How does an adult become a Catholic?
- Thread starter Josho
- Start date
-
- Tags
- catholicism
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
People - specially Catholics - don't like the truth.
I'm not debating. To me there is nothing to debate.
As an evangelical charismatic who has served as a theology professor at a Catholic university, I have found the truth to be precisely the opposite.
I totally get why several evangelicals have fled their local evangelical churches to find God real in our local Catholic church. Many evangelicals feed off hateful false caricatures of Catholic spirituality to justify their hatred masked as "speaking the truth in love." These same evangelicals display abysmal ignorance of how informed Catholics justify their distinctive beliefs and practices from Scripture.
But what is most striking for me are (1) cases in which Catholic exorcists had to be called in to perform exorcisms after evangelicals and charismatics miserably failed in their exorcist efforts and (2) cases in which miracles like the healing of congestive heart failure occurred in conjunction with Catholic devotion to deceased saints-miracles that evangelicals have never experienced in their own communion! But evangelicals are often quick to create false caricature of the Catholic doctrine of Communion of the saints (and its biblical grounding) to suit their own myopic agenda. And I say all this as someone who has successfully sued Catholics!
Nothing is worse than Catholicism at its worst, but nothing is superior to Catholic spirituality at its best. Evangelicals often resort to the bigoted expedient of seeking out the worst examplars of rival Christian traditions to justify their own dogmatic screed.
Why anyone who knows Bible truth and Gospel truth would voluntary go into Catholic bondage is something that would border on the bizarre. But then again there is no accounting for such things today.
Anytime non-Catholics expose the false teachings of the RCC their observations are labeled as "lies" or "caricatures". Well that simply does not hold water. But that is how Catholic apologists deal with this issue. Call the messenger a "liar" so no one will discern the truth.
Another mistaken idea is that attacking false Catholic doctrines is the same as attacking all Catholics. That is incorrect. It is not the victims of the RCC who are under attack. It is the perpetrators of false teachings. This would be true whether the false teachers were evangelicals, Mormons, JWs. or SDAs.
With all the exposure to the Bible and Gospel truth, it should be Catholics themselves who should be tearing the masks off their pope, bishops, and priests and telling them "You have departed from God's truth, therefore we are departing from your church!"
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
We’re not allowed to pray for each other?
What good is the communion of saints if we can’t pray and intercede for one an other
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Not for but to. I pray TO God FOR other people. I don’t pray TO other human beings. See the difference?
I still pray to you, ask you to pray for me, or how would you know to pray for me, all to the glory of Christ, for all graces come from His merits by denying the saints you are denying Christ
Jn 1:16
2 thes 1:10
Rev 5:8
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
Spoken like a true RCC soldier . I never said we cant pray FOR ONE ANOTHER
just not to one another or to the saints or angels or mary . You are running out of gas my friend . But that is a good thing .
Come to the glorious LORD JESUS and i shall pray FOR YOU , not to you and TO GOD for YOU .
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
They got you heavily brainwashed . I know your doctrine and its false .
Asking someone is not the same as Asking one while PRAYING to them .
If i ask for some corn on the cob , that dont mean i am praying to one .
They got you all twisted up real bad . And you love to have it so or you would not believe it .
Anyone knows there is a difference between asking one and praying to one . ROME GOT YOU TRAINED MY FRIEND .
BUT have no fear , i have come to do all i can , BY GRACE to help steer you outta the R double C . BUT DO HURRY my friend .
for a reprobate mind is as a reprobate mind does . And if you hurry not and tarry , YOU MIGHT NEVER COME to the TRUTH .
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
One of the most tenacious problems a Catholic apologist encounters is anti-Catholicism. In order to effectively counter it, we need to have some appreciation of its history.
In a sense, anti-Catholicism can only exist if there is some other group of Christians to contrast Catholics with. Hostility toward Christians in the earliest years would not be anti-Catholic since at that time there were no non-Catholic churches. Soon, however, some local churches did acquire unorthodox beliefs and practices that resulted in their separating themselves from the worldwide Christian Church. The resulting groups were commonly named after their founders, the locations where they arose, or their most distinctive doctrines, practices, or traits. The Montanists were named after their founder Montanus. The Cataphrygians were named after the land of Phrygia. The Docetists were named after their claim that Christ only seemed (Greek, dokein) to be human, and the Quartodecimians were named after their insistence on celebrating Easter on the fourteenth of Nisan even if it did not fall on a Sunday.
By the second half of the first century there were enough separate, particular groups in existence that there needed to be a way to refer to the universal body of Christians constituting the original Church that Christ founded. The term that came into use for designating this all-embracing body was kataholos, which is brought over into English as “Catholic.” Though it is often somewhat loosely translated as “universal,” it means “according [kata-] to the whole [holos].”
By the early second century, the term “Catholic” was in common use as a designation for Christ’s Church. A belief or practice was said to be Catholic if it if it was in accord with what Christians as a whole believed or practiced, not just what was taught or done by some particular group that had split off from the Church. Christians who preferred their own views to those of the whole Church were known as heretics (roughly, “opinionated ones”) and those who separated from Catholic unity for non-doctrinal reasons were known as schismatics (roughly, “divisive ones”).
In the early Church, anti-Catholicism per se was essentially confined to the heretical or schismatic bodies that split off from the Catholic Church. Naturally, they tended to be hostile to Catholicism on some level, or they would not have left. However, on the whole non-Christians were not aware of the divisions within the Christian community, and so they tended to think favorably or unfavorably of Christians as a group.
This changed with the advent of Protestantism, which, as its name suggests, arose as a protest against Catholic beliefs and practices. A new explosion of sects occurred, and again they tended to be named after their founder, place of origin, or their distinctive belief, practice, or trait. (Lutherans are named after their founder, Anglicans are named after their country of origin, and Episcopalians and Presbyterians are named after their forms of government.)
Before the Protestant Reformation, when sects split off from the Church it was normally over only one or two points, and the sects remained largely faithful to historic Christian belief and practice. However, the leaders of the Protestant sects largely took an approach that discarded everything and reformulated the Christian faith from scratch using Scripture alone. The result was that the new sects diverged more widely from historic Christian belief and practices than almost any that had appeared since the first two centuries (Gnosticism would be the exception).
Despite their level of divergence, the new sects grew quickly because they encouraged regional and national governments to break with the Catholic Church and in its place embrace their sect. To obtain more political and financial autonomy, many governments did this and as the state church the new faith was imposed on the populace, who were now told that they were no longer Catholics and must now worship at the new, Protestant services.
To justify breaking away from what was, to almost everyone, the Christian Church, and to justify the social and political convulsions that followed, Protestant preachers had to paint the Catholic Church as something evil, repressive, and abominable—something that wasn’t a Christian Church at all. Only by believing this could one believe that one was not, in fact, leaving Christ’s Church. Thus anti-Catholicism experienced a rebirth.
Ironically, this rebirth was strongest among those most similar to the Catholic Church. The Church of England changed very little doctrine (having been due to Henry VIII’s ambition in getting a divorce), so what differences there were had to be magnified as much as possible to justify the breakaway. As a result, England became perhaps the most anti-Catholic country in Europe, though doctrinally the Anglican church retained the most Catholic beliefs and practices since the split was not prompted by concerns over these issues.
Because Anglicans were so similar to Catholics, they often wished to keep the name “Catholic” for themselves and so coined a host of terms to distinguish themselves from the “other” Catholics. Because the Catholic Church is led by the pope, the bishop of Rome, they began to refer to Catholicism as Popery, Romanism, and Roman Catholicism and to Catholic doctrines and practices as popish, papish, papist, Romish, and Roman.
When the United States was founded, it inherited the anti-Catholic animus of its original Protestant settlers, many of whom were Anglican until the American Revolution, when they were renamed “Episcopalians” since they severed ties with England and thus with the king of England as the head of their church.
Anti-Catholic sentiments in America reached a peak in the nineteenth century when the Protestant population became alarmed by the number of Catholics immigrating to America. This was due in part to the standard tensions that arise between native citizens and foreign immigrants, and the resulting “nativist” movement, which achieved prominence in the 1840s, was whipped into a frenzy of anti-Catholicism that led to mob violence, the burning of Catholic property, and the killing of Catholics. There were Catholics who were martyred in America by the Protestant community. The nativist movement found expression in a national political movement called the Know-Nothing Party of the 1850s, which (unsuccessfully) ran former president Millard Fillmore as its presidential candidate in 1856.
continued...
In a sense, anti-Catholicism can only exist if there is some other group of Christians to contrast Catholics with. Hostility toward Christians in the earliest years would not be anti-Catholic since at that time there were no non-Catholic churches. Soon, however, some local churches did acquire unorthodox beliefs and practices that resulted in their separating themselves from the worldwide Christian Church. The resulting groups were commonly named after their founders, the locations where they arose, or their most distinctive doctrines, practices, or traits. The Montanists were named after their founder Montanus. The Cataphrygians were named after the land of Phrygia. The Docetists were named after their claim that Christ only seemed (Greek, dokein) to be human, and the Quartodecimians were named after their insistence on celebrating Easter on the fourteenth of Nisan even if it did not fall on a Sunday.
By the second half of the first century there were enough separate, particular groups in existence that there needed to be a way to refer to the universal body of Christians constituting the original Church that Christ founded. The term that came into use for designating this all-embracing body was kataholos, which is brought over into English as “Catholic.” Though it is often somewhat loosely translated as “universal,” it means “according [kata-] to the whole [holos].”
By the early second century, the term “Catholic” was in common use as a designation for Christ’s Church. A belief or practice was said to be Catholic if it if it was in accord with what Christians as a whole believed or practiced, not just what was taught or done by some particular group that had split off from the Church. Christians who preferred their own views to those of the whole Church were known as heretics (roughly, “opinionated ones”) and those who separated from Catholic unity for non-doctrinal reasons were known as schismatics (roughly, “divisive ones”).
In the early Church, anti-Catholicism per se was essentially confined to the heretical or schismatic bodies that split off from the Catholic Church. Naturally, they tended to be hostile to Catholicism on some level, or they would not have left. However, on the whole non-Christians were not aware of the divisions within the Christian community, and so they tended to think favorably or unfavorably of Christians as a group.
This changed with the advent of Protestantism, which, as its name suggests, arose as a protest against Catholic beliefs and practices. A new explosion of sects occurred, and again they tended to be named after their founder, place of origin, or their distinctive belief, practice, or trait. (Lutherans are named after their founder, Anglicans are named after their country of origin, and Episcopalians and Presbyterians are named after their forms of government.)
Before the Protestant Reformation, when sects split off from the Church it was normally over only one or two points, and the sects remained largely faithful to historic Christian belief and practice. However, the leaders of the Protestant sects largely took an approach that discarded everything and reformulated the Christian faith from scratch using Scripture alone. The result was that the new sects diverged more widely from historic Christian belief and practices than almost any that had appeared since the first two centuries (Gnosticism would be the exception).
Despite their level of divergence, the new sects grew quickly because they encouraged regional and national governments to break with the Catholic Church and in its place embrace their sect. To obtain more political and financial autonomy, many governments did this and as the state church the new faith was imposed on the populace, who were now told that they were no longer Catholics and must now worship at the new, Protestant services.
To justify breaking away from what was, to almost everyone, the Christian Church, and to justify the social and political convulsions that followed, Protestant preachers had to paint the Catholic Church as something evil, repressive, and abominable—something that wasn’t a Christian Church at all. Only by believing this could one believe that one was not, in fact, leaving Christ’s Church. Thus anti-Catholicism experienced a rebirth.
Ironically, this rebirth was strongest among those most similar to the Catholic Church. The Church of England changed very little doctrine (having been due to Henry VIII’s ambition in getting a divorce), so what differences there were had to be magnified as much as possible to justify the breakaway. As a result, England became perhaps the most anti-Catholic country in Europe, though doctrinally the Anglican church retained the most Catholic beliefs and practices since the split was not prompted by concerns over these issues.
Because Anglicans were so similar to Catholics, they often wished to keep the name “Catholic” for themselves and so coined a host of terms to distinguish themselves from the “other” Catholics. Because the Catholic Church is led by the pope, the bishop of Rome, they began to refer to Catholicism as Popery, Romanism, and Roman Catholicism and to Catholic doctrines and practices as popish, papish, papist, Romish, and Roman.
When the United States was founded, it inherited the anti-Catholic animus of its original Protestant settlers, many of whom were Anglican until the American Revolution, when they were renamed “Episcopalians” since they severed ties with England and thus with the king of England as the head of their church.
Anti-Catholic sentiments in America reached a peak in the nineteenth century when the Protestant population became alarmed by the number of Catholics immigrating to America. This was due in part to the standard tensions that arise between native citizens and foreign immigrants, and the resulting “nativist” movement, which achieved prominence in the 1840s, was whipped into a frenzy of anti-Catholicism that led to mob violence, the burning of Catholic property, and the killing of Catholics. There were Catholics who were martyred in America by the Protestant community. The nativist movement found expression in a national political movement called the Know-Nothing Party of the 1850s, which (unsuccessfully) ran former president Millard Fillmore as its presidential candidate in 1856.
continued...
As she said, she knows some catholics personally. So do I. They are Mary-centered (a false unbiblical Mary) from everything I've seen in my in-laws and online, or on television (catholic religious programs).
I will say ...I have met one catholic person who actually prayed to God and not to Mary or a deceased "saint." She was my midwife and I saw no shrines to "Mary" in her home, or tracts portraying "Mary" with a crown of thorns on her head and nail scars in her hands, as I've seen all over my mother-in-law's home. THAT is a false gospel. Jesus Christ is the ONLY ...way, the truth, the life ....no one comes to the Father but through HIM ....Jesus Christ is the ONLY mediator between God and man. If anyone tries to come in another way, he is a thief and a robber. That is what scripture says. Jesus is the door to the sheepfold. Mary is not. If anyone, even an angel comes preaching any other gospel, let him or her be accursed. That's the scripture. Look it up!
Last edited:
Berserk said:
I challenge you to identify biblical prooftexts Catholics might cite for Catholic distinctives like these 7:
(1) their doctrine of Purgatory
(2) their doctrine of Communion of Saints
(3) their respect for holy relics (including the bones of deceased saints)
(4) their use of Holy Water
(5) their doctrine of the Eucharist
(6) their doctrine of the redemptive relationship between faith and works
(7) their doctrine of divinely inspired church tradition
Are you willing to get into the Word or are you and your ilk just going to continue spouting your groundless vitriol?
My response: I would be more than happy to show that not one of those teachings -- as spelled out in the CCC -- reflects what is in the Bible. But to what end? Every attempt to provide a biblical refutation is met with RESISTANCE. If, on the other hand, a sincere Catholic said "I wish to know the truth because I am fed up with the lies" that would be a different scenario. Also Bible truth is not "groundless vitriol". It is the antidote to spiritual poison.
I challenge you to identify biblical prooftexts Catholics might cite for Catholic distinctives like these 7:
(1) their doctrine of Purgatory
(2) their doctrine of Communion of Saints
(3) their respect for holy relics (including the bones of deceased saints)
(4) their use of Holy Water
(5) their doctrine of the Eucharist
(6) their doctrine of the redemptive relationship between faith and works
(7) their doctrine of divinely inspired church tradition
Are you willing to get into the Word or are you and your ilk just going to continue spouting your groundless vitriol?
My response: I would be more than happy to show that not one of those teachings -- as spelled out in the CCC -- reflects what is in the Bible. But to what end? Every attempt to provide a biblical refutation is met with RESISTANCE. If, on the other hand, a sincere Catholic said "I wish to know the truth because I am fed up with the lies" that would be a different scenario. Also Bible truth is not "groundless vitriol". It is the antidote to spiritual poison.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
I have no idea what you mean that I am denying the saints. They are not God. I don’t deny the saints but I don’t pray TO them.
This is correct. Here is the doctrine of Mary as presented in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And none of it is based on actual biblical passages. Simply a reinterpretation of what is in the Bible. There is not a single verse in Scripture which tells Christians to practice devotion to Mary.
Immaculate Conception: "preserved immune from all stain of original sin"
491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135 [ Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854): DS 2803]
493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature".138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long. "Let it be done to me according to your word. . ."
Perpetual Virginity
499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.154 In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 and so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".156
500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus.157 The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary".158 They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.159
Mary's participation in Christ's finished work of redemption
964 Mary's role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. "This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to his death";502 it is made manifest above all at the hour of his Passion: Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross. There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother's heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: "Woman, behold your son."503
Assumption and Exaltation of Mary
966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."506 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:
Mary's prayers deliver souls from death
In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.507
Mary as Mother of the Church and Mediatrix
968 Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. "In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior's work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace."509
969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfilment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation .... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."510
Devotion to Mary
971 "All generations will call me blessed": "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship."513 The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs.... This very special devotion ... differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."514 The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.515
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
continued from post #54...
Eventually tensions eased, and the Protestant population discovered that Catholics were not trying to seize control of the American government. Still, there were fears even into the twentieth century that there was undue “Catholic influence” on the government, and presidents who met with the pope were criticized. Tensions did not subside enough to allow a Catholic to be elected president until 1960, and even now Catholics who run for president find their religious beliefs subjected to extra scrutiny in the press.
By this point, a new form of anti-Catholicism had emerged. For the first time, part of the non-Christian world became aware of and hostile toward Catholics as a distinct group of Christians. As the cultural and political fabric of Europe and America disintegrated, large numbers of people began to leave both Catholicism and Protestantism, at first still saying they believed in God or were still Christians in some sense. Later, more began to profess agnosticism or atheism or to experiment with other religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and the various New Age sects that Americanized Eastern ideas. This group either had, disgruntled, left the Catholic Church or had come from the already anti-Catholic Protestant community. As a result, they tended to hold anti-Catholic attitudes.
Because the recent cultural and political disintegration in large part stemmed from the actions of those in upper political, economic, and especially academic and media circles, many people in those fields are especially hostile to Catholicism. Consequently, things concerning Catholics are said in classrooms, books, broadcasts, speeches, and movies that would never be tolerated if said about other religious or social groups.
It has been suggested that anti-Catholicism is the last socially respectable prejudice in America. Toleration has been extended to other groups, and they cannot be subjected to verbal abuse in public. This is not quite true (conservative Protestants and Moslems come in for similar attacks, often under the labeled of being “Fundamentalist”). However, it does illustrate the irony of those who profess to be the most open of different viewpoints being so closed to the Catholic one.
Because of the strength of secularism in Western society, secular anti-Catholism is now a more serious worry in the long term than Protestant anti-Catholicism. Fortunately, Catholic advocacy groups such as the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights have begun to provide a Catholic counterpart to the organizations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Jewish Anti-Defamation League that advocate the rights of other groups.
In Protestant circles, there has been a general decline in anti-Catholicism over the past hundred years. Liberal Protestants have gone a long way to ending old hostilities, though they are still nervous about the firmness with which the Catholic Church teaches historic Christian doctrines. In conservative Protestant communities, there has also been a lessening of anti-Catholicism.
However, in the 1990s there was a significant anti-Catholic resurgence among some Protestants. This chiefly was due to two things: (1) the number of ecumenical gestures Protestants, including many conservatives, made toward Catholics and (2) a renaissance in Catholic apologetics that began to win large numbers of devout, conservative Protestant converts to Catholicism. These two factors alarmed the anti-Catholic elements in conservative Protestantism, and a large number of new anti-Catholic books, tracts, tapes, and videos began to appear. Among the most significant of the current wave of anti-Catholic Protestants are Jack T. Chick, Dave Hunt, John MacArthur, John Ankerberg, and James McCarthy.
As the forgoing has indicated, anti-Catholicism is not static but changes over time. Even the arguments that are used against Catholics change over time. A hundred years ago, many Protestants charged that Catholics were unpatriotic because they resisted placing their children in American public schools. With the secularization of the American schoolroom, this argument has disappeared. With increasing secularism but also increasing ecumenism, it remains to be seen what shape anti-Catholicism will take in the future. It may happen that we will return to a situation like that of the first century, where Christians are persecuted indiscriminately of their denomination by a hostile, anti-Christian world.
The History of Anti-Catholicism
Eventually tensions eased, and the Protestant population discovered that Catholics were not trying to seize control of the American government. Still, there were fears even into the twentieth century that there was undue “Catholic influence” on the government, and presidents who met with the pope were criticized. Tensions did not subside enough to allow a Catholic to be elected president until 1960, and even now Catholics who run for president find their religious beliefs subjected to extra scrutiny in the press.
By this point, a new form of anti-Catholicism had emerged. For the first time, part of the non-Christian world became aware of and hostile toward Catholics as a distinct group of Christians. As the cultural and political fabric of Europe and America disintegrated, large numbers of people began to leave both Catholicism and Protestantism, at first still saying they believed in God or were still Christians in some sense. Later, more began to profess agnosticism or atheism or to experiment with other religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and the various New Age sects that Americanized Eastern ideas. This group either had, disgruntled, left the Catholic Church or had come from the already anti-Catholic Protestant community. As a result, they tended to hold anti-Catholic attitudes.
Because the recent cultural and political disintegration in large part stemmed from the actions of those in upper political, economic, and especially academic and media circles, many people in those fields are especially hostile to Catholicism. Consequently, things concerning Catholics are said in classrooms, books, broadcasts, speeches, and movies that would never be tolerated if said about other religious or social groups.
It has been suggested that anti-Catholicism is the last socially respectable prejudice in America. Toleration has been extended to other groups, and they cannot be subjected to verbal abuse in public. This is not quite true (conservative Protestants and Moslems come in for similar attacks, often under the labeled of being “Fundamentalist”). However, it does illustrate the irony of those who profess to be the most open of different viewpoints being so closed to the Catholic one.
Because of the strength of secularism in Western society, secular anti-Catholism is now a more serious worry in the long term than Protestant anti-Catholicism. Fortunately, Catholic advocacy groups such as the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights have begun to provide a Catholic counterpart to the organizations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Jewish Anti-Defamation League that advocate the rights of other groups.
In Protestant circles, there has been a general decline in anti-Catholicism over the past hundred years. Liberal Protestants have gone a long way to ending old hostilities, though they are still nervous about the firmness with which the Catholic Church teaches historic Christian doctrines. In conservative Protestant communities, there has also been a lessening of anti-Catholicism.
However, in the 1990s there was a significant anti-Catholic resurgence among some Protestants. This chiefly was due to two things: (1) the number of ecumenical gestures Protestants, including many conservatives, made toward Catholics and (2) a renaissance in Catholic apologetics that began to win large numbers of devout, conservative Protestant converts to Catholicism. These two factors alarmed the anti-Catholic elements in conservative Protestantism, and a large number of new anti-Catholic books, tracts, tapes, and videos began to appear. Among the most significant of the current wave of anti-Catholic Protestants are Jack T. Chick, Dave Hunt, John MacArthur, John Ankerberg, and James McCarthy.
As the forgoing has indicated, anti-Catholicism is not static but changes over time. Even the arguments that are used against Catholics change over time. A hundred years ago, many Protestants charged that Catholics were unpatriotic because they resisted placing their children in American public schools. With the secularization of the American schoolroom, this argument has disappeared. With increasing secularism but also increasing ecumenism, it remains to be seen what shape anti-Catholicism will take in the future. It may happen that we will return to a situation like that of the first century, where Christians are persecuted indiscriminately of their denomination by a hostile, anti-Christian world.
The History of Anti-Catholicism
- Status
Similar threads
