Why is Catholicism so successful?

[simonpeter]

Dear Protestants,

Why is Catholicism so successful in terms of numbers, whereas protestants are reduced to insignificance? Considering the reformation movt. took place many centuries ago, shouldn't there be some impact? But it still appears that protestants are simply made up of small-time churches with rock bands, a little bit of prosperity stuff thrown here and there, and all the rest; whereas the Catholic church is huge and commands the obedience of billions.

How do you explain this?

Thanks,
Simon

 

[MPaul]

There are sound statistical studies that indicate that within 100 years of the Azusa Street Revival, there were 500 million Pentecostals and Charismatics, not counting those who already died, and the movement was still growing so fast, it was impossible to keep up with the numbers.

This was also confirmed by an independent study, by a Professor Jenkins, at Penn State --
Pentecostal Influence Growing Worldwide 10/10/06 - Turning Point Ministries Int'l

The statistics are reviewed extensively in "The Century of the Holy Spirit: 100 Years of Pentecostal and Charismatic Renewal," by Vinson Synan.

Your assessment of the importance of Catholicism is subjective and meaningless. And remember, it was finances and armies from English speaking, Protestant societies that saved the Pope and the Vatican in World War II. But for those Protestant societies, the Vatican would be a Nazi SS headquarters today.

However, I understand why the Catholics have to resort to anything but the bible to try to prove the validity of their religion. But comparing the truth of the bible to the Protestants, it turns out they are by far the most successful.

So please, don't try to prove how wrong we are by using anything but the bible. The other stuff is just hype, and rhetoric, and meaningless.

 

[MPaul]

Here's an interesting link --

World Christian Encyclopedia

 

[drjean]

I think there are many factors, but they all stem back to human behavior. Any organization that has traditions, rules, standards, set procedures, consistency etc., will be more successful than one that does not.

People desire structure, on the most part. They like knowing what to expect, what is expected of them, not being confronted with unknown or ever-changing events etc.

Now the younger generation might be embracing the contemporary services, for example, but they won't have consistency and assurance of support from that, and will probably seek it out once they realize they need it. It's too bad that we, the older generation, couldn't engage them into the more standard ways of worship that do give structure and the feeling of safety within the faith. A solid foundation might be one way to describe it. People like to not have to be anyone but themselves to worship, regardless of how they are then feeling, imo.

 

[pathfinder777]

Dear Protestants,

Why is Catholicism so successful in terms of numbers, whereas protestants are reduced to insignificance? Considering the reformation movt. took place many centuries ago, shouldn't there be some impact? But it still appears that protestants are simply made up of small-time churches with rock bands, a little bit of prosperity stuff thrown here and there, and all the rest; whereas the Catholic church is huge and commands the obedience of billions.

How do you explain this?

Thanks,
Simon

Hi Simon,
Mainstream Protestant churches (Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican) do not fit your description above.

In Christ

 

[Root of Jesse]

There are sound statistical studies that indicate that within 100 years of the Azusa Street Revival, there were 500 million Pentecostals and Charismatics, not counting those who already died, and the movement was still growing so fast, it was impossible to keep up with the numbers.

This was also confirmed by an independent study, by a Professor Jenkins, at Penn State --
Pentecostal Influence Growing Worldwide 10/10/06 - Turning Point Ministries Int'l

The statistics are reviewed extensively in "The Century of the Holy Spirit: 100 Years of Pentecostal and Charismatic Renewal," by Vinson Synan.

I'd love to see those studies, because according to everything I've read, there are near 1/2 billion non-Catholic Christians in total.

Your assessment of the importance of Catholicism is subjective and meaningless. And remember, it was finances and armies from English speaking, Protestant societies that saved the Pope and the Vatican in World War II. But for those Protestant societies, the Vatican would be a Nazi SS headquarters today.

Revisionist history. Cite some sources, please?

However, I understand why the Catholics have to resort to anything but the bible to try to prove the validity of their religion. But comparing the truth of the bible to the Protestants, it turns out they are by far the most successful.

Laughing at this "anything but the Bible" stuff. The vast majority of Catholicism is Biblical or Bibically derived.

So please, don't try to prove how wrong we are by using anything but the bible. The other stuff is just hype, and rhetoric, and meaningless.

Show me where Sola Scriptura is in the Bible. And altar calls. You say you're Bible only, yet your worship is not Bible only.

 

[pathfinder777]

There are sound statistical studies that indicate that within 100 years of the Azusa Street Revival, there were 500 million Pentecostals and Charismatics, not counting those who already died, and the movement was still growing so fast, it was impossible to keep up with the numbers.

This was also confirmed by an independent study, by a Professor Jenkins, at Penn State --
Pentecostal Influence Growing Worldwide 10/10/06 - Turning Point Ministries Int'l

The statistics are reviewed extensively in "The Century of the Holy Spirit: 100 Years of Pentecostal and Charismatic Renewal," by Vinson Synan.

Your assessment of the importance of Catholicism is subjective and meaningless. And remember, it was finances and armies from English speaking, Protestant societies that saved the Pope and the Vatican in World War II. But for those Protestant societies, the Vatican would be a Nazi SS headquarters today.

However, I understand why the Catholics have to resort to anything but the bible to try to prove the validity of their religion. But comparing the truth of the bible to the Protestants, it turns out they are by far the most successful.

So please, don't try to prove how wrong we are by using anything but the bible. The other stuff is just hype, and rhetoric, and meaningless.

MPaul
Catholics venerate the Scriptures as they do the body of Christ.
(141 "The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures as she venerated the Body of the Lord" (DV 21): both nourish and govern the whole Christian life. "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path" (Ps 119:105; cf. Is 50:4). )
Your comment above is a caricature, a ludicrous distortion of Catholicism and objectively false.
In Christ

 

[Root of Jesse]

I think there are many factors, but they all stem back to human behavior. Any organization that has traditions, rules, standards, set procedures, consistency etc., will be more successful than one that does not.

People desire structure, on the most part. They like knowing what to expect, what is expected of them, not being confronted with unknown or ever-changing events etc.

Now the younger generation might be embracing the contemporary services, for example, but they won't have consistency and assurance of support from that, and will probably seek it out once they realize they need it. It's too bad that we, the older generation, couldn't engage them into the more standard ways of worship that do give structure and the feeling of safety within the faith. A solid foundation might be one way to describe it. People like to not have to be anyone but themselves to worship, regardless of how they are then feeling, imo.

It's called authority. But I did just notice that the OP addressed 'Protestants', so maybe I'll bow out unless someone wants me here.

 

[wayseer]

Dear Protestants,

Why is Catholicism so successful in terms of numbers, whereas protestants are reduced to insignificance? Considering the reformation movt. took place many centuries ago, shouldn't there be some impact? But it still appears that protestants are simply made up of small-time churches with rock bands, a little bit of prosperity stuff thrown here and there, and all the rest; whereas the Catholic church is huge and commands the obedience of billions.

How do you explain this?

Thanks,
Simon

Probably has something to do with the fact that the Roman church has been around for a rather long time and enjoys the benefit of the patronage of various kings and rulers and the rich.

In other words, it gets paid handsomely to keep the rest of us in line.

 

[pathfinder777]

Probably has something to do with the fact that the Roman church has been around for a rather long time and enjoys the benefit of the patronage of various kings and rulers and the rich.

In other words, it gets paid handsomely to keep the rest of us in line.

Here's a different rub, maybe as Scripture teaches the Paraclete has something to do with it..

In Christ

 

[MPaul]

MPaul
Catholics venerate the Scriptures as they do the body of Christ.
(141 "The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures as she venerated the Body of the Lord" (DV 21): both nourish and govern the whole Christian life. "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path" (Ps 119:105; cf. Is 50:4). )
Your comment above is a caricature, a ludicrous distortion of Catholicism and objectively false.
In Christ

No, your statement is a distortion of my posting. This thread is attempting to uphold Catholicism as superior to Protestanism on a basis other than Scripture. This is always how Catholics do it. It is true that Catholics venerate Scripture, but they subordinate it to Holy Tradition and degrade the Word of God by so doing. They have to rely on arguments not based on Scripture because they cannot succeed with arguments upholding Scripture as authority.

 

[MPaul]

A lot of Catholic success is based on having established centuries of institutional authority by sending out armies to slaughter in mass other Christians who disagreed with them. In northern Europe, the armies were not strong enough. They also tried to wipe out Orthodox Catholicism the same way -- it's not coincidence that the sack of Constantinople in the fourth Crusade came at the same time as a German Catholic king's invasion of Russia, the successor to Constantinople. Centuries of abuse and persecution established the basis of the Roman Church.

 

[MPaul]

I'd love to see those studies, because according to everything I've read, there are near 1/2 billion non-Catholic Christians in total.
Revisionist history. Cite some sources, please?
Laughing at this "anything but the Bible" stuff. The vast majority of Catholicism is Biblical or Bibically derived.

Show me where Sola Scriptura is in the Bible. And altar calls. You say you're Bible only, yet your worship is not Bible only.

I'm not stopping you from looking at the sources I quoted.

The military unity and finances of English speaking societies were the decisive difference of WWII. We kept the Russians afloat, and we set up a second front. English speaking countries at the time were predominantly Protestant. Hitler planned to kill the Pope and take over the Vatican -- the specifics set out in John Cromwell's "Hitler's Pope." In "Table Talk," Hitler set out his true views on Christianity, which was to eliminate it.

Go to the thread "Just the Basics - Holy Tradition/ Sola Scriptura - to read only where I post the verses from the bible on it being the only authority. Oh.... but of course, you will want to change what they mean. (PS -- added later -- the basis is set out at post #2 of that thread. However, please note that particular thread has a special purpose and is not a debate thread.)

 

[pathfinder777]

No, your statement is a distortion of my posting. This thread is attempting to uphold Catholicism as superior to Protestanism on a basis other than Scripture. This is always how Catholics do it. It is true that Catholics venerate Scripture, but they subordinate it to Holy Tradition and degrade the Word of God by so doing. They have to rely on arguments not based on Scripture because they cannot succeed with arguments upholding Scripture as authority.

IMO the OP is clearly a caricature of Protestantism based on its description of "churches with rock bands etc" just as yours is of Catholicism and accusing the church of degrading the Scriptures which is nonsense. Tradition is subject to Scriptures, its interpretation to tradition, it is not above it.. This is Catholic teaching. Scripture is and always has been authoritative within Catholicism. You are setting a false or strawman argument by implying the CC views or teaches that tradition or the Magisterium is relationally superior to the Scriptures.

In Christ

 

[MPaul]

I think another basis for the success of the RCC is its highly secretive manner of operation. For example, the RCC has archives that go back 1,000 years, but they will not permit review of their records. The RCC has enormous wealth, but they will not release complete banking statements, even amid allegations of criminal money laudering. Memos from within the RCC on how to handle sex abuse allegations have been discovered, that note they must be held in complete secrecy on pain of excommunication. It is well known that the RCC has an espionage network the equivalent of the CIA and KGB, but with the specifics of the activities no better known.

Actually, at times the RCC seems to operate more like the Mafia than a church.

 

[pathfinder777]

It is well known that the RCC has an espionage network the equivalent of the CIA and KGB, but with the specifics of the activities no better known.

Actually, at times the RCC seems to operate more like the Mafia than a church.

:o:o:o

 

[MPaul]

IMO the OP is clearly a caricature of Protestantism based on its description of "churches with rock bands etc" just as yours is of Catholicism and accusing the church of degrading the Scriptures which is nonsense. Tradition is subject to Scriptures, its interpretation to tradition, it is not above it.. This is Catholic teaching. Scripture is and always has been authoritative within Catholicism. You are setting a false or strawman argument by implying the CC views or teaches that tradition or the Magisterium is relationally superior to the Scriptures.

In Christ

That may be your view of Catholicism, but it is not every Catholic's. Holy Tradition does degrade Scripture -- placing the Pope as the Vicar of Christ sets an authority that goes beyond Scripture in contradiction to Scripture. Then, he can say it is OK to communicate with the dead (pray to saints) in contradiction to Scripture. He can say it is OK to wear a head covering in a service, in contradiction to Scripture. He can say, it is OK to go beyond what is written, in contradiction to Scripture. It just goes on and on -- like the RCC can make up new standards for how the bible is determined, and ignore the true standards in the bible.

The bottom line is, however -- when Catholics want to let Protestants know that Catholics are right and Protestants are wrong, they never rely on the bible, but they always go to things like a twisted view of denominationalism or contest on the number of members. The Word of God is truth -- not these other little theories.

 

[Albion]

Dear Protestants,

Why is Catholicism so successful in terms of numbers, whereas protestants are reduced to insignificance? Considering the reformation movt. took place many centuries ago, shouldn't there be some impact? But it still appears that protestants are simply made up of small-time churches with rock bands, a little bit of prosperity stuff thrown here and there, and all the rest; whereas the Catholic church is huge and commands the obedience of billions.

How do you explain this?

Thanks,
Simon

There are a variety of reasons.

1. As was already mentioned, there is nothing insignificant about the Lutheran, Reformed and Presbyterian, Anglican, Methodist, and the other historic Protestant communions. There are small, non-denominational, independent congregations all over the place, it's true, but they do not describe Protstantism.

2. Roman Catholic membership statistics are greatly exaggerated while Protestant stats are understated. Why so? The RCC considers anyone who has been baptised in their church to be a member for good unless there is a formal withdrawal notice given to them, which rarely happens when people convert to some Protestant church. Then too, the RCC baptises infants and counts all of them as members. Those Protestant churches that baptise infants generally do not count them as members because they have a formal method of receiving people into voting membership after they make a formal profession of faith and reach a certain age, sixteen for instance; and if it's a church that does NOT baptise children, it's guaranteed. Consider how this difference in reporting members alone accounts for hundreds of millions of members either exaggerated in the one instance and undercounted in the other.

3. Much of the Catholic world is only formally Catholic. It is estimated that hardly any Frenchman goes to church anymore and only 1 in 50 do so in Italy, which is where the Vatican is, but they're all counted as Catholics. In Latin America, millions practice Africal tribal religions but are also called Catholics. They've blended together. The point is that many cultures are historically Catholic but not actually Catholic according to what we expect when counting noses.

So, the Catholic world may exceed the Protestant world by 60-40 or something like that, taking account of the fact that there are some examples of Protestants being overcounted too. I'd call that a serious competition.

And that says nothing about the great contributions to the spread of Christianity that Evangelical Protestantism is to be credited with or the spread of Capitalism and Democracy that historians normally attribute to Protestantism.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I think another basis for the success of the RCC is its highly secretive manner of operation. For example, the RCC has archives that go back 1,000 years, but they will not permit review of their records. The RCC has enormous wealth, but they will not release complete banking statements, even amid allegations of criminal money laudering. Memos from within the RCC on how to handle sex abuse allegations have been discovered, that note they must be held in complete secrecy on pain of excommunication. It is well known that the RCC has an espionage network the equivalent of the CIA and KGB, but with the specifics of the activities no better known.

Actually, at times the RCC seems to operate more like the Mafia than a church.

The Vatican Archives are no more secret than the archives of any museum or public trust. You have to have credentials acceptible to the entity to access said records, but they are available. Much Vatican documentation is available online.
It's laughable that anyone think "the Vatican" has enormous wealth. "The Catholic Church operates at a net loss, and the wealth you think you know about is stuff that's not saleable-art, real estate and buildings.
Regarding the sex abuse 'crisis', which was way overblown in comparison to the same issue in Protestant churches, has been nearly extinguished, due to the work of Cardinal Ratzinger. The method for handling these issues is to fully cooperate with any valid allegations. What constitutes 'valid'? Provide proof. Even in many cases where there is no proof other than 'he said this/they said that', the priest is held culpable and removed from his authority to do what he does.
By your last two sentences, you now qualify as a conspiracy theorist. Certainly, the Vatican has a diplomatic corps. And certainly there is a network. That's how the Vatican battled the Nazis in WWII-how else do you think we shepherded close to 700,000 Jews away from certain death; how else do you think the Church denounced Hitler in every Catholic Church in Germany? But you seem to think they're up to something sinister, when their purpose is to further the Catholic faith.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That may be your view of Catholicism, but it is not every Catholic's. Holy Tradition does degrade Scripture -- placing the Pope as the Vicar of Christ sets an authority that goes beyond Scripture in contradiction to Scripture. Then, he can say it is OK to communicate with the dead (pray to saints) in contradiction to Scripture. He can say it is OK to wear a head covering in a service, in contradiction to Scripture. He can say, it is OK to go beyond what is written, in contradiction to Scripture. It just goes on and on -- like the RCC can make up new standards for how the bible is determined, and ignore the true standards in the bible.

The bottom line is, however -- when Catholics want to let Protestants know that Catholics are right and Protestants are wrong, they never rely on the bible, but they always go to things like a twisted view of denominationalism or contest on the number of members. The Word of God is truth -- not these other little theories.

It really doesn't matter what 'every' Catholic believes. It's what the Church teaches that's important. Lots of people who claim Catholicism as their faith don't believe exactly what the Church teaches. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it. In other words, that's Everyman Catholic's problem.
Holy Tradition, properly understood, illuminates Scripture, and NEVER degrades or contradicts it. I suspect that you think that Holy Tradition is stuff like abstaining from meat on Friday and priestly celibacy. Placing the pope as Vicar of Christ is precisely biblical-it's the very words of Christ in the Gospel of Matthew.
The Saints are not dead. They are separated temporarily from their bodies. So we don't pray to the dead.
The pope cannot change anything about Catholicism. Nothing. Show us an example of where the Pope has done any such thing.
And contrary to your last statement, I have shown above, by invoking Matt 16:18-20 regarding the institution of the papacy, that we can quote the Bible for the explanation of any Catholic doctrine or dogma.