Catholic vs Roman Catholic

[CMatt25]

I thought you already had?

Guano, long time no see. Hope all’s been well with you. No I offered to do Baptized Catholic, etc and was advised to best leave it blank. Which I presumed to mean it best not to use the term Roman Catholic or Catholic even with an adjective. Not sure how that is the same as the Catholic Church’s answer. But oh well I do understand a private internet forum isn’t the Church.

 

[jmj1984]

Well I have found the “depends on who you ask” part to be true. Maybe I could make that my religion.

When you find someone who thinks you get baptised into the mozarabaic, ambrosian or dominican church feel free to tell me Until then Its pretty safe to assume that saying Roman Catholic is perfectly legitimate

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

All Catholics are Roman. This is plain and simple. Pope Benedict XVI wrote about this very topic. He went on to describe filial devotion to the object of worship known as the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, Who is Christ and of Whom Mary is mother, Mother of the Eucharist, Mother of God.

Not true. Not all Catholics are Roman. The Roman Catholic Church is one of 23 sui iruis churches that are in communion. The leader of the universal Catholic Church happens to be the leader of the Latin (or Roman) Catholic Church, this in no way makes the whole church “Roman”. There have been popes who were not part of the Latin Church until their election as pope.

In his fallible words as it was not a declaration but his understanding. The phrase Roman indicates that we are all Mary’s children, grafted onto Her, the Tree of Life.

I would like to see where the Holy Father has said this about the term “Roman”.

 

[YoungTradCath]

So when my Baptismal certificate says I was baptized according to the rite of the Roman Catholic Church, does that make me a Catholic or a Roman Catholic according to the Church even if it does not on a forum?

Baptismal certificates don’t really mean anything. Just because it says something, doesn’t definitively make it so. They are manufactured in different forms, with different words, illustrations, materials, etc.

But yes, you were baptized according to the Rite of the Roman Catholic Church. Unless you weren’t, lol.

You are a Catholic, of the Latin/Roman “Particular Church.”

I am not saying you aren’t a Roman Catholic. You are. But your baptismal certificate doesn’t make you a Roman Catholic. Your baptism, and subsequent/concurrent attendance at Latin/Roman Rite Catholic churches does. My point is, your baptismal certificate could say practically anything. But it doesn’t, itself, make you anything.

 

[jmj1984]

Not true. Not all Catholics are Roman. The Roman Catholic Church is one of 23 sui iruis churches that are in communion. The leader of the universal Catholic Church happens to be the leader of the Latin (or Roman) Catholic Church, this in no way makes the whole church “Roman”. There have been popes who were not part of the Latin Church until their election as pope.
.

Of course the three ecumenical councils which used the term ‘Roman and Catholic’ when referring to the universal church may however make the church ‘Roman’ or rather accept that it is.

As I said on this matter a while ago, the problem is that people believe that ‘Roman’ and ‘Latin’ mean the same thing, they do not. There are four or five rites in use in the Latin Church alone, including the Roman Rite, the terms are clearly not interchangeable.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Of course the three ecumenical councils which used the term ‘Roman and Catholic’ when referring to the universal church may however make the church ‘Roman’ or rather accept that it is.

Which three councils are these?

As I said on this matter a while ago, the problem is that people believe that ‘Roman’ and ‘Latin’ mean the same thing, they do not. There are four or five rites in use in the Latin Church alone, including the Roman Rite, the terms are clearly not interchangeable.

The rites used within the Latin Church are viewed as sub-rites rather than being full rites of their own. Especially the rites of the religious orders.

 

[magdalina]

The four marks of the early Christian Church are one, holy, catholic, apostolic.

Part of the early Church “went roman” when it departed from Orthodox Christianity in 1054. The moniker Roman Catholic was originally coined by Orthodox bishops to refer to those who followed the bishop of Rome into the various Latin heresies. In much the same way some ethnic groups seize a derogatory slur and make it their own “term of endearment”, the Roman Catholic Church was born. Five hundred years later, Protestants merely restored the “slur status”.

Orthodox Christianity currently referred to itself as:

• catholic but not Roman.
• orthodox but not Jewish.
• evangelical but not Protestant.
• having no authority to distort Apostolic teachings.

Maggie.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The four marks of the early Christian Church are one, holy, catholic, apostolic.

Part of the early Church “went roman” when it departed from Orthodox Christianity in 1054. The moniker Roman Catholic was originally coined be Orthodox bishops to refer to those who followed the bishop of Rome into the various Latin heresies. In much the same way some ethnic groups seize a derogatory slur and make it their own “term of endearment”, the Roman Catholic Church was born. Five hundred years later, Protestants merely restored the “slur status”.

Orthodox Christianity currently referred to itself as:

• Catholic but not Roman.
• Orthodox but not Jewish.
• Evangelical but not Protestant.
• Having no authority to distort Apostolic teachings.

Maggie.

“Latin heresies”?

reported

 

[magdalina]

“Latin heresies”?

reported

Would you prefer "heterodoxy"?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Would you prefer "heterodoxy"?

No I would not, but I think you already knew that.

The Orthodox and the Catholic Church both left each other. At least I am of that opinion, one I share with many others.

But that is not the topic of this discussion.

Really what you have said has no place at this forum or any other forum of civil polite discussion.

 

[magdalina]

No I would not, but I think you already knew that.

The Orthodox and the Catholic Church both left each other. At least I am of that opinion, one I share with many others.

But that is not the topic of this discussion.

Really what you have said has no place at this forum or any other forum of civil polite discussion.

How diplomatic.

Your opinion is not that of the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church.

 

[I_Thirst]

Just to point out, there is no such thing as the Latin Rite, the ‘Latin Church’ uses four different rites and in the past had many more

Thanks for the correction and clarification!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

How diplomatic.

Your opinion is not that of the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church.

My opinion is consistent with many within the Churches, even up to and including bishops.

But the “official” Catholic view would be that the Orthodox went in to schism in 1054, which would be what the view of most posters on this, a Catholic. forum would believe.

But again, please stop trying to derail this thread with anti-Catholic bias.

 

[MarkThompson]

Which three councils are these?

The rites used within the Latin Church are viewed as sub-rites rather than being full rites of their own. Especially the rites of the religious orders.

Br. David:

There was an extremely interesting article in the September 1902 number of the American Ecclesiastic Review on the topic of the First Vatican Council’s use of the expression Sancta Catholica Apostolica Romana Ecclesia (“Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church”) in the dogmatic constitution Dei Filius, and on the general history and theological implications of that term “Roman.” You can read it here; it’s quite instructive.

 

[Ruth_Catherine]

Whenever I go on a trip that will keep me away from my home parish the first thing I look for is a Roman Catholic church and their mass schedule so I can plan my trip around mass times. I find that there are listings for Roman Catholic and Catholic churches. Sometimes the same church is listed in both classification but more often there are different churches in each classification.

Is there a difference? I always go to the Roman Catholic church but just found this to be odd that there are two different listings.

I saw your question and tried to figure out what everyone was saying to answer you but I got lost, probably due to my lack of understanding of the difference, also. It just happened that just before I read your question I had read an article from EWTN that explains just what you are asking. Here is the link:

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

 

[magdalina]

My opinion is consistent with many within the Churches, even up to and including bishops.

But the “official” Catholic view would be that the Orthodox went in to schism in 1054, which would be what the view of most posters on this, a Catholic. forum would believe.

But again, please stop trying to derail this thread with anti-Catholic bias.

The OP wanted to know the difference between Catholic and Roman Catholic. As an Eastern Catholic and a religious brother, I suspect you know the difference, and the facts, behind the origin of the “Roman” designation.

I am not a bishop, priest, deacon or religious under vows of allegiance to any denomination. I have been a Roman Catholic for many years and was indoctrinated with the official position of the RRC on the East-West schism and the Protestant Reformation. I joyfully propagated the party line to anyone who would listen.

But the OP did not ask for spin and we both owe him more. So rather than chastise me for presenting the facts, why don’t you just put the best face on your position and move on.

 

[CatholicFireman]

I saw your question and tried to figure out what everyone was saying to answer you but I got lost, probably due to my lack of understanding of the difference, also. It just happened that just before I read your question I had read an article from EWTN that explains just what you are asking. Here is the link:

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

Allow me to add to the “confusion”.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

 

[jmj1984]

Which three councils are these?

The Council of Trent states ‘**CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal (synonymous with Catholic) Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taugh; let him be anathema. **’

The Council of Florence states 'They adopted an attitude of opposition and, prodigal of their good name and enemies to their own honour, they strove to their utmost with pestilential daring to rend the unity of the holy Roman and universal church and the seamless robe of Christ’, and with serpentlike bites to lacerate the womb of the pious and holy mother herself.

The profession of faith of the First Vatican Council states '** I acknowledge the
holy,
catholic,
apostolic and
Roman
church, the mother and mistress of all the churches [1] .
Likewise
all other things which have been transmitted, defined and declared by the sacred canons and the ecumenical councils, especially the sacred Trent, I accept unhesitatingly and profess; in the same way
whatever is to the contrary, and whatever heresies have been condemned, rejected and anathematised by the church, I too condemn, reject and anathematise.

This true catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold, is what I shall steadfastly maintain and confess, by the help of God, in all its completeness and purity until my dying breath, and I shall do my best to ensure [2] that all others do the same. This is what I, the same Pius, promise, vow and swear. So help me God and these holy gospels of God. '**

The rites used within the Latin Church are viewed as sub-rites rather than being full rites of their own. Especially the rites of the religious orders.

Br David, in all charity, I challenge you to find a single source which refers to the Mozarabic, Ambrosian or Bragan rites as ‘sub-rites’ and lets not forget the Sarum rite which sadly is no longer in use.

 

[CMatt25]

Baptismal certificates don’t really mean anything. Just because it says something, doesn’t definitively make it so. They are manufactured in different forms, with different words, illustrations, materials, etc.

But yes, you were baptized according to the Rite of the Roman Catholic Church. Unless you weren’t, lol.

You are a Catholic, of the Latin/Roman “Particular Church.”

I am not saying you aren’t a Roman Catholic. You are. But your baptismal certificate doesn’t make you a Roman Catholic. Your baptism, and subsequent/concurrent attendance at Latin/Roman Rite Catholic churches does. My point is, your baptismal certificate could say practically anything. But it doesn’t, itself, make you anything.

I see your point. I guess it only serves as proof that as you say I am a Roman Catholic since yes I was baptized according to and as noted on it’s reverse side, confirmed subsequently as well.

 

[guanophore]

Prescript: I must apologise for the stream of consciousness. I shall not edit it. It was mostly a thought directed at myself. I have just returned from the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite and I have a gut plenty with [Mystic Monk Coffee](http://www.mysticmonkcoffee.com) sweetened with agave honey. Agave as we know is the noble and many-pointed plant associated with Our Lady of Tepeyac, known as the Guadelupe of the Americas. You see, I have been delighted by some literature clarifying the following subject particularly in regards to the poor souls of the Gehenna of Purgatory, many of whom have not the least inkling as to their spiritual state, thinking themselves damned to hell, so far are they from repaying their debts. We must pray for them. It is November.

When can I come over? I love Mystic Monk Coffee!

All Catholics are Roman. This is plain and simple.

Hogwarsh!

the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, Who is Christ and of Whom Mary is mother, Mother of the Eucharist, Mother of God.

The Church is not “Roman”, and neither is Mary!

The phrase Roman indicates that we are all Mary's children, grafted onto Her, the Tree of Life.

I think not. However, I will agree that the term Catholic indicates that we are all Mary’s children, grafted into His One Body, the Church.

Some may protest these words but we should consider that every Baptism conferred in a non-Eucharistic, non-Marian community (Read: non-Catholic and/or non-Orthodox) is still participating in the Roman Catholic Church.

This is true, except that the CC is no “Roman” .

These persons being Baptised are being Baptised into the Roman Catholic Church, through Whom the many are saved, and without Whom none are saved.

All who are validly baptized are baptized into His One Body, the Church. Not all are 'Roman".

 Most Christians fail to understand these demarcations. Let us say, if a Christian habitates in North America, he is quite likely to participating in the Roman Rite (Latin Rite) although there are many who belong to other Liturgical rites. All participate in the Roman Rite to one degree or another.

The Latin Rite happens to be the most common in North America, But No, not everyone participates in the Roman Rite to one degree or another. All are Catholic who are in union with the successor of Peter. The non-Roman liturgies are NOT in any way Latin.

Even the Methodist, or the Presbyterian, or the ana-Baptist, et cetra all participate in the Roman Rite. They perhaps are no cognisciant of this but it is the reality insomuch as we have demonstrated with the Rite of Baptism.

The reason for this is that Protestantism is the child of the Latin Rite. There was no Reformation in any of the other Rites. To the extent that each of those denominations retain what came from the Roman Rite, they reflect it. However, no other Rites “denominated” in this way.

The practices of non-Roman, non-Catholic rites might be somewhat distorted what but we should recognise that they are brethren. Lesser brethren they are to be sure.

This statement is not consistent with the Catholic Catechism.

The affinity of Andrew the younger brother, and Peter the elder brother is such that though appearances might differ and particular understanding might differ these two elder sons of Mary are sufficient one that they are together substantial Roman.

I am not sure what you are saying here, but the Latin Rite is one of the older Rites in the Church. The Antiochian, Syrian, and other Easter Rites all predated the coming of the Church to Rome.