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.
April 2005 was nothing short of a miracle. Truly, the Holy Ghost leads the Church.
Inclined to agree with that assement.
That is a vile slander, an evil lie. There is zero evidence that Joseph Ratzigner was ever pro-Nazi. He joined the Hitler Youth for the same reason other Germans his age did: it was required. In fact, Joseph's family were opposed to Nazism, in part because a mentally retarted cousin was murdered by the Nazis.
AMEN! AMEN!
Like I said, we win. Deo Gratias.
No problem, but just to clarify, my exact words were: "Much of what is considered 'Catholic scourge' is outright falsehood."
That is what you said. I was paraphrasing you, and hope I didn't do you an injustice. If I did so, it was not intended.
[Catholics seem to put such faith in oral tradition...]
If we flip that coin, then I could also say that since oral tradition is so vigorously discounted by many Protestants, it offers me some consternation that oral tradition suddenly becomes acceptable - if it is anti-Catholic?
I would deny that outright. Protestants do not vigorously discount oral tradition. We hold it in high esteem, as we do the anti-Nicene fathers, the Apocryphal books... a very large part of the Catholic Tradition and Catechism is in fact held and taught among the various Protestant traditions.
What would be a more valid statement is that Protestants refuse to hold traditions (written, oral, or otherwise) to be of the same weight (authority) as the Holy Scripture, and rightly so. But that does not equal "vigorous discounting" in all cases, by any means, in fact there are but few that are vehemently opposed.
Please keep me updated with your bibliography, if you wouldn't mind. Wagglebee has posted just now that you said the Church was responsible for 100 million deaths, and I'd like to see what scholastic materials you are using to suport that claim.
I will do so.
[As an aside, your moniker has always intrigued me... did you drop your waffle at the beach? :P]
I live in San Diego. :)
LOL!!! I really should have figured that out... My mind was beset by Eggo waffles... maple syrup... sand...
Yes, IN CHRIST
Hope springs eternal.
thx
Shrillery and Dillbo Klintoon’s apologies were never enough either . . .
I wonder why that was.
/s
You must be kidding. One might say that a pope had gone off his rocker... or even a batch or two of bad dudes got into the Magisterial Council... Maybe a generation or two... But this was top to bottom for better than a thousand years.
So it is a "Do what we say, not what we do" sort of thing, combined with a papal "Daddy is always right".
That doesn't work on children, why would one suppose it would work on grown adults, especially when "daddy" ain't my daddy?
So it is your assertion (by way of observation) that Protestantism is merely an excuse for those who cannot stand the rigors of Roman Catholicism? Is that indeed your position?
The Church is inerrant in the same sense the Scripture is inerrant: on matters of faith and morals definitively proclaimed. There has never been a claim of inerrancy or infallibility in any wider sense. The Visible Catholic Church is made up by fallible men who make errors of judgement all the time.
It does work on children: with few exceptions children are raised by fathers who make a mistake or two in their lives, yet there are many fathers who know what to teach their children and indeed teach the right things.
This is correct. And it has been posted as such enough times on this forum to be factually researched and known to be true.
The truth about Pope Bendict XVI, (who was Joseph Ratzinger, age 14, at the time of his conscription into the Hitler Youth) is that he never espoused Nazisim, never had a mindset towards it and , as you have posted, came from a family opposed to it.
His entire life is a testimony to his character and his integrity and is more of an “open book” than most, if not all, of those who post on this forum..
When the Byzantine Emperor asked for help, he was expecting a few German or Norman knights to help him keep order. Not a mass army. Pope Urban V was actually fighting an antiPope at the time, and used this to drive the other papal claiment out of the Vatican (or where ever the papal palace was at the time). The mass of people that descended on the East surprised and scared the heck out the Byzantine emperor.
Also, the initial push to fight was that Islam had a sword at Europe's throat. They had already pushed through what is now Spain and were raiding southern Italy. The first few Crusades were more of a counter offensive.
But they did horrible things also. Many younger second sons went East to make a name for themselves. Many others went for spoils, or just to have fun playing whack your neighbor (a favorite sport for nobles of that time). The Catholic Church at times encourage this. There were the Northern Crusades, the crusade against the Cathars (from where the line “Let God sort them out” got its origin), and many others that were done by direct approval of Church officials.
However, it was never unanimous. There were many clerics and monks who preached against the various Crusades, some at a cost of there lives. The most famous case was St. Francis who traveled to the Sultan not to kill him, but to convert him (and he may have been partially successful). The Knights of the German Order and the other Northern Crusader knights ended up in trouble with Rome about as much as they were supported by it. Especially after Lithuania and Poland went Christian! (Kind of hard to have a Crusade against fellow Catholics, though they tried!).
So I guess what I am saying is I see both sides. Yes, the Roman Catholic Church did give sanction to some horrible crimes, but many also fought against those crimes from the inside. And the local nobles often ignored Rome and did what they wanted to without sanction, but using Rome's name. The most interesting one for me is in the New Mexico region, where you had Dominicans and Jesuits coming to blows with each other!
In short, it is a very complicated issue. And one that if you really want to study it, you can't have your Catholic or Protestant blinders on. The history is to messy to fit finly into either sides polemics.
Yes it is the phrase I used, and I don't think it is unlikely at all. Estimates range from 50m to 500m, as best as I know. I think something between 150m and 250m is likely. Where would you put the toll? What would you own up to?
And here you claimed that the papacy “owned” Europe from 500 AD until 1800
For the record, the link you provided was incorrect. You were probably pointing to: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2023605/posts?page=11088#11088
Yes, I said that, and meant it, too... my explanation thereof is in that lost post... There was no other entity in the otherwise fractured Roman states that had ubiquitous power throughout, with both international and interstate authority (and free passage) and internal authority to include boots-on-the-ground right down to the township and borough level. That kind of influence makes or breaks kings (and did), regardless of whatever may look to be going on.
He was in the Hitler Youth, like every other kid of the time. You didn’t have a choice. His family were not Nazi’s, but were caught up in events beyond their control. Could they have done more? Maybe. But for a young kid there wasn’t much more he could have done besides abandon the AA gun (which he did).
I am trying to find an estimate for the cumulative population of Europe during this time period, I simply do not believe there were that many people. Additionally, you seem to want to blame the Church for every death in war.
There was no other entity in the otherwise fractured Roman states that had ubiquitous power throughout, with both international and interstate authority (and free passage) and internal authority to include boots-on-the-ground right down to the township and borough level. That kind of influence makes or breaks kings (and did), regardless of whatever may look to be going on.
This is patently FALSE. The 14th Century popes were prisoners of the kings of France, after that the papacy NEVER held any power except within parts of Italy.
I gave you examples that refute your blanket claims. How could you miss that? Never mind, I’ve read this thread.
It’s the koolaid.
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.