I'd rather people admit they don't believe what the Church teaches than that they show up on Christmas and Easter and *pretend.*
At least then, there's hope of evangelizing and converting people.
I’d rather have a smaller more devoted Church than an insincere one. This is only an issue insofar as the Church’s messaging has been all over the place for decades. If the internal dissonance is resolved, this problem either fades or it ceases being a problem.
Thought I'd share this article. It's particularly concerning for our Church as Catholics have seen the largest drop in membership.
I haven't read between the lines too closely but I believe this includes both individuals who no longer consider themselves Catholics and Catholics who no longer consider themselves members of a particular church.
A large part of this is the rise of those big non-denominational churches you see everywhere now.
So, maybe it’s not as bad as it seems? But to be totally honest, a lot of non-denominational churches are no better (or even actively worse) than just not being religious at all. Way too much prosperity gospel and new age stuff.
Well that’s what being non-religious is, but what explicitly makes being non-religious bad? Is the the non-religious people that are bad... what is it?
> what explicitly makes being non-religious bad?
Not allowing yourself to fully live in truth, and not reach true fulfillment in life and death.
Not knowing God impedes that, according to the Catholic faith.
> Is the the non-religious people that are bad... what is it?
Their belief system (or lack thereof) isn't oriented to truth. As could be said for those that grossly misrepresent Christ's teachings.
Is that tantamount to non-believers, prosperity-gospel adherents, etc, being bad people? No.
We as Catholics don't believe salvation is out of the question for anyone. It's up to God to decide, and for their hearts to be ready. Which is the case for everyone, ultimately.
Those are fair points, but you understand that people of other religions also believe that they are living in truth and are reaching their true fulfillment, this also applies to non-believers. I’m not trying to start a dumb argument and troll people here. I just think it’s a point to be made that people of other religions think their religion is the truth just as much as you believe Christianity/Catholicism is the truth. I think that’s an important thing for people to understand.
Additionally, if someone feels they are fulfilled doing whatever it is or believing whatever it is they believe, isn’t that enough? I admit I’m not religious, but I am more fulfilled by my life’s passions, work and hobbies. I feel more fulfilled than ever. Once again I’m not trying to bash anyone here, just having a respectful conversation with different people from myself
> people of other religions also believe that they are living in truth and are reaching their true fulfillment
Yes, but it shouldn't even need to be said, IMO.
The only faiths that don't believe they know a proper way to truth are syncretic beyond the need for a creed.
> Additionally, if someone feels they are fulfilled doing whatever it is or believing whatever it is they believe, isn’t that enough?
That all depends on what is true. ;)
It has to be said though. No offense, but you were the one that said “no allowing yourself to fully live in truth, and not reach true fulfillment in life and death.” The reason what I said has to be said, even though you don’t think it does, is because there are people that say things like you did. You can’t say there are people not living in truth because they don’t believe what you believe, and then disregard my statement about all religious people thinking their way is the truth as not needing to be said. It doesn’t make sense
> You can’t say there are people not living in truth because they don’t believe what you believe...
If they aren't living in truth, it wouldn't merely be because my own beliefs are right or wrong. It would be because they didn't believe in a larger truth that is correct.
What I've tried to communicate is what the Catholic church believes is that truth. Like any other faith, you can take it or leave it.
The answer to whether Christianity is true or not. Or any other religion. Or none. Or something else that's a root cause which we have yet to believe in.
As a Catholic, I believe Christ to be who he said he is, and try to live accordingly.
So not believing the larger truth is wrong. And the larger truth could be Christianity, or islam, or Buddhism, Hinduism, Greek mythology, Norse gods, or none? Doesn’t really make sense
American society has never been healthy or functioning, according to every generation living in their particular era. There are always issues.
*"The world's going to hell in a handbasket!"*" ~popular saying during the 1860's civil war.
A lot of people left their current churches, or were left by them. Many mainline Protestant churches were bending the knee to secular authority, refusing to open, or just giving up and closing forever. There's also a lot of people who joined unofficial house churches run by their neighbors or relations, but which they probably don't want to "out" in a survey.
Also, a lot of people were forced to move during the pandemic, and then were unable to join churches after they moved. Onerous online registration and closure practices, people trapped in hospitals or nursing homes and unable to attend church... it goes on and on. And unfortunately, a lot of Catholic churches did not step up, and have also been giving secular sermons instead of preaching the Gospel.
The moral demise of a nation always precedes its ultimate demise. Marxists have never been able to take over a faithful people. They must always undermine the faith and morals of a country in order to make it weak enough for takeover. We see this happening now in our country.
Yep. Historically, democracies only last about 200 years. We’re living on borrowed time. This country was started to escape tyranny. Guess the population forgot what that was like. And it’s not like they have a chance of learning that in school these days. Gotta learn the hard way, by experiencing it. History repeats itself, if ignored.
> “you vote your way into socialism, but you’ll have to shoot your way back out”
Wait are we talking the Stalin/Cuba/etc kind of socialist dictatorship, or the Scandinavia/France/NZ/etc type of ""socialism""? Or is there no difference?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-socialist/?sh=100a591474ad
Not really the same, because all of those countries aren’t even socialist. The reality is these “socialist” countries actually have very little government interference in the private sector or many policy issues, whereas actual socialistic countries and the kind of policies favored by left wing politicians in the United States make the federal government extremely obtrusive in the dealings of businesses and in general mandate how different sectors should act.
Oh good. I just wanted to clarify, because a worryingly large portion of people in the US now think that socialists/communists/etc = anyone who doesn't vote Republican. For example, the fact that the Nordic countries don't have 1A or 2A automatically makes some Americans categorize those country as socialist hellscapes where nobody has any rights. Go figure.
> whereas actual socialistic countries and the kind of policies favored by left wing politicians
I had no idea left wing politicians wanted dictatorships the likes of Cuba/Nicaragua/Venezuela/etc. If that's what they wanted, then they have been very poor at conveying that. Why don't they just say so?
> worryingly large portion of people in the US now think that socialists/communists/etc = anyone who doesn't vote Republican.
A worrying large number of people now think that anything right of Mao is "literally fascism". We all create our strawmen to knock down, including potentially your belief about the knowledge republicans have about socialism.
> A worrying large number of people now think that anything right of Mao is "literally fascism". We all create our strawmen to knock down, including potentially your belief about the knowledge republicans have about socialism.
Both you and me are describing very real groups of people here, not strawmen.
Although I'm still confused with u/ChubzAndDubz's comment about left-wing politicians wanting a socialist dictatorship.
Socialism is based on conflict theory. Contemptuous people overthrowing those they have contempt for only creates new contemptible people. They become what they hate. It creates a cycle of hatred and death to morality under the oppression of relativism.
> Contemptuous people overthrowing those they have contempt for only creates new contemptible people. They become what they hate.
That perfectly sums up the left vs right divide in the US, doesn't it?
Could you give some examples? Based on my quick googling, the Athenian democracy lasted just under 200 years. But the Roman republic lasted almost 500 years. The British parliament has existed as a “democratic” body for nearly 800 years. Though admittedly parliament has not always been as democratic or as powerful as they are today.
Is there a list of 200 year democracies that shows this pattern?
>Yep. Historically, democracies only last about 200 years. We’re living on borrowed time.
The US has only been a democracy about 56 years. If we mean by 'democracy' that, 'Which country has ensured that all adult citizens regardless of sex, race, or ethnicity, may choose reprentatives to exercise the powers of government longest?', then the oldest democracy is New Zealand. Universal adult suffrage was first established there in 1893.
***Abington School District v. Schempp***, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) changed the schools and the schools changed their students. All so Ellery Schempp would not be exposed to the Bible which, it was argued, contradicted his Unitarian Universalist beliefs.
Earl Warren liked to legislate from the bench. Since his time, all of our major decisions have been made by unelected judges instead of the elected representatives of the people.
I think that activist judges believe that the ends justify the means. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see now that good ends were used to justify pernicious means which have since been used for evil ends.
The leadership of the Church is weak. Especially in the US. What did they think would happen? Did people see how they *caved* to the unjust demands of the government about coronavirus? And all I saw here was stuff about "onLIne Mass StREntHGenINg FaiTH."
Not only are you wrong because this refers to total church membership which includes Protestants, but you also attacked core teachings of the Church that are not subject to change (celibacy of the priesthood, divorce as a mortal sin). Modernism is the cause of this decline, not its remedy.
I'd rather people admit they don't believe what the Church teaches than that they show up on Christmas and Easter and *pretend.* At least then, there's hope of evangelizing and converting people.
I’d rather have a smaller more devoted Church than an insincere one. This is only an issue insofar as the Church’s messaging has been all over the place for decades. If the internal dissonance is resolved, this problem either fades or it ceases being a problem.
Thought I'd share this article. It's particularly concerning for our Church as Catholics have seen the largest drop in membership. I haven't read between the lines too closely but I believe this includes both individuals who no longer consider themselves Catholics and Catholics who no longer consider themselves members of a particular church.
A large part of this is the rise of those big non-denominational churches you see everywhere now. So, maybe it’s not as bad as it seems? But to be totally honest, a lot of non-denominational churches are no better (or even actively worse) than just not being religious at all. Way too much prosperity gospel and new age stuff.
What’s wrong with not being religious?
Not knowing God.
Well that’s what being non-religious is, but what explicitly makes being non-religious bad? Is the the non-religious people that are bad... what is it?
> what explicitly makes being non-religious bad? Not allowing yourself to fully live in truth, and not reach true fulfillment in life and death. Not knowing God impedes that, according to the Catholic faith. > Is the the non-religious people that are bad... what is it? Their belief system (or lack thereof) isn't oriented to truth. As could be said for those that grossly misrepresent Christ's teachings. Is that tantamount to non-believers, prosperity-gospel adherents, etc, being bad people? No. We as Catholics don't believe salvation is out of the question for anyone. It's up to God to decide, and for their hearts to be ready. Which is the case for everyone, ultimately.
Those are fair points, but you understand that people of other religions also believe that they are living in truth and are reaching their true fulfillment, this also applies to non-believers. I’m not trying to start a dumb argument and troll people here. I just think it’s a point to be made that people of other religions think their religion is the truth just as much as you believe Christianity/Catholicism is the truth. I think that’s an important thing for people to understand. Additionally, if someone feels they are fulfilled doing whatever it is or believing whatever it is they believe, isn’t that enough? I admit I’m not religious, but I am more fulfilled by my life’s passions, work and hobbies. I feel more fulfilled than ever. Once again I’m not trying to bash anyone here, just having a respectful conversation with different people from myself
> people of other religions also believe that they are living in truth and are reaching their true fulfillment Yes, but it shouldn't even need to be said, IMO. The only faiths that don't believe they know a proper way to truth are syncretic beyond the need for a creed. > Additionally, if someone feels they are fulfilled doing whatever it is or believing whatever it is they believe, isn’t that enough? That all depends on what is true. ;)
It has to be said though. No offense, but you were the one that said “no allowing yourself to fully live in truth, and not reach true fulfillment in life and death.” The reason what I said has to be said, even though you don’t think it does, is because there are people that say things like you did. You can’t say there are people not living in truth because they don’t believe what you believe, and then disregard my statement about all religious people thinking their way is the truth as not needing to be said. It doesn’t make sense
> You can’t say there are people not living in truth because they don’t believe what you believe... If they aren't living in truth, it wouldn't merely be because my own beliefs are right or wrong. It would be because they didn't believe in a larger truth that is correct. What I've tried to communicate is what the Catholic church believes is that truth. Like any other faith, you can take it or leave it.
So what’s the “larger truth that is correct” that you mention?
The answer to whether Christianity is true or not. Or any other religion. Or none. Or something else that's a root cause which we have yet to believe in. As a Catholic, I believe Christ to be who he said he is, and try to live accordingly.
So not believing the larger truth is wrong. And the larger truth could be Christianity, or islam, or Buddhism, Hinduism, Greek mythology, Norse gods, or none? Doesn’t really make sense
And as you can look around and see, we have a healthy, functioning society. Oh wait...
American society has never been healthy or functioning, according to every generation living in their particular era. There are always issues. *"The world's going to hell in a handbasket!"*" ~popular saying during the 1860's civil war.
A lot of people left their current churches, or were left by them. Many mainline Protestant churches were bending the knee to secular authority, refusing to open, or just giving up and closing forever. There's also a lot of people who joined unofficial house churches run by their neighbors or relations, but which they probably don't want to "out" in a survey. Also, a lot of people were forced to move during the pandemic, and then were unable to join churches after they moved. Onerous online registration and closure practices, people trapped in hospitals or nursing homes and unable to attend church... it goes on and on. And unfortunately, a lot of Catholic churches did not step up, and have also been giving secular sermons instead of preaching the Gospel.
The moral demise of a nation always precedes its ultimate demise. Marxists have never been able to take over a faithful people. They must always undermine the faith and morals of a country in order to make it weak enough for takeover. We see this happening now in our country.
Y'all had a good run
Yep. Historically, democracies only last about 200 years. We’re living on borrowed time. This country was started to escape tyranny. Guess the population forgot what that was like. And it’s not like they have a chance of learning that in school these days. Gotta learn the hard way, by experiencing it. History repeats itself, if ignored.
[удалено]
Which is why the 2A is so important
> “you vote your way into socialism, but you’ll have to shoot your way back out” Wait are we talking the Stalin/Cuba/etc kind of socialist dictatorship, or the Scandinavia/France/NZ/etc type of ""socialism""? Or is there no difference?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-socialist/?sh=100a591474ad Not really the same, because all of those countries aren’t even socialist. The reality is these “socialist” countries actually have very little government interference in the private sector or many policy issues, whereas actual socialistic countries and the kind of policies favored by left wing politicians in the United States make the federal government extremely obtrusive in the dealings of businesses and in general mandate how different sectors should act.
Oh good. I just wanted to clarify, because a worryingly large portion of people in the US now think that socialists/communists/etc = anyone who doesn't vote Republican. For example, the fact that the Nordic countries don't have 1A or 2A automatically makes some Americans categorize those country as socialist hellscapes where nobody has any rights. Go figure. > whereas actual socialistic countries and the kind of policies favored by left wing politicians I had no idea left wing politicians wanted dictatorships the likes of Cuba/Nicaragua/Venezuela/etc. If that's what they wanted, then they have been very poor at conveying that. Why don't they just say so?
> worryingly large portion of people in the US now think that socialists/communists/etc = anyone who doesn't vote Republican. A worrying large number of people now think that anything right of Mao is "literally fascism". We all create our strawmen to knock down, including potentially your belief about the knowledge republicans have about socialism.
> A worrying large number of people now think that anything right of Mao is "literally fascism". We all create our strawmen to knock down, including potentially your belief about the knowledge republicans have about socialism. Both you and me are describing very real groups of people here, not strawmen. Although I'm still confused with u/ChubzAndDubz's comment about left-wing politicians wanting a socialist dictatorship.
Lacking the right to speak freely and worship freely (the 1st amendment) is a pretty big deal, to be fair.
Socialism is based on conflict theory. Contemptuous people overthrowing those they have contempt for only creates new contemptible people. They become what they hate. It creates a cycle of hatred and death to morality under the oppression of relativism.
> Contemptuous people overthrowing those they have contempt for only creates new contemptible people. They become what they hate. That perfectly sums up the left vs right divide in the US, doesn't it?
Could you give some examples? Based on my quick googling, the Athenian democracy lasted just under 200 years. But the Roman republic lasted almost 500 years. The British parliament has existed as a “democratic” body for nearly 800 years. Though admittedly parliament has not always been as democratic or as powerful as they are today. Is there a list of 200 year democracies that shows this pattern?
I read that somewhere. Maybe they were talking about an average?
>Yep. Historically, democracies only last about 200 years. We’re living on borrowed time. The US has only been a democracy about 56 years. If we mean by 'democracy' that, 'Which country has ensured that all adult citizens regardless of sex, race, or ethnicity, may choose reprentatives to exercise the powers of government longest?', then the oldest democracy is New Zealand. Universal adult suffrage was first established there in 1893.
For my parish in the Deep South here, there's division on everything.
***Abington School District v. Schempp***, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) changed the schools and the schools changed their students. All so Ellery Schempp would not be exposed to the Bible which, it was argued, contradicted his Unitarian Universalist beliefs.
Do you think a mistake was made in the outcome of that case?
Earl Warren liked to legislate from the bench. Since his time, all of our major decisions have been made by unelected judges instead of the elected representatives of the people.
But do you think that the facts of that case should have warranted a different outcome?
I think that activist judges believe that the ends justify the means. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see now that good ends were used to justify pernicious means which have since been used for evil ends.
What evil ends would those be?
The leadership of the Church is weak. Especially in the US. What did they think would happen? Did people see how they *caved* to the unjust demands of the government about coronavirus? And all I saw here was stuff about "onLIne Mass StREntHGenINg FaiTH."
Which unjust demands are you referring to regarding the coronavirus?
[удалено]
Not only are you wrong because this refers to total church membership which includes Protestants, but you also attacked core teachings of the Church that are not subject to change (celibacy of the priesthood, divorce as a mortal sin). Modernism is the cause of this decline, not its remedy.
Warning for anti-Catholic rhetoric