Catholic vs Roman Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter roveau
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

roveau

Guest
It is interesting how often these days the term ‘Roman Catholic’ is applied to Catholics by Catholics.

During the 1950s and 1960s, at least, I remember the term ‘Roman Catholic’ was applied to us by the Protestants, especially, for example, the Church of England (Anglicans) who considered themselves Catholic… and we were only Roman Catholic.

The nuns were very particular that we should call ourselves Catholic, not Roman Catholic. We all loved Rome of course and were proud that our Church was under the head of the Pope in Rome.

What’s happened since then? I still refer to myself as Catholic.

Rove
 
Roman Catholic signifies affiliation with the Latin Church, for the most part. Catholic signifies the entire Catholic Church, which is made up of many Churches.

However, most of all, I prefer the term “Christian”. 😉

God bless.
 
Indeed! 🙂

Sorry folks I think I accidentally placed this in the wrong forum.
 
St. Teresa of Avila referred to herself as a Roman Catholic. Maybe it had something to do with “ecumenism” or something.
 
While the name “Roman Catholic Church” is frequently used to refer to the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome as a whole, it is more appropriately used to refer to the Western or Latin Rite Church. The Catholic Church is composed of the Roman or Latin Rite Church and 22 autonomous (sui juris) Eastern Catholic Churches. The Eastern Catholic Churches, which are Catholic but not “Roman”, have different liturgical traditions (Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian, Chaldean, Byzantine). All are in full communion with the pope and are part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
 
I’m a Roman Catholic. I think the term “Roman Catholic” says everything I want to say about my religious beliefs. . To me “christian” in modern vernacular can mean anything. Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopalian, Pentacostal, Independent personality cult church, snake handlers, far right republicans etc.
What are you? “A Christian”. Tells me nothing about what you believe. It says not much about what your beliefs are.
What are you? “Roman Catholic” leaves nobody guessing.
 
Well, if saying “Roman Catholic” was good enough for St. Teresa, it’s good enough for me.
 
agrange said:
I’m a Roman Catholic. I think the term “Roman Catholic” says everything I want to say about my religious beliefs… “Roman Catholic” leaves nobody guessing.
Click to expand...
The following article in EWTN, How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Hame?, by Kenneth D. Whitehead does a good job explaining why “[t]he proper name for the universal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church”, but just “the Catholic Church.”
 
I wonder if perhaps there might be more people now who are aware that there are Catholics under the Pope who are not Roman Catholics, so they are specifying which part of the Catholic Church they belong to.

Or, they aren’t wishing to mix people up with the word Catholic and catholic, since the difference isn’t obvious in speech. Some Catholics still simply maintain that there is no such thing as a catholic non-Catholic, but others, while still believing their POV is correct, are not so rude as to be dismissive of others views.
 
I understand the confusion in light of the Protestant origin of the phrase. However, maybe modern Catholics use this phrase to emphasize their allegiance to Rome and the papacy because they see so much dissent and dissociation from Roman authority on the local level.

It is counter-cultural to submit to the Pope. Why not boldly declare your submission?
 
It seems that one of the biggest objections against Roman Catholic is that this term was originally derogatory. But, does no one recall that the name Christian was originally a pagan insult to the neophyte Church. 🤷
 
Windmill said:
I understand the confusion in light of the Protestant origin of the phrase. However, maybe modern Catholics use this phrase to emphasize their allegiance to Rome and the papacy because they see so much dissent and dissociation from Roman authority on the local level.

It is counter-cultural to submit to the Pope. Why not boldly declare your submission?
Click to expand...
To declare yourself to be Catholic is usually sufficient to convey that you are Roman Catholic. Surprisingly few people realize there is any difference at all between the two.

To call yourself “Catholic” and expect people to think you mean something other than “Roman Catholic” is correct, but just about as realistic as calling yourself “American” and expecting people to think you may be from Mexico. Except in a special context, you’d wind up explaining yourself.
 
roveau said:
It is interesting how often these days the term ‘Roman Catholic’ is applied to Catholics by Catholics.

During the 1950s and 1960s, at least, I remember the term ‘Roman Catholic’ was applied to us by the Protestants, especially, for example, the Church of England (Anglicans) who considered themselves Catholic… and we were only Roman Catholic.

The nuns were very particular that we should call ourselves Catholic, not Roman Catholic. We all loved Rome of course and were proud that our Church was under the head of the Pope in Rome.

What’s happened since then? I still refer to myself as Catholic.

Rove
Click to expand...
Certainly the Church in Britain calls itself Roman Catholic and that is the name on churches and schools. I personally do not like the name. As you say, it’s like England vs. Italy and I believe the Church should stick to a non-geographic and non-nationalistic name such as Catholic Christian. Our name is not much better than Anglicanism or Eastern Orthodox at the moment.
 
My understanding is simple. If you are Roman Catholic, you practaice your faith in the Roman Rite of the church. The Roman refers to the rite. If you are a Byzantine Catholic (which encompasses many flavours), you practice your faith according to the rites of Constantinople. I don’t honestly know where the Melkites fit in the equation. Maronite Catholics, Armenian Catholics and Coptic Catholics have their own rites.

All of these are in “communion with Rome,” but only one is aligned to the Roman Rite (whatever its vernacular recensions). However, in popular culture, all are “Roman Catholic” because of the papal connection. If you look up the old Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Byzantine Catholics, it says that they recognize the Pope is the leader of the church, but he is not their patriarch. The pope is the patriarch of his own rite - the Roman Rite - or the title “Patriarch of the West.” (Note, I don’t think there ever was a “Gallican” patriarch, although there was a Gallican rite)

“Roman” is an unnecessary adjective unless you are stating you are in the Latin Rite of the church.
 
budgie2 said:
Certainly the Church in Britain calls itself Roman Catholic and that is the name on churches and schools. I personally do not like the name. As you say, it’s like England vs. Italy and I believe the Church should stick to a non-geographic and non-nationalistic name such as Catholic Christian. Our name is not much better than Anglicanism or Eastern Orthodox at the moment.
Click to expand...
But then how would you know what sort of Catholic Church it was without going in? Even then it might not be clear. Perhaps, Catholic Church - Latin Rite?

FWIW, many Orthodox don’t use the term Eastern as much anymore when speaking of Orthodoxy in general, because it is too geographically based, and Orthodoxy, like Catholisism, is meant to be universal. They do use the regional modifier that they belong to, so they are Greek in Greece or Russian in Russia. North America is the main exception to this, so it gets very confusing there, although there is the Orthodox Church of America.
 
Interesting question. I never knew that there was any negative history to the term “Roman Catholic.” When I was growing up (I’m 50), people seemed to use the terms pretty much interchangeably. In the past, I’ve tended to say “Roman Catholic” about myself so as to distinguish from Anglo-Catholic. It never occurred to me that I was being disrespectful to my fellow Catholics.

.
 
John_Larocque said:
My understanding is simple. If you are Roman Catholic, you practaice your faith in the Roman Rite of the church. The Roman refers to the rite. If you are a Byzantine Catholic (which encompasses many flavours), you practice your faith according to the rites of Constantinople. I don’t honestly know where the Melkites fit in the equation. Maronite Catholics, Armenian Catholics and Coptic Catholics have their own rites.

All of these are in “communion with Rome,” but only one is aligned to the Roman Rite (whatever its vernacular recensions). However, in popular culture, all are “Roman Catholic” because of the papal connection. If you look up the old Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Byzantine Catholics, it says that they recognize the Pope is the leader of the church, but he is not their patriarch. The pope is the patriarch of his own rite - the Roman Rite - or the title “Patriarch of the West.” (Note, I don’t think there ever was a “Gallican” patriarch, although there was a Gallican rite)

“Roman” is an unnecessary adjective unless you are stating you are in the Latin Rite of the church.
Click to expand...
The fact of the matter is that Christianity did not come from Rome. Christ was an Israelite. I’m not arguing that the Church should move to Israel at the moment and that would make me a Catholic Zionist. However, there are some nice things about Israel as the origin of Christianity as it is in between three continents and not purely European. I know Israel pretends to be European to get into the Eurovision Song Contest but it’s actually a Western Asian country. The Church may move to Israel at some point not in the near future and after the troubles have died down.
 
I use the description of Roman Catholic in order to differentiate from the 22 Eastern Catholic rites.
 
I suppose the Church was built on the rock of St. Peter (On this rock I will build my church. Matthew 16:18) rather than on the rock of a particular continent. Therefore the centre of the Church would move if the Pope moved. However, it could be argued that Rome is too specific to the European continent and a better name would be Universal Church of Christ or the Universal Catholic Church of Christ which would be a good name in the mean time. So we would be Universal Christians or Universal Catholics which is a repetition of meaning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top