Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WHO REALLY IS 'ANTI-CATHOLIC?'
Alpha and Omega Ministries ^ | 1-23-10 | James Swan

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."


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Theology
KEYWORDS: anticatholic; freformed; usancgldslvr
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 921-940941-960961-980 ... 1,381-1,399 next last
To: xone
How it is the logical outcome when it isn't for other 'individual interpretations'. Anecdotal evidence. 'Individual interpretation' guided the Reformers as well, do they deny the Trinity? Of course not.

Sorry, I oversimplified. Sola scriptura means that you only need the scriptures and your interpretation.

This does not explain why the early reformers couldn't agree among themselves, but that's a different argument.

What I meant to say was that if one truly believes that it should be by scripture alone, then one will:
1. Reject any word, any phrase, any tradition, any whisper that is not in the Bible (like the words "Trinity" or "bible") and
2. Accept that their own interpretation is the right one.

This is what Uri or roamer says -- he interprets the examples we Trinitarians give as being "false" interpretations.
941 posted on 02/25/2010 11:19:32 PM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 920 | View Replies]

To: xone
But it is OK for your doctrine to contradict or speak where Scripture is silent, IC for instance.

On the IC in particular, Tradition does hold prominence, but it is supported by scripture (the examples of those you won't agree with, I'm sure, but that's a different arguement) and it does not contradict scripture. She gave birth to her Savior who saved her too, she being a created being like you or me but having accepted a momentous role.
942 posted on 02/25/2010 11:23:36 PM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 921 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne; Amityschild; Brad's Gramma; Cvengr; DvdMom; firebrand; GiovannaNicoletta; Godzilla; ...

Nonsense.

1. The Pope’s Encyclical is lengthy and complex. I’m confident there arguments within the Vatican about what some paragraphs or sentences mean precisely.

2. Such arguments about complex documents are common and reasonable.

3. What is not reasonable is the constant wailing that Prottys’ interpretations are absolutely 100% impossible to be true while any list of Papitsts’ interpretations are 100% automatically 100% true. That’s craziness.

4. Mostly, most of the time, most Prottys don’t give a big rip what names y’all call us. It’s ONLY WHEN YOU WAIL SO CHRONICALLY, LOUDLY AND RUN SCREAMING TO AUTHORITY SO HABITUALLY and that AFTER CALLING US THE MOST HIDEOUS THINGS YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH—WHICH SEEMS TO BE QUITE A BIT—AND THEN COMPLAINING ABOUT BEING CALLED NAMES.

5. THE !!!!DEMANDING!!!! DUPLICITOUS, HAUGHTY HYPOCRISY IS JUST OUTRAGEOUSLY PREGNANT AND HORRIFIC. And I think THAT’S one of the key things so many Prottys object to from the rabid clique Papists.


943 posted on 02/25/2010 11:25:12 PM PST by Quix ( POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 TRAITORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 940 | View Replies]

To: xone
And yet there is the Father/Son/Holy Spirit all in Scripture. Divine names, divine attributes, carrying out divine works, accorded glory, honor and worship which are worthy of God alone.

Very valid points -- and, even logically speaking it holds true,
944 posted on 02/25/2010 11:25:28 PM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 925 | View Replies]

To: Quix; UriĀ’el-2012; xone
It’s always been mystifying to me how my Pentecostal HOliness uncle and aunt so glibly gloss over or rationalize away all those Scriptures. Mind boggling.Actually, I think NoGrayZone has elaborated why she doesn't believe these, but she doesn't believe that Jesus was God (which is not what Uri believes of course). I'm sure Uri has reasons for why he believes what he believes.
945 posted on 02/25/2010 11:28:07 PM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 928 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne; 1000 silverlings; Quix
DR.E: When Roman Catholics tell us that "Christian" means to pray to saints and to view the priest as "another Christ" and to label Mary as a "co-redeemer," we, as Christians, feel obligated by the Gospel to say "No, that is not how we have so learned Christ."

JUDITH ANNE: Point to any Catholic who has told you any of that garbage. Impossible, because it has not been done. This is another example of the falsehoods of the anti-Catholic bigots.

Really, Judith? You really want to deny this? And use this denial as evidence of "anti-Catholic bigotry???"

Annalex told us last week that of course Roman Catholics pray to saints and he encourages all to do so.

Father Kenneth Baker referenced the Roman Catholic catechism in his essay THE AMAZING GIFT OF THE PRIESTHOOD when he referred to priests as "another Christ." An "alter Christus" in "both their professional and personal life." Father Baker's essay was a subject of a Roman Catholic caucus thread.

And likewise, PADRE PIO AND THE MOTHER CO-REDEMPTRIX" was also a Roman Catholic caucus thread.

So anyone reading these comments is left to wonder why you are making clearly false statements? And as you're doing so, you're criticizing others!

This is typical, however, of how the Roman Catholic apologist seems to toss out whatever erroneous, defensive statements they can think of, regardless of their obvious inaccuracy.

946 posted on 02/25/2010 11:33:49 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 940 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Sola scriptura means that you only need the scriptures and your interpretation.

No, sola Scriptura means all you need is the Bible and the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit who makes the truth knowable.

947 posted on 02/25/2010 11:38:06 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 941 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1; xone
But there are also insurmountable dichotomies which can be listed, which show them to be separate.

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.

Uri's view simplifies this (please correct me if I am wrong, Uri) as he believes that Jesus and the Father are one being, not separate and that the Holy Spirit is not a separate being.

There are also passages which indicate hierarchy within the Godhead... And the Trinitarian model does not sufficiently explain these discrepancies.

The Trinitarian model considers that we have ONE God and The Father is God and Jesus is God and The Holy Spirit is God. These are three hypostases
948 posted on 02/25/2010 11:38:16 PM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 932 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1; xone
For that reason, I will not criticize a Messianic Jew, nor a Lutheran, nor any that is in between except for the confusion

So you would not criticize Messianic Jews, non-Trinitarians, Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, etc?
949 posted on 02/25/2010 11:40:39 PM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 932 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

Those twisted statements do not accurately reflect Catholic beliefs.


950 posted on 02/25/2010 11:41:46 PM PST by Judith Anne (2012 Sarah Palin/Duncan Hunter 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 946 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne; Amityschild; Brad's Gramma; Cvengr; DvdMom; firebrand; GiovannaNicoletta; Godzilla; ...
Any names as bad as "Vatican agents"? As bad as "socialists"? As bad as "Marble Mary toe-kissers"? As bad as "rabid RCCs"?

###

ONCE MORE WITH FEELING . . . uh one annna 2 . . .

1. I've explained redundantly that Vatican agents was an attempt at arriving at a label I could use with a clear conscience that might be agreeable to Papists. I should have known that there's no such label because y'all have ABSOLUTELY REFUSED TO OFFER ONE REPEATEDLY.

2. Therefore, you DESERVE whatever label I come up with. I will not kowtow to your !!!!DEMANDS!!!! that I use your dictionary in such matters. WHEN ANY OF YOU offer an acceptable alternate lablel, I'll seriously consider it.

3. Until then, y'all's rank HYPOCRISY IN WAILING ABOUT folks telling y'all that y'all believe something when y'all insist that y'all don't-would apply. Y'all insist that Vatican Agents means some horrible list of things when it does not. Never has. I thought it was a neutral, sensible, accurate term. Silly me.

4. "socialists" is merely accurate. There's no escaping that the encyclical is rife with socialism at best, if not brazen rank globalist communism.

5. Prottys don't have rubber dictionaries. We believe that words mean something that is stable from one second to the next. There's NO ESCAPE from the socialism in the encyclical regardless of all the weasel words and rationalizations by all the Vatican offices in the world. Facts are just facts regardless of how thick the denial of whatever ranks and affrontedness.

6. Marble Mary toe kissing--as I've noted, I've been to the Vatican and seen it first hand. It was an accurate and vivid illustration of a point I was making.

7. Rabid clique Papists do NOT get to be my style masters. They do NOT get to dictate my examples of my points. Y'all are NOT my puppet masters. GET OVER IT.

8. Y'all don't like such examples used--get your co-religionists to stop doing such crazy unBiblical things and calling it righteous.

9. Rabid Roman Catholics et al . . . again--y'all have only yourselves to thank. This thread today is a vivid example of rabid finger frothing from the Papists at it's near worst. Y'all don't like the labels, stop the behaviors.

10. Some Prottys have a passion for truth and calling a spade a spade. I'm one of them. Rabidly hostile, haughty, !!!!CONTROL!!!! ridden, self-righteous, tyrannical, . . . rantings are highly likely to be labeled that way. Change the behavior, I'll be happy to change the label. Labels are mostly just words to me. Few are worth losing any sleep over.

951 posted on 02/25/2010 11:43:41 PM PST by Quix ( POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 TRAITORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 940 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne; MarkBsnr
Ecko the cat-hater :We've been subjected to unimaginable visual assaults in the form of cat pictures. --> unimaginable visual assaults, cooo!
952 posted on 02/25/2010 11:44:21 PM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 940 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne; 1000 silverlings; Quix
Twisted statements?

lol. You just denied any Roman Catholic would make those remarks or hold those beliefs and I just proved to you that all three statements were made by Roman Catholics and believed by Roman Catholics.

And the funniest part is that you called those statements "garbage."

lolol.

On that, we agree.

953 posted on 02/25/2010 11:46:59 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 950 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; xone
Dr Eckleburg: No, sola Scriptura means all you need is the Bible and the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit who makes the truth knowable.

My apologies -- thanks for the correction, Dr. E

Xone -- this is the basis for even non-Trinitarians and for the differences in opinions.
954 posted on 02/25/2010 11:47:47 PM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 947 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
When Roman Catholics tell us that "Christian" means to pray to saints and to view the priest as "another Christ" and to label Mary as a "co-redeemer," we, as Christians, feel obligated by the Gospel to say "No, that is not how we have so learned Christ."

"Christian" means follower of Christ. "Christian" does not mean "pray to saints." "Christian" does NOT mean to view the priest as 'another Christ.' "Christian" does NOT mean to "label Mary as a co-redeemer."

Christian means "follower of Christ" of any one of a number of sects. I hardly think that Baptist Christians believe any of the above. Your statement is false. The beliefs you reference are specific to Catholics, when they are not twisted and distorted by disgusting prottie twists. And Catholics are Christian.

955 posted on 02/25/2010 11:47:51 PM PST by Judith Anne (2012 Sarah Palin/Duncan Hunter 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 946 | View Replies]

To: Quix
2. Therefore, you DESERVE whatever label I come up with.

That is so typical. Arrogance to the max.

956 posted on 02/25/2010 11:50:29 PM PST by Judith Anne (2012 Sarah Palin/Duncan Hunter 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 951 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

Sometimes I wonder what happened to their reality testing.

Do they give up good reality testing for Lent?

Is it considered righteous to be mindlessly silly in one’s thought processes?

Is it a ritual, dogma or RELIGIOUS DUTY to parade around in abject denial a certain number of weeks or months a year?

I don’t get it. It’s embarrassing—for them.!


957 posted on 02/25/2010 11:52:34 PM PST by Quix ( POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 TRAITORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 953 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

NOT AT ALL.

I’ve repeatedly invited YOUR LABEL suggestions.

It’s ARROGANCE TO THE MAX

TO !!!!!DEMAND!!!!! that Prottys use Papists dictionary exclusively.

Sheesh.


958 posted on 02/25/2010 11:54:32 PM PST by Quix ( POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 TRAITORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 956 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Once again:

DR.E: When Roman Catholics tell us that "Christian" means to pray to saints and to view the priest as "another Christ" and to label Mary as a "co-redeemer," we, as Christians, feel obligated by the Gospel to say "No, that is not how we have so learned Christ."

Christian means: Follower of Christ. Could be Baptist, could be Lutheran, could be any one of a number of sects.

JUDITH ANNE: Point to any Catholic who has told you any of that garbage. Impossible, because it has not been done. This is another example of the falsehoods of the anti-Catholic bigots.

Dr. E., no Catholic has told you that "Christian" means anything other than follower of Christ. Catholics have beliefs and traditions that may differ from protestants. Catholics are Christian. Are you having trouble understanding the truth? I am not surprised.

959 posted on 02/25/2010 11:54:34 PM PST by Judith Anne (2012 Sarah Palin/Duncan Hunter 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 946 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne; Dr. Eckleburg; Quix
No, Christian means follower of the Christ revealed to us in the bible, not one revealed in "another gospel".
960 posted on 02/25/2010 11:55:14 PM PST by 1000 silverlings (everything that deceives, also enchants: Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 955 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 921-940941-960961-980 ... 1,381-1,399 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson