I think its easier to “convert” lukewarm or cafeteria Catholics than non-Catholics. Why not put more effort on them? The Charismatic Protestants have been picking off our less Catechized brothers and sisters little by little. We should be putting for the effort for them, not these other groups.
I hear Protestants have been losing a lot of membership lately too so I wouldn’t want to be copying their styles of conversion either.
I am thinking we are twins…ages, situations (except for the DDs pregnancy) is my story exactly.
Why not put “more effort” into our own personal holiness, bringing MEN into our priesthood, the family rosary…prayer before & after meals…Traditional Catholic Retreats etc. before we go looking for new converts. Remember, that while converting others to our Faith is important, it is not as important as getting ourselves to heaven.
By Charismatic Protestants, I mean Evangelicals, Pentecostals and non-Denoms. In places where I am, their numbers are growing and sadly a lot of their members are former Catholics.
Does it have to be either/or? Can’t it be both? I don’t remember Jesus saying, “love God OR love your neighbor.” It should be both, always, at the same time.
I was reminded of something I saw while reading my kids Catechism. There is a picture of a fishing boat with it’s sail aloft. There is also a dove aboved the boat and wind blowing from the dove into the sails. Reminded me of something I read about the wind blows where it may.
Move the boat yes. Reconstruct the boat, not necessary.
Of course it doesn’t have to one or the other. Loving Christ IS loving one’s neighbor. Maybe you missed this part of my post:
But what is a good Catholic? Can we ever be the good Catholics in the sense? Most if not all saints do not see themselves as good and worthy Catholics out of their good sense of humility. So if we are to be saintlike, then we may never recognize us being good Catholics, then we may never see the opportunity to help our bretheren.
I already said that. The boat cannot be changed, and the boat is our faith and morals, the Deposit of Fath, the doctrines and dogmas. But some elements of our faith are flexible. It was flexible from the beginning, no need to be unflexible today. The Apostles adopted to the culture of the world when they moved about. Why can’t their successors adopt to the world today?
I have only seen one source - Mass Times - that has anything of a count world wide as to how many Masses are in Latin. Their count is one out of approximately every 250, which works out to four tenths of one percent of the Masses said in any given week.
reach the Gospel at all times!Your news flash, however, is a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. What changed the shift in belief was not the change from the EF to the OF, but the change in catechetical material which resulted when the Baltimore Catechism, which was most widely used, was tossed out because it was “too doctrinal”. Kids were no longer taught about the True Presence; teaching was dumbed down and watered down into a “we must love one another” claptrap.
Not bad.Remember the Franciscan Rule
If need be, use words.
You’re right but vernacularizing the Mass was supposed to fix everything.
My problem with this entire supposed difference in the level of belief between now and then is that I very much doubt that you could find an instance of a survey back then that ever dared ask the question. These ‘low numbers’ started being bandied about in the 80s and 90s but can anyone show a survey from say, the 40s? the 50s? the 60s?
There’s no need for a survey. Its a given everyone who attends TLM believes in the Real Presence
So you mean nobody who attended Mass prior to Vatican II ever had doubts? Ever went because ‘the wife makes me’? Or ‘my parents will kill me if I don’t go’?There’s no need for a survey. Its a given everyone who attends TLM believes in the Real Presence
LOL. We were all expected to go. My mother would ask if we were going to communion before making us breakfast.
As long as they were wearing their hats and suits, it was okay.