The other reason, perhaps the larger one, is that the term Roman reminds us that it is precisely communion with the Bishop of Rome that does shape and inform this church's unity. The Pope is not incidentally the Bishop of Rome but is the Bishop of Rome and whoever the Bishop of Rome is, that Bishop is also the Pope.
One blogger has written complaining of the Roman part of the name:
The common misconception is that, since the Catholic Church does find its temporal head in Vatican City (which is in Rome), it must make sense that one can refer to it as the Roman Catholic Church. And while this is true that the temporal head, the Pope, resides there, one must understand that the nature of the Church is much more complex than this. I shall now refer to the Rites of the Church. There are seven “rites”, or liturgical traditions, which exist within the Church. Each rite, though sharing the same teachings and beliefs as the Roman (Latin) rite, differ in language/cultural and liturgical styles.
But I respond that is exactly the point -- it is their communion with the Bishop of Rome that unites the different and distinct rites, often more diverse than one might presume. One becomes Roman Catholic not merely by affirming the content of the faith but by recognizing the Holy See and submitting to the authority of the Bishop of Rome as Pope and Vicar of Christ on earth.
Perhaps if the papacy were unhooked from the office of Bishop of Rome, it might be harder for me to justify my point but we are in no danger of seeing that ever happen. Since it is the Latin Rite and not strictly speaking the Roman Rite, Roman refers less to the rite than to the see in which the various rites are united. So I do not think it either illogical or unfair to refer to the Roman Catholic Church.
To assuage the offended commenter, perhaps just call it the Roman church, since we Lutherans are at least as catholic as the Roman and Orthodox catholics are. Notice the Orthodox don't whine when catholic is left out of their official name; Orthodox Catholic Church.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.orthodoxcatholicchurch.org/
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThe Orthodox may not whine if we don't refer to them as "the Catholic Church," but they will surely whine (or worse) at being associated with the "Orthodox Catholic Church" that you linked to. Despite the name, the sect going by that name is clearly neither Orthodox nor Catholic.
Fr Peters,
The blogger's complaint is not a serious one; it is nitpicking. Of course one must distinguish the non-Latin-Rite Churches from the Latin-Rite Church, where the context requires it, and in such a context "Roman Catholic" refers to the Latin Rite and "Melkite Catholic" or "Ukrainian Catholic" and so on refer to the other rites. But in ordinary usage "Roman Catholic" refers to all Christians (regardless of rite) who are under the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome. Catholic congregations, at least in my neck of the woods, typically identify themselves as "St So-and-so's Roman Catholic Church" and do not seem to be ashamed to do so.
The real burden of the blogger's complaint, of course, is to deny any other Church body the right to refer to itself as a "Catholic Church" in any sense. In demanding to reserve the phrase "Catholic Church" tout simple for his own communion, the blogger intends to deny the quality of catholicity to any other Church body. He is, of course, entitled to his opinion on that; but it is profoundly question-begging.
"Orthodox Catholic Church" that you linked to. Despite the name, the sect going by that name is clearly neither Orthodox nor Catholic.
ReplyDeleteHey, thanks for the correction!
The above sect notwithstanding, I thought that the Orthodox churches do consider themselves catholic. Is that not true?
I got my idea from this wiki page:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church
The Eastern Orthodox Church, officially called the Orthodox Catholic Church[note 1] and commonly referred to as the Orthodox Church,[4] is the second largest Christian church in the world,[5] with an estimated 225–300 million adherents,[6] primarily in Eastern and Southeastern Europe and the Middle East. It is the religious denomination of the majority of the populations of Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Romania, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Greece, and Cyprus; significant minority populations exist in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. It teaches that it is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church established by Jesus Christ and his Apostles almost 2,000 years ago.
The Orthodox Church is composed of several self-governing ecclesial bodies, each geographically and nationally distinct but theologically unified.
Theological unity makes them catholic, right?
I thought that the Orthodox churches do consider themselves catholic.
ReplyDeleteYes, of course they do. They make the same bold claim about themselves that the Roman Catholics do about themselves: that when the Creed speaks of "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church," it is only the Orthodox Church that has a valid claim to that title.
However, not every Church body that has the word "Orthodox" in its name is a recognized, canonical Orthodox Church. And in fact the phrase "Orthodox Catholic Church" is rarely used to refer to the Orthodox Church (even though it is a perfectly accurate description of how they see themselves).
Frankly, such catholicity is a historical fallacy, and an ideal of the spiritually blinded. Does one have such a complex about their faith; that they want to find it in others? Or perhaps they do not understand, that God has already decreed various Protestant denominations to be universal?
ReplyDeleteIts rationalizations are tremendously elaborate. Such as claiming that if it was not for the Pontiff of Rome; then all would be in unity.
I think it's probably OK to refer to the church up to around 500 as simply the Catholic church, and the creeds spell out who is and who isn't of the catolic (in common) faith.
ReplyDeleteAfter 500, it would be more helpful to refer to a Greek Church and to a Latin Church, as by 500 the west is using very little Greek in most places, and even in old Rome the service is now chanted in the language of Jerome's new Latin Bible.
Around 800, after the icondules finally won the day for Icons, the term Orthodox becomes very popular in the East to distinguish the catholic believer from the iconoclastic believer, a turmoil that the Latin Western Church did not experience. Yet, still all are catholic.
The filioque clause is noticed as a Spanish abberation to the Universal Creed. Popes and Patriarchs try to stamp it out, but the Spanish refuse because it is correct and they will stand alone (become uncatholic) to maintain it. Then the filioque spreads to the French and the Italians, and through out the Western Church.
When the Popes accepted a change to the one and only Ecumenical Creed, they forfeited their catholicity. No council of the whole church came together to discuss and officially add that and some other things to the Universal Creed. It was a one sided decision by only a part of the church without concilar agreement, as was required for all the other parts of the one and only Ecumenical Creed.
This would be the time to start speaking of an Orthodox Eastern Church and a Catholic Western Church. The westerns wanted to emphasize their catholicity now that they were not catholic any more. And, the easterners wanted to emphasize that they were teaching in the creed what was always taught with no unichanges.
As we all know there are a million German barbarians and Moslem infidels running all through this story, along with very powerful Roman Emperors and after 800 a German Caesar in the West. The politics is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
Then around 1530, we get a suggestion that some Germans need a new
I think it's probably OK to refer to the church up to around 500 as simply the Catholic church, and the creeds spell out who is and who isn't of the catolic (in common) faith.
ReplyDeleteAfter 500, it would be more helpful to refer to a Greek Church and to a Latin Church, as by 500 the west is using very little Greek in most places, and even in old Rome the service is now chanted in the language of Jerome's new Latin Bible.
Around 800, after the icondules finally won the day for Icons, the term Orthodox becomes very popular in the East to distinguish the catholic believer from the iconoclastic believer, a turmoil that the Latin Western Church did not experience. Yet, still all are catholic.
The filioque clause is noticed as a Spanish abberation to the Universal Creed. Popes and Patriarchs try to stamp it out, but the Spanish refuse because it is correct and they will stand alone (become uncatholic) to maintain it. Then the filioque spreads to the French and the Italians, and through out the Western Church.
ReplyDeleteThen around 1530, we get a suggestion that some Germans need a new name like maybe Evangelical Catholic, or Maybe just Evangelical, but their non-admirers just refer to them by the name of the chief heretic, Lutherans. (This was done from day one in the church to refer to those outside by the leading man's name.) And then we get an explosion of the need for new names.
However, none clamed to be catholic but the Lutheran Evangelical Catholics. None tried to be Catholic (while still evangelical in faith) and in full agreement with all 3 of the historical Western creeds. There is an explosion of sectarian churches from then to now. I will not try to procede further with names for the churches.
I would like to drop back a bit and make this point that I've made several times on several blogs. There is a city named Rome and there is an Empire name Roman. Up until Diocletian in the 3rd century, these were the same entities. Diocletian devided the Empire into four parts, each with its own capital, Trier, Milano, Nicomedea, and (I forget). Rome the city had been in decline for a long time and Diocletian was recognizing the reality that the Empire had grown and moved by on from an over-grown city state.
As with the Emperors, the church was affected by these political power changes and we get fairly soon, maybe by the 4th century, but certainly by the time of Emperor Heraclitos in the 600s, a church based at the city of old Rome (a municipality), and a church based in Constantinople that is the Emperor's and the Impire's church. One still sees the Roman Imperial double-headed eagles carved on the west fron of Orthodox churhes.
I believe we need to introduce the need for distinguishing the Roman municipal church from the Roman Imperial church through several centuries of church history. The Orthodox church is more than just catholic too, it is also the Roman Imperial Church. All Christians belonged to the Imperiors' Ecumene, though he might not have militry control of certain tribes as certain times. The Roman Emperors insisted upon this for so long into their 1000 year d
The Roman Emperors insisted upon this for so long into their 1000 year decline that it got somewhat rediculus. But in 800 when the Pope at old Rome dared to establish a rival Rex/Imperor in the West, all hell broke loose between East and West till the Eastern Imperors were promised that Carl the Grocer would style himself as Rex only. They said they had his promise in writing. But, could any German read in 800, I wonder? The document would have been likely in Greek and Latin, and the Grocer certainly acted like an Emperor afterwards.
ReplyDelete