but if there are any black religious bigots here, join us in the azalea patch, wear Pink
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 am very well, thank you, how about you?
It's about hatred of the Catholic Church, not Romanism.
And that's a bad thing???
I don't know that I ever said I hate the Catholic church and I know I've never said I hate Catholic people, because I don't...There are lots of Christians who are former Catholics...
A few of you are trying to get the maximum mileage out of this 'bigotry' phrase...Bigotry if usually connected to racism and you're trying to attach the word to the millions of us who biblically see your religion as the door to outer darkness...
Calling people bigots looks like a last ditch attempt to defend your views when all else has failed...
The scriptures warn us of the religion you follow and yes, in the book of Revelation as well...I couldn't be happier if you all turned from that false religion and it's idols and came to Jesus alone...If that makes me a bigot (which it doesn't), I'll wear the badge, but proudly...
In the mean time, y'all are starting to sound like a bunch of little Jesse Jacksons and his crew...
“I wonder if the anti-Catholic bigots’ purpose is to make the open threads so unpleasant for Catholics that we no longer participate. That way, they could have a nearly perfect Amen chorus, congratulating one another on how Christian they are.
I’m really angry about this. Completely sick of it. It’s not a game, and these aren’t jokes.
This is a very small segment of FR, slinging mud at a very large segment of FR, and furthermore doing it in the name of God.
Are there people who think FREE REPUBLIC is an anti-Catholic hate site? If they run across a thread like this, why wouldn’t they? I can’t see any reason they would be attracted to FR, can you? Putting up with this junk is something NO Christian should have to do, yet DAILY, even during our holy season of LENT, our Church is attacked.
This is not reasonable. Not humorous. Not interesting. Not conservative. Not enjoyable.
In the name of Jesus Christ, Risen Son of the Living God, I rebuke the anti-Catholic bigots of Free Republic. Shame on you all, in Christ’s Most Holy Name.”
Well stated, and perfectly true.
It is a disgrace to FR that they allow this to go on.
However, they always have, and they have always taken the side of the protestants.
but if there are any black religious bigots here, join us in the azalea patch, wear Pink
I am. There are some things about the religion I am "anti". Am I supposed to be ashamed of that? :-)
“I don’t know that I ever said I hate the Catholic church”
You don’t have to. Your actions make it abundantly clear.
“There are lots of Christians who are former Catholics...”
Not nearly as many as there are former protestants who have come home to the Church.
“A few of you are trying to get the maximum mileage out of this ‘bigotry’ phrase...Bigotry if usually connected to racism”
You know, history predates the week before last.
Religious bigotry has a long, foul history. The KKK was more active against Catholics than blacks in many times and places. Catholics were discriminated against in hiring and admission to educational institutions during my lifetime. And, of course, those of the Jewish persuasion have endured a great deal of exactly the sort of religious bigotry in which you deal.
“and you’re trying to attach the word to the millions of us who biblically see your religion as the door to outer darkness...”
No, it is not your theological errors that we object to. It is your constant drumroll of bigoted rhetoric.
How many articles have been posted here lambasting protestantism as “the door to outer darkness” and much, much worse? Don’t bother to look. You know there haven’t been any. We Catholics simply don’t make that sort of attack on other Christians.
FR is one place where a person should be free from that sort of harassment. Does FR believe in freedom of religion, or does it not?
“Calling people bigots looks like a last ditch attempt to defend your views when all else has failed...”
Failed to do what? Silence you? Certainly, every one of your silly attacks has been rebutted right down to the ground time and again.
I’d say rather that it is a last-ditch appeal to FR that they uphold their own standards in the matter of religion.
“The scriptures warn us of the religion you follow and yes, in the book of Revelation as well.”
Silly, silly, silly. An adult should have better manners than to hammer others with nonsense time and time again. Among other things, it’s just plain rude, and something only a bigot would do.
“I couldn’t be happier if you all turned from that false religion and it’s idols and came to Jesus alone.”
And I couldn’t be happier if the scales fell from your eyes and mind and you finally understood the difference between religious art and idols, then returned to the One, Holy, and Apostolic Church. However, I have enough courtesy and common sense to shut up about it once in a while.
“If that makes me a bigot (which it doesn’t), I’ll wear the badge, but proudly...”
Yeah, there’s a sentiment expressed by every bigot, without exception.
“In the mean time, y’all are starting to sound like a bunch of little Jesse Jacksons and his crew...”
My word, you’re adopting the tactics of Alinsy and Ayers. Some years ago I made arguments that there is such a thing as theological leftism, equal to economic and social leftism.
And here it is again.
Thanks, but apparently it’s useless.
Yes, it is.
And so then my church is one 'unholy' church disconnected with any Apostles??? What's that make you, a polite bigot???
Your religion is not described in the scriptures as the church Jesus founded...You even claim that scripture is not enough to describe your religion...Your religious tradition fills in the holes and smoothes out the bumps...
There is a Christianity and a church described in the scriptures alone and it clearly ain't yours...You had to create your unbiblical tradition to build your unbiblical religion and then try to get scripture to match up with it, which it doesn't...
And you don't believe an American citizen in America should be able to publically point this out...Your religion has tried (all too often, sucessfully) to silence it's opposition for centuries...And you're still trying...If only you could bring in another Inquisition, eh???
So now you are appealing to the sensitivities of the liberal feel-gooders to turn them against freedom of religion and freedom from religion (yours) and freedom of speech...Well, you are not the first nor will you be the last...
However, they always have, and they have always taken the side of the protestants.
I will defend FR on this and call you out...
First off, YOU are the Bigot for trying so suppress our God given right of FRee Speech...
And FR and Jim Robinson along with the Moderators always strive to take a fair and balanced approach to matters religious...
Your statement is a LIE and is harmful to Free Republic...
###############################
NOT AT ALL.
It's called a free exchange of ideas . . .
purportedly amongst reasonable people
with reasonably DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES.
#################################################
What IS an unmitigated outrageous DISGRACE
is that ANY RELIGIOUS VALUE SYSTEM ON FR
WOULD SELF-RIGHTEOUSLY, ARROGANTLY, HAUGHTILY, !!!!!CONTROL!!!!! PHREAQUEISHLY, TYRANNICALLY, OVERWHELMINGLY HYPOCRITICALLY
!!!!!DEMAND!!!!!
That ALL THE OTHER RELIGIOUS ORIENTATIONS ON FR
KOWTOW MERCILESSLY IN TOTAL SUBMISSION
TO THE Roman Catholic's, Vatican associates, Papists'
--DICTIONARY
--SENSIBILITIES
--!!!!DEMANDS!!!!
--CONSTRUCTIONS ON REALITY AND DISCOURSE
--THIN SKINS
Part of me thinks it's quite fine for you to do so--sooooo relentlessly--even though it's soooooooo brazenly outrageous--it gives the watching world a VIVID VIEW of the rotten core of SOME of the stuff in your bailywick.
However, on days like to day, when y'all's haughtiness rages so overwhelmingly over the top, over the line and off the cliff, it becomes exceedingly tiresome and juvenile to even observe, much less to feel compelled to respond to.
My best exhortation is . . .
Grow up. Most of you are not 2 years old any more.
Get a thicker skin--even if you have to buy it at a leather shop.
OR, follow the RM's and JimRob's exhortations AND STAY OFF THE OPEN THREADS! Which word do you not understand about that?
Sigh.
I’m anti-some components, aspects.
NOT 1005 of the whole thing.
And it gets tiresome to be treated as though I were anti the whole thing.
Thankfully, God knows and His score is the only one that matters eternally.
INDEED TO THE MAX.
And evidently y’all must love all that or else you’d obey the local authorities and stay well away from the OPEN THREADS.
Please allow some slight correction:
What’s that make you, a farcically polite, OUTRAGEOUSLY !!!!DEMANDING!!!! insufferably hostile, insufferably ARROGANT bigot???
If I had the time . . . I believe I could document from any random 3 months postings that routinely, particularly in earlier years but to some degree still . . . for some mystifying reason—even though at least SOME of and certainly the Main RM is exceedingly fair-minded
still . . . somehow . . . the Papists get by a significant margin the overabundance of Grace from the moderators compared to what the Prottys typically get.
We Prottys mostly don’t care. We do chafe a bit when the double standard seems to get extreme with some fill-in mods.
Integrity in fairness is a pretty entrenched conservative value, after all.
If the Catholic Church says Catholics believe X, and someone says X is not true, that's not hatred.
But the anti-Catholic bigot says something like Catholics believe not(X) and a Catholic who denies is lying.
That's what they want you to believe, that one day you found a bible, picked it up and started interpreting it for yourself. Yet, Romans 10:
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
and we are among those at the ends of the earth to whom the gospel is preached, and hearing, we believed.
There is no other way for us to have received the word of Christ except it has come down to us out of the Great Commission.
Yet, scratch Catholic doctrine and they will assert only they (some sort of elect) born into a belief, who for the most part never became born again, possibly do not even know what that is, never heard the gospel preached and subsequently believed it, preferring instead the words of the catechism handed out to them at a young age to the truth of the bible.
And scratch some more, and you will probably find that they think that the Roman Catholic church only contains all the believers drawn out of all the nations of the earth, found in the Book of Revelation.
Your Apostle is inferior to their Apostle, you are only an unpedigreed mutt, they have papers don'tcha see--- some kind of imaginary relationship from Peter to the Pontifex Maximus of the present day, give or take a 400 year gap in there.
You can't prove that your ordained pastor is any good at all, he doesn't have a big long genealogy which he made up to impress you. All he has is the word of Christ. If he didn't you would not have been convicted of your sins and become a Christian. The only proof he has is you. Somehow I think it will hold up in God's court.
Furthermore, since infant baptism gives them all, including the Hitlers, the serial killers, all wicked rulers in high places found among them, the power of the Holy Spirit will take them all to heaven, because after all, they are in the church
You however, belong to a defective sect, a church of one, only able to rely on the word of God and the HS that you received at your conversion.
LOL
Now you're just making stuff up.
I AM A CHILD OF THE KING. I DON’T CARE WHAT THEY THINK.
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.