Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

dramaturge · 10-09-2012, 05:52 PM

It seems to me Catholic fundamentalism, like Baptist fundamentalism, is the result of a rose-colored-glasses view of the past. The difference is that whereas Baptist fundamentalism rosies up the 1950s, Catholic fundamentalism tends to rosey up something around the 1550s.

captain_solo · 10-09-2012, 05:58 PM

Ok, Ok, so I used the broad brush. Apologies all around to you Catholics! But you know I'm right. All that Re-sacrificing Jesus every week to get rid of the new sins... Wink

elfdream · 10-09-2012, 06:23 PM

(10-09-2012 05:58 PM)captain_solo Wrote: Ok, Ok, so I used the broad brush. Apologies all around to you Catholics! But you know I'm right. All that Re-sacrificing Jesus every week to get rid of the new sins...

I'd smack you with a mackerel if I could find one. Big Grin

Sophie · 10-09-2012, 06:31 PM

(10-09-2012 05:52 PM)dramaturge Wrote: It seems to me Catholic fundamentalism, like Baptist fundamentalism, is the result of a rose-colored-glasses view of the past. The difference is that whereas Baptist fundamentalism rosies up the 1950s, Catholic fundamentalism tends to rosey up something around the 1550s.

I believe you are correct. That's how my grandparents seem to act, anyway.

Not saying that they aren't Christians, of course. Just that they seem to have this unbelievably romanticized view of a certain time in history that was probably no better or worse than the current day.

JeseC · 10-09-2012, 07:40 PM

(10-09-2012 05:52 PM)dramaturge Wrote: It seems to me Catholic fundamentalism, like Baptist fundamentalism, is the result of a rose-colored-glasses view of the past. The difference is that whereas Baptist fundamentalism rosies up the 1950s, Catholic fundamentalism tends to rosey up something around the 1550s.

That sounds about right. The era when women all wore dresses and stayed at home and knew their place, and everyone was Christian and obeyed their proper authorities and never questioned anything a church leader told them.

Now if only some of them could see what the men wore...

(10-09-2012 06:23 PM)elfdream Wrote:
(10-09-2012 05:58 PM)captain_solo Wrote: Ok, Ok, so I used the broad brush. Apologies all around to you Catholics! But you know I'm right. All that Re-sacrificing Jesus every week to get rid of the new sins...

I'd smack you with a mackerel if I could find one.

Take your pick!

amyrose5 · 10-09-2012, 10:24 PM

(10-09-2012 05:36 PM)JeseC Wrote:
(10-09-2012 04:44 PM)elfdream Wrote: Most of that does line up with the Church's teaching.

Sort of. The "we think they might have..." stuff always sets off major alarm bells in my head.

Just heard a discussion of when not to attend a wedding on Catholic radio tonight. The answer was that the Church tells us to use our own conscience to determine it. Also, the church actually teaches that a non-Catholic wedding of two baptized Christians who have never belonged to the Catholic church is presumed valid. These people will not attend a wedding of two never-been-Catholics because they will not go into a Protestant church and they believe that somehow, two non-Catholic people should be having a Catholic wedding. Which, you know, they would not be allowed to do according to canon law.

elfdream · (This post was last modified: 10-10-2012 07:30 AM by elfdream.)

(10-09-2012 10:24 PM)amyrose5 Wrote:
(10-09-2012 05:36 PM)JeseC Wrote: Sort of. The "we think they might have..." stuff always sets off major alarm bells in my head.

Just heard a discussion of when not to attend a wedding on Catholic radio tonight. The answer was that the Church tells us to use our own conscience to determine it. Also, the church actually teaches that a non-Catholic wedding of two baptized Christians who have never belonged to the Catholic church is presumed valid. These people will not attend a wedding of two never-been-Catholics because they will not go into a Protestant church and they believe that somehow, two non-Catholic people should be having a Catholic wedding. Which, you know, they would not be allowed to do according to canon law.

Makes no sense.

By that logic my marriage is not valid because my husband and I were two baptized Baptists when we were married....upon entering the Church I was assured that yes, my marriage was indeed valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church. No Catholic wedding or getting married 'in the church' required. It also did not matter than my husband did not convert along with me.

JeseC · 10-10-2012, 11:46 AM

That "we think they might have" attitude is still getting to me. That's one of the big hallmarks of fundamentalism, isn't it? Reacting to sins they think people might have committed...

amyrose5 · 10-10-2012, 11:57 AM

(10-10-2012 11:46 AM)JeseC Wrote: That "we think they might have" attitude is still getting to me. That's one of the big hallmarks of fundamentalism, isn't it? Reacting to sins they think people might have committed...

Exactly. And the devoted followers I've been around in that diocese also have that pride that comes with fundamentalism--this "we're the only American Catholics getting it right" arrogance. They constantly tell the rest of us how we are doing everything all wrong. The reality is that many of the things they think are the only right way (how to distribute and receive communion, for example) are not matters of doctrine but rather of practice and are left to the discretion of the bishops. They have elevated that stuff to doctrine and cling to that non-doctrine in the same way the fundamentalists I have known cling to theirs.