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.
Your logic in this corresponds to those who claim that since certain minorities are in prison at a rate 4 or 5 times their proportion of the population, then the court system just MUST be biased....
Hello?
The model for New Testament Church life has a significant dose of ‘mysticism’ in it—depending on one’s definition:
I Cor 12-14 and Acts 2 . . . are the models for New Testament Church life.
Charismatics and Pentecostals make not the least apology in following that model as best as their flawed humanness can manage, by God’s Grace.
As my PhD dissertation literature review discovered, the ‘anti-intellectual’ diatribe was a false accusation. Some of the heaviest intellectual theologians in the world have been Charismatic/Pentecostal who need not play second fiddle to anyone in their respective fields. Some were RC. Many were not.
RIIIIIAAAAHHHHHGGGGGHHHHTTTT!
WELLLLLLLLLLLLLL EXCUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZE ME! [NOT!]
Doesn't look that way to me . . . with so many RC reps demonstrating tunnel vision, blind denial, colored glasses, false assumptions, false accusations, grossly hypocritical allegations, brazenly huffy-self-righteous-supremely smug and haughty attitudes left and right . . .
Ever heard of
REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE?????
Pretty basic sampling rule.
The RM has asserted that the publicly available data is a fraction of the collection of data
OF THAT TYPE, THAT CLASS, THAT BALL-PARK, THAT CATEGORY.
Further, there's every reason to believe that the public portions of that class of data are not at all systematically derived . . . not at all prorportionally derived . . . not at all representative-of-any-consistent-anything-ly derived.
THEREFORE,
PRESUMING to build yet another RC towering castle of false assumption edifice on yet another toothpick foundation
is not exactly impressive.
A lot of . . . erratic . . . moderating goes on in FREEPMAILs if my personal experience is any clue. THAT ONE FACT throws any hope of consistency with the public data totally out the window.
This whole noise, whining, wailing, dust-throwing session strikes me as
YET ANOTHER
RC edifice effort TO DEMAND
ABSOLUTELY CHEEKILY DEMAND
that the FR forum as a whole conform to RC DEMANDS AND EXPECTATIONS in terms of
THEIR construction on reality;
THEIR sensibilities
THEIR comfort zones
THEIR thin skins
THEIR sanctimonious attitudes
THEIR farcical assumptions
THEIR elitist haughtiness
THEIR supreme Mt Sinai sense of PRESUMED GOD-GIVEN ENTITLEMENT to have the total and only spiritual monopoly in the universe . . .
etc.
etc.
etc.
Sheesh. Cheeky to the max.
INDEED.
QUITE SO.
Excellent example.
“Your logic in this corresponds to those who claim that since certain minorities are in prison at a rate 4 or 5 times their proportion of the population, then the court system just MUST be biased”
Faulty comparison. Your comparison consists of a comprehensive criminal justice system that includes police, investigators, jury, judge, witnesses and evidence; which then leads to conviction and sentencing.
The example hear consists of individual moderators, simply making a judgement of debaters as to breaking the rules.
I got 666...according to Candy Crowley I now compete with George W. Bush as the devil.
I think I’ll go watch the Art Monk HOF induction now.
Sometimes it is hard to know when one has been cookied if they go away for a long time and come back wondering why I am off line?
And can not figure out was I or wasn’t I?
There should be a little indicator on our page to let us know?
For example, an excerpt from the articles of indictment against Dr. Ridley, formerly bishop of London, and Mr. Latimer, formerly bishop of Worchester, who were both martyred in 1555.
In the name of God, Amen. We, John of Lincoln, James of Glouchester, and John of Bristol, bishops
- We do object to thee, Nicholas Ridley, and to thee, John Latiumer, jointly and severallyt, first that thou, Nicholaus Ridley, in this high University of Oxford, in the year 1554, hast affirmed, and openly defended and maintained, and in many other times and places besides, that the true and natural body of Christ after the consecration of the priest, is not really present in the sacrement of the altar.
- That in the year aforesaid thou hast publicly affirmed and defended that in the sacrament of the altar remaineth still the substance of bread and wine.
- That in the said year thou hast openly affirmed, and obstinately maintained, that in the mass is no propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and the dead.
Dr. Ridley and Mr. Latimer did not dispute these charges.
Surely, you realize that essentially no one else in the West considers Holy Communion to involve a sacrifice?
Maybe RM 1, RM 2 etc
At least you know if you are dealing with the same person or have a clue to stay way when that one is around who seem to not to keen towards you!:)
Some times if I am too much engrossed day after day I feel that way about some RM’s yet it may be the one you seem to have fairness with thinking it was someone else who wasn’t fair, other times I pass it off to it is human nature that over rules some here!
It can be very confusing and more unnecessary unkind thoughts being planted by the opposition, because you are puzzled why the change in the demeanor this is the perfect avenue for continuing negative thinking the way the system is set up!
Because in the long run the logical conclusion is they are prejudice about your faith
Yet you are back to square one for you really are not sure!
Quix
Are you suffering from low blood sugar?
So what faith are you?
Don’t have to out the RM just give them a #1,2,3,
That way one will know if one has a problem with that religion!
No, I think that moderators should moderate under their own screen names. If, by chance, you were asked to be a moderator, restornu, what would be reasonable would be for you to moderate under your own screen name.
sitetest
What you said seems to be painting with a very broad brush and could be at one time or another area that many slip into when emotionally charge as you have also demonstrated on this forum.
So I don’t really get your premise...
As Jesus said “he who is with out sin cast the first stone!”
well put!
“I’m talking about the simple breakdown of Catholic rebukes vs. Protestant rebukes. It is totally skewed against Catholics.” [excerpt]
I agree...with the Emerging Church, Mega-Churches, Charismatics, et al, the term “Evangelical” has lost its meaning, and its meaning. I highly recommend Nancy Pearcey’s book, Total Truth.
Don’t worry, it’s not me. :>)
I wasn’t downing mysticism in general, as obviously God is bigger than we can know—and a certain amount of mysticism is a great thing—and really an acknowledgment of human finitude. Rather I was speaking of many of the contemporary trends in the charismatic movement, and general evangelicalism—which verge on Gnosticism. When Christians believe that holy scripture is not sufficient—and they need extra revelation—they are in the same boat as those the Roman Church, for whom that extra “revelation” or authority comes from Popes and Tradition, instead of prophets and new revelations.
I think there is no coincidence that the modern charismatic movement was equally part of the Roman Catholic Church as amidst independent Protestants. It appeals to people who are looking for signs and wonders, and great emotionalism—and for whom God revealed in His Word (they think) is not enough.
The modern Charismatic movement, as far as I know, dates from the 1970s, while the Pentecostal denominations (many of whom originally said if one didn’t speak in tongues, one was not saved...) only date back to around 1900. Previous centuries had “enthusiasts” too—but not usually very educated ones. Just who are these heavyweight “intellectual theologians” you’re talking about? I’m sure it depends on how you define “charismatic,” and “intellectual.”
And yes, I have been filled with the Holy Spirit. I never would have believed and been born again had the Holy Spirit not come, filled me, and given me a new heart. And I’ve been renewed several times since.... An idea though of a 2nd baptism, dividing Christians into a tongue-speaking elite, and the rest...is one of the most destructive errors ever perpetuated on Christ’ Church, IMHO.
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.