Evangelicals Will Be Extinct Within Ten Years

[SpiritMeadow]

Always:

Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Pick and choose Catholics (priest, nun or laymember) also known as cafeteria Catholics, are not genuine Catholics.

Just look at the news, Pelosi claims to be a Catholic but if she were she could not be pro-abortion and tell such lies as “there is confusion within the Church as to when life begins”. That just isn’t true. The same with Biden, never mind he carries a rosary in his pocket. They say that 60% of Catholics voted for Obama, but genuine Catholics go to Mass every week. If you only include in that 60% regular Mass attenders it drops down to around 12%. (Now don’t mistake me, even if only 1 individual Catholic voted for Obama it would still be a scandal.)

Sooner or later you will come across a survey that says 47% of Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence. Well, that’s not true either. 100% of genuine Catholics believe in the Real Presence.

If you read the Catechism, you will know what real Catholics believe and how they try to live.

I find your reasoning interesting. Some on this forum claim that once a RC, always a RC. So you would claim that only real Catholics can be counted. that would reduce the world wide Roman Catholic church to what in your estimation? Well below the 1.5 Billion mark it now claims no doubt. And in the US, that would probably kick out 60-70% of the the total? You’re frankly marginalizing your church a lot. Do you think the Vatican would approve of your beliefs on this?

 

[4Squarebaby]

I find your reasoning interesting. Some on this forum claim that once a RC, always a RC. So you would claim that only real Catholics can be counted. that would reduce the world wide Roman Catholic church to what in your estimation? Well below the 1.5 Billion mark it now claims no doubt. And in the US, that would probably kick out 60-70% of the the total? You’re frankly marginalizing your church a lot. Do you think the Vatican would approve of your beliefs on this?

The entire point of the opinion piece was that if a megachurch lost 70% of its members it would go extinct. From there we got the title “Evangelical Churches” will go extinct. So by definition would not the Catholic Church be extinct in Europe and America already?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Contarini;4980791]Older Catholic documents (pre-Vatican-II) certainly teach inerrancy. Vatican II appears to most of us to have softened the position. However, as you probably have noticed, there is strong support on this forum for an interpretation of Vatican II in continuity with the tradition (except among those who reject Vatican II, who are a minority here). I generally agree that this seems like a more reasonable way to interpret Vatican II (as opposed to the view of many liberal Catholics that Vatican II is significant only for its breaks with tradition, which should be elevated into principles in their own right independently of the cautious language with which they are surrounded in the Vatican II documents). But there are places where Vatican II clearly does seem to be modifying the traditional understanding. This is one of them.

I would agree with you. Many here seem to thnk that Vatican II changed nothing at all. But I lived through it, and definitely saw a change. It stemmed the flow of people leaving because of contraception. Now of course, one is told that there is no such thing as one’s own conscience in the first place. But I can assure you that every Catholic I knew post Vatican II was advised that contraception was now not a sin perse but was a matter of personal conscience. I think the CCC does support that, at least that there is a individual conscience that has ultimate authority, but that is another matter.

I was certainly taught that inerrancy was not the rule but that inspiration was. In other words that certain stories were not true factually such as creation, Noah etc, but were accounts teaching valuable lessons about God and our relationship to him.

No, I don’t think so. Inerrancy is not the same thing as literalism, though they are often confused because of the loud voices of modern fundamentalists. There are a number of creationists here. But it is possible to be a classical inerrantist in the Protestant “Old Princeton” sense and reject young-earth creationism (and in fact the original “fundamentalists” were not necessarily young-earthers), and this appears to be true of the Catholic version as well. Certainly Pius XII explicitly allowed for a non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3, and even for theistic evolution within certain limits.

Edwin

I would agree that literalism is not the same as inerrancy. But no one seems to agree on what is what. Those who claim they are not literalists will say that there are such things as allegory, poetry, and other literary devices, but then will become apoplectic should you claim that the Flood was not a real event, or that Jonah wasn’t swallowed by a whale. And don’t even begin to start with adam and eve as real people and the only people on earth at one time. So I have no clear understanding yet that there is any CLEAR division between the two. If someone can give one, I’d like to see it. I do agree with you about Pius however.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think attending a Catholic Mass would be an excellent idea. The general pattern to a Mass is as follows (fellows Catholic please correct if I’m wrong)

A. Liturgy of the Word

1. Greeting
2. First Reading (Old Testament)
3. Psalm (typically a Pslam)
4. Second Reading (New Testament)
   5, Gospel
   B. Liturgy of the Eucharist

As you can see by the format Mass is filled with scripture.

I believe if a Catholic goes to Mass weekly they will hear the entire Bible in 3 years and they attend daily mass they will hear the entire Bible in 1 year. Again lots of scripture…

You may read the daily readings here

usccb.org/nab/

Again, there’s been a catechesis problem in the Catholic Church for the last 40 or so yesas. I’m a product of this, cafeteria Catholics are also products don’t take it personally or over stereo type.

If you’re investigating the heart of real worship just pray and search for the Truth. God will lead you to where you belong

God Bless.

The RC mass follows the same general order of the Episcopal service.

What I find sad is that whenever any RC disagrees with the orthodox here, they are told they were 1. poorly catechized, and thus 2. Cafeteria catholics. The argument has long lost it’s power, since there are quite thoughtful, well informed, very observant RC’s who still disagree on fundamental issues such as gays rights, women’s ordination, etc. It’s time to go on to a more substantive argument if you have one.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Before I forget, “Inerrancy is not the same thing as literalism”.
Thank you for pointing that out. I don’t like sterotypes. Everyone put in neat little catagories may help in understanding where someone is coming from, but as we see here in the difference in beliefs of Catholics in general, sterotypes only hamper a deeper understanding of why someone might believe what they believe.

I received a private message here and invitation from a fellow Houstonian today offering to guide me towards the best Catholic churches in my area. This is very sweet of y’all. And I appreciate Wizkid too for giving me the breakdown on what to expect if I attend a mass. Very thoughtful. Thank you all.

Ain’t it the truth, aburger! People still trying to find errors 4000, 2000 year later, and they got nothin’! I could just hug you Bible-believing Catholics! I’m so happy I found this forum and see that “Catholic” does not equal what I thought.

Sorry to say there are hundreds and thousands of errors in the bible. That is when whenever there is a new translation they have to pore over thousands of copies of individual books, study ancient languages, and attempt to choose the best words that most truely reflect what we think was meant. And in the end, we cannot be sure, since we have no originals of anything.

What we do feel confident about mostly is that basic teachings that are important are substantially correct. The fact that we know that some battle was fought in a year different than discribed or that somebody added incorrectly are not that important. They are often marked down as scribal errors, and of those there are many indeed.

There are even transcripts wherein the writer admonished future copiers to do so faithfully, since some scribes took it upon themselves to “correct” what they thought were errors. We have seem whole verses taken out, others added because someone transcribing thought they belonged. Later, they were in fact added.

So we can never claim that no errors are in the bible. But as I said, we feel pretty confident that the main teachings have been passed down faithfully as to meaning.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The entire point of the opinion piece was that if a megachurch lost 70% of its members it would go extinct. From there we got the title “Evangelical Churches” will go extinct. So by definition would not the Catholic Church be extinct in Europe and America already?

It seems if people want to define out 3/4 of their own congregation out the their church it is their business. I very recently saw that only 10% of Italians attend church any more. Certainly the RCC has suffered fatal losses in Europe. The also lost heavily in Latin America, but I think are recovering a lot from Africa. This will change the church no doubt.

I doubt Evangelicals are going extinct, any more than RCC. It may have to do with a general reduction of most all faiths at least in this country. Hard to say.

But it is certainly an argument I’ll be making the next time somebody throws up the 1.5 billion number. Apparently that’s not worth much these days, according to the orthodox. I suspect they, being the only true church, constitute closer to 10% of the original figure.

 

[always_gr8ful]

My point is that using Sola Scriptura any Protestant can prove anything from the Bible. For some who believe in Sola Scriptura it amounts to Bibliolatry. In fact, the only difference between Scripture and Tradition is that one was written down and the other was handed forward orally. In my post, I was trying (and clearly did not succeed) to show that certain concepts in the Bible cannot be understood or can be severely twisted using Sola Scriptura. For example, when the jailer asked Paul what must I do to be saved, Paul answered “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.” So many Protestants believe that all they must do to be saved is believe. But James writes that the demons believe in Jesus Christ, and they certainly aren’t saved by that belief. You and I both know many who believe in Jesus, but refuse to follow Him. So again, Sola Scriptura is not a valid doctrine and it leads one into many other invalid doctrines such as Sola Fide.

Would you consider love a string?

Marsha, I’m not a Protestant and I don’t have a clue what Sola Scriptura is.

Would I consider love a string? Absolutely not! Jesus never said we must love Him in order to be saved. Our love for the Lord is something that grows and develops over time as our relationship with Him grows and deepens. Love is the natural course for those who have the Holy Spirit living inside of them, not a prerequisite.

 

[always_gr8ful]

Sorry to say there are hundreds and thousands of errors in the bible. That is when whenever there is a new translation they have to pore over thousands of copies of individual books, study ancient languages, and attempt to choose the best words that most truely reflect what we think was meant. And in the end, we cannot be sure, since we have no originals of anything.

What we do feel confident about mostly is that basic teachings that are important are substantially correct. The fact that we know that some battle was fought in a year different than discribed or that somebody added incorrectly are not that important. They are often marked down as scribal errors, and of those there are many indeed.

There are even transcripts wherein the writer admonished future copiers to do so faithfully, since some scribes took it upon themselves to “correct” what they thought were errors. We have seem whole verses taken out, others added because someone transcribing thought they belonged. Later, they were in fact added.

So we can never claim that no errors are in the bible. But as I said, we feel pretty confident that the main teachings have been passed down faithfully as to meaning.

SpiritMeadow, I have spend countless hours studying the claims of “errors” and I have proven for myself that they are false. To say “there are hundreds and thousands of errors in the Bible” is perpetuating a lie straight from the devil. Why not look into it yourself instead of believing what someone told you or you read off a website somewhere.

Sorry, but I just hate that. It’s bad enough to hear it from atheists.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I’m sure there are some good books on the subject but since you made the claim I am wondering if you could provide a brief summary of how Pius saved 800,000 Jews. What exactly did he do?

There are records…look them up.
He had them secretly brought to Rome where he had housing and Catholics to help them.

He also had the Polish Catholics hide and save them…
Unfortunately though, 3 million Catholics were slaughtered because of their helping them…and because they were Catholic.

IF you have a question, do what I do - research it.

 

[WarriorAngel]

The RC mass follows the same general order of the Episcopal service.

What I find sad is that whenever any RC disagrees with the orthodox here, they are told they were 1. poorly catechized, and thus 2. Cafeteria catholics. The argument has long lost it’s power, since there are quite thoughtful, well informed, very observant RC’s who still disagree on fundamental issues such as gays rights, women’s ordination, etc. It’s time to go on to a more substantive argument if you have one.

Where do you get they are well informed?
Obviously not informed at all, or they would know what the early Church taught on these subjects…AS well as what it means to BE Catholic and what it always meant to be Catholic according to the earliest of writings.

Catholicism isn’t about ‘being thoughtful’ or ‘well informed’ on what the era of opinion says - the modern flavor according to society … the Church IS and always will be the ONE constant beacon from the Lord.

Never minding the ‘era’ or the ‘generation’ as Christ warned there would be a time when…

Yet He said He would send His Spirit to stay and that He Himself would stay.

So far - the cries for change do nothing now as they did nothing in the hsitory of the Biblical times.

God is God - He doesn’t change - and neither do His Laws.

’They are in the world - but not of the world…'

 

[always_gr8ful]

And you “know” what God’s Word says because your particular traditions have taught you to interpret it in a certain way, and have taught you that Scripture is God’s Word in the first place.

Edwin

I keep losing posts so maybe I shouldn’t be posting. I just wanted to respond to this.

Edwin, I interpret the Bible for its common sense meaning. Maybe I could stretch my brain and say that the English language tradition has something to do with my interetations, but that is all.

God said the Bible is His Word and I believe it, it’s that simple. God is perfect and His Word is perfect and I don’t have to have anyone tell me that because I’ve studied it myself. If you really want to grow in the Word, try debunking atheist for about 2 years straight.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Sorry to say there are hundreds and thousands of errors in the bible. That is when whenever there is a new translation they have to pore over thousands of copies of individual books, study ancient languages, and attempt to choose the best words that most truely reflect what we think was meant. And in the end, we cannot be sure, since we have no originals of anything.

What we do feel confident about mostly is that basic teachings that are important are substantially correct. The fact that we know that some battle was fought in a year different than discribed or that somebody added incorrectly are not that important. They are often marked down as scribal errors, and of those there are many indeed.

There are even transcripts wherein the writer admonished future copiers to do so faithfully, since some scribes took it upon themselves to “correct” what they thought were errors. We have seem whole verses taken out, others added because someone transcribing thought they belonged. Later, they were in fact added.

So we can never claim that no errors are in the bible. But as I said, we feel pretty confident that the main teachings have been passed down faithfully as to meaning.

Peter said the unstable and unlearned wrest the scriptures [and Paul’s Epistles] to their own destruction.

To say there are errors certainly does enjoy the proof of how prophetic Peter was and is still today.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I keep losing posts so maybe I shouldn’t be posting. I just wanted to respond to this.

Edwin, I interpret the Bible for its common sense meaning. Maybe I could stretch my brain and say that the English language tradition has something to do with my interetations, but that is all.

God said the Bible is His Word and I believe it, it’s that simple. God is perfect and His Word is perfect and I don’t have to have anyone tell me that because I’ve studied it myself. If you really want to grow in the Word, try debunking atheist for about 2 years straight.

Ay - they are good at getting one to affirm the truth.

Try about 8 years…[not straight] it does begin to get annoying when you go thru the same discussions to no avail.
Everyone needs a break.

 

[a_burger]

Maybe you should reread what I wrote. There is a little sarcasm in it. What I am addressiing is my fellow Catholics that think only Catholics are going to heaven. Pope John Paul II said the other Christian religions are missing out on the full experience of Christianity. He never said non-Catholics who believe in Jesus Christ will not go to heaven.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Marsha, I’m not a Protestant and I don’t have a clue what Sola Scriptura is.

Would I consider love a string? Absolutely not! Jesus never said we must love Him in order to be saved. Our love for the Lord is something that grows and develops over time as our relationship with Him grows and deepens. Love is the natural course for those who have the Holy Spirit living inside of them, not a prerequisite.

Always:

My apologies, you sound Protestant and I jumped to a conclusion. Sola Scriptura is a Protestant heresy that says that the Bible (Scriptura) is the only (Sola) rule of faith. They believe nothing that cannot be proven using the Bible Alone.

Jesus gave us two Great Commandments, to the Love God with all our hearts, minds and strengths and our neighbor as ourselves. He also told us that if we love Him we will keep His commandments.

 

[whizkid43]

The RC mass follows the same general order of the Episcopal service.

What I find sad is that whenever any RC disagrees with the orthodox here, they are told they were 1. poorly catechized, and thus 2. Cafeteria catholics. The argument has long lost it’s power, since there are quite thoughtful, well informed, very observant RC’s who still disagree on fundamental issues such as gays rights, women’s ordination, etc. It’s time to go on to a more substantive argument if you have one.

Quite thoughtful, well informed, very observant RC’s who still disagree on fundamental issues such as gays rights, women’s ordination (should you throw in abortion and birth control also?) are not in union with the Magisterium. PERIOD. The Magisterium’s position is quite clear on these issues…

I think you’re confused. The RC Church is not an academic think tank, there is no argument to be had, at least on the social issues you cited…

And just for the record, starting a post with “What I find sad” really hinders your credibilty…

 

[Marsha_Adams]

I find your reasoning interesting. Some on this forum claim that once a RC, always a RC. So you would claim that only real Catholics can be counted. that would reduce the world wide Roman Catholic church to what in your estimation? Well below the 1.5 Billion mark it now claims no doubt. And in the US, that would probably kick out 60-70% of the the total? You’re frankly marginalizing your church a lot. Do you think the Vatican would approve of your beliefs on this?

I anticipate a great schism coming to the Church, during which the liberal cafeteria Catholics and the nominal Catholics and the C&E Catholics will walk out. The remaining Church (particularly in the U.S.) will be significantly (perhaps drastically) smaller and purer than it is now. As for the Vatican, the Curia may have a problem with it, but His Holiness Benedict XVI will be dancing in the streets.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, I interpret the Bible for its common sense meaning. Maybe I could stretch my brain and say that the English language tradition has something to do with my interetations, but that is all.

This just shows how unaware you are of the way your interpretation of the Bible actually works. I know this sounds arrogant, but please try to get past the no doubt imperfect and sinful way I’m expressing myself and consider whether what I’m saying may not be true. Your conception of “common sense” is simply a bundle of assumptions which you take for granted because you’ve never thought to question them. If it were really “common sense,” then everyone would agree with you. Is it really likely that all the people who differ with you on the interpretation of the Bible do so because they are too stupid or too blinded by tradition to see the “common sense” meaning? Isn’t it a lot more likely that your “common sense” is in fact not “common,” and that the fact of differing interpretations demonstrates that we all come to the Bible shaped by differing traditions?

God said the Bible is His Word and I believe it, it’s that simple. God is perfect and His Word is perfect and I don’t have to have anyone tell me that because I’ve studied it myself. If you really want to grow in the Word, try debunking atheist for about 2 years straight.

It seems to me that spending your time “debunking atheist” is a very good way to shrink and narrow in your understanding of the Word. I wouldn’t expect this to lead you to “grow in the Word” at all, and I think that your statement demonstrates how flawed and shallow your understanding of “growing in the Word” is.

How can you “grow in the Word” if you spend all your time trying to prove that the Word is true in the first place?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Marsha, I’m not a Protestant

“Protestant” may not be the way you choose to define yourself, but you are certainly a “Protestant” in the normal sense people give the word: i.e., a Christian whose theology is shaped by traditions originating in the break with Rome that took place in the sixteenth century. That’s “common sense” if you like! You can redefine the word “Protestant” to mean something different, but it makes conversation with you more complicated so you might want to reconsider it.

The general problem in having a conversation with you is that you seem to think that if you deny and ignore the traditions that have shaped you then they will go away. They won’t.

Edwin

 

[always_gr8ful]

This just shows how unaware you are of the way your interpretation of the Bible actually works. I know this sounds arrogant, but please try to get past the no doubt imperfect and sinful way I’m expressing myself and consider whether what I’m saying may not be true. Your conception of “common sense” is simply a bundle of assumptions which you take for granted because you’ve never thought to question them. If it were really “common sense,” then everyone would agree with you. Is it really likely that all the people who differ with you on the interpretation of the Bible do so because they are too stupid or too blinded by tradition to see the “common sense” meaning? Isn’t it a lot more likely that your “common sense” is in fact not “common,” and that the fact of differing interpretations demonstrates that we all come to the Bible shaped by differing traditions?

An interesting assumption since I haven’t posted any particular interpretation of the Bible in which my common sense meaning could be challenged. So let’s cut the bull. Do you believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God?

It seems to me that spending your time “debunking atheist” is a very good way to shrink and narrow in your understanding of the Word. I wouldn’t expect this to lead you to “grow in the Word” at all, and I think that your statement demonstrates how flawed and shallow your understanding of “growing in the Word” is.

How can you “grow in the Word” if you spend all your time trying to prove that the Word is true in the first place?
Edwin

“All your time” was added by you.
This is an easy question to answer by looking at the flip side. Many an atheist have come to Christ while trying to debunk Him by trying to prove the Word false. The more you study, the more you see how perfect God’s Word is. Surely you aren’t opposed to studying the Word, are you?

The general problem in having a conversation with you is that you seem to think that if you deny and ignore the traditions that have shaped you then they will go away. They won’t.
Edwin

Edwin, I appreciate you psychoanalyzing me, but your baggage is not my baggage.