The Anti-Catholic ABCs - "Anything But Catholic"


When my wife and I first considered crossing the Tiber, the response we had from her Methodist mother when we began getting a bit evasive on the subject of where we were going to church was priceless: “Anything but Catholic.”

I think we see quite a few posts on the boards which bear this knee-jerk reaction out.

In the past few weeks, we’ve seen:

  1. Protestants who have a newfound respect for the Orthodox Church, even insinuating that the Orthodox were right all along with the Great Schism, even though the Nicene Creed most Protestants possess contains the Filioque and not the Orthodox form which contributed to the Schism.

  2. The Church criticized for being too dogmatic and out of touch and simultaneously too vacillating and weak, with respect to ecumenism, to torture, and to sexual mores.

  3. The Church denounced for lack of doctrinal unity by Protestants.

  4. The claim that when Luther spoke of the debt Protestants have to the Catholic Church for the Bible (see my sig), he was referring not to the Catholic Church but to “the apostolic church”.

  5. Claims that there is no such thing as infallibility in Church teaching from Protestants despite an acknowledgment that Scripture and the Nicene Creed were indeed true (so how could that be without the protection of the Holy Spirit throughout the first centuries of Christianity at least?)

There are undoubtedly other examples of this “Anything But Catholic” type of thought.

It bears out what Hilaire Belloc said—only the Catholic Church is subject to constant attack from all sides.

Do you have any examples of “Anything But Catholic” thinking?


I ask just who hates the church Christ founded and inspires many to attack her? Answer found in Job 1.

Do you have any examples of “Anything But Catholic” thinking?

Every bible Christian exemplifies such thinking: they rely absolutely on scripture, even though what they hold in their hands was produced strictly by the Catholic Church and approved by a Pope. They decry Tradition, even though the bible is the product of Tradtition.


The only “unifying” principle for most non-Catholic Christians is anti-Catholicism. Yet, they miss the big picture by a mile! With thousands of man-made, different-believing denominations, all based “on the Bible,” they cannot explain their disunity. If personal interpretation of Scripture had any validity, there would be, at most, one Protestant denomination. Yet, there are literally thousands, and counting. Allowing every man, woman, and child to prevert the Holy Scriptures according to his/her personal interpretation has proven to be a disaster and a shame!


Here’s a quote from De Maistre (quoted by famous Catholic theologian Hans Urs Von Balthasar)

“Did we ever find that Protestants bother to write books against Greek Orthodox, Nestorian, Syrian, etc. churches, even though they hold dogmas that Protestants abhor? They avoid this. Rather, they defend these churches, they flatter them, they are ready to agree with them, because they see any opponent of the Holy See [the Roman Church] as an ally.”

Seems to ring fairly true, but not amongst well-informed, honest Protestants. A good friend and teacher of mine is a Lutheran who has pictures of Benedict and John Paul II all over her office and readily defends Catholic doctrine to ‘Catholic’ theologians in the Boston College theology department. Remember that our Protestant brothers and sisters can be a lot closer to us than we think.


I enjoy this forum and desire to learn about and debate the RCC, but there is frequently way too much of a victim mentality here.

How often are fundamentalists/Evangelicals mocked everywhere. The wacko right, the fundies, bible thumpers, etc… (many names used regularly here)

Did Jesus promise His followers would be respected and admired?



The more you learn about the Catholic Church, the less you will debate it. In fact, once you know the fullness of truth, you will likely join it. Crazy? Read on. Please remember that fundamentalism, as a Christian practice, has existed since about 1890. If only they knew how much more to Christ there is. The church produced the bible, the bible did not produce the church. Christ founded a church in Matthew 16, not a bible. The bible is indispensable to the Christian, but it is far from complete as the rule of faith. It even says so (John 21:25).

Fundamentalists have a lot of tradition in their church as well, but many don’t know it. The bible is a product of Tradition, since the Tradition preceded the bible, and complements it, rather than contradicts it. Paul’s letters, in particular, document that Tradition was well established and that Christians must hold tightly to it. See 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Additionally, the bible was assembled by a Catholic council under the authority of the Pope. Its contents were determined by, decided upon, approved by the Pope and presented to the world. Luther, and any truth seekers after him, gave credit to the Catholic church for the bible. That is not disputed.

I was just at a presentation this evening by Mark P. Shea, a former Fundamentalist who searched for the source of the scriptures, who sought to prove that scripture attested to itself and needed nothing else. He learned that scripture only documented, backed up, and complemented Sacred Tradition. He is a writer whose work may be found here:

Christ’s peace be always with you.


Fundamentalists and evangelicals are indeed mocked by secularists, but Catholics are mocked by secularists and Christians.

Just as Christ indicated we would be.

As for a “victim mentality”, I think you’re conflating that with correcting the rudeness and ignorance of fellow Christians.

When somebody insists you worship statues or Mary or anything else but God, and you repeatedly correct them only to trigger the next regurgitation of the time-honored calumnies, those who share such biases certainly tend to explain away the insistence upon facts and decorum as “victim mentality”.

I live in a sea of fundamentalism and evangelical Protestantism—I certainly don’t feel like a victim. There are, however, an awful lot of anti-Catholic bigots to be set straight. It is the work of an age.


I think, too, that most Catholics appreciate fundamentalist’'s dedication despite disagreeing with them on other areas. And don’t forget, Catholics don’t make any judgement call on fundamentalists being Christians. We accept their assertion that they are Christians. Fundamentalists don’t always grant Catholics the same consideration.:frowning:

There is a difference between disagreeing with the Catholic Church and anti-Catholicism. Not everyone who disagrees on this forum with us is anti-Catholic. We have to be careful not to paint everyone with too broad a brush.


Please realize that some Protestants are a bit different. As a Lutheran I can say that we actually seek reunification with Rome, but the Justification and Sanctification issue makes it impossible.

There are some terrible misunderstandings about Catholic theology and life by Protestants though.


Glad to have you here! Since you did come here, it must be for a good reason. We look forward to conversation with you.

Christ’s peace.


I’d say that you sound like the crying victim.

I haven’t seen those terms used here because (with the exception of wacko, which can apply to any venue) they are generally not allowed. If they are used…there is a good system in place to alert the moderation staff so that they can deal with it (and they will. I’ve seen it myself.) If you don’t use that system, whose fault is that?

I don’t think that very many of us even have much to say about n-C/a-Cs until they get in our face. My attitude is that if you don’t wanna get refuted, don’t bring errant modern teachings to a religious discussion with me. I don’t post much on a-C/n-C forums because I generally find that it’s a waste of time.



Please clarify this statement above, if you could. Why would you seek what you then call the impossible?

What draws you on the one hand and repels you on the other?

I was under the impression that some of the Lutheran Churches and Pope John Paul II in the late 90’s signed a joint declaration on the very issues of Justification and Sanctification.

Ut Unum Sint. Maybe you can start a new thread to discuss your perspective of these issues?

God bless you, maurin


And besides, we Catholics are definitely fundamentalists – in the original sense of the word. Fundamentalism was born among serious mainstream Protestant theologians in the early 20th Century at Princeton (hardly a fly-by-night seminary). They held to things like the Virgin Birth, the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the second Coming of Christ, and the resurrection of the faithful. They were responding to Modernism as had Pope Pius X in his encylical Pascendi Dominici gregis in 1907.


I attended a talk by a former evangelical writer (Mark P. Shea of Catholic Exchange) last evening on the real presence of the Eucharist. While he was fundamentalist, he began a search to see if scripture was “self-attesting” as his pastor claimed. He found that, without Tradition, scripture scarcely condemned polygamy, contraception and abortion, to name a few things. Additionally, he learned that fundamentalists also have much Tradition, but just don’t realize it. For example, the table of contents in the bible is the product of tradition, since the book didn’t fall from heaven, but was assembled by the early church. And, they had no bible to guide them!

Long story short, he found, to his utter SHOCK :eek: that the Catholic Church was his home.

Christ’s peace.


Great document by the way. :thumbsup:

God bless,


Is this one the document signed by JPII on justification?


Protestant discernment sites like and [alittle](“http://www.alittle”) (both well-written and interesting, by the way) see clearly what frequently happens when every pastor „does church“ as he sees fit. It isn‘t pretty. So what do they recommend to those who believe in the separation of church and circus (or church and casino, or church and soft-porn talk show)? „Anything but Catholic!“ Instead, found a house church and „do church“ as you and your friends see fit, without a pastor. Go figure.


I am LCMS and here is a response to the Joint Declaration:


and a PDF with an in depth theological review (It is 69 pages and very detailed)

Essentially the RCC will not move in it’s position, I don’t know if it is possible for it to change anyway, and so everyone has to conform to Rome in regards to this doctrine.

What I find interesting (sad?) is that most Protestants are fine with the mixing of justification and sanctification of the RCC. They truly don’t understand what the Reformation was about, and they don’t know what the RCC really teaches.

Most of the objections to the RCC are not doctrinal but procedural and perhaps moral.


I see this also among my Lutheran friends. If we have a conversation about justification, they will agree to the Catholic position, but as soon as I point out that it is the Catholic position, they seem to suddenly become Calvinists! :smiley:

Actually in this specific area, many of the people attending the local ELCA church are lapsed Catholics, and they are lapsed because of moral issues and don’t wish to admit that.


Shhhhhhhh. Contraception, confession (even though ELCAs encourage it), divorce. Did I mention contraception and divorce? I know it sounds cynical and it is not prudent to bring this up on a thread like this but scratch the surface, and BOOM! CCD. Throw in masturbation. The life issues are frequently the back breakers.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit