Replies

I said: No one referred to “Roman Catholics” until the 16th or 17th century when Protestants coined the term and used it as a pejorative and it became enshrined in the laws of some Protestant countries.

And then you proved me right:

“but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church”

NOT “Roman Catholics”.

“[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church”

NOT “Roman Catholics”.

“the Roman Pontiff.”

NOT “Roman Catholics”.

“The holy Roman Church”

NOT “Roman Catholics”.

“It (The Roman Church)”

NOT “Roman Catholics”.

“Roman church”

NOT “Roman Catholics”.

NOT EVEN ONE OF YOUR EXAMPLES ACTUALLY SAID “Roman Catholics”. NOT ONE. Just as you said DONATE and SALE are the same thing when they are not, you are now saying “Roman Church” is the Same thing as “Roman Catholic Church” is the same thing as “Roman pontiff” is the same thing as “Roman Catholics” when they are not the same.

But keep obeying your programming. You have to claim they are all the same and all mean the same thing to avoid the obvious truth that you were wrong.

Also, not that facts will matter to you, but “Roman Catholic” is an English expression and not a Latin one. And we know where the English one came from and why. The OED is a good, but incomplete, start:

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 recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed. (New Oxford Dict., VIII, 766)

This has been explained to other Protestants here before: https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2459653/posts?page=26#26

From the old Catholic Encyclopedia has a much more detailed and fuller explanation of where the Protestant expression “Roman Catholic” came from: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm

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 Catholic —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:

Go on now and obey your programming. Claim different words are the same thing and mean the same thing. You’ve already done it on multiple occasions anyway. Why stop now? The facts just don’t seem to matter to you.