Skip to comments.THE CHURCH FATHERS: A DOOR TO ROME (fundamentalist warns saying they sound too Catholic)
Posted on 08/30/2009 2:03:16 PM PDT by NYer
click here to read article
You’re quoting someone.
Why don’t you say whom you were quoting?
It excels in falsity and non-truthiness.
Funny how that happened.
It is by James White, but I’m not sure where I found it...have it as a word file on the computer now, but could probably find a link to the whole thing if you want to read it. I saved the parts I thought best.
If the oral tradition of Catholics results in doctrine (vs scripture), then Catholics need to show the oral tradition is as good as scripture for teaching, etc - IF they want others to take it seriously.
If we agree that scripture is God-breathed, but you claim oral tradition is also needed, then the ball is in your court - WHY do you believe that? What makes you think an unspecified oral tradition of uncertain origin is of comparable value to the God-breathed words of scripture?
Herein lies the cundundrom;
If the Church became apostate in the first century after Christ, while there were still those who knew and were instructed by Apostles who walked with Christ, then how does one TRUST the Bible as inerrant if the very people who they claim were in error decided which books were canonical? Either they were right, or the Bible is a collection of books put together by heretics. It cant be both.........
I believe most Protestants worry about what happened after the Church was accepted by the State. And most believe it was a very gradual process...I agree with Augustine on far more than I disagree.
As for the argument of canon, please read this thread I started a while back:
How We Got the New Testament - 2 1/2 Views (LONG!)
By 1000+ AD, Rome split from the Orthodox and went further and further astray.
Brace yourself, Mr R....countdown to ignition, 10..9..8..7..6 (maybe everyone already went to bed) - you may have a reprieve. ;)
We agree with the Orthodox far more than either we or the Orthodox agree with you, and both we and the Orthodox agree far more with the undivided church of the 5th century, or the 4th, or the 3rd ... than we do with you.
Incidentally, "tradition" simply means the understanding of the faith and of the scriptures which the church has continuously held and which has deepened over the years.
To reject tradition means that you have to assert, in effect, that the Holy Spirit guides you, but hasn't been guiding other Christians continuously over the past two millennia. If he did guide them, you should listen to them.
Y'all understand that instinctively already. That's why you quote Spurgeon and Calvin to one another. Once you do that, you're already admitting the utility of tradition. Now the only question becomes ... whose tradition.
But if sola scriptura were true, that wouldn't even be possible, would it? I mean it would be obvious to everyone that when Christ says "This is my body" he really means "This is merely a symbolic reminder of my body" and when Paul says "All that I have taught you, pass on to other faithful men who will be able to teach others" he really means "Write a book, make copies, and let everyone figure out what it means for himself."
As far as making Scripture say what we want it to say, compare that to dispensationalist Protestants who rule whole books of the Scriptures out-of-bounds as "not applying to us in the church age". Some of them will say flatly that nothing Christ says in the Gospels applies to Gentile Christians.
Good luck with that on the last day!
“Y’all understand that instinctively already. That’s why you quote Spurgeon and Calvin to one another. Once you do that, you’re already admitting the utility of tradition. Now the only question becomes ... whose tradition. “
Completely false. In my 35+ years as a Protestant, I’ve never heard anyone say, “Luther/Calvin/Spurgeon said it; I believe it!” We quote COMMENTATORS who provide ARGUMENTS, not AUTHORITIES.
If the arguments are persuasive, then we change. If not, we do not.
“To reject tradition means that you have to assert, in effect, that the Holy Spirit guides you, but hasn’t been guiding other Christians continuously over the past two millennia. If he did guide them, you should listen to them.”
The Holy Spirit guides, but we are all men of flesh who find reasons not to listen. ALL men discussing doctrine mix good and bad. That is why our rule of truth is scripture - it alone comes from God without human error.
Luther’s writings (and Augustine’s) are interesting. God’s writings are revealed truth. The latter judges the former.
Using the practice of those who deny scripture to judge those of us who do not is like judging the Catholic Church for the positions of Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi.
Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean evil men cannot twist words for their purposes. On the contrary - it is repeatedly predicted in scripture, so Sola Scriptura anticipates it.
“So we confidently look to our older brothers and sisters for their wisdom and guidance, because we are not so afraid that God will abandon us, His family. We are not afraid.”
Here! Here! Very beautifully said! Thank you.
Which would include everything following said by the author or commentary by any Protestant pastor or author, no?
When words are taken out of context and misinterpreted it causes confusion and that is why all Scripture can be used to help in our understanding of it. Not just reading one verse, but starting at the beginning of a chapter of the book to get the sense of purpose for the writings. The Holy Spirit is the must important part because, as we study the Word he brings understanding to us.
This Bible study, reading should never be done for idle curiosity but prayerfully and meditatively with a heart seeking after God's truth. As an example, I can tell you the Bible says "god is dead". But the verse actually says "A fool in his heart says God is dead." That's a simple way of showing the point of words in context meaning what they say. Another way may be you read something Jesus said that doesn't make sense to you. You could look up the verse where Jesus spoke maybe in another Gospel about the same subject and see if the wording is a little clearer.
As far as what Scripture were meant for which group, etc. we should read it all because there are parts that God is using to speak directly to a person about something but the truth of what is spoken applies to us as well. How many people quote the 23 Psalm when they are in a bad place. It was written by David to the Lord yet anyone who reads it feels like it was meant for them personally. I see it as God's Love Letter to US and he will ensure it is preserved for all Eternity.
Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
Because Christ founded the Catholic Church and protects it from error in teaching to this day. It is His promise.
It's all right there in Scripture.
Where does Scripture say sola Scriptura?
Oh wait, it doesn't......how ironic: a doctrine which fails its own test.
Precisely! And that's exactly the problem with the article.
You seem like a curious, open-minded person, who wants to know when and why such an idea can take root in the Church. Well, the only way to answer that question is to study history. Christian history specifically. We need to go back to the earliest generations of Christians, read what they wrote, and trace the development of their ideas down the centuries. In other words, you have to study Patristics. The Church Fathers.
Now here's the problem that many people, including the author of this article, run up against.
When you read the Church Fathers, you find something that is, to many people including myself, rather surprising. You very often see distinctively Catholic idea *right from the beginning*. So you'll read, for instance, Irenaeus of Lyons writing already in the 160s-170s that it was a matter of necessity--necessity--that every Church be in agreement with the Church of Rome because of its foundation by Peter and Paul and because it preserved the Apostolic doctrine in its purity from the very beginning. You read Clement of Rome in the 90s writing to the Corinthians taking an unusually authoritative tone with them. You see Ignatius of Antioch writing with authority to all these different sees until he writes to Rome, where he suddenly becomes deferential. You read in Eusebius that Victor, bishop of Rome in the 190s was threatening to excommunicate the East for its Quartodeciman observance of Easter date.
And this is all way before Constantine. Way before Christianity was even legalized in the Empire. This was the time of the catacombs, of the persecutions.
Basically, most people who read these writings find that they show a much more "Catholic" Church than they might expect. And there's a range of responses to that. Some people adopt a little more of a tolerant attitude and respect toward the Catholic distinctives (I think C.S. Lewis is in this class). Others actually convert. What the author of this article has done, however, I think is a little goofy. He looks at these early Christian writings saying these things that he finds a little too "Catholic" and he says..."Well...they are obviously heretics! We shouldn't listen to them!"
That's what's wrong with the article. Instead of revisiting his own assumptions about what the early Church was like, he just labels these folks heretics. Which begs the question--if all these guys were heretics, then who back then was orthodox?
So if you think it would indeed be helpful to find out when all these Roman Catholic ideas originated, I would advise you to do what others have done who have looked into this question and read the Church Fathers yourself. I can't know of course what your response will be to what you read. But not a few people, myself included, who have done so have come to the conclusion that these ideas were contained in the Church from the very beginning.
No Churches, no preachers, no pamphlets, and tracts. No posts on FR asserting Sola Scriptura. No "homecomings", no "Revivals, no stewardship campaigns.
Jesus says to Martha, "One thing is needful; Mary has chosen the good portion," but strangely fails to mention that the "one thing" is the Bible.
And, of course, the whole conversation displays the "binary" preoccupation of the crypto-Manicheans. "Only this one thing." "If it's not necessary, it is harmful."
Oh well. If people are offered butter and insist on margarine, we can still love them, and let them know there's butter for their bread should they ever want it.
Also, technically, we hold that revelation stopped when the last Apostle shuffled off the mortal coil. So the writers assertion:
The teaching of the church fathers does not contain one jot or tittle of divine revelation.is a yawner for us. We never said it did.
Then he suggests a meaning of "Church Fathers" which is nonsense to us -- and argues against it.
Similarly, mostly the disagreements are disagreements of emphasis, and the persistent problem of the what I am coming to think of as the protestant binary view, an insistence on a simple-minded interpretation and evaluation of a proposition. E.G.: He suggests we teach the false doctrine that Martyrdom provides forgiveness. Now, IF that means that we think the martyr has no need of faith in Christ, of the Holy Spirit in his life, or of Christ's once for all redeeming sacrifice, then it is inaccurate.
But he will be able to find instances of our asserting that we can be confident that, say, Polycarp is in heaven because of his martyrdom. He will spin that one way, while we hear something quite different.
His citing (without references) Tertullian gives an example of the problem of the sledge-hammer approach. Why doesn't he mention that while we look at Tertullian's earlier works as a picture of Xtian thought in his time, we also think that Tertullian became a heretic? It is dishonest to fail to mention that, or to suggest that we teach that "there was a time when the Son of God did not exist."
So he starts this rant by arguing against something we do not think or teach, and then presents evidence for his argument. The entire thing is built on a shaky foundation.
If I were to start an argument against you by saying "There is NO evidence that The apostle Paul was a red-headed parrot," and then provided reams of evidence that Paul was NOT a red-headed parrot, would you take me seriously? That is more or less what this guy does, and that's why I'm laughing.
Your entire post was excellent, but the part above was outstanding!
The author's ENTIRE thesis is that, "if it sounds Catholic" it's automatically heresy and this seems to based upon a predetermined conclusion that Catholicism is heresy. It really is the most intellectually hollow thesis someone can ever have.
It all means nothing if the church does not teach people to be still like Jesus did and the fhu.com is doing today. The church is weak in our society because it has lost the true way to pray where in all power comes through.
I think you might be surprised if you looked into what the Church actually teaches about prayer.
Very well summarized wagglebee, thanks!
The author is judging the Fathers by his own theological standards. That's a fair theological position. It's a horrible *historical* position though. If these beliefs were heresy, why were they never corrected by later Fathers, Fathers who were happy to correct people like Origen or Tertullian on other matters. If they were out of the mainstream of Christian thought, why didn't mainstream Christian thought repudiate them as it repudiated Cerinthus and Arius and everyone else?
The simpler historical explanation is that the Fathers weren't the heretics. Way of Life are the heretics. ;)
Ping for the orthodox laugh of the day. The posts are funny too and not only the protestant ones.... :)
They weren't even "corrected" by any of the Protestant Reformers.
From a historical perspective, modern-day anti-Catholicism requires one to deliberately IGNORE verifiable facts. Here are a few FACTUAL instances:
1. If the Rapture and Dispensationalism is so obvious, why didn't ANYONE make mention of it prior to the 19th century?
2. The basis of sola scriptura is predicated on two fundamental necessities, FIRST that everyone actually has a Bible to read and SECOND that they can actually read it (I'm not talking about having the capacity to interpret it, I mean the simple ability to read it). And the FACT is that neither of these conditions existed for well over 90% of the population prior to the 15th century. Before Gutenberg Bibles simply were unaffordable to all but the wealthiest families, this was not because of some conspiracy by the Church it was simply because the cost of inscribing them by hand was incredible (a true handwritten Torah costs around $40,000 today, but keep in mind that this really only contains the first five Books of what would go into a Bible). Because books were basically unavailable prior to the 15th century, the average person had neither the opportunity nor the reason to learn to read, people learned math that was necessary to their commerce and that was about it. Now, God obviously would have known that Gutenberg would not invent the printing press for fourteen hundred years after the Resurrection; so one must wonder why, if sola scriptura was so vital, He would be so cruel as to wait so song before it became genuinely possible.
“When you read the Church Fathers, you find something that is, to many people including myself, rather surprising. You very often see distinctively Catholic idea *right from the beginning*.”
Incorrect. What you find is that people who read church fathers thru a modern lens can see pretty much whatever they want. There are passages showing they believed in a spiritual approach to Eucharist, and passages from the same authors showing a more literal approach.
Augustine wrote 4 books on how to develop your own personal interpretation of scripture. He argued that difficult passages of scripture should be interpreted by other passages of scripture - not by resorting to the ‘church’ interpretation. Did that make him a Protestant?
No, but both Protestants and Catholics can read modern phrases into writing that had nothing to do with it.
When they wrote of the Catholic Church, they did NOT mean the Roman Catholic Church, with the Pope over all. When someone under Rome’s jurisdiction talked of the Bishop of Rome being supreme, it didn’t mean supreme over other jurisdictions.
It is also obvious that many church fathers had some pretty screwed up doctrine. You don’t have traditions passed down from the Apostles. You have traditions that developed over hundreds of years as various men tried to explain their beliefs.
My reply is to put those traditions to the test of scripture, which seems fair enough if they are to be given equal regard. What is the canon? Which writings are traditions, and which are not? For scripture, the tests were acceptance by all the believers, and intimate association if not directly coming from the hand of an Apostle.
So when people go from praying for the dead - which I’ve done, since the God who knows the future before it happens knew I was going to pray that prayer before the person died - to a belief in Purgatory, with temporal punishment for sins which were forgiven but still need punishment...sorry, that is a leap from faith into denial of the power of God.
All believers didn’t accept Purgatory - see the Orthodox Church, or various others outside Rome’s influence. No Apostle taught it. All scripture denies its basic premise - that God punishes in the afterlife those whom he has forgiven.
Real presence? I see no indication it was widely taught or even thought about by church fathers. And why believe a church father writing in 350 AD over the words of Christ, or the Apostles?
Those who believe tradition is equal to scripture ought to show tradition meets as rigorous a test as scripture. Where is the Apostolic authority for traditions developed hundreds of years later?
“The basis of sola scriptura is predicated on two fundamental necessities, FIRST that everyone actually has a Bible to read and SECOND that they can actually read it”
Incorrect. Sola Scriptura does NOT say everyone has to read the Bible and form their own opinion. It DOES say that church doctrine must be in agreement with scripture.
A teacher who teaches illiterate people from scripture allows all of his listeners to grow IAW Sola Scriptura.
The problem the young church faced wasn’t illiteracy, but vain philosophical fancies.
“See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.
Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” ( referring to things that all perish as they are used)according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.” - Colossians 2
Too many have ignored that to their eternal peril.
You mean like the words of John 6 and 1st Corinthians 11?
The reality is that NOBODY even questioned the Real Presence until Calvin came along.
Of course to get around this Protestants who make the claim this article does - and not all do so let us be clear - state that the real church was underground for all these centuries until such and such re-founded the original church. That is why they tend to make heroes of Christian heretical movements and see them as proto-Protestants etc - even though doctrinally those earlier heretical movements don't match Protestantism much at all. I probably over simplified the response of mine but I think I got the gist of it out.
And the doctrine of the Catholic Church ALWAYS has been. The ONLY way that one can dispute this is to offer their OWN OPINION of Scripture.
If people choose to abide by interpretations of Scripture which have been in a state of perpetual change and dispute since the 16th century, that is certainly their choice. However, consider this, WHICH version of "sola scriptura" is the correct one? Is it that of the Lutherans or the Calvinists or the Baptists or the Dispensationalists? Which one?
Or people can choose to abide by the unambiguous teachings of the Catholic Church which have NEVER changed in two thousand years.
“That is why they tend to make heroes of Christian heretical movements and see them as proto-Protestants etc - even though doctrinally those earlier heretical movements don’t match Protestantism much at all.”
After you’ve spent some time on these FR Religion threads, you will see all sorts of ancient heresies embraced by our protestant friends, not just Waldensianism and Novatianism. One of the heresies most widely embraced is Nestorianism, which the author of this article apparently espouses.
No, they seem to believe that there were groups practicing YOPIOS and rejecting Church teaching from the very beginning. Unfortunately, they have never been able to produce a single shread of evidence that any such groups existed. It's actually a lot like Mormonism.
Yep, you see them embrace Nestorianism A LOT. One even admitted to it last week (though I doubt he had a clue what he was talking about. They usually try to change the subject when they are asked to cite the actual moment when the PURELY HUMAN Jesus Christ became God.
I simply don’t have the words.
Well, maybe I do...but it’s not the wisest use of my time at the moment...
Lord, have mercy.
John 6 wasn’t about the Eucharist - which wasn’t instituted until much later - nor would any plain reading of the chapter indicate transubstantiation. Those who turned away in John 6 were not denying transubstantiation, but the need to approach God via Jesus Christ.
1 Cor 11? You mean:
“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lords death until he comes.
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.”
Compare that to the 1689 Baptist Confession:
“The outward elements in this ordinance, when correctly set apart for the use ordained by Christ, bear such a strong relation to the Lord crucified, that they are sometimes truly, but figuratively, called by the name of the things they represent, namely, the body and blood of Christ. ] However, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine as they were before...Worthy recipients, when outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, also receive them inwardly by faith, truly and in fact, not as flesh and body but spiritually. In so doing they feed upon Christ crucified, and receive all the benefits of his death. The body and blood of Christ are not present physically, but spiritually by the faith of believers in the ordinance, just as the elements themselves are to their outward senses. All ignorant and ungodly people who are unfit to enjoy fellowship with Christ, are equally unworthy of the Lord’s table, and cannot, without great sin against him, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted to them while they remain as they are. Indeed, whoever participates unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment on themselves.”
So...does real presence mean spiritually, or physically? You’ll find many church fathers supporting the former, as well as the latter. But since they were men, and their words were not ‘God-breathed’, why not just pay attention to the Gospels and Epistles?
“It DOES say that church doctrine must be in agreement with scripture.
And the doctrine of the Catholic Church ALWAYS has been. The ONLY way that one can dispute this is to offer their OWN OPINION of Scripture.”
If you define the correct interpretation of scripture as anything the Catholic Church proclaims, then your statement is both correct and superfluous - for if Rome alone can interpret scripture correctly, then scripture can never bind Rome.
And that is what we find. Rome claims sole authority to interpret, and then has no anchor against heresy. So it develops doctrine based on men living a thousand years after the Apostles, then distorts scripture in an attempt to justify the heresy, rather than expunge it.
While claiming Apostolic Succession, it engages in Apostolic denial.
The Protestants I know would reply, “ 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.” and
“16For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authoritiesall things were created through him and for him. 17And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.”
No, no, and no. People like to see this issue confused because it suits their ideological position. But let me set this straight right here and right now vis a vis the Eucharist, because I don't have time to go through all your disputed doctrines.
There are passages that take a literal approach to the Eucharist, yes. There are passage that take a spiritual approach, yes. HOWEVER. There are NO passages, NOT ONE in all the Fathers, that *repudiate* the literal sense in favor of the spiritual.
The REPUDIATION is the problem. You find me a quotation from a Church Father that reflects the strong language of the Black Rubric of the Book of Common Prayer, where it flat out says that the worship of the host is idolatry, then we can talk. No Father says that.
But I've made a pretty thorough study of this issue, and I can tell you flat out that even the Fathers who said things like "The Eucharist is a symbol" nevertheless made clear that they believed it wasn't ONLY a symbol. So it's not just a matter of reading into it anything you want.
And I notice you did something a little cute there. You said "Why listen to someone from 350 AD"...deliberately skewing the date to one after Constantine. I cited absolutely no one that late. I cited ONLY people from about 90 to 200. Two of them, Ignatius and Clement, very likely sat at the feet of the Apostles themselves (John and Peter respectively).
Nearly two thousand years of Church teachings disagree with you.
Compare that to the 1689 Baptist Confession
Why should I care what the Baptists said sixteen and a half centuries later?
I'm not quite sure what Rome has to do with anything. But you would be correct, the Church CANNOT teach error unless Christ and Scripture both lied.
Yes, I agree that Christ is Eternal; however, I was talking about those who embrace Nestorianism. If you are unfamiliar with Nestorianism, the Wikipedia description is fairly accurate.
In fact, let's even go farther. There were many apocryphal books floating around. And many copies of Scripture that were tampered with to reflect theological positions.
So in order to trust a copy of the Scripture you were looking at, you had to *trust the person who provided it to you*. That they were not in league with heretics and got bad copies of the thing. That they would read it to you correctly.
Of course the sola scriptura position is completely untenable in this situation. Even the person who adopts it today has to perforce trust a legion of folks from his ministers/publishers/translators on.
Exactly. The author needs to have a Trail-of-blood type explanation, or else he's confronted with the strange task of accusing the entire first centuries of the Church to be heterodox.
And they must also agree that God has CRUELLY DENIED this opportunity to billions of Christians throughout history, that God effectively said to billions, "You can read the Bible and be Saved OR you can have food, clothing and shelter, your choice."
I have a lifelong love of history and my favorite period is medieval Europe and the reality is that during the Middle Ages all of Europe was under feudalism and well over 90% of the population was impoverished and this didn't begin to change until the social upheaval brought on by the Black Death in the mid-14th century. Nearly every person had to work land that they didn't own in order to earn enough to eat and live in a hut that they also didn't own. Depending on the crops, starvation was a very real concern on a daily basis. It was IMPOSSIBLE for these people to own a Bible, because even if that was their choice, they would starve before they saved the money.
Right! I have a book on medieval manuscripts somewhere....it tried to calculate how much a full Bible would have cost in the High Middle Ages. I forget most of the details, but it basically came out to about as much as a house.
Yet they had the “catechism of the poor” in those beautiful paintings and stained glass windows.
Considering Catholicism’s negative attitude to the immemorial Sinaitic Tradition and the Rabbis who preserved it, to attack Protestants for not accepting the church fathers seems hypocritical.
I mean, whoever said Catholic-bashing is the last remaining prejudice that is still socially acceptable, knows what theyre talkin about.
First of all, this article was posted by a Catholic on order to ridicule Fundamentalists. It is they who are being bashed.
Second of all, you sit there and engage in the world's largest and most invisible prejudice, a contempt of Fundamentalist chr*stians, and have the temerity to complain about anti-Catholicism as the "last acceptable prejudice!"
Thirdly, what is is it about Fundamentalism that you object to? That it believes miracles actually occurred as described in the Bible? Does this offend you? You wish to subject G-d A-mighty to the tests of "science?" Then you have no business believing in guardian angels and transubstantiation. But if you object to the American Fundamentalist ethno-culture (which is what most "anti-fundamentalism" really is), then there is little that can be done but remark that Catholicism obviously isn't as "universal" as it claims to be or it would not condemn ethno-cultures. G-d obviously didn't intend everyone in the world to be Irish, Italian, or Hispanic or He would have made them such.
Jerome followed the false teaching of asceticism, believing the state of celibacy to be spiritually superior to that of marriage, and demanding that church leaders be unmarried.
Well, there was this guy named Paul that said it was superior but what did he know?
Considering that this guy named Paul said "let your women keep silent in church" but that hasn't stopped you from becoming a lector, it seems to me that you don't think he knew what he was talking about either.