Posted on 02/24/2010 9:36:26 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg
Back in one my old philosophy classes I recall lengthy discussions as to the relationship between names and reality, and then spinning around for hours contemplating the brain teaser of what it means to "mean" something about anything. The aftermath: an entire class of young minds slipped further into skepticism, as if the reality each twenty something experienced was completely unknowable. Of course, arriving at the conclusion that ultimate reality is unknowable is... to know something about ultimate reality! Ah, the futility of the sinful mind in its continual construction of Babel towers. Without the presupposition "He is there and He is not silent" the sinful mind does what it does best: it creates a worldview that can't account for the reality it truly experiences.
Despite the aspirin needed after attending such classes, it did force me early on to think about ostensive definitions, and the carefulness with which one defines terms. With theology, correctly using terms takes on the greatest moral imperative: one is speaking about the very holy God that created the universe. Think of terms that are used to describe Biblical doctrine, like "Trinity." One is using a term to describe a collection of factual data given by the Holy Spirit. If ever one should use caution, it should be with the construction of theological terms.
Consider the designator "Catholic Church." The Westminster Confession of Faith explains, "The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all." The Belgic Confession states that one of its primary distinguishing marks is the "pure preaching of the gospel." If one were pressed to point to that vital factor placing one in the Catholic Church, it is the work of Christ and His Gospel. It is the Gospel which unites the members of the Catholic Church. It is the work of Christ, grasped onto by faith that links those in the Catholic Church together. This pure Gospel is of such importance, that the apostle Paul states if anyone (including himself) preaches another Gospel, he should be eternally condemned.
But what about throwing the word "Roman" into the the mix? The addition of one simple word adds in an ingredient that changes the taste, so to speak. In this short mp3 clip, Tim Staples touched on what "Roman Catholic Church" means. He says "Roman Catholic" has popularly and un-technically come to be synonymous with the term "Catholic". He states "Roman Catholic" popularly means "you're in union with the bishop of Rome." Recent mega-convert Francis Beckwith concurs:
One of my pet peeves is the intentional overuse of "Rome," "Roman," "Romanist," etc. by Protestant critics of Catholic theology. Here's why: the Catholic Church is a collection of many churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome. It's catechism--The Catechism of the Catholic Church--is that of all these churches that are in communion with one another and with the Supreme Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI. The theology found in that text, therefore, is not Roman Catholic theology. It is Catholic theology. That's the way the Church understands itself. Common courtesy suggests that those who are critical of that theology summon the respect to refer to it as such"[source].
I admit that I've often equated the two terms. I've used the term "Catholic" to describe Roman Catholics. It has taken a conscious effort on my part to keep the terms distinguished. On the other hand, I'm not sure how it's possible to "overuse" the word "Roman" when referring to those who actively and overtly pledge obedience to bishop of Rome. Beckwith is basically saying "Catholic" is the property of the papacy, and they will define the parameters of the word.
Whose theological usage reflects the teaching of sacred Scripture? Is union with the bishop of Rome an element of theological data mined from the Scriptures? Hardly. It's an extra-Biblical presupposition hoisted upon the text. One has to first assume the validity of the papacy and then read it back into the sacred text. The popular definition as described by Mr. Staples and Dr. Beckwith is entirely unbiblical.
There's one other theological term being thrown around with this: anti-Catholic. Recently Roman Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong stated he "temporarily suspended [his] ongoing policy of not interacting with anti-Catholic arguments and polemics." Well, after I ceased shaking in fear over this announcement, I scrolled through Armstrong's multiple diatribes to see his precise meaning of the term "anti-Catholic." His exact formula appears to boil down to: "One who denies that the Catholic Church and its theology is properly classifiable as Christian" [source].
By applying Armstrong's standard, an Anti-Mormon would be one who denies that the Mormon church and its theology is properly classifiable as Christian. Dave would probably say it's a good thing to be anti-Mormon. So, simply using the term "anti" as Armstrong suggests is either good or bad depending on one's presuppositions. According to Dave's definition, I would say it's a good thing to be anti-Catholic in the same way Dave would probably hold it's a good thing to be anti-Mormon.
Armstong's seemingly endless qualifications and examination of the term "anti-Catholic," as well as "his own definition" provoked me to apply what has been discussed above, and consider an alternate theological definition. If "Catholic" is connected symbiotically with the Gospel, wouldn't an anti-Catholic be someone who either denies the Gospel or denies it as that which unites the people of God into the universal Church? If a particular church overtly espouses a different Gospel, according to Paul, let him be anathema. If understood this way, it would be Roman Catholics who are anti-Catholics. Their Council of Trent explicitly rejected the Gospel in an official declaration.
How does one precisely refer to those in communion with Rome and obedient to the Bishop of Rome? Contrary to Beckwith, I've seriously considered using the word "Romanist." The term describes those devoted to the papacy quite succinctly. However, I was informed by another zealous defender of the papacy that "...many non-Catholic apologists are truly bigots at heart and they use 'Roman' as a derogatory insult. Their bigotry becomes even more clear when they use Romish or Romanist." No one wants to be thought of as a bigot. However, in the same Catholic Answers broadcast cited above, Tim Staples and his co-host positively referred to themselves as "Romanists" introducing their "open forum for non-Catholics" show, in which they only take calls from those outside of their worldview. Here is the mp3 clip. Perhaps they were kidding, although it's hard to tell.
I'm tempted to simply start using the term anti-Catholic for the reasons outlined. I can think of no better theological phrase to describe those who inject obedience to the papacy into the term "Catholic Church."
As I understand it, the LDS church has recently (within the last few decades) claimed to be Christian like any other because they follow Jesus.
The LDS doctrine denies the Trinity as do some Christian beliefs. But more troubling to me is that the LDS doctrine of pre-mortal existence says that the Father had a Father who had a Father and so on. In that doctrine, God is "a" God and not "the" God, "a" Creator and not "the" Creator.
God announced His Name is I AM and Alpha and Omega and so on.
To me, the first step in recognizing my brothers and sisters in Christ is whether or not they know His Name.
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. - Matthew 16:15-17
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. – I Cor 12:3
However, because the LDS doctrine disagrees on Who God IS, I personally do not call that doctrine Christian. But do you?
To God be the glory, not man, never man.
That must have made for some interesting discussions! Hopefully the priest and the nuns learned something
Aw, how sweet.
You were thinking of me while trashing the Catholic Church.
Happy to be aboard.
Interesting question, but as I know next to nothing about the LDS, I’ll have to decline to answer. One of my brothers is LDS, but we never speak about it; he converted because of his wife.
So is anti Catholic bigotry.
There are now SIX Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court, although Roman Catholics only make up a little over 20% of the American population.
About 24%, according to http://www.america.gov/st/diversity-english/2008/March/20080317160257zjsredna0.8236048.html. Roughly one in four. Only one Catholic President in history, yet we now have six Catholic judges. Interesting. Do you have a theory on it?
And somehow Roman Catholics STILL whine about their toes being stepped on.
Some people whine, some post in multicoloured, multisized, multifonted, garish whines, others merely engage in posting. When the dialogue used here comes pretty well identical to mid 1800s American antiCatholic bigotry, then we receive that dialogue in the same manner as it was used then. Terms like Papist and Romanist were used by such as the Know Nothing Party and the KKK and by the cartoonist whose drawing I posted a short while ago.
As Scripture informs us, Christians don't pray to statues, believe in "another Christ," nor consider anyone to be a "co-redeemer."
Scripture and Sacred Tradition is to be used in its entirety; Jesus left us His Church, not any written word. The only words that we know of that Jesus wrote were in the dust. His teachings - the living Church of Christ, not words in a book - are what He left for us.
Presumably you mean something by this.
The Priest yes.
He became a friend of my sons and we had some great conversations. In fact he went to bat for my younger son when he stood up and called out the Nun for putting up a "coexist" sticker. The Nun eventually had to take it down. She never figured out that Christianity is not an equal of other faiths. It is the only faith that leads to salvation.
It was always interesting because the Priest would call on both my sons for the answer when none of the RC boys knew it. My youngest is still there and his first criteria for college is the school can not have a grotto. He's seen enough of the Marian heresy. At this school they even say "our lady" after reciting the Lord's Prayer.
That's not a definition, that's just an assertion. You stated three things that make up man, body, soul and spirit. How does that make two?
What does Genesis 2:7 say to you?
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
And that error goes to the heart of Christianity and actually destroys its meaning -- that God stepped into time and truly became man in order to pay for the sins which men could not redress themselves.
That's what God's love means -- He became sin who knew no sin so that we who are lost in sin will be forgiven by God Himself taking on the punishment rightly due us. THAT'S the majesty and breath-taking reality of Christianity.
To miss that seems to me to miss all of it.
Certainly Roman Catholics are Trinitarian Christians and no doubt there are God's elect among them. But God tells us that while he winked at certain errors in the past, He's not so accommodating since Christ has appeared to all men and none is without excuse.
One day we will know how much deflection from His word and idolatry in our hearts God will forgive us. Because it's in everyone's heart. The point of life is to minimize that natural tendency toward self-love and maximize our spiritual understanding of God's love, by His grace through faith in Jesus Christ, our only Redeemer.
I stand by what I said. Period. And I understand the time-line very well. I just don't feel the need to expound on all the various books being read, I just bought out that the books of the Bible were being read by most of the Churches of Christ in various places before the counsel at Carthage. And, FYI, the church is not just a gathering of Elders/presbyters/overseers, i.e., Bishops; it is made up of all believers in Christ.
Of course it is an assertion, is it defined in the Bible? I only said two, body/soul. I missed the part about spirit which I would include in soul.
What does Genesis 2:7 say to you? "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
That the translator chose 'soul' over 'being' 'creature'. BTW my least favorite and most favorites translated soul.
To: Ken4TA
Matthew 10:28
28Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Soul: That part of man which isn’t body.
Apparently there are two parts to man.
1,209 posted on Friday, February 26, 2010 12:09:28 PM by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1203 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
However, we also know that anyone baptized into the Roman Catholic church is considered a Roman Catholic, even if they leave the church.
And since four times as many Roman Catholics become Protestant as Protestants become Roman Catholic, we know this statistic of 24% must be quite inflated.
No surprise. Just one more presumptuous error chalked up to Rome.
Jesus left us His Church, not any written word.
Really? Jesus left us no written word? That's amazing. No wonder the Roman Catholic church is so lost.
Jesus is the word of God made flesh. His words were faithfully committed to paper to be handed down through time, preserved by God and made knowable by the Holy Spirit.
Pray for ears to hear.
It will be interesting to see how that number changes when the 2010 census is done. I believe there are a lot of illegals leaving because there is no work.
Jesus is the word of God made flesh. His words were faithfully committed to paper to be handed down through time, preserved by God and made knowable by the Holy Spirit.
AMEN!
Thank you, it is an assertion. Can you find anyplace in the Scriptures or in an oral tradition from the Apostles that the soul includes the spirit (of man or God)?
BTW, the "soul/creature/being/person" is defined in the Scriptures in many places and actually means the "whole man", including attributes of man. And also, FYI, man has been given a "spirit", which is never mixed up with the term "nephesh/psuche" (soul).
Your turn :-)
I never said this originally by the way . You may be mixing forums, because it isn't in the thread anywhere. I don't see what you are driving at.
For anyone trying to reach me by FR mail it seems to be going in and out of the twilight zone, and my posts vanish in mid-air. Freaky Friday
Sorry, you're correct: the message number was 1088 posted by Iscool, and that's the one you jumped in on. Here is the actual quote:
We were made in the image of God...We have a body, a soul and a spirit...But yet to look at us, all you see is one...
Hope that clears things up :-)
It does, thanks.
I am an ex-Catholic, and so is my family of 9 children. The last time I checked two years ago, all of us were still counted as being Catholics. That's 11 of us counted that are not a part of the Catholic church. The real percentage of Catholics in the USA is way smaller - maybe only 15%. And baptized infants who haven't any beliefs at all are also a part of their count. And what of those who are CINO's? Are they to be counted?
My sister, who died in 2008, and another sister who died in 2009 were also on the list of Catholics in the USA, but they never attended any Mass for the last 20-30 years, even at Easter or Christmas. The first one was divorced twice and was on her third marriage - the first two marriages held in a Catholic church by a priest, with no annulment of the first marriage where in she had two children who were baptized, and who are not now practicing Catholics, but members of some other church. The second, while still being counted as in the Catholic church, denies Christ as savior and condemns those who follow that myth, as she called it.
Furthermore, all three of my brothers haven't gone to church in ages - and two of them outrightly deny Christianity, calling it a false religion. The other one refuses to even discuss religion, saying it's man-made. I have only one sister who is a Christian, and she belongs to a Luthren church. All of us (7 children) were raised in the Catholic faith and attended Catholic schools until we left home to raise families of our own. None of my nephews or nieces are now members of the Catholic church, although they were all baptized in it. All these are still counted as being members of the Catholic church in the USA.
And I know of hundreds more who left the Catholic church who were baptized in it and who are no longer members - but they are still counted! It's ridiculous to accept that 24% figure, plain and simple.
Yes, I take the numbers of Catholics in the USA with a tablespoon of salt, not just a pinch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.