Recently the discussion of the use of the terms "Romanist," "Romish" and "Romanism" have been discussed here and elsewhere. Several non-Catholic bloggers joined in to object to Dr. Beckwith's blog entry on the subject, including myself. Many Catholics have used these or similar terms, but typically in different context. Many other Catholics are offended when non-Catholics, especially those who attack our Faith, use the terms as apparent slurs. The saddest part is that even when these non-Catholics are told these terms are taken by many as hurtful and bigoted, rather than doing the charitable thing they entrench and defend themselves and point to out-of-context references when they simply could just avoid using these terms. Why insist upon using them when these apologists know the terms are offensive to some and there are many other acceptable terms available? To continue using the terms in the face of such knowledge of offense can only be seen as what it is, bigotry.
The above being said, does that mean EVERY use of such terms are bigoted? No, it does not! As the non-Catholic bigots would be quick to point out, there are several places they can point to where Catholics have used the terms, some even embracing them - but in context one can clearly see that when a Catholic uses the terms, they are not being hateful bigots! In fact some may use the terms in the face of bigotry to stave off or dissuade the bigots from continuing. For example, I could say that since I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope that I am papist - however for a non-Catholic apologist to say to me "You Papist," that would most often be taken as a bigoted slur.
I was born and raised in the Lutheran Church (LCMS and later WELS) and I was taught at a very young age that the very term "Lutheran" used to be considered a bigoted slur - but those who followed the teachings of Martin Luther eventually embraced the term - so much so that it became accepted by virtually everyone - including "Lutherans." Perhaps the same thing may happen with the terms of "Romanist," "Romish" and "Romanism," but as for now - except in limited situations, these terms are seen as offensive by many.
It would seem the best approach for Catholic apologists to take is to refrain from being "offended" by the use of such terms. Beyond a casual pointing out the fact that some take those words to be offensive, just consider the source and move on. In my experience those non-Catholic apologists who do continue to use the terms only make themselves look bad to Catholics and semi-unbiased readers who may be following along - however though that is one way of "winning" - our goal should be to get them to act more like Christians rather than getting them to entrench into non-Christian behaviors.
Feel free to add your comments.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
Qui Locutus - Formerly The CathApol Blog - a Catholic Apologetics Blog Defending the Faith and keeping Catholics Catholic! Scott Windsor, MEd. - aka: CathApol
Showing posts with label Roman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roman. Show all posts
White Roman Catholic II
White on "Roman" Catholicism (continued)...
Below I have captured White's blog, which I will put into boxes and then offer my responses to what he says.
11/01/2009 - James White In a comment left on James Swan's blog (and then removed, I might add), Frank Beckwith noted:I use the term "Reformation" and "Reformers" even though I do not believe that there was any real Reformation for which the Reformers are morally responsible. Nevertheless, I use the terms out of respect for my Protestant brothers and sisters.As if the Council of Trent (we won't revisit Dr. Beckwith's comments on Trent in his interview with Greg Koukl) would have done what it did without the Reformation as its background! I'm sure there were plenty of folks in Rome who wanted to keep the money spigot on "full blast" with the sale of indulgences, but that troubling German monk really messed that up. I wonder if the "reformation" of indulgences would have happened without the Reformers? |
| But again, we cannot be overly surprised at such a comment. Dr. Beckwith has returned to Rome, and we would not expect him to see the Reformation as a time when the light of the Gospel broke through the encrustations of Roman tradition. |
| But as we have pointed out many times, it does not seem that Dr. Beckwith ever viewed Rome's gospel as non-saving and actually false. |
My response:
"Rome's Gospel" is fundamentally found in John 3:16. If you believe and are baptized then you will not perish, but will have everlasting life in Christ Jesus. There's more to believing and faith than mere lip-service or a praying of the "sinners prayer." Believing is LIVING the life of FAITH. It is a faith with works which justifies - for faith alone is dead and cannot save.
He (Dr. Beckwith) continued: What would be really something, by the way, would be finding Madrid, Hahn, Ray, et al using "Roman Catholic" in every single instance the word "Catholic" appears in their writings and blog post as well as employing "Papist" and "Romanist." Just like hip-hoppers who call each other "n**ger" once and a while, we Catholics can refer to each other as "Roman Catholic" every so often. We do it out of love for the Bishop of Rome; you do it out of condescension and derision. You ain't me homie, you can't use "Romie." :-)Well, there you go. The real problem is not that Rome herself does not use terms like "Roman church" all the time, as she self-evidently does. It is that Dr. Beckwith can read the hearts of others and decide that when they speak of the Roman Church they do so out of "condescension and derision." It matters not if we explain that we believe it is necessary to be specific, as long as we do not grant to Rome her own claims to represent Christ, we are precluded from using the language she herself uses. I'm glad we have gotten that straight. |
| So I was directed to a blog article written by one of the first Roman Catholics I engaged, years and years ago (late 1980s), on the subject of Rome’s claims. For many years I tried to correct Mr. Windsor’s misapprehensions and confusion, to no avail (though, in retrospect, I learned a lot myself, which may have been God’s purpose in the extended correspondence and contact). |
He continues to miss the essence of my points. He writes, I never said there was no communion with those bishops, of course. I said that it is not communion with those bishops that defines the teachings of the Roman church, as seen with such clarity above. You will not find any dogmatic teachings of Rome that speak of the bishop of Milwaukee in the terms seen above. |
You must all follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father; follow the presbytery as you would the Apostles; reverence the deacons as you would God's commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape (Eucharist); but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God. Thus everything you do will be proof against danger and valid.
(Source).
Who can add to that? It is the bishop who approves what the priests and deacons do, and let nothing touching the Church be apart from the bishop. Those are some pretty strong words supporting the Catholic Church and from, as I said, St. Peter's 3rd successor at Antioch who was also a direct disciple under St. John the Apostle.
| Mr. Windsor goes on with a number of oft-refuted arguments in support of the papacy (anyone who has watched any of the debates we have done on the papacy over the past 15 years knows how to respond to each of these simple arguments). |
Roman Catholicism and James White
It has been quite a while since I responded to one of James White's articles, but this one caught my eye and I felt I could not let it pass:
Why "Roman Catholic" is Accurate, and Merely "Catholic" is Not
10/25/2009 - James White
Frank Beckwith recently wrote:
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.Please note what was said: all these churches "in communion with" whom? "The Bishop of Rome." Not the bishop of Constantinople, Naples, London, or Milwaukee. Rome. A local church that did not even have a monarchical episcopate until the middle of the second century. A single local church that has been, through a long process of political development elevated to the point of claiming infallibility for her teachings. A church that claims for herself any number of grossly unbiblical titles, privileges and powers. It is the Roman Church that makes these claims.
http://romereturn.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-its-catholic-church-and-not-roman.html (White did not provide the link)
What happens when you drop the delimiter "Roman"? You are left with exactly what Rome claims for herself: universal sovereignty. The "catholic" church is not centered in Rome. Its theology and beliefs are not defined by Rome. And in fact, she can never defect from the gospel truth, no matter how hard Rome may press her to do so (and she has surely done so in the past). This is the very goal Rome has, the acknowledgement (sic) of her as universal sovereign, the Mother of all Churches, the Catholic Church. But the fact is, Rome is none of these things, and she is surely not truly "catholic."
So may I suggest that "common courtesy" would restrain the Roman Pontiffs from making the wild, extravagant claims they have made for themselves and their man-made office? May I suggest it is the follower of Rome who should summon the respect to refrain from arrogantly claiming sovereignty for his church over those who refuse to bow the knee to the Roman see?
10/29/2009 - Scott Windsor
My response:
Well first off, while I do understand Dr. Beckwith's "pet peeve" here, for many non-Catholic apologists use and/or deliberately overuse the adjective of "Roman" when debating and dealing with those who belong to the Faith which they loath. Such apologists seem to be using it as an attack upon us and/or they cannot separate Roman Catholicism from the Roman Empire. However, there truly is nothing wrong with the use of "Roman" or "Rome" when dealing with us. The way I look at it is, if these non-Catholic apologists are trying to be insulting with the use of "Roman," then they are only exposing their ignorance and bigotry. That being said, White rightly points out that our communion is with the "Bishop of Rome." However, he wrongly states it is not with the bishop of Constantinople, Naples, London or Milwaukee - for as much as those bishops are in communion with the Bishop of Rome, we are also in communion with them! Our unity as His Church is demonstrated through communion with the Bishop of Rome - but it doesn't end there, it begins there!
White wrongly states: "A local church that did not even have a monarchical episcopate until the middle of the second century." However, it was to St. Peter, and to him alone to whom Jesus said in threefold command: "Tend My Lambs," "Shepherd My Sheep," "Tend My Sheep." (John 21:15-17 NASB) You may or may not have heard non-Catholic apologists rationalize their way around this by saying, "That was just Jesus reconciling Peter back into the fold after he denied Jesus three times the night of His crucifixion." Well, give them an "E" for "effort" - but Jesus, the Good Shepherd, is clearly passing on the reins of Shepherd to Peter here. All bishops are shepherds, but Jesus singles out Peter here again (like He did in Matthew 16:18-19) and gives to him in singularity and primacy the authority to shepherd His Flock. Then there's: Luke 22:32 "But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." Unless Jesus' prayer is to be frustrated by the Father, this verse would imply that Peter's faith will NOT fail and is the necessary condition for the "confirm thy brethren." Also as our Early Church Fathers would so often point out - orthodoxy was tied to communion with the See of Peter, long after Peter himself was dead. To deny this "monarchical" hierarchy is truly just close-minded bigotry.
"Infallibility for her teachings" has, again, been with the One, True Church since the beginning of Christendom. Jesus Himself gave the Church the authority to bind or loose "whatsoever" she chooses - and "whatsoever" she bound on Earth was also bound in Heaven. So, infallible authority was given to our bishops in Matthew 18:18 and to our first pope in Matthew 16:18-19 because if something is bound in Heaven, it MUST be infallibly bound! White claims this authority was a later development, but clearly he is wrong (again) on this point. It may not have been exercised as much in the Early Church, but to deny the authority was there is again - close-minded bigotry. Why was it not used much in the Early Church? Well, typically this authority is utilized when heresy arises and a defined teaching from the authority of the Church needs to be put out to all churches for the sake of unity and orthodoxy. Why this doesn't make sense to non-Catholic apologists is beyond me - but I guess it wasn't always... I too used to oppose Catholicism, but I'll not digress into that at this point.
Next White attacks "grossly unbiblical titles." Well, I guess we'll have to chalk that one up to White's adherence to the "grossly unbiblical" concept of sola scriptura. In my past dealings with White, he would deny the extremist position of "if it's not in the Bible, it's not true" which some sola scripturists maintain - but it sure sounds like he's advocating that premise here, doesn't it?! Since when is it necessary for a "title" to be found in the Bible? Just because something is not found in the Bible does not mean it is not true. Perhaps White meant to say "anti-scriptural," as in opposed to Scripture? Well, he didn't - he said "unbiblical" which would simply mean it is not found in the Bible. If he meant "anti-scriptural" - then let him amend his words - and we can challenge then which titles he might claim oppose Scripture. If he insists on sticking to the extremist "grossly unbiblical" statement - then, well - I need to say it again - that's just truly close-minded bigotry.
White continues: "What happens when you drop the delimiter "Roman"? You are left with exactly what Rome claims for herself: universal sovereignty." I find it a bit ironic that he attacks the "Roman" Catholic Church for this - but then immediately identifies what the "catholic" church is. Hmmm, somehow it's NOT okay for the real and tangible Catholic Church to have this "sovereignty" - but some intangible "catholic" church would, by White's own statement, be "left with exactly what Rome claims for herself." The ramifications of White's assertion comes back to bite him.
And continuing, White says: "The "catholic" church is not centered in Rome. Its theology and beliefs are not defined by Rome. And in fact, she can never defect from the gospel truth, no matter how hard Rome may press her to do so (and she has surely done so in the past)." White's nebulous "catholic" church has no center, no unifying point of authority given it directly by Jesus Christ Himself through the bishops He Himself selected and they in turn pass down to others in valid succession. No, White would claim the "unifying" authority is sola scriptura. Again, a "grossly unbiblical" and I will say anti-scriptural concept. Scripture tells us that Jesus would indeed build His Church (singular, not multi-denominated plural) in Matthew 16:18-19. Scripture tells us that the Holy Ghost would be with His Church and guide it to all truth; that He would not leave them orphans and that the Holy Ghost would be with them "forever" (John 14:16-26). We know from Acts 1:20 that the Apostles held an "office" and that "office" is known as the "bishopric" - thus we know the Apostles are our first bishops. He breathed on those first bishops, and gave them the Holy Ghost and passed on to the the authority to forgive and retain sins (John 20:22-23). Just before doing that, He told them that as the Father had sent Him, He also sends them (John 20:21). So if Jesus was sent to pass on this authority to forgive sins - and in the exact same context He says as He was sent, He also sends them - then they too must pass on this authority! To do less would be to do less than as He was sent - and be anti-scriptural. Therefore we MUST have a valid succession of bishops, and this is a real and tangible office in the real and tangible Church which Jesus Christ built. Outside of the communion of those bishops - you do not have the Church which Jesus Christ built. You have impostors preaching "a different gospel" and as such should be avoided. They come as wolves in sheeps clothing, as to fool even the elect. White accuses the Catholic Church of defecting from the Gospel, when in reality - this defection is in cults like his own and uses his attacks to divert attention from the wolf underneath the sheep's clothing.
White closes his article/blog smugly saying:
So may I suggest that "common courtesy" would restrain the Roman Pontiffs from making the wild, extravagant claims they have made for themselves and their man-made office? May I suggest it is the follower of Rome who should summon the respect to refrain from arrogantly claiming sovereignty for his church over those who refuse to bow the knee to the Roman see?"
It is clearly shown, to the objective reader, that the "office" held by the "Roman Pontiffs" is not a man-made office. The office of the Roman pontiffs is that of bishop. The office of bishop was created by God when Jesus Himself called the first twelve bishops. To the Bishop of Rome a primacy is held, as passed down from St. Peter - the first Bishop of Rome. As St. Peter was called by Christ, so must successors of St. Peter be called and likewise empowered. Anything less would be anti-scriptural. All true Christians are subject to the Bishop of Rome. Some who call themselves "Christian" do not recognize the respect Jesus Himself gave to the first holder of that office - who was named to be the Petros - and the Shepherd of Jesus' Church/Flock.Oh, and here's the last part of Dr. Beckwith's article, which White did not quote:
I am a member of a parish that is in the Latin Rite, and thus, I am, in that sense, "Roman" Catholic. But if, let's say, my wife and I moved to Austin and we became members of Our Lady's Maronite Church, we would still be Catholic, in communion with the Bishop of Rome, but not technically "Roman" Catholic. We would be Maronite Catholic.
For a nice summary and overview of the rites and churches of the Catholic Church, go here.
Let me just respectfully offer a minor correction to Dr. Beckwith's statement. Maronite Catholics are in communion with the Bishop of Rome who is the bishop holding the primacy. Yes, he is "first among equals" - but one cannot dismiss the "first" part and the fact that Eastern Rites and even Eastern Orthodoxy does not refuse the Bishop of Rome the title of "Coryphaeus" - or "head" as in the Head of the Choir of Apostles/Bishops. So while the Maronite Church may not ethnically be "Roman" or "Latin" in their rituals or rite - they are "technically" Roman Catholics too. For a nice summary and overview of the rites and churches of the Catholic Church, go here.
Being a "Roman" Catholic is nothing to be ashamed of! It truly identifies us with the one Jesus picked to be His vicar.
I hope you, the reader, has gained something from this article and I am interested in hearing/seeing your comments, so feel free to leave some. You may do so here, or join us in the Catholic Debate Forum.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Feast of the Assumption
The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary - another example of "not-so-ordinary" days! These are COUNTING days - and...
