Catholics also believe in demonic possession, hell, and exorcism. Not the first things a priest will tell you though :)
Because the first thing anyone will tell you is almost always a greeting, their name, or "excuse me."
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.
It sure is easy to answer questions when you can just make things up... "Oh, they're just expressing their preferences."
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.
[1] https://www.ncregister.com/blog/christ-s-power-shines-even-i...
(Or not even those, if you take the view of some post-Vatican-II breakaway sects who consider the Pope to be illegitimate)
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.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Agenda
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.)
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....
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.
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.")
https://biblehub.com/psalms/22.htm
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.
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
and the life of the world to come. Amen.