Mass numbers expected to fall by 1/3 in Dublin

Cabaal

And the inevidibal decline of the Catholic church in Ireland continous on its way

Mass attendance in Dublin to drop by one-third by 2030
Number of priests serving in parishes expected to fall by 60%, report says

Weekly Mass attendance levels in Dublin are currently put at 20-22 per cent (of the population), while being as low as 2-3 per cent in some working-class parishes.

Ironic really, the working class areas were once a stronghold for catholic mass attendance and now they result in such low mass attendance. Of course in Dublin these areas also provided some of the highest yes vote percentages back in May. Yet another confirmation that the church is completely out of touch with the avg Joe on the street.

You can't preach hatred and then expect people to come and listen to it,

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/mass-attendance-in-dublin-to-drop-by-one-third-by-2030-1.2504351

mfceiling

That's the way the world is going.

My middle girl is doing her communion this year and the priest would put you off going to mass.

Standing up at the altar and telling the kids that the only true family in Ireland is daddy, mammy and kids. 2 of the girls in my daughters class are single parent families. Now I know he was talking about same sex parents but an 8 year old wouldn't. There has been a few complaints about him to the school.

To be fair I know another priest and he seems to be more progressive and in touch with the real world.

Hard to think the church will have much sway in another 20 years tbh.

lazygal

They're the rules though, only straight people should be able to get married, have sex and therefore have children. If you don't like the rules why stay in the club?

iDave

That's just the RC church though. Can Clonskeagh mosque expect a similar decline?

desertcircus

lazygal wrote: »

They're the rules though, only straight people should be able to get married, have sex and therefore have children. If you don't like the rules why stay in the club?

That touches on something I've been wondering for a while. The Catholic church is intensely fixated on adherence to the rules, to the extent that it probably reduces its ability to reduce the incidence of "sin" in the world. Is the role of the Church to maximise behaviours it sees as moral, or to maximise the number of people who follow its rules totally? A church which officially and publicly declared that it was no longer interested in campaigning against gay rights, contraception and gender equality - and followed that up by refocusing more or less entirely on the "don't be a dick to each other" aspects of its teachings - would probably be a good deal more successful in terms of reducing the overall level of "sin".

lazygal

desertcircus wrote: »

That touches on something I've been wondering for a while. The Catholic church is intensely fixated on adherence to the rules, to the extent that it probably reduces its ability to reduce the incidence of "sin" in the world. Is the role of the Church to maximise behaviours it sees as moral, or to maximise the number of people who follow its rules totally? A church which officially and publicly declared that it was no longer interested in campaigning against gay rights, contraception and gender equality - and followed that up by refocusing more or less entirely on the "don't be a dick to each other" aspects of its teachings - would probably be a good deal more successful in terms of reducing the overall level of "sin".

Don't the rules come from God though? So if they start changing the rules, might that be an admission that God got it wrong, or they misinterpreted the rules of God and therefore may be unreliable leaders in what's a sin in other elements of life, or that the whole house of cards is subject to the whims of humans and not divine revelation?

The Randy Riverbeast

lazygal wrote: »

Don't the rules come from God though? So if they start changing the rules, might that be an admission that God got it wrong, or they misinterpreted the rules of God and therefore may be unreliable leaders in what's a sin in other elements of life, or that the whole house of cards is subject to the whims of humans and not divine revelation?

Maybe those bits are a metaphor/out of context/don't apply anymore.

looksee

This is all a very clear indication that the churches are not about god, but about enforcing the detail of each churches' interpretation of what god wants.

If they were to accept that god is more important than the man-made organisation, and that it does not matter how the individual recognises and worships him, the churches would have a great deal more to offer society. As it is they are a liability.

The officials of a church, be they priests, ministers or whatever, are to a large extent about power and authority rather than god, and the further up the chain of command they go, the less the original purpose of teaching and leading worship matters to them. A lot like politicians really.

seamus

lazygal wrote: »

Don't the rules come from God though? So if they start changing the rules, might that be an admission that God got it wrong, or they misinterpreted the rules of God and therefore may be unreliable leaders in what's a sin in other elements of life, or that the whole house of cards is subject to the whims of humans and not divine revelation?

The problem is that people don't examine their faith to ensure it's still logical, instead they distort logic in order to retain their faith.

All doctrine, not just Catholic doctrine, is littered with convenient loopholes to answer the "what about" questions in a way that lets people comfortably ignore the facts. "God works in mysterious ways" is the most used one, but in the cases you describe, the loophole is that the Pope is allowed to re-interpret the bible because he is God's representative on earth.

But why didn't the bible just mean what it said? The loophole invented for that, is that the bible was written to be an eternal book and so is designed to relevant to man during all stages of humanity's development.

All nonsense of course, but it lets people pretend that everything is hunky dory.

You also have the latest fun, where people call themselves Catholic and then claim that the bible means whatever you want it to mean, that you interpret it to suit yourself.

Eh, no, that's exactly not how Catholicism works.

looksee

You also have the latest fun, where people call themselves Catholic and then claim that the bible means whatever you want it to mean, that you interpret it to suit yourself.

Eh, no, that's exactly not how Catholicism works.

Exactly. What is Catholicism and how does it work. Does god have anything to do with it at this stage? Or is it just a platform for human power, wealth and authority, a circular construct with no real, basic meaning at all?

lazygal

seamus wrote: »

You also have the latest fun, where people call themselves Catholic and then claim that the bible means whatever you want it to mean, that you interpret it to suit yourself.

Eh, no, that's exactly not how Catholicism works.

..and then do things like communion ceremonies despite finding some of the views offensive. Even my own father, who voted yes to marriage equality, never goes to mass (SIN!SIN!SIN!), is certainly more pro than anti choice and thinks the whole kit and kaboodle is nonsense, will tick the catholic box in the census. If people thought more critically about what they believe, I am sure they could find a more appropriate denomination for them to follow.

Cabaal

lazygal wrote: »

Don't the rules come from God though? So if they start changing the rules, might that be an admission that God got it wrong, or they misinterpreted the rules of God and therefore may be unreliable leaders in what's a sin in other elements of life, or that the whole house of cards is subject to the whims of humans and not divine revelation?

They've already changed the rules on a number of issues, after all slavery is bad now!

seamus wrote: »

All doctrine, not just Catholic doctrine, is littered with convenient loopholes to answer the "what about" questions in a way that lets people comfortably ignore the facts.

Did you say loopholes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS4wptwMfwQ

lazygal

Cabaal wrote: »

They've already changed the rules on a number of issues, after all slavery is bad now!

Yes, and a foetus isn't a person if it might cost them money!

PopePalpatine

looksee wrote: »

Exactly. What is Catholicism and how does it work. Does god have anything to do with it at this stage? Or is it just a platform for human power, wealth and authority, a circular construct with no real, basic meaning at all?

That's the great thing about Catholicism - it's very vague and no-one knows what it's all about. :pac:

recedite

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/mass-attendance-in-dublin-to-drop-by-one-third-by-2030-1.2504351

I liked this quote;

Most people are “decent, respectful and grateful; they are amazingly unfazed; no embarrassment or apology for the fact that they are unfamiliar with what happens at a Mass these days.

Its like he is saying "How dare they "get on with their lives" in a decent way, while mostly ignoring the church, and not even being ashamed of it. I didn't spend 5 years studying this crap in a seminary just so people could call me up to say a few words at a funeral, and the rest of the time just ignore me."

seamus

recedite wrote: »

I liked this quote; Its like he is saying "How dare they "get on with their lives" in a decent way, while mostly ignoring the church, and not even being ashamed of it. I didn't spend 5 years studying this crap in a seminary just so people could call me up to say a few words at a funeral, and the rest of the time just ignore me."

I think it shows an astounding disconnect with the rest of the world.

He seems to think that it's strange or remarkable that people don't know the catholic mass inside-out. Which I think is probably the very definition of "parochial". He is so firmly embedded inside the church mindset that he doesn't understand why someone wouldn't be embarrassed if they had to be told what to do in a church.

Personally I find the "new" mass to be great, because now I don't really know what's going on. With the old mass, you'd go to a wedding or funeral and old reflexes learned at a tender age would sometimes come back to haunt you. But now it's all different I can just sit there and look around.

Cabaal

seamus wrote: »

Personally I find the "new" mass to be great, because now I don't really know what's going on. With the old mass, you'd go to a wedding or funeral and old reflexes learned at a tender age would sometimes come back to haunt you. But now it's all different I can just sit there and look around.

Got to agree,
Also the new mass had the added benefit of pissing off alot of the older ground who regularly go to mass. I still hear them bitch about it now and then,

recedite

The priest seems to think that by learning off a few magic words and wearing a special outfit, he has an entitlement to be revered by everybody as a pillar of society.
But if he's a pillar, then society is a big circus tent that has packed up and moved to a new location down the road. It turns out the pillar wasn't necessary after all, it was just in the way :pac:
The marble pillar stands in the middle of a field at the previous site, wondering to itself; How the f**k is that tent staying up now?

Bristolscale7

A lot done. More to do.

Huntergonzo

Ah we'll screw it up some way, that's a guarantee, humans seem inherently hard wired to fall for insane shíte. The RCC has survived this long even after all the extraordinary evil and cruel things they've done and indeed continue to do, so I wouldn't be optimistic about their long, long overdue demise and anyway even if they did finally fúck off and leave us alone (which is highly unlikely), some other evil charlatans would likely take their place.

The Randy Riverbeast

Interesting how baptisms are going up, people must really want their children to be raised as RC even though the parents don't have much interest in the religion themselves :pac:

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Ah we'll screw it up some way, that's a guarantee, humans seem inherently hard wired to fall for insane shíte. The RCC has survived this long even after all the extraordinary evil and cruel things they've done and indeed continue to do, so I wouldn't be optimistic about their long, long overdue demise and anyway even if they did finally fúck off and leave us alone (which is highly unlikely), some other evil charlatans would likely take their place.

The RCC is safe enough, it might be losing people in the Western world but it still has the poorer parts of the world. They just start to tone down the fire and brimstone to look cool and down with the kids here while telling people if they use contraception they will get AIDs elsewhere. They have to be very careful with not going for the god says no line in political matter, instead claiming they want to protect children.

9de5q7tsr8u2im

Mass numbers falling?
God help this country

9de5q7tsr8u2im

Mass numbers falling?
God help this country

Samaris

seamus wrote: »

Personally I find the "new" mass to be great, because now I don't really know what's going on. With the old mass, you'd go to a wedding or funeral and old reflexes learned at a tender age would sometimes come back to haunt you. But now it's all different I can just sit there and look around.

The more recent times I've gone to Mass, I've mostly just wished they'd stop changing the words!

"Peace be with you,"
"And also with...[mumble] on your spirit.."

Also I'm quite often somewhere where the Rosary is said a lot, which I can cope with (although I'm surreptitiously dropping fingers from the hands clasped so I can keep count when I have to say the lead part), but the Nicene Creed, oh, that one gets me every time. The version they use goes from;

"Suffered death and was buried
On the third day he rose again.." which is the version I learned

to

"Suffered death and was buried
He descended into hell." (here, a big bell clangs in my head)

The worst bit is everyone stops solemnly on that point, while I'm now mumbling alone "on the third-grble.."

Nodin

Samaris wrote: »

The more recent times I've gone to Mass, I've mostly just wished they'd stop changing the words!

"Peace be with you,"
"And also with...[mumble] on your spirit.."

Also I'm quite often somewhere where the Rosary is said a lot, which I can cope with (although I'm surreptitiously dropping fingers from the hands clasped so I can keep count when I have to say the lead part), but the Nicene Creed, oh, that one gets me every time. The version they use goes from;

"Suffered death and was buried
On the third day he rose again.." which is the version I learned

to

"Suffered death and was buried
He descended into hell." (here, a big bell clangs in my head)

The worst bit is everyone stops solemnly on that point, while I'm now mumbling alone "on the third-grble.."

What the jaysus madness is this? When did they bring that stuff in?

Samaris

The "And peace be with your spirit" thing was brought in a couple of years ago, maybe...two-three years now? It could be longer, but I only remember being caught out by it when I came back from England two years ago.

The "descended into hell" bit in the Nicene Creed is an older alternative of the prayer and not said in Church; that's one I'm only confronted with in a more private setting. I guess it's just their preferred method. Still catches me out something rotten though.

Hotblack Desiato

It looks like some serious spin has already been applied to those figures.

Weekly Mass attendance levels in Dublin are currently put at 20-22 per cent (of the population), while being as low as 2-3 per cent in some working-class parishes.

It doesn't even claim 20-22% of self-declared catholics, but 20-22% of the population. Not remotely credible. Especially as an RCC survey in 2011 put the figure for Dublin at 14%
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/archbishop-says-dublin-diocese-facing-crisis-1.11050

If some areas are 2-3% and yet the average is claimed to be 20-22%, there must be some areas significantly higher than that - but where? In Dublin it's just not credible at all.

Then further down, they're saying baptisms are up - in number possibly - ignoring the growing population and birth rate - and ignoring the schools admission issue also.

haveringchick

mfceiling wrote: »

That's the way the world is going.

My middle girl is doing her communion this year and the priest would put you off going to mass.

Standing up at the altar and telling the kids that the only true family in Ireland is daddy, mammy and kids. 2 of the girls in my daughters class are single parent families. Now I know he was talking about same sex parents but an 8 year old wouldn't. There has been a few complaints about him to the school.

To be fair I know another priest and he seems to be more progressive and in touch with the real world.

Hard to think the church will have much sway in another 20 years tbh.

You really need to report your parish priest to the Gardai for tiger kidnapping your family, if only to prevent it happening to some other family.

robindch

Samaris wrote: »

The more recent times I've gone to Mass, I've mostly just wished they'd stop changing the words!

And what about the standy-uppey and sitty-downey bits? Did the church ever get that straightened out?

Last time I was at a mass - a few years ago for the marriage of a few non-Irish friends - nobody had a clue of when they were supposed to stand up, sit down + slouch forward and the mass looked like a slow-motion exercise session at a lunatic aslyum.

Samaris

Well, it's falling in line with the amount of priests they're able to train too. This article is a bit out of date, but I doubt the pattern has changed;

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/significant-drop-in-irish-numbers-of-priests-and-nuns-1.1856113

They're entirely right about how to solve it, but the order as a whole is stagnant. Although if any pope was going to bite the bullet and make the major changes needed, it'd be Pope Francis. He's far and away the most progressive pope they've had. Yis'd think that only two priests under the age of forty in the most populous diocese in the country would be a bit of a wake-up call though. But I rather suspect the Church is relying on their current strongest area, the African and possibly American churches, to start exporting missionaries to the old strongholds to fill in the gaps.

The daft thing is that these are not wholly unprecedented changes. Women did act as priests back in the early days of the church in Ireland. In fact, women made up a large portion of Jesus' following. A female "deacon" appears in the Bible (Paul), called Phoebe. Various other women were responsible for how the early Church came to be, and what social service roles they took over (Paula, Fabiola, etc). Female deacons were being ordained until the 4thC, and didn't disappear until the 12th. It's possible they had a slightly different role, ministering to women exclusively, but still, it's a construct. Marriage was allowed for quite a long time until it was banned, and I believe that partly had to do with a tax system in place at the time.

For the sake of a secular country, yeah, it's probably best that they keep on with being stubborn. But the practical, problem-solving part of me is a bit "seriously? You'd rather -die out- rather than change some man-made traditions that actually don't affect the word of Christ? Sheesh, you're unsalvageable."

Samaris

Well, it's falling in line with the amount of priests they're able to train too. This article is a bit out of date, but I doubt the pattern has changed;

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/significant-drop-in-irish-numbers-of-priests-and-nuns-1.1856113

They're entirely right about how to solve it, but the order as a whole is stagnant. Although if any pope was going to bite the bullet and make the major changes needed, it'd be Pope Francis. He's far and away the most progressive pope they've had. Yis'd think that only two priests under the age of forty in the most populous diocese in the country would be a bit of a wake-up call though. But I rather suspect the Church is relying on their current strongest area, the African and possibly American churches, to start exporting missionaries to the old strongholds to fill in the gaps.

The daft thing is that these are not wholly unprecedented changes. Women did act as priests back in the early days of the church in Ireland. In fact, women made up a large portion of Jesus' following. A female "deacon" appears in the Bible (Paul), called Phoebe. Various other women were responsible for how the early Church came to be, and what social service roles they took over (Paula, Fabiola, etc). Female deacons were being ordained until the 4thC, and didn't disappear until the 12th. It's possible they had a slightly different role, ministering to women exclusively, but still, it's a construct. Marriage was allowed for quite a long time until it was banned, and I believe that partly had to do with a tax system in place at the time.

For the sake of a secular country, yeah, it's probably best that they keep on with being stubborn. But the practical, problem-solving part of me is a bit "seriously? You'd rather -die out- rather than change some man-made traditions that actually don't affect the word of Christ? Sheesh, you're unsalvageable."

Samaris

robindch wrote: »

And what about the standy-uppey and sitty-downey bits? Did the church ever get that straightened out?

Last time I was at a mass - a few years ago for the marriage of a few non-Irish friends - nobody had a clue of when they were supposed to stand up, sit down + slouch forward and the mass looked like a slow-motion exercise session at a lunatic aslyum.

I'd posted in the meantime, so double-post for the sake of Boards not actually imploding from my trying to edit...


The Mass Eurythmics seems to be slowly having exceptions made to it - anyone who finds it difficult or painful doesn't have to do it - mind you, the elderly that this is particularly aimed at are still the ones most likely to do it! And as I've commented before, my recent Mass-going expeditions have generally been in a rural area that's still more hard-line, so people generally knew what they were at. Hrm...

Far as I recall, it goes something as follows;
Stand for the entrance antiphon (and first blessing).
Sit for the first and second readings and the responsorial psalm (mostly read by a lay person)
Stand up again for the Gospel and stay standing for the Profession of Faith (Nicene Creed - during which there's a brief bow that seems to have fallen out of fashion. Bowing doesn't really come naturally to us anymore, there's very few, if any, circumstances that it's used in Irish society in general.)
Sit again for the homily and try to hear what the priest is saying, which can be awkward as half of them seem to speak in a continuous low mumble interspersed with sudden sharp bits to wake people up)
Kneel for the Eucharistic bits
Stand up and do the handshake (Let us offer one another a sign of that peace)
Go to Communion, queue, kneel, bow, whatever.
Kneel for personal prayers after Communion.
I think it's generally sitting after that.
Fleeing.


Wow. You know, I'd never really paid attention to the muttering about how up and down and all around the Catholic mass is, but reading over that again, yeah, we really do jump about a bit.

EnergyPro

I think people over estimate the significance of mass attendance or lack there of. Personally I don't attend regularly, lately it has been very occasionally, but I don't believe that I am an less of a catholic for it. I still share the beliefs of the church, and I think the same could be said for most people I know.

Nodin

EnergyPro wrote: »

I think people over estimate the significance of mass attendance or lack there of. Personally I don't attend regularly, lately it has been very occasionally, but I don't believe that I am an less of a catholic for it. I still share the beliefs of the church, and I think the same could be said for most people I know.

....while I can't comment on exactly how true that is, its safe to say you don't agree with the churches belief that weekly mass attendance is mandatory.
http://www.canonlaw.info/precepts_noaudio.htm

The Randy Riverbeast

Samaris wrote: »

Well, it's falling in line with the amount of priests they're able to train too. This article is a bit out of date, but I doubt the pattern has changed;

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/significant-drop-in-irish-numbers-of-priests-and-nuns-1.1856113

They're entirely right about how to solve it, but the order as a whole is stagnant. Although if any pope was going to bite the bullet and make the major changes needed, it'd be Pope Francis. He's far and away the most progressive pope they've had. Yis'd think that only two priests under the age of forty in the most populous diocese in the country would be a bit of a wake-up call though. But I rather suspect the Church is relying on their current strongest area, the African and possibly American churches, to start exporting missionaries to the old strongholds to fill in the gaps.

The daft thing is that these are not wholly unprecedented changes. Women did act as priests back in the early days of the church in Ireland. In fact, women made up a large portion of Jesus' following. A female "deacon" appears in the Bible (Paul), called Phoebe. Various other women were responsible for how the early Church came to be, and what social service roles they took over (Paula, Fabiola, etc). Female deacons were being ordained until the 4thC, and didn't disappear until the 12th. It's possible they had a slightly different role, ministering to women exclusively, but still, it's a construct. Marriage was allowed for quite a long time until it was banned, and I believe that partly had to do with a tax system in place at the time.

For the sake of a secular country, yeah, it's probably best that they keep on with being stubborn. But the practical, problem-solving part of me is a bit "seriously? You'd rather -die out- rather than change some man-made traditions that actually don't affect the word of Christ? Sheesh, you're unsalvageable."

Vatican III: Revenge of the Pope

While things aren't looking great in Europe they aren't going to die off any time soon. They still have strong markets in some parts of the world. It will be interesting to see how things play out in those countries, will the same mistakes be made? From my experience of talking to African Christians (I don't know what brand of Christian they are) they tend to have a more "classical" view on matters that you would have seen in Ireland a few decades ago.

Some details on population growth and decline of Catholics.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-21443313

EnergyPro

Nodin wrote:

....while I can't comment on exactly how true that is, its safe to say you don't agree with the churches belief that weekly mass attendance is mandatory.

Touché!
Fair enough point! But I mean society is changing. Years ago Sunday was a day of rest worship etc etc. Times changed and wknds are so much busier now with people working and what not. I guess my point is that just because mass attendance are not as high as before, it doesn't necessarily theyre are equally less Catholics with strong catholic beliefs still in the country.

recedite

Samaris wrote: »

The "descended into hell" bit in the Nicene Creed is an older alternative of the prayer and not said in Church; that's one I'm only confronted with in a more private setting. I guess it's just their preferred method. Still catches me out something rotten though.

Was that due to a navigational error, or was he deliberately going down there to pick a fight with Auld Nick?

recedite

robindch wrote: »

And what about the standy-uppey and sitty-downey bits...

I don't mind these; just follow the herd, no problem being a few seconds behind.
What really annoys me though is being climbed over by people returning from communion. Last time I was at a funeral, I deliberately sat at the very centre point of the pew, so other people could exit and enter at each end, unobstructed.

So there were 3 of us non-communicants sitting there in the centre, when the first guy returned.
He wants to sit on the extreme LHS but he makes his approach from the RHS.
Then he comes up against the obstacle of the 3 people and stands there with a silly grin as if to say "Oh..what are you doing here". The f*cker could see we were there all along! Why could he not modify his behaviour to the situation and go back to his seat the same way he left the pew? I purposely will not stand up to make it easier for him, because of his inflexible attitude. Then 4 more arrive and do exactly the same. Meanwhile there is no problem accessing their own end of the pew directly, if they wanted to.
There seems to be some kind of rigid and invisible one-way system in place, which was probably fine back in the days when there was a big crowd and everybody got up. But now its just stupid, especially when the church is half empty.
By providing less knee room than a ryanair flight, the church does not exactly help matters either.

Samaris

recedite wrote: »

Was that due to a navigational error, or was he deliberately going down there to pick a fight with Auld Nick?

Reading up on it, it seems that it's more usually part of the Apostles' Creed rather than the Nicene (don't ask me why I get hit with it in the Nicene), and it's occasioned much arguing. Eastern tradition holds that he went down into hell to speak with the souls bound there and to renew them too. Others argue that it's talking about the hell that is crucifixion itself and the general unpleasantness of dying in such a way. Others suggest that it is meant to be taken as Jesus suffering all the trials that await those who don't believe, i.e., suffering hell itself.

Or maybe there was an epic battle at the gates of hell with Lucifer. That'd be a pretty awesome image for the medieval painters to work with!


Wow, my last few posts in here look a lot like ninja Catholicism! I'm interested in all the whys and wherefores of how religions develop and accept dogma, to be honest, so please don't mind my going off on tangents to talk about bits of dogma and the whys and whats

Cabaal

EnergyPro wrote: »

I think people over estimate the significance of mass attendance or lack there of. Personally I don't attend regularly, lately it has been very occasionally, but I don't believe that I am an less of a catholic for it. I still share the beliefs of the church, and I think the same could be said for most people I know.

You still share the beliefs of the Catholic Church? You sure?

So sex before marriage is wrong in your view? Gay people are unnatural, gay marriage is wrong?

You see divorce as wrong and you think contraption is also wrong?

I'll be honest, I pitty you if you share these views with the church, it doesn't make you a very nice and accepting person.

Cabaal

EnergyPro wrote: »

, it doesn't necessarily theyre are equally less Catholics with strong catholic beliefs still in the country.

Err actually if you look at the evidence it actually confirms there are less Catholics with strong beliefs,

If that wasn't the case the marriage equality vote never would have had a chance at passing, equaly all polls in relation to abortion would show a majority against allowing it in any situation... After all this is the official position of the Church,

There would also be more issues obtaining condoms and other birth control.

The reality is that if you look at condoms for example, the availability of the has increased over the years as the strong viewpoints of the Catholic Church have been supported less and less by its followers,

I know people that go to mass several times a week, but they still support the use if birth control, the accept divorce as something that must happen in certain situations and the support marriage equality. All of which are views pints not held by the church.

My parents would see themselves as Catholic but they were disgusted by the way the church had priests preaching about how awful marriage equality is during communion masses and also remembrance masses prior to the vote in may.

The reality is the church is seriously out touch with the vast majority of people who call themselves Catholic in Ireland, Catholics with strong beliefs that support the church are a tiny minority that continue to die off and shrink daily.

looksee

For anyone who is interested, this is the Apostles Creed as printed in my Anglican Book of Common Prayer (Presented (by the Sunday school) to looksee for regular attendance 26th July 1957). Complete with rather odd capitalisation. I could still say it.

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
Born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
Was crucified, dead and buried;
He descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
And sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost,
the holy Catholick Church,
the Communion of Saints,
The Forgiveness of sins,
The Resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

looksee

Duplicate

Samaris

looksee wrote: »

And sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost,
the holy Catholick Church,
[/I]

I love that "quick and the dead" line. I get it's referring to quick as in alive, but it's still amusing.

Why does Catholick have a k on the end? Is it something to do with differentiating from the Roman Catholic church?

recedite

Samaris wrote: »

Why does Catholick have a k on the end?

Looksee's little joke
I congratulate Looksee on the exemplary Sunday school attendance record. The prayer book is a modest prize, but well deserved.

On "quickness" I suppose you gotta be quicker than Speedy Gonzalez to go down into Auld Nick's place, and then get out again to tell the tale.

looksee

No, not my joke, that is exactly as it is written, I have no idea why.

recedite

OK. Perhaps just a more archaic form of spelling then?
I'm guessing it was a bit dated even at the time it was printed; religious texts have a habit of retaining old spellings long after they have disappeared from everyday language.

recedite

Here we go, wikipedia to the rescue.
There's a 1662 version and a 2000 version, which are both approved by the CoE. The earlier version would have been common to the CoE and the CoI, and possibly the later one is too, though I'm not sure about that.

Ghosts get replaced by spirits.
Quick by living.
Catholick with a big "C" changes to catholic with a small "c".

I think with the small "c" there is a definite attempt to say "not RC" but I don't think that was/is the case with "Catholick". Can't be sure about that though, as I was not around in 1662 when they decided to use it.

looksee

'catholic' with a small c just means wide, diverse, all encompassing - his tastes were catholic. With a capital C it desribes the early church before it was divided, the k is just an old spelling.

The CofE using the capital C was just their manic capital lettering, they apparently reduced it so not to be confused with the Roman variety.

RainyDay

EnergyPro wrote: »

I think people over estimate the significance of mass attendance or lack there of. Personally I don't attend regularly, lately it has been very occasionally, but I don't believe that I am an less of a catholic for it. I still share the beliefs of the church

Isn't one of the beliefs of the church that you have to go to mass weekly? Do you pick and choose the beliefs that suit you?

Nodin

EnergyPro wrote: »

Touché!
Fair enough point! But I mean society is changing. Years ago Sunday was a day of rest worship etc etc. Times changed and wknds are so much busier now with people working and what not. I guess my point is that just because mass attendance are not as high as before, it doesn't necessarily theyre are equally less Catholics with strong catholic beliefs still in the country.

There are indeed a goodly number who would strongly identify themselves as "catholic" but when you put the questions to them on the basics - transubstantiation, contraception, divorce, sex in general - I think you'd find they and the actual church would differ. The problem we have in this country is that people essentially sign on because its what you do, rather than what they believe, if you follow me.