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."
The “joke” is on those doing it
and who think that thereby
they are earning heavenly chits . . . perhaps to get out of purgatory quicker?
INDEED.
THX.
God is perfect. Even more than that. Human language and thought fails miserably, infinitely to explain Him. Everything we can compare God to is more not like God than He really is.
My belief is that God may be living in a universe where He knows all and gets exactly what He ordained.
But I see from existence and Divine Revelation that He demands that we choose properly.
But I don't believe He intends us to behave as if our choices are illusory and our salvation is not dependent upon anything we do.
Free Will/Determination is a mystery beyond human understanding. Coming down on one side or the other is an error.
I have no idea if that would be hard on me, since it has never happened.
Marble Mary toe-kissers. Vatican agents. Rabid RCC’s.
Does that name-calling indicate a “fierce” follower of Christ, or an anti-Catholic bigot?
Don't tell me, tell the Raving Calvinist Cult.
It was founded at Nicea by Pagans.
Whatever you say.
I appreciate the kind words. It is hard to recognize when your “opponent” makes a good point. But it’s necessary for true growth.
Y’all in your hostile bigotted diatribes fostered my ordering it.
Y’all were accusing Prottys of misquoting and from a bad site.
I decided to get to the bottom of it and ordered the book myself.
It was a shocking eye-opener.
You have only yourselves to thank for my ordering it—as it true about most of my postings about such hereon.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
lol
Make your own judgments on that score, if you dare.
God has blessed me with the ability to use a wide variety of tools . . . textual and otherwise . . .
to highlight outrageous crud.
Fresh ways of saying things in a fiercely forceful way seems to be required most often with those who are willfully blind and willfully deaf . . . and those in danger of becoming so.
I expect to continue to do so.
Still not an answer. Do I need to repeat the questions, or are you trying to change the subject?
Let me get this straight. You believe in UFOs but also believe that Mary doesn’t get to be described as the Spouse of the Holy Spirit?
Even though they had a baby together.
Do you think Jesus is a bastard?
Oh, that's kind of like what Adam said in the Garden, "The woman gave me of it, and I did eat."
I don't think blaming YOUR sins on somebody else is going to count toward very much with the AUTHOR OF SALVATION.
Marble Mary toe kissers. Vatican agents. Rabid RCCs.
When you look in the mirror, what do you see? If you don't see a hypocrite, it's not a mirror.
For those born under Adam denying Christ and God is the default position. There was a time when the Romanist Church actually believed in Original Sin but they threw Augustine under the bus.
Do you believe in Free Will? Cause that's how the apostate, or even just the sinner, tosses out the Holy Spirit. Freely.
Why would someone who truly has the Holy Spirit and all the benefits of Christ want to through him out? It doesn't make sense. People are driven by desires and motivations and when the Holy Spirit regenerates a dead heart their greatest desire is God. People always choose want they desire most.
I hope they don't confiscate my Catholic union card, but I'd like a Scriptural citation. ;-)
Good one. :)
Whom he did predestinate, them he called, and whom he called, them he also justified: and them he justified he also glorifies.
For the same reason credobaptists take their babies to church and read to them from picture Bibles. Because they're born with a sin nature in a corrupted world and we choose not to withhold any means by which God establishes His relationship with people. In short, our practice derives its template from a 1 Cor 10:1-4 paradigm. Like Paul, we assume that the practice of "all" didn't change. We also assert with Paul that entrance into the life of the church does not necessitate continued faithfulness.
Great description!
Well I have asked you questions you have not answered. However, I have answered your question. I am a Christian. My pastor baptized me after I repented of my sins. You tell me, how would one even believe in Christ except he heard the gospel that came down to him or her through the Great Commission?
What if it wasn't GOD? And since when is name-calling a "tool"?
Scripture on that please...
I didn't say any Catholic Christian. Baptism is valid when done with the Trinitarian formula, doesn't matter what denomination the person is doing it.
Scripture on that please..if the ONLY one that can preform apostolic acts is someone from the apostolic line (succession) what makes baptism valid ? Why is that an exception to the rest of the churches stand on the validity of sacraments? Where is the scripture that divides some sacraments do not need a priest of the apostolic line and some do not..
How can someone not baptized by a Catholic priest.. that might have an invalid baptism baptize anyone else? What is that water washing away...
Is your position that any adult, baptized by any other Christian can impart the Holy Spirit?
You seem to be confusing apostolic succession (passing on of authority) and baptism (the receipt of the Holy Spirit).
See the above.. If one does not need someone with apostolic authority to IMPART the Holy Spirit, why would you think you need it for anything
They are not the same thing. (Otherwise every Baptised person would be a bishop.)
Or a priest huh??.
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.