Jack Chick is very weird about a wide range of things, he’s too serious to be taken seriously (IMHO), where’s the love?
There have been individual Catholics who have made that claim, but it is not a teaching of the RCC.
I suspect that one of the problems a lot of the more liberal Protestants have with Catholics is that they feel they’re literally Medieval – accepting a social hierarchy that requires them to take orders from a Supreme Head of the Religion, with no questions asked. I know this troubled Mark Twain – the comments about it he puts into the mouth of his protagonist, Hank Morgan, seem to be his own. (Morgan creates his own little enclaves of Protestantism in sixth century Britain, for men who can think.) When I was Education Chair at the Neuman community in one of my universities, I heard the same complaints from other Catholics – they’d run into this prejudice before.
A number of the Protestant churches mentioned (Baptist, Church of Christ, etc.) have their roots in the Anabaptist tradition which held that, in order to become a Christian, you had to be baptised as a believer.
The Baptists certainly practice this as regards church membership, and those baptised as babies need to be baptised again in order to be involved in the church in any meaningful way. When I attended a Conservative Baptist church in Califiornia during a visit there, I couldn’t join the choir unless I was a church member, and couldn’t be a member unless I was re-baptised. Having said that, they never called me “non-Christian”, and I think that they would expect to meet me in Heaven.
The Church of Christ, on the other hand, (at least as I understand it) is much mor insistant on the need for adult/believer baptisim as a requirement for Salvation. They have been accused of using these verses (1 Peter 3 vv 20-21) as their justification for this: (My emphasis)
Such people would not consider an unbaptised or infant baptised believer as “saved”, and since this is the general practice of the Roman Catholic Church is to baptise babies, these people may well consider Catholic practice/belief as “un-Christian”. The logical extension of this belief is that Catholics (and others who baptise infants) are going to Hell, which is not something to say to another Christian without expecting a fight…
Gp
Well, according to this electoral map, Al Smith carried most of the “Bible Belt” states. In fact, with the exceptions of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, those were the only states he did win. Heck, he couldn’t even win his home state of New York.
In view of these facts, it would be difficult to argue that the anti-Catholicism that characterized the 1928 Presidential campaign was a Southern phenomenon. But hey, never let the facts get in the way of tarring Southerners as bigoted peckerwoods, right?
I like the terror management theory approach to this sort of thing: People fear death so much that they construct images of the afterlife that reduce their anxiety. However when they come into contact with other people with different constructs of the afterlife they must either 1.) Question whether their own beliefs are true or 2.) Decide that the other folks are wrong, delusional, primitive or just idiots.
I was raised Episcopalian (which is sort of Catholic-lite) and we never worried much about that Catholics, Baptists, Hindus, Shintos or anyone else were up to. Just kinda figured we’d all meet up again in the end.
But some other folks may take a bit more of a confrontational approach in order to maintain belief in their own system of an afterlife. Things need to be set in stone for them, and differing views are threatening. Large established faiths like Catholic and Orthodox must be particularly threatening…kinda hard to argue that your
new faith invented in the last few hundred years is the “only” path to salvation…what were all the people living up until you invented your new faith just screwed?
And yes, much of it is historical, I suspect people living around the turn of the (last) century were much more focused on this sort of thing. I think then that many Catholic and Protestant faiths were hostile toward each other. Now we live in an age of ecumenicalism. I don’t Christian faiths will ever really fully unite, but at least it keeps us a bit more friendly with each other.
And I hasten to point out that I was not directing that last remark at you, jaimest, since I know that’s not what you meant to do.
I just get weary with the presumption that the “Bible Belt” is the font of all bigotry in this nation. The 1928 campaign shows pretty clearly that anti-Catholicism was a national, not a Southern, phenomenon. For that matter in the [url=“http://www.presidentelect.org/e1960.html”]1960 Presidential election, Catholic JFK won most of the Bible Belt states.
So why then does the South get to be the national scapegoat for anti-Catholicism?
In fact, many Protestants and Catholics are working hard to develop understanding, based upon common theological ground, where it exists.
The document that I’m thinking of in this regard is titled “Evangelicals and Catholics Together”. It has the support of a large number of heavy hitters on both sides of the question.
I’m not very good with a lot of this computer stuff, so I hope this link (which does not appear to be a link in the strict technical sense that it actually links you to anything) will be enlightening if anyone wants to read the particulars.
I hate acting like an English major…
–B
I was confused by the fact that it wasn’t underlined immediately after I typed it.
But sure enough, there it is – underlined and functioning.
These computers are the darnedest things.
I hear you can even send mail with them.
Yeah, but licking the stamp’s a real pain in the ass.
I would contend that the same groups who believe catholics are the anti-christ are also likely to believe Jews murdered christ, and that homosexuals should be stoned, etc etc etc.
Which of these statements POs you is more of a reflection on your values than on theirs. Theoretically, every one of those statements should bother us!
Me’Corva
Um, I would just point out that raising one point to discuss does not mean the OP’er is not in favor of/ concerned about /interested in /pissed off by other things as well, or that he ranks anti-Catholicism the chiefest of Protestantism’s perceived sins.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by tomndebb *
**
You are right… I’lle give you that. i studied the Orthodox churches for a while and they (well, most, i think) do legitimatly trace origins 2000 years back. Churches such as The Asyrrian church of the East, The National Polish Catholic Church, and the many other Orthodox churches have stated affinity and a commonness in teachings with the RCC, and very few issues, most major among them the papacy, seperate them from merger. however, These churches are so related to the RCC that they are allowed to partake in Eucharist in RCC churches, which is not permitted to Protestant faiths. Also, wasn’t at least one Orthodox church created by the Great Schism of 1254? OR was that something else?
Anyway… i apologize for my mistake. I just think its silly for churches formed by a Tom, Dick, or Harry 5 years ago to claim that they were their the whole time.
hmmm, too liberal, ay? Well maybe i should clarify.
while some conservative Lutherans are anti-Catholics, , and actually many are very cool (a lot o my friends are Lutheran, and they are very cool) most of the problems encountered with them by me have been of the questioning type:
“Why do you pray to saints and Mary? It’s idol worship!”
“Why do you say you eat the body of Jesus? It’s Cannabalism!”
“Why do you build big fancy Cathedrals? Worship Should be about God!”
“How does the Pope have authority? Only God can rule!” etc.
As i have lots of spare time, i will answer these main questions.
- RCC members donot pray TO saints and Mary, we pray THROUGH them. we ask them to help us pray to God, because as saints they have more sway, and more 2 is always better than 1:)
- When Jesus said “Eat this, for it is my body” he did not mention symbolism. Jesus said to eat, and well, Jesus is never wrong. He is God. (Please don’t post about how you think he isn’t really God or whatever. this is RCC canon.
- A- we do not build them any more. B, They are built to acknowledge Gods beauty and Glory.
- People say, What gives the Pope authority to tell people how to live their lives. well, what gives YOU the authority to form an entirely different church because you don’t like the fact that Priests walk up and down the aisle during Mass, or because you don’t like the idea of confession?
But really, the Pope is elected by his peers as the person that most reflects the will of the church-In other words, the most in tune with God. It isn’t some sort of dictatorial monarchy.
Finally, i just need to point out that all churches have conservatives, and most have liberals, and just because they are a member of a church does not reflect their ideas. but when Pastors and ministers are preaching these things, it just makess things worse and is harder for tolerant people to emerge and prevail.
I tried this link. Didn’t work.
Is the address correct?
There doesn’t seem to be much of anything on that site. Perhaps they’re overhauling?
In 1054, the majority of the churches in Eastern Europe and Asia and the church in Western Europe went through a very messy divorce. However, each of them perceived that they were the true bearers of the message and that the other guy had lost his bearings.
The same sort of thing happened beginning in 1517. Luther, then Calvin, then others (actually following people who had come to the same conclusions earlier, but with less success in getting followers–or surviving the event) came to the understanding that the RCC had lost its bearings and that they were rediscovering the true message of Jesus.
While it is fine to look at the various histories and decide that the practice that one follows is the best one, spending any time looking down on another group is doing pretty much what you complained of in the OP.
Certainly, Jack Chick goes overboard in his claim that there were underground Christians throughout history who, amazingly enough, left no evidence of their presence even though Jack assures us that they were there.
That, however, is different than pointing at a specific group and calling them Johnny-come-latelys.
It is the view of some Fundamentalist groups that one can know exactly what God had “really” sought from humanity by reading Scripture and that anything subsequent to the 2d century was tainted by the pagan practices of the Catholic Church. Obviously, I do not agree with either their theology or their version of history, but there is a difference between the Jack Chick “we were here all along” and the more moderate Fundamentalist “the mesasage that we follow was here all along.”
Southern Baptists are conservative and they throw out some moderates with the liberals.
That’s odd. Let me try again. 1960 Electoral Map.