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.
That works both ways.
Which is obvious to all who may read but not post.
This rambling post has nothing to do with the the matter at hand. NYer, Thorin, sandyeggo and I all were replying to the slanderous and false accusation that Pope Benedict “saluted to Hitler and all he stood for”,when he was a 14-year old conscripted Bavarian youth; and the serious accusation that the same Joseph Ratzinger was “responsible for decades of vile, subversive protection given to sexually-deviant priests” , a charge which should be meticulously and accurately proven.
That charge is not true and it doesn’t imply that one is ‘thin-skinned’ to be repelled by it. It is also a charge that has been disproved more than once on this forum.
It is not a “factual observation” to declare the then Joseph Ratzinger, 14, of being a Nazi when he was not, nor to accuse the Pope of decades of vile deception..
It is not the objection of a “2 year old”. And nobody was “hitting anyone over the head with a truck” , causing that same person to make an untrue accusation. so that’s a silly analogy.
The rest of the red and blue and bold and !!! post doesn’t make sense and is just the kind of rant that some of us are being falsely accused of posting.
That is precisely what I did. There was no attack on anyone; if anything, the response was to a personal attack on the Vicar of Christ. As you well know, I respect the Religion Forum guidelines in all my postings. How unfortunate that the same is not true for other posters. Their messages of screed, filled with vitriol against the pope and the Catholic Church, are allowed to remain.
This is an excellent article. My own faith journey parallels exactly these seminal events of recent history. The catechism, WYD ‘93, Scott Hahn, and AOL played enormous roles in my growth as a Christian. I can vouchsafe the veracity of the author’s points. Absolutely spot on. Thanks for posting this.
LOL You are the poster child of anti-ecumenism. What a fraud.
Yes, indeed. And I am sick and tired of going to read an article about the Catholic Church, only to find the comment thread despoiled by the same unmerry band of anti-Catholic bigots who go around polluting any article pertaining to Catholicism they can find. There are many interesting articles posted here, and I would like to be able to read them in peace, but that is apparently impossible if the subject is Catholicism.
I've already explained why the author said that. But, here it is again: When the Council was finished, the Eastern church rejected its statements. It was only much later, under new leadership of both the Western and Eastern churches that it was debated and agreed to. Originally it was not accepted by the Eastern church - which is what was said. No if, buts, or ands about it!
I don't believe that the post stated that the popes wrote these forgeries, however, they did refer to them and even used some of them to sustain their claims.
1) Even Dollinger, who opposed Vatican I and subsequently left the Catholic Church, in his book “The Pope and the Council” written under the pseudonym of “Janus”, admits the false decretals were written in France (i.e. the popes were not their author), and
I have not problem with that at all.
(2) that the false decretals were not written with the aim in mind of advancing papal claims. Read the linked article.
The ones that wrote these false "decretals" most definitely, in my opinion and many others, inherently had in mind the object to enhance the office of the Pope. I'm fully aware of the work you linked, and while some of what it says seems reasonable, it is in the realm of apologetics to undercut opponents. I take it with a tablespoon of salt.
Dollinger, mentioned in your post, is the historical source for most (all) Protestant apologists - I presume your ‘history scholars’ - on this subject of the false decretals; yet they all seem to neglect to note the fact that Dollinger explicitly concedes both of these points.
Dollinger is NOT the source for MOST history scholars, which includes Roman Catholic history scholars. There are multitudes of other sources...many of them, rather, the great majority of them, are directly from the documents of the RCC.
My scroll button is working overtime.
If we could only harness the energy of spinning scroll wheels......
Your "opinion"??? I thought we were discussing evidence? Are we now discussing your opinions? If so, your opinion is based on what?
As to the opinions of "many others"...who are these others? Dollinger is cited most liberally by protestant apologists/others (e.g. Hunt, Webster, De Rosa) who have written on this subject of the False Decretals. Dollinger, in all probability is *the* ultimate source in question in your post on this topic; yet he says they were NOT written with this purpose in mind. Who is your "history scholar" who says otherwise and based on what?
I'm fully aware of the work you linked, and while some of what it says seems reasonable, it is in the realm of apologetics to undercut opponents. I take it with a tablespoon of salt.
This is an amazing statement. No doubt, the information you provided in your original post appears to be straight from a book by a protestant apologist - hence, it is, no less, from the 'realm of apologetics' as well! Take care that the table spoon of salt you take doesn't get salt in your eye and obscure your vision! I can't help but feel there is some hypocrisy in what evidence you admit into or exclude from the discussion.
I addressed some of the claims in your original post directly or through links; why don't you do the same, beginning with addressing the rebuttals presented in http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9810fea3.asp? The linked article provides arguments from history on the subject. You should consider and address them.
Thank you. If it's well established it is just one more thing I can present to RC's that are seeking the Lord. My wife has an Uncle who is RC and attends mass pretty regularly. We talk on occasion, but he isn't ready to open up a Bible and really get into things.
BTW, I've really enjoyed the detail in your posts and references. The references give me the opportunity later to look at the books on line, or buy them for myself. One book concerning the failed theory of apostolic succession I found very strong was "From Apostles to Bishops" by Francis Sullivan.
As Quix reminds us, even your name-calling works to the good of those who love God and are called according to His purpose.
Apparently, however, you haven't followed my posts, half of which include the Westminster Confession of Faith, which says no visible church on earth is perfect, and the elect can most likely be found in a variety of churches.
As the confession states in Chapter XXV, "Of the Church"...
II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6] III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.[7] IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible.[8] And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.[9] V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;[10] and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.[11] Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.[12]" I. The catholic or universal Church, which is 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 fills all in all.[1]
Lately I leave number VI. to others to post since they seem to relish its truth. There is no "other Christ" on earth. There is only one Christ and He resides in heaven until He comes again and history ends.
You will further note the WCF is in stark contrast to the CCC, to Ratzinger's pompous denunciations, and to Rome's continued, stubborn affirmation of the edicts of the Council of Trent which curses to hell all those who believe they have been saved by Christ alone and all those who think they have been justified by Christ alone.
As if the magisterium, that fallible bunch of old geezers, has the power to evict Christ's sheep. lol. Talk about "fraud."
RO: I need only leave that opinion to the imagination of the reader.
It is nice to see RC's express their true sentiments. A perfect illustration of why the world is a better place without the RCC being a part of the state and having it's power behind it.
A: The Holy Inquisition in its full vigor is something modernity sorely lacks [...]
RO: I need only leave that opinion to the imagination of the reader.
It is nice to see RC’s express their true sentiments. A perfect illustration of why the world is a better place without the RCC being a part of the state and having it’s power behind it.
INDEED.
I’ve often felt the ‘love’ that seemed to want me immediately on the nearest rack with the other poster as the Chief Inquisitor.
Now Doc,
To we “heretics” ecumenicism means working together with other elect, regardless of the confession, to broaden Christ’s church.
To Rome it means we heretics are to submit to the Pope.
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.