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.
Such is the article itself, this is why no one posted anything contradicting it. Post something irrefutable and people change the subject.
I agree.
*********************
Wow. I come late to this thread after enduring a self-imposed penance, but may I add my redundant response and say this is remarkable? :)
Thanks, annalex.
“God will know His own.”
Many of the non local bishops and nobles were horrified.
The practice of designating a man to be the head priest/pastor via a form of ordination ritual goes back to at least the first/ early second century. There were many purposes to this, but a big one was to keep control over who was preaching what. Which might seem odd to most Protestants, but if you look at some of the early heresies (Gnostics for example), who were presenting themselves as true heirs of St. Peter or Paul, there needed be some way to control. The lists of Apostolic Succession developed in a similar way, so a lay person or authority could look at who studied with who and taught who to determine which guy was the “real deal.”
Funny thing is, St Augustine himself did not view the AS as supreme. Someone asked “What do you do if you find a priest/bishop (the term was often intertwined back then) who is not on the list?” You check his doctrine and if it was true, you take his word for it that he was ordained. This was because there were places where the barbarians had overrun or were to separated from the main body to have the lists preserved.
AS developed into a more important doctrine as the West and East began to fall. With many charlatans and frauds running around, the need developed to have a firmer basis for who did what. So by the early Middle Ages, the requirements for valid orders in the West was much stricter than in the earlier times.
I agree with you almost to the letter! The first example that was written, I believe, was about the year 160 or so AD. Then it was not a standard among all churches until about the late 2nd century or the early 3rd century that servants or "pastors" were called "priests." I recall reading one of the early writings (can't remember which one) where a ritual started of "ordination." Anyway, you are right on the mark as far as I am concerned, except for the dates, which I may be a little off on myself. But, it's for sure not in the 1st Century nor start of the 2nd.
Funny thing is, St Augustine himself did not view the AS as supreme. Someone asked “What do you do if you find a priest/bishop (the term was often intertwined back then) who is not on the list?” You check his doctrine and if it was true, you take his word for it that he was ordained. This was because there were places where the barbarians had overrun or were to separated from the main body to have the lists preserved.
Again, I agree with your remarks! It was during Augustine's reign as Bishop of Hippo that he wouldn't accept back into the leadership of the church those bishops who, to save their lives, backpeddeled on their faith in Christ as Lord, and to whom those bishops under the influence of the Bishop of Rome sought to have him recapture their position in the churches. This was when Augustine sent a letter to the bishops of the Eastern churches refusing to acknowledge the authority of the bishop of Rome with the threat that he and the other bishops of Africa would not recognize them. I have yet to be able to find that particular letter to quote; I read it once, but can't remember the source, although I had noted the remarks Augustine made in it. Maybe you can find it.
AS developed into a more important doctrine as the West and East began to fall. With many charlatans and frauds running around, the need developed to have a firmer basis for who did what. So by the early Middle Ages, the requirements for valid orders in the West was much stricter than in the earlier times.
Again I agree (amazing, isn't it!). Yes, Bishop Damasus was the first bishop of Rome to use Matthew 16:18 to enhance his rule of the church as a successor of Peter the Apostle, the "Vicar of Peter". That was in the 4th century, 366-384 AD. One can read all about him in the Catholic Encycopedia list of Popes. Apostolic Succession was gaining ground during his time, and increased in importance since then, really culminating in the middle ages.
Thank you for a very good post.
It's more like "the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say".
But that doesn't match your faith. Catholicism is all about process. No one is saved in a moment permanently, the sacraments must be partaken of throughout life (or else), etc. AND, one must remain smart in thought and obedience to the Church (or else).
I still think it's Darwinian because your side says that God never interferes with man's free will. That leaves man to his own inner devices to come up with the smarts to make good choices. You'll say that God leaves bread crumbs as a guide and so forth, but the individual ultimately uses his inner independent mind to choose wisely or not. If it's only human decision based, then only the smartest will survive.
Well, since:
1. I was Baptiszed in to Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13; Col. 2:11, 12; Ephesians 4:5) by the Holy Spirit when I first trusted in Christ (also Ephesians 1:13, sealed in Christ);
2. All my sins were paid for, propitiated at the Cross with one sufficient sacrifice forever (Hebrews chapters 9 and 10; etc.)
3. My soul is already permenantly saved and I have the witness of the Holy Ghost concerning that (Romans 8:16; 1 John 5:10; etc. . . . .
. . . if the purposes of (whatever) church (you are referring to) are as you state, then, all of those functions having already been finished, you have convinced me that I have no need of it.
“Why? The Church is there not merely to baptize but also to teach, forgive sins, bring the Eucharist and save souls.” [emphasis mine]God alone can forgive sins.
People and churches are only witnesses.Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
John 14:6
“Like what? I have not seen anything in the Bible that taken in context would contradict the teachings of the Church.”
¶ Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;
Exodus 20:4-5
The Inquisition is an internal Catholic court. It has nothing ecumenical about it, "doctor".
It is our unfortunate circumstance to have been baptized then, as has been declared to us- For as we have been properly baptized, the Catholic Church considers us part of itself (whether we like it or not), and therefore subject to it's "internal" court (whether we like it or not). Just like the last time, I'll bet (whether we like it or not).
Yes, yes.. and the Cathari stand with the Pelagians, and the Waldensians, and the Protestants, not to mention the Jews and the Moors, and every other horrendous heresy (read anything at all that is not Catholic) that "deserved to be put down". Admit it: Youse guys just don't play nice with others.
I also don’t think that the brutality of war really subsided in modernity, rather the opposite. In terms of jurisprudence, there has been some progress and the Holy Inquisition played a positive role in giving the accused rights and insisting on due process.
And I would suggest it was quite the opposite. Due process was largely a joke in the inquisitions. I can't believe you would even suggest such a thing.
There was talk of some sort of ordination liturgy as far back as we have decent records. But as to what it exactly involved is pretty iffy. We just don't know, and the Early Church Fathers only mentioned it in passing here and there. Much like the early liturgy, we have some hints, but not a lot to go on.
Augustine got over ruled in letting the lapsed Bishops back in. He was against it as a lay person, but the local head bishop (I think it was a Metropolitan bishop) said “If they repent and do penance, ok”. There was a major Schism that said “NO!” called the Novatians (spelling). They were causing trouble up to the rise of Islam. But remember also that Augustine was after Constantine. The persecutions had ended well before he was a bishop (at least in the Roman Empire), and he was writing after the fact as a new convert from Manichism. When he was a Bishop (which he became unwillingly) he did spar with Rome at times. They honestly felt they were being ignored and misunderstood, and working at cross purposes. Augustine and Jerome (translator of the Vulgate) REALLY didn't like each other, and would send letters back and forth over the translation of the Bible. That is probably where the letter you read came from. Augustine rejected much of the Vulgate's translation of the Old Testament till his death.
As far as the first bishop of Rome to use Matt 16:18, I think you are to early. Augustine (in City of God and later in Retractions) explicitly states that Matt. 16:18 refers to the confession of Peter, not Peter himself. He got in some hot water over this, but that was the orthodox view then, and still is the Eastern Orthodox view.
Which brings up an interesting point about Augustine. If you read his writings, which few really do, he doesn't make a good Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Orthodox, etc. He is all over the place at times, and changed his opinion on some things. The reason why everyone can use Augustine to defend their position is that he varied some what on the non essentials or speculative theology. His writings on the Trinity were first rate, and remain some of the best.
As for the Cathar crusade, you have to understand the times. A noble believed that he was personally responsible for the souls of his people. The Cathar religion was very seductive (offering both unlimited sensuality and asceticism if you wanted it), and was very hard to convet people out of. The nobles of the time feared that if they let it keep spreading or even exist, they would be damned for letting other souls be lead astray. So to kill them all out was a very attractive and simple solution. Remember also, most of these nobles and princes were very young, almost adolescents, who grew up in a very violent culture. The old saying “When all you have is a hammer, all your problems look like nails” applies here. They didn't think of enlisting some great preacher, they just thought of cutting out the “cancer”. That and of course, grabbing some of the treasures the Cathars supposedly had (such as the Grail).
Again, that doesn't make it right, but if we are to judge the people of those times we have to look at why they did what they did.
MOnasticism is vital to any opposition to the Leviathan, because it shows that the model of Economic Man is not the only one, and in fact not to be preferred.
Study the history of the Inquisition and you will agree with me.
Of course I am; but we as Trinitarian Christians all agree that these were all heresies that did not preserve the sacred deposit of faith at all. If you want the Protestants to model after them, go right ahead.
"all be one" refers to the Good News that He proclaimed. It did not refer to "be all in one institutionalized church".
It refers to the unity of the Apostles, who were at the time the Church.
follow Christ and not some influencial man.
So why do you follow the charlatans of the Reformation era and not Christ?
the Scriptures say
I gave you several scriptural references to sacramental priesthood; you ignored them and proceeded to speculate, incorrectly, what the English word "priest" derives from.
As for Timothy being "ordained", well, I have not been able to find anything in the Scriptures on that.
I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands. (2 Timothy 1:6)
what's that got to do with what was said?
A few posts ago you appeared to say that in the Early Church multiple bishops had authority over the same local church, and I asked for a clarification and an example.
Either find time or don't allege falsehoods you cannot prove.
Welcome back. Great article, indeed.
Of course not. The issue is what the Church authorized and not the execution, often excessive in brutality. Same with the Crusades in general, and any other religion war.
Good post. Indeed, the records of ordination are not in themselves dispositive as they could be lost. However, that does not invalidate the fact that the principle of apostolic succession was held firmly in the Church.
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.