6 Responses to “This is worrying”

1. 1 Bonifacius Jan 24th, 2009 at 2:09 am

   Hah! This reminds me of the marquee outside of a parish in Illinois that my family used to frequent. The patron saint was St. John the Baptist, but “St. John the Baptist Church” makes it sound like the church is Baptist, not St. John. So the marquee and all of the stationery have the words “St. John the Baptist Roman Catholic Church,” which still makes it sound like the parish belonged to the Baptist Roman Catholic denomination.

2. 2 Bonifacius Jan 25th, 2009 at 2:19 am

   James wrote:

   “I for one hate the prefix ‘Roman’ when used in front of the name ‘Catholic.’ 1.) It intimates that there are other kinds of Christian churches that can rightly be called ‘catholic,’ which is, of course, incorrect. 2.) ‘Roman Catholic is a moniker foisted upon the Catholic Church by the very Protestant Anglicans of reformation England to create a delineation between the True Church and the new-fangled Protestant ‘church.’ 3.) NOWHERE in official Catholic Church writings or documents of any kind does the Church EVER use the term ‘Roman Catholic’ to identify itself, but rather rightly uses the term ‘Catholic.’ 4.) it’s an affront to the non-Latin rite Catholics because it has a tendency to make them feel less than fully Catholic. I never use the term if I can help it and never refer to myself as such. To make matters worse, many (most)? Catholics as well as priests have no problem using it and many church marquees proudly plaster it for all to see, thus clouding the issue further. In my town, (and I suspect in many other cities) if you look in the Yellow Pages under “Churches Catholic” you won’t find all of the Catholic Churches listed because many of them are listed under “Churches Roman Catholic” giving the impression to ignorant people that the two groups are not the same.”

   James, I respectfully will defend the opposing view.

   1.) I don’t think that this is much of a problem. I’ve never met anyone who said they were “Lutheran Catholic,” etc. Anglo-Catholics probably would call themselves that regardless of what we call ourselves. Almost no other group uses “Catholic” as part of the specific name for its denomination. Far from freeing up the word “Catholic” for others to use, “Roman Catholic” seems to have made people think first and foremost of the Church of Rome whenever they hear the word “Catholic.”

   2.) And Jesuit was originally an insult. Regardless of the origin of the term, we all know the term is no longer pejorative. We’ve taken the word from them. I am happy to call myself a Papist and a Romanist. We are Romans and Catholics and Roman Catholics and Catholic Romans. If others think that there’s a contradiction, that’s their problem.

   3.) Not quite true. Pope Gelasius uses the term “Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church.” The Magisterium has on occasion used the terms “Roman” as a synonym of “Catholic”: “For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved.” That’s from Bl. Pius IX. He uses “Roman” of the entire Catholic Church.

   4.) I so often hear that “Roman Catholic” insults Eastern Catholic and I never quite understand why. The term is used of the entire Church, which is headed by the Roman Pope and is in communion with him. Only in very rarefied circumstances is the word “Roman” here taken to refer to the Roman Rite. When speaking of Catholics of the Roman Rite, most people say Roman-Rite or, less correctly, Latin-Rite Catholics, not “Roman Catholics.” (Should I feel insulted because I do not personally live in the city of Rome? Am I less for this?) Everyone in communion with the Roman Pope belongs to the Church of Rome, which is the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church. Then you get into questions of rites, etc.

   If “Roman Catholic” is taken to mean Roman-Rite Catholic in particular in the same sense that Syrian Catholic means a Catholic of the Syrian Rite, then “Roman Catholic” is not objectionable, is it? If someone is proud to call himself a Ukrainian Catholic, then Roman-Rite Catholics should rejoice in “Roman Catholic.” It stands to reason — they can specify their rite by attaching it to “Catholic,” so why can’t we? Do Maronites say, “I’m Catholic . . . Maronite Rite,” or “I’m a Maronite/Maronite Catholic?”

   I grant that “Catholic” is better than “Roman Catholic.” But we can use the present term “Roman Catholic” to show that being a Catholic means belonging to Rome.

3. 3 Bonifacius Jan 25th, 2009 at 3:18 pm

   Ben wrote: Eastern Catholics are not Roman but are fully Catholic

   Yes, Eastern Catholics are fully Catholic. However, it depends on what you mean by “not Roman.” They are not of the *Roman Rite* but they do belong to the Church of Rome — their supreme ecclesiastical authority on earth is the Roman Pontiff. In that respect, they are in fact quite Roman, Roman enough to make “Roman Catholic” *in this sense* entirely proper, if rather redundant.

   By the way, since the Eastern Roman Empire persisted until 1453, the Greeks formerly referred to themselves simply as Romans. If you asked their ethnicity, they were as likely to say “Roman” (Romaios) as “Greek” (Hellene). The Turks routinely referred to Christianity as the religion of the Romans, if I recall correctly. The term “Roman” was often taken as synonymous with “Catholic.” So it is just as fair to say that the Eastern Catholics are fully Roman (in this sense) and fully Catholic.

   “Roman” means many things. I don’t live in Rome (currently). I don’t speak Italian. Should I call myself a Roman Rite Catholic in order to avoid any confusion? Heaven forbid we offend those Roman Rite Catholics who don’t live in the Eternal City!

4. 4 James Jan 26th, 2009 at 2:01 pm

   Thank you for your reply. I love this site!
   I still say that the Church doesn’t place the term ‘Roman’ directly in front of the name ‘Catholic.’ It certainly uses the word ‘Roman’ many times and in many ways, but not directly preceding ‘Catholic.’ The Church can and should proudly call itself ‘Roman’ because, after all, the Church Militant has to occupy a certain time and physical place and the headquarters of the Church have to be located somewhere. It only makes perfect sense that it be Rome because it was the See of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles. I realize that there has developed a certain modern usage of the term ‘Roman Catholic’ as in ‘Roman Catholic of the Latin rite,’ ‘Roman Catholic of the Greek rite,’ etc. I just feel that it limits the Universal Church to use the prefix ‘Roman’ before the word ‘Catholic.’ I don’t see how something can be universal, yet provincial. Catholics, regardless of rite, should stop adding to the confusion and learn to identify themselves as ‘Catholic’ and nothing else unless they want to add their respective rite to the title. Catholics in communion with Rome are the only ones who can rightly claim that one-word name.

   There are more than a few religious organizations using the word ‘Catholic’ in their titles. (Polish National Catholic Church, the various Old Catholic Churches, the various ‘independent’ Catholic Churches, the Anglo-Catholics, some ‘independent’ and/or autocephalous Orthodox Catholic Churches, the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church, etc.) This list does not pretend to be complete. [See: [http://tinyurl.com/b8bzdr] and [http://tinyurl.com/apeluk]

5. 5 Discipulus Jan 26th, 2009 at 7:27 pm

   James,

   The first members of the One, True, Church were called Christians. Later to distinguish the loyal members from heretics etc. the name Catholic was employed. Today we have to further clarify by “Roman” Catholic to distinguish from those who are not in the Church but call themselves Catholic. We could rightly maintain that we are the true Christians but should we insist on identifying ourselves simply as Christian? No, it would only make for confusion.

6. 6 Bonifacius Jan 26th, 2009 at 7:40 pm

   “There are more than a few religious organizations using the word ‘Catholic’ in their titles. (Polish National Catholic Church, the various Old Catholic Churches, the various ‘independent’ Catholic Churches, the Anglo-Catholics, some ‘independent’ and/or autocephalous Orthodox Catholic Churches, the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church, etc.) This list does not pretend to be complete.”

   Right, but who has ever heard of these people? I mean outside of bizarre people like you and me who actually have some strange interest? I bet that almost everyone who meets an Anglo-Catholic or Polish National Catholic or Old Catholic initially infers from the name that they must be some sub-set of “Roman Catholic.” Even in the case of the Eastern Catholics, most English speakers would infer from the “Catholic” part that these folks are in communion with what is popularly called the Roman Catholic Church.

   Outside of the few, stalwart heretics who persist in claiming for themselves to be members of the “catholic church,” most people I have ever met use “Catholic” and “Roman Catholic” interchangeably, even if they do claim in the Nicene Creed to belong to “the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.”

   But I do concede the primary point — “Catholic” is better, and avoids any confusion. And if we do run into some bitter Anglican or Calvinist, etc., who wants to tack “Roman” onto Catholic, we can tell them that “Roman” does mean “Universal/Catholic,” and vice versa. We’re just trying to tell the truth without being redundant.

   For what it’s worth, we also are truly orthodox, whereas the so-called Eastern “Orthodox” do not have a truly orthodox theology insofar as they reject the Filioque, Papal Infallibility and Supremacy, most ecumenical councils, and (to a lesser extent) the Immaculate Conception, Original Sin, and transubstantiation. So Eastern Catholics have every reason to dispute the title “Eastern Orthodox” with the schismatics. Now, do the Eastern Orthodox dispute being called “Eastern” because, according to their own mind, they are the true remnant of the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church”?