Many Catholics 'do not believe' church teachings

Dave!

Hope ye don't mind me cross-posting this in A&A and here.

Probably won't come as a surprise to a lot of you.

Many Catholics 'do not believe' church teachings

CARL O'BRIEN, Chief Reporter

Tue, Jun 05, 2012

THE MAJORITY of Catholics in Ireland do not attend Mass regularly and significant numbers do not believe in key tenets of the church’s teaching, according to an Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll.

The poll results, which come as Ireland hosts the 50th Eucharistic Congress of the Catholic Church this week, show belief in the church is strongest in rural areas but falls off significantly in urban areas.

Despite the fallout from clerical sex abuse scandals, a significant proportion of the country – including non-Catholics – believe the church has had a broadly positive influence on Ireland.

The national survey was undertaken last month among a representative sample of 1,000 voters aged 18 and over.

A total of 89 per cent of respondents were Catholic. The remainder were either not religious (6 per cent), Protestant (3 per cent) or from other faiths.

Fianna Fáil supporters were most likely to be Catholic (95 per cent), followed by Sinn Féin (89 per cent), Fine Gael (88 per cent), Labour (85 per cent) and Greens (58 per cent). Overall, just under a third (31 per cent) of Catholics said they attended Mass at least once a week.

More than two-thirds attended services far less frequently. Some 39 per cent said they either never or very occasionally went to Mass. A further 20 per cent said they attended every two to three months, while 8 per cent went once a fortnight.

Those who attend Mass regularly are twice as likely to live in rural rather than urban areas. They are also more likely to be older and support Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael.

When it comes to the church’s teachings, many Catholics do not subscribe to key tenets such as transubstantiation. Almost two-thirds (62 per cent) believe the blessing of bread and wine during Mass only represents the body and blood of Christ.

Just over a quarter believe it is transformed (26 per cent).

There is division on the issue of the church’s role in education, although Labour supporters are more likely to support Government moves to loosen the church’s control of primary schools.

Also, most Catholics (59 per cent) said they are aware of the Eucharistic Congress, due to take place this week, but a very small minority (4 per cent) planned to attend.

© 2012 The Irish Times

philologos

What would be interesting and something I think is lacking from these surveys would be to investigate whether or not there is a correlation between mass attendance and traditional RCC belief. If there isn't that would be very interesting.

Someone needs to get onto these guys and tell them to put a bit more effort into their statistics

bnt

philologos wrote: »

Someone needs to get onto these guys and tell them to put a bit more effort into their statistics

The bit in the Irish Times is not the whole survey, it's a report on the survey. The full report is not on the Ipsos Mori website at the moment, but if it does go up, it may contain more analysis and/or the raw data so you can do your own. Put two sets of data in parallel columns in Excel, use the CORREL() function, and there's your Correlation.

If you want some more "glass half full" analysis of this survey, try this.

philologos

Or should I say the Irish Times in picking out what is noteworthy

getz

maybe like me they dont you they need a third party to help you pray to your god

martinedwards

I think society has shifted a lot in the last few decades.

we live in a world where google helps up find whatever we want.

as a result, there is no longer any hidden knowledge......

so the idea that you have to go through a priest to find God is a lot harder to sell.

especially when there are... shall we call them alternative search engines?... out there which allow direct access.....

if folks even want to look for a god at all.....

joseph brand

martinedwards wrote: »

I think society has shifted a lot in the last few decades.

we live in a world where google helps up find whatever we want.

as a result, there is no longer any hidden knowledge......

so the idea that you have to go through a priest to find God is a lot harder to sell.

especially when there are... shall we call them alternative search engines?... out there which allow direct access.....

if folks even want to look for a god at all.....

We're not as ignorant, kept in the dark. We've 'seen behind the curtain' and it's ugly.

I never listened in mass as a child, but I'd bet that the priests were able to cherry pick the parts of the bible which they deemed more palatable to the public. The 'nice' bits. The internet has in many ways, shown us the parts that were left out, the nasty bits and all the rest of the inconsistencies and the hard-to-believe stories. (eg Noah's Ark)

Table Top Joe

Nothing surprising here,in a nutshell "most Catholics arent Catholic",at this stage the dog on the street could have told us this

Run_to_da_hills

joseph brand wrote: »

We're not as ignorant, kept in the dark. We've 'seen behind the curtain' and it's ugly.

I never listened in mass as a child, but I'd bet that the priests were able to cherry pick the parts of the bible which they deemed more palatable to the public. The 'nice' bits. The internet has in many ways, shown us the parts that were left out, the nasty bits and all the rest of the inconsistencies and the hard-to-believe stories. (eg Noah's Ark)

I can take it most churches preach "Noah's ark", and yes, society is currently living "as in the Days of Noah",

Cato Maior

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I can take it most churches preach "Noah's ark", and yes, society is currently living "as in the Days of Noah",

I cannot recall ever hearing a priest preaching on that topic.

philologos

On the Atheist / Christian debate thread, I'd be happy to know what inconsistencies you have to bring up, which parts we've cherry picked (I and others on this forum have gone extensively through the Jewish law in the past), which parts were left out of the Bible.

And you claim "the internet" showed us this. You do know there's a lot on the internet don't you? There's a lot of falsehood and lies on the internet too.

I'm up for a good discussion, but first we need to see an actual argument on the table rather than idle rhetoric. For me at present, atheism doesn't make sense of the way things really are. Therefore I don't think it is a reasonable position to hold.

Run_to_da_hills

Cato Maior wrote: »

I cannot recall ever hearing a priest preaching on that topic.

I'm sure some Catholics would be able to point out when that particular Gospel was read out.

"For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, even till that day in which Noe entered into the ark, And they knew not till the flood came, and took them all away; so also shall the coming of the Son of man be". Matthew 24 39

Cato Maior

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I'm sure some Catholics would be able to point out when that particular Gospel was read out.

"For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, even till that day in which Noe entered into the ark, And they knew not till the flood came, and took them all away; so also shall the coming of the Son of man be". Matthew 24 39

I used to be a Catholic and a daily communicant (as well as praying the Divine Office). I'm well aware of the Gospel. I'm only commenting that I cannot recall ever hearing a priest preach on it.

Cato Maior

philologos wrote: »

On the Atheist / Christian debate thread, I'd be happy to know what inconsistencies you have to bring up, which parts we've cherry picked (I and others on this forum have gone extensively through the Jewish law in the past), which parts were left out of the Bible.

And you claim "the internet" showed us this. You do know there's a lot on the internet don't you? There's a lot of falsehood and lies on the internet too.

I'm up for a good discussion, but first we need to see an actual argument on the table rather than idle rhetoric. For me at present, atheism doesn't make sense of the way things really are. Therefore I don't think it is a reasonable position to hold.

Did you post this in the wrong thread?

liveya

Dave! wrote: »

Hope ye don't mind me cross-posting this in A&A and here.

Probably won't come as a surprise to a lot of you.

I'd say the church teachings these Catholics reject is concerning sex. Nobody wants to hear about sacrifice and self denial these days.

PDN

Cato Maior wrote: »

Did you post this in the wrong thread?

No, I don't think he did. Atheists have a track record in this forum of making assertions about 'contradictions' and 'inconsistencies' - but when given the opportunity in a dedicated thread to actually address any specific contradictions they signally fail to do so.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

HamletOrHecuba

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I can take it most churches preach "Noah's ark", and yes, society is currently living "as in the Days of Noah",

Take a look at the video on Transhumanism that I posted in the Bible and Conspiracies group to see just how true that is. There is plenty of proof for a global reaching Theomachic universal state which was wiped out by a massive flood that put humanity back thousands of years in terms of technology. Now again man has transgressed all limits.

philologos

Cato Maior wrote: »

Did you post this in the wrong thread?

No, the right thread. Responding to joseph brand.

Run_to_da_hills

Cato Maior wrote: »

I used to be a Catholic and a daily communicant (as well as praying the Divine Office). I'm well aware of the Gospel. I'm only commenting that I cannot recall ever hearing a priest preach on it.

I would consider that passage quite self explanatory and wouldn't need a priest to explain, one only has to look at the state of today's society and its deliberate rebellion against God

On Topic I made the choice to leave the RC rather than remain in it and not agree with many of its doctrines.

Conor30

There are, in reality, quite a few Catholic atheists and Protestant atheists in Ireland!

philologos

Conor30 wrote: »

There are, in reality, quite a few Catholic atheists and Protestant atheists in Ireland!

??

Conor30

philologos wrote: »

??

You don't get it, no?!

In other words, one's religion is as much a cultural thing as a religious belief. The old 'are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist' joke kind of sums this up.

Most people, in my opinion, don't think deeply about these things. They live life in a light-hearted way.

philologos

The sad thing in those situations is, those people don't really know the Gospel. They don't know what Christianity is. Knowing who Jesus is, what He stood for, and appreciating that He came to rescue sinners by His death and resurrection is far more important than the nonsense cultural labels that people might attach to themselves.

The fact that people don't think about these things is deeply tragic. Christians should be genuinely concerned.

HamletOrHecuba

philologos wrote: »

??

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/resignation-of-churchman-halts-heresy-trial-over-no-saviour-claim-305646.html

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/archbishop-secularism-not-all-bad-for-ireland-188196.html

Im surprised at your surprise.

Conor30

philologos wrote: »

The sad thing in those situations is, those people don't really know the Gospel. They don't know what Christianity is. Knowing who Jesus is, what He stood for, and appreciating that He came to rescue sinners by His death and resurrection is far more important than the nonsense cultural labels that people might attach to themselves.

The fact that people don't think about these things is deeply tragic. Christians should be genuinely concerned.

That's as maybe, but it's more of a identifying label than a faith for most people. They are just not bothered thinking about it.

The Gospels and indeed the Bible as a whole, have been interpreted and misinterpreted by so many different 'Christians' to suit their own agenda. Pared down to the very basics, yes, there might be a positive message there. But how many Christian religions are truly Christian? I'm sure Jesus would wince at most the organised religions we have nowadays.

I'm not surprised by the IPSOS findings, published in the IT. There is no rationale for choosing any church over any other, simply because religion is, by definition, in spite of logic and reason.
Thus there is no obvious reason for changing church just because one no longer agrees with some or all its tenets. These people still go under the label of 'Catholic' or 'Protestant' or whatever.

philologos

That's what is tragic. It's more an "identifying label". It's not about real belief in Jesus. If the Bible is true, people need to believe and trust in Jesus in order to be saved. If people don't really believe that Jesus is their Saviour, and that He died to rescue them this is tragic.

The New Testament is the most authentic ancient historical text that we have in the world today. Arguments as to its reliability have by and large fallen short on this forum. We can discuss about interpretation, but what is clear is that the New Testament text has remained by and large the exact same since its first writing.

Denominations and labels fall short. This is why I call myself a Christian first and foremost and I argue for Jesus, what He taught, how He lived and what He died for us.

Conor30

philologos wrote: »

That's what is tragic. It's more an "identifying label". It's not about real belief in Jesus. If the Bible is true, people need to believe and trust in Jesus in order to be saved. If people don't really believe that Jesus is their Saviour, and that He died to rescue them this is tragic.

The New Testament is the most authentic ancient historical text that we have in the world today. Arguments as to its reliability have by and large fallen short on this forum. We can discuss about interpretation, but what is clear is that the New Testament text has remained by and large the exact same since its first writing.

Denominations and labels fall short. This is why I call myself a Christian first and foremost and I argue for Jesus, what He taught, how He lived and what He died for us.

Maybe some of these people do believe Jesus is their Saviour but just don't agree with some or all the doctrines or rules of the RC Church or else just never even really think about it all, one way or other.

At the end of the day, many religions are businesses. They are also political entities too. The Vatican is a political state!

philologos

As for your point about "religions" being businesses. I'm not 100% convinced that this is true. Many churches simply operate on the basis of strengthening Christians in their Christian walk, and in encouraging Christians to share their Christian faith with others. I agree there are churches which can operate as businesses and they should be criticised strongly by Christians who seek to live and speak for Jesus in this world and hopefully encourage others to follow Him. In the last 5 years that I have been a Christian, as a student I was involved with the Christian Union movement on campus, I was also involved with quite a few churches in the Dublin area, and also since I've moved to London. I can say that the vast majority of people I have met are in it simply to be witnesses to the Gospel, and in the hope that people would come to salvation.

That said, it is possible to discover Jesus by looking to His example, and to looking to who He is through the Bible.

I personally amn't a Roman Catholic. I am however deeply concerned with nominalism in Christianity as much as I'm concerned with the emergence of new-atheism. I'm only concerned with defending the Gospel, and pointing people to it.

Conor30

philologos wrote: »

As for your point about "religions" being businesses. I'm not 100% convinced that this is true. Many churches simply operate on the basis of strengthening Christians in their Christian walk, and in encouraging Christians to share their Christian faith with others. I agree there are churches which can operate as businesses and they should be criticised strongly by Christians who seek to live and speak for Jesus in this world and hopefully encourage others to follow Him.

OK but look at America. There are so many 'pastors' over there who have their congregations in a frenzy, while they themselves are falling over themselves with money! Religion can be big business, if you play the game right! And what about 'House of Prayer' in Ireland too - that seems very lucrative! And some other non-Christian religions are also very wealthy.

philologos

Conor30 wrote: »

OK but look at America. There are so many 'pastors' over there who have their congregations in a frenzy, while they themselves are falling over themselves with money! Religion can be big business, if you play the game right! And what about 'House of Prayer' in Ireland too - that seems very lucrative! And some other non-Christian religions are also very wealthy.

A minority of churches. None of which I would applaud.

My approach to Christianity is really simple. Look to Jesus' example in Scripture. This is how we can point to what Jesus would stand for and what He wouldn't stand for. Jesus strongly opposed profiteering in the name of God and stood up for it. In the Jewish temple, he knocked over the tables of moneychangers and merchants in profound anger at this profiteering (John chapter 2 for example).

Our response when we see wrongdoing in the name of Christianity shouldn't be to jettison God, or Jesus, but rather to reject the ideas of those who are twisting His message. The good thing about it is, that we do have eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life that we can look to to find out about Him, what He stood for and ultimately His death on the cross for the sin of the world, and His resurrection.

Run_to_da_hills

Conor30 wrote: »

OK but look at America. There are so many 'pastors' over there who have their congregations in a frenzy, while they themselves are falling over themselves with money! Religion can be big business, if you play the game right! And what about 'House of Prayer' in Ireland too - that seems very lucrative! And some other non-Christian religions are also very wealthy.

Christianity began as a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. When it went to Greece it became a philosophy. When it went to Rome it became an organization. When it spread throughout Europe it became a culture. And when Christianity came to America it became a business.

Matthew 7:22-23 reveals that many false prophets do exploit the NAME of Jesus and will thus suffer the consequences.

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Brer Fox

I think that the reason many Catholics don't accept or believe key things is because it has never really been properly offered/explained to them. I think there is a real problem of 'cultural disbelief', or, more simply, cultural Catholicism, which means that you don't have to believe things in order to be considered Catholic.

I know several Catholics who believe there should be women priests and that the Church is wrong about sexuality. Doesn't sound very Catholic to me, but there you are.

It strikes me as odd that some of those with the most strident opinions will, in the next breath, admit to knowing very little about the faith. But in their ignorance they are happy to propose sweeping and radical changes to the faith.

crosstrainer1

Over the past 10 years ive noticed that more and more people belive that the catholic church which claimed to be gods only church has taught one set of rules and lived by another. In Ireland we are sick of the abuse cover ups, most people feel that religion is about control not salavation. i myself read the bible and the cathloic church does not repersent the jesus in the bible.

HamletOrHecuba

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Christianity began as a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. When it went to Greece it became a philosophy. When it went to Rome it became an organization. When it spread throughout Europe it became a culture. And when Christianity came to America it became a business.

Matthew 7:22-23 reveals that many false prophets do exploit the NAME of Jesus and will thus suffer the consequences.

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

And yet there is a strong possibility that through Pythagoras who lived in the middle east for a long period of his early life that the beliefs of the Old Testament Church were incredibly influential on Greek Philosophy; "What is Plato but Moses speaking Attic Greek?" as Numenius of Apamea went so far as to say. There are many implications on all levels of life and knowledge in what Scriptures and it is the duty of Christian philosophy to work these out- otherwise you will have the situation so common in our own day where someone might indeed believe in or at least give lip service to God and His Holy Scriptures while holding philosophies at odds with their revelation thus creating all sorts of inconsistencies and confusions in both thought and action.

While it is true that the Roman Catholic organization has become an end in itself, therefore separated from God, therefore a tool of the coming Antichrist, and that this did not happen over night with Vatican II but began as a slow process centuries before St Paul clearly outlines a hierarchical structure to the Church in his letters.

HamletOrHecuba

Brer Fox wrote: »

I know several Catholics who believe there should be women priests and that the Church is wrong about sexuality. Doesn't sound very Catholic to me, but there you are.

Than they simply arent Catholics, you could argue that they are not even Christians because Scripture is very clear on this issue.

I wouldnt worry about those types; I would worry more about people who have at least some desire to be with God but get caught up in things designed by the devil to misled them subtly such as the whole sordid "Divine Mercy" affair where the previously condemned with very good reasons writings of an unfortunate nun have been put on a pedestal. I would worry about the followers of the "House of Prayer".

Keylem

crosstrainer1 wrote: »

Over the past 10 years ive noticed that more and more people belive that the catholic church which claimed to be gods only church has taught one set of rules and lived by another. In Ireland we are sick of the abuse cover ups, most people feel that religion is about control not salavation. i myself read the bible and the cathloic church does not repersent the jesus in the bible.

The Church is made up of over 1 billion members, and a handful of men betrayed the gospel by engaging in cruelty and coverups. There were sinners as well as saints in the Church from it's earliest days right up to the present day, and will do so till the end of time. The Church has always condemned abuses introduced by it's members.

Cardinal Journet:

"All contradictions are eliminated as soon as we understand that the members of the Church do indeed sin, but they do so by their betraying the Church. The Church is thus not without sinners, but She is without sin. The Church as person is responsible for penance. She is not responsible for sins....The members of the Church themselves - laity, clerics, priests, Bishops, and Popes - who disobey the Church are responsible for their sins, but the Church as person is not responsible...It is forgotten that the Church as person is the Bride of Christ, 'Whom He has purchased with His own blood." (Acts 20:28).

philologos

HamletOrHecuba: Plato's writings advocate a number of things which would be opposed to the Gospel, such as having "collective wives" being advocated in his Republic. I agree that Plato was an influential writer, but I don't think we should conflate Christianity with pagan writings.

On a general note: I think we need to separate the possibility of rejecting a particular denomination or institution from rejecting the Gospel. Just because a particular institution has screwed up royally, it doesn't mean that God has screwed up royally. Actually, it would point me to the inherent fallibility of man. It demonstrates more and more that the only person I can truly trust, is Jesus. The only name through which man can be saved (Acts 4:12).

It teaches me all the more, that mere religion and piety won't save me, that the works of my hands won't save me, my money won't save me, my family and friends as brilliant as they are ultimately won't save me, relationships won't save me, my ego and confidence won't save me. Ultimately, only Jesus can save from sin, and He is our King, we are called to serve Him. We're utterly helpless without Him, even with "religion".

Denomination or no denomination. Whether or not you believe in God or not, whether or not you follow others gods, whether or not you go to church or not, whether or not you pray and do externally pious deeds. The only thing that matters is your faith and belief in Jesus and Him alone.

Personally, I advocate Christian community arising through grassroots. People who long to know more about Jesus, setting up church communities and living as the early Christian church did. Being a catalyst for change and evangelisation in society. Instead of clinging and gripping blindly to institutions and screaming at societal change, Christianity needs to be an active force within society.

getz

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Than they simply arent Catholics, you could argue that they are not even Christians because Scripture is very clear on this issue.

I wouldnt worry about those types; I would worry more about people who have at least some desire to be with God but get caught up in things designed by the devil to misled them subtly such as the whole sordid "Divine Mercy" affair where the previously condemned with very good reasons writings of an unfortunate nun have been put on a pedestal. I would worry about the followers of the "House of Prayer".

are you saying woman in the early christain church did not preach ? and jesus did not tell all his disciples[one which was mary magdalene]to go out and spread the word of god ?

Brer Fox

Hamlet, what is wrong with Divine Mercy?

Are you not Catholic? I thought you were from reading your posts.

HamletOrHecuba

Brer Fox wrote: »

Hamlet, what is wrong with Divine Mercy?

Are you not Catholic? I thought you were from reading your posts.

I will find the reasons given officially why Catholics are banned from reading the writings of poor sister Faustina. I know John Paul took away the ban and even made her a saint, but the objections are still valid and like so much of his Pontificate his actions in this regard are of doubtful legality, and even if they were perfectly legal they would not be just.

From the her book....

“And know this, too, My daughter: All creatures, whether they know it or not, and whether they want to or not, always fulfill my will… My daughter, if you wish, I will this instant create a new world, more beautiful than this one, and you will live there for the rest of your life.”

Page 247.

If all creature fulfill the will of God what right has he to judge them? Here we have the most extreme form of Calvinism.

“The moment I knelt down to cross out my own will, as the Lord had bid me to do, I heard this voice in my soul: From now on, do not fear God’s judgment, for you will not be judged.”

On page 168.

Come on now.

HamletOrHecuba

Brer Fox wrote: »

Are you not Catholic? I thought you were from reading your posts.

The organizational earthly element of the Church is necessary- but it is not the essence of the Church, once it becomes divorced from that essence it becomes a danger. The murder of Christ you could argue was canonical, the Antichrist also will be canonical probably.

gimmebroadband

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

From the her book....

“And know this, too, My daughter: All creatures, whether they know it or not, and whether they want to or not, always fulfill my will… My daughter, if you wish, I will this instant create a new world, more beautiful than this one, and you will live there for the rest of your life.”

Page 247.

If all creature fulfill the will of God what right has he to judge them? Here we have the most extreme form of Calvinism.

“The moment I knelt down to cross out my own will, as the Lord had bid me to do, I heard this voice in my soul: From now on, do not fear God’s judgment, for you will not be judged.”

On page 168.

Come on now.

You will find explanation of the quote you mentioned at the following link. It's easy to misrepresent when taken out of context.

http://thedivinemercy.org/news/story.php?NID=3063

Conor30

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Than they simply arent Catholics, you could argue that they are not even Christians because Scripture is very clear on this issue.

Not at all! The Anglican Communion and many Protestant Churches allow women priests and pastors. And they're Christian, last time I checked. There wouldn't be anything 'unCatholic' about allowing women priests. It just wouldn't reflect traditionalist Catholicism. What has always been done isn't necessarily right. The Early Church allowed married priests, for example.

As for sexuality, a whole plethora of opinions is out there, depending on which denomination you ask. Besides, Scripture isn't always clear and interpretation is everything anyway. The various Christian Churches can come away from the same Scripture with very different interpretations, and these interpretations then inform their differing doctrines.

Doc Farrell

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

While it is true that the Roman Catholic organization has become an end in itself, therefore separated from God, therefore a tool of the coming Antichrist,

My concern, when I read a post like this on a public forum, is that younger minds or unstable minds or lonely people who are suffering and come to a Christian forum looking for help, might actually read the above sentence and think that it has merit. In doing so they might do further damage to their own peace of mind, causing further pain in their own lives.

What the poster is saying above is that the hundreds of thousands of Catholics around the world who help the broken, the sick, the dying, the homeless every day of their lives are, in his words 'a tool of the coming Antichrist'. This kind of language, on a Christian forum, is very disturbing.
What value has a Christian forum if sentences like the one quoted are considered acceptable? If I were to swap the words Roman Catholic for any other religion or denomination I would be, rightfully, considered a bigot.
For those who may be uninformed, the Roman Catholic Church is not confined to a mysterious Dan Brown type clergy in the Vatican but to All the people around the world baptized into the church who are doing the best that they can.
I'm hoping that since the other post was not deleted, that the same courtesy will be afforded to this one....
Finally, my advice to anyone who considers the Roman Catholic Church to be the tool of the Antichrist is to simply talk to real Catholics involved in groups that help others and you will find that they are, in reality, sane and decent.

joseph brand

Conor30 wrote: »

That's as maybe, but it's more of a identifying label than a faith for most people. They are just not bothered thinking about it.

The Gospels and indeed the Bible as a whole, have been interpreted and misinterpreted by so many different 'Christians' to suit their own agenda. Pared down to the very basics, yes, there might be a positive message there. But how many Christian religions are truly Christian? I'm sure Jesus would wince at most the organised religions we have nowadays.

I'm not surprised by the IPSOS findings, published in the IT. There is no rationale for choosing any church over any other, simply because religion is, by definition, in spite of logic and reason.
Thus there is no obvious reason for changing church just because one no longer agrees with some or all its tenets. These people still go under the label of 'Catholic' or 'Protestant' or whatever.

My folks are religious. Mother doesn't attend mass, father does. Both pray every night. They don't know much about the bible, but they just feel that there must be something else. They really want heaven to be real but there's no reason to think it exists, it's just blind faith. Coupled with the fact that indoctrination began when they were babies and continued all through school and church.

Most of us in this country 'chose' our religion when we were still suckling from our mothers. Hardly an informed decision on our part. Plus geography played it's part too.

A person changing from one religion to the next just proves that it's all a matter of taste; i.e. which one suits you more. If one religion is analogous morally, to your innate morals, then it will seem like a good choice. It's not factually correct but maybe you enjoy it's moral teachings, no matter how crazy they seem to anyone else.

HamletOrHecuba

Doc Farrell wrote: »

My concern, when I read a post like this on a public forum, is that younger minds or unstable minds or lonely people who are suffering and come to a Christian forum looking for help, might actually read the above sentence and think that it has merit. In doing so they might do further damage to their own peace of mind, causing further pain in their own lives.

What the poster is saying above is that the hundreds of thousands of Catholics around the world who help the broken, the sick, the dying, the homeless every day of their lives are, in his words 'a tool of the coming Antichrist'. This kind of language, on a Christian forum, is very disturbing.
What value has a Christian forum if sentences like the one quoted are considered acceptable? If I were to swap the words Roman Catholic for any other religion or denomination I would be, rightfully, considered a bigot.
For those who may be uninformed, the Roman Catholic Church is not confined to a mysterious Dan Brown type clergy in the Vatican but to All the people around the world baptized into the church who are doing the best that they can.
I'm hoping that since the other post was not deleted, that the same courtesy will be afforded to this one....
Finally, my advice to anyone who considers the Roman Catholic Church to be the tool of the Antichrist is to simply talk to real Catholics involved in groups that help others and you will find that they are, in reality, sane and decent.

An organization that shields child abusers is not a tool for the coming Antichrist? Im talking about an organizational structure and NOT the Church- you dont seem to be able to take on board they are not necessarily the same thing. Which again shows the importance of having a proper philosophy.

Also do you not think that the Antichrist will not help people? Did not that the Soviet Union do so much for its citizens' lives?

HamletOrHecuba

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Finally, my advice to anyone who considers the Roman Catholic Church to be the tool of the Antichrist is to simply talk to real Catholics involved in groups that help others and you will find that they are, in reality, sane and decent.

The Church in its essence can never be a tool of the Christ for it is the immaculately pure bride of Christ- however the organizational structures that usually govern the Church can be subverted, and they have been subverted. The Antichrist will bring peace and plenty to the world- the peace and plenty that Christ refused to give.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT9xRMwXaZI

Conor30

joseph brand wrote: »

My folks are religious. Mother doesn't attend mass, father does. Both pray every night. They don't know much about the bible, but they just feel that there must be something else. They really want heaven to be real but there's no reason to think it exists, it's just blind faith. Coupled with the fact that indoctrination began when they were babies and continued all through school and church.

Most of us in this country 'chose' our religion when we were still suckling from our mothers. Hardly an informed decision on our part. Plus geography played it's part too.

A person changing from one religion to the next just proves that it's all a matter of taste; i.e. which one suits you more. If one religion is analogous morally, to your innate morals, then it will seem like a good choice. It's not factually correct but maybe you enjoy it's moral teachings, no matter how crazy they seem to anyone else.

Great post. But if that's what keeps your parents happy and helps them get through life, which is hard enough, then good for them!

philologos

Conor30 wrote: »

Great post. But if that's what keeps your parents happy and helps them get through life, which is hard enough, then good for them!

I think the question is, irrespective of what "helps people get through life", what is true? - The truth is important, and depending on what is true, it can have clear consequences for our lives. Particularly if a sovereign God has spoken into the world and shown us about Himself.

This is when it stops being about what "helps people get through life" and starts being about what is true, and why does it matter.

Conor30

philologos wrote: »

I think the question is, irrespective of what "helps people get through life", what is true? - The truth is important, and depending on what is true, it can have clear consequences for our lives. Particularly if a sovereign God has spoken into the world and shown us about Himself.

This is when it stops being about what "helps people get through life" and starts being about what is true, and why does it matter.

Fair enough, and that's your view, but you seem to be talking more about 'shoulds' than what is actually the current reality for many Irish Catholics. I thought this thread was about an article in the Irish Times, where it was found that many Catholics, rightly or wrongly, don't believe in all of the dogmas and doctrines of the RC Church. For me, the thread is just about a look at how ordinary people consider themselves 'Catholic' and in what way.

Rather than focusing on an 'ideal', which is a very Catholic pursuit I might add, I think it's interesting to explore how everyday Catholics deal with being Catholic and what that means to them.