Talk:Evangelical Catholic/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Roman Catholic"

I don't wish to start an edit war; but, nevertheless, I've returned the page to using the term "Roman Catholic". That's partly because this is the preferred term established at Talk:Roman Catholic Church, because of the ambiguity of the term 'Catholic'. Mostly, though, it's because the draft of this page in which "Catholic" was used to refer to the Church in communion with the Pope was extremely confusing and ambiguous, because the page also uses the term (capitalised as well as uncapitalised) to refer to the abstract Church Catholic (which is how the term seems to be used by the groups the page refers to). To contrast "catholic" and "Catholic" - or even "Catholic" and "Catholic" - groups seems unlikely to result in a clear and readable page for non-specialists. TSP 04:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

TCP. My bad. While I stongly disagree with the current "consensus" on the RCC page, it is proper to use the qualifier "Roman" in a camparative context either to distinguish from Eastern Catholics or to distinguish from other churches which use "Catholic" or "catholic" to describe themselves. Catholics rarely call themselves "Roman Catholics" outside of these contexts.

The origin of "Roman Catholic" is pejorative. It is a "polite" version of such terms as "Romanist", "romish," "popish," "papist," "papistic," "papistical." Such terms along with "popery," are still enshrined in documents like the 39 Articles of the Anglican Communion which remain in effect without revision.

"The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish; which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the seventeenth century. For conciliatory reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish Match (1618-1624) and appears in formal documents relating to this printed by Rushworth (I, 85-89). After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognized legal and official designation" - Oxford English Dictionary. (The Catholic Encyclopedia says this assessment is "in substance correct", though argues on the exact origin.)

The term does, it's true, descend on one side from "Romish" and its like; however, on the other side, it descends from "Catholic". The term is neither the outright affirmation of Catholicity that "Catholic Church" is; nor the outright denial of it that "Romish Church" is; but a version both referencing the claim to Catholicity, and incorporating a modifier to acknowledge that other groups also claim Catholicity. The Church itself seems to have overcome any such objections to it, and uses it itself in ecumenical contexts where the disputed term "Catholic Church" might be considered inappropriate (see the debates in the archives of Talk:Roman Catholic Church for many examples).

I'm not sure what your point is about the 39 articles. Yes, they are still nominally in force, and do contain (once) the word 'Romish' (referring to the doctrine of purgatory). Similarly, Papal bulls criticising Anglican practices and orders are still in force. TSP 01:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

My point about the 39 Articles, which are still published in ECUSA hymnals and the BCP, which is more than "nominal" is the use of language. Theological differences we can live with. But the lack of civility in such language is outrageous. I have done a lot of reading of Catholic Church documents and found only diplomatic language. Strongest is the "anathema sit" formula which simply means "let him be out (of communion)." The point is that there is a lack of civility in the way "Roman" is pressed upon Catholics who generally do not use the term "Roman" to describe themselves. This same lack of civility is, in fact, enshrined in official documents of other churches in ways utterly unparalleled in official Catholic documents. That this is still socially acceptible in this age is appalling. --Vaquero100 03:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Joint statement and Malankara Church

I remember hearing about a joint statement by the Catholic Church and some big Baptist group saying that people are redeamed by faith which calls us to good deeds, or something along those lines. Does that belong here? Also, my father mentioned to me that the Malankara Jacobite Syriac Orthodox Church was influenced heavily by Evangelicalism and that this left an influence on the Catholic Syro-Malankara Church, does that belong in this article?

NPOV?

Especially "often seem contradictory to post-Reformational ears"... StAnselm 03:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

removed content from lutheran section of article

NOTE: The statements below which state that Lutheranism is the only Protestant denomination that confesses belief in the efficacy of the Sacraments are false. Anglicanism also confesses such a belief, including in some Anglican groups, belief in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The belief of the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not universal among Lutherans either. Someone should correct the below content. I believe Episcopalians also believe in the efficacy of the Sacraments. There may be others as well. -- added by User:Dmuhleman (Talk | contribs) (10,376 bytes) (→Lutheran Evangelical Catholicity - added "note" at top of section)

this text was removed from main article, but may warrant discussion.

Aepoutre 17:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1