Traditional Catholics and secular culture

[Arvinger]

First of all, I would like to emphasize that I am not writing this post to lecture anyone about what they must do in their lives or to accuse anyone - not only because I don’t have any authority to do so, but also because I’m not sure what to think of the subject myself. I merely want to ask for your views in regard to several of my thoughts, some of which were inspired by following threads on this forum (but many of them were on my mind before):

Movie thread (discussion on pages 181-190) https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=85.2700
Patience and moderation thread https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=17786.0
Jerome’s thread on movies https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=15694.0
Nudity in art thread http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=3710.0

I think it is safe to say that there is a broad consensus here that the current moral standards among Traditional Catholics in areas of modesty, art and entertainment fall way short of the standards of the Early Church and the teachings of Saints such as St. John Vianney, St. Francis de Sales or St. Alphonsus Liguori. I think it is undeniable that the entertainment and culture which is consumed by Traditional Catholics today would have been condemned in strongest words by the Fathers and Saints and considered mortally sinful. That is not to say that in the Early Church there were no Christians who led sinful lifes - for example, in 1 Corinthians St. Paul condemns sinful lifestyle of Christians in Corinth. Nevertheless, moral standards were mostly clear, and today despite being Traditional Catholics we are far below these standards.

In the above-listed threads many excellent points were made by Pon de Replay, Matto, Maximilian and other users. However, what was missing (or at least not discussed extensively enough) were implications of the problem for our salvation. I think that the question which Traditional Catholics must answer is this: are the moral standards taught in the Early Church and by the Saints an objective standard which God requires from us? Many of you probably remember the user Jerome who started the thread about how movies which users of Suscipe Domine watch are full of mortal sin. He quoted extensively from Saints, Popes and Church Fathers, and he was mostly right. Granted, the way he conducted the discussion was not perfect, and he went too far in some of his criticisms (like his claim that to save your soul you must use internet with images blocked - this is unreasonable), but overall his arguments were sound and he backed up his position with solid evidence. On the other side, most of the users who responded to him did not even try to interact with the quotes he provided, he was mostly ridiculed and shouted down. So, if the teachings of Saints, Popes and Fathers on these issues are indeed right, where exactly does that leave us? If they were right and dancing, parties, sensuous music and worldly books was indeed objectively mortally sinful to watch/read//listen/attend in Antiquity and in the 19th century, how can we expect these activities to cease to be mortally sinful today? God does not change, nor does his standard. If something was mortally sinful then, it remains so now (of course, individual culpability is a different issue and that is not what I refer to).

To translate it into specific example - I would be willing to bet good money that if St. John Vianney was alive today and saw the movie thread on this forum, he would be absolutely horrified. He would have preached to us a fire-and-brimstone sermon and call Suscipe Domine users to immediate repentance. In fact, Bishop Sanborn recalled in one of his interviews that even in his youth going to a cinema for a movie which was disapproved by the Legion of Decency (or other Catholic reviews, I don’t remember exactly) was considered a mortal sin (and the Legion of Decency would disapprove probably >90% of modern mainstream movies) - so it is not some sort of ancient standard which is dead since ages. This is not limited to movies. In nudity in art thread some users were actually defending Manet’s Olympia and Bouguereau’s female nudes as acceptable to look at for a Catholic. There is no question that these paintings are of high artistic quality, and Bouguereau’s nudes are indeed stunning portrayals of female beauty. However, erotic nature of these works of art is undeniable. I don’t think anybody here would argue that Cure of Ars would have approved his parishioners watching these paintings or that the Early Church Fathers would have anything positive to say about them.

I think there are only two intellectually honest answers to that problem:
1) To treat the moral standards of the Early Church and the Saints seriously, which in pratice means rejection of >90% of modern culture and entertainment, aviodance of most of public gatherings, swimming pools, not sending children to public schools etc. and transition into an Amish-like life, something like what Benedict Option advocates, or at least dramatic changes in daily life. Difficult? Certainly, for some Traditionalists perhaps even impossible due to financial and family considerations. But at least the objective necessity of such changes must be acknowledged if these standards are indeed to be treated seriously.
2) To conclude that the Early Church and the Saints were simply wrong, were too prudish and today we know better and can relax the moral discipline to enjoy some life (and that somehow we learned these new, correct ways simultaneously with almost universal apostasy and modernism in the Church). In the movie thread there was one user who did this, openly saying that the Early Church Fathers were wrong on dancing and other stuff and taught proto-Islamic ideas which need to be rejected. As Pon de Replay correctly pointed out, this introduces relativism, but at least is intellectually honest.

However, common response to the problem from Traditional Catholics is casuistry, accusations of „Jansenism”, rationalizations and other mental gymnastics. I don’t find these to be intelectually honest. In the thread started by Jerome it was painfully obvious that nobody who responded to him was able to refute his points on Catholic moral teaching. 

Mind you, I’m not saying this from some moral high horse. I also have attachments to modern culture, as many of us do. For example, I’m a great fan of opera, especially Italian bel canto, with Verdi, Donizetti and Puccini among my favorite composers. Opera has great artistic value, but the reality is that many operas include dancing/ballet scenes, and in most of modern productions, including the ones with traditional staging, there are costumes which fall short of Catholic standards of modesty (usually low-cut gowns showing cleavage). I can’t argue in good faith that St. John Vianney would sit down with me in my living room and enjoy La Traviata (ballet scenes, extra-maritial relationship of Alfredo and Violetta - although nothing sexual implied, and in most of productions you will see Violetta, Flora and other ladies in low-cut gowns). And opera is still far more innocent than vast majority of modern mainstream entertainment. Yes, vast majority of Novus Ordo Catholics and priests (probably even many Traditional Catholics) would say I worry too much and we should not be prudish, but is that approach compatible with the teachings of Early Church Fathers and Saints? Is that compatible with Catholic morality? I’m not sure, and attempts to justify myself might could my judgment.

So, where am I going with this? Pon de Replay admitted (and I applaud his integrity to write this) that he tried to be strict like Jerome before, but he gave up. But that makes it sound like the moral standards of the Early Church and the Saints are optional - the problem is that this is not how the Early Fathers and Saints themselves saw it, they claimed it is an objective moral standard required by God and falling short of it was sinful. Sure, they were not infallible and could have been wrong on some points - but the difference between their teachings and modern lax practice is not just on some points, it is a dramatic difference. If someone claims we are right today with our relaxed approach, he must conclude that Saints and Fathers were wrong all along. Someone wrote in one of the threads I listed that people won’t be damned for listening to certain music or stuff like that. Reading Church Fathers and Saints I’m not sure they would have agreed. I think all of us go to Traditional Latin Mass, receive the sacraments frequently and try to avoid mortal sins - so, we might think we are more or less on path to salvation. What if after our death we are for unpleasant surprise, learning before the judgment seat of God that our laxity and abandoning of moral standards taught by the Early Church and the Saints caused that we were never close to salvation to begin with, and our Trad-lite approach to modern culture was wrong? Maybe I exaggerate, but I think you get the point.   

Any thoughts?

[Matto]

Good post. These are some of the kinds of threads that interest me. It seems you are bordering on the side of being a "Jansenist rigorist" and perhaps you will draw fire from the "Jesuit laxists" on the forum. I am somewhat in the middle because while I generally disapprove of modern amusements, I do not know where exactly to draw the line (mainly because of the approval of nudity in Catholic Churches for hundreds of years, the most prominent example being the Sistine Chapel). I know when I first converted I was more strict than I am now. Though now I think I am still on the rigorist end of the spectrum, just not as far to the right as Jerome is. As an example I was recently watching a video of a traditional dance show by a group of Chinese dancers called Shen Yun and it was very beautiful but in the middle of the show some of the women were wearing clothes that were a little too sensual for me so I stopped watching (but I think some would condemn me for even trying to watch the dance in the first place). I do generally think Catholics should avoid most modern entertainment and I usually avoid watching modern TV shows or modern movies made in the last fifty years or so. I am sure many of the old movies condemned by the Legion of Decency would be considered tame today.

As far as music and plays go I have heard quotes from fathers and saints condemning them broadly and I believe at times the Church used to blanketly excommunicate theater actors in the days when the plays were probably not as corrupt as the movies and shows of today.

[Arvinger]

Good post. These are some of the kinds of threads that interest me. It seems you are bordering on the side of being a "Jansenist rigorist" and perhaps you will draw fire from the "Jesuit laxists" on the forum.

I think that "Jansenist rigorists" have simply much stronger and more consistent arguments, usually drawing from historic Church teaching, Saints and Fathers. "Jesuit laxists" often use little more than rationalizations and sophistry (let's be honest - Jerome's arguments in the movie thread were not refuted at all), because there is not much in the Early Church and devotional writings to support their case. That does not mean that I am always consistent with "Jansenist rigorism" in my own life - as I said, I like opera very much (there are several other opera lovers in my SSPX chapel too), I also enjoy more melodic and lighter sub-genres of metal music (especially folk metal), although I am vetting the music in regard to the content of lyrics.

The main problem I have with the "rigorists-laxists spectrum" is the subjectivity of it and very unclear objective implications of it. Many posts on this forum seemed to imply that you can be a Catholic in good standing whether you are laxist or rigorist. What if being a "Jansenist-rigorist" is necessary for salvation and being a "Jesuit-laxist" means approval of mortal sin and is a path to damnation (I'm not claiming this, but it is not outside the realm of possibility)? There is not enough conversation on implications of these issues for our salvation. I know, with the Vatican in apostasy we are left on our own to interpret all of this, and the world we live in is a mess, but there is too much at stake to "agree to disagree" I think. This is why I undestand why Jerome chose such an approach on this forum (if he really believes that watching most of modern movies is mortally sinful he must have seen it as salvation issue), even though it did not work out.

I am somewhat in the middle because while I generally disapprove of modern amusements, I do not know where exactly to draw the line (mainly because of the approval of nudity in Catholic Churches for hundreds of years, the most prominent example being the Sistine Chapel).

Well, nude figures in Sistine Chapel were painted over with clothing about the time of the Council of Trent I think, and the clothing was removed only at the time of John Paul II, who is hardly a go-to moral authority on this issue (many times I have seen attempts to justify gross immodesty with his Theology of the Body - certainly often abusing the text, but there seems to be a problem with it). In fact, Council of Trent condemned immodesty in sacred art:

"Moreover, in the invocation of saints, the veneration of relics, and the sacred use of images, every superstition shall be removed, all filthy lucre be abolished; finally, all lasciviousness be avoided; in such wise that figures shall not be painted or adorned with a beauty exciting to lust; nor the celebration of the saints, and the visitation of relics be by any perverted into revellings and drunkenness; as if festivals are celebrated to the honour of the saints by luxury and wantonness." (Council of Trent, XXV Session)

Granted, this is only about sacred art, not art in general, but somehow I can't imagine Tridentine Fathers (let alone Saints like Cure of Ars or St. Alphonsus Liguori) approving of Bouguereau's The Birth of Venus, regardless of great beauty and artistic quality of Bouguereau's art.

As far as music and plays go I have heard quotes from fathers and saints condemning them broadly and I believe at times the Church used to blanketly excommunicate theater actors in the days when the plays were probably not as corrupt as the movies and shows of today.

I started a thread about Church's view of acting and theatre a while ago on Cathinfo, and there was a broad consensus that opening for theatre and acting (John Paul II in his 1999 Letter to Artists explicitly mentioned actors and called them to use their talent) was in fact another example of laxity taking over the Church. Consider Adrienne Lecouvreur, one of the most famous actresses of the 18th century (there is a great opera by Francesco Cilea about her by the way) - she was denied a Catholic burial due to her profession.

[nmoerbeek]

At the judgement seat of God things are going to be very strict.  Not just in regards to entertainment, but to how we spent our time, money, our thoughts, and words and so forth. 

Yes, the standards outlined by Fathers, Doctors and Saints are going to be the standards we are judged by in a fundamental way but not in a specific way.  For example, their where Saints at different times and different periods that taught different things on modesty.  One can only read about beards, or jewelry and makeup on women to find the differing points of view.  St. Augustine teases women who paint their faces, St. John Chrysostom (I believe) condemns it, but St. Albert the Great said it is permissible and not a sin. Which one will we be judged on, it really will depend on the intention of the women putting on makeup and her conscience informed by a life of grace. 

Dancing is another interesting topic because once again we find different authors saying different things.  For example St John Vianny condemns it wholesale while St. Francis de Sales in Introduction to the Devout Life while not condemning the practice points out that it is time lost that we could have been spending redeeming it. We also know from the life of St. Ignatius that he dances after his conversion, and St. Philip Neri used to dance as a gypsy in the streets. In fact we even know by reading the annals of various convents that Nuns would be allowed to perform little dances as well.  I think once again it is going to be in part determined by intention, conscience and grace.

There are many people, still young and fragile in the Faith, that are still working towards being prepared for the broadness of the law and the real demands of perfection it puts on us.  St. Paul says as much "I gave you milk to drink, not meat; for you were not able as yet. But neither indeed are you now able; for you are yet carnal." 1 Cor 3:2.

As to other debates such as nudity in art, whether drums lead to  passion, can womens pants ever be modest, I think people should make a good effort to form their conscience and admit in prayer constantly their own blindness and sinfulness and strive to cultivate a spirit of repentance and humility. 

[JubilateDeo]

Do you really want a church where no women wear makeup?  Does anyone really want to see that?

[Jayne]

However, common response to the problem from Traditional Catholics is casuistry, accusations of „Jansenism”, rationalizations and other mental gymnastics. I don’t find these to be intelectually honest. In the thread started by Jerome it was painfully obvious that nobody who responded to him was able to refute his points on Catholic moral teaching. 

This is similar to my assessment of those threads.

[Matto]

What if being a "Jansenist-rigorist" is necessary for salvation and being a "Jesuit-laxist" means approval of mortal sin and is a path to damnation (I'm not claiming this, but it is not outside the realm of possibility)?

I accept that this is a possibility and because of this I try to avoid impure entertainments. I remember when I was a new convert I would hardly even look at women at all, especially if they were wearing pants, but now I am not so strict because it was impossible to live in the modern world that way without being shut away in a monastery (I live in New York City and have to take the subway to get to Church on Sunday and on other days I have to go around town doing errands. The worst is on the day of the Puerto Rican parade or the Gay Pride parade, you can imagine the immodesty witnessed on the way to the Holy Sacrifice those days), though most people would consider me a prude today even in my laxity. I am not as vocal about it as Jerome or Jean-Baptiste. Before I converted I often committed sins of impurity but I do not struggle with those sins that often anymore. Maybe because I am getting older and my libido has lessened or maybe because I pray to be delivered from such sins. I have been drinking wine in celebration so my tongue is going on and on, but the main thing I wanted to say is that I fear Jerome is right and that all of us are guilty of sin but I hope he is wrong and people are only appreciating beauty without falling into lust. I believe there is a dangerous border between appreciating beauty and falling into lust where for some a woman will incite them to sin and for others it will inspire them to noble thoughts. Still, I do not like nude art myself, even by the great El Greco.

[Pon de Replay]

Do you really want a church where no women wear makeup?  Does anyone really want to see that?

This says it all, really.  The Early Church Fathers must've been wrong about vanity because our modern sensibilities favor make-up.  There can be no going back from this.  I say this as a supporter of Jerome: but if Jerome is right, then the Church has defected.  Because institutionally, the Church has not taught the disciplines and austerity of the Early Church for quite a while.  The Jesuits won and the Jansenists lost.  That was the last time this battle was fought in any meaningful way, even if a few outliers on the traditional Catholic corners of the internet refuse to concede defeat.  Jerome, for all his righteousness, is unfortunately a lot like the Japanese holdouts after World War II: stalwart and principled, perhaps, but completely delusional.  The Christianity of the Early Church is a dead religion, like Manichaeism or the cult of Isis.  It's merely easier to recreate because the gospels and the writings of the Fathers have survived intact and in abundance down through history, whereas anyone who wants to take up Manichaeism or Isis-worship has to guess at a lot of things because the relevant texts are so scarce.

Just a random addendum, but I currently live in a rural area that's home to a Mennonite community.  One runs into them occasionally in the local stores.  The women do not wear make-up.  They wear bonnets and long dresses.  A modern sensibility would probably find this sort of thing to be "frumpy" or drab.  Admittedly it's not sexy or fetching, but it has a more transcendent kind of allure.  St. Paul asked women to "adorn themselves with modesty and sobriety" instead of gold and styled hair and fancy attire, and there does seem to be an elusive beauty in that sort of simplicity.  But to each their own.  The Mennonites will leave it to the Catholics, I suppose, to disregard St. Paul.  It's interesting, though, that the first generation of Protestants were fixated on doctrine, ecclesiology, and liturgy.  But by the second and third waves, sola scriptura had the unintended effect of recreating the Early Church disciplines in certain pockets like the Quakers and Anabaptists, where the Protestants reading the bible found many of the same things the Early Church Fathers had.

[nmoerbeek]

Do you really want a church where no women wear makeup?  Does anyone really want to see that?

This says it all, really.  The Early Church Fathers must've been wrong about vanity because our modern sensibilities favor make-up.  There can be no going back from this.  I say this as a supporter of Jerome: but if Jerome is right, then the Church has defected.  Because institutionally, the Church has not taught the disciplines and austerity of the Early Church for quite a while.  The Jesuits won and the Jansenists lost.  That was the last time this battle was fought in any meaningful way, even if a few outliers on the traditional Catholic corners of the internet refuse to concede defeat.  Jerome, for all his righteousness, is unfortunately a lot like the Japanese holdouts after World War II: stalwart and principled, perhaps, but completely delusional.  The Christianity of the Early Church is a dead religion, like Manichaeism or the cult of Isis.  It's merely easier to recreate because the gospels and the writings of the Fathers have survived intact and in abundance down through history, whereas anyone who wants to take up Manichaeism or Isis-worship has to guess at a lot of things because the relevant texts are so scarce.

Just a random addendum, but I currently live in a rural area that's home to a Mennonite community.  One runs into them occasionally in the local stores.  The women do not wear make-up.  They wear bonnets and long dresses.  A modern sensibility would probably find this sort of thing to be "frumpy" or drab.  Admittedly it's not sexy or fetching, but it has a more transcendent kind of allure.  St. Paul asked women to "adorn themselves with modesty and sobriety" instead of gold and styled hair and fancy attire, and there does seem to be an elusive beauty in that sort of simplicity.  But to each their own.  The Mennonites will leave it to the Catholics, I suppose, to disregard St. Paul.  It's interesting, though, that the first generation of Protestants were fixated on doctrine, ecclesiology, and liturgy.  But by the second and third waves, sola scriptura had the unintended effect of recreating the Early Church disciplines in certain pockets like the Quakers and Anabaptists, where the Protestants reading the bible found many of the same things the Early Church Fathers had.

Are you basing these conclusions off of your own examinations of patristic writings or off of various secondary sources?

[JubilateDeo]

Just a random addendum, but I currently live in a rural area that's home to a Mennonite community.  One runs into them occasionally in the local stores.  The women do not wear make-up.  They wear bonnets and long dresses.  A modern sensibility would probably find this sort of thing to be "frumpy" or drab.  Admittedly it's not sexy or fetching, but it has a more transcendent kind of allure.  St. Paul asked women to "adorn themselves with modesty and sobriety" instead of gold and styled hair and fancy attire, and there does seem to be an elusive beauty in that sort of simplicity.  But to each their own.  The Mennonites will leave it to the Catholics, I suppose, to disregard St. Paul.

I've seen the same Mennonite women, and what I see is a lot of UV damage and early signs of aging.  If you're going to do one thing for your appearance, wear sunscreen.

[Maximilian]

Because institutionally, the Church has not taught the disciplines and austerity of the Early Church for quite a while.  The Jesuits won and the Jansenists lost.  That was the last time this battle was fought in any meaningful way, even if a few outliers on the traditional Catholic corners of the internet refuse to concede defeat.  Jerome, for all his righteousness, is unfortunately a lot like the Japanese holdouts after World War II: stalwart and principled, perhaps, but completely delusional.  The Christianity of the Early Church is a dead religion, like Manichaeism or the cult of Isis.

Yes, I was just thinking something very similar recently. The Jansenists said that we must truly love God, and the Jesuits said no, it's good enough to just follow the rules. The Vatican ruled in favor of the Jesuits, and that is the world we live in. It's a sad sort of post-diluvian existence.

"Après nous, le déluge," might as well have been spoken by the last of the Jansenists as they were hounded to their deaths by the new ultramontanist establishment, under which we still live.

[Greg]

My perspective is coloured by my near 40 years of experience of Tradom.

Jansenistic trads are not, usually, able to keep their children on the straight and narrow.  They might convince ~30% of their offspring to remain catholic in their Jansenistic bent, but I rarely see a wholly functional large Catholic family of Jansenists passing that down multigenerationally.  I have lived in Australia, UK, America and followed the path of Trads over a generation.

If I think back to the Jansenistic families of the 1980s and 1990s their children are, in the most part, disappeared.  And of those that remain, many are not Jansenistic.

I doubt many became modernists which means they mostly lapsed.  I am Kung Fu, so I go to every Latin Mass in a 50 mile radius.  If they went to Mass I would spot them eventually or hear about it through the Trad grapevine.  And yes, I do ask, because I am nosey.

The dancing, hard drinking, sinning Trads deliver the goods more often.

Results matter.

[Greg]

What the old grey haired priests at the SSPX should do is commission a census.  They should gather data on the major Trad families from 40 years ago and see what happened to them and how they turned out.  Did the frumpy, long skirt wearing mother of 8 who stopped them from attending Greg's 20th birthday bash, actually raise those children to practice?  Have they had 8 children themselves or has their upbringing left them so devoid of skills that they never got married or married late and only had 2 children and then separate beds?

Is the divorce and annulment rate higher in Jansenistic Trads or Lax-Trads ?  (Pro-rata, obviously because there are more lax-Trads).  I certainly know of some Jansenistic nutters who have appalling personal circumstances and have divorced their Catholic husbands and wives, often because they were so nutty nutbar that they drove them away..  Hutton Gibson is no exception by any means.

Our own experiences are subject to confirmation bias, but gather enough data and the truth will out.

The data would show which path, which compromise, produced the best fruit.  This argument is then resolved.  You should do whatever works.

[Chestertonian]

oh boy oh boy more reasons why achieving salvation is impossible for 99.9999% of catholics

my wife is still nudging me about going to this wheelchair ballroom dancing class she "gave" me as a "gift" for our anniversary years ago but it never worked out.  perhaps i dodged a bullet there!   I do miss dancing with her though...perhaps it is a mortal sin just to desire such a thing.  all aboard the despair train!

one question i have for people who are anti dancing is...what do you do at weddings

Has anyone been to a traditional Catholic wedding that did not involve dancing of any sort?  when i imagine Our Lord at the wedding at Cana I always imagine that there was dancing of some sort there?  it wouldnt be the first time my imagination was wrong, but it does seem that there are some occasions that call for dancing--the liturgy not being one of them

[Davis Blank - EG]

I doubt many became modernists which means they mostly lapsed.  I am Kung Fu, so I go to every Latin Mass in a 50 mile radius.  If they went to Mass I would spot them eventually or hear about it through the Trad grapevine.  And yes, I do ask, because I am nosey.

Is it wrong to choose in this thread to make a Dos Equis joke about Greg being the most interesting man in the Trad Community?

Anyways, my thoughts on this and similar matters is that judgement might be graded on a curve.  We already see a similar concept with whether or not an action is a mortal sin.  In real life we also punish bad actions on a curve - if you hire a homeless man to do a task for you and you find that he stole $50 while doing so, you will probably chalk it up to his situation and move on with life.  But if you hired your adult son to do the same task and he stole the money while doing it, the consequences will be severe.  I think this is similar to how a saint feels great pain from the tiniest of sins they take - perhaps because they have been given so much grace and have come to know God so well that any action against Him is more severe than the seemingly worse actions "everyday" sinners take.

Our modern society is drowning in vice.  I cannot walk out the door without seeing countless women dressed provocatively.  It cannot be escaped unless I abandon my family and move into a cave.  We are also a largely anti-Christian society, or a no-religion society.  I cannot help but imagine that judgement will take into account the circumstances of our lives.

If God is just creating an all-star team of saints where only 1 out of a million is saved, then what was Jesus' point, why establish the Church for the whole flock if nearly all will be lost?

I also agree with Greg that results must be considered.  If the parents and parish end up losing nearly the whole flock, then what in the world was the point?

As for the severity - I see Jesus as being accepting of laxity and severity.  He fasted for 40 days, but He also chose His first miracle to be do multiply wine.  He feasted, He was anointed in luxurious oils, and He showed great mercy towards sinners.  But He also told us to pluck out our eye if it causes us to sin.

As with everything in Catholicism, the answer is never simple.  God created many different personalities of man, and He desires to save us all, so salvation must have more than one specific route that everyone must rigidly conform to.  This is not to say that anything goes, but I do not currently understand it to be as rigid as this thread is suggesting it to be.  I am open to correction though, for I am just a novice.