Posted on 02/26/2010 1:08:31 AM PST by Gamecock
So I have a question about terminology.
Some of our Catholic FRiends get upset when we Prods use the term Roman Catholic, insisting that the term is derogatory, insulting, etc.
What I would like to discuss is why do Catholics complain about the term Roman Catholic, when the term is in such wide use inside of the Catholic church?
Thoughts?
You might have told me that you viewed the Oxford English Dictionary as a valid resource, but only so long as it agrees with you before you asked me to look something up in it.
“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.”
You wrote:
“It is equally if not more offensive to me to have the Catholic Church feel it has exclusive rights to the term ‘catholic’.”
That is irrelevant. The very concept of truth dictates that you cannot have opposing organizations all truthfully claiming to be universals. That is logically impossible.
“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.”
There is only one Church, and it is not your sect. You belong to a sect invented sometime after 1500. You, therefore, cannot be Catholic and cannot hold a faith that could possibly be called “catholic” because it belongs to nothing but a particular sect founded in the last few centuries with a new gospel, no history beyond 1500, and no mandate from Christ Himself. Do my words offend you? The truth often does offend people.
“Not a Protestant? “Reformed”?”
Churches have split apart because of a number of differences but to state that martin luther’s assertions about the catholic church were “satanic” is extremely offensive and unnecessary.
You wrote:
“You might have told me that you viewed the Oxford English Dictionary as a valid resource, but only so long as it agrees with you before you asked me to look something up in it.”
I never said it was invalid. I suggest you re-read what I wrote. Maybe this time you’ll understand. This is what I wrote:
“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.”
Now, what I wrote is irrefutable and is shown to be true by the very existence of this thread DECADES after the Protestant editors of the OED said it was “non-controversial”. Clearly it is controversial.
What part of that do you not understand and if you don’t understand that there is controversy then why do you think this thread is here?
Martin Luther was offensive. His views were offensive. His views on the Catholic Church were certainly more supportive of Satan than Christ.
That's syncretism, not a different Catholic rite.
The different rites (the better term is "church sui iuris") are in full communion with one another, and teach the same faith (though their emphases and ways of expressing it are sometimes different).
Then you tell me whether you think he has any "Buddhas on shelves".
You said “The very concept of truth dictates that you cannot have opposing organizations all truthfully claiming to be universals. That is logically impossible.”
No it isn’t. First, we are not opposing organizations- unless the opposition comes from you. Second, since the church belongs to Christ, only He can say with certainty who is right and who is wrong. I think we’ll find more inclusivity in the true body of Christ than any of the faulty earthly organizations demonstrate.
You said “Do my words offend you?”
No. Love’s not easily offended. That was actually part of my point with the ease at which Roman Catholics are offended; seems if you know you’re right you could just smile quietly and wait for God to turn my sect and it’s followers into a greasy spot.
I only wrote to explain that your premise that the term ‘Roman Catholic’ was a term meant to be derogatory was not in fact always true. Regardless of whether I am right or you are right or (and here’s the probability) God is Bigger than both of our understandings and theologies combined; I was simply trying to assure you that the term is not necessarily derogatory.
There are many terms for the Roman Catholic church that are; and if this were a question of whether we should use the term “Whore of Rome” or Catholic church, I too would jump in and decry such animosity masquerading as Christianity.
I don’t expect to change your mind, and you won’t likely change mine; but I think I expressed why, in some cases, the term “Roman Catholic’ does not meet your presupposition of negative motive fairly clearly.
On the bright side- we’ll probably get to spend eternity together- well after you’re out of purgatory and all. :) Look me up.
Will
You wrote:
“No it isn’t.”
Yes it is.
“First, we are not opposing organizations- unless the opposition comes from you.”
Protestantism IS opposition to the Church - that’s why it came into existence and that’s where the name comes from.
“Second, since the church belongs to Christ, only He can say with certainty who is right and who is wrong.”
No. He sent THE Church to teach authoritatively not willy-nilly.
“You said “Do my words offend you?” No. Love’s not easily offended. That was actually part of my point with the ease at which Roman Catholics are offended; seems if you know you’re right you could just smile quietly and wait for God to turn my sect and it’s followers into a greasy spot.”
Christ sent one Church. It isn’t your sect. I will not just smile quietly at someone choosing the false sect as opposed to the Church sent by Christ. That’s indifferentism and many Protestants embrace it.
“I only wrote to explain that your premise that the term ‘Roman Catholic’ was a term meant to be derogatory was not in fact always true.”
But it was true and it is true. Where then is the always?
“Regardless of whether I am right or you are right or (and here’s the probability) God is Bigger than both of our understandings and theologies combined; I was simply trying to assure you that the term is not necessarily derogatory.”
That is not for you to decide.
“There are many terms for the Roman Catholic church that are; and if this were a question of whether we should use the term “Whore of Rome” or Catholic church, I too would jump in and decry such animosity masquerading as Christianity.”
Great. That’s a start and I thank you for that. I still won’t smile queitly at the formation of sects, however.
“I don’t expect to change your mind, and you won’t likely change mine; but I think I expressed why, in some cases, the term “Roman Catholic’ does not meet your presupposition of negative motive fairly clearly. On the bright side- we’ll probably get to spend eternity together- well after you’re out of purgatory and all. :) Look me up.”
Don’t assume heaven is automatically yours. You believe a false gospel.
Differences of opinion on church matters have resulted in many church splits but that is not the same as claiming a leader is “satanic” which is patently offensive to a lot of protestants. There is no purpose in your comment other than to enflame.
“There is only one Church, and it is not your sect. You belong to a sect invented sometime after 1500. You, therefore, cannot be Catholic and cannot hold a faith that could possibly be called “catholic” because it belongs to nothing but a particular sect founded in the last few centuries with a new gospel, no history beyond 1500, and no mandate from Christ Himself. Do my words offend you? The truth often does offend people.”
It seems your words would offend the Pope. I’ve been told here frequently that Vatican 2 recognized someone can be a Christian without being ‘Roman Catholic’.
Were the folks who posted that lacking in understanding?
So what are you?
Sometimes they will make a point of listing themselves as "Roman Catholic" especially if there are other historic/language groups around, e.g. Byzantines, and they want to make a distinction for the convenience of people who are looking for one or t'other.
Here's the whole scoop and nobody could blame you for being confused.
JL1789, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Catholicism has Buddhists, spiritists, and cultists." So do "Protestantism," and "Judaism," if you want to talk about people who are deviating from their own norms: the Baptist lady who believes in horoscopes, the Jewish guy who is also a Buddhist monk (Leonard Cohen!)
But it's not properly a part of their Catholic or Baptist or Protestant or Jewish faith, but a deviation therefrom. There's a difference between the straight Faith, properly so called, and its sometimes wobbly observance.
This can range from a minor faux pas made in good faith, to something truly scandalous, head-pounding and wackadoo. We ought not to make rash judgments until we find out what the person really did, really thought, or was really trying to convey.
As for incense: Orthodox more commonly, and Catholics on high occasions, incense everything dedicated to God: Holy Bibles, Holy Crosses, pulpits, walls, rafters, altars, coffins and burial cloths, icons, banners, vestments, water, oil, offering-baskets, and each other.
The meaning of it is: This is dedicated to God.
Come, see, and you'll quite possibly be incensed.
Whether you'll be en-chanted is another question entirely! :o)
“I’m not sure what you mean when you say “Catholicism has Buddhists, spiritists, and cultists.” So do “Protestantism,” and “Judaism,” if you want to talk about people who are deviating from their own norms: the Baptist lady who believes in horoscopes, the Jewish guy who is also a Buddhist monk (Leonard Cohen!)”
In Asia it numbers into the millions and millions. And I believe it is deliberately tolerated for the numbers that can be counted on the rolls, and the coins that that keep the elaborate church buildings maintained.
We not only would but DO openly preach the falacy of it if we see it in our churches, and membership is not permitted without genuine repentance from idols (1 Thess. 1:9, 10; etc.), certainly not participation at the Lord’s table, because to permit such is a denial denial of the Faith of Christ.
We do not permit membership to any who maintain false gods or are members of false religions, or who are members of secret societies, or who take secret oaths in any organization.
You keep saying that like you have some sort of cultural orthodoxy requirement for Christianity that you strictly maintain. How does the retention of certain cultural influences of Buddhism in Asia differ from Christians having Christmas Trees, Holly, Yule Logs, Easter Bunnies, Easter Eggs, New Years celebrations, and Thanksgiving Feasts?
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying there millions of Buddhists in Asia (Japan? Vietnam? Elsewhere?) who contribute to the maintenance of Catholic church buildings? I am not aware of any such, but perhaps you know more than I.
Please explain.
"We not only would but DO openly preach the falacy of it if we see it in our churches, and membership is not permitted without genuine repentance from idols (1 Thess. 1:9, 10; etc.), certainly not participation at the Lord’s table, because to permit such is a denial denial of the Faith of Christ."
Who is "we"?
I have never seen a single idol-worshipper church; they are apparently rare in eastern Tennessee.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.