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."
I find many of them that have a live & let live attitude but some seem to feel that if you are NOT a catholic and have no interest in becoming one, they feel that you are hostile to their beliefs when nothing could be further from the truth, I just don’t care about them one way or the other.
If they want to get their marching orders from some old guy in a funny hat in Rome, it’s THEIR business and I am not going to give them a load of crap on it. If however they want to attack ME for having the audacity to think for myself, THEN we are going to have issues.
So wicked people, through some process of confirmation, receive the gift of the Holy Spirit?
Whenever you are ready to be serious, I’ll be here.
Why do you think that the gift of the Holy Spirit indwelling in a person makes them assured of Heaven?
Did Jesus coming to dwell among men mean that He was incapable of being abused?
Why should the Holy Spirit in your soul be different?
Of what has an infant to repent?
And some people call Catholics “Marble Mary toe kissers” and then claim it’s a joke.
Does your church claim apostolic succession?
The Catholic church claims so, and recognizes other valid churches that also have the same claim.
Again, do you not realize that Catholics do not claim all of their bishops are in Peter’s line?
You already stated that you do not believe that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a ticket to Heaven.
So don’t some wicked people receive the Holy Spirit?
Y’all do it plentifully . . . with different labels.
Christ is the head of the church and as a Christian, I recognize and honor that. I don’t have to belong to some headquarters in Rome.
I posted "I don't believe baptism is a ticket to heaven"
SD: So, he didn't write a bunch of letters telling them what was what and instructing them on true doctrine and practice?
Yes and in those letters he detailed how they should decide for themselves who the leaders in their churches should be. IOW, the Apostolic Era churches were independent not subject to a hierarchy. The hierarchy began to emerged in the 2nd century.
WM: And it was Peter that Paul had to correct on more than one occasion that the requirements of the law and tradition were ended.
SD:Yes, it was a tough nut to crack, but the point is that Peter made the right decision when all was said and done.
The point is that nut has never been completely overcome. As the hierarchy emerged tradition creeped back in and all kinds of extra Scriptural teachings became justified. Look at the 1854 declaration that the immaculate conception is dogma. That is all based on "tradition" not Scripture.
If your church wants to try and stand on tradition that's your business. However, there is a lot of Scripture that Jesus ended that at Calvary.
That’s not an answer. Does your church claim apostolic succession?
Do you understand that not all Catholic bishops are descended from Peter?
Do you also understand that the Catholic church recognizes as valid the apostolic succession of some other churches, like the Orthodox?
Can you give me some examples of wicked unrepentant sinners receiving the gift of the HS?
Well, how else would you describe the ecclesiology of someone who advocates Papal Sumpremacy, than simply “Papist”?
•Most Baptists and most independents tend to be “Congregational” in ecclesiology.
•Presbyterians and Eastern Orthodox are “Conciliar” in ecclesiology.
•Roman Catholics are “Papist” in ecclesiology.
That’s not a “slam”, it’s simply an accurate description!!
#########
INDEED.
I think it’s a bit like the liberal idiots . . . “liberal”—BECAUSE OF ALL THEIR HIDEOUS BELIEFS AND DOINGS—is now a bad word . . . so now they are busy about tainting “Progressive.”
Of course “Papists” is a reasonable and logical and accurate term. Yet when folks associate anything less than perfect with the term, the Papists have to compulsively wail, whine, throw dust in the air, blame, etc. to the max.
Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo impressive.
Fair enough. My mistake.
So you believe that if the Holy Spirit indwells a person, they are guaranteed Heaven?
And that they can do nothing to change that?
I would not be a Christian today except for God’s grace and the Great Commission, so yes, how else did I get to be a Christian?
“While there are a few exceptions, the vast majority of the time NO Protestant steps forward to say that these accusations are slanderous garbage.”
If it helps, this Baptist will say it is incredibly stupid for someone to argue B16 was a Nazi, or his father a loyal SS officer. His father was a police officer, and when all the police were put into the SS, he became an SS officer. From what I’ve read, he was not by any stretch an enthusiastic supporter of the Nazis, and neither was he part of the resistance.
In any case, it has no bearing on the current Pope as either a Christian or Pope.
I don’t believe in papal authority, not even a little tiny bit, but I’ll argue it as a matter of doctrine. The “Pope is a Nazi” garbage is just that. If I were the RM, I’d delete the posts, but then, if I were the RM, I’d delete about 90% of what gets posted...in fact, I’m not even sure there would be a religion section, so maybe everyone should be glad I’m neither the RM or King of the World (GS-100...I believe the Pope is a GS-90 spot...).
There were Popes whose lives disqualified them from ANY ecclesiastical position, but not because their fathers were police officers.
I already answered that, Dave. How can Christ deny himself? Of course I don't believe in the magic of ex opere operato so I don't have to toss out the Holy Spirit with the apostate.
Did Jesus coming to dwell among men mean that He was incapable of being abused?
non sequiter. Not all men are joined to Christ.
Why should the Holy Spirit in your soul be different?
Paul tells us the Holy Spirit can be grieved but not thrown out like excess baggage.
The Roman “church” in America is
indistinguishable from the Democrat Party.
Promoting statism, collectivism, open borders,
anti-death penalty, pedophilia.
and those are the ones who win the Pacem in Terris award
######
too true for comfort, for sure.
So why do you baptize them?
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.