A research paper that I read, but didn’t keep (either text, or bibliographic info) suggested that 80% of the people in attendance at a Catholic service on a Sunday Morning were not practising Catholics. By way of contrast, only 60% of the people in Protestant mega-church were not practising Christians.
You have to take into consideration that the Catholic Church welcomes it’s non-practicing members as well as it’s practicing ones to Mass. So, you get people who are there physically, but mentally and spiritually not so much, but they’re there. In many Protestant churches that place the emphasis on behavior as the true sign of believe, there are fewer people in attendance but a higher rate of them are practicing their faith. Statistics can be deceiving and don’t explain what their numbers truly represent. They have to be interpreted according to what’s behind the numbers.
The process of becoming a Catholic is completed when Person A does X Y and Z. Becoming a Christian isn’t the same sort of process. It doesn’t happen when Person A does thus and such- it happens when God makes them a Christian.
I suppose it all depends on how one defines “Practicing Catholics”…Truth is that most Catholics who don’t practice don’t go to Church on Sunday morning period…So I think that there is likely something very wrong with either the way the paper was researched or the way you remember it…
No, that’s not the case. Catholics are Christians even if they are bad ones. It is baptism that infuses the soul with saving grace not the “sinner’s prayer”. Whether or not any baptized person is saved or not is another matter altogether.
I’m afraid that you are mising the point above…“Completing X,Y and Z” does not make one Catholic, unless “X” is the acceptance of Christ. Without this acceptance, the other steps are meaningless. They may call themselves Catholic—Others may think they are Catholic — But they would not be Catholic without accepting Christ.
Oh, now this is quite interesting. How to approach it…
It’s not a matter of getting your soul infused with “saving grace.” And there’s nothing you can do (the universal, all-inclusive “you” that readily includes all clergy and laity) that will guarantee a certain set of actions by God at a particular time. What’s needed is for God to transform a person from a non-Christian to a Christian and indwell that person from then on. He does it when He does it, usually not at baptism and especially not when infants are baptized.
Yes, I suppose it is. But you’re quite sure that anyone who’s baptized in the acceptable way is a Christian, yes? Well, I’m not quite so sure, but I am interested in knowing what you mean by calling all of these people “Christians.” Again, I do see the progression from “valid baptism” to “they’re all Christians.” But what else does it mean? You see what I’m asking for, don’t you? You can skip right past the part where you say “Everyone who’s baptized by Trinitarian formula is by definition a Christian.” I got that. I see no compelling reason to agree with it, but I got it. See if you can add anything else. Like a compelling reason, perhaps. Or the reason you came to this conclusion, even if it’s not so compelling. Or the relative importance of this issue and the consequences that result from it. Whatever you have on hand.
That’s a very prejuduced way to determine whether one is a Christian or not.
For people who convert to Catholicism, “X” is the Catholic education classes, “Y” is confirmation and maybe baptism, and “Z” is communion, confession, etc. And for those who are born into Catholicism, it’s just one step- be born to Catholic parents who will baptize you. After that, you can attend a Protestant church or be an atheist or explore Hinduism and you’re still counted among the 1.1 billion Catholics in the world today, provided that you don’t ever go through the hassle of formally removing yourself from the list.
You’re really saying all the sacraments are meaningless unless God has actually caused someone to become a Christian? Because I would totally agree with that. You didn’t put it in quite that way- you did say “accept Christ.” But what else is the purpose of doing so if not for that reason?
Well, I suppose with Della, I’m curious about the details of what it means to call someone a “Christian.” And now with you, I’m curious about the details of what it means to call someone a “Catholic.” Each of you says “Christian” automatically follows when someone is rightly called Catholic, but I think I’m seeing some differing ideas on the size and shape of your groups.
Well that’s a tad pejorative, and it didn’t accomplish anything good. I don’t think you completely understood what I’m getting at, but it doesn’t matter. It wasn’t directed at you, and you’re not getting a lengthy sidebar when you jump in and throw around a loaded term like that.
We can’t judge it, but that doesn’t mean it’s of no consequence. To the contrary, it’s the things that can’t be judged externally that mean more than anything.
Personally I should think so, but maybe judgmental then?
Meaning no disrespect, but your “understanding” has nothing to do with the issue.
God does not judge who is a Christian and who isn’t by anyone’s “understanding” of who deserves the title “Christian” and who doesn’t.“That’s just how it is.” Now that is a well-above-average contribution- if you are 8 years old. Thank you for that.As I said there are good Christians/Catholics and bad ones, but anyone properly baptized is a Christian. That’s just how it is.