Roman Catholic OR Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tony9712262
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ByzCath said:
Peter’s First See

Peter was bishop at Antioch before going to Rome.
Click to expand...
Peter and all the Apostles were the first Bishops. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

•that Peter, having founded the Church of Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he perseveres as bishop for 25 years;
•that Mark, the interpreter of Peter, preaches Christ in Egypt and Alexandria; and
•that Evodius is ordained first Bishop of Antioch.
 
CEM5 said:
Peter and all the Apostles were the first Bishops. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

•that Peter, having founded the Church of Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he perseveres as bishop for 25 years;
•that Mark, the interpreter of Peter, preaches Christ in Egypt and Alexandria; and
•that Evodius is ordained first Bishop of Antioch.
Click to expand...
Peter was in Antioch, as bishop, for seven years before he moved to Rome.
 
CEM5 said:
The Catholic Church’s official title is “Church”. It was called this for about 1500 years until the Protestant Reformation, and the Church under the Pope was given the derogatory title of “Roman” by those non-Catholics. Because there are many churches out there who have separated from the true Church founded by Christ, and some still hold onto the title “Catholic” (even though they are Protestant in doctrinal beliefs), the Catholic Church under the Pope kept the title “Roman” - thus the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is the oldest christian church, and the “see of Rome”, (the Vatican) where the Pope “sits” on the Chair of St. Peter. (OT was the Chair of Moses). This is the symbol of the Pope’s teaching authority, when he speaks ex-cathedra.

Any Church under the Pope belongs to the true Church - the “catholic” church (universal = belonging to all men who choose to enter (baptized) and are obedient to and believe in the Doctrines).

Church documents use the term “Roman Catholic Church” to refer to the** worldwide Church as a whole**, and the “Latin Church” was synonomous with Roman Catholic when the liturgy used to be in Latin. Latin is still the official “language” of the Roman Catholic Church.

There are various “rites”, nonetheless, all are under the guidance/authority of the Pope.

blessings
Click to expand...
vinarabo said:
The Catholic Church does not refer to itself as the Roman Catholic Church. Roman Catholic is not used in any of the Catholic Church documents. The term came from the Anglican church who considered themselves to be Catholic. They called us Roman Catholics, and them Anglican Catholics. There is only one Catholic Church, and it aint the Anglican church…

Mike
Click to expand...
Do you guys have any resources on this. I have been pondering this question myself every time a Protestant is so insistent on inserting the word “Roman.” Resources for research would be most appreciated.
 
ByzCath said:
Peter was in Antioch, as bishop, for seven years before he moved to Rome.
Click to expand...
Acts 11:

1 Now the apostles and the believers who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also accepted the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him,…

20 But among them were some men of Cyprus and Cyrene who, on coming to Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists also, proclaiming the Lord Jesus.

Acts 11
:22 News of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch…

25 Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for an entire year they met with the church and taught a great many people, and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called "Christians…

29 The disciples determined that according to their ability, each would send relief to the believers living in Judea; 30 this they did, sending it to the elders by Barnabas and Saul.

Byzcath, Peter was in Judea, and it was the Apostle Paul and other disciples who were at the church in Antioch. They sent “relief” up to the elders (Peter being there also) in Judea.

The Catholic Church teaches that the first Bishops of the Church were the Apostles, of which Paul was one.

Acts 15:22
Then the apostles and the elders, with the consent of the whole church, decided to choose men from among their members and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers,

Acts 15:35
But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, and there, with many others, they taught and proclaimed the word of the Lord.

Galatians 2:11
But when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned;

Now, some online sites state different men as being the first bishop of Antioch, - for example:

christian-history.org/theophilus.html

Theophilus was a bishop of Antioch, Paul’s home church in Scripture. He’s the second bishop of Antioch that we have writings from. Ignatius was the first.

A Patriarchial church claims:

orthodoxwiki.org/Church_of_Antioch

The Church of Antioch is the continuation of the Christian community founded in Antioch by the Apostles Peter (who served as its first bishop) and Paul, who are its patron saints. In terms of hierarchical order of precedence, it currently ranks third among the world’s Orthodox churches, behind Constantinople and Alexandria.

The seat of the patriarchate was formerly Antioch (Antakya), in what is now Turkey. Now it is in Damascus, Syria, located on the “street called Straight.” The current patriarch is His Beatitude Patriarch Ignatius IV (Hazim) of Antioch and all the East.

the Catholic Encyclopedia source (which come from Early church Father writings):

newadvent.org/cathen/05653a.htm

The first Bishop of Antioch after St. Peter. Eusebius mentions him thus in his “History”: “And Evodius having been established the first [bishop] of the Antiochians, Ignatius flourished at this time” (III, 22). The time referred to is that of Clement of Rome and Trajan, of whom Eusebius has just spoken. Harnack has shown (after discarding an earlier theory of his own) Eusebius possessed a list of the bishops of Antioch which did not give their dates, and that he was obliged to synchronize them roughly with the popes. It seems certain that he took the three episcopal lists of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch from the “Chronography” which Julius Africanus published in 221. The “Chronicle of Eusebius” is lost; but in Jerome’s translation of it we find in three successive years the three entries

•that Peter, having founded the Church of Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he perseveres as bishop for 25 years;
•that Mark, the interpreter of Peter, preaches Christ in Egypt and Alexandria; and
•that Evodius is ordained first Bishop of Antioch.

I trust what the Bible says, and those sources from the Early church fathers.

Peter, with Paul, founded the Church of Antioch, but it was Peter, as history records, who established Evodius as first Bishop of Antioch.
 
Well I prefer using the term “Latin Catholic” to describe the western Church. Since historically both the Byzantine Tradition and the Latin Tradition could claim use of the adjective “Roman”.
 
CEM5 said:
this is an excellent explanation **How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
**

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm
Click to expand...
So the material in the link you provide says:
As everybody knows, however, the Church referred to in this Creed is more commonly called just the Catholic Church. It is not, by the way, properly called the Roman Catholic Church, but simply the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language. The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted **a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council’s official documents about the Church herself, **and the term was not included.
Click to expand...
Similarly, nowhere in the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council will you find the term Roman Catholic. Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second Vatican Council as **“I, Paul. Bishop of the Catholic Church.” **Simply that – Catholic Church. There are references to the Roman curia, the Roman missal, the Roman rite, etc., but when the adjective Roman is applied to the Church herself, it refers to the Diocese of Rome!
Click to expand...
…So the proper name for the universal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. Far from it.…That term caught on mostly in English-speaking countries; it was promoted mostly by Anglicans, …It was to avoid that kind of interpretation that the English-speaking bishops at Vatican I succeeded in warning the Church away from ever using the term officially herself:…
Click to expand...
…The proper name of the Church, then, is the Catholic Church…
Click to expand...
I’m confused by the contrast of this link you provided with what you’ve said about the terms. Seriously, I’m really unclear about what you mean to say given your choice to refer to that article.
CEM5 said:
Church documents use the term “Roman Catholic Church” to refer to the** worldwide Church as a whole**,
Click to expand...
CEM5 said:
…Nonetheless, it is now known as the Roman Catholic Church, regardless that the official name is the “Church”…
Click to expand...
Are you saying that regardless of the emphasis of the First and Second Vatican Councils, as described in the link you provided, that the term Roman Catholic not be used at all, and the other references in the same link that " the proper name for the universal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. Far from it…", that none the less we should use the term Roman Catholic Church for the universal Church?

The Latin or “Roman Catholic” Church is a discrete part of the universal Church. I don’t know why here in the Eastern Catholicism section of all places it would be equated with the universal Church.
 
CEM5 said:
Hi James,

I like that! But those anti-catholic, anti-pope/vatican people out there used the similar term for years of “papists” to describe us who were/are loyal to the Pope and the Church! 😛
Click to expand...
Yes, what you say is true and, of course, using my term “Vatican Catholic” would have no effect on “Anti-Catholics” in particular. My main reason for using it, and proposing it’s use is because, "Roman Catholic, as many here have pointed out, is associated most directly with the “Latin Rite” Church. I think that perhaps, “Vatican Catholic” - one in communion with the Vatican (and the Pope), would be more inclusive of the Eastern Rite Churches.

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
Yes, what you say is true and, of course, using my term “Vatican Catholic” would have no effect on “Anti-Catholics” in particular. My main reason for using it, and proposing it’s use is because, "Roman Catholic, as many here have pointed out, is associated most directly with the “Latin Rite” Church. I think that perhaps, “Vatican Catholic” - one in communion with the Vatican (and the Pope), would be more inclusive of the Eastern Rite Churches.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
Not really. “Vatican Catholic” still sort of suggests the idea that the Pope himself is the head of each particular Church sui juris. Such is not the case, especially for the Patriarchal Churches such as the Melkites, Maronites, Ukrainian Greek Catholics, etc.

In my opinion I see no problem with referring to all Catholics as “Catholic”, but when referring to particular Churches sui juris just calling them “Roman Catholic”, “Melkite Greek Catholic”, “Ukrainian Greek Catholic”, “Maronite Catholic”, “Armenian Catholic”, etc. 🤷
 
CEM5 said:
I should elaborate on my statement of: There are various “rites”, nonetheless, all are under the guidance/authority of the Pope.

Those “rites” that are in communion with the Bishop of Rome (our Pope), for there are other rites that are not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Actually, “rites” cannot be in or out of communion with anyone - Churches can.

There are Particular Eastern Catholic Churches who would share the same Byzantine Rite i.e. rite and church are not synonymous.

Alex
 
With either title “Roman Catholic Church” or “Catholic Church”, there is One Mystical Body of Christ, just one holy catholic and apostolic Church, from the CDF:
“…because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history.” …

“It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.”
Church of Christ: subsists in the universal Catholic Church, the churches in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, each is a Church sui iuris,

Elements of the Church exist in those that are not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome:
  • with valid apostolic episcopate and eucharist, called sister Churches or particular or local Churches, such as the Eastern Orthodox churches, Oriental Orthodox churches, and the Assyrian Church of the East.
  • without valid apostolic episcopate and eucharist, from the reformation, called Christian Communities.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1985, stated:
“The indications contained in this Note are, therefore, to be held as authoritative and binding.” … “…the expression sister Churches in the proper sense, as attested by the common Tradition of East and West, may only be used for those ecclesial communities that have preserved a valid Episcopate and Eucharist” – CDF June 30, 2000

" . . . the Council chose the word subsistit precisely in order to make it clear that there exists a single ‘subsistence’ of the true Church, while outside her visible structure only elementa ecclesiae exist, which — as elements of the Church — tend and lead toward the Catholic Church".
– CDF, Notification on the book “Church: Charism and Power” by Fr. Leonardo Boff, AAS 77 (1985), 758-759.
 
Vico said:
With either title “Roman Catholic Church” or “Catholic Church”, there is One Mystical Body of Christ, just one holy catholic and apostolic Church, from the CDF:
“…because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history.” …

“It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.”
Church of Christ: subsists in the universal Catholic Church, the churches in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, each is a Church sui iuris,

Elements of the Church exist in those that are not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome:
  • with valid apostolic episcopate and eucharist, called sister Churches or particular or local Churches, such as the Eastern Orthodox churches, Oriental Orthodox churches, and the Assyrian Church of the East.
  • without valid apostolic episcopate and eucharist, from the reformation, called Christian Communities.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1985, stated:
“The indications contained in this Note are, therefore, to be held as authoritative and binding.” … “…the expression sister Churches in the proper sense, as attested by the common Tradition of East and West, may only be used for those ecclesial communities that have preserved a valid Episcopate and Eucharist” – CDF June 30, 2000

" . . . the Council chose the word subsistit precisely in order to make it clear that there exists a single ‘subsistence’ of the true Church, while outside her visible structure only elementa ecclesiae exist, which — as elements of the Church — tend and lead toward the Catholic Church".
– CDF, Notification on the book “Church: Charism and Power” by Fr. Leonardo Boff, AAS 77 (1985), 758-759.
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t know why you are quoting only on what Rome has said about the Orthodox Churches, and not what it has said about the Particular Eastern Catholic Churches.

The universal Catholic Church is comprised of Particular Churches, including the large Latin Catholic Particular Church. These Particular Churches accept the same faith and are in communion with the Pope of Rome, have the same valid sacraments etc. And,yes, of course the title matters. “Roman Catholic” is a title specific to the Latin Catholic Particular Church - whatever its provenance and however Latin Catholics think of it today. It has nothing to do with the Particular EC Churches - in fact, an Eastern Catholic would be shocked if he or she was referred to as a “Roman Catholic.” For Eastern Catholics, to lump us together with Catholics of another Particular Church is to show disrespect for our traditions and our Particularity. That is what “Roman Catholic” means if that title is applied to us.

We are in communion with the Pope of Rome as universal pastor, but who is also the head of a Particular Catholic Church himself.

Alex
 
Alexander_Roman said:
It has nothing to do with the Particular EC Churches - in fact, an Eastern Catholic would be shocked if he or she was referred to as a “Roman Catholic.”
Click to expand...
not true, Alex… Roum Katolik (Tr: Roman Catholic) is used in several slavic laguages to distinguish some Byzantine Catholics from the Orthodox Katolik EO.

Only in countries (Like Ukraine & Poland) where there is a multiple Catholic church presence is it untoward to refer to EC’s as “Romans,” as in those places, Roman refers to the Roman Church sui iuris.
 
Alexander_Roman said:
Well, I don’t know why you are quoting only on what Rome has said about the Orthodox Churches, and not what it has said about the Particular Eastern Catholic Churches.

The universal Catholic Church is comprised of Particular Churches, including the large Latin Catholic Particular Church. These Particular Churches accept the same faith and are in communion with the Pope of Rome, have the same valid sacraments etc. And,yes, of course the title matters. “Roman Catholic” is a title specific to the Latin Catholic Particular Church - whatever its provenance and however Latin Catholics think of it today. It has nothing to do with the Particular EC Churches - in fact, an Eastern Catholic would be shocked if he or she was referred to as a “Roman Catholic.” For Eastern Catholics, to lump us together with Catholics of another Particular Church is to show disrespect for our traditions and our Particularity. That is what “Roman Catholic” means if that title is applied to us.

We are in communion with the Pope of Rome as universal pastor, but who is also the head of a Particular Catholic Church himself.

Alex
Click to expand...
The post does include Rome on the Eastern Catholic Churches! Church sui iuris includes Latin Church and Eastern Catholic Churches:

“Church of Christ: subsists in the universal Catholic Church, the churches in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, each is a Church sui iuris”

The terminology can be a source of confusion in canon law (1983 CIC, 1988 Pastor Bonus, and 1990 CCEO) which uses ritual Church sui iuris (CCEO 27) for the Eastern Catholic churches and particular church for a diocese or equivalent (CIC 368). The term Latin Church, used in CCEO, is also a Church sui iuris.
 
Aramis said:
not true, Alex… Roum Katolik (Tr: Roman Catholic) is used in several slavic laguages to distinguish some Byzantine Catholics from the Orthodox Katolik EO.

Only in countries (Like Ukraine & Poland) where there is a multiple Catholic church presence is it untoward to refer to EC’s as “Romans,” as the “Roman” term is often used to distinguish EC from EO.
Click to expand...
Yes, but “Roum” or “Romaios” has a different connotation within that context (you are absolutely right).

The Turks referred to the Patriarch of Constantinople as the “Patriarch of the Romans” and Oriental Orthodox would refer to both the Roman and Constantinopolitan patriarchates as the western “Roman” province of the Church (especially when the iconoclast crisis came to be).

“Roman Catholic” in the usual sense of “Western Catholic” is what I had in mind.

Alex
 
Vico said:
The post does include Rome on the Eastern Catholic Churches! Church sui iuris includes Latin Church and Eastern Catholic Churches:

“Church of Christ: subsists in the universal Catholic Church, the churches in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, each is a Church sui iuris”

The terminology can be a source of confusion in canon law (1983 CIC, 1988 Pastor Bonus, and 1990 CCEO) which uses ritual Church sui iuris (CCEO 27) for the Eastern Catholic churches and particular church for a diocese or equivalent (CIC 368). The term Latin Church, used in CCEO, is also a Church sui iuris.
Click to expand...
Oh! Sorry! (I guess we read into things what we like, don’t we? 🙂 )

God bless!

Alex
 
ByzCath said:
The universal Church is the Catholic Church. The Roman (or Latin) Catholic Church is one of the 23 (or so) Churches that are in Communion with one another that form the Catholic Church whose visible head is the Pope.
Click to expand...
👍

and note it is the:

“Catechism of the Catholic Church”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top