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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_J
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pnewton said:
Yes. The arguments rebutted is comprehensive and includes those used by many non-fundamentalists. Great book. One of a half-dozen that lead to me being Catholic. I thank my FIL for sending me a copy.
Click to expand...
👍 I did not realize you were a convert. 🙂
 
andrewstx said:
I have owned this book only a short time and have only gotten 1/4 of the way into it. But even in that short time I have noted that so far the Fundamentalist detractors never seem to reference Catholic writings and theology in general. But they all seem to depend and rely on one book in general. That book is ROMAN CATHOLICISM by Loraine Boettner (sp).
Click to expand...
Which I also own.

GKC
 
ltwin said:
I have not read the book, so forgive me. How does Keating define “Fundamentalist”? Does he even define it? I ask because I often read stuff where the authors just drop terms like Fundamentalist and evangelical without any attempt to spell out what they mean by those terms.

The way I understand the term “Fundamentalist” is from the definition given by scholars such as George Marsden. Marsden wrote that since the 1960s separate Baptist dispensationalists are really the only people who proudly call themselves Fundamentalists. Jerry Falwell would be a good example if one distinguishes his political career (in which he built a broad coalition of religious conservatives) from his church career (in which he was much less broad in his associations).
Click to expand...
Trying to chase down one specific definition from a fractional movement is really a daunting task.

Nonetheless, Keating (I own the book) does a very responsible job and his references as to fundamentalism are:
James Barr, Gabriel Hebert, George Marsden, Jerry Falwell, Edward Dobson and Ernest Sandeen (among others).

So like always his treatment of the subject is extremely responsible, fair and charitable.
ltwin said:
As to the OP’s question, I think it would make sense that Fundamentalist and non-Fundamentalists would use many of the same arguments against the Catholic Church because many of them are arguments and criticisms that have been recycled since the Reformation.
Click to expand...
Indeed…
 
Peter_J said:
This is partially inspired by some of the recent threads, about generalizations of “protestants” etc, but ultimately I figured it was better to put it in a new thread.

The book “Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on Romanism by Bible Christians” (by Karl Keating) has many significant insights – for example, the fact that the most blantant, shrill attacks against Catholics are not necessarily the most serious attacks. (In a later post I’ll give a list of other such insights.)

What I’m wondering is, whether these ideas might be extended into a general framework for understanding, not just Catholic-Fundamentalist, but Catholic-protestant relations in general and especially attacks (in both directions) …
Click to expand...
It would be a great framework, not just because of the material it has - but because of the manner in which he engages and treats the attacks. He did actual research and read the “alleged” references of the attacks and presented the actual documents in their full context. After presenting the well researched material, he proceeds to methodically and logically engage the argument and then charitably offers a conclusion.

A great model to emulate!
 
Peter_J said:
“Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on Romanism by Bible Christians”
Click to expand...
i find it odd that a catholic book would use this word in its title, when any catholic i’ve spoken to would consider it an insult.
 
lantheria said:
i find it odd that a catholic book would use this word in its title, when any catholic i’ve spoken to would consider it an insult.
Click to expand...
Be aware that the “Romanism” is in quotes. As is “Bible Christians”. He speaks to the terms a little, in the preface.

GKC
 
SteveVH said:
Not really. I find all of the major, or at least common arguments against Catholicism in this book. It may not apply as much to the major liturgical Protestant faith traditions, but it covers the rest pretty well.
Click to expand...
What I mean is, it would be limited to those areas in which there would be agreement between mainline Protestants and fundamentalists. Not an all-encompassing platform.
Examples would be Sola Scriptura, the fundamentalist view of SS is far more simplistic than say, the conservative Lutheran position.
Another would be the inerrancy of the Bible. Many mailine denominations would disagree with the simplistic views of Dispensationalist Biblical interpretation.
Yet another would be the subjects of Liturgy and Sacraments. Fundies reject it completely while many mainline denominations do not.
I have read the book and have it in my library. I even brought a copy and recomended it to the RCIA class I spoke at. The book is very deep and intellectual.
I would even recomend it to mainline Protestants to give them a way of answering the fundies.
 
ltwin said:
I have not read the book, so forgive me. How does Keating define “Fundamentalist”? Does he even define it? I ask because I often read stuff where the authors just drop terms like Fundamentalist and evangelical without any attempt to spell out what they mean by those terms.

The way I understand the term “Fundamentalist” is from the definition given by scholars such as George Marsden. Marsden wrote that since the 1960s separate Baptist dispensationalists are really the only people who proudly call themselves Fundamentalists. Jerry Falwell would be a good example if one distinguishes his political career (in which he built a broad coalition of religious conservatives) from his church career (in which he was much less broad in his associations).

As to the OP’s question, I think it would make sense that Fundamentalist and non-Fundamentalists would use many of the same arguments against the Catholic Church because many of them are arguments and criticisms that have been recycled since the Reformation.
Click to expand...
IMO, the target group of fundamentalists Keating is speaking to would be the Bob Jones University types. The Falwell camp would not consider themselves fundamentalists. And the Hyles camp would need to take reading lessons. 😃
Non-denominational evangelicals would be far wider, IMO.

:newidea:
I have an idea, why not PM Karl himself and ask? He does own the site and posts under his own name.
 
GKC said:
Be aware that the “Romanism” is in quotes. As is “Bible Christians”. He speaks to the terms a little, in the preface.

GKC
Click to expand...
Good point. (I think when I started this thread, I was looking at the book title as it was written on a webpage, not the actual book.)
 
For those unaware Mr. Boertnerrs Roman Catholicism was written by an anti Catholic fundamentalist it’self. This book is the source of the list of “romanist innovations” you see know and then.

The things he says are innovations were believed centuries before they became dogma. For example he says the Assumption was believed in by none before 1950 when it was made dogma. But we all know better than that. August 15 was celebrated centuries before 1950.

It’s my opinion that a lot of fundamentalists are ignorant about what the church teaches and have no interest in learning the truth.
 
=Peter J;11863104]This is partially inspired by some of the recent threads, about generalizations of “protestants” etc, but ultimately I figured it was better to put it in a new thread.
Click to expand...
The book “Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on Romanism by Bible Christians” (by Karl Keating) has many significant insights – for example, the fact that the most blantant, shrill attacks against Catholics are not necessarily the most serious attacks. (In a later post I’ll give a list of other such insights.)
Click to expand...
What I’m wondering is, whether these ideas might be extended into a general framework for understanding, not just Catholic-Fundamentalist, but Catholic-protestant relations in general and especially attacks (in both directions) …
Click to expand...
First allow me to HIGHLY recommend this book. It’s the best point, counterpoint book I have found.👍

Forgive my ignorance here; but I’m unaware of any offsetting attacks by Catholics on the Protestant communions. Self- defense: surely. Expaling our differences; yep, but blannat attacks; I’m personally not aware of any.🤷

And having read the book, what constitutes a “shrill-attack” [Lets set a foundation for discussion here].

I keep on my desk a posting of Mt. 5: 11-16
" Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you. You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men. Y** ou are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house. So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.**

God Bless you!
Patrick
 
But seriously …
PJM said:
And having read the book, what constitutes a “shrill-attack”
Click to expand...
I’m a little rusty, but I’m thinking of the Chapter “At the Fringe”, discussing Tony Alamo, Jack Chick, etc.
 
GKC said:
The beadiness of my eyes is beyond belief.

GKC.
Click to expand...
Aha!

I was going to say your non-Romanness, but I thought that kind of mixing of serious and unserious might confuse people.
 
Hi all.

First I’d like to ask you all to pray for my father, who had to go to the emergency room last night. He is doing better now, but his health hasn’t been great for a while anyhow, so I know he would appreciate your prayers, especially the Catholics. (Kidding about that last part. ;))

Second, a specific question. In the OP I mentioned
Peter_J said:
many significant insights – for example, the fact that the most blatant, shrill attacks against Catholics are not necessarily the most serious attacks.
Click to expand...
I’m wondering whether you protestants* have found the same thing, i.e. that the most blatant, shrill attacks you are not necessarily the most serious attacks?

*and Orthodox for that matter, if any are reading this and wish to respond.
 
Peter_J said:
Hi all.

First I’d like to ask you all to pray for my father, who had to go to the emergency room last night. He is doing better now, but his health hasn’t been great for a while anyhow, so I know he would appreciate your prayers, especially the Catholics. (Kidding about that last part. ;))
Click to expand...
Prayers offered for your dad, your family and all medical personnel involved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top