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."
There is the 'Lutheran' problem.
Your definition is wrong, as you know quite well. Any number of FR posters disagree with Catholics, without being bigots. FR is in no danger of becoming a "Romanist tea party." But some people think FR is an anti-Cathoic hate site.
It's no mystery why some are turned off FR as an anti-Catholic hate site: it's the small number of anti-Catholic bigots who cannot seem to let an open thread go by without screaming about Catholics.
Why would you ask that? Why don't you as the RM directly? Why don't you ask Jim Robinson?
“we have the scripture on our side :)”
That’s why there is so much kicking against the goad. 8?P
Why are you going to accuse the RM of being a "far, far left Bernie Sanders liberal"? I only ask because you've done that to me and I'm not a priest so I can only imagine what you would call an actual priest.
Someone posted a photo of the RM recently. She’s no priest!
LOL!
You claim I'm anti-catholic and ping me. Since the beginning of the RF, Y'all never debate the Word of G-d, Oh also whine and cry. It seems I preach the Holy Word of G-d.
first the Romanist then the Mormons
have tried to control and dominate
by claiming all sorts of abuse.
just spin and alinsky.
“Your definition is wrong, as you know quite well.”
No, I think it’s quite accurate. The Romanists here will tolerate a non-Romanist if they whisper sweet nothings in their ear but not those who actually challenge them on their false gospel.
What a joke! Put the number of any "whine and cry" post here. Or any "spin and alinsky" whatever that is. Catholics see bigotry for what it is. If that bothers you, then maybe you should change your ways.
Not even close.
Anti-Catholic bigotry has nothing to do with Romanism.
It's about hatred of the Catholic Church, not Romanism.
Despite any such alleged ability, they turned away from Scripture and the Gospel and manufactured countless traditions of men.
Nobody is a "Romanist." If you are referring to Catholics, we do tend to like the ones who don't call names, or lie.
Thank you for establishing definitively that the award is neither named for any pope nor awarded by the Catholic Church.
You are free to continue your Chicago Alinskyite spin.
*lolz*
The office and purpose was, so far as I can tell, tied to the proclamation of the Gospel. I'm not convinced there was a divine fiat that called for a line of demarcation between the office of presbyter and bishop, but it does seem to me that the apostles were extending the authority they'd received from Christ to the overseers, and the people given a charge over those overseers (like Timothy).
You may be correct that there is no direct command, but through the example of Timothy and the laying on of hands for deacons in Acts 6, we find a pattern that is alluded to in early extra-biblical writings. I've mentioned the example of Ignatius of Antioch. He writes very early and he just assumes the pattern of a three-office succession. So, while I don't necessarily disagree that there is no specific command to pass the torch from the apostles, I do believe there is an early Scriptural episcopal pattern that is validated by the way the church functioned by no later than A.D. 67; the year that Ignatius was appointed bishop by Peter (Theodoret, Dial. Immutab., I, iv, 33a).
They were "dark" because the bishop of Rome was usurping the power and position of the Holy Spirit.
And yet God chose to use this vessel as the means by which to spread the Gospel message for some 1500+ years. Here's the thing...I do believe Protestants (myself included) to have all the gifts of the Holy Spirit. What I do not understand is why so many Protestants assume that Catholics have a distorted view of the papacy. Loyalty to the bishop was simply a given by the close of the first century at the latest. I cannot see why we would condemn them for maintaining that particular teaching, even as we may disagree with some of their doctrinal conclusions.
What a joke! Put the number of any "whine and cry" post here. Or any "spin and alinsky" whatever that is. Catholics see bigotry for what it is. If that bothers you, then maybe you should change your ways.
May you come to know YHvH, the creator of the universe. Seek His face in His Word. Your post is a stellar example.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Thank God you're not describing Catholics.
.
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.