My formerly Jewish friend and I (I was raised Catholic and he Jewish – we’re both atheists now) were discussing our childhood memories of religious teachings, it raised some questions that I thought could be clarified here.
He remembers being taught that Catholics were especially hostile towrd Jews for at least two reasons – Jews killed Christ, and Jews don’t get baptized.
Frankly, I can’t remember any special hostility toward Jews, or that God was especially pissed off at them. My memory is that there were Catholics and non-Catholics, period. It didn’t matter what flavor of non-Catholics – Jews, Lutherans, pagans – they were all headed toward either limbo or hell, as they didn’t accept the True Word. I can’t even say I recall learning that there* were *non-Catholic Christians who got some better deal because they were somehow a little “closer to the truth”. I remember clearly being warned about hanging out with non-Catholic kids was dangerous and a no-no. I think this was the first thing I was taught that led me to seriously question what I was being told, and to stop attending church at age 12 (man o man, did I get the crap beaten out of me for that).
I was in Catholic grade school 1st - 8th grades, from 1965 - 72, which means that Vatican II heppened in there somewhere. I do remember the services changed to English, and some guitar players began playing in chirch, but that’s about the only changes of which I have any real memories.
Anybody else from that era have clearer memories than me about what we were being taught? Is this roughly accurate, am I missing major things?
BTW, anybody else remember having to tell lies in confession because you really didn’t remember any genuine sins and the priests got pissed if you claimed there was nothing to confess?
It sounds as though your friend was confusing “Catholic” wth “Christian.” Both of the “reasons” given have been used to rationalize antisemitism for several hundred years–by all Christian denominations. There have been specific popes, bishops, and movements within the Catholic church that were especially hostile to Jews, but they were matched by similar movements in other Christian groups. There is no specifically Catholic antagonism toward Jews or Judaism. (Martin Luther grumbled that they should be exterminated when They did not all rush to join him after he had “reformed” the Catholic church.)
Of course, it is quite possible, especially in the U.S. up through the 1960s or 1970s, that your friend lived in or near various urban ethnic communities, (most of which were substantially Catholic European immigrants), where antisemitism was displayed and that of the Catholics would have stood out as having more focus than the more diffuse beliefs of the various Protestant groups. In those settings, if a gang got together to harrass Jewish kids at school, for example, it is likely that the gang would have been largely made up of the (ethnic) Catholic kids of the neighborhood, simply because that was the social dynamic of the time. Antisemitism among Catholics did not, unfortunately, disappear simply because a church council declared that it was wrong.
Nothing that came out of Vatican II was actually new to the RCC; most of the declarations were items that had been discussed within the church over the previous 40 to 100 years. Among those declarations was the recognition that it was wrong to hold the Jews “responsible” for the death of Jesus and that antisemitism, in general, was also wrong. So there had been a movement within the church to back away from the condemnation and persecution for several years prior to Vatican II. (Fr. Coughlin, in Royal Oak, MI, was silenced and censured by the bishops for his anti-Jewish radio broadcasts in the 1930s–even before the Holocaust woke up more Christians to the ultimate effects of persecution.) Of course, prior to Vatican II, there were several hundred years of persecution that firmly established the tradition in the minds of the people.
As to the broader question: prior to the 1960s, the Catholic church had lived under a siege mentality dating all the way back to the Reformation. The general feeling was that Protestants were the “enemy” while pagans were simply people who needed to be proselytized so they could be saved. Jews fell into a sort of undefined category with the traditional European antisemitism sort of dominating the feelings.
In the U.S., where Catholics were subjected to a general low-grade persecution for much of the country’s history, that antagonism was often an explicit part of church life (especially in schools and when discussing marriage partners).
Thank you. Did the Cathloic church recognize baptisms as performed by other Christian sects as legitimate? This is kind of a “babies in limbo” thing, though I know the church dumped limbo somewhere along the line. I wonder if that is the distinction he was remembering, though as you said there is no reason for those teachings to be the exclusive province of Catholics. Maybe all Christian babies could go to heaven, leaving out the Jews and others who are never baptized?
But I don’t remember this as the case. I remember the phrase “within the Church” used a lot. I was taught I could do an “emergency” baptism, which I thought would be legitimate because I was Catholic. Again, as I don’t really remember ant distinctions being made between types of non-Cathlics, it would make sense that – say a Lutheran baptism – would do nothing more for a baby than rinse its forhead.
Boyo, I began the Catholic School System about 8 years after you finished, so my experience is even more post-Vatican II. Although I, too, no longer practice*, I have always distinctly remembered one particular teaching that was delivered in a Catholic grade school religion class.
We were told that a person who has not been taught to follow the Roman Catholic Church can still emulate Christ by living a good life. These people following a “Christ-like” path, despite not having a connection to the Church, were to be known as Anonymous Christians. Since they were following Christ, inadvertently as it may be, they could still get into Heaven.
Sure, this is a little condescending (“Of course, you’re one of us- you just don’t know it!”) but still as a child it made me feel good to know that none of my non-Catholic loved ones would be unfairly punished. It is one of the two main reasons why I left the Church on good terms and harbor no ill feelings.
I don’t know where the teaching of Anonymous Christians comes from (I’m hoping either tomndebb or someone equally wonderful will return to this Thread and offer some insight). I don’t know if it is an official dogmatic Church teaching, or if it is more of a grassroots kind of a thing that arose from practicing Catholics living in mixed communities who couldn’t bring themselves to condemn their neighbors. I just know it because a gradeschool teacher told me- could be official, or it could just be one of those “make your own Catholicism” things.
*The circumstances of my departure from the Church lead to my second reason for harboring no ill feelings toward the Church. A freshman in highschool, I was beginning to feel that Catholicism was not for me. I had a discussion with a Jesuit Priest at my highschool, explaining what didn’t work for me. Instead of trying to win me back he told be, “Well, it sounds like it just isn’t for you. You should look to build a belief system that speaks truth to you. If you don’t find truth in the Catholic Church you should look elsewhere.” Now, that was one classy priest!
The Catholic church has always recognized the baptisms of other churches as legitimate as long as they were sincerely done, following the proper forms. (The church hedges a bit for groups that are not recognized as being close to Catholic theology. With a convert who is not sure whether he or she has been baptized, they go through a ceremony in which the priest or deacon says “If you have not been baptized, then I baptize you. . . .”
(In fact, according to the RCC, a person may be legitimately baptized by anyone–Protestant, Jew, Muslim, pagan, or whoever–provided the person performing the baptism does it with the intent to make the baptized person a Christian and that they follow the forms of the sacrament.)
Limbo was theological speculation (never adopted as doctrine) regarding what happens to the righteous person who has never been baptized.
Two earlier threads that dealt with some of these issues were: DO NOT RESPOND TO THESE ANCIENT THREADS. IF SOMEONE HAS A POINT TO MAKE, BRING IT HERE OR OPEN A NEW THREAD>
That’s intersting… I asked a co-worker today who is still a practicing Catholic and she said, “No, they are lost souls”…Then she chuckled and said “They’re fucked”.
Any chance you can provide a cite for this? She didn’t, but she’s not comupter literate.
Simplest way is to observe what happens if someone converts to Catholicism, through the Rite of Christian Initiation.
If the person was never baptized, then baptism is part of the rituals that they participate in (along with confirmation and eucharist)…they are referred to as “Catechumens”.
However, if they were already baptized as Christians…then they are referred to as “Candidates” and do not undergo a baptism as part of their rite of initiation. They have already been baptized…so obviously the church “recognizes” the baptism.
In addition to Beagledave’s quite relevant point (If she is a practicing Catholic, it is likely that her parish admitted some new members at Easter and (even if she did not attend the Easter Vigil), there should have been references to the rite and some of its details at other masses and in her bulletin.), there are specific references in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (especially paragraphs 836 through 848) to the idea that many people beyond Catholics are saved.
For example, there was a fairly well known incident in the U.S. church around 1950 when Fr. Feeney and a few friends declared that only Catholics could enter heaven. After he was ordered to stop preaching that falsehood, and refused, he was excommunicated.
Wow, I post a lovely compliment to tomndebb and get igonored not once but twice!
No, no, no, that’s o.k., I mean if you’re not quite brilliant enough to address my concern I completely understand, I mean I myself was not brilliant enough to have the full info in the first place, it’s just that tomndebb had always seemed so on the ball to me in the past.
So, anyone else? Anonymous Christians (as per my explanation above)- official Church teaching? or just renegade Catholics from ground level with too much love in their hearts?
I wasn’t ignoring you. Ihad thought your comment was sufficiently clear and complete as to warrant no further comment.
The Anonymous Christian is not Catholic doctrine. It is a concept put forward by the brilliant 20th century theologian, Karl Rahner. Rather than an explanation of what “really” happens to people outside the church, (the church’s views are in the Catechism, linked above), it is an attempt to get Catholics understand from the perspective within Catholicism just how and why we are not the only ones who are saved. I think it is certainly a view that should be considered–particularly by people such as Boyo Jim’s co-worker.
What follows is the relevant passages from the Vatican Council II’s document Lumen Gentium which is what was quoted in the above link to the catechism. It states the RCC’s relation to non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians.
The validity for the Catholic church of christian baptism performed by other christian denominations isn’t realted to Vatican II. AFAIK, it has always been the case. That’s why, for instance, the inquisition, which only had authority on christians (assumed to be all members of the only one true church), could go after protestants while jews were out of its reach.
To clarify before someone brings up the Spanish Inq. (and yes, in these sort of threads you DO expect that, thank you very much…) : in Spain, the Inq. went after those who claimed to be converts in order to avoid exile and hold on to property, but were suspected of being “underground Jews”. But the Inquisition was indeed created to go after Christian “heretics”, meaning anyone who did not toe Rome’s line.
As to the validity of baptisms, someone better versed than me should clarify if by the “forms” mentioned in the above cites it is included that the baptism be Trinitarian, i.e. in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, as I think there are a number of mainstream Christianities who find that non-negotiable.
Certainly, to be recognized by the Catholic Church, a baptism would need to be Trinitarian. The Forms for the sacrament are found in the Catechism at paragraphs 1239 and 1240
I can vouch that non-Catholic baptisms are recognized. I was baptized in the Lutheran Church and converted to Catholicism. My pastor assured me that I didn’t need to be rebaptized and that the Lutheran baptism was quite sufficient for that once per lifetime sacrament. That being said, there may be some Christian sects that the RCC does not recognize as providing legitimate baptisms.
Back to the original question, in my adult religious education, my pastor said that one does not need to necessarily be Catholic in order to go to heaven (of course, he also said it doesn’t hurt!). Personally, (and not to be confused with official RCC position) I believe salvation comes from the grace of God and a sincere belief in any religion and living a virtuous life should put you in good shape.
) skills.
