Is the term "Roman Catholic Church" offensive?

[MariaG]

I have a question, then. Would you/they be comfortable with calling a person, parish, or diocese “Roman Catholic?” In reference, of course, to a Catholic person/parish/diocese of the Roman/Latin Rite?

Depends on who wants to call me that and the reason why. If it is a Protestant, who is not trying to distinguish between different rites within the Catholic Church, then no. I would not be comfortable with it. I am a memeber of the Catholic Church. Not a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

I find here and in real life, those who call me Roman Catholic frequently do not even think Catholics are Christians.

As for a fellow Catholic wishing to call me that, again, if they are doing so to talk about which Rite that is okay, but I am still uncomfortable with it if one is speaking of the entire Catholic Church because it excludes a good portion of the Catholic Church if one is not just speaking of the Latin Rite portion.

If a Byzantine Catholic wishes to call me a Roman Catholic:thumbsup: because it is clear they are just distinguishing between different rites within the Catholic Church.

 

[Lepanto]

I do find it offensive when non-Catholics refer to all Catholics as Roman Catholics cause not all Catholics are Roman Catholics. However, if they’re referring to me, I don’t find it offensive because I am Roman Catholic.

Actually, you would be a Latin Rite Catholic.

 

[MariaG]

Dear Maria, of course it is an exclusionary term. It was coined by English protestants in 16th century England to refer to ‘Old Catholics’ in Ireland and England, otherwise known to us as simply Catholics. English protestantism wanted to turn history and logic on its head and claim that the new religion ‘protestantism’ was actually Catholicism and that the ‘Old Catholicism’, as they also called it, which had existed in Ireland and England for a thousand years before protestantism was not Catholicism but Roman Catholicism, or Romanism, Romish, Papist, Popery, - or any other insult they could think of.
So ‘Roman Catholicism’ for the protestants and the Catholics is Catholicism; and protestantism for the English protestants is Catholicism.
Of course Roman Catholic is exclusionary, it was designed to be exclusionary, designed to exclude all the True Catholics from this new protestant idea of their own Catholicism.

The history of the term Roman Catholic is exclusive to the history of England and Ireland which was why I said it would not mean much to a modern person living in the Philippines or a modern Byzantine Catholic living in Greece.
The term Roman Catholic did not drop out of the sky yesterday and you cannot view it as a modern term to be analyzed by itself. It only begins to make any sense when you relive the history which produced it.
The ‘Roman Catholics’ in England and Ireland were in fact the True Catholics loyal to the Pope in Rome, or in other words they were simply Catholics as you understand the word today. But since the 16th century English protestants were attempting to use the name Catholic to convert everyone to protestantism they needed to call the Real Catholics of those lands something else. Roman Catholics.
After that history becomes complicated as it tries to come to terms with itself without conceeding any fault of its own or appearing to lose face. English officials in later centuries refused to speak to Irish representatives unless the Irish referred to themselves as Roman Catholics. The Irish, intelligent and obliging, as always, define the former insult of ‘Roman Catholic’ as meaning the original Catholics of the two lands.
Ever since Pope Celestine I sent the Bishops Palladius and St Patrick to Ireland in the 5th century Ireland has been a Catholic country; that the English protestants renamed the Catholics Roman Catholics does not alter the Catholics it alters the term Roman Catholic to mean, for most of these people, ‘Catholic’. In England and Ireland Catholic and Roman Catholic are synonyms, with the word ‘Roman’ now recalling, however feebly to some, the history of the Faith in their own countries and the truth that Catholicism is the one true faith loyal to the bitter end to Rome, the Pope.

And it excludes our non-Latin Rite Catholics when habitually used to refer to the entire Catholic Church.

This is actually a good point. I use the term Roman Catholic to signify that I’m talking about things as they are practiced in Rite practiced by the Bishop of Rome. For example, the Byzantine Rite is pretty big in my area and they practice Baptism, First Communion, and Confirmation all in infancy which, IMHO, is a huge difference. So, I feel it is important to signify which Rite I am talking about. Now, also, most people I talk to wouldn’t realize what I meant by Latin Rite. So, why is it offensive for me to say Roman Catholic in this context?

It is not offensive in this context. It is offensive to me when using the name to refer to the entire Catholic Church and ALL the Rites in communion with the Pope. Again, my experience here and in real life is those who INSIST on referring to the entire Catholic Church as the Roman Catholic Church even when told that is not the proper name of our Church rarely even believe Catholics (excuse me Roman Catholics) are even Christians at all.

 

[Thing]

And it excludes our non-Latin Rite Catholics when habitually used to refer to the entire Catholic Church.
.

It does not exclude them because it does not mean ‘Roman’ Rite Catholics.

You are not understanding, Maria. ‘Roman’ does not, and never has refered to a ‘Rite’. It refered to ones ‘allegiance’ to the Pope in Rome instead of to the King in England.

That was why they were also called Papists; because they were loyal to the Pope, as Eastern Catholics are also loyal to the Pope.

It was coined by the protestants to be exclusionary, as you put it; but the 16th century protestants who originally coined that phrase could not give a fig for ‘rites’ within the Catholic Church. The protestants were not opposed to just one ‘rite’ in Catholicism, they hated loyalty to the Pope in Rome because they saw it as competing with their Kingdoms loyalty to their new protestant King, thats all.

So when you see a sign that says ‘Roman Catholic’ know that it means ‘all Catholics loyal to the Pope in Rome’, regardless of whitch ‘rite’ they followed within Catholicism.

Here is what it meant to be Roman Catholic [aka Loyal to the Pope] in Ireland during the time of the Penal Laws;
‘Roman’ Catholic does not refer to a ‘rite’ within Catholicism; it refers to all Catholics loyal to the Pope in Rome.

The Penal Laws

-Exclusion of Catholics from most public offices (since 1607), Presbyterians were also barred from public office from 1707.

-Ban on intermarriage with Protestants; repealed 1778

-Presbyterian marriages were not legally recognised by the state

-Catholics barred from holding firearms or serving in the armed forces (rescinded by Militia Act of 1793)
-Bar from membership in either the Parliament of Ireland or the Parliament of Great Britain from 1652; rescinded 1662-1691; renewed 1691-1829.

-Disenfranchising Act 1728, exclusion from voting until 1793;

-Exclusion from the legal professions and the judiciary; repealed (respectively) 1793 and 1829.

-Education Act 1695 - ban on foreign education; repealed 1782.

-Bar to Catholics entering Trinity College Dublin; repealed 1793.

-On a death by a Catholic, his legatee could benefit by conversion to the Church of Ireland;

-Popery Act - Catholic inheritances of land were to be equally subdivided between all an owner’s sons with the exception that if the eldest son and heir converted to Protestantism that he would become the one and only tenant of estate and portions for other children not to exceed one third of the estate. This “Gavelkind” system had previously been abolished by 1600.

-Ban on converting from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism on pain of Praemunire: forfeiting all property estates and legacy to the monarch of the time and remaining in prison at monarchs pleasure. In addition, forfeiting monarchs protection. No injury however atrocious could have any action brought against it or any reparation for such.

-Ban on Catholics buying land under a lease of more than 31 years; repealed 1778.

-Ban on custody of orphans being granted to Catholics on pain of 500 pounds that was to be donated to the Blue Coat hospital in Dublin.

-Ban on Catholics inheriting Protestant land

-Prohibition on Catholics owning a horse valued at over £5 (in order to keep horses suitable for military activity out of the majority’s hands)

-Roman Catholic lay priests had to register to preach under the Registration Act 1704, but seminary priests and Bishops were not able to do so until the 1770s.

-When allowed, new Catholic churches were to be built from wood, not stone, and away from main roads.

-‘No person of the popish religion shall publicly or in private houses teach school, or instruct youth in learning within this realm’ upon pain of twenty pounds fine and three months in prison for every such offence. Repealed in 1782. [2]

-Any and all rewards not paid by the crown for alerting authorities of offences to be levied upon the Catholic populace within parish and county.

…continued below…

 

[Thing]

…continued from above…

And it excludes our non-Latin Rite Catholics when habitually used to refer to the entire Catholic Church.

Read a bit more?, this time from the very popular Wiki;

The English Protestant Reformation was imposed by the English Crown, and submission to its essential points was exacted by the State with post-Reformation oaths. With some solemnity, by oath, test, or formal declaration, English churchmen and others were required to assent to the religious changes, starting in the sixteenth century and continuing for more than 250 years.

**Oath of Royal Supremacy **(1534, renewed 1559) was revised in 1534 to say the king had actually broken with the pope, and Parliament had enacted that the king should be “taken, accepted and reputed the only supreme head on Earth of the church of England” by every one of his subjects.

…and revived by Queen Elizabeth in 1559. The formula then adopted ran:

“I, A.B., do utterly testify and declare in my conscience, that the Queen’s Highness is the only supreme Governor of the Realm . . . as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporal, &c. &c. &c. So help me God.”

…This was not to be proposed at once to every one; but was to be taken by the clergy, and by all holding office under the Crown; by others, when asked.

Under Elizabeths rule an informal test was used on those people who were later to be known as the Puritans, asking the suspected person whether he would fight against the pope, if he sent an army to restore Catholicism. The Catholics called this the “bloody question”.

… do you see where this is going? The protestant monarchy against the Pope not against one ‘rite’ within Catholicism.

Under the Puritans in 1643 this Oath had again metemorphosed into the Oath of Abjuration, which cheerful document proclaimed; Everyone was to be “adjudged a Papist” who refused this oath, and the consequent penalties began with the confiscation of two thirds of the recusant’s goods, and went on to deprive him of almost every civic right.

Then in 1661 you had the Corporation act;
The Act provided that no person could be legally elected to any office relating to the government of a city or corporation, unless he had within the previous twelve months received the sacrament of “the Lord’s Supper” according to the rites of the Church of England. He was also commanded to take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, to swear belief in the Doctrine of Passive Obedience, and to renounce the Covenant.

In 1678 The Test Oath;
Which compelled all holders of office under the Crown to make a short “Declaration against Transubstantiation”, viz., to swear that “there is not any transubstantiation in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, . . . at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever” and that "The invocation of the virgin Mary, or any Saint and the Sacrifice of the Mass . . . are superstitious and idolatrous . . . and that I make this declaration without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever, and without any dispensation already granted me by the pope, &c., &c.

And finally, in 1871 during the reign of Queen Victoria the Promissory Oaths Bill removed all the old Oaths of Allegiance.

The term Roman Catholic Began in the 16th century and refered to Catholics who supported, followed, were loyal to the Pope, as opposed to those Catholics in England and Ireland who abandoned their 1000 year old faith and ‘protested’ against Rome and the Pope. They called themselves ‘protestant’ Catholics and called all the original English and Irish Catholics ‘Roman’ Catholics - because they continued to be loyal to the Pope.

The term ‘Roman’ Catholic has nothing whatsoever to do with a ‘Roman’ rite as opposed to an ‘Eastern’ Catholic rite.

 

[JustaServant]

I find it interesting that those who define themselves in opposition to the Catholic Church find it necessary to redefine or broaden the term “catholic” as if by doing so it robs true Catholics of their identity. It doesn’t. Since the beginning “catholic” is the term used for the one True Church, her doctrines, her teaching authority, her sacraments, and her laity, combined with the Bishop of Rome and all the clergy, regardless of all the divisions brought on by the reformation. The term has always been, and always will be, Catholic.

 

[yankee_drifter]

Randy Carson,

Hate to say I told you so, but the polls show (70%) that the term Roman catholic isn’t offensive. Maybe you’re just a bit touche? Anyway, go read catholic apologists, such as, Karl Keatings books. They use the phrase Roman Church and Romanism.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson,

Hate to say I told you so, but the polls show (70%) that the term Roman catholic isn’t offensive. Maybe you’re just a bit touche? Anyway, go read catholic apologists, such as, Karl Keatings books. They use the phrase Roman Church and Romanism.

Interesting perspective, Yankee.

Is it okay for me to use an offensive word to refer to African-Americans because it only offends one out of every three or five or ten of them or because they refer to themselves using that word in their popular music? Do you think that would fly?

:nope:

So, the converse of your conclusion is actually true: 1 out of every 4 Catholics are offended when you call them Roman Catholics.

I told you so.

 

[clmowry]

They use the phrase Roman Church and Romanism.

I’m sure they have. But now it’s all about context isn’t it.

In fact I’ve used the terms “Papist” and “Romish” in this thread (darn just used them again.)

That doesn’t mean I find them friendly terms.

The problem with “offensive” is that it is all about the perception of the recipient (though strongly influenced by the tone and other actions of the communicator.)

For example, within the black community in America, there are certain terms that if uttered by this red haired freckled faced Irish American would almost certainly be taken as offensive.

But others within that community banter the same terms about without taking any offense at all.

That doesn’t make those terms friendly either.

On these forums, for example, I’ve referred to someone in the past as “Protestant” that person, though a Christian associated with an offshoot of a “Protestant” denomination, took offense.

i.e. I’m not Protesting against anything, I’m not a Protestant, your labeling me, etc.

I don’t think most folks would consider “Protestant” an offensive term and I certainly didn’t mean it to be offensive.

Now if after the offended person let me know that he felt my calling him a Protestant was offensive, had I continued to do so after he asked me not to.

Well that would have been offensive.

And no matter how I tried to justify the acceptability of “Protestant” as a label, it would not change the fact that I would be deliberately referring to someone by a term I knew they found offensive.

I find it quite likely that when people come to the table to discuss opposing positions that they both believe to be sacred truth, they will say things that each will find offensive.

It is simply bound to happen, and it cannot be avoided entirely.

To refer to the person you profess to want to dialogue with by the Group name of their choice is a charitable concession that can almost always be made.

I say almost always, because I actually had several Christian, not formally part of the Catholic Church, insist on being referred to as “Catholic” while only referring to Catholics as Papists, Romanist, etc.

I find in those cases, its best to simply leave the conversation until that person actually becomes serious about entering into a dialogue.

Chuck

 

[Lepanto]

Randy Carson,

Hate to say I told you so, but the polls show (70%) that the term Roman catholic isn’t offensive.

Ignorance of history tends to prevent one from being offended.

 

[Thing]

An insult - Dio Gratias - and an embellishment because of history, if you will, of the name Catholic.

 

[Bbigam]

I like cmlowry’s post, very charitable.

“Roman Catholic” may not be accurate, but that doesn’t mean we have to take offense at it. I think most people who use it don’t mean any offense by it. At most, we should gently correct them.

I’m not perfect about not taking offense at things, but one time I asked a small child if he remembered my name. He said, “Yes, Miss Brandon.” My response, knowing he meant nothing by it, was, “Mr. Brandon, yes, good job, you remembered my name!” I think that was a much better response than some other times when I have needlessly taken offense when no offense was intended.

 

[Axion]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm

It is noteworthy that the representative Anglican divine, Bishop Andrewes, in his “Tortura Torti” (1609) ridicules the phrase Ecclesia Catholica Romana as a contradiction in terms. “What,” he asks, “is the object of adding ‘Roman’? The only purpose that such an adjunct can serve is to distinguish your Catholic Church from another Catholic Church which is not Roman” (p. 368). It is this very common line of argument which imposes upon Catholics the necessity of making no compromise in the matter of their own name. The loyal adherents of the Holy See did not begin in the sixteenth century to call themselves “Catholics” for controversial purposes. It is the traditional name handed down to us continuously from the time of St. Augustine. We use this name ourselves and ask those outside the Church to use it, without reference to its signification simply because it is our customary name, just as we talk of the Russian Church as “the Orthodox Church”, not because we recognize its orthodoxy but because its members so style themselves, or again just as we speak of “the Reformation” because it is the term established by custom, though we are far from owning that it was a reformation in either faith or morals.

 

[Lutheranteach]

I think the term is used in today’s world because there are 20 different Catholic Churches, not entirely unlike the term caucasian means those of European origin whether or not they have any connection to the actual region to which that term refers. Believe me, those seeking to insult you as a Catholic will use terms that leave no doubt.

 

[MariaG]

…The term Roman Catholic Began in the 16th century and refered to Catholics who supported, followed, were loyal to the Pope, as opposed to those Catholics in England and Ireland who abandoned their 1000 year old faith and ‘protested’ against Rome and the Pope. They called themselves ‘protestant’ Catholics and called all the original English and Irish Catholics ‘Roman’ Catholics - because they continued to be loyal to the Pope.

The term ‘Roman’ Catholic has nothing whatsoever to do with a ‘Roman’ rite as opposed to an ‘Eastern’ Catholic rite.

So, we should embrace a name that “they” chose to call us because they wish to call themselves catholic also?

I will again state, no matter what history you wish to quote, the name did not spring up in a nice way, it was meant in a bad way. It was done so they could call themselves catholic and steal the legitamacy of the Catholic Church.

And today, all that aside, many non-latin rite Catholics find the term if not offensive then exclusionary because it “feels” like one is ignoring all the non-latin rite Catholics by using “Roman” since some churches today, who are Latin-Rite choose to identify themselves as Roman Catholic.

It started as an insult. It started as a way for protestants to steal our Catholic name. While some may have chosen to embrace that name, I do not. I find it offensive. Mostly because the only Protestants I know who choose to continue to call the Catholic Church the Roman Catholic Church when pointed out to them it is incorrect to refer to all those united to the pope as the Roman Catholic Church, rarely think Catholics are Christian in the first place.

I belong to the Catholic Church.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Thing]

So, we should embrace a name that “they” chose to call us because they wish to call themselves catholic also?

Proud to be a Catholic, a Papist or Recusant, and in religion be popish, Romanish, or Romanist.

Hook’s “Church Dictionary” (1854), s.v. “Catholic” — “Let the member of the Church of England assert his right to the name of Catholic, since he is the only person in England who has a right to that name. The English Romanist is a Roman Schismatic and not a Catholic.”

ha ha… what a hoot! The Church of England *strays *from its 1000 years old continuous Catholic faith and it calls those who did *not *stray schsmatics… ha… ha.

I don’t mind being called Roman Catholic if what you mean by that is a Catholic who has not abandoned their Catholic Faith.

 

[MariaG]

Proud to be a Catholic, a Papist or Recusant, and in religion be popish, Romanish, or Romanist.
Hook’s “Church Dictionary” (1854), s.v. “Catholic” — “Let the member of the Church of England assert his right to the name of Catholic, since he is the only person in England who has a right to that name. The English Romanist is a Roman Schismatic and not a Catholic.”
ha ha… what a hoot! The Church of England *strays *from its 1000 years old continuous Catholic faith and it calls those who did *not *stray schsmatics… ha… ha.

I don’t mind being called Roman Catholic if what you mean by that is a Catholic who has not abandoned their Catholic Faith.

That is fine if you don’t mind being called Roman Catholic.

But one cannot say that Catholic and Roman Catholic is the same thing. One is the proper name of our Church and the other was used by those insulting our Church, or in internal documents to differentiate between different rites contained within the Catholic Church.

To use the term Roman Catholic Church or RCC instead of just Catholic Church or CC by Protestants is insulting and tries to rewrite history and claim our name for themselves. For Catholics to use the term, refering to the entire Catholic Church, it is exclusionary.

We are the Catholic Church.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Thing]

But one cannot say that Catholic and Roman Catholic is the same thing.

God Bless,
Maria

They are exactly the same thing as only the Papist was termed Roman Catholic.

 

[Lepanto]

They are exactly the same thing as only the Papist was termed Roman Catholic.

Both of these labels, “Papist” and “Roman Catholic,” were coined by anti-Catholics. (Just look up their etymologies, beginning with some of the links posted on this thread.)

Another anti-Catholic slur is “Mackerel Snapper,” due to the fish-only-on-Friday discipline. Fortunately, this one is no longer used much. But should we also go around calling ourselves “Mackerel Snappers”?

Other than out of ignorance, why would any Catholic intentionally use these slurs?

 

[Thing]

Both of these labels, “Papist” and “Roman Catholic,” were coined by anti-Catholics. (Just look up their etymologies, beginning with some of the links posted on this thread.)

Another anti-Catholic slur is “Mackerel Snapper,” due to the fish-only-on-Friday discipline. Fortunately, this one is no longer used much. But should we also go around calling ourselves “Mackerel Snappers”?

Other than out of ignorance, why would any Catholic intentionally use these slurs?

An Irish or English Catholic might prefer to call themselves Roman Catholics as they know their very own ancestors were put to death for the *crime *of being Roman Catholic.