Fr. Cutie to Become an Episcopal Priest

[Peter_J]

Marcus Grodi (sp?) was, I believe, a Baptist minister before his conversion. He hosts The Journey Home which is also excellent. Scott Hahn, excellent author who has a show, was a former Presbyterian minister. There are a couple of others too.

Yes. In fact anyone, Catholic or Protestant, who says “I used to belong to X, then I saw the light, and I’m dying to share my inside information about what’s wrong with X” has a significantly improved chance of getting a TV show.

It’ll be interesting to see if something like this happens with Fr. Cutié.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The biggest problem I have with this whole Father Cutie story is not that he’s found love and could not remain in the priesthood, but that he just jumped like a banshee into the arms of the Episcopal Church out of nowhere. If he truly believed in the teachings of the Catholic Church as he has claimed, he should have just left the priesthood and remained a Roman Catholic, married, layperson. But he jumped headlong into the Episcopal Church with the mentality “hey, anywhere I can stay a priest and be married now.”

Does this guy understand the history of the Church of England, the differences in the Roman and Anglican liturgies, the differences in theology with regard to church, papacy, primacy, Mary, indulgences, salvation, purgatory, and on and on?

Does he understand and truly know the Episcopal brand? It seems like a leap away from Catholicism more than a leap TO the Episcopal Church? I find it hard to believe that he truly understands the intricacies, differences, and theology between the two. It seems his ego got the better of him. He doesn’t seem to be spiritually mature in that he hasn’t taken this slowly or asked counsel of his archbishop, hasn’t communicated with the archbishop or other clergy above him, nor has he been respectful to Catholicism.

I appreciate his situation is a tough one. I would have preferred to see him deliberate on this at greater length and with more maturity than just, after being caught red-handed, jumping like a black mamba into the arms of the Episcopalians without the faintest wisp of it being told to his superiors. It’s just common courtesy, heck, even when you quit a regular job to give notice.

I would have respected him more if he had said that he’s exploring other denominations like the anglicans, lutherans, etc. to see where he belongs, admitting being lost or confused or wanting to clarify. Maybe had he joined an Anglican parish and started studying Anglicanism, getting to know a rector, inquiring, and exploring…but he just, blam, claims he’s an episcopal priest? He seemed to just want to remain a priest anywhere and keep a radio and TV show. Seems more ego-driven. He definitely needs prayers.

 

[kalt]

It probably wasn’t meant to be, as Spiritmeadow said. I say RCC for a short term for all Catholics in communion with the Holy See. And Catholic for those not in communion. It’s not something that an Anglican expects an RC to agree with. But it’s how a (Anglo-Catholic) Anglican speaks of the situation. No offense is intended.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

How is RCC short for CC?

CC means all in communion with Rome. RCC means only the Roman Rite.

The Catholic Church means specifically the CC, obviously. When you want to talk about all of Christianity, you say catholic (small c), since it is not a proper noun. If you use Catholic, you’re refering to the CC (including the RCC ).

I think the bishop is well aware of the difference. He was making a point, no doubt–unless he was misquoted.

 

[GKC]

How is RCC short for CC?

CC means all in communion with Rome. RCC means only the Roman Rite.

The Catholic Church means specifically the CC, obviously. When you want to talk about all of Christianity, you say catholic (small c), since it is not a proper noun. If you use Catholic, you’re refering to the CC (including the RCC ).

I think the bishop is well aware of the difference. He was making a point, no doubt–unless he was misquoted.

Yes, that’s what a Catholic in communion with Rome calls things.

I’m not trying to make you think like an Anglican. Just show you how an Anglican thinks.No one expects you to do the same.

GKC

 

[CentralFLJames]

This incident has been troubling me ever since it first came to public light.

Before I get into side-issues let me at least make a courtesy comment to the OP.

No, the presence of Mr. “Deacon” Cutie in the The Episcopalian Ecclesial Community will in no way magically make crackers and grape-juice into the Holy Eucharist. No Catholic Priest can do that by simple touch. It will be very interesting however to see how Mr. Cutie deals with his realization that his Episcopalian “brothers” must now view him as inferior to an Episcopalian priest since he has not been, ahem, administratively “blessed” to be worthy of having passed his initiation period to be considered worthy of being forensically declared eligible for full priestly duties. How ironic from the Catholic perspective that an apostolically ordained priest must subordinate himself to men who have no valid apostolic ordination. This can not play will with Mr. Cutie’s ego or psyche to know that he is now considered a 2nd class cleric in the Episcopal Church when his pedigree is light-years superior by the fact that a (Roman) Catholic apostolic priest is a priest forever - in heaven or in hell - wherever one finds himself in the afterlife judgement. It will be curious indeed to see if Episcopalians have to invent a new ordination rite just for Mr. Cutie so that when his year of observation and trial is over and somone in a clerical gown declares him worthy of becoming an Episcopal priest they use a “conditional ordination” (in the event that they might possibly have real ordination ecclesall powers) to prevent the sacrilege of attempting to over-ordain an already ordained Catholic priest. When he gets conditionally “ordained” as a TEC priest I suppose that some people in TEC will get to go to the only TEC church in the nation that has real Eucharist. That might backfire on TEC and cause new schisms and calls for real apostolic ordination. It’s going to be amusing to see if TEC corporate headquarters risks the loss of unity in letting Cutie conduct their liturgy since Cutire creates the dilemma of a non-uniform service. Let’s watch and see what God does with this…

That said I want to make a few more comments that are secondary to the OP.

1. It is now a matter of definition that Mr. Cutie is most probably living in in a large number of mortal sins as a result of his actions (illicit union with a woman, rejection of his faith and vows, disgrace to his church and those who had faith in his teachings and will now lose heart and fall away from the faith etc. etc.). If he dies dies unrepentant he goes to hell and he knows this if he ever believed in the Catechism he swore an oath to teach.

It all begs the questions did he ever believe the Catholic faith that he taught on his TV programs while he lived a duplicitous life and a lie? Mr. Cutie has no sacramental way of being forgiven of his grave sins while he remains “a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” in willful separation from The Church. He can not grant absolution to himself and no Episcopalian has the apostolic authority to sacramentally forgive him either. Mr. Cutie, if he ever believed the catechism he taught on Hispanic TV knows this. How is Mr. Cutie going to redeem his soul? I worry about this. Would Mr. Cutie be so bold to now dare to approach his confessor in the Catholic Church to confess his sins of heresy and abandonment of his vows without repentance? How is repentance even possible while he remains in violation of his vows and is unreleased from them and while he remains in willful automatic excommunication. Surely Mr. Cutie’s rapid change of heart from being a priest to being a deacon in the Episcopalian Church condemns him minimally as a hypocrite and more devoted to his new girlfriend than to God and his prior oaths. This is a man who is clearly angry at the Church for chastising him and daring to call him a hypocrite to his face. The rapidity of his actions only prove that Mr. Cutie wanted a soapbox to complain about the Catholic Church that would not not cave into his personal whims to have his cake and eat it to.

1. I must wonder how Episcoplians feel about a man who would turn-collar so fast? The TEC bishop showed amazingly poor taste in his public polemics about “The Roman Catholic Church” and in doing a secret back door deal. This smacks of politics and deviancy with distinct reptilian character in evidence in Cuties actions and in the Episcopalians secret negotiations behind the scenes taken together with the public statements made. If I were an Episcopalian I would not take too much comfort in receiving a man so fast to be a traitor to his faith to accept them as a 2nd choice just because they accept married priests. What is normal waiting time for becoming deacon in the Episcopalian Church? Was Cutie required to publicly disavow his allegiance to the pope and swear an allegiance to the Archbishop of Canterbury or to some TEC ecclesial committee? It sure sounds like a shotgun “wedding of opportunity” to me. I can’t imagine at this point if Cutie’s fiance is pregnant that the disgrace of fathering a bastard child could be the largest of his concern. So what’s the hurry?

Either way we look at Cutie’s situation he seems to have elected to “step down” to become simply “Mr.” or “Brother” Cutie. But I am betting that will prove too much for Cutie’s desire to be in the spotlight and to have it “his way” and that Presbyterians will come to regret the day they accepted him when he starts bucking whatever authority is over him at TEC. I am going on record as saying that an apostolic priest who had real spiritual authority and his own TV show and his own double standards is not going to be able to settle for anything less than being accountable to only himself. Expect more troubles from Cutie - he is on a path that can only lead to more disgrace.

James

 

[Peter_J]

It probably wasn’t meant to be, as Spiritmeadow said. I say RCC for a short term for all Catholics in communion with the Holy See. And Catholic for those not in communion. It’s not something that an Anglican expects an RC to agree with.

Right. As a Catholic, I consider the term “Catholic” without qualifier to be interchangeable with “Roman Catholic”, i.e. in full communion with the Pope.

Interestingly, wikipedia says “The Roman Catholic Church, officially known as the Catholic Church, …” which I would imagine has given rise to a lot of complaints from Protestants and Eastern Orthodox.

 

[GKC]

Right. As a Catholic, I consider the term “Catholic” without qualifier to be interchangeable with “Roman Catholic”, i.e. in full communion with the Pope.

Interestingly, wikipedia says “The Roman Catholic Church, officially known as the Catholic Church, …” which I would imagine has given rise to a lot of complaints from Protestants and Eastern Orthodox.

It’s not the sort of thing I’d complain about, myself. I understand that logic, without sharing it.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Greetings, James,

Parts of this I agree with. Parts I don’t. Parts are misinformed. For a general overview on Fr. Cutie, and valid sacraments, I said what I think is accurate in posts 9, 14 and 27 above.

Anglicans are a varied lot, hard to make generalizations about. But no Anglican I’ve ever seen used grape juice and crackers as the matter of the sacrament. Anglicans receive RC clergy in their orders. Whether a years wait (discernment?) is normal, I can’t say. But in Anglican eyes, Fr. Cutie is a valid priest right now. No reordination, since Anglicanism also recognizes that the sacrament of order is indelible and not repeatable. No ordination sub conditione, since no Anglican doubts the validity of an RC ordination.

As to what Bishop Frade is quoted as saying, it makes no sense, as I posted above. Perhaps he expects Cutie to function as a deacon during the period of discernment (if that’s what’s going on). But If there was any attempt to “reordain” him as anything, I would be astonished.

OTOH, the Episcopal Church has astonished me before.

And, as I said, I agree with some of your observations.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus, posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[kalt]

Yes, that’s what a Catholic in communion with Rome calls things.

I’m not trying to make you think like an Anglican. Just show you how an Anglican thinks.No one expects you to do the same.

GKC

The idea that Catholic means “encompassing all Christians” is a newer invention, perhaps, but isn’t correct usage.

The “Roman” in Roman Catholic is a qualifier. To us it means the Roman Rite. To Protestants and other Christians, it doesn’t have such a benign meaning as seen through its origin.

" A study of these and other early examples in their context shows plainly enough that the qualification “Romish Catholic” or “Roman Catholic” was introduced by Protestant divines who highly resented the Roman claim to any monopoly of the term Catholic. In Germany, Luther had omitted the word Catholic from the Creed, but this was not the case in England. Even men of such Calvinistic leanings as Philpot (he was burned under Mary in 1555), and John Foxe the martyrologist, not to speak of churchmen like Newel and Fulke, insisted on the right of the Reformers to call themselves Catholics and professed to regard their own as the only true Catholic Church."

This is hardly the all-encompassing, open-minded definition of Catholic that some use today.

Catholic, no matter how you look at it, doesn’t mean “all Christians”.

These people added “Roman” to show that Catholics of all rites were **not **true Catholics, thus the qualifier.

It can be argued that he average Protestant doesn’t know this history and doesn’t realize that when they use the term to mean all Catholics, they are actually using a term with a negative meaning, but there is no way that the Bishop didn’t know it.

Many people use the term, Roman Catholic, innocently believing that it’s the proper name of the Church.

 

[Peter_J]

Interestingly, wikipedia says “The Roman Catholic Church, officially known as the Catholic Church, …” which I would imagine has given rise to a lot of complaints from Protestants and Eastern Orthodox.

Fair enough. Personally, I think I would probably complain (if it weren’t for the fact that I agree with it) on the grounds that wikipedia ought to be impartial.

 

[kalt]

Right. As a Catholic, I consider the term “Catholic” without qualifier to be interchangeable with “Roman Catholic”, i.e. in full communion with the Pope.

Interestingly, wikipedia says “The Roman Catholic Church, officially known as the Catholic Church, …” which I would imagine has given rise to a lot of complaints from Protestants and Eastern Orthodox.

It’s not that Catholic is interchangeable with Roman Catholic, as if Roman Catholic is the proper way of saying it and people are just shortening it to Catholic. Roman is a qualifier which has a negative history in non-Catholic usage.

Roman Catholic refers to the Roman Rite. Catholic is all of Catholicism–all of the churches in communion with Rome, the Holy See.

Roman Catholic is not a short way of saying, all of the churches in communion with Roman. There’s a much shorter way of saying that. Catholic.

Non-Catholics used the qualifier to say that the churches in communion with Rome, Roman Catholics, where not the real Catholic Church, the church founded by Christ.

They weren’t, I think, using the word Catholic to mean all of Christianity, regardless of beliefs.

It’s obvious that Roman Catholic, to them, meant those who held to heretical beliefs, who were not part of Christ’s one, true, church.

 

[GKC]

Fair enough. Personally, I think I would probably complain (if it weren’t for the fact that I agree with it) on the grounds that wikipedia ought to be impartial.

Optimist.

GKC

 

[GKC]

It’s not that Catholic is interchangeable with Roman Catholic, as if Roman Catholic is the proper way of saying it and people are just shortening it to Catholic. Roman is a qualifier which has a negative history in non-Catholic usage.

Roman Catholic refers to the Roman Rite. Catholic is all of Catholicism–all of the churches in communion with Rome, the Holy See.

Roman Catholic is not a short way of saying, all of the churches in communion with Roman. There’s a much shorter way of saying that. Catholic.

Non-Catholics used the qualifier to say that the churches in communion with Rome, Roman Catholics, where not the real Catholic Church, the church founded by Christ.

They weren’t, I think, using the word Catholic to mean all of Christianity, regardless of beliefs.

It’s obvious that Roman Catholic, to them, meant those who held to heretical beliefs, who were not part of Christ’s one, true, church.

No, that’s not what an Anglican means by saying that. Always remembering that Anglicans are a motley crew.

But I don’t intend to try and change your mind on what the bishop was saying. Parts of it I can’t follow myself. Not that part, but parts.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Peter_J]

The idea that Catholic means “encompassing all Christians” is a newer invention, perhaps, but isn’t correct usage.

The “Roman” in Roman Catholic is a qualifier. To us it means the Roman Rite. To Protestants and other Christians, it doesn’t have such a benign meaning as seen through its origin.

" A study of these and other early examples in their context shows plainly enough that the qualification “Romish Catholic” or “Roman Catholic” was introduced by Protestant divines who highly resented the Roman claim to any monopoly of the term Catholic. In Germany, Luther had omitted the word Catholic from the Creed, but this was not the case in England. Even men of such Calvinistic leanings as Philpot (he was burned under Mary in 1555), and John Foxe the martyrologist, not to speak of churchmen like Newel and Fulke, insisted on the right of the Reformers to call themselves Catholics and professed to regard their own as the only true Catholic Church."

This is hardly the all-encompassing, open-minded definition of Catholic that some use today.

Catholic, no matter how you look at it, doesn’t mean “all Christians”.

These people added “Roman” to show that Catholics of all rites were **not **true Catholics, thus the qualifier.

It can be argued that he average Protestant doesn’t know this history and doesn’t realize that when they use the term to mean all Catholics, they are actually using a term with a negative meaning, but there is no way that the Bishop didn’t know it.

Many people use the term, Roman Catholic, innocently believing that it’s the proper name of the Church.

With all do respect to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, I think it’s just plain silly to claim that “Roman Catholic” is offensive.

My :twocents:.

 

[Peter_J]

Optimist.

GKC

Yeah, people are always telling me that my wikipedia-expectations are too high.

 

[CentralFLJames]

It’s not that Catholic is interchangeable with Roman Catholic, as if Roman Catholic is the proper way of saying it…

Absolutely dead on correct. The Protestants have simply forgotten their own polemic and original condescension in coming up with the diminutive - and so have many lay Catholics.

Case in point on the latter: I fairly recently met a Catholic woman from the north who when visiting here in FL remarked “are your sure your parishes are really Roman Catholic - the sign out front only gives the parish name and the title ‘Catholic Church’”. I asked her to explain and she said "up north they all say “Roman Catholic”.

I about fell out of my chair in disgust. She was so brain washed over using the generic secular term “Roman Catholic” all her life in filling out census data, and secular questionnaires/surveys etc. (that ALWAYS just give us one option of “Roman Catholic” or “other”) let herself become brainwashed into thinking that was our Church name. I straighted her out about it but I could tell she was still suspicious. Since the churches here in FL are all fairly new since about the 1950’s or so we were not living in the direct shadow of intense social pressure to comply with what Protestants were forcing on Catholics in the early days of the country.

I just had a thought - I have never heard anyone ever refer to “non-Catholics” as “non-Roman-Catholics”. It’s always “non-Catholic”.

For the record no one outside of the apostolic succession can call itself “Catholic” under Catholic Church conventions. We see Protestants as simply “seperated brothers” who are RELATED to Catholics in some ambiguous “imperfect way” but who are truly seperate and worshiping OUTSIDE of the Catholic Church in various denominational “ecclesial communities”.

The term “Roman Catholic” is a term that Catholics among themselves may call themselves to distinguish rite but in mixed company we should insist on simply being called “Catholic Church” as we have for 2,00 years. It may be appropriate to even refer to the Orthodox as “Catholic” since they have a valid apostolic succession but are in “schism” not separation.

The Vatican’s official title’s on all its declarations and Catechism is simply “Catholic Church”.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

A few more thoughts and predictions:

“Brother Cutie” while he remains insubordinate and outside to the Catholic Church will always remain “Catholic” - “once a Catholic always a Catholic” just like “once a priest always a priest”. But he is now an “excommunicated Catholic” who has consented with full elective will to disgrace himself and expose himself to the withering effects of sin. He had to know this and been conscious of it - the seminaries don’t graduate complete idiots of The Catechism. That means Cutie made a deliberate decision to accept the high risk of the consequences of damnation or maybe imagined he could game his own salvation with his own personal rules or else he rationalized it all away “for love of creature over love of Creator” and just didn’t think it through.

But God can not possibly bless his marriage if he ever survives the stress to get that far. Personally I am betting that now that he is a “free man” he will start the rationalizing process all over again since he has nothing else to risk. It would not surprise me in the least that he starts shopping around all over again to find a “better and more attractive mate”. The stress of this incident has had to have made a severe impact on his soul and psyche. His lover must also be suffering - good God did she imagine she can get married in the Church??? It is going to be very socially awkward for her in church and everywhere they go knowing that she was the adulator that took down a Catholic Priest and got between God and His priest. She will suffer many real and imagined comments about her. STRESS and loss of self respect is going to be intense for both of them. Few marriages can remain happy and viable under these conditions. Frankly at this point I think Cutie is probability mentally ill since his entire identity is being assailed - something is going to crack. Young seminarians are just not equipped to deal with social dynamics of marriage and married life. Cutie is in way over his head with no social experience - except for what he “learned on the job” by cheating God out of His time during his illicit tryst.

Cutie also had to know in his decision for excommunication that absent the protection of The Church sacraments he places himself into an irredeemable depraved condition while he remains unrepentant. That means to “cope” with the circumstances he must in his own mind imagine that he has an option to repent at a future date or else he is willing to gamble that God will make an exception to him - contrary to all the prior advice he had to have given Catholic confessors in the same scenario when he was a priest confessor. That hypocrisy coupled with his developed moral conscience (from seminary training) is going to torment the man and be the standard by which he himself will be judged before God. He must know this.

If Cutie has thought through it all it means he has deliberated over all the possible scenarios: 1) His soon to be wife later dies early or divorces him (both highly likely - given all the stress their scandal will bring into their marriage) or 2) He imagines that at some point after the aged Pope BXVI passes away that the church will become more liberal and accommodate his return to the Church as a married priest or else 3) he is willing to risk hell and presume upon God’s Mercy and “understanding” that Cutie deserves to have everything his own way and by his own terms.

I would not want to be in Cutie’s shoes for even a day. I can’t imagine the living hell he must be going through knowing in his heart that he is morally, sociologically and theologically dead wrong. It fact this event has elements of self-abuse and even suicide in it. If he had a true lapse of faith (which I doubt from what we hear) then the procedure would be to ask for a release from vows or a time of retreat and re-discernment. But his RUSH to leave the Church and get back on the payroll as a TEC deacon all in the same week PROVES that the man is insubordinate and his public comments about the desire to ‘spare the Catholic Church a scandal’ are an utter farce and disingenuous. His very first sermon in the TEC church was a sideways slap at the Catholic Church and how God can make it all right (no matter how much we know we are wrong and unrepentant).

Frankly I am betting that when the thrill of being now out of secret illicit relationship with the frump he is with peters out (now that that adrenaline thrill of being “naughty” is gone) I bet he dumps her. She is just not that good looking for a young man who now has a lot of options as a “Free man” who can now look openly for other options. I also bet inwardly he severely regrets his decision or has grave uncertainty about it. But I think he will be too proud to admit he made a mistake until he becomes an old man and comes crying back under the withering effects of unrepentant sin or else does himself grave harm through self-abusive behaviors. The human psyche simply can not take the self-abuse he has put himself through. And this is what excommunication is all about - a last resort to save a man’s soul but at the cost of much suffering and unhappiness to force a man to crawl back and repent…

Pray for the man. He will never be happy in his “second choice” church nor be able to deal any time too soon with his his identity as just another heretic who has been “taken out” by just another divorced fluzie…

As for the TEC “bishop” - I can’t imagine being so foolish to hire a man into the franchise who has proven he has no respect for authority. Cutie will more likely than not be coming right up his tail pipes looking to regain his pride & dignity by getting a title change to bishop as soon as he can…

James

 

[kalt]

No, that’s not what an Anglican means by saying that. Always remembering that Anglicans are a motley crew.

But I don’t intend to try and change your mind on what the bishop was saying. Parts of it I can’t follow myself. Not that part, but parts.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

That is the history of the term. Using Catholic (or catholic) to mean all of Christianity regardless of contradictory beliefs is a misuse of the word. It’s obvious that there is a motive behind using it that way–to justify the many, many different beliefs within non-Catholic Christianity, but it is still a mistaken use.

It’s not what is meant by “catholic” in the creed, either,which I guess it why Luther deleted it.

 

[kalt]

Absolutely dead on correct. The Protestants have simply forgotten their own polemic and original condescension in coming up with the diminutive - and so have many lay Catholics.

Case in point on the latter: I fairly recently met a Catholic woman from the north who when visiting here in FL remarked “are your sure your parishes are really Roman Catholic - the sign out front only gives the parish name and the title ‘Catholic Church’”. I asked her to explain and she said "up north they all say “Roman Catholic”.

I about fell out of my chair in disgust. She was so brain washed over using the generic secular term “Roman Catholic” all her life in filling out census data, and secular questionnaires/surveys etc. (that ALWAYS just give us one option of “Roman Catholic” or “other”) let herself become brainwashed into thinking that was our Church name. I straighted her out about it but I could tell she was still suspicious. Since the churches here in FL are all fairly new since about the 1950’s or so we were not living in the direct shadow of intense social pressure to comply with what Protestants were forcing on Catholics in the early days of the country.

I just had a thought - I have never heard anyone ever refer to “non-Catholics” as “non-Roman-Catholics”. It’s always “non-Catholic”.

For the record no one outside of the apostolic succession can call itself “Catholic” under Catholic Church conventions. We see Protestants as simply “seperated brothers” who are RELATED to Catholics in some ambiguous “imperfect way” but who are truly seperate and worshiping OUTSIDE of the Catholic Church in various denominational “ecclesial communities”.

The term “Roman Catholic” is a term that Catholics among themselves may call themselves to distinguish rite but in mixed company we should insist on simply being called “Catholic Church” as we have for 2,00 years. It may be appropriate to even refer to the Orthodox as “Catholic” since they have a valid apostolic succession but are in “schism” not separation.

The Vatican’s official title’s on all its declarations and Catechism is simply “Catholic Church”.

James

I’ve never called myself anything but Catholic. I don’t know any Catholics who identify themselves as Roman Catholic.

Most Protestants here also call us Catholic. It’s only those who are making a point of showing their distaste for Rome (the Pope/Church) who say Roman Catholic.

They may not remember the history, since I’m sure they’ve been told that catholic (small c) means all of Christianity, including, but not necessarily, Catholics, but they sure know how to use it when they want to make a point.

 

[kalt]

With all do respect to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, I think it’s just plain silly to claim that “Roman Catholic” is offensive.

My :twocents:.

That’s the history, like it or not. History is sometimes inconvenient.