Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WHO REALLY IS 'ANTI-CATHOLIC?'
Alpha and Omega Ministries ^ | 1-23-10 | James Swan

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."


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Theology
KEYWORDS: anticatholic; freformed; usancgldslvr
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,381-1,399 next last

1 posted on 02/24/2010 9:36:26 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

You.


2 posted on 02/24/2010 9:39:05 AM PST by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drstevej; OrthodoxPresbyterian; CCWoody; Wrigley; Gamecock; Jean Chauvin; jboot; AZhardliner; ...

Pinging a few who may have had the charge leveled against them.


3 posted on 02/24/2010 9:39:43 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Thank you for your apt illustration of what this article is saying.


4 posted on 02/24/2010 9:40:48 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

Thank you for always posting threads and posts in a way that proves me right in my assessment of you.


5 posted on 02/24/2010 9:42:28 AM PST by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

Satan is really, really anti-Catholic.


6 posted on 02/24/2010 9:46:18 AM PST by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
FReepers post articles to discuss the articles.

What in this article do you disagree with (assuming you've read the article?)

7 posted on 02/24/2010 9:48:20 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
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.

As is the case with the other queer elements of their dogma.

8 posted on 02/24/2010 9:50:10 AM PST by the_conscience (We ought to obey God, rather than men. (Acts 5:29b))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

Catechism 22


9 posted on 02/24/2010 9:50:29 AM PST by Berlin_Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Campion

Certainly true when using the term “catholic” in the sense of Christ’s universal church on earth.


10 posted on 02/24/2010 9:51:15 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

I was joking btw!


11 posted on 02/24/2010 9:51:34 AM PST by Berlin_Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: the_conscience

Yes. Fruit-wise, very true.


12 posted on 02/24/2010 9:52:14 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; the_conscience; Quix; wmfights

I’ve been declared a bigot simply for posting on a thread. Any thread.


13 posted on 02/24/2010 9:58:12 AM PST by 1000 silverlings (everything that deceives, also enchants: Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

After going to the link, and reading some of the junk there, I conclude this thread is a complete waste of time. I encourage all Catholics to see for themselves what a piece of anti-Catholic garbage has been posted here.


14 posted on 02/24/2010 9:59:13 AM PST by Judith Anne (2012 Sarah Palin/Duncan Hunter 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

The anti-Catholic wrote:

“Recent mega-convert Francis Beckwith concurs:”

Mega-convert?

“Their Council of Trent explicitly rejected the Gospel in an official declaration.”

Only a moron or a bigot would make that claim. Both descriptions might apply here.

“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.”

Using a term based on a city’s name “describes those devoted to the papacy quite succinctly”? Exactly how?

“No one wants to be thought of as a bigot.”

Apparently anti-Catholics don’t mind.

“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.”

Uh, yes, they were most definitely kidding. That was the whole point.


15 posted on 02/24/2010 10:01:02 AM PST by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
I preach the Holy Word of G-d and
am being accused of being anti-catholic.

There is message in that bottle.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

16 posted on 02/24/2010 10:01:09 AM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

You wrote:

“FReepers post articles to discuss the articles.”

I don’t think that’s what anti-Catholics do.

“What in this article do you disagree with (assuming you’ve read the article?)”

How often have you brought up other issues completely unrelated to the actual opening post in an anti-Catholic thread just so you could vent your beliefs in supposed Mary worship among Catholics?


17 posted on 02/24/2010 10:03:15 AM PST by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

Great points.

The duplicities of the edifice are evident yet again.


18 posted on 02/24/2010 10:04:37 AM PST by Quix ( POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 TRAITORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UriÂ’el-2012

You wrote:

“I preach the Holy Word of G-d and
am being accused of being anti-catholic.”

You do not preach the word of God. You simply preach your own sectarian beliefs and call them the word of God.

“There is message in that bottle.”

Which you’re probably reading through the bottom of the bottle after having drained it.


19 posted on 02/24/2010 10:04:58 AM PST by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Campion

From where I sit . . .

only or primarily . . . most likely . . .

he is against those Roman Catholics et al in clusters of Charismatic worship and teaching which properly focus the individuals back on GOD, CHRIST, FIRST, FOREMOST, ONLY . . . BY HIS SPIRIT.

The rest of the edifice is carrying out slewfoot’s RELIGIOUS agenda quite well.


20 posted on 02/24/2010 10:06:21 AM PST by Quix ( POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 TRAITORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,381-1,399 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson