Validity of confessions in Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches

[Jack007]

No. If unbaptized people marry (or if a Christian and an unbaptized person marry), it’s a valid marriage – it’s just not a sacrament.

so form matter and intent alone are not enough for validity?

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

If unbaptized people marry (or if a Christian and an unbaptized person marry), it’s a valid marriage – it’s just not a sacrament.

so form matter and intent alone are not enough for validity?

The matter of the sacrament of matrimony is “a Christian man and a Christian woman.”

(Edited to add: canon 1055 reminds us that “[t]he matrimonial covenant… has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized” (emphasis mine). In other words, when the baptized are married, it’s a sacrament. A marriage that’s not “between the baptized” – that is, between two unbaptized persons, or between a Christian and an unbaptized person – is not a sacrament.)

In any case, “ince the sacraments are the same for the whole Church and belong to the divine deposit, it is only for the supreme authority of the Church to approve or define the requirements for their validity” (c. 841). The Church, in her authority, has defined that “a person who has not received baptism cannot be admitted validly to the other sacraments,” as I’ve cited previously.

 

[Jack007]

The matter of the sacrament of matrimony is “a Christian man and a Christian woman.”

(Edited to add: canon 1055 reminds us that “[t]he matrimonial covenant… has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized” (emphasis mine). In other words, when the baptized are married, it’s a sacrament. A marriage that’s not “between the baptized” – that is, between two unbaptized persons, or between a Christian and an unbaptized person – is not a sacrament.)

In any case, “ince the sacraments are the same for the whole Church and belong to the divine deposit, it is only for the supreme authority of the Church to approve or define the requirements for their validity” (c. 841). The Church, in her authority, has defined that “a person who has not received baptism cannot be admitted validly to the other sacraments,” as I’ve cited previously.

so truthseekerjay, i was wrong. apologies.

 

[truthseekerjay]

Yes. Validity of the sacraments doesn’t depend on how ‘good’ of a Catholic you are, but simply that you are a baptized Catholic.

Yes, this is possible – even when the pagan deities are “the almighty dollar” or “NFL football on Sunday”.

Yet, the fact remains: a baptized Catholic, regardless of their knowledge of the faith, the perfection of their contrition, or their shortcomings in religious practice… still validly and licitly receive absolution in the sacrament of reconciliation.

I just want to make this clear since there are different degrees of confusion. Let’s just go with the most extreme. For the people who are using Jesus’s name and bowing down to statues of Jesus, but in their hearts are still worshipping a pagan deity, can they get absolution assuming the other criteria (ie fear of punishment) are met?

Again I can see a Spanish RC priest telling an Aztec man that Quetzalcoatl needs to be worshipped differently. Due to the everyday preoccupations of life, I can see the Aztec man just agreeing without much investigation and the Spanish priest not following up. I can see a different priest administering the sacraments of baptism and reconciliation and I can see the Aztec man actually praying to Quetzalcoatl while these sacraments are being administered.

 

[Gorgias]

I just want to make this clear since there are different degrees of confusion. Let’s just go with the most extreme. For the people who are using Jesus’s name and bowing down to statues of Jesus, but in their hearts are still worshipping a pagan deity, can they get absolution assuming the other criteria (ie fear of punishment) are met?

That’s precisely the presumption I’m complaining about, though, isn’t it? After all, if a person says “I used to worship deity X for a good harvest and now I pray to Jesus for a good harvest,” how is it that we might trump them and say, “no, I’m sorry, but I know the state of your soul better than you do – what you’re really doing is ‘still worshipping a pagan deity in your heart’!”…? That doesn’t make sense to me. If they’re praying to Jesus, then they’re praying to Jesus.

Again I can see a Spanish RC priest telling an Aztec man that Quetzalcoatl needs to be worshipped differently.

I think you would need to substantiate that presumption, as well. My recollection of the experience of the Spanish in America was exactly the opposite – they destroyed the depictions of Quetzalcoatl and other pagan deities, precisely so that the Aztecs would worship God and not their pagan idols. And so, the message would explicitly not be “worship Quetzalcoatl differently,” but rather, “worship God in those instances in which you would have worshipped Quetzalcoatl.”

Due to the everyday preoccupations of life, I can see the Aztec man just agreeing without much investigation and the Spanish priest not following up. I can see a different priest administering the sacraments of baptism and reconciliation and I can see the Aztec man actually praying to Quetzalcoatl while these sacraments are being administered.

OK, fair enough. But, at this point, this presumption is yours. This assertion is one of your own creation. How could we defend against something that you’re asserting on your own, without any substantiation, especially since you’re asserting that Spanish Catholic priests were saying something that we have no record of them saying?

 

[truthseekerjay]

That’s precisely the presumption I’m complaining about, though, isn’t it? After all, if a person says “I used to worship deity X for a good harvest and now I pray to Jesus for a good harvest,” how is it that we might trump them and say, “no, I’m sorry, but I know the state of your soul better than you do – what you’re really doing is ‘still worshipping a pagan deity in your heart’!”…? That doesn’t make sense to me. If they’re praying to Jesus, then they’re praying to Jesus.

I think you would need to substantiate that presumption, as well. My recollection of the experience of the Spanish in America was exactly the opposite – they destroyed the depictions of Quetzalcoatl and other pagan deities, precisely so that the Aztecs would worship God and not their pagan idols. And so, the message would explicitly not be “worship Quetzalcoatl differently,” but rather, “worship God in those instances in which you would have worshipped Quetzalcoatl.”

OK, fair enough. But, at this point, this presumption is yours. This assertion is one of your own creation. How could we defend against something that you’re asserting on your own, without any substantiation, especially since you’re asserting that Spanish Catholic priests were saying something that we have no record of them saying?

I think I need to clarify something first. I’m not trying to say that any of the things that I mentioned actually happened in colonial Mexico. I’m just trying to show that ITS POSSIBLE for someone to be using Jesus’s name and still be worshipping another deity. We can see how confusion can happen even today. I look back during the time of my CCD classes until my early twenties and in retrospect, there were probably a lot of things I should have clarified. I also think that the teachers and priests that I interacted with should have encouraged the questions and invested more time with me. As I think back, I knew the basics, but not the intricacies which have bigger implications.

That’s another conversation in itself, but I just want to show that if confusion can happen today due to a lack of investment in time by both clergy and laypersons, I’m sure it could happen back then, especially without printed materials. Also, I’m sure that the confusion could definitely be about the focus of worship. On a side note, saying someone’s name doesn’t mean that the person is in your heart or mind. Sad to say, but there are people who would replace their current significant other with someone else if given the chance. If people can do this with their spouses, I DON’T SEE WHY they can’t do this with deities as well.

Perhaps the majority of people in colonial Mexico did truly pray to Jesus, but lets consider the couple of people who slipped through the cracks and were misinformed with no follow up. HYPOTHETICALLY speaking, if they were using Jesus’s name, but still had another deity in their heart/mind as they prayed, can they receive absolution through confession?

I might need to start a new thread on this, but I do want to bring it up to emphasize my point. Do you remember the video that I showed you? It seems as if the Mayans used to bring their children to a statue of one of their pagan gods and after colonization, they started bringing their children to a statue of one of the RC saints instead. Prior to colonization, I would imagine that bringing the child to the statue was an act of worship since the statue was of a deity. Practitioners of RC don’t worship saints, so let’s call the interaction between a practitioner and a saint an act of respect for now. When the Mayans started to bring their children to the statue of the saint, did this act suddenly become an act of respect instead of an act of worship because the statue was changed? I wonder if there was ever a point in which the Mayans made a clear distinction in their hearts/minds that they would no longer view the statue as a deity but just as a saint considering that they were doing pretty much the same thing to the statue.

 

[truthseekerjay]

I just want to explain the last part of my previous post. HYPOTHETICALLY speaking, suppose the Mayans use to say to the statue, “Deity X, I pray you bless my child.” Then, a priest replaces the statue of the deity with a statue of a saint and tells them, to say, “Saint X, I pray you intercede so that my child will be blessed.” Maybe the words and the statue are different, but is the posture really different? Couldn’t this apply to saying Jesus’s name and really being worshipful towards Quetzalcoatl?

 

[Gorgias]

I think I need to clarify something first. I’m not trying to say that any of the things that I mentioned actually happened in colonial Mexico. I’m just trying to show that ITS POSSIBLE for someone to be using Jesus’s name and still be worshipping another deity.

OK, but you’ve set a really low bar. It’s like saying, “people are capable of running a sub-four-minute-mile; people run sub-four-minute-miles today; people were in good shape and ran in the days of the Spanish conquest in America; therefore, it’s possible that someone among the native people ran sub-four-minute miles.” Is it within the realm of possibility? Sure. In all possible scenarios, this is one. Is it reasonably possible? Not really.

Perhaps the majority of people in colonial Mexico did truly pray to Jesus, but lets consider the couple of people who slipped through the cracks and were misinformed with no follow up. HYPOTHETICALLY speaking, if they were using Jesus’s name, but still had another deity in their heart/mind as they prayed, can they receive absolution through confession?

Yes. If they “were misinformed with no follow up,” then they were Christians and their lack of proper catechesis is no fault of their own. Their absolution in confession would have been valid.

When the Mayans started to bring their children to the statue of the saint, did this act suddenly become an act of respect instead of an act of worship because the statue was changed? I wonder if there was ever a point in which the Mayans made a clear distinction in their hearts/minds that they would no longer view the statue as a deity but just as a saint considering that they were doing pretty much the same thing to the statue.

The question is whether they thought the statue of the pagan deity was the god himself, or just a representation – that is, were they praying to the statue or to the pagan deity? If the former, then it’s completely incomprehensible to suggest that Catholics would have pointed to the statue and said, “this is (actually) St Anthony. Pray to him.” Therefore, if they were praying to the statue, then as Catholics, they would have known that the statue was not an idol.

On the other hand, what if they were praying to the pagan deity? Yet again, it’s incomprehensible that a Catholic missionary wouldn’t have said “this is not deity X; this is Jesus Christ.” Therefore, it’s not sensible to suggest that they would have thought it was their pagan god.

It just doesn’t stand to reason.

 

[truthseekerjay]

OK, but you’ve set a really low bar. It’s like saying, “people are capable of running a sub-four-minute-mile; people run sub-four-minute-miles today; people were in good shape and ran in the days of the Spanish conquest in America; therefore, it’s possible that someone among the native people ran sub-four-minute miles.” Is it within the realm of possibility? Sure. In all possible scenarios, this is one. Is it reasonably possible? Not really.

On the other hand, what if they were praying to the pagan deity? Yet again, it’s incomprehensible that a Catholic missionary wouldn’t have said “this is not deity X; this is Jesus Christ.” Therefore, it’s not sensible to suggest that they would have thought it was their pagan god.

It just doesn’t stand to reason.

Is it really that far fetched? Have you heard about the Aztec goddess Tonantzin? She is often equated with the Virgin of Guadalupe. They will even interchange the two names at times. Titles that were attached to Tonantzin, such as Mother of the Mexican people, have been given to the Virgin of Guadalupe. When was Mary ever a mother of the Mexican people or any people for that matter? Sure, there’s a picture of Mary, but who are they really thinking about?

BTW, I’m not implying that everyone who venerates the Virgin of Guadalupe thinks of her as Tonantzin.

 

[Gorgias]

Is it really that far fetched? Have you heard about the Aztec goddess Tonantzin? She is often equated with the Virgin of Guadalupe. They will even interchange the two names at times. Titles that were attached to Tonantzin, such as Mother of the Mexican people, have been given to the Virgin of Guadalupe.

To my understanding, ‘Tonantzin’ means “our sacred mother.” Last I checked, that’s a valid title for Mary.

Seriously, though, I think you’ve asked a good question, but aren’t seeing a possible resolution for it. The “exchange of names” issue (which I think is resolved by noting that ‘Tonantzin’ isn’t a name, per se, but a title – which itself may be applied to Mary) can be explained in a rather straightforward way – in fact, in a way that’s explicitly Scriptural!

When missionaries evangelized the native populations whom they encountered, one approach was to explain to the people that the (pagan) gods whom they worshipped were really Christian figures – God the Father, Jesus, the Holy Spirit; even their pantheons had figures who corresponded to saints (Mary, St Anthony, etc). Therefore, Christian missionaries explained, when they worshipped deity X, they were really worshipping the true God. Man seeks God; and without God’s revelation, sometimes we get it wrong.

So, when Aztecs worshipped “our sacred mother”, they were really venerating Mary, who deserves our love as the Mother of God (the Theotokos). But, is this a valid interpretation? If you believe in the Scriptures, it absolutely is! In Acts 17, Paul tells the Athenians that, what they worshipped as “the Unknown God”, was, in fact, the God of Christian faith! Therefore, they already were devoted to Him… even if they didn’t realize it! All they had to do was turn to Him in faith and knowledge, and they would be worshipping in a true fashion!

Does this mean that Athenians were really worshipping “the Unknown God” when they became Christian? Of course not! But, these were provided as little ‘helps’ to aid them in their acceptance of Christianity – they could continue the devotions they were accustomed to, provided that these devotions were properly directed toward the adoration of God and veneration of the Saints. In this way, they expressed their earthly needs and desires (for good crops, for success) in prayers directed to God – not to pagan idols!

When was Mary ever a mother of the Mexican people or any people for that matter?

Now you’re really getting off topic! You might consider starting a topic in the Apologetics section, asking this question! Catholics would reply that Mary is Queen and Mother to all, though…

Sure, there’s a picture of Mary, but who are they really thinking about?

“Our Sacred Mother”. The notion would be “I used to think that this Aztec idol was my ‘sacred mother’, but now I know it’s truly Mary who is my ‘sacred mother’…!”.

Let’s take another example. In the OT, the Hebrews called God ‘Lord’. In their language, that would be rendered ‘Adonai’. In other languages, the word for ‘Lord’ was ba’al. And, of course, that title was used as the name of one of their deities – references to Ba’al are found throughout the OT. So, if a Hebrew were speaking in the language of his neighbors, and said “I worship the Lord”, and he didn’t replace the word ‘lord’ with the Hebrew word for ‘lord’, what is it that he would have said? Would that have implied that he worshiped Ba’al instead of YHWH? Of course not. Your entire premise, however, suggests that such a statement would imply that he was truly, deep down, a worshipper of Ba’al. That just doesn’t hold water…

 

[truthseekerjay]

Before I respond to your statements, I just want to say that prior to my acceptance of Christ, I never really considered the intricacies in the differences between the concepts of worship, adore, venerate, respect, etc. Even to this day and after ACTUALLY INVESTING TIME trying to differentiate those concepts, I still have a hard time articulating the differences in my mind and in word. I’m sure that there were people back then and definitely today, who haven’t invested as much time in trying to differentiate between the concepts. Perhaps I’m just slow in logically differentiating, but I’m pretty sure there were people in the past who were just as slow and had a hard time differentiating worship versus respect/veneration(?) and differentiating between deities. Differentiation is already hard enough and let’s add to this the common interchange of names as I mentioned for the Virgin of Guadalupe/Tonantzin and I’m sure you end up with a lot more confusion.

To my understanding, ‘Tonantzin’ means “our sacred mother.” Last I checked, that’s a valid title for Mary.

It does, but considering that the name has such a history and significance in the hearts and minds of a people, I don’t know how appropriate it would be to call Mary that. The word “guapo” means handsome in Spanish. If you’re wife had an ex boyfriend named Guapo, who she shared a long intimate relationship with, I don’t think you’d appreciate it if she referred to you as “guapo” no matter how handsome you may be.

When missionaries evangelized the native populations whom they encountered, one approach was to explain to the people that the (pagan) gods whom they worshipped were really Christian figures – God the Father, Jesus, the Holy Spirit; even their pantheons had figures who corresponded to saints (Mary, St Anthony, etc). Therefore, Christian missionaries explained, when they worshipped deity X, they were really worshipping the true God. Man seeks God; and without God’s revelation, sometimes we get it wrong.

Isn’t that selling out? I don’t disagree that there are aspects about the old religion that can be transferred over, but the identity of the FOCUS OF WORSHIP should probably be distinguished CLEARLY.

So, when Aztecs worshipped “our sacred mother”, they were really venerating Mary, who deserves our love as the Mother of God (the Theotokos). But, is this a valid interpretation? If you believe in the Scriptures, it absolutely is!

If they were REALLY venerating Mary, couldn’t they have continued using the name Tonantzin and using the SAME STATUES? Are the names Zeus, Jupiter, and Thor appropriate names for Jesus for the Greeks, Italians, and Swedes respectively? After all, Zeus was really Jesus.

But, these were provided as little ‘helps’ to aid them in their acceptance of Christianity – they could continue the devotions they were accustomed to, provided that these devotions were properly directed toward the adoration of God and veneration of the Saints.

I don’t completely disagree with the retention of some practices, but in some ways, it’s a little inconsiderate. If your wife and her ex-boyfriend always spent their anniversaries at the local fair in their city, I think you might be uneasy with her trying to have you spend your anniversaries at your local fair.

In the OT, the Hebrews called God ‘Lord’. In their language, that would be rendered ‘Adonai’. In other languages, the word for ‘Lord’ was ba’al. And, of course, that title was used as the name of one of their deities – references to Ba’al are found throughout the OT. So, if a Hebrew were speaking in the language of his neighbors, and said “I worship the Lord”, and he didn’t replace the word ‘lord’ with the Hebrew word for ‘lord’, what is it that he would have said? Would that have implied that he worshiped Ba’al instead of YHWH? Of course not.

That depends if Ba’al is a proper name or simply a description. Sometimes it could be both, which would complicate the situation. If Ba’al is simply their word for god, then it would be proper to say that Jesus is Ba’al. However, considering that the word Ba’al (whether proper name, description, or a mixture of both) has such significance for that people, it probably wouldn’t be the best idea to use that term for Jesus.

 

[Gorgias]

Differentiation is already hard enough and let’s add to this the common interchange of names as I mentioned for the Virgin of Guadalupe/Tonantzin and I’m sure you end up with a lot more confusion.

There’s the potential; but how can we make the determination of what’s going on in others’ hearts?

It does, but considering that the name has such a history and significance in the hearts and minds of a people, I don’t know how appropriate it would be to call Mary that. The word “guapo” means handsome in Spanish. If you’re wife had an ex boyfriend named Guapo, who she shared a long intimate relationship with, I don’t think you’d appreciate it if she referred to you as “guapo” no matter how handsome you may be.

Perhaps. And yet, are you asserting that, when your wife called you ‘guapo’, you’d think that she was calling you by his name… or simply that she thought you were a cutie-pie? C’mon, now…

Isn’t that selling out? I don’t disagree that there are aspects about the old religion that can be transferred over, but the identity of the FOCUS OF WORSHIP should probably be distinguished CLEARLY.

I don’t think I’ve suggested that the focus of worship is being blurred here at all. “Hey – when you prayed for a good harvest, you used to pray to X; now, pray to God. Hey – when you wanted to be successful in business, you used to pray to Y; now, pray for the intercession of St Anthony!” Where’s the lack of distinction here?

If they were REALLY venerating Mary, couldn’t they have continued using the name Tonantzin and using the SAME STATUES?

Are they using the same statues… or aren’t they really just using statues for Mary that have the physical characteristics of their own people? That’s what drew people to Our Lady of Guadalupe – she didn’t look Spanish… she looked just like one of their own girls!

I don’t completely disagree with the retention of some practices, but in some ways, it’s a little inconsiderate. If your wife and her ex-boyfriend always spent their anniversaries at the local fair in their city, I think you might be uneasy with her trying to have you spend your anniversaries at your local fair.

Right: so, when natives convert to Christianity, they should stop praying for bountiful harvests, success in business, and healthy babies. How inconsiderate of them!

That depends if Ba’al is a proper name or simply a description. Sometimes it could be both, which would complicate the situation. If Ba’al is simply their word for god, then it would be proper to say that Jesus is Ba’al.

Agreed.

However, considering that the word Ba’al (whether proper name, description, or a mixture of both) has such significance for that people, it probably wouldn’t be the best idea to use that term for Jesus.

“This Ba’al you worship – it isn’t some idol, as you think it is: our ba’al is Jesus! He’s the Adonai of our lives!” (Hmm… doesn’t seem terribly confusing to me…)

 

[truthseekerjay]

There’s the potential; but how can we make the determination of what’s going on in others’ hearts?

I don’t want to imply that we can be sure of what’s going on in anybody’s heart. All I’m saying is that with all the confusion I observe in the present day, I can imagine confused people worshipping pagan deities while using Jesus’s name and that this may be more common than people would like to admit. If we can’t determine what’s in people’s hearts, why do YOU seem confident that this confusion ISN’T happening in people’s hearts/minds?

Perhaps. And yet, are you asserting that, when your wife called you ‘guapo’, you’d think that she was calling you by his name… or simply that she thought you were a cutie-pie? C’mon, now…

Honestly, I probably wouldn’t mind that much, but imagine if you called your wife “bonita” (pretty in Spanish) and you had an ex girlfriend with that name, especially if you had a long intimate relationship which led you to share a child with Bonita. I bet that name/word would be banned in your house.

Are they using the same statues… or aren’t they really just using statues for Mary that have the physical characteristics of their own people? That’s what drew people to Our Lady of Guadalupe – she didn’t look Spanish… she looked just like one of their own girls!

I don’t think you understood my question. This is what you originally said:

So, when Aztecs worshipped “our sacred mother”, they were really venerating Mary, who deserves our love as the Mother of God (the Theotokos). But, is this a valid interpretation? If you believe in the Scriptures, it absolutely is!

If they were venerating Mary ALL ALONG, was there really a need to replace the images of Tonantzin with that of Mary and to replace the name Tonantzin with Mary? Don’t get me wrong. I’m ALL ABOUT a complete renovation, but if you’re implying that Tonantzin was really Mary, then there wouldn’t really be a need to replace the statues from YOUR point of view. As an extension, Greeks could continue to use statues of Zeus, Italians could continue to use statues of Jupiter, and Swedes could continue to use statues of Thor to worship Jesus.

Right: so, when natives convert to Christianity, they should stop praying for bountiful harvests, success in business, and healthy babies. How inconsiderate of them!

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t pray, but some of the other ritualistic practices can probably be reconsidered. Hypothetically speaking, suppose a statue of a harvest god was replaced with a statue of Jesus, but they continue to place fruits at the statue’s feet as offerings as if it were the old diety. If I were one of the priest, I’d probably tell them that they don’t have to waste fruits like that and can just ask Jesus for a bountiful harvest or at least tell them to place a different kind of offering so that it’s not so reminiscent of the old ways. To me, it’s like you taking old photos of you and your ex girlfriend, photoshopping your wife’s face on the pictures, and expecting her to just accept it.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t want to imply that we can be sure of what’s going on in anybody’s heart. … If we can’t determine what’s in people’s hearts, why do YOU seem confident that this confusion ISN’T happening in people’s hearts/minds?

I’m only confident that we can’t presume this confusion that you seem to be projecting on Christian converts…

I bet that name/word would be banned in your house.

In other words, there would be certainty about what the name implied, right? But, your case is that there’s confusion, not certainty. If that title had been unambiguously applied with certainty to Mary (with the intent of calling her a pagan goddess), are you saying that the missionaries would have encouraged it? That dog just don’t hunt…

But, since it wasn’t banned, then by your own argument, there would have been certainty about how it was used; therefore, no confusion about “I think I’m talking about Mary; no, wait… I think I’m talking about a pagan goddess; no, wait…”

I don’t think you understood my question.

You’re right; when I looked back on it, I noticed I had misconstrued what you said…

If they were venerating Mary ALL ALONG, was there really a need to replace the images of Tonantzin with that of Mary and to replace the name Tonantzin with Mary? Don’t get me wrong. I’m ALL ABOUT a complete renovation, but if you’re implying that Tonantzin was really Mary

No, you misunderstand me. Paul’s claim about the unknown god was that this god was YHWH. The missionaries’ claim about Mary (for example) was that their goddess was not ‘real’; it is Mary who is ‘our sacred mother’… therefore, pray for her intercession.

The assertion isn’t “call this statue by a new name”, but rather, “replace your devotion to this pagan goddess with devotion to Mary”. Big difference…

, then there wouldn’t really be a need to replace the statues from YOUR point of view. As an extension, Greeks could continue to use statues of Zeus, Italians could continue to use statues of Jupiter, and Swedes could continue to use statues of Thor to worship Jesus.

This hadn’t made sense before; now I understand what you’re saying: no, it’s not that Christianity appropriated the idols of pagan peoples. Rather, it pointed to the devotions of these peoples and instructed them of the proper targets for devotion.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t pray, but some of the other ritualistic practices can probably be reconsidered. Hypothetically speaking, suppose a statue of a harvest god was replaced with a statue of Jesus, but they continue to place fruits at the statue’s feet as offerings as if it were the old diety.

I think that this has more to do with anachronistically imposing a 21st-century Protestant view upon an earlier time and place, than it has to do with an assertion that missionaries allowed things to be do “as if it were [to] the old diet[ies]”. In fact, Christian missionaries were well-known for stamping out everything that smelled to them of the old gods. (That, in fact, is what folks blame Christianity for – destroying the culture and record of native societies which it converted.) We cannot, simultaneously, suggest that Christians destroyed native culture and also that they allowed it to flourish under a different guise.

If I were one of the priest, I’d probably tell them that they don’t have to waste fruits like that and can just ask Jesus for a bountiful harvest

And when they pointed to the OT, in which the Jews performed exactly that kind of offering of first-fruits? Or in the NT, in which we read about unbloody offerings of bread and wine, as in the days of Melchizadek? At that point, the natives would have scoffed at people who seemingly were oblivious to their own spiritual roots and theology. No, I think you’re projecting again…

 

[truthseekerjay]

In other words, there would be certainty about what the name implied, right? But, your case is that there’s confusion, not certainty. If that title had been unambiguously applied with certainty to Mary (with the intent of calling her a pagan goddess), are you saying that the missionaries would have encouraged it? That dog just don’t hunt…

But, since it wasn’t banned, then by your own argument, there would have been certainty about how it was used; therefore, no confusion about “I think I’m talking about Mary; no, wait… I think I’m talking about a pagan goddess; no, wait…”

Ok, I admit that I may have caused some confusion. I honestly don’t know if I can articulate myself out of this, but let me attempt to. I first said that the names Tonantzin and Mary were interchanged to emphasize a possible blurring of identities (and highly possible I believe). When you said that Tonantzin was an appropriate literal title for Mary, I thought that you were saying that there wouldn’t be a blurring of identities due to the literal meaning of Tonantzin. I then brought up the ex analogy to emphasize that literal meanings aren’t all that matter and while the literal meaning might be appropriate, the people may actually be focusing MORE on the historical and cultural context of that word/name (and of course we can’t be certain for ALL individuals how they are perceiving the word/name), so just because the name Tonantzin can appropriately describe Mary, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the Aztec goddess was replaced with Mary in their hearts.

As for your current statement, even if there was a lack of a ban (possibly due to the clergy feeling that there was enough of a distinction, which is subjective since we don’t truly know what’s in anyone’s heart as you mentioned), I can still see people slipping through the cracks. My sister was going to CCD classes and, for some reason, she didn’t pick up on the fact that Jesus was a part of the Trinity. At that point, she was essentially Jewish or Muslim.

I think that this has more to do with anachronistically imposing a 21st-century Protestant view upon an earlier time and place, than it has to do with an assertion that missionaries allowed things to be do “as if it were [to] the old diet[ies]”. In fact, Christian missionaries were well-known for stamping out everything that smelled to them of the old gods. (That, in fact, is what folks blame Christianity for – destroying the culture and record of native societies which it converted.) We cannot, simultaneously, suggest that Christians destroyed native culture and also that they allowed it to flourish under a different guise.

I actually don’t disagree with that statement. Depending on culture and time, what we find appropriate will change and perhaps I am projecting my views, but I do want to emphasize that EVEN in the same time and place, people will have different ways of perceiving things based off their personal experiences. I’ll even agree with you that for the majority, a certain practice probably won’t evoke images of a pagan deity. As far as what percentage that majority actually is, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. From my point of view, it seems as if you would say 99% of the people using Jesus’s name in prayer are actually worshipping Jesus, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was actually 75%. From my own introspection and simply asking people about their beliefs, I see where miscommunication is happening all the time (and not deliberately). Since masses don’t really bring up apologetic topics and CCD classes aren’t required for adults, I can see why a misunderstanding during childhood can carry on until adulthood.

 

[truthseekerjay]

I realized that I’ve been so wrapped up responding to your other statements that I haven’t asked about something I’m curious about and that may bring us back to the topic of the thread.

In a previous post, I asked:
Perhaps the majority of people in colonial Mexico did truly pray to Jesus, but lets consider the couple of people who slipped through the cracks and were misinformed with no follow up. HYPOTHETICALLY speaking, if they were using Jesus’s name, but still had another deity in their heart/mind as they prayed, can they receive absolution through confession?

In post #89, you responded:
Yes. If they “were misinformed with no follow up,” then they were Christians and their lack of proper catechesis is no fault of their own. Their absolution in confession would have been valid.

Essentially, you have a person not worshipping Jesus, but getting absolution through confession. If this is allowed to happen, Isn’t that implying that Jesus doesn’t care so much that He’s worshipped/loved, but only that His rules are followed?

 

[phil19034]

I realized that I’ve been so wrapped up responding to your other statements that I haven’t asked about something I’m curious about and that may bring us back to the topic of the thread.

In a previous post, I asked:
Perhaps the majority of people in colonial Mexico did truly pray to Jesus, but lets consider the couple of people who slipped through the cracks and were misinformed with no follow up. HYPOTHETICALLY speaking, if they were using Jesus’s name, but still had another deity in their heart/mind as they prayed, can they receive absolution through confession?

In post #89, you responded:
Yes. If they “were misinformed with no follow up,” then they were Christians and their lack of proper catechesis is no fault of their own. Their absolution in confession would have been valid.

Essentially, you have a person not worshipping Jesus, but getting absolution through confession. If this is allowed to happen, Isn’t that implying that Jesus doesn’t care so much that He’s worshipped/loved, but only that His rules are followed?

No. Jesus knows our hearts. This is basically the same thing as someone lying to the priest and saying he/she is sorry for a sin, and receiving absolution from the Priest.

One would need to answer for this during their judgment.

Christ speaks in the Bible about people like this, who use His name, but at the judgment, Christ says “I do not know you.”

In order for absolution to work, one must be sincere.

If a non-baptized person received absolution by “mistake” then it’s up to God to do has He feels fit during the judgment. God knows our Hearts and knows the decisions we would make if things were different.

I hope this helps.

 

[truthseekerjay]

No. Jesus knows our hearts. This is basically the same thing as someone lying to the priest and saying he/she is sorry for a sin, and receiving absolution from the Priest.

One would need to answer for this during their judgment.

Christ speaks in the Bible about people like this, who use His name, but at the judgment, Christ says “I do not know you.”

In order for absolution to work, one must be sincere.

If a non-baptized person received absolution by “mistake” then it’s up to God to do has He feels fit during the judgment. God knows our Hearts and knows the decisions we would make if things were different.

I hope this helps.

I may have to start a new thread for this, but for now, I’ll start my inquiry here. As you mentioned, God knows our hearts and knows the decisions that we would make and I wanted to examine what that actually means. Do you believe that God knows what we would do with ALL the possible situations presented to us?

Now, let’s use Hitler as an example. First, I do want to clarify that the things I mention here MAY NOT BE FACTUAL, but are here just to facilitate conversation. We know that Hitler committed many mortal sins during his adult life. As a teenager, I don’t know if he was a practitioner of RC, but for now, let’s assume he was. I would imagine that God knew the atrocities he would commit later in life. If Hitler had a fear of punishment and was somewhat sorry for his sins, would he receive absolution from his sins through confession during his teenage years? If the answer is yes, would you say (from a salvation standpoint) that it would have been better for him to have died back then (after his confession) instead of living into adulthood and carrying out the atrocities?

 

[Gorgias]

Essentially, you have a person not worshipping Jesus,

No – they’re worshipping Jesus, but they do not know Him well. Let’s suppose you never knew your Dad (he left soon after you were born). You would, likely, build up a ‘backstory’ about him, from anecdotes and your own imagination. One day, when you’re in your 30s, he comes home – totally different from your expectations (and ‘knowledge’). Would he then not be your Father, simply because you didn’t know him well? Or would that family bond transcend any misconceptions and allow you to call him ‘Father’, despite your lack of accurate knowledge of him?

If this is allowed to happen, Isn’t that implying that Jesus doesn’t care so much that He’s worshipped/loved, but only that His rules are followed?

I think it’s a sign of precisely the opposite dynamic: Jesus cares that we know Him and love Him for who He is – but He cares so much that, even if we don’t know Him well, He still loves us and embraces us, even in our ignorance!

(By the standard you propose here, however, it is education and knowledge that save, not grace and faith in Christ Jesus… )

 

[Gorgias]

I may have to start a new thread for this, but for now, I’ll start my inquiry here. As you mentioned, God knows our hearts and knows the decisions that we would make and I wanted to examine what that actually means. Do you believe that God knows what we would do with ALL the possible situations presented to us?

Yes, this is a philosophical question that gets debated all the time. No need to start a new topic yet, though, if you just want to read what others have opined on the subject: just do a search here on CAF on “Molinism” or “middle knowledge.”

If Hitler had a fear of punishment and was somewhat sorry for his sins, would he receive absolution from his sins through confession during his teenage years?

Yes. Absolution is never conditional on future action. Think of it this way: is there any example in the Gospels in which Jesus tells a sinner, “I’d forgive you your sins, but I know you’re going to sin again, so no dice. Too bad, so sad…”

If the answer is yes, would you say (from a salvation standpoint) that it would have been better for him to have died back then (after his confession) instead of living into adulthood and carrying out the atrocities?

That’s a question for speculation. However, it can be enlightening to push the question to its boundary, in the hope that some insight might be gained. Let’s talk not about Hitler, but about me and you. You and I had no personal sin at birth; however, both of us have sinned since then. Would it have been better if you and I (and every human person, as it were!) died one minute after birth, for the sake of the “salvation standpoint”? Is life itself a curse from God? I would say that, the answer to these questions (and therefore, to yours) is ‘no.’