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."
In our Presbyterian church (and most every other church you mentioned) only active members are included. The people in the pews on Sunday are who are being counted as members.
In fact, when you move you transfer your membership from the previous Presbyterian church to the new one. There's no place for padding the numbers.
It's not about numbers. 8~)
I certainly don’t KNOW.
I have heard about RC churches doing it and I’ve heard about some Baptist churches round these parts doing it.
Quite incorrect — US gov census will ask people what they believe in and that is then marked. This is not Scandanavian style.
Thank you so much for sharing your testimony, dear sister in Christ!
Amen, Mary!
Mark asks for evidence of your statement, and from what most of us know of you, the good fruit of your life and the confidence you have in His word are all the evidence anyone needs to realize you are a child of the eternal Triune God who has loved you and graced you with faith from before the foundation of the world...just because it pleased Him to do so.
Thank you for your first-hand knowledge of this fact, Ken. (Pinging a few others who might be interested in this information.)
Meant to ping you, too.
I'm guessing you figure a 'soul' is the result of flesh plus spirit...A breathing person is a soul...
I've read some of yours and your author's stuff on your website...
The views are not new...Been around for who knows how long...
But the thing I noticed is that you have to change some words in the English text and mess with the placement of the punctuation to get to where you're at...
AND of course, you use the African manuscripts to prove your points where I stick with the Majority texts...
I'm certainly not a scholar...But I try to keep up with some of those, as much as time allows, who have spent their lives studying the scriptures...
As we know, the Apostle Paul said he'd rather be absent from the body and present with the Lord...So we know that the soul is not the body...
Therefore the soul can not be the culmination of the body/spirit...In Paul's case, the body is missing...
We know that the spirit is wind, or like wind...It is the breath that we breathe...Greek word is pneuma...Pneumatics...Air...
And the Spirit of God goes where we don't know because we can't see it...But yet someone sees the souls of those beheaded under the altar in Revelation...
I'll stick with the souls in heaven scenario...
You're welcome, and I thank you for the suggestion to post it. I wonder if any Catholics would attempt to make hay out of it? I could then bring up many more things to show that the 24% figure is way to high.
I had the chance to work for the Census in 2000 as a follow up census worker. One gets all kinds of answers pertaining to church attendance, and during the interview one can see plainly that the questions are so broad-based that one can make anything out of them. The Census Bureau conducts a census every year on some topics, and the religious attendance question doesn't appear on the 10 year census ordered by the Constitution of the USA. I find that many people check "Catholic" when in reality they are attending a different church. When asked, they admit that they don't really practice the Catholic faith, and the same goes to those who check other denominations - they don't really practice that religion. Thusly, our whole system is out of whack. The result: figures are questionable on who belongs to what organized religion. BTW, people lie quite often on this topic - many times to stop others from thinking them as unbelievers.
Uri seems to (please correct me if I'm wrong) not agree with statement 3.
"Yet 3 in some way" can be a lot of things different from the common, clinical Trinitarian view.
Lev 26:12 'I will also walk among you and be your God, and you shall be My people. Deu 6:4 "Hear, O Israel! YHvH is our God, YHvH is one! Mar 12:29 Jesus answered, .... 'HEAR, O ISRAEL! YHvH OUR GOD IS ONE YHvH; John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt{tabernacle} among us, John 10:30 "I and the Father are one." John 14:7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; John 14:9 Jesus said to him,... He who has seen Me has seen the Father; I look to Scriptures that are not in dispute.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Lev 26:11 'Moreover, I will make My dwelling{tabernacle} among you, and My soul will not reject you.
Shabbat Shalom !
from now on you know Him, and have seen Him."
how {can} you say, 'Show us the Father'?
Thank you so very much for your kind words of support, dear brother in Christ!
YOU ARE MOST WELCOME.
Thanks for your kind reply.
I decided to go old skul last night and watched Papillion. In the scene where Pappy is at the convent trying to secure his freedom the head Nun, after stealing his pearls and turning him over to the police, gave the gospel of Rome.
Paraphrase: “If you have sinned you have made amends by feeding half the village... If you have not sinned you have nothing to worry about God will be with you.”
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.