Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Anti-Catholicism Dead? (Ques. Proposed by NY Times)
NY Times City Room Blog ^ | 7/23/2008 | Sewell Chan

Posted on 07/23/2008 2:47:21 PM PDT by Pyro7480

When Gov. Alfred E. Smith ran for president in 1928, his candidacy was derailed in large part by anti-Catholic prejudice. It has been nearly 48 years since John F. Kennedy became the first (and so far only) Roman Catholic president, but experts say that anti-Catholic sentiment — much of it originating in, or as a response to, immigrants in New York — remains an enduring force in American culture.

That was the consensus of a panel assembled at the Museum of the City of New York on Tuesday night to consider the question, “Is Anti-Catholicism Dead?

...The Rev. Richard John Neuhaus — a leading conservative intellectual, a former Lutheran pastor and the editor of the leading Catholic journal First Things — offered a surprising view on the question.

“To be a Catholic is not to be refused positions of influence in our society,” he said. “Indeed, one of the most acceptable things is to be a bad Catholic, and in the view of many people, the only good Catholic is a bad Catholic.”

...He added that anti-Catholicism was as likely to come from the left — sometimes from commentators who believe that a “threatening theological insurgency is engineered and directed by Catholics,” with evangelical Protestants merely as the movement’s “foot soldiers.”

(Excerpt) Read more at cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: anticatholic; anticatholicism; catholic; nytimes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 1,041-1,059 next last
To: Mad Dawg; Dr. Eckleburg
We have all the evidence we need to show that they don't mean what they say and they insist they know better than we do what we say means.

Some here find parsing of the language tedious. But truly, what fun it is.

We have all the evidence,
[that] we need[,] to show that they don't mean what they say
and they insist [that] they know better than we do
what [that, which] we say[,] means.

Take that, "doctor".

301 posted on 07/26/2008 1:55:12 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

You wrote:

“What you said was “refuted” by Annalex.”

No, it wasn’t and he has explicitly denied that that is the case.

“Nothing much more required to illustrate the truth of Alex Murphy’s point.”

What truth in Alex’s point? He couldn’t even prove what he claimed!

“Pray for eyes to see the difference between black and white.”

I already have them. Pray that you learn to read and learn the importance to context.


302 posted on 07/26/2008 2:43:57 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: Linden1209
Sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

I'll do my best to respond to charges because sometimes you actually can convince a person that they were mistaken. They might even see the light and convert!

303 posted on 07/26/2008 3:59:17 PM PDT by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chase, TTGS Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Your post is gibberish.


304 posted on 07/26/2008 10:01:32 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

Religion is an “ideology” and therefore fair game. We should feel free to criticize ANY religion and not have to apologize for doing so.


305 posted on 07/26/2008 10:03:01 PM PDT by Clemenza (No Comment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annalex
You think I refute people without being aware of doing so?

Your words are clear to anyone reading them.

The problem for you is not that Protestants do not understand what you say; it is that we understand it all too well, and we disagree with it.

And as these many months of threads confirm, some Rome prefers darkness to the light.

Scripture tells us why.

306 posted on 07/26/2008 10:08:06 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: annalex
some Rome

I know you're a stickler for grammar.

307 posted on 07/26/2008 10:09:48 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; Alex Murphy; Gamecock; Lee N. Field; Forest Keeper; Quix
If a Protestant goes to hell it is for different reasons.

What might those "reasons" be?

308 posted on 07/26/2008 10:25:38 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

SHEESH


309 posted on 07/26/2008 10:30:18 PM PDT by Quix (key QUOTES POLS 1900 ON #76 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2031425/posts?page=77#77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Gamecock; Alex Murphy; Lee N. Field
A conscious informed rejection of the truths of the Catholic faith is what condemns to hell

The doctrine of Mary's bodily ascension into heaven and her immaculate conception and her being considered a mediator are all "truths" according to Rome.

If a Protestant disagrees with those beliefs, is he then "condemned to hell?"

310 posted on 07/26/2008 10:30:56 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: Quix
lol. And they say we're arrogant. 8~)
311 posted on 07/26/2008 10:31:53 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Gamecock; Alex Murphy; Lee N. Field
If a Protestant disagrees with [the late in formulation Catholic Marian dogmas], is he then "condemned to hell?"

It is about the tenth time, "doctor" that I explain. If you (not being personal) reject them as an act of informed free will, of course you do go to (drum roll) Hell. If you fail to form a belief in them due to honest doubt or lack of familiarity with them, that would not be a factor.

A course in reading comprehension is available from me at a modest fee, to defray the costs of typing.

312 posted on 07/27/2008 1:36:53 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: annalex
A course in reading comprehension is available from me at a modest fee, to defray the costs of typing.

Such a course, if it existed, would only be of interest to those one of whose goals was comprehension.

What we have here are people who, not understanding, not caring to understand, what is written, call it gibberish, and thinking themselves smart for doing so, turn to their homies for high fives and fist bumps.

It's like talking to Democrats.

313 posted on 07/27/2008 4:07:17 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

INDEED.

THIS TAKES THE CAKE:

ANNALEX: “You are hell bound, generally speaking, yes, by the fact of your being separated brethren.”

ANNALEX: I know, for example, that as an anti-Catholic you cannot go to heaven.”

VLAD: I still don’t see any automatic consignment to hell there.


314 posted on 07/27/2008 4:54:04 AM PDT by Quix (key QUOTES POLS 1900 ON #76 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2031425/posts?page=77#77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Alex Murphy; blue-duncan; BnBlFlag; Dr. Eckleburg; ears_to_hear; Forest Keeper; ...
Sounds like

the Jewish magicsterical of 2000 years ago.

Christ wasn't impressed with it then.

I can't imagine He's impressed with it now.

This sort of hyper parochial mentality is part of what Christ died to abolish.

He died to restore each individual's fellowship with THE FATHER.

Yet again the enemy of our souls has used mankind's obsession with organized hoopla and law to distance individuals further and further from not just THE FATHER, but Christ and THE TRUTHs about God and about RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD.

Satan convinced individual after individual that they cannot approach God as DADDY through CHRIST'S BLOOD ALONE.

Therefore, they have to submit to wholesale and utterly depend upon layer upon layer of professional gatekeepers because satan has convinced each individual that Christ's Blood is insufficient alone to cover their wormy-ness.

So lock-step, day after day, the faithful submit to endless jury-rigged hoops that the "new" money-changers; PURPORTED soul-leveragers; glorifiers and RELIGIOUS [not spiritual] pontificators burden the serfs with.

Lots of Olympic class retch material there.

315 posted on 07/27/2008 5:07:46 AM PDT by Quix (key QUOTES POLS 1900 ON #76 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2031425/posts?page=77#77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: sandyeggo
I know that there are some Catholics who would find the whole quote debatable, but in this instance I find myself very close in agreement with what the Holy Father is saying in a general sense. When it gets down to particulars, I continue to hesitate.

I understand who the Holy Father refers, and I agree. In a general sense, Protestants, as a whole, probably don't qualify as heretics, per his definition. But if he were a freeper he might have a different opinion.....an obstinate adherence to private revelation? was that the phrase? A lot of that goes on around here.

316 posted on 07/27/2008 5:08:17 AM PDT by LordBridey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

I think foundationally,

you are wiser than that assertion implies.


317 posted on 07/27/2008 5:08:51 AM PDT by Quix (key QUOTES POLS 1900 ON #76 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2031425/posts?page=77#77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

You wrote:

“What might those “reasons” be?”

Sins for which they have not repented.


318 posted on 07/27/2008 5:15:48 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

Comment #319 Removed by Moderator

To: Quix; Dr. Eckleburg
Thank you so much for sharing your insights and concerns, dear brother in Christ!

It is indeed tragic whenever a Christian believes that the Blood of Christ is in some way insufficient.

Many, I suspect, feel this way because of self-loathing. Because their past sins haunt them, they "will" not to receive God's forgiveness. Some might even see their attitude as extreme humility, but what it really is, is a lack of faith. By not receiving the forgiveness, they are in effect, telling God "I do not believe you, I do not trust you."

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. - Isaiah 1:18

And some, I suspect, are uncomfortable with unmerited grace and feel they must do something to earn it. They might see this as humility or gratitude instead of the insult to the Blood of the Lamb that it is. In effect, they are judging God by saying it was not enough for Jesus to shed His own Blood for his sins, that they could become righteous on their own.

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. - Galatians 2:21

And some, I suspect, believe the Blood of Christ fades over time - that when they sin again, the forgiveness they once received is cancelled. They cannot seem to accept that they simply need to confess the new sin, repent of it and the Blood of the Lamb cleanses them from the new sin as well.

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. - I John 1:7-9

It doesn't matter what additional labels a Christian might wear. There is only one Great Commandment:

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. – Matthew 22:37-38

Love God surpassingly above all else. Believe Him. Trust Him.

320 posted on 07/27/2008 8:14:24 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 1,041-1,059 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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