Do Most Catholics Get the Gospel?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pjkramer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
hey dcdurel - how do you really feel about the subject? 🙂

i think that the rather obvious solution to the quandry over which you’re foaming at the mouth is to base homilies on the readings, USING the catechism to explain it.

but it’s pretty obvious to me that we can’t expect a 15 minute homily one time per week to be remotely sufficient to provide the catechesis needed by today’s church. i think the primary responsibility resides on the shoulders of the family - d’oh!

we like to point fingers and complain about the clergy’s responsibility to teach us - and we’ve (almost) completely abnegated OUR responsibility as parents and family members to be teaching our children - and our siblings - and our parents - about the faith.

all of us - the clergy, the family, all of us children of the kingdom - are under tremendous attack by the enemy. let us pray for one another.
 
I quoted the bold part of the following
CCC 132 "Therefore, the ‘study of the sacred page’ should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics, and all the forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture." (quote from DV 24)

Some reader thought that the remaing text contradicted contradicted my conclusion that **scripture is NOT a sure norm for teaching the faith, since the Church defines the Catechism as a “sure norm for teaching the faith.” **

How does the text that the homily is “healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture” contradict Church teaching that the Catechism is a sure norm for teaching the faith.
The Church has always taught that scripture nourshes the faith. The Church has always taught that scripture illuminates the faith.
But, the Church has never taught that scripture teaches the faith by itself. Thus, how do we learn the faith, for scripture to noursh and illuminate? We must have learned the faith, before scripture can noursh the faith. There must be something there to nourish.
Everybody in the New Testament first learned the Gospel though the teaching of the Church. ONLY THEN was scripture written to these Catholics. In other words, every single book of the New Testament was written to Catholics who had already been taught the faith, by means of apostolic Tradition. Scripture was then added on to noursh and illuminate what had already been learned.
And what was learned was the Gospel taught and preached, (thus by definition handed on by Tradition), and it was taught and preached by the teaching authorities, the magisterium.
So we had all three, the teaching authorities, who handed down all the faith through apostolic Tradition, and later scripture was added on to nourish and illuminate those teachings.

We need God’s word in apostolic Tradition, scripture AND the teaching authority of the Church. ** We need all three. This has been infallibly defined by the Church.** This has always been the practice of Christianity until today when some dissidents in higher education misled everyone except the Pope into believing that scripture is now the sure norm, and apostolic Tradition and Church teaching only noursh and illuminate scripture. How backwards. This is why Catholics are so dumb. God let us all make fools of ourselves by our pride, because we refused to take the Pope seriously. We all looked to “experts” instead of the Pope as our guide to the truth. Satan has sifted us all like wheat, and the Pope’s faith did not fail. I wonder why.
 
dcdurel,

I understand what you are trying to say, and I even agree with it. However, saying that the “homily is not to be based on the readings” was off the rail. The GIRM, no matter how you read it, gives three things on which to base the homily, and the readings are one.

Now, you can think I’m saying all manner of things based on this one criticism, and that’s fine with me. But I do think it important that readers realize that not everything anyone, Catholic or not, posts on this board is the Church speaking.
 
Of all Christian faiths Catholicism is most subject to being merely a cultural phenomenon. That’s why you find within it people who believe things very contrary yet never consider the thought of not being Catholic. Also people who have little interest in their salvation but can’t imagine not going through the motions.

This isn’t always mean that these people are drowning in the sea of death either. It’s very possible that they believe the Sacraments are what they have been taught and their participation in them is gracing their lives with all they require to meet the challenges of their vocations and grow according to their faith.

The deepest and primary definition of knowledge ‘to know’ is a union of likeness. To know something fully one would have to be like that something. To know what a frog or ‘frogness’ is fully one would have to be a frog. Scripture teaches this ; " We will see Him as He is because we will be like Him".

Can a mentally challenged person be holy? Does holiness require that we know intellectually? What would be the sign of salvation, a person growing in understanding of Christ or a person growing in likeness to Christ.

I believe it’s possible that are families that have been catholic for countless generations. These families have built up years of habits turned into genuine Christlikeness that is second nature. The offspring of these families vary from priest to janitor to doctor yet the faith passed to them isn’t dependent on the understanding of their faith but the respect for what it is. I see this when I compare the sense of family in immigrants from mexico. Some may have little understanding of Christ and the Sacraments compared to most in this forum but they believe and live a sense of Community grounded in Christ more profoundly than most americans. Their faith is handed down.

Your friend may not grasp this as a primary expression of the Holy Spirit because the paradigm he operates out of and values is a loud external expression of faith over the quiet of an internalized faith.
 
40.png
exrc:
You are definitely on to something here! However, it still won’t bring the change you want, because most of the people are spiritually dead, as I was. First you have to get them saved, but not by the false gospel of rome. When will you RC’s learn?

exrc
Click to expand...
Yeah and still are…now only your fingers and mouth are alive. Look …do us all a favor and go put it all on one thread so we come in, have a look (if we’re really bored outta our wits) and then go on our way w/o posting. You are one each MOST uncharitable excuse for a so-called Christian and if you’re what your religion is all about I for one, sure as heaven don’t want it. You left…your loss…quit hangin’ out here cryin’ to us about your bitter misconceptions of what Catholicism is. You didn’t know anything about it when you were a Catholic (IF you really were one of us) and sadly…you know even less about it now. As they say on the street…“Get somewhere…”
Pax vobiscum
 
40.png
exrc:
You are definitely on to something here! However, it still won’t bring the change you want, because most of the people are spiritually dead, as I was. First you have to get them saved, but not by the false gospel of rome. When will you RC’s learn?
Click to expand...
It always saddens me to see a mean spirited anti-Catholic posting hatred on this forum.😦
 
:tsktsk: :tsktsk: Your hatred for the Church Christ started is apparent…when will we learn? I guess we will all find out who was right and who was wrong when we stand to be judged. Will I make it to heaven? I am constantly on a journey to hopefully be saved when I die…but my faith and actions will determine if that happens…however, I do know that if I don’t, it won’t be because of the RCC…it has provided me with the Truth, Faith, Hope, Love, Tradition, and Fullness of Christ that is necessary for one to be saved…whether I am is up to me. I am a convert and I have lived your life before, and now that I am a Catholic…I would rather die than give up my Faith.
40.png
exrc:
You are definitely on to something here! However, it still won’t bring the change you want, because most of the people are spiritually dead, as I was. First you have to get them saved, but not by the false gospel of rome. When will you RC’s learn?

exrc
Click to expand...
 
Exrc…I see you have no religion…I just have something I would like for you to ponder:

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus - Outside the Church there is no salvation
40.png
exrc:
You are definitely on to something here! However, it still won’t bring the change you want, because most of the people are spiritually dead, as I was. First you have to get them saved, but not by the false gospel of rome. When will you RC’s learn?

exrc
Click to expand...
 
Peace dcdurel,

As I said in my earlier post,
I do believe that a good homilist will catechize using the readings and Gospel in the Liturgy of the Word - it’s a great way to tie the Catechism in with the Bible
Click to expand...
Certainly, I agree with you that the Catechism is a sure norm for teaching. However, you are off the rails when you say that Scripture is not a sure norm for teaching the Faith and not an obligatory reference for catechesis.

If you read the Catechism, you may notice they include a few Scripture references. In addition, the Catechism says “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ” (CCC 133).

Obviously, we need both. I repeat again, that a good homily will draw from the Catechism and the Readings. They are easy to tie together.

God Bless,

Robert.
 
Someone else quoted part of the Catechism. Quote:
“Catechesis is intrinsically linked with the whole of liturgical and sacramental activity, for it is in the sacraments, especially in the Eucharist, that Christ Jesus works in fullness for the transformation of men”.
He wrote:
“Note: no mention of homily. The emphasis on the liturgy is actually directed towards the sacraments, especially the Eucharist.”

But his error is separating the homily from the liturgy. Notice what else the Catechism says:
132… The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."

Notice it is called the liturgical homily. It cannot be separated out from the liturgy. Second, notice the Church says that for ALL forms of Christian instruction it should hold "pride of place."
That means it is foremost, first, the number one place for catechetics. The false idea that Catechetics should be primarily at school, or in workshops, or in special talks, or missions, etc. is false. The “liturgical homily should hold pride of place.”

The false idea that that the homily is primarily directed to explaining scripture was started by dissidents, but has spread unknowingly among bishops, educators, experts, even the best apologists such as Scott Hahn, Jimmy Akin, Carl Keating, Rosalind Moss, etc. There is no one teaching the Pope’s teachings. There is literally no one promoting the Church directives that the liturgical homily is the primary place for teaching the faith.
Now, I will grant you that many many orthodox Catholics bemoan the lack of teaching at mass. But none have connected this lack of teaching to this false idea accepted widely that the homily must be on “scripture alone” during the homily. None have explicitly pointed out the clear, but unknown directives of the Church that require Catechetics during the homily.
The next objection dissidents will promote is to say that when the scriptures are explained, the people are catechized, thus nothing else is necessary.
Again this if false. The Church defines catechesis in the Catechism:
5. “Catechesis is an education in the faith of children, young people and adults which includes especially the teaching of Christian doctrine imparted, generally speaking, in an organic and systematic way, with a view to initiating the hearers into the fullness of Christian life.”

This excludes scripture as a norm, because the teachings of scripture are not organized in an organic and systematic way. Scripture is organized by salvation history. Second, Scripture is not explicit in its teachings. That is why Protestants can’t agree among themselves on even the most important teachings such as salvation, the Eucharist, etc. Third, scripture does not present the all the teachings of the word of God. One example is the way in which we are to worship. That is not explained at all in scripture. That is why Protestants have all kinds of worship services, from the liturgical to the emotional.
The Catechism has all these things. All of God’s word is contained in apostolic Tradition and the Catechism presents this Tradition. Next the word of God is clear and explicit in the Catechism, and third the word of God is presented in “in an organic and systematic way.”

That is why the Pope says the Catechism is “a sure norm for teaching the faith.” That is why Scripture CANNOT be a sure norm for teaching the faith.

Now, as the faith is taught, using the Catechism for the basics, then Scripture is great for nourishing this faith, for illuminating this faith and as a witness to this faith. These words, “noursh”, “illuminate”, and a “witness” to the faith are the words the Catechism and other Church documents use for the relationship of scripture to Church teachings.
 
Someone said that the homily must have both scripture and the teachings of the Catechism. Or that scripture cannot be secondary.

I am not saying the scripture should be secondary. The Church clearly teaches that the word of God in scripture and Tradition are to be treated with equal reverance, for both are the word of God.

Yet we must remember that at mass on Sunday there is an average of 20 minutes of pure scripture readings. (Most fundamentalist, evangelical Churches have only 5 minutes of scripture.)

Thus, if 20 minutes are on pure scripture, the priest can give 5 minutes explaining the theme of the readings, if he desires, and give the other 15 to 20 minutes catechizing based on the Catechism.

Thus we have both. But if we have 20 minutes of scripture readings and 20 minutes of explaining what the scriptures, then we have NO catechizing.
That is certainly not equal.

Thus, 20 minutes of scripture readings, 20 minutes of Catechizing. Then Catholics will eventually learn the basics.

Unless the laity promotes the Church directives that the homily must be the primarly place for catechetics, then Catholics will continue to remain ignorant of the word of God, and ignorant of basic moral teachings, ignorant of how to receive God’s grace to overcome sin, and thus, spiritually dumb and sinful out of ignorance. They will receive communion in mortal sin, they will fornicate before marriage, which will lead to divorce later in the their marriages or children out of wedlock and the likelyhood of abortion. Those who use contraception out of ignorance will have a 30-50% rate of divorce, compared to the
3-1% rate for those who use natural family planning. The children of these divorces are more likely to commit suicide, drop out of school, use drugs, have abortions, and have serious emotional difficulties. In other word, Catholics will become immoral and will have as much broken homes as most fundalmentalist and evangelical Protestants. If you want that for yourselves and your children, then fine. Keep on believing the myth that the homily is not the PRIMARY place to catechize, but it is only a place for commenting upon and explaining the scriptures.

The bishops will not change and the experts will not change, because it is easy for them to learn Church teachings, because they live in that enviroment. They think everyone can learn as easy as they do. Most Catholics do not live in this enviroment, they are not good at reading and studing, and they assume they are getting the basics at Mass. They only hear the preaching of the word of God for 20 minutes on Sunday. They do not even know why they should learn any more. I know how they think, because I used to be like that. They have no incentive to learn the basics. They must be taught.
Jesus commanded His apostles to teach and preach. He did not command the people to “read, study and learn” We must be taught. The average priest knows far more about Church teachings than I do and I learn a lot more by listening to a good priest than I do on my own. We are keeping all this knowledge locked up by this false idea that the homily is not the place for catechetics.

Those of us who now know the truth need to get involved and promote the truth of what the Church teaches to those at the top with influence.
 
I think we mostly agree. Quite frankly, some homilies I’ve heard don’t discuss the day’s readings or the Catechism. They are a complete non sequitor that the priest feels like discussing.

The way you made it sound originally is that the homily shouldn’t even address Scripture. That it should be complete Catechism. I’m glad you clarified your position.

I’m all for using the homily to teach us our Faith. As you said, instruction should be drawn from Scripture and Tradition.

Yours in Christ,

Robert.
 
Of course we get the Gospel, Jesus gave it directly to us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top