No, he’s more right than wrong. Although Catholicism has become more ecumenical in recent years, they used to teach that only baptism in the Catholic Church could get you into heaven. Even babies had that restriction, and 40-50 years ago they were still teaching that an unbaptized baby who dies would go to a place called Limbo. That is no longer taught as it’s incompatible with our more modern sense of morality (it is wrong to harm the innocent). It was (and still kind of is) taught because the only way a religion really grows (other than physical conquest, of course) is via its members having kids. Most people stick with the religion they’re born with, and those that don’t tend to become atheists/spiritual but not religious/non-practicing. Few people move in the other direction. In any case, like so many other doctrines, they got too enthusiastic and painted themselves into a corner on the whole “baptism is necessary for salvation” thing. It’s not the best look in today’s world.
They did a special carve out for the adults too. If you wanted to be baptized but died without it, god will count that. If you’ve never been Ben heard of Jesus or the church, or you heard about it but the people who told you about it were assholes who sent the wrong message, you’re also all good. I think that last one might be a late addition.
At the end of the day the official position as I understand it is that Catholic baptism is the only method they know of to get let into heaven, but god can do whatever the fuck he wants and it’s going to be his call. They still believe in sin and confession and hell afaik but try to have their cake and eat it too by adopting the “you send yourself to hell” wrapper around it.
This has been the official position since the 1200s, the hardline approach is almost entirely a 19th century reaction, with some counter reformation elements.
Oh that’s fascinating. I’m only familiar (to the extent that I am) with the early and the modern history, plus all of that interesting stuff in the middle where they had popes assassinating people and such. But that part was so complex it makes Game of Thrones look like Horton Hears a Who, and I can barely keep any of it straight.
No, he’s more right than wrong. Although Catholicism has become more ecumenical in recent years, they used to teach that only baptism in the Catholic Church could get you into heaven. Even babies had that restriction, and 40-50 years ago they were still teaching that an unbaptized baby who dies would go to a place called Limbo. That is no longer taught as it’s incompatible with our more modern sense of morality (it is wrong to harm the innocent). It was (and still kind of is) taught because the only way a religion really grows (other than physical conquest, of course) is via its members having kids. Most people stick with the religion they’re born with, and those that don’t tend to become atheists/spiritual but not religious/non-practicing. Few people move in the other direction. In any case, like so many other doctrines, they got too enthusiastic and painted themselves into a corner on the whole “baptism is necessary for salvation” thing. It’s not the best look in today’s world.
They did a special carve out for the adults too. If you wanted to be baptized but died without it, god will count that. If you’ve never been Ben heard of Jesus or the church, or you heard about it but the people who told you about it were assholes who sent the wrong message, you’re also all good. I think that last one might be a late addition.
At the end of the day the official position as I understand it is that Catholic baptism is the only method they know of to get let into heaven, but god can do whatever the fuck he wants and it’s going to be his call. They still believe in sin and confession and hell afaik but try to have their cake and eat it too by adopting the “you send yourself to hell” wrapper around it.
This has been the official position since the 1200s, the hardline approach is almost entirely a 19th century reaction, with some counter reformation elements.
Oh that’s fascinating. I’m only familiar (to the extent that I am) with the early and the modern history, plus all of that interesting stuff in the middle where they had popes assassinating people and such. But that part was so complex it makes Game of Thrones look like Horton Hears a Who, and I can barely keep any of it straight.
Yeah a lot of shit we think of as archaic is actually Victorian or around that. Particularly with Christianity