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.
Mother thought so.
NO MD has ever thought so.
Pentecostal/Charismatic.
As have noted repeatedly.
I am not one size fits all.
Well put.
I am not one size fits all.
Neither is anyone else
We are a work in progress somedays are better than others.
Sorry,
am not really very motivated to respond to most of those questions.
The data is available on the net if you are seriously interested.
I don’t know that the uneducated through history of Pentecostals will really wash, either.
Certainly it did not this century.
PAUL exhorted that he thanked God that he spoke in tongues ‘more than you all.’ And he would that all prophecy—as in speaking under the unction of Holy Spirit. So, Scripture seems to have a different perspective than that of your post.
With that . . . enough. I’m tired.
True, true.
“As if the magisterium, that fallible bunch of old geezers, has the power to evict Christ’s sheep. lol. Talk about “fraud.””
Quote of the day!
Those geezers, the “hired hand”, can’t even keep the sheep (John 10:12-13).
“For the first time, there was a cadre of Catholics well enough informed to defend their faith.”
No Gibberish Read rule? I don’t get it. Can someone post an example so we know what Gibberish read is?
I earlie poste an article that would require some sit-down-with-coffee study, and somebody immediately posted a reply of one word, “Gibberish.” So is gibberesh anything that someone doesn’t want to take the time necessary to fully consider?
"On the 30th of April, 1922, in the Vatican Throne Room, a throng of Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, and Nuns, boys and girls, who all fell on their knees, were addressed fromthe Throne by Pope Pius XI., who, in a haughty tone, said: 'You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on the earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on the earth.'" (Quoted from "The Bulwark", October, 1922, reporting on the speach which was heard by those attending, including some reporters.)
Thank you for taking the time to look it up and note the reference.
Thank you brother.
Love your posts, keep them coming. :)
Rebuke? Try suspended or banned.
Last week Manfredthewonderdawg, a reformed Baptist, was banished from Free Republic.
When the Religion Forum began to be moderated, it was as difficult for Calvinists as anyone else to post without personal assault.
"Making it personal" means saying a specific, named person is stupid, dense, arrogant, a menace to society, cruel to small animals, whatever negative description you want to hurl. And that's breaking the rules.
Speaking against a religion, a dogma, a doctrine, a belief system is not "making it personal." That is stating an opinion about something, not someone.
Of course hearing negative remarks about our chosen faith is uncomfortable. I've weathered the slander that "Calvinists are robots" a thousand times on this forum. And each time I am forced to open my Bible and find a defense of my faith and a reason for my confident hope in Christ.
If I find it, I give it. If I don't find it, I return to Scripture to see either where I'm wrong, or to search further to find additional evidence.
And if we disagree with some point that's been asserted, that disagreement in itself is not prohibited or rude or conniving or duplicitous; it is just that -- disagreement.
I certainly don't expect to convince most people I'm talking to on FR. Why should Catholics think they can?
This forum affords us an opportunity to learn. We either learn to defend our faith without personal rancor, or we have no business on this forum.
"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear" -- 1 Peter 3:15"Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man." -- Colossians 4:6
Surely, you realize that essentially no one else in the West considers Holy Communion to involve a sacrifice?
Except a great many Anglicans and Lutherans
“Never met one on the street where it counts”
I can assure you that where it counts may not be on the street, but in the hearts of the individual.
There are more Catholics than you may even be aware of who do not fit the template you have offered on occasions here, but actually and truly are well-informed, fully practicing, prayerful, Scripturally aware Catholic people.
Like yeast hidden in the dough, they are there. And their prayerful lives and influences which— when the “winter is over”, and “all that is hidden is brought to light”-—will bear much fruit.
The rise of papal power in Rome was a very slow development or process.
That is true: the Church, being a divinely guided institution, develops her responses to the historical events as they occur. The persecuted Church could not develop a tight centralized structure for logistical reasons, and heresies cropped up from time to time that required unity of leadership. The big factor in the development of strong papacy in the Roman Church was the horror of the Reformation. Catholic Churches in the East have retained a much looser consiliar structure of earlier times, because they were barely infected with Protestantism.
In the beginning of the leadership of the individual “assembly” of Christians it was composed of appointed Elders who were given the job of OVERSEERS; and MINISTERS were appointed to help the leadership. Notice the words used in the last sentence: “Overseers” = bishops; “ministers” = deacons.
In fact there were three forms of Holy Orders: bishops (episcopos, overseer), priests (presbyteros, leader or if you prefer, "elder"), and deacons (deakonos, minister or server). All three are mentioned in the Acts.
It is a fact of history that we see that the churches founded by the Apostles had a PLURALITY of “bishops” and “deacons;”
You mean, a single parish had several bishops overseeing it? That is a fact of history? Really?
Or do you mean that there were bishops operating and overseeing the priests and deacons in their bishoprics? That is true, and uncontroversial, and is the current practice also.
with no individual person having as so-called “primacy” — a word meaning “first in rank,” or “first place.” And another thing, the Apostles never set up any one church having jurisdiction over any other church.
Primacy of the See of Rome is recognized in the Orthodox Church despite their criticism of the modern strong Papacy. It is clear historically that the See of Rome enjoyed special status; see, for example,
1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
Here is the Letter to the Corinthians that St. Irenaeus mentions, itself:
Chapter 57. Let the Authors of Sedition Submit Themselves.
You therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue.[...]
Chapter 58. Submission the Precursor of Salvation
...yield submission to His all-holy and glorious name, that we may stay our trust upon the most hallowed name of His majesty. Receive our counsel, and you shall be without repentance. For, as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost live,— both the faith and hope of the elect, he who in lowliness of mind, with instant gentleness, and without repentance has observed the ordinances and appointments given by God— the same shall obtain a place and name in the number of those who are being saved through Jesus Christ[...]
Chapter 63. Hortatory, Letter Sent by Special Messengers
...submit the neck and fulfil the part of obedience, in order that, undisturbed by vain sedition, we may attain unto the goal set before us in truth wholly free from blame. Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter. We have sent men faithful and discreet, whose conversation from youth to old age has been blameless among us,— the same shall be witnesses between you and us. This we have done, that you may know that our whole concern has been and is that you may be speedily at peace.
They also never set up any method of “succession” such as is found in the Roman Church.
Numerous references to the laying on hands as transferring the Holy Orders are made in the Acts, especially in the letters to Titus and Timothy. St. Peter communicated his desire to perpetuate his "tabernacle" in 2 Peter 1:14-15.
There were no such offices as “Archbishop” and “Cardinals,”
That could be. Also no pope skied the Alps prior to John Paul II.
nor was there a “clergy-laity” division.
Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. (James 5:14)
If there were no clergy-laity division, why call away for a priest and not use the oil in the kitchen?
Impose not hands lightly upon any man (1 Timothy 5:22)
If there were no clergy-laity division, why is it so important who is ordained and who isn't?
As for “priests,” all members were to be priests in the “Kingdom of God”—the Church of Christ on earth.
We just saw from the Scripture quotes above that there existed distinctions of role. It is of course true that every male Catholic is a priest of his household, but that does not mean there isn't a sacramental priesthood of ordained men who stand in the person of Christ.
21 ...As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.(John 20)
he that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me (John 13:20)
The only “head” of the church was the Christ; and he never abdicated that position. Christ still lives and reigns as the only “head” of the church he had created on Pentecost. The Holy Spirit of God was sent to operate on earth during Christ’s absence on earth. To deny this is to deny the Will of God for the church.
Of course. Well said.
They are not inspired scripture, but the question was the historically accurate usage of "catholic" and I gave you historical evidence of the letter.
I researched this a little further and think it should be pointed out that there were a great many “sham” trials during the English Reformation.
Depending on whether the king or queen was Catholic or Anglican it was routine to condemn the leadership of the opposing Church. And it was the norm for the hierarchy of the opposition to make false claims to maintain their own position, freedom and life.
I will not dispute that the trials and executions of the Oxford martyrs were shams, but do you have actual proof (not the claims of accusers) that Bishops Latimer, Ridley or Cramner actually made these claims?
For a baptism to be valid it has to be in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit), be with water, and have the baptisee or his sponsor if an infant is baptised, desiring to bring the baptisee into the Church. A priest is not necessary if one cannot be found on time, or for non-practicing Catholics. Most Protestant baptisms are valid. Since you ask, by the way, every valid baptism is also a baptism into the Catholic Church whether the particuipants in the sacrament recognize it or not. Those baptized in a Protestant tradition get their souls permanently marked as Catholic Christians, however, since they don't practice Catholicism they fall off later.
Here we go with "salvation through works!" Not a single "evangelical" believes that!
People are judged and therefore saved by their works. If you don't believe it, you haven't familiarized yourself with enough scripture.
6 [God] will render to every man according to his works. 7 To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: 8 But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation.(Romans 2)
34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: 36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me.
[...]
41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me.
(Matthew 25)
Since when does the Pope's church (institution) have the authority to decide the leadership of other churches?
Since St. Clement in the 2nd c, at least.
“I can assure you that where it counts may not be on the street, but in the hearts of the individual.”
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.