Posted on 05/17/2012 5:40:57 PM PDT by Gamecock
Any other institution that lost one-third of its members would want to know why.....
The number of people who have left the Catholic church is huge.
We all have heard stories about why people leave. Parents share stories about their children. Academics talk about their students. Everyone has a friend who has left.
While personal experience can be helpful, social science research forces us to look beyond our circle of acquaintances to see what is going on in the whole church.
The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life has put hard numbers on the anecdotal evidence: One out of every 10 Americans is an ex-Catholic. If they were a separate denomination, they would be the third-largest denomination in the United States, after Catholics and Baptists. One of three people who were raised Catholic no longer identifies as Catholic.
Any other institution that lost one-third of its members would want to know why. But the U.S. bishops have never devoted any time at their national meetings to discussing the exodus. Nor have they spent a dime trying to find out why it is happening.
Thankfully, although the U.S. bishops have not supported research on people who have left the church, the Pew Center has.
Pew’s data shows that those leaving the church are not homogenous. They can be divided into two major groups: those who become unaffiliated and those who become Protestant. Almost half of those leaving the church become unaffiliated and almost half become Protestant. Only about 10 percent of ex-Catholics join non-Christian religions. This article will focus on Catholics who have become Protestant. I am not saying that those who become unaffiliated are not important; I am leaving that discussion to another time.
Why do people leave the Catholic church to become Protestant? Liberal Catholics will tell you that Catholics are leaving because they disagree with the church’s teaching on birth control, women priests, divorce, the bishops’ interference in American politics, etc. Conservatives blame Vatican II, liberal priests and nuns, a permissive culture and the church’s social justice agenda.
One of the reasons there is such disagreement is that we tend to think that everyone leaves for the same reason our friends, relatives and acquaintances have left. We fail to recognize that different people leave for different reasons. People who leave to join Protestant churches do so for different reasons than those who become unaffiliated. People who become evangelicals are different from Catholics who become members of mainline churches.
Spiritual needs
The principal reasons given by people who leave the church to become Protestant are that their “spiritual needs were not being met” in the Catholic church (71 percent) and they “found a religion they like more” (70 percent). Eighty-one percent of respondents say they joined their new church because they enjoy the religious service and style of worship of their new faith.
In other words, the Catholic church has failed to deliver what people consider fundamental products of religion: spiritual sustenance and a good worship service. And before conservatives blame the new liturgy, only 11 percent of those leaving complained that Catholicism had drifted too far from traditional practices such as the Latin Mass.
Dissatisfaction with how the church deals with spiritual needs and worship services dwarfs any disagreements over specific doctrines. While half of those who became Protestants say they left because they stopped believing in Catholic teaching, specific questions get much lower responses. Only 23 percent said they left because of the church’s teaching on abortion and homosexuality; only 23 percent because of the church’s teaching on divorce; only 21 percent because of the rule that priests cannot marry; only 16 percent because of the church’s teaching on birth control; only 16 percent because of the way the church treats women; only 11 percent because they were unhappy with the teachings on poverty, war and the death penalty.
The data shows that disagreement over specific doctrines is not the main reason Catholics become Protestants. We also have lots of survey data showing that many Catholics who stay disagree with specific church teachings. Despite what theologians and bishops think, doctrine is not that important either to those who become Protestant or to those who stay Catholic.
People are not becoming Protestants because they disagree with specific Catholic teachings; people are leaving because the church does not meet their spiritual needs and they find Protestant worship service better.
Nor are the people becoming Protestants lazy or lax Christians. In fact, they attend worship services at a higher rate than those who remain Catholic. While 42 percent of Catholics who stay attend services weekly, 63 percent of Catholics who become Protestants go to church every week. That is a 21 percentage-point difference.
Catholics who became Protestant also claim to have a stronger faith now than when they were children or teenagers. Seventy-one percent say their faith is “very strong,” while only 35 percent and 22 percent reported that their faith was very strong when they were children and teenagers, respectively. On the other hand, only 46 percent of those who are still Catholic report their faith as “very strong” today as an adult.
Thus, both as believers and as worshipers, Catholics who become Protestants are statistically better Christians than those who stay Catholic. We are losing the best, not the worst.
Some of the common explanations of why people leave do not pan out in the data. For example, only 21 percent of those becoming Protestant mention the sex abuse scandal as a reason for leaving. Only 3 percent say they left because they became separated or divorced.
Becoming Protestant
If you believed liberals, most Catholics who leave the church would be joining mainline churches, like the Episcopal church. In fact, almost two-thirds of former Catholics who join a Protestant church join an evangelical church. Catholics who become evangelicals and Catholics who join mainline churches are two very distinct groups. We need to take a closer look at why each leaves the church.
Fifty-four percent of both groups say that they just gradually drifted away from Catholicism. Both groups also had almost equal numbers (82 percent evangelicals, 80 percent mainline) saying they joined their new church because they enjoyed the worship service. But compared to those who became mainline Protestants, a higher percentage of those becoming evangelicals said they left because their spiritual needs were not being met (78 percent versus 57 percent) and that they had stopped believing in Catholic teaching (62 percent versus 20 percent). They also cited the church’s teaching on the Bible (55 percent versus 16 percent) more frequently as a reason for leaving. Forty-six percent of these new evangelicals felt the Catholic church did not view the Bible literally enough. Thus, for those leaving to become evangelicals, spiritual sustenance, worship services and the Bible were key. Only 11 percent were unhappy with the church’s teachings on poverty, war, and the death penalty Ñ the same percentage as said they were unhappy with the church’s treatment of women. Contrary to what conservatives say, ex-Catholics are not flocking to the evangelicals because they think the Catholic church is politically too liberal. They are leaving to get spiritual nourishment from worship services and the Bible.
Looking at the responses of those who join mainline churches also provides some surprising results. For example, few (20 percent) say they left because they stopped believing in Catholic teachings. However, when specific issues were mentioned in the questionnaire, more of those joining mainline churches agreed that these issues influenced their decision to leave the Catholic church. Thirty-one percent cited unhappiness with the church’s teaching on abortion and homosexuality, women, and divorce and remarriage, and 26 percent mentioned birth control as a reason for leaving. Although these numbers are higher than for Catholics who become evangelicals, they are still dwarfed by the number (57 percent) who said their spiritual needs were not met in the Catholic church.
Thus, those becoming evangelicals were more generically unhappy than specifically unhappy with church teaching, while those who became mainline Protestant tended to be more specifically unhappy than generically unhappy with church teaching. The unhappiness with the church’s teaching on poverty, war and the death penalty was equally low for both groups (11 percent for evangelicals; 10 percent for mainline).
What stands out in the data on Catholics who join mainline churches is that they tend to cite personal or familiar reasons for leaving more frequently than do those who become evangelicals. Forty-four percent of the Catholics who join mainline churches say that they married someone of the faith they joined, a number that trumps all doctrinal issues. Only 22 percent of those who join the evangelicals cite this reason.
Perhaps after marrying a mainline Christian and attending his or her church’s services, the Catholic found the mainline services more fulfilling than the Catholic service. And even if they were equally attractive, perhaps the exclusion of the Protestant spouse from Catholic Communion makes the more welcoming mainline church attractive to an ecumenical couple.
Those joining mainline communities also were more likely to cite dissatisfaction of the Catholic clergy (39 percent) than were those who became evangelical (23 percent). Those who join mainline churches are looking for a less clerically dominated church.
Lessons from the data
There are many lessons that we can learn from the Pew data, but I will focus on only three.
First, those who are leaving the church for Protestant churches are more interested in spiritual nourishment than doctrinal issues. Tinkering with the wording of the creed at Mass is not going to help. No one except the Vatican and the bishops cares whether Jesus is “one in being” with the Father or “consubstantial” with the Father. That the hierarchy thinks this is important shows how out of it they are.
While the hierarchy worries about literal translations of the Latin text, people are longing for liturgies that touch the heart and emotions. More creativity with the liturgy is needed, and that means more flexibility must be allowed. If you build it, they will come; if you do not, they will find it elsewhere. The changes that will go into effect this Advent will make matters worse, not better.
Second, thanks to Pope Pius XII, Catholic scripture scholars have had decades to produce the best thinking on scripture in the world. That Catholics are leaving to join evangelical churches because of the church teaching on the Bible is a disgrace. Too few homilists explain the scriptures to their people. Few Catholics read the Bible.
The church needs a massive Bible education program. The church needs to acknowledge that understanding the Bible is more important than memorizing the catechism. If we could get Catholics to read the Sunday scripture readings each week before they come to Mass, it would be revolutionary. If you do not read and pray the scriptures, you are not an adult Christian. Catholics who become evangelicals understand this.
Finally, the Pew data shows that two-thirds of Catholics who become Protestants do so before they reach the age of 24. The church must make a preferential option for teenagers and young adults or it will continue to bleed. Programs and liturgies that cater to their needs must take precedence over the complaints of fuddy-duddies and rubrical purists.
Current religious education programs and teen groups appear to have little effect on keeping these folks Catholic, according to the Pew data, although those who attend a Catholic high school do appear to stay at a higher rate. More research is needed to find out what works and what does not.
The Catholic church is hemorrhaging members. It needs to acknowledge this and do more to understand why. Only if we acknowledge the exodus and understand it will we be in a position to do something about it.
Additionally, the Passover lamb was a symbolic representation of Christ, not Christ itself. It was eaten in expectation of the sacrifice of Christ not in remembrance because it happened before Christ's death, not after.
Eating the4 passover lamb did NOT save anyone.
Both are ceremonies to illustrate what the Messiah did/was going to do, nothing more and nothing less.
Additionally, the Passover lamb was a symbolic representation of Christ, not Christ Himself. It was eaten in expectation of the sacrifice of Christ not in remembrance because it happened before Christ's death, not after.
Eating the4 passover lamb did NOT save anyone.
Both are ceremonies to illustrate what the Messiah did/was going to do, nothing more and nothing less.
On the contrary, you apparently don't know your own church history very well. The Catholic church did indeed remove the cup for many years, otherwise, why the teaching that when you receive only the bread you actually receive both the body AND blood?
Communion under Both Kinds
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm
Your problem is that there are too many of us former Catholics who remember quite clearly the time when BOTH elements of communion were NOT offered to snow us.
While it has been since added back in, there is no way you can insist that it's always been that way and maintain any credibility because EVERYONE knows better. And those who don't remember it, can simply read your church history and the controversy taking away and adding the cup back in has caused.
No person or people or organization has the legitimate authority to change that which Christ handed down to us.
I guarantee that the wine and Prescious Blood of Chrits were present at EVERY Mass you ever attend.
Faith is not credulity. It has at it's core reality.
To me one the great charms of the Gospel was the simplicity of it. No Talmudic scholars arguing over how many men could take hold on the skirt of a Jew or Greek philosophers debating the meaning of “nature” and “principles” or whether logos was a divine organizing force, on and on on.
“If I read the first Christians, some who were taught by
the Apostles believed in the Eucharist. I would change.
I would not care what family or friends thought....ever.”
If you say so but the apostles never speak/teach of priests serving in the Christian congregation yet have you changed your belief on who really are priests?
Naw, we don't need to wander into one of your buildings to have a conversation with Jesus...We can and do, do that at home, or in the car, or even in the bathroom...
Jesus never told anyone to go into a building to communicate with him, and never will...
Besides, another reason I know this is not legitimate is because Mary is not involved...We know that your religion teaches that all communication must go thru Mary or a Catholic Saint...
Had this fella claimed he received a message from Mary, I may have believed it...
Result of an unteachable spirit.
you are a denomination of one. That might make for a convenient communion, but nothing else.
What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for metmom, who can be against her? Romans 8:31 He will never leave her, nor forsake her.
When she stands for the Lord she is in the majority because standing with her is the Infinite Almighty and His myriad of hosts.
2 Kings 6:16 "Don't be afraid," the prophet answered. "Those who are with us are more than those who are with them."
2 Kings 6:17 Then Elisha prayed, Lord, I pray You, open his eyes that he may see. And the Lord opened the young man’s eyes, and he saw, and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.
You are correct. The Chalice the wine and the Blood of Christ have been in every Mass since the earliest days of the Catholic Liturgy. The following is from St. Justin Martyr written only 100 years after the Resurrection and 200 years before the Canon of the Bible. It could be used to accurately describe any Catholic Mass I have ever attended, but is radically different from EVERY Protestant service I have ever attended:
"No one may share in the Eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach is true, unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ."
"We do not consume the Eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Savior became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates for its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of his own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving."
"The apostles, in their recollections, which are called gospels, handed down to us what Jesus commanded them to do. They tell us that he took bread, gave thanks and said: Do this in memory of me. This is my body. In the same way he took the cup, he gave thanks and said: This is my blood. The Lord gave this command to them alone. Ever since then we have constantly reminded one another of these things. The rich among us help the poor and we are always united. For all that we receive we praise the Creator of the universe through his Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit."
"On Sunday we have a common assembly of all our members, whether they live in the city or in the outlying districts. The recollections of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as there is time. When the reader has finished, the president of the assembly speaks to us; he urges everyone to imitate the examples of virtue we have heard in the readings. Then we all stand up together and pray."
"On the conclusion of our prayer, bread and wine and water are brought forward. The president offers prayers and gives thanks to the best of his ability, and the people give their assent by saying, "Amen." The Eucharist is distributed, everyone present communicates, and the deacons take it to those who are absent."
"The wealthy, if they wish, may make a contribution, and they themselves decide the amount. The collection is placed in the custody of the president, who uses it to help the orphans and widows and all who for any reason are in distress, whether because they are sick, in prison, or away from home. In a word, he takes care of all who are in need. We hold our common assembly on Sunday because it is the first day of the week, the day on which God put darkness and chaos to flight and created the world, and because on that same day our savior Jesus Christ rose from the dead. For he was crucified on Friday and on Sunday he appeared to his apostles and disciples and taught them the things that we have passed on for your consideration." St. Justin Martyr 100AD - 165AD First Apology in Defense of the Christians
Is that what you believe ? Seek YHvH in His WORD. YHvH is not in man-made traditions. YHvH is only found in His WORD. YHvH destroyed the need for His priesthood in 70 CE. YHvH is a stale matzoh from Pesach ?
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
So what? The Catholic church didn't serve the cup. Jesus did. And that's what He commanded that we do.
Who gave the Church authority to deny the fullness of communion to anyone?
Jesus did when He said:
"Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." Matthew 18:18
You really have to stop projecting YOPIS onto Catholic doctrines. Just because the "Lord's Supper" is a symbolic presentation of Wonder Bread and Welches Grape Juice in your church does not negate the Epiclesis and the Real Presence in the Eucharist in the Catholic Church. That trade off is one you freely made when you chose yourself as the final arbitrator of Truth and what is and isn't the meaning of Revealed Word.You are not the first to fall victim to that. Satan tempted others, including Our Lord, to worship contrary to Scripture.
Both species of the Eucharist are present in every Catholic Mass since the first century and Christ has been wholly present in which ever species the laity receive. If that is good enough for those of us who choose to receive Him, why should we care what any nonbeliever thinks. We don't do it for you.
You have no authority to interrogate me and question the Church. I owe you no answers, only kindness, the Truth, my forgiveness and my prayers. As I have so often said I am only going to correct the erroneous and errant versions of the teaching of the Church posed by the ignorant and the anti-Catholic heretics and apostates. I am not going to engage in any debates.
May the Blessings of Christ and the Peace and Joy of the Holy Spirit be with you.
The truly sad thing is that is apparently what you believe.
Consider yourself blessed. Jesus, when he pardoned His executioners from the cross because "they know not what they do" established that in some cases ignorance is salvific. I pray yours is.
Pax vobiscum.
Hi,
If the messages from Heaven (don’t object, God speaks to
every generation) said the Remnant is Protestant and
their many beliefs are what Jesus is returning to proclaim,
I would say it. They don’t. And to add...
His coming is spiritual, we will see many miracles and signs
but He isn’t returning in His person. The Remnant is Roman
Catholic and God will enlighten everyone but it will be
your choice to say yes.
Helping with trying to change your rejection of the Eucharist.
* Here’s one fact I wasn’t aware of *, I post it because it is proof Jesus is PERFECT. He says everything perfectly.
Thank you to John Salza, He is one wise apologist.
~ ~ ~
...And now, the Greek, courtesy of John Salza, which refutes the Protestant objection that the bread remained bread because Christ’s “this” refers to the bread: “The Greek transliteration of “This IS my Body which is given for you” in Lk 22:19 is Touto esti to soma mou to uper hymon didomenon. Like many languages, Greek adjectives have genders (masculine, feminine, or neuter) which agree with their object nouns. The word ‘this’ (touto) is a neuter adjective. The word ‘bread’ (artos) is a masculine noun. This means that the neuter adjective ‘this’ is not referring to the masculine noun ‘bread’, because their genders do not correspond” (emphasis mine). “Instead, ‘this’ refers to ‘body’ (soma), which is a neuter noun. In light of the grammatical structure, Jesus does not say ‘This bread is my body,’ as the Protestant argument contends. Instead, Jesus says ‘This [new substance] is my body,’ or more literally, ‘This [new substance] s the body of me.’
Paul emphasizes the connection between ‘this’ and Jesus’ ‘body’ even more conspicuously. In 1 Cor 11:24, Paul records Jesus’ words as Touto mou esti to soma. As we can see, mou (of me) comes immediately after toutu (this). Literally, this phrase is translated as ‘This of me is the body.’ That is, Paul connects ‘this’ to the Person of Jesus more closely by adding ‘of me’ right after ‘this’ and right before ‘body’. Again, the Greek does not allow ‘this’ to refer to the bread, but to the new substance, which is Jesus’ body.”
The passages concerning the wine/Blood in Mt 26:28 uses completely analogous Greek grammar.
Salza also notes that the phrase “touto esti” (this is) is used six other times in the Gospels and in every single case its object is literal - not once is it used in a metaphor or any sort of symbolism.
from the website: http://catholicthinker.net
1 Cor 11:24
And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me.
U-2012>YHvH is a stale matzoh from Pesach ?
Is that what you believe ?
The truly sad thing is that is apparently what you believe. Consider yourself blessed. Jesus, when he pardoned His executioners from the cross because "they know not what they do" established that in some cases ignorance is salvific. I pray yours is. Pax vobiscum.
Do you believe "The most Holy Eucharist is God Himself" ?? Then I can only assume you believe that Not if you were to believe the Holy WORD of G-d. Yah'shua did not create nor charter the Roman "church" It was created by the Pagan Pontiff Constantine. Yah'shua asked us to celebrate Passover in remembrance of Him. YHvH ended the need for His priesthood in 70 CE. As usual deception and misdirection.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
YHvH is a stale Matzoh from a Pesach.
Did you know Messianic Judaism (and their splits) are a
Protestant sect established by a Baptist minister to
convert the Jews?
The reason for the mix of Old Testament language and Protestant beliefs. A blending, if that is possible, of two disbelieving groups.
I love you brother, please read over post 1,194. The
most Holy Eucharist is true, it is supernatural, it is
God’s way to come to us and most humble, don’t you think?
You can understand, in Judaism, they consumed the Passover
Lamb.
Become Roman Catholic. “Soon”, God will ask you to, it is
prophesied.
“YHvH ended the need for His priesthood in 70 CE.”
~ ~ ~
The above, absolutely not true. It conflicts with the “continual sacrifice.” You need a priest to offer sacrifice. There is a New Covenant priesthood.
There’s that mix of using a few Jewish terms with Protestant
heresies.
And, why is an “altar” spoken of in Revelation? See the
verses which conflict and there are more.
This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 25, §12.
“Additionally, the Passover lamb was a symbolic representation of Christ, not Christ Himself. It was eaten in expectation of the sacrifice of Christ NOT IN REMEMBRANCE because it happened before Christ’s death, not after.”
~ ~ ~
A change, stating above the Protestant definition is not a “remembrance?” Okay, it was an excuse because of the
revolt and never made any sense.
How is eating a cracker and drinking grape juice, a “remembrance” of Christ’s suffering death on the Cross?
The Old Covenant is made greater in the New. You all reject
God Himself is the Passover Lamb in the New Covenant. Most Protestants accept this fact. Protestants are inconsistent in belief. No unity.
God’s plan that the faithful receive God, Our Lord in the most Holy Eucharist, you protest and reject this Truth so you deny His IS the New Covenant Passover Lamb.
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.