Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: crf@tomato.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Fundamentalism and Catholicism Message-ID: Date: 24 Aug 90 08:26:01 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Princeton University Mathematics Department Lines: 98 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu I thoroughly enjoyed reading Cindy Smith's recent posting advising Catholics on how to defend their faith against Fundamentalists. I would, however, like to jump in and correct a few possible misunderstandings that might arise from that posting. I suspect that these probably weren't intentional on Cindy's part, but just to play it safe... First, a couple of general comments. What exactly does "fundamentalist" mean? I looked it up in Webster's some months ago and found the definitions to fall into basically two classes: 1) being part of an authoritarian church/religious group which dictates 'truth' to its members 2) starting from the fundamentals of the faith Those people who fit definition 1 usually fit 2 as well (or at least claim to); however, there are also many (myself included) who fall under 2 but not 1. Note that the "Fundamentalists" that Cindy refers to are of type 1; I'll show a few examples of this later on. cms@dragon.uucp writes: > .... I'm not suggesting all those who question Catholic beliefs and >practices are fundamentalists, but this book is a practical guide detailing how >to respond to common attacks on the Catholic religion. It should also be stressed that not all "fundamentalists" (or anyone else, for that matter) will try to use the simplistic, uninformed attacks described below. > ... > Tools of the trade: Get to you know your Bible, read it, get comfortable with >it, until walking through Jerusalem with Jesus is just as comfortable as >walking through your own back yard. Learn how to argue without antagonizing >your opponents or talking beyond their ability to comprehend; both will get you >nowhere. After deepening your knowledge of Catholicism, learn Fundamentalism. >(This book will help you do both.) Begin your apologetics work with prayer -- >you will accomplish nothing without a good prayer life, a good relationship >with Jesus Christ, since "instructing the ignorant" will get you nowhere unless >you put everything in God's hands including your studies, your discussions, >your frustrations, feelings of enlightenment, and successes. ... Sounds like good advice. In fact I think for Protestants it would be good to substitute "Protestant" for "Catholic" and "Catholic" for "Fundamentalist", and take the advice as your own. (Well, roughly - it doesn't exactly work in a few places, but you get the idea.) The same is true of many other parts of her posting as well. > > Get a good Bible; there are several good Catholic versions. To be conversant >with Fundamentalists, however, it would also be a good idea to get a King James >(mentioning that the KJ New Testament was based on the Douay is useful) since >Fundamentalists often use it -- some not even realizing it's a translation but ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >believing it is the original -- ... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ouch! I've never met anyone quite that ignorant, and I feel sorry for those who have. Anyway, I think there's ample evidence from s.r.c discussions that such ignorance is not widespread. > ... Also, >many Fundamentalists are surprised when Catholics argue back -- they don't >expect it. (Personal experience: A Jehovah's Witness, who tried to explain >that the Trinity was invalid ...) Please do not infer from this paragraph that Jehovah's Witnesses are typical Fundamentalists. True, there are similarities, but JW theology is generally agreed to be non-orthodox. > ... Despite their ability to quote >the Bible, if you quote the Bible to them, they decide to ask their pastors >instead of studying the Bible themselves, something, you should point out, >Catholics are often accused of doing far too often. True of some "fundamentalists," sadly, but not all. This is one of the places where it's clear that def. 1 of "fundamentalist" is being used. In summary, Cindy has given some good advice to the serious Catholic on how to deal with the simplistic, misguided Fundamentalist. Be aware, however, that there are serious and non-serious Catholics, serious and non-serious fundamentalists, and so on. This posting is only part of the picture; don't mistake it for the whole. >Sincerely, >Cindy Smith >emory!dragon!cms Grace and peace, Charles Ferenbaugh P.S. Cindy, you also wrote: > ... I can suggest that you read "The Catholic >Religion," an explanation of Anglican Catholic beliefs, but few Protestants >will probably read it... Nobody is going to read this. We have no idea where to find it. :-) Seriously, though, if you can provide more information on this book, or others like it, I'm interested.