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."
INDEED.
I suspect Peter and John would be the MOST OUTRAGED.
“FReepers post articles to discuss the articles.”
Sometimes. And sometimes their objective is to antagonize.
“Is is almost impossible for anyone to criticize Catholic doctrine, or the pronouncements of Bishops and Popes without being called anti-Catholic.”
Nonsense. On those rare occasions when a person criticizes Catholic doctrine in good faith, as opposed to slinging manure at some malicious distortion of Catholic doctrine, the discussions are civil.
Of course, that happens so rarely that one could easily miss it.
Those who post deliberately insulting material can pretend innocence till the cows come home; reality just won’t support their protestations.
And yes, we can tell the difference. If I say that Martin Luther never intended to break off from the Church, that’s discussion. If I say that all protestantism is of and from Satan, that’s malicious.
Yes, and “Possesed by spirits and that predict deaths of people” is also very long as is “Demon-possessed but pretends to be Holy Spirit possesed” or “Demo-posse-Pento” to descrbe certain groups outside mainstream Protestants and Baptists who go about pretending to talk in tongues and also then tell people “you will die within 2 weeks” (the “prophecy” ain’t from the Holy Spirit, mind you)
I am still looking for scripture on this Dave?? Why is this sacrament different from the others that require apostolic succession ?
Dave, Romans 9 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—?
I don't deny that's true, but I also don't deny that, as the example of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch demonstrates, it helps to have good teachers.
And where the word of God is puzzling, we look to the rest of Scripture to understand that which is difficult to understand.
I agree that allowing the Scriptures to illuminate themselves is possible on most issues, but certainly it helps to look outside the Scriptures to get clarification on contested issues. If I have one group of people telling me that the Scriptures are saying one thing, and another group of people saying they say another thing...well, that doesn't seem to support the idea that the process is so simple as looking at other portions of Scripture.
However, when I see that a person (Ignatius of Antioch), who lived with the apostles, made offhand statements about the three-fold office through apostolic succession, it sort of makes me think that "proving" the opposite from Scripture is a waste of time. The episcopacy existed and was authoritative while the apostles were living, and it appears the church had no problem with that for the first 16 centuries of its existence.
What I was chipping at is the idea that people were placing their authority in the scriptures in the same way Protestants do so today. Literacy in the New Testament Church was no more than 10-15 percent in any given region. Even if literacy rates had been higher, it was cost-prohibitive to print a book of Scriptures. I think I read once that a single page would have been the modern day equivalent of $30. As such, most Christians didn't have copies of the Gospels to verify their doctrine. The truths of the faith were relayed to them orally, and it was generally readers in the church and priests who relayed those truths.
Here's the question I'm getting at...if people didn't have the means to diligently search the Scriptures for doctrinal clarity, what was their authority?
She is always reasonable, Dave.
absolutely right...
And never in harmony...
Vlad — you are misinterpreting Uri. If a person believes that the Holy Spirit is not a separate person, but the Godhead is one person, one nature with different facets or modes (like The Father or the Son) and the Holy Spirit is not a separate person, then they are preaching what they believe to be true.
LOL, INDEED!
THX.
It would be hard for Christ to attend "my pagan rite," as I don't have any "pagan rite."
...[H]e has already paid the price.
Congratulations, you agree with the Catholic Church.
People in them that acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Savior of course. It may even include some large 'C' catholics.
That is not your decision particularly to make.
You don't get that kind of power.
There's apostasy!
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.