Catholicism dying out in Latin America

By 2050 only a minority of countries in Latin America will be majority catholic, let alone overwhelmingly catholic.
The minority of strong catholic countries will be Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Paraguay. Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic and Brazil might have more protestants than catholics, Uruguay (already the case) and Chile will likely have more nones people, Costa Rica can go either way and the rest will mostly be plurality catholic.
Why did we elect a latin american pope, again? Should have made based Sarah the pope so he can put some African vigour back into catholicism

Attached: cathcu.jpg (800x593, 95K)

and keep in mind even in the most catholic countries large parts (in most the majority) of the catholics are non-practicing, with the few practicing ones being charismatic renewalists and a far smaller minority le based traditional catholics whose dicks pol sucks

In some central american countries there's now even a trend of Orthodox Christianity growing with catholic converts, and some mexicuck tribes are becoming muzzie

Sure.... other than the biggest most populous one. Which is MORE catholic.

Also, I have a question.

It's "Latin" America because the Spanish and Portugese fucked their way across it. Genociding and spreading smallpox like the French and English did up north, but also making a campaign of obliterating the existing culture and substituting their own. But there was just WAY more Aztecs and Mayans and all the surrounding little shits than there were up north. Way more. Which is why mexicans are all brown instead of white like actual Spanards.

.... Why don't we call them "Native Americans"? They sure as fuck have a higher percentage of native blood than those full-ride scholarship fucks here in the states. They're still in North America. Their forefathers went through the same sort of plagues and oppression that the tribes up here did. Why the difference?

the biggest most populous one is brazil, the second is mexico, and actually go there and see how "catholic" mexican "catholics" are
mexico is the france of latin america and had the same revolutionary anti-clerical secularist bs

If the alumbrados prevailed, all Latinos would've been Protestant

Go to fucking Italy and see how catholic they are. Where is the church actually on the rise?

Those days of papal authority and central dominance are over. Good riddance.

Cause the nontheiest reproduces far quicker then the catholic

>Those days of papal authority and central dominance are over. Good riddance.
Really lovin that modernism, aren't you?

Sarah is considered to be a super longshot after Frankie, I believe. I think he would be great, could maybe turn things around.

It'll take a miracle. Francis has appointed 50+% of the electing cardinals.

They still have a country I guess

It's rising in Africa where based Sarah calls the shots
frank is packing the vatican with liberal bishops and making the next papal election even worse without divine intervention
PIC RELATED

Attached: latinobarometro catholic 1995-2017.png (1416x844, 59K)

They are mestizos and mullatos. Mutts with no real home land

It's shit, but I'll take it over the barbaric past.

>It's rising in Africa
And Africa continues to be it's usual clusterfuck.

In fifty years Africa will still be African. Can you say the same?

Can confirm. Also our Catholics are liberation theology, not based at all.

Attached: D3z-00JUEAIrV6H.jpg (360x359, 9K)

>barbaric past
read a history book

stealing that jpg

Nasty, brutish, and short.

What history book would you suggest that dials up the rose-colored goggles to 11?

Good. The Church should only be for true believers.

Attached: 1493167797731.jpg (1920x1082, 207K)

And nothing of value was lost.

Paganism will be a.majority in Europe and then the world.

Because they speak Spanish and have 90% Spanish haplogroups?

They will eventually unite with spain to a spanish peoples country it's inevitable.

Jesus wasn't even a real person, you Jewish cocksuckers

>pic related

Attached: jesus.jpg (333x499, 28K)

Language? That's it? Why is Brazil in that group then? (ie, it's "Latin" america and not just Spanish America because Brazil speaks Portuguese. "Iberian-America" would fit better.)

>haplogroups
And 100% have native haplogroups: Aztec, Mayan, Incan.

I hear evangelicalism is on the rise in south america though

>Brazil might have more protestants than catholics

ready to die for israel, marcelo?

oh he was probably a real person. He just certainly wasn't called "Jesus". Jesus is an English transliteration of the Greek Iosua. And "christ" isn't a last name, it's a title meaning "anointed one" which has connotations meaning "son of god". The oldest bibles we've got are Greek. None of the original texts in Hebrew survived. Of course Iosua is is a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew Yeshua, which people are still called today. But the modern transliteration straight to English is "JOSHUA".

But nobody want's to worship "Josh". So we all kind of accept the lie that he was called "Jesus".

No, who really didn't exist was Joseph. There are three tellings of the birth of Josh in the various books of the bible. The earliest never mentions Joseph. The last was written closer to the 2nd and cribs a lot from it. So why would someone write in a new character? Because it's awkward for your deified religious figure to be a bastard. Which he probably is.

1) He's referred to as "Josh of natharath" and "Josh of Mary" rather than of his father, which would be more normal of the time.

2) Come on people, "there is no father, I don't know how I got pregnant, it's a miracle" is a line used by single mothers since forever.

Yeah, by the way, if you didn't know, the different books of the (new) bible were 2nd and 3rd hand accounts passed down verbally by the sons of political activists / cult followers between 50-150 years after the actual events. No one who saw Jesus was literate. None of the 12 disciples wrote anything down. Paul made up a bunch of stuff (and in his defense a lot of people wrote stuff using his name), but he did actually meet one of the disciples. Imagine if the children of Trump supporters wrote down accounts of the 2016 elections that those tweets and blog posts were ALL you had... would you believe any of it?

Oh man, and none of that is even getting into the old bible.

Meanwhile in China

Conde Loppeux is redpilling people and destroying protestants arguments, if enough people hear about him we may still have a chance

>oh he was probably a real person.
Then explain why St Paul literally writes, in Galatians, that he wasn't a real (i.e. historical) person
>None of the original texts in Hebrew survived.
Please provide evidence that these Hebrew texts actually existed.
>But nobody want's to worship "Josh". So we all kind of accept the lie that he was called "Jesus".
Literally no-one cares about the preference for Jesus over Joshua. It's just you who is obsessed by it, fo rsome reason.
>No, who really didn't exist was Joseph
Well, not just Joseph, but also Mary. In fact the only Gospel figures who are more likely to have existed than not are Pilate and John the Baptist.
>eah, by the way, if you didn't know, the different books of the (new) bible were 2nd and 3rd hand accounts passed down verbally by the sons of political activists
Then explain why 95% of the Gospels have been copied directly from Old Testament sources. If the Gospels are really based on oral tradition, as you claim, why is none of that tradition actually to be found within the text?
>No one who saw Jesus was literate.
If Jesus was seen by thousands of people, a good number of those would have been literate. A large enough number that records could have been made at the time. Even if none of them were, they certainly had access to scribes.
>None of the 12 disciples wrote anything dow
The 12 disciples weren't real people either.
>Paul made up a bunch of stuff, but he did actually meet one of the disciples.
Paul never describes meeting any of the disciples in any of his "authentic" epistles