Actually, to speak of "universal" doctrines, as opposed to identifying those doctrines which were developed and approved officially by a certain body headed by a curia living in Rome, is less accurate, and already assumes Roman Catholic doctrine is universally Christian doctrine--when millions of Christians around the world do not acknowledge that. "Roman Catholic" is really the most accurate way to refer to things of the Church of Rome, however "Roman" is shorthand for that--and accurately reflects the opinions of those who do not acknowledge Roman dogma as universally authoritative over all Christians.
It seems pretty arrogant to expect Anglicans to refer to Roman doctrines with a shorthand of "universal."
(besides the Orthodox have at least as much claim to being as ancient and universal in their doctrines as Rome...but that's a different matter.)
"Roman" too, being shorthand for Roman Catholic, is a neutral term too, and not associated with terms considered by some pejorative, like "papist" or "popish" which some Anglican writers (C. S. Lewis, for example...following Oxford usage of his day) of generations past used.
But please, do not expect non-Roman Catholic Christian scholars to use the term "Catholic" in referring to the distinctive teachings of the Church of Rome.
Roman is NOT a neutral term. The word is used to conjure up images of Babylon, Caligulus, and allegations of Constantine's supposed corruption of Catholicism. The Vatican isn't even IN Rome.