Pope Francis criticises ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics

[clem456]

It seems to me the hard part of Christianity is applying the exhortations of Christ and the Church to me, and not as if they are meant for everyone else but me.

There are certainly fundamentalist and intolerant liberals. Fundamentalism is not the exclusive property of those who want to uphold Church teaching, even though the word is typically used in reference to those.

There are many people who latch on to phrases they like, and in intolerant and fundamentalist fashion, use them to justify the bending of Church teaching.

Fundamentalism robs the teaching of life.
“I forgive you” or “what I want is mercy, not sacrifice”, can both be taken in a fundamentalist way, with rigid insistence on the word “mercy” out of context.

The Pope speaks to the whole people.

 

[Thomas_White]

People who have the religion, but not spirituality tend to be fundamentalists and I know a few Catholic Fundamentalists.

Years ago I heard an interview with Pastor Rick Warren where he was asked what a fundamentalist is ?

His answer was spot on.

He said, “a fundamentalist is a person who has stopped listening.”

In other words, they read the text of the law and believe that’s all there is to know and stop listening to learn from the Holy Spirit, what the deeper meaning is.

It doesn’t matter if its the Bible, the Rubrics of the Mass, or the Catechism of the Catholic Church. They know the text, but not its spiritual meaning. This is the result of not listening to the Holy Spirit, or having religion without spirituality.

Jim

That’s good. It is the absence of spirituality. An obsessive focus on a few issues is an impediment to spiritual development and so is not understanding that revelation is a continuing process that will continue until the end of time.

 

[friardchips]

That’s good. It is the absence of spirituality. An obsessive focus on a few issues is an impediment to spiritual development and so is not understanding that revelation is a continuing process that will continue until the end of time.

(Revelation has happened already. Humanity enters into fuller and fuller understanding of Revelation through salvation history “until the end of time”).

 

[clem456]

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.

A healthy spiritual person does listen to the Church to discover Christ and bring him to others.
One word for listen is
“ob-audiere”, or obedience, which is a word many people using modern notions of spirituality consider problematic.
And yes, if we obsess on our own way of thinking, we become fundamentalists. Some fundamentalists exalt church teaching for their own purposes, some try to bend it and change it to their own purposes.

So it’s not a matter of who’s talking about teaching and who’s not. Love is the fulfillment of it all, and that’s the challenge.

 

[Ridgerunner]

And possibly confused?!

No. He used to go to Temple in Joplin (the only one anywhere around) when he felt like it, and everybody knew it. No, I think we was just as clever as a tree full of screech owls, and could talk his way through anything.

I had a great uncle once who was like that. Back in his day, he was just more a less a seller of everything. He had a billfold full of cards for the occasion. When he came to a town he would find out which was the dominant organization, and he had a membership card for each. Didn’t matter what it was; Masons, K of C, Knights of Pythias, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, whatever. He would go into the town, then, and introduce himself around, find out what kind of stuff people were short of, sell a bunch of it sight unseen, collect, then order it for them, pay for it by Western Union, then on to the next town. He didn’t carry any merchandise at all. Didn’t have a place of business. Just an ability to figure people out and sell them stuff.

the Jewish guy who first hired my father was a realtor, an insurance agent, a lender, a financial advisor, and probably whatever else he needed to be.

 

[fin]

I hate to admit it, but you’re right.

I think your pope is trying too hard to be liked by the secular world. I liked pope Benedict more, he did not care if the chair is golden or wooden, and didn’t talk all the time about global warning or unemployment, he tried to save the old mass, and he was somehow more challenging intellectually.

 

[Thomas_White]

I think your pope is trying too hard to be liked by the secular world. I liked pope Benedict more, he did not care if the chair is golden or wooden, and didn’t talk all the time about global warning or unemployment, he tried to save the old mass, and he was somehow more challenging intellectually.

Do you think the many conservatives who were critical of Laudato Si understood the encyclical? I don’t, and I know from discussions on the forum that they didn’t at all. And they often don’t understand his comments either, and they say so.

 

[JimG]

Not just in the last 50 years. I went to parochial school in the Ozarks in the 1950s, and we were certainly not told all protestants go to hell. Nor were we taught anti-semitism or racism. Quite the contrary. There were no blacks living here at the time, but my father’s first job was given to him by a Jew. Interesting guy, too. He was also a Mason. How he managed that, i don’t know. Back then, the membership in the Masons and the KKK were essentially the same, so he might have been in the KKK too, for all I know. He was open about being a Jew, too. From the stories, I take it he was a very talented guy.

I also went to parochial school in the 1950’s, taught by nuns in full habit, from the Baltimore Catechism among other things. No one ever said that all non-Catholics were going to hell or that all Catholics were going to heaven. For the life of me I can’t figure where these urban legends of the 50’s come from.

 

[JimG]

So once again we have a full thread of posters trying to explain an impromptu papal interview. Lot’s of stuff here, but most of it is not what the pope said.

I still don’t know specifically what he meant by “fundamentalism.” I hope that I don’t have to apologize for being a fundamentalist because I believe what’s in the Catechism or believe what has been handed down to us from the Apostles.

Apparently, a fundamentalist is someone who is mean and judgmental and uncaring. But there is no conflict between believing what the Church teaches and being caring or loving or prayerful. Doctrinal orthodoxy does not produce meanies. Was Thomas Aquinas a meanie because he was careful in his explication of the Faith? Nope.

 

[LongingSoul]

I also went to parochial school in the 1950’s, taught by nuns in full habit, from the Baltimore Catechism among other things. No one ever said that all non-Catholics were going to hell or that all Catholics were going to heaven. For the life of me I can’t figure where these urban legends of the 50’s come from.

You see I do remember that atmosphere. I was in parochial school in the 60’s and this is Australia. Of course we weren’t outright taught things like the Jews are evil. ‘They killed Jesus’… but that was the inference gleaned that wasn’t openly corrected. A general attitude was conveyed though the language. I remember as kids being told not to be ‘a Jew’ if we did something nasty. We realised years later that that seemed to stop suddenly at some point and I’m assuming there might have been a sermon about it or perhaps via my uncle who was ordained in the mid 60’s and has been our constant source of insider news since.

Also, the attitude towards Protestants was definitely self righteous. It cut both ways actually. A 400 year old air of hatfields and mccoys.

Today where you might hear the justification ‘the Church can’t contradict itself’ or ‘doctrine can’t change’ to reject ecumenism … back then the justification was embedded in the terms ‘perfidis Jews’ and ‘schismatics’.

 

[LongingSoul]

Apparently, a fundamentalist is someone who is mean and judgmental and uncaring. But there is no conflict between believing what the Church teaches and being caring or loving or prayerful. Doctrinal orthodoxy does not produce meanies. Was Thomas Aquinas a meanie because he was careful in his explication of the Faith? Nope.

There are many things the Church has changed precisely because of what they conveyed of judgment and lack of mercy. We’ve mentioned lots over the course of these threads. Just above I mentioned the old wording from liturgies that conveyed a hostility despite being technically correct ie. ‘perfidis Jews’ and ‘schismatics’.

The movement to have those altered began way before they were finally changed. For example…

In the early 1920s the missionary organisation Society of Friends of Israel requested that the phrase “perfidious Jews” be removed from the liturgy.[4] Pope Pius XI was reportedly strongly in favour of the reforms and asked the Congregation of Rites to review the matter. Cardinal Schuster, who was among the Friends of Israel, was appointed to monitor this issue. **The Roman Curia, however, is reported to have reacted very negatively to the proposal on the basis that if one change was made to the old liturgy it would open the door to other such proposals. **The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith decided to dissolve the association (25 March 1928).Good Friday prayer for the Jews - Wikipedia

Bearing in mind that the terminology was changed for the good 40 years later, one could argue that the Curia at the time, failing to empathise with the harmful consequence of the wording to the natural relationships in the parishes between Christians and Jews… were flawed by fundamentalism.

 

[JimG]

You see I do remember that atmosphere. I was in parochial school in the 60’s and this is Australia. Of course we weren’t outright taught things like the Jews are evil. ‘They killed Jesus’… but that was the inference gleaned that wasn’t openly corrected. A general attitude was conveyed though the language. I remember as kids being told not to be ‘a Jew’ if we did something nasty. We realised years later that that seemed to stop suddenly at some point and I’m assuming there might have been a sermon about it or perhaps via my uncle who was ordained in the mid 60’s and has been our constant source of insider news since.

Also, the attitude towards Protestants was definitely self righteous. It cut both ways actually. A 400 year old air of hatfields and mccoys.

Today where you might hear the justification ‘the Church can’t contradict itself’ or ‘doctrine can’t change’ to reject ecumenism … back then the justification was embedded in the terms ‘perfidis Jews’ and ‘schismatics’.

Interesting. We were never told that the Jews killed Jesus. We were told that WE killed Jesus with our sins, since it was because of our sins that he offered himself up. We were told that even if just one person in the world sinned and everyone else was perfect, Jesus would still have died for that one person.

As for the Jews, they weren’t much mentioned. I did hear about antisemitism, but I could never figure it out. “It’s a religion,” I would say to myself. “Why would someone hate someone else because of his religion??” Of course there were anti-Catholics too, but we didn’t give them much thought. Also, Jesus and all the apostles were Jews, so being anti-Jewish just didn’t make sense.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Anyone who has spent any time with the hard religious Left has dealt with fundamentalists. The LCWR types, Call to Action, Network, and portions of the Peace and Justice Movement have a very definite agenda. They are no longer talking about “dialogue” they have moved beyond relativism, they have their own dogmas - or often, the Media’s dogmas - they want to impose on everyone.

They are highly judgmental of anyone who disagrees with them. They were liberals, but have gone on to a secular humanist agenda - using the resources and credibility of the Church. We are not talking about “flaws of liberalism” here. These are fundamentalists, but different from the ones we usually think of.

 

[LongingSoul]

Interesting. We were never told that the Jews killed Jesus. We were told that WE killed Jesus with our sins, since it was because of our sins that he offered himself up. We were told that even if just one person in the world sinned and everyone else was perfect, Jesus would still have died for that one person.

As for the Jews, they weren’t much mentioned. I did hear about antisemitism, but I could never figure it out. “It’s a religion,” I would say to myself. “Why would someone hate someone else because of his religion??” Of course there were anti-Catholics too, but we didn’t give them much thought. Also, Jesus and all the apostles were Jews, so being anti-Jewish just didn’t make sense.

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.

 

[Thomas_White]

I also went to parochial school in the 1950’s, taught by nuns in full habit, from the Baltimore Catechism among other things. No one ever said that all non-Catholics were going to hell or that all Catholics were going to heaven. For the life of me I can’t figure where these urban legends of the 50’s come from.

And I also attended parochial schools during the 1950’s, beginning with the first grade in 1951. Our teachers were nuns, and they wore the full habit. Our catechism was the Baltimore Catechism. During high school, which was all boys, we were taught by Catholic brothers and priests from a religious order. Religion class was daily all throughout these years, and during high school we used standard textbooks for religion classes. All of this Catholic education was prior to Vatican II.

Have you forgotten the teaching by Pope Pius IX that salvation, absent invincible ignorance, could not be obtained outside the Church? This doctrine was not revised prior to Vatican II (at which time the doctrine was indeed revised).

I also recall when the Latin word ‘perfidis’ (faithless) was removed from the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews (I was an altar server at that time).

And, really, during that era a Catholic who disagreed with the teachings of the pope had but one option and that was to leave the Church.

 

[JimG]

And I also attended parochial schools during the 1950’s, beginning with the first grade in 1951. Our teachers were nuns, and they wore the full habit. Our catechism was the Baltimore Catechism. During high school, which was all boys, we were taught by Catholic brothers and priests from a religious order. Religion class was daily all throughout these years, and during high school we used standard textbooks for religion classes. All of this Catholic education was prior to Vatican II.

Have you forgotten the teaching by Pope Pius IX that salvation, absent invincible ignorance, could not be obtained outside the Church? This doctrine was not revised prior to Vatican II (at which time the doctrine was indeed revised).

I also recall when the Latin word ‘perfidis’ (faithless) was removed from the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews (I was an altar server at that time).

And, really, during that era a Catholic who disagreed with the teachings of the pope had but one option and that was to leave the Church.

Yes, I recall the doctrine of no salvation outside the Church (it is still the doctrine!). And I didn’t think that all my Protestant buddies were going to hell. If they were not Catholic, it was because of invincible ignorance, not because they knew the truth and rejected it. It seemed perfectly reasonable to me. And I never paid much attention to the word “perfidious.” I heard it once a year during the Triduum liturgy.

 

[graciew]

My granfather was very important in our lives. Our grandparents were a reference. And also for my parents who loved and respected them dearly.
My grandad would seldom if ever talk about religion ,but we could see…we shared in their lives.
Theynwould tell us about their parents and grandparents and how they had in turn learnt from them.
They loved Jesus. It was so evident. And thus it came down to my parents.
Traditional ,very traditional almost naturally traditional I would say . Little sounded imposed or imposing .
I don’ t know…but it does not make sense.to think of Jesus without including them.

 

[LongingSoul]

My granfather was very important in our lives. Our grandparents were a reference. And also for my parents who loved and respected them dearly.
My grandad would seldom if ever talk about religion ,but we could see…we shared in their lives.
They loved Jesus. It was so evident. And thus it came down to my parents.
Traditional ,very traditional almost naturally traditional I would say . Little sounded imposed or imposing .
I don’ t know…but it does not make sense.to think of Jesus without including them.

That’s beautifully said, graciew.

 

[LongingSoul]

Yes, I recall the doctrine of no salvation outside the Church (it is still the doctrine!). And I didn’t think that all my Protestant buddies were going to hell. If they were not Catholic, it was because of invincible ignorance, not because they knew the truth and rejected it. It seemed perfectly reasonable to me. And I never paid much attention to the word “perfidious.” I heard it once a year during the Triduum liturgy.

Australia had a much more Irish/English relationship between Catholics and Protestants. It sounds like you grew up a much more ecumenical environment even for back then. Were one of your parents a convert?

When my father and mother met, Dad was a nominal Catholic and had non Catholic friends. Although he became a very good, holy Catholic being with my mother, he still throughout his life felt hurt that his non Catholic friends weren’t invited to their wedding. That was my mothers parents doing, but it was a common practice. Parents were afraid of mixing unmarried Catholic girls with non Catholic boys.

 

[Thomas_White]

Yes, I recall the doctrine of no salvation outside the Church (it is still the doctrine!). And I didn’t think that all my Protestant buddies were going to hell. If they were not Catholic, it was because of invincible ignorance, not because they knew the truth and rejected it. It seemed perfectly reasonable to me. And I never paid much attention to the word “perfidious.” I heard it once a year during the Triduum liturgy.

Yes, the doctrine of “Outside the Church there is no Salvation” remains doctrine but was “reformulated positively” (i.e., advanced in understanding) following Vatican II and as it now appears in CCC 846.

During high school, our religion teacher (a Catholic priest) throughly explained the question of the removal of the word “perfidis” from the Holy Week Liturgy. I recall this because it was considered quite significant at that time.