastern Orthodox Church. Initially, because of my fundamentalist Christian issues with papal authority, Marian spirituality, and baptism methods and such I dug and dug. What ended up happening is that I figured out they Orthodox Christians basically believe and practice very similar methods of worship. They just don’t like to admit it. I find that beyond rude. A few years back, before the Eastern Catholic thread was created, the Orthodox ran the show on there. A couple of priests, Fr. A… I’ll say, were making fun of the Sacred Heart of Jesus by stating they’d make up their own devotion to the Sacred Liver and various organs. It was very rude and totally uncharitable. Made me angry, and from that day forward I began to see that treatment which convinced me that something was wrong. I studied more and more and came to believe that Papal authority existed, they just did like Protestants and tried to explain it away… The beliefs we have similar, they insist they are different, just to be at odds I believe. So, if their is truth in their claims, they did a very poor job of evangelizing.

 

[GeorgeTheWild]

I wonder why they didn’t stick with the word catholic?

I’ll let the Orthodox correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the official name of most Orthodox churches is along the lines of “The Holy Orthodox Catholic [and Apostolic] Church”. Whether or not this forum allows them to use the full name is another question

 

[Jack_Bauer]

I’ll let the Orthodox correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the official name of most Orthodox churches is along the lines of “The Holy Orthodox Catholic [and Apostolic] Church”. Whether or not this forum allows them to use the full name is another question

And if they referred to themselves as such then they should be allowed to call themselves as such. However, I am a member of orthodox forums and I never see them say it.

 

[CMatt25]

That depends on what you mean when you say “Catholic Church”. What many call the Roman Catholic Church is correctly called the Latin Catholic Church.

Why does the Church then still use Baptism certificates saying “According to the rite of the Roman Catholic Church”?

 

[Publisher]

Publisher;8585147:

joe370;8583734:

I understand, By the way, I was just joking around…

So was I…

 

[Jack_Bauer]

Why does the Church then still use Baptism certificates saying “According to the rite of the Roman Catholic Church”?

Most Catholic Parishes use the term Roman in front of Catholic. In an indirect way this manages to explain the name change for Eastern Orthodox Catholics.

There really is no official name of the Catholic Church, only historical ones. In the New Testament the members of the Church were first called Christian. But then the Church was called several things collectively speaking. Church of Christ, Assembly of God, Church of the First Born, Disciples of Christ, etc. But these were never official names. In modern days, more precisely over the past 100 to 200 years these biblical names, translations, started to appear. Note: The reason I converted to the Church of Christ was in part over the name being biblical. I also believed my infant baptism was poorly explained and poorly historically supported. But the interesting analogies that taught me to believe in the Church of Christ also got me to realizing that the scriptures were possibly being incorrectly interpreted on the basis of a term called “necessary inference”.

Example: Jesus would never want us to eat flesh or drink blood. It was prohibited by Jewish law, also scriptural. So we assumed it was wrong. But conveniently in our church we always seemed to skip studies of John 6, in its entirely. The fact that Jesus disciples for the most part walked away from him after he reiterated this teaching clearly multiple times gave me pause. So I wondered first, why didn’t we discuss this in depth. Second, we celebrated communion weekly, as required. But secretly I began to wonder if we were really receiving the actual body and blood of Christ, both symbolically and literally. This is only one of many teachings found in scripture. The reason I discredited all of the other so called Protestant religions was based on scripture. The only religion that came close to my beliefs were Catholic and Church of Christ. The fact that the Catholic Church also refers to itself as the “Church of Christ” sealed the deal with me joining the Church of Christ. Later I began to feel duped because of my wife’s family and their procelytizing methods that lured me away from what I considered truth, based not on Catholic teaching, but my own studies. I was always internally bible only and began that pursuit from a very young age. That’s because my mom and most of my family were bible only Christians.

The name is something that has always intrigued me about how people end up calling themselves different names, some which are really off the wall. Why would any group allow themselves to be called after the name of a person, for example, Lutheran. I’m sure there are more, but this is the only example that comes to mind. Orthodox is like an argument in the middle of the name. It’s a descriptor or adjective that comes across as really odd to me. Locational modifications added in front or after a main name is different. And if Eastern Orthodox Christians consider themselves the original Church along with what they believe is now the Papists, an insulting name attached to invoke hostility towards its members and the organization, then why did they add the term “Orthodox” and drop “Catholic”? Makes no sense other than to hijack the identity of the original Church. Frankly, the Church has the authority to excommunicate members of the Church, but an organization attached by history from the beginning. Therefore, when the Sees excommunicated each other in the beginning, they were both wrong and should have been chastised for it back then. My opinion inserted for clarifying my personal feelings on it. Excommunication would only be valid in the case of individuals for valid reason related to teaching and gravely sinful acts. An argument over miscommunication? Very shallow and temperamental…thus, for a lack of a better word, I find it stupid. Please, I feel the same way about all of us. We argue over petty things. The bible instructs us not to, yet we continue to.

Now for those Catholics that feel I sound bible only now, here’s food for thought. The bible is a collection of written down Sacred Teachings, along with historical information and analogies to help us understand God. Names are fine, but can you trace your heritage and when you do find a historical [visible church] that goes to the root, Jesus? And in that trace id your leaders break from any church or rebel from any teaching that can also be traced to the root, Jesus?