Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Anti-Catholic Hypocrisy Re the Term “Anti-Catholic”

Anti-Catholic Hypocrisy Re the Term “Anti-Catholic”

Last updated on: October 15, 2020 at 12:01 pm by Dave Armstrong

Anti-Catholic Hypocrisy Re the Term “Anti-Catholic” 2020-10-15T12:01:13-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Jason Engwer Sez Catholicism is Not Christian & Teaches a False Gospel

[Jason Engwer’s words will be in blue; those of Steve Hays in green; David T. King’s in purple]

I’ve written about this times without number: so many times that many of the former posts are not even on my blog anymore. I deleted them. But the hypocrisy continues. Recently I replied to one such anti-Catholic, Jason Engwer: with whom I have debated off and on since 2000, in my last posted article, St. Peter Listed First in Lists of Disciples: A Debate.

I gave notice to him about my reply on the site where he blogs, called Triablogue. But I am blocked there. I believe my comment was, thus, removed, though I’m not sure. I did let him know on his Facebook page. But then others commented on his blog as follows:

zipper778 10/13/2020 12:04 PM Have you done a reply to Dave Armstrong’s reply? I enjoy your writing Jason. I’ve learned a lot here on Triablogue.

Jesse 10/14/2020 12:39 AM Is Dave’s “rebuttal” really worth responding to? He will just take up all your time. I cannot even see what his link is.

zipper778 10/14/2020 8:06 AM It’s on Dave’s blog from a couple of days ago. He immediately labels Jason as an “Anti-Catholic Protestant polemicist”. It’s funny how Jason never describes himself in that way. Dave’s ad hominem attack right away makes the article uninteresting. So, I totally understand why Jason wouldn’t respond if he chose not to.

Timothy 10/14/2020 10:34 AM I read Dave’s rebuttal, it was not serious. He definitely has an ax to grind with the language he used.

First of all, it’s fascinating that Jesse in effect urges Jason not to respond, since he has issued at least two critiques of my work (one of them just 17 days ago) on his own website, Rational Christian Discernment:

A Rejoinder To Dave Armstrong On Sola Scriptura (3-17-19)

Dave Armstrong’s Utter Hypocrisy On Sola Scriptura And Private Interpretation (9-27-20)

But note that the reason given to urge Jason not to reply, is because I described him as an “Anti-Catholic Protestant polemicist”. This alone was immediately taken to be proof positive that my only intent was to engage in ad hominem attacks, have an “ax to grind” and am not “serious.” Of course, none of this is true. I think it’s just obfuscation and subterfuge, to avoid dealing with the argument in my article. Jesse replied further (probably after seeing this post):

I haven’t exactly “urged” Mr. Engwer to ignore Dave Armstrong as I simply wondered if debate would be fruitless. He can do whatever he wants. The irony lies in Armstrong misrepresenting me and my intention is to expose Roman Catholic claims.

As I have noted many times in the past, the term “anti-Catholic” is a legitimately scholarly one, with very specific meanings. It can have more than one meaning, but one of them is the one I habitually utilize: of a theological / doctrinal nature, meaning that it is a person who denies that Catholics, as a class of people who believe as Catholics do, are not to be classified as Christians. Here are my papers where I copiously document how scholars use the term:

Use of “Anti-Catholic” in Non-Catholic Scholarly Works [10-7-02; revised 5-17-03]

Proper Theological Application of the Term “Anti-Catholic” (vs. Frank Turk) [9-24-05]

Theological / Doctrinal “Anti-Catholicism”: Scholarly Use [7-8-08]

“Anti-Catholic”: Scholars Use it Both as a Noun & Adjective [8-4-08]

Note that I also described Jason as a Protestant, which is something, as far as I know, that he would call himself, and is a non-controversial, accepted term. This means that I regard him as a Christians, since Protestants are validly baptized, trinitarian Christians, and regarded as such by the Catholic Church.

Granted, “polemicist” is a polemical term, and perhaps regarded as derogatory, but I deny that it is solely an “insult.” According to Merriam-Webster online, it merely means “an aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another.” Anti-Catholic critiques of Catholics are certainly that. Catholics are not the ones denying that Protestants are Christians. It is the small faction of anti-Catholic Protestants (including Jason) who irrationally and outrageously deny that we are.

Ironically, I ran across (truly by accident), a fan of Triablogue and of Jason’s, describing the work there as “polemical apologetics”:

Polemical Apologetics. It is an understatement to say that the Triablogue team has been prolific in its literary output. The purpose of this index is to make it easier to access and benefit from this abundance of material, especially those posts that are more substantive and timeless. Jason Engwer, Steve Hays and Patrick Chan have already done a good deal of work here, and so I draw on their efforts with much appreciation. (Afterall.net)

Steve Hays put up a post entitled, “Catholic polemics and the Enlightenment” (6-2-17). Blog regular John Bugay posted, “Defining “Divine Revelation” in Roman Catholic and Protestant Polemical Discussions” (2-17-14). There are many more casual references to “polemical” or “polemics” on the Triablogue site, as a search readily indicates. In fact, Steve Hays freely admitted:

I have a rather polemical style of writing much of the time, and a polemical style is bound to provoke a hostile reaction. I’m aware of that. I expect it. And I accept it. I know what I’m doing, and I know why I do it—with predicable results. I reap what I sow. (9-9-06)

All I’m saying is that fellow Triablogue (Protestant) blogger Jason Engwer is also a “polemicist” and (manifestly) an anti-Catholic as well.

Moreover, I have commended other work of Jason’s. For example, I wrote in a reply to him on 5-12-20:

Jason Engwer is a Protestant apologist who does a lot of good work of general apologetics in defense of Christianity (I have linked, for example, to a lot of his material concerning Christmas), alongside not-so-great anti-Catholic polemics. I rejoice in the former, and refute the latter on occasion, as I will do now.

I challenge anyone to find anything in Jason’s large volume of writings that is anywhere near as gracious or complimentary towards me as I was towards him. I’ll save you the trouble: it ain’t there.

Secondly, Jason has already replied to papers of mine of a very similar nature (about Petrine primacy), at least twice in the past. So to reply to this would simply be more of the same. I describe him as an anti-Catholic because he clearly is that: by the accepted scholarly definition.

Furthermore, let’s look at how Catholics are dealt with; how we are treated and described on Triablogue: the blog begun by the late Steve Hays (equally anti-Catholic, and one who has described me as having an “evil character”): a mentor to Jason, and currently dominated by Jason’s writings (as the ostensible successor to Steve). Steve Hays wrote in response to me in a post dated 6-10-05:

I suppose a Roman Catholic would object to “Romanist” or “Papist” on the same grounds as a Muslim to “Mohammedan.” Just as a Muslim will protest that he is a follower of Allah, not of Muhammad, a Roman Catholic will protest that he is a follower of Christ, not of the Pope—I guess. But isn’t the Pope the vicar of Christ?

In any case, I reserve the right to use designations which reflect my theological viewpoint, and not the outlook of my theological opponent.

A Romanist is someone who adheres to the primacy of Rome. A papist is someone who adheres to the primacy of the Pope. And so forth.

Since a Calvinist takes no offense at being denominated a Calvinist, I don’t see why a Catholic should take offense at being denominated a papist or Romanist.

Hence, I will continue to opine on the papistical popery of papistically papizing papists in the thrall of papistry and popedom.

Now, of course, Steve was free to establish that “Romanist” and “papist” were in habitual use by reputable scholars of all stripes, but for some strange reason he never did so, to my knowledge. And I’ll again save any reader of this the trouble to find it: there is no such legitimate use of these ridiculous words to describe Catholics. And even dictionaries note this. Hence, Merriam-Webster describes “Romanist” as an “often offensive” description of “Roman Catholics.” Likewise, it describes “papist” as “usually disparaging.” Dictionary.com also describes the two terms as “disparaging”.

On the other hand, both dictionaries do no such thing in their descriptions of the word anti-Catholic. Dictionary.com defines it (adjective) as “opposed to the beliefs, practices, and adherents of the Roman Catholic Church”, while Merriam-Webster states: “opposed to or hostile toward the Catholic church.”

Conclusion: I go by the standard usage of scholars (mostly historians and sociologists) and dictionaries. Steve Hays and many of his co-writers at Triablogue do not. If anyone is insulting and using ad hominem here, it’s them, not I. Steve Hays dug in on 6-11-05:

Words like “Romanist,” “popery,” and “papist,” as well as variations thereon, represent established historical English usage, with exactly the same etymological pedigree as other proper adjectives formed from proper nouns, including place names and proper names, according to whichever suffix linguistic convention assigns to the morphology of that particular word-group.

Lots of derogatory terms (such as the usual ones denoting various racial or ethnic groups) “represent established historical English usage.” At length society decided that they were disparaging and unacceptable, and not to be used anymore. The terms above for Catholics are among these. But Steve disagrees. He wanted to stake his claim as a uncharitable bigot till the end.

Jason himself uses “Catholic” (usually “Roman Catholic”) while many of his friends on the blog continue to use “Romanist”. David T. King, a notorious anti-Catholic, argued (over against Jason) not only that we should be called “Romanists” but even applied (irony or ironies) the term “anti-Catholic” to us:

With all due respect Jason, I do think you need to re-think your willingness to ascribe the term “catholic” to Romanists. The dogmas that are peculiar to that communion are not “catholic” either with respect to the consent of the rest of Christendom, and are actually “anti-catholic” in spirit to the rest of Christendom. To insist, for example, as Leo XIII did in Satis cognitum that papal primacy (even without reference to papal infallibility) is “the essential constitution of the Church” (§ 14) is as anti-catholic as the sentiment can be expressed.

I do not use the term “Romanist” as derogatory term, but rather as a description of those who adhere to the communion of Rome in order to distinguish them from the rest of Christendom, as they are so fond of doing . . . (9-25-10)

Jason replied:

The term shouldn’t be applied to them in a way that suggests their orthodoxy or the universal nature of all of their beliefs, and it shouldn’t be applied in a way that suggests that their denomination is the universal church or the heart of the universal church. They aren’t orthodox. And some of their beliefs aren’t universal even among all of the people they consider Christians. Some of their beliefs have little or no acceptance outside of their denomination. And they’re neither the universal church nor any sort of core or center of the universal church.

I use the term Catholic, with a capital C, as a commonly recognized title, much like I use the term Jehovah’s Witnesses without thinking that they’re actually witnesses of Jehovah. (9-25-10)

That’s not to say that Jason classifies Catholicism as theologically / doctrinally / creedally Christian. He’s simply being courteous by using accepted, standard terminology for a religious group that he disagrees with. He still refers to, for example, “a contradiction between the Biblical gospel and the Roman Catholic gospel” (8-7-10). See also:

[T]he Roman Catholic gospel is false and . . . should be considered to be under the anathema of Galatians 1 . . . (12-9-09)

[T]he possibility that some Catholic and Orthodox signers of the Manhattan Declaration are justified in spite of their group’s false gospel isn’t sufficient to justify the language of the document about those groups. Individuals who attempt to be justified in a manner contrary to what their group prescribes shouldn’t be considered representatives of their group’s view of salvation. (12-10-09)

Do you acknowledge that the document [Manhattan Declaration] is wrong about the Christian status of Catholicism and Orthodoxy? (12-10-09)

Catholics and Orthodox aren’t Christian from a Biblical perspective, not just from a conservative Protestant perspective. (12-10-09)

Evangelicals, Catholics, and the Orthodox do not share a common understanding of how the work of Christ accomplishes our salvation—and this is the heart of the gospel….Evangelicals came to our understanding of justification by faith alone the hard way, and we defend it as central and essential to Christianity itself. This is the doctrine of salvation, the kerygma, as preached by the true church. Without this doctrine, no church is a true gospel church. Many Evangelicals, myself included, remain unconvinced that any consensus on salvation now exists between those who hold to the teachings of the Reformers and those who hold to the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church….Evangelicals must measure the claims of any church or individual by the simplicity of the gospel. If the true gospel is not preached, this is no true church. Again, any thoughtful Evangelical would acknowledge that there are certainly true Christians within the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, but that these true believers must in some sense come to the simplicity of faith through means other than the official teaching of these churches… (12-11-09)

He made a decision to return to Catholicism and has remained Catholic after being reminded of the false nature of the Catholic gospel many times and by many people. His decisions to revert to Catholicism and remain Catholic under such circumstances are evidence against his profession of Christian faith. And his unfaithfulness to the gospel is worse than Peter’s and the Galatians’ in some ways. (12-13-09)

This is all classic anti-Catholicism, as defined by scholars, not myself. And so my describing Jason as an “anti-Catholic” is not a personal insult: it is a straightforward application of established, documented (sociological-type) fact. Period.

And what was Jason’s decision?:

Thanks, zipper!

I have to be highly selective in what I do and don’t reply to, given how often I get responses from people, other work I’m involved with, and other factors. I’m not planning to respond to Dave’s article at this point.

What a huge shock! That makes it now ten posts that refuted Jason’s arguments, posted on my site between 5-12-20 and 10-14-20 (see them under his name on my Anti-Catholicism web page). Not a peep in reply.

And (as of 10-15-20), Jason has now blocked me on Facebook. One can’t be too careful!

***

Photo credit: “Romanism at Washington.” Paranoid anti-Catholic propaganda from the book Scott Funk Hershey, et al. Errors of the Roman Catholic Church: And Its Insidious Influence in the United States and Other Countries by the Most Profound Thinkers of the Present Day, and the History and Progress of the American Protective Association (A.P.A.). St. Louis: J.H. Chambers, 1894; photo plate between pp. x and xi. [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Previous Post

October 12, 2020

St. Peter Listed First in Lists of Disciples: A Debate

Next Post

October 15, 2020 Jason Engwer, Origen, & the New Testament Canon

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category & Last Things About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz