Skip to comments.The Collapse of Cultural Catholicism
Posted on 01/28/2011 9:32:34 AM PST by marshmallow
Shery Weddell at the St Catherine of Siena Institute reports that 32% of Americans raised Catholic abandon the identity altogether by their mid twenties. An additional 38% retain the identity but rarely practice their faith. 30% of those who call themselves Catholic attend Mass only once a month. On a given Sunday only about 15.6% of American Catholics attend Mass.
What is the reason for these disastrous statistics? Basically because for the last forty years Catholics themselves have not taught Catholicism to their children. They've taught 'American Catholicism' which is a watered down blend of sentimentalism, political correctness, community activism and utilitarianism. In other words, "Catholicism is about feeling good about yourself, being just to others and trying to change the world." The next generation have drawn the obvious conclusion that you don't need to go to Mass to do all that. You can feel good about yourself much more effectively with a good book from the self help shelf, or by attending a personal development seminar. You can be involved in making the world a better place without going to church.
If only 15% of Catholics go to Mass on a given Sunday, look around and see how many of them are old. Even the 15% who are there won't be there for very long.
The solution is simple: we must return to the supernatural realities of the historic faith and evangelize like the Apostles of old. The big difference is that the Apostles knew their targets were pagans and the pagans knew they weren't Christians. We're dealing with a huge population of Americans (Catholics and Protestants alike) who are pagan but who think they're 'good Christians.' It is very difficult to evangelize people who already think they're fine just as they are. We don't know what we don't know, and the vast majority of poorly catechized, lazy and worldly Catholics aren't aware that there's anything wrong.
What will it take for us to wake up?
Do not call other Freepers names. That along with reading minds and attributing motives are forms of "making it personal."
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Your all post caps is typical. My post was to the OP and my advice was that it should have been a caucas thread. The thread was about the Catholic Church in the United States and thus should be allowed as a caucas thread.
I see not the questons in your reponses to me.
Ask, for that I may attempt to answer.
As you know, Yah'shua is discussing His view about "Anger"shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach21 "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER ' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.'
22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
I don’t know if it would have qualified for caucus without the mention of Proddys, or not.
I, personally don’t think it would qualify with the last paragraph in.
I think it would be reasonable to have an RC caucus thread to talk about educating RC youth more effectively.
However, to drag Proddys into it—and not expect Proddys to respond—is not only against the caucus designation—it’s absurd.
Ok, where exactly in the OP’s article was Protestantism or any particular group or sect of Protestantism specifically mentioned. If you can show me where, then you have a point based on the forums standards and guidelines.
For me, I never go into Mormon, Calvinist, Baptist, Joel Osteen, etc, etc, threads because what is the point, even when those are not labeled caucas threads.
The only time I do get into threads started by Protestants if those get into comparative theology and then it is obvious the point of the thread is to compare and contrast certain doctrinal differences, ie. the Catholic CHurch’s doctrine on sacraments vs. Anglican, Lutheran, Calvinist-Reformed, pentecostal, etc, etc.
If a Catholic OP posts and article that clearly sets out to disucss differences in Catholic vs Protestant doctrines on things like justification, authority, etc, then by all means, you all should have the right to respond.
But again, I don’t think the post by Marshmallow was a post that sat out to go into issues of Protestant church attendance, etc, etc.
What “potty language” was contained therein, Religion Mod, so that I might avoid such in the future?
Perhaps I’m mixing posters up.
MY ERROR, I WAS ASKING:
Much appreciated. Thanks tons.
Has your source ever said anything about . . .
when WWIII is scheduled?
overt global government
New Madrid quake and resulting Gulf of Mex changes toward Great Lakes
I’m fairly certain interesting END TIMES RELATED things have gone on in your neck of the woods, if you care to SAFELY-TO-YOU comment, that would be wonderful.
Did Mary , Jesus’ mother, give you permission to abuse her name like you did in your tagline?
...ps, I’m former rcc.
You are welcome. I have never stated that one must be Catholic to be Christian. Indeed I usually have to defend against those who claim that to be Catholic means to not be Christian.
QUITE SO. QUITE SO.
And an important note he was making for all time, no doubt.
Gads some of those lessons have come at high tuition.
Oh, the uhhhhh procedure is now scheduled for May 13, IIRC.
YES. THE TRUTH PROJECT SERIES
BY FOCUS ON THE FAMILY
DR D TACKET? I FORGET HIS FAMILY NAME.
Thanks. I don’t have time or energy to hang out on the ‘Net much, so my reading and my posting is hit or miss. I appreciate your heart, thanks for being such a blessing.
I am seriously asking you why this can not have been a caucus thread. I understand it might have taken some editing. But we were not even permitted to begin discussing the article before nonsense like the following appeared. They came to this thread to attack. We had not written anything that could be construed as anti Protestant. So this was not in response to any unjust allegation. But the usual suspects just could not resist. In fact Top Hat pinged them in order to bring their attention and their never ending attack to the thread
“To: marshmallow; Dr. Eckleburg; Gamecock; Alex Murphy; RnMomof7
‘The solution is simple: we must return to the supernatural realities of the historic faith and evangelize like the Apostles of old.’
Sounds like Protestantism. topcat54
So instead of having a peaceful and edifying discussion on a Catholic matter we have to defend and parry against the likes of the following:
Why dont you stay off our threads and well gladly staff off yours.
Happily, if Rome, like the LDS, would simply give up the name of “Christian.”
As long as Rome purports to be a Christian faith, and yet so mangles the truth of Scripture and the knowledge of Christ that it follows “another Christ” and prays to a “co-redeemer,” we will be here to set the record straight, according to the word of God alone.
37 posted on Friday, January 28, 2011 4:10:52 PM by Dr. Eckleburg
Why do we have to put up with this? Is it fair? We had no intention of criticizing Protestant beliefs. The one mention in the article was certainly not the substance of the article and its removal would not change the point of the article at all.
So we have a case of people coming to a thread to be disruptive, abusive and to spread malice. Please show me one example of where this has been done in kind. When the subject was not Catholic teaching.
Is there anything that can be done to make this a Caucus or has their tactic of coming over and libeling our faith and our response taken that possibility away for certain?
Is this abuse what we can always expect?
May Our Lord always increase your joy.
I just reviewed the first 15 or so posts.
It was off and running before the 10th post.
I only chose to enter the fray because of
the assault about
at post 13.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable for y’all to be able to discuss educating RC youth more effectively under a caucus label.
However, y’all might have to police yourselves better if y’all want to keep it cleanly worthy the caucus designation.
Also, the double standard stuff comes up with annoying frequency and will likely always be a hot-button issue for many of us Proddys. That doesn’t have to destroy a caucus designation.
However, in the average RC thread, I earnestly endeavor to be quite charitable and civil in a conventional sense as long as I am treated that way . . . unless and until I come across outrageous hypocrisy, outrageous double standard stuff, outrageous idolatry, blasphemy or grossly heretical stuff to the point of being potentially enormously spiritually hazardous to one and all lurkers etc.
The outrageous comment at post 13 deserved a slap-down and got it.
Folks who think they can assault Proddys glibly in the most outrageous terms—particularly with great hypocrisy and demonstration of a double standard—will likely persistently get a fierce response from some Proddys. It is our duty.
Cronos and I have exchanged some extremely fierce stuff over the years. And it is conceivable in the future.
However, we had some very fine mutually respectful exchanges of enough substance and duration that I moved him into the category of those I choose to bend over backwards being civil towards regardless of our fierce theological differences. That’s just a habit and preference of mine. And, baring a LOT of personally directed or extremely outrageous assertions on his part, I expect to continue a civil, mutually respectful tone with him.
I have no illusions about him altering his perspective. I have no illusions about him having totally angelic motives 100% of the time in 100% of his posts to me any more than he has re mine to him. However, that’s just my choice and habit, preference.
I’ve exercised it with a list of horribly assaultive RC’s over the years. Some have seemed to bend over backwards destroying the charitable tone and attitude, preference on my part and I’ve ended up moving them back into the category they seem most determined to reside in.
I just note that to assert what is possible and has been carried out from my side on such scores for years.
On the other hand, those RC’s who are chronically thin-skinned; outrageously personally assaultive; outrageously mean-spirited, bitter, etc. etc. etc. can expect to be responded to with equally emotional intensity. It is my duty. The onlookers will not get the impression from me that the Proddy perspective is weak casper milque toast, neutered, of no significant consequence or not worthy of a fiercely intense presentation, defense, responses.
OF COURSE I tweak RC sensibilities. And, evidently, I do it above average. PTL for that. Someone needs to. The piles of RC offensiveness that get spewed on FR can be mountainous. It doesn’t have to be so. A majority of the more core BIBLICAL constructs of Roman Catholocism could be stated in terms which would not trigger such a response on my part.
And, I’ve repeatedly encouraged and tried to foster dialogue, even negotiations to try and see if some set of criteria for posting could be agreed upon between the two sides that would be seen by one and all as evidence of true Christians demonstrating true Christian charity toward one another in virtually all of our posting.
Time and again thin-skinned, bitter, hostile, outrageously assaultive, outrageously arrogantly parochial RC’s have shredded such efforts.
At this point, y’all deserve all the fierceness y’all receive. It seems like that’s all some folks are comfortable with.
I could write a lot more paragraphs on such a topic but I’ll just stop here.
The thread, in my view, was hijacked in the first 10 posts. I mean, it seems like there is a link of a certain group of your cohort that as soon as one of these threads is posted, which was just the opinion of a Catholic Priest [Fr. Longeneker] and some of the challenges facing the Catholic Church in the U.S, that same cohort jumps in and starts its bashing.
Fr. Longeneker, btw, started out as a Bob-Jones trained Fundalmentalist, who then became an Anglican, who is now a Catholic priest. So he has seen the challenges facing 2 protestant groups [Fundalmenatlist-Bapist] and Anglican [he was in the evangelical wing of the Church of England] before coming Catholic so he has dealt with this issue in 2 different protestant communities and the Catholic Church.
Look back through the thread. Whose posts were more vitrolic? The Catholics in this thread or the Protestants.
If you or marshmallow would like a private Catholic-only thread, then find a similar article that doesn't mention other beliefs and label it "Catholic Caucus."
If you want anyone to be able to post, but you don't want antagonism, label it "ecumenical."
Thick skin is required for the town square format of "open" religious debate. Those who are offended by that style of debate should IGNORE "open" RF threads altogether and instead post on "ecumenical" "Caucus" "prayer" or "devotional" RF threads.
There was no mention of other beliefs.
The mention of the word “Protestant” by definition means this can’t be labeled a caucus thread, even if no Protestant practices were specifically mentioned.
I made a suggestion to marshmallow that perhaps the thread should have been labeled caucus and that seemed to cause a free for all, which was not my intent.
So what are the precise guidelines for open vs. caucus threads?
Actually, it says no such thing, it states that a huge number of Americans [both Catholic and Protestant] are pagans but think they are good Christians.
So I don’t think it says what you said it states.
While I don’t pretend to be able to judge the eternal destiny of any individual, I think it is also true that many in the U.S., who profess to be Catholic or Protestant, embrace views that are in essence pagan [abortion on demand, euthansia, same-sex marriage, moral relativism], etc which is what I think is the point Fr. Longeneker was making.
I have made the appeal to our host, Jim Robinson.
The issue is personal. Faith has always been so. For you to decide that the attack on my Faith is okay, moderator, and the defense of same is beyond what you deem valid, cannot be determnimed by any other than our host. It is personal. You, ‘moderator’ decided that an attack on a widow’s husband was okay, but ‘bovine scat’ was undeserved?
You aren’t moderating at this point, but taking sides.
Resign. For you aren’t moderating anymore.
A historical fact is not enough to disqualify an article from being a caucus, e.g. Martin Luther was a priest who died in the 1500's.
Which post is an attack on a Freeper widow’s husband?
The RCC just couldnt compete with the Americanism they openly despised for much of our history. Once the the flock left their respective ethnic ghettos and became happy assimilated white folks, neither the Novus Ordum hokum nor any conservative counter movement could bring them back. It doesnt help that most Catholics by ancestry happen to be raised in regions of the country where religious fervor of any kind is frowned upon.
Why do you think that is ?
Don’t even try to hang this on the Protestants as both Spain and France did a good job of wiping Protestants from their country so you can’t blame it on them there .
The truth is that the true Gospel is not being preached in Roman Catholic churches and as their people get educated they realize their in no substance in what is being preached in their pulpits .
Resign. You are no longer an impartial reviewer of the threads.
It may have been the point he was making, but by mentioning Protestants as potentially pagan he opens the door for a reply from Protestants, e.g. “We are not pagan because pagans believe ...”
I suppose it would depend on the definition.
Personally, the RC’s win that one hands down by a wide margin.
The RC tones get quickly fiercely harshly personally assaultive, personally derisive, arrogant in the worst sense of the term etc.
I use hyperbole a lot to highlight stuff—certainly I do.
I particularly like to highlight double standard assaultiveness and prissy RELIGIOUS ARROGANCE. That’s likely not going to change. When it’s missing, I have nothing on that score to highlight in my usual style.
Yes, some of my cohorts see it as their Christian duty to cry foul at every opportunity against every perceived RC infraction of Biblical truth etc. I understand their perspective and don’t particularly fault them for that.
We have been treated similarly by a contingent of RC’s from the beginning of FR. Somehow, y’all always seem to ignore that fact.
Personally, I try to pick my battles and reserve my time, energy and colorful fonts for a very limited criteria of outrageousness. And, I try to be quite even tempered/toned and civil unless and until the other side crosses that line outrageously.
Otherwise, my colorful fonts and exclamations are about what I see as outrageously UNBIBLICAL and eternally destructive-to-souls theological differences in belief and practice.
A huge chunk of RC’s ARE DETERMINED TO TAKE *THAT* PERSONALLY and to respond in the most mean-spirited, vengeful ways one can get away with and beyond. Wellllll Whoop-T-Doooo! How childish.
Would I make as much noise about some RC stuff as some of my Proddy cohorts? Probably not. Yet I understand their doing so. They persistently do so in MUCH MORE CIVIL terms than the RC’s do and certainly than the RC’s reply with.
And there’s no comparison in terms of the amount of whining and running to authorities on the part of the RC’s compared to Proddys. That’s obvious.
On the whole, I think it was unfortunate that this thread did not remove the Proddy thing in that paragraph and deal with the topic as a caucus.
Given what the RC’s dished out, they deserved what they got in response.
I don’t know that FAIR is fairly assessed. RC’s have assaulted Proddys routinely on Proddy threads all my years here. So what. That’s what the net is about. It is a fierce exchange of ideas and feelings BY DESIGN and preference.
RC’s can grow up, accept it, roll with the punches, get a thicker skin or stay on the caucus threads only.
The RM has repeatedly made that clear—though he rarely enforces the thin-skin criteria.
However, RC’s will NOT do so. They seem to be compulsively driven like moths to a flame.
WELLLLLLLLLLLLLLL FINE—then if they can’t stand the heat—they should jolly well stay out of the kitchen!
And what about the UK, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, the Netherlands [Dutch], Germany [other than Bavaria, which is still very strongly Catholic] etc which are all countries with majority Protestants and are worse off in terms of Church attendance that most of the Catholic Countries in Europe [save France and Spain which are trending like the Protestant countries].
Maybe you aren't up on history much, or maybe you think 230 years is a long time, but autocracy or despotism is pretty much the default for humanity whether it's been under paganism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodoxy, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., etc.
I disagree with you on this. That does not mention any specific belief and clearly is speaking about Protestant and Catholics in name only. A true Protestant can not be Pagan. So actual Protestant beliefs have no bearing on that statement.
A belief is a specific teaching adhered to by a member of a faith community. If it had said that Protestant churches that support abortion are heirs to the pagan cult of Moloch, then yes these people would have the task of making sure that their branch of Protestantism was not grouped in with that claim. Also as I said the article could stand quite well without that part.
So may I assume that it is permissable to go into a thread which is obviously meant to be a peaceful discussion on internal matters and let the participants know they are condemned to hell for their stubborn rejection of Catholicism (not that I actually believe that.)? Or to otherwise disrupt them and attack their beliefs. Even if they make no mention of any specific Catholic teaching?
I do appreciate your patience in replying.
Post 121, Mod.
And if you can’t figure that out, you are not worthy of the name.
I have several times mentioned your All cap posts directed at me to no avail. I don’t think I have ever pinged you in my 4 years here, or if I have it is minimal.
You ping me with “all caps”, and you consistently do this, which according to internet protocol, is an angry, yelling and vitrolic form of posting.
Did you actually READ the article? I would guess not, but I could be mistaken.
However, giving you the benefit of the doubt, you obviously missed THIS line in the articleWe're dealing with a huge population of Americans (Catholics and Protestants alike) who are pagan but who think they're 'good Christians.'
Defend that, Mod.
Jim, it isn't right. There are few things that will cause me to take up arms. This is one. Get rid of this “Religion Moderator”.
It isn't worthy.
Yes I read it. As I stated I do not consider that to be talking about actual faithful Protestants but Protestants in name only. Obviously those who are actually Protestant who believe Scripture and hold to the orthodox version of their faith are not Pagan.
But I would not do that because I would be ashamed to say I had done so on the Day of Judgment.
What a joke. All this whining about *Catholic bashing* all the while bashing Protestants in posts 11, 13, 16, 17, 18,.... for their *Catholic bashing*.
The RM has graciously derived the
and the CAUCUS THREAD
Failure to use them is NOT the RM’s fault.
Wailing and whining after the fact—in large part because of RC CHOICE to NOT use such designations—is childish to the max.
And now 121 is deleted.
Mod, resign. You are not worthy of the name.
Lastchance: Edit out that last part. The article still stands on its own merits.
Well, there's real honestly and integrity for you....
Leave the thread.
Never wrote it was.
You seem to be assuming that I care that much about such net conventions and sensibilities.
I’ve pontificated at length on the topic here:
You are quite welcome to avoid my posts.
Assumptions about my anger and yelling are likely to continue to be at best seriously flawed if not thoroughly wrong.
I find “vitriolic” to say far more about the person using the term about me than it says about me.
Even folks I’ve never met face to face on FR and even who do not agree with a lot of my perspective know that’s a dreadfully inaccurate and poor term to use about me and even about my emotional and dramatic posts.
“but I would not do that because I would be shamed to say I had done so on the Day of Judgment”
It has taken a long time for someone to come along and say this; thank you for saying it.
I have often had the same thought when reading comments on contentious threads.
Many seem to post as if they were the “man behind the curtain”-—but the Lord sees all, and we all will be held accountable for every word.