Skip to comments.There is something strange going on in the Vatican
Posted on 10/09/2013 8:25:55 AM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
click here to read article
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.
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.
Well, I’m gonna pop a top and open some Fritos for this discussion! SOMEBODY needs to spray their dogs with a hose, the noise is so loud I can’t hear myself think around here..
Really???, so how in the hades did you and I get into a discussion, which I don’t think we have recently and I don’t think I posted anything to you in this thread.
And for the record, I have no time to waste with one of the others that you pinged so if you have anything to say to me, say it directly and try to be less cryptic.
'I'm a Alabama protestant that has LOTS of friends who have black proddie friends. Heck, they all get along so good, they don't even mind that the confederate flag still flies over their backyard patio. I think it's because they know that there will always be "call to sinners" given, all the proddies holding hands, with everyone singing "Just As I Am" by the banks of the baptizing river out back..just as long as there aren't no catholics trying to mouth the words to the song. We ALL know they don't ever sing it at their church. NO, they're too "holy" for that song. Think they're better than us, what with the big organs and candles and all.'
That is how it sounded, to me. Like I said, I'm certain you didn't mean it that way, but..
Well, I agree with you. Can we both be right? If there is such a thing as natural law, it must apply to everyone. I think I just said things a different way.
I think you guys are misunderstanding me. Modernism would be taking that second path that I mentioned, thinking if God is within you, you must be like a god, and can therefore can do whatever you want. The right response would be to eliminate everything that is blocking the true Godly impulse.
It’s a concept that is often misunderstood, as on this thread. I can see the God in people who are not believers. When they take joy in giving to others, when they make peace between people instinctively, when they see the futility of earthly desires.
I know the difference between having Christ and not having Him. I believe Francis is talking of how to convert the world. You do it by seeing the beauty in others, not by seeing the lack of Christ. Only God can really convert people of course.
I am no longer a Catholic, by the way. I have great hopes for Francis. He is a bit unsophisticated (pace Catholics on this thread), but that can be a positive thing, sort of like the tea party. They are political amateurs but their heart is so incontrovertibly in the right place.
A friend of mine thinks Francis is Peter the Roman. Why? Because of alpha and omega, the first and the last.
See my reply #158. My “born-again Catholic” friend thinks yes.
smvoice: No you rang me first. So lets just end the phone calls here and now. 1) Alabama and MS are two of my least favorite places for the record, 2) And yes, I am sure those Black Alabama folks love that Confederate Flag?????????????? Yes, right. 3) In no sense do I think I am better than anyone at the theological level, I suffer from fallen human nature like everyone else [what historic Catholic Doctrine refers to as Original Sin].
Now just so we can end this and be 100% honest, culturally, Alabama and MS and those type places don’t agree with me to be 100% transparent so how about you and I respectfully end the phone calls here and now.
Thanks for the ping, and the response!! :)
I don't see God in everyone because not everyone has God in them.
What I see is people who are made in the image of God, for fellowship with God, who are slaves to sin and the enemy, and are in need of reconciliation with God through redemption through Christ.
And yet Francis has said that people should follow what they believe is good (as opposed to what God believes is good). How is that not making oneself a god?
Don't get out much, eh?
JN:Don't get out much, eh?
Don't read Scripture much, eh?
Hebrews 13:5 Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, I will never leave you nor forsake you.
John 14:16-17 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.
Ephesians 3:14-19 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faiththat you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
1 Corinthians 6:18-20 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
2 Corinthians 1:21-22 And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.
There is no one between you and Jesus/God ... are not true Christians.
The Pope is not “between” a person and Jesus. The implication is that Catholics are not true Christians; this is a serious judgment.
Great Post. Many Thanks.
“...false accusations and aggressive apologetics that misrepresent what someone believes...”
I am starting to find this to be true - we defend the Faith and the defense gets twisted beyond belief, often with ad hominem attacks thrown in.
This Pope has made me nervous as well since the beginning; I will join those who are fasting, watching and praying.
“Catholics may not engage in dialogue about doctrines ...
I have never seen one example of a Catholic on this forum engage in name calling and I have seen plenty of engagement on doctrine. Catholics are usually referred to derisively as “you guys”.
“...everything since Vatican II has been/is heresy...”
I’m not there yet and I’m not a sede vancantist yet, but for many years now I have been coming to the same conclusions as you are. I fear the Church is in uncharted waters Pope does make me nervous.
the Black Pope
Well he is a Jesuit after all. I was taught by Dominicans and those of us who know our Catholic History well know that the Dominicans and Jesuits in the 16th century went after each other pretty hard. The Pope had to come in and tell them to cool it.
With all due respect, sede vancantistism is not the way to go. Popes come and go by the Faith remains.
“...how, despite all the prayers, fasting and sacrifice, did God allow just one man, Hitler, to come to power and doom 50 million mem women and children...”
This is the mystery of iniquity - how does God allow evil? The answer lies in the fact the devil entered our world through original sin, and has power in the world to influence free will. The reason that man is like God is because God created him with the intellectual powers of reason and free will. Each individual man can and does have the power to choose evil.
If God didn’t allow us free will to choose evil, we would be robots and not humans.
Each individual man has the power to choose good for himself, and that is where fasting comes in. Fasting in solidarity with Christ’s fasting (the 40 days in the desert, for example), helps us to remain close to Christ and and like Him, reject the devil.
The devil has influence over this world and is it very easy for humans to fall into his and the demons’ power.
One could make the argument that the fasting allowed the Allies to win in the end, so the western world is not speaking German.
“.. sede vacantism is not the way to go...”
I do realize this and appreciate your advice. It becomes harder for me as I see the disasters of the novus ordo and Vatican II play out - very bad fruit abounds. There is a piusV church community with 45 minutes from me and I have been tempted to join and haven’t. Our local novus ordo is dreadful. The priest add libs the eucharistic prayers and omits the creed, for starters. However, I do have a Latin mass and other options that have not rejected the pope’s authority and I won’t take that extreme step, but I understand why some do.
No, the claim that Catholics are the only “true Christians” is what is wrong and totally unbiblical and violates everything Jesus came to Earth for.
No, the claim that Catholics are the only ‘true Christians’ ...”
No, Catholics aren’t Christians? This didn’t answer the question. Catholics don’t claim they are the only true Christians. Catholics do posses the fullness of truth. The two statements aren’t the same thing.
Does the no mean that Catholics aren’t Christians?
No I don't...I stay at home studying what God wrote to us so I can know what he says about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and Christians...
Perhaps you should stay home more often...
Don’t rule out sedevacantism until you have done your own complete research. Most folks who stick their nose up at it really don’t know much about it at all. It is a scary route to take for sure, but we are in scary times. Even though I come off as a sedevacantist myself I still wrestle with it, but I can accept it much easier than accepting a heretical pope or more. It makes much more sense to me to conclude that the chair is currently empty than obeying a heretical pope (and the heretical teachings that flowed from VII).
In the end, it’s not as easy as saying “it’s not the way to go”.
Because the word *you* can mean singular or plural. It's not derision. It's clarification.
If one doesn't clarify, the the Catholic to which one is speaking starts spamming the abuse button, complaining to the RM that some non-Catholic is *making it personal*. By saying *you guys* or y'all*, it denotes plurality, Catholicism as a group rather than making it personal.
If Catholics didn't have such a thin skin that they flip over some perceived slight, then it wouldn't be an issue.
Thank you for saving me the time.
0811, what he said......
Sure. Never happens. Ever. It's all my imagination. Or I suppose I'm lying because I'm so mean.[/sarcasm]
But meanwhile, "you guys" is a nasty ethnic slur. Suuuuuure it is.[/sarcasm]
Your organization calls that "your own personal interpretation of Scripture". It is normally used to denigrate those who identify errors with Rome's doctrines. In this case, you have joined with the believers in Christ, alone and questioned Rome.
An Ignatian, huh? De Lubac, Von Balthasar, Von Speyr? That explains it.
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 dont. It is just I dont 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.....
We're not talking about "the theology of Genesis." We're also not talking about whatever is going on now in the fully-created world. We're talking about the veracity of the Genesis narrative and the historicity of the events described.
:Sigh: I know from past experience that you won't understand this, but I'll try for the hundred millionth time anyway.
Just pretend (humor me, please) that some scientist came to you and said that J*sus was not born of a virgin because such a thing is scientifically impossible. Now I hope you will agree that it is fully within the province of science to tell us how babies are conceived and come into the world. So . . . are you going to roll over and say "all right; that's science, so I guess it didn't really happen, but I still believe in the theology of the virgin birth narratives."
Are you going to say that?
No you are not. You are going to become, just for the moment, an "illiterate, inbred trailer park redneck" and insist that G-d can do anything and that this was a "miracle," and the Holy Mother Church teaches this (your version of "Bobble sez!") and that's good enough for you, and you feel sorry for him because he doesn't have the "gift of faith."
Now come on, admit it. That's exactly what you'd say.
Now, what is the difference in my belief in the literal veracity of the stories narrated in the first eleven chapters of Genesis and your belief in the scientifically-impossible virgin birth because your Church or your "new testament" teach it? What is the difference . . . huh? Why is it so foreign to you to consider the possibility that just as the chrstian "gxd" allegedly "intervened" to bring about a pregnancy without the participation of a human male, even so (lehavdil!) G-d created everything from nothing in six days in a purely supernatural manner, after which the laws of nature became fully operational?
Really, what is the difference? Is Genesis 1-11 somehow metaphysically "more impossible" than any other miracle/supernatural phenomenon? Just what is Catholics' deal here? I've never seen any theistic evolutionist Catholic try to find any purely natural means used by the chrstian "gxd" to bring about the "virginal conception" (such as in vitro fertilization or something). Really, what is the difference? Why not be satisfied with "gxd" using purely natural means to bring this about just as you do with the creation story, or the rest of Genesis 1-11?
I'll bet you don't even see the irony. Your mind is just so locked into the possibility of the supernatural and miracles when it comes to the "new testament" and equally locked into naturalism when it comes to the "old."
Well prepare to learn a lesson, because I'm going to tell you exactly why Catholics will insist on one scientific impossibility while denying another (after all, it's a "scientific impossibility," isn't it?). You don't even have to thank me.
It's sociological. Yep. That's it right there. Bluntly, the "virgin birth" inspired the intellectuals of the Middle Ages and the "glories of chrstendom" whereas the miracles of Genesis are the "trailer park miracles." And for that reason alone you can't even consider the possibility that they may be just as literal as all the other miracles you believe in supposedly are. "Virgin birth=Thomism; Genesis=trailer trash. And you aren't trailer trash, are you? Never mind that the "virgin birth" and the "resurrection" and the "loaves and fishes" and "walking on water" are all scientifically impossible; indeed, not one whit less so than the world being supernaturally created in six days.
Think that's not true? Go to any Catholic forum. Any attacks on evolution or affirmations of Genesis are greeted with cries of "that's Protestant!!!!!" No argument. No logic. No reasoning. Just "that's Protestant!" Now what does that tell you?
Before closing, one incontrovertible fact: whatever else you may think of what I have said, it is undeniable that the fathers of Trent were literalist creationists. The Catholic Church of that era taught creationism. The contemporary Catholic Church rejects creationism. The Catholic teaching on creation has changed. Truth in advertising, dude.
I am starting to find this to be true - we defend the Faith and the defense gets twisted beyond belief, often with ad hominem attacks thrown in.
There is no twisting of anything...Your accusations are baseless...We get our information from your religion...
Wishing to restrain and to dispel the violent hurricane of evils which, as We lament from the bottom of Our heart, are everywhere afflicting the Church, Mary desires to transform Our sadness into joy. The foundation of all Our confidence, as you know well, Venerable Brethren, is found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. For, God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.
This comes from the top dog of your religion...Not only is this cyclical a theological lie, it clearly is the position of your religion that without going thru Mary, there is no salvation, for anyone...
Maybe it’s true. After all, all those threads that look like swiss cheese due to deleted comments, are the ones with the name calling by Catholics.
Since the RM pulled those comments, it’s possible that someone did not see them.
An interesting encyclical is “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio,” by Pope Paul IV, 1559. It deals with “what happens when a Pope or any other person in authority is a heretic?” It basically says that by virtue of their heresy they have no authority and anything they say or do is null and void, even if they have been elected to the office and have been installed. Since it is possible to have a man be elected Pope and have everything he says and does be null and void, it is possible that the Chair could be “vacant” without being vacant. Of course, the Encyclical goes on to say that he should be removed from his post, but it doesn’t say how or by whom. Evidently, the possiblity was presented that the Pope could be a heretic, but it wasn’t seriously considered, because there is no resulting explanation of how to enforce it - especially if all the Cardinals are heretics, too (which I don’t believe is the case in the Church today). I believe there are a handful of Cardinals left who believe as the pre-VII Church believed, and they are the leaders of the Remnant. I doubt that they look at themselves that way, but I do.
I have not read that encyclical....thank you for the rec.
Why not? Why couldn't or wouldn't God intervene? In that case, Jesus never came. He never died for the forgiveness of our sins. He never sent the Holy Spirit. He never commanded us to pray for the things we need, as in the Lord's prayer.
If you don't believe in a God who intervenes, you don't believe in the God of the Bible.
But what I'm still waiting for, is metmom's proof to her claim that fasting works.
There are plenty of examples of prayer and fasting in the OT. Jesus Himself fasted for 40 days in the wilderness.
I have seen people get saved as a result of people fasting. There are three people who I prayed and fasted for personally who accepted Christ.
I haven’t witnessed it but have avoided the religious threads because of their general vitriolic tone until recently, so I msut be wrong.
In any case, all ought to try to stick to the arguments and avoid ad hominem attacks and mean spirited generalizing.
“...We get our accusations from your religion...”
Please state which encyclical this is found in, it seems like a distortion. No Pope would state that we obtain everything through Mary.
well I don’t question Rome’s doctrines
I freely admit I consider the new Pope to be a bit of a loose cannon
I do accept the Virgin Birth, to deny it would make one unorthodox in terms of Christology and not Christian. It is a tenant of the Faith. No Church Council in the early Church has ever taught “Creationism or Evolution.” When the Church makes statements about Science, it is outside of its sphere so to speak. The Church has the authority to speak about Faith questions, not scientific questions, although a many a great Catholic Priests and Theologians were great Scientist.
De Lubac and Von Balthasar are modern theologians. If you mean Ignatius of Antioch, yes, he would indeed be Patristic. So by Patristic, I am talking about the Church Fathers in the Western-Roman-Latin Church till the time of St. Isidore of Seville [died circa 636 AD] and in the Byzantine-Greek-Eastern Church, till the time of St. John Damascene [died 749 AD]. So my primary mode of reading Sacred Scripture is to read it in the context of the Church Fathers in the periods prior to the dates above, which of course would include the Councils of Nicea 325AD, Constantinople 381 AD, Ephesus 431AD and CHalcedon 451AD.
The Historical Critical Method has the benefit of looking at recent manuscript findings, i.e. Dead Sea Scrolls and some of the NT fragments that were found in the last 100 or so years as well as using archeological findings that can help us better understand aspects of the time of CHrist and the Apostles. However, in no context do I take the Historical scholarship and use it for primary commentary on the OT and NT.
So not trying to be flippant, but by Patristic I am referring to the Church Fathers and the theological writings from that period as my primary mode of reading Sacred Scripture.
Not generalizing. I have references showing the vitriol spewed by many Roman Catholics.
4. (encyclical on the rosary) Begins:
But since the salvation of our race was accomplished by the mystery of the cross...
Without reading the entirety of #4, isolating this excerpt of #4 causes it to be misunderstood because it is out of context. When reading all of #4 it becomes clear that the Pope is referring to Mary’s free will assent at the aunnuncation to be the mother of God.
“Mary is the intermediary through whom is distributed unto to us this immense treasury of mercies gathered by God.”
The Pope is simply highlightling the FACT that because Mary said yes, she became the interim intermediary (i.e., she formed Him in her womb, kept Him safe during infancy and toddlerhood, so he He could grow up and do His work of redemption. Without Mary’s yes, Jesus wouldn’t be here; that is why Mary’s function is intermediary.
The Pope is not saying that Mary actually DOES/DID the salvific work that ONLY Jesus could accomplish: rather, if Mary hadn’t said Yes, Jesus wouldn’t have been incarnated at all, and she made it possible, and we thank her for it.