Fundamentalists (five major points of conflict with the Catholic Church)

Catholic Education ^ | Peter Kreeft

[trisham]

We can and should recognize all the common ground we have with Protestants. But if we just stop there, then they will not know that they should become Catholic. It is not enough to show that the Catholic position is coherent or reasonable. We need to address the errors in Protestantism and show that they are errors, to show that Protestants are in some sense and to some degree separated from the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church. I'm a recent convert to Catholicism who was raised Protestant, and I was around Catholics for years before one finally challenged me as to why I wasn't Catholic. Years!! Before that it was all "we're all Christians, and you're quite all right".

****************

Excellent post. You're quite right, and in a better position to argue these points than we Catholics who do not have your instruction in Protestantism.

A warm welcome to the Church.

[Mr. Lucky]

Actually, it's an important point in explaining the difference between Catholics and what Catholics think of Fundamentalists/Evangelicals.

[Bainbridge]

You might like to take your red pencil to post # 21. Obviously he is not a graduate from Chestnut Hill!

[trisham]

Actually, it's an important point in explaining the difference between Catholics and what Catholics think of Fundamentalists/Evangelicals.

**************

? I have no idea what you mean by the above.

[Bainbridge]

Perhaps that is because you do not even see what is "offensive" when it is not you being insulted.

[trisham]

Perhaps that is because you do not even see what is "offensive" when it is not you being insulted.

**************

It's clear you're trying to make a point. If you were really clever, we'd all know what it is.

[Mr. Lucky]

Do you think a believing Protestant truly supposes that the one holy catholic and apostolic church is less divine than a believing Roman Catholics does?

[Claud]

6) this “God inspired” book can’t literally be true,

You know Harley, literalism doesn't stop at John 5 and resume at John 7. Literalism doesn't weave around Peter's confession and the granting of the keys of the kingdom. Literalism doesn't turn a blind eye to "whose sins you forgive are forgiven them."

My point is that Fundamentalists and other Reformers are quite willing to explicitly reject some literal readings of Scripture when they find it hard to believe or just too darn Romish.

You can feel free to reject our interpretation of those passages, but don't you dare imply that we have a phobia of literalism when we--in the case of the Eucharist--cling to it with positively reckless abandon against the howling chorus of every Protestant, rationalist, skeptic, and materialist, and even our very senses themselves that whisper that that little piece of bread could not POSSIBLY be the Lord of Heaven and Earth.

You are on the liberal, Enlightenment side of that doctrine, my friend. And whatever literalism you can cite on your side of the scale, I'm afraid, is positively puny in comparison.

[trisham]

I'm not a Protestant. If you are, please advise us of the answer to your question.

[Bainbridge]

No, I believe it was a contrast to the first one to point out that the first one was an intentional insult. It used comparable language that you as a Roman Catholic most definitely would have taken as a provocation. You see, I replied to an offensive term, identifying it as such by offering a comparably pejorative term. For some odd reason, I can see what terms and/or ideas are offensive to both sides here. Funny, why is that? Maybe because I am trying to see how my words come across, and choose them accordingly. I am certain that the intentional offender( to whom I was responding) knew precisely how his term would be taken by his intended target. The interesting thing is that you, and perhaps other Roman Catholics did not.

[Mr. Lucky]

The answer is no.

[trisham]

I have no idea what you are talking about, since I didn't see the second deleted post, and was clearly speculating as to why it was pulled.

If you want to pick a fight with someone, please choose another Catholic.

[trisham]

Hopefully this will help all of us in the forum, Catholics & Fundamentalists, to better understand each other.

***************

"Hope" doesn't seem to be doing the job. Perhaps prayer is in order.

I have to go to the gym. I'll check back later.

[StJacques]

Well I certainly have no objection to the fervor of your religious belief A8, so I hope you did not interpret my comments as indicating that I am any less committed a Catholic. The truth is I am very committed.

I put up my critique of Kreeft's language in a post I made to NYer in response to her opening statement "Hopefully this will help all of us in the forum, Catholics & Fundamentalists, to better understand each other." And there is much in Kreeft's essay which can be used to expand a Protestant understanding of Roman Catholicism. But my reading of Kreeft is that he is speaking to a Catholic audience, rather than a Protestant Fundamentalist one, as indicated by the following quote contained in the short abstract which introduces the essay:

". . . To halt this 'soul drain,' to answer the fundamentalist challenge and, most of all, to understand our faith better . . ."

It is my opinion that a fruitful understanding of the distinctions between Roman Catholicism and Protestant Fundamentalism can be better achieved through the use of more diplomatic language addressed either to an audience irrespective of their denominational affiliation or perhaps even directly to a Protestant Fundamentalist one. This is not a piece I would recommend to the latter as one they will find easy to read and through which they can take in and absorb the teachings of Roman Catholicism because I am convinced that many Protestant Fundamentalists will be offended by the language Kreeft uses. And if you will scroll up you will see that there are non-Catholics who have already spoken to the offense they take at what Kreeft has written. This is counter-productive in my opinion.

I would relish a measured and dignified exchange of doctrinal views with any Protestant Fundamentalist, because I have no fears or hesitation to speak for my faith as a Roman Catholic. I don't think Kreeft offers us that chance.

[Bainbridge]

Not necessarily. There may even be things that you do not see. Ironically, you did not see how the pulled post was offensive yet you are now contending that cleverly worded posts are readily understood by you. Apparently that is not always true.
Should you actually be interested in what the pulled threads were, honestly interested in something other than speculation, let me know.

[Ol' Sox]

Bump for later

[wagglebee]

"Hope" doesn't seem to be doing the job. Perhaps prayer is in order.

Jesus said to him, "Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will not believe." (John 4:48)

[steve8714]

Thank you for your positive post. The Church is not any "co-redeemer". In what Catholic catechism did you find this?

[Miss Marple]

Well, it doesn't make me like his style of writing; in fact, one would think that he should be thinking about the sin of pride.

I stand by what I said. Non-Catholics reading this would not feel welcomed to the discussion.

[chesley]

I'm a Southern Baptist. Not a fundamentalist, but definitely a conservative evangelical.

He lost me on the politics parts. "Social justice" is a leftist euphemism for wholesale violations of the "thou shalt not steal" portion of the ten commandments justified and promoted by wholesale incitement to violate the "thou shalt not covet" portion.

There are lot's of Baptist and Methodist hospitals.