Are you a fundamentalist?

[Counterpoint]

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.

Does the Church teach the story of Adam and Eve is a literal, historical narrative, or a just a mythological story?

Does the Church teach that Noah’s flood is a literal, historical fact, or just a mythical fabrication?

Does the Church teach that the Exodus story is a literal, historical fact, or just a mythological story?

What about Jonah and the whale? What about the battle of Jericho? The virgin birth of Jesus? The resurrection of Jesus?

 

[polytropos]

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

Are you a fundamentalist?

By that definition, yes. (Though the term “fundamentalism” loses all of its cultural significance if the “set of basic principles” is not specified.)

Who is not a fundamentalist? A proponent of scientism is a fundamentalist, by this definition.

 

[Counterpoint]

By that definition, yes. (Though the term “fundamentalism” loses all of its cultural significance if the “set of basic principles” is not specified.)

Who is not a fundamentalist? A proponent of scientism is a fundamentalist, by this definition.

Agreed. There are “secular fudnamentalists” as well as “religious fundamentalists.” And both groups are prone to fanaticism. (History has proven this.)

 

[polytropos]

Agreed. There are “secular fudnamentalists” as well as “religious fundamentalists.” And both groups are prone to fanaticism. (History has proven this.)

Who would you consider not to be a fundamentalist?

Thomists often stress that there are first principles (ie. of metaphysics). Descartes’ philosophical project was to find some certain article of knowledge on which he could base the rest of his knowledge. Wittgenstein believed that even if we could not justify our basic beliefs, everyone operated within a “language game” that could not be justified, but of which we would regard it as absurd to step outside (ie. the person who doubts that the world existed before he was born). I doubt even the empiricists could be excused (take Hume’s fork, for instance, which is not itself a “relation of ideas” or “matter of fact,” and so would have to be a sort of basic unassailable principle, if it is anything).

Maybe these are all just issues of degree and what counts as “strict and literal adherence”?

 

[Counterpoint]

Who would you consider not to be a fundamentalist?

Anyone who does not adhere to a strict ideology (religious, political, or otherwise).

 

[JRKH]

It should be self-evident.

I really dislike such comments…
When a person asks a civil and direct question, it would be nice for them to get a civil and direct answer. Otherwise people can be prone to get suspicious of motives and it hinders the flow of conversation.

Just thought I’d mention this…

Peace
James

 

[Counterpoint]

I really dislike such comments…
When a person asks a civil and direct question, it would be nice for them to get a civil and direct answer. Otherwise people can be prone to get suspicious of motives and it hinders the flow of conversation.

Just thought I’d mention this…

Peace
James

The subject matter of this thread is fundamentalism. The purpose of this thread is to discuss fundamentalism.

 

[tonyrey]

Your definition of fundamentalism on this forum is idiosyncratic because it is generally associated with:

A form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture.

• Oxford Dictionary

The interpretation of fundamentalism as “a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles” applies to materialism, positivism, empiricism, relativism, subjectivism, hedonism, scepticism and nihilism inter alia.

 

[LongingSoul]

Or, maybe they’re just not fundamentalists.

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

Paul makes a distinction in 2 Corinthians 3 4-6… Such confidence we have through Christ before God. Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

It is not the adherence to the law that makes one or the other… but whether the spirit of the law is received and acknowledged. Perfect adherence to the letter only, kills. Only the *spirit *of the law gives life in Christ.

 

[robwar]

Your definition of fundamentalism on this forum is idiosyncratic because it is generally associated with:

• Oxford Dictionary

The interpretation of fundamentalism as “a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles” applies to materialism, positivism, empiricism, relativism, subjectivism, hedonism, scepticism and nihilism inter alia.

and atheism, communism and a whole host of other ideas and religions. The point is a bogus argument. The same type of cut and paste definitions could be used with radical. Are Catholics radical? Well, the adjective meaning of the word is “to the root”. the noun meaning of the word is extremism. Op’s use of using the second definition over the first which applies to a particular Protestant movement as well as some Islamic groups and the use of the second broad based definition is a mute point indeed.

 

[edwest2]

I don’t see the purpose of this post. God told us that we must do what He told us to do.

This seems political to me. And divisive. Do we examine each of our fellow Catholics to determine their pigeon hole? Fundamentalist, traditionalist, modernist, conservative, liberal?

We are all one body in Christ. Sound Church teaching about what we ought to do is what we need.

biblehub.com/matthew/7-20.htm

biblehub.com/matthew/7-21.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[tonyrey]

and atheism, communism and a whole host of other ideas and religions. The point is a bogus argument. The same type of cut and paste definitions could be used with radical. Are Catholics radical? Well, the adjective meaning of the word is “to the root”. the noun meaning of the word is extremism. Op’s use of using the second definition over the first which applies to a particular Protestant movement as well as some Islamic groups and the use of the second broad based definition is a mute point indeed.

It amounts to a false dilemma: are basic principles necessary?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Atoms are fundamental. I believe in their existence. So yes, I’m a fundamentalist!

 

[Counterpoint]

The interpretation of fundamentalism as “a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles” applies to materialism, positivism, empiricism, relativism, subjectivism, hedonism, scepticism and nihilism inter alia.

That interpretation also implies to any religion.

 

[Counterpoint]

I don’t see the purpose of this post.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss fundamentalism. I thought that was obvious.

 

[Counterpoint]

It amounts to a false dilemma: are basic principles necessary?

Does Catholicism hold that the Bible is inspired and inerrant?

Does Catholicism teach the virgin birth of Jesus?

Does Catholicism teach that Christ’s death was the atonement for sin?

Does Catholicism teach the bodily resurrection of Jesus?

Does Catholicism teach the historical reality of the miracles of Jesus?

If we can answer in the affirmative to all these questions (which I believe we can), then Catholicism qualifies as fundamentalist Christianity as the term was first employed.

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)

 

[davidv]

Does Catholicism hold that the Bible is inspired and inerrant?

Does Catholicism teach the virgin birth of Jesus?

Does Catholicism teach that Christ’s death was the atonement for sin?

Does Catholicism teach the bodily resurrection of Jesus?

Does Catholicism teach the historical reality of the miracles of Jesus?

If we can answer in the affirmative to all these questions (which I believe we can), then Catholicism qualifies as fundamentalist Christianity as the term was first employed.

Having things in common does not mean equality.

Also, it seems that you are now using a different definition of fundamentalism from that of the OP.

 

[JRKH]

I think that these types of conversations are a bit of a minefield.
It’s like when someone asks if you are a “traditional” Catholic…my answer is yes…because I follow (as best I can) the teaching of the Church and that is “traditionally” what a Catholic does.
Of course the term “Traditional Catholic” has a somewhat different connotation in some circles today.

Similarly the term “Fundamentalist” can carry this same sort of dual image.

Yes - I am pretty fundamental in my beliefs as a Catholic. Does that make me a “Fundamentalist” in the modern connotation(s) of the word?



Peace
James

 

[tonyrey]

Does Catholicism hold that the Bible is inspired and inerrant?

Does Catholicism teach the virgin birth of Jesus?

Does Catholicism teach that Christ’s death was the atonement for sin?

Does Catholicism teach the bodily resurrection of Jesus?

Does Catholicism teach the historical reality of the miracles of Jesus?

If we can answer in the affirmative to all these questions (which I believe we can), then Catholicism qualifies as fundamentalist Christianity as the term was first employed.

You have evaded my question:

Are basic principles necessary? Do you have any fundamental principles?

The term “fundamentalist” has a variety of meanings. Nowadays it is associated with belief in the strict, literal interpretation of the Old Testament which is certainly not held by the Catholic Church:

375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”.250

390 The account of the fall in *Genesis *3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264

The Bible is inspired but it does not follow that every statement is literally true.

 

[tonyrey]

The interpretation of fundamentalism as “a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles” applies to materialism, positivism, empiricism, relativism, subjectivism, hedonism, scepticism and nihilism inter alia

Indeed. It applies to any internally consistent ideology. Whether it corresponds to reality is another matter.