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?
And that as well
All this requires is a simple "yes," or "no."
If he didn't, how do you know that you have the correct Bible?
In his introduction to the Apocalypse, Luther said:
About this Book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.I agree with his statement that no one should be "bound to [his] opinion and judgement" regarding the canonicity of Revelation. What authority did Luther have to determine what books belong in the Bible?--Martin Luther's Preface to Revelation
Only the weight of CATHOLIC tradition.
Which is not necessarily CHRISTIAN.
Catholics have an unfortunate tendency to conflate *Christian* and *Catholic*.
They are not synonyms nor interchangeable.
*Christian* does not by default mean *Catholic* .
*Catholic* does not by default mean *Christian*.
metmom:
You are correct. I should have said, the weight of Christian Tradition confirmed by both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Doctrine stands against you.
The tradition that you profess is of recent origin and more recent than even Luther and Calvin in did not reject the perpetual virginity of Mary. It was their followers a couple of generations later that embraced ole Helvidius’s view. Most of its proponents to day are found among street preacher types, and some of the more questionable protestant sects such as 7th day of adventist, pentecostals and the rural independent fundalmentalist protestant groups found in the rural parts of the US.
How do you read that?
The salvation of mankind through the incarnation was depndent on Mary’s fiat because God would not have forced her assent. That beig writtine keep in mind that
God knew from all time she would say yes even in allowing her the will to say no.
God would have come into history to offer our salvation by other means had she not said yes.
You keep answering speculation and unfullfilled fantastic histories with facts. You must stop it.
That is a possibility. I was just pointing out others. At least by the time of John “Babylon” had become a word to describe the oppression and wickedness of Jerusalem.
The phrase “great city” is a reference to Jerusalem, as we see in Rev. 11:8.<< Only in the preterist attempt to fit scripture into their view. Jerusalem is never referenced as Babylon.
That's true. Revelation is a preterist book in the sense that it is a prophecy about the soon conflict against Jerusalem and destruction of the temple in AD70.
As I pointed out and you ignored, the phrase “the great city” is mostly clearly identified with Jerusalem in Rev. 11:8.
And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified .Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem. It had been given other spiritual names, such as Sodom and Egypt. Later on we see the city identified as the “great harlot.” This harkens back to the OT prophets, esp. Ezekiel, where we read descriptions such as:
15 "But you trusted in your own beauty, played the harlot because of your fame, and poured out your harlotry on everyone passing by who would have it. 16 You took some of your garments and adorned multicolored high places for yourself, and played the harlot on them. Such things should not happen, nor be. 17 You have also taken your beautiful jewelry from My gold and My silver, which I had given you, and made for yourself male images and played the harlot with them. 18 You took your embroidered garments and covered them, and you set My oil and My incense before them. 19 Also My food which I gave you--the pastry of fine flour, oil, and honey which I fed you--you set it before them as sweet incense; and so it was," says the Lord God. 20 Moreover you took your sons and your daughters, whom you bore to Me, and these you sacrificed to them to be devoured. Were your acts of harlotry a small matter, (Eze. 16)Israel (Jerusalem) was the wife of God. Only the wife of God could be accused of being a spiritual harlot. As is often the case of the NT using OT prophetic imagery, John uses the imagery of Ezekiel here Revelation.
We also have the distinction between the harlot (old Jerusalem) and God's wife (new Jerusalem).
No other entity fit all the symbols as well as ancient Jerusalem, who was about to experience the “days of vengeance” (Luke 21:22).
The Catholic support of Hitler did increase in the 1933 elections but the reasons are not quite as lurid as they would like us to believe.
The increase was because:
Catholics were lied to that the Hitler would not let the State intefere in Church affairs.
The legitimate fear that an unstable German state would mean the rise of atheistic Communism.
Hitler had not yet begun the euthansia and other programs which were so against Catholic teaching.
Once the true goals of Hitler became apparant the Pope issued “Mit brennender Sorge” in 1937.
As enamored of fantastic histories as some of the anti Catholic posters are on this thread, it will be very hard for them to understand the historical and social context of Germany during and following the Weimar Republic and to properly analyze the facts presented. No doubt the conclusions they draw will be at odds with any reputable historians have reached.
That is the school that gave rise to the modernist heresy in Christianity which so many Mainline Protestant churches have embraced is it not?
lastchance:
Please, Please, may I continue? Pretty Please!
Not exactly. In the Roman system Mary was immaculately conceived, that is she was free from the taint of sin. And she was free from actual sin. The way Rome paints the picture she was effectively incapable of sin. So, to resist God's will would be sin. Ultimately her “choice,” which was no real choice at all, was entirely dependent upon God's sovereignty in her immaculate conception.
Or so the story goes.
LOL, you just ain’t prayed up before you read Revelation. Evidently you and I will only agree on the interpretation of Revelation when it begins to happen. I won’t even say I told ya so. Promise.
>> As I pointed out and you ignored, the phrase “the great city” is mostly clearly identified with Jerusalem in Rev. 11:8.<<
Yea, I realized that after I sent that post. I was so focused on the issue as it related to Peter being in Rome. I should apologize for the confusion on my part. I really meant to point out that Jerusalem wasn’t refered to as Babylon until later.
In the context of Peter writing from the real region of Babylon rather then Rome it doesn’t change the truth.
Hey, just out of curiosity, how do you see Isaiah 19 and current events in Egypt? I know you will think Isaiah was fulfilled but I’m interested in your view of when. I need to study up so I can show how you are wrong doncha know.
Much more able scholars than I have debated the role of the Sovereignty of God in the free will of mankind (not just the Virgin Mary) so I will leave it say only that God knew Mary would assent because He is Eternal and is not bound to any of our concepts in time but that Mary herself did not have the foreknowledge that she would say yes. So her act of assent was freely given since it was not a forced consent and because she made it in obedience to God’s command. Not because she believed it would fullfill the grace God had bestowed on her in her immaculate conception.
I hope we can agree that the Virgin was a humble servant of God whom she declared her Savior.
You may, but be warned when they start spouting off about Pope Joan you must concede that since a movie has been made about this, it is obviously true.
Most Catholics have never critically examined the doctrines of Roman Catholicism. They didn’t join the Church because they found its doctrines to be true, but, as they will tell you themselves, they are Catholic because they were born Catholic. The reason that they remain in the Church is because that is where they feel most comfortable.
Most Catholics will say they are Catholic because in the Church they found the moral framework that they needed for life. It’s a place for their children to form proper values and to learn about God. They like the emphasis in the Church on loving one’s neighbor, right living, and social justice. But doctrine is not important to most Catholics. They didn’t join the Church because of doctrine and they don’t stay in the Church because of doctrine. Many of the reasons people give for why they are Catholic are just as valid for explaining why they belong to a social club. Unconcerned about doctrine, they pass through life without ever having seriously questioned the veracity of the institution to which they have entrusted their eternal souls.
That post blew me away.. because they really believe that Mary in fact is the savior
It would be interesting to know what they believe Eve actually "destroyed" in their minds, that they need a female savior
No one is denying that the Savior was to be born of woman. That He was to be fully human and fully divine .
The question was to Marshmallow that said without Mary there would have been no Savior, that salvation began with her yes
The discussion flowed from my assertion that Jesus was predestined.. that was denied in spite of biblical evidence to that fact.. so I asked if salvation depended on Mary was she predestined??
What is your opinion on this?
Which is her admission that she HAD sinned. If she was born without the stain of original sin, and led a perfect sinless life, then she would not have needed a savior.
If that were the case, then when she called God her *savior* she would have been lying, which would have been a sin.
So then she wasn't sinless.
Do you expect that to happen soon? What should we be looking for specifically? Which prophecy pimp has it right?
I don't expect it to happen at all, since it's apparent that most of the events have already happened.
I really meant to point out that Jerusalem wasn’t refered to as Babylon until later.
That's an inference. We know it was by AD68 or so, the date of Revelation. Many scholars place the date of 1 Peter in the early to mid 60s. Very close.
Hey, just out of curiosity, how do you see Isaiah 19 and current events in Egypt?
Why would you even ask such a silly question? Just turn on any of the prophecy pimps to get the “definitive” answer.
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.