Is Anti-Catholicism Dead? (Ques. Proposed by NY Times)

NY Times City Room Blog ^ | 7/23/2008 | Sewell Chan

[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.”

[Tax-chick]

Everything needs to be done, even if it’s just checking names off a list and fetching extra doughnuts. We always say, if many people do a little, it’s a lot more fair than if a few people do a lot.

[Tax-chick]

I’d appreciate it. I think that if we’re going to engage in apologetics, we ought to have our Scriptures nailed. As it happens, Anoreth wanted to watch “Magnum, P.I.” May I say (as a six-day, young-earth Creationist) that Tom Selleck is one of the wonders of creation?

[Salvation]

And can you believe it — from our ONE Catholic Church — we had 150 children! It ended last Friday too.

[Alamo-Girl]

Amen. Praise God!!!

[Alamo-Girl]

You're quite welcome, dear brother in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights and testimony!

TODAY IS THE DAY TO SAY, "YES! LORD!" HEARING HIS VOICE, FOLLOWING HIM AND NO OTHER . . . NO OTHER THING . . . NO OTHER !!!TRADITION!!! . . . NO OTHER GROUP . . . NO OTHER ANYTHING BUT THE MASTER.

Indeed. 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

If we don't get that right, nothing else will matter.

To God be the glory!

[Quix]

PRAISE GOD FOR YOUR AFFIRMATIONS of BIBLICAL TRUTHS.

BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD.

[Quix]

MY ERROR Mixing up historical Prottys and RC’s

I’m trying to ask for your candid assessments of

LEONARD FEENEY (State of MASS.) 1897 American Jesuit

[John Leland 1789]

“You said: there have been millions over the centuries who were neither Catholic (by Vatican definition) or Protestant (by Geneva definition), but Christians

That’s wishful thinking.”

---

Many are, evidently, so locked in to the history that a big mamma choich gives them, that they absolutely believe that the only Christians in existence are either Vatican-minded or Geneva-minded. They are welcome to keep their head in that box, but i’taint so, never has been so.

And I gave you no interpretation of John 14:6.

Anyone who thinks that the only Christians were always either Vatican-minded or Geneva-minded should not pretend to know anything about “historical documents.”

[John Leland 1789]

So what happened? A group of Catholics got together at a museum to discuss whether there are people who don't like Catholicism? And if the conclusion is that there are some, what would they possible come up with as the remedy that hasn't already been tried?

I can't imagine Lutherans having a public meeting to decide whether there are people who don't like Lutheranism. Perhaps it happens — I just have never heard about such, nor can I imagine such.

I can't imagine Methodists having a public meeting to decide whether there are people who don't like Lutheranism. Perhaps it happens — I just have never heard about such, nor can I imagine such.

I can't imagine Assembly of God members having a public meeting to decide whether there are people who don't like Assemblies doctrine or order. Perhaps it happens — I just have never heard about such, nor can I imagine such.

I can't imagine Baptists having a public meeting to decide whether there are people who don't like Baptist doctrine or order. Perhaps it happens — I just have never heard about such, nor can I imagine such.

I can't imagine Presbyterians having a public meeting to decide whether there are people who don't like Presbyterianism. Perhaps it happens — I just have never heard about such, nor can I imagine such.

[John Leland 1789]

“Not without Baptism — but there’s Baptism of Blood and even Baptism of Desire as well as the ordinary Baptism by water and the Holy Ghost.

“So there is always the possibility of salvation. God has the power to reach out and save anyone, anywhere, as long as they truly desire it.”

---

Actually, you make Catholicism sound so virtually unnecessary in the final analysis.

[annalex]

Proves that the only Church that matters is the Catholic Church.

[Quix]

Anyone who thinks that the only Christians were always either Vatican-minded or Geneva-minded should not pretend to know anything about “historical documents.”

= =

INDEED.

[Quix]

IT IS

rather fascinating

that the “Christian” group

MOST given to being authoritarian, heavy handed POLITICALLY CONTROLLING of all of Christendom

is also the only one so hyper brittle about how they are seen.

Kind of like someone who builds a large glass house covering a block . . . then goes up to EVERY individual walking by on both sides of all streets—demanding each individual open their hands and discard any hard objects in them. And then being incensed that passers by are annoyed by such treatment.

LOL.

[Quix]

. . . the only 'church' that matters . . .

NONE
OF
THE
ORGANIZATIONS
will
matter
a
gnat's
burp's
worth
in
the
final
analysis
.

Organizations will not stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ nor The Great White Throne Judgment.

Organizations will not likely be rewarded in the least.

Organizations will not likely continue after Armageddon.

Christ and the New Testament were not very flattering to organized, bureaucratic RELIGIOUS POLITICAL magicsterical mangled ORGANIZATIONS. His fiercest hostilities were against individuals leading such.

The notion that the RC edifice is the ONLY (RELIGIOUS POLITICAL POWER-MONGERING MAGICSTERICAL MANGLED) ORGANIZATION to matter--in ANY sense of the word "matter," is arrogantly and UNBiblically ludicrous beyond belief.

Some organizations, due to their size, will have leaders who bear some horrendous censure from God Almighty according to the Biblical principle of: TO WHOM MUCH IS GIVEN, MUCH IS REQUIRED. Their stewardship of what they did with their resources to teach authentic Biblical Truth; to help the poor; to introduce folks to Christ etc. will bear some horrendous responsibility.

Christ did not come to save organizations. There's no New Testament evidence that Christ wanted ANY organization, beyond a loose house church arrangement of wiser, humbler sorts of elders, to even exist.

Some leaders of some organizations will bear horrendous censure from God Almighty for the vain glories they gathered about themselves; luxuriated in, wallowed in, lorded it over others with.

ALL faith placed in human organizations--particularly bureaucratically heavy ones--is ill-placed. FAITH BELONGS IN GOD ALONE.

ALL ELSE IS QUICK-SAND. It doesn't matter how high the quicksand is piled, it's still quicksand [Yes, I realize that in nature, quicksand is not pile-able].

Most RELIGIOUS organizations barely merit being considered good enough to The Kingdom to be TOLERABLE. Most bureaucratically heavy RELIGIOUS organizations are simply destructive to The Kingdom far more than beneficial.

[Mad Dawg]

I can't imagine (Lutherans/Methodists/Assembly of God members/Baptists/Presbyterians) having a public meeting to decide whether there are people who don't like Lutheranism.

Well, whose problem is that? ;-)

Seriously, maybe part of the difference is the size of the Catholic Church in the US and a history (Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion anyone?) of Catholicism being a political issue. Being Catholic may have had an influence, many say, on the candidacy of Al Smith. it certainly was some kind of big deal in the Kennedy candidacy. Currently Teddy the Hutt has pretty much reassured the world that he is an non-observant Catholic, so it's not a deal for him.

Catholicism was an issue in the Mexican American War. It is referred to disparagingly in the writings of Thomas Jefferson. It was an issue for the reconstituted Klan.

It stays with me (not in a painful way but as significant) that when we were gathering at the church for my mother's funeral, the wife of an old friend of ours who had just found out that I had become, 8 years or so earlier, a Catholic, lit into me about how dreadful Catholicism is. I suggested that maybe a few minutes before the funeral of my mother was not the best time for such a conversation. But it reminded me that for some their notion of the dreadfulness of Catholicism is so great and arouses such passion that they forget where they are!

I recommend reading the article. You may find that the text sheds great light on the commentary, as one of my Bible profs said.

[John Leland 1789]

“Well, whose problem is that? ;-)”

---

I don't see it as a problem.

What produces the need for anti-defamation conferences is political intent as viewed over a very long course of history. If Christians don't intend to use influence through earthly church denominations or hierarchies, and if the denominations don't have anything in their history that suggests that they want to rule over kings, they won't likely be viewed with very much suspicion.

If an earthly church organization, on the other hand, has anything in their history (or its doctrines and pronouncements) that suggests an interest in controlling the course of governments, then there will perpetually be deep suspicion with regard to their intent.

I am not speaking of merely using Christian heritage as a basis for structuring and maintaining a society. I believe that all Christians should be involved in the political sphere to that degree through the voting process, influencing referendum, and through their communications with elected representatives. And further by using a free press to further Christian thought and teach the Christian world view. I believe Christians should be missionary in their intent, on a personal and local church level to spread the Gospel (I speak of a specific Gospel message of redemption in Christ, not a general “gospel” that tends to mean anything religious, much less political).

I am talking about looking back in history and seeing whether any earthly church or religious organization has ever actually attempted to control (by force, by intimidation, by threat of spiritual bondage) kings, queens, princes, presidents, prime ministers, and the like.

Let me give you an example. Bishops of the Church of England were able for a time (1700s) to convince British forces in North Carolina to use military means to intimidate and frighten non-Anglican Christians (mostly Baptists) in the NC Piedmont. This continued until some of the people in that region took up arms, even against the wishes of their pacifist pastor, Shubal Stearns, and give the the British forces a black eye.

The Bishops’ use of influence with the British army caused deep suspicion of the Anglican church in NC for decades, and actually contributed to a declension of the Anglican Church in that region of the colonies (even prior to the War for Independence.

I believe that the USA should maintain its CHRISTIAN heritage. I believe on the other hand that NO particular, named Church or religious society (not mine or anyone else's either)should be viewed as a state church. I don't believe either that the Federal Government should favor any earthly religious organization anywhere. I don't believe we should have embassages to any “church” anywhere, either.

If history reveals any intent to control earthly governments on the part of any “church,” deep suspicion of it should continue.

[John Leland 1789]

The Christian histroy of the United States wouldn’t be a very good testimony to that.

[John Leland 1789]

The glass building thing is an excellent analogy! THANKS!