I said “rational” criticisms. I see your rant. What I was asking you for is “rational” criticisms. Please make an argument of some kind. Are you capable of doing that?
By the way, I attend the Latin Mass, and have no problem understanding the Latin text. If you are not educated enough to understand a second language, don’t assume we are all as equally lacking in that area.
In case you're not aware of it, this thread was NOT one of the closed ones where your poor little sensitivities aren't allowed to be hurt by alternative perspectives...even if they offend you so greatly as to be incomprehensible to you.
It is open to those of us who, praise God, have escaped the confines of the Catholic Church.
If I might assume that you in fact have a somewhat functional brain, albeit having admitted to relinquishing your free will, your defensive reaction to my "rant" does little more than demonstrate the fragility of your position.
I spent far too much time in my life among your sort, so forgive me for ignoring any additional attacks you may feel the need to make.
With the exception of weddings and funerals, I will not darken the doors of a Catholic church for the remainder of my life. Thank you and Mr Vortex for re-affirming the soundness of that decision.
First of all, most Catholics do not understand Latin. Period. Don't assume because you do...others do as well. I have numerous Catholic friends and when I speak Latin (I am clergy)...they haven't a clue as to what I am saying.
Second...Michael Voris is pulling a Matthew 7: He's pointing out the speck in his brother's eye...yet ignoring the big ole log in his own eye.
I do agree that there is a lack of substance in the megachurch movement...but I deny his premise. This is not the problem of the megachurch...it is cross denominational and cultural.
I have seen several articles on FR lately about how people are deserting evangelical churches and "coming home" to the Catholic church. What these always fail to point out, of course, is the massive amount of people who are deserting the Catholic churches and either 1) Leaving religion all-together or 2) becoming protestant.
I am a church consultant. I did my Doctoral dissertation on church growth (specifically Anti-Nicene Christianity compared to modern Christianity). Part of my library is a book entitled: "The American Church in Crisis" by David Olsen. The following statistics are taken from his book and the stats he uses are from numerous studies by Barna, Gallup...you name it.
So...for people who keep talking about people leaving the evangelical churches...etc and becoming Catholic...yes...that happens. But the NUMBERS do not show that that is the rule...they show that is the exception. To prove that point (for those who disagree):
% of people leaving one "group" for another "group." This is called switching out. It doesn't count the numbers that "DROP" out...just the numbers that SWITCH.
Evangelicals: 17.5% Switched in...12.7% switched out. A 4.8% addition.
Mainline: 18.3% Switched in...23.6% switched out. A 5.3% loss.
Catholic: 8.4% Switched in...18.7% switched out...A WHOPPING 10.3% loss.
The data are Chrystal clear...the Catholic Church is losing 10% MORE people by them GOING to another mainline or evangelical church...than they are gaining by former mainline or evangelicals coming to them...and if it weren't for illegal immigration...their membership would be in a death spiral like the mainline churches.
Catholic church growth kept pace with population growth in only 6 states. It declined in 44 states (from 2000-2005).Only 4 states saw GROWTH in attendance of worship services. 46 saw DECLINE. That is not a recipe for being able to fix your problem and saying the megachurch can't.
Mainline churches saw NO growth equal population growth. That means UMC, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc. These denominations also so a decline in attendance across all 50 states. So...if you are in one of the mainline protestant denoms...your denom is dying. Period. YOur individual church may be great...but the data are clear...your denom is in serious trouble.
Now to the evangelicals...which is the point of this thread...and this is where Voris is clueless. Evangelical churches (SBC, PENT, AOG, Non-Denom, etc) GREW in 28 states...and declined in 22 states. It might be that Voris used his example from a megachurch in one of the declining states...but he left out half the country!
Some of the largest evangelical growth as a % of the population comes from the NE...where there is the largest amount of decline in the RCC and the mainline churches.
So the entire premise of this piece is false. The only reason RCC membership is steady across the country is due strictly to immigration (p. 50). The massive amount of hispanic immigration balanances out the numbers that are leaving the RCC for one reason or the other.
In 2000-17.3 million Catholics attended mass on any given weekend. By 2005...that was 15.7 million.
In 2000...6.1% of the American public attended mass on any weekend...in 2005 that number was 5.3%. That is a 14% DECLINE in just 5 years. So please...someone tell me how a 14% decline is better than the evangelical "PROBLEM" number of 9.1% for both 2000 and 2005?
B/W 2000-2005...the total number of churches b/w the RCC and mainline denoms declined by 2500...while there were 4500 additional evangelical churches.
So...bottom line is everyone has a problem. Yes...I think there is shallowness in the megachurches...but as a church consultant, I go to a lot of churches...and I see shallowness EVERYWHERE I go.
This is the era of Laodicea. Most churches are cold. Bill Hybels recently came out and said he thinks they have made mistakes at Willow Creek. But...this is a mistake being made across denominational lines.