The term "Roman Catholic"

[MoreCoffee]

Following the pejorative term "papist", attested in English since 1534, the terms "Popish Catholic" and "Romish Catholic" came into use during the Protestant Reformation. During the 17th century, "Roman Catholic Church" was often used as a synonym for the Catholic Church, especially where Protestants and Anglicans dominated demographically. Although its usage has since changed over the centuries, the name continued to be widely used in English-speaking countries, including the United States. (Wikipedia)

The Catholic Church calls itself The Catholic Church. In legal documents - especially in England - "Catholic Church" was not allowed because the Anglican communion reserved it and it was the state church in that land so in England and subsequently in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other nations that were colonies of England the term used was "Roman Catholic Church". It was part of the Anglican anti-Catholic mentality in England and her colonies.

 

[Albion]

Following the pejorative term "papist", attested in English since 1534, the terms "Popish Catholic" and "Romish Catholic" came into use during the Protestant Reformation.

That's essentially what I said.

During the 17th century, "Roman Catholic Church" was often used as a synonym for the Catholic Church, especially where Protestants and Anglicans dominated demographically. Although its usage has since changed over the centuries, the name continued to be widely used in English-speaking countries, including the United States. (Wikipedia)

Also true, but nothing to get upset about or describe as some kind of smear. It surely is reasonable to speak in a way that distinguishes the Roman Catholic Church from the Catholic Church in England (called Anglican in casual conversation).

 

[Josiah]

The History of Church Names



The first denomination was created by the Roman Empire in the early 4th Century and was informally called The ROMAN CHURCH. It was the denomination of, for and by the ROMAN Empire (and only the Roman Empire; parishes outside of the Empire weren't a part of the Roman Church). Eventually, that denomination unraveled and we found two increasingly different communities - especially after the "fall" of the West and the move of the center of things to Constantiople. Functionally, we had two denominations - East and West - and they were increasingly different and nasty to each other. Each claimed to be the authentic, real Church of Jesus. Two adjectivites were long used to refer to CHRISTIAN PEOPLE - "orthodox" (traditional, true, authentic) and "catholic" (universal, whole, complete, all of). In their supreme egos, each "side" of the ROMAN CHURCH claimed these adjectives for itself, thus "Orthodox" became associated with the East and "Catholic" with the west. This became official when the Roman Church officially split (in the largest split in Christian history) in 1054 - and we had two big, major denominations: The Orthodox Church (well actually several) and The Catholic Church although again both these adjectives were egotistically used by both for self uniquely. These may well be the only major, large denominations that chose their own name - but in both cases, they were egotistical moves to claim SELF ever so special and to slam the other suggesting the other was NOT authentic, universal, genuine, real, true.


But The Catholic denomination was never one, and these divisions grew in the middle ages. One aspect of that was "rites." One of these (by far the largest in Western Europe and the USA) is the ROMAN rite. It has always been the case that the rite often accomplanied the legal moniker of the denomination, thus "ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH." The was never disparaging. It simply defined the "rite" of that parish or division within the Catholic Church. When I was Catholic, our church sign out by the street said (and I verbatim quote) ''A Parish of the Roman Catholic Church." In my Catholic days, I never - not once - heard anyone speak of the "Roman" identification as negative. The church considered itself very much a part of the church that goes back to "THE ROMAN CHURCH" founded in the 4th century (and before). It was proud to be a part 0f the ROMAN rite. It is quite common for members of this denomination to call themselves "Roman Catholics."



Oh the egoism of it all! Of course, it's in a sense necessitated because of the ego of the RCC when it gave itself this moniker. Because even in 1054, "The Catholic Church" was not the church catholic - those in the East were Christians and thus catholic. Just as it was confusing and egotistically named itself "The Orthodox Church" because Christians in the West were orthodox, too. Lutherans and Anglicans are catholic and orthodox - embracing the same faith in Christ, embracing the same Ecumenical Creeds, embracing the same 7 Ecumenical Councils.... Thus, the ego that caused these two splits of the ROMAN CHURCH to convert these embracing adjectives into divisive, legal, institutional monikers created confusion.



Everyone knows this problem. Even nonchristians understand the problem created when these two split offs chose to make these two adjectives into legal institutional monikers. The geopolitical/legal/economic institution of The Catholic Church (legally incorporated in every one of the 50 US States and in virtually all countries of the world) is not "catholic" ("catholic" referring to PEOPLE - to Christian PEOPLE, at most half of which are legally registered in parishes owned and operated by the geopolitical - economic - legal corporation with the self-given moniker of "The Catholic Church." Whether Roman rite or some other.



Big "C" and little "c" In Modern English we have the advantage of grammar to help with the created confusion. In English, adjectives typically are not capitolized but legal monikers of corporations are. Thus "catholic" means "all Christians" whereas "Catholic" refers to a legally registered corporation. We see this common distinction used here at CH. No one is being disparaging we are just using proper modern English grammar - adjectives are not capitolized, legal monikers of corporations are. And like Catholics, we note their link to "The ROMAN CHURCH" that existed for nearly 600 years (from which both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches come). My former parish PROUDLY stated on our church sign: "A Parish of the Roman Catholic Church" because 1) That's true - it is owned and operated by that denomination and 2) it is Roman Rite and 3) it proudly claims to have roots to (and beyond) The ROMAN Church, every proud that IT is what was recognized by the ROMAN Empire and named the ROMAN Church.



All this "I'm offended by the name we gave ourselves and by how we ourselves use the term" is just silly. Some Catholics need to grow up and get past it. Lutherans accept being called "Lutheran" (even though we did NOT get to chose our name and it was not given to make self seem authentic). Calvinists accept being called that. Baptist and Methodists and Mormons and Quakers and Shakers and Protestants all accept the common name - even though all those (unlike the Roman Catholics) did not get to choose their own name (typically Catholics gave it to them) and they were originally derogatory. Grow up. The rest of us have it a LOT worse and we aren't whining.




Many denominations were GIVEN their names - originally disparaging, originially contrary to what the denomination called itself - but the given name just stuck. In every case known to me, eventually the common (orginally disparaging) name was just accepted. Examples: Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Calvinist, Quaker, Mormon, Shakers.... and many, many more. The Lutheran church originally called itself "Evangelical" and individual Lutherans often referred to themselves as "Evangelical Catholics." In some countries, it is STILL called "The Evangelical Church." "Lutheran" was a derogatory label given by Catholics since they accused these people of following Luther rather than Christ. But in time, terms (good and bad) just tend to "stick" and often loose their disparaging aspect; denominations humble enough to do so just accept it and run with it.




Just the way it is.....



- Josiah



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

 

[user1234]

Really great post , #3 , Josiah.
I used to get called a protestant ... as a kid it seemed like an insult depending on who said it, and other times not, but I was never quite sure what it was supposed to mean, (and still dont, really, lol) I still get called that from time to time, even from ppl ive told I dont refer to myself that way. Doesnt seem to matter to some.

As a kid, it was generally the 'catholic kids' that said it, I dont think they meant it to be kindly.
The 'catholics' rarely identified as 'christians'.
The 'jewish kids' were the 'jewish kids' , lol .
There didnt really seem to be anything else back then, nothing of muslum, hindu, or bhuddist, and there were some JWs and Mormons, HareKrishnas got popular, but they were all considered cults and were obscure.

No one said they themselves were atheist that I recall. As kids got older, some, (most, I guess) would say they were agnostic, but still identified with what they were raised as.

I dont go by any denominational label today.
I believe in The Lord Jesus Christ , His finished work, His shed blood, death, burial and resurrection for my sins and rejoice in God my Saviour Jesus Christ because of who He is and what He did, does, and promises to do. I'm saved because Jesus saved me, no other reason. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us... even me. His love, His grace, His mercy, His sacrifice on my behalf. It's who He is and what He does.

I believe when Jesus saves He saves forever and completely, although I'm still a work in progress, as are all, and if thats not good enough for any religious types or those that insist on working for salvation, or works-righteousness, and preaching fear, warnings, oppression and dire news, instead of love, joy, truth and good news, I dont know what I can do to change that. I dont condemn them, just try to get the gospel out and pray for them, though I admit probably not as I should or nearly enough, and often have a Jonah attitude...I dont WANNA go to Ninevah, lol! Oy, I need prayers, too.

Anyway, I dont know what label that puts me under, but I've been called alot of things by alot of ppl. •~•
The ones that hurt the most have sometimes come from loved ones, and/or those who are my sisters and brothers in Christ, or I thought were, or are supposed to be, or something. (Especially sisters, I dont really know why that is, but, yep, that hurts the most for some reason.)(I guess sometimes I hurt them too, though I never ever mean to. I can be a blockhead.)

*~*~*~* Wow!!! Just right now got a message of a miraculous turn of events, a healing, for a beautiful sister in Christ ... JUST NOW HEARD THE NEWS AS I TYPE ...THANK YOU JESUS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HEALING HAND OF GRACE! PLEASE SAVE AND HEAL EVERYONE HERE LORD, FOR YOUR GREAT NAME AND GLORY! Amen.

Oh, and I believe everyone in heaven is osas, and I havent heard anyone make a good case against it, so I'm sticking with it. :cheer:

 

[Albion]

Really great post , #3 , Josiah.
I used to get called a protestant ... as a kid it seemed like an insult depending on who said it, and other times not, but I was never quite sure what it was supposed to mean, (and still dont, really, lol) I still get called that from time to time, even from ppl ive told I dont refer to myself that way. Doesnt seem to matter to some.

You probably should count yourself as fortunate. Most often they call Protestant kids "non-Catholics " and say that their churches are not "real " churches, but just playacting.

 

[Andrew]

Really great post , #3 , Josiah.
I used to get called a protestant ... as a kid it seemed like an insult depending on who said it, and other times not, but I was never quite sure what it was supposed to mean, (and still dont, really, lol) I still get called that from time to time, even from ppl ive told I dont refer to myself that way. Doesnt seem to matter to some.

As a kid, it was generally the 'catholic kids' that said it, I dont think they meant it to be kindly.
The 'catholics' rarely identified as 'christians'.
The 'jewish kids' were the 'jewish kids' , lol .
There didnt really seem to be anything else back then, nothing of muslum, hindu, or bhuddist, and there were some JWs and Mormons, HareKrishnas got popular, but they were all considered cults and were obscure.

No one said they themselves were atheist that I recall. As kids got older, some, (most, I guess) would say they were agnostic, but still identified with what they were raised as.

I dont go by any denominational label today.
I believe in The Lord Jesus Christ , His finished work, His shed blood, death, burial and resurrection for my sins and rejoice in God my Saviour Jesus Christ because of who He is and what He did, does, and promises to do. I'm saved because Jesus saved me, no other reason. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us... even me. His love, His grace, His mercy, His sacrifice on my behalf. It's who He is and what He does.

I believe when Jesus saves He saves forever and completely, although I'm still a work in progress, as are all, and if thats not good enough for any religious types or those that insist on working for salvation, or works-righteousness, and preaching fear, warnings, oppression and dire news, instead of love, joy, truth and good news, I dont know what I can do to change that. I dont condemn them, just try to get the gospel out and pray for them, though I admit probably not as I should or nearly enough, and often have a Jonah attitude...I dont WANNA go to Ninevah, lol! Oy, I need prayers, too.

Anyway, I dont know what label that puts me under, but I've been called alot of things by alot of ppl. •~•
The ones that hurt the most have sometimes come from loved ones, and/or those who are my sisters and brothers in Christ, or I thought were, or are supposed to be, or something. (Especially sisters, I dont really know why that is, but, yep, that hurts the most for some reason.)(I guess sometimes I hurt them too, though I never ever mean to. I can be a blockhead.)

*~*~*~* Wow!!! Just right now got a message of a miraculous turn of events, a healing, for a beautiful sister in Christ ... JUST NOW HEARD THE NEWS AS I TYPE ...THANK YOU JESUS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HEALING HAND OF GRACE! PLEASE SAVE AND HEAL EVERYONE HERE LORD, FOR YOUR GREAT NAME AND GLORY! Amen.

Oh, and I believe everyone in heaven is osas, and I havent heard anyone make a good case against it, so I'm sticking with it. :cheer:

Beautiful attitude I wish I were more like that maybe in time I can get past the fear of losing salvation, I don't know what the unforgivable sin is and im sometimes afraid if I have done it, I dont know why I just got a bad feeling that goes in me from time to time, putting doubts about salvation at a still... I must always remember "forgiveness" it helps alot

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[user1234]

Beautiful attitude I wish I were more like that maybe in time I can get past the fear of losing salvation, I don't know what the unforgivable sin is and im sometimes afraid if I have done it, I dont know why I just got a bad feeling that goes in me from time to time, putting doubts about salvation at a still... I must always remember "forgiveness" it helps alot

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

God bless you, brother...if you're worried about committing the unpardonable sin, you havent!
The only thing you cant be forgiven of now is rejecting Jesus, and that has to be a willful knowledgeable rejection of His salvation He purchased for you thru His shed blood, death, burial and resurrection, and be determined not to have Him as your Lord and Saviour, and EVEN THAT, if someone is in that state right now, still has an opportunity to be saved if they havent died yet, God may yet turn them, they may yet believe and be saved, but a person that has hardened his heart to Gods gift of salvation isnt worried about it, its beyond just not caring or being ignorant, its a determinate rejection of Jesus, and would be the opposite of osas, it would be more like nsns, no saviour no salvation, and you want it that way.

With all the arguing the wrong way, out of context, over Hebrews 6:4-6, total scriptorture, that passage actually CONFIRMS osas for the believer in a way, bc its saying that unless Jesus saves you, if you reject the ONLY sacrifice that God accepts for you and me to be saved, Jesus payment of our penalty, then its IMPOSSIBLE to be saved.
There must be a penalty paid, and if we dont want Jesus payment on our behalf, there IS no other acceptible sacrifice for our sins. Either Jesus paid it all, or WE pay, in eternity, in hell, separated from God forever. Thats why its important to keep reading, and it shows that we as believers are not in the category of those in verse 4-6, but are those referred to further in the chapter, and at its conclusion. Saved and secure in Christ!
So much of the bible testifies to the security of those in Christ.

GOD, who is rich in mercy, saved us by His grace, thru faith in Jesus.
If you dont want Jesus, its impossible to enter His Kingdom, and that makes perfect sense, no one can argue it. You want to enter the Kingdom, you come by Way of the King ... Its a package deal, lol, no King...no Kingdom. But with the King, with our Saviour, we're secure.

And think of it this way...
Who do you think wants you worried, in fear, that Jesus doesnt love you, or may not keep you, or didnt save you, or will change His mind?
Jesus? Or the devil?

Who loves you so much He gave His only begotten Son for you, that says I will never leave you or forsake you? God or the devil?

Or who wants to STOP you through fear or doubt or worry...who wants to stop you from singing Gods praises, rejoicing in so great a salvation, exalting your God and King and Lord and Saviour and Friend. Who wants to stop you from loving God because He first loved you and gave Himself for you, to stop you from praising and thanking Him, so that others wont believe in Him either??

I think you know the answer.
Read the end of Romans 8:31-39 in the KJV.
And read it again and again, let His Word speak to you and really sink in.
And rejoice, as believers in Jesus, our names are written in heaven!
Looking forward to praising Him with you!
God bless you!

 

[Andrew]

God bless you, brother...if you're worried about committing the unpardonable sin, you havent!
The only thing you cant be forgiven of now is rejecting Jesus, and that has to be a willful knowledgeable rejection of His salvation He purchased for you thru His shed blood, death, burial and resurrection, and be determined not to have Him as your Lord and Saviour, and EVEN THAT, if someone is in that state right now, still has an opportunity to be saved if they havent died yet, God may yet turn them, they may yet believe and be saved, but a person that has hardened his heart to Gods gift of salvation isnt worried about it, its beyond just not caring or being ignorant, its a determinate rejection of Jesus, and would be the opposite of osas, it would be more like nsns, no saviour no salvation, and you want it that way.

With all the arguing the wrong way, out of context, over Hebrews 6:4-6, total scriptorture, that passage actually CONFIRMS osas for the believer in a way, bc its saying that unless Jesus saves you, if you reject the ONLY sacrifice that God accepts for you and me to be saved, Jesus payment of our penalty, then its IMPOSSIBLE to be saved.
There must be a penalty paid, and if we dont want Jesus payment on our behalf, there IS no other acceptible sacrifice for our sins. Either Jesus paid it all, or WE pay, in eternity, in hell, separated from God forever. Thats why its important to keep reading, and it shows that we as believers are not in the category of those in verse 4-6, but are those referred to further in the chapter, and at its conclusion. Saved and secure in Christ!
So much of the bible testifies to the security of those in Christ.

GOD, who is rich in mercy, saved us by His grace, thru faith in Jesus.
If you dont want Jesus, its impossible to enter His Kingdom, and that makes perfect sense, no one can argue it. You want to enter the Kingdom, you come by Way of the King ... Its a package deal, lol, no King...no Kingdom. But with the King, with our Saviour, we're secure.

And think of it this way...
Who do you think wants you worried, in fear, that Jesus doesnt love you, or may not keep you, or didnt save you, or will change His mind?
Jesus? Or the devil?

Who loves you so much He gave His only begotten Son for you, that says I will never leave you or forsake you? God or the devil?

Or who wants to STOP you through fear or doubt or worry...who wants to stop you from singing Gods praises, rejoicing in so great a salvation, exalting your God and King and Lord and Saviour and Friend. Who wants to stop you from loving God because He first loved you and gave Himself for you, to stop you from praising and thanking Him, so that others wont believe in Him either??

I think you know the answer.
Read the end of Romans 8:31-39 in the KJV.
And read it again and again, let His Word speak to you and really sink in.
And rejoice, as believers in Jesus, our names are written in heaven!
Looking forward to praising Him with you!
God bless you!

God bless thank you so much, I haven't heard those types of words of encouragement in a while, I always heard the opposite said about the hebrews verse :/ thanks for the scriptures and you're right, anything negative towards salvation or against Christ work is of the devil who confesses he did not come in the flesh, denying atonement etc. Thanks again.. now I gotta go back to work lol

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

A little known fact, the church at Rome has been known as Roman catatonic's due to the fact that most members sleep through church and only show up for Christmas and Easter. Of course, to be fair, the parishioners cannot be blamed for falling asleep to the soothing sounds of father Guido and the harmonious chants of the benedictine sisters ensemble.

 

[Andrew]

A little known fact, the church at Rome has been known as Roman catatonic's due to the fact that most members sleep through church and only show up for Christmas and Easter. Of course, to be fair, the parishioners cannot be blamed for falling asleep to the soothing sounds of father Guido and the harmonious chants of the benedictine sisters ensemble.

"Bored again Catholics" is a term they fling around my town lol sorry MC

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

"Bored again Catholics" is a term they fling around my town lol sorry MC

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

Do you have a meme for that?

 

[Andrew]

Do you have a meme for that?

I'll have to make one before the feast of the worship of saint John the baptist head! Sorry again MC
I deleted the picture because it might actually be his head

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[user1234]

I'll have to make one before the feast of the worship of saint John the baptist head! Sorry again MC
I deleted the picture because it might actually be his head

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

What the....?
nm, I dont want to know!
(I saw it before the edit, then I was typing)

And whats with all the Sorry MC's?
No offense, you know we're brothers, but does anyone read around here?

Btw, just a reminder...Grovelling aint christian!
It might be a RC practice, which I saw up close and personal by millions when the pope visited America a while back...it was a horrible display of idolatry and anti-christian behavior, while they tried to clean-sweep the streets of any signs of the hungry and homeless, (it didnt work), but its not a christian thing.

 

[Andrew]

What the....?
nm, I dont want to know!
(I saw it before the edit, then I was typing)

And whats with all the Sorry MC's?
No offense, you know we're brothers, but does anyone read around here?

Btw, just a reminder...Grovelling aint christian!
It might be a RC practice, which I saw up close and personal by millions when the pope visited America a while back...it was a horrible display of idolatry and anti-christian behavior, while they tried to clean-sweep the streets of any signs of the hungry and homeless, (it didnt work), but its not a christian thing.

i apologise to MC because he or anyone can get offended, he gets the most abuse on thia forum so I try to go easy on him... Ok well here is the picture anyway.
//uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171206/362e7e9affe1e335ca6152296c6cf93b.jpg[/IMG

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew]

For you MennoSota

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Seconded

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Btw, just a reminder...Grovelling aint christian!

But humility and choosing our words is.

 

[Andrew]

.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[user1234]

i apologise to MC because he or anyone can get offended, he gets the most abuse on thia forum so I try to go easy on him... Ok well here is the picture anyway.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

I disagree very much, but I guess we have a diff definition of abuse, also I think maybe theres a case of 'I can dish it out but not take it' syndrome? If you try to handle things like christians and men, well, nm, dont bother.

Meanwhile, it's astonishing to me how many ppl cant seem to distinguish between exposing false teaching and practice ... And personal attacks.

Pointing out the fallacies of the RomanCatholic denomination does not mean a personal attack on a RomanCatholic practitioner. Yet many of the comments coming from the other direction are very much of a personal nature, and Ive experienced a not very nice attitude underlying it all quite often. I wish that werent so, bc I think we could all accomplish alot more TOGETHER as a united website, without all the snarkiness, the smirking and ridicule that goes on.

There's some ppl you can kid with, as a bro/sis in Christ ... And I loovvve kidding around, thats great. But some ppls idea of humor is just to be personally insulting and condescending and meanspirited.
Anyways, screw it ... Nobody's without sin except Jesus, no matter how much religion they try to cover it with.
What can wash away my sin?
Nothing...but the blood of Jesus!