What is it with fundies and hating Catholics?

[That'sWhatItSays]

Well Greg, there is stuff in there that resembles Catholicism. I wouldn't state that Catholicism is the spirit of Antichrist like many of the Reformers said, since they do not deny the Son. As elf points out, they aren't making up the body and blood of the Mass. They actually claim to be the literalists against the "Protestants" when it comes to John 6. I would submit that you have more light on the scriptures and can see them for what they say as opposed to the overlay of Catholic indoctrination that they see when scanning the scriptures, but I wouldn't say that the Catholic faith has no resemblance to the faith articulated in the New Testament.

Ignatius de Loyola and his spiritual exercises. Yes, all I meant by his inclusion is that the "Society of Jesus", the Jesuits, are perhaps the most notorious religious organization in the history of the world! There's just that little point. Whether you believe they are the source behind every conspiracy known to modern man (I highly doubt it), the facts of their history speak for themselves, including numerous expulsions from countries for their militaristic approach to the expansion of the Catholic faith. At the very least, I believe it is safe to call them the Bulldogs of the Counter-Reformation. At the very worst, the Jesuits are a dark mystical order that uses hidden means to further the influence and power of Rome, including interfering with commerce, infiltration, and political assassinations.

As far as the history of the Roman church and the Protestants receiving their Bibles "from" the Catholic Church, most historians cautiously observe that the story isn't as crystal clear as the Catholic authorities would like it to be. Were the Christians in Alexandria Egypt during the second and third century "Catholics"? The Armenian faith, when was it ever Roman Catholic? When did Eastern Orthodox Christianity ever recognize the primacy of the Roman pontiff? These arguments go on and on, but suffice to say, the Roman Catholic faith that produced Unam Sanctum doesn't bear much resemblance to anything written by Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and their ilk. That is why I say "departure" from the faith. There was a faith once delivered to the world by Christ and his followers, and it is only natural to see it change over the years. The arguments made in the pre-Reformation and Reformation era are perfectly logical and understandable.

As far as whether the IFB is merely a schism from historic Christianity, I will grant you that point. I am no longer IFB, having been in three different congregations that claimed that title. I still defend Biblical (argued from the scriptures rather than human authority), evangelical Christianity based on my experience, understanding of the scriptures, and observations.

[DaisyDeadhead]

(07-27-2012 10:07 PM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  Ignatius de Loyola and his spiritual exercises. Yes, all I meant by his inclusion is that the "Society of Jesus", the Jesuits, are perhaps the most notorious religious organization in the history of the world! There's just that little point. Whether you believe they are the source behind every conspiracy known to modern man (I highly doubt it), the facts of their history speak for themselves, including numerous expulsions from countries for their militaristic approach to the expansion of the Catholic faith.

Um, could you give examples? I know the Jesuits count more martyrs than any other religious order, but these were in overwhelmingly nonChristian countries... are you approving of Jesuits being boiled in oil by Aborigines and stabbed to death by Samurai and so forth? Because they were happy to do the same to Baptist missionaries when it was their turn.

(07-27-2012 10:07 PM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  At the very least, I believe it is safe to call them the Bulldogs of the Counter-Reformation.

Well, duh. You say this like it was a bad thing. Someone had to hold to the original scriptures instead of Martin Luther's edit. I guess you approve of the edit? Hm, seems like I sound more sola scriptura than you do. (I have always found the doctrine of Sola Scriptura amusing, since it was an edited version they were talking about in the first place. Can we talk about the books of Tobit and Maccabees too? How SOLA do you wanna go?)

(07-27-2012 10:07 PM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  At the very worst, the Jesuits are a dark mystical order that uses hidden means to further the influence and power of Rome, including interfering with commerce, infiltration, and political assassinations.

Could you prove this outrageous bullshit with non-fundy links, please? What the hell are you talking about? ASSASSINATIONS??? Are you serious?

There isn't anything "dark and mystical" about the Jesuits. What do you want to know about them? They are pretty much an open book. Even the famous suppression of the Jesuits was the subject of a pretty good historic movie, titled "The Mission"--starring Jeremy Irons and Robert DeNiro.

(?) Where are you getting this stuff?????

Somebody has read waaay too many Jack Chick comic books.

(07-27-2012 10:07 PM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  As far as the history of the Roman church and the Protestants receiving their Bibles "from" the Catholic Church, most historians cautiously observe that the story isn't as crystal clear as the Catholic authorities would like it to be.

"Most" historians? Like who?

Sure it is. Where else did the Bible come from? Who translated, edited, organized and codified it? Who decided which books would go in and which would stay out?

The only people who could read and write back then were monks. The only institution with paper and ink (which were VERY expensive and precious materials) was the Church.

THIS is basic history... I dunno what YOU are talking about.

(07-27-2012 10:07 PM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  Were the Christians in Alexandria Egypt during the second and third century "Catholics"?

Yes; we would now call them Coptic or Orthodox, since the split of the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

(07-27-2012 10:07 PM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  The Armenian faith, when was it ever Roman Catholic?

When you throw in the word ROMAN, that is a cute little dodge.

There are Maronite Catholics, Coptic Catholics, Antiochan Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, Serbian Catholics... you know this, right? All Catholics are not "Roman" and never have been.

I come from IRISH Catholics, believe it or not. They never even saw Rome.

(07-27-2012 10:07 PM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  When did Eastern Orthodox Christianity ever recognize the primacy of the Roman pontiff?

More cutesy word games. PRIMACY.

Since primacy wasn't true primacy until the split (they shared jurisdictions until then, despite the okeydoke), this is a moot point.

(07-27-2012 10:07 PM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  These arguments go on and on,

Only among those who have no sense of history and who have never studied it.

(07-27-2012 10:07 PM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  but suffice to say, the Roman Catholic faith that produced Unam Sanctum doesn't bear much resemblance to anything written by Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and their ilk.

This isn't true, just because you say so. Prove it.

Of course it is. In fact, thats the trouble with the Church-- IT HASN'T CHANGED and still behaves like its the damn Middle Ages.

If it isn't the Catholic church, pray tell, what other church is it?

(07-27-2012 10:07 PM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  That is why I say "departure" from the faith.

And you are mistaken. Which fundy preacher did you get all this from?

(07-27-2012 10:07 PM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  There was a faith once delivered to the world by Christ and his followers, and it is only natural to see it change over the years. The arguments made in the pre-Reformation and Reformation era are perfectly logical and understandable.

As I said they were.

(07-27-2012 10:07 PM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  As far as whether the IFB is merely a schism from historic Christianity, I will grant you that point. I am no longer IFB, having been in three different congregations that claimed that title. I still defend Biblical (argued from the scriptures rather than human authority), evangelical Christianity based on my experience, understanding of the scriptures, and observations.

I think you need to study Catholicism in depth before taking it on... that stuff about the Jesuits sounds like wacko Illuminati theories or something. ROFL.

[pastor's wife]

Perhaps also that animosity is a reflection of the power and influence of the church. When the primary religion in one's area is the Catholic church, meaning that the majority of one's neighbors are Catholic, that makes the Catholic church the biggest "target" for preachers to react to. However, the attitude seems to be the same even in the South where the Southern Baptists are more influential: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/blackwhitea...ed-states/ (This map shows where Catholics, Baptists, and other religions predominate.)

[That'sWhatItSays]

I presented a balanced view of the Jesuits. Whether you like it or not, the term Jesuitical has become a dictionary word. Yes, I'm sure that it is in there from Protestant bigotry, but there it is. I've read historical works on the Jesuits that border on the Jack Chick-ish, but I've also read Malachi Martin, as well. Malachi Martin is the most prominent of the writers to speak out on the actions of the Jesuits in pushing Liberation Theology and Marxist revolution in South America, but others have corroborated what he said. You can call revolution and murder wacko Illuminati theories, but they happened. For you to act like the Jesuits are merely ambitious Catholics loyal to the Mother Church and that there aren't thousands of questions and accusations that surround them borders on the insane, especially for one who is no longer a supporter of the organization. As it relates to the original post, being bulldogs of the counter-Reformation is enough to paint them in negative light by fundies, for their original banner was that of service to the Pope and to bring all Christians under the influence of Rome, the very institution which had benighted the Christian world.

The true church is the "body of Christ", Daisy. It doesn't necessarily have a name. It is not an organization. You say primacy wasn't primacy until the split, but you cling to the seat of St. Peter in Rome theory, so, by definition, you subscribe to the primacy argument for the foundation of the Church. I say departure from the faith for a number of reasons, but there just isn't any reference to the ecclesiastical importance of the descendants of Peter anywhere in the first hundreds of years of Christian writings. It is much like the IFB argument for tithing of your income through means of pleading. You can plead for it to be there, but it just isn't.

[elfdream]

First of all, thanks Daisy.

Many Protestants are not aware of the fact that not all Catholics are ROMAN Catholics. The Catholic church has many 'Rites' (of which the Latin is just one-it also happens to be the largest) that are in communion with Rome and under the headship of the Pope. Daisy listed them so I won't do so again but yes there are Armenian and Coptic Catholics among them.

Quote:any reference to the ecclesiastical importance of the descendants of Peter anywhere in the first hundreds of years of Christian writings

The descendants of Peter held the title of the Bishop of Rome. They weren't called Popes until around the sixth century.

Have you read Against Heresies by St. Irenaeus?

Or The first letter by St. Clement who was ordained by St. Peter as the "Bishop of Rome' to the church at Corinth? This is an interesting bit of church history.

The letter is sent 'in the name of the Church of Rome. Yes...I am quoting a Catholic source here.

Quote:If Clement had spoken in his own name, they would surely have noted expressly that he wrote not as Bishop of Rome, but as an aged "presbyter" who had known the Apostles. St. John was still alive and living in Ephesus, and Corinth was rather nearer to Ephesus than to Rome. Clement evidently writes officially, with all that authority of the Roman Church.

The Bishop of Rome was apparently a pretty important person to the early church.

As far as Liberation Theology goes the present Pope is not a big fan. It did not originate with Rome but rather began as a movement in Latin America. Some of its aspects were actually condemned by Pope John Paul II. Just because something has 'Catholic' attached to it or it was a movement within the church that does not make it an orthodox or official position of the Church.

[Ricardo]

(07-29-2012 07:07 AM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  ...the actions of the Jesuits in pushing Liberation Theology and Marxist revolution in South America...

The problem with this train of thought is the same one with any generalization.

We can have a long discussion about what the books say, what the authors meant, what the latest theologians come up with.

Bottom line: is there a vibrant, God-centered community?

Some of my best Spirit-filled moments have been in "Liberation Theology and Marxist" churches. Some of my best Spirit-filled moments have been in IFB churches.

So why did I leave both?

I have been in IFB churches that clearly qualify as "Opium:" Worried so much about Heaven, to ignore completely what is going on on Earth.

On the other hand, I have been in Theology of Liberation churches that also clearly qualify as "Opium:" Worried so much about solidarity with this or that struggle in a far-away country, to ignore completely what is going on in the hearts of their own community.

Want a sect that was always way out there, and wrong? Try the Samaritans.

So, if Jesus can speak to each one of us through the actions of a Samaritan, is it possible he can speak to us through a -gasp- Catholic?

[That'sWhatItSays]

Yes, elf, I've read much of the early writings of Christianity. There is no doubt that there are strong elements of what would evolve into what we know as Catholicism in just about all of the extant writings. You could even go earlier than Iraeneus for support for the Catholic church and its structure in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch and his extolling the authority of the Bishops. But then, we notice that he extols the authority of the local Bishop, not the authority of a single Bishop in particular. In this sense, yes, Clement writing with authority as the Bishop of Rome would lend credence to his words in other areas, but the authority is not in the preeminence of the Roman bishop, but in the preeminence of the Bishop's office itself. You can see similar wording in all of the writings on Communion, in which the authors affirm that they are partaking of the body and blood of Christ but without the clear overtones of transubstantiation which would later be attached to their words.

The writings of the early fathers tend to sow the seed of what would become Catholicism, but they do not spell out what we now accept as Catholicism. That is to say, there is enough there for the Catholics to use to justify what they practice, but the writings do not say exactly what the Catholics claim they say. Ultimately, we should be like the Bereans and compare what we hear to the scriptures now that we have them and can compare everyone's actions to the light expressed in them. That, at the least, was the rallying point of Wycliffe and Tyndale and the like, men whose example was condemned by the Catholic Church in their day (and after their day!). We can certainly see from the Old Testament that it was the expectation of God for all men to know His words and to be accountable for what they did with them. I see no reason whatsoever why those handling the words of the New Testament should be held to any different standard.

[That'sWhatItSays]

Ricardo, how exactly do you describe your faith? Would that be "Neo-Orthodox Inspirational Mysticism"?

And, yes, I understand that the Catholic Church did not outwardly endorse Marxist revolution in South America. Malachi Martin has said so in his writings. He feels the Jesuits' behavior in these areas are a betrayal of the Church. He feels there is a lot of betrayal of the Catholic Church going on, if you've read his stuff.

[Ricardo]

How I describe my Faith? It surpasses all understanding! Choose any label, I will find fault with it.

I spent over twenty years, after leaving the IFB tearing down every sermon I heard. And every book I read. Including the bibles.

Finally one day I chose to start on a different path, to examine everything and KEEP THE GOOD STUFF! (Rather than continuing to find fault with everything.) I'm still working on this...

So, while I can always find things I disagree with in the writings of Samuel Escobar, Leonardo Boff or Helder Camara, I choose to keep only the good stuff.

Ernesto Cardenal's Prayer for Marilyn Monroe, still is up there in my book as a superb example of compassion, and of sharing of God's love. http://www.festivaldepoesiademedellin.or...denal.html

While I can always find things I disagree with in the writings of NT Wright, John McArthur, Calvin, Luther, Rob Bell, Billy Graham and especially Jack Hyles, each one of them does have a bit of God's divine light.

Do you read the bible every year? What do you do with chapters such as Leviticus 6? It takes a LOT of prayer and creative thinking to try to find what God is trying to tell us, today, through that passage. Same with Ruckman.

I visit the Catholic church pretty regularly, as well as Pentecostal, Adventist and even Jehovah's Witness churches. I could easily disagree with something in every mass or service I attend. And I do. But I find that if I look hard enough, there is ALWAYS a message God has for me.

[redbeardiam]

(07-29-2012 01:53 PM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  Ricardo, how exactly do you describe your faith? Would that be "Neo-Orthodox Inspirational Mysticism"?

And, yes, I understand that the Catholic Church did not outwardly endorse Marxist revolution in South America. Malachi Martin has said so in his writings. He feels the Jesuits' behavior in these areas are a betrayal of the Church. He feels there is a lot of betrayal of the Catholic Church going on, if you've read his stuff.

Ricardo is our resident Post-Christian Theistic Humanist.