The media and most Protestant/evangelical churches call us Roman Catholic. Since when?

What about the Melkites and Maronites, and other Eastern rite Catholics? Are they not Catholic? Of course they are!

We are Catholics and some of us are Roman rite and some of the Eastern rite. The term Roman Catholic arose from the Anglican church which sees itselg as English Catholic (English rite). There is no such thing. No other language (certainly not in French, Italian or Spanish) refer to Catholics generally as Roman Catholics, only English speaking countries that are mostly of Anglican/Protestant origin.

Let's call ourselves Catholics as we truly are!

-- Franc (francois.de-fleuriot@unilever.com), November 11, 2003

Answers

Dear Franc; Please don't blame the Protestant Community for your tradition's self identification as "Roman Catholic." Every Catholic congregation in our area of New Jersey identifies itself as Roman Catholic either on its signs, letterhead, or phone listings. I would imagine it is part of their incorporated title with the state.

Granted, there were nasty phrases used to demean Catholics in the past, but in the present - Roman Catholic is not one of them - at least not from our side of the aisle.

Peace

-- Robert Fretz (Pastorfretz@oldstonechurch.org), November 11, 2003.

Franc that is interesting.

And it is true that originally the Roman Catholic Church was used by protestants to demean the Church. But now we just call ourselves that because it has been used for so long.

It is also interesting to know that protestants first called themselves that. They also used the word Reformation to describe their movement and Counter-Reformation to describe the Catholics move against them. They also used to refer to the Papacy as the Popery.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), November 11, 2003.

"Jesuit" (meaning "little Jesus") was also originally a derogatory term used against members of the Society of Jesus.

On travel, I have seen Catholic parishes that go by "St. So-and-so R.C. Church." I'm not a big fan of parishes that go by "RC." AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 11, 2003.

Yeah, it could stand for "Royal Crown" (like the soda), and that would be an Anglican church, wouldn't it? :)

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), November 12, 2003.

"But now we just call ourselves that because it has been used for so long."

Scott, please don't say that "we ... call ourselves that."
Because of its roots in bigotry, I never call myself that, and whenever the subject comes up, I speak up against it. But it's not just I who avoid using the term "Roman Catholic." It's the Church herself who does not officially use that term.

For example, we refer to the "CCC," because the book is NOT named the "Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church."

And did you know that, in the hundreds of pages of the sixteen documents of Vatican Council II, you will not find the term, "Roman Catholic"?

What about the 1983 Code of Canon Law? Nope, not there either.

The term is a phenomenon of English-speaking countries, because of the influence of Anglicanism on Great Britain and its worldwide ex-Empire (including the U.S.A.).

The minister, Robert F, says: "Please don't blame [my] Protestant Community for your tradition's self identification as 'Roman Catholic.'"
I think I've now made it clear to him that our Church (not "tradition") does not have "self-identification" as "Roman Catholic." Rather, it is some individual Catholics who use the term.

Robert F continues: "Every Catholic congregation in our area of New Jersey identifies itself as Roman Catholic either on its signs, letterhead, or phone listings. I would imagine it is part of their incorporated title with the state."
I doubt it. I think that the term is being used for one or more of the following reasons:
1. Ignorant of the slur-origin of the term, one generation passes it down to the next.
2. Some have a commendable, though unnecessary, desire openly to express obedience to the Bishop of Rome, the pope.
3. Some have a desire, again unnecessary, to avoid confusion with bodies that falsely call themselves "Catholic" (e.g., Anglican Catholic, Old Catholic, etc.)
4. Some have a desire to indicate that the "Roman rite" of the liturgy, rather than one of the Eastern (Catholic) rites (e.g., Byzantine), is celebrated in these parishes. [In these cases, it is preferable for the sign to say, "St. Jerome Catholic Church -- Latin Rite."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 12, 2003.

Franc,

Thanks for the thread. I rember Mateo and John G. talking about this back some time ago.

If I rember correctly Mateo thanked John for giving him the chance to pull out some "old Catholic books".[But, he still didn't agree](at the time.)

May God bless the "little princess."

-- - (David@excite.com), November 13, 2003.

Robert,

The reality is that it is not a Catholic tradition. Growing up in a mostly Protestant culture, in South Africa, the term Roman Catholic has been used in a derogative manner. A common one is the "Roman Church" linking the word "Roman" to the Apocalypse (Revelations) and specifically to the beast.

Robert, I can only talk of my experiences as a Catholic. I never had a problem any persons faith (I was brought up to repect a persons faith)but I was systematically attacked as a Catholic. The opening line or point of departure has mostly been the big bad "Roman" church.

Although I belong to the Latin Rite, I have become very reactive to the use of "Roman Catholic" due to my past experiences. I take heart that you don't see it that way.

Maybe I'm just damaged goods!

Later

Franc

-- Franc (francois.de-fleuriot@unilever.com), November 13, 2003.

It seems like the moderator deleted the old thread, though Google remembers it.

I hope all is well with you and your family, David!

AMDG,

Mateo the Catholic :-)

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 13, 2003.

Roman "Universal" just seems a little contradictory to me...

-- Jacob (jacobrainey@hotmail.com), November 14, 2003.

Yes it is. Which is why Christ's Church is not called "Roman". The name of His Church is the Catholic Church.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 14, 2003.

The Survival of Prejudice The Continued Use of the Pejorative Term 'Roman Catholic' by Fr. Paul Stenhouse, M.S.C., Ph.D. 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 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.

'Roman Catholic' a Contradiction

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.

Governments and Media

Amazingly, State and Federal organs in 'democratic' and 'secular' Australia still use the reformation title 'Roman' Catholic when referring to the Catholic Church where legal matters are concerned, and in government documents the Catholic Church still appears as the 'Roman' Catholic Church. By some convention that has been inherited from the colonial days, most Australian newspapers and almost all radio and TV stations (the ABC is a notorious example) still insist on attaching the adjective 'Roman' when Catholics are found — as they frequently are — to he newsworthy. And the opposite lack of calling some ministers of Protestant religions 'Catholic' (thereby implying that they are in union with Rome which they are not) especially when they are making court-appearances, is a situation equally to be deplored. Australia is supposed to have no 'Established Church'. Yet for many years, certainly up until the wave of post-war migration began to make its effect felt, the Church of England, as it was then known, was the de facto Church 'by law established'. The Catholic Church was given no comparable privileges, no imposing sites for its Churches (St Mary's Cathedral is built on what was at the time a rubbish dump) and offered no 'glebes': it had no Archdeacon with a place on the Governor's council. It was a body foreign to the Protestant establishment, and was made to feel its foreignness at every opportunity.

Offensive to Catholics

At that time Catholics were almost always referred to in government communiques with the prefix 'Roman' attached. This was known to be offensive to Catholics, and was persevered with for that reason, and in order to keep Catholics in their 'place,' and so as to bolster the Church of England's claim to continuity with the ancient 'Catholic' Church that existed prior to the reformation. Writing of this habit of limiting 'Catholic' by adding 'Roman' to it, Monsignor Ronald Knox noted in 1949: 'First let us note a point of language. It is a capital mistake to dismiss any subject of discussion with the comment "After all, it is only a matter of words". Words are vastly important. When they are used with careful deliberation they deserve to be studied; when they are used off-hand they give you an invaluable clue to the unconscious processes which are going on in the other man's mind.' The Church of England has now decided that it wishes to be known as the Anglican Church. Catholics respect its right to be called by that name. Anglicans have let it be known that they resent being called 'Protestants'. We respect their wish and do not call them such. But we insist that the same courtesy be extended to us. And that we be called 'Catholics' — the name that has always been given to Christians in union with Rome. When an Englishman speaks of affairs over the border as Scotch, not Scottish, you know that he is either ignorant, or insulting the Scots. To call a Japanese person a 'Jap' or an Italian or Greek person a 'wog' is insulting to them, and against the anti-Discrimination laws of this country. When the 'Good Weekend' Magazine of the Fairfax Group publishes an interview of Steve J. Spears with Caroline Jones in which the Catholic Church is described by Spears as 'the pompy pap I tossed aside for atheism years ago — the Roman Catholic Church' the insult is deliberate and equally obvious. When a Catholic Diocese or Order, to be registered as a Corporation for legal reasons, has to call itself 'The Roman Catholic Diocese of . . .', or when I apply for a passport, and I have printed on it as my profession 'Roman Catholic Priest' the implication is again obvious. In a society where real religion is losing its hold from year to year, as we Catholics emerge into greater prominence, find ourselves inexorably the target for insult and attack. The stakes are high; the situation of ecumenism becomes more and more precarious. How can Christian unity or our much vaunted 'multi-culturalism' be meaningful when the Australian media and government, and even the general public, still get away with using derogatory terms to describe Catholics? When will the Bishops of Australia take this pejorative use of the word 'Roman Catholic' to the Anti-Discrimination Board and test it? From ”Catholic Answers To 'Bible' Christians,” Volume Two. Chevalier Press, 1 Roma Avenue, Kensington, NSW 2033, Sydney, AUSTRALIA.

-- Michael John (ecumenisminterfaith@hotmail.com), November 16, 2003.

Although the sixteenth century heretics called themselves Protestants, they did not all reject the name CATHOLIC. Luther cut the word out of the Creed. Not so in England. In England, Anglican theologians for themselves EXCLUSIVELY the name CATHOLIC and branded the Church in union with Rome with insulting names of ROMAN, ROMISH, or PAPIST to indicate it was somehow an abonimable sect cut off from the true Church. When all along it was just a futile attempt to justify the new religion, the State church founded by King Henry VIII's Royal Assent to a parliamentary bill ! Keep in mind that at that time, this new national church, established by an Act of Parliament knew nothing of the BRANCH THEORY ! ( more on that later)

Protestants , who as a group begn using these NEW terms include: 1.) evangelical Anglican Archdeacon Philpot( later put to death as a heretic by Queen Mary ( Tudor)( reference "Works"; Parker Society, p.132)

2.) John Foxe ( Acts and Monuments)

3.) Percival Wyburn in 1580A.D.

4.) Anglican 'bishop' Andrewes in 1609 A.D.

These guys all used the above terms to show NOT that the Catholic Church was just another Catholic Church amongst several. For the BRANCH THEORY which came later in history was the one that realxed and allowed the idea that the Catholic Church was another branch of the ONE CHURCH and that the Anglican Church was 'a branch of the Catholic Church in England'. Which of course is wasn't. But the institutions of Britain insisted through secular law to spread the fiction by all means, govt gazettes, forms, legislation etc.

-- Michael john (ecumenisminterfaith@hotmail.com), November 16, 2003.

Although Anglicans like to think they are still a continuing branch of the Catholic Church, John Jewel, one of their own clearly did not.

Anglican bishop John Jewel lived from 1522-1571 A.D. He wrote a book entitled " Apology for the Anglican Church". He wrote: ' We have departed from that Church, which they call the Catholic Church......'

This book earned for him the title' Father of English Protestantism'.

My 2nd piece of evidence is as follows:

In the public domain, any visitor,( as I have been to England), can visit the imposing statue of Anglican Bishop Middleton in the south aisle of St Paul's Cathedral and note the inscription underneath: ' First Protestant Bishop in India'.

Thus both the doctrinal breaks being self evident and plainly admitted mean heresy; and the self identification by Anglicans themselves as being Protestant has been shown.

-- Michael John (ecumenisminterfaith@hotmail.com), November 16, 2003.

Inititial, mid and latter day justifications used

The term Protestant was embraced by many Anglicans but not by all. The term 'Protestant' was not derogatory. And your the equating of the term with the name CHRISTIAN is comparing apples with bananas. The Puritan Robert Cowley published a treatise in 1588 entitled' A Deliberate Answer...' which attempted to prove ' that the papists that do now call themselves Catholics are indeed anti-Christian schismatics and that the religious PROTESTANTS* ( * my emphasis)are indeed the right Catholics'.

The old Protestants were at least logical; they knew there could only be one Church, that they were different from the Church in union with Rome, and therefore, if they were the true Church, the 'Roman Catholics' were outside it. That is why it was so very important to use the term 'Roman Catholic'. Initially, it was to show who wasn't 'loyal' to the King; then it was used for Protestant doctrinal reasons and the useage enforced through out the Realm to justify the new church's existence and to summarily usurp in the minds of many the very idea of the true Church for themselves in their heretical and novel position as Anglican.

The branch theory came a couple of centuries later, whereby a 'kinder' view was invented to allow the 'Roman Catholic Church' legitimacy as a 'branch' of the Church. How tortuous and disingenuous.

-- Michael John (ecumenisminterfaith@hotmail.com), November 16, 2003.

That Henry, stole all our real estate.

-- (Tralifast@pacbell.com), November 16, 2003.

Hello,

I was very surprised to read that people find the term "Roman Catholic" offensive. I was raised Protestant and still am, and I have never heard of that before. Also, many of my relatives are Catholic.

Please do not take offense if people use this term, because they may be ignorant about its connotations, as I was. Perhaps instead it would be better to kindly inform them that this is not the correct term. I can see why they would be confused, especially because many churches here in the US where I live refer to themselves as "Roman Catholic."

I thought that the idea of "Roman Universal" church being an oxymoron was very insightful. Thanks for enlighening me about this. I am considering becoming Catholic, and this was helpful in my understanding of Catholicism.

Emily

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), January 06, 2004.