T
Tony9712262
Guest
I’ve been thinking. Is the Church called Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church…since the Church doesn’t only have Roman Catholics, but also Eastern Catholics.
- Status
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
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.
A
Aramis
Guest
Both… The Roman Catholic Church is the Western portion. The Catholic Church is the sum totality. At least in English.
T
Tony9712262
Guest
ok…thanks
V
vinarabo
Guest
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
Mike
N
Nine_Two
Guest
While Roman Catholic might not exist - I haven’t bothered to confirm this - the Catholic Church has referred to itself as “The Roman Church” in official documents.
C
CEM5
Guest
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
C
CEM5
Guest
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.
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.
5
5Loaves
Guest
We are Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches in communion with the Latin Church.
The primary rite of the Latin Church is the Roman Rite of the Roman Missal, recently revised.
5
5Loaves
Guest
The Latin Church is the Latin Church and the Canon Law of the Latin Church begins thus:
Can. 1 The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church.
The world wide Catholic Church is not the Roman Catholic Church, but the Latin Church and the Eastern and Oriental Catholic autonomous, self-governing Churches sui iuris.
There was no Roman Catholic Church at the time of St. Peter, only the Church.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Not to mention that Rome is not the oldest See.
Jerusalem was where the Church started. Peter was bishop of Antioch before Rome.
J
JRKH
Guest
Regardless of the intricacies of the various rites and “official” titles etc. the term "Roman Catholic has been embraced by the Western or "Latin Rite Church and is no longer seen as “derogatory”. In fact, the sign out in fron to my parish says “Roman Catholic Church” right on it…
This does not mean that “others” do not still see it as a negative. Various anti-catholics still refer to Romish, or Papists, or just plain “Roman” catholics in hateful ways. They view teh term “Roman” as having connections to the “whore of babylon” and the “Antichrist” etc.
Still other “protestant” curches embrace the idea of themselves being part of the catholic (small “c”) church, just not part of the “Roman” Church…Thus in conversation with these folks the use of the terms, “The Church” or The Catholic Church" isn’t always too clear either.
I have begun to occasionally use another term that, if one thinks about it, is actually more accurate and inclusive of all Catholics in communion with “The Holy See” than "Roman Catholic. That term is “Vatican Catholic”.
Peace
James
This does not mean that “others” do not still see it as a negative. Various anti-catholics still refer to Romish, or Papists, or just plain “Roman” catholics in hateful ways. They view teh term “Roman” as having connections to the “whore of babylon” and the “Antichrist” etc.
Still other “protestant” curches embrace the idea of themselves being part of the catholic (small “c”) church, just not part of the “Roman” Church…Thus in conversation with these folks the use of the terms, “The Church” or The Catholic Church" isn’t always too clear either.
I have begun to occasionally use another term that, if one thinks about it, is actually more accurate and inclusive of all Catholics in communion with “The Holy See” than "Roman Catholic. That term is “Vatican Catholic”.
Peace
James
P
Patrick_Joshua
Guest
The church is called “Catholic”. The Catholic Church, this is non-debatable.
I always though the term “Roman Catholic” ment Latin Rite Catholic, or Roman because the HQ resides in Rome.
I always though the term “Roman Catholic” ment Latin Rite Catholic, or Roman because the HQ resides in Rome.
A
Aramis
Guest
That’s how it has been used by Rome in the last 50 years. With the 20th C elevation of the ECC’s to Valued for their own merit, it became more important to identify the Roman Church from the others.
C
CEM5
Guest
hi 5Loaves,
When I explained the history of the Church, I did mention that. Nonetheless, it is now known as the Roman Catholic Church, regardless that the official name is the “Church”. In the second century it was first called “Catholic”, and this is the roots of the Roman Catholic Church.
C
CEM5
Guest
I “see” where you are coming from
, and, yes, you are correct that Rome was not the first Church. I think I need to clarify: I am speaking about the See of Peter, the “Chair of Peter” where Peter was the first Pope/Bishop. Peter founded churches, yet he was not officially their first Bishop in residence there. James was the first at Jerusalem.Peter was not officially set up at Antioch, it was to Rome that Peter went and was “elected” as Pope. For that matter, it was Jerusalem that they had the first council, and the first place where Peter stood and spoke with authority, yet it is not the “see of Jerusalem”, nor the See of Antioch.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/03551e.htm
From the earliest times the Church at Rome celebrated on 18 January the memory of the day when the Apostle held his first service with the faithful of the Eternal City. According to Duchesne and de Rossi, the “Martyrologium Hieronymianum” (Weissenburg manuscript) reads as follows: “XV KL. FEBO. Dedicatio cathedræ sci petri apostoli qua primo Rome petrus apostolus sedit” (fifteenth day before the calends of February, the dedication of the Chair of St. Peter the Apostle in which Peter the Apostle first sat at Rome). The Epternach manuscript (Codex Epternacensis) of the same work, says briefly: “cath. petri in roma” (the Chair of Peter in Rome).
In its present (ninth-century) form the “Martyrologium Hieronymianum” gives a second feast of the Chair of St. Peter for 22 February, but all the manuscripts assign it to Antioch, not to Rome. Thus the oldest manuscript, that of Berne, says: “VIII kal. mar. cathedræ sci petri apostoli qua sedit apud antiochiam”. The Weissenburg manuscript says: “Natl [natale] sci petri apostoli cathedræ qua sedit apud antiocia.” However, the words qua sedit apud antiochiam are seen at once to be a later addition. Both feasts are Roman; indeed, that of 22 February was originally the more important. This is clear from the Calendar of Philocalus drawn up in the year 354, and going back to the year 311; it makes no mention of the January feast but speaks thus of 22 February: “VIII Kl. Martias: natale Petri de cathedra” (eighth day before the Calends of March, the birthday * of the Chair of Peter). It was not until after the insertion of Antioch in the copies of the “Martyrologium Hieronymianum” that the feast of February gave way in importance to that of January. The Roman Church, therefore, at an early date celebrated a first and a second assumption of the episcopal office in Rome by St. Peter.
So we read from historical accounts that the word “Antioch” was a later addition, but traditionally has always been celebrated and held at Rome since this is where Peter “resided”.
While the two chairs were the visible memorials of the earliest origins of Peter’s Apostolic work at Rome, the recollection of his first arrival in the city is stil preserved in the litanioe majores (greater litanies) on 25 April. On this day is also celebrated the feast of St. Mark, whom St. Peter had sent to Alexandria in Egypt. Antioch and Alexandria, the two most important patriarchates of the East, were, in common with Rome, founded by Peter. Gregory the Great refers as follows to this spiritual relationship with the Roman Patriarchate of the West, in a letter to the Patriarch Eulogius (P.L., LXXVII, 899): “Quum multi sint Apostoli, pro ipso autem principatu sola Apostolorum principis sedes in auctoritate convaluit, quæ in tribus locis unius est. Ipse enim sublimavit sedem, in quâ etiam quiescere et præsertim vitam finire dignatus est. Ipse decoravit sedem, in quâ Evangelistam (Marcum) discipulum misit. Ipse firmavit sedem, in quâ septem annis, quamvis discessurus, sedit. Quum ergo unius atque una sit sedes, cui ex auctoritate divinâ tres nunc episcopi præsident, quidquid ego de vobis boni audio, hoc mihi imputo” (Though there are many Apostles, pre-eminence of authority belongs permanently to none other than the Chair of the Prince of the Apostles, which Chair though established in three places remains nevertheless that of one and the same [Apostle]. He lifted it to the highest dignity in the place [Rome] where he deigned to fix his residence and end his life. He honoured it in the city [Alexandria] to which he sent his disciple, the Evangelist Mark. He strengthened it in the city [Antioch] where, though destined to depart, he sat for seven years. Since therefore the Chair in which now by divine authority three bishops preside is the identical chair of the self-same [Peter], I take myself whatever good I hear concerning you).
We conclude, therefore, that there is no reason for doubting the genuineness of the relic preserved at the Vatican, and known as the Cathedra Petri. According to Eusebius, Jerusalem preserved the cathedra of St. James (Church History VII.19), Alexandria that of St. Mark (G. Secchi, La cattedra alessandrina di San Marco, Venice, 1853). Tertullian, in the above quoted passage, refers to the value placed by the Apostolic Churches on the possession of the chairs of their founders (apud quas ipsæ adhuc cathedræ apostolorum suis locis præsident), and in enumerating them he puts Rome first. Moreover, the other writers above quoted, and whose testimony reaches back to the second century, all postulate the presence in Rome of an actual Cathedra Petri, See also SAINT PETER; PRIMACY.
*
C
CEM5
Guest
By the way, Peter established, along with Paul, the church in Antioch, but he was not the first Bishop there;
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.
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.
C
CEM5
Guest
Hi James,I have begun to occasionally use another term that, if one thinks about it, is actually more accurate and inclusive of all Catholics in communion with “The Holy See” than "Roman Catholic. That term is “Vatican Catholic”.
Peace
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!
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
The sad thing here is that many non-Catholic groups have called themselves Catholic just to have a semblance of legitimacy. Now it may confuse some people.
- Status