Posted on 10/12/2017 7:43:41 PM PDT by vladimir998
Having said that, to use that term is not considered derogatory *if* used in the proper sense. The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on the term "Roman Catholic" explains the two meanings:
Accordingly, at the Newcastle Conference of the Catholic Truth Society (Aug., 1901) the cardinal [Cardinal Vaughan, Archbishop of Westminster, England] 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."
No, it is.
Now, it’s your OPINION vs my OPINION.
Since you cannot demonstrate that it’s a fact, you cannot make the claim as factual.
FWIW, in the Buffalo area, where there are also the Orthodox and Ukrainian Catholics, it’s not uncommon for Roman Catholics to identify themselves as *Roman Catholic* to distinguish between themselves and the Ukrainian rite.
You need to get over yourself.
A Catholic source?
And that’s not biased?
Sure.
Read my previous post.
It’s no big deal unless someone WANTS to be offended.
Then no matter what happens, what is said, and how it is said, the person who wants to be offended will find offense.
This is no different than when blacks object to a certain pejorative that is used freely among themselves but when a white person says it, suddenly it’s a matter of great offense.
The Roman rite is not the Ukrainian rite and the comments I have about Roman Catholicism are not applicable to the Ukrainian rite.
So to distinguish and not blanket comment on all rites of Catholicism, which do not adhere to ROMAN Catholicism, then I will use the term.
So exactly what do you all propose people use in place of *Roman Catholics* to address people who are Roman Catholic? After all, using the term Roman Catholics, is simply following the basic rules of English usage.
What are y’alls better ideas?
“Now, it’s your OPINION vs my OPINION.”
Nope. The sources I posted - in post #65 - show that this is not merely my opinion. Again, it would help if you actually read the thread.
“Since you cannot demonstrate that it’s a fact, you cannot make the claim as factual.”
Since post #65 demonstrates what I am saying is factual you’re simply wrong.
“FWIW, in the Buffalo area, where there are also the Orthodox and Ukrainian Catholics, it’s not uncommon for Roman Catholics to identify themselves as *Roman Catholic* to distinguish between themselves and the Ukrainian rite.”
Duh! Read carefully: I already pointed out - in post #65 for instance - that English speaking Catholics long ago, whether rightly or wrongly, somewhat adopted the use of the Protestant term “Roman Catholic” because that was what was accepted (especially in a Protestant English speaking country). In other words, I already addressed this and got it 100% correct while you flounder about bringing up points already dealt with by me almost 80 posts ago. Here you go: http://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3594481/posts?page=65#65
If you’re paying attention, and I have no reason to believe you are, I even mentioned was what happened in Japan with the Anglican Church and its name there.
“You need to get over yourself.”
You need to read post #65 so you don’t keep embarrassing yourself.
What vlad refuses to see is that it was the RCC itself that introduced the term.
Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1198 – 1216): “With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved.” (Denzinger 423).
For people to call members of the RCC "Roman Catholics" is not a stretch much as vlad attempts to make it.
Until then Roman Catholics are stuck with the fact that one of their popes originated the term Roman Catholic.
And, much to the chagrin of Roman Catholics other popes identified their church as Roman well before the Reformation.
uh-o....vlad's gonna accuse you of being a "drone". You've admitted what we've been saying all along and what history shows.
LOL! Winning.
To the term Roman Catholic.
Roman Catholics seem to run from that term faster than Manute Bol runs the 100m....even though your pope coined the term Roman Catholic.
“What vlad refuses to see is that it was the RCC itself that introduced the term.”
FALSE. You did not post a single example of the Catholic Church EVER using before the Protestant Revolution the term “Roman Catholics”. “Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church” is NOT “Roman Catholics”. The Church used Latin. “Roman Catholics” is English.
“Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1198 – 1216): “With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved.” (Denzinger 423).”
And there we see your failure to substantiate your claim yet again: “the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church” is NOT “Roman Catholics”. Those are two DIFFERENT phrases, describing two different things - one is an institution described in its attributes and the other is a group of believers - and they were written in two different languages and 300 years apart in two different countries separated by over 1,100 miles. The first term was written by Pope Innocent III and the second was coined by Protestants.
“For people to call members of the RCC “Roman Catholics” is not a stretch much as vlad attempts to make it.”
Yes, it is because no Protestant was looking toward Pope Innocent III’s one mentioning of “the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church” (that you have latched onto) for a new name to call Catholics in England in English. That isn’t how it happened. But that is essentially what you’re suggesting and that suggestion is moronic. Obviously, the origins of “Roman Catholics” as a term has everything to do with an early basis for the three branch theory, which would not come to a full flowering until the 19th century, and nothing to do with Pope Innocent III in the 13th century.
Here’s what we know so far:
1) No pope EVER used the phrase “Roman Catholics” in English let alone ever heard of it before the Protestant Revolution.
2) None of the quotes you have posted actually say what you need them to say to substantiate your claim. Not EVEN ONE OF THEM.
3) The OED editors - who were Protestants - said the term “Roman Catholics” was invented by Protestants in England after the Reformation.
4) I posted evidence, in post #65 for instance, that shows the term “Roman Catholics” was invented by Protestants. This wasn’t the only pejorative Protestants invented or applied to Catholics. Popery was another: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/popery Notice how Merriam Webster says it’s “disparaging”? Disparaging of what? “Roman Catholicism”. Click on that. What do you get? You get this: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Roman%20Catholicism They say it was first used in 1662! And that isn’t even “Roman Catholics”! Now click on the Spanish translation. What do you get: http://www.spanishcentral.com/translate/Roman%20Catholicism What do you get? Do you get “Roman Catholic Church” ? No. Do you get “Roman Catholics”? No. All you get is “catolicismo”. Where the Protestant Revolution never had much influence the Catholic Church always remained known as the Catholic Church and nothing else. Where Protestantism held sway, “Roman Catholic” became a common term. Germans readily admit this: Der Name “römisch-katholisch” entstand in der Reformationszeit. Er sollte dazu beitragen, die verschiedenen Richtungen der christlichen Kirchen besser unterscheiden zu können.
I keep posting evidence. You refute none of it. Yesterday you bizarrely insisted I was upset with your source or website of a source of a quote - when I still don’t know that website source and it doesn’t matter. You keep making things up and refusing to deal with information and links posted to you. It seems pretty obvious why. I have every reason to believe you will continue to ignore everything posted in #65 just like other Protestants here. You have to I suppose. It interferes with your drone programming apparently.
“uh-o....vlad’s gonna accuse you of being a “drone”. You’ve admitted what we’ve been saying all along and what history shows.”
piusv said exactly what I said.
piusv said: “I think the general point here is that Church practice includes granting indulgences (without cost).”
I said that too.
piusv said: “Abuses happened (indulgences for sale) and the Council of Trent is condemning those abuses.”
I said that too. I have said several times that unscrupulous men sold indulgences. The Church NEVER authorized the sale of indulgences. NEVER.
So, eagleone, why are you falsely saying what you’re saying? Can’t you get anything right?
BTW....Hillary is in need of some speech writers. I think you're most qualified with your ability to spin.
I am actually proud to be called a Roman Catholic. It doesn’t offend me in the least.
“To the term Roman Catholic.”
Are you sure? After all this is what metmom actually said: “Get over the faux offense that so many Catholics seem to delight in whenever someone not a Catholic says something.”
Says something? Says what exactly? I don’t know what she meant.
“Roman Catholics seem to run from that term faster than Manute Bol runs the 100m....even though your pope coined the term Roman Catholic.”
Except he didn’t since he didn’t speak English and wasn’t Protestant. Even Manute Bol wouldn’t make the numbers of errors you do. I hope his son lives a longer life: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/sam-mellinger/article5352999.html
I give the church money they give me an indulgence....it's considered a sale everywhere except in the narrow Roman Catholic mind.
I pay to see relics, view them correctly and the indulgence is granted.it's considered a sale everywhere except in the narrow Roman Catholic mind.
You know, if the Roman Catholic would admit what happened happened, then I'd have some respect. They made a mistake to raise money. It happens.
Remember, it's usually not the crime, it's the cover up that gets you and that's what you're trying to defend...the cover up. The spin.
LOL! More Winning.
Sure seems to upset vlad....but then, a lot seems to upset him.
The Catholic encyclopedia seems to be trying to teach Catholics to take offense, as if they need to be taught that.
Maybe of Roman Catholics is not good enough, they could propose something else.
Maybe these?
Roman Catholicers?
Roman Catholicites?
Roman Catholicists?
Roman Catholicinians?
Roman Catholicerists?
And so to make it plural by adding the "s" cannot possibly make it derogatory, as the issue seems to be with some folks.
When I was Roman Catholic, the term never offended me either.
Whatever they’re called or want to be called they seem to shy away from the term Christian. They appear to more readily be associated with a denomination rather than the Savior.
I’ve noticed that.
When I was a practicing Roman Catholic, and someone asked me what religion I was, I would ALWAYS say, (with pride) Roman Catholic.
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.