Pope Francis criticises ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics

[graciew]

That’s beautifully said, graciew.

Thank you ,Longing Soul.
God bless you…

 

[Darryl1958]

Yet there is still a kind of attitude in some Catholics that objects to a practical unity among Christians. One of the main goals of Vatican II was to bring the reformed Churchs back together in Christ through theological dialogue. There are still so many that reject Christian unity. They hate the notion of ecumenism and reject any reforms aimed at removing divisions, as departures from the true faith.

From most of the discussions I have had in inter-faith dialogue between EO and Catholic, Catholics are eager beaver to get on with it, and the greater part of EO are brick walls.
Most Protestants would object to the very language that it is they who need to be brought back, but see the Catholic Church as the party that has strayed from the fold

It is hard to stand in solidarity with Torquemada, and fully disagree with them on some of their points.

I personally would not stop a Protestant or an EO from sharing in the Eucharist, but it is the teaching of the Church that is of a fundamentalist attitude when it comes to eating of the Body of Christ unworthily.

I personally can accept homosexuals as full brothers and sisters in Christ, but it is the Church teaching that is fundamentalist on the morality of this.

Ditto, the divorced.

I am not a big fan of the idea that anyone is going to burn eternally in hell, but Church teaching itself is a big source of this kind of fundamentalism.

I find it odd that certain unspecified Catholics are being criticized for being fundamentalist, when it is the teaching of the bishops that is fundamentalist on pretty much ever issue that there is.

 

[CompSciGuy]

I would think that I grew up in a very traditionalist culture that could have fallen victim to fundamentalism but for one thing.

I remember the distress when word of a particular reform from Vatican II came through. I remember the offense of the change in the St Joseph nuns habit when ankles and wisps of hair appeared. I remember disgruntled, incredulous, ‘well I never’-ness. Even more recently things like Pope StJPII organising the first World Day of Prayer in 1986 where not only were the monotheists invited, but the Buddhists and Hindi’s etc. But I never ever experienced this new traditionalist position of ‘some Popes were bad’ or ‘Popes are only infallible on a very few things’. I never ever experienced that cautious position of not quite trusting in the Seat of Peter 100%… depending on the man. That’s to me is what distinguishes really trusting in the Catholic Church from trusting in your own interpretation of the Catholic Church.

Regarding the world day of prayer, and the whole “some popes are bad” and “popes are only infallible on a few things” part of your post, you might want to take a look at this:

For since [some] hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission.

Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.

(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Mortalium Animos [1928], par. 2)

Pope Pius XI doesn’t appear to be in line with your thinking. Now when papal quotes like this are posted in these forums, people will say things like “well, he wasn’t speaking ex-cathedra” or “well, the church’s understanding has developed on that issue.” But saying that would be kind of hypocritical wouldn’t it?

As of right now, I am unaware of any official church document saying that interfaith prayer services are a good thing, let alone even necessary, and I have good reason to believe both from scripture and tradition that they are a bad practice that popes (good or bad) have promoted, as there have been many bad practices promoted by popes such as the selling of indulgences, etc. I think a lot of Catholics today make the mistake of thinking that whatever practices are going on in the church right now must be OK regardless of their theological implications. What if we applied that to any time in history? Such as in the 12th century when auto-de-fe’s were commonplace? Apologists constantly separate the actions of individual popes/bishops/whatever from actual Catholic teaching. Can you really get mad at someone for applying the same standard to modern popes and bishops?

Read 1 Corinthians 10:14-22. I know, you’re going to argue about historical context, but why nitpick? Having a prayer service alongside heretics, schismatics and pagans is not that far off from participating in pagan sacrifices and then turning to the table of the Lord.

 

[pnewton]

Like so many other things in faith, it’s not either/or.

Spiritual people are not ignorant or timid of teaching.
And Canon lawyers and theologians are not necessarily un-spiritual people.

In the same sense, the most rigid and orthodox person is not necessarily lacking in compassion. The most flexible and compassion person may not be lacking orthodoxy. This is one think I learned from the last synod.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

From most of the discussions I have had in inter-faith dialogue between EO and Catholic, Catholics are eager beaver to get on with it, and the greater part of EO are brick walls.
Most Protestants would object to the very language that it is they who need to be brought back, but see the Catholic Church as the party that has strayed from the fold

It is hard to stand in solidarity with Torquemada, and fully disagree with them on some of their points.

I personally would not stop a Protestant or an EO from sharing in the Eucharist, but it is the teaching of the Church that is of a fundamentalist attitude when it comes to eating of the Body of Christ unworthily.

I personally can accept homosexuals as full brothers and sisters in Christ, but it is the Church teaching that is fundamentalist on the morality of this.

Ditto, the divorced.

I am not a big fan of the idea that anyone is going to burn eternally in hell, but Church teaching itself is a big source of this kind of fundamentalism.

I find it odd that certain unspecified Catholics are being criticized for being fundamentalist, when it is the teaching of the bishops that is fundamentalist on pretty much ever issue that there is.

That’s “orthodox” teaching not “fundamentalism”. The Church is orthodox and far from fundamentalist.

A fundamentalist takes their religion so literally and to such extremes that they contradict the very basis of their faith. They typically believe in a literal, verbatim interpretation of their scripture. They also have ridiculous, childish defenses to intelligent criticism of their beliefs that border on insanity.

Fundamentalists in general give religion a bad name. By definiition, it is impossible for any religion or belief structure that is centered on love, compassion, understanding, and forgiveness (most of the major religions are) to be anything but great. However, when people watch the news and see these dumbasses parading around with their “THANK GOD FOR AIDS - FAGS GO TO HELL” signs (westboro I’m talking about you) and calling themselves Christians, it tends to tarnish the entire faith. The Muslims are experiencing the same thing with fundamentalism.

 

[clem456]

Read 1 Corinthians 10:14-22. I know, you’re going to argue about historical context, but why nitpick? Having a prayer service alongside heretics, schismatics and pagans is not that far off from participating in pagan sacrifices and then turning to the table of the Lord.

Who are you proclaiming to be heretics?
Schismatics? Which schismatic groups are you talking about?
So praying with schismatic groups is like participating in pagan sacrifices?
In any event, I’d trust the practice of our Popes over someone’s opinion.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Who are you proclaiming to be heretics?
Schismatics? Which schismatic groups are you talking about?

By pagans, I meant Buddhists, Muslims and the like. as far as heretics and schismatics are concerned… they are many. Why not start with the church of england.

So praying with schismatic groups is like participating in pagan sacrifices?
In any event, I’d trust the practice of our Popes over someone’s opinion.

I don’t expect you to trust my opinion more than the pope. However if the pope would do something that would contradict sacred scripture, then you should have qualms about it. If you are simply saying “I believe that whatever the pope does is right” then that doesn’t make you any different from the people who supported selling of indulgences or conducting auto-de-fe’s, because they had the same mindset as you.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

In the same sense, the most rigid and orthodox person is not necessarily lacking in compassion. The most flexible and compassion person may not be lacking orthodoxy. This is one think I learned from the last synod.

Didn’t really get this from the media sessions which seemed to consist of Father Rosica talking about things he was “concerned” with. I learned that a small minority backed by secular forces have the loudest voices

 

[Prodigal_40s]

I hate to admit it, but you’re right.

Yep. That said he’s far from a friend to Father Rosica and his agenda. I don’t know where this “gay friendly” Pope idea comes from. Seems like a MSM fabrication to me

 

[Prodigal_40s]

That’s “orthodox” teaching not “fundamentalism”. The Church is orthodox and far from fundamentalist.

A fundamentalist takes their religion so literally and to such extremes that they contradict the very basis of their faith. They typically believe in a literal, verbatim interpretation of their scripture. They also have ridiculous, childish defenses to intelligent criticism of their beliefs that border on insanity.

Fundamentalists in general give religion a bad name. By definiition, it is impossible for any religion or belief structure that is centered on love, compassion, understanding, and forgiveness (most of the major religions are) to be anything but great. However, when people watch the news and see these dumbasses parading around with their “THANK GOD FOR AIDS - FAGS GO TO HELL” signs (westboro I’m talking about you) and calling themselves Christians, it tends to tarnish the entire faith. The Muslims are experiencing the same thing with fundamentalism.

Spot on and they are the archetype the liberals use when describing any adherence to a faith that they find “exclusive”. They seem to ignore the fact that all World faiths align on most moral issues. The One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith calls us to be Saints not…“in this context”. I’m sick and tired of explaining this simple fact. Next up…“oh let’s interpret the Bible differently…to reach out”.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

I think we’ve been spoiled a bit in the last couple centuries where, almost without exception, there were truly great men in the Chair of Peter. We need to have compassion on the Holy Father, since he is very much a man of a certain time, with all the baggage that came along with it. That being said, a Pope’s authority is tied to his office, not his personal merits–he could be the worst scoundrel or just plain stupid, and so long as he holds that office, when he teaches or governs he has the same authority as the most brilliant and saintly Pope and his acts of office deserve the same respect. At the same time, the Church is not the Pope’s body, but Christ’s–a distinction the media, and even some clergy, often fail to make….

 

[Prodigal_40s]

**This is exactly why I consider the Holy Father a brilliant communicator. Like Jesus, he is simplistic and direct. **Like Jesus, he leaves his disciples with more questions than they had before. He is challenging. I know that this is difficult for the type of mind set that prefers more of an instruction manual style of teaching, but not all learn the same way. Perhaps this is why the Holy Father is not on the same level as what he calls fundamentalists.

 

[clem456]

By pagans, I meant Buddhists, Muslims and the like. as far as heretics and schismatics are concerned… they are many. Why not start with the church of england.

The Church does not proclaim any of these people “heretics”.

I don’t expect you to trust my opinion more than the pope. However if the pope would do something that would contradict sacred scripture, then you should have qualms about it. If you are simply saying “I believe that whatever the pope does is right” then that doesn’t make you any different from the people who supported selling of indulgences or conducting auto-de-fe’s, because they had the same mindset as you.

I don’t know how any of that is relevant.

You were talking about praying with non-catholics as being right next door to pagan sacrifice. Nonsense. Popes have done it and do it, I’ll accept that example.

 

[ARSpade]

You know, I’ve been in the church for 33 years and have yet to meet or see one of these horrible mean fundamentalists.

Have met a lot of folks in Church who’ve told me that every heresy under the sun was a-okay though.

 

[Thomas_White]

You know, I’ve been in the church for 33 years and have yet to meet or see one of these horrible mean fundamentalists.

Have met a lot of folks in Church who’ve told me that every heresy under the sun was a-okay though.

Anecdotal reports might be suspect, but to simply assert something without any information is rhetoric. Really, I find it questionable that a person would “have met a lot of folks in Church” that told them “every heresy under the sun was a-okay”.

In any event, if it were me and that were the case, I’d promptly find another Church.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

You know, I’ve been in the church for 33 years and have yet to meet or see one of these horrible mean fundamentalists.

Have met a lot of folks in Church who’ve told me that every heresy under the sun was a-okay though.

Is this by Parish because if so, you’re spot on!

 

[friardchips]

The Church does not proclaim any of these people “heretics”.

Agreed. Technically speaking, the CofE is a heretic organisation of Christians, but individual members today cannot be blamed if this is what they’ve grown up with. If people left the CC, or started up a new religion with knowledge of the CC, then most likely. Or if people are vehemently against the CC - militantly so - then likely too. But many protestants are just living out the faith that’s been handed on to them. This is not something to sit on judgement over. I have a bit of a problem with the CofE as a Church or institution because of its beginnings and some fundamental differences to the CC but over and above there are possibly better Christians in protestant Churches than the one we’re in due to the fact they might be living the Gospel in truer accord as individuals.

I don’t know how any of that is relevant.

You were talking about praying with non-catholics as being right next door to pagan sacrifice. Nonsense. Popes have done it and do it, I’ll accept that example.

There are some similarities in pagan religions with Christianity. It is just that (possibly) dialogue has not happened as much as it could have done with ‘pagans’. There are symbolic similarities with Christianity even if ‘pagan’ understanding doesn’t quite grasp the truth. We need grace to understand the Christian religion. We can’t pack ‘pagans’ off to ‘Wicker Man’ island and hope they convert. It is love that converts and grace itself.

And it depends what pagan stuff you’re talking about: full-on satanic blasphemers, slightly off-key dreaded-haired sun chasers or celtic goddess worshippers, or maybe a spooky haunted mansion mix comprising of all three? Or maybe they are just primitive beings with limited ideas of the spiritual realms who exalt the natural world beyond its place?

 

[clem456]

Agreed. Technically speaking, the CofE is a heretic organisation of Christians, but individual members today cannot be blamed if this is what they’ve grown up with. If people left the CC, or started up a new religion with knowledge of the CC, then most likely. Or if people are vehemently against the CC - militantly so - then likely too. But many protestants are just living out the faith that’s been handed on to them. This is not something to sit on judgement over. I have a bit of a problem with the CofE as a Church or institution because of its beginnings and some fundamental differences to the CC but over and above there are possibly better Christians in protestant Churches than the one we’re in due to the fact they might be living the Gospel in truer accord as individuals.

There are some similarities in pagan religions with Christianity. It is just that (possibly) dialogue has not happened as much as it could have done with ‘pagans’. There are symbolic similarities with Christianity even if ‘pagan’ understanding doesn’t quite grasp the truth. We need grace to understand the Christian religion. We can’t pack ‘pagans’ off to ‘Wicker Man’ island and hope they convert. It is love that converts and grace itself.

And it depends what pagan stuff you’re talking about: full-on satanic blasphemers, slightly off-key dreaded-haired sun chasers or celtic goddess worshippers, or maybe a spooky haunted mansion mix comprising of all three? Or, maybe they are just primitive beings, with limited ideas of the spiritual realms?

Just for the record, I wasn’t the one using the comparison to “pagans”. So I have no idea what was intended by “pagans”.

 

[friardchips]

Just for the record, I wasn’t the one using the comparison to “pagans”.

I know.

So I have no idea what was intended by “pagans”.

Well, not sure ‘pagans’ do either, so it doesn’t really matter in the longevity of things.

 

[clem456]

…
Well, not sure ‘pagans’ do either, so it doesn’t really matter in the longevity of things.

I love a sense of humor.