If you've spent any time discussing religion, theology, or apologetics, you've probably encountered the term "Roman Catholic." It's everywhere—from news stories and church signs to heated theological debates. But here’s the problem: the term isn’t helpful. In fact, it’s actively confusing, misleading, and reinforces misunderstandings about what Catholicism actually is.
Let’s unpack why it’s time to retire the phrase "Roman Catholic."
1. Catholicism Isn’t Exclusively Roman
Contrary to popular belief, the Catholic Church isn’t a monolith. It’s actually a communion of 24 distinct Churches, each fully Catholic, united under the pope, but differing significantly in liturgical rites, languages, customs, and canonical traditions.
The Latin (or Roman) Rite is indeed the largest, but it’s just one among many. There’s the Byzantine Catholic Church, the Maronite Church, the Chaldean Church, the Melkite Church, and numerous others—each fully Catholic but clearly not Roman.
When you say "Roman Catholic," you’re implicitly ignoring or marginalizing millions of Catholics who belong to these ancient Eastern rites. It's akin to calling every American a Texan because Texas is big. Texas is indeed important, but it's only one part of a much larger whole.
2. “But ‘Roman’ Refers to the Pope’s Location!”
A common objection is that the word "Roman" simply identifies the location of the bishopric of the pope: Rome. After all, Catholics affirm the pope’s special role as Bishop of Rome, successor of Peter, and visible head of the universal Church.
But just because the pope’s seat is Rome doesn’t mean we should define the entire Catholic communion as "Roman." Imagine referring to the President of the United States as "the Washingtonian President" simply because he resides in Washington, D.C. It might be technically accurate geographically—but does that enhance clarity? Of course not. It invites confusion.
There are indeed excellent historical and theological reasons why the pope is the bishop of Rome. Rome is tied directly to apostolic authority, specifically Peter’s martyrdom and apostolic seat. But this historical importance still doesn’t justify applying the geographic adjective "Roman" to the entire universal Church.
3. What about Protestants Being "Catholic"?
Another common objection is that the term Catholic ought to be reserved for the universal body of Christian believers, including Protestants. After all, Protestants frequently recite the Nicene Creed, confessing belief in "one holy catholic and apostolic Church."
But historically speaking, the term Catholic has always referred specifically to churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome. From the earliest centuries, Church Fathers consistently used the term "Catholic" to signify those churches visibly united under apostolic succession, episcopal governance, and unity with the Roman See. Protestant communities, by deliberate choice, explicitly departed from these distinguishing marks. Thus, historically and ecclesially, it's incoherent for Protestants to reclaim a label they've consciously distanced themselves from.
Moreover, Protestants themselves clearly define their identity over and against Catholicism. Major Protestant creeds and confessions—the Westminster Confession, Augsburg Confession, Heidelberg Catechism—explicitly differentiate themselves from Catholic theology, ecclesiology, and authority structures. It seems inconsistent at best (and confusing at worst) for Protestants to reject Catholic doctrine in theology and practice, yet simultaneously insist they are part of the Catholic Church in name.
Finally, ask your Protestant friends if they’re Catholic, and you'll almost always get responses like, "No, I’m Protestant," or "I’m Baptist," "Presbyterian," or "Evangelical." Protestants recognize that, practically, Catholic means something specific—and it’s not them. Insisting otherwise is like saying, “Everyone who believes in democracy is an American.” Yes, many nations embrace democracy, but practically no one uses “American” to describe citizens of Japan or Canada. Precision in language matters, especially in religious discourse.
Given these points, why force an unnatural distinction by calling Catholics "Roman Catholics," when Protestants themselves never actually embrace "Catholic" as their label?
4. Obsession with Rome?
There’s another reason many Protestants gravitate toward the term "Roman Catholicism": they believe Catholics have an arbitrary fixation on Rome. The implication is subtle: Rome represents something unnecessary or extra-biblical. It's a rhetorical move to highlight a supposed weakness or peculiarity.
Yet again, there are excellent historical, theological, and ecclesial reasons for Rome’s significance. But even if you dispute those reasons, calling all Catholics "Roman Catholics" merely because of Rome’s prominence is like referring to every Protestant as "Wittenberg Protestant" because of Martin Luther’s hometown. It misses the mark entirely and invites more confusion, not less.
5. At Best, It’s Redundant
Finally, even if every argument above were incorrect, we still shouldn’t use the term "Roman Catholic"—simply because it's redundant and adds nothing helpful.
Saying "Roman Catholic" is like saying "true fact." What other kind of fact could there be? Similarly, what kind of Catholicism are we distinguishing it from? The distinction serves no real purpose.
Effective communicators use clear terms. Good apologetics and productive discussions require accurate definitions. And "Roman Catholic" fails this test.
Conclusion: Just Say Catholic
Clarity matters. Words matter. If our goal is genuine communication and mutual understanding, we should retire confusing terms. “Roman Catholic” is exactly that—a term rife with misunderstandings, unnecessary distinctions, and rhetorical baggage.
Catholics are simply Catholics—part of a rich communion of diverse rites united in faith. If you need to specify the rite, say Latin Catholic or Eastern Catholic. If you’re simply referring to the worldwide communion united with the pope, just say Catholic. Clear, simple, precise.
Let’s abandon "Roman Catholicism"—not because it’s offensive, but because it’s simply not helpful.
Nope, the most appropriate new name shouldn't be "Catholic Church" but "Synodal Church." Just read the Final Document from the Synod on Synodality. Your magisterium rarely refers to the church as the "Catholic Church," but it mentions the term "Synodal Church" over thirty times, emphasizing how the Church must evolve into a Synodal Church.
I will begin with point 3 because it is completely incorrect:
3. From the earliest centuries, Church Fathers consistently used the term "Catholic" to signify those churches visibly united under apostolic succession, episcopal governance, and unity with the Roman See.
This claim is false. I can easily counter this with a few questions:
a) Do the Orthodox (same Church until 1054) agree with your interpretation of history, especially regarding jurisdictional unity with the Roman See?
Absolutely not.
b) What is the consensus among scholars and historians about the jurisdictional submission of the Patriarchates of the Pentarchy to Rome?
The majority consensus is that there was no jurisdictional primacy in the early centuries. Most of them even claim that there was no single bishop in Rome during the first century but rather a presbyterial plurality.
c) During the Schism, how many Patriarchates agreed with Rome, and how many sided with the others?
Rome stood alone while the other four Patriarchates joined together, literally 4 vs 1.
So, no, it's not as simple as you make it out to be.
1. Catholicism isn't exclusively Roman.
This point doesn't hold because you yourself admit that all rites are under the authority of the Bishop of Rome, which is why it makes sense to call it "Roman."
Additionally, many other churches claim to use the proper name "Catholic," including the Old Catholic Church, the Palmarian Catholic Church, the True Catholic Church, the Polish Catholic Church, the Russian Orthodox Catholic Church, the Chaldean Catholic Church, the Universal Catholic Church, the Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern), and many others.
If you claim to be “Catholic” I would immediately ask: What kind of Catholic?
2. Imagine referring to the President of the United States as "the Washingtonian President."
This is a false analogy. A better analogy would be one where there are over 100 presidents in America, each with a significant following. In fact, if you count all other Catholics, historic Protestants, and Evangelicals who adhere to the ancient creeds, there are more Christians outside the Roman tradition claiming to be "Catholic" than within the Roman Catholic Church.
Then you say: "Ask your Protestant friends if they're Catholic, and you'll almost always get responses like, 'No.'"
Are you aware that in many Latin American countries, Protestants are called "Cristianos," and if you ask a Roman Catholic if they are a "Cristiano," the vast majority would say, "No, I'm Católico," often taking offense at the suggestion?
According to your reasoning... well, you can see where this leads.
4. Obsession with Rome?
Huh?
5. At best, it’s redundant.
Your analogy is overly simplistic. Next time, find a better analogy.
The claim of "redundancy" isn't as simple as you make it seem.