Skip to comments.Fundamentalists (five major points of conflict with Catholicism)
Posted on 01/03/2010 1:53:57 PM PST by NYer
We neednt be bitter in defending our beliefs. Even though many fundamentalists think the Catholic Church is under the control of Satan and all or most Catholics are headed for hell, not all think that and we shouldnt think the same of them.
However narrow-minded their faith often is, its also usually genuine, both in personal sincerity and in basic Christian orthodoxy. Fundamentalism is not some flaky non-Christian sect like New Agers or Moonies. The things on which Catholics and fundamentalists agree are more important than the things on which we disagree, even though the latter are very important, too.
Since the source for every fundamentalists faith is the Bible, we begin there. Fundamentalists will always settle an argument by appealing to the Scriptures. But what do they believe about the Bible? We cant understand them unless we first understand their deep devotion to Scripture as their absolute.
We all need a final, unimpeachable court of last resort beyond which no appeal can go. Most of the modem world is a spiritual shambles because it has no absolute. More, we need a concrete and not just an abstract absolute. A mere ideal, like the good, the true and the beautiful or the idea of God, wont do. If God is to be our absolute, He must touch us where we are.
Fundamentalists and Catholics agree that this point of contact is Christ. We also agree that the Bible is a divinely inspired, infallible and authoritative means for us to know Christ. But we disagree about other means, especially the Church and its relation to the Bible. Fundamentalists take Scripture out of the context of the historical Church that wrote it, canonized it, preserved it and now teaches and interprets it. To Catholics, thats like taking a baby out of the context of its mother.
It is a fault, of course, to ignore Mother Church. But it is a virtue to love Baby Bible, a virtue we should respect and imitate. We can love other things too little, but we cant love the Bible too much. We can love it wrongly. But we are not wrong to love it.
Seven things fundamentalists believe about the Bible are that it is (1) supernatural, (2) inspired, (3) infallible, (4) sufficient, (5) authoritative, (6) literal, and (7) practical. Catholics believe these things too but differently.
(1) Fundamentalists stress Scriptures divine, supernatural origin: It is the Word of God, not just the words of men. The primary author of all its books is the same God; thats why its one book, not just many. Orthodox Catholics agree, of course. But fundamentalists are usually reluctant to emphasize or even admit the human side of the Bibles authorship. Their view of Scripture, which is the Word of God in the words of men, is like the old Docetist heresy about Christ: to affirm the divine nature at the expense of the human.
When someone calls attention to human features like the great difference in style between Genesis 1-3 and Genesis 12-50, or between First and Second Isaiah, thereby concluding joint authorship, or St. Pauls personal psychological problems and hard edges (e.g., 1 Cor. 7:6-9, 25-26; Gal. 5:12), they automatically think: liberalism, Modernism! They fail to see that its an ever greater miracle for God to have authored the Bible without effacing the human authors.
(2) This brings us to a second area. Fundamentalists believe the Bible was inspired (in-breathed) by God, but they often think of this process the way a Moslem believes Allah dictated the Koran to Mohammed word for word. Fundamentalists believe in plenary (total) and verbal [word-for-word] inspiration.
However, we dont even have the original autographs of any of the books of the Bible, so were not absolutely sure what the exact words were. There were some minor errors in copying, for the earliest texts we have dont totally agree with each other though theres 99 percent verbal agreement among different manuscripts, far more than for any other ancient writings.
Sometimes you even find fundamentalists claiming divine inspiration for the King James version! The serious motive behind this foolish idea is to hold the line against Modernism even in translation. For many modern translations of the Bible are not translations at all but interpretations or paraphrases using the dubious principle of dynamic equivalence i.e., the translator imagines what the writer would have written if hed written modern English, rather than translating the actual words he did write. The fundamentalists concern for word-for-word fidelity, though extreme, seems less mistaken than the revisionists fast-and-loose guesses.
(3) Fundamentalists resort to this to guard the infallibility of the Bible. Again theyre fighting a battle against the Modernist, who demythologizes and thus dismisses (dismyths) any passage that makes him uncomfortable (e.g., those that teach miracles or an absolute moral law).
Catholics agree that Scripture is infallible, or free from error, but not necessarily grammatical, mathematical, or scientific error, only error in its message.
For example, when a biblical poet speaks of the four corners of the earth hes reflecting the common ancient Hebrew belief that the earth is flat; yet his point is not the shape of the earth hut the glory of God.
(4) The crucial difference between fundamentalists and Catholics concerns the sufficiency of Scripture, Luthers principle of sola scriptura. The fundamentalists insists he needs no Church to interpret Scripture, for he contends that (a) Scripture is clear, or that (b) it interprets itself, or that (c) the Holy Spirit interprets it directly to him.
All three substitutes for the Church are easily shown to be inadequate: (a) Scripture is not clear, as it itself admits (2 Pet. 3:15-16). After all, if its so clear, why are there 500 different Protestant denominations, each claiming to be faithful to Scripture? (b) Nor does Scripture interpret itself, except on occasion, when a New Testament author quotes or refers to an Old Testament passage, (c) Finally, heretics all claim the Holy Spirits guidance, too. To rely on a private, personal criterion has been perilous and divisive throughout history.
The strongest argument for the need for an infallible Church to guarantee an infallible Bible is the fact that the Church (the disciples) wrote the Bible and (their successors) defined it by listing the canon of books to be included in it. Common sense tell you that you cant get more from less; You cant get an infallible effect from a fallible cause. Thats like getting blood out of a stone.
Catholics agree with fundamentalists that Scripture is sufficient in that it contains everything necessary to know for salvation. If this were not so, Protestants couldnt be saved! Catholics also agree with fundamentalists that Scripture provides the foundation for all subsequent dogmas and creeds. But fundamentalists insist that all dogmas must be present explicitly in Scripture, while Catholics see Scripture as a seed or young plant: The fullness of Catholic dogma is the flowering of the original revelation.
(5) As for the Bibles authority, orthodox Catholics agree with fundamentalists that its authority is absolute and unimpeachable. Where we disagree is whether the Bible is the only authority and whether it can maintain its proper authority without an authoritative Church to preserve and interpret it. Many Protestant denominations began in an authoritative fundamentalism and slid into a most unauthoritative Modernism.
(6) The weakest plank in the fundamentalists platform is surely his insistence on a literal interpretation of everything in the Bible or almost everything. Even fundamentalists cannot take Jesus parables or metaphors like I am the door literally Fundamentalists specialize in literal interpretation of the beginning and end of the Bible, Genesis and Revelation, thus opening evolutionistic and eschatological cans of worms. Though Genesis itself suggests some sort of evolution (1:20a; 24a; 2:7a), its a dirty word for fundamentalists. And though Jesus Himself does not know when the world will end (Matt. 24:36), fundamentalists love to make rash predictions all of them wrong.
Here the fundamentalist makes the same mistake as the Modernist: confusing objective interpretation with personal belief, interpreting Scripture in light of his own beliefs rather than those of the authors. The literary style of Genesis 1-3 and Revelation are clearly symbolic, just as the miracle stories are clearly literal. Fundamentalist and Modernist alike fail to remove their colored glasses when they read.
Fundamentalists also confuse literalness with authority, fearing that if you interpret a passage nonliterally, you remove its authority. But this isnt so; one can make an authoritative point in symbolic language, e.g. about the power (the strong right hand) of God.
One passage no fundamentalist ever interprets literally, however, is This is my Body. The fundamentalist suddenly turns as symbolic as a Modernist when it comes to the Eucharist.
(7) Finally, the greatest strength of fundamentalism comes not from theory but from practice. Fundamentalist biblical principles are weak, but fundamentalist practice of Bible reading, studying, believing and devotion is very strong. And this is the primary point of the Bible, after all: See Matt. 7:2427.
Even here, though, theres some confusion. Interpreting it literally, they sometimes apply it literally where not appropriate (e.g., Mark 16:18 as backing snake handling). However, few apply Matthew 19:21 literally, like St. Francis.
All in all, a tissue of strengths and weaknesses thats how fundamentalist beliefs about the Bible appear. Whats needed above all, then, is discernment, so we both learn from the good and avoid the bad. We must neither mirror their closed-mindedness nor become so open-minded that our brains spill out.
No matter how sincerely and passionately fundamentalists believe, what they believe is less than the fullness of the ancient, orthodox deposit of faith delivered to the saints. If we had half their passion for our great creed that they have for their small one, we could win the world.
Who's in authority here?
All the beliefs that divide Catholics from fundamentalists are derived from the teaching authority of the Church.
Because Catholics believe in the Church, they believe a fuller, more complex and mysterious set of things than the narrowed down fundamentalist. Thus, the Church is the essential point of divergence.
In the fundamentalist view, the Catholic Church exalts itself over the Bible, adding to Gods Word: It is man arrogating to himself the right to speak in Gods name.
But for Catholics, the fundamentalist puts the Bible in place of the Church as his paper pope. Instead of a living teacher (the Church) with a book (the Bible), the fundamentalist has only a book.
Fundamentalists believe that the Bible authorizes the Church. They accept a Church only because its in the Bible. Catholics, on the other hand, believe the Bible because the Church teaches it, canonized it (i.e., defined its books) and authored it (the disciples wrote the New Testament).
Last week we looked at the fundamentalist idea of the Bible and contrasted it with the Catholic view. Now we must do the same with fundamentalist notions of the Church.
The most important point here is that the fundamentalist view is a new one while the Catholic view is an old one. The Catholic Church and its claims have been around for more than 19 centuries, fundamentalism for less than one. The historical argument for the Catholic Church is thus very strong. Fundamentalists have to believe that the early Christian Church went very wrong (i.e., Catholic) very early, and went right (i.e., fundamentalist) very late. In other words, the Holy Spirit must have been asleep for 19 centuries in between.
Fundamentalists usually know very little about Church history. They dont know how many Catholic doctrines can be traced back to the early Fathers of the Church e.g., that appeals to the Bishop of Rome to definitively settle disputes throughout the rest of the Church occur as early as turn of the first Century; or that the Mass, not Bible preaching, was the central act of worship in all the earliest descriptions of the Christian community.
Five key differences between fundamentalists and Catholics center on the Churchs (1) nature, (2) mystery,(3) authority, (4) structure and (5) end.
undamentalists agree with Catholics that the Church was founded by God, not just by men. For a fundamentalist the Church is not just a religious social club, as it is for a modernist. But while fundamentalists see that God commanded the Churchs beginning, they do not see that He still dwells in it intimately, as a soul lives in its body and as He lives in faithful souls. For a fundamentalist, the Churchs origin is divine but its nature is human.
Fundamentalists see the Church in the opposite way from which they see the Bible. They affirm the divine identity of Scripture and minimize or ignore the human side of its authorship. But they stress the human side of the Church and ignore its divine side. In other words, theyre Docetists about the Bible and Arians about the Church. (Docetism was an early heresy that denied Christs human nature; Arianism denied His divine nature.) Catholicism alone has consistently affirmed the mystery of the two natures both of Christ, and of the Church and Bible.
Fundamentalists often accuse Catholics of the error of the Pharisees and love to quote Mark 7:7-8, Jesus rebuke to the Pharisees for teaching as divine doctrines mere human traditions. The Pope and bishops are men, after all, and fundamentalists bristle at the thought of ascribing to these humans a divine authority. But theyre inconsistent, for they ascribe to the human writers of the Bible a divine authority, and (of course) they ascribe to Christ a divine authority, though He was also human. So the principle that God can and does speak through human authorities is a principle based on Christ and Scripture.
Maybe the simplest way to see the difference is this: Fundamentalists see the Church as mans gift (of worship) to God, while Catholics see it as Gods gift (of salvation) to man. For fundamentalists, were saved as individuals and then join in a kind of ecclesiastical chorus to sing our thanks back to God. For Catholics, we are saved precisely by being incorporated into the Church, Christs mystical Body, as Noah and his family were saved by being put into the ark. (Many of the Church Fathers use the ark as a symbol for the Church.)
Its as if to extend the metaphor fundamentalists prefer to be saved by clinging to individual life preservers, then tying them together for fellowship.
To Catholics, the Church is the mystical Body of Christ. The Church is a mystery. Fundamentalists dont understand this category. Mystery sounds suspiciously pagan to them. They want their religion to be clear and simple (as Moslems do). Theyll admit, of course, that Gods ways are not our ways and often appear mysterious to us. But they dont want their Church to be mysterious, like God, because they dont think of it as an extension of God but as an extension of man.
In other words, they think of mystery as mere darkness or puzzlement. But in Catholic theology its a positive thing: hidden light, hidden wisdom.
Fundamentalists say that they emphasize the Church invisible more than the Church visible and accuse Catholics of overemphasizing the latter. Fundamentalists draw a sharp distinction between these two dimensions of the Church so that they can explain Scriptures strong statements about the Church as applying only to the Church invisible (the number of saved souls, known to God) and not to the visible Church on earth.
Why? Because if they referred such statements to the visible Church, the claims of the Catholic Church to be that single, worldwide, visible Church stretching back in history to Christ, still forgiving sins and exercising teaching authority in His name well, these claims would surely seem more likely to be true of the Catholic Church than of any other visible Church.
Fundamentalists also have a very individualistic notion of the Church. The Catholic sense of a single great worldwide organism, a real thing, is not there. The Eastern Orthodox Church usually has an even more powerful sense of the mystery and splendor of the Church than most modern Western Catholics do. Theyre east of Rome spiritually as well as geographically i.e., more mystical. Fundamentalists are west of Rome much too American.
A third difference concerns the authority of the Church. This follows from the previous point: Fundamentalists lack the Catholic vision of the Church as a great mystical entity, an invisible divine society present simultaneously in heaven and on earth, linking heaven and earth as closely as mans soul and body are linked. And lacking this vision, authority can only mean power, especially political power. Thus, fundamentalists sometimes sound like their archenemies, the modernists, when it comes to criticizing the authoritarianism and political power of Rome. For both fundamentalists and modernists lack the Catholic understanding of the Church and its authority as much more than political.
Yet fundamentalists tend to be quite authoritarian themselves on a personal level e.g., in their families. They are more willing than most people to both command and to obey authority, if its biblical. The issue that divides us is not authority as such but where it is to be found: Church or Bible only?
The structure of the Christian community also divides us. Fundamentalists usually criticize the hierarchical Church. This is often more a matter of politics than of religion, sometimes stemming from American egalitarianism rather than religious conviction. But when it is a matter of religious conviction, such criticism usually takes one of these three forms:
First, fundamentalists charge that Catholics worship the Church and the hierarchy, especially the Pope. Theres a fear of idolatry coupled with a fear of the papacy mixed up here, a confusion between sound principle (anti-idolatry) and a gross misunderstanding of facts. While Ive met many Catholics who love the Pope and (unfortunately) some who hate him, Ive never met or heard of anyone who worships him!
Second, the hierarchy is suspected of corruption just because its a hierarchy: It is structurally, culturally, un-American. (So is the hierarchy of angels un-American. But that doesnt mean its corrupt.) Of course, 500 years ago there was some truth to this charge, but fundamentalists are still fighting Luthers battle.
Third, theres often an unadmitted racial prejudice against Italian Popes. Some people, when they hear Italian, immediately think mafia and Machiavelli. This element is rarely admitted, but it definitely plays a part in anti-papal prejudice.
Beyond these irrational criticisms, Ive never come across any solid theological argument against the papacy. The current Pope has done much to temper fundamentalist fears by his holy personality, wise words and strong opposition to abortion and to the excesses of some contemporary theologians.
Finally, fundamentalists and Catholics have different visions of the end or task of the Church. For fundamentalists, that task is only two things: edification of the saved and evangelization of the unsaved. For the Catholic, these two ends are essential, but there are also two others.
First, Catholics also emphasize the Churchs this-worldly tasks social justice and the corporal works of mercy such as building hospitals and feeding the poor. Fundamentalists say the Church shouldnt get involved in politics (though many of them are thoroughly politicized on the far right). And when did you last see a fundamentalist hospital.
Second, theres a still more ultimate goal. Evangelization, edification and social service are ultimately only means to this greater end in the Catholic vision. The Church is there for the world, yes (the first three ends), but in a more ultimate sense the world is there for the Church, for her eternal glory and perfection.
The Churchs ultimate task is to glorify God, to be the Bride of Christ. The world is, in the long run, only the raw material out of which God makes the Church. In fact, the universe was created for the sake of the Church! Gods aim from Day One was to perfect His Bride, to share His glory eternally.
When we speak of this eternal glory we have in mind first of all the Church as invisible, as mystical; but theres a substantial unity between the Church invisible and the Church visible, between the Church as inner organism and the Church as outer organization, between its soul and body, as there is between mans soul and body.
You can see this mystical thing, as you can see a man. The most holy thing you can see on earth has its seat in Rome, its heart in bread and wine on the altar and its fingers as close as your neighbor.
It isnt that fundamentalists explicitly deny this Catholic vision of the Church; they just dont comprehend it. They may have things to teach us about being on fire with religious zeal, but we have much to teach them about the fireplace.
A fireplace without a fire is cold and gloomy. But a fire without a fireplace is catastrophic.
The need for sacraments
Four elements stand out in the traditional Catholic doctrine of what a sacrament is. Fundamentalism is suspicious of all four. A sacrament is a sign that effects what it signifies, instituted by Christ to give grace.
First, sacraments are signs and symbols. Fundamentalism is temperamentally wary of symbolism. It has a plain, no-nonsense mentality. Symbols are too poetic for its hardheaded mind to grasp, whether in Scripture or in sacrament.
Second, sacraments effect what they signify. Theyre both signs and things. They thus overcome the either-or that plagues Scripture scholarship, the assumption that any given passage must be either interpreted literally or symbolically, not (as in Aquinas) both.
Yet according to Aquinas, since God is the author of history, historical events can signify as well as effect. For example, the parting of the Red Sea both effected salvation from Egypt for Israel and also signified salvation from sin and death through Christ. Fundamentalists resist symbolism in considering historical events, and resist real presence and effects when considering sacramental signs. This is my body they interpret as wholly symbolic, merely symbolic; yet most of the rest of Scripture they see as not symbolic at all.
Third, sacraments were instituted by Christ. Fundamentalists agree, but limit sacraments to Baptism and the Eucharist (which they call The Lords Supper). But the question immediately arises: How do you know whether a sacrament has been instituted by Christ or not? How do you know He didnt intend foot-washing to be a sacrament? (See John 13:1-15.) How do you know how many sacraments He instituted? You need His Church to teach you, to define and sort out the sacraments. (This was not done explicitly for all seven sacraments until the 11th century.
Fourth, sacraments give grace. They work. In fact, they work ex opere operato, out of themselves rather than out of and caused by the subjective dispositions of the recipient. Theyre like physical food: Spinach gives you iron because of what spinach is, not because of what you are. Sacramental grace is real, objective, ontological.
This last feature is the thing fundamentalists object to most. It seems like magic to them. We hear three basic criticisms about sacraments from fundamentalists: It seems to them that Catholic doctrine is magic, externalism and pagan superstition.
First, fundamentalists misunderstand ex opere operato. To say sacraments are like magic in one way (objective, not subjective) is not to say they are like magic in other ways. Magic is impersonal and automatic, but sacraments are like gifts. They come from the giver (God), not the receiver (us), but they must be freely accepted in order to be received.
Fundamentalists often use arguments like this: According to Catholic doctrine, if the water in Baptism fails to touch the forehead of the baby, by some accident, then if the baby dies it goes to hell or limbo, not heaven; and if a man about to confess a mortal sin is run over by a truck on his way to confession, he goes to hell rather than purgatory or purgatory rather than heaven; now isnt that ridiculous? (Fundamentalists also usually misunderstand purgatory, by the way; they think it is eternal rather than temporary.)
Fundamentalists already have, in their theology of salvation, the principle for understanding sacramental grace. Salvation is a gift of God (objective) yet it must be freely accepted by man (subjective) in order to work.
In Catholic theology the baptism of desire brings the same grace that water baptism brings, and a sincere intention to confess counts in the eyes of God just as a confession itself does.
Not only must there be the subjective element of desire and choice and intention added to the objective element of the matter of the sacrament, but if the objective matter of the sacrament is unavoidably absent, the subjective intention alone can make up for it. Fundamentalists do not know this about Catholic theology. Thats mainly because nearly all fundamentalists rely on a single, badly misinformed book by Lorraine Boettner for their anti-Catholic criticisms rather than reading the official Catholic documents.
A second criticism is that Catholic sacraments direct attention outward to externals and distract attention from the heart and spirit, which are where God is to be found. Fundamentalists always see a tension, even a contradiction, between sacramentalism and personal piety. It seems to them that the more sacramental a religion is, the less pious its believers are; and the more personal piety a religion has, the less sacramental it is.
There are several replies to this. First, God deliberately made sacraments external to free us from ingrown eyeballs and subjectivism. The fact that the sacrament is external to us aids devotion because it takes us out of ourselves; it makes us trust in God.
Second, sacraments aid devotion by being a test of faith. We believe not because of appearance, or evidence, or experience, or feeling, or reasoning, but simply by divine authority. As Thomas Aquinas so beautifully put it in his hymn to the Eucharistic Christ:
Sight, taste and touch in Thee are each deceived; The ear alone most safely is believed I believe all the Son of God has spoken; Than Truths own word there is no truer token.
Third, external sacraments overcome our materialistic tendency to think of everything real outside our own consciousness as matter, to think of spirit as subjective and matter as objective, thereby making God subjective rather than objective. (If you know Descartes, youll see how very modern fundamentalism is. It buys into the fundamental modern dualism of Descartes matter or spirit.)
A third fundamentalist objection to Catholic sacramentalism is that it is really pagan superstition. It is naturalistic and grants too much spiritual power to matter like the pagans, who thought trees housed nymphs and storms were raised up by gods. Fundamentalists often accuse Catholics of softening the Creator-creature distinction by raising subhuman creatures (water, bread, wine) up to have divine powers in the sacraments.
The Catholic reply is that paganism is profoundly right here in its basic intuition (though not, of course, in its idolatrous details). Matter is much more than moderns (including fundamentalists) think it is. Catholics have not only sacraments but a whole sacramental worldview. Thats why they build cathedrals.
Its instructive to watch fundamentalists in a Gothic cathedral. They usually look uncomfortable and guilty, as if it were sinful to beautify matter so much and to enjoy material beauty so deeply. At best, they look wistful and envious. They wonder why they dont build cathedrals. The answer is that cathedrals were built not to house Catholics but to house the Eucharist.
The ultimate answer to fundamentalists criticism of the sacraments is Christ. If its impious or impossible for matter to be raised to such heights of power in sacraments, what was it raised to in Christ? Why not criticize the creeds doctrine of Christ as too pagan and superstitious? Is it naturalism to bring God down to man and matter? Is it too superstitious, too supernaturalistic an attitude to take toward matter to think it can be raised to the level of being the very body of God incarnate? Is it too low for God to be man and too high for man to be God? Is it too low for spirit to be joined to matter and too high for matter to be joined to spirit in a human being who is both body and soul?
Just before Christ instituted the Eucharist, according to Johns Gospel, He washed His disciples feet. The Incarnation itself was like Atlas stooping to raise the whole world to heaven on his shoulders. Christs death and burial were the supreme example of this divine lowering for the sake of human raising. Thats just the way God is; sacraments show His amazing humility. Its unintentional pride, even a kind of snobbery of the spirit, for fundamentalists to feel sacraments are too pagan, too naturalistic, too material.
I vividly remember how hard it was for me to overcome that feeling after my own conversion. My mind had accepted the whole of Catholic doctrine, but sacramentalism was the one thing my Protestant instincts had the most trouble digesting. The thought that this wafer of bread was really Gods body was just too staggering for me.
But not for God. He stoops to conquer. And we must stoop to be conquered. The greatest saint is like a baby bird opening its mouth for its mother to fill it. Catholics are feasted by Mother Church. Fundamentalists choose to diet.
Praying with the saints
One good way of understanding my belief is to ask: What differences does it make? Devotion to saints makes at least seven important differences to Catholics. In each case, fundamentalists find Catholicism too mystical for their tastes.
First, saints make a difference to our prayer. Were not alone when we pray. Were surrounded by saints. If there was any one experience that brought me aboard the Barque of Peter, it was realizing that as I prayed I wasnt alone, but was joined by Peter and Paul, Augustine and Aquinas and the whole company of angels and saints on that great Ark.
But fundamentalists think Catholics pray to saints as we pray to God, rather than just asking saints to pray for us to God. That would be idolatry, of course. Theres a major misunderstanding here that comes from the change of meaning in the word pray. Pray used to mean request; now it usually means only worship.
The only possible reason for fundamentalists objecting to this practice, since they too ask each other to pray for one another, would be if they knew that the saints, the blessed dead in heaven, dont hear or care about us. In other words, they implicitly claim to know that death separates the Church on earth from the Church in heaven spiritually as well as physically, so that prayers can no longer get across the barrier of death.
This is because they dont have the Catholic vision of the Church as Christs Mystical Body. They admit that the Church is Christs, and that it is His Body, because these notions are explicitly taught in Scripture. But they balk at the mystical part. Not that the invisibility of the saints is the problem that would be the materialists objection. No, fundamentalists believe in the invisible (God, souls, heaven), but this doctrine is not just about something invisible but something mystical. Mysticism seems to them (as one wag put it) to begin in mist, center in I, and end in schism.
Saints make a difference, secondly, to death. Death does not divide us. The Church Militant (on earth), the Church Suffering (in purgatory) and the Church Truimphant (in heaven) is one Church. Again, this is too mystical an ecclesiology for fundamentalists. Though Hebrews 12:1 says we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses(RSV), fundamentalists interpret these not as living saints in heaven watching us, but as dead martyrs on earth in the past who surround us only in our memories. (The same Greek word means martyr and witness.)
A Presbyterian writer told the story of how after his father died, when he was 12, he prayed for his father, as was his custom, before going to bed. His mother heard him and rebuked him: Son, you must not do that any more. We are not Catholics. He said he felt as if his mother had just clanged shut a great iron door in his face; as if his fathers physical death had not been so horribly final as this spiritual isolation.
The human spirit cries out against this apparent triumph of death over presence. The French Catholic philosopher Gabriel Marcel called death the test of presence. If presence is soul-to-soul and not just body-to-body, then death, in removing the body, does not remove presence.
Saints make a difference, third, to the nature of the Church. The Church is not just what we can see (the Church Visible). It is also not just the Church Invisible in the sense of the number of redeemed souls on earth. It is a single spiritual organism with a cosmic unity spanning heaven, earth and purgatory. Once again, its the mystical quality of Catholic doctrine that fundamentalists fear. Its too scarily big for them.
Fourth, saints make a difference to what community means. To include the saints in our present Church community is to have a mystical view of community, not just a political, psychological and sociological view. This means that we are each others arms and feet, and each other includes the dead as well as the living. The human spiritual family is so strong that it is just as much a family when death makes its links invisible as when life makes them visible. The mystical here again frightens fundamentalists.
Fifth, saints make a difference to heroism. Ours is the first society in history without heroes unless we still have the saints. Fundamentalists can sometimes be quite heroic themselves in their personal lives, but theyre typically American in their suspicion of hero-worship as too aristocratic, hierarchical and mystical. They prefer plain, butter-and-eggs people whom they can see and feel comfortable with rather than extraordinary, superior, invisible heroes of the past. (Fundamentalists also tend to ignore the past, since their denominations are all so recent.)
Sixth, saints make a difference to hope. Anyone can be a saint. It is everyones purpose and vocation. The most mediocre of us is called to heroic sanctity. This hope is a high and exalted one; but the fundamentalist, though hoping for heaven, hopes merely to get there, to get saved (justified). The Catholic hope also involves being perfected (sanctified). vFinally, saints make a difference to meaning. They give us the meaning of life, the purpose of our existence. This is sanctification. For fundamentalists, Jesus is called Savior because He saves us from hell, i.e., from the punishment of sin. For Catholics, He is called Savior because He shall save His people from their sins.
Now, except on the one issue of praying to saints, most of the differences between us are matters of emphasis or sensibility rather than doctrine. But when it comes to Mary, the greatest saint, doctrine sharply divides. Fundamentalists call Mariology Mariolatry. Passions run higher on this than on any other issue.
Yet here too theres a difference in sensibility behind the dispute. Fundamentalists would be much more open to the Marian doctrines (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption) if they understood the motives behind devotion to Mary.
What motivates Catholic Marian devotion is something even more than her physical privilege of being the Mother of God, incredible dignity though that was. It was her spiritual excellence, her perfect modeling of sainthood. We can distinguish seven related aspects of Marys sanctity and contrast them with fundamentalisms opposite emphasis.
First, Mary is hidden, almost invisible. She kept all these things and pondered them in her heart. Like John the Baptist, Mary disappears before Christ. (Thats why Christ called John the Baptist the greatest of all the prophets (Matt. 11:11) because his whole program was that He must increase, but I must decrease (John 3:30). Mary is greatest because she is smallest. Fundamentalists object that Mary gets in the way of Christ. In fact, it is the exact opposite. She is like the morning air to the rising sun (the Rising Son!).
Second, Mary is humble, modest, withdrawn, almost Oriental compared to the typically American brashness and aggressiveness of most fundamentalists.
Third, Mary is silent. Fundamentalists talk a lot. Their religion centers on words in a book, not sacramental mysteries in a church. Ecclesiastes advises, God is in heaven and you upon earth; therefore let your words be few.(Eccl. 5:3) This is Jesus attitude too; have you ever noticed how short His prayers and speeches are? Fundamentalists preach hour-long sermons. Mary knows more about love than that. Love seeks silence. Mary must have read Ecclesiastes; for example her prayer to Christ at Cana was simply, They have no wine. And her directions to the servers (and to us) were simply Do whatever He tells you (John 2:3,5).
Fourth, Mary is womanly, a model woman Blessed art thou among women Mary is the alternative to both chauvinism and feminism, counterpointing the heat and hate of both. Like Christ, she is new wine; she transcends our categories and expectations.
Fifth, Mary is willing. Her fiat (Let it be done to me according to your word (Luke 1:38) is the blindingly simple secret of all sanctity: the eagerness to say yes to her divine lovers will. Fundamentalists are no better and no worse at that than any other Christians. Saints, by definition, are better at that, for that is precisely sanctity.
Sixth, Mary is simple. There is nothing more, nothing added to this one simple thing, this purity (oneness) of heart. More would be less. Fundamentalists rarely show this simplicity. (For that matter, neither do most Catholics.)
Seventh, Mary is heroic. She is worthy of hyperdulia, the highest human respect. Fundamentalists think we give her latria, the adoration proper to God alone. They do not usually even give her dulia, the respect due to rare human excellence in sanctity. (For as noted above, they tend to be suspicious of superiority as un-American.)
The effect of Mary and the saints on our character and devotion is even more important than their effect on our belief. Without the saints, our devotion would be much more humdrum and unheroic (like fundamentalism). Without Mary, our sanctity would be one-sidedly masculine, spiritually male. Mary actualizes our anima, the feminine function of the soul. Fundamentalists tend to be spiritually over-masculine; verbal, aggressive, obvious, non-mystical.
Another effect Mary has on our devotion is that through Mary, matter is made sacred. God entered matter through a mother! Fundamentalists believe this but do not feel it. Their spirituality emphasizes the inward, the subjective. They tend to ignore matter and concentrate on spirit.
Fundamentalism must come to terms with the fullness of the Incarnation and the sacramentalization of matter and of Mary if they hope to understand Catholicism and thats a very large step for them to take.
But many have taken it. Many Catholic converts came from fundamentalism. For fundamentalists often feel a sacramental vacuum in their religion. Recently, there have been many conversions from Catholicism to fundamentalism for the same reason: Many Catholics feel a spiritual vacuum because many Catholic priests and teachers are robbing the laity of clear, strong doctrine and morality in the name of the so-called spirit of Vatican II.
In both cases, the needs of the heart demand to be filled. Only the fullness of the Catholic faith can do that. Modernism, Catholic or non-Catholic, cannot do that; neither can fundamentalism.
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?
“fundamentalists think the Catholic Church is under the control of Satan”
I don’t know if this is true. Maybe I’m just uninformed but I didn’t think fundamentalists were so anti-Catholic. Do they hate Pope John Paul II and his work against Communism and other evils?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
“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.
Two problems with this statement:
1 - It's ludicrous to suggest that "the church" sits in authority on the Bible. Without the Bible, nobody would have the slightest clue what "the church" even is. there wouldn't even BE a "church" without the Bible to define and establish it.
2. Roman Catholicism is the product of a great deal of late theological development, primarily taking place between the 3rd and 6th centuries, long after the Bible was already completed.
Neither one of you took the time to actually read the thread. Why? Too long? Too intricate?
For those Catholics, like myself, who have been in this forum for many years, it is very frustrating to post a thread, ping a Catholic list for discussion, and have non-Catholics post comments or statements that challenge our beliefs. Worse still are those who don't take the time to read through the thread but feel compelled to make a statement or comment, "for what it's worth".
I posted this thread in a sincere attempt to quantify those differences that separate our mutual understandings. I welcome input from Evangelicals, Fundamentalists and other non-Catholic christians, as a means of discussion, not critique. If this topic is of interest to you, then please post a comment, accordingly. We Catholics are all tired of Catholic bashing threads. These are un-christian and serve no purpose whatsoever.
Unfortunately I've learned that it isn't just "fundamentalists." I was quite naive about the extent of animosity towards Catholics and the Church but FR has taught me a lot over the years.
Well, I’ll tell ya, if you’re going to start off by insinuating first that I didn’t read the thread, then talk down to me by asking if it was too long or too intricate you get nowhere with me. Perhaps a little less condescension might help you.
How about an apology for the mystery fish every Friday for school lunch ?
It's right there in the above article. :-)
Be careful with that statement. Although it is not widely known in our Western world, the Catholic Church is actually a communion of Churches. According to the Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, the Catholic Church is understood to be "a corporate body of Churches," united with the Pope of Rome, who serves as the guardian of unity (LG, no. 23). At present there are 22 Churches that comprise the Catholic Church. The new Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, uses the phrase "autonomous ritual Churches" to describe these various Churches (canon 112). Each Church has its own hierarchy, spirituality, and theological perspective. Because of the particularities of history, there is only one Western Catholic Church, while there are 21 Eastern Catholic Churches. The Western Church, known officially as the Latin (Roman) Church, is the largest of the Catholic Churches.
Most Catholics think that Vatican II did away with the requirement of not eating meat on any Friday of the year. Most think it is now just Ash Wednesday and the Fridays of Lent that we cannot eat meat.
This is what the new Code of Canon Law brought out in 1983 says about the matter:
Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.
Canon Law still requires that Catholics not eat meat on Fridays! Mystery fish or otherwise.
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.
What do you think is wrong?
Or are fundamentalists wrong?
I think the bottom line for any discussion is how one views the Bible. All I know is that when I was drowning in sin and misery, God made His presence real to me, and for the first time in my life, as I read a chapter in my Bible, God spoke to me through His Word. For the first time in my life, I knew God had changed something inside of me. That was nearly 40 years ago. Through all those years, the truth that God speaks through His Word, has proved itself over and over through the darkest days of life, and the best.
So, when the author of this article refers to God’s Word as a “paper pope,” what is there to discuss?
Just as Jesus called Lazarus, who had been in the tomb three days, out of the grave, He can change the hearts of sinful people, and speak to them from His Word. Miracle of Miracles!
Kreeft is an excellent writer. I concur with his observations.
As a convert to Catholicism (was raised in the Church of Christ), I’m so thankful God allowed me to attend my very 1st Mass 4+ years ago. I am thankful for the Sacraments Christ has given to us that we might receive Grace.
God is Good. The Holy Spirit leads the Church through the Magesterium and Jesus died for our sins.
It’s neither complicated nor confusing once you let go of your fears & resentments & most importantly, IMO, the selfish need to be “right”.
The problem with the Catholic church in terms of infallibility is that they tie the ‘infallible church’ to one denomination rather than the Church Universal, which is the true church made up of all believers in the true living God, through all times and that spans across all denominations and the OT saints.
I scanned the article and hit all the highlights. They are basically points that I have seen made many times. I generally agree with the points made in the article, except for the overall idea that theologically we will be able to maintain common ground with fundamentalists.
Fundamentalists will never see eye-to-eye with Catholics. It is unfortunate, but that is the way I see it. Many if not most fundamentalists don't consider Catholics to be Christians. Catholics don't understand the level of suspicion and even hatred that many protestants have for the church. It is something that they are taught in Sunday school/bible study. Everyone knows about the Catholic church. We have a long history with billions of adherents. Catholics on-the-other-hand are too busy with their own religion to spend time discussing the multitude of protestant religions. There are over 20,000 various protestant denominations in the US. Whenever a protestant doesn't like his/her denomination, it is very easy to move on to another. We Catholics love the church and could walk away even if we get stuck with a crummy pastor.
I never knew there was so much anger and hatred towards the Catholic church until I went away to school and then suddenly I was on the receiving end of it. I was expected to defend the church at any given moment. We could be out drinking, having a good time and as soon as religion was the topic, suddenly guys started throwing Jack Chick quotes at me left and right. I was surprised by it all. I think I handled it OK, but I wasn't prepared and the only people I had any affect on were those in my immediate social circle.
The best that we can hope for is to provide support for each other on the many social issues where we share common ground.
I agree, the "necessary to know" makes it work.
Sounds like FR! Why are you not on my Catholic ping list? We need freepers like you who understand the experience and can respond. Please freepmail me!
I find your post very condescending on a number of levels.
By all means, please list them!
The early Church had no Christian Bible. This is very much a case of the Church came before the Bible not the other way around.
There are not that many infalliable dogmas. Of which are you speaking? Please be specific.
Hopefully we can keep saying “Welcome home!” to some of these other people too.
Meanwhile — “Welcome Home a little late.” Blessings for the New Year too.
The author is pointing out that according to the Bible Itself, the Church is the "pillar of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), not the Bible. Private interpretation of the Bible is not condoned in Scripture (2 Peter 1:20). He is also noting that there cannot be more than one interpretation of the Bible. The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth.
Erroneus statement. The Church existed long before the NT Scripture existed. There were hundreds of NT books, each with hundreds of different versions that had to be sorted and winnowed. There is also evidence that the Church deliberately edited existing Scripture, and put names to books that were not correct. Hebrews and 2 Peter (and possibly 1 Peter) come to mind. The Canon of the NT did not exist until nearly 4 centuries after Christ. The Church existed from the moment of Pentecost.
2. Roman Catholicism is the product of a great deal of late theological development, primarily taking place between the 3rd and 6th centuries, long after the Bible was already completed.
Most of the development work was before 400 AD.
Well then, give an intelligent rebuttal
About 15 years ago I attended a Mehodist Sunday Service.
During the service, the Paster told the congregation that Catholics worship multible gods.
I bit my tounge and waited until after the service to speak with the pastor.
Explained that while we honor saints we only worship God.
The Living Word of God is Jesus, not a book. The writer is correct. If one worships a book, then any translational or editional error (whether by accident or on purpose), results in doctrinal changes. When one defers to the Church, then the message of Scripture will supersede any accidental or deliberate changes in Scripture.
What is “soul drain”??
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.
This little online book should clear up a lot of things for you, not just about Catholics.
&**post very condescending on a number of levels**
Exactly what is condescending?
Please let us know.
By all means, list them.
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.
According to the information posted at the link, the book was: First published as a pamphlet in 1853--greatly expanded in 1858
Which necessitates a reminder to all on the history of their respective churches.
I was quite naive about the extent of animosity towards Catholics and the Church but FR has taught me a lot over the years.
Sadly, that has been my experience, as well. It has been a rude awakening.