Is my Catholic mother a closet evangelical?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

To preface: neither of us have actually been to church in a while. I cut ties with my former Episcopal Church due to reasons I'd rather not get into, and my mom hasn't gone to mass in years but wants to start once the pandemic is under control and we have the money and the means to attend weekly services. But she still intends on returning to the Catholic Church while I already converted to Anglicanism during college and have no plans to abandon that.

Sometimes (especially in particularly depressing times like now) we get into deep theological debates. The topic of Heaven and Hell comes up fairly often. My mom, despite having been raised in the Catholic Church, cites Jesus' words in John 4:6 that non-Christians are unlikely to get to Heaven. This interpretation, of course, tends to align more with the conservative Protestant stance that all those who are not saved by Christ in this life are destined to eternal damnation.

My response to her was that this passage does not pertain to non-Christian religions (Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.) but rather the question of whether it is strict observance to the Law (as was prevalent among the Pharisees) that saves, rather than faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus, which spares His followers (which was at the time a Jewish sect) from judgment by the Law.

As far as I understand Catholic teachings, my position is more in line with the RCC's position on salvation than my mother's is, who seems to take to a more evangelical interpretation of scripture.

She was also surprised when I told her that the possibility of atheists and agnostics going to Heaven is not a novel idea elucidated by the current Pope, but is in fact the same position as the more conservative Pope Benedict.

My mom also believes we are living in the End Times: something myself am agnostic on but open to the possibility of being true.

I just find it strange that my mom, who's been a self-described "lapsed Catholic" for most of her adult life, has identical views on salvation and the afterlife to that of fundamentalist Protestants. She was really into the Left Behind series when that was making the rounds, so my guess is maybe those books had some influence on her current beliefs.

But overall she was pretty open-minded and even seemed to doubt what she had been saying to me before, especially after I explained the context of John 4:6 and tied that both to the account of Doubting Thomas (which I have come to understand as evidence of God's grace towards nonbelievers) as well as St. Paul's account of the man who was saved by fire in 1 Corinthians 3:15.

So to that, I am asking my fellow Atlas Christians: what do you make of all this, and whose argument do you tend to side with more?

[TJ in Oregon]

No. The Catholic position is invincible ignorance, not universalism. While people of other religions have some possibility of salvation, we absolutely do not take for granted they are saved and are commanded work for the evangelization of the world.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

No. The Catholic position is invincible ignorance, not universalism. While people of other religions have some possibility of salvation, we absolutely do not take for granted they are saved and are commanded work for the evangelization of the world.

To be clear, I don't think I'm exactly taking a universalist position here. Perhaps in some schools I would be considered a universalist, in the sense that I believe the dead are purified by fire and then make the conscience decision to either live in eternity with God or be forever damned.

I also came across another Catholic's interpretation that Hell exists but is essentially empty save for Lucifer and other fallen angels. I believe that, ultimately, one's experience of the afterlife is unimportant and that to dwell on those matters goes against God's will, because the afterlife is not something that can be compared to or analogized using our experiences on earth, and because living solely for the goal of "getting to Heaven" is inherently selfish and contrary to what Jesus taught by his message and life example.

[RI]

My mom, despite having been raised in the Catholic Church, cites Jesus' words in John 4:6 that non-Christians are unlikely to get to Heaven.

If we're honest, most Christians are unlikely to get to Heaven.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

These are shockingly conservative theological positions for someone who hasn't been to Mass in years, but no, they're not crypto-Evangelical as such. Even the apocalypticism is something you can easily find among conservative Catholics if you look for it, especially the types of people who are also really into things like unapproved Marian apparitions.

[RFayette]

My mom, despite having been raised in the Catholic Church, cites Jesus' words in John 4:6 that non-Christians are unlikely to get to Heaven.

If we're honest, most Christians are unlikely to get to Heaven.

Indeed.  Matthew 7:13-14, in conjunction with Matthew 7:21-23, seem to point in this direction.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     It's well within the mainstream of what the Catholic Church teaches, but it is much harsher than where American society as a whole falls, hence Nathan's comment that these views are shockingly conservative for a non-attending Catholic.

     Society as a whole tends to have a poor understanding of Christian belief; some beliefs that are particular to Evangelicals are thought to be general among Christians and some beliefs that are found in many different churches are seen as peculiarly Evangelical. The ideas described in this topic fall in the latter category.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Society as a whole tends to have a poor understanding of Christian belief; some beliefs that are particular to Evangelicals are thought to be general among Christians and some beliefs that are found in many different churches are seen as peculiarly Evangelical. The ideas described in this topic fall in the latter category.

Do you think there's a tendency among non-Evangelicals (or people who aren't small-o orthodox Christians generally) to reduce Evangelicalism to "modern-style worship services+very conservative on muh social issues" and move on? Because I've definitely noticed that.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Society as a whole tends to have a poor understanding of Christian belief; some beliefs that are particular to Evangelicals are thought to be general among Christians and some beliefs that are found in many different churches are seen as peculiarly Evangelical. The ideas described in this topic fall in the latter category.

Do you think there's a tendency among non-Evangelicals (or people who aren't small-o orthodox Christians generally) to reduce Evangelicalism to "modern-style worship services+very conservative on muh social issues" and move on? Because I've definitely noticed that.

     I think it's very true. It makes me wince when I see people on this forum think of Evangelicals as a political interest group. It's very unfair to their theological tradition, but I can't really blame my fellow posters for it. Evangelicals have been less than successful in articulating the theological basis for their beliefs, which was a major factor in the decline of their power in the late 2000s. I believe that the key to turning around their fortunes lies in accepting that they are not the predominant moral force in the United States and adapting to a paradigm wherein they lack institutional power.

[RFayette]

    It's well within the mainstream of what the Catholic Church teaches, but it is much harsher than where American society as a whole falls, hence Nathan's comment that these views are shockingly conservative for a non-attending Catholic.

     Society as a whole tends to have a poor understanding of Christian belief; some beliefs that are particular to Evangelicals are thought to be general among Christians and some beliefs that are found in many different churches are seen as peculiarly Evangelical. The ideas described in this topic fall in the latter category.

This is true.  There was an interesting survey by a Reformed group and you definitely see a variance between official denominational teaching and what the average person identifying with that group believes in the 'Data Explorer' section.  For example, self-ID'ed Catholics are more likely (48%) to agree with the statement that the Bible's prohibitions on homosexual behavior no longer apply compared to mainline Protestants (43%), even though mainline Protestant bodies officially are far more supportive of gay marriage. Many people are poorly catechized and may diverge from what the church officially teaches, so it's not surprising people's perceptions of what various Christian groups believe is off-base.

[Kingpoleon]

I think it's very true. It makes me wince when I see people on this forum think of Evangelicals as a political interest group. It's very unfair to their theological tradition, but I can't really blame my fellow posters for it. Evangelicals have been less than successful in articulating the theological basis for their beliefs, which was a major factor in the decline of their power in the late 2000s. I believe that the key to turning around their fortunes lies in accepting that they are not the predominant moral force in the United States and adapting to a paradigm wherein they lack institutional power.

This strikes all around, but not quite at, a fundamental thesis of mine: the decline of religiosity in America is directly tied to the rise in power of fundamentalist Protestant and the decline in power of mainline Protestantism. Evangelicals are shocked America has turned away from them, and become more and more hardline in their beliefs. Mainline Protestants are too mealy mouthed and soft soap to try to take back their leadership position in American Christianity.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

     It's well within the mainstream of what the Catholic Church teaches, but it is much harsher than where American society as a whole falls, hence Nathan's comment that these views are shockingly conservative for a non-attending Catholic.

     Society as a whole tends to have a poor understanding of Christian belief; some beliefs that are particular to Evangelicals are thought to be general among Christians and some beliefs that are found in many different churches are seen as peculiarly Evangelical. The ideas described in this topic fall in the latter category.

This is true.  There was an interesting survey by a Reformed group and you definitely see a variance between official denominational teaching and what the average person identifying with that group believes in the 'Data Explorer' section.  For example, self-ID'ed Catholics are more likely (48%) to agree with the statement that the Bible's prohibitions on homosexual behavior no longer apply compared to mainline Protestants (43%), even though mainline Protestant bodies officially are far more supportive of gay marriage. Many people are poorly catechized and may diverge from what the church officially teaches, so it's not surprising people's perceptions of what various Christian groups believe is off-base.

tbf, there's a fairly wide spectrum of legitimate, more-or-less orthodox theological opinion on hell in Catholicism, from quasi-universalists like Hans Urs von Balthasar and Robert Barron to fire-and-brimstone "fewness of the saved" types like the Fatima visionaries. About the only perspectives on hell that are genuinely out-of-bounds in otherwise-orthodox Catholicism are affirmatively declaring that everybody is saved on one side and, on the other, believing in double predestination (although in the past some Catholic theologians did argue for the latter).

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I think it's very true. It makes me wince when I see people on this forum think of Evangelicals as a political interest group. It's very unfair to their theological tradition, but I can't really blame my fellow posters for it. Evangelicals have been less than successful in articulating the theological basis for their beliefs, which was a major factor in the decline of their power in the late 2000s. I believe that the key to turning around their fortunes lies in accepting that they are not the predominant moral force in the United States and adapting to a paradigm wherein they lack institutional power.

This strikes all around, but not quite at, a fundamental thesis of mine: the decline of religiosity in America is directly tied to the rise in power of fundamentalist Protestant and the decline in power of mainline Protestantism. Evangelicals are shocked America has turned away from them, and become more and more hardline in their beliefs. Mainline Protestants are too mealy mouthed and soft soap to try to take back their leadership position in American Christianity.

I would like to know how you would assess the role of Catholics in this evaluation of American Christianity.



P.S. I have also realized just how chilling the original post sounds now...

[Big Abraham]

Is extra Ecclesiam nulla salus no longer taught by the Church?

[Kingpoleon]

I would like to know how you would assess the role of Catholics in this evaluation of American Christianity.

P.S. I have also realized just how chilling the original post sounds now...

My views on the Catholic Church are complicated, and so is my view to their place. However, they have not been seriously weakened or strengthened. Their role as the third biggest pillar of American Christianity makes them a vital part of its life force, and they should be viewed as such. Are there more specific questions you have?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

P.S. I have also realized just how chilling the original post sounds now...

well.

yeah.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Is extra Ecclesiam nulla salus no longer taught by the Church?

It's still taught, but as early as the 1940s a prominent American priest was being disciplined by the Vatican for preaching a literal interpretation of it.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Is extra Ecclesiam nulla salus no longer taught by the Church?

It's still taught, but as early as the 1940s a prominent American priest was being disciplined by the Vatican for preaching a literal interpretation of it.

Oof

That quote about Communism and Zionism sounds as if it was taken straight up from Mein Kampf.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

This may be totally wrong but I think I've noticed universalism gaining traction among Christians recently. And not just in a 'pop-Christian' sense, even a highly respected theologian as David Hart Bentley has come out arguing for universalism.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This may be totally wrong but I think I've noticed universalism gaining traction among Christians recently. And not just in a 'pop-Christian' sense, even a highly respected theologian as David Hart Bentley has come out arguing for universalism.

It's definitely a more mainstream position than it used to be, especially purgatorial universalism. Fifty years ago you almost certainly wouldn't have seen an apologetics-focused Catholic bishop who has a moderately conservative reputation (again, Robert Barron) frequently express the hope that hell was empty, and you definitely wouldn't have seen respected Orthodox and Evangelical theologians openly argue for that position.

[satsuma]

As other posters noted, I think it's not clear based on her beliefs about salvation.

However, these beliefs about the End Times might show that she has been influenced by evangelicals. There is a strong sense among evangelicals that the End Times are possibly nearish, but also a level of caution about making exact predictions, because we know not the day or the hour.

(Evangelicalism has a problem with its lack of hierarchy. Rogue loonies, money-grubbers, and faith-healers attract a disproportionate amount of attention. Yes, Family Radio made its famous 2011 prediction, but they're not any more respected than televangelists. Every evangelical I knew would have set their radio to K-Love instead.)

I'm curious as to how many Catholics also believe that the End Times are possibly nearish.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

As other posters noted, I think it's not clear based on her beliefs about salvation.

However, these beliefs about the End Times might show that she has been influenced by evangelicals. There is a strong sense among evangelicals that the End Times are possibly nearish, but also a level of caution about making exact predictions, because we know not the day or the hour.

(Evangelicalism has a problem with its lack of hierarchy. Rogue loonies, money-grubbers, and faith-healers attract a disproportionate amount of attention. Yes, Family Radio made its famous 2011 prediction, but they're not any more respected than televangelists. Every evangelical I knew would have set their radio to K-Love instead.)

I'm curious as to how many Catholics also believe that the End Times are possibly nearish.

I'm an Anglo-Catholic (Episcopalian who considers myself a small-c catholic, really) and I do believe it's possible we're nearing the End Times, particularly as the earth becomes less inhabitable due to the selfish and sinful actions of man and their material desires.

And the pessimist in me also desires for Christ to return and set things right. That's really the only similarity I, and my mother shared, with evangelicals. Although neither of us believed in a literal Rapture.

EDIT: Also, welcome to the forum.