Is the Catholic Church simply naive?

[InnocentIII]

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.

I think you are perhaps creating confusion here. The term Roman Catholic does not link to pagan Rome at all. The problem with the term is that it implies that there are other Catholics and that we are simply a part of the Universal Church. This BTW is not a slap at the Eastern catholics who in the sense that they are in communion with Rome and also Roman though not Latin. The Catholic Church in union with Rome is the One True Church. There are no other Catholic Churches but some would deny this by claiming they are simply an x catholic or a y catholic. This is why we as catholics should never use the term.

 

[Petergee]

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).

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

That’s just silly. Catholics themselves are happy to refer to “the (Eastern) Orthodox Church(es)”. That doesn’t imply that we recognise their claim that their beliefs are orthodox and that ours are not orthodox. I’ve never heard of a Catholic who was silly enough to claim “You call us ‘Catholic’ so you acknowledge we are the one true Church.” If anyone did, such nonsense would be easily dismissed.

“The Roman church” is used only by extreme anti-Catholic bigots and is even more offensive than “a Roman Catholic”. It implies even more strongly than the latter that our Church is rightly confined to the city of Rome. A further objection to these terms which has not yet been mentioned here, is that they have frequently been used to imply mischievously that Catholics are not loyal citizens of English-speaking countries, but are loyal to the temporal state of the Vatican and, at heart, traitors to their own nation.

 

[puzzleannie]

Micael:

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

Naively, the Church has been silent. . 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.
.

the Church does not “allow” or “forbid” non-Catholics from doing or saying anything. Nowhere does the Church use the phrase Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman. The formula for the Creed is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. This topic has been done to death here, what is your point?

 

[AugustineFL]

My only comment to this is that I am a proud Roman Catholic!

I don’t mind being called Roman Catholic…the term is only derogatory if the person being so called finds it offensive. I see no offence even when it is intended. I’m a Latin rite Catholic, my patriarch is the Bishop of Rome, my pope is the Bishop of Rome, I am completely in communion with the Church at Rome; hence I am Roman Catholic. Roman doesn’t take away from the ‘Catholic’ part, it simply clarifies that I am indeed in union and loyal to the Church at Rome; the one true Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Now if I was Eastern rite I would probably prefer to not be called “Roman Catholic”. But in all honestly even then I’d rather have an ignorant person think of me as Roman Catholic than to think of me as separated from Rome and more like an “Orthodox” Catholic.

 

[Contarini]

I’m not going to continue this conversation further, because I really don’t think the point is worth contesting. I admit (to Innocent) that I took the lazy approach by googling “romain-catholique” and “roman-katholische.” However, I did get hits–the German ones all seemed to have an Eastern European provenance, no doubt because (as you point out to my embarrassment) “romisch-katholische” would be better. (I got far more hits with that one.) I knew “roman-katholisch” wasn’t very German, but the Germans do take over foreign words readily, so I thought it was worth trying.

Since the point under discussion was not whether these terms are common but whether they exist, I thought the lazy method I used was warranted.

In Romanian I’m on far firmer ground–“romano-catolica” is used all the time, to distinguish the Latin Rite from the Byzantine Catholic Church.

Again, this isn’t a point I’m interested in contesting. Clearly analogues to “Roman Catholic” do exist, but I am not claiming that they are generally used to refer to the Roman Communion as a whole.

And for Petergee–I assure you that St. Augustine’s argument from the term “Catholic” is used by Catholic apologists. You are fortunate if you haven’t encountered it. I have. Steve Ray used to have the pertinent quote from St. Augustine featured prominently on his website, though apparently he doesn’t any more.

Furthermore, Protestants themselves are confused, thinking that the term “Catholic” always means “in communion with Rome,” which of course in Protestant theology it does not. If you guys had a similar problem with Catholics thinking they weren’t orthodox because they weren’t Orthodox, you might have similar qualms.

I know “Roman Church” is worse than “Roman Catholic.” That’s my point. “Roman Catholic” is itself a term of courtesy, not a pejorative one. However, I avoid using it because some see it as offensive. When I do feel the need to use it, I put “Roman” in scare quotes to soften the impact.

Edwin

 

[Fr_Chuck]

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.

The one I can name for sure from memory ( it gets worst as we get older) but the Catholic Church in Cape Giradeau MO that was off of Spring Street in the 70’s and 80’s used to have on thier large sign in front of the church. Roman Catholic Church.
I have also seen this in front of a few other churches accross the country. So I will assume that thier priests, members and Bishops are all un-informed.

Not complaining, I never knew why some churches prefer to use this. My guess was that there were various other catholic churches in the area. not under Rome and they wished to be specific that they were, but this was always just a guess.

 

[maggieodae]

AugustineFL:

My only comment to this is that I am a proud Roman Catholic!

I don’t mind being called Roman Catholic…the term is only derogatory if the person being so called finds it offensive.

It beats being called *“Of another Persuasion.” * That’s what my husbands dingbat Southern Baptist Minister referred to me as being…at my husbands funeral. I managed to be nice and not say a thing…but 2 months later I am still struggling with my anger at the dimwit.

Also, not one of his church pastors or fellow worshipers bothered to visit him. Only my fellow Catholic parishoners and my priest came. And Father was there with us at the final moments.

The members of his, SB church was too busy doing other things. O’…did I mention I am still miffed as can be.

 

[Micael]

InnocentIII:

I think you are perhaps creating confusion here. The term Roman Catholic does not link to pagan Rome at all. The problem with the term is that it implies that there are other Catholics and that we are simply a part of the Universal Church. This BTW is not a slap at the Eastern catholics who in the sense that they are in communion with Rome and also Roman though not Latin. The Catholic Church in union with Rome is the One True Church. There are no other Catholic Churches but some would deny this by claiming they are simply an x catholic or a y catholic. This is why we as catholics should never use the term.

No, no. Your statement " Eastern catholics who in the sense that they are in communion with Rome and also Roman though not Latin." makes no sense. Within church confines Roman equatest to Latin. Thus we can say the largest rite of the Catholic Church (NOTE not the RCC) is the Latin (aka Roman church, little “c”) . Thus it is illogical for Byzantine rite Cathlics to be Byzantine and Roman/Latin rite. The fact that they are in communion with the Holy See which resides in Rome does not make them Roman any more that a New Yorker can be called a D.C.- American simply because New York State is in communion with the U.S. President which resides in D.C.

In other words: while the New Yorker is American (=Catholic) , he is not a D.C.-American(=Roman Catholic) simply because New York is in communion with the President of the U.S