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

[babylonsfalling]

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!

.

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.

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.)

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?

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

The point is to compare non Catholic Churches with Catholic Churches…was I supposed to pick UNaverage non Catholic Churches? Why is it such a problem for you to have average non Catholic churches compared with the Catholic Church?

The point and title of the OP was that Catholics needed more Bible, not that “we (as in Christians all need more Bible). The point of my response was that the reality is exactly opposite of what the OP suggests because Catholics already have more Bible than the average non Catholic Church….no…not the UN-average non Catholic Church. And Catholic Churches also have “practical limitations, since we live in time and are finite creatures” but they still have more Bible readings AND more prayer in their services than does the average non Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is actually proof positive that “practical limitations” doesn’t cut it as an excuse for the average non Catholic church’s tendency towards less Bible.

In depth theology can be accomplished without preaching…it can be done by that thing which you think is so dangerous…private Bible study.:bigyikes:

The benefits of collective prayer are not the only thing I get from the Catholic Church. It’s they thing I get more of from the Catholic Church than the average non Catholic Church. The preaching is about equal, the Bible readings are more in Catholic Churches…much more but I can get lots of Bible readings in those dangerous:bigyikes: private study sessons.

What WERE the different passages. Weren’t you originally speaking of one passage that took 45 minutes to preach on? Now they were different passages?

Weeks or months on Titus 2:11-14?
Here it is…

11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ;
14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Are you really going to sit here and tell us it takes weeks or months to do this much vaunted “in depth theological analysis” of those four verses? C’mon……it’s not that this “may be over the top”…it’s long gone over the top and still going. Ever heard of “show-preaching”?

 

[swariffin]

Hi there,
Another poster from last month mentioned this article, which I read and found very interesting. Apologies if this is not the best forum to discuss… I’m new and learning the ropes a bit.

Here’s a link to the article:
ncronline.org/news/hidden-exodus-catholics-becoming-protestants

The article attempts to look at data regarding departures from the RCC towards either evangelical churches or mainline Protestant churches (i.e. Episcopal/Lutheran/Methodist,etc).

It seems the underlying theme of departures is directly relevant NOT to social beliefs of the RCC, but a lack of Biblical focus and a lack of an engaging worship service:

As a non-Catholic, I can agree with this sentiment, but I’d like to hear the opinions of you folks on this topic.

Would it HELP the Roman Catholic Church to increase time spent on scripture interpretation at mass?

Do you AGREE with the article’s author that the Church needs to emphasize SCRIPTURE even above the Catechism?

Thanks all!

As a catholic, I agree that sermon in a mass last only about 15 minutes or so. Quite oftenly, it is not enough to explain “difficult” verses of the bible. Here, in our Jakarta Archdioses, the Church highly encourage us to learn the bible, in more formal ways. We have our top theologist teaching in seminaries, came to teach non seminarian like me. The matter is virtually everthing, such as the Trinity concept. It is quite difficult for anybody without education in philosophy or theology to understand the lecture. But, the number of us is increasing. We are eager to learn more, and we do have exams or papers which must be submitted, in lieu of a certain “certificate”. Well, to hell with that certificates. We don’t need them, but we do need the lectures.

 

[Contarini]

The point is to compare non Catholic Churches with Catholic Churches.

I’m not sure why that is the point or what point such a comparison is serving! The original discussion was about reasons why Catholics leave for non-Catholic churches. The question is: are these churches doing something right from which Catholics can learn? Surely the best way to answer that question is to look at the best practices of non-Catholic churches. Why does everything have to turn into a contest? This isn’t about whether the average Catholic church is better or worse than the average non-Catholic church. At least, if you think it’s about that, I’m sorry for you, because that’s a remarkably pointless and uninteresting thing to occupy your mind with. Why not, instead, look at the best examples of Protestantism to see what you can learn from? Protestants don’t learn from the average Catholic parish–we learn from the best teachings and practices found within Catholicism. Because of human imperfection, the average example of anything is pretty sorry, though grace is always at work.

The point and title of the OP was that Catholics needed more Bible, not that “we (as in Christians all need more Bible). The point of my response was that the reality is exactly opposite of what the OP suggests because Catholics already have more Bible than the average non Catholic Church

Fair enough. So the question is: why do so many Catholics perceive it differently? I honestly don’t know much about the “average” non-Catholic church–an abstract concept of little interest except to sociologists. But what seems to be clear is that many Catholics are finding a richer engagement with Scripture in Protestant churches than they found in Catholicism–or at least they perceive it this way. You seem to be suggesting that this is pure illusion, and in some cases it may be. It’s conceivable that in many cases these Protestants are just reciting a few favorite proof texts and impressing gullible Catholics with them. But it seems rash to assume that this adequately explains the reality reported by the study.

And even if you’re right, the question remains: how can Catholics make the rich table of the Word more accessible to people? Because if nothing else is clear, it’s clear that many cradle Catholics don’t get a lot out of the liturgical use of Scripture in the Catholic Church (this is often true of Anglicans as well). I find that use wonderful, but I grew up in a family where we spent much of our time studying the Bible. When I encountered the liturgy, I said (much as Scott Hahn did), “so this is the proper setting for the Bible!”

I’m suggesting that the best practices of Protestantism provide Catholics with some good models–certainly not to be taken over wholesale, but to be purified of their heretical elements (like the sola scriptura assumptions that drive Reformed exegetical preaching). Two such practices are the small-group Bible study and the encouragement of private Bible reading. But Catholics on this forum seem largely on board with these. And ironically, these are practices toward which the Catholic Church has been somewhat cold in the past because of worries about heresy. Even if you discount such worries altogether (which I, non-Catholic though I am, would consider it unwise to do), you still have to deal with the fact that Popes have been encouraging lay Bible reading for nearly a century and a half now, and small group Bible studies have flourished for decades, yet clearly the perception remains.

I’m suggesting that the missing piece, which is a central part of traditional Protestantism, is a robust tradition of exegetical preaching. And I’m meeting a quite remarkable resistance to that idea in this thead. I wonder why? It is surely more in keeping with Catholic tradition to say that priests should expound Scripture in depth from the pulpit than to say that laypeople should go off and study it on their own. I’m suggesting that both need to happen, and that the potential problems with the latter could be minimized by good exegetical preaching.

I’m not claiming, of course, that priests expounding Scripture more richly from the pulpit would solve all the problems with folks leaving the Church. But I think it would make a difference. It would make people see the point of Bible studies and private Bible reading, and it would make it harder for them to claim (even if they’re only doing so as an excuse) that they didn’t hear much about the Bible in the Catholic Church. In Protestant churches–and yes, I’m thinking of the best ones–there is a unity between what goes on on Sunday morning and what goes on in the small group Bible studies or family worship or private devotions or whatever. A lot of the megachurches have broken this link, and I think that’s one of the most disturbing developments in modern evangelicalism. Definitely not something I would like to see Catholics imitate!

 

[Contarini]

In depth theology can be accomplished without preaching…it can be done by that thing which you think is so dangerous…private Bible study.:bigyikes:

This isn’t an idea I made up. It’s an idea that you can find in papal and conciliar declarations over a period of centuries. It’s a pretty standard idea in traditional Catholicism. Now I disagree with the practice (up to about 1850) of limiting laypeople’s access to Scripture because of these concerns. But to say that the concerns were invalid is to show a level of disrespect to the Catholic tradition that I’m not willing to do, especially when my own experience bears it out.

I’m not attacking private Bible study. I’m saying that it shouldn’t bear the sole weight of Scriptural exposition. The best place for Scriptural exposition, as for all other basic aspects of Christian worship, is within the Liturgy. Of course that needs to be supplemented by private Bible study.

What WERE the different passages. Weren’t you originally speaking of one passage that took 45 minutes to preach on? Now they were different passages?

He actually preached entire sermons on single phrases: like “the grace of God.” I mean, if you think you can’t spend 45 minutes on grace, you have a pretty superficial understanding of grace!

I’m granting that this is an extreme example, but the assumptions this pastor worked from about the theological depth and richness of Scripture, and the way all of Scripture is interconnected, are precisely those of the Fathers. The only difference is that he rejected much of the Tradition within which Scripture should be interpreted. But if you interpret Scripture in light of Sacred Tradition, that should give you more to say about it, not less!

Are you really going to sit here and tell us it takes weeks or months to do this much vaunted “in depth theological analysis” of those four verses? C’mon……it’s not that this “may be over the top”…it’s long gone over the top and still going. Ever heard of “show-preaching”?

This wasn’t show-preaching. It was preaching motivated by the highly orthodox and patristic conviction that every part of Scripture contains infinite riches.

Edwin

 

[Bluegoat]

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

Well, it depends. It gets through the NT and psamlms more than the new lectionary, but yes at the expense of the OT.

But if the point is an integrated way to get through the Bible, I think it works well. The parish has daily offices and also encourages people to do them at home if at all possible. On Sunday the homily often makes reference to them along with the readings for that week, and it means most people are reading the same things and can discuss them.

So to my mind it is a good way to get through a lectionary with a substantial amount of text without making the readings for Sunday very very long. It integrates public and private reading.

 

[mark_a]

The article attempts to look at data regarding departures from the RCC towards either evangelical churches or mainline Protestant churches (i.e. Episcopal/Lutheran/Methodist,etc).

It seems the underlying theme of departures is directly relevant NOT to social beliefs of the RCC, but a lack of Biblical focus and a lack of an engaging worship service:

Thanks all!

For what it’s worth:

Of the Catholics that I personally know who have left the Church, Catholic teaching on divorce is at the root of every single departure.

 

[Nicea325]

I can’t answer a question with whose presuppositions I disagree.

Presuppositions? Such as…? Not trying to pick a fight,it merely was a simple question.What presuppositions have I asked you? What I asked is a basic yes or no response. Does the 3 year liturigcal cycle for the lectionary exclude any core doctrines?

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.)

Well my brother in Christ, did it ever cross your mind perhaps the lectionary contains the core doctrines found particular in scripture; hence the reason it takes a three-year cycle to cover it? Why would there be a need to read cover-to-cover from a hand held Bible? Precisely why I said more than likely no Protestant church does it either. As I said before,is knowing the genealogy of Jesus family in Matt: Ch 1. vital to our salvation?

Scripture is the Word of God in written form.

Yes…no one is aguring such a fact.

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.

I agree 100%

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.

Not trying to bait you,simply looking for a response in reference to core doctrines tied to the lectionary. Okay,but what do you think it should cover from the Bible,which is vital to salvation? Here is where I am not understanding you.

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

Yes I understand the error you pointed out and I agree,but I am also letting you know that I doubt the three-cycle exlcudes ANY core doctrines. Equally important, the reason more than likely the church does not need to include every single word from the Bible.

 

[Nicea325]

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.

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.

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

My bad, I misunderstood. I understand your position and it respect

 

[MarkBrown]

Hi there,
Another poster from last month mentioned this article, which I read and found very interesting. Apologies if this is not the best forum to discuss… I’m new and learning the ropes a bit.

Here’s a link to the article:
ncronline.org/news/hidden-exodus-catholics-becoming-protestants

The article attempts to look at data regarding departures from the RCC towards either evangelical churches or mainline Protestant churches (i.e. Episcopal/Lutheran/Methodist,etc).

It seems the underlying theme of departures is directly relevant NOT to social beliefs of the RCC, but a lack of Biblical focus and a lack of an engaging worship service:

As a non-Catholic, I can agree with this sentiment, but I’d like to hear the opinions of you folks on this topic.

Would it HELP the Roman Catholic Church to increase time spent on scripture interpretation at mass?

Do you AGREE with the article’s author that the Church needs to emphasize SCRIPTURE even above the Catechism?

Thanks all!

let me speak as a protestant, training in a protestant seminary, was a protestant minister and converted this Easter.

Everyone is losing people. Not just the Church. While at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary a hot topic was a study commissioned to Barna by Paige Patterson (another Seminary President) on why and how the SBC is losing members at an appalling rate. The study showed that the SBC was losing 70-80% of it young people every year. A Church I attended in the 1990’s, Olive Baptist, baptized up to 800 people a year. Yes 800. Average Sunday Attendence from 1997 to 2004 when up only by 500…2200 to 2700. Same time period they baptized approximately 4500 people. Where did they go? I personally know people who were baptized and “left the church wet”. Meaning they fell away within 2 months.

So, the SBC who is supposed to be immersed in Scripture is losing people. Just go to the SBC websites and look at what is being taught in seminaries. While I was there Rick Warrens method was on the increase due to the SBC fear of losing people and lack of growth. Like former catholics…there are former baptists, anglicans etc.

Everyone needs more time inthe scriptures and prayer. Attending Mass, yep even more of that is needed. Baptist, Anglican Catholic, does not matter…there are too many of each who are ignorant of their faith.

Mark

 

[nickybr38]

I’m coming back to this thread to share something…

I’m one of those people who can read the Bible every SINGLE day (and in fact I do)… who can study the Bible in depth (I once did over three Bible Studies just on the book of Revelations in a year) and who still walks away completely and totally lost (which I did). I’m one of those rare people who CANNOT learn just by reading and or discussing, I HAVE to be taught (and not at Bible studies because those end up pissing me off because in Bible studies EVERYONE gets to share their opinions which, for me, leads to more confusion and frustration).

There seems to be this idea that if you study Scripture the Holy Spirit will guide you to truth - but this hasn’t been my experience. I know people, like me, who study the Scripture every day and in depth and they still walk away not knowing God (I see this in others because of their complete arrogance when it comes to Scripture. Any man who boasts that he understands Scripture better then his neighbor and/or claiming that he has the Spirit of truth while his neighbor doesn’t is missing the point).

Why is that?

This is all anecdote here but I just wanted to put that out there. For me the Bible just isn’t enough (I even hesitate to say that because I know it’s a frowned upon viewpoint). For me I need trusted teachers to guide me in truth. I can read until I’m blue in the face and it doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference until somebody comes along and teaches me.

I’ve learned more listening to lectures by Dr. Kreeft, Scott Hahn, Father Pacwa, etc. then I ever did studying the Scripture on my own with Scripture study books (no matter how wonderful they were). We need more strong teachers to guide us all in truth (the blind cannot lead the blind, even in Bible study).

There’s so much more I want to say and could say but I’m afraid I’ll veer off topic.

I guess my bottom line is that I don’t feel the Catholic Church needs more Scripture (everything the Church TEACHES is rooted in Scripture) but I do feel the Church needs more strong and vocal leaders.

 

[MarkBrown]

I’ve actually taught in a Catholic seminary, so I do know of what I speak–the situation is appalling. I’d challenge you to page through the M.Div requirements of ANY Catholic seminary on the web–the average is 4 to 6 classes on the Bible being required (of which two are typically courses at the introductory level), through which one only really scratches the surface. Requirements for study in original languages–which most Protestant seminaries at least attempt–is typically not required at a Catholic seminary, and sometimes not even offered, nor is the study of Latin required. Training for deacons is still less.

Most Protestants follow the Revised Common Lectionary, so the vast majority of the time, they are hearing the same readings that you are.

I actually attended a Baptist Seminary…NOBTS (New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary). We had God sent and Mommy sent seminarians. One group felt called by God, the other…following in the family business.

I sat through scripture and history classes at Nobts under Dr. Archie Englund and saw students with laptops surf the net instead of listening. I saw students happy to get by with a minimal grade to graduate. During Theology I classes…students were watching a basketball playoff on their laptops instead of listening to class. Languages…Greek and Hebrew are required but not retained. I know pastors, and I was one, who never use Greek or Hebrew once out of the required language class. Only 2 classes on theology, both survey courses. Most classes on were survey course types.

I attended a Catholic College for my Masters of Theology. It was like my protestant education. Few paying attention and like at the protestant school, professors who could not teach if their life depended upon it. One difference…at NOBTS a professor did not dare teach against the SBC. At Spring HIll…protestants and catholics who taught against or contrary to scripture, tradition and church. I was a non-catholic at the time defending the church from professors at a catholic school.

Again, all Christian schools of education and all Christian groups, to include Catholics, have dropped the proverbial ball in the last 30 years and can do a better job teaching and preaching the gospel. To point at once group exclusively is error.

Mark

 

[mark_a]

I professors who could not teach if their life depended upon it.

Would you elaborate?

 

[MarkBrown]

Would you elaborate?

sadly.

Professors of scripture who did not know scripture, how to understand it, to read it and teach others how.

Example, Catholic Old Testament professor who could not fathom why the prophet Nathan spoke to David in the manner he did about his murder of Uriah and adultery in 2 Samuel 11-12. We thought it was a trick to get us to think. But it was not, just an example used by him to show how unreliable the scriptures are for us. When I point out that the Scriptures expressly state the Lord sent Nathan to David in context of giving a message…started a 20 minute argument on if David ever existed, much less Nathan, regardless of the historical artifacts from Tel-Dan (?) actually discussing the household of David.

Catholic priest in our Christology class, ran by a Lutheran Deaconess who thought using the Jesus Seminar was a good way to teach Christology…and no she did not think they were in error. This priest constantly attacked catholic teaching and particularly the Pope. Thought the creeds were a joke and needed to be toss out. And no, Fr. B was not joking.
A priest from Africa and I were constantly defending the church. Father even went to the chair of the department. Who, also a priest, routinely threw people out of class for disagreeing with his teaching when it went outside church teaching.

Protestants…The SBC does not really have the structure of the Church. Pinnock, Mclaren, Warren etc held up as models of church growth and theology. Superficial teaching of history, not answering questions such as why did a certain church father say where the bishop is there is the church, etc. No depth to discussion of scriptures. Example…does Paul and James contradict each other when one says were are save without works and the other seems to say the opposition. Response…sit down, you must be a calvinist.

teaching that the Q document is actually and historically accurate. Though scholars were silent on it for about 1700 years. and no one has the original, much less a copy.

These are some of the things taught in protestant and catholic schools

 

[hn160]

Yes.

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?

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

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

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod lets the individual parishes decide if they want to use the 0ne Year or the Three Year Lectionary. At my church, the pastor uses the three lectionary because he feels that it covers more of the Bible.
His sermons are always based on one of the readings for the day. He also says that for every minute of preaching, a half hour of study is needed, His sermons are about twenty minutes. A side note, LC-MS pastors always preach Law and Gospel sermons and they are required to study C.F.W. Walther’s The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel.
Also, I don’t think that Bible Study should be lead by a lay person, it should be lead by a pastor or priest .

 

[elvisman]

I’m coming back to this thread to share something…

I’m one of those people who can read the Bible every SINGLE day (and in fact I do)… who can study the Bible in depth (I once did over three Bible Studies just on the book of Revelations in a year) and who still walks away completely and totally lost (which I did). I’m one of those rare people who CANNOT learn just by reading and or discussing, I HAVE to be taught (and not at Bible studies because those end up pissing me off because in Bible studies EVERYONE gets to share their opinions which, for me, leads to more confusion and frustration).

There seems to be this idea that if you study Scripture the Holy Spirit will guide you to truth - but this hasn’t been my experience. I know people, like me, who study the Scripture every day and in depth and they still walk away not knowing God (I see this in others because of their complete arrogance when it comes to Scripture. Any man who boasts that he understands Scripture better then his neighbor and/or claiming that he has the Spirit of truth while his neighbor doesn’t is missing the point).

Why is that?

This is all anecdote here but I just wanted to put that out there. For me the Bible just isn’t enough (I even hesitate to say that because I know it’s a frowned upon viewpoint). For me I need trusted teachers to guide me in truth. I can read until I’m blue in the face and it doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference until somebody comes along and teaches me.

I’ve learned more listening to lectures by Dr. Kreeft, Scott Hahn, Father Pacwa, etc. then I ever did studying the Scripture on my own with Scripture study books (no matter how wonderful they were). We need more strong teachers to guide us all in truth (the blind cannot lead the blind, even in Bible study).

There’s so much more I want to say and could say but I’m afraid I’ll veer off topic.

I guess my bottom line is that I don’t feel the Catholic Church needs more Scripture (everything the Church TEACHES is rooted in Scripture) but I do feel the Church needs more strong and vocal leaders.

Well said.

Since it was the Catholic Church who wrote the New Testament, compiled it and declared its canon, to say the Church needs more Bible is to fail to understand the Body of Christ or the mass instituted by Christ.

 

[Contarini]

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod lets the individual parishes decide if they want to use the 0ne Year or the Three Year Lectionary. At my church, the pastor uses the three lectionary because he feels that it covers more of the Bible.
His sermons are always based on one of the readings for the day. He also says that for every minute of preaching, a half hour of study is needed, His sermons are about twenty minutes. A side note, LC-MS pastors always preach Law and Gospel sermons and they are required to study C.F.W. Walther’s The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel.
.

My wife goes to a theological librarians’ conference every year. Two years ago it was in St. Louis, and one of the host seminaries was Concordia St. Louis. There was a sermon in the seminary chapel with one of the deans preaching, and my wife’s Catholic friends (these were fairly liberal Catholics who probably weren’t that used to preaching about the Four Last Things even in a Catholic theological context) were horrified–they had never heard preachers hammer home the human condition in the face of death the way that preacher did. (I was there, and I remember he used a metaphor of the human race as a line of people sitting on a fence, and as you looked down the fence you saw people fall off one by one.)

Edwin

 

[elvisman]

My wife goes to a theological librarians’ conference every year. Two years ago it was in St. Louis, and one of the host seminaries was Concordia St. Louis. There was a sermon in the seminary chapel with one of the deans preaching, and my wife’s Catholic friends (these were fairly liberal Catholics who probably weren’t that used to preaching about the Four Last Things even in a Catholic theological context) were horrified–they had never heard preachers hammer home the human condition in the face of death the way that preacher did. (I was there, and I remember he used a metaphor of the human race as a line of people sitting on a fence, and as you looked down the fence you saw people fall off one by one.)

Edwin

It all depends on the priest.
I get really tired of the false Protestant notion that Catholic priests don’t have any speaking skills nor do they know the Scriptures. The idea that we haven’t really been “exposed to the word” because of this is preposterous.

**My parish priest is a dynamo when it comes to preaching the word and is extremely knowledgeable of the Scriptures which also makes him a wonderful counselor and confessor. Some priest don’t have those skills and neither do some Proterstant ministers - and I have heard PLENTY of those . . . **

 

[Contarini]

It all depends on the priest.
I get really tired of the false** Protestant notion that Catholic priests don’t have any speaking skills nor do they know the Scriptures. The idea that we haven’t really been *“exposed to the word” *because of this is preposterous.

My parish priest is a dynamo when it comes to preaching the word and is extremely knowledgeable of the Scriptures which also makes him a wonderful counselor and confessor. Some priest don’t have those skills and neither do some Proterstant ministers - and I have heard PLENTY of those . . .

I have earlier made comments about the poor quality of Catholic preaching, and I grant that they are perhaps excessive, though I have relatively extensive experience for a non-Catholic.

However, that wasn’t my point in this post at all. My point was that
a. these particular Catholics probably weren’t used to preaching that dealt with the Four Last Things; and
b. Catholics in general do not use a Law/Gospel paradigm in their preaching, which is central to traditional Protestant preaching.

I think that this is actually one of the reasons why ex-Catholic evangelicals say they didn’t hear the Word preached. Once you are formed by the Law/Gospel preaching paradigm, you don’t see anything else as the preaching of the Gospel. That being said, many modern evangelicals know the Law/Gospel preaching paradigm only in the debased form “you have needs and Jesus can supply them.”

The Law/Gospel paradigm, for those not familiar with it, goes like this:

1. Convince the hearers that they are sinners facing death and judgment, and that they cannot save themselves;
2. Offer free forgiveness through Jesus’ blood as the response to this predicament.

Edwin

 

[elvisman]

I have earlier made comments about the poor quality of Catholic preaching, and I grant that they are perhaps excessive, though I have relatively extensive experience for a non-Catholic.

However, that wasn’t my point in this post at all. My point was that
a. these particular Catholics probably weren’t used to preaching that dealt with the Four Last Things; and
b. Catholics in general do not use a Law/Gospel paradigm in their preaching, which is central to traditional Protestant preaching.

I think that this is actually one of the reasons why ex-Catholic evangelicals say they didn’t hear the Word preached. Once you are formed by the Law/Gospel preaching paradigm, you don’t see anything else as the preaching of the Gospel. That being said, many modern evangelicals know the Law/Gospel preaching paradigm only in the debased form “you have needs and Jesus can supply them.”

The Law/Gospel paradigm, for those not familiar with it, goes like this:

1. Convince the hearers that they are sinners facing death and judgment, and that they cannot save themselves;
2. Offer free forgiveness through Jesus’ blood as the response to this predicament.

Edwin

Again - I don’t know where you get the idea that the Church doesn’t teach that we cannot possibly be saved without the saving blood of Christ. My pastor speaks of the eternal damnation that we are headed for unless we repent and submit ourselves fully to Christ.

We may not call it the Law/Gospel paradigm but it it the Church who taught this from the beginning.

 

[Contarini]

Again - I don’t know where you get the idea that the Church doesn’t teach that we cannot possibly be saved without the saving blood of Christ. My pastor speaks of the eternal damnation that we are headed for unless we repent and submit ourselves fully to Christ.

We may not call it the Law/Gospel paradigm but it it the Church who taught this from the beginning.

That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about a particular way of preaching, rooted in a theology teaching that efforts toward sanctification have no direct effect on one’s acceptance by God. I’m not claiming that Law/Gospel preaching is necessarily incompatible with Catholicism–Wesleyans are closer in soteriology to Catholics than to Lutherans in many ways, and yet have historically used a form of Law/Gospel preaching (the Wesley brothers themselves certainly did). Law/Gospel may be adaptable to Catholicism, but it’s not the same as saying that we can’t be saved without the saving blood of Christ, and it’s not historically shaped the way Catholics preach. Catholics tend to see preaching as expounding some aspect of the Faith–after Vatican II this was specifically narrowed down to some aspect of the readings for that Sunday. Evangelical Protestants traditionally have a very specific understanding of what a sermon is supposed to do–it’s a sacramental act that puts people in touch with the saving grace of God by convincing them of their sin and then offering them forgiveness. I’m not claiming that every Protestant sermon conforms to this pattern, but it has powerfully shaped Protestant ideas about preaching in a way that I don’t think is equally true in Catholicism.

Please be less defensive and engage what I’m actually saying, not what you assume I’m saying.

Edwin