Pope Francis attacks Christian Fundamentalist Catholics in response to Terrorism

[Achilles6129]

Well then he should make that clear then.

 

[fhansen]

Well then he should make that clear then.

Yes, he probably should-just as we'd be better of without making wild speculations on his comments. Anyway, from my understanding of him and his background in the faith, I believe that's where he's coming from.

 

[topcare]

I think what the Holy Father meant by Catholic fundamentalism is the ultra traditionalist and maybe even the SSPX (see here http://sspx.org/ for more info on them). Protestant fundamentalism is just as bad with them thinking only they have the truth and if a person does not think the same thing they are of Satan

 

[Achilles6129]

No human being defines what the truth is or isn't. God himself defines it. We should let him do so.

 

[fhansen]

Its a ultimately filtered thru human understanding and interpretation, even if that means only ourselves. This is why peolpe often disagree on the meaning of Scripture for example.

 

[Achilles6129]

Its a ultimately filtered thru human understanding and interpretation, even if that means only ourselves. This is why peolpe often disagree on the meaning of Scripture for example.

I think that God can make his word clear enough so that anyone who really wants to find the truth can.

 

[fhansen]

I think that God can make his word clear enough so that anyone who really wants to find the truth can.

I tend to think that as we earnestly seek truth-as we seek God-and continue in it, then the truth is revealed more and more clearly, more and more fully. And that's a never-ending process, of coming to know Him.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I can't presume to know precisely what Pope Francis meant. It was alas sadly typical of the sort of ambiguous muddled language which has come to characterize his pontificate. Recall, if you can bear it, the whole "who am I to judge?" incident.

I much preferred the direct expressiveness of his predeccessor.

Benedict was/is one of the consummate theologians of this generation. Francis is a nice guy with a heart of gold, but muddled in his expression. About as muddled as I would be in his shoes.

It isn't clear what Francis intended. Lots of possibilities.

The term 'Fundamentalist' was originally centered in theologically conservative Presbyterians, folks like J. Gresham Machen and the founders of Westminster Seminary which split away from Princeton when Princeton was no longer tolerant of things like the virgin birth and bodily resurrection of Jesus. The original 'Fundamentals' are things that almost any orthodox (small 'o') person would accept.

But the term evolved (devolved) and became more of a handle for Christians suffering from blind literalism in Biblical interpretation, snake handling, fractionated congregations that split over crazy issues. It evolved again as violent Islamic fundamentalism became prominent, so that now fundamentalism is more of a scare inducing thing, something that common folk might think needs to be repressed. To be fundamentalist now is even more pejorative than it was 40 years ago. I think it is a word mostly defined conveniently now by people putting other people down.

What fundamentalism did Francis mean? Who knows. He sure does think poorly of them, or us, or whoever, depending on which definition he is using at the moment.

I have been called a Fundamentalist and in a way I can carry the name with pride. (But to be fair there was this one guy who said he was going to report me to then cardinal Ratzinger for heresy.). The person who called me a fundamentalist did so because I accept what the Catechism says and I pray. He meant it pejoratively. I take it positively, as someone who accepts the original 'Fundamentals' believed by the Catholic Church from the beginning almost 2000 years ago.

But there is a habit of mind that fits what was known as fundamentalism a generation ago. I think the term fundamentalism is a bad choice for it considering how Machen and company were developing something positive in the origins of the movement. It is a habit of mind found in Atheists, Christians, Muslims, and those of any religion or no religion. It is a closed mindedness that gives evidence that unless love builds the bridge, truth cannot pass. None are so closed minded as those who have shut themselves off from love. They do not want to be molded by Christ but by themselves alone. Nothing to do with Christians in particular, or any other sort of people in particular, but a habit of mind found among all sorts of people.

If that is what the pope means, I agree with him. Instead, if he means someone who hates and does violence, I agree with him here too. If he means someone who keeps to the truth of the faith, like I try to, then he is against me. He needs to strive for some clarity for me to know.

 

[thecolorsblend]

If you want to make a compelling point - start with answering the question "what is a Catholic Fundamentalist" in your POV.

I think the fact that he refused to accept your premise is a very compelling point. Since he's right.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Fundamentalist Catholic? I hear that term and I think... this:

 

[Standing Up]

As we saw in the OP - Francis said ""We Catholics, we have a few, even many fundamentalists. They believe they know absolute truth and corrupt others," he said, adding: "I can say this because this is my Church"

Perhaps his view is that a "fundamentalist" is one who disagrees with the fundamentalist's authority figure in whatever religion they're part of (pope, prophet, imam, patriarch, etc).

 

[BobRyan]

I think he's speaking of the self-righteous sort of Pharisaical fanaticism that can result from thinking we're so absolutely right, and aligned with God, and everyone else wrong,

So thinking that the doctrines you believe actually ARE right and not merely imagined to be right -- is the same thing as a terrorist in Paris??

Sounds like option 2 in that list for the thread.

 

[My Shalom]

National Catholic Reporter
Pope Francis continues his critique of religious fundamentalism
Pat Perriello | Dec. 3, 2015

from: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Vatican-religion-pope-France/2015/11/30/id/703942/


What is Francis saying about his fellow Catholics who are "fundamentalist"??

1. They are violent extremists Catholics just as we find among some Muslims?
2. Their belief in "Absolute truth" makes them like Muslim extremists even if they are not violent?

Who are these violent Catholic fundamentalists? Or is this even what he is talking about?

What is meant by a Christian Fundamentalist?

One who "believes the Bible"??

One who believes in a literal real - historic - virgin birth?
One who believes in a literal real - historic - resurrection of Christ?
One who believes in a literal real - historic - 7 day creation week?

or one who "is violent" and attributes their violence to their Christian faith no matter whether they believe in praying to Mary or not? or whether they believe in a bodily resurrection of Christ or not?

 

[BobRyan]

It's the same thing as what Jesus did when he talked to the Sanhedrin. About the he who is without sin cast the first stone when the letter of the law was very specific.

The letter of the law said that both the woman and the man she was with - had to be stoned. They were not doing that. In fact some commentators point out that "caught in the act" meant that one of those standing there - was also guilty.

The Jews were no longer under a theocracy and could not impose civil laws of a theocracy.

What is more - they were captives under Roman rule - by God's own sovereign choice. They could not execute the death penalty under those conditions set upon them by God Himself. Even when they tried to crucify Christ they told Pilate that they could not do it without Roman approval.

But for Islam - nothing has changed for them since Mohammed - they have a harder time dismissing violent texts in the Quran and arguing that "only a liberal Muslim is a GOOD Muslim according to Quran"

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

 

[BobRyan]

National Catholic Reporter
Pope Francis continues his critique of religious fundamentalism
Pat Perriello | Dec. 3, 2015

In that video Francis appears to be talking about option 1 in the thread list of choices claiming that the kind of fundamentalism he is talking about - takes human lives by violence and justifies it according to its view of Christian doctrine.

Oddly enough - that is option 1 and nobody took it.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

The letter of the law said that both the woman and the man she was with - had to be stoned. They were not doing that. In fact some commentators point out that "caught in the act" meant that one of those standing there - was also guilty.

The Jews were no longer under a theocracy and could not impose civil laws of a theocracy.

What is more - they were captives under Roman rule - by God's own sovereign choice. They could not execute the death penalty under those conditions set upon them by God Himself. Even when they tried to crucify Christ they told Pilate that they could not do it without Roman approval.

But for Islam - nothing has changed for them since Mohammed - they have a harder time dismissing violent texts in the Quran and arguing that "only a liberal Muslim is a GOOD Muslim according to Quran"

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

God's laws reign supreme over everything and the case I put out is no exception. The letter of the law said to stone. The spirit of the law said not to sin. Not to sin prevailed because Christ knew the difference.

I don't think anyone can say if Islam is a religion that doesn't have people who have taken pity on sinners

 

[fhansen]

Another comment on fundamentalism from the pope, this time from a September Argentinian radio interview:

"Fundamentalists push God away from the companionship of His people; they dis-Incarnate Him, they transform Him into an ideology. Therefore, in the name of this ideological God, they kill, attack, destroy, and calumniate. Practically, they transform this God into a Baal, into an idol,” Pope Francis said."

 

[concretecamper]

If I had to guess, I would say that what the Holy Father means is that we are to remove the plank from our eye before we remove the sliver from our neighbor's eye.

For example, a fundamentalist Christian condemns to hell those who believe in abortion. However, that same fundamentalist Christian most likely has his/her own serious sin that he/she is dealing with that can very well condemn him/her to the same hell. Without that recognition, the fundamentalist becomes judge and jury...a very dangerous thing. That is why we are called to speak truth, love the sinner (including ourselves), and leave the judging to God.

 

[BobRyan]

Another comment on fundamentalism from the pope, this time from a September Argentinian radio interview:

"Fundamentalists push God away from the companionship of His people; they dis-Incarnate Him, they transform Him into an ideology. Therefore, in the name of this ideological God, they kill, attack, destroy, and calumniate. Practically, they transform this God into a Baal, into an idol,” Pope Francis said."

Out of curiosity - have you read the supposedly infallible statement in Lateran IV calling for the extermination of heretics?

According to the Fordham Jesuit Univ - rendering of the text.

http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp

 

[BobRyan]

If I had to guess, I would say that what the Holy Father means is that we are to remove the plank from our eye before we remove the sliver from our neighbor's eye.

Do you think that this is what is being equated with the terrorist actions in Paris??

For example, a fundamentalist Christian condemns to hell those who believe in abortion. However, that same fundamentalist Christian most likely has his/her own serious sin that he/she is dealing with

So then having a moral conviction about abortion is equated with terrorist attacks in Paris in your POV?