Is the Term Apostolic a Catholic Word?
December 2, 2021, 12:49 PM

Is the Term Apostolic a Catholic Word?


By M.W. Coleman

   From time to time I run across someone who makes a statement that the word Apostolic was first coined and used by the Roman Catholics. There are even some I have encountered in the Pentecostal ranks that make this same argument, and whom refuse to use the term.

    So, is there any weight to their argument, and is the Apostolic doctrine taught by millions of us in jeopardy of being in error?

    First, let’s look at Roman Catholicism as a whole. The Catholic Church was founded around the year 325 a.d. at the Council of Nicaea in Nicaea, Turkey. Among the teachings of the Catholic Church(which is ideologically, not a church at all), is what they refer to as the ‘Four Marks of Catholicism’. One writer wrote:


“At the First Council of Constantinople in AD 381, this statement was adopted; "[We believe] in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” Is there a difference between the Catholic usage of the term Apostolic,and what Oneness Pentecostalism define the word as meaning?

    I would like to state here again that Roman Catholicism is not a Christian Church founded upon the teachings of Jesus Christ. Romanism began to develop under the oversight of Constantine, emperor of Rome from 306-337 a.d. as a neo-political establishment. However, there was a successful, thriving, well-established true Christian movement which began with the outpouring of the Holy Ghost in the upper room at Jerusalem in 30 a.d.(see Acts 2), and was still growing and spreading throughout the world due to the teaching of the Apostles of Jesus Christ.

    As I mentioned, Romanism teaches that one of the four marks is that they are Apostolic. But in the teaching of the Catholic Church, the term Apostolic means Apostolic succession.  In other words, their teaching states that all the past and future lineage of the Popes is an unbroken line of leaders dating back to Peter, with Peter being the first Pope.

    I must make a statement here that Peter could not have been a Pope or bishop, because he was a Jewish escapee from a Roman prison.  Peter never went to Rome, nor did he serve in the Roman political system! 

    The term Apostolic as used correctly by the Apostolic Pentecostal movement defines the teachings of JESUS 

CHRIST, via His great salvation plan which He gave us in 

Acts 2: Acts 2:38-39 KJV

[38] Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. [39] For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.


So one of the Four marks of Catholicism thus being discredited, we can also disqualify them based upon their own teachings and history, because it must also ONE. 


“The Western Schism, also known as the Papal Schism, the Vatican Standoff, the Great Occidental Schism, or the Schism of 1378 (Latin: Magnum schisma occidentale, Ecclesiae occidentalis schisma), was a split within the Catholic Churchlasting from 1378 to 1417[1] in which bishops residing in Rome and Avignon both claimed to be the true pope, and were joined by a third line of Pisan popes in 1409. The schism was driven by personalities and political allegiances, with the Avignon papacy being closely associated with the French monarchy. These rival claims to the papal throne damaged the prestige of the office.[2]”


Once again this division within the Roman Catholic system disqualified their legitimacy as the Universal Christian Authority. They were not one, AND NEITHER WERE THEY APOSTOLIC!

   History bears out the Truth! The true Apostolics are the ones who follow Jesus Christ as His Apostles and adhere to and distribute His teachings!!