Posted on 07/29/2008 4:39:52 PM PDT by annalex
Evangelicals have been going through a major change of heart in their view of Catholicism over the past 15 years or so. In the 80’s when I was in college I lived in the Biblebelt and had plenty of experience with Evangelicals–much of it bad experience. The 80’s was the height of the “Are you saved?” question. In Virginia, the question often popped up in the first 10 minutes of getting to know someone. As I look back, Isurmise that this was coached from the pulpit or Sunday school as it was so well coordinated and almost universally applied. It was a good tactic for putting Catholics on the defensive even before it was known that they were Catholic—”ummmm, uhhh, well no, I’m not sure, I’m Catholic.” Then a conversation about works righteousness or saint statues would ensue. Yeah, nice to meet you, too.
Thankfully, those days are pretty much over. We now have formerly rabid anti-Catholics apologizing and even praising the pope. Catholics and Evangelicals have both learned that we have much in common and need each other to face the secular culture with a solid front. But, where did this detente come from? I think there is a real history to be told here and a book should be written. Let me give my perceptions of 7 major developments since 1993, which I regard as the the watershed year for the renewal of the Catholic Church in the United States.
1. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1993. When this document came out, it was uncertain that even Catholics would read it. We should have known that something was up when the French version hit the top of the bestsellers charts in France and stayed there for months. The English version did the same in the US. Catholics were reading the Catechism, forming study groups and challenging errant professors in the classroom.
2. World Youth Day, Denver 1993. Catholic youth and youth ministers woke up. Suddenly, Catholic youth ministers realized that the youth loved the pope. And they loved him all the more because he did not talk down to them or water down the faith. He challenged them. Gone now were the pizza and a video parish youth nights. Furthermore, youth and young adults took up the challenge to evangelize. One of those youth heard the message and started a website, New Advent. Catholic youth were now becoming zealous for the Catholic faith in its fullness and were not going to be swayed by an awkward conversation that began with “Are you saved?”
3. Scott Hahn. While the Catechism is great for expounding the Catholic faith, it is not a work of apologetics itself. It is not written to expose the flaws of Evangelical theology. It is not written to defend the Church against the attacks of Evangelicals per se. It just would not let them get away with misrepresenting the Catholic faith. But Scott Hahn hit the scene at about the same time with Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism (Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 1993). I first heard his testimony on cassette tape in 1996. It blew my mind. Suddenly, Catholic apologetics, which is as old as the Catholic Church itself, got a leg up and there was an explosion of books, magazines and websites that effectively undercut the arguments of the 5 Solas. For the first time, there was a cadre of Catholics well enough informed to defend their faith.
4. The Internet. The Net started exploding from 1993 to 1996. I had my first account in ‘94. Compuserve was horribly basic, but by ‘96 I had AOL and the religion debates raged instantly. Catholics who had just been given the most powerful weapon in the arsenal in the war against misinterpretation of their teaching were learning to type on a forum while balancing their catechisms on their laps. Of course, online versions came out, as well. But, no Evangelical bent on getting Catholics out of the arms of the Whore of Babylon could expect to do so without himself have a copy of the Catechism, knowing it inside out and pouring over it for the errors and horrors he would surely find. Evangelical apologists were confronted with a coherent and beautiful presentation of the Catholic faith that they were ill equipped to argue against. They learned that Catholics, too, loved Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. The Catechism had arrived providentially just before the internet and had turned the tables in just a few short years. With the apologetic movement hitting at the same time, Evangelicals were also confronted with Catholics who could argue from the Bible defending their faith and demonstrating the weaknesses of Evangelical interpretations of scripture.
5. Early Church Fathers. One fruit of the Apologetics movement has been a flowering anew of Catholic interest in Patristics. This is happening at every level from armchair apologists to doctoral studies. It is suddenly all about Patristics, whereas in the 70’s-90’s the academic focus had been on Karl Rahner and Liberation Theology.
6. Evangelical Third World Experience. Evangelicals have had a field day in Latin America among the poor who are not part of the internet conversation and are distant from the study of apologetics. But, Evangelicals have learned from their experiences abroad an essential aspect of the Gospel they were missing: the Works of Mercy. Once haughty with their criticism of “works righteousness,” they have learned one cannot attend to the spiritual needs of the poor without attending to their bodily needs. Catholic have always understood this. Now, the Evangelicals are coming around. I haven’t heard an Evangelical Televangelist speak on works righteousness in many years.
7. Secularism. With the collapse of the Mainline churches as the backbone of American religion over the past thirty years (since about 1975), Catholics and Evangelicals are the only ones left standing in this country to present the Gospel. Secularism is on the rise and is ruthless. Evangelicals are now learning that only Catholicism has the intellectual resources to combat the present secular age. And, with the pope, we have a pretty effective means for communicating the faith and representing it to the world. There is nothing an Evangelical can do that will match the power of one World Youth Day.
With such an array of Providential developments, Evangelicals as well as Catholics have come to appreciate the depth and the breadth of the Catholic faith. It is far more difficult for them to honestly dismiss Catholicism as the work of Satan as once they did without qualm. There have been apologies and there have been calls for a new partnership. Let us hope these developments will bring about a new moment of understanding for the Glory of the Lord.
Keep that faith! Remember that we are only strangers and pilgrims here on earth and that our home is one not built by human hands; it is built by God. We look forward to a "new heavens and a new earth wherein dwells righteousness."
I pray I will always keep the faith. I do look forward to my new home with him but, ahem, I’m not in a BIG hurry. LOL.
While I am very interested in your reply, my understanding comes more from books than from net sources, and I haven't the time, nor the desire at this point to develop an online record of events. I will do so when I turn my efforts to it in the future, of that you can be sure. For the moment, I will refer you to Mr. Plaisted's work, as I had mentioned in #148.
So enlighten me.
People reject Catholicism because they disagree with Catholic doctrine and supposed authority, and it would be the height of arrogance to assume that there is no room for dissent, especially when there is so much evidence to the contrary.
93 posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 3:08:33 PM by roamer_1 (Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
I said:
Many people left the church because they want to contracept, they want to shack up, they want to abort. They want to choose lifestyles they know not to be good. They want to pick and choose. And why not with the plethora of non-Catholic Christian churches you can shop for whatever suits your whim.
A friend had a daughter who was living with a guy. She wanted to get married in the Catholic Church because... well just because, it was her right. The priest told her that they needed to have separate living arrangements until they were married. The couple actually left the Catholic church because the priest told them shacking up was a sin. He was more delicate in his expression. The mother called the bishop and complained that “how dare the priest make them feel bad”.
I know another woman who used to be Catholic. She left the church because the evening her mother passed away the priest was not available to go to the hospital. She was Pentecostal for a few years. Now she follows Joel Osteen.
A good friend grew up Baptist. When she married she joined the Catholic Church. She remarried after her husband passed away. This husband was never “churched” and was told by friends growing up that all Catholics are going to hell. They church shopped for a while. Now they rather like Joel, as well. To her, all Christian churches are created equal. Changing churches, denominations or associations is no big deal.
What precisely is it you do not comprehend?
Obviously you are correct about change starting beforehand. There was the Magna Carta in England and William Wallace's famous revolt in Scotland that resulted in Robert the Bruce assuming power. However, in reality these were actually revolts by wealthy noblemen against kings, the lives of the common people were little changed.
The 13th century, after the real dark days of religious attempts to conquer the world, was somewhat of a catalyst leading to a complete overthrow of papal supremacy in 1870 in Italy.
Let's be honest here, the "religious attempts to take over the world" were by the Muslims, the Crusades (and I will acknowledge that there were abuses here) was a reaction to this. Additionally, from the time of the Avignon popes in the 14th Century onward, the papacy's political control was at best contained to a portion of Italy.
Trying to bring up all the history in this sort of media is doomed to fail, for it requires a person to study many, many years to glimpse what happened and put it together in one's mind. All one can do it bring up bits and pieces, and apply them to the current discussion for points, not scholarly discussion. You know what I mean?
I have always loved history and my favorite area is medieval Europe. I have long recognized that there was unspeakable and unnecessary bloodshed surrounding the Reformation; however, I am also aware that there is more than enough blame to go around. The other reality is that the "civilized" world was far more violent then than it is today, it was the norm to settle political disputes with bloodshed (and as much as anything the Catholic Church recognized that there would be a loss of income as the result of the Reformation).
However, in England, prior to Henry VIII's break with Rome, there were many churches in England that had nothing to do with either Rome or Henry's new church, and they were also established before the Reformation of Luther or Calvin.
True, but the political power in England was tied to the Catholic Church and Henry VIII's break with the Church was PURELY political. It is also worth noting that Charles V (the Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain) sacked Rome in May of 1527 and the pope became a virtual prisoner and this was the exact same time when Henry was seeking to annul his marriage. Charles V was without question the most powerful man in the world at that time and he was the nephew of Henry's wife, Catherine of Aragon. Because Catherine of Aragon had given birth to Henry's children, an annulment would legally make her a whore and the children bastards. Charles V WAS NOT going to let this occur.
One can hope.
It is disingenuous to suggest that such was ever my position. But I am happy to have gone back to the thread, as in reviewing it, I find that my final reply to you has gone missing. Whether I mislaid it, the mods found some offense, or it was consigned to the mysteries of the ether, it is evidently not in evidence! I will go back in my docs and see if I have retained a copy (I tend to write my longer replies offline in a little editor called ConText... Much nicer than this horrid little reply window [No offense to JohnRob meant]).
You are correct, the phrase you used was “hundreds of millions”:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2023605/posts?page=9807#9807
And here you claimed that the papacy “owned” Europe from 500 AD until 1800 (This is even more difficult to establish than your claim about the number of deaths; while we would have a difficult time finding an honest accounting of deaths and who was responsible, we have no problem looking back at the nation building that went on from about 800 AD onward):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2023605/replies?c=10782
Like I remarked to the "doctor" earlier, a clean explanation of the Catholic theology attracts people who take the entirety of the gospel seriously and repels those who view the formation and maintenance of so-called denominations as their primary concern. It also repels some lukewarm Catholics, and the Church is becoming smaller.
The article shows that the Catholic Church has won the intellectual argument. If one is to pinpoint when, that would be exactly where the article places it, at the publication of the Catechism, wide availability of the patristic teaching and Catohlic apologetics on the Internet, and the rise of extremist secularism combined with the collapse of secular sexual morality.
Not form me. "Defective" means defective. This pope is known for the clarity of his expression as well as for his charitable heart.
In joyful hope, we do.
That is the literal meaning.
Of course, the Church also mandates providing for the family, as the commandments of love teach. The Church won’t allow one to take up tonsure while married. It is a wholly separate vocation.
The person who asked the question.
By "Catholic," I assume that you are referring to the Church of Rome, which arrogantly and incorrectly refers to itself as "the Catholic Church".
* insistence on biblical inerrancy free from fundamentalist literalism;
LOL! What is it then? The Bible means what is says, except when it contradicts the teachings of Rome? No. The Bible means what it says, and says what it means.
* hierarchical structure with immutable 2 thousand year-old agenda;
2 thousand years old? No. Immutable? No,
* absence of independent local leadership;
Certainly not unique, but also a serious defect.
* moral absolutes that derive from natural law and therefore apply to Catholics and non-Catholics alike;
Natural law??? While the Roman version may indeed be unique, Muslims and Hindus also have their own versions of "natural law." Natural law is a syncretism imported from Aristotelean philosophy and stoicism. Biblical Christianity also has moral absolutes, but ones which are based on the Bible.
* monastic tradition;
Again, not unique. The Orthodox and Anglican communions also have monastic traditions. But, thankfully, Biblical Christianity does not.
* independent from the government education by celibate clergy;
Mostly unique. But while non-government schools are a good thing, a celibate clergy is not Biblical.
* conditional obedience to civil laws: a law that the Church sees as unjust does not have to be obeyed no matter how many people voted for it.
Not unique. There are cults which take the same position. But this is a dangerous position, not sanctioned by the Bible, and incompatible with the American concept of liberty. America does make allowance in some specific cases: e.g., conscientious objectors are allowed to serve in non-combat capacities, and most jurisdictions allow inoculations to be skipped by those with religious objections. But simply that a law is believed to be "unjust?" NO.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.Amendment 1, Constitution of the US
Ecumenism is the process whereby legitimate Churches such as the Catholic, the Orthodox and the pre-chalcedon Churches that came to the acceptance of the Seven Councils reunite and other communities of Christian faith convert.
I stand by my original post in its entirety. You can review my conversation with Lite Keeper for specifics on this thread. Note that I did not claim that every item is unique to the Catholic Church (yeah, that one), only that in aggregate they are unique to us.
I would still like an RCC answer explaining how 1200 (nearly) continuous years of crusades, inquisitions, genocides, religious persecutions, torture, rape, pillage, sword, and blood do not represent an errant Church.
It seems you have waged your own crusade through this thread. Throughout history, many uprisings, invasions and wars have been waged in the holy name of God. But here is one big difference.
JIM LEHRER: There was an extraordinary event in Rome yesterday as Pope John Paul II issued an apology for errors of his church over the last 2000 years. Our coverage begins with a report from Peter Morgan of Independent Television News.
A PAPAL APOLOGY
As you will soon discover in reading through that transcript, the apology was not enough for the Jews, not enough for the Orthodox, not enough for anyone ... no matter what the pope or the Catholic Church does, it never seems to be enough ... not even here in this forum.
It takes a great amount of humility to apologize. It takes a charitable person to accept the apology. It's time to move on.
Chapter 6. Unbelievers in the blood of Christ shall be condemnedLet no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Matthew 19:12 Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty.
Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
Chapter 9. Honour the bishop
Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for you are worthy. You have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. You have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while you endure all things, you shall attain unto Him.
lol. You've got to hand it to Rome. They are not stupid. Lost and perhaps depraved, but not stupid. You get all the Protestants to agree on ecumenical principles, even going so far as to compel the Orthodox Presbyterian church to rewrite and tone-down their understanding of the Chapter XXV of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and then...look what happens next.
The man who was in charge of tightening the reins of whatever ecumenical push existed after V2, who was responsible for decades of vile, subversive protection given to sexually-deviant priests, the man who most Catholics thought had ZERO chance of being elected pope, and VOILA! Ratzinger, the ex-Hitler youth, is in control and making the rules.
So while the Protestants are following an ecumenical Christian path as open-hearted men of good faith, the RCC is going in the opposite direction, happily and publicly declaring Protestant churches not to be churches at all, but mere "assemblies." They are worse than "defective churches," the term Rome reserved for the Orthodox. They are non-churches, as we learned in FK's link...
lol. Pitiful. And this from someone who once saluted Hitler and all he stood for. So let us consider the source and be a little quicker on our feet. Wolves take on all sorts of clothing.
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.