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."
But the words of God are spirit and life. The words of men are neither spirit nor life. The indwelling Holy Spirit brings the words of God alive within me. That is how I spiritually discern the difference.
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. - I John 2:29
Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. - John 15:4
But I do not denigrate any Christian who leans on the whole counsel of his religious authorities. God has not lead me on such a path, but if He ever did, I would of course follow His leading.
And my devotions (prayers) are always to God in the manner Christ commanded:
For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. – Matthew 6:9-15
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also [is] Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. – Matt 4:4
I am that bread of life. – John 6:48
Blessed [are] the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. – Matt 5:7
To God be the glory, not man, never man!
So he made him a Bishop? A priest? What did Paul "make " Timothy??
I congratulate you. Your thread is doing a very good job delineating the answer to its interrogatory title.
Constantine
God has stated that He prefers tabernacles not made with human hands. His indwelling is all that matters, and the gift of the HS comes from Him
Looks like a bishop to me. The head of a local church. Yep, that’s a bishop.
Thank you for your encouragement, dear brother in Christ!
There is a clear Biblical record of it. You just choose to interpret it differently. The Bible is not an exhaustive history of the Church.
Your Elisha analogy fails because we are not aware of any Hebrews claiming this authority through the ages. That is not true of the church. Bishops have been around and recognized since the beginning.
And thank you for your graciousness and your distinctive font.
As do we all, which is one reason no one really cares what they hurl at us. We refuse to be intimidated with the PC baloney, just as all America is waking up to the invisible chains the overlords have brought upon us with their nonsense.
So does Paul call Him an apostle ? Did Paul have the authority to ordain an apostle/bishop?
Do you consider the Pope and the Catholic magisterium the ultimate authority in interpreting the scripture?And here's why it strikes me that way, even though I do not think of you as having any animosity: We Catholics understand ourselves as eschewing " all the doctrines and traditions of men."Again, I eschew all the doctrines and traditions of men - whether given by the Pope/Magisterium, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, Billy Graham, etc. Any of these - like anyone here on the forum - may convey the words of God.
We also do not think of "Sacred Tradition" or the teachings of the Magisterium as doctrines and traditions of men.
So, outside of disagreeing, I have no problem with your proposing that Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are or include "the doctrines and traditions of men" and that therefore we Catholics INADVERTENTLY FAIL to eschew "all the doctrines and traditions of men."
But, AS WRITTEN, the statement seems to suggest that we find nothing wrong with what WE think are the blah blah of men.
Did I manage to be clear?
In fact, when they needed a new apostle, on Whom did they call? Acts 1:12-26
Do you think Timothy is an apostle?
I don’t.
Paul did it, the Bible records it and he didn’t get knocked off his horse because of it.
So I think he had the authority.
When James Swan writes about Martin Luther, he does a great job:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/07/resources-martin-luther.html
However, here he seems to get upset about being called anti-Catholic without first looking at who is doing the calling.
There is catholic and Catholic. The former is generally accepted as meaning universal. The latter is how many Catholics prefer to be called. Frankly, I’d call Catholics “Heffalumps”, if that was their preferred term and if it would allow me to discuss issues without getting emotion in the way of the discussion.
Now, first, there is anti-Catholic in the sense of being in opposition to the Catholic Church & its teachings. I am, in that sense, Anti-Catholic concerning Priests, and Pro-Catholic on the Deity of Christ. It isn’t a useful term when used thus, because one person can then be both Anti-Catholic & Pro-Catholic.
Second, there is Anti-Catholic in the sense of being personally opposed to Catholics. I don’t think that is particularly common, but it once was.
I think there is a third sense, in which people define there beliefs about God as being in opposition to Catholic beliefs. I think some ‘reformation’ churches fall in this trap. As a Baptist, I probably disagree with more Catholic theology than many ‘reformers’ - for example, I don’t believe in infant baptism, the perpetual virginity of Mary or that a consecrated wafer is anything other than a wafer, except perhaps to the person taking it (http://www.grbc.net/about_us/1689.php?chapter=30). Some ‘reformers’ agree with Catholics on all three.
However, Baptists generally don’t define ourselves as opposition to something, but for something. I am FOR believer’s baptism as the best and truest way to follow the example in the New Testament. I am FOR the Eucharist (thanksgiving) being “in remembrance” as the truest way to follow what Jesus said to do.
When someone uses “RC” after being told it is offensive, or tells someone else they are worshiping images when the other person says they intend no such thing, then I think they have fallen into the trap of number 3, and view themselves as being opponents of Catholics rather than proponents of something different.
He is the proud recipient of the Pacem in Terris Award Thank you for correcting my spelling.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
as it prompted me to research Saul Alinsky.
along with other Communists and Murderers of black children.
The problem is that I can only see the world through my own eyes. I cannot know what is in your mind and thereby avoid causing offense. But that was not my intent. Not at all.
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.