Anti-Catholicism: What's the Basis?

[Randy_Carson]

“Why do other Christians hate us?” This is the question my 13 year-old step-son asked me the other day.

Are they threatened by our legitimacy since we were founded by Jesus Christ and have the history and tradition that they lack?

Where are the anti-Lutherans, the anti-Methodists?

I think you are correct to some degree. Anti-Catholicism and anti-Semitism are equally irrational - but deeply rooted - prejudices.

I think you would benefit tremendously from reading Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism.

It is a “must read” for anyone dealing with these issues.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Exactly my point. And why I believe Catholicism as being weak to many of the same problems as Protestantism.

Except that we have no heresies. We can trace our beliefs and practices back to the very earliest Christians – while Protestantism only can into existance some 500 years ago.

I presume there were, in the first century, Christians who chose to immerse people fully, and who also accepted the Trinity and the Grace of Christ. This, pretty much, is the only dogma required by Baptists today (though there would be other doctrinal issues).

“Presume” doesn’t feed the bulldog. Who were these “Baptists?” Where can I read their writings?

As for immersion, the Trinity, and the Grace of Christ – we believe in all that, too. Does that mean Catholics are Baptists?

So we can say that, through all generations, there have been Baptists, though not with the highly developed doctrine Baptists have today.

No, we can not. Not until you can produce them – give us their names and show us their writings. And show how they believed something different from what Catholics believe.

And all that can be offered is “I think” or “I believe”, and then a “because”, hopefully resting on good arguments. But certainty outside of faith is not appropriate or possible in the realm of theology. So I told you what I believe, and in part why (the part that is relevant to the question at hand)

We can do better than that – we can show how Catholics who received their Christianity from the Apostles We can show their writings. You don’t claim Clement, or Polycarp, or Irenaeus or Ignatius were Baptists, do you?

No. I am under the impression that it is Baptist dogma. And that it stands on just as strong a ground as Papist dogma (Papal infallibility).

No, it doesn’t – if you understand infallibility and reject it, you also reject your own faith.

The reason is simple – you ask us to accept your beliefs on faith, but freely admit you do not have the Kharisma of infallibility. Therefore you ask us to believe not in God and His gift (which you reject) but in men – yourselves.

Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn’t mean they don’t understand you.

Then please explain to me what you believe the doctrine of infallibility to mean.

I understand the Church’s teaching on Papal infallibility, and on the infallibility of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium (or, at least, I believe that I do, though I am always open to further instruction on the matter). And I reject this teaching.

In small part for the reasons given above.

If you reject God’s gift of infallibility, how can you ask us to accept your beliefs on faith? In whom are we to have faith? In God, or in man? If you say God, you must show the Kharisma of infallibility. If you cannot, you ask us to believe in man.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I disagree with this 100% I challenge you take ask me about your doctrines.

Most protestants don’t hate Catholics they just feel you need to be evangelized to.

MFM-

Most Protestants just need to be educated about what Catholics actually believe. They’re future Catholics still in a pre-conversion state. :dancing:

Be honest…after debating at length with many of us in other threads, do you still believe we need to be “evangelized”? That we don’t know and revere the Word of God? That we’re like people who don’t proclaim “Jesus is Lord”? Clearly, we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior…you’re just arguing doctrine…you know we’re saved. :yup:

I invite you to start a new thread on any topic you like…pick the Catholic doctrine that you hate the most…Mary, the Saints, the Papacy, the Eucharist, the Priesthood, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the sale of Indulgences, the Borgia popes, whatever.

I’ll be happy to chat. The more we do, the more likely it is that the light bulb will go on for you! :clapping:

 

[Randy_Carson]

So we can say that, through all generations, there have been Baptists, though not with the highly developed doctrine Baptists have today.

Noma-

I have to side with Vern on this, and I’d like to encourage you to read a little written by Stephen Ray who was an ardent Baptist and hard-core anti-Catholic until (what else?) his conversion to Catholicsim.

He has written about the alleged first centurty Baptists in an article that begins as follows:
"When Baptists attempt to discover the origins of their tradition they are faced with a historical dilemma. The search for Baptists roots hits a dead end in the sixteenth century. Most acknowledge that Baptist tradition is a tributary flowing out of the Protestant Reformation, but others attempt to discover a line of historical continuity, of doctrine and practice, back to Jesus and even John the Baptist. These Baptists are commonly referred to “Baptist Successionists”. . . "
Here’s link to his website/blog where you can find the whole article in response to a book entitled The Trail of Blood:

blog.catholic-convert.com/?p=829

It is my opinion that many Protestants don’t care two hoots about their own history…many are ignorant of (and now in disagreement with) the teachings of the original “Reformers”, but some do recognize the weakness of having a broken link to the Apostles. Therefore, they try to cobble together some claim to Apostolicity. Unfortunately for their purposes - and with a respectful nod to your Orthodox tendencies - Apostolic Succession is centered around Rome.

Generally speaking. You know what I mean!

 

[Texas_Roofer]

“Why do other Christians hate us?” This is the question my 13 year-old step-son asked me the other day. Are they threatened by our legitimacy since we were founded by Jesus Christ and have the history and tradition that they lack? …

As mentioned by other Protestants desire a separation from Catholism, so mean spirits are common.

Exactly my point. And why I believe Catholicism as being weak to many of the same problems as Protestantism…
I presume there were, in the first century, Christians who chose to immerse people fully, and who also accepted the Trinity and the Grace of Christ. This, pretty much, is the only dogma required by Baptists today (though there would be other doctrinal issues)…
…
I understand the Church’s teaching on Papal infallibility, and on the infallibility of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium (or, at least, I believe that I do, though I am always open to further instruction on the matter). And I reject this teaching.I have some problems with this. Protestants have to reject Apostolic Succession and deny the “Binding and Loose” from the bible. That is required because the church has the ability to bind all Christians. The Pope and the Magisterium still have this ability which means they may “loose” disciplines, as contraception, mass attendance, fasting, etc. This has been done in the past and will occur again in the future. This should not be misconstrued as anti-Protestant because there is extreme difference between the Protestant who chose to leave Catholism verses those which know only Protestant teachings.

Here is my understanding

God preceded man
Man preceded religion (Aaron, Leviticus and later the Torah)
Religion preceded the Temple (Salmon)
The Temple preceded Jesus
Jesus preceded the Catholic Church
The Catholic Church preceded the New Testament
The New Testament preceded the “Bible”(the bible we know was formed in roughly 340AD)
The Bible preceded the Protestants
The Protestants preceded Sola Scriptura

 

[vern_humphrey]

And we can assume that in the First Century there were Christians who ate bread, drank water, and breathed air. And since modern Baptists also eat bread, drink water, and breathe air . . .

Catholics practiced baptism by immersion, believed in the Trinity, and so on. That doesn’t make us Baptists today, and it didn’t make us Baptists 1,900 years ago.

 

[noma]

Generally speaking. You know what I mean!

I think I do, and I think you make excellent points.

Clearly all “Baptists”, if you wish, would have had to have been Catholic, but even if we knew the old Catholic Church looked so much like this one, why would that necessarily lead credence to the Catholic claim?

Why, in other words, couldn’t we say that there have been Baptists from the beginning, who also have held some mistaken beliefs (concerning Church hierarchy, justification, etc.)?

The Jewish Nation for the most part, along with its spiritual leader, the High Priest, was confused about the mission and purpose of the Messiah. How do we know that the Catholic Church isn’t likewise confused?

How can we be sure of any of its claims?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think I do, and I think you make excellent points.

Clearly all “Baptists”, if you wish, would have had to have been Catholic, but even if we knew the old Catholic Church looked so much like this one, why would that necessarily lead credence to the Catholic claim?

Why, in other words, couldn’t we say that there have been Baptists from the beginning, who also have held some mistaken beliefs (concerning Church hierarchy, justification, etc.)?

We can’t say it because it’s not true. The issues of baptism, trinity and so on are common – Catholics hold them, too. Hence these issues do not dicriminate between Catholics and Baptists.

You cannot find a Christian in the first few centuries who held beliefs that would square with Baptist doctrine but not Catholic doctrine.

The Jewish Nation for the most part, along with its spiritual leader, the High Priest, was confused about the mission and purpose of the Messiah. How do we know that the Catholic Church isn’t likewise confused?

How can we be sure of any of its claims?

Because the Catholic Church has the Kharisma of infallibility.

The Baptists and other Protestants are caught in a cleft stick – they deny infallibility – they must deny it, or accept Catholicism. Yet having denied infallibility, they can offer no assurances that** their** particular beliefs are right.

And no one has yet accepted my original challenge – don’t tell me what’s wrong with Catholicism, tell me what’s right with Protestantism.

 

[noma]

Because the Catholic Church has the Kharisma of infallibility.

The Baptists and other Protestants are caught in a cleft stick – they deny infallibility – they must deny it, or accept Catholicism. Yet having denied infallibility, they can offer no assurances that** their** particular beliefs are right.

I agree that this is what the Catholic Church claims (and the Orthodox Church, for that matter, though in a different capacity).

I agree that Protestants must disagree with this.

I do not see how this gives you any assurance, except given faith in the Charism.

But those without faith in the Charism can have assurance in other things (Scripture), simply by having faith in them (or in them alone).

Why should we believe that the Church has taught infallibly on faith and morals?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I agree that this is what the Catholic Church claims (and the Orthodox Church, for that matter, though in a different capacity).

I agree that Protestants must disagree with this.

I do not see how this gives you any assurance, except given faith in the Charism.

Look at it this way – there are literally tens of thousands of Protestant churches. They teach everything imaginable, and they are at odds with each other.

So, if you come to me and say, “You must have faith,” my response is, “Faith in what? In which of these competing and mutually exclusive sets of doctrine?”

Then I look at Christianity as a whole – we all agree that Jesus came to establish a Church, and that Church was created to teach the Truth.

Is it logical that Christ would permit that Church to fall into so many errors? Could He be so short-sighted and imperfect?

Of course not!! Therefore He must have taken care that his Church would not fall into error.

So look for a Church which proclaims it has the Kharisma of infallibility. All the other churches admit they could be wrong, do they not?

But those without faith in the Charism can have assurance in other things (Scripture), simply by having faith in them (or in them alone).

Why should we believe that the Church has taught infallibly on faith and morals?

Because we must otherwise accept that Christ would allow His Church to fall into error. We must accept that Christ was short-sighted and imperfect. We must accept that He failed in His mission to bring us His message of truth.

 

[reggieM]

I think the hatred comes from some guilt that is retained in the Protestant position. The reformers broke from the true Church of Christ and they attempted to set up their own religion – but they knew that they didn’t have the divine mandate and authority to do that. So they attack Catholicism with a spirit of bitterness and rage because the Catholic Church continues to be a witness of the truth of Jesus.

The Protestant world is not united by anything, really, except this opposition to Catholicism.

Certainly, Orthodoxy and Catholicism were united in one Church for 1000 years and the break had little to do with doctrine and much to do with misunderstandings and politics.

I would agree that there is profound misunderstanding of Catholicism among Protestants – especially among those who hate Catholics the most. If they really knew and understood Catholicism and its apostolic heritage, they would all become Catholics, without a doubt.

 

[Joseph_Smith]

I am anti-catholicism for sure, yeat i do not hate you. I hate your church for sure. And have a reason to. It is ungodly and is anti-christ in its teaching. So why would you thingk any christian would follow its traditions. I have read many of your post in this thread and am not suprised as to you teachings. The first christian churchs are not found in Rome, They are located in Israel, and some of them still exist to date, There are also christians churchs In the mountians of turkey that came from the first centry of the faith. These predate the romans catholic by 250 years. After the Creation of the roman holy catholic church there arose a onslot of killing of millions of jews and christians by none other then the Roman Holy Catholic church. That lasted for 1500 years and was endorced by your church. Jesus dod not endorse them your priesthood did. We who are christians suffer persucation as instructed by christ. Your church on the other hand killed in the name of God so as to justify its own lust for blood. Is not satan a murdered and those who murder are they not of his house. So in that you declare your lintage to be the oldest church in existance and it is not. And you declare you are holy and you are not. And you declare you have holy priest and you do not and the fact is that your church by its own histroy has proved to be a persucator of the faithful and not a protector of the faith. Who would you ever think any person would not know who has really created this beast you call the Roman Holy Catholic Church. Your church sold forgivenss of sin at one time. Today you worship priest in the place of Christ the one high priest. You hold tradition over the word of God. You dress your pope as a king when in fact he is nothing but a sinner. You are playing holy worshiping the dead saints and prayignto the dead which is forbidden of God. You pray for people in purgatory and it does not exist. You pray to mary and no the one high prist Jesus christ. You make millions off the members of the church that are spent on carring for the priest the nuns and the vatican. When in fact the apostles taught about living modestly. You suit up a man and call him the Christ on the earth which is neither of God or in the scriptures and you dress him up as a king when he is not a king. You call this holyness. This is foolishness. Get into a real relationship with Christ and put this in the past. Your pope can’t give you salvation nor your priest. Christ alone can. His kingdom is not of the earth.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Joseph-

I’ve noticed in multiple threads that you write really long posts concerning what you erroneously believe to be true, but you never answer any questions that are asked of you.

For my part, I would be happy to “dialogue” with you about your beliefs, but if all you want to do is spout your anti-Catholic error, then I for one am not going to waste any time reading what you write.

Do you really want to be taken seriously in this forum or not?

If so, then understand that it’s a two-way street - you need to listen and actually interact with our responses.

You might want to slow down for just a moment and consider that MANY of the people who frequent this forum were - at one point in their lives - just like you and believed the same things you believe.

This may come as a shock, but they rejected those ideas when they learned the truth. You may do the same if you’re willing to listen.

What’ll it be, Joseph?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am anti-catholicism for sure, yeat i do not hate you. I hate your church for sure. And have a reason to. It is ungodly and is anti-christ in its teaching. So why would you thingk any christian would follow its traditions. I have read many of your post in this thread and am not suprised as to you teachings. The first christian churchs are not found in Rome, They are located in Israel, and some of them still exist to date, There are also christians churchs In the mountians of turkey that came from the first centry of the faith. These predate the romans catholic by 250 years.

Joseph-

I will take a moment to address one issue from your post concerning this “history”.

No one disagrees that the first Christians were found in Israel. However, both Peter and Paul went to Rome. Since the scriptures describe Peter as the leader of the Apostles, the leadership of the Church transferred to Rome with him and remained there with his successors.

Concerning these “churches” that you allege “pre-date the romans [sic] catholic by 250 years”, I suggest you read a little more history. Ignatius of Antioch, martyred sometime between A.D. 98-117, was the third bishop of Antioch after Peter (who went to Rome, remember?) and Evodius. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius wrote the following:Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis translation.
This passage is truly pregnant with implications for the Church; however, I will focus for now on the fact that it is from the word katholikos that the word “catholic” comes.

When Ignatius wrote the Letter to the Smyrnaeans in roughly 110 A.D. and used the word “catholic,” he used it as if it were a word already in use to describe the Church. This has led many scholars to conclude that the appelation “Catholic Church” with its ecclesial connotation may have been in use as early as the last quarter of the first century.

Ignatius was probably ordained Bishop by Peter himself; therefore, he offers an eyewitness account of Apostolic teaching. He wrote letters to several churches and to St. Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John.

Peter was succeeded by Linus who was succeeded by Cletus who was succeeded by Clement and so on down to the current pope, Benedict XVI. Therefore, the origins of the Catholic Church can be traced from our own day back to Peter and Jesus Christ himself.

There is no Christian Church that pre-dates the Catholic Church; all others have splintered off from her.

 

[noma]

Is it logical that Christ would permit that Church to fall into so many errors? Could He be so short-sighted and imperfect?

As logical as it would be to accept that God would allow Israel to come into error.

I do not see the illogic with accepting that only some who have followed faithfully the Tradition of Christ would be closest to Truth, and that this would have nothing to do with the visible hierarchy. After all, Christ came not to set up a military kingdom, so it is likely the rulers of this kingdom are not the visible hierarchy. It may be that they would be little known, obscure, and must be searched for. But they would rest upon the Word of God given through the Tradition of Christ in some Liturgy and in the Scriptures.

Because we must otherwise accept that Christ would allow His Church to fall into error. We must accept that Christ was short-sighted and imperfect. We must accept that He failed in His mission to bring us His message of truth.

What one person perceives as failure may be rather a misperception of how God works. God may work through a Church where none of the teachings save those rooted entirely in Scripture are accurate. And in the future, with hindsight, we may see why.

But, as of yet, I see no compelling reason to accept that such a charism of infallibility, that the authority of the magisterium, should exist at all.

 

[BobCatholic]

The basis of anti-catholicism is of the devil - he wants people to worship the mirror instead of God.

 

[vern_humphrey]

As logical as it would be to accept that God would allow Israel to come into error.

That was a reach!

Did “Israel come into error,” or did they reject Jesus as He knew they would?

I do not see the illogic with accepting that only some who have followed faithfully the Tradition of Christ would be closest to Truth, and that this would have nothing to do with the visible hierarchy. After all, Christ came not to set up a military kingdom, so it is likely the rulers of this kingdom are not the visible hierarchy. It may be that they would be little known, obscure, and must be searched for. But they would rest upon the Word of God given through the Tradition of Christ in some Liturgy and in the Scriptures.

Can you translate that into English for us?

Are you claiming that the Baptists have no hierarchy – no pastors, national conventions where they decide things like the literal truth of the bible? Do baptist churches spring out of the ground, with no organization to collect money, write checks, develop and approve blueprints, and so on?

What one person perceives as failure may be rather a misperception of how God works. God may work through a Church where none of the teachings save those rooted entirely in Scripture are accurate. And in the future, with hindsight, we may see why.

That’s a tapdance – you, yourself told us the Catholic Church is wrong. Now do admit that is only how you perceive it, through a misperception of how God works?

But, as of yet, I see no compelling reason to accept that such a charism of infallibility, that the authority of the magisterium, should exist at all.

Then answer this simple question; is it possible you are wrong? A simple yes or no is adequate.

If you say “yes,” then the discussion is sterile.

If you say, “no,” then you claim infallibility (that is, after all the definiton of infallibility.)

 

[noma]

If you say “yes,” then the discussion is sterile.

If you say, “no,” then you claim infallibility (that is, after all the definiton of infallibility.)

I say yes.

But I say also that I hold by faith that if anyone, save Christ Himself, were to say anything but “no” to this question, that person would automatically be in error.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I say yes.

But I say also that I hold by faith that if anyone, save Christ Himself, were to say anything but “no” to this question, that person would automatically be in error.

But of course when you say that, you must admit you could be wrong, right?

 

[noma]

But of course when you say that, you must admit you could be wrong, right?

Of course.

It is the natural part of accepting something bigger than I am.

Any idea that requires faith for consent can be wrong.

Otherwise, there need be no faith.

I can answer, as a matter of logic, with certainty, that if anyone is certain that a statement contains no error, then either that person is wrong, or the statement requires no faith.