WHO REALLY IS 'ANTI-CATHOLIC?'

Alpha and Omega Ministries ^ | 1-23-10 | James Swan

[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."

[Cronos]

Ex 20:3 --> Mary is not a god or a goddess. She is considered a creature -- ask any Catholic from the simplest in the Philippines to the most erudite. She is a created being as attested by the doctrine as captured in Scripture and enunciated in the catechism.

Ex 20:4 -- Iconoclasm has been debated earlier and longer by better people than me with 1 Chr 28:18-19, Ezekial 41:17-18, Num 21:8-9, 1 Kings 6:29-31; 8:6-66, 2Chr 3:7-14, by your extension, the destruction of the Bamiyan statues was justified, however that's not the intent -- the intent is in 5

ex 20:5 -- Bow down and serve them implies worship of the divine, which is what is not done for these objects of clay or marble or wood.

God revealed himself in physical form in the form of the Man Jesus and in the form of a dove (Matt 3:16, Mark 1:10, Luke 3:22, John 1:32) and as tongues of fire (Acts 2:1-4) for the Holy Spirit. These images are used when drawing or painting these biblical episodes and on Holy Spirit labels etc.

While God the Fathe did reveal himself too in visible forms like in Daniel 7:9 "As I looked, thrones were placed and one that was ancient of days took his seat; his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, its wheels were burning fire"

And of course, God did reveal a form for himself in Bethlehem which is why the magi "fell down and worshipped him" Matt 2:11.

An icon of Jesus Christ is just that, a depiction of the revealed God. It does not contain God or is God, it's just a depiction of Our Lord and Savior. Ditto for the pictures of saints. The Church does not transfer our notion of God to anything other than God -- those paintings, statues are not God, do not possess divinity or virtue of their own right

Tradition does not contradict Scripture

[Cronos]

Where did I say I had a "concern" with what Uri believes in? I just pointed out modalism and asked him if he shared those beliefs. You're putting your own interpretation on my post.

And btw, Modalism disagrees with the statement "God is both One Person and three Persons "

[Cronos]

I meant to say that even in those areas outside Western Church or indeed any direct church jurisdiction, the canon did include Apocrypha. See that of the Marthomites or the Assyrans.

[the_conscience]

And btw, Modalism disagrees with the statement "God is both One Person and three Persons "

Agreed.

[roamer_1]

[roamer_1:] What I am pointing to is the bare fact that other solutions to the Godhead can just as easily exist, and qualify, by the evidence.

valid -- however, I will repeat that we can know what the Godhead is NOT like for instance, we do KNOW that Jesus is God, you, I, Uri believe that (none of us believe the Oneness Pentecostal belief that believes that the Son was not eternally begotten but was a man, Jesus, who was born, crucified and died which is Adoptionism, pure and simple).

Accepted. However, What God "is not" does not necessarily infer what He IS. The Trinitarian view is not proven by Adoptionism's fault. By definition, both are mere tradition, as neither is declared within the Word.

Again, the errata that stands against Trinitarian-ism denies it in fact. It cannot be true, if the Word says it is wrong.

Holy Yahweh says He is ONE... That is declared explicitly throughout, and even confirmed by Christ. I will take Him at His Word. It is undeniable.

Now, There ARE errata which stand against "Yahweh is One"... Jesus declared "No one knows, but the Father" about the time of the end... This implies separation in that Christ is basically saying He doesn't know, but the Father does. He didn't say "I know, but I don't want to tell you ..." He implies that He doesn't know.

Trinitarians must explain this separation - The all knowing Uber-3 are tied at the hip... How is it that Christ did not know? This is the danger of assuming to declare something that is not known.

But the Father loves a good pun ("All Israel is not Israel"), and all that...

All I must do, as I do not endorse the Trinitarian model, is stick to the original explicit declaration - Yahweh is ONE (which Christ also proclaims) - and assume that Christ's words about the end are not yet revealed to me. Quite the riddle, eh?

Mine is the correct position, I think. We need to stand upon what we know, and avoid confusion.

The Hypostatic Trinity model is not true, because it is not declared, and cannot be proven... This single piece of errata denies it wholly.

God is ONE is true, because Jehovah said it Himself, explicitly. I will not blaspheme Jehovah. I need to explain nothing further.

[...] According to the Athanasian Creed, each of these three divine persons is said to be eternal, each almighty, none greater or less than another, each God, and yet together being but one God, "So are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say: 'There are three Gods or three Lords.'"—Athanasian Creed, line 20.

Please do not quote creeds to me. I find them to be offensive. I will subscribe to *none* of them. Prove it upon the Word alone.

Uri's "solution" to the Godhead is a lot more subtle, as it denies the complex "three persons, one substance (ousia) [...] Modalism, to which Uri subscribes seems to me to be that belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons in God

I have not seen UriÂ’el-2012 claim Modalism. I have seen nothing about "modes" or "aspects". I have seen UriÂ’el-2012 say "Our God is ONE God." I will stand with him in that.

Against this, Tertullian said in his work Adversus Praxeas, Chapter I, "By this Praxeas did a twofold service for the devil at Rome: he drove away prophecy, and he brought in heresy; he put to flight the Paraclete, and he crucified the Father."

Yet when it was believed that there was ONE God over Israel(Yahweh is his Name), prophecy abounded - as well as prophets - Even past the time of the Resurrection. Now, nearly the entirety of the Church denies the need for prophecy and prophets... claiming that time has passed (not only your side of the fence, btw). This is not a good argument for you.

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).

I would love to have been able to argue with him. My position would be "Our God is ONE God".

[roamer_1]

[roamer_1:] Yet here we are, even yet, with multiple canons.

Not really -- just two: incl Apocrypha or not. No one argues that the Acts of Paul and Theda should be canon anymore.

AFAIR, The Ethiopian Church regards Enoch to be canon. That may now be settled, but if it is, that is a fairly recent development...

The Book of Enoch (also 1 Enoch[1]) is a work ascribed to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah and son of Jared (Genesis 5:18).

This book today is non-canonical and considered pseudepigrapha in most Christian churches, however the Ethiopian Orthodox Church to this day regards it to be canonical.

Wikipedia: Book of Enoch

[roamer_1]

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.

You and I are in agreement. It is good to let a mystery be a mystery. It will be a "sad" day in some respects, when our Lord arrives, and we KNOW. I hope He will give us another conundrum to chew upon, else I will be left with nothing left to ponder... ; )

[roamer_1]

And yet, that was an argument used in the councils. Those "authorities" you refer to are none other than the authority of the community of believers, the Church as a whole.

No, the "authorities" were the hierarchy over the "Church as a whole" wherein the church in question was only that which was not already excluded.

The Church does not err (and to clarify, my usage of The Church indicates the community of believers, the common priesthood of believers, not just the magisterium or some council of bishops or presbyters/priests)

Not to promote rancor, but again, I must rigorously disagree.

Ok -- then why not include Maccabbees which is mostly historical or the Didache which, written in 70 AD approx is a Syriac manual, or the Acts of Paul and Theda which do not contradict (to my knowledge) what we consider canon?

Oh, I am not as insistent as my brethren in the disallowing of the Apocrypha. That it means "the hidden" is enough to garner my attention... Off hand, The Maccabees, Baruch, The Epistle of Jeremiah (Probably part of Baruch to you), and the Esdras all have great value to me, as well as other books from the psuedepigrapha - Enoch, Jasher, The Book of Jubilees (another from the Ethiopian canon I believe)...

As I said, I believe the signature of prophecy to be of the highest importance. The books I mentioned contain that signature, IMHO. It is their quality and provenance which cause me to deny them. Of the Apocrypha, particularly and over all, my main criticism is to do with the unquestionable "Hellenization" of the texts... The same reason the Hebrews refuse them, by and large.

There is truly no dispute -- why was there utter silence for 1500 years until Luther?

The death of one's opponents, and the burning of their works as heresy tends toward that effect. It is that silence which is so damning.

[roamer_1]

If you say that tradition failed, than you say that the tool usd to collect the canon failed

LOL! Is the tool greater than He who wields it?

[roamer_1]

[roamer_1:] Were those that SAW Him, and believed instructed in the Hypostatic Union?

Nope -- that doesn't mean it wasn't there.

Whether it was there or not is beside the point. These were the first Christians, in the presence of Christ and the Apostles. It was not required of them, in order to bear His Name.

Should I treat my brothers differently than my Lord did? What thing did He teach to the exclusion of the faithful?

[roamer_1]

Mary is not a god or a goddess. She is considered a creature -- ask any Catholic from the simplest in the Philippines to the most erudite. She is a created being as attested by the doctrine as captured in Scripture and enunciated in the catechism.

Could have fooled me. Here. Mebbe some pictures:

This is *not* an idol:

This is *not* an idol:

This *IS* an idol:

This *IS* an idol:

Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,
Exo 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exo 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

I know, I know... It just looks like worship. Betcha Shadrach, Mishach, and Abednego could have used that kind of thinking. Those pinheads that stacked up idols in God's own Temple prolly used the same sort of reasoning... NO Way, Dude.

And yes, I get that it is only "veneration," which is honor, not worship... But that doesn't cut it neither... ALL Glory, ALL Laud, ALL Honor belongs to Jehovah, and to the Redeemer King.

*Sigh*... And we were having such a pleasant little argument...

[NoGrayZone]

Holy Yahweh says He is ONE... That is declared explicitly throughout, and even confirmed by Christ. I will take Him at His Word. It is undeniable.

Now, There ARE errata which stand against "Yahweh is One"... Jesus declared "No one knows, but the Father" about the time of the end... This implies separation in that Christ is basically saying He doesn't know, but the Father does. He didn't say "I know, but I don't want to tell you ..." He implies that He doesn't know.

Trinitarians must explain this separation - The all knowing Uber-3 are tied at the hip... How is it that Christ did not know? This is the danger of assuming to declare something that is not known.

But the Father loves a good pun ("All Israel is not Israel"), and all that...

All I must do, as I do not endorse the Trinitarian model, is stick to the original explicit declaration - Yahweh is ONE (which Christ also proclaims) - and assume that Christ's words about the end are not yet revealed to me. Quite the riddle, eh?

I have been following your posts and I must say.....YOU explain my confusion regarding the standard trinity MUCH better than I ever could!

Thanks!! =)

[Iscool]

Just to reiterate another poster:

An icon of Jesus Christ is just that, a depiction of the revealed God. It does not contain God or is God, it's just a depiction of Our Lord and Savior. Ditto for the pictures of saints. The Church does not transfer our notion of God to anything other than God -- those paintings, statues are not God, do not possess divinity or virtue of their own right

It doesn't matter what you call it, what motive you assign to it, or whether you build it out of wood, stone or precious metal, God says, DON'T DO IT...

Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

How much more clear can you get than that...The only thing missing is God reaching down from heaven and slapping you up side the head to get His point across...

And then if you see one of these idols someone else built, God's got that covered as well...

Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

AND THEN, God indicates that whoever does these things does not love HIM...

Exo 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Tradition does not contradict Scripture

Your tradition violates scripture by contradicting scripture...How can you keep repeating that nonsense???

[wmfights]

Mary is not a god or a goddess.

Yet you treat her as one and claim she has powers like a god.

It is just one example of how your church's tradition is leading RC's away from Christianity.

[Cronos]

Actually we don't treat her like a goddess and do not claim she has any divine powers. Anything she has is granted by God.

I just went for mass and guess what, except for the creed, Mary wasn't mentioned at all. It was, as normal, focused on Christ, our Lord and Our God

[Cronos]

No, the "authorities" were the hierarchy over the "Church as a whole" wherein the church in question was only that which was not already excluded.

You're now telling me that you know it better than history? Better than the fact that this was the Church, not the hierarchy? If you wish to disagree, fine, but don't tell me that history was wrong and offer no proofs to the contrary.

[Cronos]

Of the Apocrypha, particularly and over all, my main criticism is to do with the unquestionable "Hellenization" of the texts... The same reason the Hebrews refuse them, by and large.

The council of Jamnia (not the Hebrews) "refined Jewish canon in 90 to 98 AD

[Cronos]

eWhat God "is not" does not necessarily infer what He IS. The Trinitarian view is not proven by Adoptionism's fault.

Not quite. The Trinitarian view isn't proved right by pointing out that the adoptionists are wrong, however as the adoptionists ARE wrong, we know God isn't that, just as we know God isn't in some tree or statue.

By definition, both are mere tradition, as neither is declared within the Word.

Adoptionism is denied in the Word, Trinitarianism (and I'll give Modalism this) are not. Modalism is a tricky one for ME -- scripture doesn't give me a direct answer for or against it, so I'm willing to live and let live Uri's points (I don't agree with his view though)

[Cronos]

Trinitarians must explain this separation - The all knowing Uber-3 are tied at the hip... How is it that Christ did not know?.

Trinitarians can explain this, modalists can't. The one being model of the Trinity xplains your dilemma. It's not perfct but it is close (just like the old saying "Democracy is a bad form of government, but the others are worse"

[Cronos]

I have not seen UriÂ’el-2012 claim Modalism. I have seen nothing about "modes" or "aspects". I have seen UriÂ’el-2012 say "Our God is ONE God." I will stand with him in that.

I'll leavee it to Uri to explain his position, but tell me this -- if you say "one God" yet that Jesus is God and yet that Jesus and God is separate, how do you co-relate those 3 statements?