Are Jesuits Fundamentalists?

[BobRyan]

If a Christian takes up a motto that the "ends justifies the means" -- are they moderate or simply liberal fundamentalists?

If a Christian group claims to be "a corpse" when it comes to questioning or second guessing their "General" - are they considered moderate or loosely liberal fundamentalists?

Taking vows of poverty and celibacy in service to Christianity - is that moderate or very liberal fundamentalism?

Did Pope Clement XIV describe Jesuits as liberal or moderate fundamentalists?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Albion]

If there's one thing that the Jesuits are NOT...

...it's "Fundamentalists."

 

[brinny]

If there's one thing that the Jesuits are NOT...

...it's "Fundamentalists."

Would you care to elaborate?

 

[Albion]

Would you care to elaborate?

Fundamentalism is a movement that started about a century ago that sought to bring together in common cause Protestants of all denominations to fight back against the advances of liberal theology, the historical-critical approach to Scripture, and so on. It said that, so long as the people agreed on the fundamentals of the Christian religion--which were then enunciated--they wouldn't dispute smaller issues that divide the churches. There was a bigger concern.

The word "Fundamentalist" has been used and abused by opponents on all sides since then, but it still is understood by Fundamentalists themselves to mean about what it always has meant. (See the Statement of Principles on the Fundamentalist forum, for more about this).

The Jesuits were formed to be a Catholic religious order that swore uncompromising loyalty to the Pope. Regardless of what the Pope and his church stood for, they'd stand for it and use almost anything available to them to beat back Protestantism--education, political plots, etc. The famous statement (paraphrased here) was "If the Papacy says it's black, we'll say it's black; if the Papacy says it's white, we'll say it's white."

Thus understood, the Jesuits are down the line INtolerant of dissent. Fundamentalism, OTOH, is at heart multi-denominational and accepting of differences so long as a short list of religious principles is agreed to.

 

[brinny]

Fundamentalism is a movement that started about a century ago that sought to bring together in common cause Protestants of all denominations to fight back against the advances of liberal theology, the historical-critical approach to Scripture, and so on. It said that, so long as the people agreed on the fundamentals of the Christian religion--which were then enunciated--they wouldn't dispute smaller issues that divide the churches. There was a bigger concern.

The word "Fundamentalist" has been used and abused by opponents on all sides since then, but it still is understood by Fundamentalists themselves to mean about what it always has meant. (See the Statement of Principles on the Fundamentalist forum, for more about this).

The Jesuits were formed to be a Catholic religious order that swore uncompromising loyalty to the Pope. Regardless of what the Pope and his church stood for, they'd stand for it and use almost anything available to them to beat back Protestantism--education, political plots, etc. The famous statement (paraphrased here) was "If the Papacy says it's black, we'll say it's black; if the Papacy says it's white, we'll say it's white."

Thus understood, the Jesuits are down the line INtolerant of dissent. Fundamentalism, OTOH, is at heart multi-denominational and accepting of differences so long as a short list of religious principles is agreed to.

That sounds like they are fiercely loyal to the Pope, even if the Pope may be misguided and saying something is the opposite of reality.

Reminds me of a scene in the movie "Elizabeth" when the Pope sent a Jesuit priest to assassinate Elizabeth, amongst other thngs. He was a "hit man" in essence:

starts at approx 3:51

 

[Albion]

That sounds like they are fiercely loyal to the Pope, even if the Pope may be misguided and saying something is the opposite of reality.

I'd put it this way--they are fiercely loyal to the Pope and don't question anything he stands for or wants done. They also will DO whatever they can on their own to support the Pope against Protestantism.

Their political intrigues would ultimately get the Jesuits expelled from a number of European nations. Perhaps Ironically, the Jesuits became very much involved in Marxist "Liberation Theology" movements in Latin America a generation or so ago, until the Pope ordered them to get out of politics. That was a body blow to the whole modus operandi of the Jesuits, but they complied.

Reminds me of a scene in the movie "Elizabeth" when the Pope sent a Jesuit priest to assassinate Elizabeth, amongst other thngs. He was a "hit man" in essence:

starts at approx 3:51

 

[brinny]

I'd put it this way--they are fiercely loyal to the Pope and don't question anything he stands for or wants done. They also will DO whatever they can on their own to support the Pope against Protestantism.

Their political intrigues would ultimately get the Jesuits expelled from a number of European nations. Perhaps Ironically, the Jesuits became very much involved in Marxist "Liberation Theology" movements in Latin America a generation or so ago, until the Pope ordered them to get out of politics. That was a body blow to the whole modus operandi of the Jesuits, but they complied.

Most interesting.

 

[BobRyan]

If there's one thing that the Jesuits are NOT...

...it's "Fundamentalists."

Is that because they are known for holding their religion at somewhat of a distance and not really being too interested or zealous about it?

 

[Albion]

Is that because they are known for holding their religion at somewhat of a distance and not really being too interested or zealous about it?

I've never heard anyone else voice that POV concerning the Jesuits. If you care to explain what you have in mind or why you think such a thing, I'd be interested to know.

 

[BobRyan]

Fundamentalism is a movement that started about a century ago that sought to bring together in common cause Protestants of all denominations

When we speak of 'Fundamentalists" in general - across all major religions - including Islam and Christianity - we almost never mean "just some protestant groups" - right?

The Jesuits were formed to be a Catholic religious order that swore uncompromising loyalty to the Pope. Regardless of what the Pope and his church stood for, they'd stand for it and use almost anything available to them to beat back Protestantism--education, political plots, etc. The famous statement (paraphrased here) was "If the Papacy says it's black, we'll say it's black; if the Papacy says it's white, we'll say it's white."

Thus understood, the Jesuits are down the line INtolerant of dissent.

Fundamentalists in all religions - tend to be "down the line intolerant of dissent" to some degree -- agreed?


You have a version of "Good fundamentalism" that is specific to protestantism - which I agree with... but in general when speaking broadly of "fundamentalism" across all major religions - it is the sort of thing that is over-the-top zealous, and intolerant of dissent on certain points.

 

[BobRyan]

I've never heard anyone else voice that POV concerning the Jesuits. If you care to explain what you have in mind or why you think such a thing, I'd be interested to know.

Agreed -- I don't think the "not too zealous" theme fits the Jesuits - nor does it fit any truly "fundamentalist" group that one might identify across all major world religions.

The reason I bring this up - is because the Pope in his speech today before the U.S. congress - insisted that the world is a dangerous place and we need to keep a close eye on "fundamentalists" in all religious groups, both Christian and non-christian.
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/nation-and-world/transcript-pope-francis-speech-to-congress-full-text

=================================
The Roman Catholic Pope said:

"All of us are quite aware of, and deeply worried by, the disturbing social and political situation of the world today. Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities, committed even in the name of God and of religion. We know that no religion is immune from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism. This means that we must be especially attentive to every type of fundamentalism, whether religious or of any other kind. A delicate balance is required to combat violence perpetrated in the name of a religion, an ideology or an economic system, while also safeguarding religious freedom, intellectual freedom and individual freedoms. But there is another temptation which we must especially guard against: the simplistic reductionism which sees only good or evil; or, if you will, the righteous and sinners."

 

[BobRyan]

==============================
Christianity Today said: Pope Francis is blaming religious fundamentalism for keeping God away from the people.

"Our God is a God who is close, who accompanies. Fundamentalists keep God away from accompanying His people. They divert their minds from Him and transform Him into an ideology. So in the name of this ideological god, they kill, they attack, destroy, slander. Practically speaking, they transform that God into a Baal, an idol," he said in a radio interview with evangelical Protestant Marcelo Figueroa, according to the Catholic News Agency.


"No religion is immune from its own fundamentalisms," he added. "In every religion there will be a small group of fundamentalists whose work is to destroy for the sake of an idea, and not reality. And reality is superior to ideas."

http://www.christiantoday.com/artic....away.from.people.says.pope.francis/64985.htm

 

[Albion]

When we speak of 'Fundamentalists" in general - across all major religions - including Islam and Christianity - we almost never mean "just some protestant groups" - right?

Journalists use the word in that way, but they make it fit whatever they are interested in. So the most fanatical Muslims are called "fundamentalists" by them, for instance, even though there's nothing to connect them to the idea or make-up or principles of the Christian movement that took the name for their cause a long time before.

So, if you want to use the word that way for purposes of this discussion, I hope you will define the way you mean for it to be understood, because the Jesuits are anything BUT fundamentalists if we use the word in the Christian context.

You have a version of "Good fundamentalism" that is specific to protestantism - which I agree with... but in general when speaking broadly of "fundamentalism" across all major religions - it is the sort of thing that is over-the-top zealous, and intolerant of dissent on certain points.

Is it? When I think of the various ways that I remember the secular media having used the word, I don't know how I could say that any particular POV is meant by it except that it's always supposed to be something they consider bad.

Nonetheless, I understand now that you were not intending to start a discussion involving fundamentalism in the historic, religious, sense of the word...which is OK with me now that I know this.

 

[Albion]

==============================
Christianity Today said: Pope Francis is blaming religious fundamentalism for keeping God away from the people.

"Our God is a God who is close, who accompanies. Fundamentalists keep God away from accompanying His people. They divert their minds from Him and transform Him into an ideology. So in the name of this ideological god, they kill, they attack, destroy, slander. Practically speaking, they transform that God into a Baal, an idol," he said in a radio interview with evangelical Protestant Marcelo Figueroa, according to the Catholic News Agency.

My guess is that Francis, being a very political person with a totalitarian bent is using the word in a propagandistic way. Anyone who's Christian but doesn't agree with his views is, I suppose, deserving of his scorn...and we all know that this is how the word is normally used these days by those who are hostile to traditional values.

 

[BobRyan]

Reminds me of a scene in the movie "Elizabeth" when the Pope sent a Jesuit priest to assassinate Elizabeth, amongst other thngs. He was a "hit man" in essence:

starts at approx 3:51

It is possible that the Jesuit in question had already agreed to "be as a corpse" in terms of not questioning at all the order given by the Catholic hierarchy.

 

[BobRyan]

My guess is that Francis, being a very political person with a totalitarian bent is using the word in a propagandistic way. Anyone who's Christian but doesn't agree with his views is, I suppose, deserving of his scorn...and we all know that this is how the word is normally used these days by those who are hostile to traditional values.

While that may be so - still on the other hand - he is being quite magnanimous as a Jesuit - to condemn fundamentalist zeal and extremes in all forms and in all religions -- given the history of the Jesuits.

 

[brinny]

It is possible that the Jesuit in question had already agreed to "be as a corpse" in terms of not questioning at all the order given by the Catholic hierarchy.

Interesting. Is that the same or maybe even going beyond being "zealots"?

 

[Albion]

While that may be so - still on the other hand - he is being quite magnanimous as a Jesuit - to condemn fundamentalist zeal and extremes in all forms and in all religions -- given the history of the Jesuits.

I figure that it's a throwaway compliment to include in one's condemnation the people and religions over whom you have no influence anyway.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Not sure about them being "fundies", but they sure appear as mysterious as the Illuminati.....imho

 

[brinny]

Not sure about them being "fundies", but they sure appear as mysterious as the Illuminati.....imho

Whoa! GOTTA see this amigo....