Why Catholic Church is better than the term Roman Catholic Church.

[Teflon93]

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.

This is a good suggestion. Let’s see how PCM and others respond to it.

 

[Citizenfitz]

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).

Then, don’t smart off to someone for responding to an objection you yourself raised.

That’s outside the scope of this thread…

How is it “outside the scope of this thread”? Is the One, True, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church then to be found among the Episcopalians? The Anglicans? The Methodists? The United Methodists? The Presbyterians? The Lutherans? The Missouri Synod Lutherans? The Jehovah’s Witnesses? The Free Will Baptists? The Southern Baptists? Perhaps it’s the Unitarians…?

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.)

No, it isn’t biased in the same way at all. The atheist says “They’re all false.” I say, “Someone must be wrong.” It’s a very different way of thinking.

Anyway, with regards to the Protestants: “Whatever one Protestant church teaches, there’s another one down the road that denies it all…” Someone is wrong. Who?

 

[PC_Master]

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.

Obviously, and it should also be obvious that such is not in my intended use of the term.

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.

Actually, it’s the very thought of there being a Catholic Church aside from (either encompassing, partially or fully, or somehow being different form) the RCC which offends some (I believe Manny, who started this thread, and Teflon, are among those who are offended for precisely this reason).

Thus, in their eyes, by calling the RCC Roman instead of just Catholic, I’m effectively saying that I don’t believe that the RCC is the one true universal church. This, I can understand being offensive, but frankly, there’s more at stake than being charitable here. It’s the same reason I won’t go around telling homosexuals that it’s okay to be that way. The truth has to come before charity. That’s not to say that it must exclude it, which is why I call the RCC Roman Catholic and not simply Roman.

For some Catholics, unfortunately it is used as a hammer to denigrate our separated breathren. This too is not befitting of a Christian.

I’d say “Protestant” is used in much the same way.

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.

And I do appreciate that point of view. Unfortunately I do not share it. If I saw myself to be God’s only true messenger, and proclaimed myself as such, does that mean that you should call me the same? Would you honestly not call me a heretic?

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.

I understand this – I’ll offer again. What descriptive term can I use in place of “Roman Catholic” to describe your religious organization which you will find non-offensive? Bear in mind that it must be something relatively unambiguous, not to be confused with any of numerous other religious groups who call themselves Catholic, Orthodox or Apostolic.

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 find the term offensive only when a derogatory meaning is intended. If it’s simply a label – a way in which to identify a group – I have no problem with it. I feel the same kind of attitude should be embraced by Roman Catholics, and am truly dismayed at the seeming double-standard going on in the opinions of many.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

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.

Are you saying that you can honestly and sincerely call me a member of the one true church Christ established? That is how I see myself. Can you truly abandon your own convictions and strong beliefs for the sake of being charitable to my own desires over terminology? I can’t do that, and I don’t expect that you can either. I don’t expect you to – all I’m saying is that if it’s to be expected of me, it had better be expected of everyone else here. If you guys will stop calling me a Protestant (or “Prot”, “Fundie”, “Rebel”, “Heretic”, etc), I’m willing to try to reach a middle ground. But I sincerely doubt this can be accomplished.

I don’t read into it an assertion that those outside are “nons”.

In the case of the RCC, no reading in is required – it’s very explicit, and this is why I cannot acknowledge that church as being the one true church it claims to be.

I ask you with charity to not…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 wish I could oblige, but I cannot concede a point I believe to be false.

No, it isn’t biased in the same way at all. The atheist says “They’re all false.” I say, “Someone must be wrong.” It’s a very different way of thinking.

I say “someone must be wrong” too, even among fellow Protestants. The only difference is that you’re using an “us vs them” mentality, where Rome is off by itself as the true shining beacon, and everyone else is a heretic. Heresies should, by your mentality, be lumped together, and the disagreement between them only goes further to disprove their claims. But you know, the Orthodox, Baptists, and many other denominations could play the same game, each painting the picture to make themselves seem to be that one shining beacon of light surrounded by a multitude of heresies (including the RCC).

The reality is that wherever there’s disagreement, someone must be wrong (lest truth be relative). That doesn’t mean that the RCC is right, just because it chooses to paint the lines in a certain arrangement.

Anyway, with regards to the Protestants: “Whatever one Protestant church teaches, there’s another one down the road that denies it all…” Someone is wrong. Who?

Change “Protestants” to “Christians” (including the RCC), and you have the exact perspective of Atheism that I mentioned before.

 

[Citizenfitz]

I say “someone must be wrong” too, even among fellow Protestants. The only difference is that you’re using an “us vs them” mentality, where Rome is off by itself as the true shining beacon, and everyone else is a heretic. Heresies should, by your mentality, be lumped together, and the disagreement between them only goes further to disprove their claims. But you know, the Orthodox, Baptists, and many other denominations could play the same game, each painting the picture to make themselves seem to be that one shining beacon of light surrounded by a multitude of heresies (including the RCC).

The reality is that wherever there’s disagreement, someone must be wrong (lest truth be relative). That doesn’t mean that the RCC is right, just because it chooses to paint the lines in a certain arrangement.

No, the Catholic Church is right because it was founded by Jesus. The others are mere pretenders. And none of these can claim to be “The One, True Church.”

But let’s ask a simple question: the Southern Baptists believe in eternal assurance, “Once saved, always saved.”

The Free Will Baptists say, “No, no no…!” Soooooo, who’s right?

Change “Protestants” to “Christians” (including the RCC), and you have the exact perspective of Atheism that I mentioned before.

Not even remotely.

 

[ricko]

I copied some remarks and posted them below, for the full article
newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm.

The correct name of the Church is “Catholic”. The Church has been known by this name for almost 2,000 years. If you were to call it and its members by its proper name you acknowledge nothing except your Christian manners.

It is noteworthy that the representative Anglican divine, Bishop Andrewes, in his “Tortura Torti” (1609) ridicules the phrase Ecclesia Catholica Romana as a contradiction in terms. “What,” he asks, “is the object of adding ‘Roman’? The only purpose that such an adjunct can serve is to distinguish your Catholic Church from another Catholic Church which is not Roman” (p. 368). It is this very common line of argument which imposes upon Catholics the necessity of making no compromise in the matter of their own name. The loyal adherents of the Holy See did not begin in the sixteenth century to call themselves “Catholics” for controversial purposes. It is the traditional name handed down to us continuously from the time of St. Augustine. We use this name ourselves and ask those outside the Church to use it, without reference to its signification simply because it is our customary name, just as we talk of the Russian Church as “the Orthodox Church”, not because we recognize its orthodoxy but because its members so style themselves, or again just as we speak of “the Reformation” because it is the term established by custom, though we are far from owning that it was a reformation in either faith or morals. The dog-in-the manger policy of so many Anglicans who cannot take the name of Catholics for themselves, because popular usage has never sanctioned it as such, but who on the other hand will not concede it to the members of the Church of Rome, was conspicuously brought out in the course of a correspondence on this subject in the London “Saturday Review” (Dec., 1908 to March, 1909) arising out of a review of some of the earlier volumes of THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA.

 

[Contarini]

I used to use the term “protestant” to describe all non-Catholic Christians.

Even the Orthodox? No wonder they were offended!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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?

Do you belong to either of these Rites? If you don’t, what on earth are you complaining about?

Look, I use Catholic whenever I can, but in certain circumstances it leads to unclarity. When we are having a debate about the definition of the Catholic Church, the use of the term for one of the claimants is hopelessly confusing. We have to have another term. I don’t care what it is. You can call yourselves the Exalted Church That Gets Everything Right if you want to. But I can’t just call you “Catholic” in certain controversial circumstances without implying that I agree that you are simply and purely the One, True, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

It’s a catch-22. You guys demand that we call you “Catholic” pure and simple as a matter of politeness, and then try to build ecclesiological arguments on it by saying things like “if I asked where the Catholic Church is, where do you think people would take me?” Don’t you see how unfair this is? If you know that we are doing it purely as a matter of politeness, obviously you can’t build theological arguments on it. And that’s why in certain circumstances we have to use more precise terms (whether “Roman Catholic” or “Christian in communion with Rome” or whatever), to make it clear that just because we’re being polite doesn’t mean that we’ve given up the basic point at issue.

Edwin

 

[Mannyfit75]

Do you belong to either of these Rites? If you don’t, what on earth are you complaining about?

Edwin,

Because it negates our Eastern brothers. Second, If you not bothered to look at the Eastern Catholicism, I have show interest in Eastern Catholicism and desire to switch rites overtime.

It matters to me because it negate Eastern Catholics is by simply calling the Catholic Church “Roman Catholic Church” is to put discredit upon their rite.

Second, those in the Roman Rite are properly called Latin Rites.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,

Because it negates our Eastern brothers. Second, If you not bothered to look at the Eastern Catholicism, I have show interest in Eastern Catholicism and desire to switch rites overtime.

It matters to me because it negate Eastern Catholics is by simply calling the Catholic Church “Roman Catholic Church” is to put discredit upon their rite.

And that’s why I have never done so without serious qualification.

I respect your interest in Eastern Catholicism, and I apologize for overlooking it. I guess it seems to me that many Catholics use Eastern Catholicism for apologetic purposes in a way that doesn’t correspond to the actual role of Eastern Christianity in the life of the Catholic Church. Though that’s probably unfair as applied to the contemporary Catholic Church–the CCC quotes from Eastern sources all the time and there does seem to have been a quite solid “turn to the East” in Catholicism, which in my opinion is all for the good of Christendom as a whole.

Second, those in the Roman Rite are properly called Latin Rites.

In my experience, Byzantine Catholics refer quite regularly to Latin-Rite Catholics as “Roman Catholics.”

Rites and churches are distinct although related. The Roman Rite and the Roman Catholic Church are almost identical (there are other historic Latin Rites such as the Ambrosian and Mozarabic, and all these together are coterminous with the RCC). But the Byzantine Rite is shared by a number of distinct “sui juris” churches.

Edwin

Edwin

 

[Mannyfit75]

In my experience, Byzantine Catholics refer quite regularly to Latin-Rite Catholics as “Roman Catholics.”

Rites and churches are distinct although related. The Roman Rite and the Roman Catholic Church are almost identical (there are other historic Latin Rites such as the Ambrosian and Mozarabic, and all these together are coterminous with the RCC). But the Byzantine Rite is shared by a number of distinct “sui juris” churches.

Edwin

Edwin

That is only to distinct between Eastern Catholicism and us Roman Rite.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From PCMaster: Are you saying that you can honestly and sincerely call me a member of the one true church Christ established? That is how I see myself.

If you are Baptized, the Catholic Church accepts you as a Christian brother not in full communion. We also say the same thing about Catholics removed by mortal sin, invalid marriages, etc. I suggest that you read the Catechism for a fuller explanation of this Catholic teaching.

From PCMaster: Can you truly abandon your own convictions and strong beliefs for the sake of being charitable to my own desires over terminology? I can’t do that, and I don’t expect that you can either. I don’t expect you to – all I’m saying is that if it’s to be expected of me, it had better be expected of everyone else here. If you guys will stop calling me a Protestant (or “Prot”, “Fundie”, “Rebel”, “Heretic”, etc), I’m willing to try to reach a middle ground. But I sincerely doubt this can be accomplished.

I do it all the time. If a person is a member of “Apostles of God”, I refer to their denomination as such. I don’t think they are “apostles” by my definition of Apostolic. I do so out of respect and charity. PCMaster, this is all that I am asking of you. I’m not asking you to assent to the claims of my Church.

From PCMaster:In the case of the RCC, no reading in is required – it’s very explicit, and this is why I cannot acknowledge that church as being the one true church it claims to be.

The claims of the Apostles of God denomination are also quite explicit. My referring to them by their chosen name is not an assent to their claims.

From PCMaster: I wish I could oblige, but I cannot concede a point I believe to be false.

Again, I am not threatened by referring to the Apostles of God. Why are you so threatened by referring to me as Catholic?

From PCMaster: I say “someone must be wrong” too, even among fellow Protestants. The only difference is that you’re using an “us vs them” mentality, where Rome is off by itself as the true shining beacon, and everyone else is a heretic. Heresies should, by your mentality, be lumped together, and the disagreement between them only goes further to disprove their claims. But you know, the Orthodox, Baptists, and many other denominations could play the same game, each painting the picture to make themselves seem to be that one shining beacon of light surrounded by a multitude of heresies (including the RCC).

The reality is that wherever there’s disagreement, someone must be wrong (lest truth be relative). That doesn’t mean that the RCC is right, just because it chooses to paint the lines in a certain arrangement.

I think I’m missing your point here in the context of Catholics desiring that their Christian breathren refer to them by their chosen name. A name that we can trace nearly back to inception.

From PCMaster: Change “Protestants” to “Christians” (including the RCC), and you have the exact perspective of Atheism that I mentioned before.

I must be missing this point too. There are times and places where it is proper to lump all followers of Christ into the generic group “Christian.” However, when speaking of subgroups of Christianity, it is proper to refer to us by our chosen name.

Originally Posted by Orionthehunter: I used to use the term “protestant” to describe all non-Catholic Christians.

From Contarini: Even the Orthodox? No wonder they were offended!

Ooops Edwin, I never have called the Orthodox as Protestant. Oversight on my part. I should have said that I saw all non-Catholic/Orthodox denominations as fruit from the Reformation and thus called them “Protestant”. I now know better. Good catch Eddy. Mind if I call you Eddy?

 

[PC_Master]

Look, I use Catholic whenever I can, but in certain circumstances it leads to unclarity. When we are having a debate about the definition of the Catholic Church, the use of the term for one of the claimants is hopelessly confusing. We have to have another term. I don’t care what it is. You can call yourselves the Exalted Church That Gets Everything Right if you want to. But I can’t just call you “Catholic” in certain controversial circumstances without implying that I agree that you are simply and purely the One, True, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

This is precisely what I’ve been saying. The only thing is that I wouldn’t call you the “Exalted Church That Gets Everything Right” for reasons of charity (which is the same reason I don’t use terms like papist, paganized Christianity, etc). But, in lieu of anyone providing me another choice of label, I’m stuck with the only legitimate thing I can come up with – Roman Catholic Church.

It’s a catch-22. You guys demand that we call you “Catholic” pure and simple as a matter of politeness, and then try to build ecclesiological arguments on it by saying things like “if I asked where the Catholic Church is, where do you think people would take me?” Don’t you see how unfair this is? If you know that we are doing it purely as a matter of politeness, obviously you can’t build theological arguments on it. And that’s why in certain circumstances we have to use more precise terms (whether “Roman Catholic” or “Christian in communion with Rome” or whatever), to make it clear that just because we’re being polite doesn’t mean that we’ve given up the basic point at issue.

An interesting thought occurred to me: If we should call one another by each one’s chosen title for purposes of charity, should we not also make sure that what we’re calling ourselves is also charitable? For instance, by calling yourself a member of the “one true church that Jesus founded” and stating that I’m separated from that church – don’t you think that’s very offensive to me? In that way, you’d be implicitly stating that I’m rebelling against God, right?

This is something I would find very offensive…and yet, from your own perspectives, don’t you actually see me this way – as one who is rebelling against God?

So, how far does charity truly extend? Are you willing to not say that your church is the one true church, for the sake of charity? Or, does “charity” only extend to the point of giving credence to the claims of the RCC? If the point is to not offend one another, then it’s unfair of you to call me anything but a true follower of Christ, because that’s what I see myself as.

So, to Manny and Teflon particularly, and also to anyone else who may share similar bias – Is that what you think we should be doing? Should we be placing charity above all, even above expressing what we believe as the truth? Are you willing to not even imply that I’m anything other than a child of God, following him exactly as he wants me to? I don’t think I could do that, were I in your shoes, but this is the question I’m being left with – where does the truth end, and charity begin? That’s the trade-off we’re dealing with here.

If I concede that you are the “Catholic Church”, I am compromising on the truth (as far as I know it), for the sake of charity. On the other hand, if you call me a true follower of God, in good standing with him (which is what I would have you do, for the sake of charity) you’re effectively saying that I can be outside the RCC and still be part of God’s true church, fully and completely, thereby contradicting what you believe to be the truth.

Because it negates our Eastern brothers.

Can we get some of them to post in here, please? People keep throwing around claims that “eastern catholics are disrespected by using the term Roman”, but we’ve probably had only one or two of those Eastern-Rite Catholics actually post here at all, and if I recall, one actually said that Roman Catholic Church does not bother them.

Second, those in the Roman Rite are properly called Latin Rites.

Absolutely agreed – thus I see no confusion over the term Latin Rite versus Roman Catholic. Latin refers to the language and a large are from which the adherents originally came. Roman refers specifically to the city of Rome, where the RCC is headquartered, which cannot be said to represent the whole of the Latin Rite.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

If you are Baptized, the Catholic Church accepts you as a Christian brother not in full communion.

I understand this quite well. My point is that I personally disagree with this. I believe I am a full member of God’s church. I’m not separated, heretical, or anything of the kind. Are you willing to call me such, at the expense of what you believe is true? That’s precisely what you’re asking of me – to be charitable at the expense of truth.

I do it all the time. If a person is a member of “Apostles of God”, I refer to their denomination as such. I don’t think they are “apostles” by my definition of Apostolic. I do so out of respect and charity.

And tell me, what other church goes by the title “Apostles of God” in their title? Where’s the confusion between them and another group?

PCMaster, this is all that I am asking of you. I’m not asking you to assent to the claims of my Church.

You’re asking me to concede a title, which is in itself a claim:

The - Singular, one, only
Catholic - Universal, complete, whole
Church - Assembly of called out followers of Christ

Again, I am not threatened by referring to the Apostles of God. Why are you so threatened by referring to me as Catholic?

I’m not “threatened”…as such. More I’m concerned that it won’t be clear when I speak of the one true church that I’m not speaking of Roman Catholicism. If I may ask, what is it about the term Roman Catholic that is so threatening to you, aside from the claims about disrespecting “Eastern Catholics” – I’ve made it clear many times that I intend no disrespect for them, and have yet to see many of them even respond on this topic, much less show offense at my choice.

I think I’m missing your point here in the context of Catholics desiring that their Christian breathren refer to them by their chosen name. A name that we can trace nearly back to inception.

This is part of the reason I don’t use the term! You turn around and use it to claim lineage and divine protection all the way back to the apostles, which is a false claim in my opinion. The claim that you are indeed the same church as was present in the early centuries following Christ is one of the very points I disagree with. That early church was the Catholic Church.

I must be missing this point too. There are times and places where it is proper to lump all followers of Christ into the generic group “Christian.”

So if someone dismisses Christianity as a whole (including the RCC) because not everyone agrees with each other, you’ll be okay with it? Or will you want to point out “those other denominations are wrong, and here’s why!”

 

[Orionthehunter]

I understand this quite well. My point is that I personally disagree with this. I believe I am a full member of God’s church. I’m not separated, heretical, or anything of the kind. Are you willing to call me such, at the expense of what you believe is true? That’s precisely what you’re asking of me – to be charitable at the expense of truth.

And tell me, what other church goes by the title “Apostles of God” in their title? Where’s the confusion between them and another group?

You’re asking me to concede a title, which is in itself a claim:

The - Singular, one, only
Catholic - Universal, complete, whole
Church - Assembly of called out followers of Christ

I’m not “threatened”…as such. More I’m concerned that it won’t be clear when I speak of the one true church that I’m not speaking of Roman Catholicism. If I may ask, what is it about the term Roman Catholic that is so threatening to you, aside from the claims about disrespecting “Eastern Catholics” – I’ve made it clear many times that I intend no disrespect for them, and have yet to see many of them even respond on this topic, much less show offense at my choice.

This is part of the reason I don’t use the term! You turn around and use it to claim lineage and divine protection all the way back to the apostles, which is a false claim in my opinion. The claim that you are indeed the same church as was present in the early centuries following Christ is one of the very points I disagree with. That early church was the Catholic Church.

So if someone dismisses Christianity as a whole (including the RCC) because not everyone agrees with each other, you’ll be okay with it? Or will you want to point out “those other denominations are wrong, and here’s why!”

You are combining too issues. Title/moniker and theological claims. Catholic and catholic are too very distinct things.

Member of “Apostles of God” want to be called that. I don’t believe that they are apostolic. I still call them by their name. Considering the central part of my faiths apostolic claims, using your standard I should be offended, consider it a false claim and concession to an untruth. I don’t. Referring to them by their name is just simple courtesy.

While I’m running down the list, I shouldn’t call Episcopals by that name since I don’t believe they are still validly episcopal?

I am Catholic and I want to be called that. You don’t believe we are what we claim to be. You think that calling me by my name is a intellectual theological concession.

Your refusal as you say is that it is used to claim lineage. History is quite stubborn. I understand now. It makes you face things that threaten your world view.

 

[PC_Master]

Well, that’s a great response – go back to ad hominems when logical discussion moves against you.

I can’t speak for you, and whether or not you are offended. All I can say is that when I discuss with members of other religious groups, I do clarify that I don’t assent to their claims. That’s all I’m really doing here. Personally, I cannot assent to claims saying that the RCC is the one true church. It goes against my conscience.

Were I in your position, I probably would not be as charitable as you, because I think you’re compromising on truth. However, since you’re ready and willing to do that for the sake of charity, I request that you refer to me as a full and complete member of the catholic church (the one church founded by Christ), despite that I reject the idea of Rome holding authority over said church. If you really are willing to be charitable above and beyond your understanding of the truth, as you claim, then you really should do this.

Are you honestly going to tell me that if I agree to use the name Catholic Church, you’re not going to use that very title as leverage to try to prove the validity of your church’s claims? I’ve seen precisely that happen far too many times. The fact is that you guys can and frequently do use the very name you wish to be called as support for your claims of supremacy. Until that changes, I can’t in good conscience refer to you in that way, for doing so would be directly supporting your claims, which I currently believe to be distortions of the truth.

If you’d prefer, I can refer to it as “The Catholic Church of today which is not the same as the Catholic Church of the first and second centuries AD.” Would that be better? I find it rather wordy, but if that’s less offensive to you, so be it. I know that sounds ridiculous, but you’re not leaving me with any other options that I can accept without compromising the truth.

 

[ricko]

You are being ridiculous. You do not acknowledge anything except good Christian manners to call a person or organization or church by it’s official name. No one is asking any more than that. No matter what I think of anyones name, I nor many others would ever call them a name other than the one that THEY use. It is always courteous to do so.

 

[natsclem]

There is ONLY ONE Universal Church. The same Church called “Catholic” in the beginning of the 100’s by St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Letter to the Smyrnaeans. The Church holding to and teaching all that was believed and taught by the Church in the first centuries. Including the belief of Peter being the bishop of Rome and pope and his successors in that office

For me…it should remain Roman Catholic Church to signify/higlight its attachment to the chair of Peter and his successors holding the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the guarantor and bulwark of truth. All schisms were in defiance of the authority of the Bishop of Rome. All reconciliations lead to Rome. Coming home means going Rome. Only if and when there are no more Orthodox, Anglican, Lutherans, etc, that we can say we have the “Catholic Church”.

 

[Mannyfit75]

So, to Manny and Teflon particularly, and also to anyone else who may share similar bias – Is that what you think we should be doing? Should we be placing charity above all, even above expressing what we believe as the truth? Are you willing to not even imply that I’m anything other than a child of God, following him exactly as he wants me to? I don’t think I could do that, were I in your shoes, but this is the question I’m being left with – where does the truth end, and charity begin? That’s the trade-off we’re dealing with here…

Neither I nor Teflon have any bias. The truth is this. It is not wise to negate the Eastern Catholics.

Absolutely agreed – thus I see no confusion over the term Latin Rite versus Roman Catholic. Latin refers to the language and a large are from which the adherents originally came. Roman refers specifically to the city of Rome, where the RCC is headquartered, which cannot be said to represent the whole of the Latin Rite.

Actually, Rome is the city. But the Catholic Church resides in Vatican City, not Rome.

Can we get some of them to post in here, please? People keep throwing around claims that “eastern catholics are disrespected by using the term Roman”, but we’ve probably had only one or two of those Eastern-Rite Catholics actually post here at all, and if I recall, one actually said that Roman Catholic Church does not bother them

A thread is already open in Eastern Catholicism subforum. They find the term Eastern Rite more insulting the Roman Catholic Church. They address those in the Latin Rites as Roman. Eastern Catholics have their own of Code of Canon Law which is separate from Canon Law in Roman Rite.

They are in full communion with the Pope, but they don’t want latinization added to their liturgy. That includes introduction to Station of the Cross, praying the rosary, introduce Western way of thinking… etc.

 

[natsclem]

This is precisely what I’ve been saying. The only thing is that I wouldn’t call you the “Exalted Church That Gets Everything Right” for reasons of charity (which is the same reason I don’t use terms like papist, paganized Christianity, etc). But, in lieu of anyone providing me another choice of label, I’m stuck with the only legitimate thing I can come up with – Roman Catholic Church.

An interesting thought occurred to me: If we should call one another by each one’s chosen title for purposes of charity, should we not also make sure that what we’re calling ourselves is also charitable? For instance, by calling yourself a member of the “one true church that Jesus founded” and stating that I’m separated from that church – don’t you think that’s very offensive to me? In that way, you’d be implicitly stating that I’m rebelling against God, right?

This is something I would find very offensive…and yet, from your own perspectives, don’t you actually see me this way – as one who is rebelling against God?

So, how far does charity truly extend? Are you willing to not say that your church is the one true church, for the sake of charity? Or, does “charity” only extend to the point of giving credence to the claims of the RCC? If the point is to not offend one another, then it’s unfair of you to call me anything but a true follower of Christ, because that’s what I see myself as.

So, to Manny and Teflon particularly, and also to anyone else who may share similar bias – Is that what you think we should be doing? Should we be placing charity above all, even above expressing what we believe as the truth? Are you willing to not even imply that I’m anything other than a child of God, following him exactly as he wants me to? I don’t think I could do that, were I in your shoes, but this is the question I’m being left with – where does the truth end, and charity begin? That’s the trade-off we’re dealing with here.

If I concede that you are the “Catholic Church”, I am compromising on the truth (as far as I know it), for the sake of charity. On the other hand, if you call me a true follower of God, in good standing with him (which is what I would have you do, for the sake of charity) you’re effectively saying that I can be outside the RCC and still be part of God’s true church, fully and completely, thereby contradicting what you believe to be the truth.

Can we get some of them to post in here, please? People keep throwing around claims that “eastern catholics are disrespected by using the term Roman”, but we’ve probably had only one or two of those Eastern-Rite Catholics actually post here at all, and if I recall, one actually said that Roman Catholic Church does not bother them.

Absolutely agreed – thus I see no confusion over the term Latin Rite versus Roman Catholic. Latin refers to the language and a large are from which the adherents originally came. Roman refers specifically to the city of Rome, where the RCC is headquartered, which cannot be said to represent the whole of the Latin Rite.

Continued…

This thread is obviously for Catholics not for the Protestants or any other denominations. If you are not Catholic, why don’t you find a better and appropriate place in this CAF? RCC (including those local churches in communion with her) is the true Church of Christ because of its apostolic succession from Peter, the rock upon whom Christ built His Church. In the course of history, it is called Catholic Church and then “Roman” was added. Rome being the place of Peter’s last seat of apostleship and martyrdom–his final witness of Faith–of his own confession "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God. The western Protestants had created their own beliefs–sola scriptura and sola fide, etc.–which are not even supported by the scriptures that they profess to be their foundation. The fullness of truth is in the Catholic Church. if you don’t subscribe to all the teachings (true, not those of your impressions or own notion based on propagandas) of this Church, you don’t have any right of calling yourself a Catholic, member of the true Church of Christ.There are many Judases in this Church, but they don’t make this Church false church. Remember,the likes of Judas have in the Church even before the very first group of disciples of Christ had been called church (assembly).

Until there are still those who claim to be Christians but do not want to recognize the authority of the successor of Peter, Roman Catholic Church should be used to refer to the Catholic Church, the true Church of Christ.