Winning back fallen away Catholics

[Elf01]

Toy learn more about my faith. Your first comment seemed hostile to me which is why I asked you. After reading your other comments I believe you do have an open mind.

 

[JanetF]

An institution can be holy without the members being holy. Just like the constitution or a government can stand for justice even though politicians dont

Very true!

 

[setarcos]

And reasonable people will come to different conclusions, especially when the claims of evidence are not definitive.

Your are correct, and for this reason I believe religious studies are as much a test of who we are as it is of what we can definitively conclude.

The main thrust is that there are reasonable people who have done the same introspection, studied the same claims, and reached a different conclusion.

Granted this then, how is man to reach any definitive conclusions in any endeavors? Even in Science differing conclusions may be at times drawn from the data collected and when conclusions correlate to observations and experience we deem them correct. Yet we cannot get passed asking correct in what sense? We say correct within the framework in which we are working. The problems begin when we attempt to frame meaning behind human actions and statements without reference to any external data. But once we can reference external data to human action we may start to render meaning behind the human action. I believe most people who have come to differing conclusions have done so out of hubris, misunderstanding of the others position, or plain old spitefulness not because of a failure of the reasoning process.

“The generation that sees these events will not pass away until these events happen.” That’s not a prophecy, that’s a tautology. Allow me to make similar predictions:

I think your making the mistake of only considering a generation in which all these things will take place so that they will witness them. The key here is that Jesus is speaking of the last generation born which will witness the end of life as we now know it. Many generations have witnessed many of these things described and many generations have witnessed periods of relative peace and stability however Jesus speaks of an increase in the magnitude and convergence of all these things taking place together (a degree to which I don’t believe even the apostles understood) necessarily culminating in the end within a generations lifetime. Perhaps seventy years? Certainly less than a hundred. Perhaps much less.

The generation that sees the first female US president will not pass away until that generation sees the first female US president.

This is not exactly an equivalent concept to what Jesus is saying. It should be like a statement was made which claims that when a people witness the election of the first female US president then within their lifetimes they will also witness the total destruction of that country. However they can rest assured that unless this election happens first the destruction of the country will not happen.
Instead of the above it would be “Within a single generation’s time all these things will be witnessed together on a magnitude not seen before and then will come the end.”

 

[setarcos]

I’m sure your aware of the multitude of accusations levied against the Roman Church…some of which even the Pope has formally apologized for. I’m also sure your aware of the many excuses that have been presented by its leadership in order to justify these things. If you would like to discuss a few…behaviors- the handling of clergy sexual abuse by the Magisterium not to mention the infighting, backstabbing and political maneuvering taking place behind the scenes, practices- the initiation of the inquisition and some of the crusades, indulgences (I never understood this practice, too close to a worldly practice for me, I’m willing to be enlightened though), the exploitation of a Mythos of Mary, assertions- the claim that the early church was in universal agreement and recognition of a sole leader as presented by the current Catholic hierarchy, the Marian dogmas, the defining application of the trinity to God…there are many more but for practical reasons these are sufficient as examples.
Keep in mind, the first thing I do is pour over the catechism and related Catholic doctrine so I am more interested in what your understanding is on these matters since I assume you are basing your belief in the Catholic church on what you understand about her.
May God bless you in all your efforts.

 

[setarcos]

Ah yes, the ole assertion that yes the Church has erred but you cant fault the church proper for the fallibility of some of her members. What if some of those members include the Magisterium? The very people who are tasked with handing down and properly interpreting Gods will. How is it that one at the same time accepts the infallible teachings from them and also see’s the fallible behaviors and actions that they’ve perpetrated? How can we ensure the one in light of the other since the source of both is filtered through the same individual? If you say that we can be comforted because the holy spirit speaks through them infallibly when necessary, I ask how do you know? If its because scripture has said so then what need of you for them since you yourself have interpreted scripture correctly, if you say its because they have infallibly interpreted scripture to mean this then you’ve simply circled back to my original question. If you say scholars have shown this is true then I say again what need of them if a good scholar can reason to a proper conclusion? I feel that behavior trumps supernatural claims. If a person behaves badly in a position of leadership that person is untrustworthy and should be removed or should never have been tasked with leadership to begin with. I say Jesus’s message to mankind is so much simpler than the intellectuals and elites have made it out to be that the average individual can reason to an understanding of what is requested of them in order that they be saved. God help me if I’m wrong of course but I see Jesus talking to me, not above me and those things that are above me I don’t see him asking me to be concerned about them.

 

[setarcos]

I don’t know if you can say religion itself is in a “declining position of relevance to humanity”. It depends on which humanity you are studying and where and what religion you are talking about.

I cannot make a definitive argument either way since I haven’t studied any statistical analysis on such things. Generally speaking however having come across articles here and there I’ve gotten the impression that the potential problems you are describing are endemic to religions across the board. And so it goes. Scripture has said the love of many will grow cold precipitating a spread of religious irrelevance.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Given that the early Church was a tiny handful of people with no political power and very little money who kept getting murdered in horrible ways over and over, I can’t say as I care much about whether religion is considered relevant or irrelevant, except to feel bad for people who close their minds to it when they could be benefiting from a special relationship with Jesus.

I also have liked plenty of bands that barely got 5 people to come out to the show, so life is not about doing popular things for me, it’s about doing things I think are the right things.

 

[setarcos]

I beg to differ, see my previous post with this poster. Perhaps you can show me where I’m mistaken.

 

[setarcos]

Yes. That’s the hardest thing a person can undertake and the truest test of sincerity. I think Jesus would rather a person be wrong but sincere than right, not because they are sincere but because they see it as the popular thing to do at the time.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Granted this then, how is man to reach any definitive conclusions in any endeavors? Even in Science differing conclusions may be at times drawn from the data collected and when conclusions correlate to observations and experience we deem them correct.

Everything we experience, we study, we are told about are things we gauge its veracity. In general we need to be skeptical of any claims made. What can break that skepticism in a particular case is strong counterevidence. You mentioned science, and because science by its nature requires demonstrating how it reaches its conclusions it definitely carries more weight in an argument than something that can’t come close to being proven or disproven.

Yet we cannot get passed asking correct in what sense? We say correct within the framework in which we are working. The problems begin when we attempt to frame meaning behind human actions and statements without reference to any external data.

We’re not talking about “meaning” but what is and is not true. Meaning is a buzzword often used by some to claim worth for an argument that can’t pass muster in the slightest. As I noted in a previous post religions in general are both unprovable and unfalsifiable, and that can mean a few things including:

1. Accept this fact, which in turn would mean accepting that different people will fall to different positions on the deity/deities questions, or
2. Attempt to undercut the “no deity” position by claiming that it lacks “meaning”. This requires not only ignoring that those who doubt the presence of a deity find meaning in their existences, but it also to admit that any absolutely crazy religion that Christians and non-believers thing is untrue somehow can claim “meaning” just it proposes its one or more deities created life as we know it.

But once we can reference external data to human action we may start to render meaning behind the human action. I believe most people who have come to differing conclusions have done so out of hubris, misunderstanding of the others position, or plain old spitefulness not because of a failure of the reasoning process.

I will get back to this point later in the post.

I think your making the mistake of only considering a generation in which all these things will take place so that they will witness them. The key here is that Jesus is speaking of the last generation born which will witness the end of life as we now know it.

Again, that’s a tautology. I predict the last humans will be the ones experience the end of humanity. I predict that the last badgers to exist before they go extinct will not pass away until badgers go extinct.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Many generations have witnessed many of these things described and many generations have witnessed periods of relative peace and stability however Jesus speaks of an increase in the magnitude and convergence of all these things taking place together (a degree to which I don’t believe even the apostles understood) necessarily culminating in the end within a generations lifetime.

Let’s take a look at what Jesus predicted. There would be wars and rumors of wars. That’s not so much a prophecy as it is the easiest guess possible. He might as well have predicting nitrogen in the air. He talks of persecution, Again, that’s not much of a prediction. Then we have things like famine, earthquakes, and fearful events. And you’re right that these are things that the Apostles would have experienced at various points (again because they were bound to happen in the future). The key points are what is supposed to happen right before his return: "“the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken”. Jesus makes sure to separate these events from the others because they are so monumental, so apocalyptic.

Instead of the above it would be “Within a single generation’s time all these things will be witnessed together on a magnitude not seen before and then will come the end.”

Imagine you were one of the Apostles. Not only did you hear the Olivet Discourse, but you heard when Jesus said “When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” You heard when Jesus spoke to Caiaphas and told him that he would see him coming in the clouds. You heard the time when Jesus said some of them would not taste death before seeing Jesus returning to power. With all that are more when you hear Jesus say that this generation will not pass away would you assume that he’s talking about this generation or about a future generation. It’s only after the prophecy failed that it was reimagined by Preterists and Futurists to mean something it doesn’t say.

What good is a prophecy that:

1. is impossible to tell whether it was fulfilled or not?
2. is impossible to tell what it would take for it to be fulfilled?
3. is impossible to tell if it failed? (I.e. it’s not falsifiable)
4. has no limit to which its proponent will reinterpret the words to keep it from being declared false?

You talked about hubris, but hubris is claiming that an unfounded presupposition is the only logical interpretation to what words mean, even though they’re 180 degrees from what they actually say? You talked about failure of the reasoning process even though it’s not reasoning, but working from a desired conclusion and then working backwards.

To bring this back to the topic at hand, what does it take to win back fallen away Catholics? Have better arguments.

 

[josethekke]

I think winning back fallen away catholics is not easy as the attitude and priorities of
People attending church changed earlier days after mass parishioners freely migle with one another now everybody will be in hurry to go so no fellowship between fellow catholic. Due to some reason I am attending church in another country I failed to get aquaintenc with even one person

 

[Bre6785]

Actually, I’m pretty sure Jesus was talking about 2 different instances when he said it would happen in their generation. One was his final (or second coming) at the end of time, and the other instance, which would come in their generation, was the destruction of the temple. Which did come in that generation ( seige of Jerusalem in 70ad)

 

[Bre6785]

Have you ever heard of typology? Or, the new concealed in the old, and the old revealed in the new?

 

[Bre6785]

This is how we know the Catholic church is the fullness of truth. It is the old revealed in the new. It’s difficult to understand one without the other. If you are truly searching, look dr Scott Hahn up on you tube. Search for Scott Hahn, hail holy queen. I know as a non denomination you probably find that title blasphemous, but please watch it. He speaks only on scripture. This will give you an idea of how a Catholic can say the church is based on scripture!!! I’m a cradle Catholic and I was amazed!

 

[setarcos]

I understand how you feel. Sadly as we prioritize ourselves to other obligations more and more people fail to recognize their own spiritual brothers and sisters resulting in isolating ourselves from communing with charity towards each other. More people are robotically attempting to fulfill what they see as an obligation towards God without grasping the spirit of Jesus’s messages to humanity.

 

[setarcos]

Yes. I’m not a fan since there is usually not a one to one correspondence which renders the typology explicit beyond personal inclinations. It would seem, in most of the cases I have come across in which people tout biblical typologies there is a lot of “cherry picking” going on in order to exploit some similarities despite other equally weighty dissimilarities in promotion of a particular preferred philosophy. It seems like its as if a sloppy author after changing the plot in the last half of the book went back and piecemealed scenes back into the story in order to explain the new plot. Its not perfect but if you ignore some things it works.

 

[setarcos]

I’m familiar with Dr. Scott Hahn. I am familiar with his work “Hail, Holy Queen: Mother of God…”. I’m sure you can guess- I disagree with most of it. He doesn’t do a very good job of discussion alternative interpretations and opinions. To someone who has already accepted the conception of Mary that the Roman Church promotes though he does quite well. Have you read the book? Perhaps you’d like to discuss it with me. You might be able to enlighten me on some things.

 

[Bre6785]

I guessI’m simply confused by your response. Do you see and agree with the topology lots of non denominational pastors/bible teachers use (as I have personally witnessed) to pre figure Jesus?

 

[Bre6785]

If you do not see the pre figuring of Christ in the old, how does he make sense in the new?