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."
Clearly it does.
Scripture and Holy Tradition do not contradict each other (since the latter birthed the former).
But it is OK for your doctrine to contradict or speak where Scripture is silent, IC for instance.
Protestants are continually being called “bigots” on the forum for simply disagreeing with the papacy.
We’ve been called terrible names, some too vile to even repeat. We've been subjected to unimaginable visual assaults in the form of cat pictures. And when we respond by saying “disagreement is not bigotry,” we are shouted down with even nastier invectives.
There’s nothing offensive in this article. It simply points out the double-standard Rome exhibits and the kid gloves Roman Catholic apologists demand everyone wear when discussing theology with them.
I was asked why we discuss Roman Catholicism. Here’s the answer...again...
1) We discuss a variety of faiths; Roman Catholicism is one of them.
2) Contrary to what some Roman Catholic apologists would like the world to believe, the papacy is very political. And this being a political forum, it is only natural conservatives would stand up and rebuke the pope's recent encyclical where he urges the formation of a "global authority" with the power of enforcement "with teeth." I bought the bound copy of the pope's encyclical and read it. It is pure socialism bordering on communism. It seeks to put the sovereignty of the United States under the control of some "global authority" with the power and purpose to regulate this country's military defense, taxation and finances, health care, social institutions, food distribution, environmental concerns and immigration policies.
If Harry Reid had written that encyclical, conservatives would be tarring and feathering the old bird. And rightly so.
3) We consider ourselves to be Christian. When Roman Catholics tell us that "Christian" means to pray to saints and to view the priest as "another Christ" and to label Mary as a "co-redeemer," we, as Christians, feel obligated by the Gospel to say "No, that is not how we have so learned Christ."
As Bible-believing Christians, we believe we have not only the joy of preaching the Gospel, but the obligation to do so with as much truth and clarity as we can muster. That does not mean we are to be intentionally offensive. But as has been shown on the forum for years, any disagreement with Rome is seen as "offensive" to some Roman Catholics.
Who to follow? God or men?
A good example of this occurred today when Alamo-Girl asked a few Roman Catholics if they considered her "anti-Catholic." And one Roman Catholic poster responded that yes, she could be viewed in some small way, as "anti-Catholic" because she said she doesn't follow the traditions of men. And the Roman Catholic took offense at this remark, believing that she was labeling his faith as "the traditions of men."
But taking a step back and really looking at A-G's response, who would disagree with A-G that it is wrong to follow the doctrines of men? She went out of her way to give an inoffensive response which simply stated her belief and yet she was still accused of being "anti-Catholic."
Doesn't it ever occur to Roman Catholics that this is the very reason why the Reformation came about? Because men disagreed with Rome's interpretation of the Scriptures and rather than work things out, Rome excommunicated/executed those who raised their voice in protest.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith." -- Romans 1:15-17"So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the Gospel to you that are at Rome also.
And UriÂ’el would be correct. In fact, UriÂ’el is quite correct.
If the Father required a Roman Catholic sense of the Trinity, it would be very specifically laid out in the Scriptures. It is *not*. The exact makeup of the Godhead is an unfathomable mystery.
UriÂ’el has taken nothing away from the Scriptures, nor has he added to it. He speaks the Gospel of the Risen Lord.
So? Post it. But better hurry, Festivus Quiximus is almost over
And yet there is the Father/Son/Holy Spirit all in Scripture. Divine names, divine attributes, carrying out divine works, accorded glory, honor and worship which are worthy of God alone.
INDEED TO THE MAX.
WELL PUT.
ENTIRELY ACCURATE.
Exceedingly more gentle than deserved, imho.
It usually appears to me
that the mods are pinged by the rabid cliques of the Papists because they are used to
whining, wailing, pulling on the apron strings of ‘higher authority’ in efforts to get other folks in as much trouble as possible.
We could be slightly charitable about that, I suppose, . . . considering how their arguments don’t hold water; their demeanor is horrid; their logic is nonexistent; their Biblies & histories rubberized and shredded . . . what else do they really have but whining to authority figures?
I agree with you.
It’s always been mystifying to me how my Pentecostal HOliness uncle and aunt so glibly gloss over or rationalize away all those Scriptures. Mind boggling.
You are such a loveable Brother.
A real treasure.
As far as I’m concerned, they could have a running thread going forever on that topic. Trouble is, no one would be that interested! LOL.
Like some of Biden et al’s rallys . . . few folks bothered to come.
I think Prottys tend to be too straight-forward and boring for much heated debate very often. We can discuss things even fiercely and hear one another and disagree fiercely or not and go on down the street.
We don’t have to maximize our bile; maximize our haughtiness; maximize our arrogance, maximize our prissy-ness, maximize our pique to feel heard and worthwhile persons and Believers. We don’t have to threaten and batter everyone else into our mold.
Besides, most theological arguments are about things that are not so precisely or redundantly clear in Scripture. Reasonable people can differ even emotionally without being construed as insane.
Absolutely true. But there are also insurmountable dichotomies which can be listed, which show them to be separate. There are also passages which indicate hierarchy within the Godhead... And the Trinitarian model does not sufficiently explain these discrepancies.
Am I to castigate my brother for seeing that mystery differently than I? Perhaps, but only for trying to exclusively define what remains undefined, especially if it is insisted upon as some hallmark of Christianity.
For that reason, I will not criticize a Messianic Jew, nor a Lutheran, nor any that is in between except for the confusion - Clarity on this matter is not to be found, and it awaits revelation in it's time.
I think there will be a lot of red faces among those standing before the King one day - for presuming to know the unknowable.
Who can define God? No one can. And no one should try.
Thanks for your kind reply.
Sometimes your wisdom and oil on waters demeanor is a priceless salve around these parts.
Besides, most theological arguments are about things that are not so precisely or redundantly clear in Scripture. Reasonable people can differ even emotionally without being construed as insane.
And the reason why Protestants can do that is because most Protestants understand that 100% perfection is not possible in this life. So we're all doing the best we can.
No church has everything correct. Likewise, there is no such thing as a man who is "infallible" in ANYTHING. All men are fallen and all sin daily.
The only "infallibility" in this life is the word of God made alive in our hearts and minds by the Holy Spirit.
LOL.
I much agree.
Where Scripture is unclear or silent is a poor place to get one’s knickers in a twist.
INDEED, INDEED!:
#########################################
And the reason why Protestants can do that is because most Protestants understand that 100% perfection is not possible in this life. So we’re all doing the best we can.
No church has everything correct. Likewise, there is no such thing as a man who is “infallible” in ANYTHING. All men are fallen and all sin daily.
The only “infallibility” in this life is the word of God made alive in our hearts and minds by the Holy Spirit.
########################################
Which, personally, I think was God’s design. IT PUTS THOUGHTFUL BELIVERS BACK CONSTANTLY ON GOD TO GET THEIR KNOWLEDGE, WISDOM, UNDERSTANDING AND MARCHING ORDERS 24/7
Given that Christ died for FELLOWSHIP AND INTIMACY WITH THE FATHER FOR THE REST OF US . . . That MUST be a key high priority to DADDY.
Which is another reason why I’m utterly convinced that the Papoist foisting of Mary between God and man is sooooo
ABSOLUTELY OFFENSIVE to The Father, Son, Spirit and Mary.
###
Given that Christ died for FELLOWSHIP AND INTIMACY WITH THE FATHER FOR THE REST OF US . . . That MUST be a key high priority to DADDY.
This has to be a joke. Honestly, what is the limit to whining.
Protestants are continually being called “bigots” on the forum for simply disagreeing with the papacy.
Nobody cares if protties disagree. When untruths are told, there is definitely an objection. When protties tell us what we believe, there is definitely an objection. And when protties call names, there is definitely an objection.
And this being a political forum, it is only natural conservatives would stand up and rebuke the pope's recent encyclical where he urges the formation of a "global authority" with the power of enforcement "with teeth." I bought the bound copy of the pope's encyclical and read it. It is pure socialism bordering on communism. It seeks to put the sovereignty of the United States under the control of some "global authority" with the power and purpose to regulate this country's military defense, taxation and finances, health care, social institutions, food distribution, environmental concerns and immigration policies.
A perfect example of the UNTRUTHS posted by anti-Catholic bigots on FR. This has been refuted more than once, elsewhere.
3) We consider ourselves to be Christian. When Roman Catholics tell us that "Christian" means to pray to saints and to view the priest as "another Christ" and to label Mary as a "co-redeemer," we, as Christians, feel obligated by the Gospel to say "No, that is not how we have so learned Christ."
Point to any Catholic who has told you any of that garbage. Impossible, because it has not been done. This is another example of the falsehoods of the anti-Catholic bigots.
We’ve been called terrible names, some too vile to even repeat.
Any names as bad as "Vatican agents"? As bad as "socialists"? As bad as "Marble Mary toe-kissers"? As bad as "rabid RCCs"?
Apparently protties get all lathered up when they are called on their untruths. I've never seen so many big blue sermons or lengthy complaints as when the TRUTH about prottie behavior on the RF is finally told.
The simple truth is that there is a small, vicious core of anti-Catholic bigots on FR. If the shoe fits, wear it.
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.