RCC? Correct term?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cat

Guest
I hope someone can answer this question. I am a convert (April 10, 2004) to the Church, so still pretty new at this.

My husband and I heard someone say that the term “Roman Catholic Church” is not correct. The correct name for the Church is “the Catholic Church.”

The reason we heard for this is that the Catholic Church encompasses several different “rites,” not just the Roman Rite. Even though the “headquarters,” so to speak, for our Church is in Rome, the church itself is not just a “Roman Catholic Church,” but a “Catholic Church.” (meaning universal).

Is this true?

I refer to the Catholic Church as “Christ’s Church,” in case you are wondering!

Thanks.
 
40.png
Cat:
I hope someone can answer this question. I am a convert (April 10, 2004) to the Church, so still pretty new at this.

My husband and I heard someone say that the term “Roman Catholic Church” is not correct. The correct name for the Church is “the Catholic Church.”

The reason we heard for this is that the Catholic Church encompasses several different “rites,” not just the Roman Rite. Even though the “headquarters,” so to speak, for our Church is in Rome, the church itself is not just a “Roman Catholic Church,” but a “Catholic Church.” (meaning universal).

Is this true?

I refer to the Catholic Church as “Christ’s Church,” in case you are wondering!

Thanks.
Click to expand...
i like yours! 👍
 
Yes it is true but not for the reasons you state. The Catholic Church is made up of 22 separate Churches that are in communion with each other and all recognize the Pope of Rome.

Now there are somewhere between 5 to 7 rites. A rite is a litrugical/theological tradition that a Church belongs to.

I belong to the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic Church. You belong to the Latin (or Roman) Catholic Church.

Our two Churches are in communion with the Pope, actually the Pope in his office of Patriarch of the West is the head of the Latin Catholic Church.

Now when you speak of your Church, it would be Latin, or Roman, Catholic Church but when you wish to speak of the Church as a whole, you would call it the Catholic Church.
Hope this quick answer helps, I am sure someone will come along and provide a much longer explaination.
 
Good answer.

Sort of puts the lie to all the posturing about “Romanism” or “Romish doctrines” or other perjoratives relating to Rome.

👋
 
In his book, Why Do Catholics Do That? Kevin Orlin Johnson says that the Church, technically, has no official name. She’s simply "the Church,’ period. She doesn’t need any modifiers since there is, strictly speaking, only one Church. (When we speak of other “chruches” we mean communities that are microcosms of the one Church.)

That’s why the Church through her centuries has adopted different names for herself: The Way, the Church of Christ, the Church of God, Catholic, Orthodox, etc.

Today, all those phrases have different meanings (the refer to different modern denominations), but there was a point in history where what we today call the “Catholic” Church could have, and did, use all those names, even interchanceably.

The terms “Roman Catholic” and “Roman Church” have different meanings according to context. Several popes and councils have referred to the Church itself, even taken as a whole, as the “Roman Catholic” or “Roman” Church. Many secular dictionaries define “Roman Catholic” as any Christian in communion with the Pope of Rome, and this and other usages would include Eastern and Western Catholics.

Language is constantly chaning and evolving, and words are mere conventions. The Church today seldom uses the term “Roman Catholic” for herself,but occasionally she still does, like in her dialogues with various other religious denominations.
 
The Catholic church can refer to any of several churches claiming to have maintained historical continuity with the original Christian Church.
I have heard the Anglican service and during it they too pray the creed and include the lines that they believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church. They consider themselves to be catholic or universal also.

The Roman Catholic Church, however differs in that it is the Christian Church based in the Vatican and presided over by a pope and an episcopal hierarchy.

RCC? I prefer the HRCC 😛 The Holy Roman Catholic Church to give it its full title!

Blessings,
Fergal
Naas
Ireland
 
I’m new on this forum, but not to intenret Christian discussion forums. 🙂

Catholic apologist and author James Akins gave a short introduction of the origin of the term.
cin.org/users/james/questions/q072.htm

“I am a Catholic and you are a Catholic.” regardless of which Rite you or I are in, as long as those Rites are in full communion with the Pope.

I am not a Roman Catholic, as I am not in the Diocese of Rome, Italy.

I am a Catholic.

I am in the Diocese of Little Rock (Arkansas, USA).

(of the Latin Rite, if you wanna know which Rite.)
When one is WITH the Chair of Peter, one is a member of the Church that Jesus built; Jesus gave those Keys to Peter.

On THIS website are wonderful quotes on this topic from Early Church Fathers through the ages.
catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp
I disagree with some of the wording of some of the previous posts above, as though one can be Catholic separate from the Chair of Peter.

Are you WITH the Chair of Peter… or are you NOT with the Chair of Peter?
St. Thomas More said, “I am WITH the Chair of Peter.” and for that he was killed.

Look at this website url.

It is www.CATHOLIC.com on purpose.
 
Historically, the term “Roman Catholic” was indeed a perjorative term at various places and times. It was used in England, for example, after the Anglican schism to berate anyone who was still loyal to the papacy. How did it develop at all? That kind of depends on how you view it and which country you’re discussing. It’s first widespread usage came after the Orthodox schism of the 13th C. At that time, the Churches were all known by the home of their primary bishop or metropolitan. Hence, the Church of Greece, Church of Alexandria, Church of Rome, etc. Though the term “catholic” first appeared in the early 4th C, it wasn’t given a separate designation from the other Churches until the Schism. Then the Churches of the East started calling themselves the “Orthodox” Church of ______. That was to distinguish themselves from those groups that accepted the filioque and other changes that were made without a universal ecumenical council. The Church of Rome was overexerting itself against the others by instituting a change without universal (name removed by moderator)ut. It was ironic that they continued using the term catholic more vigorously after the schism than they did before it.

Now after the schism, there were some countries where there was both a Catholic and an Orthodox presence. In those cases, the locals had to choose between Rome and Constantinople. Major examples of this are in the current lands of Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Israel, as well as the Ukraine, Lithuania and Poland. There were Eastern Orthodox, but then there were also people who believed in the order of mass celebrated before the schism and they were loyal to the Bishop of Rome. They became known as the Eastern rites of the Church of Rome. They never celebrated mass in Latin, and they made the sign of the cross in the reverse of the Latin rite Catholics…but they were still loyal to Rome. That’s where the other 22 groups mentioned above come in, like the Syro-Malabar, Maronites, Ruthenians, etc. They would never be called Roman Catholics, but they are part of the universal Church based in Rome.

Fast forward to the modern era, especially in North America and you’ll find there have been several other schisms throughout the years, especially following the first Vatican council in the 19th C. Many of these groups still call themselves “Catholic” (big C), but they’re not accepting any of the popes since Pius IX (the votes taken at the council were highly “irregular” and led to serious doubts of their validity for many people). These groups include one founded by a total nut named Chinoquy who started his own “Catholic” church in Canada and the Great Lakes states of the US. In order to distinguish from nuts like these, it became more and more common for the local Latin rite dioceses to take on the name “Roman Catholic”. Many are even incorporated under that name in their respective states…so it’s not just a usage issue, but also a legal one.

So if you’re a member of the Latin rite, it’s perfectly acceptable to call yourself a Roman Catholic. It notes not only your faith, but also the rite that you celebrate. But when referring to the universal Church and all of its rites, the academic term is “Church of Rome”.
 
As stated ably above, the name “Roman Catholic Church” is, not itself a perjorative. However, depending on who is using the term and their implications behind it, it has been used as a perjorative.

For example, any fundamentalist who is ignorant of history is usually equally ignorant that there are (as stated above) several rites in the Catholic Church, and that Rome, although it is the largest and most prominent, is not the only rite in the Church.

Tied closely to this is the (to them) ominous connection between the name Rome and, according to their interpretation, the Rome of the Book of Revelation being pagan and the Whore of Babylon.
So in their minds, it is not just a title, but a sinister confirmation of all the erroneous ideas they have about the Church and her teachings.

More more information, see the articles “Is Catholicism Pagan” elsewhere on this website or read "Catholicism and Fundamentalism " by Karl Keating.
 
To answer this question you have to go to the intent of the questioner.

The term Roman Catholic as commonly used in the United States is to make a distinction among various Catholic rites in communion with the Bishop of Rome. In my own area there are Ukranian Catholic parishes, Maronite, Ruthenian, etc. which have a eccelsial governance apart from the Latin rite bishop.

Roman Catholic also refers to the Catholics in Rome.

Catholic also means “universal” as distinct from the “particular” Church which is headed by a bishop.

But the real agenda becomes visible when a Episcopalian or Anglican says “I’m Catholic but not Roman Catholic” and for that you have to unpack a lot of history. The real short answer is “Catholic means communion with the Bishop of Rome” Because it is the Bishop of Rome who alone claims to be the vicar of Christ on earth.

The best general explanation I’ve seen is this EWTN library explanation by Kenneth Whitehead.

Then there are nitpickers who make distinctions among “Latin”, “Roman”, and “Western” as they apply to the Church. Perhaps we will hear from them shortly.
 
loyola rambler:
Though the term “catholic” first appeared in the early 4th C…
Click to expand...
early 4th C?

St. Ignatius of Antioch used the phrase “the Catholic Church” about A.D. 107 in his letter To the Smyrnaeans.

The Martyrdom of Polycarp, written about A.D. 155, mentions “the Catholic Church” many times, for example: “And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna.”

St. Justin Martyr used the phrase “the Catholic faith” about A.D. 165 in his On the Sole Government of God.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons used the phrase “the Catholic Church” about A.D. 189 in his Against Heresies.
 
Todd Easton:
early 4th C?

St. Ignatius of Antioch used the phrase “the Catholic Church” about A.D. 107 in his letter To the Smyrnaeans.

The Martyrdom of Polycarp, written about A.D. 155, mentions “the Catholic Church” many times, for example: “And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna.”

St. Justin Martyr used the phrase “the Catholic faith” about A.D. 165 in his On the Sole Government of God.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons used the phrase “the Catholic Church” about A.D. 189 in his Against Heresies.
Click to expand...
Todd, you’re reading translations that have used the word “catholic” in place of universal or other words which translate to Latin or English in a certain way. But that wasn’t the actual word used by each of these men, few of whom were even known to speak Latin…hence they wouldn’t have known the word “catholic” at all. The actual broad usage is generally acknowlegdge ca 300-315 AD.
 
The name of the church is just “Catholic Church”. The Roman indicates those who abide by the Latin Rite of the Church. However, all the Rites that submit to the authority of the Pope are part of the Catholic Church. Roman came into popular use to describe the Church by Martin Luther, who was fond of calling Catholics “Romanists” or papists.
 
Loyala Rambler,
that wasn’t the actual word used by each of these men, few of whom were even known to speak Latin…hence they wouldn’t have known the word “catholic” at all. The actual broad usage is generally acknowlegdge ca 300-315 AD.
Click to expand...
St. Ignatius (AD 50-110) wrote his letters in Greek. He used the Greek phrase “he katholike ekklesia" (the catholic church)*. *You don’t have to be a Greek scholar to see how *katholike is correctly translated to "catholic” *(which means universal).

When “catholic” (noun modifier) became “Catholic” (proper name) is speculative. Yet even Protestant patristic scholar admit that it is possible that this occurred in the latter half of the 2nd century…
Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes: “As regards ‘Catholic’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1). (catholic.com/library/what_catholic_means.asp)
Click to expand...
 
But that wasn’t the actual word used by each of these men, few of whom were even known to speak Latin…
Click to expand...
The word “Catholic” is simply an Anglicized translation of a Latinized translation of a Greek word. So I don’t see what your objection is.
 
The only objection is claiming something was in common usage based on translations of a few documents. Bringing in a small handful of examples where it began to be used is different than claiming it was in common or widespread usage.

Maybe an easier example is use of the name “Canada”. It’s derived from the word “kanata” which comes from the Huron-Iroquois languages and means “settlement or village”. Certainly it was used in the lands north of us for centuries, but that use doesn’t mean they meant everything that we mean in using the word today. In fact, when Jacques Cartier started using it ca. 1535, he used it to mean all of the lands under the control of a certain chief. But it didn’t include the French lands or the lands outside of Quebec and Ontario until the 1790s. Usage grew with time until evolving to what we recognize it to mean today.

It’s the same with use of the word “catholic”. It didn’t get used to distinguish a particular Christian ideology from the first day it was used. That evolved over time until reaching the point that it was recognized by diverse cultures and non-scholars. It’s all a matter of perspective, maybe. But if you’re critiquing my post, that’s what I referred to and my statement was quite accurate.

So quoting from above:

What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church" (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1).

This passage verifies what I’m saying. There was a difference between the usage in the second century and the usage we have 150 years later.
 
loyola rambler:
Todd, you’re reading translations that have used the word “catholic” in place of universal or other words which translate to Latin or English in a certain way. But that wasn’t the actual word used by each of these men, few of whom were even known to speak Latin…hence they wouldn’t have known the word “catholic” at all. The actual broad usage is generally acknowlegdge ca 300-315 AD.
Click to expand...
It is true that I am not a Greek scholar and that I have to rely on translations into English by Greek scholars. And, it is true that ‘catholic’ means ‘universal’ from the Greek, transliterated into the English alphabet as ‘katholikos’. However, your assertion that the word is not in the originals is inaccurate. In the widely circulated Martyrdom of Polycarp, written about A.D. 155, the phrase ‘Catholic Church’ [katholikos ekklesias] appears four times (below) and seems to be used as the proper name of the Church, except maybe in the first instance, because of the use of otherwise redundant qualifying phrases, such as, “in every place”, the “whole” and “throughout the world.”

The Church of God which sojourns at Smyrna, to the Church of God sojourning in Philomelium,(1) and to all the congregations(2) of the Holy and Catholic Church katholikos ekklesias] in every place: Mercy, peace, and love from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, be multiplied.
. . .
At length, when those wicked men perceived that his body could not be consumed by the fire, they commanded an executioner to go near and pierce him through with a dagger. And on his doing this, there came forth a dove,(9) and a great quantity of blood, so that the fire was extinguished; and all the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church katholikos ekklesias] which is in Smyrna.
. . .
Now, as soon as he had ceased praying, having made mention of all that had at any time come in contact with him, both small and great, illustrious and obscure, as well as the whole **Catholic Church **[katholikos ekklesias] throughout the world, the time of his departure having arrived, they set him upon an ***, and conducted him into the city, the day being that of the great Sabbath.
. . .
For, having through patience overcome the unjust governor, and thus acquired the crown of immortality, he now, with the apostles and all the righteous [in heaven], rejoicingly glorifies God, even the Father, and blesses our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of our souls, the Governor of our bodies, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church katholikos ekklesias] throughout the world.[9]

Here is a link to the Greek text: christianhospitality.org/polycarp-martyrdom.pdf*
 
Thanks, I have copies. But I did go to the site, and as noted in my earlier post, you’re putting too much faith in the translator to prove a thin hypothesis. If you go to the top of page 6 on the link, you’ll note that the use of the word is isolated and not emphasized as a proper term, which other terms are given proper noun capitalization or expressed deference. It is indeed the marriage of two words that would come to have a well-defined meaning over time. But it was not the vernacular term for the Christian movement at that period in time.
 
loyola rambler:
If you go to the top of page 6 on the link, you’ll note that the use of the word is isolated and not emphasized as a proper term, which other terms are given proper noun capitalization or expressed deference.
Click to expand...
I do not find your reasoning convincing. Noun capitalization is a fairly recent concept. The original letter of the Martyrdom of Polycarp would have been written in all capital letters because lower case letters were not invented until some 600 years later. At least according to the folks at Omniglot (omniglot.com/writing/greek.htm): “The minuscule or lower case letters [of the Greek alphabet] first appeared sometime after 800 AD and developed from the Byzantine minuscule script, which developed from cursive writing.” The Greek text I provided a link to was for its text – to show that your statement, that other words were used then mistranslated, was inaccurate – and not for its modern capitalizations.

Why would the Protestant Greek scholars (The Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.D., and James Donaldson, LL.D.) who translated and capitalized the phrase as ‘Catholic Church’ in the citations I used have done so if, in their educated opinion, it did not referred to a proper name? They had no particular reason to make their work pro-Catholic but quite the opposite.

The Martrydom of Polycarp, written about A.D. 155, contains in chapter 8, the phrase “the whole Catholic Church throughout the world” If the word ‘Catholic’ was used here merely as an adjective modifying the word ‘Church’ and not part of its proper name, then the result would seem to be a triple redundancy since the phrases, “the whole Church”, “the catholic Church”. and “the Church throughout the world”, all mean essentially the same thing.

Also, in chapter 16, when Polycarp is described as a “bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna”, if the word ‘Catholic’ was used merely as an adjective modifying the word ‘Church’ and not part of its proper name, then the result would seem to be an oxymoron, the world-wide Church which is in one city.
 
Loyola Rambler,

You said:
What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church" (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1).
Click to expand...
This passage verifies what I’m saying. There was a difference between the usage in the second century and the usage we have 150 years later.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you misunderstand J.N.D. Kelly’s distinction. In it’s context, J.N.D. Kelly is saying that at first (pre-Christian usage), “catholic” was likely a noun modifier that simply meant “universal.” Yet, “**what these early fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, VISIBLE society” **they called the “catholic” Church. It was precisely because of this useage “almost always” used by the early fathers, that over time, but by the “*end of the second century, at the latest” *the word “catholic” came to represent the VISIBLE, one and only Church, the true church, as distinguished from other heretical claims to be the true Church. While, in the paragraph above, he is saying that in the second century there was no “distinction … between a visible and an invisible Church.” That is the distinction that would only come later.

Your position seems unconvincing because you seem to present a foregone conclusion that “catholic” was merely a noun modifier and did not appear to be a technical term for the one and only Church until the fourth century. Yet, even Protestant patristic scholars disagree with you.

From the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia - “Catholic”
… Kattenbusch, the Protestant professor of theology at Giessen, is prepared to interpret this earliest appearance of the phrase [using the word “catholic” by Ignatius] in the sense of mia mone, the “one and only” Church [Das apostolische Symbolum (1900), II, 922]. From this time forward the technical signification of the word Catholic meets us with increasing frequency both East and West until by the beginning of the fourth century it seems to have almost entirely supplanted the primitive and more general meaning.
Click to expand...
The primitive and more general meaning of the word ‘catholic’ predated Christianity. It simply meant “universal.” However, starting with St. Ignatius, it seems to take on a more “technical signification.” According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, it’s technical signification starting with Ignatius, and “from this time forward” became increasingly used as a technical term for the one true Church, until by the fourth century, it became rather exclusively used as a part of the proper name for the one true Church.

If you are asserting that it wasn’t until the fourth century that “catholic” came to be used somewhat exclusively as a technical term for the one true Church, I agree. But if you still assert that it wasn’t until the fourth century that it began to be used as a technical term for the Church, than your position is unconvincing.

St. Ignatius was describing a VISIBLE Church, one that was “catholic” (universal, the one, the only). It was this same Catholic Church which he testifies that the the Church in Rome “presides” (Ltr to the Romans).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top