The HUUUGE difference between CATHOLIC and ROMAN CATHOLIC

[larryo]

Corpus Cristi:

There are lots of people coming in here talking about things like the RCC, the ROMAN THIS, ROMAN THAT, ROMANIZING THE EARLY CHURCH, ROMANISM, ROMAN CATHOLICISM, ROMAN ETC, ETC, ETC. I’m here to set the record straight. Unlike some of you, who obviously have no problem with it, I get all in a fluster when people talk about the things listed above in capitols when referring to the entire Catholic Church. Why do I have a hissy fit when people do this? It’s an absolute butchering of terminology and it shows how ignorant they really are of the church when they do this because they fail to acknowledge out of ignorance, or out of inconsideration that the ENTIRE CHURCH is not ROMAN CATHOLIC. Let me give you an explanation on WHY this isn’t so. Christ told the apostles to go teach ALL nations. Naturally, since they were in the middle east and they naturally didn’t stay all bunched up because they needed to go to ALL nations, they split up and went in different places. Peter and Paul, two most well known apostles, went to Rome and were martyred. Other apostels, went south, to areas of Africa. Others went north, and others went East, even so far as to the FAR east to preach the gospel. They all held to the same lord, same faith, same baptism. They didn’t split in any of those areas, though, the only thing that they didn’t have in common was their DEVOTIONS, DISCIPLINES, AND RITUALS. They did things differently, but they never changed their faith. From the word RITUAL, we get the word RITE. Rite can mean one of two things, it can mean

ONE- a ritual itself
or
TWO-a group or branch of ways of practicing certain rituals

As the faith spread, even though the faith didn’t change, people’s ways of doing things, mostly depending on their culture, were different. As a result, we find many different rites who are all in communion with the Pope and the rest of the church, though, they have different rubrics for the mass, different ways to give blessings, different devotions, different disciplinary acts. For an example, even though there are some latin rite Catholic priests, who marry, marriage for eastern rite Catholic priests is the NORM.

Don’t make any mistakes in believing that for this reason the church isn’t one, it is one. The church just has different practices in different areas. There’s nothing different about what we believe as a whole, that is in the one true faith.

So when referring to the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC CHURCH AS A WHOLE, please says simply CATHOLIC.

When referring ONLY to the LATIN RITE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, please feel free to say ROMAN CATHOLIC.

It just makes for bad terminology when people make simple mistakes like this.

Dittos! I share your peevishness on this issue. Other than just indicating the largest rite of the Catholic Church, the use of “Roman” among some Protestants and all anti-Catholics has a more sinister connotation as well. When used in terms like “the Roman Church” it is meant to be non-universal and akin to other pejorative terms such as “popery” or “Romanism.” It’s unfortunate that some Catholics are also confused and believe that the official name of the Church must include the word Roman. I’ve even seen Catholic churches with the designation “Roman Catholic” on their signs. It would be preferable to state “Catholic Church of the Latin Rite.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Larryo,

“the Roman Church” it is meant to be non-universal

You assert this, but I’ve just shown quotes from various popes who have used “Roman Church” in describing the UNIVERSAL Church. So which is it? Are these popes wrong to refer to the unviversal church as “Roman”? If not, isn’t y’all’s pet peeve rather misplaced?

 

[Lance]

Amadeus:

Dear Lance:

There are only 23 Churches in the Catholic Communion: 1 Western: the Roman Catholic Church (Latin or Roman Rite, with “uses”), and 22 Eastern Catholic Churches of vaious sub-rites (rescensions) of the major Eastern Rites (Antiochian, Byzantine/Constantinopolitan, and Alexandrian).

This site: credo.stormloader.com/ritesofc.htm list 26 churches, 3 of them Latin rite, but we seem to be picking nits. Lets all pray for the day when all of the Churches of the world are united with Rome.

 

[Amadeus]

Dear CC:

Please read my initial post (#3) and then compare it to what you posted.

There’s a huuuuuge difference!

Properly, our Rite is called Roman Rite, to designate the See that “produced” or gave “birth” to it. (The other major rites are Antiochian [Antioch, now in Syria], Alexandrian [Alexandria, Egypt], and Byzantine/Constantinopolitan [Byzantium/Constantinople, now in Turkey]). From these 4 Major Rites emerged the various sub-rites and rescensions.

Currently, the Roman Rite and the Latin Rite, as you prefer to designate our own, are interchangeable.

 

[Amadeus]

Dear Lance:

I am sorry if my response to your post appeared to be nitpicking.

However, our Eastern Catholic brethren are a little bit sensitive to inexact enumeration of their respective sui juris Churches. There are only 22 sui juris Eastern Catholic Churches of varying sizes: 6 Patriarchal Churches, 2 Major Archbishoprics, 1 Metropolitanate, and the rest are at most Eparchial in size.

Did it not occur to you that the list you are referring to has 3 Latin Rite Churches? There is only ONE Latin Rite Church in the Catholic Communion: the Roman Catholic Church of a billion or so faithful. As a group, the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches number about 20 million worldwide.

 

[Lance]

Are the Ambrosian and Mozarabic Churches not in communion with Rome? Seems from that they are from what the site said. I don’t know I never heard of them and are you counting the Czech Church for which JP II established The Apostolic Exarchate of Byzantine Rite in 1996? I agree that our Eastern brothers get excited when they are not counted as Catholic. My son-in-law really gets upset and tells people they should never have to go through what most Easterners do for their religion. Most of the are oppressed in some way. If I am not counting correctly my appologies.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

The Ambrosian and the Mozarabic rites are indeed in communion with Rome. Or, at the very least, there are faithful Catholics in communion with Rome who worship according to the rituals and disciplines of the Ambrosian or Mozarabic rites. In fact, every now and again one will see an Ambrosian Mass celebrated in St. Peter’s in the Vatican.

 

[Hesychios]

GrzeszDeL:

The Ambrosian and the Mozarabic rites are indeed in communion with Rome. Or, at the very least, there are faithful Catholics in communion with Rome who worship according to the rituals and disciplines of the Ambrosian or Mozarabic rites. In fact, every now and again one will see an Ambrosian Mass celebrated in St. Peter’s in the Vatican.

The point, I think is that the Mozarabic and Ambrosian rites do not constitute Sui Iuris churches.

They are considered integral parts of the Western church.

One could say the various Celtic rites, the Mozarabic and Ambrosian were once separate churches that were all integrated into one, but that is a debatable topic. There has been only one Patriarch in the West and the Western church has been operating on the principle that uniformity of practice is desireable, which is why the Mozarabic liturgy is almost gone now and the Ambrosian liturgy is now confined to Milan.

To our way of thinking today there is a much greater appreciation of diversity. We see people becoming enthusiastic about the Anglican Use, the Gregorian Mass and these other liturgies, but the church has not made any change in it’s priorities.

So officially there is only one Western church and people who attend Mozarabic or Ambrosian liturgies are members of the Roman Catholic Sui Iuris church.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

GrzeszDeL:

I hear what you are saying, Corpus Christi, and I am in agreement with you up to a point. The problem as I see it is that there is no good term to describe the Catholic Church (as in, the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church) that does not in some manner make reference to Rome. That is, if we say “the Catholic Church” instead of “the Roman Catholic Church” then old Catholics have a crafty habit of counting themselves as included in the term. Knowing that schismatics like the Orthodox or the old Catholics are not part of the body of Christ, one tries to clarify by specifying “the Church in communion with Rome.”

I realize that this is not quite the same thing as the “Roman Catholic Church,” but I am sure you will grant that it is understandable that someone might use the term “Roman Catholic Church” or even “RCC” as a convenient shorthand for “the Church in communion with Rome.” If anyone could suggest a good, short term which includes everyone who should be included (Romans, Maronites, Byzantines, Armenians, etc) and excludes everyone who should be excluded (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Polish National Catholics, etc) I would be happy to use it, but so far I have not seen any such term.

True, true. That can be the case. I’ll accept.

 

[II_Paradox_II]

I usually use any one of 5 or 6 terms interchangably, but the normal one I use is CC. If someone freaks out about a certain term, I’ll just use something else. IMO - it’s not worth stressing out about, but to each their own I guess…

ken

 

[JGC]

‘Roman’ Catholic is historically a term of abuse in these parts and it’s not often used.

I never use it, I’m Catholic, and if clarification is required by someone I’ll reply “Latin rite Catholic”.

The problem is non-catholics in these parts (mostly) don’t know the differences.

Most evangelicals I know don’t even know about the Orthodox and even fewer know anything about them.

 

[RBushlow]

Corpus Cristi:

There are lots of people coming in here talking about things like the RCC, the ROMAN THIS, ROMAN THAT, ROMANIZING THE EARLY CHURCH, ROMANISM, ROMAN CATHOLICISM, ROMAN ETC, ETC, ETC
So when referring to the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC CHURCH AS A WHOLE, please says simply CATHOLIC.

I also believe that RC, RCC, etc are a sign of disrespect. After all we don’t call them prots, or call the Lutheran Church LC. Out of courtesy and respect we spell it out. I would prefer the term “the Catholic Church”.

 

[RBushlow]

GrzeszDeL:

I hear what you are saying, Corpus Christi, and I am in agreement with you up to a point. The problem as I see it is that there is no good term to describe the Catholic Church

I think people who wish to be courteous and respecful will use the term “the Catholic Church”. Which is what I prefer.

 

[Contarini]

Corpus Christi, you need to calm down and stop demanding that other Christians acknowledge your claims by the language they use! If we were convinced that your communion was the Catholic Church, we would have joined you already. You’re asking for complete surrender as a condition for dialogue. Sorry, but that doesn’t work.

You’re right that the Roman Catholic Church is only one of a large number of sui juris churches in communion with Rome. The problem is that the RCC in this sense accounts for the vast majority of Christians in communion with Rome. I believe it’s something like 800+ million Latin Rite and somewhere between 1 and 2 million in all the others, but I could be wrong on that and welcome more accurate figures. Furthermore, with the exception of the Maronites the other churches are fragments of their mother churches which have broken off and sought communion with Rome. In the case of some of the Middle Eastern churches (the Chaldeans, for instance) these are sizeable segments compared to the originals. In others, such as the Byzantines or the Copts, the churches in communion with Rome are small fragments of the churches of that tradition not in communion with Rome. These churches do not enjoy full autonomy (for instance, a Latin Rite bishop has to be present at all Byzantine Rite consecrations, if I’m not mistaken). They are not treated as full equals. Ask one of them! The fact is, whether you like it or not, that the Roman Rite does have a dominant and normative status in the Catholic Church, and any claim otherwise is sheer propaganda.

More to the point, the phrase “Roman Catholic Church” or “Holy Roman Church” was used quite comfortably by Catholics for centuries. The idea of objecting to it is a recent one, and is a clever attempt to use the fad of “political correctness” to the advantage of Catholics.

As you notice, I actually use your preferred terminology quite often. This is in part because I think the Roman communion does have a unique claim to Catholicity, and in part because I generally call people what they want to be called. But there are times when, for the sake of precision, I use “Roman Catholics” as a shorthand for “Christians in communion with Rome.” There simply is no similarly convenient expression that does not (in certain contexts) imply that I identify the Catholic Church as defined in the Creeds exclusively with the body of Christians in communion with the See of Rome.

The problem is that when we non-“Romans” use the word “Catholic” to describe you, certain Catholic apologists (following one of St. Augustine’s cheaper shots against the Manichees) actually use this courtesy against us to suggest that we implicitly recognize that you are the Catholic Church and we have no part in it. Furthermore, those Protestants who are not theologically or historically trained become very confused at our affirmation in the Creeds that we believe in the “Catholic Church,” because they are used to the courteous habit of using that term for churches in communion with Rome. Of course you would like to foster that confusion, because then you could persuade people that their own Creeds witness to the truth of your claims. But that would be an underhanded method. The whole point at issue between us and you is whether the Catholic Church is to be identified solely with the Church in communion with Rome. We need to use language that clarifies, rather than confusing, that issue.

So enough with the politically correct whining. Let’s debate real issues instead of taking cheap pot shots.

In Christ,

Edwin Tait, a Catholic in communion with the See of Canterbury

 

[Exporter]

FOR WHAT IT’S WORTH. When the Pope John Paul II signs documents : it will read Catholic Church, not Roman Catholic Church.

 

[hydrochief]

My feelings on the matter are this…

There are a lot of people out there, even those who call themselves Catholic, that are mildly to exceedingly anti-Pope’ish.

I say Roman Catholic to denote the fact that

• I believe Christ put His Vicar in Rome for a reason;
• that every Pope after Peter and elected by the Cardinals was at the behest of the Spirit per His Holy Plan;
• and that I will obey the Pope if for no other reason than to honor Christ Jesus.

As for Holy Mother Church, She is Universal. All of the Rites are part of the Plan. I don’t think anyone who truly wishes to follow Catholicism are out to bash any Rite just because it’s not their own.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

Contarini:

Corpus Christi, you need to calm down and stop demanding that other Christians acknowledge your claims by the language they use! If we were convinced that your communion was the Catholic Church, we would have joined you already. You’re asking for complete surrender as a condition for dialogue. Sorry, but that doesn’t work.

You’re right that the Roman Catholic Church is only one of a large number of sui juris churches in communion with Rome. The problem is that the RCC in this sense accounts for the vast majority of Christians in communion with Rome. I believe it’s something like 800+ million Latin Rite and somewhere between 1 and 2 million in all the others, but I could be wrong on that and welcome more accurate figures. Furthermore, with the exception of the Maronites the other churches are fragments of their mother churches which have broken off and sought communion with Rome. In the case of some of the Middle Eastern churches (the Chaldeans, for instance) these are sizeable segments compared to the originals. In others, such as the Byzantines or the Copts, the churches in communion with Rome are small fragments of the churches of that tradition not in communion with Rome. These churches do not enjoy full autonomy (for instance, a Latin Rite bishop has to be present at all Byzantine Rite consecrations, if I’m not mistaken). They are not treated as full equals. Ask one of them! The fact is, whether you like it or not, that the Roman Rite does have a dominant and normative status in the Catholic Church, and any claim otherwise is sheer propaganda.

More to the point, the phrase “Roman Catholic Church” or “Holy Roman Church” was used quite comfortably by Catholics for centuries. The idea of objecting to it is a recent one, and is a clever attempt to use the fad of “political correctness” to the advantage of Catholics.

As you notice, I actually use your preferred terminology quite often. This is in part because I think the Roman communion does have a unique claim to Catholicity, and in part because I generally call people what they want to be called. But there are times when, for the sake of precision, I use “Roman Catholics” as a shorthand for “Christians in communion with Rome.” There simply is no similarly convenient expression that does not (in certain contexts) imply that I identify the Catholic Church as defined in the Creeds exclusively with the body of Christians in communion with the See of Rome.

The problem is that when we non-“Romans” use the word “Catholic” to describe you, certain Catholic apologists (following one of St. Augustine’s cheaper shots against the Manichees) actually use this courtesy against us to suggest that we implicitly recognize that you are the Catholic Church and we have no part in it. Furthermore, those Protestants who are not theologically or historically trained become very confused at our affirmation in the Creeds that we believe in the “Catholic Church,” because they are used to the courteous habit of using that term for churches in communion with Rome. Of course you would like to foster that confusion, because then you could persuade people that their own Creeds witness to the truth of your claims. But that would be an underhanded method. The whole point at issue between us and you is whether the Catholic Church is to be identified solely with the Church in communion with Rome. We need to use language that clarifies, rather than confusing, that issue.

So enough with the politically correct whining. Let’s debate real issues instead of taking cheap pot shots.

In Christ,

Edwin Tait, a Catholic in communion with the See of Canterbury

My reply is in the next quote, I couldn’t put it in because there were too many letters.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

Excuse me, terminology can either be correct or incorrect. Even if there is more than one term for a certain thing, to refer to it as more than, less than, or something other than what it is is BAD TERMINOLOGY. People usually put Roman emphasis on the whole Catholic Church when they try to make it LOOK as though Constantine paganized the Christian Church, but there were Christians in the East by that time that had the same beliefs. That’s what I was trying to clear up. The terms and abreviations, RCC, RC, ROMAN CATHOLICISM, ROMANISM, ROMINIZED, ETC, sound very disrespectful, and there are people here who agree.

 

[Contarini]

Corpus Christi,

You actually don’t need to quote the entire post–people who want to can read the original post farther up the thread. More to the point, you don’t really address my arguments–you just repeat that terms like “RCC” are “inaccurate” and disrespectful. You don’t address the fact that it’s precisely the definition of the Catholic Church that is being debated between Protestants and Catholics. From a Protestant point of view, it is inaccurate to refer to Christians in communion with Rome as “Catholics” in a context that implies that the rest of us are not. We don’t expect you to adopt our way of speaking–don’t expect us to adopt yours.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[RBushlow]

Contarini:

The problem is that the RCC in this sense accounts

RBushlow:

Many people feel that terms like RC, RCC, etc are offensive and a sign of disrespect. After all we don’t call them prots, or call the Lutheran Church LC. Out of courtesy and respect we spell it out.

Kindly refrain from using these offensive terms. Thank you for the courtesy.

Yours in Christ.