Is the Catholic Church simply naive?

[Micael]

As a recent apologist I find it frustrating how the Church allows others to call the universal/general Church the “Roman Catholic Church”.

Sure you can say the Holy See and capital of the Catholic Church is “in Rome” and the Bishop of Rome is its earthly leader. However, throughout history it has been called simply the Catholic Church (when speaking of the entire church.)

However, after the reformation, certain Protestant groups believed they where the “real” catholic church and thus applied the “Roman” Catholic Church to the general Church (probably since the western schism/Reformation applied primarily the Latin Rite church). Simultaneously, implication that the Church was founded by the pagan Roman empire and Constantine and thus a false Church.

Naively, the Church has been silent. In many cases allowing others to use the terminology, almost innocently thinking they simply name the Church after the location of the Holy See. At times even contributing to the problem by almost admitting (not purposefully), its Roman-ness, using the following phrase: Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church.

Considering Trent dealt with many errors derived against Catholic theology during the Reformation… Why has it never addressed this issue. Do they no understand that from non-Catholic and particularly anti-Catholics the term “Roman” Catholic Church IS derogatory.

Additionally, is not the open approval of such a term simply disrespectful of all other Catholic brothers and sisters of the Eastern churches all in communion with the Pope. Eastern Catholics may be 100%, but they are technically NOT Roman(rite) Catholics. Thus any open acceptance of such almost ignores their very existence. Such lack of tactfulness can and probably hurts ecclesiastical efforts with the Orthodox Church. As a matter of fact, it probably contributes to the separation.
The Church needs to recognize that any effort that implicitly restraints the boundaries of the Church simply Rome or Italy creates a false perception globally whether this occurs intrinsically with a narrow focus on Rome/Italy(400+ years of Italian Popes for a supposedly a Universal Church, before John Pau II) or extrinsically by allowing others to rename the Church in a hidden, but very real defamatory and heretical sense. I specify heretical because it defys the eternal truth of Jesus Christ whom founded the Church and replaces God with a Man and his “pagan empire” as its founder.

 

[DavidFilmer]

The Church does not use the term “Roman Catholic,” nor do most informed Catholics. As to others, I suppose you must pick your battles, and this seems like a minor skirmish. I’d rather discuss points of doctrine than titles.

If a protestant (etc) wants to call himself a “Catholic” then I will go there, but if a protestant (etc) calls me a “Roman Catholic” I usually let it pass in favor of more substantive topics.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Normally I use terminology that I think will be misunderstood.

Frankly, I didn’t realize that “Roman Catholic Church” did not include all parts of the official Church that are faithful to Rome.

To me, this sounds like the Roman Catholic Church is an accurate description, if not title, that could give the right impression.

The fact that there is a Roman Rite, which is different than some other rite, and that the “Roman Catholic Church” is a misnomer, sounds much more confused on the part of the Church to me than on the part of outsiders trying to come up with a name to call this group of people. It sounds like it is we, not outsiders, who are making the distinction and excluding part of our brethren.

Of course, I’m noted for changing my mind, since my first impression is usually so uninformed.

Alan

 

[InnocentIII]

Micael:

As a recent apologist I find it frustrating how the Church allows others to call the universal/general Church the “Roman Catholic Church”.

Sure you can say the Holy See and capital of the Catholic Church is “in Rome” and the Bishop of Rome is its earthly leader. However, throughout history it has been called simply the Catholic Church (when speaking of the entire church.)

However, after the reformation, certain Protestant groups believed they where the “real” catholic church and thus applied the “Roman” Catholic Church to the general Church (probably since the western schism/Reformation applied primarily the Latin Rite church). Simultaneously, implication that the Church was founded by the pagan Roman empire and Constantine and thus a false Church.

Naively, the Church has been silent. In many cases allowing others to use the terminology, almost innocently thinking they simply name the Church after the location of the Holy See. At times even contributing to the problem by almost admitting (not purposefully), its Roman-ness, using the following phrase: Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church.

Considering Trent dealt with many errors derived against Catholic theology during the Reformation… Why has it never addressed this issue. Do they no understand that from non-Catholic and particularly anti-Catholics the term “Roman” Catholic Church IS derogatory.

Additionally, is not the open approval of such a term simply disrespectful of all other Catholic brothers and sisters of the Eastern churches all in communion with the Pope. Eastern Catholics may be 100%, but they are technically NOT Roman(rite) Catholics. Thus any open acceptance of such almost ignores their very existence. Such lack of tactfulness can and probably hurts ecclesiastical efforts with the Orthodox Church. As a matter of fact, it probably contributes to the separation.
The Church needs to recognize that any effort that implicitly restraints the boundaries of the Church simply Rome or Italy creates a false perception globally whether this occurs intrinsically with a narrow focus on Rome/Italy(400+ years of Italian Popes for a supposedly a Universal Church, before John Pau II) or extrinsically by allowing others to rename the Church in a hidden, but very real defamatory and heretical sense. I specify heretical because it defys the eternal truth of Jesus Christ whom founded the Church and replaces God with a Man and his “pagan empire” as its founder.

I think this needs to be clarified a little. The term Roman Catholic is specifically an Anglophone invention. During the Reformation in Europe Protestants named themselves various things (Reformed, Evanglical, etc) to distinguish themselves from the Catholics. They did not see themselves as Catholic in any sense. This continues today. In Germany for example the Lutheran Church is known as die Evangelische Kirche and the Catholic Church as die Katolische Kirche.

In England however, Henry VIII was only concerned to place the Church in England under his control. He had no intention of abandoning the Catholic Faith. To distinguish his Church from the Pope’s Church the latter was referred to as the Roman Church. When the real reformation occurred in England under Edward VI the names stuck and the Catholic Church became the Roman Catholic Church as distinct from The Church of England. This tradition continues to this day in Canada, USA, Australia and New Zealand (possibly a few other ex-British colonies) although today few people use it here. Official signs and websites for Catholic churches here just use the term Catholic as does the phone book etc. But when I was a child we were still called Rock Choppers from the initials RC.

So to put it in perspective, I agree with you that it is subtly demeaning of the Universal Church but is primarily a cultural thing and probably not worth getting het up about unless someone wants to make an issue of their catholicity vs ours. An interesting sidelight on this is that Fowler in his Modern English Usage makes exactly the same point that it is an Anglophone term and one that should really be dropped as unnecessary in the modern age.

 

[davy39]

InnocentIII:

I think this needs to be clarified a little. The term Roman Catholic is specifically an Anglophone invention. During the Reformation in Europe Protestants named themselves various things (Reformed, Evanglical, etc) to distinguish themselves from the Catholics. They did not see themselves as Catholic in any sense. This continues today. In Germany for example the Lutheran Church is known as die Evangelische Kirche and the Catholic Church as die Katolische Kirche.

In England however, Henry VIII was only concerned to place the Church in England under his control. He had no intention of abandoning the Catholic Faith. To distinguish his Church from the Pope’s Church the latter was referred to as the Roman Church. When the real reformation occurred in England under Edward VI the names stuck and the Catholic Church became the Roman Catholic Church as distinct from The Church of England. This tradition continues to this day in Canada, USA, Australia and New Zealand (possibly a few other ex-British colonies) although today few people use it here. Official signs and websites for Catholic churches here just use the term Catholic as does the phone book etc. But when I was a child we were still called Rock Choppers from the initials RC.

So to put it in perspective, I agree with you that it is subtly demeaning of the Universal Church but is primarily a cultural thing and probably not worth getting het up about unless someone wants to make an issue of their catholicity vs ours. An interesting sidelight on this is that Fowler in his Modern English Usage makes exactly the same point that it is an Anglophone term and one that should really be dropped as unnecessary in the modern age.

I never heard the term Rock Choppers used before. Just mackeral snappers, papists and romanists.

 

[InnocentIII]

davy39:

I never heard the term Rock Choppers used before. Just mackeral snappers, papists and romanists.

May have been a Sydney thing but I still definitely recall the name. In those days you were generally either CofE or RC … hence the nickname

 

[MonkeyTape]

davy39:

I never heard the term Rock Choppers used before. Just mackeral snappers, papists and romanists.

See, and I’ve never heard of mackeral snappers, I don’t see how that fits.

 

[rwoehmke]

Catholics ate fish on Fridays and were known for it. Mackeral was a relatively inexpensive fish and many Catholic immigrants were poor. Hence Mackeral Snappers(eaters). How about “Catlickers”?

 

[Contarini]

Micael:

As a recent apologist I find it frustrating how the Church allows others to call the universal/general Church the “Roman Catholic Church”.

Sure you can say the Holy See and capital of the Catholic Church is “in Rome” and the Bishop of Rome is its earthly leader. However, throughout history it has been called simply the Catholic Church (when speaking of the entire church.)

However, after the reformation, certain Protestant groups believed they where the “real” catholic church and thus applied the “Roman” Catholic Church to the general Church (probably since the western schism/Reformation applied primarily the Latin Rite church). Simultaneously, implication that the Church was founded by the pagan Roman empire and Constantine and thus a false Church.

Your history is wrong. Medieval texts frequently refer to “sancta Romana ecclesia.” The use of “Roman” to modify the Church is not a Protestant invention.

Furthermore, when Protestants speak of the “Roman Catholic Church” they usually do mean the Roman Catholic Church–i.e., the Latin-Rite Church. They don’t know much about the Eastern Catholic Churches, and many of the things said about the “RCC” apply in fact only to the Latin Church.

When Rome no longer appoints bishops, regulates liturgical minutiae, etc., then I’ll lend some credence to the idea that you should not be called “Roman Catholic.” Most Catholics over the past 500 years have happily used the term. The idea of objecting to it is a modern Catholic-apologist ploy steeped in the silliest form of political correctness.

Still, to avoid offense, I only use the term when I think it is clearly called for. I’ve taken to saying “Roman Communion” as being more precise.

Edwin

 

[Crumpy]

Thanks for pointing this out.

“Roman” Catholic Church is a term that probably slips into common usage just like “xerox” machine.

I thought that RCC came into useage to distinguish it from the Eastern Orthodox “Catholic” Church after the schism.

The more I think I know, I find the less I actually know. It scares me.

I don’t think the Catholic Church is naive, but many of us simply don’t know everything.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I think we have enormously larger fish to fry…mackrel or otherwise
(my paternal grandfather called Catholics “mackrel snappers”).

I just say “I’m Catholic.”

 

[InnocentIII]

Contarini:

Your history is wrong. Medieval texts frequently refer to “sancta Romana ecclesia.” The use of “Roman” to modify the Church is not a Protestant invention.

Furthermore, when Protestants speak of the “Roman Catholic Church” they usually do mean the Roman Catholic Church–i.e., the Latin-Rite Church. They don’t know much about the Eastern Catholic Churches, and many of the things said about the “RCC” apply in fact only to the Latin Church.

When Rome no longer appoints bishops, regulates liturgical minutiae, etc., then I’ll lend some credence to the idea that you should not be called “Roman Catholic.” Most Catholics over the past 500 years have happily used the term. The idea of objecting to it is a modern Catholic-apologist ploy steeped in the silliest form of political correctness.

Still, to avoid offense, I only use the term when I think it is clearly called for. I’ve taken to saying “Roman Communion” as being more precise.

Edwin

Now you are wrong. The fact that certain medieval texts use the term Holy Roman Church (and I am a medieval historian and ma well aware of the contexts in which it was used) the term ROMAN CATHOLIC does not exist in any language except English (again I refer you to Fowler who was no apologist for the Catholic Church). The term Roman Catholic has never been used in other countries, even protestant countries. The attempt to treat the term as a long standing universal usage is invalid.

 

[Contarini]

InnocentIII:

Now you are wrong. The fact that certain medieval texts use the term Holy Roman Church (and I am a medieval historian and ma well aware of the contexts in which it was used) the term ROMAN CATHOLIC does not exist in any language except English (again I refer you to Fowler who was no apologist for the Catholic Church). The term Roman Catholic has never been used in other countries, even protestant countries. The attempt to treat the term as a long standing universal usage is invalid.

Obviously the term “Roman Catholic” doesn’t exist in any other language. But “romain-catholique” exists in French, “Roman-katholische” exists in German, and “romano-catolica” exists in Romanian (these are the three modern foreign languages I can speak, so I’ll stick to them as examples).

If you would prefer that Protestants simply call you the “Roman Church” I’m sure many would be happy to oblige. “Roman Catholic” is in fact a more courteous term which acknowledges your claims without commiting ourselves to believing them. It is singularly discourteous to force other people to speak of you in a manner that implies that they believe your claims when they do not. They may choose to do this, as long as you don’t make foolish arguments on the basis of their courtesy (arguments which are not lacking on boards like this one, on the dubious authority of one of St. Augustine’s sillier moments). But you can’t demand it. Part of civil discourse implies that we have some kind of neutral language for talking about each other. For instance, I can understand why many Catholics won’t speak of an Episcopal priest, even though we think our presbyters are priests. It would be silly for me to make a fuss about it.

The plain fact is that we don’t think your Communion is, in and of itself, *the *Catholic Church. If we did, we would join you immediately. In some contexts I have no problem saying “the Catholic Church.” But when discussing the nature of the Catholic Church (as mentioned in the Nicene Creed) it is important to have a term that has some degree of neutrality. Otherwise you have foolish Catholics arguing that because we call you “Catholic” we must in some sense acknowledge your claims.

Edwin

 

[hurst]

I had long ago heard the exact opposite, namely, that we should specifically use the term “Roman Catholic” as opposed to just “Catholic”. It shows our communion with the Pope, for one thing. I always make a note to use the full “Roman Catholic” whenever I think of it. And when looking for a church in a new area, I look for “Roman” Catholic Churches to make sure they are the real thing. I never even realized anyone in the Church objected! There are “Catholic” organizations that are not in union with Rome, so I am glad about the distinction.

hurst

 

[Like]

hurst:

I had long ago heard the exact opposite, namely, that we should specifically use the term “Roman Catholic” as opposed to just “Catholic”. It shows our communion with the Pope, for one thing. I always make a note to use the full “Roman Catholic” whenever I think of it. And when looking for a church in a new area, I look for “Roman” Catholic Churches to make sure they are the real thing. I never even realized anyone in the Church objected! There are “Catholic” organizations that are not in union with Rome, so I am glad about the distinction.

hurst

I agree 100% & can not understand why any Catholic would very be offened by the term “Roman Catholic”

 

[DeFide]

Here’s an article/discussion on the issue.

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ250.HTM

I think it’s better to use the term “Catholic”, regardless of who you are simply because you’re less likely to rub people the wrong way. Also, if you’re non-Catholic, you’re less likely to come across as bigoted and angry.

Besides, the Catholic you’re talking to may not necessarily be of the Latin rite, which would make you come across as being uninformed.

 

[Micael]

Like:

I agree 100% & can not understand why any Catholic would very be offened by the term “Roman Catholic”

Like I stated in my original post. The problems comes when you apply the “Roman” to the general Catholic Church , why because you imply that it is a church of Man (the Pagan Roman empire) vs the Church founded by Christ. Each making HUGE implications. In one sense you are following the traditions of Man and praying to idols and a piece of bread and simple wine VERSUS the real body and blood of Christ though a divine miracle created by God.

The ultimate consequences being complete polar extremes. Either its is a pagan church and you are sinning against the Lord in a mortal fashion OR you are worshiping God - Jesus Christ a most intimate way. You are becoming one with the Lord by ingesting his very essence. A most personal PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP with God himself OR you are practicing among the most personal and offensive acts upon God . Wether you realize it or not the implications are tremendous.

 

[InnocentIII]

Contarini:

Obviously the term “Roman Catholic” doesn’t exist in any other language. But “romain-catholique” exists in French, “Roman-katholische” exists in German, and “romano-catolica” exists in Romanian (these are the three modern foreign languages I can speak, so I’ll stick to them as examples).

Edwin

I would be interested in references to these terms in German and French, both of which I studied for ten years and which i speak fluently. I have never heard either term. I also spen a year in Germany where the Catholic Church is always simply die Katolische Kirche as opposed to die Evangelische Kirche and those are the official names.

I would add that if it was used in German the correct term would be Roemisch-katolische as Roman menas novel so Roman-katolisch would mean novel catholic.

 

[Like]

Micael:

Like I stated in my original post. The problems comes when you apply the “Roman” to the general Catholic Church , why because you imply that it is a church of Man (the Pagan Roman empire) vs the Church founded by Christ. Each making HUGE implications. In one sense you are following the traditions of Man and praying to idols and a piece of bread and simple wine VERSUS the real body and blood of Christ though a divine miracle created by God.

The ultimate consequences being complete polar extremes. Either its is a pagan church and you are sinning against the Lord in a mortal fashion OR you are worshiping God - Jesus Christ a most intimate way. You are becoming one with the Lord by ingesting his very essence. A most personal PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP with God himself OR you are practicing among the most personal and offensive acts upon God . Wether you realize it or not the implications are tremendous.

Give me a break!!! You show me where that is what the Vatican teaches! How dare you accuss me of worshiping a false god or a pagan church!!!

 

[InnocentIII]

Contarini:

The plain fact is that we don’t think your Communion is, in and of itself, *the *Catholic Church. If we did, we would join you immediately. In some contexts I have no problem saying “the Catholic Church.” But when discussing the nature of the Catholic Church (as mentioned in the Nicene Creed) it is important to have a term that has some degree of neutrality. Otherwise you have foolish Catholics arguing that because we call you “Catholic” we must in some sense acknowledge your claims.

Edwin

I would agree with you that we cannot demand that others use the term Catholic unqualified. But we certainly can and should use the unqualified term or we would then be giving credence to your claims to be part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I would point out though that the official listing for the Church in our phone books and official publications here in Australia is Catholic Church (unqualified).