Ok lets say you are correct that we need more preaching. I both Catholic and most protestant denoms. the average lenght of the service is and 1hr. What do you prepose that we take out of the mass to add more preaching?
I have said several times on this thread that I propose breaking the 1-hour barrier.
Do you have a post where I chose to dismiss anything said by ex-Catholics? If so, by all means present it to me.
Exactly! Especially when ex-Catholics spew falsehoods and distortions about Catholicism.
To describe what experience? Most ex-Catholics I know or have encountered still remain ignorant what the truly RCC teaches. Precisely why I said look at the source:
Which in essence rebukes ex-Catholics. You just finishing saying the CC has a rich scriptural hertiage,then why the compelling NEED to abandon the CC in the first place? How much Bible does one need? Go to Mass and one OT reading,OT Pslam (sung or recited) and two NT readings are PROCLAIMED within an hour. Personal reading and devotion is another matter.
Easily! Study your own faith and church and one realizes there is no need to abandon an ancient church steeped in Scripture and Tradtion.
I beg your pardon? I work for the RCC I hear it all the time from ex-Catholics who “know” better now and are all of sudden experts in Catholicism. Please!
Nicea,
In two successive posts now you have said, “look at the source.” If that is not a dismissal, I’m not sure what it is. Clearly you think that I am giving too much credence to the reports of ex-Catholics. If you are not dismissing those reports, then how exactly are you disagreeing with me and what significance do you in fact give their testimony? Your statements so far have not seemed to give them any significance whatsoever.
And thus, as I said, you dismiss them.
The separation between those two things is part of the problem, according to the argument I presented above.
Yes, and your operative assumption is that this “study” ought to be something they are doing on their own, because Mass is for something else. I’m saying that this assumption was unknown to the Fathers. It isn’t rooted in Catholic doctrine at all as far as I can see.
I for one would welcome a slightly longer mass–if that got me good meaty homilies. We had a substitute priest from the seminary for a couple of weeks and both Sunday masses were 80-90 minutes with a great homily and at the dismissal he sent us home with a little homework for the week–something to work on. And the masses felt a lot shorter than some 50 minute masses that I have been to.
I am not doubting you when you say your service in your parish run 80-90 mins. However Then is not been my experiance in any Episcopal that I have been to again they run around a hour, give or take 5 minutes or so. As to the Orthodo Divine Liturgy, Yes I would say it is every bit 80-90 minutes and if you attend matins prior then you are looking at a full 2 plus hours. now i my parish we have 3 masses on sunday The frist begins at 9 am. give time for coming and going between mass to expand to your 3 hours we are talking 11 hour days. Oh and We have 1 preist. Some parishes share a preist so you have to alow travel time. Add all that to the fact that I feel very lucky to have a priest that is also a great homilist. However, even then we have people timing his homily, God forbid he goes over 10 mins.
Not at all. Simply because I say look at the source: Ex-Catholics does not equate into dismissing anything ex-Catholic. Trust me, I know ex-Catholics and do encounter them at my work as the Director of Catechetical Ministry. Is it everyday? No! But when a Catholic comes to sign-up for catechesis, at times he/she brings an ex-Catholic. As a result, I hear their testamonies and at times they are wrong and have a poor understanding of Catholicism. The point is rather simple:
Explain how you equate “look at the source” as an automatic dismissal? As I said, present a post where I refused or dismissed an ex-Catholic testimony? Listening and hearing and disagreeing with anyone’s testimony is not a dismissal. Dismissal means I would not listen to them or hear them AT ALL and as I stated: I have heard them and still do.
So wait a minute,so as cradle Catholic who works for the RCC, I should ACCEPT their testimonies as correct? Where you next to me when I have heard testimonies by ex-Catholics to confirm I dismiss them? I am rejecting their FALSE information against the RCC,not the testimony itself.
To you and the modern minds it is a problem,but not the early church. Care to show me when and where in the early church people brought their own Bibles to Mass? Were all the ECF’s homilies 80% catechetical and 20% evagelical? When and where they gathered for “Bible Study” at their local congregation?
Excuse me? Getting much at of it? That is your argument? I too can tell me parents that I did not get much out of four and half years of undergraduate work and three years of graduate work. Do you not think such a position would not make many eyebrows raise? I would sound as though I am blaming the university. Is that really the case? Indeed, some priests are not the greatest speakers,but on the same token,many people do not have the comprehension skills either to comprehend. You seem to pin blame on priests and that is subjective,not objective.
Oh trust me, by all means I am not against the reading and studying of scripture. But Mass is not a catechetical class or a “Bible Study” session,but exactly what it is: The re-presentation of Our Lord’s Sacrifice. Second, the church encourages ALL to study the Scriptures and church teachings,but so many today are hooked to carnal and things of the earth. Personal accountablity is also the duty of a Christian. Then what is the point of a Catholic receiving an outward sign (sacraments) from God,if he or she is not utilizing those graces? The church and priests should ONLY have that duty?
Come again?Operative assumption to study? Aaahhh…does not a university student have the responsibility to study and learn on his/her own outside of class? That is not an operative assumption,but a requirement. Not operative assumption,but a practical and logical reason why Mass as I said is NOT a catechetical class or Bible Study session.
Problem I acknowledge from you is the persistent belief the blame stems from the priests. Do you ever hold the faithful accountable at all? I am not making excuses for priests,because yes, some priests are not great speakers,but some are great. The door swings both ways.
So Protestants who leave Protestanism are vulernable to Catholics who know the Gospel? Hog wash! Catholics who fall prey simply do not know their faith and it is more than Scripture my friend.
And what evidence do you have this will make matters better or change people?
They are correct for that ex-Catholic–it is their testimony after all. That does not mean what they say and think regarding Catholicism is correct–and I don’t think anyone here has argued that. In my experience–which is similar to yours–virtually all ex-Catholics I run into have a faulty understanding of what the Church teaches (i.e. we worship Mary) or they have an ax to grind with Church authority (i.e. they want to divorce and remarry or use birth control or the Church is sexist because it has no woman priests, etc.)–so while their testamonies may not convey a proper understanding of Catholicism–that doesn’t make the testamony false–do you see the distinction? They are testifying to their understanding of Catholicism–so their testamony is true (regarding their understanding) but their understanding is at fault. But this seems to have little to do with the original question and It doesn’t address why they have these incorrect views and how do they persist in them if they attend Church each Sunday? That would seem to indicate that something is going wrong in the instruction part of the mass–would it not?
My first parish ran close to 90 minutes. The second parish I attended didn’t go over an hour in the 8 AM service I attended, if I remember rightly–I think that the 10 or 10:30 AM service (can’t remember which) may have been longer but I didn’t go to it much. My present parish runs about 75 minutes for the most part, I’d say–sometimes more like 80.
Well, that’s theologically problematic from the start, but of course it’s common in Western churches. . . . .
No, if we’re talking ideal (and I made it clear that the 3 hours was an ideal and not a practical suggestion) we’re talking one liturgy like the Orthodox.
Well, that’s a set of expectations that needs to be changed. Mind you, a lot of substance can be said in 10 minutes. I’m not advocating more time for its own sake, only suggesting that if necessary an 80-90 minute liturgy wouldn’t hurt anyone.
Which is why I said that this was an ideal and not practical. I knew that I was going over the top. However, 80-90 minutes is not a big deal.
Priest shortage solved
You and others keep making these claims about what the purpose of the Mass isn’t. When pressed, no one has defended this view. I’ve been given statements about the purpose of the Mass being the Eucharistic Sacrifice, but that assumes that this is somehow exclusive of substantive preaching, which makes no sense. Preaching points people to the Eucharist. Everything should point us to the Eucharist. That’s how the Fathers saw it, but they still preached long, substantive sermons.
I made some claims based on the testimony of ex-Catholics. You have so far refused to take that testimony seriously as indicating any lack in Catholic catechesis. That’s a dismissal. Show me one thing that you accept on the basis of this testimony?
Saying or assuming that they have nothing to say that can help the Catholic Church teach the Word more clearly is dismissing their testimony. This isn’t a logical argument about doctrine. This is a discussion about effective teaching.
Not sure what you mean by that. The Fathers did not make this separation. They engaged in detailed, substantive preaching in the context of the Liturgy.
That’s completely irrelevant to anything I have said.
Again, I don’t see them making that distinction. They expounded Scripture and applied it to peoples’ lives, often at considerable length and in considerable detail. I don’t see how you can read patristic sermons and not see this.
My point is precisely that “Bible Study” was largely done through preaching, both in catechetical lectures and in liturgical homilies. And there is no reason why it couldn’t be done so again.
I’m not pinning all the blame on priests. We can take for granted that laypeople are to blame as well. All I’m saying is that a richer practice of exegetical preaching would help. I’m not claiming it would solve the problem. The problem will never entirely be solved because people (clergy and laity alike) are imperfect. I’m just saying that this is a point where many Protestant churches far surpass most Catholic parishes.
You and others keep saying this, over and over. Yet you provide no support for this wholly un-patristic separation of the Sacrifice from the teaching of the Word. Can you really sustain this distinction in the face, say, of St. John Chrysostom’s exegetical homilies?
Indeed. So challenge that tendency where the Catholic Church is best positioned to do so–by including richer exegetical teaching within the Sunday Mass, which all Catholics are bound to attend. I’m not denying the sinfulness and sloth of much of the laity (including myself–I like thinking about theology, so that’s not my issue, but I’m very bad at regular spiritual discipline). I’m assuming it, and I’m suggesting a way in which the Catholic Church can address this more effectively than simply by exhorting people to study the Bible more.
Nothing that you have said is a logical argument for your position at all. First of all, church isn’t the same thing as a university. But if it is, then you concede my point. In a university, the place for substantive engagement with the material is within the classroom. I don’t give my students a 10-minute pep talk and then send them home to read on their own. Now the analogy is flawed–but it’s your analogy, and so far as it goes it works solidly for me and against you.
I would think that if you had read any testimonies of converts to Catholicism, you would know that this was not hog wash but quite obviously true.
And the question is why? My argument does not presume that they are blameless. But your rejection of my argument presumes that there’s nothing the Church could do to help the situation.
As Dei Verbum says, Scripture and Tradition flow into each other. The major job that Catholic preaching ought to do and mostly isn’t doing is to show how this is the case.
My evidence is the correlation betweeen
As I said, I have heard them for many years and indeed some have valid points,but many are simply based off ignorance,whether you care to accept it or not.
Listen to what you said: Only to what they heard and understood. This can and possibly border “hear-say” from many of them. Proof? As I said, as Director of Catechetical Ministry I encounter them from tim-to-time and what they “heard” and “understood” is also their own faults.
I have never said blame is entirely on the lay person…never. Yes, blame goes on the church as well.
And do all ex-Catholics express the church needs to this or that to make it better? Not necessarily. They do not all leave because ineffective teaching.That is your agenda here,not every ex-Catholic.
Indeed,blame goes both ways.
This is pretty subjective and biased on your part. Are you everywhere to confirm substantive preaching in the context of the Liturgy does not happen at any parish across the globe? Have you conducted extensive research backing up such a claim?
Did I say the ECF made a distinction? Excuse me? Are you Catholic? Were you ever Catholic? What on earth do you think a priest’ goal is for the faithful? Have you ever sat down with a priest when he prepares his homily? And I cannot understand how you believe or think a priest is not expounding Scripture so people can apply it their personal lives
And as I said before: You have proof it is NOT being done? You sure seem to give the impression it is not done at all.
Again,what evidence do you have Protestant churches FAR surpass MOST Catholic parishes? That sounds like an opinion…hear-say.not a FACT! I too can say many Catholic Churches far surpass MOST Protestant churches on many issues…does it make a fact?
And yet you also provide no EVIDENCE to prove this the case all across every Catholic Church. Un-patristic? What are you talking about? Litrugy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist? What separation? Do I need to provide scriptural proof of the Mass from the opening procession to the final dismissal? I can tell you this much,every part of the Mass contains a lot of scripture than MOST Protestants can even imagine.So why all the fuss MORE Scripture is needed? A lot of your arguments seem based on your own personal views and nothing more.
Ahhhh…nothing: Liturgy of the Word both/and Litrugy of the Eucharist.
Again…Litrugy of the Word both/and Liturgy of the Eucharist. It is you alone who separates them under your own feet,not Catholics.
Likewise. And nothing you have stated has been supported by some type of evidence. Far from it,thus it is merely an opinion,nothing more or less. Thus,nothing logical about your position either.
When did I say they were one and the same? Depends what you are referring to. Do parishes have rooms for catechesis? Yes! Are they used for learning purposes? Yes! So some similarities exist between any type of school and specific church utilities.And Catholic Churches are not rooms or study sessions of the Bible. Maybe that is what your church does,but not Catholics.We have altars, sanctuary lamps,sanctuaries,holy vessels,etc,etc inside our churches,not stages with musicians and someone preaching as many non-Catholic churches do every Sunday.
Ah no,your understanding is flawed,so it works all in my favor and not yours. You said the church isn’t the same as the university,yet I gave some similarities.BTW: Universities in the West stemmed from the CC.
Again,your position is nothing but an OPINION…not a fact! I’ll keep on asking you,do you have proof that this is the case all across the RCC? Can you provide case studies of Catholics being intellectually engaged by robust preaching of Scripture within the Mass respond better?
I bet to differ. I am constantly watching non-Catholics on t.v. (John Hagee,David Jeremiah,Ceflo Dollar,Rod Parsley,Charles Stanley and few others) and they by no means support your position…at all. In fact,it only weakens your argument and favors my point. They actually say NOTHING which is intellectually engaged by robust Scripture preaching which would make me study more Scripture outside of Mass. They say nothing new to my ears. NOTHING! I do not hear any “robust” Scripture preaching.
Key word: Traditionally. In case you have forgotten,it is 2011 and most people barely do the minimum,thus what can you expect?
And I am challenging you to provide evidence that it is not happening at all?
Actually it is only part of the truth,not the entire truth. I would know because I deal with converts every year and most convert due to the MASS and early church history and the comprehension of Scripture in light of Tradition. Not ONE convert has ever told me: We need more in-depth Scripture at the Mass,on the contrary,most say they get more of the scripture readings when compared to being Protestant.
Never said the church cannot do nothing. But how about the people also doing their part and stop making so many excuses?
Yes…the survey conveys the point from Ex-Catholics,not actual practicing Catholics. Do you not acknowledge a biased and subjective view?
If they are Protestant,then it is pretty clear they already reject many Catholic teachings: Purgatory,prayers for the dead,infallibility,and some cases Hell,etc?
Protestants who go to Rome, go because of apostasy in some of the Protestant Churches. These Churches support homosexual marriage, ordination, Communion of the unbaptized and a low view of Scripture. When you have women ordination, homosexual ordination isn’t too far behind.
Indeed. And the question is: are there things that could be done to reduce that ignorance? I have made a specific suggestion. You haven’t given any substantive critique–you have just reacted defensively.
Then it’s entirely unclear to me why you are reacting negatively to what I’m saying. Perhaps you have a specific reason to disagree with my specific hypothesis as to what the Church could do better. Fine–then provide an alternative hypothesis. But so far all I’ve heard from you is that it’s laypeople’s fault. We all agree that people who leave the Church without bothering to inform themselves about the riches to be found there are generally to blame. But since we also both agree that, as you say, the Church could do better, it’s not very helpful to answer a suggestion as to what the clergy and catechists should do by pointing out the obvious fact that ordinary laypeople need to do better as well.
No, but the survey indicates that a lack of Scriptural teaching is perceived by them as one of the major reasons why they leave. You and others simply answer this by pointing out how much Scripture is read liturgically in the Mass, which really doesn’t address the problem.
Of course not. What I’m mostly concerned about is the claims by you and others that the Mass is not the place for substantive exegesis. If you are not making such a claim, then that’s fine.
That is not my intention. I’m simply suggesting that it may not be done enough. And mostly my concern is with those of you who are saying that it shouldn’t be done at all, because the Mass isn’t the place for it.
You’re confusing two things: opinion and hearsay. Of course it’s opinion, based on personal experience, hearsay (which is not valueless–this is not a court of law), and the survey mentioned in the OP. All of these things coincide to make me think I’m on to something.
It would depend on the point in question. Of course there are a lot of ways in which many Catholic churches far surpass most Protestant churches–that remark would not strike me as strange or dubious or offensive in the slightest. Your defensiveness is unfortunate, unnecessary, and irrational.
I’m talking about the repeated claims by you and others that the Mass is not the place for “Bible study.” You haven’t bothered to substantiate this claim at all, but those who have tried to do so have simply provided documents talking about the importance of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, as if that were enough to show that the Liturgy of the Word wasn’t the place for detailed, substantive exposition.
Because we aren’t just talking about the liturgical use of Scripture, but about teaching/preaching that helps people make the connections. The “more” that is needed is not more reading of Scripture (though that would never hurt, if it were practicable) but more exposition.
No. I am presenting a hypothesis for discussion and further study. You seem uninterested in discussing it, for reasons that remain unclear except your general defensiveness and assumption that anything said by a non-Catholic must be an attack on Catholicism.
Why on earth would you torture yourself that way? If you have the laudable desire to acquaint yourself with Protestantism, why not read some good Protestant preachers in one of the excellent sermon anthologies available?
But as you note, the people we’re talking about are largely ignorant. The question isn’t how you respond, or how I respond (I remember listening to David Jeremiah as a teenager, after hearing him referred to as a great Bible teacher, and being rather disappointed–Charles Stanley is OK as Southern Baptists go–Hagee I have no use for at all, Parsley’s only a name to me, and Ceflo Dollar I haven’t heard of). The question is how an admittedly ignorant cradle Catholic pew-warmer responds.
Indeed. I’m describing Protestant best practice, because even in ruins and decay it still seems to have an appeal for ex-Catholics. Catholics have the wherewithal to imitate its best features: why not then do this?
Why would I want to do that, when that has nothing to do with my argument? This whole discussion started with a survey. Surveys only show the average.
That’s precisely what I said. Catholics who can understand and explain Scripture in light of Tradition can make a very persuasive case to Protestants.
Precisely, because Protestantism prepares them to do so.
Agreed. But how is this a refutation of anything I’ve said? I am trying to account for the survey. Your only explanation so far is that people are just ignorant and that presumably this is their own fault. You admit that it isn’t all their own fault, but you seem to have no interest in discussing what other factors are at work, and you simply dismiss and belittle my attempt to do this.
Sure. That’s irrelevant. I’m not claiming that these folks are describing Catholic practice objectively. I’m saying that something isn’t getting through, and I’m suggesting a thoroughly traditional and orthodox means of possibly improving the situation. Even if it didn’t, you would have recovered some of the richness of patristic Christianity which is your rightful heritage–wouldn’t that be a good thing in itself?
But the question is: which came first? I agree that the survey may be dismissing too easily the possibility that many folks come to disagree with Catholic doctrines first–the survey is obsessed with liberal/conservative issues and seems to ignore the standard Catholic/Protestant issues, which is surely a mistake. But it is certainly possible that the survey is correct in suggesting that for many folks a general dissatisfaction with Catholic Scriptural teaching preceded specific disagreements and made them more vulnerable to Protestant critiques.
That’s too sweeping. Protestants become Catholic for various reasons. Dissatisfaction with liberalism is just one of them.