The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1921. CATHOLIC OR ROMAN CATHOLIC?

New Zealand Tablet, 14 April 1921, Page 25

The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1921. CATHOLIC OR ROMAN CATHOLIC?

GNORANT Protestants, whose mother's IP milk was flavored with the spice extracted milk was flavored with the spice extracted from “Protestant literature”—which, to be sure, is well defined in the words wa of Mr. Frazer, as the sort of printed matter that only a low blackguard would introduce into a home — or , were, ■ accustomed to refer to us as Papists, or a trifle less elegantly, as Papish idolaters. Protestants who are supposed to be learned enough to take a Chair in a college prefer to call us “Romanists,” although the term *is condemned by authorities as ungentlemanly. • Officially, in British communities we are known as “Roman Catholics,” or more tersely and familiarly as “R.C.’s” We protest that our true title is “Catholic” tout court, and we object to be called out of our proper name by any outsiders. 'At the same time we remember that’ within the Fold, there are Greek Catholics and Ruthenian Catholics’ and that they are accustomed to distinguish us as “Roman Catholics” and we are aware that St. Patrick used to tell our forefathers to be Roman as they were, Christian: “Ut Christiani'estisy iia et Romani

sitis.” The subject ; is not by any means new to our readers, -but nevertheless it will bear examination again:. Ijif iiili j Ct iP t... L. * x , Vi ’ ’]V 4 .] ' . Wii in ll j ii {> '■ ■■ .hki :; VV-;.r ; ) . ... uitt -Let t us:, begin, by , dismissing ,as. beneath consideration the insulting epithets, Papist and . Romanist. \ The former serves simply as an indication ,of the 1 level of P.P.A. mentality the latter ' gives us the cultural stature of persons like Professor Dickie. No more need be said about them than that. The Government .statistician and members' of the Church of England call us . “Roman Catholics” , with the intention of dis-tinguishing-us, as they believe, from Church of England Catholics. We, however, do not recognise the Anglicans as Catholics at all. They claim, on the strength of the. Branch Theory, that there are three great branches of the Catholic Church; Roman, Eastern, , and Anglican. . The Easterns and ourselves both agree in holding that Anglicans have no claim whatever to regard themselves as members of Christ’s mystical body, and that is enough in itself to dispose of their convenient theory. Roman can be used in a legitimate sense in conjunction with Catholic, just as we may refer to a Dublin man as an Irish Catholic, or to a New York man as an American Catholic. In these cases it is clear that there is no sense of Deposition to the word Catholic in the use of the word Roman. Ef Church of England people wished to be logical they ought to call themselves Protestant Catholics, dr AngloCatholics, when' they call us Roman Catholics. To say that we are Romans while they call themselves pimply Catholics is as illogical as it is impertinent -on the part of people who cut themselves off from the true Church in the . sixteenth century. In strictly scientific language, with due regard for the meaning pf words, the term “Roman” applied to the One, Holy Catholic Church, is neither ethnological nor controversial. It states the fact that the true Church is Roman and Catholic: that it is Catholic in extension and Roman in its centre. In this sense the Greeks and Ruthenians might be called “Roman” Catholics, inasmuch as they are, like us, united to the Fold under ■one visible head on earth, the'Bishop of Rome. Therefore the term is explanatory and defining not qualifying or differentiating. It means no more than that the head of the One, ’ Holy Catholic and Apostolical Church is St. Peter’s successor, the Pone of Rome. It amounts to saying that there are no Catholics except those who are united with Rome, the centre of unity, to-day, yesterday, and to-morrow. In this same sense St. Jerome said, “What does he call his faith? If he answers the Roman, then are we Catholics.” St. Ambrose says, “It is Peter himself to whom He said, ‘ Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church.’ Where* therefore, Peter, there the Church, there is no death but life eternal.” A Presbyterian theologian agrees * that “There can be no doubt that at the close of the third century, ‘ Roman ’ and ‘ Catholic ’ were so closely allied that they were practically identical.” He also added the following significant remark “We (Protestant Episcopalians) cannot become Catholics by merely calling ourselves by that name.” (Dr. Briggs.) Dean Inge wrote in 1916: “A Western European who rejects the authority of the , Pope can no more be a £ Catholic ’ in the institutional sense than President Wilson can be an Englishman.” With (frank honesty, he goes on to say “It is surely for . the Great Church, not for the seceders from its 5 rule, to decide who • are citizens and who are rebels; and the decision has been given against us.” • • ' • • . ' ; ’I f Such candid admissions are creditable to the intelligence of Dr. Briggs and Dean Inge. Anglicans cling ; desperately to their Branch theory and to illogical n and unhistorical *. notions which ; no more make • them Catholics than : a coat of paint makes a white man of ; a native of Central" Nigeria. They have •; neither, . history nor common sense on 1 their side; Protestants they are, and Protestants they will remain until the day when they become “Roman” ■ as well as “Catholic.” ; Hence, there , are no Catholics who do not belong to the true Church : j all who belong to the true

Church are ;in union with Rome; in this sense ' all Catholics are Roman Catholicsßoman Catholic and Catholic mean one and .the same . thing, the latter expressing explicitly what the former . implies. ;