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
I thought so, but it’s just too tragic to laugh about. (I thought you were laughing because I said, “surprise, surprise” in my best Gomer Pyle voice.)
Those were my thoughts when I read that also. Fasting and being starved are rather different.
Sometimes I need to laugh otherwise I’d cry.
Some crazy times we’re in and it’s even sadder that so many are blind to it.
Re-read the posts...it will come to you.
I'm assuming you don't really understand 'God within us'...
Those of us who have God in us have no need nor no desire to go chasing after your Eucharist...Plus it would be completely pointless...
And having God in you is a one time deal...We don't have to go any where for another dose...
I have used the term Fundie you are correct and Bible Thumpers as well. I will fully disclose that I have used those terms, but!, and that is the point, only in the context of a thread started by said Protestant fundies that set out to distort and misrepresent what Catholicism teaches, which is clearly laid out in the Catechism of the Catholic CHurch. It is not like the Catholic CHurch hides its Doctrine at the Institutional level. So the substance of my post remains, I have, as I said in the previous post never started a thread that attempts to explain any of the various competing Protestant groups teachings at the “Confessional or Institutional level”, i.e. I don’t try to represent what Reformed-Protestantism teaches, the Southern Baptist Convetion teaches, the United Methodist, the Pentecostals, in all their various stripes, etc, etc, etc.
So again, when I have used the term Fundie or bible-thumper, is has only been in the context of a thread started by said protestants refered to above and not, as I have stated in my previous post, and in this post, a thread started out by me that attempts to represent said Protestant groups and then after individual protestants come in and reply in a thread, I respond with fundie/bible thumper.
And for the record, Fundie does have any ethnic connotations nor does bible-thumper. Romanist, on the other hand, clearly has ethnic implications given that Rome is a city in Italy. Papist, I would concede, has no ethnic implications given that the last 3 popes are all of different ethnic background, Polish, Bavarian-German, and and Argentinian from Italian ancesty.
edit to previous post, “Fundie does not have...
Well, here is a clue. You agreed with the good doctor's remark (above) that it may be possible your organization has selected the wrong guy as "pope". Apparently, they have done so in the past. (Anti-popes?)
But, you claimed that God was still in control and everything would be hunky-dory.
I asked how you knew this, when the very organization which claimed to be infallable appointed the guy who speaks infallably ex-cathedra could not possibly make a mistake.
You said, the Bible.
I said, that must be YOPIOS because that is the same criteria believing Christians use to evaluate Rome...and we too find it wanting. You are dangerously close to being a "protestor".
Now I say, "Time to swim the Tiber the other direction...if you can."
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.