The following belongs to the previous citation:
That glorious name Catholic has ever been her property. Her children throughout the whole world are known as Catholics. No addition is necessary, and all men know it. When an addition is made, it is made not as a qualification, but either as expressing a particular point of view of a particular individual with a particular ax to grind, or in deference to that particular point of view of the particular individual with the particular ax to grind: a mere act of toleration, a mere modus vivendi, a mere makeshift to avoid discussion here and now undesirable. And all men know it. I must confess that I have never been able to be frightfully distressed at the term Roman Catholic. It can be used in a right sense, as pointing to that definite centre of that universal Unity which is the reason for the name Catholic. It adds nothing necessary for the precise definition of the Church. And no one save those with a particular ax to grind, ever affects to hesitate as to which Church is indicated by the name Catholic. That name is ours by right commonly acknowledged from the beginning. And in so far as the term Roman is used in the wrong sense with which we are all acquainted, we can afford to smile at it. It really scarcely deserves notice: it will fall by its own weight: it will die of its own suggested falsity. Other heretics have done this sort of thing before, as Augustine told Julian.11 It is not wonderful that heretics should try to give a new name to the Catholics whom they have left. The Arians tried to call us Homousians or Athanasians; the Pelagians tried to call us Traducians; the Donatists tried to call us Macarians; the Manichaeans tried to call us Pharisees. It does not matter. The point is that only those with a particular ax to grind will try to give us a particular name to modify Catholic pure and simple. As Augustine said of the epithet Traducian, and as De Maistre said of the epithet Papist, it is merely foolish and impolite: “Une pure insulte, et une insulte de mauvais ton, qui chez les Protestants meme, ne sort plus d’une bouche distinguee.” So will it be with this spurious and artificial sense attached to this use of the word Roman. The whole thing is an illustration, conversely, of the force of Chrysostom’s argument from names. It is the new thing that demands a new name; and the name, in this instance, remains.
And in 1922, the Catholic World, Volume 115 we find this:
That glorious name Catholic has ever been her property. Her children throughout the whole world are known as Catholics. No addition is necessary, and all men know it. When an addition is made, it is made not as a qualification, but either as expressing a particular point of view of a particular individual with a particular ax to grind, or in deference to that particular point of view of the particular individual with the particular ax to grind: a mere act of toleration, a mere modus vivendi, a mere makeshift to avoid discussion here and now undesirable. And all men know it. I must confess that I have never been able to be frightfully distressed at the term Roman Catholic. It can be used in a right sense, as pointing to that definite centre of that universal Unity which is the reason for the name Catholic. It adds nothing necessary for the precise definition of the Church. And no one save those with a particular ax to grind, ever affects to hesitate as to which Church is indicated by the name Catholic. That name is ours by right commonly acknowledged from the beginning. And in so far as the term Roman is used in the wrong sense with which we are all acquainted, we can afford to smile at it. It really scarcely deserves notice: it will fall by its own weight: it will die of its own suggested falsity. Other heretics have done this sort of thing before, as Augustine told Julian.11 It is not wonderful that heretics should try to give a new name to the Catholics whom they have left. The Arians tried to call us Homousians or Athanasians; the Pelagians tried to call us Traducians; the Donatists tried to call us Macarians; the Manichaeans tried to call us Pharisees. It does not matter. The point is that only those with a particular ax to grind will try to give us a particular name to modify Catholic pure and simple. As Augustine said of the epithet Traducian, and as De Maistre said of the epithet Papist, it is merely foolish and impolite: “Une pure insulte, et une insulte de mauvais ton, qui chez les Protestants meme, ne sort plus d’une bouche distinguee.” So will it be with this spurious and artificial sense attached to this use of the word Roman. The whole thing is an illustration, conversely, of the force of Chrysostom’s argument from names. It is the new thing that demands a new name; and the name, in this instance, remains.
end paste
And in the end that’s where it stands with Protestants who hate the Catholic Church. They insist on calling it “Roman Catholic” because they think that some how works against the Church.
You said “And in the end that’s where it stands with Protestants who hate the Catholic Church. They insist on calling it “Roman Catholic” because they think that some how works against the Church.”
I use the term ‘Roman Catholic’ or just ‘Roman’ frequently. I don’t mean it to be pejorative in any manner, but as a protestant I too consider myself part of the catholic church; just not the Catholic church.
It is equally if not more offensive to me to have the Catholic Church feel it has exclusive rights to the term ‘catholic’.
There is only one church. That is the body of Christ in the world. It is therefore the catholic church. Exclusive or primary possession of either of those terms ‘catholic’ or ‘church’ should be recognized as the true offensive use of verbage; not the addition of qualifiers to make certain the group being spoken about is uniquely identified.
will wallace