Why do people call it the "Roman" Catholic Church?

[CutlerB]

Almost everyone will have come across the Catholic Church being called the “Roman Catholic Church”. I personally feel rather strongly about the issue, as trivial as it may be. I like things to be called by their proper name.

Examples of her being called the “Roman Catholic Church” that I have come across include our Anglican priest, Church of England publications, most of American Protestantism, and some places in German media. I am aware that the term “Roman Catholic” refers to a specific rite within the Catholic Church, namely the Latin one. There are others like Chaldean or Armenian, as far as I am aware. Thus, I wonder why people generally call the whole institution the “Roman Catholic Church”, as opposed to a certain rite, and some even insist to call her that. Our Anglican priest for example once “corrected” me, telling me it was not the “Catholic Church” but “Roman Catholic”. I have, however, continued to call her by her proper name.

Do you have any ideas? Thanks.

 

[Genesis315]

Some people, like Anglicans, may use it to advance the idea that they too are a branch of the Catholic Church–which of course is not true. I personally would not agree to use it if that is the connoation being given.

It can also be used just to refer to the part of the Roman or Western rite part of the Church, as opposed to the whole Church which includes other rites of Eastern origin. That’s fine to do.

That being said, it can be used legitimately to refer to the whole Catholic Church, although that has fallen a bit out of disuse… For example, in the older Catechism of St. Pius X it says this:

20 Q. And why is the true Church called Roman?
A. The true Church is called Roman, because the four marks of Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity and Apostolicity are found in that Church alone which acknowledges as Head the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter.

 

[CutlerB]

Some people, like Anglicans, may use it to advance the idea that they too are a branch of the Catholic Church–which of course is not true. I personally would not agree to use it if that is the connoation being given.

I would agree. However I don’t quite understand: Could one, hypothetically, substitute “Roman Catholic Church” (in the sense of the entire Catholic Church in communion with the pope) for “one holy catholic and apostolic Church” in the Creed and it would refer to the same thing?

If so, wouldn’t that rule out Anglicans (and other denominations) from being the body of Christ, even though in separation? Or could one say the Anglicans were “part of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church” (as the Church of England puts it)?

 

[BVMFatima]

I would agree. However I don’t quite understand: Could one, hypothetically, substitute “Roman Catholic Church” (in the sense of the entire Catholic Church in communion with the pope) for “one holy catholic and apostolic Church” in the Creed and it would refer to the same thing?

If so, wouldn’t that rule out Anglicans (and other denominations) from being the body of Christ, even though in separation? Or could one say the Anglicans were “part of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church” (as the Church of England puts it)?

Its a very difficult topic, but people forget there are Eastern Catholics or don’t even know, since 98% of Catholics are Roman.

 

[R_C]

The Catholic Church is made up of 23 autonomous particular churches, each of which accepts the paramountcy of the Bishop of Rome on matters of doctrine. These churches are also known by the Latin term sui iuris churches.

The Latin church is the largest particular (sui iuris) church within the Catholic Church. The remaining 22 are Eastern Catholic sui iuris churches.

The Roman Rite is the liturgical rite used in the Diocese of Rome in the Catholic Church. It is by far the most widespread of the Latin liturgical rites used within the Latin autonomous particular (sui iuris) church. It has two forms: ordinary and extraordinary.

The Church does sometimes employ the term “Holy Roman Church” to point to the most ancient tradition of calling the community (previously “church”, then “diocese”) of Rome under the guidance of her bishop as the “mother and head of all churches” (“ecclesiarum mater et caput”), given the primacy of the episcopal see of Rome, which is called “Holy See” (“Sancta Sede”) .

 

[R_C]

I would agree. However I don’t quite understand: Could one, hypothetically, substitute “Roman Catholic Church” (in the sense of the entire Catholic Church in communion with the pope) for “one holy catholic and apostolic Church” in the Creed and it would refer to the same thing?

If so, wouldn’t that rule out Anglicans (and other denominations) from being the body of Christ, even though in separation? Or could one say the Anglicans were “part of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church” (as the Church of England puts it)?

We affirm that the Church subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him.

Meaning that all Christian communities which at some time or another have separated themselves are “not in full communion” with the Church. The body of Christ, mystically speaking, is made of every disciple properly baptized.

We could not, then, effectuate that substitution - though many traditionalist Catholics would say that we can - because the communities not in full communion with the Church are thus, to an extent, in partial communion with the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, or “part” of it.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

This is one of those topics that periodically comes up and seems to have no good, indisputable answer. As a previous debate a month or two ago demonstrated, Church documents have used the term both as a synonym for the Latin rite Church and as a synonym for the entire Catholic Church.

I think the only really correct approach to the subject is to acknowledge that the term is used in a multiple ways both inside and outside the Church and that consequently no single definition can be claimed as the exclusively “correct” one.

When someone uses the term “Roman Catholic Church” as a synonym for the Latin rite Church, they are referring to the special pastoral role the Pope and his Curia have in that Church, the prominent place of the Roman Liturgy in it, etc. When someone uses it as a synonym for the entire Catholic Church, they are referring to the fact that all Catholics are in communion with the bishop of Rome. The diversity of meanings can cause ambiguity and can be read as ignorance by those who only accept one definition or the other, but these are evils we just have to deal with charitably. We may not like it, but that’s what the situation is.

 

[Genesis315]

The Anglican Church is not a part of the Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church, even though we can say they have a kind of imperfect or partial relationship with the Catholic Church by virtue of their Baptism. To be a member of or fully incorporated into the Catholic Church, one must profess the full faith and be in hierarchical communion:
Pope Pius XII:

1. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

Vatican II:

1. The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government and who, combining together into various groups which are held together by a hierarchy, form separate Churches or Rites.

Vatican II:

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I would agree. However I don’t quite understand: Could one, hypothetically, substitute “Roman Catholic Church” (in the sense of the entire Catholic Church in communion with the pope) for “one holy catholic and apostolic Church” in the Creed and it would refer to the same thing?

If so, wouldn’t that rule out Anglicans (and other denominations) from being the body of Christ, even though in separation? Or could one say the Anglicans were “part of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church” (as the Church of England puts it)?

The “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” spoken of in the Nicene Creed is indeed the Catholic Church, which most non-Catholics and many (perhaps most) Catholics refer to when they say “Roman Catholic Church.” Those (most commonly Eastern Catholics and those influenced by them) who use the term to refer to the Latin rite Church exclusively would of course take the position, correct given their preferred definition of the term, that the Roman Catholic Church is merely a part of the wider Catholic Church. Both sides have the same ecclesiological belief, they just disagree on the definition of a particular term.

Baptized non-Catholics are members of the Catholic Church in a sacramental sense but are objectively withholding themselves from the community, instead holding unauthorized meetings of their own. This is why we speak of previously baptized converts entering “full communion” with the Catholic Church, implying that a degree of partial communion, so to speak, already existed by virtue of their baptism.

Anyway, don’t let this modern word-fight within the Catholic Church get in the way of substantial ecclesiological discussion. When we encounter the term “Roman Catholic” we need to just determine in which sense the word is being used and run with it.

 

[chimo]

Almost everyone will have come across the Catholic Church being called the “Roman Catholic Church”. I personally feel rather strongly about the issue, as trivial as it may be. I like things to be called by their proper name.

Examples of her being called the “Roman Catholic Church” that I have come across include our Anglican priest, Church of England publications, most of American Protestantism, and some places in German media. I am aware that the term “Roman Catholic” refers to a specific rite within the Catholic Church, namely the Latin one. There are others like Chaldean or Armenian, as far as I am aware. Thus, I wonder why people generally call the whole institution the “Roman Catholic Church”, as opposed to a certain rite, and some even insist to call her that. Our Anglican priest for example once “corrected” me, telling me it was not the “Catholic Church” but “Roman Catholic”. I have, however, continued to call her by her proper name.

Do you have any ideas? Thanks.

The Church of Rome was the predominant Church of the West. In truth her personality, characteristics and theology was forming through the culture which existed within her. While Rome had claim to the West the East had their own characteristics, personality and theology forming independently of Rome. Her own framework while it had noticable differences from the outside had the same power of the Holy Spirit within. These two giants were been formed by the same God. It is interesting that God decided to make East and West different and yet with noticable similarities. It is true that the Church of Rome uses a rite different than other Churches. This however does not define her because all that a rite does is give you Jesus Christ and whatever rite that is approved can do this. Since each Church has a definite rite that they use to receive God it is therefore important to know that any Church can use that rite if they want to. All a rite is simply a recipe for that Church to receive Jesus Christ. Since there is more than one recipe then it wouldn’t matter in theory whether you receive Jesus in the Latin rite or the Eastern rite. It is the final product that counts. And all the rites of the Churches do in effect is to put out the same final product.

It would be improper to suggest that the Church of Rome is the whole Church because of this Eastern connection. The Eastern Church has a history and development that can equal Rome’s and sad to say there are many from the West who do not know it. And it is sad that the reverse is true and the Eastern Church hardly knows anything of the West. If God wanted His Church to be East and West He must have developed it this way for good reasons. We are just beginning to understand why as the two Churches are now just discovering who each other are. This anticipation and discovery must take time before we will know each other. Since you know your Church fully and the Easterner knows theirs fully we have not gone to the direction to fully know the other. This is why God developed His one Church into first a Eastern and Western direction so that in a time when it is His right time we will discover our rich two treasures and make them our own.

The Church of Rome enjoys a primacy but this primacy must be more defined for the welfare of the whole Church. I see Rome’s primacy more as a Pastoral primacy giving Rome this pastoral authority which she now enjoys. Yet this pastoral authority if it is to accepted more by the Eastern Orthodox must be defined better to accompany Rome into her service to the welfare of the whole Church. We are now just in the beginning process of defining Rome’s role within the context for the whole Church. To do this the Holy Father must accept consideration to what the Orthodox finds proper difinations.

You see in the consideration which needs to be defined by both Churches the Orthodox do not see Rome as the Church but as part of the Church. This is the only way that Orthodox will accept any future possibility of the role of the Holy Father will play with them. You see in practice Rome’s defining role has not yet been defined properly. Someday in the future when men and women understand better this concept by undersanding each other more than you will see this pastoral authority of the Pope even present among the Orthodox. It just have to be defined better. That’s all.

Among Churches of the West such as Anglicans and Protestants, these communities were once part of Rome and therefore need to treated differently than the Church of Rome does for instance with the Eastern Churches. The Eastern Churches do possess an authority as similar as Rome’s and it is going to take time before everyone will understand this.

 

[BVMFatima]

So would it be correct to now call Roman Catholics " Latin Catholics "?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

So would it be correct to now call Roman Catholics " Latin Catholics "?

Depends on your definition of “Roman Catholics.”

 

[sw85]

Probably, when most ordinary people say “Roman,” they really do mean the Roman rite of the Church, i.e., the one they’re familiar with. Most people aren’t aware there are other rites of the Church. I wasn’t, even for several months after becoming Catholic. Where would I have learned these things? Certainly not from all the Maronites walking around!

In some cases they may mean the universal Church but not realize there are other rites in it, i.e., simple ignorance.

But in some cases it’s an affectation calculated deliberately to ridicule the Church as being a particular expression of the mystical body of Christ attached to a particular location. A fundamentalist Protestant I know of dismissively refers to the Church as the “Roman denomination” for just this reason. I could easily imagine Henry VIII thinking “Rome has its head of the Church and now England has hers.”

 

[BVMFatima]

Depends on your definition of “Roman Catholics.”

I mean it for the Latin Church.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I mean it for the Latin Church.

In that case yes, it is appropriate to call members of the Latin Church “Latin Catholics.”

On the other hand, using the broader definition of the term in question, it would be inaccurate and extremely inappropriate to call Eastern Roman Catholics “Latin Catholics.”

 

[BVMFatima]

Well why don’t parishes begin calling itself Latin Catholic? Here in USA I don’t really see people use the term.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Well why don’t parishes begin calling itself Latin Catholic? Here in USA I don’t really see people use the term.

Because it would confuse the heck out of many people. The first time they saw a sign for some “Immaculate Conception Latin Catholic Church” less educated folks would think the parish said mass in Latin, or in Spanish, or that they were some strange schism like the Polish National Catholic Church or the SSPV. Parishes and dioceses in this country rightly use the terms most familiar to English speakers.

 

[BVMFatima]

Because it would confuse the heck out of many people. The first time they saw a sign for some “Immaculate Conception Latin Catholic Church” less educated folks would think the parish said mass in Latin, or in Spanish, or that they were some strange schism like the Polish National Catholic Church or the SSPV. Parishes and dioceses in this country rightly use the terms most familiar to English speakers.

Oh wow really? The Diocese should of sent out a letter hahaha!

Well I guess ill stick with Roman Catholic, it means the same thing anyways!

 

[catholictiger]

Its a very difficult topic, but people forget there are Eastern Catholics or don’t even know, since 98% of Catholics are Roman.

98% are Latin Rite, there is no Roman Rite I don’t think.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

98% are Latin Rite, there is no Roman Rite I don’t think.

“Roman Rite” is a synonym for the Roman Liturgy, which is by far the most common liturgy in the Latin rite Church. Yes, Catholic terminology really is a mess.