Thanks for the ping.
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."
I did. That was in the Archdiocese of St.Paul/Mpls when Archbishop Roach was in charge. But I found out later that it only affected me, not the rest of my family.
Hey Hoss,
Careful or you’ll get a “funny” cat caption. 8?P
So do I. I had an Aunt that was a Benedictine Nun and she constantly sent us requests for money to support their order. Then the Franciscan monastery near where I used to live sends a once a year request for money, besides their newsletter every now and then. Yes, that was a few decades since I was a Catholic.
Thanks for the ping.
Thank you for the suggestion.
meow.
Matthew 16: 24 19 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, 20 take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 21 26 What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? Or what can one give in exchange for his life? 27 22 For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father's glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct.
This is one of the core messages of the Gospel.
Excellent! BTW, what version of the Bible are you using? Just curious :-)
The NAB, from the USCCB website (I find the navigation better than the identical text at the Vatican.va website). For those who I regularly post to, I normally refer to the source every once in a while. Of course, those who I don't regularly post to would not know the source.
I suppose I ought to be using the Douay-Rheims, but the online availability and the good navigation of the NAB are very tempting.
I have been attempting to follow your posts and your experiences falling away from the Church, so thank you for that.
Check out e-sword.com
They have Douay-Rheims available for a free download, with Wescott-Hort and KJV both with Strong’s Concordance referenced per word in superscript.
Also drbo.org.
Very good. I had forgotten about them. I had a D-R from them downloaded onto my Palm Pilot that I carried for many years until Palm retired from making the best palmtops in the world. Thanks.
And thank you as well.
Conscience,
Waste of tin-foil. Meh.
Funny pic though. :D
Hoss
Yes, and better than the Douay-Rheims, IMHO. In that version Mt. 16:25-26 creates confusion, translating the Greek term psuche as life in verse 25 and then as soul in verse 26. But I understand that the new version is going to correct that mistake. I keep track of little things like that :-)
I have been attempting to follow your posts and your experiences falling away from the Church, so thank you for that.
There is much more to it than what I posted, a lot more. I was tutored by Father Stark of St. Michaels church for two years to enter the priesthood, even to visiting the seminary for a week to see how it runs. Interesting, but not for me. Father Stark was a terrific man, and we had many excellent conversations about what the Bible says versus what the church told us to believe. I will miss him. He was very open and honest with me as to the beliefs we were supposed to hold - and said that I should just let the holy Spirit lead me in that. I did, and within a few years was investigating all the various denomination in Christianity and non-Christian religions. It was quite a deep investigation - long, 7 years! I continued my studies and became convinced that there were too many rules and regulation in the Catholic church that were not really part of Christianity. I found that the truth really sets one free to live a life following what is revealed in the Scriptures - it's, to me, a way of life, not a religion.
I know that's hard to understand, but truth is truth, no matter where one finds it. One just has to look without colored glasses, i.e., without a bias.
Thank you for your interest. God bless you and I hope you continue to examine what you believe and why.
PRAISE GOD FOR YOUR TENACITY.
PRAISE GOD FOR HIS FAITHFULNESS TO YOU IN THAT PROCESS.
PRAISE GOD FOR YOUR INTEGRITY TO FACE AND FOLLOW GOD’S TRUTH.
That was offered as a rebuttal to your:
And yet, they CANNOT be separate because we believe that God is ONE. We also believe that Jesus was God. And we believe that they were separate "somethings":) --> you cannot put those 3 beliefs together without the idea of the Trinity.
My belief per se, is incidental. What I am pointing to is the bare fact that other solutions to the Godhead can just as easily exist, and qualify, by the evidence.
[...] so I asked you do you believe in 3 Gods?
To clarify, I have already declared that I do fit within the Trinitarian model - albeit loosely so.
I believe there is ONE God, Yahweh, Jehovah, who IS the great I AM. I believe that His Son, Yeshua, Jesus, is the promised Messiah, the Lion of Judah, King over ALL things, and is part and parcel, Jehovah Himself. I believe that The Holy Spirit, Ruach HaKodesh, fills the Temple of the Lord, and is, part and parcel, Jehovah Himself. These things can be proved upon the Word.
By which method that is made true is not made known - as the Scriptures are silent. But the knowledge of that method is neither needful, nor necessary, as the Father has blessed us, and ordained an order by which He is to be approached by anyone. Ergo, if one uses the means God has provided, the point is made moot.
And to assign a definition to Yahweh which is not as He has revealed is blasphemous. The Trinitarian "Hypostatic Union" is not declared by the Father, and I will not blindly endorse it.
To wit: What the Bible DOES say is that Yahweh is ONE. That is as far as I am willing to go.
But Arianism does the very same thing that Trinitarian-ism does - It is provable in the Scriptures in an affirmative defense, but one must overlook the errata which stand against it, in order to claim it as true. That does not make it "TRUE."
Put it in this fashion: Everything must begin in the "We Don't Know" column. In order to move a question into an answer column, the question should invariably be a boolean equation. No "maybes". No "Ifs" or "Nested Ifs" can be applied unless they also result in a boolean answer. "Yes" or "No", "True" or "False". Otherwise, the answer cannot be made, and the question must return to the "We Don't Know" column.
In such a case, an affirmative defense cannot be used - ALL data of ALL types must be taken into account.
Eternal Truth will be sustained in such a case, and "that which is not yet revealed" cannot be assumed in an artificial construct.
Good points from an “on-the-ground” perspective. Thank you!
Exactly..your view is that God the Father and the Son (Jesus Christ) are one and the same person, nature etc. and that it is just us mortals who perceive them as separate. What scripture do you see that states that the Holy Spirit is not a separate entity? After all, Jesus does say that after Him, the Spirit will come and teach.
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.