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."
That must be the corollary to Alinsky attack and ignore the topic.Jesuitical Parsing and dodging
Roman Catholics et al hereon have called me names etc. from the beginning. Y’all have no leg to stand on in criticizing me of such.
Doesn’t matter to me. Being me, I’ve been thought of in strage terms most of my life. No biggy. It’s far more humorous than anything.
The only reason I mention it, is the gross hypocrisy of it.
Names and labels CAN be quite illustrative and informative of a different perspective on a given thing.
That CAN bring life and understanding where before there was darkness.
Usually the more stark and startling, the more educational a label or name can be.
Please re read the post I was addressing it had not been answered.. he did not have an answer so made a joke ..which is one way to avoid that admission
Your next step would be to stop.
That must be the corollary to Alinsky attack and ignore the topic.
You're the expert.
Gosh, even though I've answered his question, Dave keeps asking it. what can we make of that?
Good example
One problem with showing an idea of strict, hands-laying-on-only, apostolic succession (where bishops are seen as successors to the office of “Apostle”) showed up very early, is that a lot of under-developed, and, even heretical ideas were floating around the Church for the first three or four hundred years—as an interpretive framework was still being formed.
Various cults for example cite famous early heretics (like Arius, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses) as heroes....since their modern-day cult accepts some of these heretics’ heretical teachings. The teachings were there early...however, that doesn’t make them correct!
I look at it this way, the traditions, and legacy, of the Apostles was objectively set down in one place—namely the New Testament. True “apostolic succession” is being the MOST true to that record...
It would be like this: If in 50 years the Republican Party was taken over...legitimately, by democratic means, by hard-line Communists....who wanted to nationalize everything, and have a command economy, and another, 3rd Party formed, with Reagan-like ideas—who would be the “true Republicans?” After all the party itself, would be controlled by legitimately elected people, who could point to their predecessors in succession as all legitimately elected Republicans, and they would legitimately and legally claim leadership in the GOP. But the party with true ideals—to the Republican party’s founding.....would actually be in ANOTHER party.
I for one don’t see a general kind of apostolic succession as a problem...as long as:
a) Those bishops are submissive to the first Apostles....through their writings in the Bible and
b) As long as those bishops don’t claim equality to (which amounts to authority over) the offices of the original Apostles—those eyewitnesses to the Resurrection—and authors of holy Scripture.
As you are surely aware however, in practice, neither the Roman Catholic, nor the Eastern Orthodox bishops follow such limits...
To re-read the post would make it TWO times too many.
How do you know he did not have an answer? Mind reading AGAIN? People get sick of answering the same stuff all the time.
I wouldn't put it quite that way but communion with the Spirit directs the path.
Catholics believe that many are called but few are chosen. You believe (unless I'm mistaken) that only the called are called.
There is the external call of the gospel through preaching the Word and there is the internal call of the Spirit. Not everybody who hears the external call hears the internal call.
God may give you all you need for salvation , but if you selfishly mess it up, that is your fault. Not God's fault for failing to give you something you need.
Again, it's too bad the Romanist Church threw Augustine under the bus.
Everyone in hell chose to be there. They rejected life and God when it was offered.
Agreed.
Since you have joined in , do you want to answer?
I must respectfully disagree. If apostolic succession is understood as a passing on of authority, then the passage in question implies that authority was recognized as authentic only when it could be validated as truly having come from the apostles...no matter the office. Why present the deacons to the apostles if apostolic approval (succession) through the laying on of hands was of no importance? The office of deacon is, after all, a function of the authority Christ extended to the apostles.
I didn’t see where you answered his question. Which post was that? Seriously, I didn’t see it either.
Tell me what you want to know.
However, I have answered your question.
No, you haven't. I asked if you recognized that Catholics teach that apostolic succession is not JUST from Peter. And if you recognize that Catholics accept the apostolic succession of other churches, like the Orthodox, that are not under the Bishop of Rome.
You can go back and look. Don't claim you've answered things when I have asked you in now 4 straight messages to answer.
I am a Christian. My pastor baptized me after I repented of my sins. You tell me, how would one even believe in Christ except he heard the gospel that came down to him or her through the Great Commission?
I agree. Alleluia. God is good.
That doesn't
a) make your pastor part of the apostolic succession
b) make your pastor claim apostolic succession (ask him!)
c) invalidate your baptism, which has nothing to do with apostolic succession, which has to do with valid priests and bishops, not Baptism which I already said any Christian can perform.
Golly gee, maybe the knife cuts both ways and no bigotry is even involved!
Dunking or sprinkling with water doesn’t unite anyone with God. It is “Whosoever believeth”, not “Whosoever was dunkethed”.
We should probably cease our conversation now, on a high point. LOL
Jesuitical Parsing and dodging
That must be the corollary to Alinsky attack and ignore the topic.
#######
INDEED TO THE MAX.
You have your answer now. AGAIN.
Again, I think there's much merit to what you write...particularly as it relates to the primacy of the gospel over the office.
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.