"Roman Catholic Church"?

[Peter J]

The thread "was orthodoxy called orthodox before the schism?" was revived yesterday. This gave me the idea of starting a related thread about the phrase "Roman Catholic Church".

The observation I'd like to make is that, when discussing whether or not to use this term, people sometimes overlook the option of using Roman Catholic Church to refer to only the Latin Church, excluding the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Hence there are actually 3 possibilities:
1. not using the phrase "Roman Catholic Church" at all
2. using "Roman Catholic Church" to refer to all those in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI (regardless of which church sui iuris they belong to)
3. using "Roman Catholic Church" interchangeably with "Latin Catholic Church"

[podkarpatska]

Out of deference to my many Eastern Catholic friends and relatives, I try to limit the term 'Roman Catholic Church' to the Latin Church in my writing. I would argue that the term 'Church of Rome' is more accurate as it does include the 'sui juris' particular churches in communion with the Holy See. Orthodox choosing to use your second option (everyone in union with the Pope is a Roman Catholic) to describe all of those in union with Rome is, in my opinion, unnecessarily argumentative and factually inaccurate.

[Peter J]

Before hitting "Post" on that last post, I decided to include a link to the other thread. I just realized, however, that it ended up in completely the wrong place. The OP should have looked like this:


The thread was orthodoxy called orthodox before the schism? was revived yesterday. This gave me the idea of starting a related thread about the phrase "Roman Catholic Church".

The observation I'd like to make is that, when discussing whether or not to use this term, people sometimes overlook the option of using "Roman Catholic Church" to refer to only the Latin Church, excluding the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Hence there are actually 3 possibilities:
1. not using the phrase "Roman Catholic Church" at all
2. using "Roman Catholic Church" to refer to all those in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI (regardless of which church sui iuris they belong to)
3. using "Roman Catholic Church" interchangeably with "Latin Catholic Church"

[TheMathematician]

when i was catholic, i prefered to use Latin Catholic to describe myself, and Eastern or Oriental(ot insert name of sui iuris here) catholic to describe the other 22 sui iuris churches

[dzheremi]

I prefer to use the term "Roman Communion" when possible, as that includes both the Latin Church and all who are in communion with it. I use "Roman Catholic" more often to refer to the Latins specifically (I was a Latin, with a brief foray into Ruthenian/Byzantine Catholicism before I found the Coptic Orthodox Church).

[WetCatechumen]

I prefer to use the term "Roman Communion" when possible, as that includes both the Latin Church and all who are in communion with it. I use "Roman Catholic" more often to refer to the Latins specifically (I was a Latin, with a brief foray into Ruthenian/Byzantine Catholicism before I found the Coptic Orthodox Church).

I prefer, "The Catholic Church", but honestly, I could accept the use of "Roman Communion" by those outside of the Catholic Church but within a church (as in one with real bishops, not an ecclesial community).

[Irish Hermit]

. Orthodox choosing to use your second option (everyone in union with the Pope is a Roman Catholic) to describe all of those in union with Rome is, in my opinion, unnecessarily argumentative and factually inaccurate.

It is totally accurate for us oldies and not argumentative.  When I was growing up the correct terminology was (for example, for Melkites) "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite" and more generically "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite."  This was an accurate description. Why has it ceased to be accurate?

Nobody knew anything about sui juris Churches or autonomous Churches. That terminology was just not used before the late 1960s.  Now over the last few years we have a new term emerging - "Orthodox in communion with Rome." Now that *is* "unnecessarily argumentative and factually inaccurate,"

Stay tuned!  The terms of reference for these ecclesial groups could well change again.  I can imagine the Vatican issuing instructions not to use "Orthodox in communion with Rome" since it frustrates the bilateral dialogue.

[Irish Hermit]

"Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing."

~Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, paragraph 27

Note that!   -  "the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing."

Now that is not denigrating the Eastern ecclesial groups in his eyes.  It would be today.  But in his times and for the centuries prior they were Roman Catholics but of a different rite.

[Irish Hermit]

ENCYCLICAL
HUMANI GENERIS
OF THE HOLY FATHER
PIUS XII
TO OUR VENERABLE BRETHREN,
PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES,
ARCHBISHOPS, BISHIOPS,
AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES
ENJOYING PEACE AND COMMUNION
WITH THE HOLY SEE
CONCERNING SOME FALSE OPINIONS
THREATENING TO UNDERMINE
THE FOUNDATIONS
OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

[Michał Kalina]

I prefer to use the term "Roman Communion" when possible, as that includes both the Latin Church and all who are in communion with it.

It's inaccurate as it assumes all Catholic Churches are equal.

[JR]

The Greek Catholics are also known as the Byzantine Catholics ( Byzantine Rite ).

Where I used to live in England Roman Catholic or Catholic Church was the Latin Rite.

All the other rites are called The Catholic church of what ever rite that they are, The Catholic church of the Byzantine rite, The Catholic church of the Melikite rite etc. or the Melikite Catholic Church etc.

[Peter J]

.[=10pt] Orthodox choosing to use your second option (everyone in union with the Pope is a Roman Catholic) to describe all of those in union with Rome is, in my opinion, unnecessarily argumentative and factually inaccurate. [/size]

It is totally accurate for us oldies and not argumentative.  When I was growing up the correct terminology was (for example, for Melkites) "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite" and more generically "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite."  This was an accurate description. Why has it ceased to be accurate?

Aside from the question that this thread is about (whether and how to use "Roman Catholic") there is a problem with what you say: the Melkite Church uses the Byzantine Rite. I don't believe there is such a thing as "the Melkite Rite".

[JR]

.[=10pt] Orthodox choosing to use your second option (everyone in union with the Pope is a Roman Catholic) to describe all of those in union with Rome is, in my opinion, unnecessarily argumentative and factually inaccurate. [/size]

It is totally accurate for us oldies and not argumentative.  When I was growing up the correct terminology was (for example, for Melkites) "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite" and more generically "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite."  This was an accurate description. Why has it ceased to be accurate?

Aside from the question that this thread is about (whether and how to use "Roman Catholic") there is a problem with what you say: the Melkite Church uses the Byzantine Rite. I don't believe there is such a thing as "the Melkite Rite".

You are correct, there is no Melkite Rite, I am just saying how they was termed in the area that I lived, Most Catholics where I lived don't know about the other Rites, so much confusion. I call it a small island mentality... 

[dzheremi]

I prefer to use the term "Roman Communion" when possible, as that includes both the Latin Church and all who are in communion with it.

It's inaccurate as it assumes all Catholic Churches are equal.

I don't think so. Maybe if I wrote "Syriac Catholic Communion" or "Maronite Communion" to refer to the same it would, but as the defining feature of those churches is their communion with Rome (as opposed to Rome's communion with them), it clearly places Rome at the top of the heap, as their ecclesiology also does.

[podkarpatska]

. Orthodox choosing to use your second option (everyone in union with the Pope is a Roman Catholic) to describe all of those in union with Rome is, in my opinion, unnecessarily argumentative and factually inaccurate.

It is totally accurate for us oldies and not argumentative.  When I was growing up the correct terminology was (for example, for Melkites) "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite" and more generically "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite."  This was an accurate description. Why has it ceased to be accurate?

Nobody knew anything about sui juris Churches or autonomous Churches. That terminology was just not used before the late 1960s.  Now over the last few years we have a new term emerging - "Orthodox in communion with Rome." Now that *is* "unnecessarily argumentative and factually inaccurate,"

Stay tuned!  The terms of reference for these ecclesial groups could well change again.  I can imagine the Vatican issuing instructions not to use "Orthodox in communion with Rome" since it frustrates the bilateral dialogue.

Whose correct terminology are you referring to? In the states calling a Greek Catholic a 'Roman Catholic of the Greek Rite' would likely have resulted in your being taken out back of the 'Russian Club' and being taught a linguistics lesson - although after the schisms those of us who became Orthodox would not have taken offense, but nobody used that terminology who had a ' horse in that race.'

I agree that 'Orthodox in union with Rome' is not only argumentative, it is inaccurate given Rome's Canon laws governing the churches they refer to as 'sui juris.'

Add to the oddness, my dad would always laugh as he would remember the 1940's when he was a pastor of the ACROD parish near Hazleton, PA - a hot bed of factions and multiple parishes with original Greek Catholic roots. You name them and they were there, Metropolia, ROCOR, BCC, UGCC, UOC, Patriarchal Russians, ACROD - all of course totally and completely inter-related with each other and really, really territorial. Everyone (which was a significant percentage of the metro population), including all of the slavic Greek Catholics, were on the complete Old Calendar in those days and each year on Pascha and Christmas the local newspaper would boldly headline "Local Greeks to Celebrate Holydays" even though there were no Greeks until you reached Scranton, about 40 miles north! No 'Russian Christmas' in those days....

[Peter J]

I would argue that the term 'Church of Rome' is more accurate as it does include the 'sui juris' particular churches in communion with the Holy See.

This is a little off-topic, but your post just reminded me that it's been a very long time since I read Father Brown of the Church of Rome. I'll have to take a look at my local library.

Anyhow, I'm interested to hear what other Orthodox posters think about "Church of Rome". Anyone care to comment? I don't recall many of you using it on this forum.

[Peter J]

In the states calling a Greek Catholic a 'Roman Catholic of the Greek Rite' would likely have resulted in your being taken out back of the 'Russian Club' and being taught a linguistics lesson

Let's not forget that guy who woke up next to a horse's head.

[podkarpatska]

Add to the oddness, my dad would always laugh as he would remember the 1940's when he was a pastor of the ACROD parish near Hazleton, PA - a hot bed of factions and multiple parishes with original Greek Catholic roots. You name them and they were there, Metropolia, ROCOR, BCC, UGCC, UOC, Patriarchal Russians, ACROD - all of course totally and completely inter-related with each other and really, really territorial. Everyone (which was a significant percentage of the metro population), including all of the slavic Greek Catholics, were on the complete Old Calendar in those days and each year on Pascha and Christmas the local newspaper would boldly headline "Local Greeks to Celebrate Holydays" even though there were no Greeks until you reached Scranton, about 40 miles north! No 'Russian Christmas' in those days....

I forgot to mention that by the late 1940's, the real Greeks had been observing the New Calendar, of the RJC, for a generation, making the anecdote all the more ironic.

[Maria]

Add to the oddness, my dad would always laugh as he would remember the 1940's when he was a pastor of the ACROD parish near Hazleton, PA - a hot bed of factions and multiple parishes with original Greek Catholic roots. You name them and they were there, Metropolia, ROCOR, BCC, UGCC, UOC, Patriarchal Russians, ACROD - all of course totally and completely inter-related with each other and really, really territorial. Everyone (which was a significant percentage of the metro population), including all of the slavic Greek Catholics, were on the complete Old Calendar in those days and each year on Pascha and Christmas the local newspaper would boldly headline "Local Greeks to Celebrate Holydays" even though there were no Greeks until you reached Scranton, about 40 miles north! No 'Russian Christmas' in those days....

I forgot to mention that by the late 1940's, the real Greeks had been observing the New Calendar, of the RJC, for a generation, making the anecdote all the more ironic.

... while the True Greeks continued to use the Old Calendar.

Back on topic: to address Melkites as members of the Roman Catholic Church is derogatory to them. It is best to use the term "Catholic Church" as "Latin Church" refers to the non-Eastern branch. It is sad that all these Eastern Churches left Orthodoxy to join the Roman Catholic Church where they became heavily latinized until just recently when these Eastern Catholic Churches were asked to return to their ancient Orthodox traditions. Because of Vatican II, many Eastern Catholics have come home to Orthodoxy.

[witega]

I would argue that the term 'Church of Rome' is more accurate as it does include the 'sui juris' particular churches in communion with the Holy See.

This is a little off-topic, but your post just reminded me that it's been a very long time since I read Father Brown of the Church of Rome. I'll have to take a look at my local library.

Anyhow, I'm interested to hear what other Orthodox posters think about "Church of Rome". Anyone care to comment? I don't recall many of you using it on this forum.

I tend to use "Church of Rome" or "Roman communion" fairly often because
a) it avoids using 'Catholic' in a way that is really not valid in the Orthodox tradition
b) it generally avoids terms that some find offensive
c) it captures a defining aspect of the communities I'm talking about in that they are in communion with Rome and under the authority of the bishop of Rome (in some aspect of how his offices are defined).

I still find it occasionally problematic when trying to talk about not the entire communion, but specifically about 'users of the Eastern Rite within the Roman Communion.' It's not true of all of them, but some of them seem to take any reference to Rome as a slight up there with the U-word, even though it is their communion with Rome which is the defining difference between them and the Orthodox.

[Maria]

Yes, the use of the term "Catholic Church" to refer to the Church of Rome is problematic because we Orthodox Christians are also Catholics in the truest sense of that term as we profess belief in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

[Schultz]

. Orthodox choosing to use your second option (everyone in union with the Pope is a Roman Catholic) to describe all of those in union with Rome is, in my opinion, unnecessarily argumentative and factually inaccurate.

It is totally accurate for us oldies and not argumentative.  When I was growing up the correct terminology was (for example, for Melkites) "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite" and more generically "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite."  This was an accurate description. Why has it ceased to be accurate?

For the same reason we don't refer to non-Caucasians as "colored folks," nowadays.  Language changes.

[Irish Hermit]

. Orthodox choosing to use your second option (everyone in union with the Pope is a Roman Catholic) to describe all of those in union with Rome is, in my opinion, unnecessarily argumentative and factually inaccurate.

It is totally accurate for us oldies and not argumentative.  When I was growing up the correct terminology was (for example, for Melkites) "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite" and more generically "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite."  This was an accurate description. Why has it ceased to be accurate?

For the same reason we don't refer to non-Caucasians as "colored folks," nowadays.  Language changes.

"There are, sadly, some Eastern Catholics who do see themselves as “Roman Catholics of the Eastern Rite”. Then there are those who see themselves as “Orthodox in Communion with Rome.” Then there is a third group that is more in the middle between these two extremes within the Eastern Churches. Rome has rejected completely the “Roman Catholics of the Eastern Rite”- to bad many Eastern and Western Catholics haven’t........... Rome has not rejected the “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” but is still trying to figure out what that means, so are Eastern Catholics (and the Orthodox for that matter)"

http://saintjamesprayforme.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/what-is-the-byzantine-church/

[podkarpatska]

. Orthodox choosing to use your second option (everyone in union with the Pope is a Roman Catholic) to describe all of those in union with Rome is, in my opinion, unnecessarily argumentative and factually inaccurate.

It is totally accurate for us oldies and not argumentative.  When I was growing up the correct terminology was (for example, for Melkites) "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite" and more generically "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite."  This was an accurate description. Why has it ceased to be accurate?

For the same reason we don't refer to non-Caucasians as "colored folks," nowadays.  Language changes.

"There are, sadly, some Eastern Catholics who do see themselves as “Roman Catholics of the Eastern Rite”. Then there are those who see themselves as “Orthodox in Communion with Rome.” Then there is a third group that is more in the middle between these two extremes within the Eastern Churches. Rome has rejected completely the “Roman Catholics of the Eastern Rite”- to bad many Eastern and Western Catholics haven’t........... Rome has not rejected the “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” but is still trying to figure out what that means, so are Eastern Catholics (and the Orthodox for that matter)"

http://saintjamesprayforme.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/what-is-the-byzantine-church/

Then there's these vagrantes from Ukraine - apparently they don't like anyone, anywhere....
http://uogcc.org.ua/en/  Wow - something we ALL can agree upon - Eastern Catholics in union with Rome, Roman Catholics and Orthodox - these folks are out there! 

[Schultz]

. Orthodox choosing to use your second option (everyone in union with the Pope is a Roman Catholic) to describe all of those in union with Rome is, in my opinion, unnecessarily argumentative and factually inaccurate.

It is totally accurate for us oldies and not argumentative.  When I was growing up the correct terminology was (for example, for Melkites) "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite" and more generically "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite."  This was an accurate description. Why has it ceased to be accurate?

For the same reason we don't refer to non-Caucasians as "colored folks," nowadays.  Language changes.

"There are, sadly, some Eastern Catholics who do see themselves as “Roman Catholics of the Eastern Rite”. Then there are those who see themselves as “Orthodox in Communion with Rome.” Then there is a third group that is more in the middle between these two extremes within the Eastern Churches. Rome has rejected completely the “Roman Catholics of the Eastern Rite”- to bad many Eastern and Western Catholics haven’t........... Rome has not rejected the “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” but is still trying to figure out what that means, so are Eastern Catholics (and the Orthodox for that matter)"

http://saintjamesprayforme.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/what-is-the-byzantine-church/

What does this one person's opinion have to do with anything?  No sources. 

The simple fact remains that, at least when it comes to American Eastern Catholics, calling them "Uniates" or "Roman Catholics of the Eastern Rite" is not only passe, but possibly an insult.  To continue to use it reeks of pride, hubris and the very same attitude of Abp. John Ireland.

[Irish Hermit]

. Orthodox choosing to use your second option (everyone in union with the Pope is a Roman Catholic) to describe all of those in union with Rome is, in my opinion, unnecessarily argumentative and factually inaccurate.

It is totally accurate for us oldies and not argumentative.  When I was growing up the correct terminology was (for example, for Melkites) "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite" and more generically "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite."  This was an accurate description. Why has it ceased to be accurate?

For the same reason we don't refer to non-Caucasians as "colored folks," nowadays.  Language changes.

"There are, sadly, some Eastern Catholics who do see themselves as “Roman Catholics of the Eastern Rite”. Then there are those who see themselves as “Orthodox in Communion with Rome.” Then there is a third group that is more in the middle between these two extremes within the Eastern Churches. Rome has rejected completely the “Roman Catholics of the Eastern Rite”- to bad many Eastern and Western Catholics haven’t........... Rome has not rejected the “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” but is still trying to figure out what that means, so are Eastern Catholics (and the Orthodox for that matter)"

http://saintjamesprayforme.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/what-is-the-byzantine-church/

What does this one person's opinion have to do with anything?  No sources. 

Do you have official magisterial sources stating that these terms are now insulting and must be abandoned?

The simple fact remains that, at least when it comes to American Eastern Catholics, calling them "Uniates" or "Roman Catholics of the Eastern Rite" is not only passe, but possibly an insult.  To continue to use it reeks of pride, hubris and the very same attitude of Abp. John Ireland.

If some Eastern Catholics continue to use the traditional terminology of "Roman Catholics of this that or the other Rite"  who the heck are we to judge them and forbid them.  I would suspect they would be older people of my age bracket who grew up with this terminology.  Watch out for the Word Police!   

Also, you will find that the U term still enjoys respectable currency in Europe, and indeed it was used at Baltimore by both Catholics and Orthodox at the 8th Plenary Meeting of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church>  The topic was "Ecclesiological and Canonical Implications of Uniatism."

[Peter J]

Also, you will find that the U term still enjoys respectable currency in Europe, and indeed it was used at Baltimore by both Catholics and Orthodox at the 8th Plenary Meeting of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church>  The topic was "Ecclesiological and Canonical Implications of Uniatism."

Father, if you're implying that the word "uniatism" is as offensive as the word "uniat(e)", then I would say you are quite wrong.

[Irish Hermit]

Also, you will find that the U term still enjoys respectable currency in Europe, and indeed it was used at Baltimore by both Catholics and Orthodox at the 8th Plenary Meeting of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church>  The topic was "Ecclesiological and Canonical Implications of Uniatism."

Father, if you're implying that the word "uniatism" is as offensive as the word "uniat(e)", then I would say you are quite wrong.

That word is in the title of the subject set for discussion.  The other word was used by both sides in the discussion.  I don't know how to find the record of this meeting.  It ended in chaos when Cardinal Kasper and his men walked out and no Joint Statement was ever issued.

[Papist]

I prefer Catholic Church as well, but honestly, at this point, I don't care. Ya'll can call us "romanists" or "papists" or "the vatican" or whatever the heck you want. It's rude, but that's not on me. Honestly, I know that the communion that I belong to is the true Church of Jesus Christ, and I don't need validation from the outside in order to know that.

[Peter J]

Also, you will find that the U term still enjoys respectable currency in Europe, and indeed it was used at Baltimore by both Catholics and Orthodox at the 8th Plenary Meeting of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church>  The topic was "Ecclesiological and Canonical Implications of Uniatism."

Father, if you're implying that the word "uniatism" is as offensive as the word "uniat(e)", then I would say you are quite wrong.

That word is in the title of the subject set for discussion.  The other word was used by both sides in the discussion.  I don't know how to find the record of this meeting.  It ended in chaos when Cardinal Kasper and his men walked out and no Joint Statement was ever issued.

But they had previously issued a joint statement titled "Uniatism: method of union of the past, and the present search for full communion", and which uses the term "uniatism" multiple times. There hasn't been a joint statement with the term "uniat(e)". Surely, that tells you something.

[Peter J]

I prefer Catholic Church as well, but honestly, at this point, I don't care. Ya'll can call us "romanists" or "papists" or "the vatican" or whatever the heck you want. It's rude, but that's not on me. Honestly, I know that the communion that I belong to is the true Church of Jesus Christ, and I don't need validation from the outside in order to know that.

That's pretty refreshing, considering the amount of thought and effort that some of your co-religionists put into trying to get the rest of us to call you "the Catholic Church".

[Wyatt]

I prefer Catholic Church as well, but honestly, at this point, I don't care. Ya'll can call us "romanists" or "papists" or "the vatican" or whatever the heck you want. It's rude, but that's not on me. Honestly, I know that the communion that I belong to is the true Church of Jesus Christ, and I don't need validation from the outside in order to know that.

Amen, Papist! In all honesty, I am beginning to wonder what you and I and the rest of us actually are doing here though. I mean, I heard someone ask that a while back on this forum and at the time I thought it was rude, but the more I think about it the more I wonder if that person didn't have a valid point. I mean, sure there are wonderful people on this forum, but they are the ones that are most often not heard, or at least not heard enough. Some of them do actually speak up occasionally, but others just don't get involved anymore because they are no doubt sick of all the bickering and mean-spiritedness. The ones that hate us and hate our Church (or at least are afraid of our Church) are heard more than anything. They shout the loudest. I don't think that subjecting ourselves to that kind of abuse is healthy. It is especially not spiritually healthy. I doubt any of us would join a Jack Chick forum and allow ourselves to be abused day in and day out, so why do we do it here?

I know for me personally, part of it is boredom. I get on the computer and I have a routine of stuff that I check and things that I do when I'm online. Plus, being disabled doesn't help because there are only so many things I can do in a given day (it's not like I'm gonna be going for a bike ride anytime soon  ), but I am trying to busy myself with other things and not spend so much time on forums, especially ones that can be hostile, which unfortunately this one is at times. Perhaps I will give up forums for Lent. Hell, I definitely think I should give up Facebook at the very least. It seems I cannot get on there without saying something on my news feed that really grinds my gears.

Anyway...rant over.

[Ionnis]

Hi Wyatt,

I don't want to see either you or Papist go.  I think it is a good idea to stay away from the Orthodox-Catholic subforum though.  It is toxic.  I get drawn into reading the posts more often than I should, but like you, I get bored and also have my routine and end up kicking myself later for allowing myself to get sucked in.  If it is any consolation, I'm not Roman Catholic and not particularly ecumenical, and I too get upset by a lot that is said to you and the pettiness, backbiting, and slander that goes on.  I know A LOT of people feel that way around here.  Stick around, just avoid the toxic areas and engage in the areas that are a benefit to your soul, but also that allow you to be calm and to post things which are a benefit to others.  Of course if your spiritual director thinks it is best for the salvation of your soul that you avoid such places, then you should consider that above what those of us here have to say. 

[Irish Hermit]

I prefer Catholic Church as well, but honestly, at this point, I don't care. Ya'll can call us "romanists" or "papists" or "the vatican" or whatever the heck you want. It's rude, but that's not on me. Honestly, I know that the communion that I belong to is the true Church of Jesus Christ, and I don't need validation from the outside in order to know that.

People who use "romanists" and "papists" don't get invited back to my home for a second cup of tea.

[Peter J]

In all honesty, I am beginning to wonder what you and I and the rest of us actually are doing here though.

Are you referring to all of us who are non-Orthodox, or just you Catholics?

In any case I think you know my feelings on the matter, based on prior statements I've made -- although I guess I've been acting contrary to them by participating here this month.   

[88Devin12]

I prefer to use Roman Catholic.

I try to never use papist, romanist, etc... Since they are inflammatory.

I don't typically use Church of Rome however, because I see the Roman Catholic Church as having lost its apostolic claim to that title.

[Michał Kalina]

Back to the OP:

I was told that the official names of the sui iuri Churches are:
- The Catholic Church of the X Rite

like: The Catholic Church of the Byzanine-Ukrainian Rite.

[Achronos]

I prefer Catholic Church as well, but honestly, at this point, I don't care. Ya'll can call us "romanists" or "papists" or "the vatican" or whatever the heck you want. It's rude, but that's not on me. Honestly, I know that the communion that I belong to is the true Church of Jesus Christ, and I don't need validation from the outside in order to know that.

Amen, Papist! In all honesty, I am beginning to wonder what you and I and the rest of us actually are doing here though. I mean, I heard someone ask that a while back on this forum and at the time I thought it was rude, but the more I think about it the more I wonder if that person didn't have a valid point.

[Wyatt]

I prefer Catholic Church as well, but honestly, at this point, I don't care. Ya'll can call us "romanists" or "papists" or "the vatican" or whatever the heck you want. It's rude, but that's not on me. Honestly, I know that the communion that I belong to is the true Church of Jesus Christ, and I don't need validation from the outside in order to know that.

Amen, Papist! In all honesty, I am beginning to wonder what you and I and the rest of us actually are doing here though. I mean, I heard someone ask that a while back on this forum and at the time I thought it was rude, but the more I think about it the more I wonder if that person didn't have a valid point.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: "Roman Catholic Church"?