Roman Catholic vs. Catholic


#1

From reading in this forum I have noticed that many non-catholics seem to distinguish the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Yes Jesus started the Catholic Church, but the Roman Catholic Church, as non-catholics call it, is the very same church and just the Latin Rite of it. Catholic doesn’t only mean universal, it also means pertaining to the whole. For the first Chrisitians the Catholic Church was the church that Jesus founded, a universal church with doctrinal unity, a church containing the whole truth promised to the apostles, and a church perserved by the successors of the apostles. Any coments or disagreements.


#2

Thanks … :thumbsup:

Joe


#3

My only comment is that the Roman Catholic Church is not the Catholic Church alone.

It is more than just the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. It is an individual Church, just as the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic Church is a separate Church.

Also, while you are correct in saying, “For the first Chrisitians the Catholic Church was the church that Jesus founded, a universal church with doctrinal unity, a church containing the whole truth promised to the apostles, and a church perserved by the successors of the apostles.” There are differences.

We describe things differently. We have a different approach to theology. We have different traditions.

To speak of the Roman Catholic Church as the Catholic Church denies this and ignores the richness of the Easten Catholic Churches and what we have to give to the whole.


#4

[quote=ByzCath]My only comment is that the Roman Catholic Church is not the Catholic Church alone.

It is more than just the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. It is an individual Church, just as the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic Church is a separate Church.

Also, while you are correct in saying, “For the first Chrisitians the Catholic Church was the church that Jesus founded, a universal church with doctrinal unity, a church containing the whole truth promised to the apostles, and a church perserved by the successors of the apostles.” There are differences.

We describe things differently. We have a different approach to theology. We have different traditions.

To speak of the Roman Catholic Church as the Catholic Church denies this and ignores the richness of the Easten Catholic Churches and what we have to give to the whole.
[/quote]

I would disagree with you on a couple of premises. What people call the “Roman” Catholic Church is another name for the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. There is one Catholic Church with different Rites. The Byzantines are part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church just as the Romans are. The term Roman Catholic was started in the English Reformation to distinguish those who followed the directives of Rome from those who followed the directives from the King (Church of England).


#5

[quote=WBB]I would disagree with you on a couple of premises. What people call the “Roman” Catholic Church is another name for the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. There is one Catholic Church with different Rites. The Byzantines are part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church just as the Romans are. The term Roman Catholic was started in the English Reformation to distinguish those who followed the directives of Rome from those who followed the directives from the King (Church of England).
[/quote]

While what you say is what many Roman Catholics think, you are in error.

The Catholic Church is made up of 22 separate Churches, each with their own hierarchy. All these Churches are in communion with the Holy Father in Rome.

One does not belong to a rite, they belong to a Church. While the Roman Catholic Church uses the Latin Rite, it is still the Roman Catholic Church that you belong to.

You are right about the term Roman Catholic for you, the correct name of your church would be the Latin Catholic Church,

I know there are other Byzantines here who will expound on what I said and/or give you links.


#6

[quote=ByzCath]While what you say is what many Roman Catholics think, you are in error.

The Catholic Church is made up of 22 separate Churches, each with their own hierarchy. All these Churches are in communion with the Holy Father in Rome.

One does not belong to a rite, they belong to a Church. While the Roman Catholic Church uses the Latin Rite, it is still the Roman Catholic Church that you belong to.

You are right about the term Roman Catholic for you, the correct name of your church would be the Latin Catholic Church,

I know there are other Byzantines here who will expound on what I said and/or give you links.
[/quote]

I disagree with you. If you want to say I don’t belong to a Rite, fine. If you want to say that I belong to a particular church, fine. In that case, I belong to the Church of Rome. I am not aware that the Church of Rome calls itself the “Roman Catholic Church.”


#7

[quote=WBB]I disagree with you. If you want to say I don’t belong to a Rite, fine. If you want to say that I belong to a particular church, fine. In that case, I belong to the Church of Rome. I am not aware that the Church of Rome calls itself the “Roman Catholic Church.”
[/quote]

You can disagree all you wish but that doesn’t change the fact that you are a member of a particular church just as I am.

Again, there are others who have crafted a response to this issue as it seems to come up very regularly around here.

The Catholic Church is a communion of 22 separate Churches.


#8

[quote=ByzCath]You can disagree all you wish but that doesn’t change the fact that you are a member of a particular church just as I am.

Again, there are others who have crafted a response to this issue as it seems to come up very regularly around here.

The Catholic Church is a communion of 22 separate Churches.
[/quote]

I answered that. I belong to the Church of Rome. Furthermore, CCC 834: Particular churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome “which presides in charity.” The term “Roman Catholic” is an invention of the English Reformation.


#9

[quote=WBB]I answered that. I belong to the Church of Rome. Furthermore, CCC 834: Particular churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome “which presides in charity.” The term “Roman Catholic” is an invention of the English Reformation.
[/quote]

True, but your particular church is the Latin Catholic Church. The Church of Rome would be the diocese of Rome and unless you live in Rome you are not part of that diocese.

Just as I am a member of the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic Church and a part of the Eparchy of Passiac which has Bishop Andrew as its bishop. I live in Rochester, NY, which happens to be the Latin Catholic Diocese of Rochester, NY, under Bishop Clark.

As I said, each of us is a member of a Church which practices a particular rite.

By the number of posts I can see that you are relatively new here. I would suggest that you try a search on some of these terms and see the past discussions.

You will also find, if you look around, some of the discussions that have occured between Eastern Catholics and Western Catholics as our theological approach differs as do the terms we use to describe things.


#10

I am Catholic.

My rite is the Roman Rite. Another person’s might be Maronite or Eastern Rite.

A good article on this is old but accurate. see the article “Roman Catholic” at www.newadvent.org Catholic encyclopedia.

Bear in mind that the encyclopedia is from about 1911. But this article shows that the term “Roman Catholic” is a misnomer.

My Church might put a sign out front saying St. Mary’s R.C. Church, but that is only to tell visitors what rite it is.

The Church is one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic whether you worship in Aramaic, Latin, Greek, French or English.


#11

[quote=ByzCath]True, but your particular church is the Latin Catholic Church.
[/quote]

Never seen anything anywhere that indicates The Diocese of Galveston-Houston is part of the “Latin Catholic Church”.

I’m sure we celebrate the “Latin Rite” just never seen it refered to as the “Latin Catholic Church” before.

It just says…“Catholic”.

Is there an “official satement” to this effect or is “Latin Catholic Church” a term that this forum has adopted as a compromise method to make distinctions?

Chuck


#12

I would say this. To the extent that Roman Catholic emphasizes the fact that the Supreme Pontiff over the entire Church is the bishop of Rome, the term is perfectly acceptable. However, because he is also the patriarch of the Latin Rite, it can seem to be emphasizing that Church to the detriment (as far as recognition goes) the Eastern Churches, those that are in full communion with the Pope, that are just as much a part of the Church as is the Latin Rite.

In general, I think that all Catholics, regardless of rite, should refer to themselves as “Catholic” and not “Roman Catholic.” This is the practice of the Church herself.

For myself, I try to ignore references to Roman Catholic and just use “Catholic” in my responses (except when the context of the statement would make it appropriate).


#13

The Catholic Church = Q + R + S

Catholic Rites = Q (= A + B + C + D+ E+ F+ G) / R (=H + I + J + K+ L + M) / S (= N + O + P)

For example:
Q = Latin Rite
R = Byzantine Rite

Catholic Churches (diocseses) = A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P
For example:
A = Diocese of Portland
B = Diocese of Toronto

That’s how I see it at least. Correct me if I’m wrong. I have always thought of myself as Roman Catholic since I look to the Church of Rome and its bishop, the pope, for clarification on matters of faith. I also call myself Roman Catholic when I talk with Orthodox friends, since they consider their Orthodox collection of Churches as the Catholic Church. Latin Catholic is much more accurate though, I agree. But most people wouldn’t know what I was talking about if I said that I were Latin Catholic.

Anyhow, I was thinking: Is the Catholic Church something like the United States of America up till maybe the 1860’s? You know, how each state had its own distinct identity, laws and structure, yet nontheless all the states gave allegience to the national capital of Washington D.C. That’s about the best example I can think of. Is it right?


#14

[quote=clmowry]Never seen anything anywhere that indicates The Diocese of Galveston-Houston is part of the “Latin Catholic Church”.

I’m sure we celebrate the “Latin Rite” just never seen it refered to as the “Latin Catholic Church” before.

It just says…“Catholic”.

Is there an “official satement” to this effect or is “Latin Catholic Church” a term that this forum has adopted as a compromise method to make distinctions?

Chuck
[/quote]

The Diocese of Galveston-Houston is a Latin rite church. We do have non-Latin rite parishes within Houston but they fall under their respective bishops.
I hope that Helps! God Bless!


#15

Everyone seems to be using the word “church” with different meanings. There are not 22 “churches” if by church you mean different doctrines or disagreements among the churches. There is only one Church in the sense that Jesus founded only one Church. However, there are 22 different rites or ways of participating in that one Church. The differences are only cultural or traditional (small t) because they are all under the authority of the Pope as the head of the universal Church. You could say there are 22 different “churches” if you mean 22 different physical locations or something to that effect.


#16

David, the ByzCath,

I am sorry for all of this mess. I really don’t like to argue semantics. I don’t know what came over me. :o Suffice it to say that regardless of where we worship, we are brothers in the Lord, and that is really what matters.

Peace,

Brian

I suppose what you are telling me is that I belong to the Latin Catholic Church, the Archdiocese of New Orleans with Alfred Hughes as our Archbishop. :wink:


#17

"Roman"
I don’t use it or like it unless it cannot be avoided, like on a form or something. It was first used as an insult in the 15th or 16th century by the Anglicans. It only appears 2X in the Catechism. We adapted to it for practical purposes.

We are politically incorrect.:cool:
We are an enemy of the culture of death.:hmmm:
We are made in the image of God.:dancing:
We are Catholic.:clapping:

kepha


#18

[quote=germys9]Everyone seems to be using the word “church” with different meanings. There are not 22 “churches” if by church you mean different doctrines or disagreements among the churches. There is only one Church in the sense that Jesus founded only one Church. However, there are 22 different rites or ways of participating in that one Church. The differences are only cultural or traditional (small t) because they are all under the authority of the Pope as the head of the universal Church. You could say there are 22 different “churches” if you mean 22 different physical locations or something to that effect.
[/quote]

Hi, germys9!

Actually, the Catholic Church does recognize that it is, in fact, an assembly of 23 separate “Churches,” not just rites. Simply put, there is the Western Catholic Church, commonly referred to as the Roman Catholic Church (far and away the largest of the Catholic Churches) and 22 distinct, individual Eastern Catholic Churches. Now, many of these Churches do, in fact, share the same rite, but each is still officially an independent, self-governing “Church” with its own heierarchy and Code of Canon Law.

Yet all are Catholic - none more Catholic than the other. In fact, any Catholic individual is free to worship in any of these Churches, even though that Church’s particular rite ot liturgical traditions may be very different than his own.

The Catholic Church refers to each of these independent Churches as being sui iuris, a Latin term that, loosely translated, means self-governing. This designation allows each of these Catholic Churches to celebrate their unity without uniformity. Each has its own leader who is responsible for the day-to-day operation of that particular Church. In some Churches this individual is designated as a Patriarch; in others, an Archbishop or a Metropolitan Archbishop. In the Western Catholic Church this role is filled by the Bishop of Rome, His Holiness, the Pope. Despite the differences in their titles, each of these individuals has the same responsibility - the spiritual leadership of his particular Church.

The Holy Father, John Paul II, has one additional responsibility; in addition to being the Patriarch of the Roman Catholic Church, he is also, as the successor of Peter, the spiritual pastor of all Catholics, no matter which of the 23 Churches they are a member of. You might say that his position as the Successor of Peter and Universal Pastor of all Catholics is the “glue” that binds each of these 23 Churches together into the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which all Catholics are members.

Here’s an analogy that may help clear up the word “Church” as it is used in this context… when the Apostles first spread across the known world to establish Our Lord’s Church on Earth, they settled into different geographic locations such as Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and so forth. Each of these geographic areas contributed their own customs and traditions to the way they developed their respective worship practices and, in fact, became known as the Church of Antioch, the Church of Alexandria, the Church of Jerusalem, and so forth. Despite their ritual differences, each of these separate “Churches” remained true to the teachings of Jesus Christ, and each recognized Peter, the leader of the Church of Rome, as their universal pastor.

It’s the same today. Although each of the 23 sui iuris Churches may be very different from one another in rite, tradition and liturgical practice, they are each Catholic, no more or no less Catholic than any of the others.

a pilgrim


#19

[quote=a pilgrim]Hi, germys9!

Here’s an analogy that may help clear up the word “Church” as it is used in this context… when the Apostles first spread across the known world to establish Our Lord’s Church on Earth, they settled into different geographic locations such as Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and so forth. Each of these geographic areas contributed their own customs and traditions to the way they developed their respective worship practices and, in fact, became known as the Church of Antioch, the Church of Alexandria, the Church of Jerusalem, and so forth. Despite their ritual differences, each of these separate “Churches” remained true to the teachings of Jesus Christ, and each recognized Peter, the leader of the Church of Rome, as their universal pastor.

It’s the same today. Although each of the 23 sui iuris Churches may be very different from one another in rite, tradition and liturgical practice, they are each Catholic, no more or no less Catholic than any of the others.

a pilgrim
[/quote]

This is exactly what I was trying to say. Sorry, I guess I didn’t word it right. My only point was that each of the churches followed the true teachings of Christ and all have successors of the apostles in them. I was basically trying to say that the different catholic churches cannot be compared to the different protestant churches in an analogy because the different catholic churches have doctrinal unity and are in union with the Pope. (Some try to apply the word catholic to a universal, spiritual church and deny a physical institution)


#20

Not to throw another idea in on this conversation, but sometimes I will state that I am Roman Catholic to let others know that I take the authority of the pope as my guide. I find that you can find a lot of different interpretations of our faith(ie John Kerry), so to say RC means I agree with the teachings of the Holy Father (not John Kerry’s Catholic faith).

In His’ Love!!


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.