Given from the Catholic Broadcasting Station 2SM Sydney Australia
Choose a topic from Vol 4:
Yes, if one wishes to stress the fact that the headquarters of the Catholic Church are in Rome; not otherwise.
Because the compound title is a very different thing from applying the two terms separately to the Church, which is Catholic because universal and Roman because it has its supreme authority vested in the See of Rome. Also the compound title is self-contradictory. Catholic means universal. To prefix the word Roman as limiting Catholic would mean the "not-universal universal Church!" Thirdly, the Catholic Church has expressly rejected the expression "Roman Catholic" as a right description of itself. Finally, Protestants invented the term "Roman Catholics" in order to pretend that there were other kinds of Catholics. It would be wrong to confirm them in that mistake.
I am quite sure not one of my radio listeners is in any doubt. No one dreams that I am speaking of the Greek Orthodox Church or of any of the Protestant Churches. In the 4th century, 1600 years ago, St. Augustine wrote: "Although all heretics would fain call themselevs Catholics, yet to the inquiry of any stranger, 'Where is the assembly of the Catholic Church held?' no heretic would dare point out his own basilica or house." He wrote that when speaking of the Manichaean heretics. Today he would have to write it in reference to the various forms of Protestantism.
Not if you are thinking in terms of a person's religion only. If you are thinking of two totally different things, the place where a person lives and also the religion he professes, then just as a person living in Australia might say: "I'm a Melbourne Catholic," or "I'm a Sydney Catholic," and just as a person living in America might say: "I'm a Boston Catholic," or "I'm a Chicago Catholic," so a person living in Italy who is a citizen of Rome could call himself a "Roman Catholic." But obviously the term "Roman" would not refer to his religion but to his place of domicile.
The High-Church Anglican Bishop W. H. Frere explains it as follows in the "Dictionary of English Church History." When, after the death of Mary Tudor, the break with Rome was renewed in England under Queen Elizabeth (1558-1603) it became necessary to find some name for those who remained loyal to the Pope and refused to accept the new English Church. At first they were called "Recusants." They themselves spoke of them^lves as "Catholics," and of all others as "heretics." The "heretics" spoke of themselves as "Protestants" and of Catholics as "Papists." Many Anglicans, however, denied that they had forfeited their right to the title "Catholic," and they adopted the terms "Romish" and "Roman" as a qualifying adjective suitable for the recusant Catholics. So it was in Elizabethan times that Anglicans invented the expression "Roman Catholic." In reality, of course, the Catholics of England remained just as they had ever been, one with the Catholics of France, Germany, Spain, Switzerland and other countries on the Continent, whom no one thought of except simply as Catholics.
It does. But the two words "Romana Catholica" do not appear there thus associated. The word "Catholica" stands alone, unqualified by the word "Romana." The Catholic Church leaves no room for the idea that there can be different kinds of Catholics, some in union with Rome, others not. One can rightly speak of a Holy Church, of a Catholic Church, of an Apostolic Church, or of a Roman Church in the sense explained under No. 249 above. But one cannot rightly speak of a "Roman Catholic" Church.
He does not. I have the document in question. It is addressed to Bishops having "peace and communion with the Apostolic See and to all the faithful throughout the world." Nowhere in the Encyclical, from beginning to end, does the Pope use. the expression "Holy Roman Catholic Church." He uses the official title once in the text: "Sancta Ecclesia Catholica Romana," which is correctly translated, "The Holy Catholic and Roman Church," not "The Holy Roman Catholic Church."
In official dealings with legal authorities because those legal authorities themselves insisted upon it, yes; but that does not mean that they approve of the term or think of themselves as "Roman Catholics." When Queen Elizabeth II acceded to the throne the Catholic Bishops sent her a congratulatory message on behalf of the Catholics of England. The Home Office refused to present it to her unless the wording was altered to read: "on behalf of the Roman Catholics of England." But the Queen knew quite well that they had not willingly so described themselves, and in her reply of grateful acknowledgment she graciously and courteously avoided the term and wrote that she thanked the "Catholics" of England for their kind message. The Home Office could do nothing about that!
If so, they have not learned the lesson very well. Not one in 100,000 Protestants, if asked his religion, would say: "I'm a Catholic." He would say: "I'm a Baptist," or "I'm a Methodist," or "I'm an Episcopalian." When caught off their guard they speak normally. And if in an argument they say that they, too, are Catholics, it is not for the purpose of professing their own religion, but for the purpose of denying that ours is the one true religion which they are vaguely and gradually coming to realize must be Catholic.
They may say those words. But anyone can say anything. It is another thing to prove the truth of one's claims. When the Apostles' Creed was formulated, which contains the words: "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church," the Protestant Churches did not even exist. So they could not have been intended. Nor does any Protestant dare to say that his is the Catholic Church. When pressed for an explanation he has to say that he really only belongs to a "bit of it." But the Catholic Church cannot be a thing of bits and pieces. One no more becomes a Catholic merely by saying: "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church," than I, an Australian, would become an American merely by saying: "I believe in America."
That sounds very learned. But notice that the words occur in the "Constitutio Dogmatica de Fide Catholica"; i.e., in the "Dogmatic Constitution Concerning the Catholic Faith." Simply that. "Concerning the Catholic Faith." No mention of the "Roman Catholic Faith." Again, it is the Church which is called "the" Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church. The nature of the Christian Church, not of a mere branch of it, was being defined. � Now for the long description of the Church. There is a difference between a brief title and a formal, official definition. For example, some Americans, if asked their religion, would reply briefly that they were "Episcopalians" the one word would do. Everyone would know to what Church they belonged. But the formal and official description adopted by their Church is: "The Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America"; "Protestant" to show they were not "Catholics"; "Episcopal" to show they still believed in having Bishops; "Of the United States of America" to show they were not still to be identified with the National Church in England. In the same way, the Vatican Council spoke simply of the "Catholic Faith," but gave the formal and official definition of the Church which accords with that Faith as "The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church"; "Holy" to show that her chief concern is the salvation and sanctification of souls; "Catholic" to show that she is not limited to Englishmen or to Americans, but is truly universal, drawing her members from all nations; "Apostolic" to show that the true Church must, as she alone can, be able to trace herself continuously back to the Apostles; and finally, "Roman" to show that whoever belongs to the true Church must be in union with the Bishop of Rome, who is the lawful successor of St. Peter whom Christ made head of the visible Church on earth. There must be a head of the visible Catholic Church somewhere in this world. And if one wants the Catholic Church, he will find its primacy not in Constantinople, not in Moscow, not in Canterbury, but in Rome where St. Peter died and where succession to his office in the Church has continued ever since. It should be noted carefully that the Bishops assembled at the Vatican Council made sure that the word "Roman" was separated from the word "Catholic." When, during the Council, the matter was being discussed, Archbishop Ullathorne spoke at length on the subject, pointing out that the expression "Roman Catholic Church" could be made to imply that we Catholics belong to a part only of the Catholic Church, and not to the Catholic Church in the full and complete sense of the word. The assembled Bishops agreed unanimously that the description could not be accepted and that officially the Church must be described as "The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church," not as "The Roman Catholic Church." People are either Catholics, or they are not. If they are Catholics, they are in union with and subject to the Bishop of Rome. That is the sense of the Vatican Council's formal and official description of the Catholic Church. It is good to get the record straight, even at the cost of so lengthy an explanation. With that I conclude this section. If one is seeking the true Church of Jesus Christ, this shall be the sign which will lead him to it as surely as the shepherds on the hills outside Bethlehem were led into the presence of their Savior. He will find it in the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church, with which this book is concerned.
"THAT CATHOLIC CHURCH
A Radio Analysis"
- Book Title