Church Attendance/Participation

Status
Not open for further replies.
GordonP said:
And I would agree, to a point, if that’s where he stopped. But he went beyond that and concluded that refusing to conform to the world are booming, which is not the case.
Click to expand...
Right. And I agree with you there.
 
JohnStrachan said:
And the end result… no one cares.
Click to expand...
I’d personally say in my “n=1” (which is what you have) my observation is completely the opposite. The non-Catholic churches here are thriving while the Catholic parish appears to be struggling. They get the people who show up, but we’ve noticed they’re losing families. Maybe sounds like a geographical thing or a leadership thing. I know a lot of people who are upset with the parish leadership here.
JohnStrachan said:
So much for trying to be relevant.
Click to expand...
So much for being charitable 👍
 
Last edited:
In my more mellow moods, I can fully understand why the Protestant Churches made the decisions they did. After all, the laity was clambering for these things.

People were saying things like “if only my religion allowed me to do X I totally woulda stayed”.

And the people who become clergy of any religion generally do so from a good heart-space. They want to help people, they want to connect with the Trancendent. And when they see people walking away, they naturally want to bring them back into the fold.

But here’s the thing about human nature first, people don’t want what’s good for them, second, people don’t even know what they want.
 
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
People were saying things like “if only my religion allowed me to do X I totally woulda stayed”.
Click to expand...
I find it totally ironic that the churches that have bent over backwards to be accommodating - especially on the equal marriage issue - are not bursting at the seems with LGBTQ members. And whether your church allows women to be priests or priests to marry is of no consequence to the number of people in the pews. The issue of female clergy only seems to matter to those women who feel called to be clergy.

I would also like to say that despite its opposition to BC, most RC’s have tuned the church out. Perhaps this isn’t the case at CF - but this site is not populated (generally speaking) by left-leaning or moderate adherents.
 
Last edited:
I will even go so far as to say that HV has not been received by the faithful. And like most encyclicals is only read by scholars, critics and the most strident adherents to the faith. I recall teaching RCIA in the early 00’s, that the priest deliberately avoided talking about HV because he felt it was pointless.
 
I came to Catholicism later in life. But all of the Catholic couples I have known along the way were using BC. They all said the same thing: “Who is going to pay to feed my 17 kids?..the Pope?”
 
No, what I’m saying is:

By putting down you fellow brothers and sisters in Christ (which is what I’m told the Catholic church teaches) via your n=1 experiment isn’t very charitable at all…🤷‍♂️
 
I may not be following here, can you extrapolate? OP has an n=1 experience where in they put down non-Catholic churches with a line “so much for trying to be relevant”

I personally don’t think that’s a very charitable thing to say about other non-Catholic Christians, especially when my n=1 experience is quite different…just my .02
 
He left the Catholic Church in 08. He’s protestant – sort of.
 
TC3033 said:
I may not be following here, can you extrapolate? OP has an n=1 experience where in they put down non-Catholic churches with a line “so much for trying to be relevant”
Click to expand...
Yes, I am n=1. But I have loads of experience in the RC, Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox church. In my professional and worshipping life I’ve had occasion to be involved with 100’s of churches and consistent patterns emerge: numero uno… orthodoxy matters. While I have witnessed growth in very liberal/progressive churches, those that take biblical orthodoxy and church teaching seriously have better odds on growth, health and survival.
 
Yes, the percentage of BC use is enormously high.

Then again, the percentage of people who take the Lords name is also enormously high.
 
TC3033 said:
“so much for trying to be relevant”
Click to expand...
That means being relevant didn’t work. But nevermind linguistically you are also correct, but whether he is being charitable or not is hard to tell.
 
Last edited:
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
In my more mellow moods, I can fully understand why the Protestant Churches made the decisions they did. After all, the laity was clambering for these things.
Click to expand...
Yes and no.
In some cases, that’s true. In others, the leadership rammed it through. Others tried to manipulate the governing structure to do it.
 
Last edited:
Please provide evidence that Vatican II did or authorized anything bad.
 
edwest211 said:
Please provide evidence that Vatican II did or authorized anything bad.
Click to expand...
No amount of evidence is going to satisfy you because the idea of “bad” is subjective. First of all V2 was not doctrinal so it technically couldn’t DO anything bad. Many things came of the “spirit of V2” that I consider bad. I could explain them until I’m blue in the face but if you personally don’t think the things are bad then it’s a pointless endeavor. You will simply say you don’t think they are bad so therefore I am wrong.
 
Last edited:
Interesting, I have noticed (I won’t say the complete opposite) but here Lutheran, non-denominational, and Prysbaterian churches are thriving. I especially notice the non-denom churches on the rise.

Maybe it’s a geographical thing

🤷‍♂️
 
The Presbyterian and Lutheran churches are going downhill fast in my towns and my husband’s hometown. Non-denom is doing a bit better because their churches are more like entertainment and social venues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top