Many Protestants fascinated by the Catholic Church...

...in positive and negative ways. The positive is captured in this article from Fort Wayne's Journal Gazette. Of course, there still are some misunderstandings, as is to be expected:

The Rev. Kelly Byrd of Blackhawk Ministries in Fort Wayne says his evangelical Protestant tradition also does not acknowledge papal authority, finding it “extrabiblical.”

“We do our best to simply teach the truths of the Bible,” he says. “We would teach that the pope is human and ordinary just like you and I.

“We wouldn’t teach he’s a bad man or anything of that nature. We would just want people to understand that there’s a danger in any religion or setting where a person would begin to be viewed as diety.”

The humorous thing is that at the heart of Christianity is the worship of person who is believed to also be deity. That person (just to be perfectly clear) is not the Pope, but Jesus Christ. If Rev. Byrd spent time around Catholics he would see that there is no worship of the Pope going on; in fact, some of us would be happy if the Holy Father was simply shown a modicum of respect, never mind worship. It reminds me a conversation I had with a Fundamentalist not long after John Paul died. He said, "I think way too many people have put the Pope on a pedestal." Is it bad, then, that people looked up to John Paul II? I asked. "Well, it is when they worship him," he replied. Can you name one person—just one—who you know definitely worships the Pope? I inquired. Silence. Hesitation. Finally: "No....but I'm sure it happens." With proof like that, why stop with the Pope? Catholics worship God, the Pope, Mary, Mother Teresa, the saints, the sun, the moon, and the Notre Dame football team.

Meanwhile, in this sermon "preached by Ben Ramsbottom at Bethel Chapel, Luton, on Lord's day morning, April 10th, 2005," a vast array of Romanist errors are divulged. They are very familiar; I used to believe in most or all of them. Now a Catholic nearly ten years, such "arguments" seem not only thin and tiring, but very sad. But they are out there. For example, Mr. Ramsbottom states:

Now you know what the Roman Catholic mass is. Some people in Protestant churches speak of the Lord's Supper; we do. Some speak of the communion service; sometimes we do. Some call it the eucharist - a strange word, but there is really nothing wrong in it. It means just a thanksgiving. Some call it the breaking of bread. The Roman Catholics call it the mass. And their belief is the most appalling error, that in the consecration service the bread is literally changed into the body of the Lord Jesus and the wine is literally changed into the blood of the Lord Jesus. It is appalling blasphemy.

Well, if you think that's blasphemy, try this on for size: Catholics also believe that (sit down for this!) God became man, walked the earth, suffered at the hands of His accusers, died on a Cross, was buried in a tomb, and then rose from the dead three days later. It begs the question: which is more blasphemous: that God became man, or that once He was man, He was able to give Himself to us in a unique, sacramental manner beyond our full comprehension? Such are the questions that need to be asked and pondered. Otherwise, Fundamentalists will continue condemning practices not practiced and beliefs not believed. Such are some of the ironies of some Protestant-Catholic conversations.

Comments

[Faith]

There doesn't seem to be any hesitation to espouse the views of some men- say Rick Warren- among Protestants. Saying Catholics worship the Pope would be the same as saying Protestants worship such men as Hal Lindsay or other Christians who offer their spin on Christ's teachings- they certainly are quoted often enough.

[Eric Giunta]

Carl:

I don't think that Protestants consider the doctrine of the Mass, in and of itself, to be balsephemous, supposing it were in fact true.

However, they believe that it in fact is not true, and is for that reason blasphemous.

Perhaps as a parallel we could look at Hindu worship. Hindus worship statues (with what we would call latria); this is because they believe that the gods themselves reside in the images. It's not an exageration at all to say that they believe that consecrated images are "transubstantiated" into gods, and so are worshipped accordingly.

Now, this notion is not itself blaspehmous, since God can do whatever he wants, and could be worshipped in such forms id He had chosen to. But because we as Catholics do not believe that this is the case, the worship of images by Hindus is, indeed, objectively blasphemous. (Of course, their subjective culpability is another question.)

My point? Protestants are right to see the Catholic Mass as blasphemous, if what they believe is supposed to be true. *If* Protestants were correct in saying that transubstantiation was an objectively false teaching, then our doctrine of the Mass would be blaspehmous; not because it's not possible, but because it's isn't in fact true.

I wouldn't call this anti-Catholic.

Saying we worship the Pope and consider him a deity is something else altogether. That's just plain idiocy.

[Mark Brumley]

Well, *some* Protestants consider the Mass, in and of itself, blasphemous precisely because they think it couldn't be true--not simply that it happens not to be true--and therefore it is blasphemy to attribute such a horrendous thing (in their view) to God. The very idea of the Mass, for some Protestants, is an affront to the divine honor.

[Carl Olson]

Eric: You wrote: "I don't think that Protestants consider the doctrine of the Mass, in and of itself, to be blasphemous, supposing it were in fact true." Well, that's a HUGE thing to suppose, isn't it? I spent the first 20 years of my life as an anti-Catholic Fundamentalist Protestant. I was convinced that Catholics weren't Christian, that they attempted to recrucify Christ at Mass, that the Real Prescence was an idolatrous belief, etc., etc. Of course such Fundamentalists believe they are right--otherwise they wouldn't hold to what they believe. But just because they are wrong in good faith doesn't mean they aren't "anti-Catholic." Many of them understand Catholic doctrine fairly well and still denounce it as an abominination. However, it could be that having been a Fundamentalist and then attending an Evangelical Bible college somehow skewed my understanding of what Fundamentalists/Evangelicals actually believe, say, and understand...

[Eric Giunta]

Carl:

I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

The point is, if what we as Catholics believed was not objectively true, then our ceremonies, especially the Mass, would be absolutely blasphemous and an abomination in the sight of Almighty God. Wouldn't you agree?

So why do we act so surprised and offended when we hear these things from the mouths of non-Catholics? There can never be a valid excuse for intentional misrepresentation of our beliefs. But once our doctrines are understood, how could any honest Protestant not see our ceremonies as the highest affront to the Divine Majesty, and as the culmination of all blasphemies?

Kinda like how Jesus was either a vicious liar, the most wicked man who ever lived; or he really was (and is) who he said he was: the Son of God. There really is no middle-position, for the one who carries his beliefs to their logical conclusions.

[Eric Giunta]

And my second point is that considering the Mass a blasphemy is not itself "anti-Catholic."

But then, it depends on how you define the word. I've always understood it to be a form of prejudice and bigotry.

But a Protestant may still consider the Mass blasphemous (and, indeed, any honest conservative Protestant must do so), act charitably towards Catholics, and even be ecumenical, and not be prejudiced or close-minded. He would be a heretic (material or formal), but not necessarily a bigot.

Unless you define an anti-Catholic as anyone who does not believe what the Catholic Church teaches, and therefore takes his beliefs to their logical conclusion (i.e. that the Mass is blasphemous) . . .

[Carl Olson]

Eric:

"The point is, if what we as Catholics believed was not objectively true, then our ceremonies, especially the Mass, would be absolutely blasphemous and an abomination in the sight of Almighty God. Wouldn't you agree?"

Yes. I never indicated that I didn't. Been there, done that. Literally.

"So why do we act so surprised and offended when we hear these things from the mouths of non-Catholics? There can never be a valid excuse for intentional misrepresentation of our beliefs. But once our doctrines are understood, how could any honest Protestant not see our ceremonies as the highest affront to the Divine Majesty, and as the culmination of all blasphemies?"

Saying that the anti-Catholic's position is understandable does not mean that it isn't anti-Catholic; it just means it is understandable. Saying that an anti-Semite's position is understandable if you accept his premises and assumptions does not do away with the objective fact that he is an anti-Semite. If we accept Hitler's beliefs, we can understand his logic in killing millions of Jews. But he's still a mass murderer. In the end, while I understand your point (far better than you seem willing to give me credit for), I think it is largely rhetorical.

[Eric Giunta]

Carl:

There's a world of difference between being anti-Semitic and believing that the Mass is blasphemous. One is an unfounded prejudice against a person because of race; the other is a religious belief, with does not at all indicate a hatred for the person who holds that belief.

By your definition, every orthodox Catholic must be an anti-Hindu, anti-Animist, and anti-every religious believer wh odoes not worship the True God. And by your definition every conservative Protestant would be an anti-Catholic, from Billy Graham and Pat Robertson to Jerry Falwell.

How exactly do you define the word anti-Catholic?

[Carl Olson]

Sigh, here we go again: the eager, contrarian Catholic putting words in my mouth. It's tiring, Eric.

You state: "And by your definition every conservative Protestant would be an anti-Catholic, from Billy Graham and Pat Robertson to Jerry Falwell."

Really? I said that? WHERE?! Besides, your comment only shows how little you know about Evangelicals. Billy Graham is very pro-Catholic and would never describe the Mass as blasphemous--even though he certainly doesn't agree with Catholic teaching re: the Mass and the Eucharist. Other Evangelicals who are very pro-Catholic would include Mark Noll, Charles Colson, etc. Jerry Falwell, on the other hand, does believe it is blasphemous. Same with his good friend Tim LaHaye and men such as Dave Hunt, Jimmy Swaggert, and Jack Chick.

I've written about this in several articles and in my first book. Here is a lengthy quote from an article, "The Left Behind Books: Harmless Fiction or Anti-Catholic Propaganda?," I wrote a couple of years ago for CatholicExchange.com. Perhaps it will prove helpful in understanding what I mean by "anti-Catholic":

----

I certainly do not use the term “anti-Catholic” lightly. For instance, I wouldn’t use it to refer to a someone who, not understanding Catholic teaching, wonders why “Catholics worship Mary,” or to a Protestant theologian who expresses reservations about the Catholic belief that the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. But in the case of Tim LaHaye there is a lengthy and consistent pattern of harshly condemning the Catholic Church, attacking her beliefs (properly or improperly understood), and using inflammatory language and factually baseless statements in the process. This occurs outright in several of LaHaye’s non-fiction books and, more subtly, in the Left Behind books, always without any reference to official Catholic documents or sources.

LaHaye resorts to the sort of nativist attacks on Catholicism common in the United States during the 1800s and still found in the works of Fundamentalists such as Jack Chick and Dave Hunt. And yet, to the consternation of LaHaye’s critics (including myself), many Catholics read LaHaye’s books and, in some cases, defend them, even though they would never read material such as Chick’s The Death Cookie (about the Eucharist), or Hunt’s A Woman Rides the Beast (which claims the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon). All three men rely heavily on the work and methodology of Alexander Hislop, a Scottish pastor whose book The Two Babylons the Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife (originally written in 1853-1858) attempted to prove that every distinctive Catholic belief and practice is pagan in origin and Satanic in orientation.

In a chapter titled “Religious Babylon Destroyed” in Revelation Unveiled (Zondervan, 1999), his commentary on the Book of Revelation, LaHaye writes that “the greatest book ever written on [Babylonian religion] is the masterpiece The Two Babylons . . . This book, containing quotations from 275 authors and to my knowledge never refuted, best describes the origin of religion in Babylon and its present-day function” (p. 266). He then produces two lengthy quotes, one by Harry Ironside and the other by Clarence Larkin (both prominent Fundamentalist leaders in the early 1900s), that summarize Hislop’s main ideas: Catholicism is idolatrous, Satanic in origin, based on secrecy and fear, and filled with pagan doctrines and practices. He then proclaims that “[a]fter reading the above quotations, you may be inclined to think me anti-Catholic, but that isn’t exactly true; I am anti-false religion” (p. 269).

And yet no reputable historian (including Evangelical Protestant historians) takes Hislop’s pseudo-scholarship seriously. In fact, Hislop’s book has been renounced by a man who once popularized it for modern audiences — Evangelical Ralph Woodrow. In 1966 Woodrow wrote Babylon Mystery Religion: Ancient and Modern (Riverside, Calif.: Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Association, 1966), an updated reworking of Hislop’s book. After some time passed, Woodrow did further study and saw that Hislop’s book was seriously flawed and historically untenable. “As I [studied],” Woodrow admits, “it became clear — Hislop's ‘history’ was often only mythology. Even though myths may sometimes reflect events that actually happened, an arbitrary piecing together of ancient myths can not provide a sound basis for history. Take enough tribes, enough tales, enough time, jump from one time to another, from one country to another, pick and choose similarities — why anything could be ‘proved’!” (from amazon.com). Despite still disagreeing with Catholic teaching, Woodrow then wrote The Babylon Connection? (Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Association, Inc., 1997), renouncing his earlier work and Hislop’s book.

This is just one example of many of LaHaye’s disregard for sound scholarship, fairness, and discernment in his works. Other examples include:

LaHaying on the Disinformation

• Roman Catholicism, “apostate Protestantism,” Hinduism, and Buddhism will form a system of “pagan ecumenism” and will facilitate the rise of the Antichrist during the Tribulation era. (The Beginning of the End, [Tyndale, 1972, 1981],148-51).

• Hindus can become Catholic without renouncing any of their Hindu beliefs (The Beginning of the End, 151; Revelation Unveiled, p. 275).

• “All that inhibits the ecumenical movement today are the fundamental, Bible-believing Christians. . . . They are the group called ‘the Church’ that Christ is coming for. . . . so-called Christendom is divided basically into two main groups, the apostates and the fundamentalists.” (The Beginning of the End, 151-2).

• The Catholic Church is an apostate Church that has mixed paganism with Christianity, resulting in the “dark ages” and the existence of “Babylonian mysticism.” (Revelation Unveiled, 65-68, 260-277; Are We Living in the End Times? [Tyndale, 1999], 171-176).

• “The Church of Rome denies the finished work of Christ but believes in a continuing sacrifice that produces such things as sacraments and praying for the dead, burning candles, and so forth. All of these were borrowed from mystery Babylon, the mother of all pagan customs and idolatry, none of which is taught in the New Testament.” (Revelation Unveiled, 66-67).

• Catholics worship Mary, saints, and angels. (Are We Living in the End Times, 173).

• The Catholic Church, in large part due to Augustine, removed the Bible as the sole source of authority among Christians and “spiritualized” away the truths of Scripture, and kept the Bible from the common people. (Are We Living in the End Times, 174).

• The Catholic Church killed over forty million people during the “dark ages” when “Babylonian mysticism controlled the church.” (Are We Living in the End Times, 175).

Cardinal Sins Against Truth and Fairness

In addition to these statements and beliefs — all of them standard Fundamentalist fare — LaHaye’s recent explanations of his views are equally bothersome. In the Sun-Times piece, columnist Cathleen Falsani writes,

LaHaye said the [evil Catholic cardinal] Matthews character wasn't meant to be anti-Catholic, but merely a representation of any religion turned bad, pointing out that the “good” pope is raptured, along with true believers from many different Christian traditions. “What [the bishops] don’t seem to realize is that every church has some renegade people in it, and we just picked one out of theirs,” LaHaye said.

Of course, LaHaye’s choice of Catholic cardinal is hardly accidental, but reflects his animus towards the Church he was baptized in as a baby (see Revelation Unveiled, 269-70). The evil cardinal also reflects the stereotypical image of Catholic corruption and evil, what Episcopalian Philip Jenkins describes as “a fundamentally anti-Catholic supposition” (The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice [Oxford, 2003], 173). Although the Left Behind books do not pinpoint specific Protestant denominations, they squarely attack the Catholic Church, continuing LaHaye’s consistent and overt anti-Catholic rhetoric.

As for the “good” pope who is raptured (found in Tribulation Force, the second Left Behind book), he is not really Catholic at all: “He had stirred up controversy in the church with a new doctrine that seemed to coincide more with the ‘heresy’ of Martin Luther than with the historical orthodoxy [Catholics] were used to.” (Tribulation Force [Tyndale, 1996], 53). Put directly, the new pope is raptured because he doesn’t agree with Catholic doctrine, even while Catholics who do remain faithful to Church teaching are “left behind.” This is yet another transparent attempt by LaHaye to have his cake and eat it too.

LaHaye claims that “our books are not anti-Catholic. In fact, we have many faithful Catholic readers and friends.” (“Illinois Bishops Caution Against ‘Left Behind’ Books,” Kevin Eckstrom, Religion News Service, June 26, 2003). On the contrary, his books are anti-Catholic, and any Catholic who thinks otherwise either doesn’t know the evidence or doesn’t understand how ludicrous and bombastic LaHaye’s remarks about the Catholic Church are.

This is a man who, in corresponding with me, stated condescendingly that he was attempting to save my soul and added, “I do grieve for your soul. I hope and pray that you still read the Scriptures for yourself and not just the Catholic spun doctrines.” It was Scripture that helped lead me out of the Fundamentalist world that LaHaye inhabits , and it is Scripture, history, and logic that reveals just how strange, incorrect, and anti-Catholic are his Fundamentalist-spun beliefs.

------

So, Eric, to use your words, I think it is correct to say that anti-Catholicism is an unfounded prejudice against the Catholic Church because of false and stereotypical perceptions/assumptions. We're not talking about nuanced or careful discussions about theological matters, but about bombastic accusations without any historical or theological credibility. BTW, I was once anti-Catholic and I was also very nice to Catholics. In fact, some of my best friends were Catholic during that time--and I was fully convinced that they were going to hell and (more to the point) that they belonged to an evil, bloody, rotten institution that had nothing to do with real Christianity.

[Faith]

Had a discussion today on this very subject- a couple of faithful, Christian, Protestant friends said they had been brought up thinking Catholics worshipped idols of saints and placed Mary and the popes before God. However, as adults they came to realize that, it's not Catholic OR Christian, but that Catholics are Christians, also.

[Terry]

"But a Protestant may still consider the Mass blasphemous (and, indeed, any honest conservative Protestant must do so), act charitably towards Catholics, and even be ecumenical, and not be prejudiced or close-minded."

Yeah, but how many folks are out there that fit this description, especially in the fundamentalist and Reformed camps? Most of my experiences tend to be that they can't be reasoned with, even with exerpts from the Catechism. I wish I could say the same things that Faith did; granted this is all anecdotal.

And why must any honest conservative Protestant consider the Mass blasphemous if they're instructed as to what it really is, my previous comment notwithstanding? I don't think many Anglicans have a problem with it.

The problem as I see it is the poor catechesis of many Catholics who can't explain the Faith very well, or worse yet don't even know what they believe or are supposed to believe. It simply adds fuel to the fire. It certainly did to me as a fundamentalist.

[Eric Giunta]

Carl Olson:

I don't deny Tim LaHaye is anti-Catholic; but it's not because he believes the Mass is blasphemous. It is because he (deliberately?) misrepresents Catholic beliefs, practices, and history.

I agree that Billy Graham would not come out and say "the Mass is blasphemous." But I think this just a matter of being nice. Likewise, no Catholic in his right mind would say publicly, "Billy Graham holds to a heretical system of beliefs, and is himself at least a material heretic." But it's still true, and it is still what we do, in fact, believe; even if we dare not say aloud for fear of offending someone.

Carl, think to yourself for just a moment. How on earth can an honest Protestant not believe that the Mass is blasphemous? If it really isn't true that God subsists in the forms of bread and wine, what can they possibly think of Catholics worshipping what is just bread and wine?

Now, if a Protestant says, "The Catholic Church denies the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, and so re-crucifies him every day" this would be anti-Catholic, since this is a miscaricature of what we believe. Saying, "We don't believe that bread and wine turn into Body and Blood, and so to worship these food particles is objectively idolatrous" is not to be anti-Catholic; it's simply to be honest about one's beliefs.

Get it?

Oh, and Anglicans don't count when I note "conservative Protestants"; they're a different animal altogether . . .

;-)

[Carl Olson]

Eric: Sounds good to me. I'm happy that you finally settled that...it was getting to be a bit painful.

[Carl Olson]

Eric: More seriously: I don't disagree with your point. But I don't know that you understand the worldview, or mentality, of the anti-Catholic Fundamentalist. His belief that the Mass is blasphemous may not be objectively anti-Catholic, but it is part of a system of thought that most assuredly is.

You wrote: "Now, if a Protestant says, "The Catholic Church denies the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, and so re-crucifies him every day" this would be anti-Catholic, since this is a miscaricature of what we believe." Well, that's what most Fundamentalists do indeed say, either clearly or implicitly. For example, see the entire paragraph that I mentioned in the original post above. The pastor stated:

"Now you know what the Roman Catholic mass is. Some people in Protestant churches speak of the Lord's Supper; we do. Some speak of the communion service; sometimes we do. Some call it the eucharist - a strange word, but there is really nothing wrong in it. It means just a thanksgiving. Some call it the breaking of bread. The Roman Catholics call it the mass. And their belief is the most appalling error, that in the consecration service the bread is literally changed into the body of the Lord Jesus and the wine is literally changed into the blood of the Lord Jesus. It is appalling blasphemy. So the priest week by week sacrifices the Son of God afresh, as he believes, and puts Him to an open shame. It is no wonder that Almighty God has pronounced the curse: "Let him be accursed." But the dreadful thing is that our leaders, not only political but also religious, can flock after such appalling errors and blasphemies as these. O there is only one sacrifice, blessed sacrifice, the sacrifice of the cross where the dear Lord Jesus sacrificed Himself that poor sinners washed in His blood might be saved with an everlasting salvation." (emphasis added).

Get it?

[Eric Giunta]

Carl:

I hope I don't come across as arguing with you for the sake of arguing, as if I go out of the way to disagree with you.

If it appears I do this a lot, know that it is because, for the most part, I only comment on your posts whenever I have a disagreement. I agree with most of what you write, and I never see a point in voicing this agreement, unless perhaps another reader disagrees with you.

Just wanted to clear this up.

Keep up the great work!

[Mark Brumley]

I just feel the love all around, folks.