Topic: Rome's jurisdiction over Eastern Catholics

[witega]

mmunions are content to call themselves by a different name until they hear us call ourselves the "Catholic Church," then all of a sudden they want that title for themselves. Why do the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Churches each refer to themselves as the "Orthodox Church" and members of the Anglican Communion call themselves the Church of England, the Anglican Church, or the Episcopal Church, and yet when they hear us call our Church the Catholic Church it grinds their gears? They are perfectly fine using a different title for their Church until they hear us using the word "Catholic" to describe ourselves and our Church.

Regarding the Eastern Orthodox, I don't see what the problem is. Before the Great Schism, the unified pre-schism Church referred to itself as catholic and orthodox, right? After the Schism, the Eastern Churches began using "Orthodox" as their title and we used "Catholic." That's just the way the terminology evolved. Why, now, is it all of a sudden an issue? I refer to my Church as orthodox with a small "o" to avoid confusion since it is not a part of either the Oriental Orthodox communion or Eastern Orthodox communion. I would never think to gripe to the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox to drop the word "Orthodox" from their name, even though I believe my Church to be fully orthodox.

Actually, you've got the history turned around. The Eastern Churches consistently referred to themselves as both "Orthodox" and "Catholic" both before and after the schism--the Western Church was referred to as "Latins", "the West" etc. It was only in Western European languages, which no Orthodox were speaking at the time, that 'Catholic' came to have a particular association with Rome. In the late 19th century, when the Eastern churches began regularly communicating in Western European languages there was a definite attempt to preserve the use of Catholic as it was used in Orthodox old countries. However, given Rome's 1000 year head-start in those languages, most of us have given up the attempt to preserve that real usage as quixotic and simply confusing to those who assume 'Catholic' means 'Rome'. So while I believe it's true that according to the definition of the Fathers, I am a 'Catholic Christian', I don't see much point in saying it to anyone without an extensive knowledge of Church History.

That doesn't make me any more comfortable with using it in a sense I believe to be untrue (i.e., calling the Roman Church catholic). I have the same problem when it comes to referring to my parents' church--they self-identify as "The Church of Christ" and strongly resist any other label as 'non-Bibilical' and therefor counter to their beliefs. But I don't believe their church is "The Church of Christ" and I can't in good conscience say I do. It is good to be polite and not use terms that people find offensive. But there is a reciprocal politeness in not expecting people to use terms they don't believe--otherwise, I expect all 'Roman Catholics' on this board to refer to me in the future by my preferred name "Lord and Master"--it's just polite after all.

[Wyatt]

mmunions are content to call themselves by a different name until they hear us call ourselves the "Catholic Church," then all of a sudden they want that title for themselves. Why do the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Churches each refer to themselves as the "Orthodox Church" and members of the Anglican Communion call themselves the Church of England, the Anglican Church, or the Episcopal Church, and yet when they hear us call our Church the Catholic Church it grinds their gears? They are perfectly fine using a different title for their Church until they hear us using the word "Catholic" to describe ourselves and our Church.

Regarding the Eastern Orthodox, I don't see what the problem is. Before the Great Schism, the unified pre-schism Church referred to itself as catholic and orthodox, right? After the Schism, the Eastern Churches began using "Orthodox" as their title and we used "Catholic." That's just the way the terminology evolved. Why, now, is it all of a sudden an issue? I refer to my Church as orthodox with a small "o" to avoid confusion since it is not a part of either the Oriental Orthodox communion or Eastern Orthodox communion. I would never think to gripe to the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox to drop the word "Orthodox" from their name, even though I believe my Church to be fully orthodox.

Actually, you've got the history turned around. The Eastern Churches consistently referred to themselves as both "Orthodox" and "Catholic" both before and after the schism--the Western Church was referred to as "Latins", "the West" etc. It was only in Western European languages, which no Orthodox were speaking at the time, that 'Catholic' came to have a particular association with Rome. In the late 19th century, when the Eastern churches began regularly communicating in Western European languages there was a definite attempt to preserve the use of Catholic as it was used in Orthodox old countries. However, given Rome's 1000 year head-start in those languages, most of us have given up the attempt to preserve that real usage as quixotic and simply confusing to those who assume 'Catholic' means 'Rome'. So while I believe it's true that according to the definition of the Fathers, I am a 'Catholic Christian', I don't see much point in saying it to anyone without an extensive knowledge of Church History.

I think you misunderstood my point. My point was that, before the schism, both East and West referred to themselves both as Catholic and Orthodox (they were the same Church then). After the schism, the Eastern Churches gradually became known as Orthodox (i.e. the Orthodox Church) while the West became known as the Catholic Church. Also, I have a hard time believing that the pre-schism Western Church referred to itself as "the Latins" and "the West."

That doesn't make me any more comfortable with using it in a sense I believe to be untrue (i.e., calling the Roman Church catholic). I have the same problem when it comes to referring to my parents' church--they self-identify as "The Church of Christ" and strongly resist any other label as 'non-Bibilical' and therefor counter to their beliefs. But I don't believe their church is "The Church of Christ" and I can't in good conscience say I do. It is good to be polite and not use terms that people find offensive. But there is a reciprocal politeness in not expecting people to use terms they don't believe--otherwise, I expect all 'Roman Catholics' on this board to refer to me in the future by my preferred name "Lord and Master"--it's just polite after all.

I have no problem referring to a denomination by their preferred name. Calling them by the name they wish to be called in no way is an admission that you believe they deserve the name. There are some Protestant denominations around here that call themselves "the Church of God." Now, if I wanted to nitpick, I would refuse to call them that because obviously I believe my Church is the Church of God, as in it was founded by God. That doesn't make me uncomfortable calling them the "Church of God" since that is what they title themselves. Doesn't mean that I really believe they are the true "Church of God."

[Peter J]

I have no problem referring to a denomination by their preferred name.

"Lutherans" were named "Lutherans" by their opponents.

[Wyatt]

I have no problem referring to a denomination by their preferred name.

"Lutherans" were named "Lutherans" by their opponents.

Weren't Christians first called Christians in Antioch by Pagans?

[Peter J]

I have no problem referring to a denomination by their preferred name.

"Lutherans" were named "Lutherans" by their opponents.

Weren't Christians first called Christians in Antioch by Pagans?

Christians were first called Christians in Antioch; I don't remember by whom. Why do you ask?

[Peter J]

I have no problem referring to a denomination by their preferred name.

(Why do I get the feeling that this is a "fair-weather" claim?)

That's great as long as the Pope gets to decided which names are legitimate and which aren't.

[Wyatt]

I have no problem referring to a denomination by their preferred name.

"Lutherans" were named "Lutherans" by their opponents.

Weren't Christians first called Christians in Antioch by Pagans?

Christians were first called Christians in Antioch; I don't remember by whom. Why do you ask?

It's related. Lutherans were first called Lutherans by their opponents, and I believe the first Christians were named "Christians" by their opponents. No reason...your comment just made me think of that.

I have no problem referring to a denomination by their preferred name.

(Why do I get the feeling that this is a "fair-weather" claim?)

That's great as long as the Pope gets to decided which names are legitimate and which aren't.

You seem to have become quite snarky towards Catholicism lately, which is pretty strange since up until like a few days ago you were Catholic as well.

[akimori makoto]

I refer to what is commonly called the "Eastern Orthodox Church" as "The Church of Christ" and, although I consider myself to generally be rather a polite person, I have no intention of ever calling a protestant demonination by that name.

[Peter J]

I have no problem referring to a denomination by their preferred name.

"Lutherans" were named "Lutherans" by their opponents.

Weren't Christians first called Christians in Antioch by Pagans?

Christians were first called Christians in Antioch; I don't remember by whom. Why do you ask?

It's related. Lutherans were first called Lutherans by their opponents, and I believe the first Christians were named "Christians" by their opponents. No reason...your comment just made me think of that.

I have no problem referring to a denomination by their preferred name.

(Why do I get the feeling that this is a "fair-weather" claim?)

That's great as long as the Pope gets to decided which names are legitimate and which aren't.

You seem to have become quite snarky towards Catholicism lately, which is pretty strange since up until like a few days ago you were Catholic as well.

I guess my info on what counts as "snarky towards Catholicism" must be dated.

[Peter J]

Seriously though, it's going to be difficult to have a conversation with you unless you're willing to reason about things rather than just labeling people as "snarky" and the like.

[Wyatt]

Seriously though, it's going to be difficult to have a conversation with you unless you're willing to reason about things rather than just labeling people as "snarky" and the like.

I took your comment about "fair weather claim" and "unless the Pope gets to decide which names are legitimate" as snarkiness. You're welcome to refute that if you want. What did you mean by those comments?

[Wyatt]

I refer to what is commonly called the "Eastern Orthodox Church" as "The Church of Christ" and, although I consider myself to generally be rather a polite person, I have no intention of ever calling a protestant demonination by that name.

Really? I have a hard time believing that. So when people ask you what your faith is you say "Church of Christ"? What if you had a family member or a dear friend that belonged to the denomination that calls themselves "the Church of Christ" and someone asked you what church that friend or family member went to? What would you say?

[biro]

There are at least a couple of Protestant churches which refer to themselves as the Church of Christ, or something very similar. I don't dispute what you want to say about the Orthodox Church, but there are some places where you would have to say different words just to distinguish your church from another church in the same town. That's all.

[akimori makoto]

I refer to what is commonly called the "Eastern Orthodox Church" as "The Church of Christ" and, although I consider myself to generally be rather a polite person, I have no intention of ever calling a protestant demonination by that name.

Really? I have a hard time believing that. So when people ask you what your faith is you say "Church of Christ"? What if you had a family member or a dear friend that belonged to the denomination that calls themselves "the Church of Christ" and someone asked you what church that friend or family member went to? What would you say?

Sorry, Wyatt, I was kind of speaking to the air rather than responding directly to what you have said previously. I hope the below serves to clarify.

Like you and your use of the term "orthodox", I obviously restrict my use of the phrase "Church of Christ" to a context in which it will be properly understood. I know, for example, that you would understand me correctly if I were to say "the practice of witholding the Precious Gifts from children is not a practice which was received by the Church of Christ". Accordingly, I would not hesitate to use the phrase in such a way in a conversation with you, trusting that you would understand me to be speaking in good faith and without any purposeful deprecation of your beliefs.

In response to your first question, I describe myself as an "Orthodox Christian" when I am asked to what church I belong. I do this only out of convenience and to ensure I am understood. I would prefer to say I am in communion with and confess the theology of the Church of Christ, but I am sure doing so would cause unnecessary trouble for all involved.

The other question you put to me is certainly a difficult one to answer. Let me start by saying that there is no way I would adopt holus bolus the phrase "Church of Christ" to describe a protestant denomination simply out of a desire not to offend. Indeed, there is something incredibly presumptuous and offensive about a sect which has been around for all of five minutes laying claim to such a grandiose (and holy!) title. It's almost in the same vein as protestants who ask questions like "are you Christian or Catholic?". So, if you and I were having a discussion about, say, my brother, and his attendance at the protestant church in question, I would certainly add some sort of qualifier when using the phrase "Church of Christ". I might say: "well, he attends the Church of Christ, but you know how I feel about them calling themselves that!", or, perhaps less derisively, "the so-called Church of Christ" (the Eastern Orthodox Church, of course, being the Church of Christ properly-so-called). Would I use such language to my brother's face? To be honest, probably not, though I would feel pretty damn uncomfortable using the phrase "Church of Christ" in reference to his church and would probably feel slightly resentful for being made to do so.

Not sure if all of the above is internally contradictory -- it's just how I feel.

[Peter J]

Seriously though, it's going to be difficult to have a conversation with you unless you're willing to reason about things rather than just labeling people as "snarky" and the like.

I took your comment about "fair weather claim" and "unless the Pope gets to decide which names are legitimate" as snarkiness. You're welcome to refute that if you want. What did you mean by those comments?

I didn't say "unless the Pope gets to decide which names are legitimate".
I did say "fair-weather claim?" b/c I'm not sure it is a position that you're going to stick with consistently. But I'm open to being wrong about that.
For example, you're willing to call a certain Protestant denomination "the Church of Christ"; so far, that's consistent.
I guess the real test would come when, e.g., the Church of England decided to change its name to "the English Catholic Church".

[J Michael]

I don't know if Peter's attitude towards the Catholic Church lately could be categorized as "snarky" but there is a certain edginess that didn't used to be there.  Even though there is an explanation of sorts that he links to another thread about his religious affiliation, it still isn't clear precisely what that is.  I would imagine that any edginess or sharpness about the Catholic Church stems from that.  But, what do I know??

Be that as it may, I'm still curious as to what else he would have others call the Catholic Church besides "the Catholic Church", the name we have used for well over 1000 years. 

[Wyatt]

Seriously though, it's going to be difficult to have a conversation with you unless you're willing to reason about things rather than just labeling people as "snarky" and the like.

I took your comment about "fair weather claim" and "unless the Pope gets to decide which names are legitimate" as snarkiness. You're welcome to refute that if you want. What did you mean by those comments?

I didn't say "unless the Pope gets to decide which names are legitimate".
I did say "fair-weather claim?" b/c I'm not sure it is a position that you're going to stick with consistently. But I'm open to being wrong about that.
For example, you're willing to call a certain Protestant denomination "the Church of Christ"; so far, that's consistent.
I guess the real test would come when, e.g., the Church of England decided to change its name to "the English Catholic Church".

I'd have no problem calling you "the English Catholic Church."

[Wyatt]

I don't know if Peter's attitude towards the Catholic Church lately could be categorized as "snarky" but there is a certain edginess that didn't used to be there.  Even though there is an explanation of sorts that he links to another thread about his religious affiliation, it still isn't clear precisely what that is.  I would imagine that any edginess or sharpness about the Catholic Church stems from that.  But, what do I know??

Be that as it may, I'm still curious as to what else he would have others call the Catholic Church besides "the Catholic Church", the name we have used for well over 1000 years. 

I'm sure he would prefer us to call ourselves "the Roman Catholic Church." After all, the terminology "Roman Catholic Church" was coined by Anglicans if I am not mistaken.

[biro]

I'd have no problem calling you "the English Catholic Church."

Me neither. It seems appropriate.

[J Michael]

I don't know if Peter's attitude towards the Catholic Church lately could be categorized as "snarky" but there is a certain edginess that didn't used to be there.  Even though there is an explanation of sorts that he links to another thread about his religious affiliation, it still isn't clear precisely what that is.  I would imagine that any edginess or sharpness about the Catholic Church stems from that.  But, what do I know??

Be that as it may, I'm still curious as to what else he would have others call the Catholic Church besides "the Catholic Church", the name we have used for well over 1000 years. 

I'm sure he would prefer us to call ourselves "the Roman Catholic Church." After all, the terminology "Roman Catholic Church" was coined by Anglicans if I am not mistaken.

Problem is.....we are much more than just the "Roman" Catholic Church.  Personally, as an Eastern Catholic, secure in my identity as a Catholic, I'm not personally insulted if someone calls me a Roman Catholic.  After all, I know what I am and am not.  I also don't have a long personal history in the Catholic Church that may have fostered prejudices and preferences about who calls who what.  There are, however, many, many Eastern Catholics who would take exception at being called "Roman" Catholic.  But there's nothing new about that.

[biro]

My parents always told me to call someone what they want to be called. 

[J Michael]

My parents always told me to call someone what they want to be called. 

Mine too.

[biro]

I have no problem referring to a denomination by their preferred name.

"Lutherans" were named "Lutherans" by their opponents.

Weren't Christians first called Christians in Antioch by Pagans?

I always thought that the verse implied the general population of Antioch started to call them Christians. Something like, "Oh, there goes such-and-such, isn't he one of those Christians?" That was my impression. If I'm wrong, so be it. 

[Peter J]

I'd have no problem calling you "the English Catholic Church."

Me neither. It seems appropriate.

You're both very kind, but I'm not sure I want to be called "the English Catholic Church." Let's try it for a few days and then see. (Although I think most posters will keep calling me "Peter J" regardless.)

My parents always told me to call someone what they want to be called.  

So it would seem!

[witega]

My parents always told me to call someone what they want to be called. 

And my parents always told me it was wrong to make people say things they don't believe.

And my rhetoric classes taught that one of the strongest tactics for winning a debate was to control the terms of the discussion.

[biro]

My parents always told me to call someone what they want to be called. 

And my parents always told me it was wrong to make people say things they don't believe.

And my rhetoric classes taught that one of the strongest tactics for winning a debate was to control the terms of the discussion.

I was just trying to be diplomatic. 

Aside from rudeness, it's just logistically impossible to make up a plethora of names for everybody. Let them do it. It's their life anyway.

[Schultz]

My parents always told me to call someone what they want to be called. 

And my parents always told me it was wrong to make people say things they don't believe.

And my rhetoric classes taught that one of the strongest tactics for winning a debate was to control the terms of the discussion.

I feel very sorry for you if every day of every minute of your life dealing with other people is a 'debate.'

[witega]

My parents always told me to call someone what they want to be called. 

And my parents always told me it was wrong to make people say things they don't believe.

And my rhetoric classes taught that one of the strongest tactics for winning a debate was to control the terms of the discussion.

I feel very sorry for you if every day of every minute of your life dealing with other people is a 'debate.'

And I feel very sorry for you if you think condescending and uninformed jugments of the lives of strangers on the internet is a productive use of your time.

But on-topic, realistically I only encounter the issue of 'how to politely refer to X Church' when engaged in serious and/or formal religious discussion. In everyday life, innocuous terms like 'your church' and 'my church' serve just fine.

[Schultz]

My parents always told me to call someone what they want to be called. 

And my parents always told me it was wrong to make people say things they don't believe.

And my rhetoric classes taught that one of the strongest tactics for winning a debate was to control the terms of the discussion.

I feel very sorry for you if every day of every minute of your life dealing with other people is a 'debate.'

And I feel very sorry for you if you think condescending and uninformed jugments of the lives of strangers on the internet is a productive use of your time.

But on-topic, realistically I only encounter the issue of 'how to politely refer to X Church' when engaged in serious and/or formal religious discussion. In everyday life, innocuous terms like 'your church' and 'my church' serve just fine.

You're the one who said that you have to control casual conversations as if they are debates, not me.

Pardon me for calling a spade a spade.  If you can't handle the fallout of your own arrogant postings, don't blame me.

[Peter J]

My parents always told me to call someone what they want to be called. 

And my parents always told me it was wrong to make people say things they don't believe.

And my rhetoric classes taught that one of the strongest tactics for winning a debate was to control the terms of the discussion.

I feel very sorry for you if every day of every minute of your life dealing with other people is a 'debate.'

And I feel very sorry for you if you think condescending and uninformed jugments of the lives of strangers on the internet is a productive use of your time.

But on-topic, realistically I only encounter the issue of 'how to politely refer to X Church' when engaged in serious and/or formal religious discussion. In everyday life, innocuous terms like 'your church' and 'my church' serve just fine.

You're the one who said that you have to control casual conversations as if they are debates, not me.

On this thread, or somewhere else?

[J Michael]

My parents always told me to call someone what they want to be called. 

And my parents always told me it was wrong to make people say things they don't believe.

And my rhetoric classes taught that one of the strongest tactics for winning a debate was to control the terms of the discussion.

I feel very sorry for you if every day of every minute of your life dealing with other people is a 'debate.'

And I feel very sorry for you if you think condescending and uninformed jugments of the lives of strangers on the internet is a productive use of your time.

But on-topic, realistically I only encounter the issue of 'how to politely refer to X Church' when engaged in serious and/or formal religious discussion. In everyday life, innocuous terms like 'your church' and 'my church' serve just fine.

You're the one who said that you have to control casual conversations as if they are debates, not me.

Pardon me for calling a spade a spade.  If you can't handle the fallout of your own arrogant postings, don't blame me.

What witega wrote and what you said he said are, actually, two different things.  Close, but different.

This thread is beginning the first stages of entry into the Twilight Zone  !

[Schultz]

My parents always told me to call someone what they want to be called. 

And my parents always told me it was wrong to make people say things they don't believe.

And my rhetoric classes taught that one of the strongest tactics for winning a debate was to control the terms of the discussion.

I feel very sorry for you if every day of every minute of your life dealing with other people is a 'debate.'

And I feel very sorry for you if you think condescending and uninformed jugments of the lives of strangers on the internet is a productive use of your time.

But on-topic, realistically I only encounter the issue of 'how to politely refer to X Church' when engaged in serious and/or formal religious discussion. In everyday life, innocuous terms like 'your church' and 'my church' serve just fine.

You're the one who said that you have to control casual conversations as if they are debates, not me.

On this thread, or somewhere else?

It's certainly implied here on this thread.  I wasn't aware we were narrowing our scope to mere formal debates on the subject at hand unless I missed something.

[Peter J]

You're the one who said that you have to control casual conversations as if they are debates, not me.

On this thread, or somewhere else?

It's certainly implied here on this thread.  I wasn't aware we were narrowing our scope to mere formal debates on the subject at hand unless I missed something.

Personally, I thought he made a good point, at least with regard to those who try to get everyone to call the Roman Communion "the Catholic Church":

And my parents always told me it was wrong to make people say things they don't believe.

And my rhetoric classes taught that one of the strongest tactics for winning a debate was to control the terms of the discussion.

but I may be a little biased -- see the reason discussion about me between Wyatt and J Michael.

[J Michael]

You're the one who said that you have to control casual conversations as if they are debates, not me.

On this thread, or somewhere else?

It's certainly implied here on this thread.  I wasn't aware we were narrowing our scope to mere formal debates on the subject at hand unless I missed something.

Personally, I thought he made a good point, at least with regard to those who try to get everyone to call the Roman Communion "the Catholic Church":

And my parents always told me it was wrong to make people say things they don't believe.

And my rhetoric classes taught that one of the strongest tactics for winning a debate was to control the terms of the discussion.

but I may be a little biased -- see the reason discussion about me between Wyatt and J Michael.

 

[Peter J]

I don't know if Peter's attitude towards the Catholic Church lately could be categorized as "snarky" but there is a certain edginess that didn't used to be there.  Even though there is an explanation of sorts that he links to another thread about his religious affiliation, it still isn't clear precisely what that is.  I would imagine that any edginess or sharpness about the Catholic Church stems from that.  But, what do I know??

I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish with these comments, or whether you're just a little obsessed with me; but regardless, I've revealed as much to you as to everyone else. If that isn't good enough for you, then maybe it's time you learn to live with disappointment.

[Peter J]

You're the one who said that you have to control casual conversations as if they are debates, not me.

On this thread, or somewhere else?

It's certainly implied here on this thread.  I wasn't aware we were narrowing our scope to mere formal debates on the subject at hand unless I missed something.

Personally, I thought he made a good point, at least with regard to those who try to get everyone to call the Roman Communion "the Catholic Church":

And my parents always told me it was wrong to make people say things they don't believe.

And my rhetoric classes taught that one of the strongest tactics for winning a debate was to control the terms of the discussion.

but I may be a little biased -- see the reason recent discussion about me between Wyatt and J Michael.

 

 Typo.

[J Michael]

I don't know if Peter's attitude towards the Catholic Church lately could be categorized as "snarky" but there is a certain edginess that didn't used to be there.  Even though there is an explanation of sorts that he links to another thread about his religious affiliation, it still isn't clear precisely what that is.  I would imagine that any edginess or sharpness about the Catholic Church stems from that.  But, what do I know??

I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish with these comments, or whether you're just a little obsessed with me; but regardless, I've revealed as much to you as to everyone else. If that isn't good enough for you, then maybe it's time you learn to live with disappointment.

Chill out, Peter.  I'm not "trying to accomplish" anything here other than clarity and understanding of where you're coming from.  If that isn't forthcoming, then it really is no big deal to me.  I've lived with "disappointments" far, far greater than not knowing more about *you*--believe me.  And I imagine I will live with others in the future.  If you think I'm even the slightest bit obsessed with you then you're flattering yourself way too much.

[Orest]

Have you 2 guys thought of taking this discussion out of the public realm and using e-mailing?

[J Michael]

Have you 2 guys thought of taking this discussion out of the public realm and using e-mailing?

Good point!

Don't worry--as far as I'm concerned "this discussion" is over.  If Peter has anything more to say to me about it, he can p.m. me.

[witega]

My parents always told me to call someone what they want to be called. 

And my parents always told me it was wrong to make people say things they don't believe.

And my rhetoric classes taught that one of the strongest tactics for winning a debate was to control the terms of the discussion.

I feel very sorry for you if every day of every minute of your life dealing with other people is a 'debate.'

And I feel very sorry for you if you think condescending and uninformed jugments of the lives of strangers on the internet is a productive use of your time.

But on-topic, realistically I only encounter the issue of 'how to politely refer to X Church' when engaged in serious and/or formal religious discussion. In everyday life, innocuous terms like 'your church' and 'my church' serve just fine.

You're the one who said that you have to control casual conversations as if they are debates, not me.

Or in other words, you pulled it out of thin air. What I said in response to your original post is the most I've ever said about my 'casual conversations' on this board. Feel free to imagine whatever you wish about them.

Pardon me for calling a spade a spade.  If you can't handle the fallout of your own arrogant postings, don't blame me.

And other than condescension and ad hominem, do you have any actual response to the idea that it is rude (indeed, even a bit arrogant) to demand that others conform their word usage to fit your own belief system?

[podkarpatska]

My parents always told me to call someone what they want to be called. 

And my parents always told me it was wrong to make people say things they don't believe.

And my rhetoric classes taught that one of the strongest tactics for winning a debate was to control the terms of the discussion.

Sigh...winning debate points and winning hearts, minds and souls are two different things. You are taught that in law school and most lawyers learn that over the course of their careers. Same applies to the clergy to which I can attest, since I've always had my feet in, or near, both pools.

[Paisius]

Sigh...winning debate points and winning hearts, minds and souls are two different things.

Amen! If more of us here in our anonymous cyber world understood this we could make a lot more progress in our discussions.

[KShaft]

I have no problem referring to a denomination by their preferred name.

"Lutherans" were named "Lutherans" by their opponents.

Weren't Christians first called Christians in Antioch by Pagans?

Christians were first called Christians in Antioch; I don't remember by whom. Why do you ask?

Christians means "Little Christ" and was indeed used as a condescending remark by outsiders.

[Schultz]

My parents always told me to call someone what they want to be called. 

And my parents always told me it was wrong to make people say things they don't believe.

And my rhetoric classes taught that one of the strongest tactics for winning a debate was to control the terms of the discussion.

I feel very sorry for you if every day of every minute of your life dealing with other people is a 'debate.'

And I feel very sorry for you if you think condescending and uninformed jugments of the lives of strangers on the internet is a productive use of your time.

But on-topic, realistically I only encounter the issue of 'how to politely refer to X Church' when engaged in serious and/or formal religious discussion. In everyday life, innocuous terms like 'your church' and 'my church' serve just fine.

You're the one who said that you have to control casual conversations as if they are debates, not me.

Or in other words, you pulled it out of thin air. What I said in response to your original post is the most I've ever said about my 'casual conversations' on this board. Feel free to imagine whatever you wish about them.

Pardon me for calling a spade a spade.  If you can't handle the fallout of your own arrogant postings, don't blame me.

And other than condescension and ad hominem, do you have any actual response to the idea that it is rude (indeed, even a bit arrogant) to demand that others conform their word usage to fit your own belief system?

I have no idea what you're even prattling on about anymore, but I do take exception to being accused of delving into ad hominem. 

[witega]

I have no idea what you're even prattling on about anymore, but I do take exception to being accused of delving into ad hominem. 

If you can't handle the fallout of your own arrogant postings, don't blame me.

A post can be arrogant, angry, petulant, sycophantic, cute or many other things and still be 100% factually/logically correct, 0% factually/logically correct, or anywhere in between. Your post does not address whether what I said was true or untrue, reasonable or reasonable. It focuses only on (your perception of) the attitude with which I post. This is the essence of ad hominem.

(Pardon me for calling a spade a spade).