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

[Orionthehunter]

From PCMaster: 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.

And you really think that by referring to Catholics by their chosen name is an assent to their claims? C’mon. So are you saying that when I refer to the Apostles of God by their name, I am assenting to their claims? When I refer to a Communist as a Communist, I am assenting to their claims?

PC, we are referring to titles. We are not talking about our claim. You are correct that one of our claims is we are “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic” but this is not our name.

FRom PCMaster: Were I in your position, I probably would not be as charitable as you, because I think you’re compromising on truth.

I suppose that I could refer to the “Apostles of God” as the “Faux Apostles of God” but charity and respect is not served. I don’t get to name my neighbors children and I don’t get to name other’s organization’s and denominations. To refer to them as anything but what they choose to call themselves is pejorative.

From PCMaster: 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.

Is that the name of your church? This is about monikers.

I don’t ask you to assent to any of my beliefs “out of charity”. With regard to your status as a Christian, I have no idea what denomination you belong, its beliefs, practices. More importantly, I know nothing about the state of your soul. This is a judgement exclusively God’s.

I will not refer to you as a member of the Catholic Church. You yourself deny you are a member of my faith. You claim that your are a member of the Body of Christ as you understand it. I’ll give you that respect by saying you are Christian. We can debate the respective claims of our particular faiths but that is irrelevant to the name of the church/denomination that we belong too.

There are denominations who refer to themselves as “Old Catholics” and “Anglican Catholics”. I call them that. They are self-admittedly not in communion with Rome. They know it. I know it. I’m not threatened by their name.

From PCMaster: 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?

Yes. I will not use my name as leverage.

From PCMaster: 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.

You are confusing too issues though. There were many posts in this thread where Early Church Fathers used the name Catholic in identifying the Church. They are also using it in reference to a tenet of the Catholic faith like the Eucharist and Authority. We held those tenets then and we hold them today. For instance, when they are used in context of Authority, they speak to the issue of supremacy. They are inseparable. I can’t help it that it runs contrary to your world view and you don’t like the logical conclusions that one reaches from this.

From PCMaster: 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.

Again, since I refer to the Apostles of God by their name, are you saying that by doing so is to support their claims. What do you suggest I call them?

From PCMaster: 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.

Why don’t you just call us what you want? It demonstrates more about you than it does about us.

 

[ricko]

Please note the following from The Catholic Encyclopedia especially the part in bold. As we have been saying all along, when you call the Catholic Church by its name you do not acknowledge its claim to be the original church. You only acknowledge its proper name and nothing else.

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.

 

[PC_Master]

Wooh…some seemingly heated responses (not all of them, of course). Let me clarify again before things get crazy, that I have no intent to slander or offend Roman Catholics (that is, members of any church which considers the pope their authority) by the use of that name, as opposed to just Catholic Church. I’m simply doing it out of a desire for clarity, both in terms of which religious grouping I’m referring to, as well as to the point that I do not agree with said church’s claims of being the one and only universal church. There’s no spite or ill-will here…of course I can only ask you to take my word on that.

You are being ridiculous.

No – ridiculous would be saying that I’m going to call you whatever I wish just because I want to. I’ve actually provided sound reasoning for my actions.

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.

As I have mentioned before – where do you draw the line between charity and truth? I’d really like a concise answer from you (and others) on this point.

Let’s try constructing a little bit of logical argumentation for this:

1. You consider yourself a member of an organization which should properly be called The Catholic Church.
2. I do not agree with the claims that name makes, and you know I don’t agree with them, but for the sake of charity, you insist I should use that name anyway, though I believe it to be a falsehood.
3. Therefore, charity is more important than truth.

Now, because charity is more important than truth:

1. I believe I am a member of the universal (catholic) church that Christ established.
2. You don’t agree with me, and I know you don’t agree with me. I say that you should call me a catholic for the sake of charity.
3. You don’t believe my claim is true, however, charity is more important than truth (see point 3 in the first argument).
4. You therefore must refer to me as a catholic, despite my refusal to accept the authority of the pope.

Do you believe this is a reasonable argument? I think it’s balanced, but not reasonable. So, let’s sum this up – can you, in good conscience, call me a catholic, a member of God’s true church, even though you believe I’m not? Is “good Christian charity” that important, or not? (I’d like a yes or a no, in response to this – elaborate further if you like, but please include a clear yes or no in response.)

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.

Courteous…I agree, without a doubt. However, as I mentioned, courtesy and charity are not more important than the truth.

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”.

Aside from the differences in theology (ie, you believe the RCC is right; I don’t), your position is very sensible, and is precisely why I use Roman as an adjective to describe the RCC. It’s not because I’m trying to imply that all members are of the Latin Rite (by the way, that’s the RCC’s official name for the rite, as far as I know – it’s not called the Roman Rite). The RCC’s position is that unity with Rome is paramount to being in good standing with the church. Therefore, identifying it in that way is a great means of distinguishing it from those who consider themselves equally Catholic, but reject Roman authority.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Neither I nor Teflon have any bias.

My apologies for the accusation then. It simply appears that you do from your posting, but it’s possible that I simply have misunderstood what you’ve said. Again, my apologies. (The same to you as well, Teflon.)

The truth is this. It is not wise to negate the Eastern Catholics.

I’m not negating them. When I use the term RCC, I’m not speaking of the individual rites which comprise it. If confusion ever arises as to that, I can assure you that I’ll make that clear.

The Eastern Rites are equally in unity with Rome, are they not? The Roman Bishop has equal authority over them as he does over the Latin Rite, does he not? Hence, the adjective of Roman applies quite well.

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

Vatican City, to this day, is wholly contained within the city of Rome, Italy. Now, until the Lateran Treaty of less than a century ago, Vatican City did not exist.

This argument strikes me as a red herring, however, if it will truly make you happy, I’d be willing to call it the Vatican Catholic Church instead of the Roman Catholic Church. Would that be acceptable (not only to you, but to the others who have expressed objection with the term Roman in this thread)? It seems an odd term, but if you guys understand it, and are not offended by it, I’ll use it. Let me know.

A thread is already open in Eastern Catholicism subforum. They find the term Eastern Rite more insulting the Roman Catholic Church.

And what term, aside from just Catholic Church would you advise to remove this offense?

This thread is obviously for Catholics not for the Protestants or any other denominations.

The thread was started after contention arose of my use of the term Roman Catholic Church. I’d say it was addressed pretty directly to me.

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.

I disagree, but whether true or false, this is most certainly off-topic (besides, I’ve heard this argument many times already).

In the course of history, it is called Catholic Church and then “Roman” was added.

Negative. Your assertion makes the assumption that the RCC of today is the same as the Catholic Church of the first and second centuries, which is the very point I contest…thus leading us to this very conversation in the first place.

The fullness of truth is in the Catholic Church. if you don’t subscribe to all the teachings*…needless ad hominem content removed…*of this Church, you don’t have any right of calling yourself a Catholic, member of the true Church of Christ.

I understand your argument – you believe I’m not part of the true church, and so calling myself catholic is an affront to your conscience. You would consider it to be untrue, right?

This is exactly how I feel about calling the RCC The Catholic Church. It’s not the Catholic Church, and from what I’ve seen so far, it doesn’t follow the teachings of scripture very well either. Since my belief is that the church consists of all those who follow Christ, regardless of earthly organizations, the RCC (borrowing your words here) doesn’t have any right of calling itself the (as in complete, total, exclusive) Catholic Church.

Anyway, I digress…

There are many Judases in this Church, but they don’t make this Church false church.

Agreed. Whether or not the RCC as a whole is a false church is dependent on what it teaches, and whether each individual member is tied to that status depends on what he or she believes.

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.

I’m glad you agree with my terminology then.

And you really think that by referring to Catholics by their chosen name is an assent to their claims?

I believe it can appear as, and be treated as one, for reasons previously stated. What I believe doesn’t actually change based on what I call someone or some organization, but the appearance, and confusion over what I believe in debates with others does change.

So are you saying that when I refer to the Apostles of God by their name, I am assenting to their claims?

I’m saying you aren’t arguing that they’re wrong, which can be seen as assent, whether or not you actually do agree.

When I refer to a Communist as a Communist, I am assenting to their claims?

No – because Communism is real and legitimate, and Communists are a part of that system. They are really Communists, so there’s no harm in calling them such.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

PC, we are referring to titles. We are not talking about our claim. You are correct that one of our claims is we are “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic” but this is not our name.

I outlined this previously. Take it or leave it…or actually respond in a logical way. It’s your call.

Is that the name of your church? This is about monikers.

A moniker is what you choose to have yourself called, right? Thus, I choose to be called a catholic (mostly for purposes of illustration, but I do truly believe myself a part of the one true universal church established by Christ; which is not the RCC). Are you going to call me a catholic now?

(To clarify – to me it’s all just a label, and I’ll not be offended if you choose to call me something else for the sake of clarity. However, if it’s really about preferences, and what we each personally wish to be called, then I’m a real catholic.)

I don’t ask you to assent to any of my beliefs “out of charity”.

That’s exactly what you’re doing. Your belief is that you are a member of the one true Catholic Church, and you’re asking me to call you such. It’s really not that complex.

I will not refer to you as a member of the Catholic Church.

In short, you’re not going to call me what I wish to be called because you don’t agree with it. Your moral and religious views say that I am not what I claim to be. Thus, you’re placing what you believe to be the truth above charity. I don’t blame you for doing that – in fact, I respect it. I just wish you guys would have the same respect for me not being willing to compromise the truth (even if I’m wrong about what the truth is, at least this shows the truth is important to me – that’s respectable, isn’t it?)

You yourself deny you are a member of my faith.

Correct. And from my view, your faith is not the Catholic Church as established by Christ.,so there’s no contradiction there. However from your view, things are different, and to call me a catholic would be untrue.

You claim that your are a member of the Body of Christ as you understand it. I’ll give you that respect by saying you are Christian.

How can one be Christian (a follower of Christ) without being Catholic (that is, a member of the one universal church he established)?

There are denominations who refer to themselves as “Old Catholics” and “Anglican Catholics”. I call them that. They are self-admittedly not in communion with Rome. They know it. I know it. I’m not threatened by their name.

And the name of neither of these names implicitly make the claim to be the exclusive and total universal church as established by Christ, so I have very little problem with those names myself.

Yes. I will not use my name as leverage.

I’m glad to hear that. It’s a shame you continued to do precisely what you said you wouldn’t in the following paragraph.

Why don’t you just call us what you want? It demonstrates more about you than it does about us.

I hope you’re right! – I truly hope that it says I place the truth (as best I can understand it) above charity, which I hope everyone would be so honorable as to do.

 

[PC_Master]

“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).

And that’s exactly what I’m doing.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

The Eastern Rites are equally in unity with Rome, are they not? The Roman Bishop has equal authority over them as he does over the Latin Rite, does he not? Hence, the adjective of Roman applies quite well.

Eastern and Oriental Catholics do not “comprise” the Roman Church – they are in a separate ecclesial institutions from her. The eastern churches have their own patriarchs, bishops, synods and their own code of canon law, traditions and languages. We might be in full communion with each other, but we do have our own way of doing things. See where your own terminology is beginning to kick you in the butt? The Eastern Churches are distinct full sui juris churches in full communion with the Roman Church.
PC Master:

Vatican City, to this day, is wholly contained within the city of Rome, Italy. Now, until the Lateran Treaty of less than a century ago, Vatican City did not exist.

OK, and?
PC Master:

Negative. Your assertion makes the assumption that the RCC of today is the same as the Catholic Church of the first and second centuries, which is the very point I contest…thus leading us to this very conversation in the first place.

OK… so someone splits from the only church in existence claiming to be the ‘Catholic church’ and then you deny Her that proper name and seize it for yourself. It is now up to you to show where the ancient church taught sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, once saved always saved, invisible church, etc.
PC Master:

I understand your argument – you believe I’m not part of the true church, and so calling myself catholic is an affront to your conscience. You would consider it to be untrue, right?

Actually as a Christian you are catholic, although separated from the Catholic Church. Hence the term ‘separated brethren’.
PC Master:

This is exactly how I feel about calling the RCC The Catholic Church. It’s not the Catholic Church, and from what I’ve seen so far, it doesn’t follow the teachings of scripture very well either. Since my belief is that the church consists of all those who follow Christ, regardless of earthly organizations, the RCC (borrowing your words here) doesn’t have any right of calling itself the (as in complete, total, exclusive) Catholic Church.

What are the scriptural teachings of your church? What is your church? I’m confused… if I can’t compare…

 

[Orionthehunter]

My Christian brothers who identify themselves as Methodist shall be called Methodist as this how they wish to be identified.

I will identify Lutherans as that is how they want to be identified.

I will identify members of the Apostles of God because this is how they want to be identified.

I will identify members of the Episcopal Church, Episcopals because this is how they wish to be identified.

I will identify members of the Orthodox Church becuase this is how they wish to be identified. If they want to be qualified by their national identity, I will add the qualification.

In doing so, I make no statement or agreement or disagreement the degree to which they adhere to their original tenets or whether I agree with the claims of their faith or the genesis of their name.

Calling Episcopals what they wish does not mean I believe that they belong to the Episcopate as understood by Catholics, that the Orthodox faith is any more or less orthodox than any other or that I believe that the Apostle’s of God are any more or less Apostolic than any other.

Anybody unwilling to refer to my church by its customary name because they disagree with the claims associated with the name, out of consistency, should hold Episcopals, Apostles of God, and Orthodox to the same standard.

PCMaster, what is the name to which you refer to these Christian Brothers? Do you also co-opt their name because you by believe that you too have a claim to the episcopate, orthodoxy, and Apostolic ordination? Or do you have qualifiers that you have placed before their name? Or is it just the Catholic Church that you inflict your own self-appointed renaming rights?

Just like calling me by my Native American name (You owe me $10) doesnt mean that you agree you own me money, I would appreciate being called a Catholic. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[PC_Master]

Eastern and Oriental Catholics do not “comprise” the Roman Church…The Eastern Churches are distinct full sui juris churches in full communion with the Roman Church.

Yup, I know this. But they are in communion with, and under the authority of the bishop of Rome, right? (A yes or a no would be good.) Thus, Roman (of Rome, pertaining to Rome, or following Rome) fits. I don’t deny that they are of different rites, but to me, one can be a Roman Catholic, and also an Eastern-Rite Catholic as well.

I see no problem here.

OK… so someone splits from the only church in existence…

Woah there – this is exactly what Edwin was talking about – you’re using the very name of Catholic Church to support your claims to have been the same as the original Catholic Church, a claim I don’t agree with. You can’t do that, and expect me to use that name.

It is now up to you to show where the ancient church taught sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, once saved always saved, invisible church, etc.

No, it’s not, and the reason its not is because this thread is not about whether or not the RCC was the original church. As a premise for this thread, we know that you believe it was, and I believe it wasn’t. I believe the Catholic Church to be consisting of all those who follow Christ, and I believe that that group partially exists within the organization that is headquartered in Rome, and partially outside of that group. Since I don’t believe the RCC actually is the Catholic Church that it claims to be, I cannot use that name. It’s that simple.

Actually as a Christian you are catholic, although separated from the Catholic Church. Hence the term ‘separated brethren’.

Not by my view – I’m fully catholic. In my opinion, the truth is that Rome doesn’t get to make the determination. But this is what I’ve been trying to explain – you guys evaluate things by your opinions, and call things as you will based on that. You’d label me a Protestant, because you believe I’m protesting against the true church. Like you, I evaluate and label things based on my opinions. There’s little doubt that we each believe we understand the truth on this matter. Obviously one of us is wrong (at least). The only difference is that I don’t actually expect you to conform to my way of labeling things. I haven’t started a thread on how horrible and offensive it is for you to call me a Protestant – I understand that you don’t agree with me in regards to what the truth is. I just don’t understand why you guys can’t be charitable and extend the same understanding.

What are the scriptural teachings of your church? What is your church? I’m confused… if I can’t compare…

It doesn’t matter – this isn’t about comparing and proving which church is better…as if it could be done by man’s standards in any event. This is about whether or not the adjective Roman is accurate or not.

My Christian brothers who identify themselves as Methodist shall be called Methodist as this how they wish to be identified…In doing so, I make no statement or agreement or disagreement the degree to which they adhere to their original tenets or whether I agree with the claims of their faith or the genesis of their name…Calling Episcopals what they wish does not mean I believe that they belong to the Episcopate as understood by Catholics, that the Orthodox faith is any more or less orthodox than any other or that I believe that the Apostle’s of God are any more or less Apostolic than any other.

And yet calling me Catholic, as I wish you to do, somehow is unacceptable to you? Why can’t you just call me that, and I’ll understand that you don’t believe it’s a correct label? Note, again, it’s just a label to me, so no big deal, but the fact that you’ll compromise except where your own name is concerned is at the core of the issue – it’s not about what others are called – it’s that you hold the one “legit” name, and wish to be sure it’s known that you, and only you, can use that name.

Anybody unwilling to refer to my church by its customary name because they disagree with the claims associated with the name, out of consistency, should hold Episcopals, Apostles of God, and Orthodox to the same standard.

I haven’t had Episcopals tell me that anyone outside the Episcopal church cannot be a part of the episcopate. I haven’t ever had a conversation with one of these “Apostles of God”, much less had them tell me that anyone outside their group is not of God. Neither have I had a conversation with a member of any of the Orthodox churches telling me that I’m not Orthodox. If and when those situations arise, you can rest assured that I will make the distinction and clarify that I don’t hold to their beliefs.

What I have experienced is Roman Catholics telling me that I’m not part of the Catholic Church established by Christ. Thus, there has already been need for clarification, and so I’ve clarified, and will continue to do so.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

PCMaster, what is the name to which you refer to these Christian Brothers? Do you also co-opt their name because you by believe that you too have a claim to the episcopate, orthodoxy, and Apostolic ordination? Or do you have qualifiers that you have placed before their name? Or is it just the Catholic Church that you inflict your own self-appointed renaming rights?

I am not an apostle – I have not been commissioned by God to be a “special messenger” to the world. I do hold that my faith is orthodox and catholic, the same held by the apostles. But again, none of the groups you’ve mentioned have yet made the exclusivist claims to me such as the RCC has.

Further, there’s very little confusion over the names themselves. With “Catholic”, you have a good half a dozen major groups that use the name. True, with Baptists, and with Orthodox, there are multiple groups that use such a name, but there’s a clear distinction available if needed. Oriental Orthodox claim orthodoxy, but they’re also part of the Oriental Orthodox church, if and when there’s a need to make the distinction.

How would you suggest I distinctualize between the church headquartered at the Vatican and all the other groups which have “Catholic” in their name? Old Catholics have the right to call themselves Catholic, do they not? What about the Orthodox Catholic Church (yeah, that’s a part of the official name). How about the Assyrian Church of the East, whose leader is called the “Catholic Patriarch”? All of these, or any of these, could be referred to as simply “Catholic”, and legitimately so.

Just like calling me by my Native American name (You owe me $10) doesnt mean that you agree you own me money, I would appreciate being called a Catholic. Thank you for your cooperation.

I would appreciate being called that as well, but you refuse.

Now, I’ve proposed other terms that could be used, including Vatican Catholic. I could also resort to *accurate *terms like “Papist” (one who follows the pope; to me it’s on-par with “Protestant” – one who protests). At this point, I’m fairly certain that you’re unwilling to accept any of these terms, and are also unwilling to suggest one of your own that meets the single requirement I laid out. Until you do, I really have no choice but to continue using the term Roman Catholic Church.

I’m truly sorry if this offends you, but I have to be true to my conscience above all, not to mention the issues of confusion that using just “Catholic Church” raise. I bear no ill-will to those of the Eastern Rites (which are equally in communion with Rome, and thus can be called Roman), and I’m sorry that we couldn’t come to some mutually-satisfactory resolution of this.

I would like to note that a couple of Roman Catholics have come in here, and have defended the use of the term, well aware of the existence of the Eastern Rites.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Qualifier: The following is sarcasm to make a point. I apologize in advance if it offends anyone. I mean no offense and don’t even believe my examples. I’m only trying to make a point.

Now that I think about it, I like Billy Bob’s (likes to call himself PCMaster) standard:

I’m going to quit referring to Native American’s as that. Nobody born in this country is more native than me. I’m tired of them using this name because they also claim that they have certain preferential rights to certain assets of America. If I call them this, I must be agreeing w/ their claims. I wouldn’t want to give the impression I agree with them. Some of them even use their moniker to justify their claims. Since Indians want to be a separate nation, I am not even going to call them Americans. I know they all don’t live in Sioux country but that is what I’m going to call them. I really don’t care if the Navajo are offended. It isn’t my intent.

I’m also going to quit calling Latinos by that name. They don’t even speak Latin. And, since Latinos usually speak Spanish, I’m going to call them spic as in they spic spanish. Or will that give them impression that I think they are all from Hispanol. That isn’t true either. I’m just going to call them “Perpetual Brownback” to distinquish from those who tan their backs.

And, then there are those people who call themselves teachers. Have you looked at their student’s test scores lately? They aren’t teachers. They are day care providers. I think I’m going to call them “White fingers” because of the chalk they have on their hand. I would not want them to think I really believe they can or are teachers.

And what is with people calling themselves “Master”. Sheesh. Only Jesus is Master. Does that mean they claim to be equal to Jesus? Or when they claim to be a master of a PC, is that just because they can make their computer repeat what spills from their mind? Or does it imply that they are the creator of the PC? Does that make Algore or Bill Gates the real PCMaster? And those who think they are masters, I’m just going to call them Billly Bob.

I can’t agree w/ all the claims made by Native Americans, teachers, Latinos and these self-appointed masters. I don’t want to be sacrificing the truth.

But, don’t think I mean anything pejorative cause I won’t call people what they want to called. I just want to uphold my own standard of what I think is the truth.

 

[PC_Master]

Qualifier: The following is sarcasm to make a point. I apologize in advance if it offends anyone. I mean no offense and don’t even believe my examples. I’m only trying to make a point.

Overall, I find this fairly offensive, because it demonstrates that you haven’t even tried to understand my argument, much less construct one that’s similar. But let’s have a look anyway…

Now that I think about it, I like Billy Bob’s (likes to call himself PCMaster) standard:

I assume you’re calling me “Billy Bob” to try to upset me, because it’s not the alias I’ve chosen to go by (which was actually a nick name given by others, but that’s another story altogether). However, unlike my distinction of Roman Catholic Church, your distinction does not remove any confusion. Thus the comparison doesn’t really work.

I’m going to quit referring to Native American’s as that. Nobody born in this country is more native than me.

You know, the fact is that they are Native Americans. Their name doesn’t say “we’re the only Native Americans”, and in fact I’ve never heard that argument from one (and I have Native American blood in me, and have spoken to quite a few of them). Or are you saying that they aren’t? (That is, by the way, what I’m saying about the RCC – it’s not the one and only universal church it claims to be.)

Also, them being Native Americans doesn’t preclude the possibility of others being so as well. The RCC’s claims do preclude the possibility of others (those who reject Rome) being catholic.

I’m tired of them using this name because they also claim that they have certain preferential rights to certain assets of America. If I call them this, I must be agreeing w/ their claims.

Where does their name say “owners of American land”? I’m not calling the RCC that because I disagree with one or more of its teachings – I’m calling it such because I disagree with the claim that the name makes. This comparison is not anywhere related to their name. The name “Native American” simply means that they are native to America – they “began” here. The name claims nothing beyond that.

Also note that no Native American tribe calls itself “The Native American Tribe” or anything exclusive like that. They all have distinct names, and grouping them altogether (including any and all other individuals and groups which can be considered such) can be called Native Americans. With the RCC, it excludes all others who bear the name Catholic, Orthodox, Apostolic, etc from being genuine, claiming they are separated from the truth.

I wouldn’t want to give the impression I agree with them.

Why? Do you actually disagree with their claims to have been natively from America? If so, then make that case. Otherwise this is just a straw man, not worthy of consideration.

Since Indians want to be a separate nation, I am not even going to call them Americans.

Again, this doesn’t seem to compare. In what way are they not Americans?

I know they all don’t live in Sioux country but that is what I’m going to call them. I really don’t care if the Navajo are offended. It isn’t my intent.

This is different. Let’s try our your analogy in a more similar manner.

First the RCC situation:

1. There are many groups which call themselves Catholic, including the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholicism, Old Catholics, and many others.
2. Each of these (aside from the argument of if they’re actually Catholic or not) could be considered a sub-group of Catholicism.
3. Yet, Roman Catholicism (with all its 23 different distinct rites/churches) claims to be “The Catholic Church”.
4. This is unfair, because it is not (by my belief) the sum and total of the universal church as established by Christ.

Now, the Native American comparison:

1. There are many groups which call themselves Native American. Among these are the Navajo, Sioux, Cherokee, Blackfoot, and various other tribes.
2. Each of these groups could be called Native American, and can be considered a sub-group of Native Americans.

Now, hypothetically, in comparison to the actions of Rome, let’s say the Navajo decided to declare themselves “The Native American Tribe”, and insisted that everyone use this name to refer to them, instead of Navajo. Perhaps they claim to be the oldest tribe, or for some other reason believe the other tribes to not be Native American. Does the claim of the Navajo actually make this true? Of course not – and you must admit that such a thing would cause tons of confusion. When people say Native American, they think of the whole group of Native Americans.

When I say Catholic Church, I think of the group of all true followers of Christ. To have any one sub-group be able to usurp the name that belongs to the whole is unfair, and not permissible.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

And, then there are those people who call themselves teachers. Have you looked at their student’s test scores lately? They aren’t teachers. They are day care providers. I think I’m going to call them “White fingers” because of the chalk they have on their hand. I would not want them to think I really believe they can or are teachers.

To teach does not require that the students learn. Now, it would be improper to call them educators, if the students weren’t learning, but if they do teaching, they are a teacher.

And what is with people calling themselves “Master”. Sheesh. Only Jesus is Master. Does that mean they claim to be equal to Jesus? Or when they claim to be a master of a PC, is that just because they can make their computer repeat what spills from their mind? Or does it imply that they are the creator of the PC?

Let me alleviate your concerns – I was given the nickname “PC Master” at a fairly young age by some friends who were impressed with my computer-related skills. I selected it as an online alias because I couldn’t come up with anything else original. It’s a nick name though, not a moniker.

Still, if you have honest concerns about that name, I’d be more than happy for you to call me something else – how about Jonathan (my actual name)? Others have called me Jonny, J-Boy, JP, etc. Pick something non-offensive if possible, but I have no objections to you calling me by a different name if it alleviates confusion on this.

And those who think they are masters, I’m just going to call them Billly Bob.

Care to explain your justification for that choice? After all, I’ve explained (several times) my justification for adding Roman. I’ve also offered to call you by another adjective of your choice (and I’ve offered up Vatican Catholic Church, among other things).

But, don’t think I mean anything pejorative cause I won’t call people what they want to called. I just want to uphold my own standard of what I think is the truth.

And if your post were anything but a straw-man argument, I’d respect that. But since you don’t believe what you’ve said, and since I don’t know anyone who does believe what you’ve said, it seems pointless to continue that discussion. Straw men aren’t usually good debating tools.

 

[Teflon93]

My apologies for the accusation then. It simply appears that you do from your posting, but it’s possible that I simply have misunderstood what you’ve said. Again, my apologies. (The same to you as well, Teflon.)

No apology necessary.

You’re simply proving my point, PCM—you and Edwin in particular seem to value your own perspective over politeness or comity.

Let me provide an analogy:

I think that the term “African-American” is inaccurate. Many people to whom it applies are recent African emigres—they do not consider themselves American. It even gets used when talking about African visitors or African tourists, with predictably bemused responses.

Those Americans who are descended from African slaves held in the United States prior to the Civil War are Americans—period.

I am of Portuguese and French descent. I am not hyphenated, and I’ve been an American for fewer generations than those to whom “African-American” is applied.

Guess what term I commonly use when speaking of those to whom the “African-American” label is applied?

That’s right. “African-American”.

I do it not because I concede any of my own beliefs. I do it because it’s polite and because I don’t feel the need to elevate my own eccentric view of accuracy in labeling to tick somebody else off.

If you think bells will go off in The Vatican because either you or Edwin actually drops the slur “Roman Catholic Church” or worse “RCC” construct, you’re kidding yourselves.

RCC, like some terms used to describe “African-Americans”, has deep roots in anti-Catholic bigotry in this country. Other terms are worse, of course. Bigots are very creative in that regard.

Now, the Catholic Church preceded your denominations by a millennium-and-a-half. It’s still around. It will outlive your denominations, I’m afraid.

One of the reasons it will is because you’re short-changing key pieces of Christ’s message, and elevating your mere opinion over it in the process.

Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, of course. And answerable to the only One whose opinion ever mattered.

The question is not, then, will Contarini and PCM call the Catholic Church by her proper name, but did Christ call His Bride by her proper name?

The only thing I know is you will definitely find out, in the end.

In the meantime, feel free to keep using “Roman” as a slur. It’s illustrative for the lurkers.

 

[ricko]

I am currently meeting with a Protestant friend to discuss apologetics. One of the first things I brought up to him was his use of the term “Roman Catholic”. I explained to him the reason it was not Roman Catholic but just Catholic. After going back and forth a bit he finally understood and agreed to call the Church “Catholic”. I must say he really surprised me when he agreed to do so as he is very strong in some of his misunderstandings about the Catholic Church. I would say that he showed a true Christian attitude to respect my wishes.

 

[Contarini]

Teflon,

You’re just proving our point with your little flourish about naming Christ’s “Bride” correctly. The question at issue is whether the Bride of Christ subsists fully and uniquely among those particular churches in communion with the See of Rome. The word “Catholic” cannot be used without qualification in such a debate, because using it concedes the point from the beginning. It’s hard to suppress the suspicion that this is exactly what you and Manny want us to do–you are trying to win by a linguistic shortcut, and all your PC rhetoric and appeals to respect the Eastern Churches look like a smokescreen.

I routinely use the word “Catholic” for your Communion without qualification when the context will not cause confusion. And I avoid using “Roman Catholic” without scare quotes or some other qualification when speaking of your Communion as a whole. Manny took offense to a post in which I had used scare quotes and had explicitly acknowledged the limitations of the term. There is simply no pleasing you guys. You scent an easy rhetorical advantage and you won’t give it up. You can waste all our time with this if you want to, but you can’t ask us to respect you for it.

Edwin

 

[peary]

The Early Church fathers called us the CATHOLIC Church, never the ‘Roman’ Church or “Church of Rome” which was a protestant invention. Roman Catholic denotes the Latin Rite Church which is the Catholic Church in the west. The Eastern Church is also called Catholic. I also consider the Orthodox churches as being a part of the Catholic Church, although they are schismatic.

 

[Contarini]

**The Early Church fathers called us the CATHOLIC Church, never the ‘Roman’ Church **

Again, you are begging the question. The point at issue between members of the Roman Communion and other Trinitarian Christians is precisely whether the Catholic Church of the Fathers subsists only in your midst.

Edwin

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Again, you are begging the question. The point at issue between members of the Roman Communion and other Trinitarian Christians is precisely whether the Catholic Church of the Fathers subsists only in your midst.

Edwin

We have more of a claim to the title than any of the other Trinitarian Churches which split from us. I’ll perhaps concede Catholic to some members of the Anglican Communion and further schisms from your communion… but in my mind Catholic means episcopal lineage, 7 Sacraments (or Mysteries), Trinitarian Baptism, liturgy, hours, etc.

 

[EJTMJR]

PCMASTER SAID

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./B]

you mean your opinion, correct?**