How many people actually believe the religion they identify with?

[strngrnrth]

I read a website several years ago by an Evangelical webmaster who cited a study (no, I don’t have the URL of either the site or the study) that showed only about 8% of people who called themselves Evangelicals believed all of what he considered the core beliefs in Evangelicalism.
That made me wonder: How many Catholics believe all that the Catholic Church teaches? How many Mormons believe the entire rock-bottom LDS doctrine? How many atheists really believe the whole atheist nine yards? And so on. I wonder if it breaks down that way across religions, and around a twelfth of all people actually hold to an entire written philosophy, religion or other beief system? I know some religions are far more open to varied interpretations. Some are really ways of looking at things rather than demanding literal belief or faith. But to me the distinction between feelings and beleifs matters. Maybe this is more a philosophical question, but I was hoping to see if anyone knows similar data on various religions. Just curious.

 

[cathopologist]

In my opinion, you cannot claim to be Catholic if you disregard what the Magisterium teaches.

 

[Georgia]

I would bet that the majority of people in America who call themselves Catholic in the U.S. aren’t at all that faithful to the teachings of the Church. Witness the stampede that is a Christmas Mass. If our church is any guide to others, we run concurrent masses at a nearby high school gym. Each is SRO nearly an hour before the official start time.

Why are there that many extra people? Well, it has to be that most do not really believe they have to go to mass more than twice a year. My sons are always shocked that the priest has to gesture to get them to stand at the proper times and that they do not seem to know how to receive the Eucharist or that they have an obligation to skip receiving if they simply blow off going the other 50 weeks of the year. Those numbers prove it isn’t just a holy day that has the regulars making more of an effort to go. One of our priests said the second in size denomination in America is Catholics who don’t practice the faith. He may be right.

I take hits at work and elsewhere from time to time from people who start the conversation with “I’m Catholic, but I don’t really believe_______.” Charity and occasional good sense keeps me from saying what I really think, but it would begin with “Well, no, you are not Catholic.”

Look at prominent people in public life who claim to be Catholic while supporting abortion rights. There is no way they are close to anything Catholic.

It was a similar thing in my former Fundamentalist faith. A good rule of thumb for us was that if it seemed fun, it must be wrong. Drinking, smoking, dancing and too many other things to mention were considered sinful. Yet, I regularly ran into church members who were doing any or all of the above. There is a joke in the South about how Baptists cannot speak to another in the liquor store. That was absolute truth in our case. We could not have a church-sponsored activity that involved males and females going to, say, a beach, but everyone went privately.

I think it may just be human nature. We want everything, including our faith, to fit us comfortably without our having to change.

 

[Calliope]

I take hits at work and elsewhere from time to time from people who start the conversation with “I’m Catholic, but I don’t really believe_______.” Charity and occasional good sense keeps me from saying what I really think, but it would begin with “Well, no, you are not Catholic.”

So what does the Church say about this? I mean, I’ve been taught that anyone baptised Catholic is a Catholic, even if they choose not to be educated or to practice or live by the teachings of the faith.

You’ve probably heard “once a Catholic always a Catholic”, but around these forums, the belief seems to be that if you don’t study and believe the faith, you are NOT Catholic.

And what do Catholics think of people of other faiths that are only 85% in line with the teachings of their faith? Is a Buddhist only a Buddhist if they are 100% in line with the teachings of Buddha?

What decides which religion a person is part of? Their own self identification? How successful they are in accepting and living the teachings of that faith? An initiation that took place on their behalf in their youth (not limited to Christianity by any means)?

I think that about 1% of the people of any religion are full fledged, accept it all as literal truth, dyed in the wool. And the numbers vary from there, to those who think it’s all a crock but find value in practicing it anyway…either because the discipline or community proves to be useful, if not the beliefs themselves.

I expect that the numbers are pretty much the same for most religions. Some practice because they believe, others, because it suits them to be part of the community. Most a mixture of the two.

Calliope

 

[RAR]

In my opinion, you cannot claim to be Catholic if you disregard what the Magisterium teaches.

Oh yes, if only that were true. I don’t mind telling you that I’m growing tired of being pastoral with my fellow man. I’m beginning to speak more boldly… like every Catholic in the social hall were on the same page. I feel like in the past I was a little shy almost to speak plainly about what we as Catholics are to believe because sadly so many of us have been going through the motions.

It’s time for this Church to take Her throne and Her members to gird for battle. The faith is too rich and beautiful for us to continue allowing selfish, prideful, ignorant people bring it down.

RAR

 

[RAR]

So what does the Church say about this? I mean, I’ve been taught that anyone baptised Catholic is a Catholic, even if they choose not to be educated or to practice or live by the teachings of the faith.

You’ve probably heard “once a Catholic always a Catholic”, but around these forums, the belief seems to be that if you don’t study and believe the faith, you are NOT Catholic.

And what do Catholics think of people of other faiths that are only 85% in line with the teachings of their faith? Is a Buddhist only a Buddhist if they are 100% in line with the teachings of Buddha?

What decides which religion a person is part of? Their own self identification? How successful they are in accepting and living the teachings of that faith? An initiation that took place on their behalf in their youth (not limited to Christianity by any means)?

I think that about 1% of the people of any religion are full fledged, accept it all as literal truth, dyed in the wool. And the numbers vary from there, to those who think it’s all a crock but find value in practicing it anyway…either because the discipline or community proves to be useful, if not the beliefs themselves.

I expect that the numbers are pretty much the same for most religions. Some practice because they believe, others, because it suits them to be part of the community. Most a mixture of the two.

Calliope

I absolutely think you’re right, Calliope. But it saddens me all the same. Being part of a church is professing a faith. If they don’t believe in what they are supposed to be professing, then what are they doing? Yes, once a Catholic always a Catholic (unless you officially renounce the faith with your Bishop). My wife has reminded me of this. But, maybe those folks need to ask themselves what it all means.

RAR

 

[Georgia]

I guess what I was trying to hit on was that rejection of central dogmas really is a departure from whatever faith. Unless we get sainthood, we all have of doubt, failings, misunderstanding, ignorance or rebellion. That is why we go to confession.

It is the deliberate part of rejecting the faith that I should have mentioned. Going out of the way to announce that the Church is wrong on things that are dogmas or obstinately disobeying could, in my opinion, be seen as a constructive declaration of leaving the faith. I could be wrong and often am, but I think or feel that leaving the Church in practice is pretty close to the same thing as leaving it formally.

 

[Calliope]

It is the deliberate part of rejecting the faith that I should have mentioned. Going out of the way to announce that the Church is wrong on things that are dogmas or obstinately disobeying could, in my opinion, be seen as a constructive declaration of leaving the faith. I could be wrong and often am, but I think or feel that leaving the Church in practice is pretty close to the same thing as leaving it formally.

My understanding is that if you speak openly against the teachings of the Church, you have excommunicated yourself. You are still Catholic, but you have chosen, by your behavior to place a barrier between yourself and full communion with the Church. You have removed yourself by your own free choice, but the indelible mark of baptism remains. To come back into full communion, you would have to acknowledge your behavior and statements as false and sinful, receive the sacrament of Reconciliation and do whatever appropriate penance. If the statements were made publicly and were very damaging, the Bishop might require one to make public reparation, and might require some “proof” of a change of belief and attitude before allowing one to return to full communion with the faith.

But as far as I know, even excommunicated Catholics are still Catholics. I know the nuns excommunicated for heretical beliefs and practices regarding the Blessed Mother have been encouraged to attend Mass, even though they may not receive the Blessed Sacrament.

hope that helps.

Calliope

 

[spoiltvictorian]

It’s said a small percentage of any group sets the pace and everyone else follows inconsistently. Don’t blame the followers - remember the parable of the talents instead.

 

[cathopologist]

Oh yes, if only that were true. I don’t mind telling you that I’m growing tired of being pastoral with my fellow man. I’m beginning to speak more boldly… like every Catholic in the social hall were on the same page. I feel like in the past I was a little shy almost to speak plainly about what we as Catholics are to believe because sadly so many of us have been going through the motions.

It’s time for this Church to take Her throne and Her members to gird for battle. The faith is too rich and beautiful for us to continue allowing selfish, prideful, ignorant people bring it down.

RAR

Oh i am not the type to bow to political correctness or for the liberalization of the Church. No brother, don’t give in and let ‘popular culture’ win.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Oh yes, if only that were true. I don’t mind telling you that I’m growing tired of being pastoral with my fellow man.

I’m beginning to speak more boldly… like every Catholic in the social hall were on the same page. I feel like in the past I was a little shy almost to speak plainly about what we as Catholics are to believe because sadly so many of us have been going through the motions.

It’s time for this Church to take Her throne

Her Lord was content with the throne of the Cross - so should we be. Otherwise, we fall into a sort of prosperity theology: as though we could “have [our] reward already”.​

and Her members to gird for battle. The faith is too rich and beautiful for us to continue allowing selfish, prideful, ignorant people bring it down.

IOW, its too good for human beings. If immoral conduct unChurched Catholics, Apostolic Succession would be knocked for six. That way leads to Sedevacantism. This temptation is one that needs to be resisted, because it is so attractive.​

This is not Catholicism: it’s the very old idea called Donatism. Unless people are without sin, it’s too good for those sinners too. If they aren’t sinless - what allows them to stay in the Church, that does not allow the rest of us to stay too ? The suggestion is like kicking the sick out of a hospital until they stop vomiting & groaning & being ill; after which, they may just possibly be allowed in again - but only once they have a full recovery, or died. Christ came to call sinners - “It is the sick, not the healthy, who need a doctor”. There is more than enough in everyone for everyone else to become sick & tired of them; if we don’t kick out our relatives because we are sick & tired of them, why should we treat our brethren in Christ like that ?

The trouble with holier than thou people is that they are too holy for scum like the rest of us - they are so busy washing their hands of the contamination we ignorant, selfish, prideful, sinful people leave all over their pristine, pure, sinless religion, that they have no time to spare for us lepers, Samaritans, adultresses, tax-collectors & heathens: they are far too busy in their holy huddle, for anyone as disgusting as that. It is the corrupt & filthy & rotten CC that has evangelised much of the world - not the Donatists in their sinless & fault-free sect. Maybe there is a lesson there.

RAR

 

[4Squarebaby]

It’s said a small percentage of any group sets the pace and everyone else follows inconsistently. Don’t blame the followers - remember the parable of the talents instead.

Most folks, like me have not studied as those on this site have. I could go to the site of anyother faith and the arguments and presented evidence seem just as valid as everything I’ve read here for the past couple of weeks. I suppose if I didn’t work, lead praise and worship, have a family and went to a Bible college reccomended by my church then the arguements I could make would potentially meet the smell factor of as many people as any other apologist for all the other denominations.

In the end most people just follow the traditions they are used to. If I remember the PEW Research Center data on conversions earlier this year about half of Americans convert to something similar to their childhood teaching in adulthood or lose faith in God entirely.

 

[reen12]

I think of ‘live’ questions - as this pertains to the matter at hand:
**How many people actually believe the religion they identify with?
**
25 years ago, I came upon the concept of a “live” question.
If a question is not ‘live,’ it has no part in a person’s life.
It does not ‘emerge’ from the background, to be seriously considered.
[If something serious suddenly becomes totally foreground, this is an 'emerg’ency.]

Been considering this point for a quarter century, while
observing my fellow human beings, occassionally thru
the lens of ‘live’ questions.’

This concept surely has a part in terms of what people ‘actually believe.’

reen12

 

[reen12]

For devout believers in any faith tradition, ‘total doctrinal aggreement’
often seems a sine qua non. [One sees this phenomenon express in the terms
‘cafeteria Catholic,’ and ‘non-practicing’ Catholic, I think.]

I wonder how many attendees, on a given Sunday,
even believe, or understand, the real presence?
How many could give a clear definition of infalliblity?

These, it seems, are no longer ‘live’ questions.
They do not occupy foreground for many, many people.
‘God’s in His heavens - all’s right with the world,
I went to worship today, so all is OK.’

What I find much more of a live question - is not the debates between Christians
of various denominations.
[At least the questions - put forth in debate - are live questions- to those involved in the debate.]
I’m wondering if many people, in our day, have an utter dis-interest in things theological.

I see the Church changing, quietly.
The Sacrament of Reconciliation is no longer part of the lives of many Catholics,
if the numbers taking part are given credence.

Doctrine will remain doctrine, yet practice will change, and is changing.
Not thru the robust debates of the past, in ‘challenging’ doctrine -
but through the simple disregard for that which is taught in these doctrines.
Doctrine is no longer a live issue, for many.
Who knows? Maybe it never was.

There will always be those who carry doctrine forward,
so that the next generation receives the doctrines.
‘Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.’
My guess is that this is what was passed on, early on,
in the life of the Church. “I am the way and the truth and the life.”
This will always remain a live issue, for those who acknowledge
Jesus as a God/man.

reen12

 

[Thorwald]

There is no such thing, as a ‘religion’ in the sight of God. God gave us His Word. Changes to His Word, have created differences in religious beliefs. It is written, that we need no man to give us an understanding of His Word. We are required to go to God in prayer, in order to seek wisdom, and not rely on our own, or another’s vanity (remember the story of Solomon, and why he was given great wealth).

Any changes made to God’s Word that are due to visions, dreams, apparitions, etc., that are not backed up by Numbers 12:6 or John 14:21-24, are false prophesy. We were provided with these verses, in order for us to test what others are telling us. God’s Word, in this day and age, has been totally defiled. It is written, that we will return to the days of Noah. Keep in mind, that Jesus faced the same problem, in regards to the scribes and Pharisees. He spoke in parables, so that they would not understand, and thus, they were not saved.

Thorwald Johansen
email: thorwaldj@shaw.ca

 

[notsmart]

Did you ever wonder if all those “untrained” “catholics” at mass at Christmas, were family members visiting from out of town that, may not even be catholic?!
Easter and Christmas were times just about everyone went to whoever’s church that was hosting that holiday (except my side of the family, which did not attend) and they did it together. We did not have any catholics in the family, but I suspect if we did they would have to go to 2 services then, or someway figure out how not to make the non catholic service replace their mass obligation.
I would go to mass and non catholic services, if that ends up happening this year. Even though, I don’t have an obligation yet.

I would bet that the majority of people in America who call themselves Catholic in the U.S. aren’t at all that faithful to the teachings of the Church. Witness the stampede that is a Christmas Mass. If our church is any guide to others, we run concurrent masses at a nearby high school gym. Each is SRO nearly an hour before the official start time.

Why are there that many extra people? Well, it has to be that most do not really believe they have to go to mass more than twice a year. My sons are always shocked that the priest has to gesture to get them to stand at the proper times and that they do not seem to know how to receive the Eucharist or that they have an obligation to skip receiving if they simply blow off going the other 50 weeks of the year. Those numbers prove it isn’t just a holy day that has the regulars making more of an effort to go. One of our priests said the second in size denomination in America is Catholics who don’t practice the faith. He may be right.

I take hits at work and elsewhere from time to time from people who start the conversation with “I’m Catholic, but I don’t really believe_______.” Charity and occasional good sense keeps me from saying what I really think, but it would begin with “Well, no, you are not Catholic.”

Look at prominent people in public life who claim to be Catholic while supporting abortion rights. There is no way they are close to anything Catholic.

It was a similar thing in my former Fundamentalist faith. A good rule of thumb for us was that if it seemed fun, it must be wrong. Drinking, smoking, dancing and too many other things to mention were considered sinful. Yet, I regularly ran into church members who were doing any or all of the above. There is a joke in the South about how Baptists cannot speak to another in the liquor store. That was absolute truth in our case. We could not have a church-sponsored activity that involved males and females going to, say, a beach, but everyone went privately.

I think it may just be human nature. We want everything, including our faith, to fit us comfortably without our having to change.

 

[M0nkey]

How many Catholics believe all that the Catholic Church teaches?

Few. Hence, the narrow gates.