Roman Catholic OR Catholic?

[CEM5]

Originally Posted by ByzCath

Not to mention that Rome is not the oldest See.

Jerusalem was where the Church started. Peter was bishop of Antioch before Rome.

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:

http://www.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 [i.e. feast] 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.

[CEM5]

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.

[CEM5]

Originally Posted by JRKH

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

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!

[Friar David, O.Carm]

Peter's First See

Peter was bishop at Antioch before going to Rome.

[ConstantineTG]

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.

[CEM5]

Originally Posted by ByzCath

Peter's First See

Peter was bishop at Antioch before going to Rome.

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.

[Friar David, O.Carm]

Originally Posted by CEM5

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.

Peter was in Antioch, as bishop, for seven years before he moved to Rome.

[Windfish]

Originally Posted by CEM5

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

Originally Posted by vinarabo

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

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.

[5Loaves]

Originally Posted by CEM5

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!

Some like Thomas Peters are quite happy to embrace the term papist.

[Vico]

Try the Vatican search engine and see how many pages of references there are to "Roman Catholic Church" at www.vatican.va:

http://gsearch.vatican.va/search?q=%...olic+church%22

[CEM5]

Originally Posted by ByzCath

Peter was in Antioch, as bishop, for seven years before he moved to Rome.

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:

http://www.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:

http://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):

http://www.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.

[CEM5]

Originally Posted by Windfish

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.

this is an excellent explanation How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?


http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

[Formosus]

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".

[Aramis]

Originally Posted by Vico

Try the Vatican search engine and see how many pages of references there are to "Roman Catholic Church" at www.vatican.va:

http://gsearch.vatican.va/search?q=%...olic+church%22

157, as of today.

And that's JUST in English!

[5Loaves]

Originally Posted by CEM5

this is an excellent explanation How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?


http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

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.

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.

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!

...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:...

...The proper name of the Church, then, is the Catholic Church....

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.

Originally Posted by CEM5

Church documents use the term "Roman Catholic Church" to refer to the worldwide Church as a whole,

Originally Posted by CEM5

...Nonetheless, it is now known as the Roman Catholic Church, regardless that the official name is the "Church"....

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.