Hating Catholics–America’s ONLY Accepted Prejudice

http://shoebat.com/2014/04/12/hating-catholics-americas-accepted-prejudice/ ^ | April 12, 2014 | Walid Shoebat

[NKP_Vet]

I recall when I got scorned for attacking homosexuality on my blog with a comment that said, “You are a homophobe, do you not know that God loves everyone including homosexuals,” in which I answered with, “do you not know that God loves everyone including the homophobe?”

Indeed, we say “God loves everyone,” including, but not limited to; heretics, pedophiles, hemophiliacs, sodomites, lesbians, murderers, rapists, child molesters, drug pushers and every mutant from the pit of hell, except, of course, the legalist and the Pharisee, that is, the good old Catholic Church.

y now, objectors who read so far what I wrote here will only pull out a Tommy machinegun and begin to spray all the high-caliber bullets at the comment section of my blog to write: “Catholics are legalists,” “the Pope kissed the Quran,” “they worship Mary,” “they pray to saints” …

May I say that a bigot is recognized when he avoids the question at hand by always changing the subject.

The God of love, does He not love the legalist, the Pharisee and even the bigot? Does He then not also love the Catholic?

The issue is not an issue of “Love”, but that “Love” is always used to obstruct correction and reproof. Such “Love” is nothing more than hate. I always keep my eyes out for a mind that reverses everything.

The issue is an issue of SLANDER.

Slandering Catholics is the ONLY accepted prejudice in America.

Exposing Sodomite behavior in America is prejudice, but slandering the Vatican is not?

The Vatican has been slandered for centuries without a shred of biblical evidence. They call it the Harlot of Babylon, the killers of the saints, the woman drunk with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus Christ. And for historic evidence they say that the Catholic Church eliminated the Manichaeans, Arians, Cathars, Priscillianists, Paulicians, Bogomiles and Albigensians. But can anyone quote a single historian who confirms or proves that these groups were Bible believing Christians? Yet thousands of books were written slandering Catholics for eliminating these while elevating such heretics as the true Bible believing Christians.(For more on this read my article Drinking the Blood of Saints)

But instead of answering such a simple question, I get machine-gunned every time by changing the subject; but what about all these pedophilia cases? It is true that there is a major mess to clean in any Christian circle, but may I say: let the denomination that has no such sin cast the first stone. Sexual sins and deviancies are equally spread in all denominations.

But does such issues entitle us to only focus on what is wrong with the Catholic while ignoring what is wrong with Protestants? Even Jesus, while he reprimanded the institution of His time for its corruption, He never eliminated its authority over the flock.

And what about the Pharisee? Did the New Testament hate Pharisees? And how could we say that Judaism is legalistic just because individual Pharisees were challenging Jesus by using the Law to trap, discredit and accuse Him of heresy? Can this be applied to all the Pharisees in general or the Jews collectively?

Why then do we use the term “Pharisee” as a dreaded label of scorn and insult?

In the Bible, we can find verses where God condemns Israel. But is that a blanket statement to condemn them for eternity? If so, what then do we do with verses in which God honors Israel? Condemning the Jews for eternity is a sign of bigotry and prejudice. I see many Catholics who hate Israel. Evangelicals by large have done a much better job than Catholics in recognizing and supporting Israel.

When it comes to the Pharisee, Jesus spoke of the “righteousness of the Pharisees”. Was Jesus degrading the righteousness of the Pharisees, or was He simply setting up the standard, that unless we are perfect, we couldn’t enter the Kingdom, for even if we kept the law as good as the Pharisee, these do not equip a man for the beatific vision of God’s essence? This of course, can never be attained until the end when God accomplishes in us His plan after we are purged from all sin.

Nicodemus was a righteous Pharisee and so was Gamaliel, Paul’s teacher, the grandson of Hillel and the founder of a dominant school of the Pharisees, a major branch of Judaism. It was Gamaliel (a Pharisee) whom God chose to save the apostles from death and opposed the apostles’ execution. Josephus and some Talmudic works also mention Gamaliel, the Pharisee, describing him as a benevolent and brilliant man. William Barclay states:

“He was a kindly man with a far wider tolerance than his fellows. He was, for instance, one of the very few Pharisees who did not regard Greek culture as sinful. He was one of the very few to whom the title ‘Rabban’ had been given. Men called him ‘The Beauty of the Law.’ When he died it was said, ‘Since Rabban Gamaliel died there has been no more reverence for the Law; and purity and abstinence died out at the same time.'” (The Daily Study Bible Commentary, Bible Explorer software.)

In fact, Christianity, and by extension, Catholicism was derived from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism. In reality, when we compare Catholics and Protestants today in light of ancient times, it was the sola-scriptura Sadducees who rejected all authoritative oral teaching and were considered the theological liberals of that time. Even the New Testament records the first Christians were Pharisees (Acts 15:5, Philippians 3:5), but never once mentions Christian Sadducees.

Having few children by using birth control is the practice of liberals. Why would many Evangelicals support birth control is beyond me. Yet both religious Jews and Catholics see such practice as going against God’s plan. I agree 100%. God after all said to be, “fruitful and multiply”. My wife Maria put up with me for over two decades because she was brought up Catholic and to her marriage was a holy sacrament.

I have always believed that there are anti-Semites regardless of denomination. However, it is not true that Catholicism is anti-Semitic. Catholic Jim Blackburn from Catholic Answers in his article “Do You Know Jesus” explains that Christianity stems from Judaism, which is the official stand of the Catholic Church. Jim explains Paul:

“Paul said: “My manner of life from my youth, spent from the beginning among my own nation and at Jerusalem, is known by all the Jews. They have known for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that according to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee. And now I stand here on trial for hope in the promise made by God to our fathers. (Acts 26:4-6)”

Paul does not denounce the religion of Judaism here. He clearly recognizes that it is from this religion, which Christianity sprang. And he does not view Christianity as a new religion but, rather, as the fulfillment of the promise of Judaism. It is a continuation of—not a break from—Judaism. And in this continuation it does not throw off its religious aspect. (Ibid)

We always attribute to Catholics as the prime example of a legalist; they after all believe that they can earn or merit God’s approval by performing the requirements of the law, they neglect mercy, are ignorant of the grace of God and are so focused on the obedience to the law; the Catholic preeminent principle of redemption is not “by faith alone in God’s grace”.

Was the Catholic unsaved just because he believed in sola gratia (by grace alone) as Trent decreed, the justified “increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ” by means of “faith co-operating with good works,” which uses the phrase of the Council and that of Saint James?

Fact is, the Catholic Church condemns anyone who attempts to justify himself “by his own works”:

“Canon I. If any one says that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ—let him be anathema.”

The Council of Trent even elaborates:

“We are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification—whether faith or works—merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.”

Is this teaching an anathema? For how long must we continue slandering? Even the Jewish faith, King David broke the law and was not saved by keeping it, yet he was nevertheless saved. David was a repentant servant of God. Calling Catholics legalists came from Martin Luther who drew this view from reading the correspondence between the Judaizers of Paul’s days and applied it to the Roman Catholics of his.

George Foote Moore and Claude Montefiore protested that Judaism was not legalistic, and that such a view of Judaism was a distortion of Jewish documentary sources.

Indeed, if biblical Judaism was legalistic, how could God then provide salvation to the Jews of the Old Testament? How could God be arbitrary selecting Israel as His plan for salvation if they were legalists? (See Claude G. Montefiore, “Judaism and St. Paul (London: Max Goschen, 1914).

And here comes my biggest dilemma: during my two-decade walk in many American churches, it was as if all the battles, struggles and martyrdoms, which the Catholic Church endured from the Muslims for over millennia was simply written off by my evangelical friends. These sold such wealth of Catholic history as Judas sold Jesus for thirty pieces of silver.

It’s heart breaking.

In two decades, I have never heard a mention of the contribution of Catholics fighting Islam in the battles of Poitiers, Lepanto and Vienna.

My struggle with so many anti-Catholics began when I pointed to the rich history of the Catholic struggles with Islam. To these, it didn’t matter that millions of Catholics and Eastern Orthodox were martyred under Islam’s scimitar; Islam to them was simply the ‘cleansing agent’ of Catholic heretics. I could not understand how could such a movement that is pro-Jew, yet be so anti-Catholic?

I slowly began to realize that in America being anti-Catholic is America’s ONLY Acceptable Prejudice.

Even historians agree, slandering Catholics, as John Highham described it is:

“the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history,” (Jenkins, Philip (1 April 2003). The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice. Oxford University Press. p. 23)

Historian Arthur Schlesinger Sr. has called Anti-Catholicism “the deepest-held bias in the history of the American people”. (“The Coming Catholic Church”. By David Gibson. HarperCollins: Published 2004.)

Indeed. America is a nation that isolates racism and addresses skin-color and gender as the only definition for racism, so much so, even though they exercise the least of this type of racism than any other nation on earth, yet they discuss racism more than any other nation on earth.

We even have come a long way in combating anti-Semitism to soon forget quickly the horrors of Nazism. We still openly denounce skinheads and neo-Nazis, yet when it comes to the slander of Catholicism and Catholics, America is not only silent, but also is still a major participant.

Bible believing Christians who are Anti-Catholics need to answer one question: why only Catholicism unites all haters? Why when it comes to Catholicism, they are all united; liberals, atheists, Mormons, feminists, Satanists, Scientologists, Jehova’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Advantists, Uniterians, Moslems and so many Bible believing Christians officially and doctrinally are all anti-Catholic? It is time that Evangelical Bible believing Christians be removed from this equation.

But perhaps I need to exercise an American tradition; I should have prequalified my statement and say that: I am not saying that protestants and evangelicals are all anti-Catholic, by God no, yet every time I praised Catholics, I found so many pin-pointing the leaven of the Pharisees without looking into the piles of heretical books written by so-called evangelicals who do much worse than the Pope kissing the Quran or that Nostra Aetate praised Islam. Yet even Pope Benedict criticized Nostra Aetate. I too hate some of what I see in Nostra Aetate and Second Vatican and find so many devils within the Catholic Church.

But is the Catholic rich history such an evil subject that warrants ignoring Catholic wars with Islam and that during Nazism, there were many more of these precious Catholics that chose to die in Hitler’s ovens than there were wonderful Protestants? It is a fact of history that Catholics lead any other religion in rescuing the highest numbers of Jews during Nazi Germany. Are all these Catholics damned to hell despite making a choice to enter Hitler’s furnace and save Jews? Which of the two is more pleasing to God, the evangelical health and wealth televangelist or the Jew loving Catholic who died in the infernos of Hitler’s crematoria?

From top preachers in America, we can see the terrible trend. John MacArthur, who is esteemed as a formidable and excellent Calvinist theologian, made a sermon in which he agreed with Charles Spurgeon when he declared that he would rather be called a devil than a priest, and that the Catholic Church is worse than Satan himself. MacArthur, in agreement with the statement, proclaimed the quote in his presentation:

“Call yourself a priest, sir! I wonder men are not ashamed to take the title: when I recollect what priests have done in all ages–what priests connected with the church of Rome have done, I repeat what I have often said: I would rather sooner a man pointed at me in the street and called me a devil, than called me a priest; for bad as the devil has been, he has hardly been able to match the crimes, cruelties, and villainies which have been transacted under the cover of a special priesthood.” (Macarthur on Youtube, http://youtu.be/7WbF-BZxu6s)

Christian author and conspiracy theorist Mark Dice stated:

“The Catholic Church, the popes, and bishops are basically the same as the Pharisees that Jesus denounced over 2000 years ago for their hypocrisy and their pride and arrogance due to their spiritual knowledge.” (The Vatican, Modern Day Pharisees, MarkDice.com)

Another evangelical author, S. Mason describes the Catholic Church as:

“The Pope declares the Catholic hierarchy to be the only ones allowed to interpret scriptures. Therefore, they elevate themselves as the Scribes and Pharisees of the Temple. Think on how Jesus described them HYPOCRITES! He described them as painted white sepulchers, looking god on the outside but smelling with the stench of death on the inside and filled with dead men’s bones.” (Mason S. Religion the Great Harlot in the Devil’s Playground, P.p. 81)

For more information refuting such accusations see [here] and [here]

Anti-Catholics simply transferred the term “Pharisee” from the Jew to the Catholic. Indeed, hating Catholics and Pharisees is America’s ONLY Accepted Prejudice.

[avenir]

I love your well written explanation here. Very helpful and practical to me. Thank you.

[avenir]

“Man’s inability to correctly discern God’s Word does not invalidate it nor mean that relying on it alone is not valid.”

Amen. Barring exceptions (e.g. those without access to Scripture), where does one receive wisdom from God? Those who go away from or pooh-pooh the Word usually tout “experiences” and “inspiration” as if those are superior to FAITH WITHOUT SEEING.

Gods Word remains fresh and green and STABLE when experiences and inspiration are all over the map.

[af_vet_1981]

I see the flaw in the logic of your argument here.

We have the Messiah naming Cephas "Rock" and promising to build his church upon that "Rock." We read the Messiah himself is the chief cornerstone and the apostles and prophets are the foundation. We have the Messiah saying the gates of hell would not prevail against this church. The Messiah gives the Apostle Peter his power to bind and loose and his keys to the kingdom of heaven, but you do not believe, it seems to me, that the words of the Messiah were efficacious in this respect, nor that his apostles appointed others' who appointed others' by the laying on of hands, until this day. Your tale is one of perpetual defeat and conspiracy, making heretics the heroes in some cases no doubt. There is one holy catholic apostolic church, from the days of the Apostles until this day. You have not presented any historical alternative, and that silence is deafening.

[imardmd1]

Nope even the language prevents Simon from being the rock upon which His local church and the churches it plants are to be built. Where the Romanists leve is abandoning the Scriptural foundation of Christ and His Word, and placing themselves in authority over it. I don't know how many thousand times we've been over this, but the Romanists simply are beyond recognizing the truth of the Gospel, and insist on their predominance, rather than Jesus' Preeminence in the lives of His regenerated believer-disciple-priests and saints.

Come back another day. With the right doctrine, the keys of the Gospel given not only to Peter, but all the disciples to come, you will be able to enter. So far, no, and you-all don't even seem to recognize it. But now, the Savior is calling me to His work of making more disciples.

Bye for now --

[af_vet_1981]

Nope even the language prevents Simon from being the rock upon which His local church and the churches it plants are to be built.

I noticed the subtle change you introduced, which demonstrates, yet again, the problem of Sola Scriptura.

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
Ephesians, Catholic chapter two, Protestant verses eleven to twenty two,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
bold emphasis mine

[imardmd1]

And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

And where did you get that from, your Catechism? Some Papal bull?

No, you got it from your Bible, and it is my mainstay, of course. So upon what does the foundation of the apostles and prophets stand on? thin air?

The B-I-B-L-E, yes that's the Book for me --
I stand alone on the Word of God, the B-I-B-L-E!

Yes, it stands on the Rock of my salvation, the Son of the Living God, the Word of God personified!

[af_vet_1981]

And where did you get that from, your Catechism? Some Papal bull?

Do you affirm or deny the Nicean Creed ?

No, you got it from your Bible, and it is my mainstay, of course.

It is my Bible; that part you have correct.

So upon what does the foundation of the apostles and prophets stand on? thin air?

The B-I-B-L-E, yes that's the Book for me -- I stand alone on the Word of God, the B-I-B-L-E!

Yes, it stands on the Rock of my salvation, the Son of the Living God, the Word of God personified!

You wrote that the Bible is the Word of God, and that Jesus is the Word of God. Do you worship the Bible ?

[imardmd1]

You wrote that the Bible is the Word of God, and that Jesus is the Word of God.

Is this truth to you?

[af_vet_1981]

You wrote that the Bible is the Word of God, and that Jesus is the Word of God. Do you worship the Bible ?

[imardmd1]

You wrote that the Bible is the Word of God, and that Jesus is the Word of God.

I write again, is this truth to you? IRP.

[af_vet_1981]

You wrote that the Bible is the Word of God, and that Jesus is the Word of God. I write again, is this truth to you? IRP.

It is truth to me, and since you are unable, or unwilling, to clarify what you meant, I cannot tell whether you worship the Bible (Bibliolatry) as the Word of God, or venerate the Scriptures as does the one holy catholic apostolic church.

101 In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in human words: "Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness, became like men."63

102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:64 You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.65

103For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body.66

104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, "but as what it really is, the word of God".67 "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."68

[imardmd1]

It is truth to me, and since you are unable, or unwilling, to clarify what you meant, I cannot tell whether you worship the Bible (Bibliolatry) as the Word of God, or venerate the Scriptures as does the one holy catholic apostolic church.

You dance around the topic you chose, answering everything but the question I asked you, for I will not undertake to answer your query until you do. A simple "yea" or "no" to the question will be ample. There is no "maybe."

Your statement:

You wrote that the Bible is the Word of God, and that Jesus is the Word of God.

Yet a third I write, is this truth to you?

Immediate Reply Please.

Regarding your Catechism, it is the fallible, uninspired construction of errant men, and has no authority whatsoever over the revealed Word of The God, and is not even in the same class of literature as The Word of God. So please don't bring it up again.

[af_vet_1981]

Yes, It is truth to me, and since you are unable, or unwilling, to clarify what you meant, I cannot tell whether you worship the Bible (Bibliolatry) as the Word of God, or venerate the Scriptures as does the one holy catholic apostolic church.

Catholics do not worship the Bible. Catholics venerate the Bible with love, honor, and gratitude.

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living".73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

[imardmd1]

I cannot tell whether you worship the Bible (Bibliolatry) as the Word of God, . . .

I'm working on a little longer answer, but to call you to account regarding the pejorative "Bibliolatry," it's more than sensible for me to worship the Bible than it is for you to worship a glass of grape juice, isn't it?

[MHGinTN]

Amazing how many posts to a thread that has a title which is a flat out lie!

[imardmd1]

Don’t worry about that— just accept it as a slanted viewpoint.

[af_vet_1981]

I'm working on a little longer answer, but to call you to account regarding the pejorative "Bibliolatry," it's more than sensible for me to worship the Bible than it is for you to worship a glass of grape juice, isn't it?

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
Revelation, Catholic chapter three, Protestant verse twenty,
James, Catholic chapter one, Protestant verses five to seven,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[imardmd1]

As you seem to perceive, the text of my last response to you is wisdom, and the source of knowledge of the Holy One gained from His Holy Word:

Prov. 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy (one) is understanding.

But what is seen further is that:

Prov. 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Resort to the Roman catechism authored by fallible men as indispensible authority superior to the Holy Word is foolishness.

[imardmd1]

Correction to Post 498 :

"As you seem to perceive, the text of my last response to you is wisdom, and the source of knowledge of the Holy One gained from His Holy Word:"

-- the words "gained from" should be struck out, and the word "was" should replace them. Here is what it should have been:

As you seem to perceive, the text of my last response to you is wisdom, and the source of knowledge of the Holy One gained from was His Holy Word:

[af_vet_1981]

I still cannot tell whether you worship the Bible as the "Word of God" or simply venerate it as the compiled books, written by men under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, God being the ultimate author, as His holy revelation to man.

For example, do you believe this scripture is describing the Bible ?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.
John, Catholic chapter one, Protestant verses one to two,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James