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."
Stop with “the sweet nothings” and see who loves ya now
Thank God you're not talking about Catholics.
Looks like a circumference of surface level piety.
I'm still looking for the biblical reference that says the Holy Spirit is imparted to the unrighteous evil man.
One certainly has reason to fear that he or she is not heaven-bound if one is not, as Jesus said " born again".
Ye must be born again. We see from the biblical example of Simon Magus that baptism does not automatically confer the HS. Right or wrong,from debate on these threads, I perceive that Catholics think that by being born into their belief system and baptised at birth, that this somehow gives them the gift of the HS.
The tribes of Israel thought their physical birth saved them as well, but Jesus disabused them of that thought. Nicodemus was an observant Jew and Jesus spoke these words to him.
The fear of not being saved must cause one to try to do all sorts of things, when really all one has to do is sincerely repent of their sins, some of which Paul lists in Galatians 5:
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
John 3
19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Threw the TV out years ago. It was the TV or the loom.! LOL.
Thx for your kind reply.
Thanks for your kind reply and perceptiveness. You are right, of course.
I’m getting a little lost in all the back and forth assertions. Maybe I should just pretend I understand and walk on by.
THANKS MUCH FOR YOUR KIND WORDS.
YOU ARE A TREASURE.
Actually, the "Roman" tag refers to the same Church, with or without the tag; we are Catholics. The Pope is in Rome; in Vatican City. There is no other meaning or implication. And of course Catholicism is "universal". If it's not "universal", then I don't what is. "Catholic" also means "whole". Rather appropriate since Jesus (God) founded the Catholic Church.
...just sayin'.....
Ahhhhhh
Quix, have a day blessed by God’s favor and by a sense of His presence.
NONSENSE.
God did not grant your edifice a copyright nor a trademark to the term.
And at least SOME Prottys find it outrageously
—UNBIBLICAL
—UNHISTORICAL
—UNCONSCIENCEABLE
—ARROGANT TO THE MAX
—HOSTILE TO THE MAX
—SELF-RIGHTEOUS TO THE MAX
—CLUELESS
THAT modern, well red, bright folks would even imagine any such thing.
And some of us are not about to give your edifice a free pass on your tyranny over the term without a persistent protest against such outrageousness.
Thanks ENORMOUSLY for your GREAT HELP TOWARD THAT.
YOU, HAVE THE SAME.
HAPPY WORK.
Three previews went well. Beatty described one in Toronto as the best he'd ever had, and he and the studio considered striking more prints. Those discussions ended after the opening weekend, May 22, 1987. Ishtar, on more than a thousand screens across the country, took in $4.2 million ($7.87 million in contemporary dollars) in receipts, winning the weekend and #1 at the box office. But it beat The Gate, a low-budget horror film with no stars, by only $100,000.[2] Ultimately it grossed only $14.3 million in North American box office receipts against its $55 million budget .
Negative buzz about Ishtar and its outrageous budget was widespread in the press long before the film ever reached theaters, despite three successful previews. In an interview with Elaine May, Mike Nichols describes the bomb as "the prime example that I know of in Hollywood of studio suicide",implying that Puttnam sandbagged the project by leaking negative anecdotes to the media because of his grudges against Beatty and Hoffman.[8] Chicago Reader critic Jonathan Rosenbaum surmised that the media was eager to torpedo Ishtar in retaliation for instances of Beatty's perceived "high-handed way with members of the press".[9] The film had been completely closed to the media, with no reporters at all permitted on set during production, a restriction greater than Beatty's previous productions.[3]
The film was nominated for Worst Picture and Worst Screenplay in the 1987 Golden Raspberry Awards, winning one for Worst Director. The movie received overwhelmingly negative reviews, and holds a 19% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Ishtar has since become synonymous with "box office flop".
Should we call such hopes
INQUISITION WISH FULFILLMENT?
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.