5 Often-Misunderstood Important Catholic Issues

[L4E_WakaMol-King]

Everyone here seems to be quite well educated, so this thread may not even be needed, but just in case, I thought I'd make it. If nothing else, it shoud lead to some interesting discussions.

1. Drinking and Gambling - The CC teaches that alcoholic drinks and games of chance are not, by their nature, sinful. However, it is also important to note that the CC also makes it quite clear that drunkenness and excessive gambling are very serious sins. I suppose it goes back to that idea of "everything in moderation." Drinking and gambling can be entertaining and enjoyable, but, like all earthly pleasures, we can't let them get out of hand. When one gets drunk, he impairs his inhibitions, healthy things that keep us from sinning. By giving up our inhibitions, we agree to accept the consequences of anything we do while drunk. But, that dosn't mean we're only guilty if we do something bad while drunk... just by putting ourselves in that unnescessary and dangerous position, we have expressed a lack of care, and are guilty of a serious sin.

2. Papal Authority / Infallability - The Pope, or Bishop of Rome, is the successor or St. Peter, the rock on which the Church was built. Jesus gave authority to him and to the Church to guide the faithful and to hold bound / loose sins on earth. Catholics do not beieve that everything he says is truth just because he said it, and they do not believe that the Pope is nescessarily free of sin. However, in certain cases, the Pope or the Magisterium (Pope + all Bishops) can teach doctrine infallably. I'm not exactly positive on the specifics of when and where this can be invoked... and exactly by whom, but I know that it can only be done on matters of faith and morals. I think the Pope can do this himself, but he might require the consent of the Magisterium also... not sure. It's probably not that vitally important anyway, though, because I don't forsee the Pope ever teaching something that a large majority of the Bishops would disagree with anyway.

3. Earning Salvation - Catholics do not believe one can earn salvation. This is one of the most common misconceptions about Catholics. Salvation is a gift from God, and nothing we could ever do will make us worthy of it.

4. Mortal Sin - Catholics believe that salvation is, in a sense, a process that spans our entire lives. There is not one specific moment in life after which one is permanently "saved." (To most Protestant readers, this will throw up a lot of red flags... but bear with me on this... I think a lot of the confusion comes from the use of terms. Our views may not be quite as different as they first appear). There is a time in a person's life when one first receives God's salvific grace. For Catholics, this occurs at Baptism, when Original Sin is removed (and I realize that this brings up a whole wealth of other issues, but I need to stay focused). At this point, one is "saved" to use a generally Protestant term. However, it is still possible to "lose that salvation," in a sense... although perhaps it would be better stated as "give up that salvation." A mortal sin is a sin that we believe to be of a grave nature and that we do of our own free will (full knowledge and full consent). Such sins are a free choice on our part to reject God's gift of grace (note: He does not take it away, we send it back). No one can remove us from God's hand, but we can jump out. In such cases, we need to be restored to God, through forgiveness of that sin. Once we are forgiven, we are restored to God's grace.

5. Purgatory - Purgatory is not a third eternal state (aka, not on par with Heaven and Hell). It is a temporary time of purification ("purgation") when souls must work out the tempral punishment for their sins before entering Heaven. For many sins, even after they are forgiven, some kind of reparations must be made. This is sort of like a stab wound... you can be forgiven by the person you stabbed, but that dosn't heal the gash. Purgatory is not nescessary if one has already worked out these reparations on earth. Also, once one enters Purgatory, one is still guaranteed to enter Heaven...you can't switch to Hell somewhere in the middle.

Well, I'm sure this will prompt a lot of discussions. Enjoy .

(If anyone dosn't want to wait for me to respond to stuff, or wants better explanations than I can give, you can check out Catholic Answers, a database of Catholic apologetics).

[Soulfyre]

No problem with setting forth the more misunderstood issues first. There is a variety of theological learning and Christian background on this website, and it is never a bad idea to "hit the basics" for everyone, to avoid unnecessary clarifications later. Thank you for the precis, and, yes, on this website there will undoubtedly be discussion.

God bless and keep you as you undertake your studies (I've been there, done that...AND bought the T-shirt...or school ring, in my case),

Matthew (soulfyre)

[Alejandro]

Do Catholics believe we are saved by faith, or by grace?

[L4E_WakaMol-King]

Hmm... I hope that this dosn't sound offensive or anything (it certainly is not meant to be), but that is a somewhat Protestantly-worded question (that sounds kind of nuts, I know... sorry!). It is the grace of Christ that has saved us from our sins... something we can never earn and that must be given... however, faith is still a vital element. I'll try to elaborate later if I find time.

Keep in mind that for Catholics, salvation is a life long process. There is not one specific moment of "being saved," unless you want to count Baptism/forgiveness of mortal sins, at which time God's salvific grace fills a soul that previously had been denied it (by original sin, in the case of Baptism) or had emptied itself of it (in the case of mortal sin). You don't really hear Catholics say "I have been saved." It's usually more like "I am being saved." Because there is not that one defining moment, the answer to your question (I assume... have not researched this) is both grace and faith.

[Alejandro]

No offense taken! I know that I am sometimes guilty of speaking 'Christianese.' And I agree with you to a point. I believe that Grace has to be given and we cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven by works, but we must also have Faith in that which has granted us this Grace. So I believe it is a mixture of Faith and Grace.

But I do believe that you are saved once you give yourself to Christ.

I know that when I was younger and attended the Catholic Mass, that I was Baptised at a young age...probably about 1-2 years in age.

My question is this: do Catholics believe that you when you are Baptised at this age, that your sins are forgiven even though you have not a clue as to what is being done to you? And if not, is a Baptism at a later age frowned upon?

God keep you brother!

Peace,
Alejandro

[L4E_WakaMol-King]

I was once told (and I think this is true) that Baptism of infants began around the time of the great plagues that were sweeping through Europe. Since infant mortality was so high, they wanted to get everyone baptised as soon as possible.

The original Christian sacrament(s) of initiation consisted of Baptism and anointing with oil, all at once, I believe. The CC split this into two seperate sacraments: Baptism and Confirmation. Baptism can be done for an infant. It removes the stain of Original Sin... so at that point I suppose you could call the person "saved" (but keep in mind that, according to the CC, the person can still choose to empty him/herself of that salvific grace). The parents or guardians of the child make the promises of a mature Christian for the child, since the child cannot do it for him/herself.

The sacrament of Confirmation is the anointing with oil part... only now it comes later in life than it did originally (or perhaps I should say Baptism comes earlier). This must be a free choice of the person that is being confirmed. It is a strengthening of the work of the Holy Spirit that began at Baptism, and the sign of Christian maturity.

Since Baptism removes Original Sin, it is generally good to go ahead and do it... you never know what will become of that child. It's not frowned upon to be Baptised later in life though. The Easter Vigil Mass (perhaps the most beautiful Mass of the whole year) takes place on Holy Saturday night after sundown... and that is the time that the CC welcomes all the people that want to become Catholic (there's a process of education that takes place throughout the year leading up to Easter). Most of the people that want to join have already been Baptised in a Protestant Church, and the CC recognizes most of those Baptisms. These people just receive the sacrament of Confirmation. However, if the person entering has not ever been Baptised, they are both Baptised and Confirmed on the same night... just like in old times.

Hope that explains it a bit...

The Lord bless and keep you also... Happy Easter!
-Stephen

[Alejandro]

So, when you go through the ritual act of being Baptised you are forgiven, no matter the condition you go into the Baptism with?

[L4E_WakaMol-King]

I think so. I'll try to do some research on this if you'd like.

[Soulfyre]

Stephen, I believe the answer to Alejandro's question would be "yes". Baptism within the Roman Catholic Church is described as ex opere operato, that is, an act which is effective in and of itself, not requiring the synergistic operation of faith in the person being baptized. Hence, the baptism of a baby would be considered efficacious in removing the stain of original sin, even though it is the baby's parents or God-parents who answer for the child when the baptismal vows which affirm repentance are asked, like "Do you renounce Satan and all his works..." In this sense, the sacrament of Baptism is treated similarly in both the Roman Catholic the Orthodox Christian traditions (although the Roman Catholics retain the sacrament of confirmation as a separate act; the Orthodox "chrismation" occurs at the time of Baptism).

Interestingly, the Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran and Presbyterian traditions also hold to baptism of infants, and all would agree that the sacrament of baptism initiates the one baptized into the Body of Christ, the church. All would also argue that the baptism must, in some sense, be "owned" are "activated" when the youth is of age to understand the substance of the sacrament. The key dispute within all traditions that accept infant baptism is the nature of the forgiveness or mercy extended to the infant in relation to sin, whether or not it is in fact limited to original sin only, and what the nature of original sin is. Among those who deny the validity of infant baptism, the act is seen to reflect a knowledgable decision by the recipient concerning the gospel of Jesus Christ, of which baby would be incapable. Essentially, baptism is considered to be a memorial service, in the same manner as communion. Baptism commemorates and testifies to a decision made by the individual to repent and believe in the gospel (although it happens, by definition, only once), whereas communion commemorates the Last Supper, and happens as often as the church celebrates it.

God bless and keep you,

Matthew (soulfyre)

[melinky]

Soulfyre said:

Interestingly, the Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran and Presbyterian traditions also hold to baptism of infants, and all would agree that the sacrament of baptism initiates the one baptized into the Body of Christ, the church. All would also argue that the baptism must, in some sense, be "owned" are "activated" when the youth is of age to understand the substance of the sacrament.

It is my understanding that within the Methodist church baptism of infants is not a requirement, and is done more because it is popular within the church. It is also viewed, as you said, to initiate the child into the Body of Christ. I know that in 6th grade the children go through a year of confirmation classes where they learn more about the church and what it means to follow Christ. At the end of their confirmation, the children are then able to decide for themselves if they wish to be baptised. I'll certainly be learning more about the confirmation process in two and a half years when my son begins the process.

Melinda

[Alejandro]

I know that 6th grade is a time full of misunderstanding, and a time of skepticism, or it was for just me. I think that this time of confirmation is a good idea, and needs to be instilled, but at the same time, perhaps it should go on for a longer period of time. I am not sure how involved it is, and how deep the confirmations go, so I cannot speak for what is covered and what occurs.

I do not think that dipping your child in some water should be grounds for inducting them into the Church--they have no idea as to what is occuring; for all they know they could be taking an odd bath.

God be with you,
Alejandro

[melinky]

Alejandro said:

I do not think that dipping your child in some water should be grounds for inducting them into the Church--they have no idea as to what is occuring; for all they know they could be taking an odd bath.

You know, I honestly think that when you get right down to it, the baptism of infants is more for the parents than for the child. I think it's one of those rituals that brings comfort to people.

My son and I were baptised together in October of 2001 when he was six years old. Did he need to be baptised, probably not, but I felt that it was important for him to feel as much a part of the church as I did. I feel certain that after confirmation he will choose to be baptised again, but that will be by his choice, not mine.

Melinda

[L4E_WakaMol-King]

I agree that the infant is not conscious of what is going on... but for the CC and many others, that's not a requirement. The sacrament can take effect without the consent of the one being baptised, for the sake of their spiritual well-being.

Interesting question: If you attempt to baptise someone that is of age who does not want to be baptised, would it be effective?

[rgrove]

Alejandro said:

So, when you go through the ritual act of being Baptised you are forgiven, no matter the condition you go into the Baptism with?

Might I recommend not using the term "ritual act of being Baptised"? I believe I understand what you are trying to say, but Stephen and the others here who accept Baptismal regeneration were quite gracious in letting it pass without any flamewars starting. Please keep in mind that several Protestant denominations teach Baptismal regeneration or (in the case of many Reformed) presumptive baptismal regeneration. John the Baptist's response to Mary and Jesus in the womb is most frequently pointed to that even in the womb the Lord can provide the gift of faith to us. And those that accept Credobaptistm (believer's baptism) should have a bit of a hard time calling Baptism a "ritual act". In fact we take Baptism so seriously we believe only those who have already professed Christ as Lord and Savior should partake in this most glorious sacrament given to us by Christ Himself.

Hope this is taken in the right way. But in these boards it's important to watch the terms we use to keep the heat down.

As for the topic, I think it's been a pretty good thread. The only thing that I might take issue with a little is that infant baptism started when plagues were going through Europe. I believe the fear of what would happen to the child if he/she died early and unbaptised already began in the first few centuries of the church. This had a lot to do with early church fathers grappling with the human condition. Augustine had a huge impact in the west on this point due to his teaching on original sin (as already noted). Augustine also formalized ex operato operata as already noted as well which laid the foundations in many ways for the directions Rome took with it's sacerdotal system.

Yours In Christ,
Ron

[rgrove]

Alejandro said:

I do not think that dipping your child in some water should be grounds for inducting them into the Church--they have no idea as to what is occuring; for all they know they could be taking an odd bath.

Neither do I, but the theology of baptismal regeneration or, in Reformed paedobaptist circles, covenant baptism is a more complex biblical case than most Baptists give it credit. I recommend reading a good, conservative Lutheran book on Baptism and at least one Reformed book on it. I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar enough with non-protestant literature to recommend a text for reading there. A conservative Lutheran perspective might be found at Concordia Publishing House ( www.cph.org ) where several can be found (Johann Gehard's book being a historical "standartwerk" of sorts). And "The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism" is an excellent Reformed paedobaptist treatment of the topic. From a Reformed Baptist perspective the best current work would probably be "Baptism of Disciples Alone" by Fred A. Malone. Those two can be found at Amazon or other online Christian bookstores fairly easily. As Malone (who was raised credobaptist, turned paedobaptist in seminary, and then came back to the credobaptist position as he struggled with the issue of children taking communion) states clearly, at least the covenental arguments are not a thirty second refutation. My shelves are full of bookshelf is filled with several perrspectives on Baptism as I made my way from Catholicism to Protestantism, and then finally to becoming a convinced credobaptist. It's a very deep and emotional topic. For example, just try telling a member of a PCA church their child isn't a Christian and you'll see what I mean by emotional!

Yours In Christ,
Ron