Why voluntarily call oneself a “Roman” Catholic when the term was added as a perjorative by Anglicans?
Catholic and/or Roman?
CATHOLICS in Australia still suffer from intermittent and inconsistent bigotry at official and semi-official levels, and in the media. The patience of many Catholics is starting to run out, despite the fact that insults have a way of being back-handed compliments, and turning the other cheek is a time-honoured Christian reaction.
Have readers noticed how, in 1988, some ‘friends’ or business acquaintances will self-consciously and at times barely audibly throw in the word
Roman when referring to Catholics. They are insulting you and know that they are using a term you reject but they go ahead just the same – and their very hesitancy heightens the discourtesy.
The word ‘Catholic’ as almost everybody knows, means ‘Universal’. ‘Roman’ is an adjective referring to the city or See of Rome, the first city of an ancient Empire, and the capital of modern Italy. To qualify ‘Catholic’ with
any adjective is a contradiction in terms.
The custom of doing so arose in the heady times of the reformation when having abandoned the Catholic Church many of the reformers began to doubt their spiritual legitimacy. They saw that they could not very well reject the Nicene Creed and still call themselves Christians. But what were they to make of the statement of belief in the
Holy Catholic Church? To deny it would be fatal; and to accept it without qualification was impossible.
So the opponents of Rome came up with the convenient tag
‘Roman’ Catholic to distinguish Catholics in union with the successor of St Peter from other alleged ‘Catholics’ who rejected the authority of the Pope but realised how shaky their claim to be Christian was unless they could, somehow, cluster under the ‘Catholic’ umbrella. The ploy is a familiar one, and Catholics are happy enough to let history be the judge as to the truth of falsity of the claims.
More at
jloughnan.tripod.com/rom_cath.htm