Anti-Catholicism: A Phony Issue [Religion Forum Piñata]

Washington Post ^ | March 14, 2007 | Susan Jacoby

[TradicalRC]

I believe that there is a rule on FR against thread-jumping.

[ladyinred]

Bravo!!! Wonderful post!

[TradicalRC]

Well now if we have to fine tune our addressing the various and sundry Protestant sects, should the Catholics ask that the Protestants limit their critiques to this or that parish/diocese/order/deanery/bishop/organization? We could do without that all-encompassing "catholic" label.

[AlaninSA]

Ah, but where's the article on obsessive behavior by the anti-Catholic crowd? Or those who post hit pieces at every chance?

[AlaninSA]

Is this a national trend, or an individual (sorry) crusade to stigmatize a useful, if not perfectly precise, distinction?

---

It's just thin skin by those who wish to define themselves in terms that they find less offensive...no matter how accurate the term is.

The bottom line is that if you're a Christian who is not Catholic or Orthodox, then you're a Protestant. You've broken from the original churches and are participating in something new...

...and no number of breathless statements that "we're the ones 'restoring' the original church" will change that fact.

Hell, most "Protestant" "churches" in my area are simply shrines to the ego (and pocketbook) of the "pastor."

[BlackElk]

When "William fights" in causes that Catholics share, he should enjoy the support of Catholics. When Catholics fight in causes which we share, we should enjoy the support of William. We share the same Saviour, if not every detail of theology. If a post of anyone appears to me to be "Catholic bashing," I may well respond. I may also respond to my Catholic co-religionists if they are (for lack of a better and more accurate term) Protestant bashing.

I am much more likely to be angered by those claiming Catholicism who have been declared excommunicated or declared schismatic by Pope John Paul II's Ecclesia Dei, but that is an intramural Catholic vs. "Catholic" matter, a race in which you appear not to have a horse.

Sincere reformed Christians at Free Republic are probably not awaiting my advice, even if respectfully delivered, as to how they might change to Catholic. I am certainly not open to changing from Catholic. I am open as I hope all of my fellow Christians are to defending the unborn, defending marriage, defending appropriate liberties. I appreciate the welcome that Catholics have found in a nation largely founded by non-Catholics. I respect this nation's institutions and the many superb people who have not shared the Catholic Faith but have made room for it here.

I try not to be quick to take offense from those who are sincere in any faith other than my own which does not pretend (like SSPX) to be my own. When troubles occur in other faiths, I self-impose a limitation that concedes that it is none of my business and pray to our Father in heaven that His will be done (whatever it may be). He loves each of us so much more than we can love even ourselves.

God bless you and yours.

[BlackElk]

Representing many hundreds of reformed Christians arrested as activist pro-lifers helped since I had to probe the faith of each to represent the individual defendant according to his/her beliefs rather than my own. Concededly that was before I was even on FR, but it occurred to overly dense me that those wonderful people of faith, like Hilda, were necessarily also targets of my attacks on reformed Christianity when obviously they were my brothers and sisters in Christ.

God bless you and yours.

[GoLightly]

Seems to me, living our faith creates power that draws us together, while words seem to push us toward recreating Babylon's confusion.

God bless you & yours as well & may He bless the work you do on behalf of His most innocent lambs.

[Alex Murphy]

Ah, but where's the article on obsessive behavior by the anti-Catholic crowd? Or those who post hit pieces at every chance?

Feel free to ping me to it, when you find and post one!

[Tax-chick]

most "Protestant" "churches" in my area are simply shrines to the ego (and pocketbook) of the "pastor."

Yes, I used to live around there, too. Some Texas-sized egos on display, definitely!

To be fair, though, in recent history Texas has seen some Catholic bishops with Texas-sized heads, too :-).

[redgolum]

As a Lutheran, I have always thought that the term "Protestant" meant a Western Church that was not Catholic (there are some eastern churches that can not be called protestant that are not Orthodox). But when talking with people in North America, I have to say I am "Lutheran", because the term "Protestant" is taken to mean some sort of Calvinist/Reformed confession. On other boards I have had to explain that I do believe in the Real Presence even though I am "Protestant" to many times.

For the most part, I don't get that worked up about terms. Though I have often been slammed for using terms like RCC for Roman Catholic Church or EOC for Eastern Orthodox. It isn't that I am trying to be insulting, but that I like to us abbreviations.

[wagglebee]

On other boards I have had to explain that I do believe in the Real Presence even though I am "Protestant" to many times.

While I don't agree with it, I do understand why non-Catholics deny certain Catholic beliefs like papal authority, the Blessed Virgin Mary, Purgatory, etc. However, I have NEVER UNDERSTOOD why they resist the truth of the Real Presense, I can see nothing in it that is "peculiar" and while it does require faith, it really doesn't require any more faith than Truths such as the Virgin Birth, Resurrection, Ascension and Pentecost.

[Tax-chick]

However, I have NEVER UNDERSTOOD why they resist the truth of the Real Presence

I didn't either, but one of my (sorry) Protestant friends, the wife of a youth minister at a congregation designated "Community Church," told me that it's an issue not so much with the Real Presence, but the fact that it requires a priest to consecrate the Eucharist.

In other words, if you have the Body of Christ, you must have a priest to consecrate it. Then you need a Bishop to ordain the priest. Then you need an organization to appoint and ordain the Bishop. And before you know it, you've got a whole ecclesiastical structure (like the Catholic Church, for example :-), which some (sorry) Protestants, in the (sorry) Puritan/Congregationalist tradition, reject as "unBiblical."

As you said about some other beliefs, wagglebee, I don't agree with this position, but it makes a reasonable amount of sense, when considered with its particular historical context.

[wagglebee]

That still doesn't make sense. They had no problem saying that their ordained ministers can baptize, marry, etc. Most of them still have a form of communion. So, it seems that they still could have retained it, as Lutherans have (I won't even try to get into Lutherans' belief of Consubstantiation vs. Catholic/Orthodox Transubstantiation, because it confuses me).

[Tax-chick]

They had no problem saying that their ordained ministers can baptize, marry, etc.

The ministers can marry through the authority of the state, not the church. And anyone can baptize; Catholics agree. Their communion did not involve a consecration, but only a sharing in (I'm series) Pepperidge Farm goldfish and grape juice by the congregation.

They don't believe that Jesus did anything to the bread and wine at the Last Supper, other than offer a blessing as anyone could. Therefore, they can "commemorate" that occasion simply through the sharing of the congregation, no minister needed.

As I said, I don't agree, of course, but it seems internally consistent to me, except for the goldfish (which my friend mentioned because she thought it was appalling!).

[BlackElk]

I and a lot of other Catholics here know that Lutheran redgolum is not at all anti-Catholic, much less insulting to us, despite some theological differences.

Call me RCC any time.

May God continue to bless you and yours.

[trisham]

bookmark

[wagglebee]

It still seems that Protestants could have assumed the authority to consecrate the Eucharist.

[Tax-chick]

I suppose, but that would be very confusing!

[wagglebee]

No it wouldn't, they could simply claim that any ordained minister could consecrate the Eucharist. It's far easier than claiming that John 6 is talking about symbolism.