ROM AN CATHOLIC”

New Zealand Tablet, Volume LII, Issue 49, 9 December 1925, Page 57

ROM AN CATHOLIC”

- Ali American contemporary c&lls attention • jibthe ‘superfluity of talking about “llbmaii Catholics” instead of simply “Catholics,” and the “Roman Catholic Church” instead of aijnply . “The ( Church.” It is certainly like talking of a quadruped horse or an episcopal bishop (says the Edinburgh Catholic Herald). In view of the use of the word by our AngloCatholic friends it seems important for us to insist on our 'historical and rightful name. |f Roman” is correct enough, and even necessary, when there is, in official documents or otherwise, need to express the*authority of the -Apostolic See, or our union with the Chair of : Peter, or some special liturgical (or other) use of the capital of Christendom. The “Roman Missal” differentiates our own Eucharistic Liturgy from the various other rites used with equal authority -111 the Church. “Roman Congregations,” “Roman Vestments,” “Roman architecture,” all carry their obvious meaning. |: But “Roman Catholic,” as used by the average mall In our country, is a ridiculous expression. It ought to denote only a Catholic residing in the City of Rome, or at least in the Roman Province. And the absurdity of the title is enhanced when the speaker makes no claim, and feels no desire, to be called a “Catholic” himself. Ignorance is, of course, at the root of the custom when practised by ordinary Protestants; they do not really think that there can be more than one kind of Catholic, but they call a sou or daughter of the Church a “Roman” partly because other people do, and partly, it is to be feared, because the word is, supposed to have something offensive apd sinister about it! Our duty is surely to insist on our right to the title “Catholic,” pur et simple. Now as Then. jAt the bottom almost all Protestants and the „great , army of the unattached to any religion, are aware of that right. As in St. Augustine’s day, so in this 20th century, if you go into a shop to ask your way to the Catholic Church, or enquire of any passerby, you will not be asked—“ Which kind of Catholic, please?” We are given the credit of knowing our own name! j The case is different with the Ultramarines lof ,the Anglican Church, The last thing we should wish to tread on their, or anyone else’s, . corns, and there is so much which calls for our admiration in their constancy and acceptance' of obscurity and even

active persecution in the past, that we would not say a, Word in disparagement of these hon est though mistaken : sou Is there ay be a few in bad faith among llienij siiice there arc black sheep in every flock; but that does not touch the straightforwardness and earnestness of the rest. Yet, while we 'are content to style them by their self-chosen title, we must ever be mindful of the fact that with such words so applied, as “Anglo-Cath-olic,” “Orthodox,” “Evangelical,” the inverted commas are always understood. Courtesy and convenience are the reasons for their omission under ordinary circumstances. Serums judicat orhis terra rum. Both friends and foes agree that to us alone belongs the sacred title “Catholic,” plain and unqualified.’ To call ourselves Homan Catholics, unless in legal documents or to obviate mistake, is an inexcusable timidity. And, under ordinary circumstances, we have no need, when speaking of the Divine Kingdom, to add any of her four great notes. She is “The Church” : that bare simplicity of title is her supreme honor; and not another religious society in the world dares to make that claim. THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PAPACY “The Truth about the Papacy,” is an unusual title for a Punch article, and the contribution itself is still more curious. . A school-master begins, “It was entirely by accident that I learned the truth about the Papacy,” and then explains how it came about. He was giving a pupil unpunctuated passages to punctuate and selected the following about Henry VIII. “Henry had no deep-grounded respect for the Papacy. Were Popes complaisant, Henry was correspondingly gracious.” The boy inserted his punctuation marks as follows: “Henry had no deep-grounded respect; for the Papacy were Popes. Complaisant Henry . . .” The master was about to intervene, anal then — “After all! Why? should one punctuate in the conventional manner! Original methods sometimes bring to light (!*!) remarkable hidden truths, don’t they?” And that’s the end! It is certainly rather subtle, but what interests us, of course, is “the remarkable hidden truth” thus brought to light: “Henry had no deep-grounded respect; for the Papacy were Popes.” A few parallels may throw further light on <r the truth”— its fallacy: “Even less deep-grounded was Oliver Crom-

well’s respect; for the Monarchy were kings.” ■ “And shallower still is the Communist’s f. f 1 \ ’ I ' ■ ( ;■ .; : j .. • • *- v - . respect to-day; for Government are v capitalists.” I■; ■■ / { •? i ■ ijC v ; - - . ' •j “While a good many.people have lost all respect whatsoever; for Parliament are politicians.” J “Though even their indifference hardly equals that of millionaires; for the Law are Judges.” “And saddest of all is it to find non-Chris-tians actually filled with contempt; for Christianity are Christians.”