Pope Francis Warns: ‘Fundamentalism Is a Plague’

Breitbart ^ | 11/19/2019 | Thomas D Williams PH.D.

[bert]

Having declared fundamentalism to be a plague, the Pope holded his hands and declared “Hocus pocus....... Dominocus. Hominy, hominy.... hominy Grits”

[dfwgator]

I miss JPII more with each passing day.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Once again, the passive-aggressive vagueness and insinuation. Why doesn't he even define his terms?

"Fundamentalist" = a religious believer who actually believes the scriptures or doctrines of their religion?

How about Ss Peter and Paul?

How about the Chinese Communist Party?

[Hugh the Scot]

New Tagline:

[bantam]

This heretic is a stain on MY Church!!!

[Buckeye McFrog]

Aren’t Catholics tired of this clown yet ??

Yes. But our Church is structured as a dictatorship, so there is really little we can do about it, other than leave.

[Ge0ffrey]

Can the Pope please define “fundamentalism”? For example, is it fundamentalism to believe that Jesus is both man and God? That Jesus is the way, the truth and the life? That the Apostles were entrusted to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? That Christ is present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist?

[Buckeye McFrog]

I miss JPII more with each passing day.

He was an absolute colossus compared to this guy.

[dfwgator]

JPII fought Communists, Bergoglio IS a Communist.

[elpadre]

Does the Bible not mean what it proclaims??

[Kazan]

Marxist Popes are a plague.

[BipolarBob]

Francis (talking mule) “It depends on what your definition of “is” is.

[bgill]

Just HOW did he get the opportunity to be elected in the first place? Just what the hell did they do or say to Benedict to make him step-down?

That. A good man was ousted and an evil man, with the backing of so many, took his place.

This false pope is the plague. Lets see how long it takes for someone in the Church, again, tries to downplay how the Bible and Catholicism is a plague.

[Boogieman]

“there is also a lot of baloney in there”

So you believe in a God who just lets man mix baloney in with His primary relevation to the world?

“the parts that ARE the word of God as well as the parts that are NOT”

Who gets to decide which parts are and which parts aren’t? Obviously not the ecumenical councils of the past, since you’ve rejected their judgement on the matter. So, Pope You? Or is there some other expert we should turn to?

[Bishop_Malachi]

‘Fundamentalism Is a Plague’....

....not as much as Left-wing Popes.

[trebb]

In a way, I agree with him - fundamentalism revolves around “special” interpretations of the Bible, many of which are false....as far as I’m concerned, most religions are a plague on God’s Word and sinful in and of themselves.

[painter]

Aren’t Catholics tired of this clown yet ??

YES

[backwoods-engineer]

but there is also a lot of baloney in there.

One day, you will have to answer to Jesus Christ for that statement. "Baloney"? Wow.

[armydoc]

Thing is, I definitely believe it CONTAINS the word of God, but there is also a lot of baloney in there. The problem is that a lot of folks believe that once you take my position, it is just a slippery slope to throwing the whole thing out. But it’s not, if the position is taken from a position of knowledge, and the increase of said knowledge as one continues to study actually not only prevents the slippery slope, but INCREASES one’s understanding of the parts that ARE the word of God as well as the parts that are NOT.

I'm genuinely curious- how does this work, this "position of knowledge" stance when evaluating Scripture? Take the resurrection of Christ, for example. How would or could a human "position of knowledge" ever validate something like that? Seems to me that all supernatural events in Scripture, to include the resurrection would have to be deemed "baloney".

[cuban leaf]

I’ll give you an example of the “baloney”:

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/1%20Cor11%20head%20covering%20testicle.pdf

Here is another one: The writers of the new testament actually quoted, in greek word for word, the Septuagint, yet our bibles today use the Masoretic text, which was penned around 800 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus, and was based on verbal tradition (which was, BTW, a lot more accurate than people today think it was). It contains definite differences from the Septuagint. The Septuagint also conains many books that are not in the Masoretic text, nor in most english language bibles. So, my question is, by who’s authority were the books in the very book the writers of the bible were quoting for old testament references not included in our bibles today?

I’m not trying to make a case for the inclusion of those books at all. I’m simply trying to point out that the bible is not really what so many Christians today seem to dogmatically hold to. It is a collection of history books, poetry, visions, letters and, of course, the four gospels. Do all of them have equal authority? Is it possible that some of them are really just the works of men (Inspired by God), similarly to how the works of people like C. S. Lewis are the works of men (also inspired by God)?

I firmly agree that parts of the bible are DEFINITELY the word of God. Anything in red, obviously, and also anything that is claimed by the author to be the words of God. But so much of it is men simply writing their own opinions, experiences and wisdom, and from the perspective of a believer in Yahweh.

An important note: The jewish law was nod “dropped from heaven”. It was laws made up by men. I mean stuff like punishment for crimes, etc. They closely line up with the other cultures of the time and are human solutions to problems in the culture of the day. They are not Gods “official list”. His list involves the ten commandments and things like that.