How do you explain the relationship between religious affiliation and culture, ethnicity, and nationality?

[FiveLinden]

I don’t generally post things that aren’t Catholic teaching, and Catholic teaching doesn’t change.

I am sure you don’t and I know that the Church holds its teaching remains constant. But is there a reference to the teaching on which your view of God’s preference (which you described as ‘greater understanding for’ cradle protestants when compared with converts to protestantism from the Catholic faith? I’m interested in this because what you say seems to run up against Church teaching on the primacy of conscience. As this teaching was elaborated in the last century I wondered if a change (at least what I would call a change) has occurred.

 

[c4csp]

Luke 12:48
" But he that knew not and did things worthy of stripes shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more."

Knowledgeable Catholics cannot leave the faith to become Protestant.
For example… A devout Catholic man who knows the faith to be true, cannot leave to become Protestant because a beautiful rich woman will only marry him of he does. He cannot knowingly leave Catholic faith in that regard. He would lose his salvation. A Protestant could leave to become Catholic because they are coming to the fullness of truth. So being a Catholic who knows their faith has a duty and obligation to practice it and share it with others and also be willingly to lay down their life for it.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I would gently suggest that 1) we’ve discussed this particular issue many times on here and 2) you’re veering off topic from the OP’s thread. If you want to discuss further, it might be better to start a new thread.

 

[MNathaniel]

I wonder how religious people explain the fact that their own faith is usually related to their personal background.

I’m a convert who restlessly sought truth for years, never settling for just what others around me believed, always exploring different religions, and ultimately arrived at believing Catholicism is objectively true.

So I’d usually explain that. Haha.

So from my perspective people who are born into Catholicism just happen to be especially fortunate. Sure, they might be in Catholicism for accidental reasons (at least to begin with), but even if by happenstance, they’re in the religion that has the fullness of truth, and others aren’t.

As to why so many people just stick with whatever they’re born into… well, human nature, eh? Many people aren’t particularly interested in the big questions, for whatever reason. They’d rather get on with what they might consider more ‘pragmatic’ activities: focusing on jobs, housing, family, caregiving. Religion seems a sort of ‘background noise’ to many people, or almost interchangeable with ‘culture’.

And there’s often SOMETHING of the true and good in almost any religion, so when their neighbours highlight those true and good parts, it’s often compelling enough they don’t bother looking further. But for those who don’t just want a ‘bit’ of truth and goodness, but want their fullness… that’s the world of seekers and converts.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

There’s no need to explain when Catholicism is the original church that Jesus started.

I appreciate that this is probably the “Catholic answer”, so to speak, but I am not sure how persuasive this is for somebody who is not already a Catholic. From my perspective, it’s not at all clear that the Catholic Church is one and the same church established by Jesus during his earthly ministry. Reading Matthew 16: 18, it does seem that Jesus established a church (more literally an “assembly”) and that he appointed Peter to be the leader of his church. From my perspective, however, it seems a bit of a stretch to say that Jesus founded the Catholic Church in its modern form. Indeed, a Protestant would surely say that the reformers of the 16th century were not establishing a new church, but reforming the church founded by Jesus, stripping away many of the innovations of the intervening 1,500 years to take the church back to something more like the church of the earliest Christians.

If one believes in Jesus, then non-Christian faiths are not even on the radar screen.

That is true, but first one has to believe in Jesus. Now, for me personally, I am certainly becoming interested in believing in Jesus. That is why I am here. I have been exploring a lot of different religions, and I have already spent some time enquiring about Anglicanism and Protestant non-conformism. My worry is that I may be drawn to Jesus not because he is actually the one true God, but because the culture in which I have lived for all my life is still basically Christian. Perhaps if I were Cambodian or Thai, I would feel more drawn towards the figure of the Buddha, for example.

I know a lot of converts, regardless of what they converted to or converted from. Also a lot of people who were not brought up in any particular religious tradition and chose as an adult. Nationality and culture don’t absolutely determine what faith you embrace, especially nowadays.

That is true, but nationality and culture do still determine what faith most people embrace, including for those who convert from a different religion or no religion. As a British woman, I am far, far more likely to become a Christian than I am to become a Hindu or a Sikh. It is also much more likely that I would become a Protestant or a Catholic than it is that I would become Eastern Orthodox, and it would be even less likely that I would become Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian/Ancient Church of the East. The rate of conversions to Christianity in the UK or the US is obviously going to be much higher than the rate of conversions to Christianity in Somalia or Afghanistan.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

You could sort of say this about any belief. What about atheism? If someone born into an atheist family becomes atheist, is that because atheism is true, or simply because their family is atheist?

I would think of atheism as the state of being a tabula rasa, the default setting, if you like, for somebody who has not been raised in any faith.

Someone raised in a Catholic family might deny Sola Scriptura. Do they do so because they were raised in a Catholic family, or because Sola scriptural doesn’t make sense? And if they have logical reasons for not believing it, does the fact that they were raised in a Catholic family negate those reasons?

I would say that they could well have logical reasons for their beliefs, but that logic only goes so far. No doubt the archbishop of Canterbury believes that it is logical to be an Anglican, but one also has to recognise that for an English aristocrat educated at Eton and Cambridge, being an Anglican was always going to be the most likely option.

 

[BartholomewB]

That is true, but nationality and culture do still determine what faith most people embrace, including for those who convert from a different religion or no religion.

Everything you say is true. Religion is very much tied up with culture. Anyone who changes their religious affiliation is also, to a greater or lesser extent, moving out of one culture and into another. I was very much aware of that myself when I became a Catholic, even though the Catholic Church in its present-day form may not look all that different, outwardly, from the Church of England that I grew up in, back in the twentieth century.

 

[Katie777]

One of my sons is a history major and went through the bible sentance by sentance.

Then we went together to a book of Acts retreat.

There is no denying that Jesus fulfilled all scripture in the old testament regarding the
Messiah.

 

[AlNg]

There is no denying that Jesus fulfilled all scripture in the old testament regarding the
Messiah.

Orthodox Jews deny that.

the vast majority of Christians believe that Islam is a false religion

There have been Catholic priests who have converted to Islam.

 

[OKComputer]

I think about this all the time. It’s obvious that I was born in Saudi Arabia, I wouldn’t be a Christian. I freely admit that where you are born has a lot to do with what religion you are, and if you are raised in one particular religion, you are more likely to think that religion is the true one.

 

[Katie777]

Well they are wrong. St. Paul confirms.

 

[FiveLinden]

Getting back to the OP, it seems to me that if there is a god or gods they choose to reveal themselves in a rather-less-than-effective way; that is, relying on inter-generational transfer of information so that people acquire religion rather like we do languages - from our surroundings.

For Christians this seems to me to pose quite a problem: if belief in the one true God is important for people why would an omnipotent God choose to reveal himself in a way that cut off most people from him? And why would he advantage the children of those born to existing believers over others?

I guess this is another of the ‘mysteries’ used to overcome gaps.

 

[Buks]

Catholic missionaries throughout history have converted millions of individuals all over the world. Especially those who are open to the idea of absolute truth.

 

[Dan_Defender]

God did and does indeed write His law on the hearts of men. This is something that transcends time and culture. Whether non-Christians are saved or not, that is up to God. St Augustine was pessimistic about non-Christians and salvation, but in the end we will know only in the afterlife.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The Catholic church, in two different regions of England, subsequently told me “the Church has nothing more for you”.

What does this mean?

The four marks of Catholic Church is that it is one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic. Christ’s church is visible in the world. It should be very easy to recognize. Now one may argue today it is not, especially with all the modernism after Vatican II. But before Vatican II, The Catholic Church was very distinguishable.

It is just as easy to recognize now, as it was before Vatican II. And not to correct you, but I’m not sure “modernism” is the word you’re looking for. “Modernism” (capital letter M) is a very specific heresy, and the term refers mostly to new interpretations of Scripture. Pope St Pius X addressed it in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis (1907). From 1910 to 1967, every priest and theologian had to take an Oath Against Modernism; for some reason, in 1967 this requirement was rescinded.

What you may be seeing is the Catholic Church having become more “user-friendly”, if you will, with the liturgy having been re-imagined and permitted in the vernacular, more of an outreach and kinder tone towards those who do not share the Faith, or who do not share the Faith in its fullness, and as I always say, building bridges and not walls. But none of that is “Modernism”.

 

[c4csp]

What you may be seeing is the Catholic Church having become more “user-friendly”, if you will, with the liturgy having been re-imagined and permitted in the vernacular, more of an outreach and kinder tone towards those who do not share the Faith, or who do not share the Faith in its fullness, and as I always say, building bridges and not walls. But none of that is “Modernism”.

Any data on the numbers coming into the church after all that bridge building? I always hear ex-Catholics are the second largest religious group, yet I am probably wrong. It would be nice to see the numbers.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

What you may be seeing is the Catholic Church having become more “user-friendly”, if you will, with the liturgy having been re-imagined and permitted in the vernacular, more of an outreach and kinder tone towards those who do not share the Faith, or who do not share the Faith in its fullness, and as I always say, building bridges and not walls. But none of that is “Modernism”.

Any data on the numbers coming into the church after all that bridge building? I always hear ex-Catholics are the second largest religious group, yet I am probably wrong. It would be nice to see the numbers.

I don’t have numbers right at the moment, I assume they could be looked up. The Annuario Pontificio should have figures for baptisms and (maybe) reception into the Church, but I doubt they have figures on people “leaving” (you can never truly “leave” the Church),

I didn’t offer an opinion on what all the changes have wrought, and it is also important not to fall into the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc (“after this, therefore because of this”). Correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Personally, I would have kept the traditional Mass, maybe tweaked some of the more overwrought rubrics (even serving the Traditional Latin Mass, let alone celebrating it, has enough tiny little details to drive a man crazy, or maybe that was just me), and if people were so thirsty to hear Mass in the vernacular, translate it into elegant, literary English (or whatever language). But my opinion wasn’t asked.

As far as people leaving the Church, it’s not because of the liturgy, and I doubt it has much to do with ecumenism. You will hear random stories of people having quit going to church because of the Latin Mass having been done away (a situation that has been corrected in many places), but it wasn’t common. “Back in the day”, people would have been terrified at the prospect of losing their eternal souls by leaving the Church. They stayed because they were taught that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, and that remaining out of it, or leaving it, when you know better, merited eternal damnation. In modern times, Catholics (by and large, I don’t deny there is a “hard core”) generally don’t fear hell for that reason or any other. They do what they want to do. For a lot of them, “what they want to do” involves leaving the Church. It also can’t be discounted that poor catechesis on the Catholic side leaves some Catholics “sitting ducks” for evangelical outreach — knowing little of anything about their own faith, all that has to happen, is for them to become convinced that another church has a clearer, truer message, and they’re gone. And I’m sure there are some Catholics who get snagged by apologetics of the Jack Chick variety, become convinced that the Catholic Church is the apotheosis of evil, and “get saved” and take up with the fundamentalists. All of the abuse scandals haven’t helped matters either.

 

[c4csp]

First, I do not think people were thirsty for mass in the vernacular. I think it is safe to say no significant laity were pushing for it. I forget if it was Pope Paul XI or some Bishop who said that the Latin mass must be taken away or the faithful will not go to the new mass, even though the council never called for a doing away with TLM or even gave the authority to do so to begin with. Again, I am unsure who said it if it was Pope Paul XI or another Bishop that said the devout faithful will be very annoyed and angry with the new mass.

Vatican II did not call for doing away with TLM, however it allowed(many say this was intentional) for interpretations on how to proceed. You know, like giving the options as if one has choice but highly encouraging the one option over all the others.

Please do not try and argue me on this topic as I am not trying to argue. Many folks get upset when laity bring these things up, but we must remember that Pope Benedict, Bishop Vigano, Bishop Schneider, Bishop Burke and others have support for TLM and called things out in Vatican II. One must argue their point if they have issue.

 

[Pattylt]

What the OP is describing is known as the geographical problem of religion. It’s been known and discussed for centuries. Religions are mostly geographical and thus, cultural.

As much as many will deny it or consider that they would be the exception, it’s pretty obvious that if you had been born in Syria, you’d be Muslim. Born in India? Hindu. Etc… And most likely, if you are serious about your catholic religion, you’d most likely be just as serious about your Muslim or Hindu religion as well. Cross conversions to completely different religions are rare. Changes to a different sect within a faith group are more common. God seems to be geographical in how He likes to be worshipped. At least, that’s what the overwhelming data shows.

 

[Tommy999]

I assume that most Catholics would say that the Catholic Church is the one true church and that its teachings are objective and absolute. However, people’s religious beliefs are usually determined by factors such as the religious beliefs of their parents and/or the main religion practiced in their community or country. How do Catholics explain this?

This thread seems like a global Sociology class and I like it because it makes me think beyond my comfort zone. It might appear on the surface that either God isn’t fair or that all religions are equal and lead to the same God. I don’t believe either of those are true.

Most Catholics I know contend that the Catholic Church is the one true Christian Church founded by Jesus, while saying that Protestant faith traditions like mine do not contain the same fullness of truth but have some elements that can lead to salvation, but it’s more like a bumpy dirt road to heaven with lots of potholes rather than a nicely paved road complete with road map like Catholicism.

I will use the analogy of golf. It’s like non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians are born with a handicap, but it is taken into consideration by a just and merciful God. The cradle Catholics are the most fortunate, as they were born into all the fullness, provided they keep persevering in it. Others who discover the truth of Catholicism and convert are also rewarded by the fullness of faith, according to my understanding of Catholic belief.

However, God doesn’t totally abandon everyone else. He meets them where they are at, knows their hearts, and will deal with them fairly, justly, and according to their deeds in this life. In other words, non-Catholics may be at a disadvantage but are not totally abandoned by the Lord beyond the hope of attaining heaven, as God knows if they would respond to Him if given the opportunity. It’s up to God, if I understand the Catholic position correctly.

Note: Forgive me if this is not an accurate portrayal of the Catholic position. I’m still learning so knowledgeable Catholics please correct me if I misrepresented anything.