Catholic or Roman Catholic

New Zealand Tablet, Volume L, Issue 14, 12 April 1923, Page 15

Catholic or Roman Catholic

(By Rev. Owen B. McGuihe, D.D., in the London Catholic Times.)

During the 36 years that I have been reading the English Catholic weeklies there recurs periodically a discussion on the question, whether Catholics should call themselves or submit to be called "Roman Catholics." The discussion is now running in another periodical, and perhaps it may be of interest to see how it is viewed by an outsider. A Question that Does Not Arise Outside England. The question does not arise in the Catholic press of any other country. Indeed, it may be said that it could not arise. Until recently it had very little interest for us in America. It interests us somewhat now, and for two reasons. During the war and since the secular press, notably the 'Literary Digest, has assumed the role of explaining to us the ''small nations" of whom we knew little or nothing before. The explanation visually included such statements as: "The religion is Orthodox Catholic, Greek Catholic," etc. Even some of our Catholic publications have fallen into this trap. The Ecclesiastical Review (September, 1921) had an article on "The Ruthenian Catholics in the U. 5.," in which the writer stated that "they should bo distinguished from the Russian Schismatics, who arc known as ' Orthodox Catholics.' " (Italics inserted.) In a subsequent number the editor offered an apology, saying that the readers of the Review would understand the sense in which the appellation was used. Of course the priests who read the Review did understand. The fact remains, however, that the term "Orthodox Catholic" cannot be legitimately used. Apart from the theological reason, use is the law of language; and, as Dr. Fortescue has repeatedly pointed out, these people are not "known" as Catholics in any part of Europe or the Near East. They do not call themselves by that name and are not so called by anybody else. The second reason why the question interests us now is that even before the war, but more especially since, in the U.S. the Russian Schismatics, aided by the Anglicans, have been using this terminology for proselytising purposes in order to deceive Catholic immigrants of other than the The Anglicans would make them "American Catholics," and the Russians would keep them "Orthodox Catholics," or "Greek Catholics," during the transition period.

We Have the Full and Only Right to the Name.

The name Catholic is ours and ours only; and in common usage in the vernacular it needs no additional epithet in any part of the world. The avowed meaning of our opponents is that Catholic, is a generic term which admits of subdivisions, and to that meaning we should give no kind of countenance. Catholic is the distinctive name of the city seated on the mountain, seen and known by that name throughout the world since the first ages of Christianity, and seen and known as such to-day. Only those within the city can be legitimately called Catholics, and in the common usage of language they are sufficiently known by that name without further epithet.

Absurdity of the Anglican Claim.

For this there is a theological reason and what 1. may call a linguistic reason. St. Augustine, in a passage so well known that it need not he cited, ridiculed the attempts of the Donatists to appropriate to themselves the name Catholic in their own little corner of the world. The claim of a section of Anglicans to assume the name in their little corner is even more absurd and ridiculous; for the Donatists had been Catholics and had real bishops and priests, while Anglicans have boasted of their Protestantism and of a Protestant country, rejecting the name of Catholic for nearly 400 years, and have been without bishops, priests, sacrifice, all the essentials of Catholic worship and practice, since the reign of Elizabeth. If the average Anglican, including some Anglican bishops, walked into the fourth century he would hardly be recognised as a Christian at all, even by the Donatists.

Muddled Mentality of the “Anglo-Catholics!” -Of course-every sect or schism which believes that Christ; established a Church/ a visible permanent organisation to continue His mission, must logically claim to be a

Catholic. The Russian Church makes this claim in the exclusive sense as we do; some Anglicans made it on the branch theory. The new “Anglo-Catholics,” so far as I can understand them, are involved in some kind of muddled mentality which would be incomprehensible to any theologian that ever lived. They are, they argue, in the Church by their own will, while out of it by the schism of their progenitors; which schism was a great sin but needs no repentance. They left the Church by a centrifugal path, and the way to undo the original evil is not to-turn back, but to keep on the path in the hope that all the divergent paths will finally lead back to a glorious “reunion” in the centre. But on whatever basis the claim to be called Catholic is made, we cannot expect those who make it to concede our theological reason for being the only Christians who have a right to the name.

Common Usage.

That, however, is not the question. There is a reason that rests on facts evident to all the world. That reason they must concede, and we should hold them to it. We can at least hold to it ourselves. We concede the name “Orthodox” to the Greek Schismatics though we know there is only one Church that is orthodox. We speak of the “Holy Synod” without conceding that it is holy, and of the Sublime Porte though we may believe it is infernal rather than sublime. These things are determined not by theological or etymological reasons, but by common usage, and 'that does not arise from legal enactments or “orders in Council.” Use is the law of language, and through all the centuries, and in all countries, common usage has determined the meaning of the name Catholic without any further epithet. The name “Roman Catholic” has no sense in any vernacular beyond the English Channel. \

Unknown on the Continent of Europe.

I spent four years in a Roman college, and later five years living among the people in various parts of Italy, and I never heard an Italian use the term “Roman Catholic. My experience was the same during six years living among. Spaniards, and during five years in Germany/ and Austria. If you asked an Italian if he were a “Roman Catholic” he would understand you to enquire if he were from the diocese of Rome. When asked if he were a Roman Catholic “Mr. Dooley” answered, “No, thanks be to God, I am a Chicago Catholic.” To an Italian the answer would seem so natural that he would see no joke in it, A native of Milan, if asked the same question, would naturally reply, “No, I am a Milanese.” In Eastern Europe, in the Balkan peninsula, in Syria (including Palestine), and in Egypt the word is used in the same sense, without any further epithet, by all denominations. In these countries, as Dr. Fortesque said in the Tablet a few years ago, it means simply and exclusively a Christian who gives obedience to the Pope. If another epithet is added it is not to emphasise that obedience, as some writers in the Tablet are now claiming should be. done, nor to distinguish Catholics of this obedience from others, but to indicate the nationality or rite, or both (as in the case of the Armenians), but especially the rite. Hence one meets in these countries Greek Catholics, and Syrian Catholics, and Armenian Catholics, and Coptic Catholics, but never “Roman Catholics.” Where Arabic is the vernacular, as it is in Syria jand Egypt, “Roman” would express just the contrary of what the Anglicans wish to attach to it. “Rum” and Rumi is the name given in Arabic in these countries to the Schismatics of the Greek rite. I presume the reason is that when the followers of Mahommed first came in contact with the Byzantines these were still called or considered Romans as representing the Roman Empire. When it becomes necesssary in these countries to use an additional epithet to distinguish Catholics of the Roman rite from, others, the word used is not “Roman” but Latin. I met an Anglican one day on the street in front* of the church of the Austrian" Missionary Fathers at Heluan, Egypt, and he asked me what church it was. I said Catholic. “Oh,” he said, “this is the Roman Catholic church. They showed me the Greek Catholic church up the street.” “Well,” I said, “both are Roman Catholic

in your sense of the word but nobody understands the word in that sense here. The other is called Greek because they use the Greek rite there. They are from Syria, speak Arabic, and use the. Greek language only in some parts of

their liturgy." I have purposely put the question "Are you a Catholic?" to people, to see how they would treat it. I asked a man who kept a bookstall at the station in Cairo, "Are you a Moslem?" "No, an Armenian." "Catholic?" "No, a Gregorian." He was wrong historically, for Gregory the Illuminator was a Catholic and gave obedience to the Holy See. But he was right in so far as he wished to answer the question, which he understood in the only sense it could have from common usage. He meant to say, "No, although a Christian, I do not acknowledge the Pope as Head of the Church." No wonder that Anglicans are a mystery to these people, as they would have been to the Donatists or to any Christians in the fourth century. The Anglican Chaplain and the Photograph. There is an Anglican chapel at Heluan, and when I lived there the chaplain was very High Church. He went to the photographer to have some pictures of the chapel put on post cards. The unsophisticated photographer printed under the picture: "The-Protestant Church, Heluan." The chaplain was furious. "I won't take your cards. It is not a Protestant church. It is a Catholic church." ''Mais, que voulcz-vous, Monsieur? Everybody here calls it the Protestant church. I never heard it called by any other name." "It is the English church. It is the English Catholic church. I am an English Catholic. This other is a Roman Catholic church." "Mon JDieiiQ Quel perspective ! My neighbor here next door is an English Catholic, and he goes to the other church. He too calls your church the Protestant church."

Always and Everywhere;

The meaning of the name “Catholic” is, therefore, so evident throughout the centuries, and so well known by common universal usage throughout the world to-day, that no one needs to be a theologian or an etymologist to know it. This usage has not come from theological reasoning. According to the common teaching of Catholic writers since the days of Augustine, it is clue to a special providence of God in governing His Church. Anglicans make the baseless and ignorant assumption that the name is generic and that the Eastern Schismatics are called, or call themselves, Catholic. And English Catholic writers who are now claiming that “Roman Catholic” is a title to be adopted in preference are arguing outside the real question. All Catholics in the past and present admitted that the Holy See is the centre and conserving cause of Catholic unity, that the Pdpe is the visible and infallible Head of the Church ; but they were and are satisfied with the name that has been sanctified by the common usage of centuries.

If this use and meaning of the name Catholic without further epithet arc universally accepted in the vernacular of all other countries, the question for those English Catholics who advocate a change seems to an outsider to be this: Has this usage become so modified in England as to necessitate a change there in order to avoid confusion? If they answer in the affirmative, they will make themselves only one degree less incomprehensible than the “Anglo-Catholics” themselves. One writer dreads the effects that will follow from this new sect and from the threatened “new combined Church” of Pan-Protestantism. I think English Catholics may possess their souls in peace on that score. If English Protestantism continues on the down grade at its present paceand all the signs say that it willbefore the end, or even before the middle, of the century there will be few of its adherents left who will care to claim the name of Catholic. “Non prcevalehunf .”

The title “Roman Catholic” is entirely due to a Protestant influence, and for that reason alone should be discountenanced. It was unknown in common usage in England before the Reformation. In common usage it is still unknown outside England. If the old name was sufficient for all Englishmen who gave obedience to the Holy See before Protestantism came in, I would prefer to see it retained by Englishmen who still give obedience to the Holy See until Protestantism has gone to the Devil, from whom it came, and England is again Catholic. -