Prairie_Scouter Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 OGE and Unc, As I said in my followup post, I meant no disrespect, and do apologize to anyone who might have been offended. OGE, I honestly don't think that my comment resembles any of the examples you provided, but if you interpreted it that way, please know that that was not my intent. "Dark Ages" does have a negative connotation in addition to identifying a particular period of history, and I should have used a more neutral descriptive term. Unc, comments made about the expectations of Pope Benedict are based on his actions during many years working at the Vatican. He is known to be very conservative. His tone more recently has been more conciliatory; I can only hope that he continues down that path during his papacy. Blade, What you are talking about when you mention "morals" are matter of dogma. I haven't seen anyone here talking about making changes to basic beliefs having to with the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, etc. What I have seen discussed are matters having to do with participation of women in the Church, marriage of priests, etc, which are not matter of dogma but rather rules created by the Church hierarchy in times past. Just as with the rules on meat on Friday (changed in the last 50 years) and the rules on charging interest on loans (changed in the 17th century, I believe), these are matters that were created by "man" and can be changed by "man", I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevorum Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 blade, I beg to differ. "Truth" is always contextual. What is true in one place and time is not necessarily so in another place and time. For example, before Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, et al., Catholic "Truth" said that the earth was the center of the universe. Good people were executed for heresy for saying otherwise. As another example, in the ante-bellum South, God-fearing people knew the inferiority of Africans to be "Truth" and this was proclaimed from the pulpit as God's will (the curse of Ham, etc.) Another example: In the first decades of the 20th century, tens of millions of Japanese fervently believed in the "Truth" of the divine infallibility of the Emperor. The point is, what people believe to be "true", may well hold for their neighbors and most of the people they meet. However, that in and of itself does not make it eternal or universal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 "But what is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths-are mine the same as yours?" Pilate to Jesus Jesus Christ Superstar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevorum Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Yes, that raher neatly sums up the difference between the secular and religious perspectives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schleining Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Without getting into to much debate... It is amazing where the stats come from. Some say people are leaving in droves... while others report the fastest growing Church is also the Catholic Church. Did you know that the Church that recieved the most Converts over the last 5 years is the Catholic Church.. Thats right converts...people coming into the Church from elsewhere... But you know that has nothing to do with the Pope..past or present. Vatican II- before comments are made about JPII disregarding Vatican II you had better know what Vatican II said. There are so many people that truely do not know what is in the content of the Second Vatican Council. The Laity was NOT the biggest part of the council and the Catholic Church did not change ANY teachings in the Council. The Mass was made more "Accessable" and the Priest no longer said Mass in Latin... It did push the Church into a tail spin allowing everything and anything to be right. It did move the Church into the relativism state. The Bed rock of the church has remained the same and should never change. If that is like the Dark ages so be it. The Faith is strong and the Gates of hell will never destroy it. Benedict XVI will be a great leader for the church...maintaing strong conservative views on Church doctrine, teaching, and application of the faith. The Church will continue to be strong. John Paul II will certainly be missed and future Pontifs call learn alot from his Saintly life. Which we all can. Pray for the Repose of the soul of our dearly departed Pontif John Paul II. Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prairie_Scouter Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 schleining, The reports I heard on Church growth, or lack thereof, all came from several sources during the selection of the Pope. They said, (1) the Church is only growing in the Southern Hemisphere, primarily South America, and (2) membership in the Church in the U.S. is either stable or falling, but definitely not growing. Regards John Paul and Vatican II... Participation by the Laity, marriage of priests, etc, as you said, were not primary to the content of Vatican II. However, the ability to discuss these issues was made more "open" as a result of Vatican II, if not by rule of law, then by just being more willing to have the discussion. I believe that John Paul was a part of movement to squelch this kind of discussion in favor of more conservative views. Clergy who thought otherwise and expressed their views were removed from their positions. Vatican II emphatically did not make "anything and everything right". It did try to make the effort to allow the Church to exist successfully in the context of the times it is in. That doesn't require any change in the basic dogma of the Church. The Church didn't collapse when it agreed that the world was not flat. The Church didn't collapse when it agreed that the earth was not the center of the universe. The Church didn't collapse when it became ok to eat meat on Friday. The Church will most likely not collapse if women are allowed to be priests. The Church will most likely not collapse if priests are allowed to marry. They may, in fact, make the Church stronger as a result. If the Church didn't allow itself to change in the context of the times, ie, if the Church still taught that the world was flat and the center of the universe, taught that charging interest was immoral, etc, do you think it would be as successful today as it has been, despite its sometimes problems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backpacker Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Jerry What were your references for the information on converts because my sources Newsweek, Catholic Digest, Christianity Today, and US Catholic have all reported just the opposite. Let me state however as a life long Catholic that I respect and support the office of the papacy and will continue to do so no matter who holds the office, however that should not preclude clergy and laity from holding open dialog concerning the direction of the Church. I feel that most Catholics will support Benedict as they did John Paul even though they may disagree with certain stances each has taken or will take on certain issues because the Church is much more than one man, even if that man is the pontiff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevorum Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 According to adherents.com, an independent research endeavor to track religious membership, Catholicism is growing in the United States, both in terms of percentage and absolute numbers. Between 1990 and 2001, Catholics in the US grew from 46M to 51M. The 2004 estimate is 72M See http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#Pew_branches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prairie_Scouter Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 I heard reports of U.S. Catholic membership either being "stable" or "falling" during news reports on both NBC and CNN during coverage of the selection of the new Pope. Same for the growth of membership in the Southern Hemisphere relative to everywhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperParatus Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 The rhythm method is a wunnerful thang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prairie_Scouter Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 I took a quick look around and found the following... The Episcopal New Service is reporting 2004 growth in the Catholic Church at 1.28%, which contradicts a report I heard during the papal election. The Catholic News Service reports that in both 2003 and 2004, the Catholic Church maintained their membership at 23% of the population, which would seem to be in agreement with another report I heard saying that U.S. Church membership is "stable". A report on a PBS website noted a concern among U.S. bishops about a steady decline in church attendance in the U.S. A report on an NBC website noted a concern about the falling number of priests in the U.S. while the Catholic population is growing, although the body of the story doesn't clarify, or mention, the growth figures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schleining Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 a couple of you took my references... I think the first thing one needs to do is stop listening to CNN and Newsweek... CNN is openly anti Catholic or religion for that matter. Praire- like you said the Church will not collaps over any of this. I disagree that JPII squeltched discussion, I think we will have to agree to disagree on that, because that debate could go on for ever. Women Priests- don't think that is going to happen. Married Priests- not any time soon. Personal opinon is that things should stay the way they are. I want my Priest focusing on one thing and that is the Church and leading the Parish. I do not want him distracted by Soccer practice and School plays. In our Parish alone we have seen a huge influx of new and returning Catholics... and keep in mind I live in the MOST UNCHURCHED State in America. Our Parish grew from 1500 families to 1700 families in 2 years. This years RCIA class had 50 people in it. That has been unheard of. If nothing else I think that people are looking for a spritual home and finding it again in the Catholic Church. Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backpacker Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 I think the discrepancies occur in what questions and how they were asked. A poll that states what religion are you rather than what religious group are you an active participant will get very diffent results. There are many Catholics in the world, but those who attend Church and are active on a regular basis, every Sunday minimally, are much fewer in number. A non practicing Catholic may still consider themselves Catholic and will answer a poll that they are Catholic when the reality is they are not. Many church's also report those who come to Mass only on Easter and Christmas as members of their congregation when in reality they are not. Thats why you get such differences in these polls. Jerry, thats great news about your parish, but I disagree with you that either Newsweek or CNN is anti-Catholic, what do you base this on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schleining Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 For what it is worth... The debate of who is growing and declining is not really and indicator of the stability of the Church...but I chanced upon this article that I thought was interesting none the less... It is authored by James Akin, a Former Presbyterian that is now a leading Author on Catholic topics. "If one were to prefer religion based on long-term, sustained growth, the Catholic Church would be the one to prefer. With almost 2,000 years of growth, the Church today is larger than it has ever been before, with over a billion members. More than half of all Christians are Catholics and more than one in six human beings is a Catholic. And the number is rising. For example, in 1997the most recent year for which global statistics are currently availablethe Church had an overall increase in membership of over ten million, only a little more than half of which can be accounted for by baptisms under the age of seven, and an increase in spite of the loss of members due to death and defection. And the Catholic Church is growing not only in the world at large but in America in particular. In 1998the most recent year for which national statistics are availablethe U.S. Catholic population had an overall increase of 455,000, including 162,000 conversions to the Catholic Church (i.e., cases of people joining other than baptisms of those below the age of seven). It may be important to point this out to those who commit the "fastest-growing" fallacy and wish to represent the Catholic Church as stagnant or declining in membership. It is especially valuable to know the number of adult conversions per year, since an anti-Catholic might attempt to dismiss American Church growth as due only to infant baptisms or immigration. Needless to say, the Catholic growth rates in both the United States and the world dwarf what any other church is doing. Nobody else in the world gets an net increase of ten million people in a year, and nobody else in America gets a net increase of half a million people in a year. And remember that these represent net increases in membershipafter deaths and defections have been factored inso the actual number of converts is significantly higher." You can read the whole article at: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0005chap.asp I submit this only to say that Growth is somewhat immaterial in the debate of the stabilty of the Church. And that everyone...news agencies, Authors and of course those of us that post to this forum...have an opinion. YIS Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schleining Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Backpacker- I base it my opinion. They rarely have a good word to say about any conservative issues (religion falling in that category) CNN is completely biased.. I my non Scouting life I am a Soldier. CNN consistantly scews its stories about the Military and Government policy. That is another debate for another time...and at the end of the day it will probably come down to my opinion and nothing you can site or measure. IMO though CNN is worthless unless you lean to left side of the fence. Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now