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 movements foot soldiers.
(Excerpt) Read more at cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com ...
If more people walked the walk, it wouldn’t be a problem.
Well then I am confused why you think 'generally speaking' disqualifies that. To me that would mean not only one, but most.
“Looks like crow’s back OFF the menu, boys.”
Now you tell us! My whole house reaks of boiled crow. Kids ran outside barefooted holding towels over their faces, and I haven’t heard from the dog in hours.
I responded in the same frame of reference as Alex had in his post quoting me, as a matter of knowing or not any given individual’s prospect of salvation. By using Alex’s name I was merely giving an example of such individual. I apologize if is sounded any more personal than Alex’s post. My post was not intended as a personal remark, Alex.
What is funny about that is Catholics have no problem telling Protestants they are going to hell because they don't belong to 'The Church',
"Catholics have no problem...". What does that mean. It could mean NO Catholic has a problem. It could mean SOME Catholics have a problem, but others don't.
We went with "some" and asked if you could find ONE that did.
... Protestants they are going to hell because they don't belong to 'The Church'
By definition, I would think, NO Protestant is in full communion with the See of Rome, which is what I took you to mean by "belong to 'The Church'." (We have already discussed how we think that all who are baptized with water and the use of a Trinitarian formula DO in fact "belong to "the Church," but I don't think you meant that.
Presumably, the hypothetical (and so far not proven to exist) Catholic who would be "telling Protestants they are going to hell because they don't belong to 'The Church'," would mean ALL Protestants, because, as discussed, not "belonging" to 'The Church' seems to define the class.
So I think I have shown that your statement could be understood to be equivalent to:
There is at least one Catholic who tells Protestants that ALL of them are going to hell because they are Protestants."And I'd bet that maybe in Ireland or something there is one. But the context seemed to suggest that maybe there was a Catholic like that on FR who had actually said so in living memory.
Anyway, I see where in another post you are saying that
I just meant to make the point that both neither side is innocent, which I think the constant hounding on this thread proved.I guess I object to "constant hounding". You said,"Catholics have no problem... ." You did not say,"all have sinned," but you assigned a specific sign to a class or genus. You have been "hounded" only if defending oneself against an unjust charge is hounding. Do you really think that it's somehow persecution to object to an accusation one thinks undeserved?
To continue with the exercise in pedantry: You did NOT say "SOME catholics have no problem," or "I know of a Catholic who has no problem ..."
The statement seemed to be about "Catholics" as a genus, that is, generally - which usually admits of exceptions. But I think that qualifies as "blanket".
Anyway, if you had said, "None of us (or, more precisely, "neither side") is innocent," I suspect you would have found lots of agreement.
But you made a charge, and were "hounded" with defenses against what was, whatever you really meant to say, an attack.
The moral would appear to be that in a hot medium we should all try to cut each other breaks while we choose our own words carefully.
And they were correct. My expectation of your conversion and consequent salvation is right in the post you quote from.
So telling us generally speaking Protestants go to hell or purgatory or unsaved or whatever, we should be not take offense? I am confused.
I had a private exchange on this, and I want to mention one aspect that came up publicly:
The hurt feeling that some might feel learninig that there is no salvation outside of Catholic Church is mostly incomprehension and not ill will. The Protestants are trained to think that one is either saved or not saved NOW. The truth is, salvation is a process; but to them, statement of fact.
Exactly!
And I was having all the neighbors over for Blackbird Pie, too! I hate it when y’all change the rules on my like this!
Just throw some hollandaise sauce on it an tell ‘em it’s some fancy French dish. They’ll all be impressed!
Or, this could be the perfect occasion for the mango sauce with habanero peppers!
The law is for condemnation and it condemns all people as we all fall short. Jesus fulfilled the law by his sacrafice and offered salvation for those whom believe. The Catholic Church to me seems to want to invent new laws to replace the ones fulfilled by Christ. The difference between Catholics and Protestants is that Protestants can believe Catholics are saved by their belief in Jesus, Catholics don't believe Protestants are saved. Now there are lots of Protestants who condemn Catholics because of the law, but they don't understand those laws have been fulfilled.
We don't believe anyone, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, or Hindu is either saved or lost while they are still living. Salvation is a process that continues through your life and IF at any point you convert to the truths of the Catholic Church either (better) formally or through a conversion of the heart, then you WILL BE saved (note conditional and the future tense).
This is why this entire display of hurt feelings is uncomprehensible to us; and if you read the explanations readily available on the subject from any informed Catholic, you would not have them.
See, for example,
SALVATION PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
JUSTIFICATION IN CATHOLIC TEACHING
Alright, enough is enough...just put yer crow down nice and easy like...slowly back away...that way nobody gets hurt.
Interesting, but seems like a lot of words just to say ‘we don’t know yet’. However, that seems to be a more appropriate response to fellow believers.
That is debatable. Maybe he should have inserted " some". "Some Protestant Christians."
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.