Catholics believe in "incorruptibility" as a sign of potential sainthood. This is where the body does not decompose. You can see the bodies on display https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorruptibility
Catholics also believe in demonic possession, hell, and exorcism. Not the first things a priest will tell you though :)
Why wouldn't they tell you they believe in hell? It is mentioned in pray it was used to scare me into not misbehaving as a child by my teachers who were priests and nuns. This is not a secret nor did they try to hide it.
The Catholic Church has always believed in Hell. Jesus himself made reference to Gehenna (which was literally a valley of death back when he was alive, the Valley of Hinnom, where the Bible also documents child sacrifice to have occurred), as well as symbolically with the parable of the wedding feast. For this reason, many Catholic saints were themselves quite afraid of it and worked to avoid it.
Common misunderstanding though comes from "how could a good God sentence anyone to hell?" Well, to put it one way, he doesn't. Imagine if your teenage son violently doesn't want to attend your Christmas gathering. Would it be loving of you to force him to attend? Or, more graphically, imagine your son is a drug user who has lost home, family, girlfriend, and yet obstinately resists rehab - and you'd love for him to come, but he'd have to lay off the drugs, and he refuses any effort. Thus, the Catholic understanding is that the souls in Hell are obstinate in their sin and obstinately do not want to be in Heaven, for eternity because they will never change their minds. "The doors of hell are locked on the inside." They will, within Catholic thought, know they are in the wrong, but they would sin immediately again if they were permitted another second on Earth. This obstinacy in sin is mainly caused by refusal to repent for grave sins that have been committed.
This also explains, in a way, the reason why the Catholic Church in particular has very little hope in salvation for those who are atheist or similar.
> Catholics also believe in demonic possession, hell, and exorcism. Not the first things a priest will tell you though.
It pretty literally is one of the first things a priest (or a layperson acting on their behalf) will tell you, in that it is a routine part of preparation for the entry into the Church, and, in fact, a (minor) exorcism is performed as part of baptism.
Most people who identify as Catholic in developed countries today don’t believe in any of those (demonic possession and exorcism would be particularly fringe, but in surveys in many countries the majority identifying as Catholic don’t believe in hell or sometimes transubstantiation either)
There certainly are plenty of cultural Catholics who don't believe much of if anything that the Church teaches. The example of possession is particularly interesting though, because it's so overt. Unlike transubstantiation, where we have to take it on faith, there are documented cases of demonic possession that really defy natural explanation. Things like knowing secrets, speaking unknown languages, levitation, feats of strength, and so on have all been observed. Here[1] is one example and you can find many more, including from non-Catholic or even non-Christian specialists who have been retained to rule out mental illness and other natural explanations. Unfortunately it is a rather sensationalized subject, so there is a lot of garbage out there too.
True, but Catholicism isn't a democracy. Catholic beliefs aren't determined by what self-professed Catholics say they believe in, but what the Catholic Church itself professes.
I mean, that's one way to look at it. But in practice Catholics aren't, and never have been, a monolith, belief-wise, unless you define it so narrowly that the only Catholics are, well, maybe some of the cardinals.
(Or not even those, if you take the view of some post-Vatican-II breakaway sects who consider the Pope to be illegitimate)
That's true, there is a great deal of theological diversity within the Catholic Church, and to an extent that diversity is actually encouraged. But the Church also sets bounds on what beliefs can acceptably be called "Catholic" and those bounds are Catholic dogma. (And over the centuries theologians have actually constructed quite a baroque hierarchy of degrees of theological certainty attached to various beliefs. [1])
The actual dogmas are fairly narrow. They include things like the doctrine of transubstantiation, Jesus being both God and man, Mary being conceived without original sin. But a lot of other things aren't dogmatic. For example, it's perfectly acceptable to argue that Roman Catholic priests should be permitted to be married or that Limbo doesn't exist.
The trinity is a fundamental Christian belief, not just Catholic. If one doesn’t believe it than most won’t consider them Christian. This is a huge reason why Mormonism is it’s own thing.
I don’t believe anymore as an adult, but this was taught right away when I was a kid going to the Catholic Church. I don’t think you could find a catholic who doesn’t know what the trinity is.
The trinity is the Orthodox belief. The history of Christianity is full of “heretical” beliefs about the Godhead. Also there is solid evidence that first century Christians did not hold a trinitarian position
Not religious in any way - from this perspective the trinity (as nailed down by the council of Nicaea) sounds like a triumvirate of gods + mental acrobatics.
It's an interesting historical and political question though, since it was the core question of the First Council of Nicea which Constantine used to establish an orthodoxy for his empire. That single church lasted for almost 700 years before splitting in two.
> That single church lasted for almost 700 years before splitting in two.
It…didn’t, though; there was a schism (Macedonian) within 7 years, not 700, of Nicaea, and there were even schisms that created separate long-lasting Churches on the side rejecting the view of the part of the Church that survived in union until the Catholic/Orthodox split much sooner than 700 years (e.g., the Nestorian schism in 431 and the Church of the East which survives to this day; the Chalcedonian/Monophysite schism in 451, from which the Oriental Orthodox churches still survive, etc.)
No, the Trinity is never referenced in the Bible - God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are always treated as separate entities. The doctrine was made up by the Church to avoid the obvious polytheistic implications in the straightforward interpretation of canon.
The Catholic Church has never claimed the Bible is the sole source of religious revelation. Sacred Tradition is regarded and an additional (and not contradictory) source of revelation of the mysteries of God.
I am by no means well versed in the deep trinitarian studies and reflections from the past 2000 years, but I am inclined to feel that verses like John 10:30 defy a simple explanation....
Not really. It could just as easily be interpreted as referring to two separate beings of equal power and status than one being in two persons.
John 10:30 mentioned above seems more clear, but just prior to that you have "My Father who has given them to Me", which makes no sense if they are literally the same being. Neither does Christ on the cross asking why God has forsaken him.
The problem is the Biblical canon manifested out of what were countless differing philosophies and schools of thought in early Christianity, and John seems to be one of the more mystical books to make it in. But Christianity couldn't even agree on the nature of Jesus' divinity at first, and went to war against itself for centuries over details like this.
> Neither does Christ on the cross asking why God has forsaken him.
He's quoting Psalm 22. Jesus very frequently quotes the psalms, probably more than any other book, and "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" is the opening line. Given the number of "coincidences" between the psalm and the events then occurring, he is either deliberately making his claim as a messiah or the redactor inserted the quote, depending on your beliefs. ("They have pierced my hands and feet", "They divide my garments among them, and cast lots for my clothing", "all who see me mock me, they sneer and shake their heads, he trusts in the Lord, let the Lord deliver him.")
I don't really see how it's possible to read John 1 as implying two separate beings, unless we start quibbling about what a "being" is. There are similar statements in the other gospels.
> The problem is the Biblical canon manifested out of what were countless differing philosophies and schools of thought in early Christianity, and John seems to be one of the more mystical books to make it in. But Christianity couldn't even agree on the nature of Jesus' divinity at first, and went to war against itself for centuries over details like this.
It's true the early churches were divided but it's important not to overstate that division, as you're doing here. The earliest post-apostolic writings we have are already referencing all for gospels and nearly all the epistles. There were divisions in theology on things like the exact nature of Jesus's divinity, but except in the case of niche sects, it was over what most people now would regard as hair-splitting. It's just people used to be much more fanatical and willing to go to war over things like "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father" vs "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" or "The logos/Jesus/Son was co-eternal with Father" vs "the Father created the Son before Time and he's divine but not as divine as the Father."
I think the most productive way to view this aspect of Christianity, unless you're addicted to obscure theological disputes, is to simply say that the Christian idea of God is as an omnipotent transcendental being whose nature is therefore obviously something beyond the powers human comprehension, which would make sense if you want to posit the idea of a capital-G God even as a non-Christian.
The conception of the trinity as co-equal persons of the same substance is a later development in Christianity. The earliest Christian writings (Paul’s letters) never mention the trinity; you could even argue Paul was a sort of binitarian
I mean this stuff is literally laid out in the Creed which is recited at every mass and various times besides. There are various other Creeds used that make things even more explicit such as the Athanasian Creed. And nothing really is unique to the Catholics, the Orthodox are onboard for this stuff.
I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
They have put a lot of effort into keeping him looking incorrupt (he's mostly wax now) to try to elevate him to the status of an atheist/communist "saint", basically mocking the traditional Orthodox views on incorrupt relics of saints.
Catholics also believe in demonic possession, hell, and exorcism. Not the first things a priest will tell you though :)