Calling the RCC just "Roman Church"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Episcopalian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It works even better if you gratuitously insert Latin phrases into everything you write.

Embrace the stereotype.
 
St. Augustine:
And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.
Click to expand...
newadvent.org/fathers/1405.htm
 
In Catholic parlance, “Roman Church” refers to the particular or local Church of the city/diocese of Rome. For example, the First Vatican Council says, “Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church…”
 
porthos11 said:
40.png
1ke:
The correct way to refer to the Church is the Catholic Church, and if referring to a particular rite it is the Latin Rite (not the Roman Rite) or whatever Rite-- Byzantine, Maronite, etc.
Click to expand...
Latin church.
Roman rite

There is no “Latin Rite”. There are Latin rites (plural), but we are members of the Latin church who happen to use the Roman Rite. There are other Latin Catholics who use other Latin rites, such as the Ambrosian Rite in Milan.

The Holy Roman Church is a subset of the worldwide Latin church, and refers specifically to the Diocese of Rome. Cardinals are created Cardinals of the Holy Roman church, not the Holy Latin Church or the Holy Catholic Church, because Cardinals used to be, and are still titularly, clergy of the Diocese of Rome.
Click to expand...
And it ought to be added that the priest celebrates the Holy Mass using the Roman Missal (not the “Latin Missal”).

🙂
 
PeterT said:
40.png
porthos11:
40.png
1ke:
The correct way to refer to the Church is the Catholic Church, and if referring to a particular rite it is the Latin Rite (not the Roman Rite) or whatever Rite-- Byzantine, Maronite, etc.
Click to expand...
Latin church.
Roman rite

There is no “Latin Rite”. There are Latin rites (plural), but we are members of the Latin church who happen to use the Roman Rite. There are other Latin Catholics who use other Latin rites, such as the Ambrosian Rite in Milan.

The Holy Roman Church is a subset of the worldwide Latin church, and refers specifically to the Diocese of Rome. Cardinals are created Cardinals of the Holy Roman church, not the Holy Latin Church or the Holy Catholic Church, because Cardinals used to be, and are still titularly, clergy of the Diocese of Rome.
Click to expand...
And it ought to be added that the priest celebrates the Holy Mass using the Roman Missal (not the “Latin Missal”).

🙂
Click to expand...
As opposed to the Ambrosian Missal, Gallican Missal, Mozarabic Missal, etc. because this Missal is the Missal of the Roman Rite. The Rite used by the Roman Church (i.e. the Diocese of Rome).
 
I agree with your point.

The Anglican clergyman was being petty. I don’t answer if someone calls me a protestant, but I understand why a person reserves the term Catholic, in such a fashion.
 
I’m very sneaky. It’s because I’m a Roman LARPer. Same tricks the Pope uses to make his database of all Protestants, you know.
 
Last edited:
As an evangelical when I refer to the Catholic Church as the “Roman Church” or the “Church of Rome”, I mean no offense. I think when the Protestant Reformation occurred, it was common in the English language to refer to different churches by their liturgical languages or the territories they were associated with–the “Greek Church” etc. The Pope is the bishop of Rome, the traditional liturgical language is Latin, and it was the official religion of the Roman Empire for while, etc. etc. etc. All of these are reasons why calling the Catholic Church the “Roman Church” makes sense from a certain perspective.
 
Last edited:
ltwin said:
As an evangelical when I refer to the Catholic Church as the “Roman Church” or the “Church of Rome”, I mean no offense. I think when the Protestant Reformation occurred, it was common in the English language to refer to different churches by their liturgical languages or the territories they were associated with–the “Greek Church” etc. The Pope is the bishop of Rome, the traditional liturgical language is Latin, etc. etc. etc. All of these are reasons why calling the Catholic Church the “Roman Church” makes sense from a certain perspective.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it would make sense to call Presbyterians “Genevans” or Pentecostals “Americans.”
 
HopkinsReb said:
I don’t think it would make sense to call Presbyterians “Genevans” or Pentecostals “Americans.”
Click to expand...
It would make sense to call Presbyterians in Scotland, the “Scottish Church”–the Church of Scotland is still to this day Presbyterian. The “Genevans” would only refer to the Reformed Church in Geneva–and in the sources on the Reformation period you do get mention of the “Genevans” or “Geneva” or the “Church in Geneva”. You also get “Wittenberg” as a stand in for Lutheranism.

As for Pentecostals, of course not. Pentecostals were never an established religion nor did we exist in the 1500s.
 
Last edited:
I first heard the term “Roman” Catholic when I was about 7 years old. My dad told me that we were Roman Catholics. I was astounded! That was so cool! We weren’t just Catholic, we were Roman Catholics, and I imagined Roman soldiers with swords and shields marching in to defeat anyone who messed with us, because we were on the same side as the Romans.
 
Last edited:
on_the_hill said:
I first heard the term “Roman” Catholic when I was about 7 years old. My dad told me that we were Roman Catholics. I was astounded! That was so cool! We were Roman Catholics, and I imagined Roman soldiers with swords and shields marching in to defeat anyone who messed with us, because we were on the same side as the Romans.
Click to expand...
And then a bunch of German barbarians came along and screwed things up?

Wait, this is actually a pretty good metaphor.
 
I find it a wee bit offensive because I don’t attend Church in Rome lol. And I feel many protestants do it just to try and marginalize us.

Anglicans get a pass because I know from experience that they often times consider themselves Catholic as well.

But on that same token, protestants probably don’t appreciate being referred to as protestants and see themselves as Christian.
 
Lenten_ashes said:
I find it a wee bit offensive because I don’t attend Church in Rome lol. And I feel many protestants do it just to try and marginalize us.

Anglicans get a pass because I know from experience that they often times consider themselves Catholic as well.

But on that same token, protestants probably don’t appreciate being referred to as protestants and see themselves as Christian.
Click to expand...
Many Protestants are happy to be called Protestant because it emphasizes their protests against Rome. For example, when we were looking at churches together once we got married, my Calvinist wife was quite concerned about whether our Anglican Church would refer to itself as Catholic or Protestant (it’s ACNA, so definitely the latter).

While I accept that I am definitionally Protestant since I am not in communion with Rome, I don’t like using the term because I’m not, well, protesting. I quite like the Catholic Church.
 
Last edited:
When it comes to my terminology on this forum, I stick to the (unusually, in this case) apt phrase, “when in Rome, do as the Romish Popish Papists do.”

EDIT: Before someone who hasn’t read the whole thread reports me for disparaging Catholics, this is a JOKE from this JOKE from above.
BartholomewB said:
Sometimes on comments threads – though not yet here at CAF – I proclaim myself a “Romish Popish Papist.” It takes the wind out of their sails.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
friendly reminder that word “Christian” started as an insult.

Jokes aside, I don’t mind being Papist or Romish, or any sort of that. I think that calling us Roman Church (headquarters being in Rome) could be same as calling anglicans “English Church”. I don’t see it as effectively correct as it distances Eastern Catholics, who are full part of Church but at the same time I wouldn’t bat an eye if someone called us that IRL. I guess that depends on how phrase would be used though.
 
My understanding is the phrase “Roman” Catholic developed in England after the King separated the church from Rome (i.e. The Pope) to imply the English church was authentic it was just separate from the “foreign” church that the King has decided to break from. It was part of the change of identifiying with a single universal visible church in with it’s leadership in Rome to becoming a national church. This gradually developed as the Church of England absorbed more Protestant theology to imply that you couldn’t be a loyal citizen and a Catholic. All Catholics in England fell under suspicion and eventually lost their civil rights for centuries due to this definition of the Catholic Church.

The reasons for using “Roman” Catholic may be more benign now and some Anglicans and others may self identify as Catholic in terms of the original definition as “universal”. Yet I find when Catholics are under attack for our moral theology or other unfashionable beliefs these other Catholics tend to stay silent or deny they share our self-definition as Catholics. So they are not so enthusiastic to identify with us when we are persecuted or mocked in popular culture. In fact I have heard and read these “Catholics” enthusiastically making it clear they definitely DO NOT agree on this teaching of the Magisterium and therefore do not stand with us.

I have travelled in many regions and find the term “Roman Catholic” is used in English speaking areas with a history of Protestant Churches.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top