"Catholicism and Fundamentalism" (Karl Keating) as a framework?

[Peter_J]

Thanks.

 

[andrewstx]

For Peter’s dad.

Our Father who art in the heavens.
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.

Amen.

 

[andrewstx]

In Orthodoxy the most shrill and blatant attacks come from insignificant, small bodies that are not in mainstream Orthodoxy. Old calendar radicals like ROCOR.

I yearn for reunion as equal churches, but not submission. :yup::byzsoc:

 

[Peter_J]

Thanks.

In Orthodoxy the most shrill and blatant attacks come from insignificant, small bodies that are not in mainstream Orthodoxy. Old calendar radicals like ROCOR.

Before we go on, can you clarify: Do you mean that those are the most shrill out of all the attacks the Orthodox get, or just out of intra-Orthodox attacks?

 

[andrewstx]

Sorry. I meant Orthodox attacks on western Catholics. They are pretty rare, and often come from Old calendar Orthodox and converts from Baptists and other former fundamentalists.

Many people who change from one church to another often have baggage.

 

[Peter_J]

Sorry. I meant Orthodox attacks on western Catholics.

Ah yes, I see.

They are pretty rare, and often come from Old calendar Orthodox and converts from Baptists and other former fundamentalists.

Many people who change from one church to another often have baggage.

Yes. Likewise, a lot of anti-Orthodox Catholics used to be Baptist etc too.

 

[Estevao]

That’s a great book. I was caught up in a cultish Christian denomination when I went to the local protestant bookstore, asked if they had any catholic books, and found it waaaayyy in the back in the used section. Pretty soon I was coming back to the Catholic Church.

I think the “framework” of such a book is useful for people who are honestly seeking the truth of the matter. However what you encounter on the internet these days in people who are just looking for any kind of justification of their defense mechanisms against God and his church, and are not honestly seeking the truth in an objective and open-minded manner. This is why proof-texting is very popular amongst internet atheists and supposed philosophers like Sam Harris (one of the so-called new atheists). If you read any of his books which address Christianity, it is nothing but proof-texting. Apparently these sorts of folks were sleeping through their middle and high school English classes and forgot how to use the most basic tools of literary interpretation and instead look at the bible…well like Fundamentalists do.

So just like a committed protestant fundamentalist can read that book and learn nothing, so too can today’s typical internet atheist, most likely an angry teenager posting from his mom’s basement, learn nothing from a book or text with the same framework as Keating’s book.

 

[commenter]

The original topic of the thread was whether the book is relevant for Protestantism in general, not just fundamentalists. Where I live there seems to be fewer of the hard core, doctrinal fundamentalists Mr. Keating described. The fastest growing group is the “non-denominational” churches. They don’t attack Catholic doctrine, and they don’t affirm much evangelical doctrine. They draw many, including Catholics, simply by being friendly. They offer some of the consolations of Christianity with hardly any conversion, just be yourself, be nice to others, build community.

I suspect they pull out 10 times as many Catholics as the Fundamentalists in my city. At least with fundamentalists there is something solid there. Even those who are anti-Catholic at least realize there is something significant going on here, that should be either opposed or is someday embraced. When they convert, they are fervent. Debating non-denoms is like trying to staple Jello to the wall. Today’s non-denom is likely to be devout anything tomorrow.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi all. I haven’t had too much time to spend on this thread (I’m aware that I haven’t yet posted the “list” that I said I would), but for now I just want to reiterate my question from a couple days ago, in case anyone wants to respond who hasn’t already …

I’m wondering whether you protestants have found the same thing, i.e. that the most blatant, shrill attacks against you are not necessarily the most serious attacks?

 

[robwar]

The original topic of the thread was whether the book is relevant for Protestantism in general, not just fundamentalists. Where I live there seems to be fewer of the hard core, doctrinal fundamentalists Mr. Keating described. The fastest growing group is the “non-denominational” churches. They don’t attack Catholic doctrine, and they don’t affirm much evangelical doctrine. They draw many, including Catholics, simply by being friendly. They offer some of the consolations of Christianity with hardly any conversion, just be yourself, be nice to others, build community.

I suspect they pull out 10 times as many Catholics as the Fundamentalists in my city. At least with fundamentalists there is something solid there. Even those who are anti-Catholic at least realize there is something significant going on here, that should be either opposed or is someday embraced. When they convert, they are fervent. Debating non-denoms is like trying to staple Jello to the wall. Today’s non-denom is likely to be devout anything tomorrow.

I think there is a lot of good insight in your post about non-denominational which is the new catch all of Protestantism and it greatly depends on which one you go to. Many of them are charismatic and depending on where the pastor and his leadership went to seminary will determine the theology of the church. The same is true with what “ministry” many of the the congregation follow such as word of faith teachers etc. My sister and her husband go to a “community” church which is more fundamentalist so not all non-denominational Christians are charismatics. I keeping with the topic of Karl’s book. I think he was directing it at Lorraine Bottner’s book and that book whether someone agrees with all or parts does have a wide influence beyond fundamentalist circles. Plus there is just a lot of misinformation and understanding about the Catholic Church that many people think or believe even if they might not consider themselves anti-Catholic at all. Karl’s book also goes into the development of doctrine and how to understand that.

 

[robwar]

Hi all. I haven’t had too much time to spend on this thread (I’m aware that I haven’t yet posted the “list” that I said I would), but for now I just want to reiterate my question from a couple days ago, in case anyone wants to respond who hasn’t already …

I’m wondering whether you protestants have found the same thing, i.e. that the most blatant, shrill attacks against you are not necessarily the most serious attacks?

I remember that when I was a Protestant bouncing around, I found the best critics of Protestants are other Protestants. I’m not sure of the most shrill attacks are the less serious. Usually there is a competition on who is the most “biblical” or authentic to the Act’s Church and then the argue goes from there.