re: Ted Cruz Shares Anti-Catholic Conspiracy

quote:

---

Growing up protestant, I can say we don't think much about you at all.

---

Every now and then someone confidently declares that Protestants “don’t think about Catholics,” only to immediately write several paragraphs about Catholics. The irony usually goes unnoticed by the person making the claim (you).

The idea that Catholics obsess over Protestants while Protestants ignore Catholics is one of those comforting myths that collapses the moment you look at the history of Protestantism itself. Protestantism literally begins with a protest against the Catholic Church. Martin Luther didn’t nail the 95 Theses to the door of the Wittenberg church because Catholics were irrelevant to him. John Calvin did not write the Institutes of the Christian Religion in order to ignore Catholic theology. The English Reformation did not dissolve monasteries and execute priests because Catholics were “cute but not to be taken seriously.” Entire Protestant confessions of faith—such as the Westminster Confession—contain long sections explicitly written to refute Catholic doctrine.

So the claim that Protestants don’t think about Catholics is absurd. Protestantism was born in reaction to Catholicism and has spent five centuries defining itself against it.

quote:

---

We think your need to put a man between a person and God is ridiculous

---

Another familiar talking point is the idea that Catholics “put a man between a person and God.” This caricature is repeated so often that many Protestants like yourself assume it must be true.

It isn’t.

Catholics believe exactly what Christians have believed since the first century: Jesus Christ is the one mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). The Church teaches that priests act in persona Christi when administering the sacraments, meaning they serve as instruments through whom Christ Himself works. In other words, the priest is not a barrier between you and God; he is part of the sacramental system Christ established.

Ironically, Protestants who mock this concept usually have no problem asking their pastor to pray for them or seeking spiritual counsel. Once you understand that Christianity has always had ministers, bishops, and sacramental authority, the accusation collapses.

quote:

---

This country was founded on Protestantism. Our Founding Fathers didn't trust Catholics because they were worried about loyalty to the Pope instead of the country. Protestantism is the religion of America, whether you like it or not.

---

Then there is this lame inevitable historical claim: America was founded on Protestantism. This is one of those statements that sounds convincing until you actually read the Founding documents.

The United States Constitution—the highest legal authority in the country—contains no reference to Protestantism whatsoever. In fact, Article VI explicitly states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” That clause was written precisely to prevent the kind of sectarian exclusion that you, the commenter, seem to admire.

The First Amendment goes even further by forbidding the establishment of any national religion. If the Founders wanted the United States to be a Protestant nation, they had every opportunity to say so. They deliberately chose not to.

And the idea that Catholics are somehow incompatible with American loyalty has been thoroughly disproven by history. Catholic Americans have fought and died in every American war—from the Revolution to the present day. Entire military units, such as the Irish Brigade in the Civil War, were overwhelmingly Catholic. The suggestion that Catholics are secretly loyal to the pope and only the pope is a 19th-century nativist conspiracy theory that should have been buried with the Know-Nothing Party.

quote:

---

You remind me of State fans trying to act as if they are as relevant as the flagship university.

---

Comparing Catholics to a lesser university trying to compete with a flagship school might feel clever, but it accidentally exposes another problem: historical perspective.

Catholicism existed for 1,500 years before Protestantism appeared. Every Christian Bible used by Protestants was canonized by the Catholic Church. The doctrines of the Trinity and the nature of Christ—foundational beliefs for all Christians—were defined at councils convened by the Catholic Church.

If we are going to use the university analogy, Protestantism would be less like a flagship institution and more like a collection of splinter campuses that broke away from the original university while continuing to use its textbooks.

The deeper issue is insecurity disguised as bravado. Protestantism, by its nature, is fragmented. There are tens of thousands of Protestant denominations worldwide, many of which disagree on fundamental questions of doctrine, authority, and even the meaning of baptism and communion. Without a central teaching authority, the result is endless theological division.

Catholicism, by contrast, maintains the same sacramental structure, apostolic succession, and doctrinal framework it has preserved for two millennia.

That continuity is precisely why Protestant polemics so often circle back to Catholicism. You cannot explain Protestantism without referencing the Church it separated from.


TLDR:

Catholics do not need Protestants to legitimize their faith. The Catholic Church predates every Protestant denomination by over a millennium and traces its authority to the apostles themselves.

So when someone claims that Protestants “don’t think about Catholics,” yet feels compelled to write paragraphs attacking Catholicism, the contradiction speaks for itself.

You don’t spend that much energy dismissing something unless, at some level, you know it matters.

I used to date a girl that went to a CoC.

Everyone was impossibly nice but so horrifically flawed theologically.

quote:

---

Babies don't need to be regenerated.

---

There are several passages in Scripture where households are all baptized. 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33-34 “And I baptized also the household of Stephanus”; “And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying: If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.”; “And he, taking them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes, and himself was baptized, and all his house immediately. And when he had brought them into his own house, he laid the table for them, and rejoiced with all his house, believing God.”

Infant baptism has also been written about by Church Fathers, which predate your protestant beliefs by over a millennia. St. Augustine wrote in 408, “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic”

The Council of Carthage in 253 condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the second, third, or even eighth day after birth. “But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man.”

This opinion stemmed from Paul’s teaching in Col 2:11-12 that baptism has replaced circumcision, which is true. It makes sense, then, that the jews who waited to circumcise would question whether one should wait the same period to be baptized. “In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead.”

quote:

---

Sin isn't inherited.

---

We all inherit original sin from Adam. This is a foundational belief for Christians. Through baptism, Catholics believe we are born again and made new creatures in Christ, our sins (including original sin) being forgiven. Baptism is necessary for salvation. To reject baptism of an infant or child is a grave matter.

quote:

---

First, saying the early Church didn’t have the full New Testament yet actually strengthens the Catholic point. For decades Christians relied primarily on apostolic teaching and the authority of the Church because the canon wasn’t fully compiled yet. That’s exactly the environment Christianity grew in.

---

And then they had the Apostles letters by the end of the first century. The Apostles were divinely inspired. Those who came after were not.

quote:

---

Third, the “are you literally abiding in Christ’s flesh right now?” objection misunderstands sacramental theology. Catholics don’t claim we are chewing muscle tissue. The Church has always taught the substance becomes Christ while the appearances remain bread and wine. That distinction goes back centuries.

---

Then we may just be arguing semantics. That's really close to calling it a symbol without calling it a symbol, but like I said, semantics.

Romans 5 doesn't say we are guilty of Adam's sin. That's reading into the text. Consequences are not the same as guilt. And the earliest references to paedobaptism is in the 3rd century.

quote:

---

There are several passages in Scripture where households are all baptized.

---

Do all households have infants? Jesus said "believe and be immersed".

If circumcision should be made a type of baptism, then only men could be baptized; it would have to take place on the eighth day of their lives; there could be no prior conditions such as faith, repentance or confession; and it could be received only by those already in covenant relationship with the Lord; and how could that be applied to an eight-day-old infant?

The obvious reference to the death of Christ (which was the metaphorical circumcision referred to) in this verse naturally raised the question in Paul's thought of just how men are enabled to participate in the death of Christ, share its benefits, and receive its blessings. That prompted the immediate reference to baptism.

Colossians 2:11 is more easily understood if the intermediate phrases are omitted from the principal statement in the passage which is:

quote:

---

"In whom (Christ) we were also circumcised … in the circumcision of Christ."

---

The Christian is dead "in Christ." "If one died for all, then all died" (2 Corinthians 5:14). This means that the penalty of death (due to all sin) was paid by Christ who died for all. As members of his "spiritual body," Christians are, in a genuine sense "in him," identified with him, and as Christ they are dead, having been crucified with him, a status they received when they were baptized into his death."

Christians are also "perfect" in Christ (Colossians 1:28-29). This perfection, like his death, belongs to Christians, not through achievement by themselves, but through their status "in Christ."

Exactly the same is true of the circumcision mentioned here. "In Christ," Christians were not merely "circumcised"; but they also kept perfectly the entire Law of Moses, not by actually observing all those regulations, but by being "in Christ," totally identified with him, being actually his "spiritual body." All of this is plainly said when Colossians 2:11 is read without the descriptive phrases. Our circumcision is "in the circumcision of Christ."

This could be said about all of his beliefs. It’s like that church attracts the most well intended, but moronic people in the world.

Reference his point on the semantics of interpreting John six and what we think with the Eucharist as far as substance versus accidents.

quote:

---

I cannot fathom the idiocracy of this belief. Jesus Christ left us his Church on earth, but only for that singular generation? What did Jesus mean in Mathew 16:18 then? After Peter, in your belief, the Church becomes what exactly? Does the Church cease to exist when Peter and the other Apostles die? This take is beyond dumb.

---

Strawman. Of course the church existed, what else did the Catholic church break off from?


Do we need to go through the horrors the Catholic church have done throughout its history>

quote:

---

This entire paragraph, with the exception of the first four words, from Insurection Barbie is flawed.

Trumps base does deserve better. We deserve not to be dragged into a war our "ally" wants. We deserve better than an "ally's" leader who gets up and tells his people not to worry, he owns us. We deserved DOGE with a congress willing to enact the changes. We deserve SAVE. We deserve to no longer be beholden to the MIC. We deserve so much more, but suddenly, we have GHWB.

If they wish to pin the distaste for this military action on Catholics, fine. Let them. I care not. It is just dishonest Bullshite.

---

This deserves way more upvotes.

quote:

---

Jesus said "believe and be immersed".

---

This comes from Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned."

This is very straightforward. You must believe AND be baptized to be saved. It does NOT read, you must believe TO be baptized.

quote:

---

If circumcision should be made a type of baptism, then only men could be baptized; it would have to take place on the eighth day of their lives; there could be no prior conditions such as faith, repentance or confession; and it could be received only by those already in covenant relationship with the Lord; and how could that be applied to an eight-day-old infant?

---

If you check the prior post I made, men in 253 AD had this same exact question. The Church answered this question 1,773 years ago. Reread what I said about the Council of Carthage and you will find your answer.

And if you read mine, you'd see that it wasn't literal circumcision that Paul was talking about.