You wrote:
“I think the meaning of the term Roman Catholic, goes back much further than the Protestants.”
What you think is irrelevant. “Roman Catholic” is essentially a Protestant term.
“It is a reflection of the divergent early church between the Latin church centered in Rome and the Eastern Orthodox (Greek)church centered in Constantinople.”
That’s neither a coherent thought nor a logical possibility. Since the Church in Rome existed 300 years before Constantinople existed there was no mutual “divergence”. Rome was, and Constantinople simply came along much, much later.
“This divergence resulted in the Great Schism in 1054.”
Which still has nothing to do with the fact that “Roman Catholic” is essentially a Protestant term. Check the O.E.D.
“That’s neither a coherent thought nor a logical possibility. Since the Church in Rome existed 300 years before Constantinople existed there was no mutual “divergence”. Rome was, and Constantinople simply came along much, much later.”
I think you need to keep the history of the church in relation to the history of Europe. I know the church in Rome existed before Constantinople, and was moved there to be the new “Rome”. But to say there was no difference in the church in these areas and times, ignores the point. Rome was Latin and saw its future not with its earlier structure and alliances, with the east and Greek Constantinople, but with the newly emerging powers of European descent. Constantinople was directing its efforts towards the Ottoman threat, the western church worried about the Lombards in Italy.
If the term was Protestant in origin, why does the Roman Catholic church call itself that/ They let the Protestants determine their own name?