• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Ask a Catholic Anything

Status
Not open for further replies.

Standing_Ultraviolet

Dunkleosteus
Jul 29, 2010
2,798
132
33
North Carolina
✟4,331.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
:cool: Inspired by the "Ask a Physicist Anything" thread in the physical and life sciences board, here is "Ask a Catholic Anything" ;)


For starters, my name is Chris, and I'm a recent Catholic convert. I'm also a history and business student, and a certifiable nerd. I'm fairly knowledgeable about topics regarding Christian history, Catholic theology, and other philosophical and religious systems (both Christian and non-Christian) which have existed throughout history. I'm also in step with the magisterium, meaning that I can answer questions based on an orthodox understanding of Catholicism.

I thought that it might be valuable to have a place that people can go to ask questions regarding Catholicism and receive fairly quick answers. I can debate with you if you want, but this is more of a "place to go for information" type of thread. Frankly, your questions don't even have to be about Catholicism. You can ask me about Calvinism, Methodism, the Charismatic Movement, why I love Baroque architecture, the properties of exotic matter, or the evolutionary history of conifers (please ask me about the evolutionary history of conifers). I might not be able to answer all questions, but I'll give it a good try :)

Obviously other Catholics on the forums can answer questions, and some can do it better than I can. Basically, though, I really like answering questions (I wanted to be a teacher for years before eventually deciding that I didn't like dealing with teenagers and preferred to become an obstructive bureaucrat) , and I figured that I could put that to good use here (the, uh, the question answering, not the preference for obstructive bureaucracy). So, have anything you want to know about Catholicism?
 
Last edited:

Standing_Ultraviolet

Dunkleosteus
Jul 29, 2010
2,798
132
33
North Carolina
✟4,331.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Why do you believe in Deuetro-Canonical Books??

We believe in the Dueterocanonical books for a variety of different reasons. First, early in the history of the Church, they were very commonly accepted. While it's true that their acceptance wasn't entirely universal, some of the books accepted by Protestants were also left out of lists of canonical Scripture by early writers. Although lists of canonical books were similar in the early Church, it was clear that someone had to make a decision on which books were correct.

This is where the Church came in. The Bible describes the Church as the "pillar and foundation of the truth" (1st Timothy 3:15), and it just makes logical sense when you think about it. God left His word in the world as the Bible, but he wants to make sure that we understand it properly. As the Bible itself says, "no prophecy is of private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20). The Church used the Dueterocanonical texts through its history, and proclaimed infallibly that they are Scripture due to Martin Luther's contesting their Scriptural nature at the Council of Trent.

Why abortion is sinful

Because a human being is a human being at the moment of conception. The fertilized zygote is an individual human being separate from the two parents. Therefore, since part of the essence of a human being is to be made in the image of God, the fertilized egg has the same dignity as an adult.

Going back further, laws against abortion in Christian communities are found in the Didache, which was potentially written in the late 1st century, while the Apostle John was still alive. The Didache would have been composed by the immediate successors to the Apostles, and was described within itself as "the teaching of the Apostles", implying that it was meant to transfer their teaching directly. This text included prohibitions against abortion in pretty much the same breath as prohibitions against the Greek practice of "exposure", or placing an infant outside to die after birth.

Why Pope in infilible??

The Pope is infallible when speaking in a very specific way, called "ex cathedra". This is very rare, and involves a special usage of the teaching office assigned to the Church. The authority of the Pope to do this was proclaimed by the bishops of the Church at the first Vatican Council, exercising a type of teaching authority recognized throughout the history of Christianity. The idea of an ecumenical council is found in the Acts of the Apostles, when the leaders of the early Church held the first council in Jerusalem as a special exercise of their authority, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Why non-catholics are not so beelievers?

Non-Catholics who believe in the Trinity and are baptized are Christians. We do recognize non-Catholic Christians as believers in imperfect communion with the Church.

Why monakism we are built to live?

I'm sorry, but are you asking why some people are monks? Some people are called to live in a very special way by God. People who choose to commit their entire lives to the Lord sometimes choose to live in monasteries, focusing all of their time and energy on their worship. This is a choice which some (but obviously not all) individuals are called to.

Revo said:
Why worshipping Mary?

We do not worship the Virgin Mary. While we hold the Blessed Mother of Jesus in high esteem, we do not believe that she is a goddess or in any way on the same level as God. We pray for the intercession of the saints in the same way that a person might ask a person on Earth to pray for them. The saints pray for us to God, because "the prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective" (James 5:16). Since the Virgin Mary is very special due to her relationship with Christ, her prayers are particularly effective.

Revo said:
Why not having secular ethics?

Because a belief in God necessarily impacts our ethics. Secular ethics are often built off of a worldview which does not admit to the existence of God, and therefore either does not believe in an objective right and wrong, or believes in objective right and wrong with a very different foundation. Our acceptance of the existence of God and of a natural law lead us to believe that some ideas proposed by secular ethics are incorrect. While secular ethics seek the truth, they do so imperfectly and often reach wrong conclusions since they do not accept all of reality (since God is a part of reality) and make their decisions based upon a misunderstood world.

Revo said:
Why there's no divorce?

Quite simply, because Jesus said that there wasn't (Matthew 19:9). Except in the case of sexual immorality, which referred to a marriage which was in some way not a true marriage, a person divorcing and then remarrying would commit adultery. If the person were not truly married following the divorce, then they would not be committing adultery. A non-sacramental marriage (ie., one involving at least one non-baptized spouse, who hence can't receive a sacrament) can be dissolved EDIT: but only under special circumstances clarified by either the Pauline or Petrine privileges, but a sacramental marriage is a representation of Christ and His Church, and because of the spiritual bonds associated with it, the sacramental marriage cannot be dissolved following consummation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PROPHECYKID

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2007
5,982
528
37
The isle of spice
Visit site
✟118,684.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Where is the belief of Purgatory in the bible?

Where is the method of baptism by sprinkling in the bible?

Where is baby baptism in the bible?

Why is it not blasphemous that the Pope is seen as the vicar (representative) of God on earth?

What was the reason for the changes in what the church would teach before and after Vatican 2?

Why is the 10 commandments slightly different for the Catholic church than it is for the rest of us?
 
Upvote 0

Standing_Ultraviolet

Dunkleosteus
Jul 29, 2010
2,798
132
33
North Carolina
✟4,331.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Before responding to these questions, it's important that you understand that we, as Catholics, do not hold to sola scriptura. None of the older branches of Christianity (the Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, or the Assyrian Church of the East) have ever held to that particular principle, either. Sola scriptura began in the second millennium, over one thousand years after the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

This goes back to what I mentioned in the previous answer, that the Church is the "pillar of the truth" and that Scripture isn't intended for "private interpretation". Within Protestant communities, understanding of Scripture can vary extremely widely. Some interpretations are closer to legitimate than others, but there is always a certain element of confusion. God desires for all men to be saved, so it can logically be assumed that He would make it as easy as possible to find the truth. Having an infallible guide to the understanding of Scripture, as most of Christianity has accepted to be true for thousands of years, is the best way to do this.

The Bible itself instructs the Church to obey what the Apostles told them either by written instruction (such as the letters of Paul) or personally (2 Thessalonians 2:15). We, as Catholics, understand this in the same way that all of the older branches of Christianity do. We believe that some traditions were passed on by word of mouth, rather than by written letter.

Where is the belief of Purgatory in the bible?

Some verses in the New Testament mention a person "being saved, but as through fire" (1 Corinthians 3:15), and the Apostle Paul mentions on one occasion prayers for a deceased member of the community (2 Timothy 1:16-18) named Onesiphorus. Prayer for the dead was an accepted part of Christian doctrine at a very early date, with some of the earliest Christian inscriptions in the catacombs. It was also a part of the Jewish community in which Christianity first emerged (as evident from 2 Maccabees, where the leader of the Jewish revolt against the Seleucids actually makes an offering for the cleansing of the souls of the dead), and was never criticized in the New Testament, despite being something that would inevitably have entered the growing Christian Church.

Prayer for the dead known to be in Heaven (martyrs, for instance) was actually discouraged due to its lack of an effect, and prayer for the dead in Hell would be useless. Although Paul's prayer for Onesiphorus does not mention cleansing as that in 2nd Maccabees did, many other prayers for the dead at that time period were clearly asking God for some benefit for the person's soul. This would imply a third state, other than Heaven or Hell. So, while Purgatory is not named as such in the Protestant or Catholic canons, prayers for the dead are clearly allowed and never discouraged, and many of these implied the existence of Purgatory. In the Catholic canon, which was accepted essentially universally by Christians prior to the Protestant Reformation, the prayers for the dead require the existence of Purgatory, to the extent that they can pretty much be said to refer to it directly.

Where is the method of baptism by sprinkling in the bible?

Baptism is described very rarely in the Bible, with the only possible description of a baptism being the mention of Jesus "coming up out of the water". This is 'possible' since it could refer to His walking out of the Jordan rather than coming up following an immersion baptism. The idea that Jesus was baptized by immersion, however, seems more likely. Baptism by immersion was probably the preferred method in New Testament times, although the baptism of thousands of people in a single day would strongly suggest a different method being used. The Didache, written possibly in the late first century, describes itself as the teaching of the Apostles and allows for baptism by sprinkling in the case of a lack of water. No criticism of baptism by means other than immersion appears in the early Church, despite their common use. For a Church which was very reluctant to accept innovations of any kind (most of our early writings from the Church are specifically refuting heresies), this would have been extremely unusual.

PROPHECYKID said:
Where is baby baptism in the bible?

While the Bible spends a lot of time on the importance of baptism, it spends virtually none describing the act of baptism itself. On a few occasions, households are mentioned as being baptized, which could include young children. Also, in Colossians 2:11-12, baptism is described as the "circumcision made without hands". The early Church saw this metaphor, and criticism was actually given toward parents who waited until the eighth day after birth to baptize due to parallels with circumcision. Due to the fact that circumcision was obviously performed on infants, it is logical to conclude that baptism can be administered to infants.

In the second century, infant baptism is treated without any particular suggestion of innovation. The catacombs of deceased infants universally declare that they were baptized, and the first criticism of the practice came from a man named Tertullian, who denied the doctrine of original sin. A delay of baptism was often conducted during some periods in the early Church since post-baptismal sin was harder to deal with than pre-baptismal sin, and so it's very possible that Tertullian was opposed to the practice for that reason, rather than a doubt of validity.

PROPHECYKID said:
Why is it not blasphemous that the Pope is seen as the vicar (representative) of God on earth?

Quite simply, because we don't believe that the Pope is Jesus. We believe that he represents Jesus on Earth, as Paul states that he forgives "in the person of Christ" (2 Corinthians 2:10; the term used refers to the area near a person's eyes, and is used in this context to refer to acting as a representative of a person). Obviously this is in a different way than the Pope is the vicar of Christ, but it still refers to acting a representative of Christ, so it cannot be blasphemous.


PROPHECYKID said:
What was the reason for the changes in what the church would teach before and after Vatican 2?

While there were reforms in the Church at Vatican II, the shift was not as drastic as some make it out to be. Catholicism cannot be divided into "pre-Vatican II" and "post-Vatican II" as thought some fundamental, core element of our faith has changed. Vatican II was not merely a nice suggestion and its doctrines do require assent, but they did not include the sort of change that many people from both the far left and the far right attach to them. Vatican II did not remove requirements to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture when properly understood, or to believe that Catholicism is the one true faith (not a politically correct thing to say in this day and age, but there is objective truth). It commends other faiths on the truth that they do understand, but does not fall into the error (actually a heresy) of saying that their falsehood doesn't matter.

PROPHECYKID said:
Why is the 10 commandments slightly different for the Catholic church than it is for the rest of us?

The Ten Commandments are a part of the Old Testament accepted by both Catholics and Protestants. The only difference between the (Latin) Catholic and Protestant "Ten Commandments" is found in the shorthand that we use to describe them. In short, we collapse the command not to worship other gods and not to make graven images (idols) into one commandment, since they're describing the same practice, while splitting the command not to covet into two (which makes it more descriptive and closer to the text in Exodus). This is, again, only in shorthand (ie., when we make a list of the Ten Commandments). In the Bible, we both have the same list of Ten Commandments.

I also say that Latin Catholics use a different shorthand for the Ten Commandments than Protestants because Eastern Catholics do not. The Eastern Rite uses the same list as Protestants, and there's nothing wrong with the Protestant Ten Commandments. They're all true, and if you break any of them, then you're doing something morally wrong.
 
Upvote 0

GarySneakers

Active Member
Mar 16, 2012
391
8
✟585.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I have some questions.

In Revelations it mentions the 144,000 that have not be defiled by women, Does the Vatican try and keep the number of priests at 144,000?

When Jesus was speared in the heart by the Blade of the Centurion was His Blood Alive or Dead, when it flowed to the Earth or was he asphyxiated?

Was Elisabeth a Virgin when she gave birth to John?
If John was filled with the Holy Spirit at conception and his live blood flowed when he was slain by Blade and he came from the Root of David. Could He?

If John is the opposite of Jesus, born 6 months apart, 1 child of the Summer and 1 child of the Winter. Does that mean their Fathers are Opposites. Is the first day the Opposite of the Seventh Day? ( I am sure you saw the Passion of the Christ movie). What's the name of the Child the Other was holding?

If a Catholic goes to Mark 15:38 and sees that the Temple is Wide Open, Can he or she simply go in or is it symbolic? Can a priest enter in? Can the Vicar?

Does Jesus go directly through the Temple at death or to Hell?

Are there 2? Could He?

There is nothing shameful if there are 2. I think it would be darn right funny if Jesus was the Summer kid and they had been celebrating the Winter Kid's birthday all along.

Thanks.
 
Upvote 0

Knee V

It's phonetic.
Sep 17, 2003
8,417
1,741
43
South Bend, IN
✟115,823.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I have some questions.

In Revelations it mentions the 144,000 that have not be defiled by women, Does the Vatican try and keep the number of priests at 144,000?

When Jesus was speared in the heart by the Blade of the Centurion was His Blood Alive or Dead, when it flowed to the Earth or was he asphyxiated?

Was Elisabeth a Virgin when she gave birth to John?
If John was filled with the Holy Spirit at conception and his live blood flowed when he was slain by Blade and he came from the Root of David. Could He?

If John is the opposite of Jesus, born 6 months apart, 1 child of the Summer and 1 child of the Winter. Does that mean their Fathers are Opposites. Is the first day the Opposite of the Seventh Day? ( I am sure you saw the Passion of the Christ movie). What's the name of the Child the Other was holding?

If a Catholic goes to Mark 15:38 and sees that the Temple is Wide Open, Can he or she simply go in or is it symbolic? Can a priest enter in? Can the Vicar?

Does Jesus go directly through the Temple at death or to Hell?

Are there 2? Could He?

There is nothing shameful if there are 2. I think it would be darn right funny if Jesus was the Summer kid and they had been celebrating the Winter Kid's birthday all along.

Thanks.


I could be way off base, but I have a hard time believing that this is a serious line of questioning.
 
Upvote 0

Standing_Ultraviolet

Dunkleosteus
Jul 29, 2010
2,798
132
33
North Carolina
✟4,331.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I have some questions.

In Revelations it mentions the 144,000 that have not be defiled by women, Does the Vatican try and keep the number of priests at 144,000?

No, not at all. If we could have over 144,000 priests, we would be glad to (I think we probably do). Not all priests are celibate, either. In the Eastern Rite, candidates for the priesthood can be married. There are other cases, as well, such as with some Anglicans who join Catholicism and choose to receive Orders.

When Jesus was speared in the heart by the Blade of the Centurion was His Blood Alive or Dead, when it flowed to the Earth or was he asphyxiated?

Jesus was dead at the time. Since it was fairly shortly after His death, His blood probably contained quite a few living cells.

Was Elisabeth a Virgin when she gave birth to John?

No, she and Zechariah had been married for many years before John the Baptist was born, and the Bible is quite clear that he was John's son and of human parentage.

If John was filled with the Holy Spirit at conception and his live blood flowed when he was slain by Blade and he came from the Root of David. Could He?

No, John the Baptist was not the Messiah. The Bible is quite explicit on this topic. I am curious what religious tradition you are coming from. My first thought would be Mandaeism, but I don't think that they believe John the Baptist to be the Messiah.

If John is the opposite of Jesus, born 6 months apart, 1 child of the Summer and 1 child of the Winter. Does that mean their Fathers are Opposites. Is the first day the Opposite of the Seventh Day? ( I am sure you saw the Passion of the Christ movie). What's the name of the Child the Other was holding?

In short, no. The parents of John the Baptist and Jesus are not opposite, although they are also not the same. John the Baptist was born to Elizabeth and Zechariah. They were his biological parents.

The child held by the devil in the film The Passion of the Christ is intended to be a mockery of the popular image of the Madonna with Child, an image of Mary holding Jesus. This was developed by Mel Gibson, and is not a common feature of Catholic art. The inherent "wrongness" of a grown man filling the role of a baby with Satan holding it was Gibson's primary inspiration.

If a Catholic goes to Mark 15:38 and sees that the Temple is Wide Open, Can he or she simply go in or is it symbolic? Can a priest enter in? Can the Vicar?

The tearing of the veil was meant to show that, with Jesus' death, the older religious customs of the Mosaic system were passing away.

Does Jesus go directly through the Temple at death or to Hell?

Are there 2? Could He?

Jesus went down to Sheol, or the realm of the dead, and brought up the righteous dead from there.

There is nothing shameful if there are 2. I think it would be darn right funny if Jesus was the Summer kid and they had been celebrating the Winter Kid's birthday all along.

Thanks.

Jesus and John the Baptist were not born to the same father. John the Baptist was a very holy human being, but he was just human. Jesus, on the other hand, was one of the three persons of the Trinity. He was and is fully human, but He was and is also fully divine.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
B

bbbbbbb

Guest
What happens after death to trinitarian Protestants who have been baptized and who firmly and utterly reject the Catholic Church?

What happens after death to trinitarian Protestants who have been baptized as infants and then have grown up as cultural Christians and don't care a fig about any church?

If there is a difference between these two answers, please explain the difference.

Thank you.
 
Upvote 0

Athanasias

Regular Member
Jan 24, 2008
5,788
1,036
St. Louis
✟54,560.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What happens after death to trinitarian Protestants who have been baptized and who firmly and utterly reject the Catholic Church?

What happens after death to trinitarian Protestants who have been baptized as infants and then have grown up as cultural Christians and don't care a fig about any church?

If there is a difference between these two answers, please explain the difference.

Thank you.

The first question is gonna depend. As a principle for objective judgment(not subjective judgment because we cannot judge souls just actions) They will be judged like everyone. If they were invincible ignorant that the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth and stove to follow the Blessed Trinity with the truth they did have, then they have the possibility of salvation. However if they openly rejected the Church knowing she is true or had mere deliberate ignorance thinking it could have been true but rejected to find out and follow it then they have rejected God and its quite possible they may land in hell. Of course God knows the ins and outs of a persons entire being. So he may have mercy on latter depending on the amount of deliberate reasons and why.

the second question also is gonna depend on their ignorance of truth and how they tried to follow the truth they did have. Most people in modernized Christian societies(and even post Christian societies)have deliberate ignorance(at least to a degree) who fall into this category. Its hard to tell what will happen. God will judge them accordingly.
 
Upvote 0

Standing_Ultraviolet

Dunkleosteus
Jul 29, 2010
2,798
132
33
North Carolina
✟4,331.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
What happens after death to trinitarian Protestants who have been baptized and who firmly and utterly reject the Catholic Church?

The answer to a lot of these is going to necessarily be, "it depends", unfortunately. First, why do they firmly and utterly reject the Catholic Church? Like Athanasias said, some of them are going to have true invincible ignorance. In that case, provided that they loved God and were perfectly contrite (meaning sorry for sin due to a love of God) at the time of death, then yes, they would be saved.

What happens after death to trinitarian Protestants who have been baptized as infants and then have grown up as cultural Christians and don't care a fig about any church?

It's impossible to judge an individual, but terms like "cultural Christian" suggest someone who doesn't really hold any meaningful belief in Christianity. A person like this would have a much harder time entering Heaven, due simply to the fact that religion and God are further from their minds than would be the case for a person who held more active religious beliefs. If they genuinely wanted to follow God and really cared about Him and loved Him, then they wouldn't be held accountable for things outside of their control which they didn't cause in any way (like growing up in a climate apathetic to religion).

I feel like the difference is probably pretty clear from the answers, but to be a little more explicit, the difference is that, in the case of a cultural Christian, they're less likely to actually care about God.

WisdomTree said:
I have a more personal question for you: what is your religious background and how did you become a Catholic?

First, I'll have to warn you that this is going to be a bit of a long story. Sorry for the doorstopper.

Anyway, I come from a family where I'm the first Catholic in about three centuries ;)

While I was growing up, I considered myself non-denominational, but my beliefs were very close to Baptist. In practice, I tended to care what God thought to some degree, but I was still very much a "cultural Christian". I picked up my knowledge of the Bible mostly second hand. I rarely attended any sort of worship service, and frankly, my life was a lot more characterized by sin than by grace. Entering my senior year of high school, I started to care more deeply about my faith and about my relationship with God, and I joined a Bible study group. I actually read some parts of the New Testament during that time, and started to think about religious matters more than I had in the past. I was a somewhat liberal Protestant then, but I was beginning to care more about my faith.

After I entered college, my family started attending religious services more regularly, and I went with them pretty often. I did make some progress then, and started leaning more toward the conservative side of the spectrum after doing some reading in the letters of Paul. That would have been in the fall of 2009. I still didn't really have a very proper understanding of Scripture, but I was coming along, and in my second semester of college (spring of 2010), I started to reform my life. It was also at around that time that I became a four-point Calvinist. This was through the guidance of a website that I had discovered promoting Calvinist theology.

Over the summer between my first and second years, I had a pretty rough time. I came closer to God in a lot of ways, but by August of my second year in college, I was starting to fall into a pattern of obsessive compulsive disorder. I've had OCD since I was a child, but that was probably the worst that it ever hit me. Essentially, it was the worst year of my life, and it probably will continue to be so unless I have a year in which I am mauled by multiple bears and paralyzed from the neck down due to their vigorous chewing. At any rate, it was partially because of my OCD and partially because of the fact that I, quite frankly, can't tolerate contradictions, that I started to drift away from Calvinism. It was the fourth point of four-point Calvinism, the idea that a believer, once saved, cannot lose salvation, that I got hung up on. Reading parts of the Epistle to the Hebrews (and the Gospels, along with other parts of the New Testament), it was pretty clear that people could reject God's friendship and become lost. Other parts of Calvinism are, obviously, problematic as well. That part was just the one that got me at the time.

At any rate, I did start to recover somewhat from my OCD in the spring of 2011 (although it remains with me to this day, but much diminished). It was probably around that time that I finally let go of Calvinism entirely. I felt a little bit cut loose at that point, and I started exploring different groups. The two that I found myself gravitating the most towards were the Free Will Baptists and the Restoration Movement. The Restoration Movement, if you're not familiar with it, includes three different branches. One of those is the Churches of Christ (by far the most conservative denomination), another is the Independent Christian Churches (conservative in a more typical sense), and the most liberal is the Christian Churches-Disciples of Christ. The CoC and ICC both hold to baptismal regeneration by believer's baptism. I was convinced by their apologetics that baptismal regeneration was a Biblical doctrine, and I can provide evidence for that, if you would like.

I became disturbed, though, by some of the more extreme positions in the CoC. It seemed that a lot of the more conservative members believed that only those baptized as adults with knowledge of baptismal regeneration could be saved, meaning that essentially all of Christianity since the fifth century would have been left unsaved until the 1800s. I don't really know that I was ever willing to totally accept this. I started looking into the history of their beliefs, and particularly into infant baptism.

It was at that point that I really found Catholicism for the first time. There had been times in the past when I had looked into the Church, but I had always had a hard time believing in its doctrines. At that point, though, I started to really do some historical research. Not only did I become convinced of infant baptism, but I also came to believe in the other sacraments. Infant baptism, I noticed, went back at least to the second century, and probably much earlier, since its validity had always gone uncontested (Tertullian challenged its purpose due to his denial of original sin and recognition of the more difficult nature of receiving forgiveness for sin after baptism, but he was the only one, and he never wrote a challenge to its validity). Other sacramental beliefs, like belief that the Eucharist literally became Christ, went back to Ignatius of Antioch, and belief in the sacrament of penance (ie., confession) goes back to the second century text The Shepherd of Hermas. Belief in Apostolic succession went back to the late first century writer Pope St. Clement, and to the early second century Irenaeus of Lyons.

Even with all of that, had the Bible contradicted it, I still wouldn't have been able to believe any of it. But, on further reading, I did find that the most logical conclusion from reading the New Testament was the same one that those early writers had come to.

Confession was a particularly disturbing idea for me, and I have to say that, for reasons that weren't the best, I actually had a hard time accepting Catholicism because of it. I tried to ignore the idea for a while, but by late fall of 2011, I realized that I wasn't Protestant and that I couldn't just keep holding to something that I didn't believe because I was afraid. So, I entered the Church, starting classes in November of 2011 (which actually isn't the usual process for baptized Christians, btw; we're supposed to go to a priest directly), and entering the Church at Easter Vigil of 2012 (ie., 4 months ago).

So, yeah, that's about it. Sorry again for the novel :)
 
Upvote 0
B

bbbbbbb

Guest
The answer to a lot of these is going to necessarily be, "it depends", unfortunately. First, why do they firmly and utterly reject the Catholic Church? Like Athanasias said, some of them are going to have true invincible ignorance. In that case, provided that they loved God and were perfectly contrite (meaning sorry for sin due to a love of God) at the time of death, then yes, they would be saved.

It's impossible to judge an individual, but terms like "cultural Christian" suggest someone who doesn't really hold any meaningful belief in Christianity. A person like this would have a much harder time entering Heaven, due simply to the fact that religion and God are further from their minds than would be the case for a person who held more active religious beliefs. If they genuinely wanted to follow God and really cared about Him and loved Him, then they wouldn't be held accountable for things outside of their control which they didn't cause in any way (like growing up in a climate apathetic to religion).

I feel like the difference is probably pretty clear from the answers, but to be a little more explicit, the difference is that, in the case of a cultural Christian, they're less likely to actually care about God.

Thank you for your thoughtful answers to my questions.

I will give an example for the first question, which might help you answer. Let us say an individual is fully acquainted with Catholic teaching and determines that not only is the teaching of his own church true, but that where it contradicts Catholic teaching, Catholic teaching is utterly false. For example, let us say that his church teaches that one receives forgiveness of sins through personal confession to God alone and that human mediators in confession are not only unnecessary, but are wrong in arrogating to themselves the divine power to forgive. Now this does flatly contradict the Catholic teaching concerning confession. Having known and understood the teaching of both churches and rejected that of the Catholic Church, along with the Church as a whole, can this individual be saved?

Now, let us look at another member of the same church who has come to believe that forgiveness of sins comes from God but that it really doesn't concern him as to whether or not his church or the Catholic Church is right as to the precise methodology. Although he went to Sunday School as a child in the church and joined the church, he is not active in it, believing that all good folks go to heaven regardless of their church affiliation. He is ignorant of both the teaching of the Catholic Church as well as the teaching of his own church. Can this individual be saved?
 
Upvote 0

Standing_Ultraviolet

Dunkleosteus
Jul 29, 2010
2,798
132
33
North Carolina
✟4,331.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I will give an example for the first question, which might help you answer. Let us say an individual is fully acquainted with Catholic teaching and determines that not only is the teaching of his own church true, but that where it contradicts Catholic teaching, Catholic teaching is utterly false. For example, let us say that his church teaches that one receives forgiveness of sins through personal confession to God alone and that human mediators in confession are not only unnecessary, but are wrong in arrogating to themselves the divine power to forgive. Now this does flatly contradict the Catholic teaching concerning confession. Having known and understood the teaching of both churches and rejected that of the Catholic Church, along with the Church as a whole, can this individual be saved?

If we assume that this person knows and rejects the teaching of the Church through invincible ignorance of the fact that it is true, then it would not be a mortal sin. In practical terms, we can never know if a given person is invincibly ignorant or not, except in very obvious circumstances (ie., a person on an island in the South Pacific in 33 A.D. would have definitely been invincibly ignorant of Jesus' death and resurrection). The Church does not condemn anyone partially for this very reason. Even in this circumstance, where someone knows and consciously rejects Catholic teaching, it is possible, through no fault of one's own, to know something without knowing that it is true. Rejection of known truth, however, is a different matter entirely and can keep a person from reaching salvation through the fact that, even if it itself is not formally mortal (because a person lacks the full use of free will, for instance), in a situation like this it could make it impossible to follow the normal means of receiving forgiveness for sin.

Now, let us look at another member of the same church who has come to believe that forgiveness of sins comes from God but that it really doesn't concern him as to whether or not his church or the Catholic Church is right as to the precise methodology. Although he went to Sunday School as a child in the church and joined the church, he is not active in it, believing that all good folks go to heaven regardless of their church affiliation. He is ignorant of both the teaching of the Catholic Church as well as the teaching of his own church. Can this individual be saved?

If he is ignorant of the teaching of the Church, then it boils down to whether or not his ignorance is culpable (ie., whether or not he can be blamed for his own ignorance). In this case, if he doesn't care whether the Catholic Church or his own religious group are right because he really doesn't want to be bothered with it right now, then that's culpable ignorance, and, while it's impossible to judge a person on a case by case basis, it's possible to say that culpable ignorance is objectively sinful in and of itself. If he doesn't care because he holds a mistaken belief system, though (in which case, he would probably believe that the method doesn't matter, rather than just not caring), then it goes back to the question of whether he believes incorrectly through some fault of his own or not. If not, then it would not be sinful in and of itself, and if he were to die otherwise in a condition where he would go to Heaven, then he wouldn't go to Hell because of that incorrect belief. If this person isn't going to confession, though, then it makes dieing in that sort of condition much more difficult.

I'm sorry that there are a lot of "ifs" and "buts" in this. It's really just not possible to say, without knowing a person's heart entirely, why they commit a given sin. It's possible for a sin, like denying Catholicism, to be objectively mortal, but for it not to be formally mortal (ie., a sin that sends a person to Hell) because of circumstances that are extremely complicated. The greatest moral theologian in the world can't tell you whether an individual is in Hell or not. We can tell you whether an entirely hypothetical person whose state we know for certain is in Hell or not, but not any real person or any fictional person for whom we don't know all circumstances. We know for certain only that the devil and the demons are condemned.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

WisdomTree

Philosopher
Feb 2, 2012
4,018
170
Lincoln
✟23,579.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
First, I'll have to warn you that this is going to be a bit of a long story. Sorry for the doorstopper.

Anyway, I come from a family where I'm the first Catholic in about three centuries ;)

While I was growing up, I considered myself non-denominational, but my beliefs were very close to Baptist. In practice, I tended to care what God thought to some degree, but I was still very much a "cultural Christian". I picked up my knowledge of the Bible mostly second hand. I rarely attended any sort of worship service, and frankly, my life was a lot more characterized by sin than by grace. Entering my senior year of high school, I started to care more deeply about my faith and about my relationship with God, and I joined a Bible study group. I actually read some parts of the New Testament during that time, and started to think about religious matters more than I had in the past. I was a somewhat liberal Protestant then, but I was beginning to care more about my faith.

After I entered college, my family started attending religious services more regularly, and I went with them pretty often. I did make some progress then, and started leaning more toward the conservative side of the spectrum after doing some reading in the letters of Paul. That would have been in the fall of 2009. I still didn't really have a very proper understanding of Scripture, but I was coming along, and in my second semester of college (spring of 2010), I started to reform my life. It was also at around that time that I became a four-point Calvinist. This was through the guidance of a website that I had discovered promoting Calvinist theology.

Over the summer between my first and second years, I had a pretty rough time. I came closer to God in a lot of ways, but by August of my second year in college, I was starting to fall into a pattern of obsessive compulsive disorder. I've had OCD since I was a child, but that was probably the worst that it ever hit me. Essentially, it was the worst year of my life, and it probably will continue to be so unless I have a year in which I am mauled by multiple bears and paralyzed from the neck down due to their vigorous chewing. At any rate, it was partially because of my OCD and partially because of the fact that I, quite frankly, can't tolerate contradictions, that I started to drift away from Calvinism. It was the fourth point of four-point Calvinism, the idea that a believer, once saved, cannot lose salvation, that I got hung up on. Reading parts of the Epistle to the Hebrews (and the Gospels, along with other parts of the New Testament), it was pretty clear that people could reject God's friendship and become lost. Other parts of Calvinism are, obviously, problematic as well. That part was just the one that got me at the time.

At any rate, I did start to recover somewhat from my OCD in the spring of 2011 (although it remains with me to this day, but much diminished). It was probably around that time that I finally let go of Calvinism entirely. I felt a little bit cut loose at that point, and I started exploring different groups. The two that I found myself gravitating the most towards were the Free Will Baptists and the Restoration Movement. The Restoration Movement, if you're not familiar with it, includes three different branches. One of those is the Churches of Christ (by far the most conservative denomination), another is the Independent Christian Churches (conservative in a more typical sense), and the most liberal is the Christian Churches-Disciples of Christ. The CoC and ICC both hold to baptismal regeneration by believer's baptism. I was convinced by their apologetics that baptismal regeneration was a Biblical doctrine, and I can provide evidence for that, if you would like.

I became disturbed, though, by some of the more extreme positions in the CoC. It seemed that a lot of the more conservative members believed that only those baptized as adults with knowledge of baptismal regeneration could be saved, meaning that essentially all of Christianity since the fifth century would have been left unsaved until the 1800s. I don't really know that I was ever willing to totally accept this. I started looking into the history of their beliefs, and particularly into infant baptism.

It was at that point that I really found Catholicism for the first time. There had been times in the past when I had looked into the Church, but I had always had a hard time believing in its doctrines. At that point, though, I started to really do some historical research. Not only did I become convinced of infant baptism, but I also came to believe in the other sacraments. Infant baptism, I noticed, went back at least to the second century, and probably much earlier, since its validity had always gone uncontested (Tertullian challenged its purpose due to his denial of original sin and recognition of the more difficult nature of receiving forgiveness for sin after baptism, but he was the only one, and he never wrote a challenge to its validity). Other sacramental beliefs, like belief that the Eucharist literally became Christ, went back to Ignatius of Antioch, and belief in the sacrament of penance (ie., confession) goes back to the second century text The Shepherd of Hermas. Belief in Apostolic succession went back to the late first century writer Pope St. Clement, and to the early second century Irenaeus of Lyons.

Even with all of that, had the Bible contradicted it, I still wouldn't have been able to believe any of it. But, on further reading, I did find that the most logical conclusion from reading the New Testament was the same one that those early writers had come to.

Confession was a particularly disturbing idea for me, and I have to say that, for reasons that weren't the best, I actually had a hard time accepting Catholicism because of it. I tried to ignore the idea for a while, but by late fall of 2011, I realized that I wasn't Protestant and that I couldn't just keep holding to something that I didn't believe because I was afraid. So, I entered the Church, starting classes in November of 2011 (which actually isn't the usual process for baptized Christians, btw; we're supposed to go to a priest directly), and entering the Church at Easter Vigil of 2012 (ie., 4 months ago).

So, yeah, that's about it. Sorry again for the novel :)

That's a pretty interesting testimony you have there. I could probably relate considering how I had quite a similar experience, but instead of accepting "Calvinism" I accepted "Arminianism" during my time in university (despite the fact I was more or less a determinist) even though I was raised in a Reformed background (my father is a Presbyterian Minister). At one point, I started accepting Anglicanism and Lutheranism, but then turned back from them due to their lack of "central" unity (theologically speaking) and started looking at Eastern Orthodoxy. I would still say my faith conforms a lot with Eastern Orthodoxy, but at the end of the day I can't deny the central authority of Catholicism nor can I ignore the doctrines of Apostolic Succession of St Peter, Purgatory (due to the passage in Corinthians), and other things. So I would say my belief is a harmony of the Roman Rite and the Byzantine Rite.

Which brings me to another question: have you done RCIA?


PS, Your "novel" was a nice read, by the way.
 
Upvote 0

Standing_Ultraviolet

Dunkleosteus
Jul 29, 2010
2,798
132
33
North Carolina
✟4,331.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat

Which brings me to another question: have you done RCIA?

Yep. Sorry, I actually forgot to mention that :p I started RCIA in November, which was a little bit late, but they allowed me to go through.
 
Upvote 0

WisdomTree

Philosopher
Feb 2, 2012
4,018
170
Lincoln
✟23,579.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Yep. Sorry, I actually forgot to mention that :p I started RCIA in November, which was a little bit late, but they allowed me to go through.

I'm looking to go through it myself and have been asking the local bishop about it. What's it like?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.