Pope Francis criticises ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics

[clem456]

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?

Before you make some unfounded accusation about my particular Catholic belief, I would suggest you might not have a sufficient understanding of these teachings.

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?

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.

Who claimed to know the absolute truth?
Please quote my post Thomas where I said “:I know the absolute truth”.

I know what the Church teaches about the Trinity.
So?

And I know what the Church teaches about Christ’s personal nature.
So?

And you reject me because I simply talk about what Christ and the Church has given us.

Thomas:
What is fundamentalism, and what does it look and sound like?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

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.

No, there isn’t overlap and your opinion doesn’t fit the definitions.

Fundamentalists demand that you reject what they reject, progressives demand that you accept what they accept.

Its what separates the two

Jim

 

[Brendan]

Do you really believe the Trinity is literally three distinct persons in one Godhead

YES.

and that the Host is literally the material body and blood of Christ?

Where did the get the word ‘material’. That was not in my quote.

But I really DO believe that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ, present in Sacrament.

Before you make some unfounded accusation about my particular Catholic belief, I would suggest you might not have a sufficient understanding of these teachings.

Then point out where my statements contradicts Catholic teaching on the subject.

 

[Brendan]

No they’re not the same.

Although progressives have limits they are not narrow as fundamentalists are. The don’t demand that others reject what they reject as fundamentalist do.

Jim

They most certainly DO. There are quite a number of Catholic ‘progressives’ that demand that the Church recognize homosexual relationships, for example.

They reject the Church’s definition of marriage and demand that the Church reject it’s rules barring such.

And if we open the topic to secular ‘progressives’, that list grows exponentially.

 

[Brendan]

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?.

Does personhood require a human nature? Why would you exclude the Holy Spirit from personhood? The Church does not.

 

[friardchips]

Vat II is not the cause yet sometimes both extremes use the developments as justification for heresy. Fortunately, we have saintly Holy Fathers from then right up to today who have and do guide us through turbulent times and show us that turbulence is something that the Catholic is never to fear, but to endure.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

They most certainly DO. There are quite a number of Catholic ‘progressives’ that demand that the Church recognize homosexual relationships, for example.

.

As I said, some progressives demand that you accept what they accept

Jim

 

[friardchips]

No, there isn’t overlap and your opinion doesn’t fit the definitions.

Fundamentalists demand that you reject what they reject, progressives demand that you accept what they accept.

Its what separates the two

Jim

Yes, No. Yes. No. I’ve said my piece. They sometimes overlap. I know this. You don’t agree. Big cheese. There are however areas in which they cross. Not all ways. But I never said they cross in every way.

(in bold) - clever way of putting it. I agree. But those who get us to accept are also rejecting in some way. Because to accept something false is to reject the truth, or/and, dilute it.

 

[friardchips]

As I said, some progressives demand that you accept what they accept

Jim

This is also what fundamentalists do. Similarities, don’t you think.

Neither extreme allows for true guidance in the Holy Spirit. One is boxed in the other is full of holes. One is rigid an the other blows every which way the wind takes it. One is fanatical and the other is relativist. One is the spirit of the memory of past thoughts and the other is the spirit of the world. Neither extreme, is trusting enough in the Holy Spirit. Though there is hope for all.

 

[clem456]

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?

The understanding of the Trinity has developed and is developing. But Christ is the source and summit of our faith, and he gave us an understanding, and the Church continues to unpack it.
We are called to be docile to this teaching. Docility and listening (ob-audiere) to God’s revelation of himself is far from fundamentalism. Maybe we could say it is the antidote to it.

Not to derail further but:
Jesus Christ is God in-carnate, God come meet us in the human flesh. “Emmanuel”

Christ has divine person-hood with full human nature. But the radically important part of that is, he is a person. Because he is a person, and we are persons made in the image of God, we can know God, intimately. We can love him in the full sense of the word. He is not an abstraction. He is mysterious, but he is approachable and knowable.

The Holy Spirit is a person also, as is God the Father.
God is community of persons, before man exists. Before man existed, there is love, because God is love, and God is relationship among persons.

This has enormous implications for how human beings treat each other, and distinguishes Christianity from all other religions. Christianity expresses the fullness of God’s love.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

This is also what fundamentalists do. Similarities, don’t you think.

No, fundamentalists demand that you “reject,” what they reject.

In Catholicism, reject the Novus Ordo in the vernacular.

Reject, guitars at Mass.

Reject holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer.

Reject books on Catholicism written by anyone other than a Catholic priest.

Progressives, don’t reject these, nor do they reject the TLM, Gregorian Chant, or other issues that a traditionalist embraces. They just accept all and allow everyone to chose what they like.

However, many progressives demand that you “accept,” women priests, gay marriage, etc.

Jim

 

[clem456]

As I said, some progressives demand that you accept what they accept

Jim

I luv me some word games.

 

[friardchips]

No, fundamentalists demand that you “reject,” what they reject.

In Catholicism, reject the Novus Ordo in the vernacular.

Reject, guitars at Mass.

Reject holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer.

Reject books on Catholicism written by anyone other than a Catholic priest.

Progressives, don’t reject these, nor do they reject the TLM, Gregorian Chant, or other issues that a traditionalist embraces. They just accept all and allow everyone to chose what they like.

However, many progressives demand that you “accept,” women priests, gay marriage, etc.

Jim

This is some of the picture maybe. But not the whole picture. I will say it one last time. Fundamentalists reject Vat II. Progressives use Vat II as a platform for abuse of sacred beliefs. Neither is the Holy Spirit. Progressivism rejects the true spirit of the Gospel. Just as fundamentalism does and this overlap means they cross over sometimes. Period. It is weird but true.

 

[clem456]

No, fundamentalists demand that you “reject,” what they reject.

In Catholicism, reject the Novus Ordo in the vernacular.

Reject, guitars at Mass.

Reject holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer.

Reject books on Catholicism written by anyone other than a Catholic priest.

Progressives, don’t reject these, nor do they reject the TLM, Gregorian Chant, or other issues that a traditionalist embraces. They just accept all and allow everyone to chose what they like.

However, many progressives demand that you “accept,” women priests, gay marriage, etc.

Jim

I have no specific opinion on any of those matters outside what the Church teaches, but this:

““Progressives, don’t reject these, nor do they reject the TLM, Gregorian Chant, or other issues that a traditionalist embraces. They just accept all and allow everyone to chose what they like.””

is not true at my Parish. The worst outbursts I have seen in our parish in these areas is by middle aged “progressives” against those who want to “go back”… (who does? I don want to “go back”). One of these attacks was nothing short of brutal, heaped on our music director to the point of tears and screaming. It was sickening, and if I had to look for a prime example of fundamentalism, witnessed in my own life, that would be the one that comes to mind. Destroying another person because another rejects their expression of faith.

So Jim, I’ll stop there, at my parish and my experience, so as not to categorize whole groups of Catholics with broad prejudicial labels.

Carry on.

 

[friardchips]

I have no specific opinion on any of those matters outside what the Church teaches, but this:

is not true at my Parish. The worst outbursts I have seen in our parish in these areas is by middle aged “progressives” against those who want to “go back”… (who does? I don want to “go back”). One of these attacks was nothing short of brutal, heaped on our music director to the point of tears and screaming. It was sickening, and if I had to look for a prime example of fundamentalism, witnessed in my own life, that would be the one that comes to mind. Destroying another person because another rejects their expression of faith.

So Jim, I’ll stop there, at my parish and my experience, so as not to categorize whole groups of Catholics with broad prejudicial labels.

Carry on.

• “overlap”; Houston, we have lift off: :takeoff:

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I have no specific opinion on any of those matters outside what the Church teaches, but this:

is not true at my Parish. The worst outbursts I have seen in our parish in these areas is by middle aged “progressives” against those who want to “go back”… (who does? I don want to “go back”). One of these attacks was nothing short of brutal, heaped on our music director to the point of tears and screaming. It was sickening, and if I had to look for a prime example of fundamentalism, witnessed in my own life, that would be the one that comes to mind. Destroying another person because another rejects their expression of faith.

So Jim, I’ll stop there, at my parish and my experience, so as not to categorize whole groups of Catholics with broad prejudicial labels.

Carry on.

Well, perhaps they weren’t progressives, but just ordinary Catholics who lived in the days before Vatican II and do not want to return which many fundamentalist push for ?

Often, fundamentalists will label people liberals, for merely having a different opinion and who also back their opinions with facts.

Jim

 

[Thomas_White]

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.

All this is doctrine. It will not change.

Since God is infinite and we are not, we will not fully comprehend the divine nature even in heaven, while being united in the Beatific Vision. We may increase in our understanding of God just as we increase in our understanding of a human being. But the essence of the doctrine will remain unchanged.

That is the point. It is not that there is no absolute truth but that man does not yet know the absolute truth. To say that there are three distinct persons in one person defies reason. It just does–three distinct persons who are one person is not a logical possibility. To claim to understand the Trininity, as knowledge, is what is not believable. The Trinity is a mystery, and Catholics accept that it is a mystery as a matter of faith. This is the point.

To say there are three “divine persons” is fine and a way to point toward an understanding, but it tells us nothing of the incomprehensible nature of divinity.

The same applies to the Eucharist. Jesus is wholly present, body, blood, soul and divinity. He is present whole and entire. We do not perceive his human appearances with the senses because the appearances of bread and wine remain, even as the essence of the bread change to Jesus.

Yes, we can develop in our understanding of the Eucharist, but the essence of the doctrine will not change. That is not fundamentalism, that is doctrinal orthodoxy.

While Catholic teaching is that Christ is present, body and blood, in the Eucharist, I assure you that Catholic teaching is not that the Host is physically the body and blood of Christ. This too is a mystery. And, again, to proclaim that one understands this mystery, as knowledge of the intellect rather than faith, is not believable. it also should be realized this is not a challenge to doctrine. As you say, “we can develop in our understanding”.

 

[clem456]

Well, perhaps they weren’t progressives, but just ordinary Catholics who lived in the days before Vatican II and do not want to return which many fundamentalist push for ?

Often, fundamentalists will label people liberals, for merely having a different opinion and who also back their opinions with facts.

Jim

I am shocked and amazed that people label each other.

In any case, I am glad you give progressives some latitude to be ordinary Catholics.
Gives me some charitableness to aspire to.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I am shocked and amazed that people label each other.

In any case, I am glad you give progressives some latitude to be ordinary Catholics.
Gives me some charitableness to aspire to.

I live with a 34 year old progressive, my son, and a good friend of mine is a staunch fundamentalist, Trust me, I have the experience with both flavors.

Jim

 

[Thomas_White]

This is some of the picture maybe. But not the whole picture. I will say it one last time. Fundamentalists reject Vat II. Progressives use Vat II as a platform for abuse of sacred beliefs. Neither is the Holy Spirit. Progressivism rejects the true spirit of the Gospel. Just as fundamentalism does and this overlap means they cross over sometimes. Period. It is weird but true.

I believe there is a confusion of terms on the thread, and I would not even agree that “traditional” and “conservative” have the same meaning. There are, I suppose “conservative” and “progressive” (liberal) Catholics, and I do not see that either is an extreme position.

Fundamentalism, however, is an extreme position and no doubt has its opposite–and these also are not the same thing.

A “traditional Catholic” would not necessary have a conservative outlook, one where politics sometimes becomes comingled with religion. I believe it is this conservative outlook of which Pope Francis has been critical and not traditional Catholicism.