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.
But hey, who are we to stop rabid RC’s from talking as though God’s a liar or clueless.
INDEED TO THE MAX.
Another one for the RC Word file.
Thanks.
The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
The Roman Church has its authorities, and Bible Christians have our authorities. The writings of Ignatius of Antioch are not Biblicly authoritative.
Post something besides gibberish.
And the pope decides who is a validly baptized person? How in the world does he know who is "validly baptized"?
and further, can be saved like anoyne else through their works, often superior than ours.
Here we go with "salvation through works!" Not a single "evangelical" believes that!, that I know of, and I am one. And yes, most are often more superior than members of the Roman Church. :-)
However, since they lack sacramental priesthood, they lack the assurances of salvation that come from sacramental life, and their houses of assembly or organizational structures cannot properly be called churches.
Since when does the Pope's church (institution) have the authority to decide the leadership of other churches? [See that rather long history on the rise of the papacy that I just posted.] The papacy is being very pompous about this, isn't he? That's one of the reasons why most non-catholics pay no attention to his pompous meddling and pronouncements.
I've read it, and many others. The internal contradictions apparent in the many early writings prove that what is said is the viewpoint of any particular writer. None of them possitively state what all the churches were doing at any one time as concerns their practices and beliefs.
I have no overwhelming compulsion
to provide decoder rings for the willfully deaf and willfully blind.
LOL again! How about naming any "slander or fantasy" I may have posted?
Winning is only in your own mind, not mine. I do not post to have a "win" because of what I say. As for "intellectual" argument, that's for the readers to decide, not you personally, nor me. Winning is not an option for me, posting truth is.
Is this well documented?
I'm inclined to believe it because of everything else I've learned about the RCC.
So a document was laid before Charlemagne in Rome, professing to be his father’s “gift” or “promise” of territory to the papacy. This forgery assigned all Corsica, Venetia, Istrai, Luni, Moselica, Parma, Reggio, Mantua, and the Duchies of Spolito and Benevento, and the Exarchate of Ravenna to the Pope’s Temporal Power (see the “Liber Pontificalis,” book 2, page 193, Vignol Edition).
Just one example you provide of an organization more concerned with acquiring power and wealth than preaching The Gospel. Of course if it did preach The Gospel its members wouldn't be so easily controlled.
This is just a little reminder to all that the Papacy is a man-made institution that is very unscriptural and negates what Jesus told the Apostles to proclaim. It is not a part of the gospel of Christ by any interpretation of the Word of God.
However, because it is old and it is large it is given credibility by those that do not wish to seek answers for themselves. In my limited experience with witnessing to family members and other RC's if you can get them to read a Bible and then discuss it eyes often open.
Thank you for a very detailed post.
Thanks.
You're welcome. However, what I posted came from a booklet written back in the 70's by Ken Fortier Ministries. I understand that he has in mind to update it and give it much wider distribution - most likely, he says, free! That would be a change from normal, wouldn't it! His web site is www.kenfortier.com. Check it out.
To be more accurate, The range (50m to 500m), my opinion (150 to 250m), and my original statement (hundreds of millions) were not based upon Europe alone. That is a total, world-wide figure.
I had speculated that European deaths could reach AN hundred million below the radar due to the sheer volume of years involved... I do not support a number as high as 250m for Europe. For Europe alone, I would estimate numbers between 75m and 150m, with an hundred million being a good round number.
Additionally, you seem to want to blame the Church for every death in war.
I will cede the point in every war wherein the church had no part in it's beginning, backed no dog (both doesn't count either) in the fight, used no international or interstate influence for any side, and took no profit in land or gold. Help yourself to the bounty of that table.
You posted a long tract, with many claims; a response to which might require multiple times the length. I do not have the time to dig into each claim. However, a few broad points on some of the issues you raised:
Regarding, the alleged use of forgeries to build the papacy, it is untrue to say that the case for the primacy relies upon them for its basis. See http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9810fea3.asp.
Further, you are mistaken in saying that the Council of Sardica - which recognized appeals to Rome - was not received by the East. Rather, in fact, it was explicitly received by the East in the so-called Quintisext Council (in Trullo) in 692 AD; giving it, it the eyes of the Eastern Orthodox Church, ecumenical force. Nor is that the only proof of Eastern recognition of papal authority. For example, circa 518 AD, the Eastern bishops signed the “Formula of Hormisdas” which in part declares: “The first means of safety is to guard the rule of strict faith and to deviate in no way from those things that have been laid down by the Fathers. And indeed the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church’ [Matt., xvi, 18], cannot be disregarded; these things which were spoken are demonstrated by the results, for the Catholic religion has been preserved ever immaculate in the Apostolic See.” See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07470a.htm
In the case of Diotrephes (III John 9-10), it is not clear what this case, in your mind, has to do with the papacy. From what John says, he does not deny Diotrephes is the leader, but faults him instead for his bad leadership. A bad example of leadership does not disprove the case for a leader.
Further, to the cited papal claims to be “God on earth”, etc., there is OT precedent for use of the term “gods” applied to men in a restricted sense, as in having authority (e.g. as judges) from God himself - not in the sense of being divine. Scripture itself refers to the judges as “gods” (e.g. Psalm 82:6). As Peter received authority to bind and loose directly and personally from the Son of God himself, could not the same be said, in the restricted sense, of him (and his successors) as said of the OT judges? If not, why not? Regardless, it is clear from the context what sense the popes intended the word.
Please provide the citation for the alleged letter written by Augustine. It is surprising you cite him, as there any number of quotes in his works that show his high regard for the See of Rome. In fact, it is from Augustine’s pen that the paraphrase “Rome has spoken, the case is closed” is derived.
Regards.
The Roman Church has its authorities, and Bible Christians have our authorities. The writings of Ignatius of Antioch are not Biblicly authoritative.
So very, very true!
Is this well documented?
I'll try to find out and get back to you.
The exception proves the rule. I can just as easily point to the Catholic "Sunday child". It is disingenuous to apply such a motive to Protestants by and large, the vast majority of whom believe just as fiercely as any Catholic here, with as much discipline as any Catholic here.
Very, very few of the Protestants I know would support the statement, "One church is just as good as another". Maybe as a guest of a friend for a visit, but not as a matter of affiliation.
“Anyone can intepret; only a Catholic can explain.”
Complete and utter nonsense.
According to history, what was posted is correct. Those forgeries were definitely used to build up the case for the papacy. You will have to argue with the History Scholars on that.
Further, you are mistaken in saying that the Council of Sardica - which recognized appeals to Rome - was not received by the East.
Negative. At the time it was held the Eastern Church didn't accept it. That is history, without being rewritten by Rome at a later date and with new leadership in the Eastern and Western churches.
In the case of Diotrephes (III John 9-10), it is not clear what this case, in your mind, has to do with the papacy. From what John says, he does not deny Diotrephes is the leader, but faults him instead for his bad leadership. A bad example of leadership does not disprove the case for a leader.
It has Apostolic application towards all churches, regardless of their institutional standings. The Apostle John does not say nor indicate that Diotrephes was "the" leader, but simply one of them who "loved to be first." Read it without "blinders" on to understand the application.
Further, to the cited papal claims to be “God on earth”, etc., there is OT precedent for use of the term “gods” applied to men in a restricted sense, as in having authority (e.g. as judges) from God himself - not in the sense of being divine. Scripture itself refers to the judges as “gods” (e.g. Psalm 82:6). As Peter received authority to bind and loose directly and personally from the Son of God himself, could not the same be said, in the restricted sense, of him (and his successors) as said of the OT judges? If not, why not? Regardless, it is clear from the context what sense the popes intended the word.
Yep, make excuses for the papacy. That seems to be the normal thing apologist of the Roman Catholic church do for exercise. The context is already quite clear, and I believe they meant it literally!
Please provide the citation for the alleged letter written by Augustine.
I'll try to see if I can find it, it not, I'll check with the author.
Your original statement was about why Catholics leave the church. I pointed out that that is not always so.
Those are Protestants that you know, probably from your specific church. It is interchangeable to a great many Protestants.
“The problem, dear friend, is the lack of a central authority figure.” [excerpt]I think Christ makes a great central authority figure.
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.