"The Hidden Exodus" - Do Catholic Churches Need More Bible?

[JamestheOlder]

Before we do that, can you acknowledge some level of understanding pertaining to the net conversion numbers in America and how Catholicism is in last place on that list?

I understand that the rate of retention is not that bad, comparatively. However, net conversion numbers indicates the total gains along with the total losses due to conversion.

American Catholics are particularly bad at converting…anyone, really. And while they’re not the worst at converting, the total losses from conversion on balance with the total gains via conversion yields the worst net numbers of any religious group in America.

Yes, the raw numbers went up slightly, and Catholicism did grow numerically even if it has slipped from 24% of the population to 21% in the past 10 years or so. These gains are due to the addition of cradle Catholics and Catholic immigrants- 45% of immigrants are Catholic, which is disproportionate by over double the percentage that’s there to begin with. You don’t get these gains due to conversion, though, and an inordinate amount of focus on numeric gains and willful ignorance of the Catholic failure to evangelize and convert is only going to hurt you in the long run.

Again, could you please acknowledge that you saw those figures? I’m talking about net gains and losses due to conversion. The American numbers are actually pretty similar to the global numbers in this regard, but the only ones I’ve given you so far are the American ones.

Could you please interact with the net conversion numbers in some way? Thank you.(snipped the undesirable part)

.

Let’s go back to your original argument:
(Quote from a previous post)
First off, I wasn’t aware that this exodus was hidden; I was well aware of the fact that Catholicism has the worst net conversion ratio of any major religious group in America. And that on a global scale, it’s the only one of the six mega-blocks that has negative net conversion numbers.
(End Quote)

Yes, I have studied the Pew report. It has holes large enough that it is a wonder anyone would take it seriously when it comes to statistics. Here are the holes:

1. It is old: the survey was taken in 2007. I gave you 2009-2010 stats.
2. It is based on a survey of 35,000 people out of a current US population of 310+ million;
   That‘s about 1/10th of a percent of the total population, according to my calculator.
3. It states, specifically, that at one point in time (unidentified), Catholics made up 1/3rd of the population of the US. My Catholic statistics (CARA-GSU) only go back to 1965, 46 years ago, when the Catholic population was 48.5 million out of a total US
   population of 194.3 million. That’s 24% then. Pew says it’s 23% now (2007).
   That’s a 1% loss in 46 years. I don’t think you will ever find Catholics with a greater percentage of total population than 24%, but I’m certain you will strive to
   find that amazing statistic, so you can attempt to slam the Church once more.

Lastly, your slight slam of quoting a current ratio of 21% is in error. Catholics in 2010 account for 22% of the total US population.

It’s your turn, cooter. Check it out:
cara.georgetown.edu/CARAServices/requestedchurchstats.html
Where do you want to go from here?

 

[nickybr38]

It depends on which church you’re talking about. Calvary Chapel, as I said, claims to cover the whole Bible in 5 years. I have no personal experience of their worship.

The Revised Common Lectionary is very similar to the Catholic lectionary–the main difference is that the OT passages are more consecutive, giving people a better sense of the narrative but largely losing the theological links with the Gospel readings. The Episcopal Church used to have its own lectionary (very similar to yours) but has recently switched over to the RCL. We use all the readings of the RCL, so we cover Scripture similarly to you. I think many Lutherans do as well. Many other Protestant churches unfortunately pick one or maybe two readings from the RCL, so they don’t get anywhere near as much coverage.

Many Reformed churches practice “lectio continua” preaching, in which they go through a part of the Bible consecutively over a long period of time. This sacrifices breadth for depth–you cover certain books or parts of books intensively, but there are other parts of Scripture that you may never hear (though preachers who use this method generally relate what they are saying to the rest of Scripture).

Many Protestant churches, as other folks have noted, have little public reading of Scripture, though preachers quote Scripture extensively and private Bible reading and small-group study is assumed.

Edwin

The study groups I attended were insufficient and usually turned into counseling sessions instead.

I think all Christian churches are really lacking when it comes to instructing their people. But that’s just my opinion. How much of the Bible is read means very little in the grand scheme. How much the people are INSTRUCTED is what’s important.

I don’t know about other Catholic parishes, but our parish has all kinds of Bible studies (we just don’t CALL them that). I think as churches grow it becomes harder and harder to instruct people in the faith. It’s not like the old days… when an apostle would find a man reading scripture in a boat and say: Do you understand what you’re reading? And the man would say: “How can I when no one teaches me?” and then the apostle would sit for hours and explain scripture to the man…

That’s just not how things work anymore but I think that’s largely due to the huge expansion of christian churches. It’s made it difficult to instruct the people. I just think most churches don’t know how to instruct such large crowds.

Just my two cents. I look forward to reading more on this subject though so my two cents can become four.

 

[Revert_43]

However, nothing here is said about how long or in-depth the homily should be, or whether the Mass should be the primary place where Biblical teaching takes place.

Nor have you shown me where small-group Bible studies are to be found in the Catholic tradition. Small group Bible studies do appear to be a Protestant innovation (that doesn’t make them bad). Long exegetical sermons are not a Protestant innovation–the Reformers found them in the Fathers, whom they took as their models in many ways (though I wish they had done so more consistently).

Edwin

I pray the Liturgy of the Hours, Morning, Evening, Night and many times the OOR. Many of the readings in the OOR are sermons from the Fathers. I disagree with your statement the Fathers gave long exegetical sermons.

Catholic Small Group Bible Studies
renewintl.org/rcab

 

[Sunstone]

Please permit a few thoughts:

It seems to me that, by nature, Protestants are going to focus more on the Bible.

However, the Catholic Church teaches in so many ways: architecture, iconography, stained glass, murals, written word, sculptural technique, voice.

Today’s issues are just the new twist on the old arguments between iconolaters and iconoclasts.

Marshall McLuhan hashed through much of this in his work, The Guttenberg Galaxy. It’s worth reading.

In light of McLuhan, what is needed is a higher level of media literacy, a literacy of all the forms the Church uses to teach, and not just “more Bible.”

 

[Contarini]

I pray the Liturgy of the Hours, Morning, Evening, Night and many times the OOR. Many of the readings in the OOR are sermons from the Fathers. I disagree with your statement the Fathers gave long exegetical sermons.

The OOR doesn’t necessarily give you complete texts, though. (I’ve used the OOR myself in the past.) You can read lots of them online–here are John Chrysostom’s homilies on Matthew, for instance. Admittedly Chrysostom is one of the best examples for my purpose–but he’s generally considered one of the greatest preachers among the Fathers and has been seen as a model preacher throughout Christian history, so I think it’s fair to start with him.

Catholic Small Group Bible Studies
renewintl.org/rcab

I don’t dispute that there are Catholic small group Bible studies. I’m asking you to point me to the Catholic roots of the practice. It seems to be an adaptation from evangelical Protestantism. (I think this is great, by the way.)

Edwin

 

[Nicea325]

It disproves the claim made in several earlier posts that the whole Bible, or most of it, is covered in the Catholic lectionary.

Stop trying to make up some other argument that you think I’m making, and just address the point. Inaccuracy does not serve Truth, does it?

I don’t think that one can parse out certain passages of Scripture that have “essential” doctrines and others that don’t. Scripture functions as a whole, within the context of Sacred Tradition. That, I believe, is the Catholic position, and I agree with it. Thus, the more of Scripture that we can make available to people the better. And the starting point is to be honest about just how much Scripture people will get from the Mass readings alone–an impressive fraction but still just a fraction.

Scripture is very long.

Edwin

Okay…and…you’ve gained what? And you still failed to answer me:

Are all or any of the core doctrines of the faith exlcuded throughtout the entire 3 year liturgical cycle?

 

[Nicea325]

The OOR doesn’t necessarily give you complete texts, though. (I’ve used the OOR myself in the past.) You can read lots of them online–here are John Chrysostom’s homilies on Matthew, for instance. Admittedly Chrysostom is one of the best examples for my purpose–but he’s generally considered one of the greatest preachers among the Fathers and has been seen as a model preacher throughout Christian history, so I think it’s fair to start with him.

I don’t dispute that there are Catholic small group Bible studies. I’m asking you to point me to the Catholic roots of the practice. It seems to be an adaptation from evangelical Protestantism. (I think this is great, by the way.)

Edwin

Better yet,where is the early church roots of such a practice called Bible studies?

 

[Cristiano]

After having read this whole thread from the beginning I am going to chime in. I think that the main point of why some Catholics are moving to evangelical churches is cultural, as one of the previous poster mentioned several posts ahead. I would go further and divide the cultural issue in two parts, the first being an aberration of the understanding of the Catholic Church and the second being a secular lazy butt attitude where people always expect someone else to do things for them and to direct them.

The aberration of the understanding of the Catholic Church is that we do not not really need the Bible to be good Catholics because the Church with her Tradition will suffice. I called this an aberration because as St. Jerome said: “Ignorance of the Bible is ignorance of Christ”. The popes reminded us more than once that it is wrong for Catholics to live with that attitude. The other part of the aberration is that those Catholics that leave the Church not only started with that attitude but also neglected to follow Tradition through catechetical instruction. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the study notes of the Bible, no ifs or buts. If you do not learn the Catechism then you drop both the Bible and Tradition. If you look at the ex-Catholics you will see that they do not know too much about the Church in general.

Now this brings me to the main secular attitude of being a lazy butt. Catholics are constantly reminded that as Christians they have obligations that must be met; however, if it is not handed to them on a silver platter some of them (too many) will not do anything about it because it is too difficult, it takes time, or it does not feel good. The message of the Beatitudes is very counter cultural and it does not support the feel good attitude that people seek now. The problem is that a lot of protestant churches rely a lot on feeling good. I am ready to bet that the majority of ex-Catholics do not join the “fire and brimstone” churches because it reminds them too much of home.

Attending Mass is important and that it is what most of people that become ex-Catholics do. However, participation to the Mass is essential and much less people do that. Participation is commitment, participation is preparing yourself before Mass starts. Participation is not reading the missalette while the priest proclaims the Gospel. Participation is to silently reflect for a few minutes when a reading has been completed instead of rushing to the next action. Participation is to live your faith by attending and establishing catechetical instruction before or after Mass. We must remember what Jesus said about not being saved by just saying “Lord, Lord…” I think that a lot of people become ex-Catholics just because the want to say “Lord, Lord…” instead of doing the works of Faith that God wants us to do. It is easier to feel good when saying “I have being saved!” than to do the right thing, it follows the present culture, it does not require the discomfort described the the Beatitudes.

 

[Contarini]

Okay…and…you’ve gained what? And you still failed to answer me:

Are all or any of the core doctrines of the faith exlcuded throughtout the entire 3 year liturgical cycle?

Nicea, I’m not failing to do anything I wished to do. Your question has nothing to do with what I was talking about and, as I said, makes no sense, because the “core doctrines of the faith” aren’t found in bits of Scripture like ore in rock.

What have I gained? Hopefully I have gained a little clarity on a point we have been discussing. If you don’t think that’s valuable–well, that’s your loss.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Better yet,where is the early church roots of such a practice called Bible studies?

The point I have been making is that in the early Church the Bible seems to have been largely studied through preaching and catechetical lectures. Certainly literate people read the Bible privately, and given ancient reading practices generally it would make sense that people would have read the Bible out loud to each other. So possibly there were some analogs to small group Bible studies.

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea, I’m not failing to do anything I wished to do. Your question has nothing to do with what I was talking about and, as I said, makes no sense, because the “core doctrines of the faith” aren’t found in bits of Scripture like ore in rock.

What have I gained? Hopefully I have gained a little clarity on a point we have been discussing. If you don’t think that’s valuable–well, that’s your loss.

Edwin

Of course and you wish NOT to answer my question.

On the contrary,that is where you fail to acknowledge the bigger picture.My question has everything to do with the bigger picture. If the RCC is not covering the entire Bible as you provided (you provided percentages),then is the church short-changing people of core doctrines in its three-year cycle?

This is what you have not answered.

 

[Nicea325]

The point I have been making is that in the early Church the Bible seems to have been largely studied through preaching and catechetical lectures.

Yes.

Certainly literate people read the Bible privately,

Yes,but the question must be asked: Applicable to who? Who owned a Bible? Tell me what % of society could read Hebrew,Aramaic,Greek or Latin in the early church?

and given ancient reading practices generally it would make sense that people would have read the Bible out loud to each other.

Yes as they did in the synagogues,but was it the common man doing the reading?

So possibly there were some analogs to small group Bible studies.

You have evidence supporting small Bible study groups in the early church? If so,I would like to read those ancient documents.

 

[Bluegoat]

The Revised Common Lectionary is very similar to the Catholic lectionary–the main difference is that the OT passages are more consecutive, giving people a better sense of the narrative but largely losing the theological links with the Gospel readings. The Episcopal Church used to have its own lectionary (very similar to yours) but has recently switched over to the RCL. We use all the readings of the RCL, so we cover Scripture similarly to you. I think many Lutherans do as well. Many other Protestant churches unfortunately pick one or maybe two readings from the RCL, so they don’t get anywhere near as much coverage.

Edwin

My Anglican parish uses the old lectionary, including the daily lesson for the offices. And so does the entire Diocese of Saskatchewan. I know we get through a lot more than the RCL does.

 

[Contarini]

My Anglican parish uses the old lectionary, including the daily lesson for the offices. And so does the entire Diocese of Saskatchewan. I know we get through a lot more than the RCL does.

If you use the daily offices, sure. But that seems like an unfair comparison. The Sunday Eucharistic lectionary in any of the versions of the old BCP covered much less Scripture than the new one–no OT (except for the Psalms) for one thing!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Of course and you wish NOT to answer my question.

I can’t answer a question with whose presuppositions I disagree. It’s like “when have you stopped beating your wife.” For the third time: I don’t grant that there are “core doctrines” found in some parts of Scripture like ore in rock, or that the sole purpose of the public reading of Scripture is to acquaint people with these core doctrines. (In fact, I would agree with many Catholics by saying that if that’s your purpose, the Catechism is much more efficient.)

Scripture is the Word of God in written form. It is one of the responsibilities of the Church to feed people with the Word of God, and Vatican II called for spreading that table as richly as possible. The three-year lectionary was a response to that call. I think it’s an excellent system. You keep trying to bait me into taking a stance criticizing the lectionary, but I have no interest in doing so. Is it perfect? Well, no. I’d probably prefer longer readings that covered even more of the Bible. But I think the lectionary is very good as it stands, and I have no particular brief for any currently available alternative (the alternatives, whether the RCL, the traditional one-year lectionary in its Anglican or Tridentine or Eastern forms, or Reformed lectio continua, all have their own strengths and weaknesses). I simply pointed out the error in claiming that it covers the whole Bible. Instead of thanking me and moving on, you are trying to find some nefarious agenda in my statement of fact.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Yes,but the question must be asked: Applicable to who? Who owned a Bible? Tell me what % of society could read Hebrew,Aramaic,Greek or Latin in the early church?

There are widely varying estimates. In grad school I read Harry Gamble’s Books and Readers in the Early Church, and he seemed to think that there was no way to be sure whether the “maximalists” or the “minimalists” were right about literacy in the ancient world. (At least, I emerged from the book unsure which side had the stronger case.) Certainly it would have been a minority.

That’s why I then mentioned the practice of reading aloud. I’m not talking just about reading aloud in worship, but in private or semi-public circles as well. I’ve seen references to Roman poets reading their work out loud in public, for instance. Reading was generally more performative than it is today. So it seems likely that literate Christians would have read the Bible (and other books) out loud to the non-literate, even outside formal worship.

Yes as they did in the synagogues,but was it the common man doing the reading?

My point is that common people may have had many chances to hear reading. And of course among Jews literacy was pretty high–I think that’s generally agreed.

You have evidence supporting small Bible study groups in the early church? If so,I would like to read those ancient documents.

No. How did you miss the word “possibly”? I said in an earlier post that there is no evidence I know of for small Bible study groups before Pietism in the late 17th century. My point is that if, as is likely, people were reading the Bible out loud to each other, it is certainly possible that sometimes they stopped to talk about what they were reading. I doubt that this was much like modern “small group Bible studies”–again, I said “possibly some analogy.”

One small bit of evidence for the kind of thing I have in mind is in Egeria’s account of her pilgrimage to the Holy Land in the fourth century. She mentions that whenever she arrived in a new part of the Holy Land she would have the relevant passage of Scripture read to her.

Edwin

 

[babylonsfalling]

I have not found this to be the case.*** Well, as I said in the first post…The Catholic sermons are shorter but more to the point***I’ve heard a Reformed Baptist pastor give an in-depth theological analysis of a Biblical passage for 45 minutes. And I have not generally found Catholic sermons to be particularly substantive. I have found Catholic priests using jokes and anecdotes (usually poor ones) when they didn’t have a lot of time to give a substantive sermon in the first place.

Why not have pew Bibles?

The point is that Catholics don’t need more Bible because they already have LOTS more Bible than the average non Catholic Church. As I already told you…

The Catholic Church I go to ALWAYS has more than one Scripture reading in each service. The non Catholic Churches I’ve been to have only one. The Catholic Church I go to is having their multiple Scripture readings every day of the weak. The non Catholic Churches I’ve been to have only done 3 times per week at most and most only do it once per week. Catholics already have more Scripture AND more chances per week to be at Church for Scriptural readings and interpretations.

No other Church I’ve been to is even close to having this much Scripture read.

Another reason the sermons are shorter and more to the point is that Catholic Churches are hugely more prayerful than the average non Catholic Church. When it comes to “in-depth theological analysis”…I can get that at the kitchen table from a good study Bible. What I get from a Catholic Church is the effect which comes from a large group of men and women engaged in LOTS of collective prayer to God. Other churches I’ve been too will say the Lord’s Prayer sometimes and basically leave it at that. Some churches may do more than that but none that I’ve been to.

What passage was it that required 45 minutes for an “in-depth theological analysis?”

 

[Contarini]

The point is that Catholics don’t need more Bible because they already have LOTS more Bible than the average non Catholic Church.

Why is “the average non-Catholic Church” the standard?

We always need more Bible. We need more of all good things. Obviously there are practical limitations, since we live in time and are finite creatures!

.

Another reason the sermons are shorter and more to the point is that Catholic Churches are hugely more prayerful than the average non Catholic Church.

The “average non-Catholic church” is a meaningless abstraction. Why do you keep dragging it in? Why is it the standard? I think we all agree that the average non-Catholic church is not much of a model of anything. So why continually appeal to it?

Why not, instead, compare Catholic preaching to those Protestant churches that do exegetical preaching best? Compare Catholic prayer to those Protestant churches whose worship is full of prayer? Compare Catholic liturgy to the Orthodox, who do liturgy best? And so on. That’s “spiritual ecumenism”–learning from separated brothers and sisters where those brothers and sisters have something to teach.

When it comes to “in-depth theological analysis”…I can get that at the kitchen table from a good study Bible.

And that’s the point of view I’m challenging. I’m saying that in the early Church in-depth theology was done in preaching, and there’s no reason why Catholics can’t do that again. Privatizing Bible study is unhealthy, for all the reasons that the medieval Church pointed out when resisting the proliferation of vernacular Bibles. (I’m not against private Bible study. I’m saying that the lack of in-depth exegetical and theological preaching increases the danger that private Bible study by Catholics will lead them into heresy or just silliness.)

What I get from a Catholic Church is the effect which comes from a large group of men and women engaged in LOTS of collective prayer to God.

I agree. But why do you think that that’s the only thing to “get” from church? Why limit what the liturgy is about? Historically it was about a lot of things. Why can’t it be like that again?

What passage was it that required 45 minutes for an “in-depth theological analysis?”

Different passages. This particular pastor preached for some weeks (I think months, actually) on just Titus 2:11-14. He’d preach a single 45-minute sermon on a single phrase. OK–this may be over the top. But if Scripture is what the Church says it is–the Word of God in written form, a fountain of truth and life–then is it possible to treat it in too much depth? The Fathers didn’t think so. Why disagree with the Fathers?

Edwin

 

[TrueLight]

I don’t think that this is a good representation of the Mass. There is nothing more Biblical than the Mass.

First of all, in a 3 year liturgical cycle, you will hear virtually the ENTIRE Bible being recited at mass.

The doctrines of the Church as they pertain to the Mass (Acts 2:46-47, 1 Cor. 10:16), the Eucharist (Matt. 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:19-20, John 6:29-71, 1 Cor. 11:27-30**)**, *Confession *(Matt. 16:15, Matt. 18: 15-18, John 20:21-23, 2:Cor. 2:10, 5:18-20), *Baptism *(Ezk. 36:25-28, Acts 2:37-38, Acts 10:48, John 3:5, Mark 16:16, Eph. 4:5) and so on, are well-documented in the Bible.

**The Book of Revelation is filled **with similarities between Mass on earth and that of the heavenly liturgy. Here is a list of some of them:

Rev. 1:10** speaks of the heavenly liturgy being celebrated on the Lord’s day. Catholics are obliged to attend mass on Sunday (the Lord’s Day).**
Rev. 1:12, 2:5** speaks of lampstands or “Menorahs”** in heaven. They are also used in the mass here on earth.
Rev. 1:13, 4:4, 6:11, 7:9, 15:6, 19:13-14** tells us about priests wearing special vestments** in the heavenly liturgy. Here on earth, Catholic priests also wear liturgical vestments when celebrating Mass.
Rev. 2:5, 16, 21; 3:3; 16:11** speaks of a penitential rite** going on in heaven – just like the in the Mass on earth.
Rev. 15:3-4** speaks of the* “Gloria***” being recited in heaven. You will hear this recited during the Mass on earth.
Rev. 4:4, 5:14; 11:16, 14:3, 19:4** mentions the priests** in heaven. On earth, the priest offers Jesus’ eternal and ongoing sacrifice during the Mass.
Rev. 5:8, 6:9-11, 8:3-4** speaks of the saints in heaven interceding** on our behalf – just as they are petitioned in the Mass.
Rev. 4:8** speaks of heaven’s un-ending hymn of praise to God,* “Holy, Holy, Holy***”. This very same prayer is recited in the Mass.
Rev. 2:17** speaks of manna in heaven that is given to the faithful. Likewise, during the Mass, we receive the true manna - the Eucharist**.
Rev. 5:8, 8:3-4** speaks of incense being used in heaven which has been part of the celebration of the Mass from the beginning.
Rev. 6:9 tells us about the martyrs under the heavenly altar** which is mirrored by the Church’s tradition of having relics of saints under the altars of our churches on earth.
Rev. 5** speaks of the Lamb (describing Jesus). During the Mass, Jesus is described as the Lamb of God** during the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
Rev. 8:3, 11:1, 14:18, 16:7** speaks of an altar being present in heaven – which illustrates that an eternal sacrifice** is being offered. That sacrifice is the very same one being offered on the altar during the Mass.
Rev. 14:4** speaks of those who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They are celibate. In the same way, our celibate priests** and religious here on earth follow the Lord.
Rev. 15:7, 16:1-4, 8, 10, 12, 17; 21:9** speaks of chalices** (bowls) being used in the heavenly liturgy. Likewise, chalices are used to offer our Lord’s eternal sacrifice on earth during the Mass.
Rev. 17, 19:9** speaks of consuming the Lamb at the marriage celebration in Heaven. This is done at every single Mass on earth during Communion**.
Rev. 19:1, 3, 4, 6** speaks of the “Alleluia**” being recited in heaven. You will find this recited at every Mass here on earth.
Finally, in Rev. 5:14; 7:12; 19:4, we read that heaven’s concluding liturgical prayer “Amen” is the very one that is recited at the end of the Mass on earth.

It’s a nice prototype of the liturgy that developed later on in the centuries. Is that better?

The twenty minute OF daily mass I attend is not that different.

By the way, all that blue and red is freaking me out.

 

[TrueLight]

And that’s the point of view I’m challenging. I’m saying that in the early Church in-depth theology was done in preaching, and there’s no reason why Catholics can’t do that again.

I agree.