Another word for Roman Catholicism?

[Br.Rich_SFO]

So, recently, I’ve been using the word “Romanism” to describe the RCC’s set of biblical interpretations, and I’ve recently found out thats somewhat of a derogatory word. I never meant it in that context, and I apologize for having used it (As I have a few times on these forums)

My question is this, is there a way to refer to the RCC’s set of beliefs without using the word “Catholic”?

The reason I ask is much the same as why newspapers never print the words “Jesus” and “Christ” next to each other. To call him “Jesus” is to refer to a historical figure, but if you call him “Jesus Christ,” you make an editorial statement, that he is the Christ.

Much in the same way, it bothers me when I use the word “Catholic,” or “Roman Catholic” to refer to a belief the RCC holds, because in doing so, I make an editorial statement, that the Roman Catholic Church is the universal church (meaning of the word “catholic”), a statement I do not endorse.

I know this is sure to get a bunch of posts like “why not call it “Christianity”” or, “Try “True Faith,”” but remember, I don’t agree with those statements (to clarify, that the RCC is alone christian, not that it isn’t christian), so, is there another word?

and?..

Another word for Catholicism? Christianity! Christianity in it’s original, universal, apostolic, fundamental form. You see

Calvinism is based on the belief system of a man named Calvin.
Lutheranism is based on a belief system of a man named Luther.
Arminianism is based on a belief system of a man named Arius.

Catholicism is based on the teachings of God Incarnate!

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

The correct name is:

The Latin Patriarchical Church

The “church” of England “renamed” us roman catholic after the king got mad at the pope and started his own church.

That would be correct if you are referring to the Western Church only. The Catholic Church is more than just the “Latin Patriarchical Church”.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

The faith must agree with the Magisterium, but the Magisterium isn’t limited to the church of Rome, but consists of all Catholic bishops in union with the Pope.

That does not mean the Pope dictates the faith. There are many expressions and understandings of the same faith within the Catholic Church. Rather, he confirms it, and only when necessary. But that does not make the Church Roman. Only the Roman church is Roman. The Church is Catholic.

So to call us who are of the Roman Church “Roman Catholics” is fine and valid. Don’t call Byzantine Catholics “Roman”.

But the Catholic faith is the Catholic faith. It isn’t the Roman faith.

Which is why the “Catechism of the Catholic Church”, not the “Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church” expresses the belief of everyone who calls themselves Catholic, everywhere.

 

[Petergee]

Wait a second.

We all know the doctrine of all Catholic churches must not be in unity and harmony with the some Roman Catholic church in Sydney. I am shocked you would make this claim.

All Catholic churches must be in unity with one church: the Roman church. I am not saying anything here that every well catechised Catholic does not already know.

It seems you’ve got a lot to learn about Catholicism then. Every well catechised Catholic knows that all particular Catholic churches must be in union and is insulted by the two pejorative terms you insist on continuing to obnoxiously insert into every post.

“Roman Catholic Church” (RCC) is not a pejorative as that also is used regularly by Catholic leadership and lay Catholics alike.

Unfortunately the bitterly anti-catholic protestant US mindset has affected even some poorly-catechised Catholics in that country.

**Why can’t non-Catholics use the same terms Catholics use themselves? **

As to insisting be called the “Catholic Church,” I spoke on that earlier. Many churches insist on being called the “Catholic Church.” Yours is not the only one.

…

I think the fact that we had been doing it for at least 1600 to 1800 years before any of them started doing it should count for something.

The double-standard regarding offensive language “by” and “about” Catholics just takes your breath away. On another thread we’ve got some anti-catholic bigots telling the Catholic Church that it’s not allowed to use a Catholic prayer in its own internal Catholic Mass because these people affect to find its wording “offensive”. And simultaneously non-Catholics insist on using terms for the Catholic Church itself which Catholics find offensive, instead of our own proper name. Apparently you feel that Catholics must allow non-Catholics to decide how Catholics are to pray and what Catholics are allowed to call themselves, but Catholics are not even allowed to object when some novel organisation steals their own name and applies it to itself!

 

[ElizabethPH]

Wait a second.

We all know the doctrine of all Catholic churches must not be in unity and harmony with the some Roman Catholic church in Sydney. I am shocked you would make this claim.

All Catholic churches must be in unity with one church: the Roman church. I am not saying anything here that every well catechised Catholic does not already know.

“Roman Catholic Church” (RCC) is not a pejorative as that also is used regularly by Catholic leadership and lay Catholics alike.

**Why can’t non-Catholics use the same terms Catholics use themselves? **

As to insisting be called the “Catholic Church,” I spoke on that earlier. Many churches insist on being called the “Catholic Church.” Yours is not the only one.

…

All reformation ‘church’s’ are not Church’s at all but ecclesiastical communities.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Would anyone be offended if it was called simply the “Roman” church?

After reading this thread, I’d like to summarize some points.

There is a Church with its temporal leader, the Pontiff/Pope, located in Rome. This Church has one set of beliefs/faith/dogma/doctrine of which its members are obligated to submit or assent to personally. This Church also has multiple Rites (expressions of faith and worship), of which one is the Roman Catholic Rite and sometimes referred to as the Roman Catholic Church. This Rite is the largest and most predominant around the world while its other Rites are primarily centered and practiced in particular regions.

When one is referring to beliefs/faith/dogma/doctrine it would be most accurate to use the term “Catholic Church” as it refers to matters that are universal among all the rites. When one is referring to issues of liturgy or manners of worship, it would be most accurate to refer to the particular Rite (Roman or Latin, Eastern, Maronite, Chaldean etc.).

This thread is about how to use words that produce effective dialogue. As a member of the Roman Catholic Rite, I (and I believe most American Catholics of the Roman Rite as that is who I know) resent most non-Catholics emphasizing the word Roman as it is too often a word of derision to imply that we follow a mere man based in Rome. Jesus Christ is our Savior and Redeemer and we believe this man is Christ’s Vicar to whom we see as specially ordained by Christ to lead.

If your goal is to have effective dialogue, it is my suggestion to use the proper noun “Catholic” when talking about our beliefs/dogma/doctrine vs. appearing to cast aspersions by using terminology that emphasizes the location of the Pope.

When discussing with a non-Catholic, no Catholic infers that the use of the term Catholic is an implication that the non-Catholic acknowledges or accepts that Truths asserted by the Catholic Church. Similarly Catholics don’t fear that our use of the term Jehovah Witness is an implication we accept the claims of this denomination.

P.S. There is a post that reference a Catechism paragraph (1059) where the term “Roman Church” is used. This is a direct quote from a Council in 1274 when vernacular was different and inferences were different. For effective dialogue with Catholics, it would be most likely accomplished using terms which the person is not likely to infer implications that may or not be intended.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Another word for Roman Catholicism?

Well, depends on what you mean by Roman Catholicism. You mean the whole faith, not just the rite? Here are some I like :

Church
Mother Church
One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Catholic Church
True Church
Bride of Christ
etc.

Not really something I expect you would use, but whatever.

As for the term Roman Catholic Church - I don’t like it. That’s not what it’s called, it’s actually a term that was coined during the “Reformation”. There are not many Catholic Churches.

When it’s used as an adjective I don’t mind it though. It’s an unofficial way to refer to the Latin Rite Catholics. I’m Roman Catholic and my friend is a Maronite Catholic.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

As for the term Roman Catholic Church - I don’t like it. That’s not what it’s called, it’s actually a term that was coined during the “Reformation”. There are not many Catholic Churches.

The term ‘Roman Catholic Church’ is useful to distinguish us from the ‘Protestant Catholic Church’.

 

[fellowChristian]

How is it not universal?

 

[PC_Master]

Atemi is quite right. You see, in most cases, there is no ambiguity about churches. Jehovah’s Witnesses clearly refers to a single church organization, etc.

In the case of Catholicism, it’s not the same, for Catholic is interpreted to mean “universal”, so essentially, by calling someone the “Catholic Church”, you’re giving them the title of universal. Additionally, you have the ambiguity that the Catholic Church headquartered in Rome is not the only church organization which claims to the the one universal church. Other churches include Eastern Orthodoxy, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Antiochan church (whatever their official name is), etc.

For that matter, even many Protestants believe they are part of the invisible universal church, made up of all believers in Christ. I myself view myself as part of this universal church. Now, I don’t choose to call that Catholic, as I speak English, and thus I use the word universal. But still, there could be confusion.

Thus, using the term Catholic Church is confusing. To remove that ambiguity, one must add a descriptor or context to explain. So, to describe the Catholic Church headed by Pope Benedict XVI, I use the term “Roman Catholic Church”, because it is a church who claims to be universal (Catholic) that is headquartered in Rome.

There’s a similar issue with Baptists. You can use the general term of “Baptist” to refer to a general set of beliefs, but within that Baptist “denomination”, there are many sub-groups, not all of which are the same. For example, you have the Southern Baptist Convention, the Baptist General Conference, American Baptist Churches USA, and other such groups, each of which has subgroups with slightly differing beliefs.

To me, referring to the Roman Catholic Church as “the Catholic Church” would be such as calling it “the one and only universal church”. I cannot in good conscience do this, as I don’t believe the statement to be accurate.

As for Romanism…it’s pretty much like Protestantism. I don’t quibble over labels too much, but I am not what I am because I am in Protest against the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, I prefer to call myself a “God follower”, but that term doesn’t really even give a remote idea of what I believe. Thus, the term Protestant is generally applicable. I don’t worry about perceived innuendo and the like.

Oh, and as for the distinction between the Roman Catholic Church and the Latin Rite – we Protestants are generally not referring to the Latin Rite only when we say Roman Catholic. We use the term to describe you as the church which is headquartered in Rome. We do understand that the Latin Rite is a subgrouping within the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[mtr01]

Atemi is quite right. You see, in most cases, there is no ambiguity about churches. Jehovah’s Witnesses clearly refers to a single church organization, etc.

In the case of Catholicism, it’s not the same, for Catholic is interpreted to mean “universal”, so essentially, by calling someone the “Catholic Church”, you’re giving them the title of universal. Additionally, you have the ambiguity that the Catholic Church headquartered in Rome is not the only church organization which claims to the the one universal church. Other churches include Eastern Orthodoxy, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Antiochan church (whatever their official name is), etc.

Unbelievable. Well this sort of thing has been going on since the 4th century:

And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (St. Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani Called ‘The Foundation’ 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

To me, referring to the Roman Catholic Church as “the Catholic Church” would be such as calling it “the one and only universal church”. I cannot in good conscience do this, as I don’t believe the statement to be accurate.

By this logic, I wonder what you call the Orthodox Churches. After all, calling them “the Orthodox” would be such as calling them “the only churches with sound or correct doctrine”. Since you do not belong to one of those churches, I would think that it good conscience you cannot do this, as I’m sure you do not believe that statement to be true".

Oh, and as for the distinction between the Roman Catholic Church and the Latin Rite – we Protestants are generally not referring to the Latin Rite only when we say Roman Catholic. We use the term to describe you as the church which is headquartered in Rome. We do understand that the Latin Rite is a subgrouping within the Roman Catholic Church.

Methinks you need to do a bit more studying. What are the other “subgroupings” within the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[Orionthehunter]

There seems to be some contradiction in standards.

From PCMaster: Atemi is quite right. You see, in most cases, there is no ambiguity about churches. Jehovah’s Witnesses clearly refers to a single church organization, etc.

Does their name not imply that they are Jehovah’s only witnesses? In fact, this is the claim of the denomination. Using the standard you use for the Church, shouldn’t they be called “Russell’s JW’s” or the “JW’s of New York”?

From PCMaster: In the case of Catholicism, it’s not the same, for Catholic is interpreted to mean “universal”, so essentially, by calling someone the “Catholic Church”, you’re giving them the title of universal.

If you are not giving credence to the claim of the JW’s when referring to them, why do you feel you are giving the title to the Catholics?

From PCMaster: Additionally, you have the ambiguity that the Catholic Church headquartered in Rome is not the only church organization which claims to the the one universal church. Other churches include Eastern Orthodoxy, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Antiochan church (whatever their official name is), etc.

When referring to someone by the name they call themselves, it isn’t a statement of assent to their claims about their faith. Call the Assyrian’s what they call themselves and call Catholics what they call themselves. I am perfectly comfortable calling a non-Catholic clergy member whose title is Bishop even though I disagree that their title properly represents what I believe to be a Bishop in Christianity.

From PCMaster: Thus, using the term Catholic Church is confusing. To remove that ambiguity, one must add a descriptor or context to explain. So, to describe the Catholic Church headed by Pope Benedict XVI, I use the term “Roman Catholic Church”, because it is a church who claims to be universal (Catholic) that is headquartered in Rome.

It is not because it is confusing. See your first statement and the one below. It is because you don’t want your reference to be interpreted that you consider my Church to be THE Catholic Church. Be honest. You are making a statement about how you feel about the Catholic Church. Don’t hide behind a claim it is to remove abiguity.

From PCMaster: To me, referring to the Roman Catholic Church as “the Catholic Church” would be such as calling it “the one and only universal church”. I cannot in good conscience do this, as I don’t believe the statement to be accurate.

I’m happy to call you PCMaster even though I don’t believe the moniker to be accurate.

From PCMaster: As for Romanism…it’s pretty much like Protestantism. I don’t quibble over labels too much, but I am not what I am because I am in Protest against the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, I prefer to call myself a “God follower”, but that term doesn’t really even give a remote idea of what I believe. Thus, the term Protestant is generally applicable. I don’t worry about perceived innuendo and the like.

This is hilarious. You are willing to use a term “Romanism” which is deragotory slang similar to calling Muslim’s “camel jockies”. Furthermore, you don’t worry about innuendo with regard to being referred to as a Protestant but you do worry about the innuendo of calling the Catholic Church what it calls itself w/o your own qualifier name.

Bigotry and bias expresses itself sometimes quite subtly. However, whether its covering is of iron or velvet, it is bigotry just the same.

 

[st_julie]

Like Scripture the understandings for the name of the Church are polyvalent. One has to know on what level the questions are refering to. ie. local to worldwide, legal name, temporal or mystical realities, what we call ourselves, what others call us and so on. At some level or other most names are valid, even the ugly ones.
st julie

 

[myfavoritmartin]

So, recently, I’ve been using the word “Romanism” to describe the RCC’s set of biblical interpretations, and I’ve recently found out thats somewhat of a derogatory word. I never meant it in that context, and I apologize for having used it (As I have a few times on these forums)

My question is this, is there a way to refer to the RCC’s set of beliefs without using the word “Catholic”?

The reason I ask is much the same as why newspapers never print the words “Jesus” and “Christ” next to each other. To call him “Jesus” is to refer to a historical figure, but if you call him “Jesus Christ,” you make an editorial statement, that he is the Christ.

Much in the same way, it bothers me when I use the word “Catholic,” or “Roman Catholic” to refer to a belief the RCC holds, because in doing so, I make an editorial statement, that the Roman Catholic Church is the universal church (meaning of the word “catholic”), a statement I do not endorse.

I know this is sure to get a bunch of posts like “why not call it “Christianity”” or, “Try “True Faith,”” but remember, I don’t agree with those statements (to clarify, that the RCC is alone christian, not that it isn’t christian), so, is there another word?

Calvinism
Lutheranism
Arminianism
and?..

the church at Rome is unoffensive!

 

[Orionthehunter]

the church at Rome is unoffensive!

Would you be offended, if I referred to you as “organism at 1549 Maple Street” instead of your name? I don’t mean to imply that you are not a human by lumping you with all living beings. And I don’t mean to imply that you are not distinct from the others who also reside at that location. It just that Martin is a name of a friend of mine and you are nothing like him.

I am a member of the Catholic Church, a name used by members of my Church since at least 100 A.D. I respectfully request that you refer to my Church by its historical name.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Would you be offended, if I referred to you as “organism at 1549 Maple Street” instead of your name? I don’t mean to imply that you are not a human by lumping you with all living beings. And I don’t mean to imply that you are not distinct from the others who also reside at that location. It just that Martin is a name of a friend of mine and you are nothing like him.

I am a member of the Catholic Church, a name used by members of my Church since at least 100 A.D. I respectfully request that you refer to my Church by its historical name.

How bout I just call it “your church”

 

[Stephen_C]

How bout I just call it “your church”

Or we can call the Catholic Church for what it really is “His (Jesus) Church”

 

[mtr01]

Or we can call the Catholic Church for what it really is “His (Jesus) Church”

I personally like it’s official title, The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church

 

[Orionthehunter]

I personally like it’s official title, The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church

These are the four marks (characteristics) of the Church. This is not the Church’s title.

From the Catechism:

811 “This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” These four characteristics, inseparably linked with each other, indicate essential features of the Church and her mission. The Church does not possess them of herself; it is Christ who, through the Holy Spirit, makes his Church one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, and it is he who calls her to realize each of these qualities.

 

[mtr01]

These are the four marks (characteristics) of the Church. This is not the Church’s title.

Yes I understand that very well. However, by that logic, we couldn’t call Her the Catholic Church as that is nothing more than one mark of the true Church. Catholic is simply shorthand for One, Holy…