Catholic vs Roman Catholic

[Aelred_Minor]

So as a Roman Catholic I shall identify myself a Latin?

Assuming you are not an Eastern Catholic, you certainly should own your identity as a Latin. It is even one of the definitions of the world “Latin” that I’ve seen in some secular dictionaries, and is a traditional term especially among Eastern Christians to refer to what used to often be called Western Catholics. Of course, the term may cause confusion among some Americans, who are associating the word with the Spanish and Portuguese-speaking nationalities of the Americas more and more. “Latin rite Catholic” may be the least ambiguous term right now.

 

[BVMFatima]

Assuming you are not an Eastern Catholic, you certainly should own your identity as a Latin. It is even one of the definitions of the world “Latin” that I’ve seen in some secular dictionaries, and is a traditional term especially among Eastern Christians to refer to what used to often be called Western Catholics. Of course, the term may cause confusion among some Americans, who are associating the word with the Spanish and Portuguese-speaking nationalities of the Americas more and more. “Latin rite Catholic” may be the least ambiguous term right now.

Ah okay. What I don’t understand is why Latin Rite parishes just don’t call themselves what they are, they just use Roman instead of Latin.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Ah okay. What I don’t understand is why Latin Rite parishes just don’t call themselves what they are, they just use Roman instead of Latin.

I would guess it is to avoid confusing poorly educated people, who might think from the word “Latin” that the parish is either a “traditionalist” one that uses what we now call the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Liturgy, or that it is somehow a parish for Hispanics.

Furthermore, though it’s less common in the United States than in England, there is the fact that the word “Catholic” when standing on its own is seen by some as indicating something broader than just the Catholic Church (it would also include Anglo-Catholics, the Old Catholic Church, the Polish National Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, etc.). “Roman Catholic” is the most recognizable term for identifying something truly Catholic.

 

[mab23]

Catholics generally prefer “Catholic” and might occasionally distinguish that they are of the Roman (or Latin) Rite as there are also Byzantine, Marion and others.

I agree

If I had a dime every time a Roman Catholic erroneously tells us Eastern Catholics that we’re Roman Catholics, I’d be richer than all the PowerBall winners combined.

Ah okay. What I don’t understand is why Latin Rite parishes just don’t call themselves what they are, they just use Roman instead of Latin.

Because Roman Stuck when it was used during the reformation and since the Vatican and the Papacy has spent almost all their time in Rome it seems to make sense even though the Church does not refer to the Latin rite as “Roman” for them to change it would be very difficult

IMHO

 

[Wandile]

You might say that it is absurd for a black man to take offense at being called a ****** (I guess you can’t type that here) because the word, etymologically considered, simply means “black.” But why would you insist on using a phrase to describe someone when that person, whether you think it is justified for them to do you so or not, will receive it pejoratively and when there are other ways to express the same thing?

The problem lies with the way in which they think we use Roman when we refer to eaterners. Roman does not in any way take away the eastern identity of this or that particular catholic person. It is used to emphasise that all who are in communion with Rome are Romans. That is all it means. A Roman is one in communion with Rome. That is why sometimes the Catholic Church refers to herself , in her documents, as the Holy Roman Church when speaking of all who belong to the Catholic Church. It doesn’t take away one’s Melkite, Maronite or Coptic identity as it’s not meant to.

The Church iis not saying you are no more Melkite but you are now Roman. It is infact saying you are both fully Roman and Melkite! Roman because you belong to the worldwide Catholic Church and your Melkite because you belong to that Melkite Communion of believers (church).

 

[italian_man]

Roman Catholic and Catholic are synonymous.

Roman Catholics are members of the Catholic Church. They belong to the Latin Rite Church.

There are also Eastern Catholics, such as Maronite Catholics, Coptic Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, Albanian Catholics, Syriac Catholics, etc. They all belong to various Eastern Rite Churches that are in communion with the Latin Rite Church.

Roman Catholic, Coptic Catholic, Albanian Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, etc. … they are all Catholics because they are all members of the Catholic Church instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Roman Catholic and Catholic are synonymous.

Roman Catholics are members of the Catholic Church. They belong to the Latin Rite Church.

There are also Eastern Catholics, such as Maronite Catholics, Coptic Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, Albanian Catholics, Syriac Catholics, etc. They all belong to various Eastern Rite Churches that are in communion with the Latin Rite Church.

Roman Catholic, Coptic Catholic, Albanian Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, etc. … they are all Catholics because they are all members of the Catholic Church instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

This is distinctly unhelpful in resolving this dispute, as you have taken one position and then the other, thus implying that Eastern Catholics are not fully Catholic. Perhaps it was just a typo, but judging from the post as it stands this very confusion is part of why I think the equating of the term “Roman Catholic” to “Latin rite Catholic” is problematic. Combined with the common and more official meaning that includes all Catholics it leads to a sense that Eastern Catholics are not Catholics in the full and normal sense of the word.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

The problem lies with the way in which they think we use Roman when we refer to eaterners. Roman does not in any way take away the eastern identity of this or that particular catholic person. It is used to emphasise that all who are in communion with Rome are Romans. That is all it means. A Roman is one in communion with Rome. That is why sometimes the Catholic Church refers to herself , in her documents, as the Holy Roman Church when speaking of all who belong to the Catholic Church. It doesn’t take away one’s Melkite, Maronite or Coptic identity as it’s not meant to.

There is nothing special about Rome except that the Bishop of Rome is there who is Peter’s successor. It is not necessary to call all citizens of the U.S. “Washingtonian Americans” on account of them being subject to the authority of the federal government which is seated in Washington D.C. (unlike those schismatic Confederates). It is perfectly understood what is meant when someone is called an American. The term Catholic is still less ambiguous, and if any qualification is needed, it is not any more difficult to say that they are Catholics in communion with Rome or something else along those lines than to simply say say that they are “Roman,” which is potentially misleading or offensive.

 

[LEMAITRE]

This is wrong. All Catholics are Roman Catholics (See Humani generis). However, one can be Roman-rite (Latin Catholics) or Byzantine-rite (Eastern Catholics). Every single person in communion with the Holy Father in Rome is a Roman Catholic though, regardless of their liturgical rite.

Very interesting. Is Humani Generis definitive?

 

[Deconi]

The hang ups about ‘ROMAN’ is profound, even to the point of tracing it’s derogatory origin! ‘Christians’ - also has derogatory origins as the empire coined it to differentiate normal citizenry from the ‘lunatics’ of the empire!

EAST, WEST, NORTH and SOUTH - there’s no DIFFERENCE between Catholics due to their locale! Inspite best efforts - I’m sure - the variety of views demonstrated in threads like this only causes confusion to enquirers and observers!

I am EAST of Rome, but I am not an Eastern Catholic. So those who wish to identify themselves this way ARE NOT HELPING!

I turn to face the other direction and I am now WEST of Rome, but I am not a Western Catholic! But some say that makes me Latin Rite, but not Hispanic!

The Catholic Church is not identified by location! The entire universe is Catholic!

**The HEAD of The Catholic Church is Jesus Christ. Therefore it is universal in scope and reach.

The SEAT of the Catholic Church is in ROME because the Rock upon which it was established and given The Keys of Heaven was matyred there, whilst being Bishop (Chair) there and in fact is buried there! His successors occupy his Chair and inheret that office, but ONLY whilst Roman Pontiff**

I answer enquirers that I am Roman Catholic proudly because I understand that the Seat of my faith is there. ALL who do not accept the Roman Pontiff as the earthly head of this faith are - simply - NOT formal members of The Catholic Church!

Pretty simple really.

 

[GKC]

Depends on who you ask!

In general people take “Catholic” to mean “Roman Catholic.” To Roman Catholics they are Catholicism. Within their church the phrase “Catholic” means everyone and “Roman Catholic” means specifically the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church.

To those outside the Roman Communion there are different definitions:

To us Orthodox, “Catholic” can mean us. We regard ourselves as The Catholic Church, though we don’t call ourselves that in mixed company often because it’s confusing. Many of us will specifically say “Roman Catholic” to reference those in Communion with the Pope of Rome.

Many Anglicans regard themselves as “catholic” and consider their church part of the catholic church, though perhaps not the Catholic Church.

Or, perhaps, part of the Catholic Church.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

I was under the impression that from the very earliest of times the church was and is the Catholic Church and that this Church was and is lead by the See of Rome. No matter wether one was a part of the Greek speaking, or Coptic Church, these were all Catholic.
I also was under the impression that the term Roman Catholic only came into use during the reformation and was an attempt by the newly formed Church of England to remain a part of the Catholic comunion.i.e it was an attempt to have three Catholic Church’s. The Anglo Catholic Church for english speaking people led by the Arch Bishop of Canterbury. The Roman Catholic Church for Latin speaking people led by the Church of Rome and the Othodox Catholic Church for Greek speaking people led by the Patriarch of Consatntinoble.
I have always been Taught that the term Roman Catholic is a term that was invented outside the church by protestants in an attempt to reduce the Church’s universiality and try to turn it into just another Christian denomination.

 

[Deconi]

The Pontiff can be relocated TEMPORARILY but he remains ‘Roman’ Pontiff in any location! It is the station of Roman Pontiff that matters, not the location.

As for the rest of your post, you do ‘see’ I’m Catholic, right?

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Pontiff can be relocated TEMPORARILY but he remains ‘Roman’ Pontiff in any location! It is the station of Roman Pontiff that matters, not the location.

As for the rest of your post, you do ‘see’ I’m Catholic, right?

The Roman Pontiff in fact has relocated a lot of times in the history of the Church. There were times when the Pope was in Constantinople (see Byzantine Exile) and there was a time the Pope was in Avignon (see Avignon Papacy).

 

[ConstantineTG]

I was under the impression that from the very earliest of times the church was and is the Catholic Church and that this Church was and is lead by the See of Rome. No matter wether one was a part of the Greek speaking, or Coptic Church, these were all Catholic.

No, the See of Rome did not “lead” the entire Church in the First Millennium. If you read the Canons of the First Ecumenical Council, you will see that it was clear what regions were under Rome, and what regions were not (at least those that were assiged to be under Alexandria).

I also was under the impression that the term Roman Catholic only came into use during the reformation and was an attempt by the newly formed Church of England to remain a part of the Catholic comunion.i.e it was an attempt to have three Catholic Church’s. The Anglo Catholic Church for english speaking people led by the Arch Bishop of Canterbury. The Roman Catholic Church for Latin speaking people led by the Church of Rome and the Othodox Catholic Church for Greek speaking people led by the Patriarch of Consatntinoble.
I have always been Taught that the term Roman Catholic is a term that was invented outside the church by protestants in an attempt to reduce the Church’s universiality and try to turn it into just another Christian denomination.

The Church in Rome was called, well, the Church in Rome. I don’t see how “Roman Catholic Church” is a derogatory term when it evolved from that. In the First Millennium no one called their Church “Catholic” or “Orthodox” as a noun. So there was no need to call something “Roman Catholic” or “Alexandrian Catholic” or whatever. It was “the Church in Rome” or “the Church in Constantinople”, etc. They don’t use the terms catholic and orthodox the way we do today.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The SEAT of the Catholic Church is in ROME because the Rock upon which it was established and given The Keys of Heaven was matyred there, whilst being Bishop (Chair) there and in fact is buried there! His successors occupy his Chair and inheret that office, but ONLY whilst Roman Pontiff

The Apostles themselves have debunked the notion that a physical location on earth is the “seat” of the Church. The seat of the Church is the throne of Christ in heaven. Christ himself said, “my kingdom is not of this world.” To say that a Church must be in Rome or Jerusalem or anywhere else is to go against that. Even in the Epsitles of the Apostles you will see the recurring theme of, “you are in this world but are no longer of this world.” St. Peter in his First Epistle told the newly baptized he is writing to that they are all just merely in the diaspora, they are foreigners. Because the citizenship of Christians is in the Kingdom of God, not on an earthly kingdom.

 

[Wandile]

The Apostles themselves have debunked the notion that a physical location on earth is the “seat” of the Church. The seat of the Church is the throne of Christ in heaven. Christ himself said, “my kingdom is not of this world.” To say that a Church must be in Rome or Jerusalem or anywhere else is to go against that. Even in the Epsitles of the Apostles you will see the recurring theme of, “you are in this world but are no longer of this world.” St. Peter in his First Epistle told the newly baptized he is writing to that they are all just merely in the diaspora, they are foreigners. Because the citizenship of Christians is in the Kingdom of God, not on an earthly kingdom.

No, the See of Rome did not “lead” the entire Church in the First Millennium. If you read the Canons of the First Ecumenical Council, you will see that it was clear what regions were under Rome, and what regions were not (at least those that were assigned to be under Alexandria).

Sure Rome didn’t govern all regions. That was simply, physically impossible at the time. Even today. Yet this doesn’t not mean Rome did not lead the church in the first millennium

It is evident that from patristic writings that this Rome, which had a lead role and “pre-eminent authority”, was deemed keeper of the Apostolic faith and was the Church at which all unity is held due to the Chair of Peter and all that…

But since it would be too long to enumerate in
such a volume as this the succession of all the
churches, we shall confound all those who, in
whatever manner, whether through self-
satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness
and wicked opinion, assemble other than where
it is proper, by pointing out here the successions
of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient
church known to all, founded and organized at
Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter
and Paul, that church which has the tradition and
the faith which comes down to us after having
been announced to men by the apostles. With
that church, because of its superior origin, all the
churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the
whole world, and it is in her that the faithful
everywhere have maintained the apostolic
tradition.
(Irenaeus of Lyon : Against Heresies 3:3:2 A.D. 189]).

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by
heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry
letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the
Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at
Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its
source
(Cyprian of Carthage : Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome]
59:14 [A.D. 252]).

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says,
“that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build
my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church,
and to him he gives the command to feed the
sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a
like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a
single chair [cathedra], and he established by
his own authority a source and an intrinsic
reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that
also which Peter was , but a
primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made
clear that there is but one Church and one chair.
So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the
flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles
in single-minded accord. If someone does not
hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine
that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert
the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was
built, can he still be confident that he is in the
Church? (Cyprian of Carthage : The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 A.D. 251]).

In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was
given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat,
the same who was head — that is why he is also
called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one
chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither
do the apostles proceed individually on their
own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up
another chair in opposition to that single chair
would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a
sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair,
those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the
title of holy Church" (Optatus : The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

Greetings from the Church in the archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa.

 

[Deconi]

Sure Rome didn’t govern all regions. That was simply, physically impossible at the time. Even today. Yet this doesn’t not mean Rome did not lead the church in the first millennium

It is evident that from patristic writings that this Rome, which had a lead role and “pre-eminent authority”, was deemed keeper of the Apostolic faith and was the Church at which all unity is held due to the Chair of Peter and all that…

But since it would be too long to enumerate in
such a volume as this the succession of all the
churches, we shall confound all those who, in
whatever manner, whether through self-
satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness
and wicked opinion, assemble other than where
it is proper, by pointing out here the successions
of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient
church known to all, founded and organized at
Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter
and Paul, that church which has the tradition and
the faith which comes down to us after having
been announced to men by the apostles. With
that church, because of its superior origin, all the
churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the
whole world, and it is in her that the faithful
everywhere have maintained the apostolic
tradition.
(Irenaeus of Lyon : Against Heresies 3:3:2 A.D. 189]).

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by
heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry
letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the
Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at
Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its
source
(Cyprian of Carthage : Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome]
59:14 [A.D. 252]).

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says,
“that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build
my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church,
and to him he gives the command to feed the
sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a
like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a
single chair [cathedra], and he established by
his own authority a source and an intrinsic
reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that
also which Peter was , but a
primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made
clear that there is but one Church and one chair.
So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the
flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles
in single-minded accord. If someone does not
hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine
that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert
the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was
built, can he still be confident that he is in the
Church? (Cyprian of Carthage : The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 A.D. 251]).

In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was
given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat,
the same who was head — that is why he is also
called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one
chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither
do the apostles proceed individually on their
own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up
another chair in opposition to that single chair
would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a
sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair,
those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the
title of holy Church" (Optatus : The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

Greetings from the Church in the archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa.

NICE Wandile!

People get lost in trying to minimise the absolute REQUIREMENT of the Pontiff to be ‘Roman’ that they’d use any spurious argument against him!

 

[Deconi]

The Roman Pontiff in fact has relocated a lot of times in the history of the Church. There were times when the Pope was in Constantinople (see Byzantine Exile) and there was a time the Pope was in Avignon (see Avignon Papacy).

By force or necessity, every time the Roman Pontiff has been relocated, he remained The Bishop of Rome, and in fact has had to return there EVERY time - when able - for that reason.

Your post PROVES that it’s the status as Roman Bishop that matters, INSPITE his location several times through our history! It that were not a fact, there would be no need to ‘insist’ on the return to Rome.

 

[Deconi]

The Apostles themselves have debunked the notion that a physical location on earth is the “seat” of the Church. The seat of the Church is the throne of Christ in heaven. Christ himself said, “my kingdom is not of this world.” To say that a Church must be in Rome or Jerusalem or anywhere else is to go against that. Even in the Epsitles of the Apostles you will see the recurring theme of, “you are in this world but are no longer of this world.” St. Peter in his First Epistle told the newly baptized he is writing to that they are all just merely in the diaspora, they are foreigners. Because the citizenship of Christians is in the Kingdom of God, not on an earthly kingdom.

General statements like *"…have debunked the notion that a physical location on earth is the seat of the Church" *…reeks of agenda when you actually see that the Apostles themselves held Pete as their leader (Prima) and demontrated in their lifetimes having to seek him out for guidance and decisions for the Church or themselves when needed. (See Jerusalem council and Paul)

It is their example and deposit of the understanding that compels us to the same understanding! Otherwise, we in the Pacific Rim would lead with our own affairs regards theology and divine matters and not look to Rome for confirmation or guidance.

Whilst in general the Protestants demonstrate what rudderless Christianity looks like, the EO also demonstrates what a collegiate of Bishops who hold the faith but are NOT united under ONE voice looks like, with sometimes glaring differences in doctrines!