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.
Mary is the mother of Jesus, as she is called by the Holy Spirit when He inspired Luke, John, and Matthew to write it down.
Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.
John 2:1-3 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. 3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
Acts 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
stpio: “Sorry, I can’t do italics, so I’ll use caps.”
***********************************************************
Here, read and learn.
HTML Sandbox 2012
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2827523/posts
To do italics, bold, underline, strikeout, you use these
< > with the appropriate letter inbetween them, leaving no spaces.
For italics, insert an i.
For bold insert a b.
For Underline, a u and for strike out, use an s.
Put that at the beginning of what you want to post. At the end of what you are doing, you have to *close* it with this</ >. The backslash goes before the letter, the same letter you used at the beginning.
So to put “she is the mother of God” you would do < i > she is the mother of God </ i >.
Who is "they" exactly? It wouldn't be an impersonal pronoun used to permit skirting of the rules, would it, or is it just part of some broad based slur used to hide a grasp of the facts? Unless you specify the indefinite singular antecedent I might take it to be about me specifically and I would really hate to allow a simple inability to articulate a cohesive thought to be mistaken for a lack of Christian benignity.
Peace and Blessings.
And thereby it is marked as a false doctrine. What is supposed to be a celebration in remembrance of Christ is now turned into Talmudic word games,
‘Yes, it is one thing but no such characteristics of such can be detected and yes, Jesus was passing around his body before ever he had offered it in heaven, in fact before he had died. How? Welll, he's above and beyond time and sequence, space.’
The word that is used in the original Greek here is kyrios, which is not the same as the Greek word for God, which is theos.
Kyros simply means "having power or authority", which in and of itself is not indicative of deity. Theos, on the other hand, literally means a deity.
As Luke used both of these words when describing the conversation between Elisabeth and Mary. Notice the difference in Luke 1:38 where the Greek word Theos is used illustrating the difference. Luke would have used Theos in Elizabeth’s statement but didn’t which indicates a distinct difference in meaning. If Luke intended to convey the meaning that Mary was the mother of God he would have used Theos but didn’t. Luke made a very distinct difference in word usage as did Elizabeth for a reason.
That's a pretty large indication that Mary was not the Mother of God, as she was not a deity, but rather was the Mother of our Lord after the physical meaning of the word.
In short, she was mortal just as we are mortal and thereby subject to sin just as we are subject to sin.
This does nothing to diminish Christ's deity. It simply reinforces the point of His nature as being fully human and yet also fully God.
The RCC is duping it’s followers into following pagan practices rather than scripture.
I read many posts every day but I’m sure I miss some also. If you believe posters are making a thread “about” you, send me a Freepmail.
“In that Scripture proceeded from the Tradition that preceded it, and that both share the same author, it cannot be in a different or higher class than its antecedent.”
The problem is defining what one means by “Tradition” and how Scripture came to be established as being Divine.
Tradition as the oral form of Scripture before it was written would not be in a different or higher class in essence, but as the supernaturally established Word of God existing in a material expression it judges other claimed revelation.
Besides the fact that only part of Scripture first existed orally, tradition as an oral form of revelation in addition to the Scriptures, is amorphous, existing in a form along with uninspired revelation, without a known end or defined canon, and is supremely susceptible to undetectable corruption, while Scripture is the part of oral tradition that has been established as the Word of God, versus “tares’ which come from the same ground as wheat.
The Church and its Magisterium is a servant of the deposit of faith, not its creator or master.
Not in reality, as making her Tradition (out of the larger field of oral tradition) equal to Scripture is based upon Rome infallibly defining what the deposit of faith consists of and means, both in what revelation is of God and its meaning, thus infallibly defining that she is the assuredly infallible OTC.
Concerning which see my other recent posts relative to this.
How can the common perception of the term 'judaizing' be correct if Yeshua Himself, the Great Teacher, said that we are to do and teach the law (and the prophets... That by the way, implies the entire Tanakh)?
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
80 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."
"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."
Peace be with you
No one disputes the role of the church (small 'c') in the revelation we STILL have from God's breath. But if you really accept that Holy Scripture comes from God as well as being INFALLIBLE, then you must also accept that it is that with or without man's acceptance of it. It is the Truth from God no matter who acknowledges it or rejects it. We already know from Scripture that the natural (unregenerated) man does not receive the things of God nor can he know them, but does that mean it ceases to BE the word of God? No.
There have been many "religious" men and women over the years - including today - who discount the absolute truth of what the Bible says. They claim it is outdated or old fashioned and won't work for today. But I think we both agree that they are wrong because God's truth transcends time - truth is truth. For this reason I contend that Scripture is the authority by which truth claims are measured and not that Scripture is measured by an authority of man's opinions of what is truth. If the Apostle Peter can call his contemporary and fellow Apostle Paul's writings Scripture (2 Peter 3:15,16), then I do not see how it can be correctly asserted that nobody accepted the books of the Bible until the "Church" presented them in a nice, neatly bound volume with an official seal placed in the front three hundred or so years later. I stand by my conviction that the Bible we have today is what God chose to give us and no matter the method He used it would STILL be His word today. The word of our God stands forever.
But what do I do with a tradition like that which says Mary's childhood home was transported by angels from the Holy Land to Europe, landing a couple of times on the way?
And what of a tradition like the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven? Is there an inspired source that support such?
Who can I turn to to verify and put it on an equal footing with the written word?
But what the oral traditions that the disciples shared before any of the N.T. began to be set down in writing?
Even these are secondary to the written word as they became part of it and we have no preservation of those oral traditions as apart from or as a portion of inspired teachings.
“That’s a pretty large indication that Mary was not the Mother of God, as she was not a deity, but rather was the Mother of our Lord after the physical meaning of the word.
In short, she was mortal just as we are mortal and thereby subject to sin just as we are subject to sin.”
~ ~ ~
You are confusing the fact Mary is the Mother of God so somehow that makes her divine, it doesn’t.
Back to the “exceptions.” Mary is special, she would
carry God inside her so The Trinity makes an exception,
Mary is sinless, she was born without Original Sin. She
committed no sin during her entire life.
The archangels greeting, God’s first words to Mary were
“Hail full of Grace.” The KJV Bible says something different, too bad. Those words means to be “full” of God, free of sin.
Honoring and loving Mary as Jesus does is not a “pagan” practice.” At the Great Warning, objections will be cleared up. Mary is difficult for Protestants. She loves you.
God bless you CB,
The deception is when the Roman Catholic Church contends whatever IT decides is "Tradition" is equal with Scripture. At one time, oral tradition WAS the teachings of Jesus Christ to his followers and included additional revelation given to selected ones but which they WROTE down so that there is even today the SAME teachings available today to all who seek to know what is and is not the doctrine of the Christian faith. The reason why Catholic Tradition is NOT considered by those outside of her as equal to Scripture is because NOBODY is alive today who was there when the Apostles were teaching and developing traditions. So, since no such exhaustive listing is available that states what those traditions were and no person is alive now who heard those oral traditions, how can anyone hold that this nebulous "tradition" be equal to Holy Scripture which we DO have in written form?
When Irenaeus disputed Valentinus over his claims to have received secret knowledge from the Apostles, Irenaeus stated:
Tradition confirms what is orthodox teaching; it does not form the basis for it and what Scripture says is what was AND is the orthodox teaching.
Cynical Bear is missing it too. You don’t get it. The
Eucharist is not cannibalism BUT it is still God, Jesus
Christ. You take Him on His Word.
“This IS My body.”
Understand in a supernatural way. If God says it is Him,
believe. Yes, God can confect Himself, it’s beyond our
understanding with our little minds. Doesn’t matter, God can do anything.
CYC:
...”but no such characteristics of such can be detected and yes, Jesus was passing around his body before ever he had offered it in heaven, in fact before he had died. How? Welll, he’s above and beyond time and sequence, space.’
The Blessed Trinity wants you to have faith because you
don’t “SEE” a change in the bread or wine, nor fully understand. Having faith is something God is pleased with and Our Lord, how humble of Him to come to be in us in this manner. That’s how much He loves you.
Whenever I have stated this on these forums before, I have been met with Catholic condemnation that I am committing the sin of "presumption" and that NOBODY can know they are saved. The Bait and Switch game of which I was speaking is that the Roman Catholic Church insists that she is the ONE, TRUE Church established by Jesus Christ and outside of her is no one saved (or at least the earlier Popes declared by their infallibly defined infallibility that was so (see the bull Unum Sanctum)).
What I abandoned when I left the Roman Catholic Church was the false doctrine of salvation by faith PLUS works that essentially made salvation wholly by works and by which it was claimed no one could possibly know they merited Heaven until they faced judgment. What I firmly laid hold upon was the promise of Jesus Christ that he gives to us eternal life and we shall NEVER perish, no one can pluck us from his hand, he will never lose us nor cast us out, but by believing in him we have everlasting life. I'd say my life is FULL of hope because it is based upon the Lord and giver of life!
boatbums,
The Bible came from the Church. Everything Christians know of Christ came from the RCC. Why do you battle the Church
trying to use her own writings?
Accept what the Word says, Catholics do. Jesus states
This IS My Body. We accept. Plus, Catholics do not
fall into error when they follow the Church, her authority
to interpret Scripture.
How many times do I have to say, God did not give every
person reading Scripture the authority to interpret
Scripture. God said, one Lord, one faith, one baptism
not “I disagree with your interpretation so I’ll start
my own Church, follow my opinion.” That’s why there are
30,000 Protestant denominations!!
“What I abandoned when I left the Roman Catholic Church”...
~ ~ ~
That’s the problem, fallen away Catholics are most bitter
about their choice. They are more objecting than our
non-Catholic brothers and sisters.
The Eucharist is true, Mary’s help is for everyone and
Confession to a priest, for the life of your soul.
Plus daily prayer.
Come home, come home. The Remnant is Roman Catholic. The
entire world is going to be shown this fact by God soon.
God desires we all believe the same.
Amen
Have you noticed, people stopped replying to the
Eucharist is cannibalism. It’s not.
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.