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.
Zionist Conspirator:
Well I have always used Fundie to describe a certain theological framework among Protestantism and I would tend to agree that it is usually associated with rural Southern Protestants, so on that point, I would agree. Nevertheless, that would not be tied to any particular ethnic group per se, but cut across various Anglo-Celtic groups such as Scots, Welsh, English, Northern-Irish, etc.
However, I would personally refer to a Black Protestant as a Fundamentalist, if it were accurate, just as quick as a Southern American Protestant. As for Biblical Criticism, it is a “methodology” to look at Scriptures, it is not my favorite, but as someone trained as an academician, I don’t run from biblical scholarship that uses the Historical-Critical method, I read for what it is, and if their are things I can learn from it, I do, if there are things that challenge or question or do not clearly articulate established Catholic Doctrine, then I ignore it.
Personally, my favorite methodology of Biblical Scholarship is the “Patristic Methodology” which both my Navarre and Ignatius Catholic NT rely on.
Orthodoxy means correct doctrine, and yes I do ascribe to orthodoxy as it relates to core Doctrines [Trinity, Incarnation, Christ as Divine Person, with Divine and Human Nature, Resurrection, Ascension, One Baptism for the Forgiveness of Sins, etc. in other words, all the confessional points outlined in the Nicene and Apostles Creed].
As for Evolution, that is a Scientific question, not theological, and if you reject the basic premise that animals and other living organisms “evolve” that is your business and right. I don’t. It is just I don’t believe that believing in the basic notion of evolution means that I am an atheist-pagan-Communist and that believing in the basic theory of Evolution means I reject the theology rooted in Genesis that God created everything from nothing which is the first statement of the Nicene Creed......I believe in God the Father Almighty maker of heaven and earth and things visible and invisible.....
You and I have posted before in the same thread so I think if you are indeed being objectively honest, you will concede that my basic premise remains, I have not started threads bashing or misreporting Protestant beliefs and my use of Fundie or bible-thumper was used only in the context of threads started by Protestants which set out, in my view, to distort Catholic Teaching. It is in the context of aggressive Proselytizing that I think Pope Francis was talking about where various Protestant sects go and start with distorting Catholic beliefs in historically Catholic Countries to bring them into their various Protestant group.
Catholics have historically evangelized by going into the world and Institutionally setting up things like Hospitals and Schools that treat the unevangelized with Human dignity and by showing them the Love of Christ, they are drawn into conversion by God’s Grace working thru his Body the Church. So that is evangelism, it is just not the type of Evangelism that many Protestants here on FR view as being evangelism. What many here call evangelism is nothing but distorting Catholic Doctrine, misrepresenting Catholic Doctrine and yes in some cases, outright lying about Catholic Doctrine which is nothing but sinful and consistent with proselytizing as viewed by Pope Francis.