So many Catholics leaving the church

[zz912]

That study also says that about 17% of those who identify as catholic attend Mass rarely or never. So, for all intents and purposes, those people have left the Church. 41% say they attend monthly or yearly. Meaning those folks aren’t really practicing, either, and have one foot out the door. Only 41% attend Mass regularly.

The study also mentions that one of the reasons the numbers are holding steady for catholics under 40 is an influx of immigrants. Meaning that the non-imigrant population is actually dropping. Otherwise, the number of practicing catholics under 40 would be growing, not merely staying roughly the same. And I think that some of those immigrants will stop practicing once they have been here long enough to assimilate into our country’s rather secular culture. Which is a HUGE problem. As we lose the adults we also lose their children and their children’s children and so on.

Sometimes I get a bit sad at Mass. I have attended Mass on Holy Days and at different times here and there throughout the year and a half since I began converting. I can count on my fingers the number of adult Mass attendees, besides myself and my family, that are under 50.

This is absolutely spot on.

Someone who only culturally identifies as Catholic, but never or very infrequently attends Mass has left the Church. And the Catholic population should be SWELLING in the US since the largest immigration to the US over the last 40 years has been from Central and South America. But as noted, the Catholic population has stayed flat, which means that a lot of Catholics are leaving the Church as many pour over the borders.

 

[Ignatius]

The article is specific to the United States and their statistics come from…

wait for it…
National Catholic Reporter!

-Tim-

Why do people cite the National Catholic Distorter?

 

[ProdigalSun]

I take issue with the idea that “so many Catholics” are leaving the Church. I don’t see it from where I sit.

My parish had 2400 people on our campus for the the 4:00 PM Christmas Eve Mass. Over 160 were confirmed this year. In 2009 more than 17 million people entered the Catholic Church. That’s more than than entire Southern Baptist Convention.

I disagree with the entire premise of this thread.

-Tim-

Right on Brother! Me too! I don’t see a massive exodus of catholics leaving the church. As a matter of fact didn’t the church grow by 15, 000,000 people last year.

Not sure what all the fuss is about.

Anybody leaving was not there in the first place.

 

[BernadetteM]

From what I have seen we get the more educated converts who actually do the research on what the Church teaches and believes and also many ministers who have been led to the Church through their research. Of course there are priests who leave, however, the ones I hear about on the news are leaving for marriage or other reasons than the teachings of the faith. It is more difficult to be a priest than a minister, as their family is the Church and its members and they often must minister to thousands not 100-300. The mega churches have many ministers (not sure any have been to seminary, but that is what they call them). Catholic priests are more or less on their own.

I know several evangelicals/fundamentalists and they know nothing about the history of the Church or have even heard of the early Church Fathers. Many have no idea where their bibles come from and many don’t seem to be interested in finding out.

As retired Pope Benedict said not verbatim, but the same meaning, he would rather see a smaller Church but a stronger one.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[TimothyH]

Why do people cite the National Catholic Distorter?

CNN was happy to cite them.

Someone at CNN want’s to paint a picture of a dying Church. Threads like this don’t help.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

Right on Brother! Me too! I don’t see a massive exodus of catholics leaving the church. As a matter of fact didn’t the church grow by 15, 000,000 people last year.

Not sure what all the fuss is about.

Anybody leaving was not there in the first place.

At best, “so many Catholics leaving the Church” is a regional phenomena.

People in Detroit see empty Churches. People in New York hear that one third of the parishes are closing. People in Atlanta however, see mission Churches and Catholic high schools under construction - people in Pittsburgh and Buffalo don’t see that.

None of us in North America sees what’s happening in South America or Africa and there is a reason why the Pope is from Argentina and the new head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is from Guinea.

-Tim-

 

[awsiukiewicz]

They have come to know the Lord, been filled with the Spirit, and they are excited about it.

whats your point Randy ?

 

[awsiukiewicz]

They have come to know the Lord, been filled with the Spirit, and they are excited about it.

maybe he entertainment

 

[Ositokc]

Most of the Catholics I know personally are not leaving the Church, however in the eyes of many they might as well do it, since they are “Cafeteria” Catholics and see no problem

with Gay Marriage, Masturbation and Birth Control. The big 3 if you will of Catholic controversy, in my opinion.

 

[MJJean]

At best, “so many Catholics leaving the Church” is a regional phenomena.

People in Detroit see empty Churches. People in New York hear that one third of the parishes are closing. People in Atlanta however, see mission Churches and Catholic high schools under construction - people in Pittsburgh and Buffalo don’t see that.

None of us in North America sees what’s happening in South America or Africa and there is a reason why the Pope is from Argentina and the new head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is from Guinea.

-Tim-

What’s happening in Africa is wonderful, but it doesn’t change the fact that the numbers are dropping in the US (other than immigrants) and in Western Europe.

Again, the reason adults under 40 numbers are holding up is the immigrant population. Which explains the growth in the South. That is where most of our traditionally catholic immigrants tend to live.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

What’s happening in Africa is wonderful, but it doesn’t change the fact that the numbers are dropping in the US (other than immigrants) and in Western Europe.

Again, the reason adults under 40 numbers are holding up is the immigrant population. Which explains the growth in the South. That is where most of our traditionally catholic immigrants tend to live.

You can add South America to your list. Once staunchly Catholic, they are leaving Catholicism for Evangelicalism in droves. Pope Francis acknowledged this early on in his Papacy.

But even Catholics that are not leaving for Evangelicalism, are just falling away into a liberal-secular view that all religions are about the same, and just believing in God is pretty much all that is required.

Catholics that don’t see the seriousness of this have their head in the sand. They don’t call our Western Society “Post-Christian” for nothing.

 

[TimothyH]

What’s happening in Africa is wonderful, but it doesn’t change the fact that the numbers are dropping in the US (other than immigrants) and in Western Europe.

Again, the reason adults under 40 numbers are holding up is the immigrant population. Which explains the growth in the South. That is where most of our traditionally catholic immigrants tend to live.

I happen to live in the south - suburban Atlanta. The picture you paint is not accurate.

Much of the growth in the south is from Anglo’s who relocated here from the north. The Rust Belt and New England lost while Atlanta, Raleigh and Charlotte gained. Y’all can’t even staff your fire departments because all the newlyweds fled to states where taxes are low and gay marriage isn’t encouraged.

It looks like doom and gloom up there but down here it isn’t and the growth can’t all be attributed to immigration. Opus Dei has a full time formation director here now. We have two auxiliary Bishops - Zarama and Tally - who are likely to be your next bishop. My Chursh is full of former Baptists with southern names like Chord and Travis and Brent. There are even a few charismatic parishes which are attracting many pentecostals and evangelicals.

Catholicism is vibrant and growing all over the South and it isn’t all Mexicans.

-Tim-

 

[thetazlord]

Citation for this claim that Justin Martyr differed from present day Catholicism. And please cite your claim of the ECF’s disagreement over numerous doctrines.

Just to give a few examples: Justin Martyr stated that Jesus Christ (the Logos) was the “one and only path between spiritual and earthly realms.” He doesn’t say anything about Mary or any other “saint” being an “intercessor” between God & man. He recognized that Jesus is the only “Mediator” & “Intercessor” between God & man, which he based on Scripture.

Justin also taught that pagans like Socrates would even be described as “Christians” and had gained a saving knowledge of God from the seeds of reason & philosophy sown by the Logos prior to His incarnation, which can be found in his First Apology, 46. Also, see Second Apology, 10.

Also, the Logos Christology had a problematic tendency to subordinate the Persons of the Trinity into a three-tiered hierarchy, in the way Justin explained it. This Logos Christology would not be the final way that the early Church came to express the doctrine of the Trinity. All of the above, and more, can be found in the book “Getting to Know the Church Fathers: an Evangelical Introduction” by Bryan M. Litfin. It’s very respectable, and very well-researched, book that he bases & cites from the writings of Justin Martyr, as well as other ECF’s like Ignatius, Irenaeus, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, & others.

As far as the ECF’s not agreeing on numerous doctrines, space doesn’t permit how much they didn’t agree with, including the 7 books of the Apocrypha as being Scripture, water baptismal salvation, the Eucharist being the “transubstantiated” body of Christ, Peter being the “rock” that Christ built His Church on, the existence of Purgatory, salvation by works vs. faith, Scripture as the final authority, the canon of Scripture, whether salvation can be lost, whether Satan, the demons, & the wicked dead can be saved, universal salvation, predestination, eternal security, & many many other disagreements among the ECFs. Unfortunately, since the easiest & most concise way to show you these quotes are from a Protestant site, I can’t give you the link, because I don’t want to violate forum rules since it’s not a Catholic Web site. However, I “can” quote CA apologist Jimmy Akin, who himself, stated about the ECF’s, “BOY! Did they not always agree!”

youtube.com/watch?v=2COKzO4Bd0U

And about your “sufficiency” argument from 2 Timothy, I’d like to turn that question around on you and ask why you ignore James 1:4? All we need is patience to be saved, according to your personal theology, correct?

James 1:4 Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.

That’s not what James 1:4 is saying (“all we need is patience to be saved”). If you refer back to vv.2-3, James is talking about one’s faith being tested under trial, which produces patience. This is an encouragement by James that a person’s faith is only genuine when it’s tested, & if the person doesn’t fall away. If they don’t, then their “faith” is “dead” (James 2:17), because as James states their works don’t “lead” or “contribute” to salvation, but their faith is evidenced “BY” their works (James 2:18). So, there’s no “ignoring” of James 1:4, but rather a proper understanding of it that works & testing of faith under trials is evidence that one’s saving faith is genuine.

 

[Thorolfr]

It looks like doom and gloom up there but down here it isn’t and the growth can’t all be attributed to immigration. Opus Dei has a full time formation director here now. We have two auxiliary Bishops - Zarama and Tally - who are likely to be your next bishop. My Chursh is full of former Baptists with southern names like Chord and Travis and Brent. There are even a few charismatic parishes which are attracting many pentecostals and evangelicals.

Catholicism is vibrant and growing all over the South and it isn’t all Mexicans.

-Tim-

That sounds great for you in the South, but what’s happening in Latin America? According to a new survey published by the Pew Research Center on 13 November 2014:

Latin America is home to more than 425 million Catholics – nearly 40% of the world’s total Catholic population – and the Roman Catholic Church now has a Latin American pope for the first time in its history. Yet identification with Catholicism has declined throughout the region, according to a major new Pew Research Center survey that examines religious affiliations, beliefs and practices in 18 countries and one U.S. territory (Puerto Rico) across Latin America and the Caribbean.

Historical data suggest that for most of the 20th century, from 1900 through the 1960s, at least 90% of Latin America’s population was Catholic (See History of Religious Change). Today, the Pew Research survey shows, 69% of adults across the region identify as Catholic. In nearly every country surveyed, the Catholic Church has experienced net losses from religious switching, as many Latin Americans have joined evangelical Protestant churches or rejected organized religion altogether. For example, roughly one-in-four Nicaraguans, one-in-five Brazilians and one-in-seven Venezuelans are former Catholics.

Overall, 84% of Latin American adults report that they were raised Catholic, 15 percentage points more than currently identify as Catholic. The pattern is reversed among Protestants and people who do not identify with any religion: While the Catholic Church has lost adherents through religious switching, both Protestant churches and the religiously unaffiliated population in the region have gained members. Just one-in-ten Latin Americans (9%) were raised in Protestant churches, but nearly one-in-five (19%) now describe themselves as Protestants. And while only 4% of Latin Americans were raised without a religious affiliation, twice as many (8%) are unaffiliated today.

Much of the movement away from Catholicism and toward Protestantism in Latin America has occurred in the span of a single lifetime. Indeed, in most of the countries surveyed, at least a third of current Protestants were raised in the Catholic Church, and half or more say they were baptized as Catholics. For example, nearly three-quarters of current Protestants in Colombia were raised Catholic, and 84% say they were baptized as Catholics.

pewforum.org/2014/11/13/religion-in-latin-america/

 

[thetazlord]

Ambrose may have had a few details wrong, but the pattern is the same. You never heard the Gospel until you left the Catholic Church.

That probably says more about you than it does about the Church.

My best friend (and best man at my wedding) was a cradle Catholic who left the Church for many years. When he finally started attending mass again (initially only because he agreed to take his elderly parents to mass), he thought, “Wow. When did priests start preaching the Gospel?”

Well, the point, of course, is that the priests of the Catholic Church were preaching the Gospel all along; he just didn’t have “ears to hear”.

I’m happy that you are hearing the hearing the Gospel at your current church, and I invite you to go deeper with the one, true Church when you are ready.

I was hardly a “Cradle Catholic.” I attended Catholic parochial elementary & high school, and later attended a Catholic college. I was also a devout altar boy, & got “A’s” in all my religion classes. I hardly ever missed Mass & clung to ever word my pastor said. So, I didn’t "miss’ anything. The “gospel” I heard was that a person got saved at the moment of baptism when the Holy Spirit “came into” a person, based on their interpretation of John 3:5 to refer to water baptism & other NT passages, as well as “maintaining” one’s salvation throughout one’s life by consuming the Eucharist at Mass based on John 6:53. This always confused me, because it John 3:5 & John 6:53 appear to teach two salvation plans that “unless” a person participates in them, they “cannot enter the kingdom of God” & “have no life in yourselves”:

“Unless one is born of water & the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5)
“So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.’” (John 6:53)

When I began studying the Bible & attending a Protestant church, I was taught - from Scripture - that the “water” in John 3:5 refers back to the OT where when “water & Spirit” were used together figuratively, it referred to the “pouring out” of the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 44:3-5), which the apostle Paul echoes in Titus 3:5-7, not water baptism. Likewise, I was taught that the key to understanding Jesus being & saying “I AM the Bread of life” & the “eating” of His “body” & “drinking” of His “blood” in John 6:53, likewise refers back to Jesus figuratively speaking in John 6:35 that “coming” & “believing in” Jesus being the “Bread of life”:

“I AM the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.”

Again, I was taught that Jesus is not speaking about literal “hunger” & literal “thirst” in John 6:35, anymore than than He’s talking about the bread at communion being His literal “body” not the wine being His literal “blood.” This is evident by the use of Jesus saying “I AM the Bread of life” in John 6:35,41,48,51, just as Jesus “figuratively” uses other “I AM” statements to describe Himself not literally, but “figuratively & spiritually” - all in the Gospel of John, too:

“I AM the light of the world” (John 8:12)
“I AM the Door of the sheep” (John 10:7,9)
“I AM the Good Shepherd” (John 10:11,14)
“I AM the Resurrection & the the Life” (John 11:25)
“I AM the the true vine” (John 15:1,5)

So, unless Jesus is speaking in literal, physical terms in the above verses, rather than figuratively & spiritually, like I was taught, why would Jesus suddenly change His figurative & spiritual analogies to a literal & physical one in John 6:53 when He states “I AM the Bread of life”?

So, the actual Gospel of salvation I was taught in my Protestant church was that a person is “justified” (made acceptable) by faith & have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1), & that we are “saved by grace through faith, and not of works, nor of yourselves” because it’s a “gift” from God (Ephesians 2:8-9) - not salvation through water baptism, & “maintained” by eating the Eucharist at communion.

 

[thetazlord]

Catholics agree with you 100% on the material sufficiency of Scripture, but not on the formal sufficiency.

Outside of you believing this, where in Scripture does it state this. Something as important as this, should be found someone in the Word of God, shouldn’t it?

I’m not convinced that you have the necessary skills to analyze the entire NT in Greek and overturn 2,000 of Catholic and GREEK Orthodox belief.

Then could you address what I wrote?

Quote:
Also, upon studying the Greek, which the NT was written in, the concept of the Eucharist as the “actual” body of Christ isn’t supported by it. Otherwise, ANYONE who didn’t physically “eat” it couldn’t have “eternal life” (John Ch.6). The key to understanding John Ch.6 is John 6:35, as well as the fact that Jesus saying “I AM the Bread of Life” is 1 out of 6 “I AM” statements that Jesus uses to describe Himself “figuratively” in the Gospel of John alone.

Are you saying that the other “I AM” statements that Jesus was referring to Himself in the Gospel of John, Jesus was referring in literal & physical terms? If not, then why would Jesus suddenly be changing His “I AM” analogies from being “figurative” & “spiritual,” to “literal” & “physical” outside of your “belief”? See my reply above.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12647082&postcount=132

Just asking.

 

[CaliLobo]

I can’t believe I am writing this since I never seem to agree with CaliLobo’s posts. But come on–why so defensive? Just because your parish has greeters doesn’t mean all or even most parishes do. In many (that’s many not all) of the areas she addresses we could do better and we should do better – are we too afraid to admit that? I know you all don’t think that all the parishes are doing things perfectly–these threads are filled with complaining Catholics. “We have greeters”–is not a complete answer to the suggestion that perhaps are parishes could be more welcoming. Like we can put a check in the Welcoming box on some checklist. Our parish has greeters–and yet we had a new family come to Mass and not feel welcomed and who had a bad experience–called let our priest know and went somewhere else. I don’t know what happened but whatever the specifics–it just shouldn’t happen. We need to do better. I’m willing to admit that. What good are those greeters if all the rest of us are unwelcoming? As hard as it is to say I think CaliLobo raised a few good points–and we’d probably all be better off considering them rather than getting hurt and offering our defenses. Do you all really think we have nothing to learn? That there is nothing we could possibly learn from any protestant Church? Are you unwilling to even look at how they might feed the homeless? Are you unwilling to even consider having a potluck after Mass occasionally because hey we have donuts and coffee? If having espresso along with coffee would get a few more people over to the parish center–is such a bad thing to consider it?

The peace of Christ,
Mark

AmbroseSJ:

You can add South America to your list. Once staunchly Catholic, they are leaving Catholicism for Evangelicalism in droves. Pope Francis acknowledged this early on in his Papacy.

But even Catholics that are not leaving for Evangelicalism, are just falling away into a liberal-secular view that all religions are about the same, and just believing in God is pretty much all that is required.

Catholics that don’t see the seriousness of this have their head in the sand. They don’t call our Western Society “Post-Christian” for nothing.

Finally, the points I have been making for years are vindicated. Yet many Catholics continue to be in denial and insist on platitudes (“We’re the largest charitable organization in the world.”)

I am a witness to the growth of Protestantism among Hispanic Americans.

I will post this weekend on more ways the Catholic Church can improve.

 

[TimothyH]

That sounds great for you in the South, but what’s happening in Latin America? According to a new survey published by the Pew Research Center on 13 November 2014:

pewforum.org/2014/11/13/religion-in-latin-america/

Its a numbers game.

The percentage of people who are Catholic has decreased but the number of people who are Catholic has increased. That’s because of overall growth of the population.

If the population of Wala Wala Washington is 1000 and 75% are Catholic then 750 are Catholic. If the population then doubles to 2000 but membership in the Catholic Church falls from 75% to 50% then 1000 are Catholic - a net increase of 250 people. The percentage of people who are Catholic fell. The number of people who are Catholic increased.

Brazil had ~17 million people in 1900. It now has ~204 million. Even if the percentage of Catholics fell from 100% to 10% during this period it would still be a net increase in the number of people. In the article you cited talks about percentages. It does not tell us the absolute numbers of Catholics which has increased worldwide due to population growth.

Bottom line - 17 million new Catholics in 2009. 15 million new Catholics last year - the worldwide Catholic Church is growing, not shrinking. It may be shrinking in percentages but not numbers. The Church isn’t a business and shouldn’t be run or measured like one. We count souls, not market share.

Is there Evangelization to be done? You bet there is, but its not all doom and gloom like CNN and National Catholic Reporter would like us to believe. Lies, damn lies and statistics.

-Tim-

 

[Randy_Carson]

I happen to live in the south - suburban Atlanta. The picture you paint is not accurate.

Much of the growth in the south is from Anglo’s who relocated here from the north. The Rust Belt and New England lost while Atlanta, Raleigh and Charlotte gained. Y’all can’t even staff your fire departments because all the newlyweds fled to states where taxes are low and gay marriage isn’t encouraged.

It looks like doom and gloom up there but down here it isn’t and the growth can’t all be attributed to immigration. Opus Dei has a full time formation director here now. We have two auxiliary Bishops - Zarama and Tally - who are likely to be your next bishop. My Chursh is full of former Baptists with southern names like Chord and Travis and Brent. There are even a few charismatic parishes which are attracting many pentecostals and evangelicals.

Catholicism is vibrant and growing all over the South and it isn’t all Mexicans.

-Tim-

:yup: :clapping:

 

[pablope]

Outside of you believing this, where in Scripture does it state this. Something as important as this, should be found someone in the Word of God, shouldn’t it?

Well…first, before you ask this question…you should first show proof where the Bible says, chapter and verse…where it is the source of sole truth…and it contains everything there is to know…about faith and morals.

And secondly…first, you should provide proof first about the doctrine of Sola Scripture…which you are alluding to…where is this in the Bible?