"ROMAN" Catholic Church

[MariaG]

I tend to agree with Katherine Schori in terms that many RC’s are from third world nations and do not posess the ability to rationalize a religious choice for themselves. I have to believe that a great many RCs may not be RC if for the common knowledge to exist to choose otherwise. Look at how so many Hispanics are leaving the RCC for the many Assemblies of God. These churches are responsible for pulling the most people away from the RCC and the Anglicans are second.

Well, I am so glad that you have actually read this thread

As for the numbers of Catholics who are leaving for things like Assemblies of God, it is a shame that they are doing so because they are being lied to about what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

These “missionaries” go in and instead of helping them to catch fire for God within the Catholic Church they pull them out and into a “real” Christian church.

But that would be a different thread.

This one is to discuss why the word Roman was added to the name of the Catholic Church and why we find RC or RCC to be offensive to refer to all who are in communion with Rome. Glad you could read it and choose to still continue to refer to us in such a pejorative manner.

 

[RevDrNorth]

And? What is wrong with that?

You wouldn’t hear them say Catholic though would you, because it would be misunderstood by all hearing it as refering to someone who went to a church in communion with Rome.

Nothing…Anglo Catholic is actually rather descriptive of an Anglican who is high church (ie Catholic in the English tradition).

If I may tag onto something you posted to Nell, yes this business of poaching sheep can be a little annoying. I know the Eastern Forums Fr. Ambrose posted a Southern Baptist Mission board brochure that was pretty descriptive of the Orthodox faith but with the sole purpose of converting Orthodox Christian into Baptists. Whether it is people trying to convert Orthodox or Catholics (of the Roman variety----just a joke ) it amounts to trying to convince them that they are not really following Christ and need to enter into the fullness of a relationship with Him by becoming…Baptist, Assmeblies of God and yada…yada.

Rev North

 

[StMarkEofE]

Again, it was used to differentiate between different parts of the Church, not as a universal name of all who are in communion with Rome.

To say Roman Catholic, refering to all who are in communion with Rome is offfensive to a great number of our Catholic who are not Latin Rite Catholics.

Again, just because some wish to claim a name that was once derogatory, does not give the right for others to call us such.

Politically correctness has nothing to do with it. Historical accuracy and honesty do. So unless you can show that the Catholic Church refers to herself and all who are in communion with her as the Roman Catholic Church instead of the Catholic church or simply the Church, you stop using that term to refer to the Catholic Church since that includes many who are not “Roman or Latin rite” but who are still in communion with Rome.

God Bless,
Maria

Dont you refer to Eastern Catholics as Eastern Catholics?

Doesnt this insult them using the same rule of thumb you use?

How about Byzantine Catholics, Ruthinian Catholics, Syriac Catholics and Greek Catholics? If what you say that the Church is universal then why are you excluding Roman to identify the Latin portion of the Catholic church? This certainly isnt fair to the rest of the church if you reserve this term Catholic to yourself to the exclusion of the other Sui Juis churches.

According to your rule, there should be no (fill in the name) Catholic churches.

 

[RevDrNorth]

Dont you refer to Eastern Catholics as Eastern Catholics?

Doesnt this insult them using the same rule of thumb you use?

How about Byzantine Catholics, Ruthinian Catholics, Syriac Catholics and Greek Catholics? If what you say that the Church is universal then why are you excluding Roman to identify the Latin portion of the Catholic church? This certainly isnt fair to the rest of the church if you reserve this term Catholic to yourself to the exclusion of the other Sui Juis churches.

According to your rule, there should be no (fill in the name) Catholic churches.

Hmmm…good point.

Rev North

 

[MariaG]

Dont you refer to Eastern Catholics as Eastern Catholics?

Doesnt this insult them using the same rule of thumb you use?

How about Byzantine Catholics, Ruthinian Catholics, Syriac Catholics and Greek Catholics? If what you say that the Church is universal then why are you excluding Roman to identify the Latin portion of the Catholic church? This certainly isnt fair to the rest of the church if you reserve this term Catholic to yourself to the exclusion of the other Sui Juis churches.

According to your rule, there should be no (fill in the name) Catholic churches.

Not if I am talking about the whole Church who is united with the bishop of Rome. I only refer to it as the Catholic Church.

Again, if I am trying to differentiate between different rites WITHIN the Catholic Church, I would certainly use Eastern, Byzantine, or other such adjectives to help clarify.

There is a difference here.

We are the Catholic Church. Within the Catholic Church there is a Latin Rite, Byzantine etc.

This thread is not how the Catholic Church talks about the different rites that reside within her but how it is insulting and inappropriate to refer to all those in communion with Rome as Roman Catholic for they are not all “Roman”.

We are the Catholic Church, or simply the Church in all official documents when referring to all those in communion with the bishop of Rome.

It is not “my rule”. It is historical fact.

 

[MariaG]

Hmmm…good point.

Rev North

Only a good point if you wish ignore the entire history of writings of the Catholic Church

The Catholic Church never calls herself the Roman Catholic Church to refer to all who are in communion with the bishop of Rome. The only ones to do so are the reformers or those who have been so indoctrinated in the prejudice that they fail to realize the pejorative nature of referring to the entire Catholic Church as Roman Catholic.

To do so is insulting to our Eastern brethren who are in communion with Rome but in no way Latin Rite Catholics.

 

[MariaG]

Nothing…Anglo Catholic is actually rather descriptive of an Anglican who is high church (ie Catholic in the English tradition).

If I may tag onto something you posted to Nell, yes this business of poaching sheep can be a little annoying. I know the Eastern Forums Fr. Ambrose posted a Southern Baptist Mission board brochure that was pretty descriptive of the Orthodox faith but with the sole purpose of converting Orthodox Christian into Baptists. Whether it is people trying to convert Orthodox or Catholics (of the Roman variety----just a joke ) it amounts to trying to convince them that they are not really following Christ and need to enter into the fullness of a relationship with Him by becoming…Baptist, Assmeblies of God and yada…yada.

Rev North

The biggest difference I see between Orthodox trying to bring Catholics into communion with them or the other way around, for the most part, neither denies the basic Christianity of the other, although there are personal exceptions that can be found on both sides on these forums. Catholics who know what they are talking about, would never tell the Orthodox that they are not following Christ. The “fullness” of truth is almost so complete between Catholic and Orthodox that this is a spurious argument for an informed Catholic. (I do not choose to speak for my Othodox Brethren.)

But when Baptist, AoG et al, try to get a Catholic or an Orthodox into their Church, it is usually because they doubt the basic Christianity of the person. (Or is it only the basic Christianity of the Catholics they doubt:shrug: Not sure if the Orthodox are on most peoples radar in the US.) They believe that both are idol worshippers who follow empty rituals in order to be saved.

Big difference between trying to convince someone that they can enter into the fullness of truth(as Catholics do with the “Protestants” understanding that most are protesting nothing ) with Christ and that they never had Christ to begin with

God Bless,
Maria

 

[frnate]

OK, consider yourself corrected.

I sincerely accept your correction. I have reviewed all of your posts on this thread and you are correct. You have never explicitly told anyone not to use the term Catholic in the names of their non-BCC (that’s Biggest Catholic Church) denomination.

But let’s have a look at what you did say:

Be proud to be a Catholic and to belong to the Catholic Church. (post #11)

So did you or did you not intend this to mean the “only one true Church of Jesus Christ?” If so, then it is an insulting an innaccurate statement if for no other eason than the implications.

And that means you’re not Catholic (post #26)

Insulting and innacurate.

If a stranger in Chattanooga asked you “Would you please tell me where the Catholic Church is?”, where would you send him? (post #30)

Implying that I and those like me are heretics. Insulting and innaccurate.

And when an organisation has been known for 2000 years as the Catholic Church, somebody can’t just start up a new organisation and demand that everyone call it the Catholic Church. (post #36)

Admittedly this is merely a strawman argument but it is still insulting to my intelligence. And should be to yours as well.

I’d be more worried about Him asking you “What did you feed them? My Truth, or your own distortions?” (post #43)

Equivocations aside, it really is obvious what was meant by this outburst.

Unfortunately you’ve been affected by the anti-Catholic culture (post #44)

Implying only anti-Catholics use the term “Roman.” Dismally inaccurate and insulting.

B16 is the visible head on earth of the Catholic Church. (post #54)

Again, inaccurate and insulting to those who know better. I understand that you being a part of the BCC must believe this, however, the history of the Church proves otherwise.

you might consider correcting your profile description of yourself as “Roman Catholic” not to mention “Lay Eucharistic Minister”. Neither thing exists. (post #69)

Perhaps he’s confident in his identity as a Catholic.

Why don’t you get back to us when you’ve got replies from all these groups? Then we’ll see what we can do about changing the name which our billions of members and billions more outsiders have used for us for 1900+ years, so that it’s less “offensive” to your organisation which (mea culpa I’m sure) I’ve never heard of other than through your posts here? (post #78)

Please, enough with the strawmen.

Or alternatively you could just behave like a grown-up. (post #78 as well)

You mean like not ranting and raving because someone wants to be more specific about Church jurisdictions? Oh wait, that wasn’t me, it was you…

Like the few “trendy” blacks who claim to be proud to call themselves “n****s”. Sorry, it won’t wash with Catholics. (post #85)

Amazing.

Really? Who publishes this “RC Catechism” of which you speak? I’ve never heard of it. (post #88)

Oh, sorry it’s now the BCC, that better? Let me know if you’re still unclear. I know you weren’t being sarcastic…

I suggest you do something more important than hunting out reasons to be insulted. (post #87)

Sometimes the insults are un-avoidable. (See above) Oh but wait you say, I wasn’t intent on being insulting. Besides, everything I said is the truth, you say. And see, that’s kind of the whole reason for these forums. I speak the truth and you speak the truth (or so we believe) and we get to have fun and fellowship hashing it out here. I am not easily riled and everything I post is done so in a dispassionate manner. I do realize however that without the benefit of visual cues (body language) some tend to interpret posts as they themselves would react. Thus the accusations of childishness sometimes get tossed about. I never seek insult, as I recall this discussion came about because someone from the BCC complained about being insulted by the term “Roman Catholic.”

And now I’ll let you off the hook. I was never insulted by anything you posted. (okay, well, except maybe a little by the strawmen ) I don’t need to be. I sincerely hope we can be friends.

Peace,
+N

 

[Petergee]

I have to laugh at your blindness not because it is humorous but because it is really sad. Ever heard of Drew Mariani??

No, but I’m sure you can “enlighten” me. I’ll be fascinated to see how whatever he/she says can possibly make “truth” out of the three huge whoppers you told in post 86:
*"I tend to agree with Katherine Schori in terms that many RC’s *[sic]are from third world nations and do not posess the ability to rationalize a religious choice for themselves."
" I have to believe that a great many RCs[sic] ***may not be RC ***[sic]if for the common knowledge to exist to choose otherwise."
'These churches are responsible for pulling the most people away from the RCC[sic] and the Anglicans are second."

 

[Petergee]

"frnate’, no doubt you would also find St Augustine and St Ignatius of Antioch “insulting” builders of “strawmen”. I’m sure we could be friends if you can overcome your urge to make up new names for other people’s organisations and complain because they don’t use them, because you claim to find the name they have always used for themselves “offensive” and “insulting”.

 

[frnate]

"frnate’, no doubt you would also find St Augustine and St Ignatius of Antioch “insulting” builders of “strawmen”.

Only if they argued the way you do.

I’m sure we could be friends if you can overcome your urge to make up new names for other people’s organisations and complain because they don’t use them, because you claim to find the name they have always used for themselves “offensive” and “insulting”.

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

 

[Nella]

No, but I’m sure you can “enlighten” me. I’ll be fascinated to see how whatever he/she says can possibly make “truth” out of the three huge whoppers you told in post 86:
*“I tend to agree with Katherine Schori in terms that many RC’s *[sic]are from third world nations and do not posess the ability to rationalize a religious choice for themselves.”
" I have to believe that a great many RCs[sic] ***may not be RC ***[sic]if for the common knowledge to exist to choose otherwise."
'These churches are responsible for pulling the most people away from the RCC[sic] and the Anglicans are second."

Don’t know what else to say other than I can quote this Catholic radio host on all these counts and if you have a problem with his facts, then there are now two Catholics with two different beliefs. Now how can this be possible??

 

[nonsumd]

I tend to agree with Katherine Schori in terms that many RC’s are from third world nations and do not posess the ability to rationalize a religious choice for themselves.

That is a pretty arrogant way for a bishop to talk about “Third World” people, if that is what she really said.

I suppose a bishop with such a way of thinking has no idea what to make of Jesus’ teaching that only if we become as children can we enter the Kingdom of God.

As for Schori’s contention that Catholics who have large families being less educated and environmentally conscious than Anglicans…

Many educated people accept the Church’s teaching about every act of marital union being open to the possibility of life - such people are not ignorant of contraceptive methods.

The reason that our environment is suffering is not that there are too many “consumers” being born, it’s that our “First World” idea of what is a “necessary” level of consumption is far inflated and that makes people unwilling to share equitably the abundant, if not unlimited, resources of the earth.

 

[Nella]

No, but I’m sure you can “enlighten” me. I’ll be fascinated to see how whatever he/she says can possibly make “truth” out of the three huge whoppers you told in post 86:
*“I tend to agree with Katherine Schori in terms that many RC’s *[sic]are from third world nations and do not posess the ability to rationalize a religious choice for themselves.”
" I have to believe that a great many RCs[sic] ***may not be RC ***[sic]if for the common knowledge to exist to choose otherwise."
'These churches are responsible for pulling the most people away from the RCC[sic] and the Anglicans are second."

Drew Mariani just said it again today on Relevant Radio. I will quote what he said, “The Catholic Church is losing members by the droves in Latin America”.

 

[Petergee]

Drew Mariani just said it again today on Relevant Radio. I will quote what he said, “The Catholic Church is losing members by the droves in Latin America”.

You scored zero out of three. That statement does not equate to any of the three lies you told in post 86.
You claim that you “can” quote “facts” which prove that these are not lies; and then you don’t do so. Well, here’s your chance to “put up or shut up” as we say in Oz.

 

[Nella]

You scored zero out of three. That statement does not equate to any of the three lies you told in post 86.
You claim that you “can” quote “facts” which prove that these are not lies; and then you don’t do so. Well, here’s your chance to “put up or shut up” as we say in Oz.

I gave you the information. Here is a fellow Catholic making a claim a factual remark on national radio which totally mirrors what I said about the RCC losng members and you refuse to believe it. Go ahead and call him a liar, what’s it to me? I know the facts that you refuse to acknowledge.

 

[Petergee]

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.

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

Folks in the BCC generally operate in a “post-Schism” mindset in which there is only one patriarchate

False. Catholics recognise several patriarchates. And your silly “BCC” actually stands for “Basal Cell Carcinoma”. Not very nice.

and thus to use the terms “Roman” and “Catholic” in the same sentence is at best redundant and at worst insulting.

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” 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” is not a new name “made up” for your organization. It is pre-Schism nomenclature.

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

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

You and your organisation obviously see it as an error, but Catholics do not. 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.” Not gunna happen mate. 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.

 

[Petergee]

I gave you the information. Here is a fellow Catholic making a claim a factual remark on national radio which totally mirrors what I said about the RCC losng members and you refuse to believe it. Go ahead and call him a liar, what’s it to me? I know the facts that you refuse to acknowledge.

You asked me to take your word for it that some bloke I’ve never heard of said that “The Catholic Church is losing members by the droves in Latin America”.
It is utterly absurd to suggest that this “totally mirrors” your assertion that “the RCC [sic] is losing members’.
It is the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen to assert that it totally mirrors the nonsense that you spouted in post 86:
“I tend to agree with Katherine Schori in terms that many RC’s [sic]are from third world nations and do not posess the ability to rationalize a religious choice for themselves.”
" I have to believe that a great many RCs[sic] may not be RC [sic]if for the common knowledge to exist to choose otherwise.”
'These churches are responsible for pulling the most people away from the RCC[sic] and the Anglicans are second."

Since you are unable to produce any evidence to support these outrageous assertions of yours, I can only conclude that you know that no such evidence exists and have decided to try to bluster and hope it makes people ignore your horrendous mistake, instead of having the decency to admit you were hopelessly wrong and apologise.

 

[Nella]

You asked me to take your word for it that some bloke I’ve never heard of said that “The Catholic Church is losing members by the droves in Latin America”.
It is utterly absurd to suggest that this “totally mirrors” your assertion that “the RCC [sic] is losing members’.
It is the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen to assert that it totally mirrors the nonsense that you spouted in post 86:
“I tend to agree with Katherine Schori in terms that many RC’s [sic]are from third world nations and do not posess the ability to rationalize a religious choice for themselves.”
" I have to believe that a great many RCs[sic] may not be RC [sic]if for the common knowledge to exist to choose otherwise.”
'These churches are responsible for pulling the most people away from the RCC[sic] and the Anglicans are second."

Since you are unable to produce any evidence to support these outrageous assertions of yours, I can only conclude that you know that no such evidence exists and have decided to try to bluster and hope it makes people ignore your horrendous mistake, instead of having the decency to admit you were hopelessly wrong and apologise.

I am not wrong nor will I apologize. You check the facts for yourself if you are so sure I am wrong and then prove otherwise. You don’t seem to know much about your own denomination.

 

[Petergee]

I am not wrong nor will I apologize. You check the facts for yourself if you are so sure I am wrong and then prove otherwise. You don’t seem to know much about your own denomination.

No, the way it works when you make three outrageous allegations about somebody else’s religion, is that the onus is on YOU to produce evidence that your allegations are factual. Since yyou can’t you should apologise. You can’t put the onus on everybody else to DISPROVE your allegations.