Are you a fundamentalist?

[Counterpoint]

Merriam-Webster defines “fundamentalism” as “a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles.”

Are you a fundamentalist?

 

[LongingSoul]

Fundamentalists tend to identify as God rather than as subjects of God. They experience an exaggerated sense of power and a limited empathy with their fellow man. The heresy they embody is that of rejecting the dogma of the ‘Communion of Saints’. They experience themselves as the elite or the ‘elect’, chosen and marked as Gods own and superior.

 

[Counterpoint]

Fundamentalists tend to identify as God rather than as subjects of God. They experience an exaggerated sense of power and a limited empathy with their fellow man. The heresy they embody is that of rejecting the dogma of the ‘Communion of Saints’. They experience themselves as the elite or the ‘elect’, chosen and marked as Gods own and superior.

Given the broader definition of the term I furnished in the original post, I believe strict adherence to Catholicism would qualify as a form of fundamentalism.

 

[robwar]

Given the broader definition of the term I furnished in the original post, I believe strict adherence to Catholicism would qualify as a form of fundamentalism.

You are ignoring the first definition and only focusing on the broader second definition. The frist one is a subgroup of Protestantism that has a very narrow strict literalist interpretation of the Bible. Based on the first and most used definition, Catholics are not fundamentalists at all. The second definition does not trump the first definition.

 

[LongingSoul]

Given the broader definition of the term I furnished in the original post, I believe strict adherence to Catholicism would qualify as a form of fundamentalism.

That’s not true. Fundamentalism is marked by its adherence to the letter of the law over respecting the spirit of the law. The ‘strict adherence’ to any principle life can be lived by is a positive and necessary quality in itself though.

 

[robwar]

Fundamentalists tend to identify as God rather than as subjects of God. They experience an exaggerated sense of power and a limited empathy with their fellow man. The heresy they embody is that of rejecting the dogma of the ‘Communion of Saints’. They experience themselves as the elite or the ‘elect’, chosen and marked as Gods own and superior.

It would be better when talking about fundamentalists or any other religious group is to stick to what they believe and not fall into the trap of generalizations and platitudes which are just negative characterizations. Would you like it if Catholics were called a bunch of drunks and partiers? I’ve seen that generalization used on Catholics. My oldest sister and her husband might fall in the fundamentalist category, my brother-in-law is even a deacon. They are not like this at all. I’m not defending what they believe but many of them do take their faith very seriously, much more so than many Catholics do and they try to live moral upright lives.

 

[Counterpoint]

That’s not true. Fundamentalism is marked by its adherence to the letter of the law over respecting the spirit of the law. The ‘strict adherence’ to any principle life can be lived by is a positive and necessary quality in itself though.

Does Catholicism stress “strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles?” I believe it does.

 

[Pitcharan]

When we attempt to abide (keep the Law) by our own effort without seeking God’s help, we become fundamentalists.

 

[Counterpoint]

You are ignoring the first definition and only focusing on the broader second definition. The frist one is a subgroup of Protestantism that has a very narrow strict literalist interpretation of the Bible. Based on the first and most used definition, Catholics are not fundamentalists at all. The second definition does not trump the first definition.

But Catholicism does qualify as a form of fundamentalism based on the broader definition. And I would also argue that it meets Wikipedia’s definition of the term. (The only difference between Protestant fundamentalism and Catholic fundamentalism is a disagreement on some of the fundamentals.)

“Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to orthodox theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology.[1]” (source: Wikipedia: Fundamentalism)

 

[Counterpoint]

Do Catholics accept the “five fundamentals”?

The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which distilled these into what became known as the “five fundamentals”:[8]

• Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this

• Virgin birth of Jesus

• Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin

• Bodily resurrection of Jesus

• Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

(source: Wikipedia: Fundamentalism)

 

[LongingSoul]

It would be better when talking about fundamentalists or any other religious group is to stick to what they believe and not fall into the trap of generalizations and platitudes which are just negative characterizations. Would you like it if Catholics were called a bunch of drunks and partiers? I’ve seen that generalization used on Catholics. My oldest sister and her husband might fall in the fundamentalist category, my brother-in-law is even a deacon. They are not like this at all. I’m not defending what they believe but many of them do take their faith very seriously, much more so than many Catholics do and they try to live moral upright lives.

Ok, I did some research on Catholic Answers and found a teaching tract regarding fundamentalism. I didn’t realise it had a specific meaning in the US as being a Protestant movement. In Australia, we regard fundamentalism as a particular type of approach to any discipline whether it be religion (Christian, Muslim), politics, environmental, or even dietary fundamentalism or parenting fundamentalism. People themselves wouldn’t consider themselves a fundamentalist anything… but that term is used to describe a certain type of rigidity and exclusivity that marks a stark divide between themselves and the mainstream of the discipline.

catholic.com/tracts/fundamentalism

 

[Counterpoint]

In Australia, we regard fundamentalism as a particular type of approach to any discipline whether it be religion (Christian, Muslim), politics, environmental, or even dietary fundamentalism or parenting fundamentalism.

That’s the broader definition.

People themselves wouldn’t consider themselves a fundamentalist anything… but that term is used to describe a certain type of rigidity and exclusivity that marks a stark divide between themselves and the mainstream of the discipline.

I agree that term is basically understood as a pejorative. But I would still argue that Catholicism qualifies as a form of fundamentalism. That being said, most Catholics are not fundamentalists because most Catholics do not adhere to all the teachings of the Church.

 

[tm21]

I would propose that one common aspect of Christian fundamentalists is that they always interpret Scripture in the literal sense. Hence, they would always interpret Genesis as an account of the creation of the universe in 7 literal days. Catholic doctrine, although believing that Scripture is inerrant and that the literal sense must be considered first, would propose that there may be legitimate allegorical (for example) interpretations of particular Scripture passages. So in the example of Genesis, the Catholic Church is open to the possibility that the 7 days of creation may was not 7 literal days.
Therefore it would not be accurate to categorize Catholicism as fundamentalist if the term is to have any meaning.

 

[LongingSoul]

That’s the broader definition.

I agree that term is basically understood as a pejorative. But I would still argue that Catholicism qualifies as a form of fundamentalism. That being said, most Catholics are not fundamentalists because most Catholics do not adhere to all the teachings of the Church.

Adhering to principles is not what signifies a fundamentalist. Fundamentalists esteem the letter of the law over the spirit of the law. Catholics who ignore Church teaching are just bad Catholics.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Fundamentalists tend to identify as God rather than as subjects of God. They experience an exaggerated sense of power and a limited empathy with their fellow man. The heresy they embody is that of rejecting the dogma of the ‘Communion of Saints’. They experience themselves as the elite or the ‘elect’, chosen and marked as Gods own and superior.

Oh? Really?

 

[Neofight]

Merriam-Webster defines “fundamentalism” as “a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles.”

Are you a fundamentalist?

Just out of curiosity what is the purpose of the post?

 

[SpidersfromMars]

Fundamentalists tend to identify as God rather than as subjects of God. They experience an exaggerated sense of power and a limited empathy with their fellow man. The heresy they embody is that of rejecting the dogma of the ‘Communion of Saints’. They experience themselves as the elite or the ‘elect’, chosen and marked as Gods own and superior.

But arguably, doesn’t everyone who follows the tenets of their religion closely believe they have a decent shot at heaven - at least better than those who do not? If that’s what you mean by seeing themselves as ‘elect’.

When it comes to Saints, I think it’s more that Fundamentalists believe everyone who makes it to heaven is by definition a Saint.

 

[LongingSoul]

But arguably, doesn’t everyone who follows the tenets of their religion closely believe they have a decent shot at heaven - at least better than those who do not? If that’s what you mean by seeing themselves as ‘elect’.

There’s a big difference between being filled with hope and being filled with certainty. As Catholics our obedience is our cooperation in our salvation through the grace of God. That fills us with hope, not eternal certainty.

Counterpoint nominated the broad meaning of the term fundamentalist rather than specifically Protestant fundamentalists so to demonstrate that, any practicioner could focus on following the letter of the rule book, esteeming it as the highest authority… whereas a practicioner might alternately embrace the spirit of the rules and be joined in spirit to the authors lives and to all those past, present and future who’ve been given the rules to follow.

Say a chef who follows the letter of the recipe does not really cooperate in the orginal creation of that recipe. He can only feel pride in his strict adherence to the recipe. Alternately a chef applying the recipe in the context of the diners needs is facilitating the diners relationship to the original creators love of feeding others.

Fundamentalists give the letter of the recipe highest esteem rather than the spirit.

When it comes to Saints, I think it’s more that Fundamentalists believe everyone who makes it to heaven is by definition a Saint.

Aside from the official Saints, none of us can know who is in heaven. The ‘communion of saints’ on the other hand are all those gone before us, those alive today and those who are to come. We are all made one by Jesus sacrifice.

 

[Counterpoint]

Just out of curiosity what is the purpose of the post?

It should be self-evident.

 

[Counterpoint]

Adhering to principles is not what signifies a fundamentalist. Fundamentalists esteem the letter of the law over the spirit of the law. Catholics who ignore Church teaching are just bad Catholics.

Or, maybe they’re just not fundamentalists.

Does Catholicism “demand for a strict adherence to orthodox theological doctrines?”