What's In Our Name?

[seeker57]

There is no such thing as “The Roman Catholic Church”. It is The CATHOLIC CHURCH only. “Roman” comes from the rite, or expression of Catholicism that we practice within the CATHOLIC Church. There are many other, less known, rites of the Catholic Church, such as The Maronite Rite, The Byzantine Rite, The Chaldean Rite, etc… Most Catholics are of The Roman (or Latin) Rite. The Catholic Church alone was started by Jesus Christ himself, while he was here amoung us; it alone has the fullness of truth. Other denominations can (and do) have some truth, but not the whole truth and nothing but the truth, only the true Church of Jesus can have it.

Well, someone better tell the Diocese of Gallup. I drove by Holy Trinity Roman Catholic Church this afternoon. That is precisely how the sign at the front of the churchyard reads.

What we call ourselves does carry some weight.

We Unitarian Universalists call our place of meeting a church, a chapel, a fellowship, or, in some locations, a building.

As the name implies, we are unitarians, not trinitarians, indicating the oneness of God rather than a trinity, and we are universalists, which is a doctrine based on universal salvation.

The name is accurate and descriptive.

 

[regression]

Well, someone better tell the Diocese of Gallup. I drove by Holy Trinity Roman Catholic Church this afternoon. That is precisely how the sign at the front of the churchyard reads.

I don’t see how that name is at odds with what Catholic1954 said. If I were to see that sign I would think, oh, that is a Catholic church and they celebrate mass in the Roman rite.

 

[Izdaari]

I don’t place a great deal of stock in the name of my church. That’s because my neighborhood church (which happens to be affiliated with Assemblies of God), isn’t my real church. My real church is the universal church established by Jesus Christ… but unlike my Catholic friends, I believe that’s an invisible church (something of a misnomer, since I believe it’s highly visible in the spiritual realm), not a visible one with an earthly hierarchy.

That said, I do believe my AG church is a platoon, if you will, in the universal invisible church… but only that, no more and no less so than the Lutheran, Presbyterian, Catholic and Orthodox churches down the street. I became a member of my AG church by being voted in by the board, that is, I became a member of a Christian social club and 501c3 non-profit corporation, and became eligible to vote in its elections. But I became a member of Christ’s universal church when I confessed Him as Lord and Savior and was baptized.

 

[Protestant101]

He was a Protestant Jew. I’m a Protestant Canadian.

 

[Protestant101]

I don’t see how that name is at odds with what Catholic1954 said. If I were to see that sign I would think, oh, that is a Catholic church and they celebrate mass in the Roman rite.

Well; I have seen “Catholic” and “Roman Catholic” churches here that “celebrate” Mass in the Latin Rite, as well as several other rites. None of the churches (RC) I see here, or have been to here seem too worried about being called The Roman Catholic Church. I think to many Catholics; it is a name that proclaims the Pope’s final authority over all the churches, just like our church name which proclaims an important Bible truth about the Sabbath. There is a lot in a name.

I think that with some Catholics; they fear being seen as having “denominations” if they are called “Roman Catholic.” Most people that I have asked about this see all the different Rites as denominations anyways; infact I see The Roman Catholic Church, or, The Catholic Church, (if you will) as another of the many denominations in the world.

In Bible times; Jesus did not talk about Roman Catholics or Adventists or Moonies, or any other denomination you could come up with. He only talked about two groups of people. The Bible actually does name a title by which believers (as in all believers) should go by.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So, would you allow Protestants the same right to define “Protestant” as they see it and not what modern Catholics say “protestant” mean? Just curious.

As far as I am concerned, protestants can call themselves anything they want to call themselves except, as I said, to the extent any of them are clearly deceptive. Therefore, while I would not, for example, think of the Church of Christ as being the Church truly established by Christ, it is not clearly deceptive of them to call themselves that because no other churches think of their organization that way, but understand it simply as a name, and so I have no problem with their doing so.

I do recognize that a certain (though varying) individuality of belief is central to protestantism, generally. Since even the names the various protestant churches apply to themselves are reflective of that, I would think it ill-mannered to complain about their doing it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No, of course TODAY the word “protest” doesn’t carry the same meaning any longer as “witness”…“pro-testify”…but it is the origin of the designation “Protestant” which was given in a Gemanic political setting, if I remember correctly.

That’s fine. Not being a German-speaker, I couldn’t say. Perhaps the Germans should have told the English, though, so the English could have called themselves “witnesses” instead of “protestants”.

 

[Publisher]

That’s fine. Not being a German-speaker, I couldn’t say. Perhaps the Germans should have told the English, though, so the English could have called themselves “witnesses” instead of “protestants”.

Since English itself has evolved and many English word stem from German, Latin, Greek, French, perhaps you may want to see what the English definition is based on 16th century English instead of modern English which has resulted in definition differences through the centuries…take for example the word “let”…what does this word mean in Old English…and what does this word mean today?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Since English itself has evolved and many English word stem from German, Latin, Greek, French, perhaps you may want to see what the English definition is based on 16th century English instead of modern English which has resulted in definition differences through the centuries…take for example the word “let”…what does this word mean in Old English…and what does this word mean today?

Regarding the word “let”, do you really mean Old English, Middle English, Elizabethan English, Edwardian English, just what? You would have to be more specific.

Ah! Just looked it up. It doesn’t appear the word “let” is Old English, but a more modern derviation of an Old English word, more proximately from Middle English. While the word “let”, having that older meaning akin to “hinder” or “prevent”, may be considered mildly archaic now, it is still proper to use it with that meaning in modern English, and I have seen it used a great deal. I have even used it with that meaning myself.

It may be observed that the word “let”, even now, has more than one meaning in modern English.

I thank you for this interesting diversion. But I still note that Shakespeare, who was roughly contemporary with the beginning of protestantism, used the word “protest” with exactly the same meaning as the way we understand the word now.

 

[Publisher]

Regarding the word “let”, do you really mean Old English, Middle English, Elizabethan English, Edwardian English, just what? You would have to be more specific.

Ah! Just looked it up. It doesn’t appear the word “let” is Old English, but a more modern derviation of an Old English word, more proximately from Middle English. While the word “let”, having that older meaning akin to “hinder” or “prevent”, may be considered mildly archaic now, it is still proper to use it with that meaning in modern English, and I have seen it used a great deal. I have even used it with that meaning myself.

It may be observed that the word “let”, even now, has more than one meaning in modern English.

I thank you for this interesting diversion. But I still note that Shakespeare, who was roughly contemporary with the beginning of protestantism, used the word “protest” with exactly the same meaning as the way we understand the word now.

Since those who first used the term “Protestant” meant it in regard “to witness”, to redefine what they meant by todays useage of the word doesn’t mean that NOW Protestants “protest against” the Catholic church simply because the modern useage of the term “protest” has a more direct meaning.

However you of course may define the word for yourself…but how you define the word is not what originally was meant. Far be it from me to convince you otherwise…that is your choice.

My question would be to you…did those who originally coin the term “Protestant” mean it to be how you are now defining it?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Since those who first used the term “Protestant” meant it in regard “to witness”, to redefine what they meant by todays useage of the word doesn’t mean that NOW Protestants “protest against” the Catholic church simply because the modern useage of the term “protest” has a more direct meaning.

However you of course may define the word for yourself…but how you define the word is not what originally was meant. Far be it from me to convince you otherwise…that is your choice.

My question would be to you…did those who originally coin the term “Protestant” mean it to be how you are now defining it?

Possibly you could provide a German source to demonstrate what the Germans meant by whatever German word they used. I am simply observing that, whatever the Germans thought, the English word “protest” has the same meaning now as it did in Shakespeare’s time.

But going back to my response to whoever it was who asked if I care what protestants call themselves, let me say this. If some protestants want to think of themselves as “witnesses”, then that’s up to them. If they want to think of the word “protestant” as meaning anything at all, that’s up to them. I’m not at all certain what Lutherans think about the word, though I have heard Lutherans say essentially the same thing as the following from Wikipedia Dictionary, but possibly the ones I have heard say it are mistaken. I’ll leave it to the various Lutherans to think of it any way they want to think of it.

"The term Protestant is derived (via French or German Protestant[1]) from the Latin protestari [2][3] meaning publicly declare/protest which refers to the letter of protestation by Lutheran princes against the decision of the Diet of Speyer in 1529, which reaffirmed the edict of the Diet of Worms in 1521, banning Martin Luther’s 95 theses of protest against some beliefs and practices of the early sixteenth century Catholic Church.

The term Protestant was not initially applied to the reformers, but later was used to describe all groups protesting Roman Catholic orthodoxy."

 

[Publisher]

Possibly you could provide a German source to demonstrate what the Germans meant by whatever German word they used. I am simply observing that, whatever the Germans thought, the English word “protest” has the same meaning now as it did in Shakespeare’s time.

But going back to my response to whoever it was who asked if I care what protestants call themselves, let me say this. If some protestants want to think of themselves as “witnesses”, then that’s up to them. If they want to think of the word “protestant” as meaning anything at all, that’s up to them. I’m not at all certain what Lutherans think about the word, though I have heard Lutherans say essentially the same thing as the following from Wikipedia Dictionary, but possibly the ones I have heard say it are mistaken. I’ll leave it to the various Lutherans to think of it any way they want to think of it.

"The term Protestant is derived (via French or German Protestant[1]) from the Latin protestari [2][3] meaning publicly declare/protest which refers to the letter of protestation by Lutheran princes against the decision of the Diet of Speyer in 1529, which reaffirmed the edict of the Diet of Worms in 1521, banning Martin Luther’s 95 theses of protest against some beliefs and practices of the early sixteenth century Catholic Church.

The term Protestant was not initially applied to the reformers, but later was used to describe all groups protesting Roman Catholic orthodoxy."

I have no problem with being called a “Protestant”…or “Friend” or “Quaker” or “Christian”…what someone else calls me and ascribes a definition to it makes no real difference to me…only to them…I am known to One by a Name He provides…that’s good enough for me.

If you wish to define “Protestant” and “protesting Roman Catholci orthodoxy”…I cool with it…your definition about "Protestants’ simply do not impact our lives in Christ…but it may impact yours in a very profound way on how you view your brothers and sisters in Christ…even though according to your tradition they are “imperfectly joined” to your faith tradition.

Peace to you friend.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have no problem with being called a “Protestant”…or “Friend” or “Quaker” or “Christian”…what someone else calls me and ascribes a definition to it makes no real difference to me…only to them…I am known to One by a Name He provides…that’s good enough for me.

If you wish to define “Protestant” and “protesting Roman Catholci orthodoxy”…I cool with it…your definition about "Protestants’ simply do not impact our lives in Christ…but it may impact yours in a very profound way on how you view your brothers and sisters in Christ…even though according to your tradition they are “imperfectly joined” to your faith tradition.

Peace to you friend.

Oh no. Protestantism does not impact my life. When I was a child it did, back in the days when the KKK was still active around here. But not now.

How I see Protestants is not greatly different from the way I see Catholics. Some are good people, some aren’t. I will say that I am favorably impressed by the faith of some Fundamentalists. Not infrequently, I discuss religion with some of them. With the more mainline ones, less so. I am generally impressed with the way the Amish are very determined to live according to the precepts of their religion, and I really do believe they take care of their own, as their religion obliges them to do. I have never known a Quaker, but have no reason to think of them in any way different from other folks.

I will confess that I view at least some fundamentalist groups more favorably than I do some mainline ones, notwithstanding that the former vary a great deal more than do the latter. And, too, the old KKK wasn’t really composed of country Fundamentalists “back in the day”, at least not here. It was pretty much composed of mainline people, who didn’t think much better of country Fundamentalists than they did of Catholics.

I am not a very “ecumenical” sort of person, but I do serve a useful function to at least some Protestants at times. This is a largely rural, though fairly heavily populated one. When I am doing ranch work, I sometimes bring beer along to drink after a hot, heavy day. Local country Fundamentalists (mostly Baptists) tend to come along around that time. It’s something like the miracle of the loaves and fishes. Somehow, more beer always appears than what I brought. The country folk have often expressed that they like to drink with me because, being Catholic, I’m “safe”. I don’t care if they drink and won’t tell on them. The stricter ones don’t come to my place because they know I might drink, and so those who do come are safe from them as well.

I like doing it. Sometimes we discuss religion. It can be particularly poignant around dusk in the deep country. There really isn’t much disagreement between country Southern Fundamentalism and Catholicism. That “once saved, always saved” thing can be a big difference, but even among Baptists, not all believe in that. Some do, some don’t. Catholicism is, of course, much more detailed and, of course, there’s the matter of the nature of the Eucharist and, at a more profound level, of the Incarnation itself. But I don’t require them to be theologians any more than I require it of myself. I might have a lot more respect for those peoples’ faith than you might think.

But I don’t have much use for the pushy versions of protestant evangelism or for historical revisionism, either one.

Being Catholic, I do believe in the “communion of saints”, and that it is not composed solely of Catholics. Sometimes when I am out in the country with my grandchildren, picking blackberries or whatever, we will pause to say prayers, even the rosary, for the Indians who once lived around here, and ask the prayers and blessings of the saints who were indisputably among them, pagans though they were. I did the same with my own children, and sometimes still do.

Maybe the above tells you something of how I see things.

 

[Protestant101]

Possibly you could provide a German source to demonstrate what the Germans meant by whatever German word they used. I am simply observing that, whatever the Germans thought, the English word “protest” has the same meaning now as it did in Shakespeare’s time.

But going back to my response to whoever it was who asked if I care what protestants call themselves, let me say this. If some protestants want to think of themselves as “witnesses”, then that’s up to them. If they want to think of the word “protestant” as meaning anything at all, that’s up to them. I’m not at all certain what Lutherans think about the word, though I have heard Lutherans say essentially the same thing as the following from Wikipedia Dictionary, but possibly the ones I have heard say it are mistaken. I’ll leave it to the various Lutherans to think of it any way they want to think of it.

"The term Protestant is derived (via French or German Protestant[1]) from the Latin protestari [2][3] meaning publicly declare/protest which refers to the letter of protestation by Lutheran princes against the decision of the Diet of Speyer in 1529, which reaffirmed the edict of the Diet of Worms in 1521, banning Martin Luther’s 95 theses of protest against some beliefs and practices of the early sixteenth century Catholic Church.

The term Protestant was not initially applied to the reformers, but later was used to describe all groups protesting Roman Catholic orthodoxy."

I enjoy your posts “ridgerunner.” And I will ask my lovely German wife about the word “protest” and get back to you asap on that. It would be an interesting tidbit to know.

 

[Zooey]

The only trouble with your proposals here is that JESUS WAS A PROTESTANT; JESUS IS A PROTESTANT; AND JESUS WILL ALWAYS BE A PROTESTANT.

The last I knew, Jesus Christ was and is the One & Only Begotten Son of the Father.
Jesus Christ was, and is, and will be God the Son.
Jesus Christ is the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world.
Jesus Christ is Our Lord and only Saviour.

:sad_yes:Sorry about your Jesus…He doesn’t appear to be the same. Not at all, yean, not at all.

 

[Catholic1954]

But why do I keep reading otherwise - and from noted Catholic theologians/leaders? Did you read the quote I gave in the OP?

Now, IF the Roman Catholic Church “never changes” then why this change? Why do you say there is no such thing?

Let me more direct (if less polite, sorry). WE do not refer to ourselves as “Roman” Catholics, or “Byzantine” Catholics or “Maronite” Catholics or anything else, but CATHOLIC. The reference “Roman Catholic” is used by others, not of our faith, and usually as a negative term. The quote you provided to “prove” that we are “Roman Catholics” is from a protestant minister, Anglican I believe, and is not from a Catholic source. The Church has never called herself “Roman Catholic” and never will, that is a label applied to us by others, and is not true, by the way. If you really, really, really want to know why you keep reading about the “Roman Catholic Church”, then you will have to contact the author and hear it from them why they use that term, because the Catholics do not.

 

[Protestant101]

Let me more direct (if less polite, sorry). WE do not refer to ourselves as “Roman” Catholics, or “Byzantine” Catholics or “Maronite” Catholics or anything else, but CATHOLIC. The reference “Roman Catholic” is used by others, not of our faith, and usually as a negative term.

But I see it on YOUR churches all over the place here.