Traditional Catholicism = Protestant fundamentalism?

[Hlafdige]

…The opening line of this person’s blog says that he did not watch or read much, because he was predisposed against WYD.

In the middle of the text, he speaks about his days as a Protestant. This can be very telling. Some people convert to Catholicism and they seem to be able to detach from that particular way of thinking. Unfortunately, others who convert, especially from Fundamentalist Protestantism, become believers of the truth and members of the Catholic Church. They embrace the fullness of truth that subsists in the Church, but they can’t shake off the fundamentalist way of thinking. They continue to be rigid, fixated on their opinions, and determined to convert everyone to their point of view.

I saw this in the blog too. He said that he was not interested in hearing from others who he labeled liberals, neo conservatives and something else. In other words, he’s not open to hearing any other opinion but his own. This reminded me of the Jehovah Witness who knocks on your door on Saturday morning.

OUCH, Brother!!

A lot of us converts from Protestantism consider ourselves “hard-identity Catholics” (h/t to Fr. Z for the term). To say that this is due to a lack of detachment from particularly Protestant thinking is basically an ad hominem argument (you say that because you have thus-and-such faults, therefore what you say isn’t true).

Protestant fundamentalists and orthodox Catholics both want to see truth in advertising: If the label says “Catholic” (or Lutheran, or Baptist…) we think that’s what we should find inside the package.

From Wikipedia’s definition of fundamentalism:

Christian fundamentalism, also known as fundamentalist Christianity, or simply fundamentalism,[1] refers to a movement begun in the late 19th and early 20th century British and American Protestant denominations among evangelicals who reacted energetically against theological and cultural modernism.[2] Fundamentalists argued that 19th century modernist theologians had misinterpreted or rejected certain doctrines, especially biblical inerrancy, which evangelicals viewed as the fundamentals of Christian faith.[3] A few scholars regard Catholics who reject modern theology in favor of more traditional doctrines as fundamentalists.

 

[Cat]

OUCH, Brother!!

A lot of us converts from Protestantism consider ourselves “hard-identity Catholics” (h/t to Fr. Z for the term). To say that this is due to a lack of detachment from particularly Protestant thinking is basically an ad hominem argument (you say that because you have thus-and-such faults, therefore what you say isn’t true).

Protestant fundamentalists and orthodox Catholics both want to see truth in advertising: If the label says “Catholic” (or Lutheran, or Baptist…) we think that’s what we should find inside the package.

From Wikipedia’s definition of fundamentalism:

Referring to boldface, above–I think the problem is that many of us laypeople have an incomplete or even incorrect definition of what “Catholic” is, so when we open the package, we expect to see something that really isn’t truly “Catholic.”

We read a few documents, we read a few books by people who think and write in a mindset similar to our own, we sit around and chat with our friends who also have the same mindset, and then we think that we have “Catholic” figured out. It should look like________ (whatever we have concluded from our vast and varied studies).

But it is the clergy who really do spend years in school learning what “Catholic” is, and also some lay religious leaders and teachers. Our “vast studies” are minuscule compared to the time that they log studying.

The bishop emeritus of our diocese has his doctoral degree in Canon Law. He has read and studied more documents and books, and sat around and chatted with the most-knowledgeable Catholics in the world, including several Popes. Our current bishop is also highly-educated and well-travelled.

In addition, the clergy has a charism that we laypeople do not have. God has gifted them with the ability to shepherd a flock of Christians, and that means they usually know what is best for the sheep. We as laypeople can’t begin to have this pastoral mindset, not because we’re inferior or non-intelligent, but because we’re not called to be shepherds–we’re the sheep! We are convinced that we know better than the shepherd and that the beautiful green pasture on the other side of the creek is much sweeter than ours, but we can’t see what the shepherd sees–the den of wolves living next to that pasture, or the weed-spray that has poisoned the grass in that pasture or the infestation of fluke-harboring snails that live in the grass waiting for silly sheep to eat them and become infected.

 

[agnes_therese]

A lot of us converts from Protestantism consider ourselves “hard-identity Catholics” (h/t to Fr. Z for the term). To say that this is due to a lack of detachment from particularly Protestant thinking is basically an ad hominem argument (you say that because you have thus-and-such faults, therefore what you say isn’t true).

Nowhere did Brother JR say that was true of all. You can only say that’s an ad hominem if you’re willing to say it’s not true of any converts from fundamentalism.
Are you sure it’s not?

 

[BobDanners]

Is being a fundamental Catholic a bad thing?

I really don’t like this thinking among Catholics where it’s an “us verses them” mindset. I think it’s dangerous to think that rejecting modernism and heresy and being versed in Sacred Scripture and Tradition and the early Church fathers; is a bad thing.

Yes as a Catholic convert from Protestantism I take a lot of my learning experiences with me…and here’s what I learned:

I am a Catholic…I’m not a former this or that. I am a Catholic! I am a member of Christ’s One True Church and it does not matter how I or anybody else entered it, if a successor of the Apostle’s legitimately accepted it…it is valid.

I will never understand why tradition is considered to be such a disparaging term in Catholic circles…are we supposed to be of this world?

 

[Thomas_Casey]

The title of this thread does not accurately reflect what the quoted text says. Please stick to titles that are accurate.

I will allow this thread to remain open as long as the dialogue is charitable and honest.

 

[VanSensei]

I would use “fundamentalist Catholics” to refer to a group of extreme sedevacantists and traditionalists who insist that a) they are the only Christians or that the Novus Ordo is a Protestant mockery or some other absurdly supremacist thing. It’s horrible.

 

[JReducation]

If you read what I said, I never equated Traditionalism and Fundamentalist Protestantism.

I said that SOME converts from fundamentalist Protestantism continue to think the same way even though they are truly Catholic in their beliefs. This is true. One’s beliefs and how one communicates those beliefs are two different subjects.

My statement and the implied statement in the OP are very far from each other. I’m talking about how some SOME people communicate or think, not about what they believe. There is absolutely nothing Protestant about Traditional Catholicism. I never said there was.

I am offended that it is being implied that I said such a thing about Traditional Catholicism.

 

[BobDanners]

I would use “fundamentalist Catholics” to refer to a group of extreme sedevacantists and traditionalists who insist that a) they are the only Christians or that the Novus Ordo is a Protestant mockery or some other absurdly supremacist thing. It’s horrible.

Somehow I see sedevacantists as being the actual “Protestant” because they truly are in-protest with the Papacy, or at least with the current and past popes going back to Bl. John XXIII.

 

[Church_Militant]

My experience has been similar to what Br. Jay points out.

The blogger is way out of line in that he neglects to consider that the Church has always allowed for cultural diversity in the liturgy. That’s why we have some of the other rites to this day and I think a current good example is the new Anglican use rite.

I think that what the guy displays, and what Br. Jay is speaking of is a sort of fundamentalism in some Catholics, though he is correct that they are not Protestant, but their style of thinking and communication is almost identical.

It’s never wise to read something into someone else’s remarks, but it happens sometimes. We are seeing that a good bit with things that our most excellent new pontiff has said since his election.

 

[JustaServant]

Having spent twenty years across the Tiber, several of years spent in fundamentalist churches, I can witness the observation that, what I will call “neo-Traditionalists”, have morphed into something almost identical to Protestant fundamentalism.
Without getting into the issues, and speaking purely from a psychological and sociological perspective, this is the conclusion I have reached.
A group whose self-description is more about what they are against than what they are for.
A legalistic mindset that insists on outward obedience without recognizing the inward working of the Spirit.
Picking and choosing which traditions they adhere to, in much the same fashion fundamentalists pick and choose what parts of the Bible they can emphasize.
Mistaking western culture with Christian culture.
Immature, overly emotional thought patterns. Log into Fisheaters to see that.
Separation from the “world”.
The emotional and intellectual high of belonging to an exclusive “club”, making them feel superior to others around them. Very similar to Calvinism.
Extreme negativity.
Racism or anti-Semitism.
Fascination with end times.
None of these things have anything to do with the TLM or the 2000 years of Catholic tradition.
The culture of people who call themselves traditionalists leads logically, as with any extreme movement, to abberant philosophies that can be easily seen by reading trad forums and blogs. But also, in face to face encounters.

 

[JustaServant]

Protestant fundamentalists and orthodox Catholics both want to see truth in advertising: If the label says “Catholic” (or Lutheran, or Baptist…) we think that’s what we should find inside the package.

The problem with Protestant fundamentalism is they start with a fauty premise: Scripture alone. They then move on to newly created abberent philosophies they insist are part of the “fundamentals of the Christian faith”, such as Dispensationalism and Pre-millenialism, ect.
What “truth in advertising” do they want to see?
Thier own “truth”.
REAL Traditional Catholicism , has nothing in common with Protestant fundamentalism.
NEO-Trads however, do have A LOT in common with fundamentalists.

 

[OraLabora]

I think we need to avoid labeling in particular negative labeling.

I can appreciate the “zeal of the newly converted” because I was there once too in a way. I was brought up Catholic but never really embraced the faith other than to through the motions as a youth to please my parents. I abandoned the faith for 22 years, and after coming home, I too had the zeal of the newly converted, wanted hard truths, and thought that being hard-core Catholic and sheer willpower alone would make me overcome sin.

It took a heck of a long time to learn about Grace. It took a pretty hard fall to learn that.

We’re all at different parts of our faith journey. We, and that “we” includes myself, need to soften up a little even towards those being “hard” in their faith expression. Not always easy I’ll admit…there but for the Grace of God go I…

 

[JReducation]

Having spent twenty years across the Tiber, several of years spent in fundamentalist churches, I can witness the observation that, what I will call “neo-Traditionalists”, have morphed into something almost identical to Protestant fundamentalism.
Without getting into the issues, and speaking purely from a psychological and sociological perspective, this is the conclusion I have reached.
A group whose self-description is more about what they are against than what they are for.
A legalistic mindset that insists on outward obedience without recognizing the inward working of the Spirit.
Picking and choosing which traditions they adhere to, in much the same fashion fundamentalists pick and choose what parts of the Bible they can emphasize.
Mistaking western culture with Christian culture.
Immature, overly emotional thought patterns. Log into Fisheaters to see that.
Separation from the “world”.
The emotional and intellectual high of belonging to an exclusive “club”, making them feel superior to others around them. Very similar to Calvinism.
Extreme negativity.
Racism or anti-Semitism.
Fascination with end times.
None of these things have anything to do with the TLM or the 2000 years of Catholic tradition.
The culture of people who call themselves traditionalists leads logically, as with any extreme movement, to abberant philosophies that can be easily seen by reading trad forums and blogs. But also, in face to face encounters.

The problem with Protestant fundamentalism is they start with a fauty premise: Scripture alone. They then move on to newly created abberent philosophies they insist are part of the “fundamentals of the Christian faith”, such as Dispensationalism and Pre-millenialism, ect.
What “truth in advertising” do they want to see?
Thier own “truth”.
REAL Traditional Catholicism , has nothing in common with Protestant fundamentalism.
NEO-Trads however, do have A LOT in common with fundamentalists.

I think we need to avoid labeling in particular negative labeling.

I can appreciate the “zeal of the newly converted” because I was there once too in a way. I was brought up Catholic but never really embraced the faith other than to through the motions as a youth to please my parents. I abandoned the faith for 22 years, and after coming home, I too had the zeal of the newly converted, wanted hard truths, and thought that being hard-core Catholic and sheer willpower alone would make me overcome sin.

It took a heck of a long time to learn about Grace. It took a pretty hard fall to learn that.

We’re all at different parts of our faith journey. We, and that “we” includes myself, need to soften up a little even towards those being “hard” in their faith expression. Not always easy I’ll admit…there but for the Grace of God go I…

I think that there is great truth here.

I also KNOW from my education in theology that there is no such thing as asceticism and mysticism without levity, joy, color, laughter, humor, sound and humanity.

Christian spirituality is very dynamic. It moves along a continuum from the sublime to the ridiculous. If we really want to impose a sublime spiritual experience for 3,000,000 young people we should place them in a Discalced Carmelite monastery for one week.

There is a problem there. Even in a Discalced Carmelite monastery, there is a daily period of goofing around. Even there, we find diversity in music, liturgy and forms of prayer. Yet, I can’t think of any place more disciplined than that.

If I take the cloistered Carmelite nuns, the Trappist monks or the Carthusian hermits and place them in a room for an hour, I will find them laughing, gossiping and roasting each other. Why? Because their mission in life is to be the people God made them to be, not to rub other people’s faces into a bible or book of rules.

It’s rather ironic that the charter houses are the most organized places in the world. Yet, do you folks know that St. Bruno never gave his hermits a rule of life. They do not follow St. Benedict or St. Augustine, which are the two monastic rules that were in existence back then. Bruno refused to write a rule, because he wanted to avoid rigidity. He gave the hermits a set of statutes that reads like a TO DO list and left them free to change it according to the needs of each house and the faith of the brethren in those houses. The ideal was prayer. How they did it was flexible.

You will never find a Benedictine, Carthusian, Carmelite, Cistercian or Trappist trying to mold people into some predetermined model of Catholicism. They actually abhor the concept rigidity and uniformity. That’s the reason that every Benedictine congregation is different and every house within the congregation has its own personality and quirks. It also explains why the Rule of St. Benedict is followed by so many religious communities, lay organizations and oblates, because of it’s lack of rigidity. Benedict leads and invites, but he does not force. He does not have a fundamentalist mindset. He’s not enamored of his opinions and his idea of the Gospel Life.

We need to look at these great and holy men and women and learn from them to be flexible and to acknowledge that the person whom we’re trying to shove into a mold is a child of grace. Grace will mold him or her, not us. We can simply pray, invite and bear witness to the Gospel by our charity.

 

[OraLabora]

I think that there is great truth here.

I also KNOW from my education in theology that there is no such thing as asceticism and mysticism without levity, joy, color, laughter, humor, sound and humanity.

Christian spirituality is very dynamic. It moves along a continuum from the sublime to the ridiculous. If we really want to impose a sublime spiritual experience for 3,000,000 young people we should place them in a Discalced Carmelite monastery for one week.

There is a problem there. Even in a Discalced Carmelite monastery, there is a daily period of goofing around. Even there, we find diversity in music, liturgy and forms of prayer. Yet, I can’t think of any place more disciplined than that.

If I take the cloistered Carmelite nuns, the Trappist monks or the Carthusian hermits and place them in a room for an hour, I will find them laughing, gossiping and roasting each other. Why? Because their mission in life is to be the people God made them to be, not to rub other people’s faces into a bible or book of rules.

It’s rather ironic that the charter houses are the most organized places in the world. Yet, do you folks know that St. Bruno never gave his hermits a rule of life. They do not follow St. Benedict or St. Augustine, which are the two monastic rules that were in existence back then. Bruno refused to write a rule, because he wanted to avoid rigidity. He gave the hermits a set of statutes that reads like a TO DO list and left them free to change it according to the needs of each house and the faith of the brethren in those houses. The ideal was prayer. How they did it was flexible.

You will never find a Benedictine, Carthusian, Carmelite, Cistercian or Trappist trying to mold people into some predetermined model of Catholicism. They actually abhor the concept rigidity and uniformity. That’s the reason that every Benedictine congregation is different and every house within the congregation has its own personality and quirks. It also explains why the Rule of St. Benedict is followed by so many religious communities, lay organizations and oblates, because of it’s lack of rigidity. Benedict leads and invites, but he does not force. He does not have a fundamentalist mindset. He’s not enamored of his opinions and his idea of the Gospel Life.

We need to look at these great and holy men and women and learn from them to be flexible and to acknowledge that the person whom we’re trying to shove into a mold is a child of grace. Grace will mold him or her, not us. We can simply pray, invite and bear witness to the Gospel by our charity.

If you’ve ever seen the film “Into Great Silence” about a Carthusian monastery, there’s a great scene in the film of the monks on their weekly outing in winter, hamming it up and sliding down a snowy hill on their bums and having a great old time like a bunch of school kids, with plenty of laughter. I found it a very touching and human scene in the (very powerful) film.

 

[JReducation]

If you’ve ever seen the film “Into Great Silence” about a Carthusian monastery, there’s a great scene in the film of the monks on their weekly outing in winter, hamming it up and sliding down a snowy hill on their bums and having a great old time like a bunch of school kids, with plenty of laughter. I found it a very touching and human scene in the (very powerful) film.

I have seen that film several times. Now that you mention it, I do remember that part. That was not Hollywood either. That was the hermits being goofy.

 

[vames]

I think that there is great truth here.

I also KNOW from my education in theology that there is no such thing as asceticism and mysticism without levity, joy, color, laughter, humor, sound and humanity.

Their sites have helped me to understand that such a sour, stern attitude and their explicit disgust towards the word “joy” have to do with a reinforced emphasis on Christ’s passion and death, as they consider that the post-VII Church is concentrating excessively on His resurrection and has changed the focus of the Mass from the Sacrifice at the Calvary to a mere supper among friends. So one has to be solemn, silent and to reflect constantly on Christ’s death and on the Last Four Things (especially death and hell), instead of “celebrating” anything.

Now the blogger Philothea may be a former Protestant, but there are cradle Catholics who can be much more venomous. One of them, who had labeled the WYD “World Fornication Day”, has just instructed his sympathetic readers that a good Catholic “has traditionally had the faculty to pray for the painless death of the Pontiff if he is persuaded the Pontiff in question is a disgrace for the Church” and expressed his hope that Pope Francis will have a heart attack. Another one posted that “it’s clear that not only was John Paul II not a saint, but he was one of the greatest apostates and enemies in the history of the Catholic Church”. With such Catholics, who needs Protestants?

 

[otjm]

Is being a fundamental Catholic a bad thing?

I really don’t like this thinking among Catholics where it’s an “us verses them” mindset. I think it’s dangerous to think that rejecting modernism and heresy and being versed in Sacred Scripture and Tradition and the early Church fathers; is a bad thing.

Yes as a Catholic convert from Protestantism I take a lot of my learning experiences with me…and here’s what I learned:

I am a Catholic…I’m not a former this or that. I am a Catholic! I am a member of Christ’s One True Church and it does not matter how I or anybody else entered it, if a successor of the Apostle’s legitimately accepted it…it is valid.

I will never understand why tradition is considered to be such a disparaging term in Catholic circles…are we supposed to be of this world?

Well, it may depend on what the content of the word “fundamentalist” contains - or as I was taught in high school: “Define your terms!”.

If it means disparaging, or even rejecting Vatican 2 documents, and the legitimate implementation of them, then yes, being a “fundamentalist Catholic” can be a bad thing.

As to tradition (as opposed to Tradition - that which was handed down from the Apostles), not all tradition is worthy of being carried ad infinitum. Some is. Some was/is specific to a time and place, and when that time and/or place changed, then the tradition may be open to modification, or relegated to history. That makes some people really upset; but if one digs deeply enough, one will find that they a) only know about some traditions, and b) are of the (apparent) opinion that tradition stopped being created somewhere around the time of Pope Pius 10th, or 5th, or 12th… and they refuse to accept that the church - whether from the top or the bottom - can start new traditions. And legitimately so. It can also revive old traditions legitimately (and from out of the bleachers comes the cry “Antiquarianism!!!”).

Some are truly attached to certain traditions.

Others use older traditions to reject, outright or subtly, what they don’t like of the new, or apparent new. Or “antiquarian”. Or whatever.

The problem with “rejecting modernism” is that a great many people simply brandish that term as a means of disparaging anything they don’t like. Modernism (which really is a term to cover a number of different things) started about 200+ years ago, and we have moved a bit beyond that - we not only moved into post-Modernism, but have moved beyond that. It truly is tiring to hear the flails hit that dead and decomposing horse.

It is like, you know, so pseudo intellectual… (and that is not reflected on you - just trying out my “Valley speak” voice to see if it still works).

Not meaning to be harsh. Being Catholic should mean being orthodox, which should mean following the Magisterial teachings of the Church, including those we don’t understand or don’t like. Not more, and not less.

I think what Brother was trying to say is that people tend (and some tend more than others) towards one end or the other of the spectrum; there are a lot in the middle (bell curve and all of that) but even those, if scratched on a particular issue, will itch one way or the other. And for those who are generally of a fairly conservative view of life in general and religion in particular, will, after converting, tend that way towards the Church as that is their world view, for lack of a better term.

 

[JReducation]

Their sites have helped me to understand that such a sour, stern attitude and their explicit disgust towards the word “joy” have to do with a reinforced emphasis on Christ’s passion and death, as they consider that the post-VII Church is concentrating excessively on His resurrection

Red is mine.

Slow down here. You’re bordering on heresy. From reading the rest of your post, I don’t think you’re a heretic nor this is exactly what you want to say. For the sake of others who may be reading and not posting.

One can never concentrate excessively on the Resurrection. The Resurrection of Christ is our reason for being. Without the Resurrection, his death would be meaningless. Everyone dies; but only one person conquered death.

To focus on the Resurrection, one has no choice but to focus on the cross. You can’t have the Resurrection without the cross. Which then leads us to ask “Why the foolishness of the cross?” This question takes us into the whole paschal mystery of redemption.

and has changed the focus of the Mass from the Sacrifice at the Calvary to a mere supper among friends.

This is an inaccurate perception. If we listen carefully to the Eucharistic prayers, all of them retell the story of salvation from the Last Supper to the Christ’s reign in glory.

The structure of the Pauline mass follows the same structure of every mass: Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist. They were not as indistinguishable in the EF as they are in the OF. But this is not new to the universal Church. It’s only recent in the Roman Rite. These very distinctive liturgical movements have been present in the East and in some of the Latin rites for centuries such as the Bragan, Ambrosian and Carthusian rites. They always had a very clear line of demarcation. In the Tridentine (Roman Rite) the flow was different. But there are still two parts to the mass.

So one has to be solemn, silent and to reflect constantly on Christ’s death and on the Last Four Things (especially death and hell), instead of “celebrating” anything.

Again, this is contrary to Catholic tradition. We have always placed great emphasis on celebration. The Easter Vigil is the most joyful of all liturgies and it is the highlight of the liturgical year. It has been this way since the first century.

Now the blogger Philothea may be a former Protestant, but there are cradle Catholics who can be much more venomous. One of them, who had labeled the WYD “World Fornication Day”, has just instructed his sympathetic readers that a good Catholic “has traditionally had the faculty to pray for the painless death of the Pontiff if he is persuaded the Pontiff in question is a disgrace for the Church”

This person is spreading something that is a sin. No matter how evil we consider someone to be, we may never wish for their demise. Conception and death are the work of God and God alone. Man has no right to interfere in either. To wish someone’s death, because of an opinion that we hold is dishonest charity at best. It assumes that our opinion is infallible. Don’t listen to such people. They’re only going to mislead you or anyone else.

and expressed his hope that Pope Francis will have a heart attack.

This is immoral

Another one posted that “it’s clear that not only was John Paul II not a saint, but he was one of the greatest apostates and enemies in the history of the Catholic Church”. With such Catholics, who needs Protestants?

This too is immoral. Who dares to judge the soul of another? Who dares the contradict the Magisterium when it tells us that someone has lived a life of heroic virtue?

The fact is that all of these folks are seriously mistaken, beginning with the blogger and followed by those whom you have quoted. They need our prayers that they can find peace and inner silence. Only a heart filled with anger and frustration would make such comments.

 

[JReducation]

Well, it may depend on what the content of the word “fundamentalist” contains - or as I was taught in high school: “Define your terms!”.

If it means disparaging, or even rejecting Vatican 2 documents, and the legitimate implementation of them, then yes, being a “fundamentalist Catholic” can be a bad thing.

As to tradition (as opposed to Tradition - that which was handed down from the Apostles), not all tradition is worthy of being carried ad infinitum. Some is. Some was/is specific to a time and place, and when that time and/or place changed, then the tradition may be open to modification, or relegated to history. That makes some people really upset; but if one digs deeply enough, one will find that they a) only know about some traditions, and b) are of the (apparent) opinion that tradition stopped being created somewhere around the time of Pope Pius 10th, or 5th, or 12th… and they refuse to accept that the church - whether from the top or the bottom - can start new traditions. And legitimately so. It can also revive old traditions legitimately (and from out of the bleachers comes the cry “Antiquarianism!!!”).

Some are truly attached to certain traditions.

Others use older traditions to reject, outright or subtly, what they don’t like of the new, or apparent new. Or “antiquarian”. Or whatever.

The problem with “rejecting modernism” is that a great many people simply brandish that term as a means of disparaging anything they don’t like. Modernism (which really is a term to cover a number of different things) started about 200+ years ago, and we have moved a bit beyond that - we not only moved into post-Modernism, but have moved beyond that. It truly is tiring to hear the flails hit that dead and decomposing horse.

It is like, you know, so pseudo intellectual… (and that is not reflected on you - just sayin’).

Not meaning to be harsh. Being Catholic should mean being orthodox, which should mean following the Magisterial teachings of the Church, including those we don’t understand or don’t like. Not more, and not less.

I think what Brother was trying to say is that people tend (and some tend more than others) towards one end or the other of the spectrum; there are a lot in the middle (bell curve and all of that) but even those, if scratched on a particular issue, will itch one way or the other. And for those who are generally of a fairly conservative view of life in general and religion in particular, will, after converting, tend that way towards the Church as that is their world view, for lack of a better term.

I like what you wrote very much. I have only one question, for anyone.

What the heck is “fundamentalist Catholicism”? I’ve never heard of such a thing.

 

[vames]

Red is mine.

Slow down here. You’re bordering on heresy. From reading the rest of your post, I don’t think you’re a heretic nor this is exactly what you want to say. For the sake of others who may be reading and not posting.

One can never concentrate excessively on the Resurrection. The Resurrection of Christ is our reason for being. Without the Resurrection, his death would be meaningless. Everyone dies; but only one person conquered death.

To focus on the Resurrection, one has no choice but to focus on the cross. You can’t have the Resurrection without the cross. Which then leads us to ask “Why the foolishness of the cross?” This question takes us into the whole paschal mystery of redemption.

Don’t worry, the heresy is not mine
An example is this article, that speaks about “the extremist emphasis on the Resurrection”. There are a lot of others, too - I’m sure you are aware of this mindset. I’m not tempted by this nonsense, I’m just shocked and sad. A few years ago I didn’t even know that such things exist in the Church where I was born and raised (yes, I live under such a rock). And I couldn’t imagine that there are Catholics capable of so much hatred. (Sorry, end of rant.)