[dangus]

>> "Ecumenical theological analysts have often identified Romanism..."

"Ecumenical" theological analysts who use terms like "Romanism" hardly sound impartial, and obviously do not inclde amongst themselves actual Catholics.

The term is "Catholic." The misnaming, "Roman Catholic" is often accepted, even by Catholics, to distinguish the Roman Patriarchy from the other Patriarchs who refuse communion with the Roman Patriarchy. Even as such it's misleading, since about half of the other Patriarchs have sided with Rome ("Byzantine Catholics").

Catholicism is the belief in the Catholic, that the true Church is universal. Romanism would be the belief in Rome, and would seem a more fitting term for people who worshipped Jupiter and Ceasar. It cannot even mean having the belief in the *authority* of Rome, since the authority of the Cathoic Church is not seated in Rome, but rather in the Vatican City, across the river from Rome.

Hence, people who use the term "Romanism" are either:
1. People so burning with opposition to Catholicism that they cannot even give it a fitting, non-inflamatory name (I presume OP fits into this category), or
2. Slack-jawed idiots who heard the word used as a perjoritive when they were children and never learned that it was not a proper term.

Neither group represents disinterested moderators.

[Lexinom]

I was more interested in the analysis than in the verbiage.

When believers recite the creed with the church of all ages, saying "I believe in...the holy catholic church", catholic is an improper noun. It refers to the aggregate of the elect of God yet alive and those saints who are in heaven awaiting the eschaton.