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

[Polak]

I know this will be difficult for somebody with no religion to understand, but being a Catholic is a grace. If you were raised in a Catholic environment you are very fortunate. Evangelising and having missionaries go to different parts of the world is something Catholics do, to spread the word of God.

Yes, people of other faiths may feel similarly about their own religion, I understand, but man is free to follow the one true Church or make up his own one. Many have made up their own.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

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.

I’m not going to argue with you — I’m on your side. I agree with every word you say.

No, I do not think people prior to Vatican II were “thirsty for the vernacular”. There might have been the odd person here and there grumbling and saying to themselves, “I really wish all of this were in English, it’d be so much more meaningful, this is all just gibberish”, but it wasn’t a common sentiment, not a matter for discussion. They were taught “this is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass”, end of story. When the changes were made, Catholics did what Catholics had been brought up to do — they obeyed. (Too bad they didn’t follow suit when Humanae vitae was issued.)

 

[Dan_Defender]

God seems to be geographical in how He likes to be worshipped. At least, that’s what the overwhelming data shows.

That is not true over time. Before the 7th century all Middle East countries were majority Christian since the First century. This age does not prove history.

 

[c4csp]

No, I do not think people prior to Vatican II were “thirsty for the vernacular”. There might have been the odd person here and there grumbling and saying to themselves, “I really wish all of this were in English, it’d be so much more meaningful, this is all just gibberish”, but it wasn’t a common sentiment, not a matter for discussion. They were taught “this is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass”, end of story. When the changes were made, Catholics did what Catholics had been brought up to do — they obeyed. (Too bad they didn’t follow suit when Humanae vitae was issued.)

I think the frustration for me and many other Catholics is that we are confused. The Catholic Church is to give clear direction on matters of faith and morals. When our clergy and others say or do things, whether on doctrine or in political sphere, we are left scratching our heads to try and make sense of it. We shouldn’t be so lost and have to figure it out on our own. I mean on many occasions I am double checking on what a prelate may have taught or said just to be sure. I seek the truth.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I think the frustration for me and many other Catholics is that we are confused. The Catholic Church is to give clear direction on matters of faith and morals. When our clergy and others say or do things, whether on doctrine or in political sphere, we are left scratching our heads to try and make sense of it. We shouldn’t be so lost and have to figure it out on our own. I mean on many occasions I am double checking on what a prelate may have taught or said just to be sure. I seek the truth.

Just follow tradition. You can’t go wrong that way.

There’s a little-known, excellent resource, My Catholic Faith. I once absent-mindedly got it at a used book store or book sale, I honestly don’t remember, and then just put it aside on my shelf. One day I opened it up and said “WOW!”. It’s amazing!

My Catholic Faith - Angelus Press

 

[c4csp]

Thank you. I will check it out.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

Jesus is God, He rose from the dead. We have overwhelming evidence historically of these accounts.

I am not convinced that there is reliable historical evidence that Jesus was the Son of God and rose from the dead. I am convinced that Jesus did exist, but that’s as far as it goes. I appreciate that people may believe that Jesus was the Son of God and rose from the dead, but I would consider that to be a matter of faith rather than a matter of historical fact.

Muhammad did not raise from the dead nor any other false religion.

But it is only because you are a Catholic that you are convinced of this. Muslims are convinced that Mohammed was the messenger of God. If you were a Muslim, you would presumably be saying that Jesus was merely a prophet and that Christianity is a false religion.

Every other Christian faith came from Catholicism.

I appreciate that that is how some Catholics interpret the history of Christianity. Some Catholics, generally the more conservative ones, do indeed seem to believe that the Catholic Church was established c. AD 30 and that other churches broke away from the Catholic Church, e.g. the Church of the East in 431, the Oriental Orthodox churches in 451, the Eastern Orthodox churches in 1054, the Protestant churches in the 16th century, etc. I think that the history of early Christianity actually seems to be a lot more complicated than that. It is only very simple if you view everything through the lens of Catholicism and the belief that the Catholic Church was actually founded by Jesus. In fact, it seems that the process of establishing orthodox Christian doctrine and the canon of scripture was a lot more complicated than that, and one has to appreciate that factors such as history, politics, culture, and language were no less influential than theology in determining the shape of early Christian beliefs.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

In your example, I would ask, why is not everyone in England Anglican? The fact that there are Catholics there is in itself a miracle, since it used to be a crime against the sate to be such for centuries.

There are probably a few reasons why not everyone in England is Anglican, but I guess the main ones would be:

• Historians of the 16th century now seem to agree that there was actually very little support for the Reformation among ordinary people in England. Right up until the eve of the Reformation, Catholicism remained very popular among ordinary people. People were somewhat resistant to accepting Protestantism, and the restoration of Catholicism by Mary I was a considerable success, only short lived because Mary died after a short reign. Indeed, Henry VIII himself had no real Protestant convictions. His break with Rome was pragmatic.
• Catholicism was remarkably resilient, thanks in no small part to the heroic men and women who kept “the old religion” alive during the dark decades when practising Catholicism was punishable by death. By housing priests, holding Masses, distributing literature, preserving objects of veneration, etc, they managed to preserve a sufficient kernel of Catholic culture in England to survive and prosper in more tolerant times.
• Catholicism survived in continental Europe and was the main religion of most countries. Therefore, when Catholicism was one again tolerated in England, Catholics in continental Europe (especially in Frances and the Papal States) stood ready to aid its revival.
• Immigration. The Catholic Church in England has prospered thanks for a steady influx of immigrants, such as the Irish and the Italians in the 19th century, a first wave of Poles before, during, and after the Second World War, a second wave of Poles from 2004, and many Africans and West Indians from Britain’s former colonies.

 

[BornInMarch]

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 practised in their community or country. How do Catholics explain this?

Counter-examples would be people who go against the grain, who convert to a religion that they had no background with or which is even illegal in their home country.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

religion is such a cultural thing that varies depending on where we live and our family etc. I don’t think one is necessarily superior. Maybe religion fills a human need and was never meant to be fully true(any religion)

Yes, that makes a lot of sense to me. There has been religion for probably as long as there have been humans. Every culture in every period of time seems to have developed systems of supernatural beliefs to explain where the university came from, what happens to us when we die, what is the meaning of life, etc, and to have rituals that give shape to the weeks and the years and the course of a human lifetime.

So we do not “think” the Catholic Church is the one true Church, we know it is.

That rather takes us round in circles though! You “know” that the Catholic Church is the one true church, but your evidence for this seems to be the teachings of the Catholic Church itself. I am also a bit confused about Vatican II. Are you saying that following Vatican II the Catholic Church is less Catholic? As somebody outside the Catholic Church, I don’t really understand how a council of the Catholic Church could have made the church less Catholic.

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

I don’t want to take this too far off topic, but I think that is one of those arguments that only really works if you are a Christian. I have read the whole of the New Testament, and I have made a reasonable start on the Old Testament, and I certainly know what you are referring to, but I’m afraid I don’t find it as persuasive as you do. For example, Psalm 69 says, “They gave me gall to eat : and when I was thirsty they gave me vinegar to drink.” If you are a Christian, you will see this prophecy fulfilled in Matthew 27: 34 and John 19: 28-30. However, if you are not a Christian, you may just think that Matthew and John invented the detail about Jesus being given gall/vinegar on the cross to make it look like he was fulfilling a prophecy. It’s also possible that they really did give Jesus gall/vinegar and then the early Christians just imagined that this had something to do with a verse in a Psalm.

 

[c4csp]

I don’t want to take this too far off topic, but I think that is one of those arguments that only really works if you are a Christian. I have read the whole of the New Testament, and I have made a reasonable start on the Old Testament, and I certainly know what you are referring to, but I’m afraid I don’t find it as persuasive as you do. For example, Psalm 69 says, “They gave me gall to eat : and when I was thirsty they gave me vinegar to drink.” If you are a Christian, you will see this prophecy fulfilled in Matthew 27: 34 and John 19: 28-30. However, if you are not a Christian, you may just think that Matthew and John invented the detail about Jesus being given gall/vinegar on the cross to make it look like he was fulfilling a prophecy. It’s also possible that they really did give Jesus gall/vinegar and then the early Christians just imagined that this had something to do with a verse in a Psalm.

You are referring to typology. As you embark on your journey of seeking truth, you will find more parallels to the fulfillment of the covenant. You are pointing out just one parallel, like a grain of sand which is part of a mountain of evidence. There are MANY more. You are doing the right thing and it will lead you to the Catholic faith in time. We do not need to defend Catholicism to your challenges because as you continue your journey, you will arrive at the truth.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

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

But they are doing so on the basis that they believe that their religion is the right one and that the religions of non-Christians are the wrong ones. Curiously, missionaries have been a lot more successful in Africa than they have in Asia. The continent of Africa is about 49% Christian and 42% Muslim. Christianity is more prevalent in the south of the continent, Islam is more prevalent in the north. Only about 8% still practise indigenous religions. In the former British India and Ceylon, however, Christianity only accounts for 7.4% of Sri Lankans, 2.3% of Indians, 1.6% of Pakistanis, and 0.4% of Bangladeshis. There are still peoples who have never been successfully contacted by missionaries, such as the Sentinelese, who famously killed a missionary a couple of years ago. These people presumably have no idea that there are religions other than their own.

What the OP is describing is known as the geographical problem of religion.

I am pleased to know that it has a name!

Cross conversions to completely different religions are rare. Changes to a different sect within a faith group are more common.

Yes, this is pretty much what I feel. While there are always going to be occasional examples of somebody who converted from Shintoism to Oriental Orthodoxy or from Zoroastrianism to to Quakerism, these are always going to be rare examples. Most people don’t convert at all. Those who do convert tend to convert to a religion with which they have some obvious connection. For example, I know a family of Latvian Jews who converted to Methodism when they settled in England as refugees around 80 years ago. It’s not particularly difficult to see how this would have happened. It would have been more remarkable if Latvian Jews had moved to England and become Buddhists. As for people who convert from one denomination to another, that is generally a result of disagreements about details, and even then people do not generally shift very far. For example, many Anglo-Catholics have become Latin Rite Catholics. A smaller number have become Eastern Orthodox. One does not often hear about Anglo-Catholics who converted to the Assyrian Church of the East or the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

@Tommy999 I am curious to know how Methodists typically feel about people who aren’t Methodists. The impression I have is that most of the mainstream Protestant denominations are rather less dogmatic about which denomination is absolutely right about everything. I mean Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists (British ones, not the fundamentalist ones you have in the USA), Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Quakers. I know that the fundamentalist Protestant denominations are also very dogmatic, often breaking up into smaller and smaller denominations as they dispute increasingly obscure points of theology.

Presumably Methodists are Methodists for a reason, but I have never heard Methodists saying that they and they alone have the fullness of truth, that there is no salvation outside Methodism, and so on. I know that in Britain the Anglican and Methodist churches have been working for a long time towards either reunifying or entering into communion with each other. As I understand it, they don’t really have any major doctrinal disagreements, and the main stumbling block is that the Anglicans believe that the Methodists broke the apostolic succession and no longer have valid orders of ministry or sacraments.

That is not true over time. Before the 7th century all Middle East countries were majority Christian since the First century. This age does not prove history.

There is no way that Christianity was the majority religion of the whole of the Middle East by the end of the first century AD. You are certainly right that Christianity did become the main religion of Asia Minor, the Levant, much of north Africa, and beyond in Late Antiquity until the rapid spread of Islam around the middle of the seventh century. However, your comment does in fact prove @Pattylt’s point. Most people in the region would have been Christians by the beginning of the seventh century due to the rise and fall of empires, and subsequent generations would have been Muslims due to the rapid expansion of the Arab world.

 

[Buks]

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.

But they are doing so on the basis that they believe that their religion is the right one and that the religions of non-Christians are the wrong ones.

I guess your point is that the missionary happened to be spreading the Gospel of Christ, as opposed to a different religion, because he or she was born into a Christian family. Are you ignoring the convert, though? Are you ignoring the convert who then also is instrumental in the conversion of others? The missionary himself/herself was at some point helped by many persons who had, no doubt, mothers and fathers who were likely wonderful parents yet gave no encouragement for their son’s or daughter’s conversion.

Most importantly, how closely are you looking at the message of each religion, and are you open to the possibility that the goodness of the message of one may be undeniably stronger than the goodness within the other messages?

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

Are you ignoring the convert, though? Are you ignoring the convert who then also is instrumental in the conversion of others?

Counter-examples would be people who go against the grain, who convert to a religion that they had no background with or which is even illegal in their home country.

That is true, and I am somewhat convinced when I come across examples of people who hold beliefs that are completely contrary to those they grew up with. For example, when I was at school I went to a talk by Vijay Menon, who is a well known evangelist in Britain. He is an Anglican, although a very evangelical one. He is originally from India and was a Hindu. He was converted to Christianity at St Helen’s Bishopsgate, a famous evangelical Anglican church in the City of London. I do find it quite persuasive that somebody who had grown up in India as a Hindu was persuaded by the message of a religion that must have been almost completely alien to him. On the other hand, one would have to acknowledge the element of chance. If Menon had not got a job in London, he would possibly have spent the rest of his life in India and may never have become a Christian.

Most importantly, how closely are you looking at the message of each religion, and are you open to the possibility that the goodness of the message of one may be undeniably stronger than the goodness within the other messages?

Yes, I am. I certainly see Christianity as the most attractive religion to me, mostly because I find myself convinced by the moral teachings or Jesus. I could not really imagine becoming a Muslim. I know a lot of moderate Muslims (I live in London, so it is normal to know a lot of Muslims), and they are individually very nice people whose religion evidently leads them to live good lives. However, I am overall not persuaded by the moral teachings of Islam. Judaism is not really on my radar as it is not generally speaking a proselytising religion. I am interested in Indian religions, but it is quite hard to relate to them on a cultural level. Although I am not religious, Christianity is still very much part of the culture in which I grew up.

 

[Tommy999]

I am curious to know how Methodists typically feel about people who aren’t Methodists. The impression I have is that most of the mainstream Protestant denominations are rather less dogmatic about which denomination is absolutely right about everything

Your impression is pretty much how I see the situation, as well. Most mainline Protestants (except for US Baptists and other fundamentalists) are generally less dogmatic about which denomination is right, although they usually believe that their denomination is a “really good one” where the Lord’s presence can be found.

It is not uncommon for Methodists I know to have family members (siblings, parents, children) who belong to other faith traditions, so tolerance is considered a virtue, although there are a minority who are less tolerant.

This tolerance can be seen at holy communion, where all professing Christians are welcome to participate if they wish to do so.

Therefore, if you belong to a Christian denomination of any kind, you are considered a brother or sister in Christ to most Methodists.

To me, some Catholics on CAF can occasionally appear as elitist in their pronouncement of being the one true Church, but I take it with a grain of salt. After all, we’re on a Catholic majority site, correct?

However, one major source of serious competition for Methodists is to beat Baptists and people from other Christian denominations to the local restaurants after church, although the COVID-19 pandemic kind of put a damper on that for the time being.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

HSD,

“The Church has nothing more for you” meant that there wasn’t catechesis nor frameworks for relating, in either of those localities at the time I asked.

(In a later context I enquired one time too many and lots of people have got burned out and I dealt with that extensively elsewhere.)

Each locality has had its unique experience with catholic faith, especially in England where it is less prevalent than for example the States. One can’t assume the Church has done anything in particular for another person.

Curiously there was indeed a well appreciated well translated Mass which I was at during my formative years until it was brutally abolished. According to a previous poster, it was in quite a lot of localities.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Dom Chautard was writing only just before my time, straightforward down to earth stuff. But no-one told me about him. Dad was in some sort of “knights” who told him to get into Teilhard (but he drew the line at copying their bad morals).

Immediately his book fell into my hands I had one of my fits of loyalty so I passed it on again because it must be the stuff we were told was being thrown out. (My early years were in south-east England.)

If I hadn’t felt so loyal I wish I had hung onto it. I think it was “the soul of the Apostolate”.

In regard to the point from someone else about Methodism and the Jewish religion, my family were non-conformist-Anglican-RC or Jewish-Anglican-RC.

I can assure you that kind of change (even only once) caused especially then - and in the case of Jewish even now - quite enough ructions. Indeed there have now arisen those who are increasingly strident if one should consider disaffiliating from Rome (the newfangled diktat mentality). I get the impression that a while ago, if one wasn’t in an orphanage or ambitious, the Catholic faith was easy going yet solid. Now it’s the opposite to both those qualities, unless you insist (for yourself) on the 1924, 1954 or 1962 varieties. My dad was very wise about keeping your religion private - especially from the Church.

In a town I know, it is assumed by the majority of the parish that one is of a specific ethnic kind (with concomitant demands), but elsewhere I met with easy goingness towards the variety of people we had in those localities.

Even English secular government were hung up about religion, which could catch you out if they were having a bad day.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

“The Church has nothing more for you” meant that there wasn’t catechesis nor frameworks for relating, in either of those localities at the time I asked.

I’ve never heard of a Catholic church turning away a potential convert, if that person was properly disposed and wanted to convert for the right reasons. You might try one of the Traditional Latin Mass apostolates in the UK that is under the jurisdiction of Rome and the local bishops.

I get the impression that a while ago, if one wasn’t in an orphanage or ambitious, the Catholic faith was easy going yet solid. Now it’s the opposite to both those qualities, unless you insist (for yourself) on the 1924, 1954 or 1962 varieties. My dad was very wise about keeping your religion private - especially from the Church.

I’m not clear what you mean by “the 1924, 1954, or 1962 varieties”, but I have found that my full-bore, hard-core, “ask the difficult questions” Catholicism has irritated, or put on the defensive, the occasional layperson (or even priest!) now and then. When I hear “we were always taught…” this or that, my response is something like “well, yes, people are ‘taught’ a lot of things, but is it true, and do you have reasons for believing it, or is it just something you ‘were always taught’?”. That’s about the time that you get upbraided for “attacking the faith” of someone. I’ve had it happen.

Again, seek out the traditional apostolates.

 

[BartholomewB]

You are presumably familiar, too, with the case of Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, who for twenty years or so now has been in a position of prominence in the conservative wing of the Church of England, resisting the temptation to jump on every “politically correct” bandwagon.