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."
INDEED.
Thanks.
But I would criticize UriÂ’el-2012 as well, if he believes his concept of God to be precisely correct, exclusive, and superior.
I would deny ANYONE who says their particular belief is wholly provable upon the Word, because it simply is *not.* We cannot begin to fathom God, nor is the Godhead particularly defined - So *NO ONE* can claim to know, to the exclusion of all others.
It_Is_A_Mystery. Yet to be revealed.
###########
Fitting perspective, I think.
LUB
Used in the same way? Same definition?
You know . . . it’s just symbolic . . .
like Aaron and the golden calf at Mt Sinai . . . just symbolic . . .
/sar
Most of us work pretty hard to keep our points in the generalized abstractions of the discourse. Usually we mean “you” in the generic group sense. Some of us try and avoid “you” almost completely.
2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
That’s preach the word of God, not a catechism or a tradition...
Dr. E is right on the mark...
###############
INDEED.
ECUSA would have done well to emulate ML in the study of doctrine. So should others who use Luther's name as they claim Christs'.
Those twisted statements do not accurately reflect Catholic beliefs.
Those twisted statements come from your brother/sister Catholics...They just get repeated here by some Protestants...
Why don’t you take it up with your religion???
#####################
Because in order to do that . . . some folks would likely have to untangle their thinking first. That could be a very long task.
And yet, still uncomprehensible in Its workings and physical/ethereal construction.
Great Belly Laugh on that one Petronski.
Congrats.
I earned the right to make fun of that mistake, having been suitably mocked for making it myself more than once.
It has it’s humorous side.
However, at the site at the Vatican, it grieved my spirit.
Angels—ANGELS in The Bible—every time Believers fell prostrate before them REQUIRED THEM NOT TO.
Folks should learn and take a hint from that.
They rebel and do not learn from that.
They cling to themselves a form of RELIGION DENYING THE POWER THEREOF AS SCRPTURE DECLARES.
“Hereon, it increasingly seems like there’s more than a billion significantly different definitions as to what being . . . Roman Catholic et al means.
On the list of folks that received that, Quix, I doubt there are any who belong to churches that would not believe . . .
That when one becomes a genuine Christian by faith in Christ and regeneration of the Holy Ghost, that the Holy Ghost indwells the believer, and the believer thereby is convinced that Buddhism, spiritism, eastern superstitions, and so forth militate against the truth of the Gospel and the glory due to Jesus Christ alone.
But the one communion of the Vatican faith appears not to inisist on anything of the kind, and allows at the “Eucharist” those that also burn incense to Buddha, hold to Fengshui superstitions, and all kinds of mess like that.
Where is the Holy Spirit in these people who have it climed for them that they have one communion under a kingly looking fellow and therefore NO DIVISION (??????? Huuuhhh?); the Holy Spirit that would let them know that Christ’s glory cannot be shared with false gods???
My point was that the Spirit was not unknowable to the readers of Genesis.
Siamese twins? Joined at the ??? . . . good question . . .
I think it’s just a RELIGIOUS Siamese twinnery, however. The features in common are quite startlingly striking and many, however.
The guideline is based on the principle that two wrongs do make a right.
WELL AND ACCURATELY PUT, imho.
Thanks tons.
Sounds reasonable, to me.
Well put, imho. Thx.
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.