www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Fundamentalism

Are Eastern Christians fundamentalists?

I am of the school that prefers the traditional definition of fundementalism which would limit its application to a certain element within Protestantism, generally American Protestantism. However, its use has recetnly been applied more widely.

Of course, we all are Biblical fundementalists as to one verse or another. The Quakers are fundementalist as to "Thou shall nto kill" and we Catholics as to "This is my body"

K.

Kurt,

Let me rephrase my question: Are Eastern Christians literalists? You mention Jesus' words of institution; how about the seven days of creation? Was man the summit or last creative act of God's creation? How do Eastern Christians view the Creation story? Do they side with Creationists?

Dear Edwin,

There are some Eastern Catholics who are Creationists, others who are Evolutionists, with still others who are Transcendentalists, Democrats, Republicans, sports fans, medical workers, lawyers, doctors, sociologists, deacons, urban planners, and monarchists.

I am a sociologist and a monarchist.

Point: Did you grow up without ever having seen an Eastern Catholic before?

And if you did, how did you know he or she was an Eastern Catholic without asking them to make the Sign of the Cross?

Your question seems to portray us as some kind of religious ethnic group.

We are a varied bunch with liberal and conservative points of view, like Dr. John and myself.

Alex

Slava Isusu Christu!

Fundamentalism, as evidenced by the Taliban and Ben Laden, and which is seen in all religions, is an abheration of the religion it claims to be representing and usually produces bad fruit, really bad fruit and a formalism that is lacking true spiritual substance and health.

The Byzantine Catholic Church is not fundamentalist nor do we have the Old Calendarist phenomena that the "canonical" Orthodox have, which has been described as Orthodox fundamentalism. The Latin Church has many sects of schismatic and heretical movements that could be described as Catholic fundamentalist movements each with their own scandals and baggage.

Basically fundamentalism in any form is a desire to return to purer forms of religion, to the concrete forms, to earlier and more ancient expressions of the religion it represents, but in so doing negates the work of the Spirit in the development of that religion and usually produces serious abherations in extremism, praxis, and expression. From the Catholic perspective Catholic fundamentalism produces a siege and persecution complex mixed with alot of paranoia; it is a tool of the Devil to get people to break Communion with the Pope and to deny the Work of the Holy Spirit in Her Councils and Synods and in her pastoral life as well. Satan uses Catholic fundamentalist groups like the SSPX, SSPV, Sedevacantist Groups et al, to get people to break from the pleroma of the Catholic Faith and unity with the Pope of Rome.

The cure for fundamentalism, in the Catholic context, is Holy Tradition. Once a Catholic has a "big picture" mentality in regard to his Church, that is having a Traditional mindset, in the truest sense of the word, he can discover the wisdom of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church as He does. Catholic Fundamentalism is Catholics playing Pope, just like the Protestants and their private interpretation doctrine; it only breeds Old Catholic sect after sect and drives people from the Source, Communion with the Holy Father.

In response to your question. No the Byzantine Catholic Church is not fundamentalist, but there may be Byzantine Catholic fundamentalists.

In Christ,


Chief Sinner, Robert

Alex,

Forgive me for my blunt questions. A Creationist has a particular understanding of how the world was created. What is that view for Eastern Christians? Maximus the Confessor seems to be a Creationist due to his literal understanding of Genesis. Thank you for your response. You seem to be someone full of energy and life.

R. Scott Appleby writes about various kinds of fundamentalism and defines it in part as a selective retrieval of certain aspects of a tradition. In a way we all practice this selectivity (ekonomia!) — much of Orthodox canon law is obsolete and inapplicable literally, and this form of Christianity isn't supposed to be legalistic anyway — but I think Appleby is referring to gross distortions of a religion. A form of the faith centered almost entirely on liturgical rubrics, interpreting canons narrowly, or any aspect to the exclusion of other aspects might be a kind of fundamentalism. (Some Orthodox writers call this "traditionalism' — religion for its own sake — and distinguish it from Tradition.) So per se, no, Eastern Christianity isn't "fundamentalist' but Kurt has a point that literally, it does have fundamentals: Bible, councils, the apostolic ministry of bishops, sacraments (including literal belief in Christ's Presence in the Eucharist), liturgy, canons, icons. It grasps the whole — kata + holos — and is universal, holistic — Catholic!

In Catholic contexts "fundamentalist' is sometimes used to put down traditionalists or integral followers of whatever Church or rite as somehow ignorant or uncharitable, trying to identify them with the looked-down-on Protestant fundamentalism (also part of the way Southerners are put down) that is a well-known subculture in America. A literal f-word in religious arguments, a grenade to be lobbed.

While not enthusiastic about fundamentalisms, Appleby does credit their followers with being very adept and adaptable (witness televangelists). And he isn't necessarily unkind to all traditionalists — he notes that Billy Graham believes in all the things fundamentalists do but because of Graham's charity doesn't call him a fundamentalist.

http://oldworldrus.com

Robert,

Thank you for such a wonderful response.

You mention fundamentalism as being a desire to return to a purer form of religion. How different is that compared to Eastern Catholics returning to a purer form in response to Vatican II?

But my question about Creationism. How does the Eastern Church address it? Does it accept the seven days of creation as literally as Jesus' words of institution?

Thank you.

Serge,

I liked your comments on traditionalism or religion for its own sake as being a form of fundamentalism.

Is this possibly the clogged filter in the Eastern Church that prevents the Gospel message from shining through?

Thanks.

On matters not directly about faith or morals, of course there can be as wide a diversity among Eastern Christians (and among all Catholics) as there are ethnicities. We can disagree among ourselves about how best to apply charity (should the government do it?), for example — secular political differences. The faith endorses no one political party or form of government.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]

Edwin,

You're welcome. This forum is so useful to me for articulating thoughts I may put that post's text on my website, as I have with the "teach all nations' response.

It seems you are disillusioned with Eastern Christianity, seeing it as clogged and not letting the Gospel come through. People in the Church aren't perfect but I wouldn't compare the Orthodox tradition to a clog that needs plunging or Drano.

http://oldworldrus.com

Serge,

Drano? LOL! Your analogies are as classic as John Chrysostom's. I won't make the mistake of throwing out the baby with the bathwater as did the Reformers.

But what was it that Schmemman fought against in his liturgical writings and what is it that the kinder and gentler reformers of the Eastern Catholics are attempting with their incremental reforms if not the desire to rid of a clogged drain?

Slava Isusu Christu!

I might have said to be more clear that fundamentalist groups, more specifically Catholic fundamentalist groups, initially have the intention of using earlier forms, such as the Missal Romanum of Pope Pius V: whether of the Missal before the Holy Week Reforms of Pope Pius XII in the 1950's, the one that contains it or the Missal of Pope John XXIII or even the pre Novus Ordo reforms of the early to mid 1960's, and the customs that went along with it, as a model for "restoring Tradition." But what happens to such groups eventually is schism and heresy. You will find Old Catholic groups with really long names like the Old Roman Catholic Church of the Anglican Rite of North and South America, Inc, who have 50 Bishops and no laypeople. You will find many different abherations of the Catholic Faith; was their intention wrong? Maybe not. Well, what happened? They broke Communion with Peter and lost their source of spiritual Health and wellbeing. It goes deeper than Rite, there is doctrine, dogma, Magisterium, the legitimate authority of the Pope etc. The Pope being the Visible Head of Christ's Church is also the Channel of spiritual health to the whole Mystical Body of Christ.

The Eastern Catholic Churches were called and commissioned to restore their ancient Eastern patrimony by the Second Vatican Council and are still called to do so where it is needed, in an organic manner. Again since we know that fundamentalism is a desire to return to purer forms, OUTSIDE OF THE AUTHORITY OF PETER, and the Spiritual Vine, the return of the Eastern Catholic Churches to their Traditions is the most Traditional and natural and healthful thing to do that, in contradistinction to fundamentalism, will produce great and googly fruits in the Greek Catholic faithful.

The Eastern Church typically allows for the faithful to have a symbolic and a literalist view in regard to the Creation. But the Catholic Church, specifically, has repeatedly condemned the theory of Godless Evolution, but leaves the theory of evolution which has the Holy Trinity as its first and primal Cause open to theological debate (a symbolic view) and also allows the faithful to take the more simple or literalist view of Creation as well.

In Christ,


Chief Sinner, Robert

Dear Edwin,

You certainly have no need to be forgiven by the likes of me!

I suppose this whole issue is too close to me personally for me to be more objective about it.

I don't know about other Byzantine Catholics, but I personally believe God created the world. How He did that, I don't know, but I don't see a conflict between science and religion.

With respect to fundamentalism, I understand this as a commitment to the fundamentals of our faith without wavering and to moral absolutes.

Forgive me, but I am enjoying reading your questions and the responses to them here.

Something tells me, though, that you wish to make a point, or several, about the Byzantine Catholics that I think I am missing.

Could you speak to your perspective on this?

Again, I know in advance that I am guilty of shortcomings in my lived faith experience and appreciate this opportunity to discuss these with a committed and reflective Christian such as yourself!

Alex

Robert,

You made an interesting point that I would like to consider further.

[“But the Catholic Church, specifically, has repeatedly condemned the theory of Godless Evolution,”]

I wasn't suggesting a godless evolution. Heaven forbid! (No pun intended) Nor was I concerned about things evolving. I was interested in the understanding of creation in itself. You mentioned that both a symbolic and literalist view is allowed, but didn't Rome issue a statement in 1964 that the Creation stories were not to be considered literally? If a literalist interpretation is ruled out then that leaves us with a symbolic one?

Thanks.