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."
LOL
Keep repeating it, it will never come true.
The fascinating thing in all that is the lengths the RC's go to to try and discredit what the book says. Old Reggie used to say "there's no postion that they take that can't be denied". You see this tactic on all the threads. Once confronted with the truth of something the last retort is "well that's not an official act of the church".
I'm waiting to see if the "official wing of the church" will ever try to stop the Marian heresy.
I wonder if the anti-Catholic bigots’ purpose is to make the open threads so unpleasant for Catholics that we no longer participate. That way, they could have a nearly perfect Amen chorus, congratulating one another on how Christian they are.
I’m really angry about this. Completely sick of it. It’s not a game, and these aren’t jokes.
This is a very small segment of FR, slinging mud at a very large segment of FR, and furthermore doing it in the name of God.
Are there people who think FREE REPUBLIC is an anti-Catholic hate site? If they run across a thread like this, why wouldn’t they? I can’t see any reason they would be attracted to FR, can you? Putting up with this junk is something NO Christian should have to do, yet DAILY, even during our holy season of LENT, our Church is attacked.
This is not reasonable. Not humorous. Not interesting. Not conservative. Not enjoyable.
In the name of Jesus Christ, Risen Son of the Living God, I rebuke the anti-Catholic bigots of Free Republic. Shame on you all, in Christ’s Most Holy Name.
Congratulating one another on how evil their gross caricature of the Catholic Church is.
Again though, I must point out that this thread is an unmitigated success.
The title poses a question and the replies to the thread provide clear answers.
This is true.
Agreed. I hope this thread remains as a testament.
So do I.
Quite frankly, Judith, there are some who just attack with lies and falsehoods and flashy fonts and false websites or random pieces of gibberish — they’re not Christian and they may crib about that, but they’re not. This doesn’t include the majority of Protestant posters even on the Religion forum threads (alamo, redgolum, Mr Rogers, lightman,sionnsar etc are examples of Christians who happen to be Protestants and there are many more) who can debate without resorting to lies or insults. The ones we recognise as not being in this large bunch of Christians are just baiters without much in their lives, so we should be happy that we give them an opportunity to bring some excitement to their drab, meaningless, Christ-less lives.
I'm waiting to see if the "official wing of the church" will ever try to stop the Marian heresy.
#################################
INDEED TO THE MAX.
That last will happen when they have the winter olympics figure skating competitions on the lake of fire in hell.
Their outrageous weaseling duplicities in such matters are embarrassingly brazen and it's like they don't even have a glimpse or a clue at their own double standards.
Such denial would rival the denial of chronic alcoholics. Oh, Right, some of the more rabid posters do show up on the AA threads. Interesing.
THEN, ON TOP OF THAT, THEY EXPECT SUCH BRAZENNESS AND OUTRAGEOUS DENIAL-RIDDEN WEASELING DUPLICITY TO STILL GARNER OUR RESPECT!!! Do they think we submitted our brains to some toilet paper manufacturing plant in Rome in some supreme kowtowing submission to Papal authority???
I used to think that JW's with their constantly changing APPEARING events were the religious world's greatest example of denial, duplicity and craziness.
No more. The rabid Papists hereon have jumped to the top of that list in leaps and bounds.
Mind boggling. And I haven't even shared the full horrors of that little book . . . just a smattering of the low lights.
ni•hil ob•stat (n h l b stät , -st t , n -)
n.
1. Roman Catholic Church An attestation by a church censor that a book contains nothing damaging to faith or morals.
.
2. Official approval, especially of an artistic work.
.
WITH
.
RICHARD CARDINAL CUSHING’S IMPRIMATUR
I dub this thread OPERATION FOOTBULLET.
Sigh, God expects better from all of us, but to say some Catholics or some Lutherans may not be saved is hardly earth shattering. Try reading without the lens of expected hate. I believe even you as a Catholic has repeated the adage about the floors of hell and its pavement. Do you now rue those words since Catholics are true Christians? Same deal here minus the bishops' skulls.
LOL!
Yes, a small minority of FReepers.
***************************
Nice.
Duplicity strikes again.
I should say--SANCTIMONIOUS duplicity strikes again.
Yet again they wail, whine, throw dust in the air and rend their rosaries because they cannot turn FR
into MORE of a kowtowing-to-the-Vatican Papist sub-department.
Tyrannical authoritarianism in the name of RELIGION is NEVER satisfied.
And they seem determined to PROVE ACTIVELY that tyrannical authoritarianism in the name of The Pope is even worse.
And they have no clue about what they are doing so vividly before a watching world.
Incredible.
I hope some of them get their blood chemistry and arteries checked. Such duplicitous hostility is not good for the circulatory system.
I’m really angry about this. Completely sick of it. It’s not a game, and these aren’t jokes.
This is a very small segment of FR, slinging mud at a very large segment of FR, and furthermore doing it in the name of God.
I agree completely.
Yesterday, Alamo-Girl asked several of us if we considered her to be anti-Catholic. I responded that I didn't because disagreeing with Catholic doctrine is fine, especially when someone is open-minded to debate it. Mr. Rogers is another fine FReeper who I would put in this same category.
Last night it occurred to me that the anti-Catholic bigots on here could care less whether or not they are perceived as bigots. In fact, I have even had one go so far as to claim that anti-Catholic bigotry doesn't even exist.
Please see post 622.
This is so typical of what Catholics see, day after day, here on FR. It’s on nearly every open RF thread, multiple times. If people think FR is an anti-Catholic hate site, can you blame them after seeing this tripe multiple times in one day?
Those of us who are loyal FReepers, grateful to Jim Robinson for providing this site for discussion, are fully aware that posters like Quix constitute a vanishingly small minority of FReepers, but would a newbie think so? I wonder.
FRee speech is wonderful. A conservative web site is a treasure beyond price. A non-biased Religion Moderator is almost an angel of God. But why should stuff like anti-Catholic bigotry be part of FR?
It may be hard for non-Catholics to see. I don’t know how, but it may be. If so, put yourself in our shoes.
Goodness!
We certainly do NOT expect y’all to stop posting.
We aren’t that INOBSERVENT NOR THAT STUPID!
“True Believers” in the worst Eric Hoffer sense are usually terminally incurable.
Besides—it helps provide ongoing vivid proof of the truths we speak of. We really appreciate the service y’all provide of
PROVING OUR POINTS HEREON DAY IN AND DAY OUT VIRTUALLY 24/7 365 DAYS A YEAR. It’s really quite amazing.
I’ve never seen a group shoot themselves in the feet and other tender places so relentlessly and so publically before.
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.