We Catholics have all encountered fundamentalists on various FR threads. Sometimes it feels as if we were speaking different languages. Perhaps this thread will help to clarify our understandings.
Now, I think i'll need popcorn...
I doubt it. Since this seems more like a ‘this is why those people are the way they are. God love em’.’ article. *pat pat on head* Ish!
I'm guessing that most of the fundamentalists aren't going to react that way.
Wanna make a bet?
“Catholics agree with fundamentalists that Scripture is sufficient in that it contains everything necessary to know for salvation”
This is a fine and yet accurate statement. Catholics believe in Sacraments necessary for salvation, whereas fundamentalist don’t. This is a crucial difference.
Catholics and Protestants both yearn to be "men under authority," disciples.
Catholics place priority on the Church that created the Bible.
Protestants emphasize the Bible, which defines and creates the Church.
We would agree with G. K. Chesterton, though, whose short story The Broken Sword dealt with the inadequacy of reading the Bible, alone, by ourselves. The villain in the story did so, and found therein things like polygamy and torturing his enemies! Christians need to read together, and compare notes with one another.
As a protestant it does explain some of your doctrines, however I found too many wrong idea’s about what fundamentalist believe and practice, many assertions. That is troubling.
I do think this writer does make good points about many individual protestants being very sincere. I wish, though, that he would have addressed pride a bit more. That was something that bothered me in the way he presented his arguments.
Until apologists can explain things without snark, we are never going to come to an understanding. As a Catholic convert, I will tell you right now that if someone had compared my being a Methodist to a Moslem I would have been very insulted.
When I got to that passage, I quit reading.
We have more in common with other Christians than we have differences, and that part of this article is good. But the author JUST COULD NOT AVOID THE TEMPTATION to be be patronizing and insulting. SO all of his effort at explanation is wasted because of his attitude.
There are numerous points with which I could choose to contend. Since this would require a response as long at the article itself let me point out the primary ones.
Labeling The Opponent:
The author seeks to portray his attitude as reasonable and unbiased. However, he chooses to refer to those with a view that is different from that of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) as “fundamentalist”. In doing so he calls to mind a negative image at the outset by using a label that in our current society has been thoroughly impregnated with connotations of ignorance, narrowness, rigidity, unforgiveness and sectarian xenophobia. The use of this term is pejorative. It persuades not by force of logic but by a negative emotional infusion into the discussion. An examination of the article leads to the conclusion that a more accurate general label would probably be Conservative Protestantism (CP).
The Straw Man:
The author does well explaining RCC doctrine. Unfortunately, he contrasts it with that of a nonexistent opponent often saying “Fundamentalists believe this” or “Fundamentalists teach that”. The truth is there is no “Church of Fundamentalism”, no Fundamentalism Universities and no “Official” fundamentalism doctrine. While the RCC is monolithic in nature with one official position on all doctrine, CP is not. Many organizations claiming to be “Fundamentalist” have their own and very different idea as to the definition of that term than others who also lay claim to it.
For each doctrine discussed, the author has selected the weakest position of the many CP doctrines as his counter point giving his argument the appearance of strength and that of the opposition weakness. In addition, he often claims that the bad attitude or weak doctrine of a minority is that of the whole; impossible since there is no monolithic, organizational “whole”.
Monolithic Historic Catholicism:
In order to believe that the RCC is THE Church one must first believe in the doctrine of apostolic succession. That authority within the Church passed from Christ to another person and so on. Certainly the RCC makes their claim for Peter and his successors and base that on Matt. 7: 24-27. For many, however if this was what was intended it would have been much clearer with more supporting references than this disputed scripture. Many believe the interpretation that the rock of Peter’s confession and hence the concept of the confession of Christ as “The Son of God” is a much more reasonable interpretation supported by many other scriptures.
Second, the contention of the RCC that it is the THE Church and all others are schismatic is not historically accurate. Other early centers of church leadership some continuing into today include: Jerusalem {James}- Rome {Peter, Paul, et al}- Constantinople {Paul, et al}- Antioch {Peter}- Alexandria {unknown Egyptian converted directly by Christ}-Assyria {Thomas}- Oriental {Philip}(Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian, et al). Within the earliest churches the only organization outside the local Church group was their tie to the evangelist that founded them. As the decades and centuries rolled by, there is more historical evidence that corrupt men, seeking to control others, used religious faith as the means to do so through religious institutions than there is that supports the RCC as The Church. Several Church organizations make as believable of claim to apostolic succession as does the Roman Catholic.
Having said all that, I think many will be very surprised by whom they see in heaven. I look forward to worshiping our Lord along side of brother and sister Catholics and Protestants. When I was young I remember a conservative preacher ask and answer the question. “Do I think smokers can be Christian?” He went on, “Yes, but their dirty ones!” We will never agree on all things. Within every communion of faith there are as many disagreements between adherents as there are across denominational lines. There are many things on which Christians can disagree and still be Christian. Let’s focus on what unites us. Christ, the Son of God, crucified in my place, raised from the dead, sitting on the right hand of God, arms open welcoming me into eternity.
I’d like very much to help heal this rift if it really exists. Perhaps a FR Conference to discuss it?
Rased Cathlolic
Spent years in Fundamentalism
Now I’m interested in facets of Jewish faith.
All have pos/neg values however I’m convinced that having us fight is what Lenin/Stalin/Obama want us to do.
Please add me to your Catholic ping list.
It might help if someone would explain why the Catholic Church is so threatened by the literal historical truth of the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Just what in there is so terrifying?
1) What I see in the Catholic Church's leadership is a **mess***! For example, Ted Kennedy's flamboant Catholic funeral mass was a disgrace. Fr. Jenkins still continues as the head of Notre Dame, and is thriving as well.
It appears that many of the bishops and education leaders in the Catholic Church worship Marx instead of God. And...There is no way for the common Catholic members to bring about an expeditious reform. They are told to pray, wait for a miracle, send their sons to already leftist corrupted seminaries, and wait a few generations.
As a Protestant, I am left scratching my head wondering how in heaven or on earth this church could in any way be “true”.
2) Then there is the cult-like emotional manipulation that the Catholic church exerts over its members. If the Catholic Church is the one and only true church, its priesthood the only officially true priesthood, its Pope the only representative of Christ on earth, then if a Catholic leaves it ( because he is sufficiently disgusted with the Marxist leaders) he is literally walking away from true salvation and is in danger of eternal hell! How is this different than the emotional manipulation of a cult? Is it because the Catholic Church is somehow a true cult?
3) Then there are customs and practices of the Catholic Church that utterly befuddle a Protestant. For instance, why would anyone even think to dig up John Neumann’s body? Of what possible purpose would there be to do this? Why would relics be making their way around the church? It seems to me as a Protestant to be macabre and perverse.
4) And then to us as Protestants ( while we **greatly** respect and admire Mary) we would never think to pray to her or the other saints. We pray directly to God in the name of Jesus. To us this practice of praying to Mary and the saints is an abomination.
So...I love my Catholic neighbors. Our nation would be far stronger if we had a nation full to the brim with Catholics who fully and completely practiced **all** of their religion. We share far more in common that we do in differences... But...I hope you can see why we Protestants just don't get it.