Answer these questions to find out just how Catholic or Protestant your are in your view of justification. Select one choice for each of the 10 questions. When you are finished with all the questions, press Score.
The originating site claims:
most Protestants are more Catholic than Protestant in their concept of justification
Catholics can use this little quiz to shed some light on just how orthodox they really are. 
I scored 100% Catholic.
Share This
Comment by Madda — June 17, 2007 @ 12:48
Being more properly termed an agnostic than perhaps anything else, I’m having a certain amount of difficulty answering. However, as a hypothetical excercise…
Apparently it thinks I’d be predominantly Protestant.
I disagree. I answered the way I did because I was looking for the options that would say something to the effect of: “Try to be a good person or get lost.”
Something to that effect anyway.
S
Comment by Pistos — June 17, 2007 @ 18:30
So does that mean you rather think you’d be predominantly Catholic?
(Assuming you must be pigeonholed into one of the two for the sake of this “exercise”.)
Comment by Madda — June 17, 2007 @ 19:03
Nah, I think I’d be predominantly Buddhist if I were to be religious, casting aside the apparent sexist start to it (I’ve been informed of this by a historian, so I’ll take it as more accurate than I’m likely to determine on my own).
The ultimate purpose of a person should be, in my opinion, to live as morally correctly as they can according to their own views. This hopefully doesn’t mean forcing their views on others (although persuasion or discussion is acceptable to me), but it would of course be hypocritical of me to say that such a thing should never be allowed. After all, if your own moral code suggested that everyone MUST do something then you might try to get it made into a law (or use other means you considered morally acceptable).
If I had to be pigeonholed for this exercise though, it looks like I’d be more Protestant. They seem to have a bit more of the “God is good, but you might not be so try to be good” element to them. Or am I misreading that?
S
Comment by Pistos — June 17, 2007 @ 19:15
I don’t think it’s possible to have full moral relativism (since that itself would be an absolute). I think everyone’s got some idea about something that applies to everyone absolutely.
If I’m not mistaken, I believe the Protestant view is more “God does all/most of the work, so you don’t have to do much/any work”, whereas the Catholic view is “God wants you to be perfect, and empowers you to be so”.
Comment by Madda — June 18, 2007 @ 02:20
Certainly I have ideas that I think everyone should live by- one of them being that people shouldn’t force their own beliefs on others. Of course, it would be hypocritical for me to try to force others to believe that too, so I’m left with a bit of a conundrum!
Ah, but I don’t believe people are necessarily empowered to be perfect. I think you need to perfect yourself. I still have trouble believing in a forgiving God that will forgive you any sins… except lack of belief. I don’t know if this is a misinterpretation given by some, suggesting that a murderer and rapist who sincerely repents before they die somehow is a better person than someone who manages to live a life without causing harm to anyone yet does not believe. That view (which you’ve most probably heard even if you don’t believe it yourself) always strikes me as an indication of either a religion or a deity that is just plain wrong and doesn’t deserve full respect.
I’ll have to continue the abortion line of reasoning after work I’m afraid, because it’ll take a bit longer than I have left.
S
Comment by Pistos — June 18, 2007 @ 12:59
“everyone should” and “everyone should or else” are two different things, so I don’t think you have a conundrum.
As for perfection, here is the Catholic angle. I hope it sheds some light on the matter.
You are supposed to work at becoming perfect, but there are various aspects of this battle which are either very difficult, or impossible for our human nature to accomplish unassisted. For these things, God sends all the necessary graces; we need only avail of them with appropriate frequency and from efficacious conduits. I think everyone’s got something that they know they ought to do (or stop doing), yet have not done the right thing, or don’t yet consistently do the right thing. I accept God’s grace to help me.
There must be drawn a distinction between (a) how a person is affected by sin he or she commits, and (b) forgiveness of the sin. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s sections on sin and reconciliation for further reference. Sin actually changes the sinner. This change can be outwardly seen in subsequent behaviour, in proclivities. To illustrate: Suppose that it were a sin to throw blue paint into the air over your head. Through the appropriate channels, you can receive the forgiveness and absolution of this sin, and indeed you would be forgiven. But you’d still be covered in blue paint, and God doesn’t admit blue-painted people into heaven.
However, he does offer a number of ways to wash away blue paint, namely the Sacraments, and Purgatory.
And so, turning to our repentant murderer and our harmless unbeliever: There are two things we need to consider:
If heaven is a place of acceptance and love, but the unbeliever by sheer force of will utterly rejects and does not love God, is it proper for such a person to be admitted into heaven? I would say that justice demands that he must not be. To be clear, however, the teaching of the Church tells us that it is possible for those to be saved who strive to do good to the best of their knowledge and ability, but out of ignorance which is not in any way their fault are never presented with the choice to accept or reject God’s love.
Now, I think you are right that it would not be just for someone that commits terrible sins to be admitted to heaven. However, this is merely a testament to the great and wondrous mercy of God. If you were indebted to me 50 million dollars, it would only be fair that you pay me back. If I forgave you the entire debt, that would be a great thing, but my act of forgiveness does not alter the magnitude of what you owed me.
In the same way, the acts of the murderer are indeed much worse than those of the harmless fellow; but the offering of reconciliation is made freely to both of them. The difference between the two is that the murderer has accepted God’s 50-million-dollar gift, whereas the harmless unbeliever has rejected the $5000 gift presented to him — and so his debt remains, whereas the murderer’s account is in good standing. Neither of them deserve it, but the murderer recognized the tremendous value of what is freely being given away.
I hope this helps you understand Catholic teaching. I will try to do a bit more research to ensure I am not telling you something theologically erroneous.
Comment by Madda — June 18, 2007 @ 15:12
First, the links:
“Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience”
I consider it an offense against reason to be expected to have absolute faith in something I have not heard a reasonable explanation of. Should it come to the point of death and judgement I do not think I could be considered guilty on this count, and would likely accept my mistake- though not as an error against reason, but against truth (should it turn out to be the case).
“Like the first sin, it is disobedience”
I have a feeling this was introduced later as a means of using the faith to control people. However, I think it unreasonable to demand unquestioning obedience- or even complete obedience. Sometimes we go against what we are advised to do and thus improve our understanding.
“the sacrifice of Christ secretly becomes the source from which the forgiveness of our sins will pour forth inexhaustibly.”
So according to this we are forgiven any and all sins. It’s even inexhaustible. Surely that would include the sin of picking the wrong side of the “God”, “No God”, “other god/s” argument?
“”Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.”
I don’t drink. Most people do. According to this then, forgiveness granted by Christ is not inexhaustible. I have been subject to several of the others however, and while I feel that they should be rare, they are also common to most humans who aren’t in some way disassociated from their emotions.
This is my problem with people choosing to follow such an organisation as the Church. It is a monolithic collection of contradictory arguments and people. God loves all his children, but if you’re gay or female then until recently he didn’t love you enough to let you talk about his love to others.
My thoughts are that the bible can certainly be used as a guide, bearing in mind that it’s been altered through the ages to further support the Church itself. It is better, I think, to consider its teachings on your own terms. This isn’t saying that you disagree with God’s interpretation, it’s saying that you’re not convinced the Church is necessarily right. After all, the Church has already sinned by claiming to be able to determine what sin is. That, and it has been shown to be fallible (was it Coopernicus who was put to death as a heretic then a few hundred years later said to have been not really a heretic?).
I consider the view of the Buddhists to be a bit better on the front of sin, etc. If you murder someone that’s a major bad point. You can spend the rest of your life atoning, but ultimately it’s going to weigh against you to some extent which means you’re likely to be trapped as a human again at best, and fall further down the scale if you don’t quite make up for it. You might consider that this would alleviate you of responsibility- just saying that you’ll come back and do better next time, but that’s not quite so easy as taking that attitude would be more likely to lead you to rebirth as an animal with less ability to perform such actions that will work off the accumulated karma and lead to progress back up the scale.
I’m getting some impression of the views of the Catholic Church from what you’re saying, though they appear to be frequently contradictory (two contradictions in two pages of skim reading is not a good start) and frankly somewhat geared towards making one meekly accept whatever the one marked as your superior deems to be correct- even if they happen to be incorrect or they appear to be giving advice that goes against your conscience. Do such thoughts not concern you about this system? That someone who goes directly against right conscience by murdering someone but then converts fully and repents should be considered above someone who would otherwise be a saint but for their lack of belief?
S
Comment by Pistos — June 19, 2007 @ 00:37
A meaty comment.
I feel honoured that you’ve cared to spend this much time in my little corner of cyberspace. 
It is good for you to pursue truth. I do the same — and my pursuit has led me to Christ. I hope the same for you, even though you yourself do not.
Not out of a desire to caress some insecurity by means of a bandwagon effect, but rather because I believe I’ve found something true, significant and exhilirating.
Obedience is not bad — obedience to the wrong person is bad. You are right to be cautious about whom to obey, and to what extent to obey them. However, I am satisfied in knowing that it is entirely acceptable to give full obedience to someone who is all-wise and all-knowing. I further acknowledge the possibility that a perfect God can operate in an imperfect world with imperfect creatures; indeed I believe this to be the case with the Catholic Church. This is not because of random choice on my part, but rather, the evidence I have seen does not work against this statement.
One must freely accept God’s extended forgiveness. He gave us free will, and does not impinge upon that. You can’t get the money without cashing the cheque. And, as I said, if you do not outright reject God with sufficient consent and knowledge about what and whom you are rejecting, your culpability is diminished or even removed.
Can you give specific examples? So far as my research has taken me, I have not encountered significant contradiction in doctrine. As for people: weeds among the wheat, as they say. God uses dirty vessels to pour forth the purest living water. The imperfection of Christians or the clergy of God’s Church has no weight to me as an argument against the validity of his Church. As I told you in the past: The failure of a student does not necessarily diminish the value of the course.
There is a difference between the doctrine that is taught and the actual practice of Christians. The former is inerrant, whereas the latter is entirely subject to error, abysmal failure and even downright antipodal actions.
Your references? As far as I know, any textual differences are slight and editorial in nature. Indeed, some of the books of the Bible are collections of writings which were themselves individually authored not in one sitting, or even by one person. But my understanding is that diachronic examination of extant manuscripts clearly demonstrate a stunning uniformity and consistency over centuries, certainly with no significant change since the determination of the canon of Scripture in the late 4th century.
Here is a Google search which provides many links to sites arguing for the accuracy of the Scriptural texts we have today. It seems to me that a whole lot of people believe it’s been preserved rather well, and they also seem to have some arguments in favour of this. (I haven’t read them all.) On what basis do you believe the Bible has undergone significant changes in content?
Under the assumption that the Church is God’s appointed organization on earth, it is entirely reasonable for it to follow that the Church is infallible in declaring doctrine (i.e. interpretation of Scripture on crucial matters), as well as teaching on what is or is not sin.
The Church’s excursions into the domain of science are not asserted to be infallible. The Church’s members are as mortal and unknowing as secular scientists. The Church was not intended to be inerrant in scientific understanding.
I missed these. Could you cite them precisely?
A Catholic is obliged to heed his conscience. Furthermore, if a clerical superior orders me to do something which I know with clear thinking is against the teachings of God, or is an obvious sin, I am bound NOT to obey him. Sorry to disappoint your thirst for Hollywood stereotypes, but we Catholics are not mindless drones, nor are our clergy megalomaniacal tyrants.
The murderer is not “considered above”, but rather is welcomed in a supreme act of love. And, for the third time: one can be saved by cooperating with what graces one has been granted, despite ignorance of the Gospel. But God would never force himself upon someone who deliberately rejects him with full knowledge, full consent and free action of the will.
Comment by Daniel Lumley — April 13, 2008 @ 17:38
Dear Sirs This questionaire calls here mostly predominatly Catholic. Yell maybe you see protestant is hypocracy in the commands of Jesus Christ Love your neighbour is compromised. Me I go to protestant church but do not alway enjoy it. Lord knows Protestant comes from the word protest. The Lord shows me that this protest rejects millions of converts Go figure