Is it "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic?" <Vanity><Ecumenical>

Let me add an additional comment. Some Catholics might be objecting to the use of Roman because of the “branch theory” of Catholicism advanced by some. This theory is that the Catholic Church is formed by three branches the Roman, the Anglican, and the Orthodox. I believe Ven John Henry Newman once held this theory. Of course the Catholic Church has always rejected this explanation and I believe the Orthodox churches as well.

There is a difference between the diversity of Catholic rites and that between the various Protestant churches. Despite their diversity, all the Catholic rites are united in faith and share a common communion under the pope. The differences are mostly about worship style: “I say tomato and you say tomaato.” The various Protestant churches, on the other hand, lack a common communion (This idea of common communion based upon apostolic succession is an important matter with Catholics that Protestants may not fully appreciate). Additionally, there are major differences in belief between the various Protestant churches: “I say tomato and you say roast beef.” I would hazard to say that there is a greater difference between the Calvanists and the Lutherans than between the latter and Catholics (At least this was Martin Luther’s opinion).

***Actually Protestants invented the term “Roman Catholic Church” in the early modern era. We didn’t. Catholics merely referred to themselves as Catholics.***

So back to the theme of my question, why do so many Catholic organizations have the title “Roman?” Why acquiesce to the to title given to them by Protestants?

If you don’t believe me you can look this up in the Oxford English Dictionary.

Though I have no reason to doubt you, I did look it up.

non-controversial term and has long been the recognized legal and official designation,

So back to the theme of my question, why do so many Catholic organizations have the title “Roman?”

Because they're Roman. As opposed to a different rite.

You wrote:

“So back to the theme of my question, why do so many Catholic organizations have the title “Roman?””

It became customary in English.

“Why acquiesce to the to title given to them by Protestants?”

It was the law at one point in the English speaking world. Catholics were forced by English law usage to use the term “Roman Catholic” in English courts. This affected everything from land deeds to permission to publish in England. For generations English speaking Catholics used the term they were required to use by force of law in England. Catholics coming to America, however, from outside the British Empire must have been struck by the fact that they had never used such a phrase in their native languages and that might explain the differences on signs in many cities. St. Patrick’s (and English speaking parish) might have a sign that says “Roman Catholic” while St. Wolfgang’s says “Catholic”.

This is why, when you go to the Wikipedia page for the Diocese of Linz, Austria it is called the “Roman Catholic Diocese of Linz” while the actual Catholics of Austria when speaking their own language simply call it Catholic: http://www.dioezese-linz.at/

And I’ve pointed out this before. English usage is beginning to effect things even overseas.

I answered you in 26.

It was easy for the Protestants writing the OED to call it “non-controversial term and has long been the recognized legal and official designation” but that is not how many Catholics actually felt or believed nor is it how many Catholics feel or believe now.

From the old Catholic Encyclopedia: Roman Catholic, a qualification of the name Catholic commonly used in English-speaking countries by those unwilling to recognize the claims of the One True Church. Out of condescension for these dissidents, the members of that Church are wont in official documents to be styled "Roman Catholics" as if the term Catholic represented a genus of which those who owned allegiance to the pope formed a particular species. It is in fact a prevalent conception among Anglicans to regard the whole Catholic Church as made up of three principal branches, the Roman Catholic, the Anglo-Catholic and the Greek Catholic. As the erroneousness of this point of view has been sufficiently explained in the articles Church and Catholic, it is only needful here to consider the history of the composite term with which we are now concerned. In the "Oxford English Dictionary", the highest existing authority upon questions of English philology, the following explanation is given under the heading "Roman Catholic". "The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish, which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the seventeenth century. For conciliatory reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish Match (1618-1624) and appears in formal documents relating to this printed by Rushworth (I, 85-89). After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognised legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed" (New Oxford Diet.. VIII, 766). Of the illustrative quotations which follow, the earliest in date is one of 1605 from the "Europse Speculum" of Edwin Sandys: "Some Roman Catholiques will not say grace when a Protestant is present"; while a passage from Day's "Festivals" of 1615, contrasts "Roman Catholiques" with "good, true Catholiques indeed". Although the account thus given in the Oxford Dictionary is in substance correct, it cannot be considered satisfactory. To begin with the word is distinctly older than is here suggested. When about the year 1580 certain English Catholics, under stress of grievous persecution, defended the lawfulness of attending Protestant services to escape the fines imposed on recusants, the Jesuit Father Persons published, under the pseudonym of Howlet, a clear exposition of the " Reasons why Catholiques refuse to goe to Church". This was answered in 1801 by a writer of Puritan sympathies, Pcrcival Wiburn, who in his "Checke or Rcproofe of M. Howlet" uses the term "Roman Catholic" repeatedly. For example he speaks of "you Romane Catholickes that sue for tolleration" (p. 140) and of the "parlous dilemma or straight which you Romane Catholickes are brought into" (p. 44). Again Robert Crowley, another Anglican controversialist, in his book called "A Délibérât Answere", printed in 1588, though adopting by preference the forms "Romish Catholike" or "Popish Catholike", also writes of those "who wander with the Romane Catholiques in the uncertayne hypathes of Popish devises" (p. 86). A study of these and other early examples in their context shows plainly enough that the qualification "Romish Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" was introduced by Protestant divines who highly resented the Roman claim to any monopoly of the term Catholic. In Germany, Luther had omitted the word Catholic from the Creed, but this was not the case in England. Even men of such Calvinistic leanings as Philpot (he was burned under Mary in 1555), and John Foxe the martyrologist, not to speak of churchmen like Newel and Fulke, insisted on the right of the Reformers to call themselves Catholics and professed to regard their own as the only true Catholic Church. Thus Philpot represents himself as answering his Catholic examiner: "I am, master doctor, of the unfeigned Catholic Church and will live and die therein, and if you can prove your Church to be the True Catholic Church, I will be one of the same" (Philpot, "Works", Parker Soc., p. 132). It would be easy to quote many similar passages. The term "Romish Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" undoubtedly originated with the Protestant divines who shared this feeling and who were unwilling to concede the name Catholic to their opponents without qualification. Indeed the writer Crowley, just mentioned, does not hesitate tliroughout a long tract to use the term "Protestant Catholics" the name which he applies to his antagonists. Thus he says "We Protestant Catholiques are not departed from the true Catholique religion" (p. 33) and he refers more than once to "Our Protestant Catholique Church," (p. 74) On the other hand the evidence seems to show that the Catholics of the reign of Elizabeth and James I were by no means willing to admit any other designation for themselves than the unqualified пащр Catholic. Father Southwell's "Humble Supplication to her Majesty" (1591), though criticized by some as over-adulatory in tone, always uses the simple word. What is more surprising, the same may be said of various addresses to the Crown drafted under the inspiration of the "Appellant" clergy, who were suspected by their opponents of subservience to the government and of minimizing in matters of dogma. This feature is very conspicuous, to take a single example, in "the Protestation of allegiance" drawn up by thirteen missioners, 31 Jan., 1603, in which they renounce all thought of "restoring the Catholic religion by the sword", profess their willingness "to persuade all Catholics to do the same" and conclude by declaring themselves ready on the one hand "to spend their blood in the defence of her Majesty" but on the other "rather to lose their lives than infringe the lawful authority of Christ's Catholic Church" (Tierney - Dodd, III, p. cxc). We find similar language used in Ireland in the negotiations carried on by Tyrone in behalf of his Catholic countrymen. Certain apparent exceptions to this uniformity of practice can be readily explained. To begin with we do find that Catholics not unfrequently use the inverted form of the name "Roman Catholic" and speak of the "Catholic Roman faith" or religion. An early example is to be found in a little controversial tract of 1575 called "a Notable Discourse" where we read for example that the heretics of old "preached that the Pope was Antichriste, shewing themselves verye eloquent in detracting and rayling against the Catholique Romane Church" (p. 64). But this was simply a translation of the phraseology common both in Latin and in the Romance languages "Ecclesia Catholica Romana," or in French "iTEglise catholique romaine". It was felt that this inverted form contained no hint of the Protestant contention that the old religion was a spurious variety of true Catholicism or at nest the Roman species of a wider genus. Again, when we find Father Persons (e. g. in his "Three Conversions," III, 408) using the term "Roman Catholic", the context shows that he ia only adopting the name for the moment as conveniently embodying the contention of his adversaries. Once more in a very striking passage in the examination of one James Clayton in 1591 (see Cal. State Papers, Dom. Eliz., add., vol. XXXII, p. 322) we read that the deponent "was persuaded to conforme himself to the Romaine Catholique faith." But there is nothing to show that these were the actual words of the recusant himself, or that, if they were, they were not simply dictated by a desire to conciliate his examiners. The "Oxford Dictionary" is probably right in assigning the recognition of "Roman Catholic" as the official style of the adherents of the Papacy in England to the negotiations for the Spanish Match (1618-24). In the various treaties etc., drafted in connexion with this proposal, the religion of the Spanish princess is almost always spoken of as "Roman Catholic". Indeed in some few instances the word Catholic alone is used. This feature does not seem to occur in any of the negotiations of earlier date which touched upon religion, e. g. those connected with the proposed d'Alencon marriage in Elizabeth's reign, while in Acts of Parliament, proclamations, etc., before the Spanish match, Catholics are simply described as Papists or Recusant^ and then* religion as popish, Romanish, or Romanist. Indeed long after this period, the use of the term Roman Catholic continued to be a mark of condescension, and language of much more uncomplimentary character was usually preferred. It was perhaps to encourage a friendlier attitude in the authorities that Catholics themselves henceforth began to adopt the qualified term in all official relations with the government. Thus the "Humble Remonstrance, Acknowledgment, Protestation and Petition of the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ireland " in 1661, began "We, your Majesty's faithful subjects the Roman Catholick clergy of Ireland". The same practice seems to have obtained in Maryland; see for example the Consultation entitled "Objections answered touching Maryland", drafted by Father R. Blount, S.J., in 1632 (B. Johnston, "Foundation of Maryland", etc., 1883, 29), and wills proved 22 Sep., 1630, and 19 Dec., 1659, etc.. (in Baldwin, " Maryland Cat. of Wills", 19 vols., vol. i. Naturally the wish to conciliate hostile opinion only grew greater as Catholic Emancipation became a question of practical politics; and by that time it would appear that many Catholics themselves used the qualified form not only when addressing the outside public but in their domestic discussions. A short-lived association, organized in 1794 with the fullest approval of the vicars Apostolic, to counteract the unorthodox tendencies of the Cisalpine Club, was officially known as the "Roman Catholic Meeting" (Ward, "Dawn of Cath. Revival in England", II, 65). So, too, a meeting of the Irish bishops under the presidency of Dr. Troy at Dublin in 1821 passed resolutions approving of an Emancipation Bill then before a Parliament, in which they uniformly referred to members of their own communion as "Roman Catholics". Further, such a representative Catholic as Charles Butler in his "Historical Memoirs" (sec e. g. vol. IV, 1821, pp. 185 199, 225, etc.,) frequently uses the term " roman-catnolic " [sic] and seems to find this expression as natural as the unqualified form. With the strong Catholic revival in the middle of the nineteenth century and the support derived from the uncompromising zeal of many earnest converte, such for example as Faber and Manning, an inflexible adherence to the name Catholic without qualification once more became the order of the day. The government, however; would not modify the official designation or suffer it to be set aside in addresses presented to the Sovereign on public occasions. In two particular instances during the archiepiscopate of Cardinal Vaughan this point was raised and became the subject of correspondence between the cardinal and the Home Secretary. In 1897 at the Diamond Jubilee of the accession of Queen Victoria, and again in 1901 when Edward VII succeeded to the throne, the Catholic episcopate desired to present addresses, but on each occasion it was intimated to the cardinal that the only permissible style would be " the Roman Catholic Archbishop and Bishops in England". Even the form "the Cardinal Archbishop and Bishops of the Catholic and Roman Church in England" was not approved. On the first occasion no address was presented, but in 1901 the requirements of the Home Secretary as to the use of the name "Roman Catholics" were complied with, though the cardinal reserved to himself the right of explaining subsequently on some public occasion the sense in which he used the words (see Snead-Cox, "Life of Cardinal Vaughan", II, 231-41). Accordingly, at the Newcastle Conference of the Catholic Truth Society (Aug., 1901) the cardinal explained clearly to his audience that "the term Roman Catholic has two meanings; a meaning that we repudiate and a meaning that we accept." The repudiated sense was that dear to many Protestants, according to which the term Catholic was a genus which resolved itself into the species Roman Catholic, Anglo-Catholic, Greek Catholic, etc. But, as the cardinal insisted, "with us the prefix Roman is not restrictive to a species, or a section, but simply declaratory of Catholic." The prefix in this sense draws attention to the unity of the Church, and "insists that the central point of Catholicity is Roman, the Roman See of St. Peter." It is noteworthy that the representative Anglican divine, Bishop Andrewes, in his "Tortura Torti" (1609) ridicules the phrase Ecclesia Catholica Romano, as a contradiction in terms. "What," he asks, "is the object of adding 'Roman'? The only purpose that such an adjunct can serve is to distinguish your Catholic Church from another Catholic Church which is not Roman" (p. 368). It is this very common line of argument which imposes upon Catholics the necessity of making no compromise in the matter of their own name. The loyal adherents of the Holy See did not begin in the sixteenth century to call themselves "Catholics" for controversial purposes. It is the traditional name handed down to us continuously from the time of St. Augustine. We use this name ourselves and ask those outside the Church to use it, without reference to its signification simply because it is our customary name, just as we talk of the Russian Church as "the Orthodox Church", not because we recognize its orthodoxy but because its members so style themselves, or again just as we speak of "the Reformation" because it is the term established by custom, though we are far from owning that it was a reformation in either faith or morals. The dog-in-themanger policy of so many Anglicans who cannot take the name of Catholics for themselves, because popular usage has never sanctioned it as such, but who on the other hand will not concede it to the members of the Church of Rome, was conspicuously brought out in the course of a correspondence on this subject in the London "Saturday Review" (Dec., 1908 to March, 1909) arising out of a review of some of the earlier volumes of The Catholic Encyclopedia. The historical facts Bummariacd in this article are given in an extended form in a paper contributed by the present writer to The Month (Sept. 1911). See also "The Tabletл(14 Sept., 1901), 402, and Snead-cox, Life of Cardinal Vaughan, cited above. Herbebt Thurston Here's something that instantly shows how the Church calls itself Catholic and always had but how Catholics in the English speaking world commonly used "Roman Catholic" (because of customary usage). This is from the Literary Digest, vol. 19 (1899) page 746: "Roman Catholic" or "Catholic"?-The question as to what is the proper designation of the great body of Christians who are in communion with the Roman See is one that it is difficult to answer in a way satisfactory both to those who recog nize and those who do not recognize the spiritual authority of the Roman pontiff. Several hundreds of millions of Christians who are members of the Russian, Greek, Armenian, and other Oriental churches, most Anglicans and not a few Protestants claim a right to the title Catholic; and the churches of the Orient, at least, have borne it ever since history has kept any record. Since they object to the exclusive use of the word by a single religious body, it is hardly practicable even for impartial onlookers to avoid the use of the term " Roman Catholic " to designate the Latin church. It appears, however, according to The Casket (Rom. Catb.) that "the proper name and title is 'the Catholic Church.'" It says: "The church herself officially recognizes no other title. In the congress of the powers of Europe at Vienna, 1815, Cardinal Gonsalvi objected to the joint use of the terms Roman Catholic, 'but was willing that they should be separately applied to the church, which is Roman by reason of its necessary dependence on the See of Rome and Catholic on account of its univeral diffusion.' Of the many qualifying words which denote essential properties of the church, one had to be chosen to serve as her proper name. The one so chosen is the word Catholic, and when we speak of Catholics, or Protestants, there can be no misunderstanding as to who are indicated. The words Roman and Catholic therefore agree in this, that they both express essential qualities of the church ; and they differ in this, that Catholic has been officially adopted by the church to be her proper name or title, while Roman has never been so adopted." Rather curiously, in the paper (Rom. Catb.) which reprints this article with apparent approval, we find the term "Roman Catholic" used over twenty times as a designation of the church to which it gives allegiance. Because "Roman Catholic" became so commonly attached to the Catholic Church in the English mind you even find Catholic leaders (a century ago) defending the use of "Roman Catholic" as an actual proof thereof (although with an insistant point to be made): CATHOLIC OR ROMAN CATHOLIC Objections To The Term "roman Catho- Lic—Cardinal Vaughn Declares It Is Correct And Absolutely Exclusive According to a Catholic correspondent of the London Spectator, "Catholics object to being called 'Roman Catholics,' firstly, because that name was invented and first used in opprobrium; secondly, because it connotes, what is untrue; and thirdly, because it is an infringement of their own peculiar trademark. The first is a notorious historical fact. The second arises from the use of 'Roman' as distinctive, instead of as additive. The church is both 'Catholic' and 'Roman,' the former in extension, the latter in concentration. But it is not 'Roman Catholic,' as implying the existence of more than one Catholic church,—an absurdity. As to the amusing claim of the Anglican to share churchdom with us and the Greeks, one need hardly say that a threefold partnership can hardly exist when two out of the three repudiate it. The third is simply a breach of good manners. It is not felony, no doubt, nor even misdemeanor, to take another man's name or title and! use it as one's own. The state does not punish such pilfering, though society usually does. The claim urged by 'An Irish Bishop' in the Spectator is ludicrously irrelevant. The question is not one of theology,, out of common courtesy. We claim the name 'Catholic' because we have a prescriptive right to it by the exclusive use of nineteen centuries. During that time many have aspired to it, none have actually acquired it." The editor of the Spectator says in reply: "Our correspondent's letter is not merely rude and illogical,, but it is not even consistent with the view of his own church as expounded by its chiefs. Cardinal Vaughan, at a meeting of the Catholic Truth society, said: "I would now say to you all, use the term 'Roman Catholic.' Claim it, defend it, be proud of it—but in the true and Catholic sense. It is logically correct and absolutely exclusive." A member of the Church of England explains inthe Spectator why his communion claims the term "Catholic": "The word 'Catholic' embraces all that is essentially good and true either in religion or in morals. To limit 'grace' which 'came by Christ' to the external church is surely to be guilty of the rankest heresy, and some may be known here as heretics who are truly entitled to rank in the real Catholic church above some of its most orthodox professing members. We members of the Anglican communion are Catholics because we believe in the universal church, which, as our holy communion office says, is 'the blessed company of alt . faithful people." Public opinion, Volume 33 (1902) page 119. 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.

Apparently paragraphs are not my friend today.

From the old Catholic Encyclopedia: Roman Catholic, a qualification of the name Catholic commonly used in English-speaking countries by those unwilling to recognize the claims of the One True Church. Out of condescension for these dissidents, the members of that Church are wont in official documents to be styled "Roman Catholics" as if the term Catholic represented a genus of which those who owned allegiance to the pope formed a particular species. It is in fact a prevalent conception among Anglicans to regard the whole Catholic Church as made up of three principal branches, the Roman Catholic, the Anglo-Catholic and the Greek Catholic. As the erroneousness of this point of view has been sufficiently explained in the articles Church and Catholic, it is only needful here to consider the history of the composite term with which we are now concerned. In the "Oxford English Dictionary", the highest existing authority upon questions of English philology, the following explanation is given under the heading "Roman Catholic". "The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish, which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the seventeenth century. For conciliatory reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish Match (1618-1624) and appears in formal documents relating to this printed by Rushworth (I, 85-89). After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognised legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed" (New Oxford Diet.. VIII, 766). Of the illustrative quotations which follow, the earliest in date is one of 1605 from the "Europse Speculum" of Edwin Sandys: "Some Roman Catholiques will not say grace when a Protestant is present"; while a passage from Day's "Festivals" of 1615, contrasts "Roman Catholiques" with "good, true Catholiques indeed". Although the account thus given in the Oxford Dictionary is in substance correct, it cannot be considered satisfactory. To begin with the word is distinctly older than is here suggested. When about the year 1580 certain English Catholics, under stress of grievous persecution, defended the lawfulness of attending Protestant services to escape the fines imposed on recusants, the Jesuit Father Persons published, under the pseudonym of Howlet, a clear exposition of the " Reasons why Catholiques refuse to goe to Church". This was answered in 1801 by a writer of Puritan sympathies, Pcrcival Wiburn, who in his "Checke or Rcproofe of M. Howlet" uses the term "Roman Catholic" repeatedly. For example he speaks of "you Romane Catholickes that sue for tolleration" (p. 140) and of the "parlous dilemma or straight which you Romane Catholickes are brought into" (p. 44). Again Robert Crowley, another Anglican controversialist, in his book called "A Délibérât Answere", printed in 1588, though adopting by preference the forms "Romish Catholike" or "Popish Catholike", also writes of those "who wander with the Romane Catholiques in the uncertayne hypathes of Popish devises" (p. 86). A study of these and other early examples in their context shows plainly enough that the qualification "Romish Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" was introduced by Protestant divines who highly resented the Roman claim to any monopoly of the term Catholic. In Germany, Luther had omitted the word Catholic from the Creed, but this was not the case in England. Even men of such Calvinistic leanings as Philpot (he was burned under Mary in 1555), and John Foxe the martyrologist, not to speak of churchmen like Newel and Fulke, insisted on the right of the Reformers to call themselves Catholics and professed to regard their own as the only true Catholic Church. Thus Philpot represents himself as answering his Catholic examiner: "I am, master doctor, of the unfeigned Catholic Church and will live and die therein, and if you can prove your Church to be the True Catholic Church, I will be one of the same" (Philpot, "Works", Parker Soc., p. 132). It would be easy to quote many similar passages. The term "Romish Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" undoubtedly originated with the Protestant divines who shared this feeling and who were unwilling to concede the name Catholic to their opponents without qualification. Indeed the writer Crowley, just mentioned, does not hesitate tliroughout a long tract to use the term "Protestant Catholics" the name which he applies to his antagonists. Thus he says "We Protestant Catholiques are not departed from the true Catholique religion" (p. 33) and he refers more than once to "Our Protestant Catholique Church," (p. 74) On the other hand the evidence seems to show that the Catholics of the reign of Elizabeth and James I were by no means willing to admit any other designation for themselves than the unqualified пащр Catholic. Father Southwell's "Humble Supplication to her Majesty" (1591), though criticized by some as over-adulatory in tone, always uses the simple word. What is more surprising, the same may be said of various addresses to the Crown drafted under the inspiration of the "Appellant" clergy, who were suspected by their opponents of subservience to the government and of minimizing in matters of dogma. This feature is very conspicuous, to take a single example, in "the Protestation of allegiance" drawn up by thirteen missioners, 31 Jan., 1603, in which they renounce all thought of "restoring the Catholic religion by the sword", profess their willingness "to persuade all Catholics to do the same" and conclude by declaring themselves ready on the one hand "to spend their blood in the defence of her Majesty" but on the other "rather to lose their lives than infringe the lawful authority of Christ's Catholic Church" (Tierney - Dodd, III, p. cxc). We find similar language used in Ireland in the negotiations carried on by Tyrone in behalf of his Catholic countrymen. Certain apparent exceptions to this uniformity of practice can be readily explained. To begin with we do find that Catholics not unfrequently use the inverted form of the name "Roman Catholic" and speak of the "Catholic Roman faith" or religion. An early example is to be found in a little controversial tract of 1575 called "a Notable Discourse" where we read for example that the heretics of old "preached that the Pope was Antichriste, shewing themselves verye eloquent in detracting and rayling against the Catholique Romane Church" (p. 64). But this was simply a translation of the phraseology common both in Latin and in the Romance languages "Ecclesia Catholica Romana," or in French "iTEglise catholique romaine". It was felt that this inverted form contained no hint of the Protestant contention that the old religion was a spurious variety of true Catholicism or at nest the Roman species of a wider genus. Again, when we find Father Persons (e. g. in his "Three Conversions," III, 408) using the term "Roman Catholic", the context shows that he ia only adopting the name for the moment as conveniently embodying the contention of his adversaries. Once more in a very striking passage in the examination of one James Clayton in 1591 (see Cal. State Papers, Dom. Eliz., add., vol. XXXII, p. 322) we read that the deponent "was persuaded to conforme himself to the Romaine Catholique faith." But there is nothing to show that these were the actual words of the recusant himself, or that, if they were, they were not simply dictated by a desire to conciliate his examiners. The "Oxford Dictionary" is probably right in assigning the recognition of "Roman Catholic" as the official style of the adherents of the Papacy in England to the negotiations for the Spanish Match (1618-24). In the various treaties etc., drafted in connexion with this proposal, the religion of the Spanish princess is almost always spoken of as "Roman Catholic". Indeed in some few instances the word Catholic alone is used. This feature does not seem to occur in any of the negotiations of earlier date which touched upon religion, e. g. those connected with the proposed d'Alencon marriage in Elizabeth's reign, while in Acts of Parliament, proclamations, etc., before the Spanish match, Catholics are simply described as Papists or Recusant^ and then* religion as popish, Romanish, or Romanist. Indeed long after this period, the use of the term Roman Catholic continued to be a mark of condescension, and language of much more uncomplimentary character was usually preferred. It was perhaps to encourage a friendlier attitude in the authorities that Catholics themselves henceforth began to adopt the qualified term in all official relations with the government. Thus the "Humble Remonstrance, Acknowledgment, Protestation and Petition of the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ireland " in 1661, began "We, your Majesty's faithful subjects the Roman Catholick clergy of Ireland". The same practice seems to have obtained in Maryland; see for example the Consultation entitled "Objections answered touching Maryland", drafted by Father R. Blount, S.J., in 1632 (B. Johnston, "Foundation of Maryland", etc., 1883, 29), and wills proved 22 Sep., 1630, and 19 Dec., 1659, etc.. (in Baldwin, " Maryland Cat. of Wills", 19 vols., vol. i. Naturally the wish to conciliate hostile opinion only grew greater as Catholic Emancipation became a question of practical politics; and by that time it would appear that many Catholics themselves used the qualified form not only when addressing the outside public but in their domestic discussions. A short-lived association, organized in 1794 with the fullest approval of the vicars Apostolic, to counteract the unorthodox tendencies of the Cisalpine Club, was officially known as the "Roman Catholic Meeting" (Ward, "Dawn of Cath. Revival in England", II, 65). So, too, a meeting of the Irish bishops under the presidency of Dr. Troy at Dublin in 1821 passed resolutions approving of an Emancipation Bill then before a Parliament, in which they uniformly referred to members of their own communion as "Roman Catholics". Further, such a representative Catholic as Charles Butler in his "Historical Memoirs" (sec e. g. vol. IV, 1821, pp. 185 199, 225, etc.,) frequently uses the term " roman-catnolic " [sic] and seems to find this expression as natural as the unqualified form. With the strong Catholic revival in the middle of the nineteenth century and the support derived from the uncompromising zeal of many earnest converte, such for example as Faber and Manning, an inflexible adherence to the name Catholic without qualification once more became the order of the day. The government, however; would not modify the official designation or suffer it to be set aside in addresses presented to the Sovereign on public occasions. In two particular instances during the archiepiscopate of Cardinal Vaughan this point was raised and became the subject of correspondence between the cardinal and the Home Secretary. In 1897 at the Diamond Jubilee of the accession of Queen Victoria, and again in 1901 when Edward VII succeeded to the throne, the Catholic episcopate desired to present addresses, but on each occasion it was intimated to the cardinal that the only permissible style would be " the Roman Catholic Archbishop and Bishops in England". Even the form "the Cardinal Archbishop and Bishops of the Catholic and Roman Church in England" was not approved. On the first occasion no address was presented, but in 1901 the requirements of the Home Secretary as to the use of the name "Roman Catholics" were complied with, though the cardinal reserved to himself the right of explaining subsequently on some public occasion the sense in which he used the words (see Snead-Cox, "Life of Cardinal Vaughan", II, 231-41). Accordingly, at the Newcastle Conference of the Catholic Truth Society (Aug., 1901) the cardinal explained clearly to his audience that "the term Roman Catholic has two meanings; a meaning that we repudiate and a meaning that we accept." The repudiated sense was that dear to many Protestants, according to which the term Catholic was a genus which resolved itself into the species Roman Catholic, Anglo-Catholic, Greek Catholic, etc. But, as the cardinal insisted, "with us the prefix Roman is not restrictive to a species, or a section, but simply declaratory of Catholic." The prefix in this sense draws attention to the unity of the Church, and "insists that the central point of Catholicity is Roman, the Roman See of St. Peter." It is noteworthy that the representative Anglican divine, Bishop Andrewes, in his "Tortura Torti" (1609) ridicules the phrase Ecclesia Catholica Romano, as a contradiction in terms. "What," he asks, "is the object of adding 'Roman'? The only purpose that such an adjunct can serve is to distinguish your Catholic Church from another Catholic Church which is not Roman" (p. 368). It is this very common line of argument which imposes upon Catholics the necessity of making no compromise in the matter of their own name. The loyal adherents of the Holy See did not begin in the sixteenth century to call themselves "Catholics" for controversial purposes. It is the traditional name handed down to us continuously from the time of St. Augustine. We use this name ourselves and ask those outside the Church to use it, without reference to its signification simply because it is our customary name, just as we talk of the Russian Church as "the Orthodox Church", not because we recognize its orthodoxy but because its members so style themselves, or again just as we speak of "the Reformation" because it is the term established by custom, though we are far from owning that it was a reformation in either faith or morals. The dog-in-themanger policy of so many Anglicans who cannot take the name of Catholics for themselves, because popular usage has never sanctioned it as such, but who on the other hand will not concede it to the members of the Church of Rome, was conspicuously brought out in the course of a correspondence on this subject in the London "Saturday Review" (Dec., 1908 to March, 1909) arising out of a review of some of the earlier volumes of The Catholic Encyclopedia. The historical facts Bummariacd in this article are given in an extended form in a paper contributed by the present writer to The Month (Sept. 1911). See also "The Tabletл(14 Sept., 1901), 402, and Snead-cox, Life of Cardinal Vaughan, cited above. Herbebt Thurston

Here’s something that instantly shows how the Church calls itself Catholic and always had but how Catholics in the English speaking world commonly used “Roman Catholic” (because of customary usage). This is from the Literary Digest, vol. 19 (1899) page 746:

“Roman Catholic” or “Catholic”?-The question as to what is the proper designation of the great body of Christians who are in communion with the Roman See is one that it is difficult to answer in a way satisfactory both to those who recog nize and those who do not recognize the spiritual authority of the Roman pontiff. Several hundreds of millions of Christians who are members of the Russian, Greek, Armenian, and other Oriental churches, most Anglicans and not a few Protestants claim a right to the title Catholic; and the churches of the Orient, at least, have borne it ever since history has kept any record. Since they object to the exclusive use of the word by a single religious body, it is hardly practicable even for impartial onlookers to avoid the use of the term “ Roman Catholic “ to designate the Latin church. It appears, however, according to The Casket (Rom. Catb.) that “the proper name and title is ‘the Catholic Church.’” It says: “The church herself officially recognizes no other title. In the congress of the powers of Europe at Vienna, 1815, Cardinal Gonsalvi objected to the joint use of the terms Roman Catholic, ‘but was willing that they should be separately applied to the church, which is Roman by reason of its necessary dependence on the See of Rome and Catholic on account of its univeral diffusion.’ Of the many qualifying words which denote essential properties of the church, one had to be chosen to serve as her proper name. The one so chosen is the word Catholic, and when we speak of Catholics, or Protestants, there can be no misunderstanding as to who are indicated. The words Roman and Catholic therefore agree in this, that they both express essential qualities of the church ; and they differ in this, that Catholic has been officially adopted by the church to be her proper name or title, while Roman has never been so adopted.” Rather curiously, in the paper (Rom. Catb.) which reprints this article with apparent approval, we find the term “Roman Catholic” used over twenty times as a designation of the church to which it gives allegiance.

Because “Roman Catholic” became so commonly attached to the Catholic Church in the English mind you even find Catholic leaders (a century ago) defending the use of “Roman Catholic” as an actual proof thereof (although with an insistant point to be made):

CATHOLIC OR ROMAN CATHOLIC Objections To The Term “roman Catho- Lic—Cardinal Vaughn Declares It Is Correct And Absolutely Exclusive According to a Catholic correspondent of the London Spectator, “Catholics object to being called ‘Roman Catholics,’ firstly, because that name was invented and first used in opprobrium; secondly, because it connotes, what is untrue; and thirdly, because it is an infringement of their own peculiar trademark. The first is a notorious historical fact. The second arises from the use of ‘Roman’ as distinctive, instead of as additive. The church is both ‘Catholic’ and ‘Roman,’ the former in extension, the latter in concentration. But it is not ‘Roman Catholic,’ as implying the existence of more than one Catholic church,—an absurdity. As to the amusing claim of the Anglican to share churchdom with us and the Greeks, one need hardly say that a threefold partnership can hardly exist when two out of the three repudiate it. The third is simply a breach of good manners. It is not felony, no doubt, nor even misdemeanor, to take another man’s name or title and! use it as one’s own. The state does not punish such pilfering, though society usually does. The claim urged by ‘An Irish Bishop’ in the Spectator is ludicrously irrelevant. The question is not one of theology,, out of common courtesy. We claim the name ‘Catholic’ because we have a prescriptive right to it by the exclusive use of nineteen centuries. During that time many have aspired to it, none have actually acquired it.” The editor of the Spectator says in reply: “Our correspondent’s letter is not merely rude and illogical,, but it is not even consistent with the view of his own church as expounded by its chiefs. Cardinal Vaughan, at a meeting of the Catholic Truth society, said: “I would now say to you all, use the term ‘Roman Catholic.’ Claim it, defend it, be proud of it—but in the true and Catholic sense. It is logically correct and absolutely exclusive.” A member of the Church of England explains inthe Spectator why his communion claims the term “Catholic”: “The word ‘Catholic’ embraces all that is essentially good and true either in religion or in morals. To limit ‘grace’ which ‘came by Christ’ to the external church is surely to be guilty of the rankest heresy, and some may be known here as heretics who are truly entitled to rank in the real Catholic church above some of its most orthodox professing members. We members of the Anglican communion are Catholics because we believe in the universal church, which, as our holy communion office says, is ‘the blessed company of alt . faithful people.” Public opinion, Volume 33 (1902) page 119.

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.

“There is a difference between the diversity of Catholic rites and that between the various Protestant churches. Despite their diversity, all the Catholic rites are united in faith and share a common communion under the pope. The differences are mostly about worship style: “I say tomato and you say tomaato.” The various Protestant churches, on the other hand, lack a common communion (This idea of common communion based upon apostolic succession is an important matter with Catholics that Protestants may not fully appreciate). Additionally, there are major differences in belief between the various Protestant churches: “I say tomato and you say roast beef.” I would hazard to say that there is a greater difference between the Calvanists and the Lutherans than between the latter and Catholics (At least this was Martin Luther’s opinion).”

This completely ignores the truth, however, that although you may claim to have one communion of faith, millions of Catholics around the world just appear to add Catholicism to their already existing faith systems as a little extra luck charm.

“Because you have divisions.”

Well, I’m not a Protestant, so . . .

Catholicism has Buddhists, spiritists, and cultists.

“Because you have divisions.”

Well, I’m not a Protestant, so . . .

Catholicism has Buddhists, spiritists, and cultists.

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

Not a Protestant? “Reformed”?