"ROMAN" Catholic Church

[Deconi]

The term “ROMAN” has come to mean that the Seat of The Church is in Rome! On that premise and basis, it is entirely correct to use the term.

However, when it is used in arguments to somehow differentiate IT from the other rites, then it is erroneous.

There is ONLY ONE Catholic Church. It is the one that Jesus Christ established in Matt:16. This Church, currently has Its Seat in Rome.

There are some here who believe that The Eastern Othodox have THE SAME Authority. NO. Incorrect. What they have is the Apostolic Succession, but they do not have The KEYS given to Peter, once they departed from the understanding that Jesus Christ placed ONE APOSTLE as The HEAD of The Church. The difference is that their understanding is that A GROUP or COLLECTION OF BISHOPS have that same authority. This is plausible but a faulty understanding, since from the first century to their departure in 1054, ALL the Fathers believed and held to The Seat of Peter as being the One True Church.

Currently, the continuation of that line, is in Rome. That Seat did not schism from ‘The Catholic Church.’ The Catholic Church is therefore, The (Roman) Catholic Church.

The only problem I see with using “Roman” is that it suggests that there is another Catholic Church somewhere else! For those who argue the point, whether you like it or not, when you profess to be Catholic, you mean (Roman) Catholic because The Seat with the keys resides there. It is also significant because Peter went there and instituted his Seat there. Paul also went there to seek him out and spent days with him (Peter) in spite of the fact that James was the bishop of Rome at the time. -see Acts. Clearly, Peter was Pope and “above” James, for want of a better term.

We are Catholics. All who profess to be ‘catholics’ but do not submit to The Seat of Peter are fooling themselves!

 

[Filiuscanimaris]

I must say I would be quite content to call myself, as did the first allow themselves to be called, a Christian.

But as time went on, the term lost its clarity of meaning.

The term Catholic I am very happy to call myself, except that some who accept different than all the revealed are pleased to call themselves that.

During my Public Service career, I never saw any person not “RC” refer to themselves as Catholics in official documents, probably because of the Papist tag which they might have to wear.

Roman Catholic was told us by the Nuns of yesteryear to be an insult. I doubt if it is considered so today.

My proudest moment ever was to be called a “recusant” by an Anglican Minister when I told him I could not bring myself to attend the New Mass introduced after Vatican II, even though I suspect he did not intend ot as a compliment!

 

[frnate]

Gosh, you’d better tell the Guinness Book of Records that you’ve smashed the :world’s oldest man" record by centuries.

Maybe even a millennium

your silly “BCC” actually stands for “Basal Cell Carcinoma”. Not very nice.

No, my silly BCC stands for “Biggest Catholic Church,” your silly BCC may stand for whatever you wish.

It’s you who is creating strawmen. Nobody objected to using Roman and Catholic in the same sentence. We only object to the phrase “Roman Catholic”

As a phrase, “Roman Catholic” must be used in the same sentence. You’re picking the wrong nits.

and used as an insult ever since.

Not so, use as an insult is dependent upon the intent of the user. For most people those days are long gone. I dare say most people aren’t even aware of it’s past potential as an insult. Seemingly it’s just a few people looking for something to be insulted about who keep bringing it up.

You can’t sanitise this offensive phrase no matter how much you bluster.

You’re right, but you can sanitize it. So far the bluster has not come from me.

“Roman Catholic” is way, way post-Schism nomenclature, so follow your logic and stop using it.

You need to re-read what I wrote and I already have stopped using it.

You and your organisation obviously see it as an error, but Catholics do not.

If it were just me and my organization we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

What you want is for Catholics to say “We realise that Catholics have been in error and frnate’s organisation has the truth, so we are now changing our doctrines to agree with frnate.”

You’ve alllllmost got it. Again, it’s not about me and my organization. I will rephrase your statement for accuracy.

What we want is for Catholics to say “We realise that Catholics have been in error and the rest of the Church has the truth, so we are now changing our doctrines to agree with the rest of the Church.”

Me and my organization would never consider practicing the kind of arrogance it takes to pretend to be the sole arbiters of faith and morals for the whole Church. It is just that kind of arrogance which led the Roman Curia to paint themselves into the doctrinal corner in which they now find themselves. Though they may not even be aware of having done so.

You’re the one creating the problem by referring to “we Catholics”. You can easily solve the problem by ceasing this at best highly misleading practice.

So are you now telling me I should stop calling myself Catholic? It seems to me that the only misleading, at least on this thread, is not coming from me. I have stated what I believe, in as honest a fashion as possible. I have made an effort to discontinue using specific terms which seem to be offensive to some others (even though I personally thought it rather silly.) Mostly what I get in return is mis-direction, nit-picking, sarcasm and ad hominem. Your efforts would be better spent addressing the issue at hand with a little less emotionalism. IMHO

Peace,
+N

 

[Subrosa]

I’m not “shooting” anyone, I just want people to use the correct names for things, because words have real meanings and meanings have consequences for what people think and do in real life. So you might consider correcting your profile description of yourself as “Roman Catholic” not to mention “Lay Eucharistic Minister”. Neither thing exists.

Ok, I come from the land of Oz.

Oh! So do you!

Sub

 

[Petergee]

Maybe even a millennium

No, my silly BCC stands for “Biggest Catholic Church,” your silly BCC may stand for whatever you wish.

Look it up in a standard index of acronyms. The one I quoted is not the silly, or non-existent one.

As a phrase, “Roman Catholic” must be used in the same sentence. You’re picking the wrong nits.

Not at all. You can call us “Catholic”. You can call some of us, in some senses, “Roman”. You can even do both in the same sentence. What you can’t do is to call us “Roman Catholics”. Simple really.

Not so, use as an insult is dependent upon the intent of the user. For most people those days are long gone. I dare say most people aren’t even aware of it’s past potential as an insult. Seemingly it’s just a few people looking for something to be insulted about who keep bringing it up.

No, 99% of the people who use it today use it as a deliberate pejorative to suggest that there is some other Catholic Church somewhere, or that our Church is not really Cathoilic at all.

You’re right, but you can sanitize it. So far the bluster has not come from me.

You can’t polish a t**d.

You need to re-read what I wrote and I already have stopped using it.

OK, congratulations. Now would you please stop inventing other new names for us. we’re quite happy with the name we’ve had in 21 centuries, thanks all the same.

If it were just me and my organization we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

You’ve alllllmost got it. Again, it’s not about me and my organization. I will rephrase your statement for accuracy.

What we want is for Catholics to say “We realise that Catholics have been in error and the rest of the Church has the truth, so we are now changing our doctrines to agree with the rest of the Church.”

Me and my organization would never consider practicing the kind of arrogance it takes to pretend to be the sole arbiters of faith and morals for the whole Church. It is just that kind of arrogance which led the Roman Curia to paint themselves into the doctrinal corner in which they now find themselves. Though they may not even be aware of having done so.

As I said, it’s not going to happen. You may call it “arrogance” or “painting ourselves into a corner”; we call it remaining faithful to the doctrines and Sacred Tradition and the deposit of faith handed on to us from the Apostles. It’s not that we don’t want to change our doctrines to match those of non-Catholic organisations out of sheer pig-headedness as you seem to think. We can’t change our doctrines, otherwise we would cease to be the Catholic Church. And Christ promised us that His Catholic Church would endure till the Last Day.

So are you now telling me I should stop calling myself Catholic? It seems to me that the only misleading, at least on this thread, is not coming from me.

You can call yourself whatever you like, but don’t expect Catholics to be convinced that you have orthodox beliefs just because you use the name Catholic. I merely asked you not to deliberately mislead people. If a stranger in your town asked you “Would you please direct me to the Catholic Church?”, where would you send him?

I have stated what I believe, in as honest a fashion as possible. I have made an effort to discontinue using specific terms which seem to be offensive to some others (even though I personally thought it rather silly.)

And I appreciate your efforts in both these matters, which is more than we usually get from non-Catholics on this forum.

Mostly what I get in return is mis-direction, nit-picking, sarcasm and ad hominem. Your efforts would be better spent addressing the issue at hand with a little less emotionalism. IMHO

Peace,
+N

I plead guilty to some occasional mild sarcasm. I don’t believe I have aimed any misdirection, nitpicking, ad hominems or emotionalism at you.

 

[MariaG]

Only if they argued the way you do.

Nope, I have never been offended by anyone’s use of the term “Catholic Church.” Our differences on this issue are a matter of chronological perspective. As a part of the ancient Catholic Church I have what you might call a “pre-Schism” mindset where it is necessary, at times, to differentiate between patriarchates and jurisdictions. Folks in the BCC generally operate in a “post-Schism” mindset in which there is only one patriarchate and thus to use the terms “Roman” and “Catholic” in the same sentence is at best redundant and at worst insulting. “Roman” is not a new name “made up” for your organization. It is pre-Schism nomenclature. Yes, I am aware that we live in a post-Schism world. That does not mean everyone must accede to any errors perpetuated by Rome. Including the assumption that she is all that is left of the “only one true Church instituted by Christ.” Indeed, it is our duty as Catholics to help resolve those errors.

Peace,
+N

Pre-schism only in the fact that it is used to differentiate between Rites WITHIN the Catholic Church and not to identify all those who are in communion with the bishop of Rome.

As for it to be insulting to refer to ourselves as the Catholic Church or simply the Church, this too is historical and is how we refer to the entire Church united with the bishop of Rome in all official documents. Again, I do not see why those who divorce themselves from the authority of the historical Catholic Church should ever become offended when that same church continues to call herself the same thing she always has.

But I do find it odd that you would wish to make up a name for our church that has absolutely no historical basis whatsoever.

 

[MariaG]

The term “ROMAN” has come to mean that the Seat of The Church is in Rome! On that premise and basis, it is entirely correct to use the term.

…The only problem I see with using “Roman” is that it suggests that there is another Catholic Church somewhere else!

The other problem is it is highly insulting to our Eastern Brethren who are united with the bishop of Rome, but who are in no way, latin Rite or “Roman” Catholics.

So it is completely INCORRECT to use it to refer to the entire church that is united with the Bishop of Rome.

 

[bobzills]

We only object to the phrase “Roman Catholic” invented as a deliberate insult in the 17th century and used as an insult ever since. You can’t sanitise this offensive phrase no matter how much you bluster. “Roman Catholic” is way, way post-Schism nomenclature, so follow your logic and stop using it.

It looks like this poster doesn’t know what he is talking about when he says that he objects to the use of the term “Roman Catholic”. For emphasis, I will highlight in bold the phrase Roman Catholic that appears on the Vatican website, although on the website, this phrase is not highlighted.
Let’s take a look at a declaration that appears on the Vatican website and is signed by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and also by the Archbishop of Cantebury Rowan Williams: “Since that meeting, the **Roman Catholic Church **and the Anglican Communion have entered into a process of fruitful dialogue, which has been marked by the discovery of significant elements of shared faith and a desire to give expression, through joint prayer, witness and service, to that which we hold in common. Over thirty-five years, the Anglican - **Roman Catholic **International Commission (ARCIC) has produced a number of important documents which seek to articulate the faith we share.”
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/november/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20061123_common-decl_en.html
Or we can read a letter signed by Pope Paul VI to the Archbishop of Cantebury: “We rejoice that **Roman Catholic **interest will, through the hospitality of the Anglican Communion, find expression in the presence of seven official **Roman Catholic **Observers and some other guests. Their diligent presence will reflect the interest and be supported by the prayers of **Roman Catholics **everywhere.”
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/letters/1968/documents/hf_p-vi_let_19680727_dott-ramsey_en.html
Or the joint Catholic Orthodox declaration of December 1965:
“Grateful to God, who mercifully favored them with a fraternal meeting at those holy places where the mystery of salvation was accomplished through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and where the Church was born through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I have not lost sight of the determination each then felt to omit nothing thereafter which charity might inspire and which could facilitate the development of the fraternal relations thus taken up between the **Roman Catholic Church **and the Orthodox Church of Constantinople.”
Or :“As they conclude their solemn meeting which marks a new step in the relations between the **Roman Catholic Church **and the Syrian Orthodox Church, His Holiness Pope Paul VI and His Holiness Mar Ignatius Jacoub III humbly render thanks to Almighty God, for having made possible this historic opportunity to pray together, to engage in a fraternal exchange of views concerning the needs of the Church of God and to witness to their common desire that all Christians may intensify their service to the world with humility and complete dedication.”
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1971/october/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19711027_dichiarazione-comune_en.html
or the speech of Pope John Paul II: “Greetings to the students of **Roman Catholic **Schools”
(October 25, 1997)
Or the post on the Vatican site on the biography of Pope John Paul II
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_i/biography/documents/hf_jp-i_bio_01021997_biography_en.html
"1973

5 March Created Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church. "
Etc., Etc., Etc.
So it is clear form the Vatican website, that there is nothing wrong with using the term “Roman Catholic”.

 

[Axion]

It looks like this poster doesn’t know what he is talking about when he says that he objects to the use of the term “Roman Catholic”. For emphasis, I will highlight in bold the phrase Roman Catholic that appears on the Vatican website, although on the website, this phrase is not highlighted.
Let’s take a look at a declaration that appears on the Vatican website and is signed by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and also by the Archbishop of Cantebury Rowan Williams: “Since that meeting, the **Roman Catholic Church **and the Anglican Communion have entered into a process of fruitful dialogue, which has been marked by the discovery of significant elements of shared faith and a desire to give expression, through joint prayer, witness and service, to that which we hold in common. Over thirty-five years, the Anglican - **Roman Catholic **International Commission (ARCIC) has produced a number of important documents which seek to articulate the faith we share.”
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/november/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20061123_common-decl_en.html

…
So it is clear form the Vatican website, that there is nothing wrong with using the term “Roman Catholic”.

Although the term “Roman Catholic” has crept into some official usage in English, over recent years - largely for the purpose of clarity, when dealing with other Christians. It is not and never has been the name of the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church.

The name “Roman Catholic” was invented by English reformers in the 16th century. Its purpose was to deny that the Catholic Church was universal, and to claim that there were “national” “catholic” churches of which the “Roman” Catholic Church was but one. This was so that they could press the claim that the Church of England was the English “Catholic” Church.

The title “Roman Catholic” is of course a contradiction in terms. Catholic means Universal, so you cannot be a limited (ie. Roman) universal church.

 

[Orionthehunter]

It looks like this poster doesn’t know what he is talking about when he says that he objects to the use of the term “Roman Catholic”. For emphasis, I will highlight in bold the phrase Roman Catholic that appears on the Vatican website, although on the website, this phrase is not highlighted.
Let’s take a look at a declaration that appears on the Vatican website and is signed by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and also by the Archbishop of Cantebury Rowan Williams: “Since that meeting, the **Roman Catholic Church **and the Anglican Communion have entered into a process of fruitful dialogue, which has been marked by the discovery of significant elements of shared faith and a desire to give expression, through joint prayer, witness and service, to that which we hold in common. Over thirty-five years, the Anglican - **Roman Catholic **International Commission (ARCIC) has produced a number of important documents which seek to articulate the faith we share.”
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/november/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20061123_common-decl_en.html
Or we can read a letter signed by Pope Paul VI to the Archbishop of Cantebury: “We rejoice that **Roman Catholic **interest will, through the hospitality of the Anglican Communion, find expression in the presence of seven official **Roman Catholic **Observers and some other guests. Their diligent presence will reflect the interest and be supported by the prayers of **Roman Catholics **everywhere.”
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/letters/1968/documents/hf_p-vi_let_19680727_dott-ramsey_en.html
Or the joint Catholic Orthodox declaration of December 1965:
“Grateful to God, who mercifully favored them with a fraternal meeting at those holy places where the mystery of salvation was accomplished through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and where the Church was born through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I have not lost sight of the determination each then felt to omit nothing thereafter which charity might inspire and which could facilitate the development of the fraternal relations thus taken up between the **Roman Catholic Church **and the Orthodox Church of Constantinople.”
Or :“As they conclude their solemn meeting which marks a new step in the relations between the **Roman Catholic Church **and the Syrian Orthodox Church, His Holiness Pope Paul VI and His Holiness Mar Ignatius Jacoub III humbly render thanks to Almighty God, for having made possible this historic opportunity to pray together, to engage in a fraternal exchange of views concerning the needs of the Church of God and to witness to their common desire that all Christians may intensify their service to the world with humility and complete dedication.”
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1971/october/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19711027_dichiarazione-comune_en.html
or the speech of Pope John Paul II: “Greetings to the students of **Roman Catholic **Schools”
(October 25, 1997)
Or the post on the Vatican site on the biography of Pope John Paul II
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_i/biography/documents/hf_jp-i_bio_01021997_biography_en.html
"1973

5 March Created Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church. "
Etc., Etc., Etc.
So it is clear form the Vatican website, that there is nothing wrong with using the term “Roman Catholic”.

Context, context, context.

The reason that many Catholics expressed displeasure at the use of “Roman” is because it has a history of being pejorative and is often used that way now.

The reason that the term is used in the context referenced above is that the Anglican’s have a splinter group called the “Anglican Catholics”, a splinter called “Catholic Anglicans” and a splinter called the "The Anglican Rite Old Catholic Church " which says it is in communion not with the traditional Anglican communion but "In Apostolic Communion with:The Patriach of the American Orthodox Church (Russian Orthodox), The Ecumincal Orthodox Catholic Church, and The Byzantine Independant Catholic Church of North America.

Without the use of the word Roman, many of the Anglican tradition would think it might be an attempt to mend the splinters w/i Anglicanism.

Also, the Church itself isn’t threatened by the use of the qualifier as identification in formal communication. However, it doesn’t then give license to use the Church’s use of the word for clarity purposes to use it as pejorative.

What a mess this disunity is. Once unity is broken, it just fosters more disunity. Oh, how I pray that we can mend the schism with our Orthodox breathren as a first step toward unity.

 

[frnate]

Look it up in a standard index of acronyms. The one I quoted is not the silly, or non-existent one.

Nor is it the only or even most recognizable one. e.g. bcc: Blind Carbon Copy. I gladly admit that my BCC is silly, it also illustrates quite nicely the overall silliness of the the objections raised to use of the alternative (RCC), but it is most certainly not “non-existent.” All terminology was coined at some point, just as my silly BCC has now been coined.

Not at all. You can call us “Catholic”. You can call some of us, in some senses, “Roman”. You can even do both in the same sentence. What you can’t do is to call us “Roman Catholics”. Simple really.

Still picking the wrong nits. You really should re-read what was said on this earlier and then comment on the actual point at issue. That being that the term “Roman” has never been only pejorative. It has in fact been a qualifying term since at least St. Paul’s letter to the Church there. I have found that in general, folks in the BCC are quite able to illustrate that their stance on faith and morals originates much earlier than the last 500 years or so. Why is it so difficult for you to recognize the same thing applies to this particular terminology?

No, 99% of the people who use it today use it as a deliberate pejorative to suggest that there is some other Catholic Church somewhere, or that our Church is not really Catholic at all.

The most amazing aspect of this statement is that I think you might actually believe it. Or at least you might want to believe it. I think that even the most basic examination of your claim would reveal it to be woefully inaccurate.

You can’t polish a t**d.

Was I too subtle? Did you misunderstand me?

OK, congratulations. Now would you please stop inventing other new names for us.

I only did so at your insistence.

we’re quite happy with the name we’ve had in 21 centuries, thanks all the same.

Actually this all came up because you were un-happy being referred to as “Roman” which is one of the names your Church has been known by since at least the first century.

As I said, it’s not going to happen. You may call it “arrogance” or “painting ourselves into a corner”; we call it remaining faithful to the doctrines and Sacred Tradition and the deposit of faith handed on to us from the Apostles.

Please believe me when I say that I am well aware that the BCC feels she must believe that what she has done and taught has been completely faithful to the deposit of Faith and why she thinks so.

It’s not that we don’t want to change our doctrines to match those of non-Catholic organisations out of sheer pig-headedness as you seem to think.

I know it has nothing to do with stubbornness.

We can’t change our doctrines, otherwise we would cease to be the Catholic Church.

Where this logic falls apart is the assumption that the churches that are united with the Bishop of Rome = the sum total of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is larger than Rome and since this is the case, any “doctrines” defined by Rome since (at least) the Great Schism, were defined without the full agreement of the Church, they are therefore not truly catholic and as such may be changed, or even abandoned for that matter.

You can call yourself whatever you like, but don’t expect Catholics to be convinced that you have orthodox beliefs just because you use the name Catholic.

I have never held that illusion. But I can pray they will eventually see the light.

I merely asked you not to deliberately mislead people. If a stranger in your town asked you “Would you please direct me to the Catholic Church?”, where would you send him?

Please see the answer I gave you the first time you asked me this question. I’ll go you one better. If a stranger in your town asked you where the Roman Catholic Church is, would you scrutinize him to make sure he had no torches or pitchforks before you answered?

Peace,
+N

 

[Petergee]

Still picking the wrong nits. You really should re-read what was said on this earlier and then comment on the actual point at issue. That being that the term “Roman” has never been only pejorative.

You really should re-read what was said earlier. No-one here has claimed that the term “Roman” is only pejorative. In some contexts it is quite correct. We only point out that the phrase “Roman Catholic” is pejorative.

It has in fact been a qualifying term since at least St. Paul’s letter to the Church there. I have found that in general, folks in the BCC are quite able to illustrate that their stance on faith and morals originates much earlier than the last 500 years or so. Why is it so difficult for you to recognize the same thing applies to this particular terminology?

If you could produce any instance of the term “Roman Catholic” which is older than 500 or even 400 years ago, you might have a point. But you can’t.

The most amazing aspect of this statement is that I think you might actually believe it. Or at least you might want to believe it. I think that even the most basic examination of your claim would reveal it to be woefully inaccurate.

OK fair enough it’s probably an exaggeration to say that 99% of the uses are deliberately and consciously pejorative. But it’s certainly the vast majority.

Was I too subtle? Did you misunderstand me?

No. We’re not going to start calling ourselves by any pejorative term, much less come to “sanitise” it.

I only did so at your insistence.

I never asked you to invent a new name for us, much less “insist” you do so.

Actually this all came up because you were un-happy being referred to as “Roman” which is one of the names your Church has been known by since at least the first century.

The Roman Church has been known as Roman since the first century. I’m sure its members (of which I am not one) have no objection and are proud to be called “Roman”. But both they and I object to anyone calling the Catholic Church “the Roman Church” or “the Roman Catholic Church”

Where this logic falls apart is the assumption that the churches that are united with the Bishop of Rome = the sum total of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is larger than Rome and since this is the case, any “doctrines” defined by Rome since (at least) the Great Schism, were defined without the full agreement of the Church, they are therefore not truly catholic and as such may be changed, or even abandoned for that matter.

I respect your right to believe that. But don’t expect Catholics to believe it.

Please see the answer I gave you the first time you asked me this question.

Sorry I can’t find it. I don’t recall asking you before.

I’ll go you one better. If a stranger in your town asked you where the Roman Catholic Church is, would you scrutinize him to make sure he had no torches or pitchforks before you answered?

Peace,
+N

I would ask “Do you mean the Catholic Church?” He may be an anti-Catholic, but more likely he is a Catholic who is using the pejorative term commonly used by non-Catholics as a kind of self-humiliating politeness to a stranger who, for all he knows, may be a militant anti-Catholic. Or possibly he may be looking for a Latin-rite Catholic Church as opposed to a Maronite-rite etc.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

frnate:

I’ll go you one better. If a stranger in your town asked you where the Roman Catholic Church is, would you scrutinize him to make sure he had no torches or pitchforks before you answered?

Yes.

 

[frnate]

Yes.

 

[theology_geek]

Educate me… Can someone who KNOWS answer this?

I understood that the coorect term was “Latin Rite” just as the 1983 Code of Cannon Law denotes that it is binding upon the “Latin Church” in the first sentence.

I also was under the understanding that calling Latin Rite Catholics “Roman Rite” was a misnomer that came about, not as a result of the Holy See being in Rome, but rather from our use of the “Roman Missal”.

I’d love clarification from someone who really knows the answer and is not juts guessing.

Thanks.

Theology Geek

 

[Palladio]

The term “ROMAN” has come to mean that the Seat of The Church is in Rome! On that premise and basis, it is entirely correct to use the term.

However, when it is used in arguments to somehow differentiate IT from the other rites, then it is erroneous.

There is ONLY ONE Catholic Church. It is the one that Jesus Christ established in Matt:16. This Church, currently has Its Seat in Rome.

There are some here who believe that The Eastern Othodox have THE SAME Authority. NO. Incorrect. What they have is the Apostolic Succession, but they do not have The KEYS given to Peter, once they departed from the understanding that Jesus Christ placed ONE APOSTLE as The HEAD of The Church. The difference is that their understanding is that A GROUP or COLLECTION OF BISHOPS have that same authority. This is plausible but a faulty understanding, since from the first century to their departure in 1054, ALL the Fathers believed and held to The Seat of Peter as being the One True Church.

Currently, the continuation of that line, is in Rome. That Seat did not schism from ‘The Catholic Church.’ The Catholic Church is therefore, The (Roman) Catholic Church.

The only problem I see with using “Roman” is that it suggests that there is another Catholic Church somewhere else! For those who argue the point, whether you like it or not, when you profess to be Catholic, you mean (Roman) Catholic because The Seat with the keys resides there. It is also significant because Peter went there and instituted his Seat there. Paul also went there to seek him out and spent days with him (Peter) in spite of the fact that James was the bishop of Rome at the time. -see Acts. Clearly, Peter was Pope and “above” James, for want of a better term.

We are Catholics. All who profess to be ‘catholics’ but do not submit to The Seat of Peter are fooling themselves!

Outstanding answer.

 

[Petergee]

Ok, I come from the land of Oz.

Oh! So do you!

Sub

I’m pretty sure that Australians have been calling their country Oz since long before that American wrote the story about the wizard. Maybe we should sue for the royalties. No-one to my knowledge has ever said they find “Oz” offensive.

I have no problem with nicknames, for Australians or for Catholics. You can call me a “Mick” or a “Kneeler” in casual conversation. But when people use a name for Catholics which they know, or should know, is offensive, and they use it in a way to try to impose it as the correct standard name, that is very offensive.

 

[ElizabethPH]

Unfortunately you’ve been affected by the anti-Catholic culture which has become so ingrained in the USA’s collective way of speaking and thinking that sometimes even many Catholics are unaware of it, and how it subtly influences even the way they think and speak about themselves and their Church.

Maybe it is an OZ thing about being so offended at being called Roman Catholic.
I have friends and family from there come visit; and this Catholic Church/Roman Catholic Church always comes up with them. (My protestant cousins and friends all consider themselves catholic and me Roman Catholic) I never have run into a protestant here (US) that does that. Nor have I run into fellow Catholics here at home that find Roman Catholic to be offensive except on these forums.

 

[Axion]

Maybe it is an OZ thing about being so offended at being called Roman Catholic.
I have friends and family from there come visit; and this Catholic Church/Roman Catholic Church always comes up with them. (My protestant cousins and friends all consider themselves catholic and me Roman Catholic) I never have run into a protestant here (US) that does that. Nor have I run into fellow Catholics here at home that find Roman Catholic to be offensive except on these forums.

It depends on the usage. Many Catholics, particularly in English-speaking lands, have learned to accept the term Roman Catholic because of its constant usage. However the term is a demeaning one, and was designed to be demeaning. hence you will find many Catholics who object to its usage.

 

[MariaG]

Maybe it is an OZ thing about being so offended at being called Roman Catholic.
I have friends and family from there come visit; and this Catholic Church/Roman Catholic Church always comes up with them. (My protestant cousins and friends all consider themselves catholic and me Roman Catholic) I never have run into a protestant here (US) that does that. Nor have I run into fellow Catholics here at home that find Roman Catholic to be offensive except on these forums.

The United States is heavily Protestant and historically prejudiced against Catholics (Can anyone remember Kennedy and the big stink of all that?) and many have unknowingly adopted the “standard” of the US, as if it were the Standard of the entire Catholic Church.

Your PROTESTANT cousins have defined you, and placed a name on you that is inaccurate. And while they may be and consider themselves to be catholic, if you ask them what church they go to, would they say catholic or tell you which denomination they went to?

What you need to realize is that to call the entire Catholic Church, ROMAN Catholic is completely offensive to our Eastern brethren, so even if YOU personally do not find it offensive, there are many who are part of the Catholic Church who are in no way “Roman” at all, who find it completely offensive.

It makes them feel like unwanted step children, instead of brothers and sisters in Christ who are in FULL communion with the bishop of Rome.

So even if you, a Latin Rite Catholic do not find the term offensive, you should respect those who are united with the bishop of Rome and learn to refer to the entire Catholic Church as Catholic instead of Roman Catholic.

Respectfully,

Maria