Respond or Not II

Well, I have lost the pamphlet so perhaps my course of action has been decided for me. It's just as well, I've had discussions with fundamentalist Christians before and they just aren't very reasonable. Their knowledge of Scripture and Christian history is also very limited. To paint them with a wide brush, they proclaim that Scripture is literal and the truths of Scripture are plainly evident for a person who reads it with a sincere desire to understand the truth. The problem is, they don't adhere to their own belief when it contradicts their tradition. As I said however, I'm generalizing and lumping a group of people together and all are not exactly the same. There are exceptions to the generalized observations that follow but, they are just exceptions and not the rule. One of the differences between Catholic Christians and Fundamentalist Christians is in how they view eachother.

Fundamentalists view the Catholic Church as a non Christian cult that practices necromancy, sorcery, and the worship of false gods. Catholics are not Christian and are therefore condemned to hell. They are in need of salvation and are targeted for conversion. The Catholic Church is an enemy of the Gospel because of her perversion of the Gospel message. The reluctance or failure of Catholics to leave the Church after a fundamentalist presents the Gospel to them is only evidence of the power of the Catholic cult. When that rare Catholic is found who can explain Catholic teaching with logic and reason while using Scripture, it only reinforces how powerful and twisted the Church is and how much control she has over her members. These are all things I have experienced first hand in discussions with fundamentalists.

Catholics view fundamentalists in a different light. As fundamentalism is a new tradition (only about 150-200 years old), that has no central authority, there is not one single view of them. As with all Christian churches that profess the Trinity and Baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, fundamentalists are considered to be part of the Catholic Church. Being imperfectly united with the Church, there are certain obstacles in their realationship with God and His grace. Just as there are obstacles for Catholics who are within the visible Church yet through ignorance or obstinance, deny thruths of the faith.

The irony I find here is in the dogmatic judgement of the two traditions. The Church is accused of being controlling and rigid, supposedly denying the necessity of having a personal relationship with Jesus while teaching a salvation by works theology. Yet this controlling and rigid Church recognizes the Christianity and membership of the fundamentalists in the Body of Christ while the opposite doesn't hold true.

An example of how fundamentalists aren't faithful to their own theological beliefs and Scriptural exegesis is in their view of creation as compared to their view of communion. Remember that fundamentalists profess that Scripture is to be interpreted literally.

Fundamentalists hold that God created everything in six literal 24 hour days with one 24 hour day of rest around 6,000 years ago, give or take a thousand years or so. This view is maintained in the face of enormous scientific (anthropological, archeological, astrological, and geological) evidence that points to a different time frame. Fundamentalists arrive at this belief because they interpret the creation story in Genesis very literally. The literal interpretation of Scripture trumps all physical evidence.

Fundamentalists hold that the bread and wine used in communion, or the celebration of the Lords Supper, are just bread and wine and are only symbols of Jesus' Body and Blood. (NOTE: they don't use wine because in their tradition consuming alcohol is a sin. Therefore, even though Scripture refers to wine being consumed by Jesus at the last supper, it was really just non alcoholic grape juice despite what is literally written). They hold this symbolic belief despite the very literal words ("...this is my body...") of Jesus regarding the bread and wine used at the passover meal that was the Last Supper. And despite the very literal words of Jesus during the Bread of Life discourse (John 6). Their justification for not following the literal words of Scripture? Because the enormous physical (scientific) evidence that the bread and wine continue to have the appearance of bread and wine. What happened to the literal interpretion of Scripture?

I've had this discussion with fundamentalist friends. They get very agitated and do everything possible to keep from having to justify their position. They try to change the subject to something they have a couple of memorized "proof texts" for, like... how us Catholics worship Mary, or how we are wrong to believe in justification by "works" and not faith. When you explain the actual teaching of those things they believe you are trying to trick them and that you aren't telling the truth about what the Church teaches. They don't acknowledge that they must have been misinformed about what the Catholic Church professes.