Reclaiming the Word “Catholic”

Today, Roman Catholic apologists frequently argue that since the early Church was called “Catholic,” then it must have been Roman Catholic — and therefore, Rome is the one true Church. This argument has led many sincere truth-seekers to be misled by a false equivalency. What appears to be historical exclusivity is, in fact, a retroactive rebranding — the use of an ancient word to validate a later Roman-centered reinterpretation of the word “Catholic”.

Following the Schism of 1054, Rome began to appropriate “Catholic” as a proper noun, branding itself as the Catholic Church and labeling the Orthodox churches as “schismatic.” This redefinition did not come from apostolic tradition but from institutional ambition.

• By the 12th century, Roman theologians increasingly equated Catholic with communion with Rome.

• This rebranding was retroactively imposed on earlier texts, creating the illusion that the early Church was “Roman Catholic” — a label that would have referred only to the Roman jurisdiction, not the universal Church, and never reflected how early Christians understood the term ‘Catholic.’

This article aims to reclaim the original meaning of “Catholic” before it was rebranded by centuries of Roman revisionism.

1. Catholic Never Meant Roman

The word Catholic (Greek: katholikos) first appeared in early Christian writings to describe the universal Church — the global body of believers united in apostolic faith. It was used by Ignatius of Antioch as early as 110 AD:

“Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

While the “Catholic” Church included Rome, the word “Catholic” never meant Rome exclusively, or even Rome as the doctrinal authority of Christianity. Church of Rome did have fist place of honor “among equals”, because Rome was the capital of the Empire, and because of the memory of St. Peter and St. Paul who were martyred there. However, the term Catholic simply distinguished the whole Church from splinter groups and heresies. It was a qualitative term — not a jurisdictional label.

2. The Same Logic can apply to “Orthodox”

If Roman apologists argue that “Catholic” in early writings proves Rome is the true Church, the same logic could prove that the early Church was Orthodox — since “Orthodox” was also used widely to describe right belief. For example, Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350 AD) wrote:

“And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is… but where the Catholic and Orthodox Church is.” (Catechetical Lecture 18:26)

Thus, the same is true of the word “Orthodox”. In early usage, it referred to right belief and true teaching, not to any single jurisdiction or denominational body. Like Catholic, it described the nature of the faith — not a centralized institution. Both terms were descriptors of doctrine and unity, not specific jurisdictions or denominations.

3. Catholicity Was Defined by Apostolic Unity, Not Roman Allegiance

Roman apologists sometimes concede that Catholic originally meant universal, yet still insist that the early Church’s “universality” implicitly referred to its communion with Rome — as if Rome’s authority were already assumed across the Christian world. But this claim is historically false.

The early Church did not define Catholicity as submission to Rome. On the contrary, the First Council of Nicaea (325) provides explicit evidence against this notion. Canon 6 affirms the jurisdiction of regional patriarchs, stating:

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction over all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.

Given the canon’s purpose — to resolve disputes over territorial authority — it is especially telling that no mention is made of any universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. If Rome had such authority at the time, Canon 6 would surely have articulated it, or at least qualified Alexandria’s jurisdiction as being subordinate to it. Instead, it presents Alexandria’s authority as analogous to Rome’s — not derived from it — and gives no indication that Rome’s influence extended beyond its own region. Canon 6 would have been worded very differently, or supplemented with an explicit clause affirming Rome’s universal authority, if such a belief existed at the time.

4. Canon Law Confirms Political HONOR

The Council of Constantinople (381) and the Council of Chalcedon (451) both affirmed that ecclesiastical honor was based on political stature — not apostolic origin.

Canon 3 of Constantinople I (381):

“The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome, because it is New Rome.”

Canon 28 of Chalcedon (451):

“we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the prerogatives of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome… because the city is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome.”

These canons elevated the status of the Church in Constantinople not because of apostolic origin or theological primacy, but because of Constantinople’s new role as the imperial capital. The shift in honor followed the transfer of imperial power, not divine mandate. This reinforces that church authority followed imperial geography, not Petrine succession or a papal primacy in Rome.

5. The Word “Catholic”  still doesn’t mean “Under rome”

• The Nicene Creed (325 AD) affirms “one holy, catholic and apostolic Church” — written and approved by Eastern bishops with no Roman bishop presiding. Contrary to some Roman claims, there was no recognition by the universal Church at the time that Rome held jurisdiction over all, nor that it delegated such authority. The idea that Rome presided over Nicea invisibly or by proxy has no foundation in the canons or council records.
• Church Fathers across East and West used the term Catholic — but none meant “under Rome.” Both Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches continue to profess belief in “one holy catholic and apostolic Church” in their liturgies and creeds today — and none of them has ever understood this to imply allegiance to the bishop of Rome. Even the Lutheran Church, and several Anglican and Methodist churches continue to recite the Nicene Creed and affirm belief in the “catholic Church,” always with the understanding that “catholic” refers to the universal body of believers. To be “Catholic” always meant to hold the apostolic faith, not to submit to Rome.

Conclusion

To understand the modern misuse of the word Catholic, three points should be clear:

1. “Catholic” originally meant “universal,” not Roman.
   It described the global body of faithful believers united in apostolic doctrine — not allegiance to a single bishop or jurisdiction. This is affirmed by the canons of the Church.
2. Rome gradually co-opted the word, especially after the schism.
   Following the Schism of 1054, Rome began rebranding itself as the Catholic Church, weaponizing the word to isolate and delegitimize other ancient communions.
3. Modern Roman Catholics try to project that rebranded meaning backward into early Christian texts.
   The term Catholic in the writings of the Church Fathers or the Nicene Creed is read through a Roman lens — even though it never meant “Roman Catholic” in the early Church.

The early Church was indeed catholic — in the original sense of the word: universal, united, and apostolic. But it was not exclusively Roman. The Roman Catholic Church never owned the term; it rebranded it. To conflate early Catholic usage with later Roman identity is a semantic rebranding — historically unfounded and theologically misinformed, if not outright dishonest.

Related:
Canon 6 of Nicaea and Jurisdictional Authority
Did Peter Keep the Keys? Reclaiming Apostolic Authority Beyond Rome