They don't make it a necessity of chr*stianity, but they most certainly do make at least an openness to evolution a distinguishing (and therefore mandatory) aspect of Catholicism, as you and I know right well. How many Catholic articles, publications, or Bishops' statements insist that "we Catholics do not interpret the Bible literally," or that total Biblical inerrancy is a concept with no roots in the chr*stian past that was invented out of whole cloth by "certain Protestant traditions?" You're my hero, but you and I both know that on this issue I am right. And at least two FReepers criticize me for my "mania" of defending the Bible, implying that it's not a Catholic thing to do so--therefore a distinguishing mark of Catholicism.
I rarely see a thread that begins with such epithets - what I see are threads that begin as an insulting challenge to Catholicism and then some Catholic posters, forgetting their obligation under Matthew 5:44, indulging in equally disedifying stupid taunts of the kind you mention.
My friend--I see them. And every time I do I think of my mother and my beloved deceased relatives who did not have the "good fortune" to be born Irish or Italian or Aztec. And it makes my blood boil.
Catholics should not be in the business of condemning Protestantism - for the reasons that (1) it's not a particularly Christian attitude to adopt and (2) there is much of value to be found in Protestantism despite its fatal flaws - no matter how much FR Protestants tempt us to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Protestantism has no more in common with Catholicism or Orthodoxy than either does with mormonism. Protestantism and Catholicism can both be false, but they cannot both be true.
Catholics say "Protestants are chr*stians" because of certain creedal commonalities. Yet as you know Fundamentalist Protestantism is not a creedal religion at all. What FPism calls "salvation" is what Catholicism condemns as "presumption." In fact, this "presumption" is the whole point of Fundamentalist Protestant chr*stianity and why Catholics are not and cannot be chr*stians in its view. No assurance? No presumption? Why did J*sus die, then? Apparently only to but an end to the Torah, because under the "new covenant" one's life is as much a tightrope walk over the "pits of hell" as it ever was under the "old covenant"--indeed, it is more so. This is the "good news?" I'm sorry, there's nothing "good" about it. Either a means was created to insure salvation or else nothing happened and the Torah (and Noachide Law) is still in full force for its original purpose.
Furthermore, you are missing my point that Catholics condemn Protestantism (or at least Protestants) all the time--only they do so in leftist liberal terms. Is this the unchanging attitude of the unchanging Church? Did the Spanish inquisition condemn "heretics" as "intolerant bigots?" Anyone who can condemn Protestantism from the Left can condemn it from the Right--unless one is a Leftist.
And yet again, there is absolutely no difference between the Catholic double standard that sees Fundamentalist devotion to Genesis as ignorance and Mexican peasant devotion to Juan Diego as beautiful and the liberal double standard that condemns Genesis while exalting the aboriginal "dream time" (or the qur'an). No difference whatsoever.
I don't believe you can understand this. I have come to believe only someone who has experienced it can understand it, and that pretty much makes any attempt to explain it useless.
Wideawake, I love you dearly, but on this matter you are wrong.
We'll agree that two is not a sufficient quorum.
Are many Catholics woefully lacking in Scriptural formation? I would be the last to deny it.
The fact remains that when a Catholic and a Baptist read the Scriptures with the same assumption that the Scriptures are factually inerrant, their strategies for interpreting the Bible are disparate. What one side sees as a semantic anomaly another sees as an essential semantic distinction.
My friend--I see them.
Please ping me next time you spot one.
Protestantism and Catholicism can both be false, but they cannot both be true.
I'm not saying that they can both be true.
I'm pointing out that both can have the correct view of central doctrines, such as the Trinity and the Incarnation. When a Baptist and a Catholic use the term "trinity" they are using it in the same acceptation, and neither are using it in the Mormon acceptation.
Classic Protestantism has far more in common with Catholicism than Protestantism has in common with Mormonism.
Yet as you know Fundamentalist Protestantism is not a creedal religion at all.
If one is Baptist or a Reformed Christian, one is definitely credal.
Someone who is purely DIY or a Church of Christ member can claim to be creedless - but I wouldn't write Baptists out of the "fundamentalist Protestant" club. They are clearly the majority of the individuals who fall under that prescription. I would also add that the very term "fundamentalist" derives from the Niagara Bible Conference's attempt to formulate a standard creed for Protestant Christianity through their books entitled "The Fundamentals." Credd is essential to fundamentalism and even those who claim to eschew creeds follow the lead of the credal churches like then SBC quite closely.
Anyone who can condemn Protestantism from the Left can condemn it from the Right--unless one is a Leftist.
I don't think either is a useful model. As you know, we both largely agree on the moral obligation of society to provide for the needy - what some call "social justice", what others call "the preferential option for the poor", what still others call "the social gospel" and what traditional Catholicism calls "corporal works of mercy."
This is one aspect of Catholicism that is roundly derided and attacked by many as "socialist" and "liberal" - with most, when questioned, admitting that works of charity are good but solely for the "deserving poor."
This critique is framed as coming from "the right", because atomistic individualism and "every man for himself" is the correct stance from "the right." I would argue that this a concept alien to Christianity and derived from the decidedly "left" position of social Darwinism.
It is relatively rare to find a self-described fundamentalist who is not also a subscriber to this notion of homo oeconimicus - a notion I consider a mark of the left.