WHO REALLY IS 'ANTI-CATHOLIC?'

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:

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."

"My questions to you, if you dare answer them by reading what it actually says: "What two things made man a living soul? Does this say that God put a "soul" into the body of man?"

I'm guessing you figure a 'soul' is the result of flesh plus spirit...A breathing person is a soul...

Why are you guessing? That's exactly what Genesis 2:7 tells us. If you had really read what some of my articles, and the articles other wrote that I have on the Web Site, you would have known that, and would not have had to guess.

Nowhere does the Bible teach that man has a "soul" added to and temporarily held in a body, but bound to live on somewhere forever. That is a fiction of Greek mythology, itself born of the first and deadly lie Satan implanted in Eve's mind, 'Thou shall not surely die!' Nowhere does the Bible teach that man has two separable parts, much less three, and that one can continue in self-conscious life without the other; nowhere does the Bible confuse 'spirit' which is either breath or life principle, and "soul" which is the whole man as a living, sentient being. And nowhere does the BIble use the silly phrase "spiritual death." When Adam and Eve sinned they died, as God warned, in that they passed under the irrevocable sentence of death (into God's 'death row') and the seeds of death began to work on their members. That death was the wages of their sin, and is so asserted in Romans 6:23 in order to show by contrast that God's gift in Christ is totally the opposite - life! NOTE: this paragraph is quoted from the booklet, The Blessed Hope: What Makes it Blessed? by Robert L. Whitelaw, a member of the international "Resurrection Fellowship" of Christians.

I've read some of yours and your author's stuff on your website...

If you really have, and by that I mean actually examined what is said with what is written in the Scriptures, then we would really like to see your rebuke of them - you can submit an article and we will include it in a special page per our policy.

The views are not new...Been around for who knows how long...

You're right, they are not new by any means. Many of the articles appearing on my Web Site contain statements made by the early church writers before 250 AD. Even Tertullian made a statement about the "soul" not going to heaven at the death of a Christian. Of course, he didn't use the term "soul", but instead used the Latin term "animon" which meant the animating principle which made man a living being.

But the thing I noticed is that you have to change some words in the English text and mess with the placement of the punctuation to get to where you're at...

Absolutely not. The words are a translation of the Hebrew or the Greek, and no punctuation was used other than the few found in the Greek texts. Modern punctuation wasn't a part of the Bible until centuries later - the 17th century! Apparently you didn't realize that.

AND of course, you use the African manuscripts to prove your points where I stick with the Majority texts...

I take it you are refering to the use of the LXX, the same one Jesus and the Apostles used to quote the OT from. What is your definition of the "Majority" texts?

I'm certainly not a scholar...But I try to keep up with some of those, as much as time allows, who have spent their lives studying the scriptures...

That is apparent. Many of the articles were written by Biblical Scholars who spent their lives studying the Scriptures - so don't you consider what they have found out to be valid?

As we know, the Apostle Paul said he'd rather be absent from the body and present with the Lord...So we know that the soul is not the body...

Yes, he did. And did you not read the article examining that passage of Scripture? If not, tell me and I'll give you a link to it.

Therefore the soul can not be the culmination of the body/spirit...In Paul's case, the body is missing...

I do believe you are misunderstanding Paul's statement and the context he used it in. See II Cor. 5:1-10 and other passages wherein Paul tells us when we will be with the Lord, which he was expecting also. Again, if you haven't read the article we have on my Web Site, tell me and I'll send you a link to it.

We know that the spirit is wind, or like wind...It is the breath that we breathe...Greek word is pneuma...Pneumatics...Air...

Yes, Jesus compared the pneuma(spirit) with the pneuma(spirit) :-) See John 3:8 - This is a big stumbling block to many who do not understand the Scriptures. And we know from Genesis 2:7 that this same pneuma is used to give life to the body God made from the dust of the earth - the "spirit of life". But the pneuma is not just "wind or breath", remember that the term is personified in some verses, and rightly so.

And the Spirit of God goes where we don't know because we can't see it...But yet someone sees the souls of those beheaded under the altar in Revelation...

Yep, everytime someone sees the term "soul" they think of it as a separated part of a dead human being :-) Do you believe that "blood" cries out in a language from the ground? Do you take Revelations literally, or as a warning from Christ to the Apostle John in apocalyptic style of speaking (writings)?

I'll stick with the souls in heaven scenario...

Yep, that's sticky glue for some :-) What you may need is a way of getting unstuck so that you may see the spiritual side of what is said. Someone once said to me that Revelations is like fly-paper - once stuck to it one can't get off to see what the rest of Scriptures have to say about the destiny of man.

Nice typing to you... read some of the articles and think about what they say. Rebuke them if you can. Over the centuries since "conditionalist" writings appeared (First Century) they have never been successfully rebuked, much less even considered for their Biblical basis. The "dark ages" came, and the light came back on when people became aware of the Scriptures in the original meaning again.

Interesting. Like what? I know in our town Roman Catholic schools are closing or consolidating. At the parochial high school my husband attended enrollment is way down.

School closings and/or consolidating is one of them. The parochial school we went to as kids (up to the 12th grade) is no longer. The church, which we visited two years ago up in Minnesota, is alien, both in practices and ethnics. Most of the individuals that now go there are not european but hispanic - and they have brought in some of their own pagan beliefs and mixed it up with catholicism. The music is something else :-) It hurts the ears it is so loud, and the singing is a mixture of English and Hispanic and something else - can't really make it out. St. Matthews church is no longer German ethnic, but a form of Spanish: same as St. Michaels church.

Both of the above churches look down on European ethnic people, even to the point of telling them to go to another church where they belong (This was told to my wife!). Yes, we still visit various churches to see what they are now like. I guess it's just our curiosity to see how they are doing now. I think it would benefit many Christians if they would visit Catholic churches and see for themselves what it is like for Catholics. There is nothing like getting to know the other side of the argument :-)

Being retired affords me time to be a part time employee of the Census with a $10 an hour job - nothing like the income I received in my previous job. When doing the odd years Census questioning, for odd questions in my opinion, one gets to visit people and ask those odd question; for what purpose evades me. As for the religious type questions, it's only the church attendance and denomination that is marked down, but during the visit I usually ask follow-up questions more to the point of affiliation. That is when I realized that the results reported are not really true. We see and hear things that shows many are not really telling the truth - but we don't report that on the form. I'm sure that many other part time census takers have other stories to tell :-)

Actually, the percentages are basically guesswork figures, for they don't report actual figures, but just poll-type figures. And who really believes the polls? Not me.

There is more, but my fingers are tired...

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.