P
peary
Guest
PC Master probably had to do a double-take on those names ROFL
Why Catholic Church is better than the term Roman Catholic Church.
- Status
T
Teflon93
Guest
If you truly have no derogatory intent, why not simply call us by the more accurate and polite term—Catholic?
Kids go to Catholic schools, you know, not Roman Catholic schools. The Red Hot Chili Peppers are less rude than you—there song is entitled “Catholic Schoolgirls Rule”, not “Roman Catholic Schoolgirls Rule.”
But perhaps anti-Catholic would be the more accurate label for your own biases and beliefs?
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
His insistence that we be called Roman Catholic only proves his Anti-Catholic bias.
P
PC_Master
Guest
I’m no more protestant than you are. Additionally, you really should read my posts and understand that I’m not a sola scriptura fan. I’ve only explained that about a dozen times.
You’ll note that in the interest of being polite, I have indeed left “Catholic” in the name. I could have just as well called you the “Roman Church”, or things such as “papists”, etc.
In any case, the term Catholic, as best I can tell, is not a completely accurate descriptor of the church headquartered in Rome. It’s also confusing. When I say Catholic, am I referring to the church headed by the pope, the “Old Catholics”, the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church or the Assyrian Church of the East (not to mention any one of the other churches with “Catholic” in the name)? On the other hand, I’ve never had anyone, save those of you who are determined to be offended, be confused at my meaning in saying Roman Catholic.
Nah, because I believe I am part of the true catholic church as established by Christ. Anti-Catholic wouldn’t be very fitting.
S
SyCarl
Guest
I would assume then that you would call the following churches anti-Catholic?
saintgabrielchurch.com/
stbrigidottawa.com/
sfarcc.org/
stjlangley.rcav.org/
It is difficult to criticize Protestants when Catholics themselves call themselves Roman Catholic.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
You caught me there.
but those website still call themselves Catholic.
B
BrianH
Guest
The point stands that a lot of churches call themselves Roman Catholic. Shouldn’t the Catholic Church be concerned with them?
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
You have and I’m not convince that you aren’t Protestant. You aren’t Catholic and you aren’t Eastern Orthodox. You are Protestant.
Like I said, Catholic Church is proper unless the Catechism rename its title as "Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. Then I would.
You are but not in union with the Apostolic See. There is only One True, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
There are Catholics who call themselves Roman Catholic. I don’t think the Eastern Rite or the Oriental Rite would consider themselves Roman, wouldn’t you?
T
Teflon93
Guest
I’ll save him the trouble. They all begin with assertions unsupported by evidence, end the same way, and have an identical bit in the middle.
Well, how charitable of you! Surely Christ smiles on such brotherhood in his name!
It confuses only you. Were I determined to be offended by you, I reckon I could accomplish it. As such, you haven’t managed to rise to minor annoyance yet. But soldier on.
You believe, but Christ says you’re wrong, and we believe Christ.
And since he will judge us and not you, that’s a most prudent course of action.
That is why our Church has been around two millennia, you know.
T
Teflon93
Guest
Sure. But they’re probably a bit busy with all the charity work, missionary work, and theological work that has to be done to worry about the fact that non-Catholics can’t tell one rite from another.
Besides, when the Church does get around to fixing that, anti-Catholics will be hard-pressed to discover some degree of perjorative which makes them sound less bigoted than “Mariolaters” or “Whore of Babylon” or “Statue-worshipper” do when in proper company.
P
PC_Master
Guest
I’m glad Jesus speaks to you personally to tell you all about me.
T
Teflon93
Guest
I wish I could claim personal revelation of that sort, even given the subject matter, but Christ makes it clear in Scripture. It’s that oft-ignored passage where he says he will found his Church not upon Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli, but upon Simon, whom he renames Peter (“Rock”) on the spot.I’m glad Jesus speaks to you personally to tell you all about me.
Even Protestant Bibles have this passage. You can look it up. It’ll be in red in those versions which color Christ’s words.
And isn’t that an interesting thing about Protestants of a certain stripe?
We say “Christ tells us…” and they presume it’s all about THEM.
T
twf
Guest
The Catholic Church herself has used the term “Roman Catholic Church”, but only on rare occasion for ecumenical purposes. I never use the term myself, but it doesn’t offend me if Protestants insist on using the term.
PC Master: Yes, sacraments in their current form developed much later. Catholics believe that the Church has been granted the power of binding and loosing…disciplinary matters such as the exact form of the sacraments can change according to time and place. All the sacraments, however, are present in their fundamental form in both the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers. See scripturecatholic.com/ (just look around). For example, what is the fundamental component of the sacrament of penance? The power to absolve sin, which was given to the apostles in John 20:21. (The modern form of private confession, absolution, and then penance need not be present in the apostolic church as these elements have been put in place by the binding and loosing power of the Church as a practical means of exercising the apostolic authority of “absolving sin”…a priest’s general absolution of a congregation, while generally illict according to modern norms, remains sacramentally valid). References to the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist are abundant, especially in Revelation where we see that the Lamb (Christ) is still standing before the Father eternally presenting his sacrifice on the heavenly altar. This is not the topic of the thread, so I won’t go into detail here…my point is that it is misleading to suggest that Catholics require the sacraments to appear in their modern forms in the NT.
PC Master: Yes, sacraments in their current form developed much later. Catholics believe that the Church has been granted the power of binding and loosing…disciplinary matters such as the exact form of the sacraments can change according to time and place. All the sacraments, however, are present in their fundamental form in both the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers. See scripturecatholic.com/ (just look around). For example, what is the fundamental component of the sacrament of penance? The power to absolve sin, which was given to the apostles in John 20:21. (The modern form of private confession, absolution, and then penance need not be present in the apostolic church as these elements have been put in place by the binding and loosing power of the Church as a practical means of exercising the apostolic authority of “absolving sin”…a priest’s general absolution of a congregation, while generally illict according to modern norms, remains sacramentally valid). References to the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist are abundant, especially in Revelation where we see that the Lamb (Christ) is still standing before the Father eternally presenting his sacrifice on the heavenly altar. This is not the topic of the thread, so I won’t go into detail here…my point is that it is misleading to suggest that Catholics require the sacraments to appear in their modern forms in the NT.
E
EJTMJR
Guest
TO PC MASTER, With all due respect, if your name is James Smith and prefer to be called James, not Jimmy. Do I get to choose or do you? Because maybe** I **dont like the name James?
I hope you see my point. Take care and GOD BLESS
I hope you see my point. Take care and GOD BLESS
C
Citizenfitz
Guest
P
PC_Master
Guest
I do see your point. However, consider the following real-life circumstance:
My name is Jonathan. My mother owns a small cafe in our town, and one of the regular customers there is also named Jonathan. So, he decided, for the sake of preventing confusion, to call me “J1” and himself “J2”. Could I say “No – call me Jonathan!”? Sure. But then we’d have confusion, because we both say we’re Jonathan, and thus nobody knows to which of us they’re speaking. (Trust me, it gets confusing.)
The difference between that and the issue of “Catholic Church” is that both this other guy and I actually are legitimately Jonathan, whereas there is only one true universal church (whether it’s the one in Rome, or some other is another conversation altogether).
I had a similar situation at a church I was a member of a few years ago – because of it I was nick-named “JP” by a few of the members (my initials). It’s not that I am not actually Jonathan, but rather that calling me Jonathan was confusing because of another person who is also Jonathan.
Is there any point to your statement in relation to the conversation of this thread?
Oh, and I’d say that there are some things that all Protestants agree on – for instance, that the RCC is not the one true church that it claims to be. But that’s neither here nor there in terms of this conversation.
C
Citizenfitz
Guest
Is there any point to your statement in relation to the conversation of this thread?
Oh, and I’d say that there are some things that all Protestants agree on – for instance, that the RCC is not the one true church that it claims to be. But that’s neither here nor there in terms of this conversation.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you brought the subject up.
And if the Catholic church isn’t the one, true Church, which is? The Methodists?
Prots can’t agree on anything - except that there seems to be a god of some sort…
Oh, and I’d say that there are some things that all Protestants agree on – for instance, that the RCC is not the one true church that it claims to be. But that’s neither here nor there in terms of this conversation.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you brought the subject up.
And if the Catholic church isn’t the one, true Church, which is? The Methodists?
Prots can’t agree on anything - except that there seems to be a god of some sort…
P
PC_Master
Guest
Actually, it wasn’t me – it was others who think I’m intentionally trying to slam Roman Catholicism by using the defining term “Roman” (which is accurate and which I use in a non-derogatory way).
That’s outside the scope of this thread. Oh, and the more proper way to phrase that is – the Catholic Church is the one true church, but which organization represents that church? Is it the Roman church, or Eastern Orthodoxy, or Oriental Orthodoxy, or perhaps the Assyrian Church of the East? Or, is there an invisible Catholic Church comprised of all believers in Christ? But again, what exactly the CC is is outside the scope of this thread. The question is whether or not using the term “Roman Catholic Church” is okay, or justifiable, and if so, why/how (or why or how it isn’t, if you prefer to attack the proposition).
Interestingly, you lumping all Protestant groups together is biased in the same way as if an atheist lumped Roman Catholicism together with various Protestant groups, Anglicans, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, and then said that “Christians can’t agree on anything”. (As if agreeing with one another actually matters. All that matters is agreeing with God.)
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
I think there are several issues here. The issue of it being Roman being used as pejorative, Roman being used as descriptive (Latin Rite or to reinforce where the Holy See resides), and being used to assert a claim to universality.
I think that most (Catholic or non-Catholic) don’t agree that its pejorative use is befitting Christian charity.
For many Catholics and non-Catholics like PCMaster, we used it as descriptive. For Catholics it was to distinguish the Rite. For non-Catholics it was to distinguish that they see a universality that is broader than Catholic understanding. There is no overt harm done in this use in most cases.
For some Catholics, unfortunately it is used as a hammer to denigrate our separated breathren. This too is not befitting of a Christian.
But for most it just who we see ourselves as- The Church ordained by Christ Himself with huge burdens and responsibilities for not only Catholics but all Christians and even non-Christians. We take this very seriously and with a great deal of humility.
For me I see the issue raised in this thread this way, let charity prevail.
Most Catholics now prefer just Catholic as we have a better grasp of our diversity of Rites. With the growing diversity in our cities of different Rites because of immigration that is no longer just European or Latino, we don’t want to appear to foster division where in fact it doesn’t exist. Until I got out of college, I never knew that a family, who attended my home parish that said proudly often they were Marronite, were really Catholic. I just thought they came to my parish because they liked us and I just looked down when I saw them going to Communion as I thought it inappropriate.
I totally understand where PCMaster is coming. However, I urge him to reconsider from charity.
I used to use the term “protestant” to describe all non-Catholic Christians. I have come to know that it is offensive to some as they don’t see them as protesting anything. I only saw it in the context of my Catholic vernacular that any denomination outside the Church contains an element of protest or opposition to the Catholic Church. Out of respect for my Christian breathren, I now only use Protestant if the context is clear that I’m only talking about those denominations who consider themselves Protestant and try to err on the side of just using non-Catholic Christian.
I think the moniker that Manny wants to pin on PCMaster is emblematic of this issue. You don’t consider yourself Protestant but he does. He insists on putting a label on you that you don’t think is accurate. He insists on doing so as he wants to describe you from a Catholic perspective. I understand your frustration PCMaster. But the shoe goes the other way, too. We should do our best to meet your wishes and we ask the same of you.
I am also quite comfortable using the proper name of denominations who call themselves “Apostolic”, “Bible”, “Church of Christ”, etc. despite the fact that I don’t agree w/ their theological assertions or potential implication that those who don’t belong are “non-Apostolic”, “non-Bible” or “non-Church of Christ.” I’m confortable because this is how they want to call themselves. I don’t read into it an assertion that those outside are “nons”.
Even if the members of those denominations really believe that we are “nons”, I will not insult them by calling them anything but what they want to be called. To do otherwise would be uncharitable.
PCMaster and others who think like PCMaster, I ask you with charity to not infer the worst by the words of some Catholics who drop “Roman” as a denigration of your denomination or your fear it is an implied assent to the claim of the Catholic Church of its unique place as specifically ordained by Christ. I just ask you to accept that we desire to be called this out of respect and charity. And in this charity, you are assuming the best of motives which is always a good thing.
I think that most (Catholic or non-Catholic) don’t agree that its pejorative use is befitting Christian charity.
For many Catholics and non-Catholics like PCMaster, we used it as descriptive. For Catholics it was to distinguish the Rite. For non-Catholics it was to distinguish that they see a universality that is broader than Catholic understanding. There is no overt harm done in this use in most cases.
For some Catholics, unfortunately it is used as a hammer to denigrate our separated breathren. This too is not befitting of a Christian.
But for most it just who we see ourselves as- The Church ordained by Christ Himself with huge burdens and responsibilities for not only Catholics but all Christians and even non-Christians. We take this very seriously and with a great deal of humility.
For me I see the issue raised in this thread this way, let charity prevail.
Most Catholics now prefer just Catholic as we have a better grasp of our diversity of Rites. With the growing diversity in our cities of different Rites because of immigration that is no longer just European or Latino, we don’t want to appear to foster division where in fact it doesn’t exist. Until I got out of college, I never knew that a family, who attended my home parish that said proudly often they were Marronite, were really Catholic. I just thought they came to my parish because they liked us and I just looked down when I saw them going to Communion as I thought it inappropriate.
I totally understand where PCMaster is coming. However, I urge him to reconsider from charity.
I used to use the term “protestant” to describe all non-Catholic Christians. I have come to know that it is offensive to some as they don’t see them as protesting anything. I only saw it in the context of my Catholic vernacular that any denomination outside the Church contains an element of protest or opposition to the Catholic Church. Out of respect for my Christian breathren, I now only use Protestant if the context is clear that I’m only talking about those denominations who consider themselves Protestant and try to err on the side of just using non-Catholic Christian.
I think the moniker that Manny wants to pin on PCMaster is emblematic of this issue. You don’t consider yourself Protestant but he does. He insists on putting a label on you that you don’t think is accurate. He insists on doing so as he wants to describe you from a Catholic perspective. I understand your frustration PCMaster. But the shoe goes the other way, too. We should do our best to meet your wishes and we ask the same of you.
I am also quite comfortable using the proper name of denominations who call themselves “Apostolic”, “Bible”, “Church of Christ”, etc. despite the fact that I don’t agree w/ their theological assertions or potential implication that those who don’t belong are “non-Apostolic”, “non-Bible” or “non-Church of Christ.” I’m confortable because this is how they want to call themselves. I don’t read into it an assertion that those outside are “nons”.
Even if the members of those denominations really believe that we are “nons”, I will not insult them by calling them anything but what they want to be called. To do otherwise would be uncharitable.
PCMaster and others who think like PCMaster, I ask you with charity to not infer the worst by the words of some Catholics who drop “Roman” as a denigration of your denomination or your fear it is an implied assent to the claim of the Catholic Church of its unique place as specifically ordained by Christ. I just ask you to accept that we desire to be called this out of respect and charity. And in this charity, you are assuming the best of motives which is always a good thing.
- Status