Zionist Conspirator:
I have used the term Fundie you are correct and Bible Thumpers as well. I will fully disclose that I have used those terms, but!, and that is the point, only in the context of a thread started by said Protestant fundies that set out to distort and misrepresent what Catholicism teaches, which is clearly laid out in the Catechism of the Catholic CHurch. It is not like the Catholic CHurch hides its Doctrine at the Institutional level. So the substance of my post remains, I have, as I said in the previous post never started a thread that attempts to explain any of the various competing Protestant groups teachings at the “Confessional or Institutional level”, i.e. I don’t try to represent what Reformed-Protestantism teaches, the Southern Baptist Convetion teaches, the United Methodist, the Pentecostals, in all their various stripes, etc, etc, etc.
So again, when I have used the term Fundie or bible-thumper, is has only been in the context of a thread started by said protestants refered to above and not, as I have stated in my previous post, and in this post, a thread started out by me that attempts to represent said Protestant groups and then after individual protestants come in and reply in a thread, I respond with fundie/bible thumper.
And for the record, Fundie does have any ethnic connotations nor does bible-thumper. Romanist, on the other hand, clearly has ethnic implications given that Rome is a city in Italy. Papist, I would concede, has no ethnic implications given that the last 3 popes are all of different ethnic background, Polish, Bavarian-German, and and Argentinian from Italian ancesty.
edit to previous post, “Fundie does not have...
This is not so, and I am surprised to find you making such a claim. "Fundie" and "bible-thumper" are no longer strictly theological terms but have devolved into a crude ethnic slur indicating a dim-witted, inbred rural Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Celtic American, particularly from the Southeastern section of the country. This is very easily proven. No Black pastor, church, congregation, or individual, is ever called a "Fundie," "bible-thumper," or even "fundamentalist" at any time, no matter how literally he/she/it/they may interpret the Bible.
Can I get an "amen?"
It can further be proven thusly: the definition of the word "fundamentalism" is a belief in the fundamentals. Everyone has fundamental beliefs. Catholicism even has an area of theology called "fundamental theology." The fact that it is never used in this sense but always to connote gap-toothed, semi-literate, racist trailer trash is just another proof that its use in these contexts is an ethnic slur. Furthermore, it is a safe ethnic slur because it applies to the one ethnic group the Left hates with a passion and will never defend at any point. To engage in this type of vituperative rhetoric is to go along with left/liberal beliefs and stereotypes. Given American Catholicism's urban Democrat nature, I suppose a certain amount of that is to be expected, but certainly not by a "conservative" Catholic posting on a conservative forum. You should be ashamed of yourself, as should every FReeper who descends to such depths.
Perhaps you are unaware of this--in fact, I know you are, as is everyone else--but the term "fundamentalist" which you find so distasteful and regard as such an insult among Fundamentalists themselves means exactly the same thing you mean by the word "orthodoxy." Now, I know it's not your for orthodoxy, but it is among the community you are debating. This means that your distaste for "fundamentalism" implies that you reject the very concept of orthodox religion itself--that you are, in fact, a new age looney toon.
I'm sure you find that quite amusing, but as one who came from the Fundamentalist culture and actually spent time in the Catholic Church, I can assure you that that is quite what it always meant to me to see Catholics demonizing the concept of "fundamentalism." I realize it was meant specifically to discredit "Biblical literalism" (horror of horrors, that someone might interpret John 6 literally!) or even "support of WORLD ZIONISM!!!," but I hope you will believe me when I assure you that it goes far beyond this. This culture simply is not familiar with the word "orthodoxy" and uses "fundamentalism" to mean the same thing. At any rate, I have told you. Any further use of the terms "fundie" or "fundamentalis" by you or anyone else who reads this post can be interpreted as nothing other than a liberal, new age, ecumenical opposition to the very concept of orthodox religion itself.
Historically, the Fundamentalist movement was an attempt to meet modernism with the "fundamentals" of historical, cross-demoninational (if Protestant) chrstianity--exactly what C.S. Lewis meant by his term "mere chrstianity." The Fundamentalist movement didn't even begin in rural trailer parks, but in the very largest Northern cities and the most established and respectable churches, including at one time Princeton University. Why Catholics are so eager to heap scorn and venom on this open-minded, intellectual movement and imply all its adherents were Ku-Klukking inbred freak shows is beyond me, unless it is to show themselves small-minded and hateful, because that is exactly the impression that comes across.
A final point: I am well aware that, despite your "ultra-traditional" screen name, you are a partisan of those two latter-day Catholic enthusiasms, Biblical criticism and evolution. Please be aware that, despite all that you might say about "the Catholic Church has always believed like this" or "the church fathers were evolutionists," this is quite simply not the truth. Anyone with a computer and a mouse can quite easily find quotes from popes, councils, and theologians of the past that say quite the opposite. Nothing can change this. I'm afraid you're going to have to pull the "well, they didn't know any better back then" line, because the current claim that "Biblical literalism" was pulled out of thin air as a reaction to Darwin is just plain silly. The fact that you and most Catholics today (including the hierarchy) have done a 180 degree about face on these issues simply means that the infallible, indefectible, unchanging church has indeed changed. I grant that Fundamentalist Protestantism has often changed as well. It changes when someone looks into his/her bible and finds something "no one has ever seen before" and starts a new denomination. Catholicism, however, has slowly evolved and changed throughout its history while claiming not to, with Vatican II being the watershed. Any claim that your beliefs are "identical in every way" to the church fathers or medieval peasants or Robert Bellarmine are simply hooey.
Yet I notice with bitter irony that the same Catholics who defend or deny the changes in their religion have the temerity to claim that Rabbinic Judaism isn't "Biblical Judaism." That's known as the pot calling the kettle black.