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?
BTW it was a Luther Pastor by the name of Dietrich Bonhoeffer
that was executed for the attempt on Hitler’s life.
He also was one of the founding leaders of the Confessing Church movement . (church not controlled by the government and evangelical)
CynicalBear
I went to look up this Prof. Otto Zwierlen and from what I can determine from the link above, he is a Classics Professor, which means [and I am sure you do know this so don’t take this as an insult] that he is in the field of Latin and Greek literature from antiquity.
Apparently, he became interested in early Christian Literature and from what I gathered, he does not believe Peter was in Rome, as you noted, and he believes his marytrdom was a “Legend”
So on that point alone, one questions rather or not this guy is an orthodox Christian of any confession, Lutheran, Reformed or Catholic as St. Peters martydom is alluded in the New Testament in the Gospel of St. John.
His statement that the Ignatian letters may date to the late 2nd century says “may” there are others who state they date from the early 1st century. There are however, some letters attribute to Ignatius that are spurrios as the scholarly consensus on that is clear across many church confessions.
However, his view on the Ignatian epistles is in the minority, as is his view that Peter was not in Rome and his view that Peter was not martyred seems to me to be as close to direct attack on the Gospel of St. Johan as one could make [cf. John 21:19].
Based on the wikipedia write-up, and I know that is a readers digest summary of Prof. Otto Zwierlien, it appears to me that he is part of the higher-criticism school so popular German academia.
Lera:
Yes, the Lutheran Pastor Bonhoeffer was an honorable and heroic man, no doubt. I did specifically mention him in an earlier post btw [see my post 309].
The German officer that tried to kill Hitler was from the ole Catholic Center party and his name was Colonel von Stauffenberg. However, all of the German political parties, save the Communists and members of the Nazi party, got together to work to assassinate Hitler so it was a collection of Germans from all of the parties that were originally against Hitler going back to 1932 and 1933, Catholic parties and Protestants as well.
“I’ve heard that solidified coconut oil is great for improving memory.”
I’ve heard that some should apply it 3 times, but it still doesn’t work. However coloring books are an option of communication.
Other then Peters own words. There is no argument or differing opinion about Peter saying he was in Babylon, only what some try to make us believe was meant by Babylon.
I Pet. 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.
Instead of theorizing that Peter was at Rome for many long years managing somehow to escape everyone’s attention, why do we not simply accept the testimony of Peter himself that he was at Babylon?
I agree with Johann David Michaelis, a Biblical scholar from the 1700s.
“Commentators do not agree in regard to the meaning of the word Babylon, some taking it in its literal and proper sense, others giving it a figurative and mystical interpretation. Among the advocates for the latter sense, have been men of such learning and abilities, that I was misled by their authority in the younger part of my life to subscribe to it: but at present, as I have more impartially examined the question, it appears to me very extraordinary that, when an Apostle dates his epistle from Babylon, it should even occur to any commentator to ascribe to this work a mystical meaning, instead of taking it in its literal and proper sense.” [Michaelis, as quoted by Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, n.d., Vol. VI, p. 838.] >> 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.
In Rev. 16:19 the reference between Jerusalem and Babylon is split.
19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.
It’s like us saying that Cairo has violence and Jordon has violence. Another would be: Cairo has problems which reminds me that Jordon has violence too.
“So is it then the Catholic position that the salvation of all of humanity, depended on Mary?”
Some people should stick to comic books and just pass on Reader Rabbit.
Look, Peter himself said he was writing from Babylon which was a city with a very large Jewish population to which Peter was church teacher. Babylon was still a large city at that time and to think that he would use that name to hide the fact that he was in Rome just doesn’t make sense. Rome was not referenced as Babylon until long after Jerusalem was destroyed. Add to that that Paul never once referenced Peter being in Rome, no other proof has ever been substantiated that he was in Rome and much evidence exists that he was not in Rome, I’m going to never be convinced that in fact he was in Rome. The only slim references ever made were by men long after Peter was gone. I’m not going to be convinced that Peter was ever in Rome.
Thanks for the ping!
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear CynicalBear!
Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?
I can see it :)
I try! Hope it helps in understanding.
Perhaps tomorrow I’ll post some docs indicating how
yet again
the RC perspective is . . . unaware, uninformed, . . . in the dark . . .
even about coconut oil and some solid info on it.
CynicalBear:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11457c.htm
There are 2 links above. One is an article on the Gospel of St. Mark and one is from St. Papais, the first Church Father who attests to the canonicity of the Gospel of Mark and Matthew.
On the question of authorship of the Gospel of Mark, the evidence indicates that Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark while in ROme with Peter, which is alluded to in 1 Peter 5:13-14.
Eusebius, the first great Church Historian, writing in 320 AD states that it is also said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed in Rome itself, and tht he indicates this himself as he refers to the city figuratively as Babylon in these words “She that is the elect in Babylon greets you as does also my son Mark. They say that this Mark was the first to be sent to preach in Egypt the Gospel, which indeed, he had written, and that he was the first to establish churches in Alexandria itself.
Eusebius continues that Peter was first sent to preach to the Jews in diaspora [hellenistic Jews eventually after first starting in Jerusalem] and hat last he came to Rome where he was martyed. He also states that Paul was martyred around the same time during the reign of Nero.
Now, one can reasonbly conclude that writing in code, i.e. Babylon for Church of Rome was probably done so to avoid getting all of the Apostles in Rome killed before Peter and Paul could set the Church of Rome up [which they did and they eventuall were killed] and before they could send St. Mark to Alexandria.
St. Clement of Alexandria, who lived from 150 to 215 AD has a writing which survived as a fragment which was quoted by later Fathers which has an early NT canon that was recognized at the CHurch of Alexandria in the late 2nd century. He writes that the Gospel of Mark was written under these circumstances, When Peter preached in Rome and declaredthe Gospel, many who were present...including Mark...heard Peter, and Mark being a long time follower of Peter wrote down what was proclaimed. Having composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who requested it. When Peter learned of it, he neither forbade it but neither did he encourage it.
So the tradition starting with ST. Papias, who lived from roughly 65 to 130AD states that Mark was the co-worker of Peter in Rome, which is what is implied in 1 Peter 5:13-14 and that Peters preaching was the source of ST. Mark’s Gospel, etc.
So in addition to the Letters of St. CLement of Rome [95AD], St. Ignatius in 107AD and St. Ireneaus in 175 AD, we have another source tradition relating to the writings and writers of the Gospels [ST. Papias, St. Clement of Alexandria, Eusebious] that attest that ST. Mark was in ROme with Peter and compiled his Gospel in Rome while listening to Peter before going to Alexandria and founding the CHurches in that region.
Those HICKS actually open their BIBLES and READ them. Those REDNECKS actually live a life that reflects Christ a heck of a lot more than most Roman Catholics that I have ever met.
Some of those little hick rural Baptist churches might have only around 200-250 members in their church and yet they manage to raise hundred of thousands of dollars and more to send missionaries to places where others have refused to preach the Gospel.
CTrent1564: Well, isn’t that special.
Yes, the description of that "backwoods" church sounds very "special."
I'm not surprised you appear to be skeptical. RCs generally are not familiar with Scripture, preaching the Gospel or missionary work.
Dr. Eckleburg:
Quite frankly, I could care less if you are surprised about what I am aware of or not.
Now, I will kindly ask you to not ping me again. I have not pinged you in several years and will not engage in “ANY” [emphasis added here, nothing else] discussion with you.
Have a nice weekend
I’ve explained to you previously why that “figuratively” stuff holds no water and is grasping at straws.
>>“She that is the elect in Babylon greets you as does also my son Mark.”<<
So you, and whoever, are saying that Peter wrote from Rome giving greetings from Babylon. Oh boy. Now that he was with Mark we won’t dispute but they were both in Babylon the city. Not Rome. Give it up. The arguements are weak and even the RCC will admit that there is no definitive proof when pressed.
CynicalBear:
Does it clearly state in the NT that Peter was in Rome. No, but does Babylon mean Rome as code or does it refer to the ancient city in what is modern day Iraq? That is the question. By NT times, Babylon was nothing of any sort and just an eastern outpost of the Roman empire. There were very few, if any Jews there, and very few Christians during the time the NT was being written.
Christianity and when God willed the incarnation, whether you want to admit it or not, came into the world and grew in the context of Roman-Greek culture. Rome was the center of the world and there is no Church Father, not one, starting with St. Papias [65 to 130 AD], St. CLement of ROme who wrote in 95AD, St. Ignatius of Antioch in 107 AD, St. Ireneaus of Lyon who wrote in 175 AD who does not state clearly and with no hesitation that Peter was in Rome.
For the record, the NT doesn’t say much about any of the Apostles and where they eventually went. The early Church [Fathers] though does attest to where the Apostles all went to preach and where they were eventually martyred [save the Apostle John, who went to an area near Ephesus where he took care of Mary the Mother of God and eventually died of natural causes].
The RCC also made up the ascension of Mary, so what? There goes their credibility.
You probably mean you couldn't care less.
CynicalBear:
There has never been such as thing as the Ascension of Mary. The Ascenion refers to Christ as stated in the Nicene Creed, “He Ascended into Heaven” which means by his own power and person.
Mary was “Assumed into Heaven” through the Power of God as it is taught that she experienced the fruits of her Divine Son’s Resurrection and was assumed to heaven.
Ultimately, all of us who do indeed die in God’s Grace, will be “Assumed to heaven” just as every other named Saint and unnamed Saint was as none of us will ascend to heaven in our own power.
At the resurrection of the Dead and Body [also dogmatic teachings expressed in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds], those who die with Christ will be resurrected by and through him and assumed into heaven.
Whether or not you accept what the Catholic Church calls the Assumption of Mary or the Orthodox CHurch calls the Dormition of Mary, there is a major theological difference between “Ascension” and “Assumption”.
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.