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.
You are Catholic?
The Inquisition is an internal Catholic court. It has nothing ecumenical about it, "doctor".
So why don’t you post from original sources, “doctor”?
So true "annie", at least Rome is beginning to act like Rome again.
That subject is a scab not to be picked for awhile.
Your post 470 was also removed. Everyone needs to lay off the pastor/priest sex scandal issues until further notice.
It's more like "the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say".
Why? The Church is there not merely to baptize but also to teach, forgive sins, bring the Eucharist and save souls.
Any examples of such multidenominational structure of the early church? Also, how did it square with St. Pauls call to unity ("is Christ united?", he rhetorically asked) and with Christ's fervent prayer that we "all be one"?
The argument about elders/priests/bishops is argument about words, that I am not going into. The most that you can get out of it is that the lines between bishops and priests were somewhat blurred. Also let us not forget that bishops ARE priests: one thing does not exclude the other.
Timothy was an evangelist
That too, but he was also ordained by St. Paul, as the letters make clear.
The rest of your post doesn't seem to contradict anything the Church teaches. And, where is that example of episcopacies overlapping?
Like what? I have not seen anything in the Bible that taken in context would contradict the teachings of the Church.
Such is the article itself, this is why no one posted anything contradicting it. Post something irrefutable and people change the subject.
In so far as the items on the list are considered valid by Protestants, I know of ministries that are doing those things. However, such things as the monastic life, etc, are consider inconsequential, and are therefore missing from any lists.
I've got to disagree there, plenty of Evangelicals on this thread have gone out of their way to demonstrate that their feelings toward Catholicism haven't changed one bit.
Well, Anna, in this instance I posted the first-up on google, confident in readers' ability to understand the link and its evidence.
Perhaps I over-estimated some.
Such is the article itself, this is why no one posted anything contradicting it. Post something irrefutable and people change the subject.
Exactly! Thanks for telling me it is "irrefutable" in an off-hand way :-)
ROTFLOL!
You're kidding, right?
LOL! Sometimes maybe. But I've noticed that any time [yes, it's two words] a stupendously idiotic, ignorant, uninformed, subrational post is posted, it quickly gathers dust and is ignored by those who conclude that the poster is hopeless -- especially to the ones it is addressed to!
I join you in the LOL department! I find it curious that some address a post in which they totally ignore what is said in the post, and, instead just ridicule it with words that are not proven in any manner whatsoever. So, yes, I LOL as you do :-)
Any examples of such multidenominational structure of the early church? Also, how did it square with St. Pauls call to unity ("is Christ united?", he rhetorically asked) and with Christ's fervent prayer that we "all be one"?
Hmmm...you mean to tell me you're not acquainted with the "heresies" of the first and early second century? You should read Paul's letter to the Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, etc., Peter's and John's letters.
As for Jesus' prayer in John, the "all be one" refers to the Good News that He proclaimed. It did not refer to "be all in one institutionalized church". Likewise with Paul's remarks aimed at those who sought to glorify the one they followed: Christ is not divided, that is what Paul was trying to get across - in other words, follow Christ and not some influencial man.
The argument about elders/priests/bishops is argument about words, that I am not going into. The most that you can get out of it is that the lines between bishops and priests were somewhat blurred. Also let us not forget that bishops ARE priests: one thing does not exclude the other.
In what you said to me in an earlier post, to which that last post I responded to you with, you made a statement that I addressed, quite fully I believe; yet you say the above! Sorry, words mean a lot. The Apostle Paul was very explicit in his choice of words and defining them in the way he used them. It's up to you if you want to ignore or explain away what the Paul explained. It's your choice to either accept what the Scriptures say or reject them.
It's true that "bishops" i.e., "elders" are "priests", just as I am a priest in the kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ. So are "deacons" and "deaconess'" priests by the same token. I see no "blurryness" between any of the offices Paul outlined for the church and each individual as a priest.
"Timothy was an evangelist..."
That too, but he was also ordained by St. Paul, as the letters make clear.
Thanks for the agreement, I knew that we'd agree on something. As for Timothy being "ordained", well, I have not been able to find anything in the Scriptures on that. I did find that he was to pass on what Paul told him to pass on, and that is laid out in clear words. Timothy was a "servant" of the Gospel, nothing else. Paul's laying on of hands, found in II Tim. 1:67, is easy to understand, provided one not read into it more than what is said.
The rest of your post doesn't seem to contradict anything the Church teaches. And, where is that example of episcopacies overlapping?
Hmmm....it doesn't. Please explain. As for your second sentence above, what's that got to do with what was said?
Like what? I have not seen anything in the Bible that taken in context would contradict the teachings of the Church.
Boy, you sure want a lot :-) I haven't the time to explain all the things of the Roman Catholic church that do not conform with what is taught in the Scriptures.
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.