Posted on 04/08/2008 9:09:36 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
Recently, the religious world was shocked to learn that Muslims now outnumber Catholics, 1.3 billion to 1.13 billion. I myself was planning to convert to Catholicism — 17.4 percent of the global population can’t be wrong — but now I feel like: what’s the point? After all, a faith’s explication of the ineffable mysteries of Creation can best be measured by its sales figures. And maybe how much rock music it inspires. But numbers is where Islam has Catholicism beat. It’s just doing a better job capturing the key “disgruntled 18-to-49-year-old male” demographic that advertisers prize as Catholicism continues losing millions of young believers to Harry Potter. Being second best won’t help them any. Who wants to pray to the sacred equivalent of Pepsi?
Since the dawn of time, philosophers have asked how a religion can survive without being confident that it’s the best. The answer is it can’t. And almost anything can shake a person’s religious confidence: other people’s medical benefits, regional voting patterns, what Danish people look at, etc. Religions are emotionally fragile creatures, and can crumble if their feelings are badly hurt. Frankly, Christianity would never have survived the 12th through 18th centuries if it hadn’t been the organizing principle for the entire Western world, and therefore rarely criticized.
Yes, a faith can exist by appealing to a niche audience, but it’s a thankless role. Judaism, the HBO of religions, has entertained a small minority with quality work for centuries, but without reaping the rewards of larger groups like Catholicism, Buddhism, or NBC. It makes you wonder why a 3,000-year-old no-name like Zoroastrianism continues toiling in obscurity when most people haven’t even heard of it. Give up, guys! You’re never going to get on Oprah! To many, a religion’s census numbers seem irrelevant. They fail to realize that God is a democracy. If there are more Christians than Muslim, He’s Christian, but if the vote changes, He has to convert. God doesn’t like it either, but that’s how the system works. Sure, the Trinity has another billion non-Catholic Christians padding out their numbers, but a billion isn’t really that many when you remove babies and mistakenly counted pets from the total. If we’re going to keep Christianity alive, insuring a steady stream of Easter Peeps candy, you’re going to have to start working. Come on, Christians! Let’s get those numbers up!
This has been a threat for a very long time. Unfortunately, our country doesn’t accept the visibility of a threat til it is at a critical boiling point.
LOL. It’s actually not an accurate measurement because it treats all of Islam as one united entity (ignoring Sunni/Shi’a divions, inter Sunni, inter Shi’a). A more correct number would be all of Christianity (33%) versus Islam.
Islam enslaves. Non-uslims in muslim nations are no more free to choose their religious convictions and stand up publicly for them as equals in their homeland than there were in the Godless Communism of the atheist supremacist Soviet Union.
The numbers are padded.
Let me see...there was something about the gates of hell (Islam?) never prevailing..
The blogger forgets one thing: Sacred Scripture.
Of course, we all know that Jesus promised that the gates of Hell will not prevail over the Catholic Church (you know, the Church He founded).
But we also shouldn't forget about 2 Thes 2. It was prophesied that people would fall away from the Truth in the end times. Seems there's been a lot of that going on. So, if, at the end, there is a far smaller remnant remaining, we shouldn't find ourselves surprised.
If asked that question, in truth it does not take into consideration that it was ONLY about the Roman Catholic Church and not the Christian faith in general which is STILL the LARGEST RELIGION and STILL THE REAL FASTEST GROWING ONE. Proof is that the global south is going through a boomtime in growth in the Christian, including the RCC.
How about someone explaining what the "Gates of Hell" really mean, if anyone can...
Microsoft's "Vista."
Microsoft's "Vista."
LOL ! Very funny... I take it that you are stymied by the request. O'Well, you probably aren't the only one...
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=26d48f0e35f53d72a042&page=6&viewtype=&category=mv
This is a about a 7 minute video of the largest church in America. And many people in various religions are adherents of it.
From Milton's Paradise Lost
In the council of Pandemonium, the rebel angels debate their next move. They conclude that repentance is out of the question, and thus their war must go on. Several plans are debated and rejected, but ultimately a decision is reached: prophecy in Heaven predicted the creation of Earth and of a new race of beings called humans to inhabit it.
Satan proposes that they may be able to strike a blow against God either by destroying this world or seducing it to their cause. This is agreed, but the potential danger of the journey dismays the others, and finally he himself volunteers to go, as their leader, and departs to much praise and applause.
Satan flies over the coast of Hell and reaches its gates, which are massively fortified and soundly locked. Two guards await him: Sin, a grotesque half-woman, half-snake who regularly gives birth to a litter of hellhounds that tear her body from the inside, and Death, a dark, terrible shadow wearing a "kingly crown" and carrying a deadly spear. Death demands he return to his punishment, but an unafraid Satan scorns him and demands he move aside. However, just before they come to blows, Sin rushes in between them. She identifies herself as Satan's daughter, born of his rebellion in Heaven, and Death as her son. They were both cast out along with the rebel angels, but God entrusted the keys of Hell to her care, and though he forbade her to unlock the gates, she feels she owes him nothing, and rather would obey Satan, her father.
Satan promises them both that if they unlock the gates and show him the way to God's newly-created Earth, he will bring them there along with him so that they can feast. Sin agrees to this and unlocks the gates of Hell.
Beyond is the void of primordial Chaos, and Satan flies out into it. Struggling through the winds of Chaos, he beholds in the distance Heaven's glorious walls, and beneath them the Earth, hanging from the foundations of Heaven by a golden chain. Motivated by mischief and revenge, he flies toward it.
And from Dante's Inferno:
Dante passes through the gate of hell, on which is inscribed the famous phrase "Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate", or "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here."
Before entering Hell completely, Dante and his guide see the Opportunists, souls of people who in life did nothing, neither for good nor evil (among these Dante recognizes either Pope Celestine V, or Pontius Pilate; the text is ambiguous).
Mixed with them are the outcasts, who took no side in the Rebellion of Angels. These souls are neither in Hell nor out of it, but reside on the shores of the Acheron, their punishment to eternally pursue a banner, and be pursued by wasps and hornets that continually sting them while maggots and other such insects drink their blood and tears. This symbolizes the sting of their conscience and the repugnance of sin.
I will get you the info tonight, when I get home from work (along with references from Patristic Sources)
Sort of hard to do so from a PDA :)
Not true. The RCC has always claimed an exclusivity. The Protestants and almost all the other Christian Churches have not.
The issue of demographics is much bigger than most people realize.
Come on, you guys. This is poking sarcastic fun at judging religion by the numbers/commerce. It’s quite witty.
The Greek text says: πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς
The word πύλαι (pulai) means literally a gate -- the leaf or wing of a folding entrance. Implies a house door or the gates of a town.
The word ᾅδου (hadou -- hades). The place Hades -- the abode of departed souls.
οὐ - not
κατισχύσουσιν (katischusousin) -- to have power over, or to overpower
αὐτῆς (autes) -- "self" (an intensifier to another noun/pronoun to make it more emphatic)
So, literally, we could say "the gates of Hades do not have power over it." I would interpret it to mean that the Church cannot be dragged through those gates to the abode of the dead (i.e., destroyed).
There are a number of patristic writers who attest that this is a fairly accurate interpretation.
For example, St. Cyprian of Carthage wrote, in his Epistle #26 (circa 250 AD),
1. Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: "I say unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church; when the Church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith.
St Ambrose of Milan wrote, about 100 years later (De Fide Book IV, Chap 2):
26. Go thy way, therefore, to my brethren—that is, to those everlasting doors, which, as soon as they see Jesus, are lifted up. Peter is an “everlasting door,” against whom the gates of hell shall not prevail. Jn and James, the sons of thunder, to wit, are “everlasting doom.” Everlasting are the doors of the Church, where the prophet, desirous to proclaim the praises of Christ, says: “That I may tell all thy praises in the gates of the daughter of Sion.”
BTW, you should contrast this stastement with the 25 preceding paragraphs where he speaks of the door to heaven. (Far too much to quote here)
St. John Chrysostom, in his Homily XXI on the Epistle to the Hebrews:
But I will make the matter more plain by an example. Christ said, that Jerusalem should be taken, and should be so taken as no city ever was before, and that it should never be raised up: and in fact this prediction came to pass. He said, that there should be “great tribulation” (Mt 24,21), and it came to pass. He said that a grain of mustard seed is sown, so should the preaching [of the Gospel] be extended: and every day we see this running over the world. He said, that they who left father or mother, or brethren, or sisters, should have both fathers and mothers; And this we see fulfilled by facts. He said, “in the world ye shall have tribulation, but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world” (Jn 16,33), that is, no man shall get the better of you. And this we see by the events has come to pass. He said that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church” (Mt 16,18), even though persecuted, and that no one shall quench the preaching [of the Gospel]: and the experience of events bears witness to this prediction also: and yet when He said these things, it was very hard to believe Him. Why? Because all these were words, and He had not as yet given proof of the things spoken. So that they have now become far more credible. He said that “when the Gospel should have been preached among all the nations, then the end shall come” (Mt 24,14); lo! now ye have arrived at the end: for the greater part of the world hath been preached to, therefore the end is now at hand. Let us tremble, beloved.
St. Leo the Great wrote this about the subject to the Bishops of the Province of Vienne:
Our Lord Jesus Christ, Saviour of mankind, instituted the observance of the Divine religion which He wished by the grace of God to shed its brightness upon all nations and all peoples in such a way that the Truth, which before was confined to the announcements of the Law and the Prophets, might through the Apostles’ trumpet blast go out for the salvation of all men , as it is written: “Their sound has gone out into every land,and their words into the ends of the world.” But this mysterious function the Lord wished to be indeed the concern of all the apostles, but in such a way that He has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the Apostles: and from him as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body: so that any one who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. For He wished him who had been received into partnership in His undivided unity to be named what He Himself was, when He said: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church :” that the building of the eternal temple by the wondrous gift of God’s grace might rest on Peter’s solid rock: strengthening His Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it. But this most holy firmness of the rock, reared, as we have said, by the building hand of God, a man must wish to destroy in over-weaning wickedness when he tries to break down its power, by favouring his own desires, and not following what he received from men of old: for he believes himself subject to no law, and held in check by no rules of God’s ordinances and breaks away, in his eagerness for novelty, from your use and ours, by adopting illegal practices, and letting what he ought to keep fall into abeyance.
He also said this, in a sermon on the Passion:
And rightly was the blessed Apostle Peter praised for confessing this union, who when the Lord was inquiring what the disciples knew of Him, quickly anticipated the rest and said, “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God .” And this assuredly he saw, not by the revelation of flesh or blood, which might have hindered his inner sight, but by the very Spirit of the Father working in his believing heart, that in preparation for ruling the whole Church he might first learn what he would have to teach, and for the solidification of the Faith, which he was destined to preach, might receive the assurance, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The strength, therefore, of the Christian Faith, which, built upon an impregnable rock, fears not the gates of death, acknowledges the one Lord Jesus Christ to be both true God and true Man, believing Him likewise to be the Virgin’s Son, Who is His Mother’s Creator: born also at the end of the ages, though He is the Creator of time: Lord of all power, and yet one of mortal stock: ignorant of sin, and yet sacrificed for sinners after the likeness of sinful flesh.
St. Augustine said this in a sermon to the Catechumens:
14. It follows after commendation of the Trinity, “The Holy Church.” God is pointed out, and His temple. “For the temple of God is holy,” says the Apostle, “which (temple) are ye.” This same is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the catholic Church, fighting against all heresies: fight, it can: be fought down, it cannot. As for heresies, they went all out of it, like as unprofitable branches pruned from the vine: but itself abideth in its root, in its Vine, in its charity. “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
More recently, the Servant of God, John Paul the Great, wrote the following (in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint):
11 The Catholic Church thus affirms that during the two thousand years of her history she has been preserved in unity, with all the means with which God wishes to endow his Church, and this despite the often grave crises which have shaken her, the infidelity of some of her ministers,and the faults into which her members daily fall. The Catholic Church knows that, by virtue of the strength which comes to her from the Spirit, the weaknesses, mediocrity, sins and at times the betrayals of some of her children cannot destroy what God has bestowed on her as part of his plan of grace.Moreover, "the powers of death shall not prevail against it" (Mt 16,18). Even so, the Catholic Church does not forget that many among her members cause God's plan to be discernible only with difficulty. Speaking of the lack of unity among Christians, the Decree on Ecumenism does not ignore the fact that "people of both sides were to blame", and acknowledges that responsibility cannot be attributed only to the "other side". By God's grace, however, neither what belongs to the structure of the Church of Christ nor that communion which still exists with the other Churches and Ecclesial Communities has been destroyed.
So the bottom line is that in reading the above, you can see how the phrase "gates of hell shall not prevail over it" has been understood since the beginning.
Sorry for the delay, but you can see that the above would be a little tough to post from a PDA at work!
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
I agree about Demographics. As for exclusivity, you misunderstand the precise nature of what the Church is saying. It is not denying Protestants the term Christian. The reverse is true in Islam where Shi’a and Sunni are a little rougher.
We will have to agree to disagree on this. By making claims that it is "The Church" that Jesus founded it's clear they are claiming an exclusivity that Scripture shows they never had.
The reverse is true in Islam where Shi’a and Sunni are a little rougher.
The Muslims today are where the RCC was from the late 300's to the 1500's. The Muslims are aggressively expansionist and intolerant of differing beliefs. What is especially problematic is they are reproducing at much greater rates than the Europeans and are migrating to Europe in large numbers as well.
Europe will be dominated by Muslims within two generations.
I’ve also run across a translation where it was translated the jaws of death shall not prevail.
Okay, I've read those works. But what do the Scriptures say about Hades, i.e., hell? I'm not talking about modern ideas of hell, but what the Scriptures reveal. What have you to say about hades according to the Bible?
Yes, I've heard it said that way, which is close to what the Bible has to say. It's a beginning to understanding just what Jesus meant in Mt. 16:18.
Yes, that is exactly right, according to Wescott and Hort's reproducing the Greek manuscripts.
So, literally, we could say "the gates of Hades do not have power over it." I would interpret it to mean that the Church cannot be dragged through those gates to the abode of the dead (i.e., destroyed).
Actually, it would be better in our American English to quote it as "the doors of gravedom shall not overpower the assembly of Christians (church)." Hades is an expression for the totality of deceased bodies - their home or abode. I read it to say that death will not overpower Christ's followers, for at Jesus' return all those in the grave will be resurrected (both the saved and unsaved).
So the bottom line is that in reading the above, you can see how the phrase "gates of hell shall not prevail over it" has been understood since the beginning.
I don't base my beliefs on what others have to say. Most of the early writers (church fathers) before 200 AD tell us that their writings should not be accepted if they did not agree with the Scriptures. I honor them for saying that. It is a mark of Augustine's true greatness that in other place he urges us always to test what he says by the Word of God, and to choose the teaching of Scripture over anything he might say or write. I agree! Example: In his preface to the Treatise on the Trinity, he says: "Do not follow my writings as holy Scripture. When you find in holy Scripture anything you did not believe before, believe it without doubt; but in my writings, you should hold nothing for certain." Now that is a sign of greatness!
Sorry for the delay, but you can see that the above would be a little tough to post from a PDA at work!
No problem. I have a close friend who just got a PDA and he sure is slow in communicating things to me. Now if you could connect it to a full size keypad...:-)
Thank you for your effort and explanation. It's appreciated.
You highlight a fundamental perceptual difference between Catholics/Orthodox and Protestants. The former consider your explanation (the Assembly of Christians and our term (the Church) to be utterly synonymous (i.e., all Christians are objectively part of this Church, whether they subjectively recognize this or not). From what I gather, the latter see an "invisible Church" that comprise the totality of all Christians as a distinct entity from any actual assembly (i.e., all institutions are strictly man-made conveniences, while the "Church" (singular) refer to this "virtual" Church that is not related to any institution on earth).
I bring this up as this one difference often results in Protestants and Catholics talking right past one another. Not just in this verse, but many, many others throughout the New Testament.
I read it to say that death will not overpower Christ's followers, for at Jesus' return all those in the grave will be resurrected (both the saved and unsaved).
And, with a Protestant understanding of ekklesia, I can see exactly where you'd read it that way.
don't base my beliefs on what others have to say. Most of the early writers (church fathers) before 200 AD tell us that their writings should not be accepted if they did not agree with the Scriptures.
I actually agree (with the bolded sentence). I posted that list (and it could have been FAR more extensive), because I wanted to show you that what I cited had been the understanding of how that phrase was perceived in the early Church (i.e., this was not some new interpretation from the middle ages, Trent, or later).
That is generally how I use the Patristic writings: not as an authority for a doctrine, but rather to give me insight on how a certain passage of Scripture was understood in the early Church.
For example, there are some groups who believe only a full-immersion baptism is valid. There are others who believe that flowing water over the head is the critical part (note: there is no argument that full immersion was the norm). The Scripture doesn't explicitly say one way or the other (the authority cited was that Jesus was baptized in the Jordon river). So both groups can say they are doing baptism according to scripture. A review of the Didache (per some folk, a document that actually pre-dates some of the writings of the Scripture) shows what was practiced in the early Church. Do you base your doctrine upon the Didache? No. You base your doctrine on Matt 28:19. But you can see how it was interpreted and practiced in the early Church through a review of the Didache.
I'm not trying to derail the thread into an argument about baptism; I am just citing this as an example.
Research shows that 85% ( or more) of children from strong, active and believing Christian homes, who attend government schools leave the faith within 2 years of graduation from high school.
Even **worse** those youth who do claim to be Christian hold beliefs that that Oprah was espousing on this video. These beliefs are NOT Christian!
You are absolutely correct. It is a crises. It is subtle. In my opinion, this non-Christian feel good deism will destroy America and freedom everywhere!
By the way, homeschoolers remain faithful in their faith in numbers greater than 90%.
I agree with your last statement. As for comparing Muslims to Catholics, very nice. Speaks volumes about you.
Though there are tiny religions: like Zoroastrianism (about 100,000 followers), Yazdiism (100,000), Sabeans (50,000~), Mandaens (folks who consider John the Baptist to be the messiah)— a few thousand, down to Samaritans (last count they were 300)
*******************
Not a popularity contest, one thinks.
>>As for comparing Muslims to Catholics<<
All the same in some eyes, you know who I mean?
Exactly. Now if those who claim to be Christian would start acting like Christians...Just going to church doesn't make one a Christian.
Amazing. Just amazing.
You highlight a fundamental perceptual difference between Catholics/Orthodox and Protestants. The former consider your explanation (the Assembly of Christians and our term (the Church) to be utterly synonymous (i.e., all Christians are objectively part of this Church, whether they subjectively recognize this or not). From what I gather, the latter see an "invisible Church" that comprise the totality of all Christians as a distinct entity from any actual assembly (i.e., all institutions are strictly man-made conveniences, while the "Church" (singular) refer to this "virtual" Church that is not related to any institution on earth).
Hmmm...I don't perceive any difference other than belonging to a visible church doesn't make one a Christian. On the other hand, a Christian is added to the invisible church by God, not man. In my mind the "assembly of Christians" is the "church," visible or invisable.
I bring this up as this one difference often results in Protestants and Catholics talking right past one another. Not just in this verse, but many, many others throughout the New Testament.
Yes, I can understand that. But wouldn't a correction be to teach that God adds a Christian to His church, and that man adds Christians to the visible church? Of course, in saying that, we have to assume that somehow one can be absolutely sure that one is a Christian. The saying that "not all members of the church are Christians" seems very true. Especially when it is recognized that there are what is called "nominal Christians." One is either a Christian or not...there is no in-between distinction in my mind.
And, with a Protestant understanding of ekklesia, I can see exactly where you'd read it that way.
While not a member of a Protestant church, I don't take their understandings as mine. I worked my understanding out by exegesis of the topic and with etymology for the meaning of the term. Ekklesia does not equate with "church" by any means. Ekklesia refers to an assembly of people called out of the masses for a purpose, while church refers to "the house of the Lord" which is literally a reference to a building. I'm sure you should know that. That is not a peculiar understanding by any means.
What do you understand by that term, ekklesia? And how do you justify the term "church" as being a righteous translation of the Greek ekklesia?
That is generally how I use the Patristic writings: not as an authority for a doctrine, but rather to give me insight on how a certain passage of Scripture was understood in the early Church.
I agree, although I'd add a couple of terms to what you say :-) Specifically, replacing "in the early Church" with "by the author at that time in history." You see what I mean?
Do you base your doctrine upon the Didache? No. You base your doctrine on Matt 28:19. But you can see how it was interpreted and practiced in the early Church through a review of the Didache.
I base none of my doctrine on any of the early writings, so you are correct. The Didache, which I've read more than once, does not necessarily refer to every church body in existence at that time.
I'm not trying to derail the thread into an argument about baptism; I am just citing this as an example.
No, we wouldn't want that to happen in this thread. It would be too big a divergent thought. I understand what you are saying. Very well put and accepted. Thank you.
*** Actually, it would be better in our American English to quote it as "the doors of gravedom shall not overpower the assembly of Christians (church)." Hades is an expression for the totality of deceased bodies - their home or abode.***
BTW, you never did address your thoughts on the above paragraph of mine. Would you please give me your thoughts on it? I'll look forward to your response.
Actually, my initial comment in my last response actually contained my thoughts on the subject.
The bottom line is that the understanding of "the Church" that differs between the two of us is what causes the difference in the interpretation of this verse (IMHO).
Given what I understand your belief is, your interpretation makes complete sense...and would be the only logical interpretation. Given what I understand my belief is, my interpretation is the only one that would make sense.
Having said that, it has been a true pleasure discussing this with you. I wish more FR religious discussions could go this way!
Given what I understand your belief is, your interpretation makes complete sense...and would be the only logical interpretation. Given what I understand my belief is, my interpretation is the only one that would make sense.
I agree to a certain point. That point is that a definition of the term Jesus used, ekklesia, does not equate with the term that "church" is derived from. Defining the terms could go a long way for people to come to a more definitive understanding of what Jesus meant in Matthew 16:18; and other verses of Scripture using the same term, ekklesia.
Having said that, it has been a true pleasure discussing this with you. I wish more FR religious discussions could go this way!
AMEN! It is the only way that two people who disagree can agree to disagree, and remain civil about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.