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."
DESCRIBES THEM PERFECTLY.
How come only you guys know about this stuff???
Catholic does not describe those heretics at all.
AMEN! I've been preaching that for over 40 years.
You are right, but for the wrong reasons. The Canon was set in Carthage by an Ecumenical Council.
Is that fish on the endangered species list? ;-0
The Church of Iscool (population one) does not claim any connection with the Apostles that I know of. The Holy LaZBoy front and center of the Holy Sports Screen was unknown in those days.
There is a Christianity and a church described in the scriptures alone and it clearly ain't yours.
You may wish to renew your lens prescription. It most clearly is for those of us with eyes to see and ears to hear.
It was moderators who banned them, please remember that.
We're the only ones who object to this stuff. I don't see the non Catholic Christians as a rule objecting to Friday or Saturday worship by allegedly Christian groups. If you as a non Catholic Christian know about this and don't object, does that make you complicit?
The bible also teaches that the church is led first by the Apostles and then others of lower rank.
1 Cor 12:28
And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles .
Also there is not "one rock, Peter" upon which the church is founded, there is the cornerstone which is Christ and there's actually 24 pillars as we see both from Revelation 4:10, and Ephesians 2 :
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
The Apostle John lived 30 years or so after Peter, and he would have been the true Apostolic successor, not the lower ranked bishops of Rome. Why would he, and when did he, abdicate his position in the church?
And of course, the history and the character of the Catholic Popes themselves is mind-boggling,and many were not fit to hold such a high office, of the one true church let alone the little problem they had with two or three popes claiming the office at the same time.
THX PRECIOUS BRO.
A dear student in my first class somehow found out and brought cupcakes for everyone. Of course, I had to tear up over it.
God is Kind.
Thanks for your kind words and thoughtfulness.
Yes, the fish the Apostles caught are so busy attacking each other's schools that the religion of the sword will have no difficulty in filleting them.
Stupid brother-against-brother, who's eye is mote-ier fighting will destroy our great Republic.
We have a real enemy. And I have to wonder if they are really 5th columnists posting threads like this to sow strife.
I have thought about this long and hard AND prayerfully. This is my conclusion:
The correct answer to “Who is really anti-Catholic?” is
Yo’ mama.
I know if you think about it you will see that I am right.
The cat lady is back
I’ve seen no one misrepresent Catholic beliefs...
We repeat what we read in your catechism, what we read that your popes say, what your bishops and priests say, what the official vatican newspaper says and what Catholic authors say and what you guys say...
If we get it wrong it’s because you guys are wrong and all over the map...You don’t even know your own religion...And that doesn’t even come close to being a bigot...
Don’t criticize us for repeating you...Criticize your own for putting out false information...
But then you guys can’t defend your religion anyway...When confronted with the many inconsistencies in your theology, you can’t offer documentation to refute any of it...The best you can do is point to a link to your catechism and and tell us to search for the answer...
###########
INDEED TO THE MAX.
However, I don’t think their perceptions nor the level of their insight is sufficiently robust to even detect themselves remotely accurately on such scores.
I heard an ad on the radio the other day for an exterminator. He bragged how he could rid any home of silverfish, even if there were thousands of silverfish.
Glad I don’t have that problem.
LOL.
It depended on whether it was in the abstract or face to face.
She was quite gracious face to face.
In the abstract she was more than a little bad at generalizing and being at least wary if not hostile.
Thankfully, when I went to univ and even before . . . I had some close friends and favorite teachers who were Roman Catholics. And overseas, certainly so—living just a door down the hall from the precious Mary Knoll Sister. She would share Communion with us as a commemoration.
And, given my mother’s general craziness, there were a lot of her stuff I kind of flushed out of hand as it just didn’t make much sense generally . . . out of the starting blocks.
She was very sharp and perceptive about people as individuals. But she also jumped to conclusions as her major form of exercise.
One had to sort her stuff out carefully to get any useful meat vs the destructive stuff.
You are right, but for the wrong reasons. The Canon was set in Carthage by an Ecumenical Council.
Thanks for telling us we're correct. "Wrong reasons"? Are you saying that you read our minds? That you know our reasons? Shame on you! That's against the rules of FR!
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.