Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  


    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria University College, Wellington N.Z. Vol. 20, No. 10. July 19, 1957

All Roads . .

All Roads . . .

I commend your correctness in referring to those Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome as Roman Catholics, and I would like in support to make the following points:
1.In New Zealand there is no such legal entity as the "Catholic Church".
2.The New Zealand Press, following the English Press, has generally avoided the unfortunate shortening of "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic". Some papers, however, including the less responsible ones, have recently 'departed from this precedent, and it is good to see "Salient" refusing to follow their lead.
3.The distinctive term "Roman" has a long ad honourable usage within the Papal Communion itself. I refer amongst other examples to the usuage of the first three centuries; to the title "Holy Roman. Church" in use since Trent; to the Index of Prohibited Books which refers to the "Roman Church"; to the expression "Roman Church"; to the 1929 Education Encyclical of Pius XI; to the full official title "Holy. Catholic. Aposttolic. Roman Church"; and in particular to an official Vatican declaration of 1930. that the term Roman is "precisely the expression which distinguishes the Catholic Religion from all other Christian professions" and to suppress the word Roman "could only disgust and offend Catholic!"
4.The Roman Catholic claim to the exclusive use of the term "Catholic" is resented by Catholics of non-Papal Communions. If there is an alternative term acceptable to Catholics in communion with Rome (and it appears that "Roman Catholic" has established itself in law, newspaper precedent, and official Papal practice), then they should adopt it, out of consideration for their fellow Christians and without prejudice to their own theological standpoint To persist in using "Catholic" under these circumstances is to be guilty of deliberate discourtesy.

I suggest Mr. Neazor let well alone; or he may find a strong objection entered against the claim implicit in the name "Catholic Students Guild." Canterbury College has no "C S.G." I contents itself with a "Newman Society".—P.A. Stuart.