Have been added to Da Rulz:
23. The following terms are pejorative and their use as actual descriptors (as opposed, for example, to quoting someone else's use of them for purposes of critique) constitutes rudeness: "Romanist," "Romish," "Roman" (when used to mean or as a substitute for "Catholic"), "Roman Church" (when used to mean the entire Catholic Church, as opposed to the Roman church sui iuris that exists within the Catholic Church), "Papist," Papistic," "Papistical," "Popish," and any cognate terms based on the terms "Roman" or "Pope."
The term to be used on this blog is Catholic, without scare quotes.
This is a Catholic blog, and Catholics are to be called Catholics on it.
24. It constitutes rudeness to make inflammatory assertions that one is not prepared to back up by anything more than hearsay (e.g., "Mother Theresa prayed to Hindu idols. I know because my friend said so.").
Inflammatory claims are those likely to inflame passions. An inflammatory claim can be true. But because of its emotion-stirring character, it requires concrete evidence (more than just hearsay) to back it up if the discourse is to be kept civil and not degenerate into an impassioned muddle.
(NOTE: I've added clarifiers to these rules based on issues that came up in the combox below. The corresponding changes have been made to Da Rulz page as well.)
Jimmy
Just like Trent you write new rules to limit questions and discussion on topics which otherwise you are not prepared to answer. I will be monitoring your blog to see if anyone here ever shares a personal story or testimony of any kind that cannot be supported by anything except their word.
BTW, there was no inflammatory assertions made. My friend had direct conversation with MT before her passing. I am sorry her testimony which I also supported by her own words below undermined the assertions of many here. Who, btw, according to your rules, cannot back up any claims to the contrary that I have posted.
I guess that's the duplicity of RCC teaching. When the personal testimony supports your views, you canonize it; when it opposes your views, you make up more rules to limit honest and forthright discourse.
Talk about rude...
In His grace alone,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7
PS - If you won't take the testimony of my RCC friend from several years ago, I would like to point out to you that Dr. John MacArthur had a similar experience directly with Mother Teresa as well when he met her. Are you prepared to say that John, myself, or any other Protestant for that matter is guilty of inflammatory assertions--essentially calling us liars - OR are you prepared to accept the fact that maybe MT's confession does not fall in line with the Scriptures and that her view of salvation other than through Christ alone is specious and errant?
Posted by: Steve Camp | August 25, 2007 at 06:21 PM
Sound like fair rules. Even if they were not, it is your blog. Don't know of people who go to other people's homes and say mean things -- and then object to when their host asks them to be polite. And then say they will be monitoring them.
To those who don't like the rules, my suggestion is to post somewhere else -- or on your own blog.
Just my 2 cents.
Posted by: Mary | August 25, 2007 at 07:13 PM
What if you believe those united to a Pope are not part of a catholic Church (that "catholic" cannot be truly applied to those united to the Pope)?
What should you call it? Should one use scare quotes?
Posted by: Aristotle | August 25, 2007 at 07:41 PM
But Jimmy! I like using some of those pejorative words!
Posted by: RC | August 25, 2007 at 07:45 PM
Non sequitur. "Inflammatory" ≠ "baseless" or "unwarranted," nor does it mean "something that cannot be said." Your overreaction about "limiting honest and forthright discourse" is way over the top.
Jimmy hasn't declared any subjects off limits, only called for some responsibility about throwing around inflammatory charges on hearsay evidence.
The charge "Mother Teresa prayed to Hindu idols" is indisputably inflammatory, regardless who say it or says so. (Note that Jimmy was not addressing the charge that Mother Teresa said troubling things about salvation and other religions. So unless MacArthur saw Mother Teresa praying to Hindu idols, his experience is irrelevant to the charge in question.)
Because it is inflammatory, it requires a higher standard of proof, for the same reason that hearsay is inadmissible in court. Look: If I told you my friend met Keith Green and Green said erroneous things about Catholicism, you might or might not consider that inflammatory. But if I told you my friend met Green and saw him praying the rosary, you would probably want to see that backed up a little more rigorously. Right?
You seem to have missed the point when you say things like "I will be monitoring your blog to see if anyone here ever shares a personal story or testimony of any kind that cannot be supported by anything except their word" and "When the personal testimony supports your views, you canonize it; when it opposes your views, you make up more rules to limit honest and forthright discourse." When the "personal story or testimony" is inflammatory, then get back to Jimmy on that.
Also, good night: "Just like Trent." "The duplicity of RCC teaching." How snide can you be?
Posted by: SDG | August 25, 2007 at 07:48 PM
So, SDG, what should we call those united with Rome, if we don't think they deserve the name "catholic"?
Posted by: Aristotle | August 25, 2007 at 07:51 PM
This question has already been dealt with extensively many times on this blog, perhaps most exhaustively HERE.
Posted by: SDG | August 25, 2007 at 07:52 PM
So, SDG, what should we call those united with Rome, if we don't think they deserve the name "catholic"?
The term for them to be used on this blog is Catholic, without scare quotes.
This is a Catholic blog, and Catholics are to be called Catholics on it.
If you have a problem with that, go somewhere else to post. I will not have the discussions on this blog warped by rude circumlocutions.
Posted by: Jimmy Akin | August 25, 2007 at 07:55 PM
I do not feel comfortable calling anyone united to Rome "Catholic".
It would be, in my mind, like calling the Muslims "The True Faith" if they decided upon this as their official name, and felt all other names derogatory.
Posted by: Aristotle | August 25, 2007 at 07:56 PM
Then I will post elsewhere.
Thanks for the clarification.
Posted by: Aristotle | August 25, 2007 at 07:56 PM
For what it's worth, I sympathize with Aristotle's dilemma, and I respect his way of handling it.
Posted by: Jimmy Akin | August 25, 2007 at 07:58 PM
I don't think there ought to be any trouble with the term "Catholic," Aristotle. Unless I am mistaken, you would want to call those who are of the proper faith "catholic," with a small 'c,' whereas the name of the Church is "Catholic," with a capital one. Call Catholics Catholic, while maintaining that they are not "catholic," just as I call the Orthodox "Orthodox" while maintaining that they are not "orthodox."
Posted by: Shane | August 25, 2007 at 07:59 PM
@Jimmy: You might want to put something in there about the opposite (people using pejoratives about other religions and Christian traditions. I haven't yet seen any in my short time visiting your blog, but it helps to keep thing fair and charitable.
@Steve Camp: You're not making sense. You're the one being duplicitous. You expect us to, out of hand, take you for your word and your friend's word with no other corroborating evidence. You expect us to NOT take the word of (just about everyone else) not to mention the rigorous hearings and investigations going on into her life including documented interviews (from both sides of her canonization) involving dozens of people, if not hundreds.
You're also asking us to believe that she said something completely contrary and so fundamentally different about what every other source (including herself) has told us about her.
That's quite a stretch, wouldn't you agree?
Such outrageous allegations (hearsay) require equally compelling and concrete proof before they can even be taken seriously.
So before you start bashing the Church, maybe you should be prepared to no look like a fool.
Posted by: Chad | August 25, 2007 at 08:01 PM
I'd also add that if Aristotle comes to a point where he feels himself able to use this blog's terminology then he is welcome to post in the future.
Posted by: Jimmy Akin | August 25, 2007 at 08:01 PM
What do you call Jehovah's Witnesses?
Would you insist on calling the Church of Christ denomination something other than its name?
Like I said in the linked post, "As a Catholic, I don't mind speaking of 'Orthodoxy,' 'the Orthodox' or 'the Orthodox Churches'; I don't consider this in any way to diminish the Catholic Church's claims of orthodoxy... I don't mind speaking of 'Evangelicals'... even though as a Catholic I consider myself an evangelical Christian." Same goes for the Episcopalians (whom I believe have an invalid episcopacy) and the Presbyterians (whom I believe have no presbyters in the NT sense).
Therefore, "when I encounter Protestant Christians who insist on 'RCC' rather than 'Catholic Church'... -- sometimes with a flip aside such as 'I'm Presbyterian Catholic myself,' etc. -- I can't help reading that as reflecting their own insecurity in their identity."
Posted by: SDG | August 25, 2007 at 08:01 PM
@Jimmy: You might want to put something in there about the opposite (people using pejoratives about other religions and Christian traditions. I haven't yet seen any in my short time visiting your blog, but it helps to keep thing fair and charitable.
I agree, and I want to keep things fair and charitable. If this becomes a recurring problem (as the "Romanist" business has of late), I'll craft a Rule to deal with it.
(I try not to craft rules in advance of most problems, both because I don't want to make the blog's legal system burdensome and because you can craft better law when you're looking at a concrete case rather than trying to imagine problems in the abstract.)
Posted by: Jimmy Akin | August 25, 2007 at 08:05 PM
It is beyond my comprehension why Steve Camp insists on defending slurs. If a discussant considers a word directed at him a slur--even though you don't intend it be taken as such--good manners would seem to dictate that you should respect that request.
Granted, words like "heresy" and "apostasy" are strong, but they are terms of art in theological discourse. They have distinctive meanings. However, when they are used inappropriately as linguistic weapons rather than as they have been carefully used in church history, one is bearing false witness against one's neighbor. For example, someone who denies Calvin's view of justification is not a "heretic" or even an "apostate" in any historically defensible sense, unless one just means "not a Calvinist." But in that case, most of the really smart and saintly Christians in history were heretics and apostates.
John MacArthur is a decent man. But he is given to uncharitable and inflammatory rhetoric that breeds and nurtures an unattractive Christianity. This is partly because MacArthur treats the Bible is an ahistorical systematic theology textbook. Remember that the very books of the New Testament that MacArthur rifles through to find proof texts was part and parcel of the early church's liturgical celebrations, including penance, infant Baptism, and the Real Presence of the Eucharist. This is why, if St. Augustine were to arrive in the 21st century he would recognize Joseph Ratzinger and think MacArthur, his theology, and his church practices very strange.
Posted by: Thomas Aquinas | August 25, 2007 at 08:17 PM
Aw shazbot.
My favorite parts of the Fr Brown mysteries are when someone crinkles their nose and call him a "papist" to his face. Now I have to go somewhere else to feel all victimized.
I would like to point out that this is probably the first time in memory I have seen Jimmy post on a Saturday.
Posted by: StubbleSpark | August 25, 2007 at 08:23 PM
The charge "Mother Teresa prayed to Hindu idols" is indisputably inflammatory,
No it's true.
Jimmy
You haven't commented on the actual quotes from Mother Teresa herself where she is undoubtedly affirming universalism and something other than the biblical gospel. Even some of the Catholic people commenting on the other thread were admittingly concerned over her words.
Forget my true encounter if you will, or MacArthur's true face to face encounter with her. Respond to her own errant words. That is not inflammatory nor conjecture, but fact.
Chad
Such outrageous allegations (hearsay) require equally compelling and concrete proof before they can even be taken seriously.
Again, did you read the several quotes I posted of Mother Teresa's own words about these things or do you just like to react rather than deal with actual record? Her beliefs are identical and consistent to MacArthur's face to face account with her and my friend's as well. And remember, this man was a Catholic who admired her greatly until that encounter. That's what made it so compelling.
Do the homework.
Posted by: Steve Camp | August 25, 2007 at 08:48 PM
You're. Not. Hearing. Me.
I said: Non sequitur. "Inflammatory" ≠ "baseless" or "unwarranted," nor does it mean "something that cannot be said."
"No it's true" does not answer the charge that it is inflammatory. It's a non sequitur.
You're. Still. Not. Hearing. Me.
I said: Note that Jimmy was not addressing the charge that Mother Teresa said troubling things about salvation and other religions.
Jimmy's post concerned the charge of praying to idols. You're responding regarding the charge of errant teaching. Non sequitur again.
Posted by: SDG | August 25, 2007 at 08:51 PM
Steve Camp:
Perhaps it may help to clarify what "inflammatory" means. It means: "Likely to inflame passions."
Claiming that Mother Theresa prayed to Hindu idols is going to inflame Catholic passions and you need to offer something more than hearsay to substantiate it (like Steve DG would if he wanted to claim that Keith Green prayed the Rosary--something that would inflame certain Evangelical passions).
A thing can be both inflammatory and true. But because of the emotion-stirring nature of such claims, extra evidence of their truth needs to be provided if the discourse is to be kept civil and not degenerate into an impassioned muddle.
Hence the rule is directed to the claim that you have not yet substantiated with anything but hearsay.
Posted by: Jimmy Akin | August 25, 2007 at 08:54 PM
SDG:
I am hearing you... Forget my true story. Deal with her words biblically. Or that considered rude to ask any Catholic on this forum to hold the light of Scripture to her claims as we do to evangelical leaders as well? (Acts 17:9-11).
Posted by: Steve Camp | August 25, 2007 at 08:56 PM
"Papistical"? That's a new one to me! :-)
But seriously, the rules sound fair to me, and in fact they basically sound like common sense.
Posted by: Paul H | August 25, 2007 at 09:03 PM
Consider it stricken from the record (for lack of substantiation).
When has anyone suggested any difficulty about discussing her publicly reported words? I've already posted something on that subject in the relevant thread (which isn't this one).
Posted by: SDG | August 25, 2007 at 09:04 PM
Jimmy:
That is a good and fair thought--thank you.
Now, what do you think about her own words--that illustrate and say exactly what my friend's and MacArthur's true encounter was? Give me a biblical analysis of her own words in light of the Bible. Compare those two things.
What say ye Jimmy? I know that you know the answer to her questions and it must be difficult.
Guard the Trust,
Steve
Matthew 16:24-26
Posted by: Steve Camp | August 25, 2007 at 09:09 PM
"Papistical"? That's a new one to me! :-)
Understood, though it googles.
(Note the intransitive use of the verb "to google.")
Posted by: Jimmy Akin | August 25, 2007 at 09:17 PM
I wonder if the same courtesy will be applied to Protestants, like not referring to the Reformation as the Deformation, etc.
Posted by: Jeremiah | August 25, 2007 at 09:48 PM
Perhaps Jimmy's post of August 25, 2007, 8:05:46PM might interest you.
Posted by: bill912 | August 25, 2007 at 10:03 PM
Bill, is such a rule in the reverse even possible? Especially considering that B16 has referred to Protestant churches as "defective" and "deformed"
Posted by: Jeremiah | August 25, 2007 at 10:12 PM
"I wonder if the same courtesy will be applied to Protestants, like not referring to the Reformation as the Deformation, etc."
Good point, Jeremiah. I have used that term, myself, and though it does sum up my thoughts on the matter, it is not a helpful or friendly word to use.
What has happened, at least in my case, is that someone would enter the combox breathing Protestant fire, insulting the Pope, making wild accusations of idolatry, etc... and, being human, I get my back up and do something dumb like hit back.
It's a natural response, but not especially Christian.
I've learned a bit at a time to remain calm and not get personal, with the result that I now make fewer posts that I later regret. In that sense, I think the Combox Wars have helped me learn a little charity.
Incidentally, the heated rhetoric has not at all been confined to Protestants. Some of my most sharply worded comments have been directed to certain theological liberals who insist on remaining Catholic, though their beliefs long ago ceased to resemble anything like Catholicism.
If they weren't trying to undermine the faith of others I wouldn't get so hot under the collar, but that seems to be their goal. It's not enough that they have no faith, they don't want anyone else to, either.
But, anyway... noted. Perjorative terms are not good form. "Romish", "Romanist" and "Popish" and similar terms are perjorative.
Posted by: Tim J. | August 25, 2007 at 10:13 PM
Give me a biblical analysis of her own words in light of the Bible. Compare those two things.
Steve Camp:
I'm pressed for time this weekend, and I don't have time to go into the whole "I'm a Catholic, so for me 'biblical' means 'in line with the teaching of the Bible,' not 'from the Bible alone'" issue in detail, but SEE HERE.
Posted by: Jimmy Akin | August 25, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Jeremiah -
Regarding B16's use of the terms "defective" and "deformed";
He is - I think clearly - not speaking perjoratively, but is addressing, under the Catholic view of the Church, the problems associated with ecclesial communions that have broken away.
He is not throwing rhetorical bombs, he used those terms as part of a careful analysis, not a rant.
Posted by: Tim J. | August 25, 2007 at 10:20 PM
(repeated from the other thread)
Jimmy
Thank you for your answers (on the other thread) and I will look forward to more in the future with you. BUT, I would still like to have you address these statements within the context of God's Word rather than opinion.
Two examples:
1. As Luke records in Acts: "Acts 4:10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by this name this man stands here before you in good health. Acts 4:11 “He is the STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone. Acts 4:12 “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” (NASB)
1.a. This Scripture clearly refutes MT's claim that "If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life — his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation.”
2. Also, the Apostle John states clearly, "1 John 2:22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
1 John 2:23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also."
2.a. This would clearly refute MT's claim that "All is God — Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, etc., all have access to the same God.”
One further question to ponder: the issue here goes to salvation, not to canonization. Do you think that Scripture teaches that one who holds to such views specious errant doctrine is consistent with the profession and confession of a truly regenerated believer in the Lord Jesus Christ? Would not those unsound doctrines constitute "another gospel" - which is no gospel at all? AND worthy of anathema? (Gal. 1:6-9).
Grace and peace,
Steve
2 Tim. 3:1-5
Posted by: Steve Camp | August 25, 2007 at 11:22 PM
... Last time I checked, being a pagan or other thing didn't keep you from accessing God, you were just doing it wrong.
God will still hear you, and still loves you. He's God.
Being God, I can't see him sending everyone before Jesus to Hell, nor can I see him doing so to the many folks who never got to hear His name. That's the basis of the Catholic idea of invincible ignorance. Because he's God, he knows if you rejected him, or accepted him.
I thought Louis Carrol did a really good job on that....
Oh, BTW-- good rule, Jimmy.
Posted by: Foxfier | August 26, 2007 at 03:13 AM
*Sigh* How many times to I have to say it? As previously noted, the issue of courtesy here applies to the proper names of communions, such as "the United Church of Christ" or "the Episcopal Church in the United States of America."
Catholics certainly call the Episcopal Church by its name, despite the fact that in our belief neither "episcopal" nor "church" applies theologically. We would not always insist on using circumlocutions such as "the Anglican communion in the US," much less "the pseudo-Episcopal Ecclesial Communion." Its name is the Episcopal Church, and we don't mind using it. To do so in no way compromises our ability to attest to what we believe about both them and ourselves.
B16 might quite rightly describe Protestant ecclesial communions as "defective" and "deformed" according to Catholic belief, but this has nothing to do with refusing to give a particular communion its chosen name. If he had occasion to refer to a particular communion, I expect he would use its chosen name.
Although "the Reformation" is not the name of a particular ecclesial communion and thus not subject to precisely the same rule of courtesy, in practice not many Catholics would flat-out refuse to use the term, even though some might express their POV in a provocative fashion by sometimes using a term like "the Deformation" or "the Protestant rebellion" (though not usually to the exclusion of "the Reformation"). The principle here is less courtesy than clarity and accepted terminology (which of course also applies to proper names such as the Catholic Church). In the same way, we would refer to "the Enlightenment," say, even if we didn't think the overall thrust of that movement was particularly enlightening.
Bottom line: We call ourselves the Catholic Church, and have done for going on 2000 years. Please call us by our name. Thank you.
Posted by: SDG | August 26, 2007 at 05:23 AM
I was raised in a convent run by the Sisters of St. Brigid and remember being told repeatedly by the nuns that we were to refer to ourselves as "Roman Catholics" - not just as Catholics. In fact it was drummed into us that the name of our church was "One, Holy, Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."
Of course this was many years ago, and in the remote outpost of Australia, but could someone enlighten me as to why the use of this "name" is now frowned upon.
Posted by: vynette | August 26, 2007 at 07:45 AM
I'm not offended by any name that someone may call Protestants or evangelicals. Deformation: not an issue; defected or deformed--B16 is not a threat and truly reveals invincible ignorance.
Truth is not easily offended; error doesn't want to be challenged. Truth will stay focused on the issues; error will pride itself in the rabbit trails exhibited here.
So you know, reformed apologists and evangelists like myself, refer to Catholics as Romanists is because a true Catholic will not only appeal to tradition, but to the Word of God; Romanists appeal only to the Magistarium and Popes. THAT is the difference. I say this in no derogatory fashion, but are you Catholics or Romanists; do you know the Word of God, or simply rely on the man-made authority of the Magistarium and Pope?
That is a legitimate question for I still cannot get anybody on this site to defend, debate, discuss, through the lens of the Word of God... Read the threads---not one of you can make an argument biblically---and have not. I would think that would concern the Catholics who read this blog.
Grace and peace,
Steve
Psalm 119
Posted by: Steve Camp | August 26, 2007 at 08:43 AM
Jimmy: what about "popery?"
Steve: A Catholic will *only* refer to the Pope & Magisterium? I'm afraid you are wrong, my friend. I'm sure you're familiar with the published works and debates of Scott Hahn, Pat Madrid, and Jimmy, as well. It's a Bible love-fest. I love and cherish my Bible, and it is the Sacred Scriptures which brought me into the Catholic Church.
As mentioned on the other thread, it is a *given* that we all agree that false gods are not to be worshipped, and that it is through Christ alone that we are saved. Why argue that from the Bible? We all agree that the Bible says it and that it is true.
Posted by: NaturalCatholicMama | August 26, 2007 at 09:06 AM
"Romanists appeal only to the Magistarium and Popes."
Umm... no. Of course Catholics appeal to the Word of God. The WHOLE word of God, as in sacred scripture AND sacred Tradition AND the magisterium of the Church. There never is one without the others. It is thanks to Tradition and the Magisterium that you have your Bible.
Your insistance on the truncated and artificial doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not in the least force Catholics to ignore the other two branches of the river. When you ask for explanations from a Catholic, you are - not surprsingly at all - likely get Scripture, Tradition and Magisterial teaching all together in the mix. To act surprised about that seems more than a bit disingenuous. To act as if you have caught us Catholics up short ("A-ha! You admit that your answer relies on sources other than the Bible!") is simply bizarre. You have been at this for some time (apparently), it should come as no great shock to you that Catholics think and talk like Catholics.
Or maybe we should drop in on your site and trumpet "A-HA! So, you admit that your views depend on your own private interpretation of Scripture!".
To address Mother Teresa's words, I subscribe almost exactly to the views that SDG has given previously. I do find some of her words troubling. She was primarily neither a theologian nor a teacher, but a minister to the poor and sick.
I am not concerned in the least about her status as an official Saint... my faith does not stand or fall on such things. I am comforted to know that there is an infallible authority looking into the matter, and they can judge much better than I what MT's comments mean in their various contexts.
There is the possibility that she went "native", a bit, and that this colored her thinking. There is also the possibilty that she simply did not express herself well on these matters. She may have just ignorantly held some ideas that were not in line with true Church doctrine.
You are aware that the Church teaches that there are those who may be saved who have never had the chance to hear about Jesus? The unborn, for example?
Are you also aware that, in their ignorance, pagan peoples have worshipped the True God as best they understood Him? The Apostle Paul affirmed as much;
"For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you..." ("Acts 17:23).
Do you take exception to this Biblical point of view?
Posted by: Tim J. | August 26, 2007 at 09:18 AM
STUBBLE SPARK: === Aw shazbot. My favorite parts of the Fr Brown mysteries are when someone crinkles their nose and call him a "papist" to his face. Now I have to go somewhere else to feel all victimized. ===
Do not despair oh Sparkling Stubble! There remain yet a multitude of blogs on the internet on which we may be known by any manner of unpleasant -- even scurrilous -- names. (wink)
Let me add to the 2-noo-roolz: I dislike my Church being referred to as RCC or as Rome. It makes my skin crawl as much as hearing any of the other putdowns listed in the OP.
I do not call the Anglican churches ac's, or the Presbyterian churches pc's, or the Russian Orthodox RO's. Nor do I call John Haggee JH, James White JW, C Michael Patton CMP, or Jack Chick JC.
I consider these abbreviations to be no more than endruns around courtesy -- just another boring way of minimalizing and marginalizing the faiths being discussed -- or flamed as the case may be.
Reference and reason is quite enough. Imaginative, decorative, but empty rhetoric does much to confuse the issues, little to build common understanding, and nothing to lend credibility to the person descending to such levels.
So why go there? Hint: the flamer has nothing substantive to contribute maybe? Nothing but a yearning burning churning irresistable need for negative attention?
Posted by: Ani Ibi | August 26, 2007 at 09:21 AM
TIM J: === Perjorative terms are not good form. ===
A friend of mine on CAF has a stock answer for those who descend to the level of perjorative.
He generally says something along the lines of "Normally when folks descend to the level of ad hominem, namecalling, or other forms personal attack, it is a reliable indicator that they have exhausted their supply of substantive commentary -- in which case, they have conceded the point in question."
A series of indignant protests normally follow, each of which is met with "I thought you had conceded this point, so why are continuing as if it were still in question?"
I like it so I grabbed it and added it to my toolbox. I find it saves pages of flaming.
Posted by: Ani Ibi | August 26, 2007 at 09:36 AM
It should be noted, of course, that pagan peoples have also worshipped a bunch of false gods, as attested in scripture... things that were an abomination before God, so certainly (as some have already pointed out) invincible ignorance saves no one. But, again, Paul has some interesting things to say;
"All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.). This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.". Romans 2:12-16
Posted by: Tim J. | August 26, 2007 at 09:42 AM
It is quite likely that you were Roman Catholic, just as I am Roman Catholic. There is nothing wrong with the term "Roman Catholic Church" when properly used to refer to the Latin Church of the Catholic communion, in contradistinction to the 21 other particular Churches of the Catholic communion, including the Byzantine, Alexandrian, Armenian, Antiochian and Chaldean Catholic Churches.
All of these are fully Catholic and in communion with the successor to St. Peter, but they are not Latin or Roman and thus are not Roman Catholic. When referring to the entire communion of all Catholic Churches in communion with the bishop of Rome, the correct term is "Catholic Church," not "Roman Catholic Church," which devalues and mislabels the non-Latin Catholic Churches.
Posted by: SDG | August 26, 2007 at 09:46 AM
"Romanists appeal only to the Magistarium and Popes."
In which case you owe us an apology for calling us Romanists. Given that we have quoted Scripture to you.
Posted by: Mary | August 26, 2007 at 09:55 AM
It should be noted, of course, that pagan peoples have also worshipped a bunch of false gods, as attested in scripture... things that were an abomination before God, so certainly (as some have already pointed out) invincible ignorance saves no one.
The question is whether people are invincibly ignorant of God:
"The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened."
Posted by: Mary | August 26, 2007 at 09:58 AM
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
(To cite only a few examples from one thread with which Steve Camp ought to be familiar, to say nothing of the countless others he might have perused.
Posted by: SDG | August 26, 2007 at 10:17 AM
Hey I as a militant Catholic have no problem refering to the Eastern Orthodox as "The Orthodox" (BTW those are not intended as scare quotes) even thought I don't believe their theology is orthodox. So Steve what is your malfuction?
Posted by: BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | August 26, 2007 at 10:48 AM
The problem here is Steve Camp is a Protestant who believes in the teachings of Retrictivism(Jeb Protestant I note seems to be of the same belief).
Retrictivists believe ONLY THOSE who formally profess Christ can be saved and that there is no such thing as "Invincible Ignorance" & thus all non-Christians below the age of reason are without exception damned.
Some Evangelical Protestant scholars believe that God judges all people based on their response to the Holy Spirit, and that just as Romans 2:14-15 shows that God is righteous by condemning people who violate natural law as they understand it, it also shows His mercy in forgiving those who have lived up to all the light they have had. Thus, it is possible for people to be saved through Christ, even if they have not been instructed by Christian missionaries.
Supporters of inclusivism include John Wesley, C. S. Lewis, Clark Pinnock, John E. Sanders, Terrance L. Tiessen (Reformed) and Robert Brush (contributor to the Arminian Magazine). Billy Graham agrees with what many call inclusivism, but he does not like to refer to it by the term, because he is concerned that many people mean universalism when they say inclusivism.
Restrictivist vs. Inclusivist was an open question in Catholicism but over the last 300 years starting with Pope Alexander VIII the Holy Spirit has lead the Church in the direction of Inclusivism.
John MacArthur is a hardcore Restrictivist. It's little wonder his partisans are as well.
"Romanists appeal only to the Magistarium and Popes."
For the final interpretation of the Bible yes since as taught by the Bible God set up the Papacy & the Episcopate & made them the final interpreters who would be guided by the Holy Spirit.
But Protestants OTOH appeal ONLY to themselves & their own flesh & what they subjectively think the Holy Spirit is leading them to interpret scripture. Plus this whole process is fallible. So you have Protestants like Camp pleading with us Catholics to reject Our alleigly fallible Church for THEIR admitedly fallible Church. That is too comical to be taken seriously.
Posted by: BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | August 26, 2007 at 11:16 AM
The problem here is Steve Camp is a Protestant who believes in the teachings of Retrictivism(Jeb Protestant I note seems to be of the same belief).
Retrictivists believe ONLY THOSE who formally profess Christ can be saved and that there is no such thing as "Invincible Ignorance" & thus all non-Christians below the age of reason are without exception damned.
Some Evangelical Protestant scholars believe that God judges all people based on their response to the Holy Spirit, and that just as Romans 2:14-15 shows that God is righteous by condemning people who violate natural law as they understand it, it also shows His mercy in forgiving those who have lived up to all the light they have had. Thus, it is possible for people to be saved through Christ, even if they have not been instructed by Christian missionaries.
Supporters of inclusivism include John Wesley, C. S. Lewis, Clark Pinnock, John E. Sanders, Terrance L. Tiessen (Reformed) and Robert Brush (contributor to the Arminian Magazine). Billy Graham agrees with what many call inclusivism, but he does not like to refer to it by the term, because he is concerned that many people mean universalism when they say inclusivism.
Restrictivist vs. Inclusivist was an open question in Catholicism but over the last 300 years starting with Pope Alexander VIII the Holy Spirit has lead the Church in the direction of Inclusivism.
John MacArthur is a hardcore Restrictivist. It's little wonder his partisans are as well.
"Romanists appeal only to the Magistarium and Popes."
For the final interpretation of the Bible yes since as taught by the Bible God set up the Papacy & the Episcopate & made them the final interpreters who would be guided by the Holy Spirit.
But Protestants OTOH appeal ONLY to themselves & their own flesh & what they subjectively think the Holy Spirit is leading them to interpret scripture. Plus this whole process is fallible. So you have Protestants like Camp pleading with us Catholics to reject Our alleigly fallible Church for THEIR admitedly fallible Church. That is too comical to be taken seriously.
Posted by: BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | August 26, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Sorry for the double post. My computer is wack!
Posted by: BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | August 26, 2007 at 11:17 AM
Sorry for the double post. My computer is wack!
Posted by: BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | August 26, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Steve Camp: So If I come to your home and say about your deceased Grandmother--"My friend said he knew her well --and said she was cheating on her husband every time he left town!" --and then when you kindly stop making such claims in your house -- and that I have no proof" ---so when he says then "My other friend said the same thing about her--are you calling them liars!?"
Are you going to accept this as proof or even as a logical answer?
Posted by: Kevin | August 26, 2007 at 11:33 AM
edit:
Steve Camp: So If I come to your home and say about your deceased Grandmother--"My friend said he knew her well --and said she was cheating on her husband every time he left town!" --and then when you kindly ask me to stop making such claims in your house -- and that I have no proof" ---so when he says then "My other friend said the same thing about her--are you calling them liars!?"
Are you going to accept this as proof or even as a logical answer?
Posted by: Kevin | August 26, 2007 at 11:34 AM
Second edit --I need coffee----
Steve Camp: So if I come to your home and say about your deceased Grandmother--"My friend said he knew her well --and said she was cheating on her husband every time he left town!" --and then when you kindly ask me to stop making such claims in your house -- and that I have no proof" ---so when I say then "My other friend said the same thing about her--are you calling them liars!?"
Are you going to accept this as proof or even as a logical answer?
Posted by: Kevin | August 26, 2007 at 11:38 AM
"Romanists appeal only to the Magistarium and Popes."
Steve,
I haven't meet a Catholic who appeals only to the the Magistarium and Popes. I haven't meet a Catholic who doesn't believe the Bible is the Word of God. I havent meet a Catholic who doesn't appeal to the Bible and believe in the Bible. I haven't seen a Catholic on jimmyakin.org who haven't reinforced their arguements to some extent, whehter you agree with the arguments or not, with passages from the Bible.
Posted by: Eric S. | August 26, 2007 at 11:45 AM
If a Muslim asks a Catholic why they believe Jesus is God, they will probably talk about the the divine inspiration of the Bible, and passages relating to the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the purpose of the resurection and atonement, original sin, oldtestament prophecies, etc, in other words they will appeal to the Bible. Steve, you have a very jack chickish understanding of Catholicism, which says that Catholics would tell that Muslim "because the pope tells me so."
Posted by: Eric S | August 26, 2007 at 11:58 AM
We need to mail Steve Camp a copy of "The Essential Catholic Survival Guide" by Catholic Answers. I just gave mine to a friend and purchased a new one for myself. Great stuff... because it's all TRUE!
Posted by: OPNY | August 26, 2007 at 12:41 PM
NaturalCatholicMama:
You said, "Steve: A Catholic will *only* refer to the Pope & Magisterium?"
I didn't say that... read more carefully. BTW, love the name.
Steve
Posted by: Steve Camp | August 26, 2007 at 01:06 PM
BenY...
You said, "So you have Protestants like Camp pleading with us Catholics to reject Our alleigly fallible Church for THEIR admitedly fallible Church. That is too comical to be taken seriously."
That IS very comical because I never said that. I am only asking can anyone here on this thread make a biblical argument either supporting what MT has said in the quotes I listed, OR, refuting what she has said in the quotes I listed? That's all...
Contrary to what SDG linked, that has not happened yet...
The pillar and support of the truth,
Steve
2 Tim. 2:15
Posted by: Steve Camp | August 26, 2007 at 01:13 PM
Steve. Your claim was that "Romanists [sic] appeal only to the Magistarium [sic] and Popes," not to scripture. This is a lie. It is bearing false witness, as the links I provided amply demonstrate.
There are about a thousand Catholic books within an arm's length of where I sit writing that I could use to prove you wrong simply by flipping to a random page and producing appeals to scripture.
Here, I will actually do it. I have just chosen a book virtually at random from my shelf. It happens to be The Catholic Catechism by Fr. John A. Hardon.
I flipped open to a page at random. It is page 266. Here are the very first words my eye happened to fall on:
So there it is: a "Romanist" appealing to scripture, not just to the magisterium and the popes. I could repeat this experiment a dozen times, a hundred times, and every experiment would refute your lie that we "appeal only to the Magistarium and Popes."
And hang it all, you already knew it was wrong, because Inocencio, Esau, Jordan Potter, Tim J, John Henry, I and others have all been "appealing to scripture" in our interactions with you ever since you began slagging "Romanism" on Jimmy's blog.
The question is not whether your statement that "Romanists [sic] appeal only to the Magistarium [sic] and Popes" is right or wrong. You are wrong. Period. In your zeal to demonstrate the supposed errors of Romanism, you have fallen into error yourself. You aren't the first, and won't be the last.
The only question remaining is whether you can muster the humility to admit and repent of your error. You have ragged on Jimmy's readers for their faults, but one thing Jimmy's readers have shown themselves able to do is admit mistakes and apologize. Now we'll get to see whether you can do the same.
If it turns out you can admit your error, then maybe we can try to answer the knotty question of why a discussion about why a discussion about what Mother Teresa has or hasn't said, and what it did or didn't mean, should involve quoting Bible verses that we all essentially agree about. Otherwise, I don't see the point.
Posted by: SDG | August 26, 2007 at 01:33 PM
point of clarification
If you missed SDG's links above, they are all taken from a previous post some days ago (Beckwith Chronicles).
So to be clear, I am speaking about this thread and the one previous where I posted quotes from Mother Teresa only.
Respectfully,
Steve
2 Thess. 3:1-5
Posted by: Steve Camp | August 26, 2007 at 01:35 PM
So when are Da Rulz going to be enforced? Steve has had the gall to violate them on this very topic.
Posted by: JohnD | August 26, 2007 at 01:42 PM
Steve C: Here, again, is what you said:
Now you add:
Are we then to understand that your original statement was meant in reference only to the subject of Mother Teresa? So that what you really meant was, um, something like this?
Because, um, you cannot really be saying that you call us Romanists because we appeal only to the magisterium and Popes when talking about Mother Teresa. That doesn't even begin to make crazy sense.
So which is it? What did you mean by "reformed apologists and evangelists like myself refer to Catholics as Romanists [because] Romanists appeal only to the Magistarium and Popes"? What did you mean by "Romanists appeal only to the magisterium and Popes"? Please, explain.
Posted by: SDG | August 26, 2007 at 01:46 PM
SDG:
You said, "Are we then to understand that your original statement was meant in reference only to the subject of Mother Teresa?"
1. Yes. That is what we are talking about here is it not? Do you have any Scripture that supports or refutes what MT said in the quotes I posted? This isn't real hard to understand...
2. I said, "Romanists may appeal..." not that they did. The previous sentence gives the context to that... Are you not using all of your brain again? :-).
JohnD.
I haven't violated the rules. I haven't used any of the terms that Jimmy has prohibited here in a pejorative manner. I have used one term, as SDG has, in a clarifying manner. And I have referred to those here as Catholics; which I have no problem in doing out of respect for the blog host here.
Now, are you able to make a biblical defense or analysis of what Mother Teresa has said or not? That is my very simple question.
Still waiting...
Steve
Col. 1:9-14
Posted by: Steve Camp | August 26, 2007 at 01:56 PM
Even with my whole brain, Steve, I admit you have stumped me completely as to what you claim you were saying, or thought you were saying, with this sentence.
It seems clear to me that this can only mean something that is not only a lie, but a silly lie, demonstrably a lie, even known by you to be a lie.
It cannot possibly be limited in scope only to the subject of Mother Teresa (you can't really be saying that the subject of Mother Teresa is the culprit as to why we get called "Romanists").
AFAICT, this must mean that there is some larger sense in which we supposedly "appeal only to the magisterium and Popes," not to the word of God. Which gets back to the whole lie thing.
Posted by: SDG | August 26, 2007 at 02:01 PM
Steve,
//So you know, reformed apologists and evangelists like myself, refer to Catholics as Romanists//
This does not qualify as "quoting someone else's use of them for purposes of critique"
Posted by: JohnD | August 26, 2007 at 02:03 PM
Steve,
And the use of RCC in your very first comment.
I don't think that meant "Really Catholic Church".
Posted by: JohnD | August 26, 2007 at 02:05 PM
It has become blatantly obvious that no one is here willing to simply open up a Bible and offer biblical support or critique of Mother Teresa's words. We do this in the Protestant/Reformed camp continually and it helps us to be true to God's Word and subject to its teachings.
I will respectively leave you as this point.
Maybe someday one of you here will take the time to demonstrate to me Scripturally what MT said is orthodox.
I do appreciate Jimmy at least making some effort in this regard--though not from the pages of God's Word.
Until then, I remain
Yours for the Master's use,
Steve
2 Tim. 2:15
Posted by: Steve Camp | August 26, 2007 at 02:11 PM
So. Evidently Steve Camp can't or won't explain what he meant by saying
It's a sad day for Protestant lurkers on Jimmy's blog hoping to see Steve do them proud. A "licensed minister of the gospel and have been approved to teach, preach, and proclaim the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ" has evidently been caught in a blatant and silly lie, and refuses to admit it or repent. And so he takes his leave of us, complaining that we want to resolve what he meant first before critiquing what Mother Teresa meant.
Perhaps after a good night's sleep Steve may rethink it and come back and come clean. I hope so.
So. Jeb Protestant, Aristotle, anyone else. Any thoughts?
Posted by: SDG | August 26, 2007 at 02:16 PM
Good grief. For one, holy, catholic and apostolic church we do seem to be very divisive, beligerent, and confused!
Posted by: heidi | August 26, 2007 at 02:39 PM
Direct quote from Steve Camp (see post of Aug 26, 2007 8:43:26 AM): "Romanists appeal only to the Magistarium and Popes."
Direct quote from Steve Camp (see post of Aug 26, 2007 1:56:00 PM ) "2. I said, "Romanists may appeal..." not that they did."
From what I (and all others in this combox can read for themselves), the word "may" is NOT in the first quote. It's just not there.
And then he says, "I will respectively leave you as this point," when confronted with this? I would ask that he at least come back to show how I might have misconstrued his posts above, and how he can make his two comments jibe. Otherwise, I think the only conclusion that is logical is the one SDG has just proposed.
Posted by: vitae | August 26, 2007 at 02:42 PM
You're right, Heidi. In fact, when I said that it was a sad day for Protestant lurkers, I should have added that it's a sad day for Catholics too, including me.
Steve Camp is my brother in Christ. My brother in Christ has falsely maligned Christians of my communion and won't recant. I will always be grateful for the role Steve's music played in my life long ago. I will always regret the divide that exists between us today, and lament the faults on both sides, Catholic and Protestant, that led to and perpetuate such divides between brothers.
Posted by: SDG | August 26, 2007 at 02:46 PM
Jimmy,
When I made the move to the Roman Catholic Church, some called me a papist. I took some real comfort in that. I suspect that the Society of Jesus also took some comfort in being called Jesuits. Perhaps Papist is not such a bad thing at all.
Cordially,
dt
Posted by: Donald Todd | August 26, 2007 at 02:46 PM
I've actually wondered about this question I'm going to propose for quite a while now, even before (but particularly since) Steve Camp has joined these threads (esp. since the Beckwith Chronicles). How should Catholics respond to someone whom we would ordinarily (if he didn't come with Evangelical creds) label a troll?
As a lifelong Catholic, I was not previously familiar with Mr. Camp or his music. From what I've seen of his postings here, it seems that he really doesn't want to learn about the Church and her teachings or why Catholics believe what we do, but rather seeks to prove the errors of "Romanism." And yet, even after multiple examples of this, we continue to engage, and continue to get frustrated. When do we say, as SDG has said, that yes, we are deeply saddened (as I truly am) that many people, even our separated brethren, harbor anti-Catholic prejudice, but that we've reached the point at which further "dialogue" is futile? To all of you who have had much more extensive experience than I in apologetics, when do you say, "God bless you, I'll pray for you" but no longer get involved in trying to get the other party to move beyond the prejudice?
I love it when we are able to convey to non-Catholics what we believe and why, but that entails a certain receptivity on the part of the questioner. What if the questioner lacks that good faith?
Posted by: vitae | August 26, 2007 at 03:02 PM
I love it when we are able to convey to non-Catholics what we believe and why, but that entails a certain receptivity on the part of the questioner. What if the questioner lacks that good faith?
Dave Armstrong has wrestled with this very issue. See: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/03/interacting-with-sophists-reflections.html
Posted by: Scott W | August 26, 2007 at 03:18 PM
It has become blatantly obvious that no one is here willing to simply open up a Bible and offer biblical support or critique of Mother Teresa's words.
Steve,
What's the issue? You already showed a biblical critique of Mother Teresa's words. I agree with you. Her quotes sound like heresy to my ears, I don't have a problem admitting that. What do you want me to do? Requote what you already posted from Scripture?
The Catholic allegiance is not to Mother Teresa...it is to the truth and ultimately Christ.
Posted by: Guardian | August 26, 2007 at 03:20 PM
If I'm interpreting you correctly, Steve, you are demanding chapter-and-verse cites for something everyone has professed agreement with--Jesus is the only way of salvation, idol worship is a sin, etc. Since you already know we all agree on the matter, this demand is primarily to prove to you that Catholics are familiar with the Bible, and can appeal to it instead of to reason, the Magisterium, or the Pope. You call Catholics who can't/don't appeal to Scripture "Romanists." Am I interpreting correctly so far?
I don't find pejorative terms acceptable at all, but it seems especially "off" that you choose to preemptively use the pejorative term,just in case it applies to some among the large and varied group you're addressing, and then force people to jump through hoops for you before you'll grant them the respect of not calling them names.
Name-calling is a sin against charity, which the Bible says is the greatest of the virtues. Assuming the worst of people, whether the assumption is just in general or until they've proven to your satisfaction that they're worthy of any respect, is an even bigger sin against charity, I would imagine, as it's a disposition of the soul and mind rather than just something you say every once in a while. I don't recall cynicism and rudeness being listed among the fruits of the Spirit.
My father abandoned our family, and we haven't seen him in years. It wouldn't be a stretch for that to cause a young woman to despise or have a low opinion of all men. Would it therefore be okay for me to go around calling men worthless, child-abandoning scumbags, or even to merely think to myself that they likely are, unless and until they prove they're different? That's no different than using a pejorative term for all Catholics right from the get-go, merely because your experience indicates that some don't know/cite Scripture instead of or alongside the teachings of the Church.
Jesus commanded us to be perfect as He is perfect. As Christians, we should all strive to exhibit as much kindness and charity as we're capable of at all times, not the bare minimum. Doling it out only whenever you find the recipient "worthy", is not acceptable. Nor is it effective, if what you're shooting for is converting others to your point of view. The Bible warns us to judge things by their fruits, and you're not comporting yourself with loving concern, or indeed anything other than pride (i.e. you are the judge of who should be called Catholic and who should be called Romanist) and uncharitableness.
Posted by: | August 26, 2007 at 03:46 PM
I love it when we are able to convey to non-Catholics what we believe and why, but that entails a certain receptivity on the part of the questioner. What if the questioner lacks that good faith?
Please note that this question has two aspects: when you are privately talking to the individual, and when you are publically talking. Debates and, well, this forum, you have also to consider whether the lurkers are reading in good faith. Even more so here than in debates, where lurkers can come along at any time, and we don't want them to think the troll unanswered because unanswerable.
Posted by: Mary | August 26, 2007 at 04:02 PM
Considering that "the Bible" is a product of the Catholic magisterium, Steve seems to be as tainted in his sources as those he is maligning.
I hope the above statement wasn't seen as inflammatory. Inflammatory would be telling Steve that 80's Elton John and Chairman Mao called and want their hair and shirt back.
Posted by: Vishnu | August 26, 2007 at 04:10 PM
>That IS very comical because I never said that. I am only asking can anyone here on this thread make a biblical argument either supporting what MT has said in the quotes I listed, OR, refuting what she has said in the quotes I listed? That's all...
Steve Camp clearly your reading comprehention skills DO NOT equal your great musical talent. (Which of course has a direct bearing on your ability to read & interpret Scriptures for us Catholics over and against the Pope's interpretation but I digress...)
Please read carefully. I LITERALLY said QUOTE "So you have PROTESTANTS LIKE CAMP pleading with us Catholics to reject Our alleigly fallible Church for THEIR admitedly fallible Church etc..." I never said YOU said anything other than "Romanists appeal only to the Magistarium and Popes" which of course makes about as much sense as saying "Protestants appeal only to Martin Luther, John Calvin, the Westminster or Augsberg Confessions, the notes in the Schofield Reference Bible etc...fill in the the blank)".
You need to follow the Teachings of the Apostle James & be quick to listen (in this case read) & slow to speak (i.e post). So far you have not been doing that & for the sake of the honor of your own religous tradition that needs to change. So do it. God Bless.
Posted by: BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | August 26, 2007 at 04:11 PM
I appreciate your effort to try to wring some sense out of Steve Camp's helter-skelter polemics, but this won't do.
For one thing, are we to conclude that the "Romanist friend" of Steve's who was so troubled by his meeting with Mother Teresa relied solely on the Magisterium and popes and would never appeal to scripture? Or what about Steve's previous history of calling all Catholics without exception "Romanists" and defending this usage?
For another thing, Steve specifically purports to be explaining the common usage of "Romanists" among "reformed apologists and evangelists" like himself: It is because of this dependency on the Magisterium and popes to the exclusion of scripture, Steve says, that (some?) Catholics are called "Romanists."
The problem is there is simply no such common usage; despite what Steve may or may not now be claiming, "reformed apologists and evangelists" do not commonly use "Romanists" to mean "those Catholic Christians who rely solely on the Magisterium and popes and would never appeal to scripture." "Romanist/ism" is quite simply pejorative language for "Catholic/ism", as nearly any dictionary will corroborate.
Even if this is what Steve now claims he means by the term, it's a completely revisionist usage introduced to justify ongoing use of the term in spite of its objectionability. Indeed, if you've interpreted him correctly, Steve now acknowledges that the term is pejorative, but claims that he only means it in regard to those Catholics who actually deserve the pejorative connotations, who rely solely on the Magisterium and popes, but never appeal to scripture the way "good" Catholics do.
This whole revisionist distinction between "Catholics" and "Romanists" reminds me ever so slightly, yet distinctly, of the despicable effort among some white racists to distinguish between "blacks" and "n–––––s," and to justify use of "the n-word" while claiming not thereby to impugn all blacks -- just (they say) the bad ones who actually embody the prejudicial connotations the word carries.
Posted by: SDG | August 26, 2007 at 06:07 PM
COMMENT BY UNAPOLOGETIC BANNED PERSON DELETED.
KEEP IT UP AND MATTERS WILL BE ESCALATED.
Posted by: Eric G. | August 26, 2007 at 06:48 PM
James White recently wrote that the term "Romanism" is the proper identification of the Catholics Church. Not just Catholics who rely solely on the Magisterium and popes, but he refers to all Catholics as romanists.
Posted by: kayz | August 26, 2007 at 07:20 PM
I accidentally posted this anonymously a few comments back, so I'm reposting the content of my comment with my name on it this time. :-)
If I'm interpreting you correctly, Steve, you are demanding chapter-and-verse cites for something everyone has professed agreement with--Jesus is the only way of salvation, idol worship is a sin, etc. Since you already know we all agree on the matter, this demand is primarily to prove to you that Catholics are familiar with the Bible, and can appeal to it instead of to reason, the Magisterium, or the Pope. You call Catholics who can't/don't appeal to Scripture "Romanists." Am I interpreting correctly so far?
I don't find pejorative terms acceptable at all, but it seems especially "off" that you choose to preemptively use the pejorative term,just in case it applies to some among the large and varied group you're addressing, and then force people to jump through hoops for you before you'll grant them the respect of not calling them names.
Name-calling is a sin against charity, which the Bible says is the greatest of the virtues. Assuming the worst of people, whether the assumption is just in general or until they've proven to your satisfaction that they're worthy of any respect, is an even bigger sin against charity, I would imagine, as it's a disposition of the soul and mind rather than just something you say every once in a while. I don't recall cynicism and rudeness being listed among the fruits of the Spirit.
My father abandoned our family, and we haven't seen him in years. It wouldn't be a stretch for that to cause a young woman to despise or have a low opinion of all men. Would it therefore be okay for me to go around calling men worthless, child-abandoning scumbags, or even to merely think to myself that they likely are, unless and until they prove they're different? That's no different than using a pejorative term for all Catholics right from the get-go, merely because your experience indicates that some don't know/cite Scripture instead of or alongside the teachings of the Church.
Jesus commanded us to be perfect as He is perfect. As Christians, we should all strive to exhibit as much kindness and charity as we're capable of at all times, not the bare minimum. Doling it out only whenever you find the recipient "worthy", is not acceptable. Nor is it effective, if what you're shooting for is converting others to your point of view. The Bible warns us to judge things by their fruits, and you're not comporting yourself with loving concern, or indeed anything other than pride (i.e. you are the judge of who should be called Catholic and who should be called Romanist) and uncharitableness.
Posted by: Rebekah | August 26, 2007 at 07:46 PM
I'm pretty new to all this blogging stuff, and by the time I figured out that one post lead to another, I was on the other one. LOL I am not real swoft with this!
Anyway, I read what kayz just posted also on that Dr. James White home page, I read and re-read both blogs on this, the one that first started about Blessed Mother Teresa and then this one that Jimmy led us to with his rulz change. Eventually I may or may not get the hang of all of this but I do want to say that Blessed Mother Teresa is being slandered and taken out of context by this Steve guy and Jimmy is not being talked about too nicely by that Dr. James White on his site.
EWTN has some information about Blessed Mother Teresa on their site:
http://www.ewtn.com/motherteresa/
God help us all!
Posted by: You Know Who You Are | August 26, 2007 at 07:52 PM
Being impolite only feeds personal pride. It is not the Christian way. Watch the following video to see who uses insults to when called to "defend" their faith:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvjzDgMmELY
Posted by: StubbleSpark | August 26, 2007 at 07:56 PM
Of course, James White is anti-Catholic, and is using an anti-Catholic term in its established sense. I guarantee you Steve's friend John MacArthur has always used "Romanism" the same way.
Heck, Steve Camp has always used "Romanism" that same way, at least until today, when he (perhaps) suddenly decided to use it in a completely different way.
Posted by: SDG | August 26, 2007 at 08:04 PM
Vishnu
"Considering that "the Bible" is a product of the Catholic magisterium..."
Does your term "Catholic magisterium" apply to the Latin church only or to all the churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome?
Posted by: vynette | August 26, 2007 at 08:05 PM
The magisterium is the teaching authority of the universal Catholic Church, and does not pertain specially to any particular Church such as the Latin Church. It comprises the bishop of Rome and all bishops of all particular Churches in communion with him. The magisterium is established by Jesus Christ, and belongs to the whole Catholic communion. (There is thus no such thing as a "Roman Catholic magisterium.")
Posted by: SDG | August 26, 2007 at 08:08 PM
This is probably off topic and most likely irrelevant. As an "outsider" to both groups I think I see the value of both groups. I admire the Catholic view that suffering can have a redemptive value. Having seen so much of it in my line of work I find that comforting, granted that is an emotional response and thus has no value what so ever. As for Mother T she never claimed to be anything else but an Albanian Nun who picked up suffering souls from the streets of her city Calcutta. Now there are "Protestant" groups that do the same thing and I think that is a point of "unity". Granted that to is an emotional response and basically worthless. From the "Protestant" side of the "fence" I see a deep attachment to the Bible and a dedication to follow it, of course that goes with Catholic folks as well.
As for praying to "statues" if She picked up the sick and helped them, personally I would not care, her actions speak far louder. I have asked this before and many of us would like to know, what is the Gospel, how can we know God, many of us would like to? Please feel free to delete if it does not fit the discussion.
Posted by: brian | August 26, 2007 at 09:57 PM
Howdy-- Just two comments, one serious and one less-than-serious.
First, even assuming "universal usage" (which I do not, by the way) this still does not make the term any less offensive. I seem to remember the term "nigger" having a quite universal usage throughout the US, and it was no less offensive for its "universal use" then than it is now.
Second, when I attend my neighbor's protestant bible study, I should no longer announce "The papist is here!" ?
Posted by: Celeste | August 26, 2007 at 11:43 PM
Actually, Celeste, I think a case could be made that the n-word IS more offensive today than it was in past centuries; according to Wikipedia, the pejorative connotations began to develop in the 1800s.
This, however, would be in contrast to "Romanist," which AFAIK has always been pejorative and characteristic of anti-Catholic prejudice, and was never a neutral and acceptable term.
Heh. The larger question is, should you be attending your neighbor's Protestant bible study? Prescinding from that question, I think that a case can be made that "Romanist" may admit a reasonable ironic usage under the "I can say it, I am one" license, e.g., Scott Hahn's "'Romanism' in Romans" tape series. (Some claim a similar license for use of the n-word by blacks, though I'm very dubious about that.)
Posted by: SDG | August 27, 2007 at 05:04 AM
Jimmy
Your second new rule:
24. It constitutes rudeness to make inflammatory assertions that one is not prepared to back up by anything more than hearsay (e.g., "Mother Theresa prayed to Hindu idols. I know because my friend said so.").
While I agree about inflamatory statements with a source such as "my friend says so", but if there are pictures, books, etc-which may not be Vatican website approved, possibly from a non Catholic (Protestant) or traditional source, that is as good of a source as any in my opinion. Do you expect the church to come clean about Mother Teresa praying to Hindu idols? Have they yet come clean about the abuse scandal where just today a well known Australian Bishop lashed out in disgust over the lack of leadership?
I think your intentions as always are good, but you are basically limiting resources to Catholic Answers and whatever so called "mainstream" not to conservative not to liberal source for a blog that is supposed to be inclusive of all
Just my opinion
Posted by: John | August 27, 2007 at 06:22 AM
Steve Camp said,
"Truth is not easily offended; error doesn't want to be challenged."
That's a interesting point Steve. By the way, I notice that Mr. White does not have comboxes on his "blog". As a matter of fact, I checked your site, and although you are using blogging software you have disabled comboxes as well. Afraid of interacting with your readers much?
Posted by: Mark | August 27, 2007 at 06:32 AM
Dear Mr. Akin:
I think it's a shame that sincere people with no desire to offend might be shut out of a friendly and respectful dialogue here due to a principled problem with using the word "Catholic" in light of a sincere issue with referring to a Church to which they do not adhere as the universal Christian Church. At the same time, I recognize the need to avoid genuinely offensive terms. (There's absolutely no call ever to use terms like "Romish," "Papist," and the like.) In light of these two genuinely valid concerns, and in recognition of the fact that it's your page and you have the right to do with it what you like, I would respectfully suggest that you consider coming up with some term that can be designated for non-offensive use other than one that could be read as forcing sincere non-Catholics to use language they feel they cannot in good conscience use. You could make up a word if you had to. The wise and mutually respectful approach to this sort of situation, in my humble opinion, is to work with people who want to converse with you in a respectful way, try to work around any terminological issues that may be interfering with the dialogue, rather than lay down the law on matters of terminology. I think if both sides want to find a mutually respectful way to deal with the situation, there's almost always a way to deal with it. Anyway, that's just my two cents.
Best regards.
CThomas
Posted by: CThomas | August 27, 2007 at 06:33 AM
John -
To my knowledge, Jimmy hasn't said he only allowes Vatican-approved sources. I'm not sure where you're getting that idea.
It is, however, a good idea to link to RELIABLE sources. Anyone with a minimum of Photoshop skills could, for example, photoshop an image of Mother Theresa onto one of a Hindu temple and thus claim it as "evidence" of their claims that Mother Theresa worshiped Hindu idols. If the picture is on a reliable source known for its credibility, it would be given more weight than if it were on a homemade GeoCities site that anyone with 30 minutes and basic HTML knowledge could create.
Posted by: JoAnna | August 27, 2007 at 06:52 AM
CThomas -
Your concern has already been addressed earlier in the thread.
Posted by: JoAnna | August 27, 2007 at 06:55 AM
CThomas, in light of the point raised many times before in this discussion, perhaps you would care to comment on why many Christians, including Catholics, have no problem referring to other Christians and Christian communities by their self-designated names as "Orthodox," "Episcopal," "Presbyterian," "Evangelical," "Church of Christ," etc., not to mention sub-Christian sects such as "Jehovah's Witnesses," "Christian Science," etc. -- regardless whatever theological caveats they may have regarding the correct application of these terms -- but when it comes to the Catholic Church, suddenly some non-Catholics have a principled objection to using the correct name of this one community.
As I have often said in the past, I regard it as a sign of profound security that my Church's claims regarding her unique stewardship of the orthodox faith, her fulness of the episcopacy and presbyterate, her fully evangelical character, her claim that in her alone the church of Christ subsists, are in no way threatened by the names other Christians are known by.
Correspondingly, the discomfort that some non-Catholic Christians feel with according to my communion her proper name I can only regard as reflecting profound insecurity, and the realization that their claim to "catholicity" is dubious indeed, requiring unceasing vigilance in defending it lest it melt away in the presence of a name.
Posted by: SDG | August 27, 2007 at 06:59 AM
I should expect, for sake of consistency, that phrases such as "swimming the Tiber" would also be off-limits.
Posted by: Jay D | August 27, 2007 at 09:02 AM
John says:
"Do you expect the church to come clean about Mother Teresa praying to Hindu idols? Have they yet come clean about the abuse scandal where just today a well known Australian Bishop lashed out in disgust over the lack of leadership?"
As expected from the guy who venemously remarked:
"As far as Mother Teresa, she participated in Hindu ritual which is pagan as far as I can recall and for all the time she spent in India have any Hindus found Christ or was she abiding by her orders and finding what is good in all faiths and not try to convert these pagans? IF that deserves sainthood as compared to the many martyrs who died for the cause and name of Jesus Christ, his teachings uncompromised and unsoiled"
Posted by: John | Jan 26, 2007 7:45:04 AM
At the very least, Steve Camp is an Anti-Catholic; thus, it is understandable why he would attempt to attack the Catholic Church and all who would abide faithfully by its Teachings -- for they are the Teachings of Christ.
I am not saying that this in any way is acceptable but it is understandable.
But John, a self-proclaimed 'traditional' Catholic, is nothing but a Judas Iscariot wanting to destroy the True Church -- even if it means joining the ranks of Anti-Catholics and engaging in sheer calumny -- just because he selfishly wants to mold the Church in his image, and not in Christ's!
As traditionally taught, those who have come to know that the Catholic Church is the True Church have a greater burden placed upon them and a greater responsibility.
Thus, John condemns himself and his treacherous actions against the True Church will ultimately be judgment against him at the Last Judgment!
Posted by: Esau | August 27, 2007 at 09:09 AM