Who are the real Fundamentalists

[sadie2723]

To Catholics, Fundamentalist is sometimes known as a bad word and with good reason. Let’s face up to the fact that there are some people out there that just do not like us one little bit. In fact, they would like to see the Catholic faith done away with. Why? Well, they claim that they are the Bible thumping fundamentalists who “only follow it if the Bible says it.”

I am dealing with one of these individuals in an active debate right now. He is, potentially, my future father in law, and he is VERY unhappy that his little girl has decided to pollute herself by dating a member of what he considers to be the world’s largest cult.

This interaction with him has forced me to become somewhat of an apologist in defending the faith. The experience has not gone the way that he had hoped, as I think that he was sure that his arguments would destroy mine. They, of course, have fallen short of his goal, and now he is very upset. I have managed to do an excellent job (if I do say so myself) of defending Rome with scripture. In fact, in our first debate which involved works and salvation, I backed it up so well and with such a volume of scripture, that he has been unable to respond to my last email in over five days.

But, something interesting occurred to me in my studies and defense. It would seem that Catholicism is the fundamentalist religion. It looks like to me that we take everything that the Bible says literally. I know that this may not come as a shock to may of you, but it did to me. I am also becoming fascinated by the fact that those Protestants that claim to be Fundamentalists only take the Bible literally when it fits their arguments. I was just wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the subject of the Catholic Church being the real Fundamentalist church of Christianity, and how we might use that to benefit others in the faith.

Thanks,
B

 

[exoflare]

The thought has crossed my mind as well. One of the biggest errors I think the “fundamentalists” as they are known today, make in their interpretation of scripture is that they think languages are supposed to somehow translate perfectly from culture to culture and age to age. They don’t seem to realize that words and idiomatic phrases in one language don’t usually have a perfectly congruent word or phrase in another language.

The Bible was meant to be taken “literally” for the people of the culture and time that those individual books were written for, but it doesn’t give the same intended meanings for those people reading it today since the languages and cultures people read them in are vastly different.

One example that immediately comes to mind is how I have this Baptist friend who started talking about John 6, and I was surprised to hear how he interpreted Jesus’ command to “eat my flesh and drink my blood”… he was trying to fit it into a modern English idiomatic sense that would have made no sense in that context. He thought of it merely as some sort of vague reminder that we have to put all our effort into serving Jesus rather than being lukewarm - in the same sense that a basketball coach might tell his team, a few days before the big game, something like “for the next four days, you’re going to eat, drink, and sleep, and breathe basketball!”

 

[patg]

sadie2723:

It looks like to me that we take everything that the Bible says literally. I know that this may not come as a shock to may of you, but it did to me.

Actually, the church teaches that very little of the bible must be taken literally. You must be speaking of the “fundamentalist catholics” who ignore the writings of the popes and other scripture scholars. It is the willingness to consider historical criticism, literary forms, cultural conventions, and translation difficulties that separates the catholic church from untenable fundamentalism in regards to literalism and inerrancy.

I am also becoming fascinated by the fact that those Protestants that claim to be Fundamentalists only take the Bible literally when it fits their arguments.

I think you would have serious problems verifying this “fact”.

 

[Pjs2ejs]

patg,

You are very mistaken. On both of your points. The church contradicts nothing in the bible but I can name a few things that “Fundamentalist Protestants” do (i.e. True Presence, Church Authority, Reverence to Mary, Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide).

“Fundamentalist Protestants” interpret the bible to fit their beliefs. They will emphasize one passage over another. Disregard others. They will claim figurative speech in scriptures when rejecting the church’s interpretations.

The Catholic Church put the Bible together. They decided what would be in it. Obviously, they knew what it meant.

These “Fundamentalist Catholics” you speak of, are definitely not Catholic but Protestant like yourself. They believe in themselves first. Then the church second. And it seems that they know better than the church.

If I had to choose between 1. believing the Bible when it says the church will survive and the gates of hell will not prevail or 2. trusting my own interpretations, I’ll go with the Bible. Interestingly enough, you consider yourself the Fundamentalist and don’t even trust the Bible.

God bless you on your journey. You are here at Catholic Answers for a reason. Maybe it’s grace.

 

[sadie2723]

Pjs2ejs,

Who could be more correct! Anyone who seeks truth in the Bible and what it teaches finds the Catholic Church waiting like a bride at the alter.

I am a reformed Fundamentalist, I must admit, who became very discouraged when I found those claiming to be Fundamentalists “interpreting” scripture rather than letting scripture speak for itself. These are the same people who tried, and failed, to teach me that “This is my body…This is my blood” did not mean what it said, but was something symbolic. If we were to call ourselves fundamentalists, how could this be?

I determined that it could not be. Thus, I began searching for a faith in which the Bible is literally interpreted…and there was the Catholic Church. The Church teaches, including what they teach via tradtion, exactly what the Bible says…as the Bible highlights the importance of tradition.

Thus, I am a member of the Catholic faith, the most fundamental church in the business.

Thanks.

B

 

[patg]

Pjs2ejs:

You are very mistaken. On both of your points. The church contradicts nothing in the bible

I never said it did. What I said was that the church does not expect or promote belief in the literal truth or historicity of every word in the bible. Most fundamentalists do, whether catholic or otherwise.

“Fundamentalist Protestants” interpret the bible to fit their beliefs. They will emphasize one passage over another. Disregard others. They will claim figurative speech in scriptures when rejecting the church’s interpretations.

Actually, the church is often quite comfortable with “figurative speech” - popes and biblical commissions have stated this in numerous documents.

The Catholic Church put the Bible together. They decided what would be in it. Obviously, they knew what it meant.

Obviuously you are wrong. Thousands of scholars over thousands of years have spent their lives studying and researching the texts and their meanings - this hardly indicates “they knew what it meant”. Even recent papal writings such as *Dei Verbum *stress the need for more research and study and place more emphasis on literary form and historical criticism.

Fundamentalist Catholics" you speak of, are definitely not Catholic but Protestant like yourself. They believe in themselves first. Then the church second. And it seems that they know better than the church.

No, you are wrong again. The “Fundamentalist Catholics” I speak of are those who ignore the church’s writings on biblical scholarship and promote only absolute literalism, absolute historicity, and naive inerrancy.

Interestingly enough, you consider yourself the Fundamentalist and don’t even trust the Bible.

Understanding and trust are very different - I think trust can be misplaced when one doesn’t try to understand. Understanding that the bible is not a history book and that it contains various literary forms and figurative language is trusting both the bible and the church. Those who don’t understand this are what I consider fundamentalists.

God bless you on your journey. You are here at Catholic Answers for a reason. Maybe it’s grace.

And maybe it’s to discuss the church’s understanding of the bible with those who avoid it. I recommend you read *Dei Verbum, *especially the sections where it talks about non-literal interpretations. Another good (and less technical) reference is “And God Said What?” published by Paulist Press.

 

[Pjs2ejs]

pat, with apology, we might have a little miscommunication going here. After re-reading your post, I think I misuderstood your argument.

I agree with your point that the Church interprets many verses figuratively, as they are figurative. I find that so many protestant arguments against Catholic doctrine, such as Eucharist and Mary, are based on either the belief of figurativism or literal, in opposition to the church’s view. (Ex. "This is my body - Catholics take it literally, Protestants take it figuratively) It’s that way for many things.

As far as the church putting the bible together and knowing what it meant, it would have been hard for the church to accept something meaning one thing and practicing something else. John 6 was always translated as the True Presence. If not, the church would have had a hard time defending its belief let alone accepting it as inspired. So, some Protestant comes along and says, “It’s figurative” and people buy it.

I misspoke when I said the church knew what the bible meant (as though I was saying it knew what it ALL meant). We probably will never know the full mystery of the written Word. The bottom line is that no practice of Catholicism contradicts the bible, but many Protestant beliefs do.

No harm, no foul.

I think we’re on the same team, true?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

There is a strain or stratum in Catholicism which is very similar to Fundamentalist Protestantism. They are not quite identical - for example, Catholic Fundamentalism explicitly allows a role to Tradition, which Protestant Fundamentalism does not. The latter gives to textual criticism of the Bible some of the function of Tradition as a means of avoiding meanings in the text which are unhelpful to belief in inerrancy.​

For example, both Fundamentalisms try to sustain the perfect inerrancy of the Bible in all respects - and do so by arguments of which many are identical. It’s fascinating to watch how similar they are: B.B. Warfield and Leo XIII had exactly the same notion of inspiration as requiring inerrancy - they might almost have been collaborating. Yet one was a Princeton Calvinist, and the other an Italian Catholic.

For example, both Fundamentalisms sustain that inerrancy, not by literalism alone, but by adopting as the true meaning of a text that meaning, or meanings, which sustains the Bible’s inerrancy. That is one of the essential principles of both Fundamentalisms - as long as the Bible remains inerrant in every respect, meanings which allow it to do so can be regarded as plausible. Any that does not meet this test, is inadmissible from the outset: even if it is more faithful to the meaning of the passage than the other or others. The Fundamentalist approach is true because it does not sacrifice the God-inspired inerrancy of the Bible to the so-called alternatives dreamed up by the liberal deniers of inerrancy: the meaning of a text must be mistaken, if it denies total inerrancy.

But - the different Christianities have different dogmatic emphases. Some agree - both insist on the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, for example. Some, do not. For example - the Protestant Fundamentalist does not regard the Petrine office as a God-Willed, permanent element in the Church; his Catholic counterpart, does - that is part of beiong Catholic, whether Fundamentalist or not. So, the Protestant does not insist on the “Catholic meaning” of the relevant texts as the Catholic does. He may well be as fiercely insistent that Matthew 16.13-19 was said by Jesus at Caesarea Philippi - but, as long as the Bible is vindicated as inerrant, he can afford to be comparatively relaxed about the passage. The enemy is not so much the Catholic, as the liberal: both Fundamentalisms abominate liberalism, in all its forms. For both, liberalism has the status of a necessary myth, which helps assure the cohesion of Fundamentalists among themselves - if they are raining down anathemas upon liberals, the disagreements among themselves will be less vigorous: and a shared belief in inerrancy (Biblical or otherwise) has never stopped Christians being at odds with each other.

Literalism is important provided it helps to sustain the inerrancy of the Bible - and, in Catholicism, of the Church too. Both Fundamentalisms go vague when accepting the “literal meaning” would collide with the requirements of the Christianity in question: so the “brethren” of Jesus are not brethren; and “Unless you munch My body”, does not mean that. The Bible would be in error if it really meant Jesus had brethren, or really encouraged His body to be eaten - so, the Bible cannot mean those things. It remains error-free.

SDA Fundamentalism insists on the perpetuity of the Sabbath unlike most, because the Sabbath is important fot SDA Protestantism.

There is so much that can usefully be said about Fundamentalism… ##