Hating Catholics–America’s ONLY Accepted Prejudice

http://shoebat.com/2014/04/12/hating-catholics-americas-accepted-prejudice/ ^ | April 12, 2014 | Walid Shoebat

[NKP_Vet]

I recall when I got scorned for attacking homosexuality on my blog with a comment that said, “You are a homophobe, do you not know that God loves everyone including homosexuals,” in which I answered with, “do you not know that God loves everyone including the homophobe?”

Indeed, we say “God loves everyone,” including, but not limited to; heretics, pedophiles, hemophiliacs, sodomites, lesbians, murderers, rapists, child molesters, drug pushers and every mutant from the pit of hell, except, of course, the legalist and the Pharisee, that is, the good old Catholic Church.

y now, objectors who read so far what I wrote here will only pull out a Tommy machinegun and begin to spray all the high-caliber bullets at the comment section of my blog to write: “Catholics are legalists,” “the Pope kissed the Quran,” “they worship Mary,” “they pray to saints” …

May I say that a bigot is recognized when he avoids the question at hand by always changing the subject.

The God of love, does He not love the legalist, the Pharisee and even the bigot? Does He then not also love the Catholic?

The issue is not an issue of “Love”, but that “Love” is always used to obstruct correction and reproof. Such “Love” is nothing more than hate. I always keep my eyes out for a mind that reverses everything.

The issue is an issue of SLANDER.

Slandering Catholics is the ONLY accepted prejudice in America.

Exposing Sodomite behavior in America is prejudice, but slandering the Vatican is not?

The Vatican has been slandered for centuries without a shred of biblical evidence. They call it the Harlot of Babylon, the killers of the saints, the woman drunk with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus Christ. And for historic evidence they say that the Catholic Church eliminated the Manichaeans, Arians, Cathars, Priscillianists, Paulicians, Bogomiles and Albigensians. But can anyone quote a single historian who confirms or proves that these groups were Bible believing Christians? Yet thousands of books were written slandering Catholics for eliminating these while elevating such heretics as the true Bible believing Christians.(For more on this read my article Drinking the Blood of Saints)

But instead of answering such a simple question, I get machine-gunned every time by changing the subject; but what about all these pedophilia cases? It is true that there is a major mess to clean in any Christian circle, but may I say: let the denomination that has no such sin cast the first stone. Sexual sins and deviancies are equally spread in all denominations.

But does such issues entitle us to only focus on what is wrong with the Catholic while ignoring what is wrong with Protestants? Even Jesus, while he reprimanded the institution of His time for its corruption, He never eliminated its authority over the flock.

And what about the Pharisee? Did the New Testament hate Pharisees? And how could we say that Judaism is legalistic just because individual Pharisees were challenging Jesus by using the Law to trap, discredit and accuse Him of heresy? Can this be applied to all the Pharisees in general or the Jews collectively?

Why then do we use the term “Pharisee” as a dreaded label of scorn and insult?

In the Bible, we can find verses where God condemns Israel. But is that a blanket statement to condemn them for eternity? If so, what then do we do with verses in which God honors Israel? Condemning the Jews for eternity is a sign of bigotry and prejudice. I see many Catholics who hate Israel. Evangelicals by large have done a much better job than Catholics in recognizing and supporting Israel.

When it comes to the Pharisee, Jesus spoke of the “righteousness of the Pharisees”. Was Jesus degrading the righteousness of the Pharisees, or was He simply setting up the standard, that unless we are perfect, we couldn’t enter the Kingdom, for even if we kept the law as good as the Pharisee, these do not equip a man for the beatific vision of God’s essence? This of course, can never be attained until the end when God accomplishes in us His plan after we are purged from all sin.

Nicodemus was a righteous Pharisee and so was Gamaliel, Paul’s teacher, the grandson of Hillel and the founder of a dominant school of the Pharisees, a major branch of Judaism. It was Gamaliel (a Pharisee) whom God chose to save the apostles from death and opposed the apostles’ execution. Josephus and some Talmudic works also mention Gamaliel, the Pharisee, describing him as a benevolent and brilliant man. William Barclay states:

“He was a kindly man with a far wider tolerance than his fellows. He was, for instance, one of the very few Pharisees who did not regard Greek culture as sinful. He was one of the very few to whom the title ‘Rabban’ had been given. Men called him ‘The Beauty of the Law.’ When he died it was said, ‘Since Rabban Gamaliel died there has been no more reverence for the Law; and purity and abstinence died out at the same time.'” (The Daily Study Bible Commentary, Bible Explorer software.)

In fact, Christianity, and by extension, Catholicism was derived from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism. In reality, when we compare Catholics and Protestants today in light of ancient times, it was the sola-scriptura Sadducees who rejected all authoritative oral teaching and were considered the theological liberals of that time. Even the New Testament records the first Christians were Pharisees (Acts 15:5, Philippians 3:5), but never once mentions Christian Sadducees.

Having few children by using birth control is the practice of liberals. Why would many Evangelicals support birth control is beyond me. Yet both religious Jews and Catholics see such practice as going against God’s plan. I agree 100%. God after all said to be, “fruitful and multiply”. My wife Maria put up with me for over two decades because she was brought up Catholic and to her marriage was a holy sacrament.

I have always believed that there are anti-Semites regardless of denomination. However, it is not true that Catholicism is anti-Semitic. Catholic Jim Blackburn from Catholic Answers in his article “Do You Know Jesus” explains that Christianity stems from Judaism, which is the official stand of the Catholic Church. Jim explains Paul:

“Paul said: “My manner of life from my youth, spent from the beginning among my own nation and at Jerusalem, is known by all the Jews. They have known for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that according to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee. And now I stand here on trial for hope in the promise made by God to our fathers. (Acts 26:4-6)”

Paul does not denounce the religion of Judaism here. He clearly recognizes that it is from this religion, which Christianity sprang. And he does not view Christianity as a new religion but, rather, as the fulfillment of the promise of Judaism. It is a continuation of—not a break from—Judaism. And in this continuation it does not throw off its religious aspect. (Ibid)

We always attribute to Catholics as the prime example of a legalist; they after all believe that they can earn or merit God’s approval by performing the requirements of the law, they neglect mercy, are ignorant of the grace of God and are so focused on the obedience to the law; the Catholic preeminent principle of redemption is not “by faith alone in God’s grace”.

Was the Catholic unsaved just because he believed in sola gratia (by grace alone) as Trent decreed, the justified “increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ” by means of “faith co-operating with good works,” which uses the phrase of the Council and that of Saint James?

Fact is, the Catholic Church condemns anyone who attempts to justify himself “by his own works”:

“Canon I. If any one says that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ—let him be anathema.”

The Council of Trent even elaborates:

“We are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification—whether faith or works—merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.”

Is this teaching an anathema? For how long must we continue slandering? Even the Jewish faith, King David broke the law and was not saved by keeping it, yet he was nevertheless saved. David was a repentant servant of God. Calling Catholics legalists came from Martin Luther who drew this view from reading the correspondence between the Judaizers of Paul’s days and applied it to the Roman Catholics of his.

George Foote Moore and Claude Montefiore protested that Judaism was not legalistic, and that such a view of Judaism was a distortion of Jewish documentary sources.

Indeed, if biblical Judaism was legalistic, how could God then provide salvation to the Jews of the Old Testament? How could God be arbitrary selecting Israel as His plan for salvation if they were legalists? (See Claude G. Montefiore, “Judaism and St. Paul (London: Max Goschen, 1914).

And here comes my biggest dilemma: during my two-decade walk in many American churches, it was as if all the battles, struggles and martyrdoms, which the Catholic Church endured from the Muslims for over millennia was simply written off by my evangelical friends. These sold such wealth of Catholic history as Judas sold Jesus for thirty pieces of silver.

It’s heart breaking.

In two decades, I have never heard a mention of the contribution of Catholics fighting Islam in the battles of Poitiers, Lepanto and Vienna.

My struggle with so many anti-Catholics began when I pointed to the rich history of the Catholic struggles with Islam. To these, it didn’t matter that millions of Catholics and Eastern Orthodox were martyred under Islam’s scimitar; Islam to them was simply the ‘cleansing agent’ of Catholic heretics. I could not understand how could such a movement that is pro-Jew, yet be so anti-Catholic?

I slowly began to realize that in America being anti-Catholic is America’s ONLY Acceptable Prejudice.

Even historians agree, slandering Catholics, as John Highham described it is:

“the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history,” (Jenkins, Philip (1 April 2003). The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice. Oxford University Press. p. 23)

Historian Arthur Schlesinger Sr. has called Anti-Catholicism “the deepest-held bias in the history of the American people”. (“The Coming Catholic Church”. By David Gibson. HarperCollins: Published 2004.)

Indeed. America is a nation that isolates racism and addresses skin-color and gender as the only definition for racism, so much so, even though they exercise the least of this type of racism than any other nation on earth, yet they discuss racism more than any other nation on earth.

We even have come a long way in combating anti-Semitism to soon forget quickly the horrors of Nazism. We still openly denounce skinheads and neo-Nazis, yet when it comes to the slander of Catholicism and Catholics, America is not only silent, but also is still a major participant.

Bible believing Christians who are Anti-Catholics need to answer one question: why only Catholicism unites all haters? Why when it comes to Catholicism, they are all united; liberals, atheists, Mormons, feminists, Satanists, Scientologists, Jehova’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Advantists, Uniterians, Moslems and so many Bible believing Christians officially and doctrinally are all anti-Catholic? It is time that Evangelical Bible believing Christians be removed from this equation.

But perhaps I need to exercise an American tradition; I should have prequalified my statement and say that: I am not saying that protestants and evangelicals are all anti-Catholic, by God no, yet every time I praised Catholics, I found so many pin-pointing the leaven of the Pharisees without looking into the piles of heretical books written by so-called evangelicals who do much worse than the Pope kissing the Quran or that Nostra Aetate praised Islam. Yet even Pope Benedict criticized Nostra Aetate. I too hate some of what I see in Nostra Aetate and Second Vatican and find so many devils within the Catholic Church.

But is the Catholic rich history such an evil subject that warrants ignoring Catholic wars with Islam and that during Nazism, there were many more of these precious Catholics that chose to die in Hitler’s ovens than there were wonderful Protestants? It is a fact of history that Catholics lead any other religion in rescuing the highest numbers of Jews during Nazi Germany. Are all these Catholics damned to hell despite making a choice to enter Hitler’s furnace and save Jews? Which of the two is more pleasing to God, the evangelical health and wealth televangelist or the Jew loving Catholic who died in the infernos of Hitler’s crematoria?

From top preachers in America, we can see the terrible trend. John MacArthur, who is esteemed as a formidable and excellent Calvinist theologian, made a sermon in which he agreed with Charles Spurgeon when he declared that he would rather be called a devil than a priest, and that the Catholic Church is worse than Satan himself. MacArthur, in agreement with the statement, proclaimed the quote in his presentation:

“Call yourself a priest, sir! I wonder men are not ashamed to take the title: when I recollect what priests have done in all ages–what priests connected with the church of Rome have done, I repeat what I have often said: I would rather sooner a man pointed at me in the street and called me a devil, than called me a priest; for bad as the devil has been, he has hardly been able to match the crimes, cruelties, and villainies which have been transacted under the cover of a special priesthood.” (Macarthur on Youtube, http://youtu.be/7WbF-BZxu6s)

Christian author and conspiracy theorist Mark Dice stated:

“The Catholic Church, the popes, and bishops are basically the same as the Pharisees that Jesus denounced over 2000 years ago for their hypocrisy and their pride and arrogance due to their spiritual knowledge.” (The Vatican, Modern Day Pharisees, MarkDice.com)

Another evangelical author, S. Mason describes the Catholic Church as:

“The Pope declares the Catholic hierarchy to be the only ones allowed to interpret scriptures. Therefore, they elevate themselves as the Scribes and Pharisees of the Temple. Think on how Jesus described them HYPOCRITES! He described them as painted white sepulchers, looking god on the outside but smelling with the stench of death on the inside and filled with dead men’s bones.” (Mason S. Religion the Great Harlot in the Devil’s Playground, P.p. 81)

For more information refuting such accusations see [here] and [here]

Anti-Catholics simply transferred the term “Pharisee” from the Jew to the Catholic. Indeed, hating Catholics and Pharisees is America’s ONLY Accepted Prejudice.

[af_vet_1981]

Um, no, that is not what Paul was telling the Thessalonians. He was telling them to not be led astray by a false letter supposedly from him but not his writing.

That is false and misleading response. Try reading the passage in Second Thessalonians again. The Apostle Paul warned them for a specific reason and told them not to listen to the teaching that the "day of Christ" is at hand. The apostasy must come first and the antiChrist must be revealed first. So, no rapture for you, you will just have to persevere.

Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Second Thessalonians, Catholic chapter two, Protestant verses one to three,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[MHGinTN]

Wow, that chip must be heavy on your shoulder! I said you certainly enjoyed catching my error! That's not blaming anyone but me for the error.

I refer you back to the previous post, which perhaps you didn't see, since you offered a notion refuted in the list of 15 differences in the Rapture and the Second Return to Earth's surface: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3329196/posts?page=396#396

That Jesus can come to the Earth in the Air without setting foot on the surface should not be a problem comprehending by someone who believes a priest in his religion can bring Jesus down for His real Presence to be eaten at the catholic Mass, body, blood, soul and DIVINITY, in a wafer held up by the priest.

[MHGinTN]

You asserted, "The apostasy must come first and the antiChrist must be revealed first." That is not what Paul taught to the Thessalonians, as evidenced by his referring them back to what he had taught them of the 'apostasia' then the one who is restraining being taken out of the way. The One Who is restraining is God's Holy Spirit, the very same Holy Spirit Who indwells believers, as the seal upon their human spirit. The Rapture of His Church takes the Holy Spirit accomplishing the work indwelling believers out of the way so the man of sin can be revealed in all his lawlessness. Read the passage I posted which comes as a restating of the premise of his letter sections to them regarding the lawlessness/the anti-Christ..

[MHGinTN]

2 Thess 2 “Don’t you remember that, when I was still with you, I told you these things? Now you know what is restraining him, to the end that he may be revealed in his own season. For the mystery of lawlessness already works. Only there is one who restrains now, until he is taken out of the way. Then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will kill...”

[af_vet_1981]

You asserted, "The apostasy must come first and the antiChrist must be revealed first." That is not what Paul taught to the Thessalonians,

It is right there in verse three, Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; .

The Apostle Paul wrote that "day of Christ" will not happen until after the apostasy and the "man of sin" is revealed.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “The Apostle Paul warned them for a specific reason and told them not to listen to the teaching that the “day of Christ” is at hand. The apostasy must come first and the antiChrist must be revealed first.” <<

AMEN!

Pre-Trib Dispyism is Lucifer's Gospel.

[af_vet_1981]

Wow, that chip must be heavy on your shoulder! I said you certainly enjoyed catching my error! That's not blaming anyone but me for the error.

Sure it is; pretend to take responsibility for having one's own email server and then blame Rush Limbaugh and the conservatives for one's having it.

That Jesus can come to the Earth in the Air without setting foot on the surface should not be a problem comprehending by someone who believes a priest in his religion can bring Jesus down for His real Presence to be eaten at the catholic Mass, body, blood, soul and DIVINITY, in a wafer held up by the priest.

The angels said He would come again in like manner as he ascended; he went from the ground at the Mount of Olives up into the clouds into heaven; He will descend from heaven in the clouds and his feet will touch the Mount of Olives. The "Rapture" theories and teachings were invented in the last two centuries because Sola Scriptura doesn't work and Restorationists are not satisfied with Protestantism. By appealing to the one holy catholic apostolic church you introduce the fact that the church has always taught the Second Coming of the Messiah as is written in the scriptures and as expressed in the creeds.

[Mark17]

I am looking for what God has revealed is coming very soon, the Rapture of His body of actual ‘faithers’. The Real Church, the Body of Christ, The Bride of Christ.

So am I bro. On the other hand, if it doesn't happen in our lifetime, at least we will be with Him when it DOES happens, in the twinkling of an eye.
As far as the apostasy is concerned, hasn't the world generally been in apostasy since Adam and Eve sinned? I think it has, but I think it can, and will get A LOT worse.
None of us know what percentage of the earth's population will end up in Hell, but I am inclined to think the vast, vast majority of the world will end up there. Not a good thing, but I am reminded of a verse to a hymn, "abundant life He came to truly give man, but so few His gift of grace receive."
How about that for a dose of reality?

[MHGinTN]

That old saw won't hunt either. The Rapture is not an inventiong of the past two centuries. But even if I post for you the numerous evidence that the idea has been around since the last Apostle died, you are a catholic so you cannot allow yourself to admit this reality, so you take the old dog hunting when it can't hunt:

http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/brief-history-of-rapture

There4 are many more resources with the most recent discoveries at http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/brief-history-of-rapture. With all your reading, perhaps you will avail yourself of some of the great work being done for believers, to edify us int he last days.

[Iscool]

On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

He won't be coming at the Rapture...We'll be going...That solves your dilemma...

[MHGinTN]

Medicine, Brother, medicine! And if it doesn’t happen before I sleep, because His Holy Spirit seal is upon my spirit, I will be brought with Him in the air and a new body given to be changed in that twinkle! it’s the Presence of the Holy SPirit seal which resonates to the transformation to be like Him so we can see Him as He really is! After all, to see something as it really is in six or seven dimensions, you gotta be six or seven dimensional! ... ‘Course that will mean you disappear from 4D spacetime, but it’s all good! We go up to meet Him in the air.

[MHGinTN]

Um, I don’t think that one is planning on going ... but if he does, we’ll explain it to him on the way up into the clouds!

[Iscool]

Um, I don’t think that one is planning on going ... but if he does, we’ll explain it to him on the way up into the clouds!

I agree...He might be in for the shock of his life...

[Mark17]

Sadly, a couple of family members ...

I know what you mean. I also have unsaved family members. They are welcome to whatever I leave behind at the rapture.
I saw a thread a few weeks ago, about the spiritual body we will receive, being a real super hero type body, that would make superman jealous. Of course, the reason for all the power God will give us in our spiritual body, is to give Him glory, but I think He will give us extraordinary powers, to accomplish His will.

Maranatha bro.

[Springfield Reformer]

Most of those assertions are either unsupported or else the alleged difference can be easily reconciled.

Full disclosure:  I was dispensational and as pre-trib as they come years ago, but found that I could not confirm the doctrine from Scripture, and have moved to more of a "pre-wrath" position, albeit without dogmatism regarding speculations, because I know good, well-meaning people can see these things very differently.

As for the alleged differences, some of them are imposing rigid conditions, as if Christ coming in the air, and we who believe meeting Him in the air, excludes the possibility that we will then proceed with Him to the earth, albeit perhaps going to some different location. There is no passage saying "He comes thus far, and stops in mid-air, or goes back etc."  Where is that? It is not written that way anywhere.

Other alleged differences are simply unsupported. Where is the passage that says only believers will see Christ in His first coming?  When Jesus was talking to His disciples in Matthew 24, they were believers, and He was giving them directions on what to look for, what to not pay attention to, etc.  And it is there that believers are advised to avoid falling for false Christs (of which there have already been many), precisely because Jesus wanted them to know every eye will  see Him, that His return will not be secret.  He is giving this as a precaution to believers, not unbelievers, or people converted during the tribulation.  This was doctrine for the ecclesia He was building through these disciples.

Finally, whether any prophecy must be fulfilled prior to the Second Coming versus the Rapture is a problem in circular reasoning.  If one assumes from the outset that there are two such events, then it would be easy to filter all the prophecy-connected passages as being only about the Second Coming, and all the other Parousia-related passages as being about the Rapture.  But as I said, this is circular reasoning, assuming the conclusion in the question.  If there are some passages which do not directly discuss a signaling prophecy, that does not logically mean they are not talking about the same event.  In fact, the default assumption has to be that they are talking about the same event unless the author provides an intentional and unambiguous distinction.

As for the specific question of 2 Thessalonians, there is no requirement of the text that the removal of the obstacle to the appearance of the man of sin would be a removal of the Holy Spirit from from the earth as the indweller of believers.  That is an artificial construction imposed on the text without due justification.  It is speculative who or what the obstacle is.  Remember Daniel in his prayers?  When the angel arrived 21 days later, we are told the Prince of Persia was the obstacle.  We must assume that in the case of the man of sin, the obstacle is there by divine appointment, and will be removed when God's timing is just right.  But we do not have any definite basis for speculating beyond what is written.

As for apostasia as being a catching away and not a falling away, again, there is no basis for assuming anything other than the ordinary use of apostasia as a noun to describe a revolt from the faithful teaching of the Gospel.  Apostasia was a theological term of art, as they say in the law, such that when used as a noun rather than a verb was reliably about defection from some system or standard.  The verbal form could be used to discuss physical departure, but that was a distinct condition from the use of the noun, which normally referred to a rebellious state of mind.  

For example, the same word is used here, also as a noun:

And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
(Acts 21:21)

Granted, the KJV rendered it as a verb, but in the Greek, it literally says " ... that you teach rebellion [apostasian] from Moses ..." and so is very much a noun.

So it is crystal clear in 2 Thessalonians that Paul is discussing an event he had mentioned to them previously, and that it was an apostasy as both we and they would normally use that term.  Which also makes sense in the context, as the revealing of the man of sin must logically be accompanied by such a corruption of belief and culture as to permit the rise of such a fiend.

Bottom line, one can find true and false doctrine taught at all stages of the history of Christianity.  Finding a few weak references to it here and there proves nothing. Unwarranted prophetic speculation has typically led to confusion.  This issue in my mind is rather simple.  Maybe because I'm just simple minded. :)  The thing Jesus gave as the main deliverable in response to the prophecies concerning the Second Coming/Parousia/Rapture/Etc. was to be ready.  Not to figure it out in excruciating detail.  But to be found on that day abiding in Him. That's the main thing. Trust Christ. Take a pass on the false christs. Don't beat the servants while the Master is away. Keep those lamps trimmed and full of oil.  Keep looking for that day, as children of light.  It will come, and soon enough.

Peace,

SR

[SouthernClaire]

Wow. I was blown away when the man joined with the saxophone!

Had two of my favorite voices in the world - Van Morrison and Elvis Presley - shown up and wanted to join in that worship music, I would have told them to be quiet and sit down my own self. (Aretha Franklin would’ve been a different story.)

[verga]

But as a True Christian I admitted my error, and fixed it. Still waiting on the posers.

[Elsie]

I’ll go out on a limb here and make a prediction:

Someday; I’ll be dead (If Jesus tarrys just a bit longer).
Someday; Jesus will return to Earth.
Someday; there’ll be some kind of Judgment.
Someday; we will ALL get our JUST reward.
Someday; we FR Prots and Catholics will quit fussing over stuff.

[Elsie]

So you claim to get "The Rapture" from the Catholic translation of First Corinthians, Catholic chapter four, Protestant verses thirteen to eighteen ... preposterous; here is the Douay Reims translation.

This ain't the Vulgate...

[Elsie]

I was just wondering, yesterday, about when my drivers license is up for renewal (not ‘til ‘18) and noticed the organ donor symbol on it.

I doubt they’d find much that I haven’t worn out by now, so ANY new body would have to be better than the one I’m using (abusing?) now!