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."
What an unmitigatedly brazen falsehood.
For whatever reason,
it usually seems like
The Roman Catholics et al hereon
get tons more grace than anyone else by a significant margin.
Sheesh.
—more mean-spirited
—more name calling—much of it very personally assaultive—some of it directly so
—more baiting threads
—more general knee-jerk hostility
—more outrageous arrogance and successful !!!!DEMANDS!!!! that the Prottys kowtow to their dictionary and standards . .
Did Y’all just buy a super tanker full of gall from the Jihadi’s?
Unmitigated NONSENSE.
Boggles my mind. Y’all might goad me into doing the statistical analysis of the postings yet.
What an outrageous inside out and upside down construction on reality.
Oh, I know . . . when y’all have to suffer with only 98.9999% authoritarian tyrannical !!!!CONTROL!!!! of prottys then y’all are duty bound to wail and whine about how mistreated y’all are.
Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo impressive.
Sheesh. What idiocy.
Disagreement is not hatred.
###
INDEED.
Behold! the drama llama!
But engagement is now anti-catholic? Good thing this isn’t football, one could never score a TD since the goalposts keep moving.
Amen. And this goes a long way in explaining why ex-Roman Catholics are angry and frustrated with their previous church because they resent all the misdirection they were taught by Rome. Men are saved by Christ's righteousness, mercifully imputed to them, and not because of their own righteousness.
Folks who don’t think that Alamo-Girl is one of THE MOST OBSERVANT FREEPERS alive—you even aware of the Clinton files??? . . .
they must have been living in the bottom of Carlsbad caverns their whole life without any comm hookups at all.
What unobservant ignorance! Sheesh.
That is pretty good. A one 'el' lama would be more in keeping with the RF.
I think it’s one of the dogmas . . . in some encyclical or other . . .
titled probably
“STRATEGIC GOAL POST MOVING”
Subtitle:
Mary’s white hanky imprimaturs are automatic for every goal post move—just do it and the white hanky will flutter down afterwards.
Yeah. Realizing one was duped for decades by folks purportedly closest to God leaves a real gritchy angst in one’s gut unless one determines to forgive constantly.
LOL!
Your contributions to God’s Kingdom and to the USA and to FR are worth a LOT more than that.
GRRRRR.
Let me at em . . . They can cuss me out up one side and down the other and I’ll just consider it par for the course and even earned well enough.
But someone like You and Betty Boop . . . GRRRRRR
Such stunning lack of awareness of what goes on in the Rel Forum in terms of who posts the greatest amount of MOST GRACIOUS WISDOM YEAR IN AND YEAR OUT FROM THE BEGINNING . . . AND WHO HAS THE MOST AWARENESS of all sides with the most objective Biblical and philosophical perspective . . . You two are the only ones who fit that bill.
Folks unaware of that are flaunting such terminal ignorance as to deserve to have their posting privileges yanked just for the degree of audacious ignorance. Sheesh.
And you’ll just likely deal with this as graciously and wisely as you compiled the Clinton files and as graciously and wisely as you discourse with anyone from any perspective hereon. And that’s OK and admirable and all. And we are fortunate to have someone around like you and Betty who are both so much that way.
Nevertheless . . . it’s gosh durned infuriating to observe such ignorance assault either one of you.
I know. I know. Down boy.
GRRRR.
Thank you so much for your encouragements, dear brother in Christ!
Sigh.
FR’s rules have decided that Catholics can not engage.
Please ping me when these 'crypticisms' have been put into an understandable form.
Will do.
Well put.
I guess they left their gibberish translator at the Vatican.
Apostolic succession is not found in Scripture. The signs and miracles of the Apostles ceased with the Apostles. That's because the word of God alone is strong enough to convert men and minds and hearts.
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.