Is the term "Roman Catholic Church" offensive?

[Roman_Army]

Hey, I love it:

Fact is, Rome is the Mother Church. All other Catholic churches could blow up, but ROme will remain and be the Standard for Orthodoxy and catholic faith.

I love the eastern rites ALOT so don’t misunderstand me. I am simply an old-school Triumphalist. Given our record, I feel entitled.

What if Rome were nuked and was left desolate and inhospitable, then what? It would no longer be “Roman” anymore literally speaking.

 

[DavidFilmer]

The term “Roman Catholic” is improper. The Catholic Church does not ever formally refer to Herself using this term, and neither should Catholics (I have never called myself a “Roman Catholic.”)

But I don’t find it offensive - just ignorant.

After all, I am guilty of speaking of the “Mormon” church, when I really should say “Latter Day Saints.” The term “Mormon” originated as a slur (as did the term “Roman Catholic”) but both terms have largely lost their insulting qualities in modern use, to the point that both terms are used frequently (though improperly) even by members of both faiths.

If someone were to say, “you are not a Catholic” you are a Roman Catholic," then I would still not find it offensive - I would immediately understand this person’s theological perspective and welcome the opportunity to expand it.

 

[Pecksniff]

"The term “Roman Catholic” is improper. The Catholic Church does not ever formally refer to Herself using this term, and neither should Catholics (I have never called myself a “Roman Catholic.”)

But I don’t find it offensive - just ignorant."

How interesting David. As John Paul II referred to himself as the head of the Roman Catholic Church, I wonder how he would of responded to your comment.

 

[Thing]

What if Rome were nuked and was left desolate and inhospitable, then what? It would no longer be “Roman” anymore literally speaking.

You have sent me thinking of the Roman Catholic missionary priests whose church was near the center of the nuclear blast in Japan but the priests survived without injury or radiation sickness, I understand. All around them was flattened.

 

[Church_Militant]

I’m only offended when non-Catholics refer to Roman Catholics as “Romanists” or the Roman Catholic Church as “Romanism”.

Apart from that, if they assume that all Catholics are Roman

Catholic, then this only shows their lack of knowledge of the Church itself and its history; they need to read up on the different rites of the Catholic Church.

…That’s the name of the organization. ‘Papist’ is annoying, but…

Me? Could care less. If I want something to get bent outta shape about there are folks out there who will certainly offer better grounds than this.

I agree that papist is pejorative as is “Romanists” & “Romanism”. I try not to stoop to those people’s level in discussion/debate.

You have sent me thinking of the Roman Catholic missionary priests whose church was near the center of the nuclear blast in Japan but the priests survived without injury or radiation sickness, I understand. All around them was flattened.

Yep! Franciscans from the Militia Immaculata that St. Maximilian Kolbe founded there after he was shown a vision of the mushroom cloud on the other side of the hill there when they were searching and praying about where to put their building.

Between 1930 and 1936

he took a series of missions to Japan, where he founded a monastery at the outskirts of Nagasaki, a Japanese paper and a seminary. The monastery he founded remains prominent in the Roman Catholic Church in Japan. Kolbe decided to build the monastery on a mountain side that, according to Shinto beliefs, was not the side best suited to be in tune with nature. When the atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, Kolbe’s monastery was saved because the blast of the bomb hit the other side of the mountain, which took the main force of the blast. Had Kolbe built the monastery on the preferred side of mountain as he was advised, his work and all of his fellow monks would have been destroyed.

 

[mariyka]

Here’s an EWTN link with some detail on the question. The offense may come from the implication either that only the Roman/Latin Church mattered, or that Catholicism was not really the Universal Church, since it was “Roman”.

 

[Carlan]

Ahhh… But intent is everything and 99% of those who use the term Roman Catholic are not meaning to be uncharitable. Therefore, I stand by my answer and say I am not offended by it.

As a side note… I am note offended by your neglecting to capitalize Catholic or spell it correctly, because I know that your intent was not to insult.

tTietjen thank you for the correction, this old brain doesn’t move the fingers to the right keys at times God bless you and our Catholic Latin Rite Church.Carlan

 

[Randy_Carson]

Is it possible that you might just be seeking to be offended?

Nope.

And from the poll results to date, 25% of the respondents believe that the term is derogatory…at least when used by non-Catholics to minimize the Catholic Church’s primacy in the Christian world.

 

[Roman_Army]

Is it possible that you might just be seeking to be offended?

Is it possible that Al Sharpton and others in the African American community were seeking to be offended when in Hip Hop culture the “n” word is used as the equivalent of the word “dude”?

Just because most people use a word in a good and non-offensive way doesn’t take away its negative connotations. In theology the precise wording of things is very important. According to St. Augustine a sign that the Church is True is that it is called Catholic and that no heretic would dare point to their own heretical church as Catholic when asked for directions to the nearby Catholic Church. Adding the word “Roman” in front of it changes the whole meaning and makes it purely sectarian or concerning a specific ethnic group of believers. It implies there is a Baptist Catholic Church, Methodist Catholic Church, Lutheran Catholic Church, Anglican Catholic Church, Catholic Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-day Saints, etc. and etc. It removes universality from the only one Church that Christ founded as the way, the truth, and the life.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Just because most people use a word in a good and non-offensive way doesn’t take away its negative connotations. In theology the precise wording of things is very important. According to St. Augustine a sign that the Church is True is that it is called Catholic and that no heretic would dare point to their own heretical church as Catholic when asked for directions to the nearby Catholic Church. Adding the word “Roman” in front of it changes the whole meaning and makes it purely sectarian or concerning a specific ethnic group of believers. It implies there is a Baptist Catholic Church, Methodist Catholic Church, Lutheran Catholic Church, Anglican Catholic Church, Catholic Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-day Saints, etc. and etc. It removes universality from the only one Church that Christ founded as the way, the truth, and the life.

:clapping:

 

[clmowry]

I don’t think “Roman Catholic” is inherently derogatory or usually meant in a derogatory way.

Though “technically” not an accurate name, I think it is a “reasonable” way to describe the Church in union with the Bishop of Rome.

That said, there is no doubt that some use the term exclusively because they are trying to deny “Catholic” as the proper name for the Catholic Church.

Usually these same folks make so many derogatory statements about Catholics and the Catholic Church that this little jab wouldn’t even be worth mentioning.

Similarly, I’ve seen many a non-Catholic take offense at being referred to as “Protestant” though this would appear to “obviously” be a reasonable term to use.

So I pretty much give anyone using the term “Roman Catholic” the benefit of the doubt. They likely believe this IS the correct name for the Catholic Church.

Frankly I don’t think the persons referring to us as “Papists” or “Romanists” actually read anything we write anyway, but no sense escalating things. So I try my best to avoid the use of the technically accurate but emotionally offensive descriptors that I would initially like to respond with.

Regardless of what other folks call us I try to simply refer to us as Catholics and anyone else as non-Catholics.

If someone takes offense to that then it’s probably best they not converse with me anyway. I probably won’t be able to NOT offend them.

Chuck

 

[Bbigam]

I’m sorry, totally off-topic, but…

Your job applications ask your religion?!

 

[JustaServant]

Is it possible that Al Sharpton and others in the African American community were seeking to be offended when in Hip Hop culture the “n” word is used as the equivalent of the word “dude”?

Just because most people use a word in a good and non-offensive way doesn’t take away its negative connotations. In theology the precise wording of things is very important. According to St. Augustine a sign that the Church is True is that it is called Catholic and that no heretic would dare point to their own heretical church as Catholic when asked for directions to the nearby Catholic Church. Adding the word “Roman” in front of it changes the whole meaning and makes it purely sectarian or concerning a specific ethnic group of believers. It implies there is a Baptist Catholic Church, Methodist Catholic Church, Lutheran Catholic Church, Anglican Catholic Church, Catholic Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-day Saints, etc. and etc. It removes universality from the only one Church that Christ founded as the way, the truth, and the life.

I certainly understand your point. But as a child growing up Catholic I never took offense to the term. Perhaps because of the multi-ethnic area we lived in their were Greek-Catholics, Eastern Catholics, Polish Catholics. It never occured to me to take offense.

 

[ricko]

"The term “Roman Catholic” is improper. The Catholic Church does not ever formally refer to Herself using this term, and neither should Catholics (I have never called myself a “Roman Catholic.”)

But I don’t find it offensive - just ignorant."

How interesting David. As John Paul II referred to himself as the head of the Roman Catholic Church, I wonder how he would of responded to your comment.

I read the link provided and could not find where he used “Roman Catholic”. At first he said he didn’t see it then at the end he said he did. I’m confused. Could you provide the correct link please?

In the link provided he said

At this moment of my arrival I feel the need to express my esteem for the Christian traditions of this land, as well as the gratitude of the Catholic Church

for the glorious contribution

As seen above he does use the correct name of the Church.
And, IF he did use “Roman Catholic” it just proves the Pope is infalliable in matters of
faith and morals only.

 

[clmowry]

Wow! Who’d of guessed that to be the case?

Chuck

 

[Lepanto]

Well Ricko

That John Paul II sure didn’t know what he was talking about…did he?

Not everything that popes say is infallible, and an address to the Irish president is hardly a magisterial document. As with most heads of state, such documents are written by ghost-writers, not the speakers themselves.

 

[Lepanto]

How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?

by Kenneth D. Whitehead

The Creed which we recite on Sundays and holy days speaks of one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. As everybody knows, however, the Church referred to in this Creed is more commonly called just the Catholic Church. It is not, by the way, properly called the Roman Catholic Church, but simply the Catholic Church.

The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language. The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council’s official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included.

Similarly, nowhere in the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council will you find the term Roman Catholic. Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second Vatican Council as “I, Paul. Bishop of the Catholic Church.” Simply that – Catholic Church. There are references to the Roman curia, the Roman missal, the Roman rite, etc., but when the adjective Roman is applied to the Church herself, it refers to the Diocese of Rome!

the rest…

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

 

[ricko]

“Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”[Epistle to the Smyrneans 8:2.]

One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church

For the profession of faith, the candidate says, “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.”

“[Name], the Lord receives you into the Catholic Church. His loving kindness has led you here, so that in the unity of the Holy Spirit you may have full communion with us in the faith that you have professed in the presence of his family.”

Catechism of the Catholic Church

The word “Catholic” is, therefore, the proper name of that one, visible, organized Church founded by J esus Christ. It is the Church we r ead about in the Acts of the Apostles
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9304iron.asp

 

[CathApol]

I think much ado is being made about nothing here. White commented on Dr. Beckwith’s blog about a week ago, I replied to White’s blog - actually somewhat in support of what he was saying - but clarifying that both Dr. Beckwith and I are not offended by the use of the term “Roman” - but the “overuse” of the term - especially when used in a derogatory manner. It gets a bit worse when the bigotry carries over to “Romanist” or “Romish,” but it seems those who use such terms see nothing wrong with it. Anyway, it stirred up a bit of a controversy on the blogosphere - but I suspect it will die off quickly.

This wasn’t the first time this subject has come up, and I’m sure it wasn’t the last.

One of the things which did not go unnoticed is the fact that some of those non-Catholics are trying to “use” this as a wedge between Catholics. James Swan, for example, made a point of my blog as “Beckwith vs. Windsor” - when Dr. Beckwith and I really AGREE with each other! Anyway, if you want to see my blog, which includes links to the others, check this out:

cathapol.blogspot.com/2009/10/roman-catholicism-and-james-white.html

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

 

[Pecksniff]

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1979/september/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19790929_irlanda-dublino-presidente_en.htm

I read the link provided and could not find where he used “Roman Catholic”. At first he said he didn’t see it then at the end he said he did. I’m confused. Could you provide the correct link please?

In the link provided he said

As seen above he does use the correct name of the Church.
And, IF he did use “Roman Catholic” it just proves the Pope is infalliable in matters of
faith and morals only.