Make it a better church

[ontheway1]

Many of us are here out of concern for the church. I think that we can make a difference or be the difference in our parish life and in our catholic community. Those of you who have been active in supporting the church can serve as example to the rest of us.
Can you share some of your success stories in this area to help inspire the rest of us. Perhaps you can share your own success stories or ideas on what we can do to support and promote the church.

 

[Sir2v4]

I can’t claim to have a success story of the sort that you want. In the narrow sense I have tried to educate myself beyond what is available in a parish, but I have difficulty sharing that, except here, occasionally, if I can help clarify an issue.

I surely commend those who dedicate themselves to teaching RCIA year after year, for example.

My focus has been to constantly assure myself to be a Catholic rather than anything else.

Others are better at developing their own spirituality and sharing that with others. I think that’s a great contribution to the Church,

 

[hymin]

Was it Pope Benedict XVI who said, I would rather see a praying church than a doing church? What I know for sure is the contemplative life takes precedence of the goods of the active life (cf. STh II-II, q. 152, a.2, c.; Lk 10:42) With parishes, you need both. The Churches in my locale would be edified by silence in the church, so that it may be a proactive school of prayer. (cf. John Paul II, Novo Millennio Ineunte; 15, 20, 33)

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Perhaps you can share your own success stories or ideas on what we can do to support and promote the church.

I think the biggest thing is simply to DO something rather than complain.

If you think the music could be improved, offer your services as a musician or choir member. If you want to see more programs for children, singles, seniors, families, etc., then organize something. Don’t simply complain and expect someone else to make the changes you want to see. (And don’t expect the pastor to take on additional responsibilities!)

Sometimes getting something started can be very easy. I’m a Benedictine Oblate and my Oblate group meets once a month. I thought that I’d like to see people more often than that. I attended weekday Mass at 5:15 so I had the idea that any interested Oblates could attend Mass together once a week and pray Vespers together afterward. I spoke with the pastor and he was open to the idea. Unfortunately, not many people were interested in attending. (And here’s where you run into the complainers. If only you would do it at morning Mass. If only you would do it at a different parish. If only you would choose a different day of the week.) But one other person said yes, so we started attending Mass together and praying Vespers on Tuesdays. We invited other people to join us. (“Hey, you want to check this out? Maybe you’ll like it!”) And pretty soon we had a half dozen or so people praying together after Mass. We added a second day of the week and continued to invite people. Then we added a third day so we were doing it Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. Eventually we added Monday and Friday. And in time it simply became a thing in that parish that a group of a dozen or so people stayed after Mass and prayed Vespers.

It was strictly a bottom-up kind of thing. The pastor didn’t have to organize or arrange anything. (Though he did end up buying multiple copies of Christian Prayer so that everyone would have a copy to use.) He joined us but it wasn’t his project, it was simply a group of parishioners who got things going.

Truthfully, I’ve also been turned down when I offered my services. And that’s disheartening! But if you don’t try to make positive changes they aren’t ever going to happen.

 

[kristaok]

I think the church could be better if it was more accepting.

 

[Entwhistler]

The Church accepts everyone. Anyone can go into confession, receive communion and get confirmation no matter their race, age or sexual preference. It’s the sin that gets in the way. But the Church accepts anyone who is sorry for their sins.

 

[hymin]

I agree that to speak out of wrath does not do good in any circumstance. But the power to do comes with a condition. I agree with Saint Josemaria Escriva:

“If you are not master of yourself — though you may be powerful — your air of mastery moves me to pity and laughter.” (The way, 295)

For the sake of reason, much prayer and an ascetical life is a must.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I think the church could be better if it was more accepting.

The Church accepts everyone.

What we do not accept is wanton sinfulness.

Generally when people say the Church should be more accepting, what they actually mean is that we should stop preaching the Truth about sin, and just let people do whatever they want, especially when it comes to sexual sins. That is literally the opposite of the Church’s purpose, which is to proclaim the Good News and the Truth of Jesus Christ, and lead people to holier lives in accord with the laws of God.

 

[kristaok]

That’s not what I’m referring to or what I meant, I mean they should be more accepting of other Christians.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

That’s not what I’m referring to or what I meant, I mean they should be more accepting of other Christians.

Same thing applies. We accept that other Christians are genuinely seeking God, but that doesn’t change the fact that Protestantism, by its nature, is in error; and that those errors should be corrected when possible. We should be friendly about it, but we should not ignore the Truth in favor of being “accepting.”

 

[kristaok]

See I don’t believe that at all…

 

[ProdglArchitect]

See I don’t believe that at all…

Well, simply not beliving it doesn’t actually make you right. Not trying to be rude, but unless you can present a reasoned argument or rational behind your belief, maybe you should reconsider.

I’m not saying we should be mean or anything like that. Like I said, for the most part these people are good people genuinely seeking God to the best of their knowledge, and that is commendable. But there are severe problems in many Protestant belief systems that we cannot overlook for the sake of “acceptance.”

The Eucharist, infant baptism, the primacy of the Pope, confession, etc… All of these things are core tenants of the faith which cannot be overlooked…

 

[TC3033]

kristaok:

That’s not what I’m referring to or what I meant, I mean they should be more accepting of other Christians.

Same thing applies. We accept that other Christians are genuinely seeking God, but that doesn’t change the fact that Protestantism, by its nature, is in error; and that those errors should be corrected when possible. We should be friendly about it, but we should not ignore the Truth in favor of being “accepting.”

Really? Just this week the priest called out that the Parish make sure they understand that us non-Catholics are not to be viewed as equals and called us flawed (just shortly after calling us “brothers”)…

I don’t find that very accepting, maybe it’s just me. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

 

[ConfusedLucy]

I think I get where you are coming from with other Christians. I have often wished that Catholic churches would be more open to collaboration with other Christians where appropriate. Where I’m from most Catholic churches are small, somewhat spread out and with a pretty limited variety of people which really limits what the parish community can do.

In my case I have lived in 2 dioceses which both attempted Catholic ministry for young adults, the lack of such Catholics in each parish meant it had to be done on a diocesan level which meant it taking place in a scenic church in the middle of nowhere. People gave it a go but the meetings were a nightmare to get to (many under 25s can’t afford car insurance) and it was hard to gel as a group with people who lived so far apart and many who couldn’t make it regularly.

I’m too old for young adult ministry now but I wonder if reaching out to some local churches and starting a local Christian Young Adult group for prayer and support could have worked better.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

ProdglArchitect:

kristaok:

That’s not what I’m referring to or what I meant, I mean they should be more accepting of other Christians.

Same thing applies. We accept that other Christians are genuinely seeking God, but that doesn’t change the fact that Protestantism, by its nature, is in error; and that those errors should be corrected when possible. We should be friendly about it, but we should not ignore the Truth in favor of being “accepting.”

Really? Just this week the priest called out that the Parish make sure they understand that us non-Catholics are not to be viewed as equals and called us flawed (just shortly after calling us “brothers”)…

I don’t find that very accepting, maybe it’s just me. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Well, as point of strict fact, when it comes to theology you’re not equals. I’m sorry if that sounds rude, but it’s the reality of the situation. We shouldn’t be accepting of these difference because they are frequently over core principles of what it means to follow Jesus’ teachings.

That being said, recognition of that reality does not mean that we cannot be welcoming, or enter into constructive dialog and engage and work together in areas where we do agree.

 

[Entwhistler]

Well, to be fair, Catholics don’t believe that they are the only ones saved either.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Your wife really should inform her Bishop. This Priest should not have said that. Holy Father Pope Francis would find it unacceptable.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Catholics don’t believe in a saved church. We believe that Christ established The Church to aid people on the path to salvation, and to make the means or salvation known and available. However, no one, not even the Pope, is “saved” in the Protestant sense. Salvation is a process, and no one is guaranteed Heaven as an effect of a prayer, statement, or devotion.

We also do not believe that only Catholics will be saved, just that we have all the regular means of salvation and grace that Christ intended, the Eucharist and confession being the two big ones.

As for your declaration of “never believing it,” many, many people have said that in the past, and many of them have been proven wrong. There is Truth in the Catholic Church, and no one seeking the Truth with an open mind and heart will be disappointed when they review the Church’s claims.

As for your comments about “holier than thou… etc…” That is just as true of Protestants as it is of Catholics.

Furthermore, the assertion that the Catholic Church is the only Church with the fullness of Truth, founded by Jesus Christ as the means and method of salvation Christ intended all believers to be a part of; is not being “holier than thou.” it is a statement of fact. Every Christian should believe that of their faith, otherwise what’s the point in belong to any given denomination? What it comes down to is a matter of evidence and rationality. Which ecclesial body has the greatest claim to being the church which Christ founded? Christ intended for there to be one Church, and the Apostles / Biblical writers repeatedly appealed for unity. That unity no longer exists, and that is part of why the atheists today find it so easy to dismiss the claims of Christianity.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Again I do not believe in one true Church as it pertains to a building or a denomination, to me the Church is the body of Christ.

As I said above, what you believe isn’t the issue. The issue is determining what’s True, because what’s True is what we should be following. There is clear evidence in the Bible that Christ set up a visible body that is the Church; even the earliest Protestant reformers believed that. This notion of a “spiritual body of Christ” is an invention of Protestants in the last hundred years or so to circumvent the very real problem of divisions within Protestantism, and within Christendom as a whole.

If Christ did intend to establish a physical body of Christ in the form of a church, then it follows that, in order to follow Christ completely, it would be necessary to be a part of that body.

As for my Salvation, I’m running the race with Gods gracious mercy, I’ve been a believer my whole life, I’m putting my trust completely on Him.

That is all well and good, and true for all believers. We all place our trust completely in Him, as there is no salvation apart from Him, whether we’re cognizant of Him or not. However, if Jesus did establish a means of having absolute assurance of the forgiveness of sins, as the Catholic Church claims, then would it not make sense to take advantage of that means, rather than relying on the subjective notion of believing yourself to have been forgiven? I’m not asking if you believe that or not, that’s inconsequential to the question. IF it’s true, then shouldn’t you take advantage of it?

…All this being said, I believe that we are straying very far from the topic of this thread. If you’re interested in continuing our discussion, I’d be happy to keep talking over PM. Keep in mind, I not trying to be holier than thou or saying you’re a bad Christian or anything like that, I just believe that Jesus intended there to be a single, visible Church; and the single greatest thing I can do for any person in this life is to lead them to it.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I don’t believe in a single church, yes I believe in a body of Churches leading to Christ but that is it.

How can a body of churches with wildly varing and directly-contradictory beliefs lead anyone to the Truth?

If one protestant Church says there’s only one baptism for the forgiveness of sins (Lutherans), and others say there are many baptisms for the forgiveness of sins (Baptists), and others say that Baptism is only a symbol and isn’t efficacious (Methodists), they cannot all be speaking Truth. Those are mutually contradictory positions contained within the “body of churches,” which cannot be reconciled with each other.

That’s only one example of many.

In order for your position to be true, it would have to be possible for baptism to be efficacious, while also not being efficacious. It would have be both necessary for salvation, and unimportant to salvation at the same time. It simply is not possible to hold this viewpoint while remaining rational.