Hi Netti-Netti —
But these observations are potentially diversions from a larger problem of fundamentalism. If I may....
Of course ... although I would say that I regard most of what you post as subjective opinion, and inaccurate.
The term "fundamental" has negative connotations of being anachronistic, resistant to change, and authoritarian.
Perhaps, but then I think that's a misuse of the term. I would say conservative. Fundamentalism to me means, as I posted from a Russian Orthodox site elsewhere, a lack of spiritual, ascetic, allegorical and/or poetic insight, but rather an overt emphasis on the literal.
As the Catholic Church has been a source of some of the world's most profound spiritual literature, produced saints and mystics of the first water, as well as a source and patron of the arts in the West for centuries, it cannot really be accused of fundamentalism, although I fully accept the idea of conservatism ... indeed, I would probably defend it, against those who seek change to keep pace with the whims of culture, which swings back and forth between this fad and that fancy, ever seeking novelty and the ephemeral.
almost any formal religion is prone to dogma, legalism, and ecclesiastic elitism.
Human nature ...
Regarding Romanistic Christianity as advanced by Paul and the modern-day Catholic Church,
well hang on ... you can't say 'Romanistic' and 'Paul' in the same breath without a massive anachronism. Paul was there before the Gospels ... the Roman Church was not there for at least some 800 odd years later.
some would suggest they meet criteria for being "cultic" in the sense that they involved and depended upon substantial efforts toward establishing and maintaining ideological purity as well as a monopoly on essential doctrine. Arguably, the Church can be described as a fundamentalist cult.
Somewhat naive and simplistic, however.
In particular, it is not uncommon to see the Church criticized for being a vehicle of a special kind of fundamentalism that emphasizes church doctrine vis a vis the Gospel.
An erroneous criticism, however.
There are many historical examples of this (e.g., the Church's handling of schisms, large scale crusades against alleged heretics,
But that was then ... this is now. You do not refuse to go to hospital because of the way medicine was practised in the 15th century. How the Message and Mission is being handled now is the 'live' issue ... the rest is the debate of historians. Critics who continually drag up the past, do so, it seems to me, because they cannot offer any sustainable contemporary and meaningful criticism.
Actually, seen in its overall context, and not just its Spanish aberration, the Office of the Inquisition saved many, many more than it condemned. Prior to that, any mayor or magistrate could execute someone on theological grounds, and they did, in vast numbers. The Office was introduced to check this practice ... and huge numbers elected trial by the Inquisition rather than the secular authorities ... and huge numbers were acquitted. There really is an awful lot of nonsense touted around about the Inquisition.
the introduction of totally new doctrine and texts that have no obvious referents in the Scripture,
Not in the Catholic Church there's not ... just that old literalism again, and lack of spiritual discernment.
assertions of authority, hierarchy, and jurisdiction, and various political/ institutional/administrative developments).
Quite acceptable. Would you rather chaos? Anarchy? The survival of the fittest, the strongest man rules?
As far as approach and style, the Catholic Church may actually be more fundamentalist in nature than Bible-fundamentalists.
Demonstrable nonsense. what you mean is, we accept the notion of authority and hierarchy, whereas some do not ... but then they don't have to care for or administer for others.
In more recent history, the rise of His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger to the position of Pope would seem to indicate that fundamentalism is indeed alive and well in the Catholic Church.
Again, a subjective determination that few would agree with. Have you read his encyclicals? or are you just following the media line?
He can be seen as a personification of the Church's efforts to preserve a fundamentalist view of its own position as earthly authority on "Doctrine of the Faith."
The Church throughout its history has never seen itself as other than that. That's what Scripture says it is.
PS — You do know it was Cardinal Ratzinger who was responsible for the Document from the Church in which we 'fessed up for all the wrong we've done, and asked forgiveness ... not a very fundamental thing to do, is it?
The same guy who's just launched a Catholic/Moslem dialogue ... anyway ...
The ideological commitment is evident from the breadth of policy. For example, Ratzinger endorsed denying the sacrament of communion to persons who do not align with Church doctrine.
Nothing new there. It's called putting your house in order ... something long overdue in some quarters.
And yet the priest has the right to distribute the sacrament to those outside the Church, as I have witnessed first hand. What Benedict speaks out against is hypocrisy.
I have seen people come into my Church at Midnight Mass and receive communion, in the full knowledge they don't believe a word of what they've just listened to. I have seen them leave the altar and palm the Eucharist, grinning from ear to ear.
Shall I come into their homes and ridicule all that they hold dear? I practice forgiveness and patience and humility, but I am also told not to cast pearls before swine, nor feed what is holy to dogs ...
To use the Pontifical Council's language, the Church presumes to define the conditions under which "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse" a person the sacrament.
Of course it does ... or do you suggest it's left to the whim of the individual? Remember that the Sacrament of the Eucharist belongs to the Church, and She authorises Her ministers ... so it is entirely fitting that they should be instructed accordingly.
This brand of authoritarian fundamentalism will predictably raise PR concerns about the religious organization being hardline and unreasonable.
In a culture of egoism and philosophical relativism, of course it will, but that is a cultural trend, and like all trends, it shall pass.
Yet the Pope made his reputation as enforcer of the Vatican's ideological positions. "He made the biggest headlines when his congregation silenced or excommunicated theologians, withdrew church approval of certain books, helped rewrite liturgical translations, set boundaries on ecumenical dialogues..."
Yes ... and did he make headlines when he invited one of those excommunicated theologians to lunch, to discuss matters in a cordial and friendly way? Of course not ... that kind of image wouldn't suit the media and her critics at all, would it?
Remember how sure the media was that a Nazi had ascended the throne of Peter when he was elected, because a 12 year old boy was drafted into the Army? How they held their breath as they waited for the new holocaust? Then ... nothing ... and a sea of red faces, with nothing to say ...
Meanwhile Gunter Grass went public that he volunteered for the SS becuase they got the best of everything, including the girls ... was he stripped of his Nobel Prize? Err ... no ...
I was baptised a Roman Catholic. I'm not particularly interested in criticizing the church.
Don't see much balance coming forward though, either.
I'm merely calling attention to the need to expand the idea of fundamentalism to include the cultic and organizational aspects of institutional religion.
I think you are particularly interested in seeing the Church conform to your image of it ... sadly, it won't do that, I'm afraid ... She has another image in mind, an eternal one.
The truth is, if either Church or Papacy had followed cultural advice, both institutions would have vanished centuries ago, as have all those institutions which informed us we should be like them ... so you will excuse us if we stick to what we have always believed.
Thomas
