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

[MarkInOregon]

.

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.

I am trouble by the attitude portrayed in your post. The “either accept it or reject it” attitude. It seems rather harsh and uncharitable. Christ calls us all and we all come to Mass at different points in our journey. Life has left us all open to hearing different things at different times in our life. I know in my own life there are passages of Scripture that I had read many times–and then one day I read it and well I understand it and it speaks to me–I finally get it. When people come to Mass or for Catechesis or whatever–we need to be charitable, we need to attempt to help them see and accept the truth–this may be a slow and painful process filled with many stops and starts–as people come to terms with and grasp the truth. They may fight and restist it but as long as they will discourse–we should be open and charitable–looking for a way to help them, to get through to them, for the Holy Spirit to opem their ears and heart. Simply throwing out the truth/Catholic teaching and saying “Thats the truth take it or leave it” is not good enough. We should suffer and beat our heads against the wall if it will save even one person. Keep proclaiming the Gospel–you never know when the person you are proclaiming it to will be open to hearing it even if they have rejected 100 times before–and I suggest preaching it in love is more effective than merely preaching it matter of factly with a take it or leave it attitude.

Peace,
Mark

 

[Nicea325]

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.

Congrats and welcome!

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.

Amen! I have said it before: People are just to darn LAZY to take the time and effort to study,read and reflect on scripture,Tradition and teachings of the church. And I agree,some here act as though Protestants are so deeply educated in scripture and nothing can be further from the truth.

My point is some people don’t want to put forth the time or effort to learn about the faith.

Amen again.

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.

I agree again because I know of many ex-Catholics who have left for the same reason you gave:

much easier to go down to your local Protestant flavor and ‘just feel good about Jesus and have a personal relationship’

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.

Exactly! Precisely why a RCIA candidate or catechumen goes through the Lenten scrutinies.

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

Yes…again.

 

[MarkInOregon]

MarkInOregon;7964219:

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.

This is what I don’t understand–where did I state you said his suggestions are full of hot air? This seems hyperbolic and to mischaractarize what I wrote. I have simply pointed out areas where – it seems to me – that you are not reading the same the posts that I am–where it seems to me you are reading into the post. This post is an example of what I mean by reading into the post:

1. I pointed out that I didn’t think anything in Contarini’s posts implied blame “Soley” to clergy and seminaries. Contrary to your claim
2. I pointed out that I didn’t think Contarini suggested that faith should eminate “entirely” from the lectern/ambo and not from the heart–which you suggest was a point made.
3. I pointed out that I don’t think Contarini suggested it is not someones own choice to leave the Church and that people will not still leave the Church even if his suggested change was adopted–which you imply.
4. I pointed out that I don’t think Contarini’s message is that it (the suggested preaching) is not being done by ANY priests–contrary to your continued reading it this way.

From this I get from you: “I beg your pardon? When did I ever state his suggestions are full of hot air?” I never said you stated this. I never used the ;phrase “hot air”. I didn’t really even address what you think of his suggestion–though you seem, to me at least, dismissive of it–I simply pointed out where I thought you were misreading or misinterpreting what he has posted.

I won’t address the experience v opinion comment since it was edited out.

Peace,
Mark

 

[Nicea325]

I am trouble by the attitude portrayed in your post. The “either accept it or reject it” attitude. It seems rather harsh and uncharitable.

I understand where you are coming from. However, my attitude was not meant to say I do not care for others.Here let me explain,so you do not misunderstand me. We both know as a practicing Catholics,some people will never accept ALL church teachings,doctrine and dogma;thus the church is not going alter it or cater in order to suit their emotions/opinions. I deal with many people everyday and you would be shocked how so many Catholics flat out REJECT the Real Presence of the Eucharist. Yes, my duty and all those involved take the time to instruct and educate the “lost” flock. But at times some do not respond and unfortunately some will never see the light. Did not Jesus experience the same? Now by all means, I am not quitting with the lost flock.

Doctrinal truth is not open for discussion. Does that sound harsh?

Christ calls us all and we all come to Mass at different points in our journey. Life has left us all open to hearing different things at different times in our life. I know in my own life there are passages of Scripture that I had read many times–and then one day I read it and well I understand it and it speaks to me–I finally get it. When people come to Mass or for Catechesis or whatever–we need to be charitable, we need to attempt to help them see and accept the truth–this may be a slow and painful process filled with many stops and starts–as people come to terms with and grasp the truth. They may fight and restist it but as long as they will discourse–we should be open and charitable–looking for a way to help them, to get through to them, for the Holy Spirit to opem their ears and heart. Simply throwing out the truth/Catholic teaching and saying “Thats the truth take it or leave it” is not good enough. We should suffer and beat our heads against the wall if it will save even one person. Keep proclaiming the Gospel–you never know when the person you are proclaiming it to will be open to hearing it even if they have rejected 100 times before–and I suggest preaching it in love is more effective than merely preaching it matter of factly with a take it or leave it attitude.

I agree 100%.

Peace,
Mark

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;7964303:

This is what I don’t understand–where did I state you said his suggestions are full of hot air? This seems hyperbolic and to mischaractarize what I wrote. I have simply pointed out areas where – it seems to me – that you are not reading the same the posts that I am–where it seems to me you are reading into the post. This post is an example of what I mean by reading into the post:

1. I pointed out that I didn’t think anything in Contarini’s posts implied blame “Soley” to clergy and seminaries. Contrary to your claim
2. I pointed out that I didn’t think Contarini suggested that faith should eminate “entirely” from the lectern/ambo and not from the heart–which you suggest was a point made.
3. I pointed out that I don’t think Contarini suggested it is not someones own choice to leave the Church and that people will not still leave the Church even if his suggested change was adopted–which you imply.
4. I pointed out that I don’t think Contarini’s message is that it (the suggested preaching) is not being done by ANY priests–contrary to your continued reading it this way.

From this I get from you: “I beg your pardon? When did I ever state his suggestions are full of hot air?” I never said you stated this. I never used the ;phrase “hot air”. I didn’t really even address what you think of his suggestion–though you seem, to me at least, dismissive of it–I simply pointed out where I thought you were misreading or misinterpreting what he has posted.

I won’t address the experience v opinion comment since it was edited out.

Peace,
Mark

I think there has been some misunderstandings. I by no means have no grduges towards any other brother or sister in Christ. In fact, I am willing for Contrini to offer his suggestions. Believe it or not, I am open for ideas and suggestions. Trust me, my intentions were not to dismiss his views completely. So if I have come off as rude or defensive, I do apologize.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I understand where you are coming from. However, my attitude was not meant to say I do not care for others.Here let me explain,so you do not misunderstand me. We both know as a practicing Catholics,some people will never accept ALL church teachings,doctrine and dogma;thus the church is not going alter it or cater in order to suit their emotions/opinions. I deal with many people everyday and you would be shocked how so many Catholics flat out REJECT the Real Presence of the Eucharist. Yes, my duty and all those involved take the time to instruct and educate the “lost” flock. But at times some do not respond and unfortunately some will never see the light. Did not Jesus experience the same? Now by all means, I am not quitting with the lost flock.

Doctrinal truth is not open for discussion. Does that sound harsh?

And I understand where you are coming from. I agree with what you say above and no it does not sound harsh to me. And actually I’d be shocked if you came across a lot of professing Catholics who accepted the teaching of the Real Presence. It is a sad state. I guess that is why I’d like to see more teaching in the homily–more basic teaching–than I do. Not that I need basic teaching but because so many around me don’t accept or understand the reasons for the basic teachings. It seems like these basic teachings and the support for them need to be “hammered” home whenever the readings allow. People need to hear them over and over–so that hopefully, at a time when they are ready to hear it and receive it, the message will be presented.

And I thank you for your work. Keep up the good fight.

Peace,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

MarkInOregon;7964456:

I think there has been some misunderstandings. I by no means have no grduges towards any other brother or sister in Christ. In fact, I am willing for Contrini to offer his suggestions. Believe it or not, I am open for ideas and suggestions. Trust me, my intentions were not to dismiss his views completely. So if I have come off as rude or defensive, I do apologize.

We all do at times–it is the nature of this medium without vocal tone and inflection and facial gestures. I always thought you were (open to ideas)–and I saw glimpses of it your posts–my concern was not with what you see as the problem–but as what I, rightly or wrongly, saw as a failure to see what Contarini was saying–though it is quite possible I am the one who is incorrectly reading what he says. I just felt like he was being attacked unfairly for something he wasn’t actually saying. I apologize if I sounded aggressive and attacking–I have a tendency to sound that way–even if it is not my intent.

Peace,
Mark

 

[Nicea325]

And I understand where you are coming from. I agree with what you say above and no it does not sound harsh to me. And actually I’d be shocked if you came across a lot of professing Catholics who accepted the teaching of the Real Presence. It is a sad state. I guess that is why I’d like to see more teaching in the homily–more basic teaching–than I do. Not that I need basic teaching but because so many around me don’t accept or understand the reasons for the basic teachings. It seems like these basic teachings and the support for them need to be “hammered” home whenever the readings allow. People need to hear them over and over–so that hopefully, at a time when they are ready to hear it and receive it, the message will be presented.

And I thank you for your work. Keep up the good fight.

Peace,
Mark

Indeed doing God’s work is never easy. All one has to do is read St.Paul’s letters and notice he did not have it easy. And yes,sometimes one has to say it over and over and over to get the message across. Trust me at times it can be very difficult and sad,but I must push forward.

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;7964566:

We all do at times–it is the nature of this medium without vocal tone and inflection and facial gestures. I always thought you were (open to ideas)–and I saw glimpses of it your posts–my concern was not with what you see as the problem–but as what I, rightly or wrongly, saw as a failure to see what Contarini was saying–though it is quite possible I am the one who is incorrectly reading what he says. I just felt like he was being attacked unfairly for something he wasn’t actually saying. I apologize if I sounded aggressive and attacking–I have a tendency to sound that way–even if it is not my intent.

Peace,
Mark

It is all good. None us here are perfect,precisely we need Jesus to make us perfect in the next life…

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

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.

Yes I have read the entire thread. I strongly disagree with the primiss that extending the lenght of the average homily will have any possitive effect on church attendence. Also maybe I have been just blessed, but I have had preist that deliver excelent Homilies and I have a hard time beleiveing that they are the exception to the rule. Also the comments back to him have not been rude ( ok my last ws full of sracasism, but still not rude). I also do not douvt his knowlege of the early Church fathers, but I have let to see were the fact that they may have written Homilies that would take 30 mins or so to deliver , do that mean they were given all during the same mass? Or during mass at all? were they given in a class setting? As to his not coming home to the Church and his deep knowledge of history. per cardinal John Henry Newman “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”

 

[john_aurelius]

just a comment that the preaching by my priest is excellent. He is a gifted communicator.

Much better than many of the Protestant sermons that I’ve heard which being longer are that much more tedious

 

[Contarini]

Yes I have read the entire thread. I strongly disagree with the primiss that extending the lenght of the average homily will have any possitive effect on church attendence. Also maybe I have been just blessed, but I have had preist that deliver excelent Homilies and I have a hard time beleiveing that they are the exception to the rule. Also the comments back to him have not been rude ( ok my last ws full of sracasism, but still not rude). I also do not douvt his knowlege of the early Church fathers, but I have let to see were the fact that they may have written Homilies that would take 30 mins or so to deliver , do that mean they were given all during the same mass? Or during mass at all? were they given in a class setting? As to his not coming home to the Church and his deep knowledge of history. per cardinal John Henry Newman “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”

You can use that quote to sanction your own closed-mindedness if you wish. There are in fact many very learned church historians who have no desire to become Catholic. They are much better counter-examples than I, both because I am less learned than they and because I am at “best” a very marginal and uncomfortable Protestant!

Newman’s quote is accurate if you paraphrase it as: “to be deep in history is to cease to accept the glib, triumphalistic ‘Whig’ narrative of church history accepted by most early-19th-century British Protestants.”

To the point of the discussion: I don’t think there’s any dispute among scholars that patristic sermons were pretty long. I’m not sure why you are so reluctant to accept this. I grant that it would be hard to get people to sit through the long liturgies of the early Church. What I’m arguing against in this thread is the claim made by several Catholics that “the Mass isn’t the place for in-depth Biblical exposition.” I think that Catholics could move in that direction to some extent–I’m not claiming that we can or should imitate early Christian practice in every detail.

Medieval sermons were also very long–maybe even longer. Geiler von Kaysersburg would supposedly preach for two hours, then turn the hourglass over and preach for another two hours.

The problem was that by the later Middle Ages preaching had often become independent of the Mass. That’s the basis for the sermon/homily distinction made in the link cited earlier.

Finally, I’m not arguing for longer homilies per se. I’m arguing for a richer and more substantive understanding of the task of preaching, which might result in longer homilies. Length isn’t a virtue. I’ve heard very good sermons that were 10-15 minutes long. But length isn’t a vice either. If it did turn out that more substantive preaching took longer as a whole, that wouldn’t be terrible. And most to the point I’m arguing, it wouldn’t somehow violate the principles of the Mass.

Edwin

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

You can use that quote to sanction your own closed-mindedness if you wish. There are in fact many very learned church historians who have no desire to become Catholic. They are much better counter-examples than I, both because I am less learned than they and because I am at “best” a very marginal and uncomfortable Protestant!

Newman’s quote is accurate if you paraphrase it as: “to be deep in history is to cease to accept the glib, triumphalistic ‘Whig’ narrative of church history accepted by most early-19th-century British Protestants.”

To the point of the discussion: I don’t think there’s any dispute among scholars that patristic sermons were pretty long. I’m not sure why you are so reluctant to accept this. I grant that it would be hard to get people to sit through the long liturgies of the early Church. What I’m arguing against in this thread is the claim made by several Catholics that “the Mass isn’t the place for in-depth Biblical exposition.” I think that Catholics could move in that direction to some extent–I’m not claiming that we can or should imitate early Christian practice in every detail.

Medieval sermons were also very long–maybe even longer. Geiler von Kaysersburg would supposedly preach for two hours, then turn the hourglass over and preach for another two hours.

The problem was that by the later Middle Ages preaching had often become independent of the Mass. That’s the basis for the sermon/homily distinction made in the link cited earlier.

Finally, I’m not arguing for longer homilies per se. I’m arguing for a richer and more substantive understanding of the task of preaching, which might result in longer homilies. Length isn’t a virtue. I’ve heard very good sermons that were 10-15 minutes long. But length isn’t a vice either. If it did turn out that more substantive preaching took longer as a whole, that wouldn’t be terrible. And most to the point I’m arguing, it wouldn’t somehow violate the principles of the Mass.

Edwin

Like I said you win.

 

[Contarini]

just a comment that the preaching by my priest is excellent. He is a gifted communicator.

Much better than many of the Protestant sermons that I’ve heard which being longer are that much more tedious

I’m very glad to hear that (that your priest is an excellent preacher, not that Protestant sermons are tedious, though I’ve certainly held plenty that are).

However, what I’m getting at isn’t so much communication skill as assumptions about what a homily is supposed to do in the first place.

 

[valentino]

Many of the Catholics that leave are Catholics who were attending schools in the mid 50’s,60s,and 70s.the Catholics were given a smattering of Church teachings and all they went to Mass,confession,ect.most were just going because that was the norm and their parents were also just going through the motions.When they left school and went out into the world they were confronted with the nnon Catholic population.the colleges they attended weren’t catholic .Since they were not serious Catholics to begin with its very easy to fall away and agree with non Catholics who’s views aren’t that much different from their own.The new freedom many of them felt tempted them into abandoning their faith.

 

[JRRTFAN]

Correct. a little less than 72% of the New Testament and a little over 13% of the Old testment if you go every day for 3 years. this however does not include the Psalms so that would raise the percentage abit.

I wonder how that compares to non catholic bible coverage during the same three years?

This thread may be too old to care about further (name removed by moderator)ut, but my family eloped to the mega-church back in the mid-90’s. I have often attended their services. I have seen their pastors spin up a 40 minute sermon from as few as 8 or 10 words of de-contexted Scripture. While I will readily admit and admire anybody’s ability to accomplish such a feat, I can say without fear of contradiction, that the amount of Scripture in the Liturgy of the Word and the prayers of Mass itself simply overwhelms the amount one will hear in a Protestant communion (perhaps excepting some of the higher communions, e.g., high Anglican).

The flaw, if you will, is that our separated brethren make a much more concerted effort to study the Scripture outside of their service. I am trying to keep Catholic Scripture Study Interrnational alive in my parish and all I hear is bellyaching about how long, hard, difficult, expensive, yada yada yada it is. The fact is it is thorough and thought provoking and one has to WORK at it. So the people who want the study end up going Evangelical to get it and the next thing you know, one less Catholic family.

 

[beehumble]

Jeff Cavins’ “The Great Adventure” Bible study is great! I just finished it this semester, and I have learned so much about the Bible. He also has books such as Walking with God and I’m Not Being Fed!. These talk about how many Catholics don’t feel fulfilled by Catholicism, and why they are wrong in these feelings.

Yes, this is now on EWTN on Sunday evenings – it is GREAT!!!

**All Catholics need to watch this program!! It shows us God’s mercy, patience with us, love, understanding etc etc. Watch it, listen to Jeff Cavins, and slowly you will become fascinated and deeply in love with our God!
**
I saw one episode where he explained what a covenant is, and it was AWESOME! For example, he brought the ancient covenant right up to the present when he showed how our wedding ceremony is exactly like the ancient covenant ceremony of thousands of years ago!!!

I have my DVR set to always record allof these now! Thank you EWTN!

God bless you!

 

[Jason_L_Barnes]

I have often attended their services. I have seen their pastors spin up a 40 minute sermon from as few as 8 or 10 words of de-contexted Scripture.

I have found this to be true as well at the mega-church near me. It’s not a sermon, it’ a theatrical production! People attend for the entertainment value - big bands, stage props, stories meant to be (pseudo)parables. The last Easter service I attended at that church had a total of three sentences read from scripture. The rest was a ‘feel good message’ the pastor contrived. I noticed too that the collection basket was passed twice! I suppose the colored lighting and props don’t come cheap.

This was one of the main reasons I became Catholic. Jesus didn’t use stage props, He didn’t have to and neither should His Church.

 

[Contarini]

Like I said you win.

I’m not trying to “win,” unless “winning” means getting you to think about what I am saying in a non-defensive way.

 

[JRRTFAN]

I have found this to be true as well at the mega-church near me. It’s not a sermon, it’ a theatrical production! People attend for the entertainment value - big bands, stage props, stories meant to be (pseudo)parables. The last Easter service I attended at that church had a total of three sentences read from scripture. The rest was a ‘feel good message’ the pastor contrived. I noticed too that the collection basket was passed twice! I suppose the colored lighting and props don’t come cheap.

This was one of the main reasons I became Catholic. Jesus didn’t use stage props, He didn’t have to and neither should His Church.

I heard a local meg-pastor announce one Sunday: “We’d make Celine Dion audition if she wanted to be on the worship team.” And I agree, he puts on a show, repleat with laser light exhibitions, which is second to none.

Not much worship but a dandy peoduction!