Nonsense. Evidently, your reading and education are quite neglected.
Via
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Roman Catholic:Although belief in the "holy Church" was included in the earliest form of the Roman Creed, the word Catholic does not seem to have been added to the Creed anywhere in the West until the fourth century. Kattenbusch believes that our existing form is first met with in the "Exhortatio" which he attributes to Gregorius of Eliberis (c. 360). It is possible, however, that the creed lately printed by Dom Morin (Revue Bénédictine, 1904, p. 3) is of still earlier date. In any case the phrase, "I believe in the holy Catholic Church" occurs in the form commented on by Nicetas of Remesiana (c. 375). With regard to the modern use of the word, Roman Catholic is the designation employed in the legislative enactments of Protestant England, but Catholic is that in ordinary use on the Continent of Europe, especially in Latin countries. Indeed, historians of all schools, at least for brevity's sake, frequently contrast Catholic and Protestant, without any qualification. In England, since the middle of the sixteenth century, indignant protests have been constantly made against the "exclusive and arrogant usurpation" of the name Catholic by the Church of Rome. The Protestant, Archdeacon Philpot, who was put to death in 1555, was held to be very obstinate on this point (see the edition of his works published by the Parker Society); and among many similar controversies of a later date may be mentioned that between Dr. Bishop, subsequently vicar Apostolic, and Dr. Abbot, afterwards Bishop of Salisbury, regarding the "Catholicke Deformed", which raged from 1599 to 1614. According to some, such combinations as Roman Catholic, or Anglo-Catholic, involve a contradiction in terms. (See the Anglican Bishop of Carlisle in "The Hibbert Journal", January, 1908, p. 287.) From about the year 1580, besides the term papist, employed with opprobrious intent, the followers of the old religion were often called Romish or Roman Catholics. Sir William Harbert, in 1585, published a "Letter to a Roman pretended Catholique", and in 1587 an Italian book by G.B. Aurellio was printed in London regarding the different doctrines "dei Protestanti veri e Cattolici Romani". Neither do the Catholics always seem to have objected to the appellation, but sometimes used it themselves. On the other hand, Protestant writers often described their opponents simply as "Catholics"....Roman Catholic, although it has a varied history of use among Catholics and Protestants in English-speaking countries, is a useful term to distinguish various factions of Catholicism. For instance, Old Catholic Church History, describes the Old Catholics. And certainly the
Byzantine Catholic Church in America is a Byzantine Catholic organization (Orthodox), not Roman Catholic of the Latin rite with obedience to the dictates of Rome via her current "infallible" bishop.In addition, there are Eastern Catholics (Byzantine Churches, Maronite, Coptic) that should be familiar to us all given their plight in Iraq and other areas. Certainly, they do not toady and grovel to Rome although they are in communion with Rome, whereas the Eastern Orthodox are in partial communion with Rome. The Orthodox have themselves also been known as the Catholic Orthodox church.
Also, early Reformers reserved the right to refer to themselves as 'catholic'.
Personally, I will pay no honor to a church will not recant its persecution, dire torture and murder of Archdeacon Philpot.
The blood of the martyred Philpot still stains Rome's hands. She has not repented her gross sins against martyrs and justifies them, as in the Advent article, by quaintly mentioning that "so-and-so was considered quite obstinate" in refusing to call the church of Rome simply "Catholic" (with the intended meaning that it was the only legitimate church and sole source of salvation). Yes, we are well aware that your church has demonstrated it is quite willing to torture and murder those who refuse to name her "Catholic". And we are ourselves quite "obstinate" in this matter.
Rome's murder, at the orders of her dictators, the bishops of Rome, of millions of simple believers should make you consider whether that cup of communion in your Mass has truly been transformed into the blood of Christ or whether it signifies nothing more than the blood of His own simple followers, those martyred for refusing to bow to the monarch of Rome and his arrogant claims to supremacy, those who loved Christ more than life and were required to prove it by that same bishop of Rome and his diabolical hierarchy.
The Roman church, headed by the bishop of Rome, has never repented her murders of millions. Her grossest sins unrepented, she can be no source of salvation to any soul although I hold personally the hope that many within her fold have been and will be saved despite her pernicious and baleful influence.
At this point, I think you should apologize for your church's cold-blooded torture and murder of Archdeacon Philphot. Neither Christ nor his True Church in ancient times ever tortured or murdered anyone. Only Rome believes in and has practiced those methods of "Christian ministry".
Do not suppose that we are unaware of Rome's true nature and her bloody history. Merely because we allow the church of Rome to operate in this country does not mean we have forgotten her true nature and inclinations.
After you apologize, we can continue to a fuller discussion of exactly the times and circumstances under which terms like Romanist, Romish, and even papist are not only acceptable but are in fact the only accurate and correct terms available.
Dr.E: You guys are and always will be the Roman Catholic Church because the bishop of ROME lives in ROME.
You forget that fun-loving little sojourn of the papacy to Avignon under a French pope (Avignon was officially a papal territory but was within the French sphere when France was becoming a modern state, back when Italy was just the name of a region on the map). In opposition, various Roman rival representing the Italian faction. It was a real comedy of errors, with both raising armies of brigands to rape and pillage their way across Europe (sins pre-forgiven by papal authority) in order to depose the rival anti-pope.
This inspiring little episode in the history of the Church Militant And Triumphant is the primary reason why no non-Italian was elected bishop of Rome for about 300 years until that Polish radical, JP II. The current papa, Benedict, is at least a thoughtful and scholarly man. He has recently repudiated any further teaching of the useless (unofficially) doctrine of Limbo. He did not pronounce infallibly against Limbo since no pope had ever imposed Limbo infallibly. And yet, millions of poor Roman Catholics have been taught this false doctrine, wasting their time on it instead being offered the simple doctrines of grace which are required to be taught in any true church of our Lord.
It reminds you of all those same people being taught to revere and pray to Saint Christopher for safety in travel and then Rome finally acknowledged there was and is no Saint Christopher. He was nothing but a legend. But he did inspire a brisk trade in medallions and tiny dashboard statuary. Rome then explained that all prayers ever offered to him, despite his non-existence, were effective because they were directed to someone in heaven and Jesus was snagging these random prayer requests like flyballs in the outfield of Heaven. Well, not exactly but close enough if you sprinkle some Latin phrases and Papa-happy-talk all over it like usual. I'm guessing here that they won't be getting their money back for their little Saint Christopher trinkets either.