are y'all
trying to
FOOL?
GOD?
Talk about
HUBRIS TO THE MAX
AND
ARROGANCE TO THE MAX!
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."
No.
"Christian" means follower of Christ alone.
And I offered no "disgusting prottie twists."
I offered Roman Catholic caucus threads.
But if you tell me Roman Catholic caucus threads "distort" and "twist" the truth in "disgusting" ways, I'll take your word for it.
You're trustworthy, aren't you, Judith Anne?
How about "Catholic"?
There it is again. Another demonstration of prottie error and falsehood.
I have no idea what ROMAN Catholics do. I am a Catholic.
There are no ROMAN Catholic threads on the forum.
Apparently the joke went over your head. And all you can do is respond with sarcasm.
I will NOT
kowtow to your
ABSOLUTE !!!!!DEMAND!!!!!
THAT I USE THAT HERETICAL TERM. I will not violate my conscience on that matter. Shame on y’all for insisting that I do.
Which word do you not understand? Should I start with the alphabet?
How is a simple request to call Catholics “Catholic” a heretical demand?
So, it seems, do the RC's hereabouts, as we have heard over and again that the Trinity cannot be found in the Bible as a comparative defense against sola scriptura. One cannot have it both ways.
What you state is not an exclusively "Roman Catholic" sense of the Trinity, but is a viewpoint shared by Baptists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Reformed, Zwinglists, Methodists, Orthodox, Orientals, Assyrians. This is the majority Christian concept.
Yet my Messianic Jewish friends KNOW who Yahweh is. They KNOW my Lord Yeshua. and they KNOW Ruach HaKodesh. They KNOW both Covenants, and understand them (probably better than any other). And they preach the Gospel of the Risen Christ. They hold *no* writings to be more important, or anywhere near equal to the Holy Oracles of Almighty God.
Yet some would build a rift and a wall against them because of a technicality that cannot be proven? They are not "Christian" because they are not "Trinitarian" according to the TRADITION of men?
Please. What hubris. What unmitigated gall. It is not ours to sanction. That is the Spirit's job.
I sense in UriÂ’el that he follows The Way. Rather than denigrating him for that, one should learn instead.
Isaiah defines the two witnesses of the Lord - Judah, who is deaf, and Ephraim who cannot see.
Before the end, Christ WILL hold Ephraim and Judah in His hand, as ONE STICK. I will readily predict that stick will not look like Judaism, nor like present day Christianity, regardless of the confession.
I'm sure, if you belong to any of the above groups, you have this same "sense of the trinity".
I am Calvinist by raising, somewhat affiliated therein to this day, - But I belong to Christ, not Calvin. I can be defined as Trinitarian, albeit loosely... But in practice, my own mind cannot wrap around the idea comfortably.
I approach the Father on His terms. He defined the Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit, and I approach Him according to those definitions, and in the ways He has prescribed. "Trinity" doesn't matter at that level.
There will likely be a problem if it is impossible to discuss the issues without getting personal. Even open threads have limits.
You referred to three things in my posts as being "disgusting prottie twisting" -- that Roman Catholics pray to saints; that Roman Catholics consider their priests to be "another Christ;" and that Roman Catholics view Mary as a co-redeemer.
You said "no Roman Catholic believes that garbage."
And I proved to you that Annalex and two Roman Catholic caucus threads asserted exactly those beliefs.
You dug the hole, Judith. Quit tossing the dirt at the rest of us.
Amen.
You made an inaccurate definition of Christian, as having specifically Catholic beliefs. That is definitely false. I characterized the following invective as “disgusting prottie twisting.” It is.
Catholics have beliefs that not all Christians share. Doesn’t bother us, but accuracy is important. Try not to make this personal.
As y'all brazenly use it hereon,
I refer you to post 955
Whoopsie! NGR!
And I proved to you that Annalex and two Roman Catholic caucus threads asserted exactly those beliefs.
You dug the hole, Judith. Quit tossing the dirt at the rest of us.
##########
INDEED.
Heading to bed shortly.
Besides, it appears that the wine or the hour may be clouding perceptions and cognitions such that even any hint of authentic dialogue is totally impossible.
What a piece of work.
1) Do you doubt Annalex encouraged Roman Catholics to pray to saints?
2) Do you doubt there was a Roman Catholic caucus thread wherein Father Kenneth Baker said priests are "another Christ" per your catechism?
3) Do you doubt there was a Roman Catholic caucus thread wherein Mary was referenced as "co-redemptrix?"
Where's the error?
They may be Catholic beliefs, but they are not the beliefs of all Christians. And Catholics are Christian.
Once again, I refer you to post 955.
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.