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?
With only 15 to 16% showing up for Mass on a given Sunday soon there will be only the shepherds talking to one another.
Can you think of anyone who has been refused communion because they have had an abortion or practice artificial contraception or do you know of a priest who has been censored for allowing them to take communion?
I don’t think anyone is going to tell any portion of that 15 or 16% that they’ve automatically excommuninicated themselves and cannot take communion.
Yeah,
We’ve seen a lot of RC’s do exactly that rather relentlessly. Rather bothersome, frequently, to ignore.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh
the doggedly relentless effort to shoehorn any and every nuance,
any and every rule,
any and every RM pronouncement
in any and every way possible
into yet another way to thrash Proddys, whether warranted, or not.
Soooooooooooooooooooooo impressive, such persistence!
Proddys shall continue responding to content of interest to them and worth their bother—regardless of who posts it on open threads.
RC’s with skin so thin that their organs are constantly falling out all over the sidewalk, would probably do well to stick to caucus, ecumenical and devotional threads.
Now we have YOPIOR to add to YOPIOS LOL
Well, you have quite a free hand to counter anything you view as an untruth (is that like a lie?). And for those you feel are unreasonable you need not respond to them at all.
The nice thing about a written forum is that you have time to weigh your words and make your case in a calm and reasoned way and you can choose whom to respond to. That’s called self control and taking control of the direction you want your arguments to go.
Yes, my suggestion have done a lot of good.....for me... since that’s the only person I answer for here.
In all my years on FR I have never participated in,or even read,a religious thread.
I never will again.
An angry place.
Whose angry?
On "open" Religion Forum threads, posters may state their beliefs, axioms, etc. and demand that the other posters accept them - afterwards the other posters may do just that or ignore them or even laugh.
If any poster on an "open" RF thread claims you have no right to defend your beliefs or disbeliefs, ping me.
Your response is an understandable one.
I don’t see anger as all that necessary most of the time.
RELIGION and spiritual values and issues, however,
DO deal with ETERNAL FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES, TRUTHS . . .
e.g. ETERNAL LIFE.
That’s a HIGHEST PRIORITY issue.
Most of us find it pretty easy to get emotional about those things we rate as our HIGHEST PRIORITIES.
Sometimes, when folks decry the emotionalism of the Rel Forum . . . they merely are confessing to some degree or another . . . that such issues are a low priority for them.
or, perhaps,
that they are in such firm control of their emotions that even ultimate eternal issues don’t engage them all that energetically.
Personally, I don’t mind folks having intense emotions—particularly about eternal issues.
I just prefer folks to stay around long enough to work the relationship glitches through—which occur when individuals are intensely emotionally expressive.
On FR, we have folks who are opposite one another on some key issues with both sides claiming to be reps of the truly truest true truths of Christianity.
Small wonder emotions are tweaked.
Some of us manage to be fierce in our declarations without being hooked in our emotions. Rarely does my heart-rate increase regardless of what I’m posting. Others seem to go ballistic at every nuance from the other side.
Certainly the Rel Forum open threads are not for wimps and the thin-skinned—though many such persist in spending time there and wailing and whining accordingly.
Anyway—thanks for stopping by . . . some of us are quite interesting on occasion. And, the Proddys, at least, don’t have near the fangs the RC’s accuse us of.
WELLLLLLLLLLL!
HARUMPH!
I believe that my mother was a green eyed purple people eater with manifestations of grandiosity.
And I’m quite upset because Judith Anne won’t let me make her our cult’s patron saint. Harumph!
Oh. right. That was a nightmare.
Nevermind.
/joke
Quix:
Lets start with your point #1. When did the CHurch of Rome [Vatican] start to exist. As someone of Italian ancestry, I find it the height of arrogance to suggest or imply that the Church of Rome was “Calvinist” or “Hyper-Calvinist” which I am beginning to think you are.
The Church of Rome was Catholic from the time St. Peter and Paul were martyred there. The writings of ST. Clement of ROme [4th Bishop], St. Ignatius of Antioch, ST. Ireneaus of Lyon in the late 1st and 2nd century confirm it. St. Cyprian of Carthage. Origen travelled and studies there in the early 3rd century.
The Council of Nicea [6th canon] which is in 325 AD, after your magic date when the “Vatican” appears cleary articulates The Church of Rome already has a Primacy in the Church.
So when did the Church of Rome [i.e the Vatican come to exists]. You seem to be wise 64 year old person [as you disclosed], which is about 20 years older than I am so maybe you can share your infinite wisdom on this question.
I realize such
are construed by you as reality.
Those items are not my reality.
Proddys don’t normally respect rubberized history very much.
BTW, I’m not at all a Calvinist.
I do believe every verse in the Bible.
I asked
So if Mary had said no there would have been no Savior?
You responded
Exactly.
Which is why Catholics esteem her so highly and call her the second Eve. For what Eve destroyed with her disobedience, Mary helped to repair with her "yes", freely given.
So is it then the Catholic position that the salvation of all of humanity, depended on Mary?
Quix:
Ok, but you clearly stated that the Church of Rome [i.e. the Vatican] started in 300 AD. That by definition is an historical statement that you should be able to verify with evidence.
I provided evidence that contradicts your statement that the Church of Rome [i.e. the Vatican] started in 300 AD and then you responded with a statement about rubberish history.
The writings of the Church Fathers that I cited are recognized as authentic by Catholic, Eastern Orthodox as well as the Great Anglican Patristic Scholars of the 19th and early 20th century Century [e.g, J.D. Lightfoot] and the Lutheran-Reformed Patristic Scholars in Germany [i.e. Harnack, Theodore Zahn, who while a liberal theologian, is recognized as one of the greatest patristic scholars and church historians of the late 19th and early 20th century] from the same time period.
The evidence for St. Peter and Paul being in Rome is cleary part of the Ignatian corpus written in 107 AD. ST. Clement of Rome, written circa 95 AD cleary shows the Church of ROme writing a letter correcting the potential schism about to happen at the Church of Corinth and talks about the Apostles appointing men to take their place.
Marcion, the first named heretic in the early Church was excommunicated by the Church of Rome in 144AD unilaterally as he was pushing Gnostic doctrine and wanted the Bishop of Rome to reject the OT and recognize ST. Luke’s Gospel as the only one for the canon and only a select few of St. Paul’s epistles.
St. Irenaues of Lyon 175 AD also clearly states of Peter and Paul being in Rome and because of the connection to those 2 Apostles, the Church of Rome has a Primacy and other CHurches should be in agreement with her.
Cleary Canon 6 of the Council of Nicea speaks of an ancient custom whereby the Church of Rome has a primacy and thus that custom, also ancient, is one that gives the Church in Alexandria a primacy in her territory to handle disputes and thus that also should be given to the Bishop of the Church in Antioch.
So if the Canons of the Council of Nicea in 325 speak of ancient customs about a primacy of the Church of Rome, one would think that that custom of the Primacy of the Church of Rome predates your 300 AD date whereby the CHurch of Rome [i.e the Vatican] apparently magically came into being.
So again, you made an historical statement regarding the Church of Rome starting in 300AD. I have responded with evidence that contradicts your “historical statement” and thus can you provide some evidence that supports your “historical statement” and “claim that the Church of Rome [i.e. the Vatican] started in 300AD.
Proddys have dealt with such issues a number of times hereon.
If some of my cohorts with to reply, they are welcome.
I have no interest in going over that again at this time.
However, perhaps this bloke re globalism etc will give you some interesting food for thought . . . I’m still watching . . . I’d rather not believe him.
However, I have so many puzzle pieces saying the same kinds of things . . . I don’t have the luxury of dismissing it out of hand.
He cites high level sources with photocopies.
http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/123/211-232K/
If you don’t have time to watch it now, I encourage you to copy the link and save it in a safe place and get to it when you at all can. Sometimes such things disappear.
If one states they go to an Independent Baptist church in some rural backwoods part of the South, or Alaksa, or Idaho, or Kasnas or whereever, then that tells me what I am getting is the posters own views and probably the particular views of his or her local pastor, and that is it.
Lera:
Well, isn’t that special.
This point gets misunderstood because people start looking for a specific date that this occurred, but it was throughout the 300's that the RCC emerged as the dominant state church. Prior to Constantine the church in Rome was one among many. Christians were unified by a common faith. After Constantine you see force used on Christians by the Roman Church to enforce their will.
Also, through the course of the 300's you see the church in Rome go from being persecuted, to approved by the state and then the state religion. In the process the persecuted became the persecutors. Also, you see paganism "Christianized" and made acceptable in this church. This church became worldly and in the process you see worship of the Queen of Heaven become worship of Mary. Praying to saints became acceptable instead of praying to other gods. Babylonians would bow and kiss their idols and now this is done to statues of saints. The faithful began to be required to return to the priesthood for forgiveness and grace. These things were not acceptable in the pre-300's.
Is that the best you can do for a response?
Truly pathetic.
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.