In the comments section of this post at the blog Beggars All the following comment was made by Presbyterian Pastor David T. King (DTK): “Even if this quote meant what the claimant wished it did, it begs the question that the ancient catholic church is to be equated with the present day Roman communion”
To which I replied: “You can say Roman all you want to try to confuse the term Catholic; but go out on any street in the world and ask for directions to the nearest Catholic church: you’re not going to end up in a Presbyterian church or any other church but in the only Catholic church there is; that which is in communion with the bishop of Rome.”
To be fair, I do understand the implications of DTK’s comment and realize that my comment does not answer those implications. However, I stand by my comment on the basis that the term Roman as used by DTK is used in a derogative sense and has nothing to do with Christian charity.
My comment prompted a post by Turretinfan (T/F) which I will post in its entirety (words in gray) with my reply (in blue).
Richard (aka “Mary’s Son”) provides us with an example of two logical fallacies in one (source):
Richard writes: “You can say Roman all you want to try to confuse the term Catholic; but go out on any street in the world and ask for directions to the nearest Catholic church: you’re not going to end up in a Presbyterian church or any other church but in the only Catholic church there is; that which is in communion with the bishop of Rome.”
On the surface this may seem like a logical fallacy – even silly, I’ll grant that to T/F. However, as we’ll see, he demolishes an argument of his own making. I made a statement in reply to DTK’s rhetoric, not an argument. I will make an argument and T/F can feel free to demolish it if he chooses.
1) The argument from ignorance. Paraphrased as: “Since most people don’t know the difference between the term “catholic” and “Catholic,” it must mean there is no difference!” The fact that most people are ignorant of the difference is a negative judgment on their education: it is not a way to establish the matter logically.
Before I move on to the next point, part of why I made the statement was not because of peoples ignorance ( i guess people just aren’t in T/F’s loop of information) but because of (in part) historical facts. For the past two thousand years you could have picked any year to ask the question and still have been directed to the catholic church.
DTK wishes to call this church the Roman church as a derogative term so that he may lay hold of the claim of being catholic just as T/F will try to do with his circular reasoning that he’s arrived at (or not arrived as the case may be) through false interpretations of Scripture.
2) The argument from the masses. Paraphrased as: “If practically everyone thinks it is so, they must be right.” The fact that most people think something is so doesn’t make it true. Democracy is not the way we establish truth.
This point is actually moot, for as I said, I made no argument.
The refutation to this silliness is simple: Ask the man on the street for an “Orthodox” church, and he won’t point you to a church in communion with Rome! Oh no. He’ll point you to a church more or less loosely affiliated with Constantinople. It must mean (by analogous reasoning to that of Richard) that Rome, while “catholic” nevertheless has fallen into heresy! This is obviously unacceptable to most of those who would have the same church affiliation as Richard.
Actually, T/F’s refutation of my “silliness” is quite acceptable – though not agreeable – to me if it is argued from an Orthodox point of view. However, in my view the Orthodox church is catholic in the same way the Catholic church is orthodox.
In fact, despite many bad arguments from “Orthodox” folks, I think I’ve never heard such an obviously bad one. It’s too bad that there are at least some few people who think that the argument is a good one as applied to Catholicism.
The argument – when one is actually made – is acually a good one; especially compared to the unsatisfactory answers (or lack of) from Protestants.
Of course, Richard’s underlying accusation, i.e. that people use “Roman” to try to “confuse the term Catholic,” is a misplaced accusation.
This is a well placed accusation, which itself has historical roots. Since the Reformation, Protestants have tried to define the Church in their own terms using descriptions such as “Roman”.
No one (that I’ve ever heard of) uses that term to try to confuse, but rather to try to avoid ambiguity,
T/F is using it now.
since there is a real and important difference between the church of Rome, which calls herself the “Catholic Church” and the universal (“catholic”) church of Christ (all those people who believe on Him for salvation as he is offered in the Gospel).
This is where truth and reality become distorted. First the church of Rome does call herself the Catholic church (in the same sense the Catholic church here in West Chester calls herself the Catholic church) because she is a part of the Catholic church. Also, the church of Rome, and the Catholic church throughout the world, believe on Christ as He is offered in the Gospel. This is where the Protestants false interpretation of Scripture leads them astray.
Finally, it’s not an horribly original argument. It’s loosely based on similar arguments either presented by or attributed to church fathers. It’s important to remember that not every argument made by the church fathers was a good argument. But when one engages in taking an argument about nomenclature, ripping it out of its context, and plopping into a new context a thousand years later, one should be unsurprised that it flops around like a fish out of water — and just as quickly expires.
This is wishful thinking and a non-argument. I’ve used the term Catholic as it has been used for two millennium.
To answer the subject question, the catholic church is the body of all believers. It is not at an address: it is throughout the whole world. Its faith is preserved in all those churches where the Gospel is preached and believed. Thus, through metonymy, a “catholic church” (i.e. a congregation that fits the label “catholic”) is a place where the faith of the catholic church is taught.
Let’s grant T/F’s answer. Now we’re in the same spot we were in when I asked the question. Now we have to ask: Where is the Gospel preached and believed? But notice also how T/F switches from “the catholic church is the body of all believers” (something which Catholics don’t deny BTW) to pointing subtely to an address (somewhere?). But he’s right, a catholic church is a place where the catholic faith is taught; something which he just denied when Catholics claim it.
By that definition, one would not look to the churches in communion with Rome, but in Evangelical churches.
Talk about hard work! You would have to visit a lot of churches and find out a lot of information -years and years of study- to figure out which churches are Evangelical and which ones are not. Oh wait, they’re the ones that proclaim and believe the Gospel.
Thus, if you get the subject question, I hope you’ll consider answering: “Are you looking for a place where the Gospel is proclaimed?” And then directing them to such a place, or explaining why that ought to be their objective.
-TurretinFan
Which is the Catholic church, the church throughout the world in communion with the bishop of Rome because this church proclaims the Gospel.
In Conclusion: We see that neither I nor T/F, AS FAR AS THE ARGUMENT GOES, are in a better position. Every statement begs more questions and every answer can be argued. However, and this is where T/F fails, the Catholic answers are consistent (with history and Theology) and even more they satisfy the hunger for truth; for the Catholic Church is Christ in the world.
In Christ,
Richard
