![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/11\/Romanism2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Reformed Baptist anti-Catholic apologist Bishop \u201cDr.\u201d [???] James White is hung up on double standards, as regards religious titles. He bristles at being called an \u201canti-Catholic\u201d while at the same time he couldn\u2019t care less about calling other Christians what they prefer to be called.<\/p>\n
I\u2019ve written about the massive rationale for the description \u201canti-Catholic\u201d many times. But it\u2019s not \u201ceither\/or.\u201d Note how I refer to White (as I often have done) in both<\/em> ways above: his<\/em> preference (\u201cReformed Baptist\u201d), and mine<\/em> (\u201canti-Catholic\u201d). But I recognize his own title<\/em>, even while also using another (legitimate, massively substantiated) secondary title.<\/p>\n White, alas, doesn\u2019t extend such courtesies to his<\/em> theological opponents. He often uses \u201canti-Calvinist\u201d and \u201canti-Reformed\u201d and \u201canti-Protestant\u201d etc. That\u2019s okay and fine and dandy. That\u2019s the parallel to our \u201canti-Catholic.\u201d I have no objection to it per se (only to his internal double standards in using them).<\/p>\n What he consistently refuses to do is simply use the titles \u201cCatholic\u201d or \u201cCatholic Church.\u201d He virtually always<\/em> will attach \u201cRoman\u201d to it, or use \u201cRoman\u201d (or, \u201cRomanist\u201d) alone. He knows full well that most Catholics would object to that, but he simply doesn\u2019t care<\/em>. He would rather deliberately goad and provoke than extend rudimentary Christian charity.<\/p>\n I freely grant that there is some <\/em>complexity to the semantic issue. It is indeed true that many Catholics have referred to themselves as Roman Catholics<\/em>\u00a0throughout history. But there are good reasons to refrain from this usage: especially once one understands the polemical and agenda-driven usage of Roman Catholic <\/em>by\u00a0Protestants.<\/p>\n In particular, the early and present Anglicans used and use it precisely to maintain the pretense that there are supposedly branches<\/em> in the universal Catholic Church, and that they are one of them (Roman Catholic<\/em> thus becomes merely one branch: equivalent to Anglican Catholic<\/em>). I\u2019ve addressed the issue twice at length:<\/p>\n Catholic<\/em>\u00a0or\u00a0Roman Catholic<\/em>? (Proper Titles) (w J. Akin)<\/a>\u00a0[1996]<\/p>\n On the Use of the Titles\u00a0Catholic<\/em>\u00a0&\u00a0Roman Catholic<\/em><\/a>\u00a0[10-20-17]<\/p>\n In the first paper, I cited fellow Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin, writing on\u00a0James White\u2019s own mailing list (where I was also posting) on 7-26-96 (yes, I was already online way back then!):<\/p>\n One can detect the pejorative usage whenever a Protestant\u00a0refuses<\/i>\u00a0to use the word\u00a0Catholic<\/i>\u00a0without the\u00a0Roman<\/i>\u00a0adjective or when they parallel talk about\u00a0Roman Catholics<\/i>\u00a0with talk about\u00a0Romanists<\/i>,\u00a0Romanism,<\/i>\u00a0or\u00a0the Roman Church<\/i>.<\/p>\n When an anti-Catholic (someone who refuses to acknowledge the Christianity of Catholicism) [decides to] inflexibly use the term\u00a0Roman<\/i>\u00a0whenever the word\u00a0Catholic<\/i>\u00a0appears, to refuse to use just the term\u00a0Catholic<\/i>\u00a0when\u00a0asked to do so<\/i>, and to accompany it by terms like\u00a0Romanism<\/i>,\u00a0Romanist,<\/i>\u00a0etc., then this term is patently offensive. . . .<\/p>\n I said [to another Protestant participant in the list discussion], \u201cLook: I am doing something that annoys you. Okay, fine. You are doing something that annoys me. You stop doing the thing that annoys me, and I will stop doing the thing that annoys you\u00a0even though I still believe it to be accurate.<\/i>\u201d And I was and am\u00a0SERIOUS\u00a0<\/i>in this offer. If [name] will chill out on the term\u00a0Roman<\/i>, I\u00a0will<\/i>\u00a0stop calling him\u00a0an anti-Catholic<\/i>.<\/p>\n That\u2019s not a joke or an insincere offer. I\u00a0mean\u00a0<\/i>it. If we are both doing things that annoy each other, I am willing to drop it if he is. But I am not going to accede to his demand while he is being insulting, especially when what I am saying is\u00a0accurate,<\/i>\u00a0meaning I would be going out of my way to do him a favor by dropping it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The other person, of course [I think it was Eric Svendsen, but I\u2019m not certain], flatly refused<\/em>: thus rather spectacularly proving Jimmy\u2019s (and my present) point.<\/p>\n Now, in Bishop White\u2019s article, \u201cAn Appropriate Reformation Day Post\u201d<\/a> (10-31-09), he writes about this issue, and goes after Francis Beckwith, who had complained (as cited in this piece):<\/p>\n I still call what Luther wrought the \u201cReformation,\u201d even though I don\u2019t think it actually reformed anything. Yet, I use the term \u201cReformation\u201d out of respect for my Protestant brothers and sisters.<\/p>\n I too am proud to be a \u201cRoman Catholic.\u201d But my dislike of the incessant use of \u201cRome\u201d and \u201cRoman\u201d by critics is how they apply it as a slur. The guy who cannot write \u201cCatholic\u201d without saying \u201cRoman\u201d in front of it every single friggin\u2019 time is probably not going to be swayed by appeals to charity.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Again, James White not only refuses to return such favors (which I myself have also requested that he do in the past \u2014 in which case I would also cease calling him an anti-Catholic<\/em> \u2014 , to no avail), but he engages in blatantly dishonest<\/em> research methods in order to supposedly refute our point of view from our own magisterial Catholic sources. Let\u2019s look at his polemics and his \u201cargument\u201d in this piece (his words in blue<\/span>):<\/p>\n There are some topics that really do not require much effort in the way of argumentation. Frank Beckwith\u2019s recent \u201cpet peeve\u201d article about the use of such terms as \u201cRoman church\u201d and \u201cRoman Catholic church\u201d is so easily refuted from Rome\u2019s own official documents that it is amazing the discussion is still going around the net. . . . let\u2019s start with a simple experiment. Open up www.papalencyclicals.net and use the search function. Let\u2019s just search for \u201cRoman,\u201d shall we? And lets just look at, say, Vatican I, given that this was the Council that proclaimed Papal Infallibility (over against the witness of history itself). Did the Council share Dr. Beckwith\u2019s \u201cpet peeve\u201d? Do we find them sticking solely with the term \u201cCatholic\u201d? Let\u2019s see:<\/span><\/p>\n And so he goes searching through the documents of Vatican I (1870), and he comes up with \u201cRoman Church\u201d (4), \u201cRoman pontiff[s]\u201d (11), and \u201cRoman see\u201d (1): the latter two usages utterly unobjectionable to Catholics, because, yes, both things are in Rome, Italy. This is what he considers a knockout argument, and so he triumphantly concludes:<\/p>\n In any case, we see that Dr. Beckwith\u2019s call for \u201crespect\u201d on the part of us non-Roman Catholics by asking us to refrain from using terminology drawn from the dogmatic documents of his own communion is indefensible. Rome\u2019s self-exaltation precludes the exclusion of her own name in making reference to her arrogant claims and her false gospel.<\/span><\/p>\n Now, the dishonest part of this is what White omits<\/i> in \u201c<\/i>informing\u201d his readers, concerning Vatican I ecclesiological terminology. He doesn\u2019t<\/em> tell them (because it wouldn\u2019t fit very well with his agenda) that the same search yields not a single<\/span> example<\/em><\/strong> of either \u201cRoman Catholic Church\u201d or \u201cRoman Catholic.\u201d<\/p>\n He also\u00a0doesn\u2019t tell<\/em> them (because his argument would fall flat and self-destruct) that the same search yields eleven instances<\/strong><\/em> of \u201ccatholic church\u201d and fifteen occurrences<\/strong> <\/em>of \u201ccatholic\u201d (apart from \u201cchurch\u201d and sometimes before \u201cfaith\u201d or \u201cdoctrine\u201d etc., and not including \u201cone, holy, catholic, and apostolic\u201d).<\/p>\n So (with all this relevant data considered: from the same document and search page that White used), does this look like the preferred usage among Catholics is to be called \u201cRomans\u201d or \u201cRoman Catholics\u201d? Not at all. The standard term is \u201cCatholic\u201d (see, for example, the use of \u201cCatholics\u201d in section 3, part 6).<\/p>\n So why does White refuse<\/em> to do so: all the while repeatedly demanding with great vigor and clear anger, at not being called a \u201cReformed Baptist\u201d or being described (accurately) as an \u201canti-Catholic\u201d?<\/p>\n Moreover, if we actually come up to our present time (language, of course, being malleable and subject to constant evolution over time), rather than almost 150 years ago, we find the same dynamics. In the 1954 edition of the\u00a0Baltimore Catechism<\/i>, we search in vain for\u00a0Roman Catholic<\/i>\u00a0or\u00a0Roman Catholic Church<\/i>, whereas\u00a0Catholic<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0Catholic Church<\/i>\u00a0are all over it.<\/p>\n Likewise, the new\u00a0Catechism of the Catholic Church<\/strong><\/i>, in its section on the Church (#748-945) mostly uses simply\u00a0Church<\/i>, and occasionally\u00a0Catholic Church<\/i>.\u00a0Roman Catholic Church<\/i>\u00a0is nowhere to be found. Glancing through the whole work, we can scarcely find\u00a0Roman Catholic<\/i>\u00a0at all.<\/p>\n There is one reference in the index, on p. 757, with regard to celibacy requirements in the Latin Rites, and in that instance it is referring to the Western Rites only, not the entire universal Catholic Church, . . .<\/p>\n It\u2019s utterly obvious, then, that our self-title of choice is\u00a0Catholic<\/i>. What I and others object to is the specifically, deliberately pejorative and falsely defined use of Roman Catholic<\/em>, and the outright refusal to use our preferred description. The \u201cbattle\u201d over words and titles and their meaning, and respectful and courteous address is a very important one, I think.<\/p>\n In any event, it helps no one on either side of this pseudo-debate to enlist dishonestly and cynically selective methods in citing documents of one\u2019s opponents. White has revealed himself yet again as the sophist that he is in \u201cdebate.\u201d How pathetic and atrocious it is . . . Yet a mere nine days earlier<\/a>, White made the following ironic comment (irony is never far away when dealing with Bishop White): \u201cThere are few things more disgusting to me than unwillingness to be honest and forthright in your faith.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:<\/strong> <\/span>from the book,<\/span>\u00a0Errors of the Roman Catholic Church, or, Centuries of oppression, persecution and ruin<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>(1899)<\/span> [Wikimedia Commons<\/a> \/ no known copyright restrictions<\/a>]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Reformed Baptist anti-Catholic apologist Bishop \u201cDr.\u201d [???] James White is hung up on double standards, as regards religious titles. He bristles at being called an \u201canti-Catholic\u201d while at the same time he couldn\u2019t care less about calling other Christians what they prefer to be called. I\u2019ve written about the massive rationale for the description \u201canti-Catholic\u201d […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":40668,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[131,1068],"tags":[1168,1119,4503,4501,4502,4500,2605],"class_list":["post-40665","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-church-ecclesiology","category-james-white","tag-catholic","tag-catholic-church","tag-christian-titles","tag-eastern-catholic","tag-religious-titles","tag-roman-catholic","tag-roman-catholic-church"],"yoast_head":"\nUnfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist<\/strong>:\u00a0<\/span>If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 \/ month \u2014 a mere 33 cents a day \u2014 would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see\u00a0my Resume<\/a>).\u00a0My work has been proven (by God\u2019s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences\u00a0from unsolicited \u201ctestimonies\u201d<\/a>).\u00a0I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nMy book royalties from\u00a0three bestsellers in the field<\/a>\u00a0(published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.\u00a0 I provide over 2600 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have\u00a0written 50 books<\/a>.\u00a0It\u2019ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and \u201clikes\u201d and links and shares). Thanks!<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nSee my\u00a0information on how to donate<\/a>\u00a0(including 100% tax-deductible donations). It\u2019s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my \u201cbusiness name\u201d there is called \u201cCatholic Used Book Service,\u201d from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: apologistdave@gmail.com). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through\u00a0Zelle<\/a>. Again, just send to my e-mail address.\u00a0May God abundantly bless you.<\/div>\n