Number of Catholics at record high

ehcocmeo

Interesting to see the new statistics.

THERE are more Catholics in Ireland than ever before, The Catholic Church now has 3.86m members in Ireland, the highest since records began.

WillyWaggler

Nice spin.

Comparing absolute numbers is misleading. (Perhaps) there are more Catholics in Ireland now, but that would be due to an increase in population. You need to look at the relative numbers: the proportion of the total population that Catholics constitute. Namely, you need to look at the percentages. In 2011, Roman Catholics made up 84.16% of the population; in 2006, 87.4%. That's a percentage drop of 3.24%.

Morbert

ehcocmeo wrote: »

Interesting to see the new statistics.

THERE are more Catholics in Ireland than ever before, The Catholic Church now has 3.86m members in Ireland, the highest since records began.

Ah I see. That explains why churches are full to the brim, why we have an abundance of qualified priests, and why the philosophy and morality of Catholicism is so relevant to today's generation.

Onesimus

I have been to Sunday Mass in many parishes in my town. I see many many Catholics each sunday in each church in just one town. Its packed. The ''nobody goes to church anymore'' is an urban and media myth.

There is a nice story though about the Pope visiting a monastery. about 500 monks celebrating Liturgy. He says to the abbot ''how many monks are here would you say?'' and the abbot replies ''oh about four or five.''

joseph brand

There was a poll on The Journal.ie



Census figures are quite misleading, for various reasons.

Case in point: my wife classed our family of four as catholics in the census. I never saw the forms. None of us go to mass. I don't even know anyone who goes to mass, except my dad. And even he says the cathedral is pretty empty. Those who are there are old.

This idea of catholics believing something which is false? You're free to believe that the churches are packed every Sunday. Doesn't make it true.

Onesimus

Oh no. The ''Poll''. Every atheists ''Bible''.

Go to a Church Joseph on Sunday and go to each Liturgy from morning to afternoon. I see each one full on the hour in my parish churches.

newmug

Yep. Sure the Journal covers everybody in Ireland, and its always right.

Onesimus

newmug wrote: »

Yep. Sure the Journal covers everybody in Ireland, and its always right.

Yes people like Joseph have great ''faith'' in it. hee hee hee hee :pac:

totus tuus

Good crowds going to Mass where I live, with many young people in the congregation.

Gumbi

Onesimus wrote: »

Oh no. The ''Poll''. Every atheists ''Bible''.

Go to a Church Joseph on Sunday and go to each Liturgy from morning to afternoon. I see each one full on the hour in my parish churches.

More sources could be quoted. Don't be so childish. You're positing anecdote as a more reasonable basis for deriving conclusions.

Peregrinus

There are a variety of sources that could be quoted, pretty well all of them more rigorous and more credible than a poll on journal.ie. Many of them come from the church authorities; others from academic sources.

But they all show the same picture; a steep and sustained decline in mass attendance which has not been reversed.

And, the demographics suggest, it’s not likely to be. Mass attendance rates are highest among the oldest age groups. But, as each cohort ages, they do not tend to “step up” their mass attendance rates. This suggests that (barring a revival for other reasons) attendance rates will continue to decline (though more slowly than heretofore) for at least the next generation.

The decline is most marked for Catholics, but this is only because they started from an extremely high mass attendance rate, and so had further to fall. Protestant denominations (mostly - there are exceptions) are also experiencing increased numbers of adherents, per the census, but no rise in (already low) church attendance figures.

(Interestingly, surveys which rely on asking people how frequently they go to church tend to show higher attendance rates than surveys which actually measure the number of people turning up on Sunday mornings. Make of that what you will.)

Galwayguy35

Ther would be a higher number of Mass goers in smaller towns and rural areas, among younger people, and no I'm not talking about kids or teenagers who are with their parents here but the 20 - 35 age group.

eviltwin

It would be interesting to see how many of those who put themselves down as Catholic actually practice.

My husband hasn't been to mass in nearly 30 yrs but for some bizarre reason insisted on putting himself down as Catholic. When I mentioned this on a night out with friends it turned out many of them had done the same thing.

Calling yourself Catholic is not the same as actually being one.

GarIT

Onesimus wrote: »

Oh no. The ''Poll''. Every atheists ''Bible''.

Its a bit better than going "Oh, seems legit, I'll believe"

totus tuus wrote: »

Good crowds going to Mass where I live, with many young people in the congregation.

A lot of them are forced to go by religious parents. Many of them were also listed as Catholic by their parents. Others were made go by other people. Personally I know several people who were made go by their parents that have now stopped once they got to move away for college. Out of a group of 10 friends (all 17-20) there is one Catholic. I also know someone who was bullied into goingto church by the local because she lived in a small town and recieved threats about not going, so very Catholic. :rolleyes:

Penn

I had to convince my mother to put me down as No Religion in the Census. Then the next morning, I discovered my father had crossed it out and put me down as Catholic (So I crossed that out and put me back down as No Religion)

While I still wouldn't consider the Census to be 100% accurate, it is the closest thing we have to an accurate result. And from the Census, the percentage of Catholics in Ireland has decreased over the past 5 years.

Peregrinus

Penn wrote: »

While I still wouldn't consider the Census to be 100% accurate, it is the closest thing we have to an accurate result.

Yes. It measures the religious identification people choose for themselves. Or, at least, the religious identification that their nearest and dearest choose for them which, complaints about interfering Mammies and Daddies notwithstanding, is still probably more meaningful than the identity that some bloke on a discussion board with an axe to grind would choose for them.

Penn wrote: »

And from the Census, the percentage of Catholics in Ireland has decreased over the past 5 years.

Indeed. While both the number and the percentage of people identifying as having no religion has increased dramatically. It would be simply delusional to dispute this.

joseph brand

eviltwin wrote: »

It would be interesting to see how many of those who put themselves down as Catholic actually practice.

My husband hasn't been to mass in nearly 30 yrs but for some bizarre reason insisted on putting himself down as Catholic. When I mentioned this on a night out with friends it turned out many of them had done the same thing.

Calling yourself Catholic is not the same as actually being one.

+1

The poll above should give a more correct approximation of what percentage of us are practising catholics. The census captures those who were born catholic, and in that case that includes me. Like almost everyone I know, I chose to be a catholic when I was a baby. But when I grew up, asked questions and looked around me, I changed. My skin went chalk white, I grew fangs and developed a taste for eating babies. I was now, an ATHEIST! "Wooooo!"

Doctor DooM

Where are all these full churches you speak of gentlemen?

Because of the two I was forced to attend as a child 1 has been halved in size to become a community centre and the other only puts on half as much masses due to the tiny congregation. Anecdotal evidence is easy. Loads of young people at churches? Probably the Mammy sending them. See?

The actual real interesting information I found from the census is the amount of "no religion" babies being born (although I find the idea of religious babies laughable). There's a fairly big spike in the amount of families with no intention of giving the child a religious upbringing.

Benny_Cake

joseph brand wrote: »

+1

The poll above should give a more correct approximation of what percentage of us are practising catholics. The census captures those who were born catholic, and in that case that includes me. Like almost everyone I know, I chose to be a catholic when I was a baby. But when I grew up, asked questions and looked around me, I changed. My skin went chalk white, I grew fangs and developed a taste for eating babies. I was now, an ATHEIST! "Wooooo!"

All the census can really tell us is what people identify themselves as being (taking Peregrinus's health warning about presumptuous parents into account). That said, it's the best approximation you are likely to find. The profile of Journal.ie users is not likely to reflect the population as a whole.

Benny_Cake

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Where are all these full churches you speak of gentlemen?

Because of the two I was forced to attend as a child 1 has been halved in size to become a community centre and the other only puts on half as much masses due to the tiny congregation. Anecdotal evidence is easy. Loads of young people at churches? Probably the Mammy sending them. See?

It really varies from place to place, some churches are close to empty, while some are packed. One thing I've noticed (and this is only my personal experience) is that those who attend Mass tend to fall largely into two categories: older people, and families with primary school aged children. I don't see young single people, or even young couples without children, or teenagers. From personal experience, you can really feel left out as a single person on a Sunday (I no longer attend and am no longer single, but that was my experience).

I think that one thing we can be certain about is that church attendance is down significantly in the last 30 years, although the decline varies greatly from place to place.

Doctor DooM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

All the census can really tell us is what people identify themselves as being (taking Peregrinus's health warning about presumptuous parents into account). That said, it's the best approximation you are likely to find. The profile of Journal.ie users is not likely to reflect the population as a whole.

Does it matter what they identify as when they don't believe in any of it or partake the rituals other than the basist of lip service?

I believe there was another recent survey done where I think over 40% of people who identified as Catholic said Ireland would be no worse off if the RCC withdrew from the country. To me, that is mind boggling. I'll dig it up.

Benny_Cake

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Does it matter what they identify as when they don't believe in any of it or partake the rituals other than the basist of lip service?

I believe there was another recent survey done where I think over 40% of people who identified as Catholic said Ireland would be no worse off if the RCC withdrew from the country. To me, that is mind boggling. I'll dig it up.

In one way, it probably doesn't matter, although I suspect in terms of the big life events - birth, marriages, deaths - they still approach these bingo a church context. That's not particularly unusual as a lot of other European countries are like that too.

With regard to the 40% statistic, it doesn't really surprise me. A lot of practising Catholics are as furious with the institution of the church over what has gone on as anyone else, but they would still see their own faith as something important to them, despite the failings of the institution. I remember seeing an interview with an American priest who said the best thing to happen to the church would be for all the money and positions of power to be taken away and all that would be left was the Gospel. Looking at the photos of Archbishop Dolan laughing it up with Romney and Obama the other night makes me think he had a point.

GarIT

Just another thing I remembered, a relitive of mine makes quite a lot of padeo preist jokes and hates the RCC yet put down Cathoulic to 'show respect for their parents beliefs'. People really are idiots with how they fill out the census.

I'm going to have to say something I tend to say a lot. If i stand in my garden and tell everone that passes that I'm actually inside my house that doesn't mean I'm actually in my house. Similarly, if i tell everyone I'm Catholic it doesnt actually make me a Catholic unless I follow the Catholic way of life etc.

eviltwin

Benny_Cake wrote: »

It really varies from place to place, some churches are close to empty, while some are packed. One thing I've noticed (and this is only my personal experience) is that those who attend Mass tend to fall largely into two categories: older people, and families with primary school aged children.

I wonder would they just be there to show their faces in advance of Communion or Confirmation

Benny_Cake

eviltwin wrote: »

I wonder would they just be there to show their faces in advance of Communion or Confirmation

I suspect that is a large part of it alright. Also, in many ways the local national schools have been a huge asset to the church in building relationships with the local families. Where I grew up in Dublin, people tended to go outside of the local area for secondary school and that's when involvement in the local church seemed to tail off in many cases.

vicwatson

Like the positioning of "No Religion" on this census of 2011 ? Hmmmmm

ehcocmeo

joseph brand wrote: »

There was a poll on The Journal.ie



Census figures are quite misleading, for various reasons.

Case in point: my wife classed our family of four as catholics in the census. I never saw the forms. None of us go to mass. I don't even know anyone who goes to mass, except my dad. And even he says the cathedral is pretty empty. Those who are there are old.

This idea of catholics believing something which is false? You're free to believe that the churches are packed every Sunday. Doesn't make it true.

JOURNAL.IE POLL!!.... Come on.

Sarky

How many churches are full because people from various parishes are travelling to the one place that will actually do a service, seeing as their local just can't get the numbers to do more than a service every other week? That's how it goes where my parents are from, anyway.

Peregrinus

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Does it matter what they identify as when they don't believe in any of it or partake the rituals other than the basist of lip service?

But we don't know that.

We know that a lot of them rarely go to mass. But there's a big gap between "rarely goes to mass" and "doesn't believe in any of it, or partake the rituals other than the basest of lip service".

My starting presumption is that if somebody identifies as Catholic - or, for that matter, as Atheist - that means something, and probably something fairly significant. But there's a pretty wide range of things it could plausibly mean, and if I want to narrow it down a bit my only option is to ask him what he means.

I'm regularly amused at the readiness of Christian boardies to tell us what atheists mean when they call themselves atheist, and of atheist boardies to tell us what Christians or Catholics mean when they call themselves Christians or Catholics. These pontifications tell us more about the person doing the pontificating than they do about the people being pontificated about.

Davyhal

I'm a man of 24, and I'd still go to Mass occasionally (once every month or two) and I will say this much for mass... some serious talent to be spotted at the big masses!

maximoose

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Does it matter what they identify as when they don't believe in any of it or partake the rituals other than the basist of lip service?

Which one is he, and why is he so important

Doctor DooM

Peregrinus wrote: »

But we don't know that.

We know that a lot of them rarely go to mass. But there's a big gap between "rarely goes to mass" and "doesn't believe in any of it, or partake the rituals other than the basest of lip service".

My starting presumption is that if somebody identifies as Catholic - or, for that matter, as Atheist - that means something, and probably something fairly significant. But there's a pretty wide range of things it could plausibly mean, and if I want to narrow it down a bit my only option is to ask him what he means.

I'm regularly amused at the readiness of Christian boardies to tell us what atheists mean when they call themselves atheist, and of atheist boardies to tell us what Christians or Catholics mean when they call themselves Christians or Catholics. These pontifications tell us more about the person doing the pontificating than they do about the people being pontificated about.

Actually I was basing it on this, where 46% of Catholics say it wouldn't make a difference if the RCC left Ireland.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0605/1224317296134.html

among others...

lmaopml

Doctor, all that can change in an instant - I'm so sick of being fed what people are 'doing' here or there or anywhere else - and for some reason I should see this as indicative of myself. These 'stats' that reflect the most 'modern' perspective on all things...whether it sways one way or the other...I don't care really. Who actually does? Stats are only numbers, and playing tennis with them is......meh!



I do what I do, I go to Mass because I want to, I know members of my family who say they 'would' go, but they are too lazy at the moment, and I don't beat them up because I've been there myself....

I say the odd thing here and there and trust quite simply.

They say they are 'Catholic' they 'trust' Christ, but they are a little lazy at times about saying it and indeed proclaiming it...that does not mean that they are atheist or even indeed agnostic, I don't know their hearts - it just means they need a good wake up, and we've failed thus far to a certain extent us 'Catholics' and 'Christians', but I can sincerely say that if I came back anybody can.....because I ridiculed so badly that it makes me shamed so badly now to see it.

...so I tend not to disown the tepid who are alive and kicking and dealing with life in general, neither to judge them because that's not my place. My place is to know that my pride is only at his feet, on that Cross, and to love my neighbour in sincerity, and not for myself or my gain, but to know the weapon that love is, that it cuts through the hardest steel, the hardest heart.

There is a 'thing' going on though...there are people visiting out of hours in the Churches that are left open ( unfortunately these days they need 'cameras' to dissuade theft, indeed hostility and protection of people, even the very old need protection sadly...and this is very new to them, but they still come defiant as ever..lol.. ) when Mass is not on, but the Church is present and looming, they approach slowly -

I was one of them for a long time. I looked, but I didn't see them properly God forgive me - I thought I was better, when I wasn't.

I see them coming through the door......tentative - but with hearts that have a vacant spot that they have not filled with other things - they're looking to the source intuitively, and it's the most honest thing ever too!

I see people everyday going in to light a candle and spend a moment - even very hairy big mature muscly men the unexpected! I have seen them kneel...

...and they would kneel to no other, but I have seen them kneel quietly...while I was in a corner on my own or spending a moment rather than pass by.

Does this mean that ALL Catholics are cool with God and great people...No!

Does this mean that the Church as an institution as looked on from the outside, and tendered in the media as rather cold - is full of coldness and nothing more, that Christ is on the 'decline'? No! Oh no.


Does this mean that people are entirely said and led by only 'highlights' and selling pieces and stats......Thank Goodness..No! No they aren't, they are not told what to think thank goodness.

They enter because they want to; despite everything, they look at the Cross because they 'want' to understand and at least pray to understand and when they fall to their knees they see better..and start out on the road...it is not laden always with hardship, but it makes the hardship easier - that's not a 'reason' to trust, but it's quite simply my and others experience of doing so..a testimony.

A person passes by without seeing because THEY want to. It's as simple as that.

Another passes by and drops in to say an honest prayer or to ask for help because they believe ultimately that Christ is present for them, but they are not always present for him, and they trust in his presence, because THEY feel the need to.


Indeed a person passes by with 'distain' because they choose to have it -

-and not because they have distain for Christ, but because they put their hope in people, and never saw him in anybody - and that is not their problem but ours to answer for. That's our problem, our fault..because we often times fail to be what he called us to be..

Juza1973

There are no Catholics and if there are someone cheated on their poll and if nobody cheated on their poll they are not attending and if they are attending they don't really believe and if they believe they don't believe enough and the Churches are empty and I know because I don't go there for twenty years now...

But if somebody shows any sign to be an Atheist or anything that is still not Catholic there is no argument and should not be investigated further.

Does it sums it well?

pauldla

Juza1973 wrote: »

There are no Catholics and if there are someone cheated on their poll and if nobody cheated on their poll they are not attending and if they are attending they don't really believe and if they believe they don't believe enough and the Churches are empty and I know because I don't go there for twenty years now...

But if somebody shows any sign to be an Atheist or anything that is still not Catholic there is no argument and should not be investigated further.

Does it sums it well?

Not really, for me anyhow. I don't get what you're trying to say...?

Juza1973

pauldla wrote: »

Not really, for me anyhow. I don't get what you're trying to say...?

That some people want (for political reasons rather than religious one, where the number of adherents does not matter at all) to reduce the number of Catholics in Ireland, so they change the notion of who is "worthy" to be deemed Catholic whenever the number is higher than what they like.

This is a problem for somebody who wants to speak for "all" so that they cannot accept that maybe things are different, even by a little bit.

pauldla

Juza1973 wrote: »

That some people want (for political reasons rather than religious one, where the number of adherents does not matter at all) to reduce the number of Catholics in Ireland, so they change the notion of who is "worthy" to be deemed Catholic whenever the number is higher than what they like.

This is a problem for somebody who wants to speak for "all" so that they cannot accept that maybe things are different, even by a little bit.

Thanks, but that actually raises more questions than it answers, tbh.

Who wants to reduce the number of Catholics in Ireland? And how can they change the notion of who is worthy to be deemed Catholic? Surely that's up to each individual to decide for themselves?

And who wants to speak for all, and cannot accept that things are different? And what are the things that are different?

Onesimus

Juza1973 wrote: »

There are no Catholics and if there are someone cheated on their poll and if nobody cheated on their poll they are not attending and if they are attending they don't really believe and if they believe they don't believe enough and the Churches are empty and I know because I don't go there for twenty years now...

But if somebody shows any sign to be an Atheist or anything that is still not Catholic there is no argument and should not be investigated further.

Does it sums it well?

Thats like me saying Nobody goes to Disney Land, I should know because I have not been there in 20 years :rolleyes:

I should know nobody goes to Mc Donalds anymore because I have not been there in 20 years.

I could go on with a list just to show up the idiocy of your statement.

Seriously, how can you know if you have not been in 20 years?

PDN

Onesimus wrote: »

Thats like me saying Nobody goes to Disney Land, I should know because I have not been there in 20 years :rolleyes:

I should know nobody goes to Mc Donalds anymore because I have not been there in 20 years.

I could go on with a list just to show up the idiocy of your statement.

Seriously, how can you know if you have not been in 20 years?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sarcasm

Unfortunately knowing the definition doesn't always enable you to recognise it.

GarIT

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Actually I was basing it on this, where 46% of Catholics say it wouldn't make a difference if the RCC left Ireland.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0605/1224317296134.html

among others...

You can also take from that, that 44% of people are lying when they say they go to mass.

MrPudding

Onesimus wrote: »

Oh no. The ''Poll''. Every atheists ''Bible''.

Go to a Church Joseph on Sunday and go to each Liturgy from morning to afternoon. I see each one full on the hour in my parish churches.

Does you parish still have the same number of masses? The reason I ask is because the 1130hrs Sunday mass in my home parish is quite busy. Now, the cynical might say, well that is because the have cancelled the 0900 & the 1015 Sunday masses, as well as the Saturday evening mass, plus that fact that some of the surrounding smaller parishes have had their masses cancelled all together or only have one every other week, so parishioners travel the main one on the weeks they don't have a mass.

So, yes, it is fair to say that the 1130hrs mass on a Sunday in my home parish is pretty packed but when you consider how many masses have been cancelled and condensed into this one mass it becomes meaningless.

The catholic church is dying, unfortunately it just isn't happening fast enough.

MrP

Peregrinus

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Actually I was basing it on this, where 46% of Catholics say it wouldn't make a difference if the RCC left Ireland.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0605/1224317296134.html

among others...

But beleiving the Catholic church to be a socially influential body has never been part of Catholicism's own understanding of what it is to be a Catholic? Frankly, the mass attendance statistic has more relevance than this one. Beleiving this no more makes you not a Catholic than believing the opposite makes you a Catholic.

totus tuus

MrPudding wrote: »

The catholic church is dying, unfortunately it just isn't happening fast enough.

MrP

Not likely to die out, as It's founder Jesus Christ promised that His Bride will be around for His return, even if it's only a remnant faithful!

MrPudding

totus tuus wrote: »

Not likely to die out, as It's founder Jesus Christ promised that His Bride will be around for His return, even if it's only a remnant faithful!

Yeah, yeah. Keep telling yourself that.

MrP

Onesimus

Yes that's right TT hahahahaha. I love it. Looks like Mr Pudding just got a spoon of his own poison :P

philologos

totus tuus wrote: »

Not likely to die out, as It's founder Jesus Christ promised that His Bride will be around for His return, even if it's only a remnant faithful!

I still get confused every time I read that claim.

What evidence do you have to back up the claim that the Roman Catholic church existed since the first century?

As far as I can tell there's not much pre-Constantine to show this. Surely it was simply the Christian church that existed since the first century. I find whenever most Roman Catholics on this forum have made this argument they use it as a yardstick to claim that other Christians aren't as "Christian" as they are despite seeking to follow Jesus more and more in daily life.

Onesimus

philologos wrote: »

I still get confused every time I read that claim.

What evidence do you have to back up the claim that the Roman Catholic church existed since the first century?

As far as I can tell there's not much pre-Constantine to show this. Surely it was simply the Christian church that existed since the first century. I find whenever most Roman Catholics on this forum have made this argument they use it as a yardstick to claim that other Christians aren't as "Christian" as they are despite seeking to follow Jesus more and more in daily life.

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

Nice vid by Jimmy Akins.

philologos

Firstly, I'm not an anti-Catholic. I'm opposed to certain doctrines, and not opposed to others.

"Catholic" meant universal in respect to the church. There was already a Christian church, that's true. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Roman Catholic Church today existed before Constantine. The Christian "catholic" church did. Catholic means universal, nothing more.

For the record, there were other Christian churches in existence in the first century for example the Portuguese colonisers arrived in Kerala and to their surprise the Mar Thomas Christians were already meeting there and had been since the arrival of Christianity from the Apostle Thomas. The RCC suppressed and persecuted that church because it didn't adhere to its standards. What's interesting is looking to the beliefs and practices section of the document.

It taught the same things? (see above - I'm not so sure it did or does). For example the Immaculate Conception. As for the "unique role of Mary" the man in the video doesn't mention what was meant by this term. Most non-Roman Catholic Christians would agree that Mary did have a unique role in bringing about the birth of Jesus, but as for what that "unique role" is, there is contention.

I just find it disappointing time and time again on this forum when people trot out that unhelpful claim which seems to be based on very little to make it sound like non Roman Catholic Christians are somehow inferior.

totus tuus

The Catholic Mass in 155 A.D.

St. Justin Martyr, Letter to Antoninus Pius, Emperor, 155 AD.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J_bamuM_4k

Onesimus

"Catholic" meant universal in respect to the church. There was already a Christian church, that's true. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Roman Catholic Church today existed before Constantine. The Christian "catholic" church did. Catholic means universal, nothing more.

Why do you keep saying ''Roman'' church started such and such. First of all the Catholic Church began in the East before it became the ''Roman'' Ritual rite in the west.

For the record, there were other Christian churches in existence in the first century for example the Portuguese colonisers arrived in Kerala and to their surprise the Mar Thomas Christians were already meeting there and had been since the arrival of Christianity from the Apostle Thomas. The RCC suppressed and persecuted that church because it didn't adhere to its standards. What's interesting is looking to the beliefs and practices section of the document.

There were other sects in existence that emerged over the years. Hardly surprising, there always has been sects that broke away from the true Church. What has you in a pickle right now, is that there is no evidence for sola scriptura and sola fide in the early Church writings of ....anyone, nor can it be found in the Bible.

It taught the same things? (see above - I'm not so sure it did or does). For example the Immaculate Conception. As for the "unique role of Mary" the man in the video doesn't mention what was meant by this term. Most non-Roman Catholic Christians would agree that Mary did have a unique role in bringing about the birth of Jesus, but as for what that "unique role" is, there is contention.

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

He does not elaborate as you wish because he has to squeeze this short answer into 3 minutes.

I just find it disappointing time and time again on this forum when people trot out that unhelpful claim which seems to be based on very little to make it sound like non Roman Catholic Christians are somehow inferior.

No Non Catholic Christian is inferior to the Church, Just their crap Heresy.

I find it dissapointing that you have to drag this thread off topic with your probes on Catholic doctrine to spark Catholic Vs Protestant debate when there is a thread already in place for that stuff, for people who want to continously debate with people like yourself who will possibly never ever convert as a result of it. I find discussions with people like yourself who have already made their mind up, an incredibly fruitless and boring one.

So for that reason, why don't you email these apologists and seek out answers Philologos if you really are bent on finding that truth? Ah but sure you believe you have it already so whats the point in asking someone like Jimmy in the vid who knows better eh?

God bless