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 think some taxidermy or leather shops might have some hides for sale.
#############
reasonable vs anti-Papist
#############
Therefore, in the eyes of the willfully blind . . . the only options are to be . . .
‘reasonable’ i.e. kowtow to and agree in lock step with the Pope and all the UnBiblical stinking pile of horseradish from the Vatican.
or
to be anti-Papist.
Easy choice.
Papist “reasonable” has never to rarely been within shooting distance of
sanity,
accurate history,
Biblical,
rational,
logical,
anyway.
I suppose the dichotomy
unreasonable vs Papist
would also fit such a mentality.
God have mercy.
I don’t think they have hat sizes sufficient for that level of haughty arrogance.
Very well put.
Thx.
No New Testament in the first few centuries? Where did you get that idea?
Liberal scholars of 100 years ago believed that...and some continued since, but as the science of textual criticism has improved, the accepted dating of the New Testament books has been acknowledged as older and older. Most all moderate-to-conservative scholars now fully accept that ALL the New Testament books have 1st Century authorship (with minor editing early on). Even the most liberal bible scholars today don’t think the New Testament texts are 3rd Century-made-up-by-a-committee books, as they did 50 to 100 years ago.
Textual variations are primarily in spelling or punctuation—without a any large parts being different. The story of the stoning of the immoral woman in Matthew doesn’t always appear there early on, and the last couple paragraphs of Mark appear to be an edited add on. Those are about the only paragraph differences one finds in the gospels. Ephesians may have been a couple of Paul’s letters put together, and 1st and 2nd Corinthians appear to be perhaps letters 2 and 3 (or 4) in a series of letters.
So what? It’s all 1st Century! Did every single church recognize the authority of every single book? No...but most did, and late antiquity was a sophisticated—and fairly orderly (before AD 450 and Rome’s fall, anyway) time...in other words, they weren’t illiterate bumpkins running the churches.
As to FORMAL recognition of the list of the canon...yes, that took place in the 3rd and 4th Centuries. So what? Antiquity was a fairly informal time... and they only formalized what was officially apostolic because in the 2nd Century a heretic named Marcion made up his own (heavily edited list...deleting the Old Testament and many other NT books as well).
An example might be, today we recognize the founding documents of America as the Declaration and the Constitution. Historians also recognize the Federalist Papers, and maybe Cato’s works and perhaps John Locke’s works and certain other pieces as formative in our ideals of our Founders about governance. There is no, however, “official list” of the works that made up the minds of Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Hamilton and Washington....but, it isn’t a great controversy, as historians aren’t stupid, old collections still exist, and they do know what these men read.
Now if a powerful political party came along and said Jefferson was really a proto-Communist...and he didn’t really read say, John Locke...and the Federalist Papers really weren’t a part of the intellectual background for American Liberty—then perhaps some group of honest scholars would create an “official reading list” of our Founders...that is the provable books and papers that they did indeed read. (and given that we have had a fairly stable society... figuring that out, again, wouldn’t be all that hard, even 250 years later).
I realize that’s not a perfect analogy, but it works. The idea that all these contradictory books were floating around...and NO ONE KNEW what was really written by Paul, or Peter, (or Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) in say AD 250 is kind of silly. They were closer in time then, after all, to the death of the apostles, than we are to the death of Jefferson.
The Church Catholic’s canonization process (that is listing the books accepted as Apostolic—the list of the New Testament) was messy and took time—but it certainly was NOT just some committee of Constantine arbitrarily choosing books that suited their fancy... It was a very careful, scholarly process, that was done in a conciliar way...that is with representatives from throughout the known world.
A major criteria was, is the book Apostolic? The only book that made it into the canon that was not is Hebrews—which is very theological—and it may well be apostolic, very early on though, the author’s identity was lost. Still it is of 1st Century origin (which is more than we can say about ANY of the gnostic “gospels” which are typically 3rd or 4th C. origin).
My point is a very definite distinction can be made of the AUTHORSHIP of the New Testament books (1st Century, by eyewitnesses...)and the official recognition and formal listing of the books. Just because the recognition took place later, does NOT mean we cannot know that the early Christians were indeed familiar with our New Testament books...even if they didn’t all have exactly the same list.
Like a listing of the important sources our Founding Fathers read—there is broad general agreement—even if a formal body hasn’t given us an official list. So too was the case before Nicea and the formal recognition of the canon of the New Testament.
WELL PUT INDEED.
Am pondering reducing the Roman Catholics et al I respond to
to you, Betty Boop, MarkOMalley and a very few ignorant angry clowns just to play with from time to time.
The haughty hostile arrogance has gone off the charts.
Sheesh.
INDEED.
One more point. We do have a substantial collection of the writings of the ante-Nicean Fathers. (Irenaus, Tertullian, Origen, etc) Experts on the Fathers will tell you that THE ENTIRE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT could be reconstructed, just from their writings—so much did they quote it, so familiar were they with it, so confident were they of these books’ Apostolic authority.
Clearly the earliest Christians—at least their leadership—long BEFORE the formal list of the canon, were VERY FAMILIAR with the books we know as the New Testament.
***And some get the label “bigot” for being bigots.***
And many will play the liberal game of name calling to shut down those who don’t agree with them, and when that doesn’t work play the victim/martyr card.
"Papist" is descriptively accurate, and could hardly be considered a derogatory term by those whose ecclesiology is Papist rather than Conciliar or Congregational -- unless one were to acknowledge that obedience to the Papacy is a bad thing...
If it was good enough for Calvin and Luther, it's good enough for me.
"We must slay him (antiChrist) with words; the mouth of Christ must do it . . . See what effect this . . . preaching and writing this truth has had; how the papists’ cover has shrunk . . . Let us be wise, thank God for His Holy Word, and be bold with our mouths . . . Let us keep boldly on: earnestly inculcate the Word; and drive out the laws of men . . . This is the way Christ is, through us, slaying the papacy. Christ is with His saints, and wins the victory!" -- Martin Luther"We ought carefully to observe this clause (Isaiah 44:10), which condemns as vain and useless all the images by which God is represented. Hence it follows not only that God is insulted, whenever his glory is changed into dead images, but that all who procure idols for themselves lose their pains and suffer damage. Papists allege that they are the books of the unlearned; but this is a paltry evasion, for the Prophet testifies that they are of no use whatever. Let them, therefore, either erase this proof from the Book of Isaiah, or acknowledge that images are vain and useless. Formerly he expressed something more, when he affirmed that nothing can be learned from them but falsehood." -- Calvin's Commentary on Isaiah 44
Who is being shut down?
Who?
Why is fighting bullies considered “liberal”?
Plenty of name-calling on the anti-Catholic side. But of course, those whiners claim they’re just “joking.”
All these statements that Catholics are playing the victim card? Baloney. Fighting back against the bullying tactics of the anti-Catholic bigotry of a very small minority is not whining, nor is it “playing the victim card.”
Anti-Catholic bigots get really upset when their targets don’t roll over and sing kum bah yah, I notice.
What did I win?
.....you mean "denominations that were founded by false prophets 1500 years afterwards count?
The Daily Defender of the Faith Award. ;-D
No, that’s not what I said nor what I mean.
The haughty hostile arrogance has gone off the charts. I don’t think they have hat sizes sufficient for that level of haughty arrogance.
I guess they left their gibberish translator at the Vatican.
Mary’s white hanky imprimaturs are automatic for every goal post move—just do it and the white hanky will flutter down afterwards.
Did Y’all just buy a super tanker full of gall from the Jihadi’s?
The Roman “church” in America is indistinguishable from the Democrat Party. Promoting statism, collectivism, open borders, anti-death penalty, pedophilia.
apathy toward their stinking pile edifice of heretical nonsense is not allowed.
Sheesh, indeed.
LOL. That's predestination. God works "all things" for the good of those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose.
They thought evil against you, Quix, but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive." (Genesis 50:20)
Then, please, become more proficient with clarity.
lol. A lot of us have found no amount of proficiency nor clarity can make up for a lack of eyes to see and ears to hear.
The word "catholic" means "universal," as in the universal Christian church referenced in the Nicene Creed.
Since the Roman Catholic church is not universal, the word means something different when prefaced by "Roman." It means allegiance to the papacy.
Clear enough? If not, you know what to pray for.
How long do we just abide this concocted history that:
Before the Reformation there was nothing but Catholic and heritics; after the Reformation there are only Catholics, Protestants, and heritics?
lol. Amen. Hi, ftd. How ya been?
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.