Posted on 04/12/2018 9:00:47 AM PDT by LouieFisk
We all have that desire deep inside to connect with our creator and try as they may, it can not be removed. The early church thrived and grew under the pagan environment even under the threat of persecution. Could it be that the faith granted provided a connection with God that the paganism did not? We can blame the prevalent humanism in our society for the downfall of the church, but the current environment is now way worse than say, 200 AD. Perhaps the light of the church has grown dim and no longer shows the way for all to see. I think the church of all creeds needs to look deep inside and see if God is still there.
Sorry for the typo.
was: “but the current environment is now way worse than say, 200 AD”
S/B: but the current environment is in no way worse than say, 200 AD
Two words “Pope Fransoros”
Two words “Pope Fransoros”
—
I would add, in context of the attendance diff from the 50s to current numbers, that there’s another big factor - Vatican 2.
It appears in Roman Catholicism, though not Christianity, that the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, the one-time sacrifice for all sins and trespasses, is insufficient to forgive all sins.
For the Roman Catholic this is the fear they must live in:
If they commit a mortal sin and they don't get to the priest in time to obtain forgiveness....they are consigned to Hell with no chance of Heaven.
Fortunately, Christianity offers something much better.
Paul tells us in Romans 6:23 that :. 22But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:22-23 NASB
When the thief was on the Cross he did not have benefit of baptism....yet he gained Paradise.
When Paul wrote this in Romans 10:9-13 he was confident of the eternal life the believer would have.
9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.” 12For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.” Rms 10:9-13 NASB
In v13, the verb for "will be saved" is σωθήσεται
It conveys the meaning of delivering out of danger and into safety. It is used principally of God rescuing believers from the penalty and power of sin, and into His provisions.
http://biblehub.com/greek/4982.htm
In the Greek, it is a future, indicative, passive verb. The indicative in the Greek is used to present an assertion as a non-contingent (or unqualified) statement. It is the mood of assertion, or presentation of certainty. (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp448-449)
The passive indicates the subject of the verb, in this case the person calling upon the Lord, is being acted upon by an outside force...in this case....the Lord.
Paul is stating with certainty that the person who calls upon the Lord will be saved. There is no equivocation in his writings on this.
Well, y’know, the very first Christians for a while used to meet in the synagogues, as a Jewish sect. After that they met primarily in homes - there were few actual churches.
So it was quite personal, like living in a small town where everyone knows everyone else’s business.
“We can blame the prevalent humanism in our society for the downfall of the church”
—
I think an argument could be made that kinda goes both ways, with the church (meaning all believers, no matter denomination) not being as involved in shaping/influencing the overall culture. Sort of a symbiotic thing.
I would also toss into the stew my belief that it’s become too easy to be a “Christian” (as is often defined). Many of the big, successful Protestant churches are little more than entertainment centers where somebody gives talks on “how to be a happier you and such”.
I’ve been surprised at how many people believe that “evangelism” pretty much consists of getting people they know to go to church with them.
“Perhaps the light of the church has grown dim and no longer shows the way for all to see”
—
That may be so - though, the church has no light of it’s own to give. It’s more like the Moon, reflecting the real Light. Helping people to do likewise should be it’s purpose.
I know the homily is not in Latin, thanks.
Oh spare us.
“Do you REALLY believe that if they were still saying the Mass in Latin in the pre-Vatican II form, that in this rough, crude, highly secularized year of 2017 that MORE young people would actually be attending?”
—
Where did I say that? (and, by the way, that wasn’t the only change made) What I said was, I believe it would be wise to consider including V2 in trying to figure out why the sudden, big dropoff in attendance afterwards.
But, as for the impact on today’s world if the Church hadn’t dumped it’s traditions at V2 - that’s something we’ll never know.
Prove it. Name an instance under which the Catholic Church allows divorce.
Roman Catholics continue to labor under the false belief that only Latin is acceptable in their services.
There are some Roman Catholics who swear the Mass can only be delivered in Latin.
Young people, especially young people with families, attend the Latin Mass in higher proportions than those who attend the Novus Ordo.
“If they commit a mortal sin and they don’t get to the priest in time to obtain forgiveness....they are consigned to Hell with no chance of Heaven.”
No to you, but agree with your response. Utter nonsense, since who needs a priest!
No it isn't. You can have a perfectly valid and acceptable Mass without this. You really aren't sufficiently well informed to be talking about these things.
It was the way you worded it as "...a legal fiction that your marriage never really existed due to one of a handful of esoteric reasons." There is no fiction to any of that. Nor through annulment is the church saying that the marriage never existed. What the Church is saying is that the marriage fell short in at least one of the essential elements necessary to make a marriage a binding union for a man and woman for life. And rather than "a handful of esoteric reasons" the requirements for a valid marriage are clear and straight-forward. There are 6 elements required: the spouses are free to marry; they are capable of giving their consent to marry; they freely exchange their consent; in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; they intend the good of each other; and finally their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized minister of a church. Personally I see nothing odd, unusual, or esoteric in any of that. It seems to me to follow the teachings of Jesus on marriage.
I meant not to your general response, but the silly notion in quotes.
“Baptism for the forgiveness of sins is a Roman Catholic teaching...not a New Testament teaching”
—
Not Catholic, and I don’t hold to their teachings on this matter, but -
“Repent, and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)
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.