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."
Isaiah 63: 10 But they rebelled And grieved His Holy Spirit; Isaiah 63: 11 Then His people remembered the days of old, of Moses. How do you read :
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Psalm 51:11 Do not cast me away from Your presence
There seems to be the Holy Spirit in Psalms & Isaiah.
And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.
Therefore He turned Himself to become their enemy,
He fought against them.
Where is He who brought them up out of the sea with the
shepherds of His flock?
Where is He who put His Holy Spirit in the midst of them,
Thanks for your encouragement - it's always welcomed.
I'm sure that others have points that are more interesting than mine. It's just that they have not mentioned them. But thank you anyway - Praise God!
Yet here we are, even yet, with multiple canons.
I have a different approach to authoritative moves such as "canon," so this is not a good argument to use with me. I accept as canon what everyone accepts (that being the most refined), but not because some authority ordains it is so, but rather, because it is the most agreed upon.
That leaves me in the Protestant Bible, but that does not suppose that it is the ONLY books that are relevant or even God Breathed. I look for the signature of His Prophecy in extant psuedapigraphal books, and consider them on that alone, along with the efficacy of the current extant text against an assumed original.
In that, I find canon (authorized works) to be instructive, and I prove other texts against them, but I do not discount other books strictly because someone told me they are wrongly attributed.
Tradition is the tool the Holy Spirt used to bring together the truly inspired works into one canon.
If that were true, then there would be *no* dispute.
The standard used by the Holy SPirit through the councils was simple: is it in tradition, is it in the orthdox faith? And that's what tool the Spirit used to collect the canon.
Yet the same mechanism was used by Judah - and it failed miserably. And the official Hebraic scribal authority is far more defined than anything noted in the New Covenant. Their mistake? Tradition held to the same level of authority as the Word. Them with eyes, Let them see.
Holy Tradition does not contradict Scripture
I could not disagree more emphatically.
Were those that SAW Him, and believed instructed in the Hypostatic Union? Did all those He and His disciples called brothers know Him as you say?
I know this: They KNEW Jehovah. They accepted His Grace in Christ. The rest... not so much.
Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning.Arius taught that Jesus Christ was divine and was sent to earth for the salvation of mankind but that Jesus Christ was not equal to the Father (infinite, primordial origin) and to the Holy Spirit (giver of life). Under Arianism, Christ was instead not consubstantial with God the Father [6] since both the Father and the Son under Arius were made of "like" essence or being (see homoiousia) but not of the same essence or being (see homoousia).
You and I seem to be largely on the same page in this thing. :)
But do you mean that the Holy Spirit is separate from God (Father-and-Son)?
As the both of us has commented, the HOW of the Trinity is the rub, not the IF. I fully confess I don’t know how God does it, and frankly I don’t care about the HOW. I’m thankful for the blessings/guidance/salvation from the finished product.
Arguing publicly with church (APWC) resulted in excommunication/death
APWC resulted in the loss of sovereignty.
APWC resulted foreigners in your lands.
All pretty good reasons, until finally the burden on the conscience became too great, and the worst consequences became bearable when considered against the pain the corruption was causing.
A further question — what is your position on those who do not subscribe to this interpretation of the Godhead and yet say that yours is a valid assumption, as is theirs?
What of the APWC in lands that were NOT orthodox in beliefs? In say Ethiopia or Yemen or the Parthian Empire? Yet they held to the same canon.
Modalism has been a problem for the Western Church since Augustine. I wish my Pastor was little more Trinitarian in his preaching but he is young so I give him a break.
But I wonder if you have the same concerns with the Eastern Church and their Monarchialism?
I think we can say God is both One Person and three Persons which allows the unity of God to be personal and the distinct economic nature of the persons, without being irrational.
Perhaps, this is your answer.
See #1350 for my take.
[wmfights:] Bowing down, or kneeling, to statues of Mary and expecting her to make God respond to your prayers is against Gods' will.
Precisely on point. Thank you.
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.