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

[valentino]

over all there are more Catholics today than ever.Im not sure why he thinks more Catholics are becoming Protestants unless he;s describing certain areas.In the US i don’t know what the figures are but I don’t think his reasons for Catholics leaving are right.I would say the main reason is that since are country is becoming more liberal and secular that people are just going along with the crowd.They don’t pray enough and get to caught up with their daily living.If a person stops praying and communicating with God,refuses to attend Mass or go to confession he will eventually lose his faith.Its like eating.If you gradulally stopp eating you’ll die.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

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.

Edwin

The Purpose of the Mass is to come together for prayer to and Worship of God, Proclaim the Gospel and Scripture, And to Share and Take part in the Mystery of the Eucharist.
What it is not, Study time, Lecture time.

In the Mass the Preist give a Homily there is a difference between that and deleivering a sermon.
Here is a good articule on that
www83.homepage.villanova.edu/richard.jacobs/homilies/homily-sermon.htm

 

[Contarini]

The Purpose of the Mass is to come together for prayer to and Worship of God, Proclaim the Gospel and Scripture, And to Share and Take part in the Mystery of the Eucharist.
What it is not, Study time, Lecture time.

In the Mass the Preist give a Homily there is a difference between that and deleivering a sermon.
Here is a good articule on that
www83.homepage.villanova.edu/richard.jacobs/homilies/homily-sermon.htm

I don’t see a shred of support in the Tradition for the view this priest expresses. Perhaps you can point me to the support that he fails to provide?

I’m not championing the “sermon” by his definition over the “homily.” I’m saying that the distinction between the two is itself a noxious one and should be abolished. A good sermon has all the virtues he ascribes to a homily. By separating out a “sermon” from a “homily,” he and other post-Vatican-II Catholic clergy are justifying the production of shallow, trite homilies. This is the root of the problem I’m trying to address here.

Edwin

 

[nickybr38]

I don’t see a shred of support in the Tradition for the view this priest expresses. Perhaps you can point me to the support that he fails to provide?

I’m not championing the “sermon” by his definition over the “homily.” I’m saying that the distinction between the two is itself a noxious one and should be abolished. A good sermon has all the virtues he ascribes to a homily. By separating out a “sermon” from a “homily,” he and other post-Vatican-II Catholic clergy are justifying the production of shallow, trite homilies. This is the root of the problem I’m trying to address here.

Edwin

Shallow and trite homilies? You’re generalizing. Some priests give shallow homilies, some don’t.

I can’t say that all homilies are good and you can’t say they’re all shallow and trite.

Some priests aren’t very good at homilies, that doesn’t mean they’re bad priests and it’s not an adequate excuse for anyone to leave the Church.

People have lots of reasons why they leave churches but those reasons are generally based on feelings and that’s not enough. It’s not supposed to be easy. It’s clear it wasn’t easy from the start, that’s what St. Paul’s letters were all about. But if people got up and left the Church every St. Paul wrote a letter reprimanding them for doing things they liked to do we wouldn’t have a Christian Church to speak of today. Neither Protestant nor Catholic.

I’m just wondering, what do you expect the Church to do? Should the Church change every time someone leaves? Should the Church shift and change shape to suit the needs of every single parishioner? Should the Church be formed after the needs of the people rather then the commands of God?

When God commands better instruction He will do so and the Pope will listen and things will shift accordingly. Until then, I think it’s about time people learned a bit of personal responsibility, loyalty and willingness to set personal needs aside to listen for God.

 

[Nicea325]

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.

Fair enough, I can understand.The church does provide plenty of avenues: Adult cathechesis,adult Bible-Studies,Diocesan classes: basic theology,parish ministry formation,etc. What MORE does one need?

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.

Your argument on a lack of “scriptural teaching” is TOTALLY bogus because you really have no clue as to what you perceive. ALL catechetical teachings at ALL grade levels includes:Scripture,Tradition,Church, documents and the Catechism of the CCC. I think I would know as the Director of Catechetical Ministry for nearly eight years. The problem I see with your argument is that you want the Mass to be the place for all of this to take place.

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.

Based on what substantial evidence? Ex-Catholics and surveys?

Quote:
Again,what evidence do you have Protestant churches FAR surpass MOST Catholic parishes? That sounds like an opinion…hear-say.not a FACT!

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.

I am not confusing anything at all,I am simply answering you in the manner you present your argument. You said many Protestant churches far surpass MOST Catholic parishes? That is a fact? That is an opinion which can be fed off and repeated by hearsay by the ignorant,not actual facts. No such evidence has been provided supporting such a claim.

I did not say that all Protestant churches surpassed most Catholic churches. I said that many did so. I didn’t even say “most” Protestant churches.

I know what you said. You said MANY surpass MOST Catholic parishes. Apparently you are claiming many (less) outweigh MOST (majority) Catholic parishes. Based on what evidence?

I’m just saying that this is a point where many Protestant churches far surpass most Catholic parishes.

Again…no evidence but merely one person’s perception.

It’s a fairly common practice–becoming more common in many nondenominational churches–to preach through entire books or long passages of the Bible. Rob Bell, for instance, the controversial pastor of a very successful megachurch in Michigan, began his career as a pastor by preaching through Leviticus. Now I don’t know the content of those sermons in detail, but you can read Bell’s report on them here. Note his emphases:

1. Scripture is an organic whole, and all of it is relevant for believers.
2. Leviticus is all about Jesus–every part of it points to Jesus.
3. Leviticus shows us that salvation is concrete and embodied rather than abstract (he doesn’t say “sacramental,” but he could have if that had been in his vocabulary).

Preach entire books? Really? How long would it take to preach one book out of 66 books every Sunday? Do you have any statistics?

But are Catholic priests taught to preach this way in Catholic seminary? You know they aren’t. They aren’t taught to use the fourfold method. They aren’t taught to do typology. They don’t seem to be trained to preach on the OT at all.

I am sorry,but you generalize ALL Catholic seminaries and you cannot seat behind your computer tell me or any Catholic exactly what priests are taught to do or not do at every seminary. Did you currently teach at a Catholic seminary?

I am not an enemy of historical criticism, in its place. But historical criticism has too often functioned as a straight-jacket on Catholic (and mainline) preachers, cutting them (and their congregations) off from the riches of the Tradition.

Generalization…again.

This is the kind of thing I think the survey in the OP is talking about. You seem to want to ignore this possibility instead of investigating it. Why? Why are you so dead set to dismiss (and yes, you are dismissing) what I’m saying?

And you seem ignore the possibility of doing extensive research asking CRADLE Catholics,if your claim has any basis or merit. Why? And why are you afraid to admit your entire argument revolves from ex-Catholic testimonies and surveys instead of approaching actual practicing Catholics and clergy?

---

 

[rinnie]

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!

How in the world can you comment on the Mass? Have you ever attended a RC Mass?

The Catholic Mass is 3 readings and then the Preist explains the scripture in his sermon. Would that not be Catholic Bible study.

If you want to know why the RCC is loosing people I will tell you the exact reason.

Sin, The RCC is not going to Change.

You either take it as God left it or you move on!

The Catholic Church will not conform to People. People wil conform to Christ. If you want a Church that will teach and conform to what you believe then you must go to a Protestant Church. They will be the first to tell you that there is no authority in the protestant Church. You do what you think. You are your own authority. No so in the RCC it is led by Christ and always will be.

The protestant church will bend, they will give into this world if the people want it. The RCC is not a majority rules Church people.

If there is ONE person left in the RCC so be it. The RCC is the living Christ and it will not conform to us we will conform to Christ or move on. Christ does not change and neither does his word.

 

[waxwing]

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.

Nicea325

Had to chime in here…IMO one of Protestants weaknesses is their TV networks tendancy to run their business as just that a business rather than a ministry. If someone were seeking some advice as to where to get some Protestant teaching/sermons, the last place I would point them would be TV preachers. It rankles me to know end as to the characters that end up on the tv screen. If your looking for robust Scripture preaching from a Protestant POV I have found the Presbyterian and Reformed folks do a good job, although I disagree with Calvinistic theology, I have found their sermons to be quite engaging almost done in professorially manner rather than the bells and whistles of a “show”

 

[Nicea325]

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.

Furthermore, you’re assuming that popular TV evangelists represent the kind of preaching in question. TV evangelists are essentially the scum of Protestant preaching, not its cream.

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.

Right now we have a cycle: Protestants get the ignorant Catholics, educate them in the basics of the Faith, and eventually some of them or some of their children or great-grandchildren trickle back into the Church because they finally realize that Catholics have a richer context in which to place Scripture than Protestants do. But wouldn’t it be better for Catholics to do a better job of teaching the basics in the first place?

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.

Why should a Catholic have to go to a Protestant megachurch pastor to hear about how Leviticus points to Jesus? It’s all there in the Fathers!

Edwin

Indeed those t.v preachers are not the greatest and I have no rejections there is some great Protestant preachers. I am not against your argument and I understand your position you are suggesting. But remember, I am only one person and the problem I see by many Catholics is belief they should be handed everything. And yet,many Catholics do actually little to nothing to learn their faith.

Peace

 

[agent_grey]

Catholics and non Catholics alike need to abandon scripture all together. Ever met an SDA? For starters the concept of scriptural inerrancy is both wrong and flat out idolatry.

The best part is… all you have to do is read it. If that is the innerant word of God; he has one hell of a fight on his hands.

OK… Here it is… Does your conscience say that God commanded The execution of man woman and child? YES OR NO? Seriosly do you belive that God ever Gave the order for genocide? Do not make up some odd ball way of justifying such a thing. Look to your conscience. Look to the conscience that you knew as a child and ask if God ever gave an order for such dispicable sin.

The funny side of this is you get to decide between your conscience and a book. Have fun. For the people of God this is easy but for them that have blasphemy on their head it is not so easy.

One more thing. Ever wonder why the mark of the beast is 666 or 616 and the worshippers of the pagan literature God hold 66 books as the innerant word of God?

 

[Contarini]

Shallow and trite homilies? You’re generalizing.

Of course I’m generalizing. What I’m saying is that the line given in the link–that there’s one thing called a “sermon” and another thing called a “homily,” and that Catholic priests should be doing the latter and not the former–is a bad way to approach the topic in the first place. It stems from an overly restrictive understanding of the role of Scripture in the life of the Church, for one thing.

The more this discussion goes on, the more I think this is the real issue. The negative side of Protestant teaching about Scripture (the denial of Tradition and the Church’s authority) is wrong; but Catholics seem by and large to have thrown out the positive side as well–the affirmation that all of Scripture can be mined richly for the life of believers. Vatican II called for a return to Scriptural preaching, but the assumptions about Scripture underlying the formation of preachers seem overly restrictive, both because of traditional anti-Protestant attitudes and because of the embrace of historical criticism.

Some priests aren’t very good at homilies

That isn’t the issue.

I’m just wondering, what do you expect the Church to do? Should the Church change every time someone leaves?

No. I have given theological and historical reasons why more in-depth exegetical preaching would be a good thing. I have repeatedly pointed out that this is what the Fathers did.

When God commands better instruction He will do so and the Pope will listen and things will shift accordingly.

Where in the Church’s teaching do you get the idea that all renewal efforts have to come from the Pope down? Furthermore, Pope Benedict is in my opinion modeling better instruction by his own example–I don’t know what he has or hasn’t said about preaching beyond that example.

Nothing that I am saying contradicts any Catholic teaching. None of the arguments that have been raised against what I’m saying are rooted in Catholic Tradition.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Fair enough, I can understand.The church does provide plenty of avenues: Adult cathechesis,adult Bible-Studies,Diocesan classes: basic theology,parish ministry formation,etc. What MORE does one need?

A richer understanding of preaching, inculcated at the seminary level and shaping the expectations of devout, committed, involved laypeople like yourself.

Your argument on a lack of “scriptural teaching” is TOTALLY bogus because you really have no clue as to what you perceive. ALL catechetical teachings at ALL grade levels includes:Scripture,Tradition,Church, documents and the Catechism of the CCC. I think I would know as the Director of Catechetical Ministry for nearly eight years. The problem I see with your argument is that you want the Mass to be the place for all of this to take place.

Not the place where it all happens, but the center from which it all radiates.

Based on what substantial evidence? Ex-Catholics and surveys?

There you go again dismissing the experience of ex-Catholics. If you aren’t dismissing it, explain how you think it counts.

And your evidence is better how? Because you are doing a great job in one parish?

I am not confusing anything at all,I am simply answering you in the manner you present your argument. You said many Protestant churches far surpass MOST Catholic parishes? That is a fact? That is an opinion

Precisely. It’s an opinion. Based on a lot of visits to both Protestant and Catholic churches, a lot of conversations with people who have even more experience, and the survey.

Your opinion is based on what? Your own experience as a catechist? But in a way that disqualifies you–you may be doing a splendid job and thus not seeing the problems elsewhere. As someone who has been the recipient of Catholic catechesis (I was in and out of RCIA for several years in two different venues and was a formal candidate for two months), and who has had Catholic students in my intro Bible class, and who has had to pull the Catechism off the shelf to refute another Catholic student’s claim that reading the Bible isn’t really a Catholic thing to do, I may actually be in a better position to evaluate the state of Catholic catechesis as a whole than you are.

There’s an overwhelming body of evidence from a bunch of different sources all pointing toward the conclusion that something is falling down somewhere. I’m proposing a solidly orthodox and traditional response, and the hostility with which this response is being received still somewhat puzzles me.

Preach entire books? Really? How long would it take to preach one book out of 66 books every Sunday?

I’m a bit confused. That’s not what I was describing. One problem with the “lectio continua” method is that it does result in only some books being covered. I’m not suggesting that it can be adopted for parish use wholesale, only that the “find a lesson in the Gospel reading and apply it to people’s lives” approach that Catholic priests seem to favor is too restrictive and doesn’t open the table of the Word richly enough.

I am sorry,but you generalize ALL Catholic seminaries and you cannot seat behind your computer tell me or any Catholic exactly what priests are taught to do or not do at every seminary.

Of course not. Nor was I doing any such thing. But the piece to which another poster linked was not new to me–I’ve heard this sermon/homily distinction before, and I can make an informed estimate that it’s a fairly common approach in post-Vatican-II Catholic seminaries. I know a lot of people who are involved in theological education in both Protestant and Catholic contexts.

I’m not trying to prove anything. I am making a suggestion.

And you seem ignore the possibility of doing extensive research asking CRADLE Catholics

Well, that isn’t going to tell you much about why people leave, is it?

Edwin

 

[nickybr38]

Of course I’m generalizing. What I’m saying is that the line given in the link–that there’s one thing called a “sermon” and another thing called a “homily,” and that Catholic priests should be doing the latter and not the former–is a bad way to approach the topic in the first place. It stems from an overly restrictive understanding of the role of Scripture in the life of the Church, for one thing.

The more this discussion goes on, the more I think this is the real issue. The negative side of Protestant teaching about Scripture (the denial of Tradition and the Church’s authority) is wrong; but Catholics seem by and large to have thrown out the positive side as well–the affirmation that all of Scripture can be mined richly for the life of believers. Vatican II called for a return to Scriptural preaching, but the assumptions about Scripture underlying the formation of preachers seem overly restrictive, both because of traditional anti-Protestant attitudes and because of the embrace of historical criticism.

That isn’t the issue.

No. I have given theological and historical reasons why more in-depth exegetical preaching would be a good thing. I have repeatedly pointed out that this is what the Fathers did.

Where in the Church’s teaching do you get the idea that all renewal efforts have to come from the Pope down? Furthermore, Pope Benedict is in my opinion modeling better instruction by his own example–I don’t know what he has or hasn’t said about preaching beyond that example.

Nothing that I am saying contradicts any Catholic teaching. None of the arguments that have been raised against what I’m saying are rooted in Catholic Tradition.

Edwin

I haven’t read all your posts. Sorry if I pointed out things that have already been said and/or that you already answered.

 

[menofstjoseph]

ncronline.org/news/hidden-exodus-catholics-becoming-protestants

I have to say in the very least, in respect to preparation for Mass, I agree that more Catholics should read Sunday Gospel beforehand.

Our organization, the Men of St Joseph is dedicated to putting “the family in the hands of the Father”.

One way we help prepare men to be better spiritual leaders of their families and communities is we read and discuss the Sunday Gospel during our weekly meetings. We are very blessed to have our meeting structure and process taking hold across the nation as Men of St. Joseph groups are forming in parishes all over.

I think a big reason for this growth is the need for men to show spiritual leadership. Our members are showing that leadership, in part, by learning more about scripture and our faith.

The MOSJ also asks men to focus on a daily prayer life’ and part of that daily prayer life should be the reading of scripture daily.

Men of St. Joseph

 

[Nicea325]

A richer understanding of preaching, inculcated at the seminary level and shaping the expectations of devout, committed, involved laypeople like yourself

.

So in other words,you are placing blame solely on the clergy and the seminaries?

Not the place where it all happens, but the center from which it all radiates.

I agree,but faith should radiate from the HEART not from the lectern/ambo, entirely.

Quote:
Based on what substantial evidence? Ex-Catholics and surveys?

There you go again dismissing the experience of ex-Catholics. If you aren’t dismissing it, explain how you think it counts.

No not dismissing,but reminding you that is only ONE reason,not THE reason which you dismiss all together. Again,not all ex-Catholics leave due to poor scriptural teaching,which you believe is THE major reason. It counts in one aspect,but it most certainly does not cover all grounds.

And your evidence is better how? Because you are doing a great job in one parish?

An ex-Catholic who decides to leave is his or her choice…no one forces anyone to be Catholic. We are not Protestants were we need to provide the warm “fuzzies” or “feel-good” feelings or “change” in order to retain them. Either accept it or reject it…plain and simple. The church can turn blue in the face and have it all planned it out,do you truly believe for one second,no one will leave? Really? If Jesus who is God struggled with humanity,what makes you believe the church has it any easier regardless what “great” plan is implemented.

Precisely. It’s an opinion. Based on a lot of visits to both Protestant and Catholic churches, a lot of conversations with people who have even more experience, and the survey.

Okay,but as you said-an opinion based on visits and surveys,but not entire universal church.

Your opinion is based on what? Your own experience as a catechist? But in a way that disqualifies you–you may be doing a splendid job and thus not seeing the problems elsewhere. As someone who has been the recipient of Catholic catechesis (I was in and out of RCIA for several years in two different venues and was a formal candidate for two months), and who has had Catholic students in my intro Bible class, and who has had to pull the Catechism off the shelf to refute another Catholic student’s claim that reading the Bible isn’t really a Catholic thing to do, I may actually be in a better position to evaluate the state of Catholic catechesis as a whole than you are.

Sorry,but as a lay employee for nearly eight years with exposure with children,youth and adults is NOT an opinion. It is my duty and vocation.I admire your confidence that you believe you can evaluate the state of Catholic catechesis. The fact you are a not Roman Catholic nor work for the church,truly gives me the upper hand-sorry. You only view it from the outside as an outsider, I see it from the inside which is an entire different story all together.

There’s an overwhelming body of evidence from a bunch of different sources all pointing toward the conclusion that something is falling down somewhere. I’m proposing a solidly orthodox and traditional response, and the hostility with which this response is being received still somewhat puzzles me.

I have nothing against solid orthodox and traditional response,but what I yet to read or see from you are key factors: METHODS & APPLICATIONS.

Quote:
Preach entire books? Really? How long would it take to preach one book out of 66 books every Sunday?

I’m a bit confused. That’s not what I was describing. One problem with the “lectio continua” method is that it does result in only some books being covered. I’m not suggesting that it can be adopted for parish use wholesale, only that the “find a lesson in the Gospel reading and apply it to people’s lives” approach that Catholic priests seem to favor is too restrictive and doesn’t open the table of the Word richly enough.

One more time,you generalize far to much and convey a message that it is not being done at all by ANY priests. You seem to base it off perhaps a few experiences or parishes,but that is not concrete or subtanital evidence on your part to gain any points from anyone to convince them otherwise.

Quote:
I am sorry,but you generalize ALL Catholic seminaries and you cannot seat behind your computer tell me or any Catholic exactly what priests are taught to do or not do at every seminary.

Of course not. Nor was I doing any such thing. But the piece to which another poster linked was not new to me–I’ve heard this sermon/homily distinction before, and I can make an informed estimate that it’s a fairly common approach in post-Vatican-II Catholic seminaries. I know a lot of people who are involved in theological education in both Protestant and Catholic contexts.

Okay…and? Elaborate.

I’m not trying to prove anything. I am making a suggestion.

And I hear you out,but provide more information as I said. The METHODS & APPLICATIONS.

Quote:
And you seem ignore the possibility of doing extensive research asking CRADLE Catholics

Well, that isn’t going to tell you much about why people leave, is it?

Not necessarily. Depends how one formulates the survey. You can ask cradle Catholics:

As a cradle Catholic,what would say is one reason people leave the faith? (Of course,this is only an example)

A. It is boring
B. Poor catechesis
C. Bad homilies
D. Lack of Fellowship
E.Other

Well shouldn’t your primary targets be from Catholics themselves in order to find the root of the problem(s),thus implement your suggestion to stem/curb abandoments?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I don’t see a shred of support in the Tradition for the view this priest expresses. Perhaps you can point me to the support that he fails to provide?

I’m not championing the “sermon” by his definition over the “homily.” I’m saying that the distinction between the two is itself a noxious one and should be abolished. A good sermon has all the virtues he ascribes to a homily. By separating out a “sermon” from a “homily,” he and other post-Vatican-II Catholic clergy are justifying the production of shallow, trite homilies. This is the root of the problem I’m trying to address here.

Edwin

You Win. I am so glad that you have come along to point out the error of all those poor bishops and priest and seminary instrutors on the erro of our ways. The whole problem of people leaving the Chruch can be fixed if we just preach longer.
Thank you.

 

[john_aurelius]

Actually, I like the practise of preaching through books of Scripture. It gives far more context than stand alone pericopes.

Unfortunately, not everyone can do a “Martyn Lloyd Jones” and preach the book of Romans for years on end.

Even worse, the preacher might choose a book like Leviticus (not that its not the Word of God, but…)

 

[MarkInOregon]

.

So in other words,you are placing blame solely on the clergy and the seminaries?

Are you reading the same posts that I am. Why do you interpret it as “soley”? It seems that it has been made clear–many times–and acknowledged by both of you that there is enough blame to go around to all of us. Is it your contention that NO blame goes to clergy and seminarires? I don’t think that’s you position but my asserting it here makes about as much since as your assertion above given the 17 or so pages of discussion and there content. How Contarini remains calm and civil inspite of all the hostile posts and blatant misrepresentation of what he writes is to be commened.

I agree,but faith should radiate from the HEART not from the lectern/ambo, entirely.

How has anything posted suggested that this is not the case? To suggest that better exegesis in the homily might help (no one has claimed it is THE Solution–that is simply obstinate mis-interpretation) in no way suggest that it should “entirely” come from the lectern/ambo–anymore than you are suggesting none of it should come from the lectern/ambo.

No not dismissing,but reminding you that is only ONE reason,not THE reason which you dismiss all together. Again,not all ex-Catholics leave due to poor scriptural teaching,which you believe is THE major reason. It counts in one aspect,but it most certainly does not cover all grounds.

I for one have not gotten from Contarini’s posts that he thinks this is THE reason, nor have I gotten that he dismisses any other reasons. I have, however, gotten the sense that you do dismiss it as reason or contributing factor altogether eventhough above you say it is one aspect. I don’t think Contarini has implied even that it is the major reason. He simply responded to the orginal post–which dealt with Scripture and not other reasons.

An ex-Catholic who decides to leave is his or her choice…no one forces anyone to be Catholic. We are not Protestants were we need to provide the warm “fuzzies” or “feel-good” feelings or “change” in order to retain them. Either accept it or reject it…plain and simple. The church can turn blue in the face and have it all planned it out,do you truly believe for one second,no one will leave? Really? If Jesus who is God struggled with humanity,what makes you believe the church has it any easier regardless what “great” plan is implemented.

No one has argued that it is not their choice. No one has suggested that people will not still leave if there is more exegetical preaching but if it prevents even one person from leaving–wouldn’t that be good? No one has suggested that Church teaching should be modified or softened or watered down to make people feel good–so I am puzzled by your “either accept it or reject it” comment–it makes no sense in the context of the discussion. However, for them to “either accept it or reject it” they have to be taught IT and that teaching has to start at the lecturn/ambo. One would hope and pray that this teaching would lead one to dig deeper and study on their own, but if the teaching doesn’t start at the lectern/ambo there is a good chance it won’t start at all–at least not in the Catholic tradition–where it should.

Are you suggesting that the Church should never adapt its approach to teaching the Truth to its audience? One size fits all what worked in AD 50 for Jews will work in AD 2012 for secular western society? Even the Gospels were tailored by their writers for their audience under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Truth does not change but how we present it certainly can as evidence by the Gospels themselves.

Don’t kid yourself–most people need “warm fuzzies”–they just shouldn’t come at the expense of the truth. Making someone feel welcome and accepted when they come to Mass isn’t contrary to the Gospel or to being Catholic–it is actually what being Catholic is all about. Christ called and welcomed sinners–we should too–thats what the first part of the Mass is about-- we hear the readings and are called to conversion, we confess our sins and we praise God. Making someone feel welcome and accepted just might help them open up a be disposed to hear the message of the Gospel–for the first time really hear it.

One more time,you generalize far to much and convey a message that it is not being done at all by ANY priests. You seem to base it off perhaps a few experiences or parishes,but that is not concrete or subtanital evidence on your part to gain any points from anyone to convince them otherwise.

Again I beg to differ. That has not been his message and it seems that has been made clear but you refuse to acknowledge it and keep twisting his statements to the extreme. One could argue that you base your opinions on your experience in just one parish where you work–which has no more credence and probably less than his with several parishes. This is a general discussion–generalization is the nature of the discussion and everyone (except possibly you) knows that generalizations don’t apply to everyone–and that there are many exceptions to the generalization.

quote]

Peace,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

You Win. I am so glad that you have come along to point out the error of all those poor bishops and priest and seminary instrutors on the erro of our ways. The whole problem of people leaving the Chruch can be fixed if we just preach longer.
Thank you.

Come on be fair–have you read all the posts? Does it seem like he’s trying “Win” something? Like he’s attacking our bishops, priests and seminaries? He’s pointed out, quite politely, an area–he thinks we can improve by getting back to what he believes are our othodox roots and he had not suggested that longer preaching is going to solve the “whole” problem of people leaving the Church. And actually it’s not just longer preaching–it is exegetical preaching. For this he has been subjected to any number of rude and hostile attacks–it is really rather quite baffling and does not show us in our best light. This is a person who seems quite knowledgable re the early Church, well read re: the early Church and Church documents, and has been in two RCIA programs --so he has had an interst in the Church–and I am sure that after this experience he is sorry he has not yet joined the Catholic Church which is so full of nice, charitable people.

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;7961520:

.

So in other words,you are placing blame solely on the clergy and the seminaries?

Are you reading the same posts that I am. Why do you interpret it as “soley”? It seems that it has been made clear–many times–and acknowledged by both of you that there is enough blame to go around to all of us. Is it your contention that NO blame goes to clergy and seminarires? I don’t think that’s you position but my asserting it here makes about as much since as your assertion above given the 17 or so pages of discussion and there content. How Contarini remains calm and civil inspite of all the hostile posts and blatant misrepresentation of what he writes is to be commened.

I agree,but faith should radiate from the HEART not from the lectern/ambo, entirely.

How has anything posted suggested that this is not the case? To suggest that better exegesis in the homily might help (no one has claimed it is THE Solution–that is simply obstinate mis-interpretation) in no way suggest that it should “entirely” come from the lectern/ambo–anymore than you are suggesting none of it should come from the lectern/ambo.

No not dismissing,but reminding you that is only ONE reason,not THE reason which you dismiss all together. Again,not all ex-Catholics leave due to poor scriptural teaching,which you believe is THE major reason. It counts in one aspect,but it most certainly does not cover all grounds.

An ex-Catholic who decides to leave is his or her choice…no one forces anyone to be Catholic. We are not Protestants were we need to provide the warm “fuzzies” or “feel-good” feelings or “change” in order to retain them. Either accept it or reject it…plain and simple. The church can turn blue in the face and have it all planned it out,do you truly believe for one second,no one will leave? Really? If Jesus who is God struggled with humanity,what makes you believe the church has it any easier regardless what “great” plan is implemented.

No one has argued that it is not their choice. No one has suggested that people will not still leave if there is more exegetical preaching but if it prevents even one person from leaving–wouldn’t that be good? No one has suggested that Church teaching should be modified or softened or watered down to make people feel good–so I am puzzled by your “either accept it or reject it” comment–it makes no sense in the context of the discussion. However, for them to “either accept it or reject it” they have to be taught IT and that teaching has to start at the lecturn/ambo. One would hope and pray that this teaching would lead one to dig deeper and study on their own, but if the teaching doesn’t start at the lectern/ambo there is a good chance it won’t start at all–at least not in the Catholic tradition–where it should.

Are you suggesting that the Church should never adapt its approach to teaching the Truth to its audience? One size fits all what worked in AD 50 for Jews will work in AD 2012 for secular western society? Even the Gospels were tailored by their writers for their audience under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Truth does not change but how we present it certainly can as evidence by the Gospels themselves.

Don’t kid yourself–most people need “warm fuzzies”–they just shouldn’t come at the expense of the truth. Making someone feel welcome and accepted when they come to Mass isn’t contrary to the Gospel or to being Catholic–it is actually what being Catholic is all about. Christ called and welcomed sinners–we should too–thats what the first part of the Mass is about-- we hear the readings and are called to conversion, we confess our sins and we praise God. Making someone feel welcome and accepted just might help them open up a be disposed to hear the message of the Gospel–for the first time really hear it.

One more time,you generalize far to much and convey a message that it is not being done at all by ANY priests. You seem to base it off perhaps a few experiences or parishes,but that is not concrete or subtanital evidence on your part to gain any points from anyone to convince them otherwise.

Again I beg to differ. That has not been his message and it seems that has been made clear but you refuse to acknowledge it and keep twisting his statements to the extreme. One could argue that you base your opinions on your experience in just one parish where you work–which has no more credence and probably less than his with several parishes. This is a general discussion–generalization is the nature of the discussion and everyone (except possibly you) knows that generalizations don’t apply to everyone–and that there are many exceptions to the generalization.

quote]

Peace,
Mark

One could argue that you base your opinions on your experience in just one parish where you work–which has no more credence and probably less than his with several parishes.

I beg your pardon? When did I ever state his suggestions are full of hot air? And if you were to read thoroughly you would noticed I asked him to provide some methods and applications for his SUGGESTIONS.

 

[Jason_L_Barnes]

Having joined the Roman Catholic Church in January 2011, I can tell you from the responses of my Protestant family why people would leave the RCC to join a Protestant church, specifically, Southern Baptist.

From what I’ve seen, it boils down to laziness. A majority of Protestants know nothing of Catholicism and what they do know is so flawed from generations of ignorance and bigotry that it almost overwhelms me as to where I should start. Aside from not knowing Catholicism, most Protestants don’t even know their own faith. They’ve heard the occasional misrepresented accusation followed by a cherry picked scripture verse (9 times out of 10 taken out of context) to back it up.

My point is some people don’t want to put forth the time or effort to learn about the faith. Instead, it is much easier to go down to your local Protestant flavor and ‘just feel good about Jesus and have a personal relationship’. They (members of my Protestant family) have no interest in delving into scripture and it’s meaning. The extent of their formation education is the handful of scriptural one-liners I mentioned, usually spouted off in front of an audience for effect.

The RCC requires someone wishing to join the Church to spend approximately one year in RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults). This properly prepares the individual to come into full communion with the Church. The Catholics who leave, mostly cradle Catholics, didn’t have to go through RCIA and forgot most of what they learned as children. Instead of getting reacquainted with Christ through the Church He established for this purpose, they would rather go down the street where they are told what they want to hear and aren’t required to make any effort.

In summary, why do people leave the Catholic Church? Short answer - laziness.