Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

1…3637394142…70

Comments

  • #1142
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    No it doesn't. Liars lie for their benefit, unless you are speculating that the church is lying compulsively.

    Not in my opinion. If there was a beneficial reason for them lying you could point to it. You haven't. You mostly likely can't.


    So then what about the surveys you were given that weren't from the church?

    On the topic of possible lying, could you please correct yourself on your false claim that I have ever said that Ireland is a "Christian country".

    Cheers. :)

    Could you also give your opinion if the "Islamic Terrorists" Jahar Tsarnaev and Mohammed Atta are actually Muslim given their respective drug taking and alcohol drinking?
    Quran Chapter 5 Surah Maidah verse 90: O you who have believed! ‘Khamr’ (all types of intoxicants), gambling, (ungodly) shrines, and divining devices are all abominable works of Shaitaan; therefore, refrain from these so that you may attain true success!


  • #1143
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    catallus wrote: »
    Are you just typing stuff for the sake of it?

    No, genuine question, an answer, if you please.


  • #1144
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    What I have been saying ad infinitum is that people have the right to consider themselves the religion of their choice if their BELIEFS are broadly in line (to the best of their knowledge) with the Church they have affiliated themselves with.

    What I have also been saying ad infinitum is that while the census is imperfect it surveys the entire population and therefore it is the best available count that we have.
    We know you have. Our ears are still bleeding -- yet moreso, indeed. And it's still wrong. The census is not asking about belief. There's very clear evidence that it's not being answered as if it were asking about belief.
    It doesn't matter if all 3,000 "atheists" in Ireland chip in with anecdotal and unverifiable stuff and refuse to accept it.
    Eh? Neither the maths or the ad hom make any sense here. As I've said, if you don't trust what atheists are saying because it's atheists that are saying it, look at the conclusions of the bishes.
    If all we need is a survey of 1,000 people to "debunk" it then why not just do a survey a 1,000 people instead and save millions?
    Shame the census didn't ask any other questions at all on issues other than that one, especially not on objectively verifiable matters requiring greater than a 3% margin of error and susceptible to detailed geographical and demographic breakdown, then!
    What also bothers me as a secularist is that "atheists" aren't embracing the fact that Catholics aren't as brainwashed on social issues as they thought, that Catholics are more sceptical and less dogmatic than they thought, that there is now a more progressive Pope. Instead they fight it.

    It's almost like they need this conservative caricature of the Christian to justify their hatred. They need this cardboard cutout to feed their superiority complex when the reality turns out that the "enemy" is perhaps not so different from them after all.
    This is a silly construction on matters. It's hardly news where Ireland stands in political terms: we do have the occasional election here, after all, and it's hardly characterised by "repeated landslides for hardline Christian Conservatism" (... any more). The glaring incongruity is trying to add "while being Catholic in any meaningful sense of the word" to what we otherwise observe people doing in their political and person lives.


  • #1145
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    No, genuine question, an answer, if you please.

    I'm not being thick with you here, but if you don't know the answer to the question you're asking I don't think an online discussion forum is where you need to be if you do indeed wish to find the answer. Try reading a few books on the subject.


  • #1146
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    catallus wrote: »
    No, that does not "otherwise help".

    Google helps those that help themselves! OK, clicken Sie hier.


  • Advertisement
  • #1147
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Is it just me or has this thread entered the Twilight Zone?


  • #1148
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    Google helps those that help themselves! OK, clicken Sie hier.

    That kind of thing is very uninteresting to me. Do you always attack a posters characteristics if you disagree with or can't fathom what they are saying? Or is it just special treatment for me?


  • #1149
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Dear me. What utter bullshine. It's no more "leading" than asking "what is your occupation?" from the outset for a survey that only wants the opinion of plumbers.
    No, it's "no more leading than 'have you stopped beating your wife'." You might want to pause to do at least some google-grade research as to what a "leading question" actually is, before continuing to bluff (and gratuitously insult) your way out of it.
    This single, obscure, ad-hoc survey you have been fetishing over is only interested in surveying Catholics. It is natural that they would identify the religion from the very beginning so as to not waste time and money asking questions of people whose answers won't be included in the results.

    The outbreak of civility continues. Weren't we just talking about the Christian gloss on the Golden Rule, too?

    No harm in collecting the same data for other religions and none. Presupposing "you'll be having a religion, then", without any context for "religion" being read as "actual set of beliefs" is, as I've said, exactly the elicititional error manifest in the census (or depending on the actual intent of the CSO, of others' interpretation of it).


  • #1150
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    catallus wrote: »
    That kind of thing is very uninteresting to me. Do you always attack a posters characteristics if you disagree with or can't fathom what they are saying? Or is it just special treatment for me?

    There's nothing difficult to fathom in "we need to abolish separation of church and state"; history (and sadly, geography) is filled with it. But it's a little hard to engage seriously with boldfacedly theocratic views.

    BB and IHtI are correct when they say there will be "pushback" on even modest moves towards secular education, healthcare, and in all the other things the churches are presently happy to be in charge of spending taxpayer's money. But that's essentially going to be from entrenched localism and populism, not an actual desire for outright Rule by Episcopal Decree. That's a 0.001% constituency that I'm willing to worry about under separate cover, if at all.


  • #1151
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    On the topic of possible lying [...]
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    What utter bullshine
    BB, I know you're just back from your recent ban for obstruction and all, but just in case you'd forgotten - if you continue with your current degree of hostility towards your fellow posters -- the examples here are two of many -- the local mods may well be moved to lift a finger to restore some forum decorum.

    Same goes for you, catallus.


  • Advertisement
  • #1152
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    I'm not being even slightly hostile! I'm being very courteous actually!


  • #1153
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Piliger wrote: »
    No offence, but I regret to have to say that you and some others hereabouts suffer from what I and many others in the world find one of the most abhorrent characteristics in human beings - certainty. It is certainty that brings us oppression, intolerance and extremism.

    That rather depends on what it is one is certain about. Certainty in inverse proportion to available objective evidence is fairly reliably a worrying sign, though even then it rather depends on what sorts of followup action the belief in question "calls for".


  • #1154
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    On the topic of possible lying, could you please correct yourself on your false claim that I have ever said that Ireland is a "Christian country".

    Cheers. :)
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88287762&postcount=1
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88318914&postcount=147

    You have both denied this and have been corrected before, acknowledged the fact this was pointed out and did not contest it.
    You are now denying it again.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Could you also give your opinion if the "Islamic Terrorists" Jahar Tsarnaev and Mohammed Atta are actually Muslim given their respective drug taking and alcohol drinking?
    Honest answer: I have no idea. I don't know their beliefs or the defining beliefs that make some one a Muslim as much as I do the defining beliefs that make some one a Catholic.

    If they didn't believe in God/Allah and/or denied that Mohammad was a prophet then I would think they are misidentifying themselves as Muslim.
    I am not familiar enough with the theology to suggest what beliefs define the different branches of Islam, but I wager they are similar differences to the ones between Catholicism and Protestantism.

    However I think they were probably motivated by complex factors not just "fundemental" beliefs as you like to pretend the official story states, so I don't buy the conspiracy theories.

    But what is ironic is that you seem to be presuming a lot about what their beliefs can and cannot be. Could they not be fundamental Muslims who believed that the bans on drugs and alcohol and other behaviors were not part of real Islamic law? Or that they were somehow exempt from those rules for some reason? Or that while they could be sinning, they could believe that it was justified or forgivable?

    Or is there one singular definition for certain types of belief?


  • #1155
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    catallus wrote: »
    I'm not being even slightly hostile! I'm being very courteous actually!
    And I'm not being even slightly jokey about this! :)


  • #1156
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88287762&postcount=1
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88318914&postcount=147

    You have both denied this and have been corrected before, acknowledged the fact this was pointed out and did not contest it.
    You are now denying it again.
    :pac::pac::pac::pac:

    I don't know how to put this so I'll use the language of Robin so please back up your false allegation or withdraw.

    In case you somehow missed it this is what I said in the posts you quoted.

    "a Christian-majority country" and " according to our own census we are as a nation over 90% Christian. ".

    The above are two facts, and make no mention of me declaring Ireland as a "Christian Nation".

    So whenever you are ready...
    King Mob wrote: »
    Honest answer: I have no idea. I don't know their beliefs or the defining beliefs that make some one a Muslim
    Ok, i'll make it very simple. Intoxicants are strictly forbidden for ALL Muslims.

    So back to the unislamic jihadis who liked to get intoxicated, Muslim or not? If so, why the double standards?


  • #1157
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    And again, this is besides the 42.4% of "catholics" (100% - 57.6% who believe in a personal god) who do not believe in the god as described in catholic doctrine.
    Not just Catholic doctrine. They were throwing people out for disbelieving less well before any of the major historical schisms.

    Just being able to make it through the Nicene Creed (with a straight face, uncrossed fingers, and not too much more "metaphorically" than is within the acceptable range of custom and practice) should really be considered essential. On the basis of that survey, that doesn't even make it to above figure (of the Catholics, yet).

    If I had money to burn on keeping the Ipsos peeps in work, I'd be fascinated to learn a) what percentage of people affirmed Nicea (which would make them "believing Christians" by common consent any time after 325 AD), and b) what percentage affirmed transubstantiation and the key pillars of Marianology, which have been defined as essential doctrines for Catholics as distinct from Christians-at-large. (Within a sampling error of +/- 3%, of course.)


  • #1158
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Piliger wrote: »
    Hilarious. You keep banging on the same drum despite it being blown apart repeatedly. You refuse to grasp the meaning of religion, and the RCC in particular and think that if you say it isn't so enough times, then you will win the argument. No. You lost. Your opinion is a nonsense.

    This appears to be a mere compendium of contrary assertion and abuse, unpunctuated by any actual supporting argument whatsoever. As the mods are already getting fairly liberal with the "friendly pre-warning warnings" that precludes me from responding in kind and adding "with knobs on", there's literally nothing left for me to respond to in this.


  • #1159
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    The state pays the wages of all teachers in the country (even fee paying schools afaik) - perfectly level playing field.

    Not a level playing field if you're going to invoke the spirit of "what we have, we hold!" in the form of "private property and religious freedom", borne of public subsidy on historical demographic lines, to trump present-day wishes of parents.


  • #1160
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    :pac::pac::pac::pac:

    I don't know how to put this so I'll use the language of Robin so please back up your false allegation or withdraw.

    In case you somehow missed it this is what I said in the posts you quoted.

    "a Christian-majority country" and " according to our own census we are as a nation over 90% Christian. ".

    The above are two facts, and make no mention of me declaring Ireland as a "Christian Nation".

    So whenever you are ready...
    Ah so "a Christian-majority country" and a Christian Nation are different things?
    Could you explain this difference, then maybe your outrage in the first post about the President not mentioning Christians?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Ok, i'll make it very simple. Intoxicants are strictly forbidden for ALL Muslims.
    Homosexual acts are strictly forbidden for all Christians. As are abortions and various other things.
    But apparently Catholics doing these things or Catholics believing these things are not really forbidden does not exclude these people from being Catholic or make their Catholicism any less valid.

    So again, why does this not apply to Islam and these guys?
    Why is the ban on intoxicants immutable?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    So back to the unislamic jihadis who liked to get intoxicated, Muslim or not? If so, why the double standards?
    I have already answered this clearly and directly:
    Honest answer: I have no idea. I don't know their beliefs or the defining beliefs that make some one a Muslim as much as I do the defining beliefs that make some one a Catholic.

    If they didn't believe in God/Allah and/or denied that Mohammad was a prophet then I would think they are misidentifying themselves as Muslim.

    Is "Don't know" not a valid answer now?


  • #1161
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    I was worried there that you thought I selected Stephen because he happend to be gay.

    FWIW, I thought you were just working your way down (or along?) a list of well-known atheists, given your earlier "nomination" of Ivana B.

    As the thread goes on, perhaps we'll eventually get to Dick Dawkins and Peezy Myers.


  • Advertisement
  • #1162
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Yes. This again. It is important to get the facts right.

    Privately owned and operated schools with govt funding /= state schools.

    This "state school" notion is a fantasy.
    It's important to actually get the facts right, not merely to repeatedly put your own... individualistic spin on matters, and insist on imposing that terminology on the discussion, contrary to the rest of the country.

    In every other context where something is is whole or in part run with state money, via an "arm's length" body, it's called a "semi-state". If you're going to insist on calling these "private schools", we're well past {{citation needed}} territory here.
    Every person is free to choose which school they would like to educate their children in.
    If only.
    That there is a shortage of non-denominational school places is not a problem for the catholic church.
    If the RCC persists in trying to thwart remedying the situation, you may have to recalculate who is presenting whom with what problem.
    That is the government's issue.....it's also the issue of parents who want these places but do nothing about it (except moan at dinner parties).
    Or, say, volunteer to help run their local ET national school, do their damnedest to get an ET secondary school within hailing difference, only to be thwarted by massive education department . But it's good to know how sincere you are in your sympathy for people in such situations.


  • #1163
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ah so "a Christian-majority country" and a Christian Nation are different things?
    Yes. Don't you think so too? If not, congratulations! You are the first person in this thread to declare Ireland as a Christian nation. :pac:

    Christian majority means that more than half the people are Christian, I wouldn't even know where to begin to define a "Christian Nation". Not that I feel the need to of course seeing as I never made such a claim.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Could you explain this difference, then maybe your outrage in the first post about the President not mentioning Christians?
    I'm not responsible for explaining away your flights of fancy. You imagined any "outrage".

    Would it kill you to actually read the posts you are quoting???
    I personally couldn't care less if he does or doesn't mention Jesus in his Christmas message, and would fully expect most reasonable people, religious and non-religious alike to feel the same. Only extremists on both sides would care.

    King Mob wrote: »
    Homosexual acts are strictly forbidden for all Christians. Asare abortions and various other things.
    But apparently Catholics doing these things or Catholics believing these things are not really forbidden does not exclude these people from being Catholic or make their Catholicism any less valid.

    It doesn't exlude them from being Pope. What do we learn from that?

    “If someone who is gay and is sincerely seeking God who am I to judge?
    - Pope Francis
    King Mob wrote: »
    So again, why does this not apply to Islam and these guys?
    Why is the ban on intoxicants immutable?

    I have already answered this clearly and directly:


    Is "Don't know" not a valid answer now?
    You answered from a position of admitted ignorance. I cured you of this. I even posted the Quran verse that shows you it is forbidden. Ignorance is no longer an excuse not to answer.

    However, the implications of genuinely answering the question which we both know the answer to and both know undermines your argument probably is...


  • #1164
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    swampgas wrote: »
    Sure, anyone can write anything they like, but aren't Catholics (or Christians generally) supposed to be honest? Or is honesty optional for Catholics too? (Mind you it's been optional for the hierarchy for years, what with "mental reservation" and all that.)

    But here's the beauty of this line of argument: if you're a "Bad Christian" (don't believe much, don't do nuthin'), then you're hardly going to be the sort of moral exemplar that would rather go to the stake than tell a lie. (Not sure there's many of those in Iona or Youth Defence either, but let's go with the premise!) Equally, they're the last people who'd stand to opine on whether their "religious rights" to identify with a religion they don't practice or believe in are being infringed. So others can claim this on their behalf with impunity (since they declare themselves to be above mere survey evidence, and so on).

    Perfect non-falsifiable logic. Much like religion in general, indeed.


  • #1165
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Christian majority means that more than half the people are Christian[...]

    By what standard? I think by my proposed First Church Council standard, it'd be a real squeaker at best. (And the turnout would be shocking, naturally.)


  • #1166
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    We still need to answer the OP's question....is there any way to find out the exact number of christians in Ireland. If only there was some kind of national counting exercise that asked people to tell us what religion they were...that might shed some light on it.....oh.
    If only there were good-faith acceptance of what those numbers do and don't mean, and a willingness to see them in the context of other available data. As, oh I don't know, your bishops are, jointly and severally!
    I'd guess that's I've corectted people on the State Schools/Private Schools thing on this thread at least 3/4 times. Earlier today someone again suggested that the State was the patron of religious ethos schools when this is clearly not correct.

    You say "corrected", I say "respun".

    When someone says "state school", they're suggesting -- correctly if linguistically imprecisely -- that they're state-funded, and with typically physical and invariably organisational infrastructure. That's considerably more accurate than your persistent attempts to gloss them as "private schools" and the fact of their "private ownership" by "religious communities" being some sort of axiomatic condition, rather than something to be seen in the context of a continuous conduit of state construction programme.

    I say "let's just say state-funded", and let's be done with these aircastle of dubious semantics.


  • #1167
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Yes. Don't you think so too? If not, congratulations! You are the first person in this thread to declare Ireland as a Christian nation. :pac:

    Christian majority means that more than half the people are Christian, I wouldn't even know where to begin to define a "Christian Nation". Not that I feel the need to of course seeing as I never made such a claim.

    I'm not responsible for explaining away your flights of fancy. You imagined any "outrage".

    Would it kill you to actually read the posts you are quoting???
    I did read the posts.
    What bothers me more is our President spinelessly pandering to these extremists and the PC crowd when mentioning Christ, in a Christmas message to a Christian-majority country is the natural thing to do.

    Why does it bother you that he doesn't mention Christians or Christ when he has no obligation to do so, since Ireland isn't a christian nation?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    It doesn't exlude them from being Pope. What do we learn from that?

    “If someone who is gay and is sincerely seeking God who am I to judge?
    - Pope Francis
    It excludes them from taking part in rituals that they might feel are important. A bishop has been quoted on this thread stating that he would not let them take communion. They obviously can't marry.

    And that's nice of Francis and all to say. But is he going to start rolling back all of the churches positions on homosexuals?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    You answered from a position of admitted ignorance. I cured you of this. I even posted the Quran verse that shows you it is forbidden. Ignorance is no longer an excuse not to answer.

    However, the implications of genuinely answering the question which we both know the answer to and both know undermines your argument probably is...
    Again I have answered your question.
    I don't think that them taking alcohol stops them from being Muslim.

    I cannot say however if they are misidentifying themselves as muslim because I don't know what their beliefs are.
    If they did not believe in God or Mohammad* then I would say they are misidentifying themselves just as the people who call themselves christian but don't believe in god or Jesus are.

    Similarly since I don't know what their beliefs are, nor the distinguishing beliefs that define the various branches of Islam I cannot say whether or not they are misidentifying themselves like the people who identify themselves as Catholic but don't adhere to the beliefs that distinguish Catholicism from other branches of Christianity.

    *(I am also unsure of what beliefs around Mohammad one must hold to be considered Muslim that compares to the requirement that you must believe that Jesus was the Son of God and was resurrected.)

    You however are saying that they cannot interpret their religion in certain ways, which is the exact opposite that some of the other people you seem to be agreeing with are saying.
    Catholicism forbids gay acts, but it's ok for catholics to ignore or reinterpret that rule.
    Why is it not the same for Islam and intoxicants?


  • #1168
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Robindch said:
    I'm seeing no "all" there. And the post that I was responding to in which you made claims of "sweeping generalisation" contained nothing but quotes that were explicitly qualified as to who was hypocritical, and for what reason. That would have been your cue to say "yes, you're precisely correct", or if you really wanted to continue to disagree with some considerably earlier statement, include at least some trace of context for that.

    If you can't trouble to keep track of what you're writing, it's a bit much to expect others to go the extra mile to attempt forensic reconstruction of what you may or may not have meant.
    Generalising...

    You sure were.


  • #1169
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Does the Catechism taught in schools with a Catholic 'ethos' therefore read something like:

    Article 1: I may or may not believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth

    [...]

    Article 12: And life everlasting. Amen. (well, at the end of the day who can really say?!?! )

    Just to be clear, that's not the Catechism, which is the proverbial three-volume doorstopper novel, but the Credo. (Specifically the Apostle's Creed, I think, which is slightly more "lightweight" than the Nicene one, in a couple of areas.) And again, almost every Christian denomination subscribes to this. (In fact, even moreso, as I think the AC flies with some Unitarians, Modalists and Restoration Godhead non-trin types, for whom the NC is already a dealbreaker.)


  • #1170
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Piliger you were given fair warning.Do NOT post in this thread again. On phone, so expect at least one card later.


  • Advertisement
  • #1171
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    robindch wrote: »
    ^^^ Shoulda asked:
    • Describe transubstantiation.
    • Distinguish between the immaculate conception and the virgin birth
    • Distinguish between homoiousios and homoousios (explained in the Creed you say every Sunday)
    • When did the Assumption of Mary become dogma?
    • Name the three initiation rites necessary to become a fully-bound catholic?
    I suspect that very self-identifying catholics indeed could answer even one of those questions without some serious thought and the vast majority could probably answer only one of them even then.

    #3 is perilously close to Modern(... ish) Languages, and #4 is really just History Trivia. They could probably be reworked in a way that made them speak more directly to knowledge of doctrine. 1, 2 and 5 are pretty reasonable.


Advertisement