Fundamentalists?

[Chrisl6901]

I’ve been reading around here a bit, and I keep seeing many non-Catholics described as “Fundamentalists”, as if that were some strange thing.

Are there no fundamentalist Catholics? Don’t we mostly agree on the fundamentals of the faith; e.g. the birth and resurrection of Christ, atonement, Heaven and Hell, etc.?

I think the term “fundamentalist” has been hijacked today to always describe some kind of extreme fanatic or hooded Islamic terrorist. I don’t believe the fundamentalist Christians of the early part of last century who started the movement never intended the title to come to mean what it does today.

If someone asked me if I was a fundamentalist, I would say “yes”. Why? Because after reading the Bible, I’ve come to the conclusion that one would have to be a fundamentalist to truly follow Jesus, because Jesus is a fundamentalist.

Your thoughts?

 

[fhansen]

I’ve been reading around here a bit, and I keep seeing many non-Catholics described as “Fundamentalists”, as if that were some strange thing.

Are there no fundamentalist Catholics? Don’t we mostly agree on the fundamentals of the faith; e.g. the birth and resurrection of Christ, atonement, Heaven and Hell, etc.?

I think the term “fundamentalist” has been hijacked today to always describe some kind of extreme fanatic or hooded Islamic terrorist. I don’t believe the fundamentalist Christians of the early part of last century who started the movement never intended the title to come to mean what it is today.

If someone asked me if I was a fundamentalist, I would say “yes”. Why? Because after reading the Bible, I’ve came to the conclusion that one would have to be a fundamentalist to truly follow Jesus, because Jesus is a fundamentalist.

Your thoughts?

You’re right; there’s much that Catholics should be able to agree about with the original Christian fundamentalists, who were reacting to, and striving to defend the faith against, modernism/anti-supernaturalism which threatened-and stills threatens- to gut the gospel of any real relevancy. It’s just that the term has proceeded to take on the meaning of ‘wooden literalist self-righteous bigot’, a class of person that many-rightfully enough-fear being associated with.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I’ve been reading around here a bit, and I keep seeing many non-Catholics described as “Fundamentalists”, as if that were some strange thing.

Are there no fundamentalist Catholics? Don’t we mostly agree on the fundamentals of the faith; e.g. the birth and resurrection of Christ, atonement, Heaven and Hell, etc.?

The original “fundamentalists” adhered to 5 main "fundamentals:

• Inspiration of the Bible and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
• Virgin birth of Christ
• Belief that Christ’s death was the atonement for sin
• Bodily resurrection of Christ
• Historical reality of Christ’s miracles

The term “fundamentalist” today often has a context meaning sola scripturists whom take an overly literal interpretation of the Bible. In Karl Keating’s famous book Catholicism and Fundamentalism, two figures whose arguments against Catholics he addresses include Loraine Boettner and Jimmy Swaggart. It’s probably in the style of these latter two names that many Catholics mean the term today.

 

[DavidFilmer]

The term “fundamentalist” originates from a four-volume set of 90 essays written by a diverse group of protestant authors, published in 1910-1950 under the title, “The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth.” The essays are heavily influenced by Calvanism.

For American protestants of the “reformed” (Calvanist) tradition, these essays largely “define” their doctrine, and they are collectively referred to in association with these essays.

Of course, there are also “fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,” and a book with that exact title was authored by Dr. Ludwig Ott, and is considered to be an authority (or, perhaps, THE authority) of Catholic belief (although it has no Magesterial standing). You will see Ott cited often on this Forum, but Catholics do not see their doctrine as being defined by Ott, but rather expressed by him.

 

[WesleyF]

I’ve been reading around here a bit, and I keep seeing many non-Catholics described as “Fundamentalists”, as if that were some strange thing.

Are there no fundamentalist Catholics? Don’t we mostly agree on the fundamentals of the faith; e.g. the birth and resurrection of Christ, atonement, Heaven and Hell, etc.?

I think the term “fundamentalist” has been hijacked today to always describe some kind of extreme fanatic or hooded Islamic terrorist. I don’t believe the fundamentalist Christians of the early part of last century who started the movement never intended the title to come to mean what it does today.

If someone asked me if I was a fundamentalist, I would say “yes”. Why? Because after reading the Bible, I’ve come to the conclusion that one would have to be a fundamentalist to truly follow Jesus, because Jesus is a fundamentalist.

Your thoughts?

Yup, the term “fundamentalist” has acquired that meaning in Catholic circles today. Many of these “fundamentalists” also similarly describe “religion” as something entirely negative and Catholics bemoan that fact.

 

[MattofTexas]

Sometimes terms are over used or used in an abusive way (such as to make sweeping generalizations about groups of people who may or may not truly be the same, or the word is ascribed characteristics or used for connotative effect that do not necessarily form an inherent part of the term). Sometimes Fundamentalist is used in the way by both Catholics as well as Progressive Christians and others who oppose conservative Evangelical Protestantism.

 

[Chrisl6901]

Sometimes terms are over used or used in an abusive way (such as to make sweeping generalizations about groups of people who may or may not truly be the same, or the word is ascribed characteristics or used for connotative effect that do not necessarily form an inherent part of the term). Sometimes Fundamentalist is used in the way by both Catholics as well as Progressive Christians and others who oppose conservative Evangelical Protestantism.

Is it safe to say then that most Catholics in general oppose most conservative views of Christianity?

That’s ironic, because up to around 125 years ago or so Catholics would have been one of the most conservative of all. What happened? Was Catholicism wrong that whole time?

 

[MattofTexas]

Is it safe to say then that most Catholics in general oppose any conservative views of Christianity?

That’s ironic, because a couple hundred years ago Catholics would have been one of the most conservative of all. What happened?

Not at all. Catholics disagree with Evangelicals because they are Protestants (not because they are conservative) and do not embrace the fullness of historic Christian teaching found in the Catholic Church. Progressives (be they Protestants or Catholics, albeit Progressive Catholics are often labeled as dissenters or heretics while their Protestant counterparts are not) are opposed to the conservative aspect, and sometimes some of the original tenants of fundamentalism depending on just how liberal they are.

 

[fhansen]

Is it safe to say then that most Catholics in general oppose most conservative views of Christianity?

That’s ironic, because up to around 125 years ago or so Catholics would have been one of the most conservative of all. What happened? Was Catholicism wrong that whole time?

There are many Catholics of the “unconservative” persuasion- and many others that are quite conservative-more and more, in fact-without necessarily going to the opposite extreme, to ultra-traditionalism. This conservative group will increasingly be the backbone of the Church into the future IMO.

 

[Chrisl6901]

Not at all. Catholics disagree with Evangelicals because they are Protestants (not because they are conservative) and do not embrace the fullness of historic Christian teaching found in the Catholic Church. Progressives (be they Protestants or Catholics, albeit Progressive Catholics are often labeled as dissenters or heretics while their Protestant counterparts are not) are opposed to the conservative aspect, and sometimes some of the original tenants of fundamentalism depending on just how liberal they are.

“Progressive” Protestants are usually thought of as seriously misguided at best, heretics at worst by the more conservative branches of Christianity, who detest being referred to as “Protestants”. There are very few truly conservative Protestant Churches nowadays. I might have joined one in the past if I there was one to be found.

How can I tell the difference between a conservative or progressive Catholic church? e.g, with Lutherans, the WELS group is more conservative then the ELCA group and so forth.

 

[MattofTexas]

It’s just a matter of the priest and the people who are members of any given parish. You’d probably have to attend a few times to get a sense of it. Also I think it’s important to draw the distinction between politically liberal and theologically liberal. Everything I’ve said has been related to the second.

 

[Chrisl6901]

There are many Catholics of the “unconservative” persuasion- and many others that are quite conservative-more and more, in fact-without necessarily going to the opposite extreme, to ultra-traditionalism. This conservative group will increasingly be the backbone of the Church into the future IMO.

I believe the conservative end of any Church will be it’s future, as the “fair weather” types will be the first to fall when the going gets tough. Separating the “wheat from the chaff”, so to speak. One of the reasons why I’m attracted to conservatism.

However, my conservatism has yet to be seriously put to the test. With the way things are going in my spiritual life, I think I might fail miserably.

 

[Chrisl6901]

It’s just a matter of the priest and the people who are members of any given parish. You’d probably have to attend a few times to get a sense of it. Also I think it’s important to draw the distinction between politically liberal and theologically liberal. Everything I’ve said has been related to the second.

OK, thanks. As far as being politically or theologically liberal/conservative, I don’t separate the two in my life. I study scripture, pray, and *want to live my life the way Jesus would have me, and nothing is off limits.

*Note I said “want” to live my life that way… Sometimes, I don’t even try.

 

[Aquila_Lucis]

I’ve been reading around here a bit, and I keep seeing many non-Catholics described as “Fundamentalists”, as if that were some strange thing.

Are there no fundamentalist Catholics? Don’t we mostly agree on the fundamentals of the faith; e.g. the birth and resurrection of Christ, atonement, Heaven and Hell, etc.?

I think the term “fundamentalist” has been hijacked today to always describe some kind of extreme fanatic or hooded Islamic terrorist. I don’t believe the fundamentalist Christians of the early part of last century who started the movement never intended the title to come to mean what it does today.

If someone asked me if I was a fundamentalist, I would say “yes”. Why? Because after reading the Bible, I’ve come to the conclusion that one would have to be a fundamentalist to truly follow Jesus, because Jesus is a fundamentalist.

Your thoughts?

In language, it is incredibly important to remember the greater context of the colloquial and/or vernacular use of words. For example, while your point of identifying yourself as a Catholic fundamentalist is well taken, but regardless of the intention, the term is the way to describe most to most people that particular, literalist sect of Christianity.

I do believe that for one to identify themselves as a fundamentalist Catholic would be confusing to someone and probably skew an observer’s notions about Catholicism; not for better or worse, per se, but simply inaccurate.

 

[DavidFilmer]

published in 1910-1950

Oops. Make that 1910-1915 (not 1950)

 

[Adamski]

Is it safe to say then that most Catholics in general oppose most conservative views of Christianity?

That’s ironic, because up to around 125 years ago or so Catholics would have been one of the most conservative of all. What happened? Was Catholicism wrong that whole time?

Jesus Christ is neither conservative or liberal and can not be put into the constraints of a political view. In today’s world liberalism is highly disordered with the culture of death so in essence a catholic in full communion with Jesus and his church could not in good conchence be “liberal” in today’s world

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’ve been reading around here a bit, and I keep seeing many non-Catholics described as “Fundamentalists”, as if that were some strange thing.

Are there no fundamentalist Catholics? Don’t we mostly agree on the fundamentals of the faith; e.g. the birth and resurrection of Christ, atonement, Heaven and Hell, etc.?

I think the term “fundamentalist” has been hijacked today to always describe some kind of extreme fanatic or hooded Islamic terrorist. I don’t believe the fundamentalist Christians of the early part of last century who started the movement never intended the title to come to mean what it does today.

If someone asked me if I was a fundamentalist, I would say “yes”. Why? Because after reading the Bible, I’ve come to the conclusion that one would have to be a fundamentalist to truly follow Jesus, because Jesus is a fundamentalist.

Your thoughts?

Chrisl6901,

Interesting question. Language does tend to evolve over time.

As others have noted; today, the term “fundamentalist” is often associated with extremes that may not be in line with the original meaning of the word.

The phrases “born again” and “Bible believing” Christians seem to have been hijacked in a similar way.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Oops. Make that 1910-1915 (not 1950)

The key board gets away from me too sometimes.

Anna

 

[JustaServant]

I’ve been reading around here a bit, and I keep seeing many non-Catholics described as “Fundamentalists”, as if that were some strange thing.

Are there no fundamentalist Catholics? Don’t we mostly agree on the fundamentals of the faith; e.g. the birth and resurrection of Christ, atonement, Heaven and Hell, etc.?

I think the term “fundamentalist” has been hijacked today to always describe some kind of extreme fanatic or hooded Islamic terrorist. I don’t believe the fundamentalist Christians of the early part of last century who started the movement never intended the title to come to mean what it does today.

If someone asked me if I was a fundamentalist, I would say “yes”. Why? Because after reading the Bible, I’ve come to the conclusion that one would have to be a fundamentalist to truly follow Jesus, because Jesus is a fundamentalist.

Your thoughts?

Historically, Fundamentalism is a reactionary movement within Protestant denominations. One should not be confused with the other.
The fundamentalist movement began in the early part of the 20th century as a reaction against the growing liberalism in mainline denominations. The early fundamentalist conferances included representatives from almost every Protestant denomination.
Fundamentalism exists in the fog of a false history (which is why they discourage educated inquiry) and ‘separation’. They believe they are ‘Bible based’ and all other denominations reject the Bible and salvation.
The remnants of historical fundamentalism today is found mainly among the Baptists. But they are dwindling rapidly.

 

[Gara3987]

I’ve been reading around here a bit, and I keep seeing many non-Catholics described as “Fundamentalists”, as if that were some strange thing.

Are there no fundamentalist Catholics? Don’t we mostly agree on the fundamentals of the faith; e.g. the birth and resurrection of Christ, atonement, Heaven and Hell, etc.?

I think the term “fundamentalist” has been hijacked today to always describe some kind of extreme fanatic or hooded Islamic terrorist. I don’t believe the fundamentalist Christians of the early part of last century who started the movement never intended the title to come to mean what it does today.

If someone asked me if I was a fundamentalist, I would say “yes”. Why? Because after reading the Bible, I’ve come to the conclusion that one would have to be a fundamentalist to truly follow Jesus, because Jesus is a fundamentalist.

Your thoughts?

From what I have learned, a fundamentalist is some one who claims to be non-denominational. The term fundamental literally means, foundation, or origin. Thus one would think that a Fundamentalist (in terms of religion) is someone who believes, studies, and lives by the fundamentals of Christianity. However, this is not the case. Mostly every Fundamentalist who I have spoken with, firstly believe that they are following the fundamentals of Christianity, but in fact are following the fundamentals of the various Protestant doctrines.

For instance, the father of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, is none other than Martin Luther. Before his time, Sola Scriptura was completely unheard of. The same goes for Sola Fide, which is another of Luther’s doctrines. So, that being said, many of those who go by the title “Fundamentalist,” base their doctrine on doctrines created only approx. 500 years ago.

By nature, Catholics, and even the Orthodox; are Fundamentalists, due to the fact that our Doctrine still follows the fundamentals of Christianity. The various Orthodox Church hold a very similar doctrine to that of the Catholic Doctrine, with minutial differences.

An Example :
The faith of our Antiochian Syriac Orthodox Church is, by and large, the same faith of the Roman Catholic Church, except for few doctrines and practices such as, the doctrines of Immaculate Conception and Purgatory. The Christological differences are only in wording. The two Churches have the same Christological belief, but they express it in different phrases. They both venerate the Virgin Mary “the Mother of God”, and the Saints and believe in their intercession.

One of the major disagreements would be the Primacy of the Roman Bishop, which the Orthodox Churches deny, even though historically, out of the Five Patriarchs, the Roman Patriarch held primacy (Part I ; Part II) over all others.

At any rate, as a Catholic, it is unnecessary to attach the term “Fundamentalist.”

“Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname. The one designates me, while the other makes me specific. Thus am I attested and set apart… When we are called Catholics it is by this appellation that our people are kept apart from any heretical name.”