Validity of confessions in Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches

[truthseekerjay]

Gorgias, I asked you in a previous post if I could continue seeing Jesus ONLY as a judge for the rest of my life (without worship or love) and continue to receive absolution and forgiveness through confession and it seems like your answer was yes. Sorry for being repetitive, but essentially, isn’t that implying that Jesus only cares that rules are followed but doesn’t really care about love for Him?

 

[Gorgias]

Sorry for being repetitive

No problem…!

Gorgias, I asked you in a previous post if I could continue seeing Jesus ONLY as a judge for the rest of my life (without worship or love) and continue to receive absolution and forgiveness through confession and it seems like your answer was yes. Sorry for being repetitive, but essentially, isn’t that implying that Jesus only cares that rules are followed but doesn’t really care about love for Him?

No. Think of it this way: if a child never really exhibits love for a parent, but only respects his parent’s ‘rules’, will that parent stop trying? Will the parent say “you’re only interested in rules, not my love; I’m done with you!”…? No! The parent will turn – time and time again – to his child, reaching out in love to him and hoping that his child will do the same!

Now, if a human parent responds with love, over and again, how much more will Jesus do the same? Does He care that we love Him? Of course! Does Jesus ‘despair’ when we fail to love him perfectly in return? Of course not! He continues to turn to us, providing absolution for our sins, and giving us opportunity after opportunity to love Him back!

In a certain sense, following the rules is a form of love, albeit imperfect. If a child rebels and refuses even to follow a parent’s rules, wouldn’t you say that it’s a sign that the love isn’t there? Yet… if that child later turns from his rebellion and follows his parents’ rules, even though he doesn’t show external love in his actions… isn’t he really demonstrating that loving respect for his parent through his obedience?

 

[truthseekerjay]

In a certain sense, following the rules is a form of love, albeit imperfect. If a child rebels and refuses even to follow a parent’s rules, wouldn’t you say that it’s a sign that the love isn’t there? Yet… if that child later turns from his rebellion and follows his parents’ rules, even though he doesn’t show external love in his actions… isn’t he really demonstrating that loving respect for his parent through his obedience?

I do know that God is different from us and doesn’t think the way that we do, but it just seems odd to me that He would allow me to go into heaven with me not caring if He was there or not. Basically, that was what I was trying to achieve back then. Similarly, part of the hiring process for a job I wanted required me to go through orientation and some of the classes seemed irrelevant to me. I pretty much just sat there or clicked through the computer modules without reading what was said. At the end, I got the job, but retained nothing from some of the training that they spent so much time and money on (btw, I did pay attention to those required to do my job). As I said before, this is how I treated Jesus’s rules during my early twenties. If I had died back then and gone to heaven, I wouldn’t have searched for Jesus there. I would have just collected my pay (eternal comforts, etc.). If anything, Jesus would probably say, “He was a good rule follower. He was lucky he stumbled on my rules first unlike the unlucky good rule followers that just happened to stumble on the rules of Buddha and Allah first.”

 

[Jack007]

 

[Gorgias]

I do know that God is different from us and doesn’t think the way that we do, but it just seems odd to me that He would allow me to go into heaven with me not caring if He was there or not. Basically, that was what I was trying to achieve back then.

Perhaps; but, that was the extent of what you were capable of, back then, wasn’t it? So, in your mind, does God say, “I have this standard that, for Jay, was unattainable; but tough – standards are standards, and if Jay can’t measure up, that’s his tough luck!”, or does God say, “although I am Love itself, Jay is still working to grow in love. At the moment, this is the best he can do; this is the most that he can give, in order to show his relationship to Me. And look – he’s doing it!”…? If the former, then you’re right – God is simply a rule-following tyrant. But, that’s not at all who and what God is.

As I said before, this is how I treated Jesus’s rules during my early twenties. If I had died back then and gone to heaven, I wouldn’t have searched for Jesus there. I would have just collected my pay (eternal comforts, etc.).

You and I certainly have different ideas of what heaven will be like! I think, though, that your assertion here is quite unscriptural:

In heaven, we will attain perfection; after all, nothing imperfect can be in the presence of God (cf Revelation 22:3, Revelation 22:14) – nothing about us any longer will be ‘accursed’; we will have “washed our robes” and “have the right to the tree of life.” In the presence of God, we won’t just “collect our pay” and ignore Jesus.

And yet, if that’s where we were, back when we were younger, doesn’t that mean that’s how we’ll be in heaven? Nope – now, “we know partially… but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things. At present, we see indistinctly as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.” (1 Cor 13:9-13)

In heaven, even with your twenty-something mentality, you would have searched for – and found! – Jesus. That’s part of what makes heaven ‘heaven’ and not just ‘a nice place after earth.’

If anything, Jesus would probably say, “He was a good rule follower. He was lucky he stumbled on my rules first unlike the unlucky good rule followers that just happened to stumble on the rules of Buddha and Allah first.”

You can think that, if you wish… but I think you’re doing harm to the notion of the God who “so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life” (John 3:16). Our God – and His son, Jesus – realizes that I have a “heart of stone” and promises me “I will give you a new heart… I will remove the heart of stone from you and give you a heart of flesh” (Ez 36:26).

(p.s., the “unlucky good rule followers who just happened to stumble on the rules of Buddha and Allah first”, whom you mention… what do you think will happen to them? That Jesus will turn into Nelson from the Simpsons and laugh at them and condemn them to hell? That’s what your image of Jesus is saying, in what you wrote, isn’t it? That there are “lucky” rule followers (who go to heaven) and “unlucky” ones (who go to hell)? That isn’t at all what the Church teaches. If that were the case, then the vast majority of people throughout the history of the world would have died and gone to hell, without any hope of being saved, since they never experienced Christianity. That’s certainly not what the Catholic Church teaches!)

 

[truthseekerjay]

(p.s., the “unlucky good rule followers who just happened to stumble on the rules of Buddha and Allah first”, whom you mention… what do you think will happen to them? That Jesus will turn into Nelson from the Simpsons and laugh at them and condemn them to hell? That’s what your image of Jesus is saying, in what you wrote, isn’t it? That there are “lucky” rule followers (who go to heaven) and “unlucky” ones (who go to hell)? That isn’t at all what the Church teaches. If that were the case, then the vast majority of people throughout the history of the world would have died and gone to hell, without any hope of being saved, since they never experienced Christianity. That’s certainly not what the Catholic Church teaches!)

I’ll get back to your other statements when I have more time, but for now I just want to ask you what really differentiated me during my early twenties from a good rule follower of Buddha? Neither one of us loved Jesus. Also, as I mentioned before, it’s not like I was choosing Jesus’s rules over anybody else’s rules. The only reasons I followed those rules is because they were the only ones I was presented with at the time. Jesus knows that, in my heart, if all the different sets of rules were presented to me at once (similar to choosing colleges), I probably wouldn’t have chosen His. Had I died back then, what is it that’s allowing me to be forgiven during confession, get into heaven and having my heart completely transformed there? If it’s not love or even an attempt of love for Jesus, what is it? Since I would assume that the good rule follower of Buddha has a genuine fear of punishment, the only thing I see right now that is differentiating us is that I am following the RC rule to go to confession.

BTW, what does happen to good rule followers of Buddha and Allah according to RC doctrine?

 

[Jack007]

Baptism is what makes someone catholic. They who dont believe should not be baptized. they who dont believe anymore are still catholics.

 

[Gorgias]

what really differentiated me during my early twenties from a good rule follower of Buddha?

Had I died back then, what is it that’s allowing me to be forgiven during confession, get into heaven and having my heart completely transformed there? If it’s not love or even an attempt of love for Jesus, what is it?

As Jack was trying to point out (I think), the difference is baptism. You were baptized into Jesus’ death so that you might have a share in His resurrection, and the hypothetical Buddhist to whom you point was not. You knew – to a greater or lesser extent – what Jesus taught, and followed it – to a greater or lesser extent – in a way that you were able. This is the normative way that Jesus offers, as the means of salvation: baptism, sacramental life in the Church, growing in faith.

Your hypothetical Buddhist might have been a really nice person, and might have been trying his best to do what is good – and make no mistake, there is merit in trying to find the Good – but he did not have the graces that baptism brings.

The practical upshot, then, is that there’s a world of difference between you and the Buddhist, and it has nothing to do with how well you “follow the rules.” It’s important to note though, that it doesn’t work like a dog show (that is, there’s one standard for one breed and a different standard for another breed, and judgment is made based on how well one adheres to his personal standard) – rather, we have only one way that we know leads to salvation ('cause Jesus taught us this way!).

BTW, what does happen to good rule followers of Buddha and Allah according to RC doctrine?

One of documents of Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium, talks about this. There’s a difference, of course, between a Buddhist and a Muslim, given their faith traditions. For the Muslim, God’s “plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.”

A Buddhist does not “acknowledge the Creator” God, but “[t]hose also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life” (LG, #16).

(Notice that this does not cover the case of the Catholic or Christian who abandons their belief in Christ in favor of Islam or Buddhism; that’s a distinctly different situation. But, assuming you’re talking about the differences between a Muslim child, a Buddhist child, and you as a child, then this is what the Church teaches: it’s not that only Catholics (or even Christians) may attain to heaven. Rather, we know the normative way to salvation (through baptism and life in the Church). For others, salvation is possible, but strictly through the mercy of God. (That is, their salvation doesn’t come through the merits of their religious belief, but may proceed solely through God’s mercy.)

 

[truthseekerjay]

As Jack was trying to point out (I think), the difference is baptism. You were baptized into Jesus’ death so that you might have a share in His resurrection, and the hypothetical Buddhist to whom you point was not. You knew – to a greater or lesser extent – what Jesus taught, and followed it – to a greater or lesser extent – in a way that you were able. This is the normative way that Jesus offers, as the means of salvation: baptism, sacramental life in the Church, growing in faith.

Your hypothetical Buddhist might have been a really nice person, and might have been trying his best to do what is good – and make no mistake, there is merit in trying to find the Good – but he did not have the graces that baptism brings.

The practical upshot, then, is that there’s a world of difference between you and the Buddhist, and it has nothing to do with how well you “follow the rules.” It’s important to note though, that it doesn’t work like a dog show (that is, there’s one standard for one breed and a different standard for another breed, and judgment is made based on how well one adheres to his personal standard) – rather, we have only one way that we know leads to salvation ('cause Jesus taught us this way!).

I apologize if I’m straying way too much from the original topic with what I will say. With my situation, I don’t see what difference the baptism really makes. When I was baptized as an infant, I obviously didn’t have love or a desire to love Jesus. Having talked to my parents about their beliefs, it seems as if they ALSO simply view Jesus as a judge and didn’t really have love for Him. Having me baptized was just another rule to be followed, which my parents accomplished. To me, what stands out is the ability to follow the rules of the RC Church. Was there really anything more? Isn’t it really just about following rules?

 

[Gorgias]

With my situation, I don’t see what difference the baptism really makes.

Yep. We’ve been slowly making our way to this point. It was inevitable, it seems.

Your question – originally about Reconciliation, but now, about Baptism – is really a question of whether the sacraments actually do anything on their own, or if (on the other hand), they’re just nice rituals which don’t have any effect on their own merits.

But, here’s what it comes down to: we either have to believe that Jesus meant what He said, or we believe that He didn’t; we either have to believe that He does what He promised to do, or that He lied to us. There’s no middle ground, it seems.

So, what was it that Jesus said? Did He say, “whoever’s sins you forgive – as long as they love me enough – their sins are forgiven”? Or “whoever’s sins you forgive – as long as they follow the rules well enough – their sins are forgiven”? Nope: rather, He simply instructed the apostles that whoever’s sins they forgave, were forgiven them (Jn 20:23). Period. No qualifications, no suggestion that forgiveness was conditioned on anything else (like sufficient knowledge, or sufficient ‘love’, or some other standard).

And what about baptism? Did Jesus say, “if you really feel like it, go ahead and baptize people – but don’t worry, it doesn’t do anything” or “baptize, but only if someone demonstrates that he has a sufficient love for me in their heart” or “baptize, but only so that you can say that you’re ‘following the rules’”? No – He didn’t say any of those things. Rather, baptism was so important that it was the very first thing He said when He first saw the apostles after His resurrection: “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt 28:18-20).

And therefore, following Jesus’ commands, Peter taught the people of Jerusalem, “be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Paul likewise taught, “all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus … in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:3-4).

Either the sacraments – which were instituted by Jesus – have the meaning that He said they have, or else Jesus isn’t just a liar, but a fraud as well. Or, alternately, we’re creating our own personal version of Christianity that doesn’t match Jesus’ words. That’s not what Catholics do: when we see that He said “baptize all nations,” we do it. When we see in Acts that entire households were baptized, we follow that example, baptizing adults, teens, children, and infants. We follow what Jesus taught, in the spirit of what He meant – not just because we want to be “good rule followers,” but because we want to accept the graces that Jesus offers us. Are we all perfect Christians? Of course not. Yet, Christ’s grace isn’t nullified by our lack of personal holiness; rather, as Paul reminds us, “if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves are found to be sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin?* Of course not! … I do not nullify the grace of God” (Gal 2:17, 21).

So, we are baptized Christians. This baptism actually does something – its power doesn’t proceed from people (who may or may not simply be “rule followers”), but from Christ himself and from the Holy Spirit.

When I was baptized as an infant, I obviously didn’t have love or a desire to love Jesus. Having talked to my parents about their beliefs, it seems as if they ALSO simply view Jesus as a judge and didn’t really have love for Him. Having me baptized was just another rule to be followed, which my parents accomplished.

So, what you’re saying is that you believe that the efficacy of baptism (or its lack thereof) proceeds from your parents and their intent?

Was there really anything more?

Jesus and his apostles certainly thought so – they talked about baptism in terms that indicated that it wasn’t merely a nice ceremony, but rather, had actual power and effects (e.g., reception of the Holy Spirit, remission of sins, being justified, receiving God’s grace). If you want to suggest that baptism is something else… then you’ll have to show me where you’re getting that from. It’s certainly not from the Bible.

 

[truthseekerjay]

Your question – originally about Reconciliation, but now, about Baptism – is really a question of whether the sacraments actually do anything on their own, or if (on the other hand), they’re just nice rituals which don’t have any effect on their own merits.

But, here’s what it comes down to: we either have to believe that Jesus meant what He said, or we believe that He didn’t; we either have to believe that He does what He promised to do, or that He lied to us. There’s no middle ground, it seems.

So, we are baptized Christians. This baptism actually does something – its power doesn’t proceed from people (who may or may not simply be “rule followers”), but from Christ himself and from the Holy Spirit.

I didn’t mean to open up that can of worms. As far as whether or not baptism does something, I don’t know if I have any clear opinions on that. What I am trying to emphasize is that it seems as if baptism and reconciliation are activated by simple rule following without much more. I’ll give another secular analogy. In college, I had to take general education classes and I did enough to pass. I didn’t care about the material. I didn’t care what I retained. All I cared about was that at least a C- appeared on my report card. From MY point of view, it seems as if that is how the RC Church approaches baptism and reconciliation. You just do it to get it done with no love or care required.

So, what you’re saying is that you believe that the efficacy of baptism (or its lack thereof) proceeds from your parents and their intent?

I PERSONALLY feel that IT SHOULD, but I’m ASKING YOU if the RC Church sees it that way. If it doesn’t, then it would lead me to believe that the act of baptism/reconciliation is simply about rule following and getting things checked off a list.

 

[Gorgias]

I didn’t mean to open up that can of worms.

No problems. It really is the same can of worms, though – you’re asking about the efficacy of the sacraments, and the source from which they are efficacious.

I’ll give another secular analogy. In college, I had to take general education classes and I did enough to pass. I didn’t care about the material. I didn’t care what I retained. All I cared about was that at least a C- appeared on my report card.

Let me ask you: did you learn anything? Did you retain any knowledge afterward? (NB: I’m not asking whether you became an expert in those fields – that is, I’m not asking whether lukewarm effort produced astounding results – but rather, whether “simple rule following” produced any kind of result? (And, before you answer that you don’t know anything more about philosophy or history or literature – which I would sincerely doubt – keep in mind that ‘result’ also includes the passing grades and the hope of a diploma. That counts, too. )

(Incidentally, you’ve just provided the canonical example of “imperfect contrition”, which is sufficient for absolution in the sacrament of reconciliation – not perfect love, not perfect commitment, but even the fear of punishment itself, is sufficient for absolution! The example you provided, itself, shows that it’s not a situation of “simple rule following,” but rather, taking actions in the hope of achieving a desired result! You may have been a rather poor student, relatively speaking, but you were making the kind of effort that leads to success!)

What I am trying to emphasize is that it seems as if baptism and reconciliation are activated by simple rule following without much more. … From MY point of view, it seems as if that is how the RC Church approaches baptism and reconciliation. You just do it to get it done with no love or care required.

No… you and your family “just do it to get it done with no love or care required.” Not to pick on you and your experience, but that’s not the normative experience of the practice of the faith. (Without a doubt, some have that experience, but not all.) This is hardly fair – you’re attempting to pick the worst example and use it as if it were representative of the Catholic Church! (That’d be like pointing at the Arizona Diamondbacks or Oakland Raiders and claiming that baseball and football are worthless, simply on the basis that they play it poorly!)

However, your assertion is telling: you claim that there is “no love or care required” in baptism and reconciliation. That’s the furthest thing from the truth. Baptism is the freely-offered gift of God to His people whom He wishes to save. Reconciliation is the palm branch God offers, from His boundless mercy, in order to restore our relationship to Him. No love? No care? No way – it’s the ultimate example of the love and care our God has for us! And all He asks of us is that we accept his gifts! The purpose of these sacraments isn’t that they’re the reward for a life of love and care of Him – you’ve got it all backward! The purpose of these sacraments is that they’re the means by which we grow in love and care of God!

I PERSONALLY feel that IT SHOULD, but I’m ASKING YOU if the RC Church sees it that way.

So… you personally think that baptism should ‘succeed’ for those who love God, but ‘fail’ for those who don’t? That would mean that you see baptism as a ‘work’ – something that a person earns, not receives as the free gift of God! That is absolutely antithetical to every Christian theology that I’ve ever encountered!

If it doesn’t, then it would lead me to believe that the act of baptism/reconciliation is simply about rule following and getting things checked off a list.

I’m saddened that you feel that way. There’s more to motive than “this is what’s next on my list.” Is it possible that some feel that way? Yes. Does that mean that this is representative of Christianity or Catholicism? Nope. The miracle – and the nature of the gift – is that it’s freely offered and freely bestowed on those who call out to God. Your perception might be ‘simple rule following’, but let me assure you – that’s not what the Church teaches nor what (most) Catholics do.

 

[truthseekerjay]

Let me ask you: did you learn anything? Did you retain any knowledge afterward? (NB: I’m not asking whether you became an expert in those fields – that is, I’m not asking whether lukewarm effort produced astounding results – but rather, whether “simple rule following” produced any kind of result? (And, before you answer that you don’t know anything more about philosophy or history or literature – which I would sincerely doubt – keep in mind that ‘result’ also includes the passing grades and the hope of a diploma. That counts, too.

Let me bring up another situation. Suppose the ONLY motivation I have to serve at a church is to impress a girl. There are definitely benefits to the serving regardless of motivation and perhaps, through this initial act, I may actually develop a heart for serving. Only God knows how my heart will change in the future (whether for serving the church or for serving my interests), but at this POINT IN TIME, my ONLY concern is for the girl. Is He pleased with my act of service? Does He think, “Well at least he is serving even if it’s for the wrong reason.”?

However, your assertion is telling: you claim that there is “no love or care required” in baptism and reconciliation. That’s the furthest thing from the truth. Baptism is the freely-offered gift of God to His people whom He wishes to save. Reconciliation is the palm branch God offers, from His boundless mercy, in order to restore our relationship to Him. No love? No care? No way – it’s the ultimate example of the love and care our God has for us! And all He asks of us is that we accept his gifts!

I know that God has love for us and that’s not what I’m debating. I’m uncomfortable with the fact that it’s acceptable for us not to have love for Him. The Buddhist doesn’t love Him. I didn’t love Him. I’m not sure if my parents love Him. I’m just lucky that my parents happened to stumble on a “magic” ritual that the Buddhist didn’t have the opportunity to experience.

So… you personally think that baptism should ‘succeed’ for those who love God, but ‘fail’ for those who don’t? That would mean that you see baptism as a ‘work’ – something that a person earns, not receives as the free gift of God! That is absolutely antithetical to every Christian theology that I’ve ever encountered!

That’s not what I was trying to say. I only wanted to emphasize that there should be some sort of “change in heart” for baptism to be significant. Whether this “change” constitutes a work or not depends on how much free will we have versus how much God does the work for us (perhaps predestination?). I have not researched the concepts of free will and predestination enough to comment on that. All I’m saying is that it would be weird, from my point of view, if God didn’t require some “change.” Whether that “change” is activated by us or God isn’t something I was considering.

I’m saddened that you feel that way. There’s more to motive than “this is what’s next on my list.” Is it possible that some feel that way? Yes. Does that mean that this is representative of Christianity or Catholicism? Nope. The miracle – and the nature of the gift – is that it’s freely offered and freely bestowed on those who call out to God. Your perception might be ‘simple rule following’, but let me assure you – that’s not what the Church teaches nor what (most) Catholics do.

No… you and your family “just do it to get it done with no love or care required.” Not to pick on you and your experience, but that’s not the normative experience of the practice of the faith. (Without a doubt, some have that experience, but not all.) This is hardly fair – you’re attempting to pick the worst example and use it as if it were representative of the Catholic Church! (That’d be like pointing at the Arizona Diamondbacks or Oakland Raiders and claiming that baseball and football are worthless, simply on the basis that they play it poorly!)

I honestly think that this lack of love/checking off requirements is more common (and not just in RC churches). I have coworkers who intend to baptize their child, but not enroll them in catechism classes. I had friends drop out of catechism classes right after they got their first communion, enroll again to get confirmed, and drop out again right after confirmation. I have friends who get married in RC churches just to please their families.

EVEN IF my family was the ONLY family to have those experiences, it STILL REVEALS that a lack of love is acceptable.

 

[Gorgias]

truthseekerjay:

Suppose the ONLY motivation I have to serve at a church is to impress a girl… but at this POINT IN TIME, my ONLY concern is for the girl. Is He pleased with my act of service? Does He think, “Well at least he is serving even if it’s for the wrong reason.”?

Well, that’s a totally different question than a question about the efficacy of the sacraments! So, I don’t think it’ll shed light on that question, in the way that you might be hoping that it will. Yet, the question isn’t as difficult to answer (in a way that helps) as you might think. Ever seen a guy start dating a girl, and she encourages him to treat his own mom well? Or acts in a way that brings him around more often to visit his folks? Ever seen a mom say, “well, it’s wonderful that she’s leading him to be a better person, but she should stop that right now! How dare he come visit us, based on his love of that girl!!!”

I’m uncomfortable with the fact that it’s acceptable for us not to have love for Him.

I’m not saying “it’s acceptable to not love Christ”. I’m suggesting that even the “by the numbers Christian” has a kernel of love, and that this love (however nominal) pleases God.

The Buddhist doesn’t love Him.

The Buddhist doesn’t know Him. But, he knows that he’s searching for the Good. That’s worth something, and that pleases God.

I didn’t love Him.

Umm… as a baby? When you were baptized? Are you sure about that? If you say that, then you’re saying that all who die as babies go to hell? After all, “they didn’t love him”…

I’m not sure if my parents love Him.

And I’m suggesting that they cared enough – about God and about you – to have you baptized. And that, my friend, is what God asks of us.

I’m just lucky that my parents happened to stumble on a “magic” ritual that the Buddhist didn’t have the opportunity to experience.

I wish you’d stop using the word ‘magic’. Sacraments aren’t magic. They’re supernatural; they ‘work’; they are means by which we experience the grace of God; but they’re not ‘magic’.

Are you lucky that your parents had you baptized? You betcha! Does that mean that you’re definitely going to heaven? Nope. Does that mean that the Buddhist has a better chance of going to hell? Nope. But baptism does have effects, and they’re important ones.

That’s not what I was trying to say. I only wanted to emphasize that there should be some sort of “change in heart” for baptism to be significant.

If the efficacy of baptism depends on our reaction to it, then it’s still a ‘work’; it still ‘takes’ or ‘fails to take’ based on us, not on God. There’s really no way to square the notion of a sacramental baptism which confers the grace of justification with a requirement based on the works of a person. (What you’re trying to get at, I think, is the distinction between justification and salvation that Catholics make (but which Protestants (generally) tend to fail to make.) Baptism ‘works’ because God makes it work – it confers grace and justifies us. Salvation, on the other hand, is a whole 'nother ballgame. Salvation comes from our cooperation with that grace we’ve received. If we refuse to cooperate with that grace, when we have the opportunity to do so (by acting in ways that fail to give witness to our Christian faith, or by failing to worship God, or by sinning against Him), and do not repent of our sinful behavior, then we are not putting ourselves on the path to salvation.

Are you asking whether a Christian – who is baptized but fails to have a ‘change of heart’ and acts in sinful ways – will attain to heaven? That’s a completely different question than “does baptism work?”

(I’ve run out of room. Part two to follow… )

 

[Gorgias]

OK… ‘part two’…

I honestly think that this lack of love/checking off requirements is more common (and not just in RC churches).

That would require you to know others’ hearts and the intentions in their souls… right?

I have coworkers who intend to baptize their child, but not enroll them in catechism classes.

Catholic canon law notes that “For an infant to be baptized licitly… there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.” It also mentions that, “[f]or an adult to be baptized, the person must have manifested the intention to receive baptism, have been instructed sufficiently about the truths of the faith and Christian obligations, and have been tested in the Christian life through the catechumenate. The adult is also to be urged to have sorrow for personal sins.”

I had friends drop out of catechism classes right after they got their first communion, enroll again to get confirmed, and drop out again right after confirmation.

That’s a sign of a poor Religious Education department. But, are you asserting that, in some ex post facto way, their baptism was invalidated by their later actions?

I have friends who get married in RC churches just to please their families.

Again, what’s the question? Whether their baptisms were still valid? Of course they were! If the question is “what’s the state of their souls?” then that’s a completely different issue; but, it’s an issue that doesn’t affect the efficacy of the sacraments that they had already validly received.

EVEN IF my family was the ONLY family to have those experiences, it STILL REVEALS that a lack of love is acceptable.

It reveals that the gifts given us by God are precisely that – gifts. They work based on the fact that God gives them. Period. It’s not that “lack of love is acceptable” or “lack of love is unacceptable” – rather, it’s that God is the kind of Father who gives good things when we ask for them! As Jesus tells us, “What father among you would hand his son a snake when he asks for a fish? Or hand him a scorpion when he asks for an egg? If you then, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Father in heaven give the holy Spirit to those who ask him?” (Lk 11:11-13)

Notice that Jesus doesn’t say “your father in heaven will give the Holy Spirit to those who deserve it”, or “to those who love Him enough”, or “to those who know enough theology.” Rather, He gives the Holy Spirit to those who ask him.

 

[truthseekerjay]

Gorgias, just to save us some time before I respond to your statements, if I were to convince you that a major theme of the modern day RC Church is rule following, would that cause you to question if something went awry between the early Catholic Church and the modern day RC Church?

 

[truthseekerjay]

BTW, what I’m referring to as “rule following” is the simple checking off of requirements.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias, just to save us some time before I respond to your statements, if I were to convince you that a major theme of the modern day RC Church is rule following, would that cause you to question if something went awry between the early Catholic Church and the modern day RC Church?

I think that might be a really interesting discussion to have! Of course, we’d have to distinguish between “‘rule following’ is a major theme” and “there have been discussions on ‘how to do the things Catholics do’”, right? I mean, after all, I can point to discussions on dog grooming techniques in mass media, but that doesn’t imply that western civilization has dog grooming as a ‘major theme’, right?

In any case, if we’ve exhausted your questions about the validity of sacraments (at least, for the time being), maybe you might want to start a new thread about “‘rule following’ as a Catholic’s main theme”…? Not quite sure where we’d put it… apologetics, maybe, as a good catch-all, or ‘Liturgy and Sacraments’?

 

[truthseekerjay]

In any case, if we’ve exhausted your questions about the validity of sacraments (at least, for the time being), maybe you might want to start a new thread about “‘rule following’ as a Catholic’s main theme”…? Not quite sure where we’d put it… apologetics, maybe, as a good catch-all, or ‘Liturgy and Sacraments’?

Actually, let me ask you about a couple more things and let me respond to some of your statements first.

I’m not saying “it’s acceptable to not love Christ”. I’m suggesting that even the “by the numbers Christian” has a kernel of love, and that this love (however nominal) pleases God.

Umm… as a baby? When you were baptized? Are you sure about that? If you say that, then you’re saying that all who die as babies go to hell? After all, “they didn’t love him”

I honestly feel that I didn’t have love for Christ. As I mentioned before, he was like a traffic court judge who I was paying my fine to in installments. Every time I went to church, read the Bible, went to confession, etc., it was to pay off part of that fine. I didn’t care who this judge was. The court could have assigned a different judge and I wouldn’t have cared. If you’ve had a similar experience, did YOU ever feel any emotional attachment for the judge?

And I’m suggesting that they cared enough – about God and about you – to have you baptized. And that, my friend, is what God asks of us.

Sad to say, but I don’t think that they cared about God. What they cared about was my safety and they would have done anything for that. Catholicism was just the FIRST thing that they encountered. Had they been in a predominantly Buddhist country, they would have participated in Buddhist rituals to protect me. There was no choosing of Christ at all. It was all business and nothing personal. Baptism for them is like taking a medication from a drug company that could save my life. They would either take the drug that they encountered first or the drug that was the easiest to obtain. There was really no alliance to the particular drug company. This is how my relationship with Jesus was as well during my early twenties.

Are you asking whether a Christian – who is baptized but fails to have a ‘change of heart’ and acts in sinful ways – will attain to heaven? That’s a completely different question than “does baptism work?”

That wasn’t what I was asking, but this statement does prompt me to get clarification for something else that we talked about. I don’t think I got a clear answer on this, so let me repeat my question. Suppose that my attitude towards Jesus in my early twenties (lack of love) continued on for the rest of my life (BTW, I could see this happening considering that I didn’t get to know any priest well enough for them to detect this in me), would I still receive absolution/forgiveness during confession?

 

[Gorgias]

I honestly feel that I didn’t have love for Christ. As I mentioned before, he was like a traffic court judge who I was paying my fine to in installments.

Hold on a second, though! You asked whether baptism works… but now, you’ve jumped to your experience as a young man! Your baptism either worked (or failed to work) long before you ever had your “Jesus as traffic cop” experience! You can’t look 15 years down the line and say “because of my experience as a teen, my experience in baptism wasn’t effecacious”! So: baptism either works or it doesn’t; and if it does, it works solely on the grace of God.

Sad to say, but I don’t think that they cared about God. What they cared about was my safety and they would have done anything for that.

And in that, I’m asserting, is that kernel of love that pleases God.

Catholicism was just the FIRST thing that they encountered. Had they been in a predominantly Buddhist country, they would have participated in Buddhist rituals to protect me.

We’ve already gone over this, haven’t we? For those who know the Gospel to be true, there is the expectation that they’ll choose Christ. For those who have not been exposed to the Gospel, there is the expectation that they’ll seek God – that is, seek the Good – to the extent that they are able. Your parents knew the Gospel message. They chose Christ, and chose Him for you. You may be appalled at their lack of emotional response to Christ; you may wish that their practice of the faith wasn’t as lukewarm as you experienced it to be; but the fact remains – at the very least, they recognized the goodness in the faith, and attempted to appropriate the good things Christ offered through their adherence to that faith.

That wasn’t what I was asking, but this statement does prompt me to get clarification for something else that we talked about. I don’t think I got a clear answer on this, so let me repeat my question. Suppose that my attitude towards Jesus in my early twenties (lack of love) continued on for the rest of my life (BTW, I could see this happening considering that I didn’t get to know any priest well enough for them to detect this in me), would I still receive absolution/forgiveness during confession?

I suspect that we did discuss this… but that the answer didn’t resonate with you.

Yes, even if your knowledge of Jesus was incomplete enough that your love of Jesus was lukewarm, the fact that you are a baptized Catholic means that it is valid for you to approach the sacrament of reconciliation. Therefore, if you approached the sacrament with contrition for sins in your heart (or, even just the desire not to be punished for your sins), then you would be able to receive absolution during confession.