The absolute truth is absolute. Catholic teaching, however, is that the understanding of Apostolic teaching advances through the centuries, and the fullness of divine revelation will not be known until the end of time. Fundamentalism is the erroneous belief that one already knows the absolute truth, a truth known only to Christ.
The example that you give comes from completely outside of Catholicism.
to be honest with you, heterodoxy always views orthodoxy as “extreme” or legalistic. Afterall, the meaning of orthodox is “right doctrine,” “right praise,” “conventional,” while heterodox is basically “wrong doctrine,” “wrong praise,” “unconventional.”
That sounds very judgemental to me. No doubt, it a mistranslation of his words.
In his press conference, Pope Francis was critical of fundamentalism. Recently, he was critical of what he termed “conservatism/fundamentalism”, and I do not believe the pope meant to equate these two terms. I think the terms should be viewed as falling along a continuum, with conservatism at one end and fundamentalism at the other, and at the extreme of the far end it is fundamentalism that develops into an ideology. In U.S. Christianity, this degree of fundamentalism has only been seen in isolated instances and is rarely the case today. The Salem Witch Trials in the 1600’s would be an example of this level of extremism. Today, it is the militant ideology of radical Islam, as in the instance of ISIS, that would provide an example of it. There is nothing in today’s Catholicism comparable to it.
There are lots of people in the church alone this would apply to as being fundamentalist. Those too flexable with their view of Gods teaching or to ridged with those same teachings.
The Church DOES have absolute Truths. The Trinity is Three distinct Persons in one Godhead. That is an absolute Truth. It is true everywhere and under every circumstance.
Amen!
One scarcely knows where to begin with such literal certainty. Do you really believe the Trinity is literally three distinct persons in one Godhead and that the Host is literally the material body and blood of Christ?
That is Catholic belief.
No they’re not the same.
True.
You’re joking, right?
Yes, of course. The point is that the Personhood construct is exegesis, as is the trefoil (the three-leaf clover). The historial Jesus was a human being and a person, but is the Holy Spirit? It is not that simple, is it?That is Catholic belief.
It’s not the entirety of faith, but is sort of a minimum foundation.
The Trinity
The Eucharist
You can’t know Christ if you con’t accept his personhood. That is foundational Christian belief. Just as you can’t say you love your neighbor if you deny his personhood.
We are made, as persons, as beings, in the image of God.
Neglect of Christ’s personhood is ironically one of the hallmarks of fundamentalism.
Yes, it is, and it is rather presumptuous to believe one knows the absolute truth. That is fundamentalism. I don’t believe it is even possible to describe God in the limited human languages. It is not at all uncommon on these threads that when one attempts to explain the complexity of issues like this that there are those who in reply challenge it and conclude it is somehow a rejection of Catholic teaching. This is also fundamentalism.
I have already stated the fact as to why the crossover is possible and it does exist. I don’t need to quantify this further. There is overlap between the two. And I have given the link as to how it is possible.
This is the case for both progressives and fundamentalists. One in a way that does not equate for change “outside their own rigidly self defined understanding” and one that changes for the sake of change without any defined understanding. Both lack the true Spirit and both lack prayerful discernment and sometimes the two crossover in interpretations because paths off-course sometimes collide and crossover.
There is nothing in Catholic doctrine about three-leaf clovers. Analogies are not doctrine. But it is Catholic doctrine that God is three Persons in one Nature. That will not change. Of course the Holy Spirit is a person, as is the Father and the Son. Each divine person possesses wholly the one divine nature. The second Person of the Trinity took on a human nature and became man, so he has both a human and a divine nature, but is a divine Person.
No, this is not fundamentalism, to hold truths as true. Otherwise, you are venturing into the regions of religious relativism. It is true that we are not suppose to discuss mystical truths as if talking about how much milk one puts in your tea of coffee - a certain reverence is respectful and the saints warn against doing the opposite. The thing is, we know dogmas are true, as they are divinely revealed. Doctrines are linked to, branches from that which we know are divinely revealed, so to hold truth that He has revealed as false is to call our Creator a liar, and I don’t think that is Just. However, the understanding of those truths - let me reiterate: TRUTHS - grow and deepen and broaden through salvation history. This has already been said, btw. This is not what fundamentalism is. Seeking the truth is fine but renouncing one’s faith in the search is not. Dogmas don’t need to change because they have been revealed and are eternal. Doctrines develop, or our living out of them, our expression of faith, in the living out of those doctrines, develops. Fundamentalists don’t think doctrines develop or that we have to apply Scripture in our world. Dogmas shine, in a sense. Fundamentalists think that doctrines are static and that Scripture does not need to speak to us in our time where we are. Because they don’t seem to allow for the Holy Spirit in their thinking they probably then don’t really take the Dogmas to heart either. Too much willpower and not enough trust. Progressives, on the other hand, take the spiritual from the understanding of their our belief by applying purely practical answers to every part of Scripture they see fit and do down miracles and say everything is metaphor only. The Spirit-filled Catholic, who is neither progressive nor fundamentalist, believes in the practical and spiritual elements to Scripture and all of life but with room for understanding that there are genres and other forms in Scripture and other ways in which we can express our faith without purely literal means. The Holy Spirit helps us to see that the spiritual is the backdrop for all temporal existence. The progressive and the fundamentalist does not understand this. The fundamentalist sticks to a “rigid” closed in belief until the mould sets in and the progressive might as well be a 60s hippy who does not venerate enough those sacred truths and so they dilute. One is stodgy and the other is superficial.