Strategies for Returning to the [Catholic] Church

Our world is a fallen world. The effects of sin seem to be suffocating us. The diabolical is running rampant, unleashed, playing with immortal souls as if puppets on a string. Pride continues to dominate; repentance for anything is deemed archaic, of little use to today’s enlightened thinking.

Certainly this is not the positive language one wants to hear at the outset of a new year, when expectations and resolutions are running high. But all is not really so dire: the diabolical and pervasive sin has not crushed the divine light. “My Immaculate Heart will triumph,” promises the Lady of Fatima. There is a reason the Church opens a new year honoring the Mother of God: obedience to accepting one’s mission in life is the most daunting — and exciting — prospect we face on this earth. We have a guidebook in how to do it through Mary’s fiat.

Perhaps over holiday festivities and the euphoria — and stress — of families coming together, some readers might have encountered resistance from relatives regarding the graces offered in entering the mystery of faith during this holy season. Whether it was avoidance from some in either attending Christmas Mass or praying before a Christmas dinner, such discomforts surely existed. While certainly everyone is different, with their own freedom and right to privacy, perhaps there are some of you readers whose own children—raised in the Catholic faith you so diligently sought to instill in them — want nothing to do with it anymore. It is to this element I wish to address.

In my own experience, generally speaking, I have found degrees of toleration from lapsed or non-Catholics regarding matters of the faith — they know the Catholic Church continues to play an enormous part in global affairs while recalling their own experiences either through schooling or parish life. I have found that while the pervading motif of the millennial generation is a general shunning towards organized religion and regular church attendance, there yet remains a desire for an experience of the transcendent. And that desire is the silver lining.

Unfortunately, committed Catholics are not always quite the fearless galvanized evangelizers that each one is called to be. Marveling that St. Francis de Sales converted 40,000 is usually met with a shrug: “Well, that’s why he’s a saint.” But that’s the precisely the mentality that needs to change.

A Jesuit once posed in a homily, “Listen to conversations. How long does it take before God is ever mentioned?” Out of not wanting to create controversy, God is never mentioned. When he is, or when the Church is mentioned, Catholics are immediately put on the defensive. We can stay silent, letting the Uber driver, for example, have his say about the occultish practice of Catholics (as I experienced recently), or we can defend Holy Mother Church, as we would defend our own mother, and begin a conversation. The faith is not part of the pie of life. It is the pie.

I have come to believe that, in this era, accommodation will not work. Appeasing the culture may seem like a conciliatory gesture, but those on the opposite side most probably will not respect such compromise—even if they do not agree with the position in question. In reading Paul Kengor’s new book, A Pope and a President, on President Reagan and Pope St. John Paul II’s battles against communism, the consistency in the Church’s long running condemnation of communism as far back as Pius IX is impressive. The Church may have apologized for grievous actions throughout its long history, but it has never apologized for being magnificent.

So, how to engage your lapsed love one on returning to the Church? After all, that is our sole duty—to grow into our authentic selves, made in the image of God, and safeguard our immortal souls and those of others towards eternal life. Remembering we can only extend an invitation, a proposal, respecting the freedom of others, here are some strategies:

I: Know Thyself

Be yourself a model of virtue.

Live the Gospel, avoiding hypocrisy, condemnation of others, descent into pettiness. If you consider yourself a Catholic first and desire others to feel that same zeal, your example is the best model. Just like Mary.

Avoid “preaching.”

Respectfully engage in conversation in whatever topic arises. Listen to the other person. Avoid shouting or screaming. Do not let a discussion become an argument or a fight. But know the teachings rather than relying on your own emotions in the heat of the moment.

Pray constantly (1 Thessalonians 5:16).

Read Scripture daily, particularly the Gospels, alone or with family. Have the Catechism handy. Always be reading a spiritual work. Your own edification will inevitably seep into your own worldview. Petition the Trinity for guidance. Ask saints for intercession. Call on the Blessed Mother multiple times a day.

Know your own spiritual story.

What were the integral moments for you in your faith formation? Where did God reveal Himself? Write your own spiritual autobiography in a way that you find creative and inspiring. “Know thyself” is not just an ancient Greek saying. It’s vital to one’s own development.

“Pray the Mass,” as St. Pius X instructs.

Throw your fears and pains onto the altar. Bow your head at the Consecration; respect the Real Presence of Jesus Christ.

II: Extend an Invitation

Know the story of your lapsed child or loved one.

“Communication is simply mutual understanding,” says Stephen R. Covey. You have to care about who they are, where they’ve been, and where they want to go — while you are called to evangelize, you cannot treat them as an agenda, a project. In this way, study Ignatian spirituality for insight on the discernment of spirits. You are always an unofficial spiritual director to someone!

Find common ground.

There are many launching points one can meet due to the richness of the Catholic faith. Unfortunately, many lapsed Catholics have a distorted or misinformed view of the faith, just as many in the Protestant and evangelical world have a Reformation-era concept of the papacy. Much time may be spent on clearing the cobwebs on the reality of the Catholic Church today. Yes, corruption and scandal and atrocities have weakened the moral authority of the Church. But there is a difference between human failings and the Church as founded by Christ handed to Saint Peter (Matthew 16:18). That needs to be made clear. (See Joseph Ratzinger, “Why I Am Still in the Church.”)

Nurture their interests.

“For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Luke 12:34). Getting to know your loved one authentically and establishing common ground will offer new avenues of appreciation. Are they artists, musicians, poets, writers? Michelangelo, Gaudi, chant, or the great classics of literature offer beautiful immersive experiences in the Catholic worldview.

Pope Francis has been an inspiration for those of any background, through his environment work, Laudato Si, or his call for activism towards migrants, refugees, the disenfranchised.

Connect them with possibly like minded individuals who might continue the conversation, depending on their interests: educators, bioethicists, Father Spitzer’s Magis Institute on science, faith, and reason. Historical subjects on the veracity of Jesus: the Shroud of Turin, for example (see Ian Wilson’s The Shroud, among others).

Give your lapsed child or loved one Matthew Kelly’s Rediscover Catholicism or a similar book that perhaps impacted you. Rediscover appeals to the mainstream, ringing distant bells they would have remembered growing up Catholic. In many ways, that book is an appetizer to what awaits.

Bottom line: communicate the resources provided by so many apostolates—there is something for everyone. Many of those actively engaged in the mission of salvation, the mission of the Church, were once lapsed themselves. Just ask St. Augustine, Dorothy Day, or many great evangelizers in our day and age.

Invite your lapsed child or loved one to Confession.

It’s a challenging invitation. But you’ve at least put it out there. At the same time, do not let the graces of Confession become distorted. While one receives absolution, authentic penance comes when one’s life is turned around. So often the thought is that a few “Hail Marys” and “Our Fathers” is all the Church demands for conciliation. Actually, one must authentically set out determined to begin anew, a new person, transformed. Vinny Flynn’s 7 Secrets of Confession is a powerful little book for guidance.

Extend an invitation to Mass.

Bring an extra copy of Magnificat or a book with daily readings and give your loved one a copy. Sit up close. And then pray the Mass. Together.

**Give your loved one Benedict XVI’s Jesus of Nazareth.**

Along with the timelessness of the Scriptures themselves, this trilogy is written for people of our time to rediscover Christ. It is some of the most staggering spiritual reading you will encounter.

III: Going Forward

Three very simple, practical steps:

1.) Offer help in introducing your loved one to parish resources in their diocese, again contingent on their own discernment of spirits, perhaps even establishing a regular meeting with a spiritual director.
2.) In a quiet moment, offer to pray with them, calling specifically on the Holy Family for guidance.
3.) Finally, ask them to pray for you.

Happy New Year!

Regardless “Cephas” doesn’t mean “little stone”, or “pebble” thus providing the proper context to the exchange in Matt 16.

The meaning of the word is not dependent on the context.

It's dependent on the GRAMMAR.

In other words if anyone can show me the phrase “little stone” or the word “pebble” in any respected definition of the word “Cephas” then I’ll think differently.

Aside from the fact that the word *petros* grammatically means *little rock* or *pebble*, despite how it's translated into English, the word *petra* is CLEARLY identified as JESUS in the Greek, not Peter.

I guess you missed this the first time:

Matthew 16:18 - http://bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm

Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.

Greek: 4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros (”small stone”) then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra (”cliff, boulder,” Abbott-Smith).

“4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff” (TDNT, 3, 100). “4074 (Pétros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (pétra), a projecting rock, cliff” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).

4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – “a mass of connected rock,” which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is “a detached stone or boulder” (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a “solid or native rock, rising up through the earth” (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.

4073 (petra) is “a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).

It’s also a strange way to word the sentence that He would call Peter a rock and say that on this I will build my church instead of *on you* as would be grammatically correct in talking to a person.

There is no support from the original Greek that Peter was to be the rock on which Jesus said he would build His church. The nouns are not the same, one being masculine and the other being feminine. They denote different objects.

Also, here, Paul identifies who petra is, and that is Christ. This link takes you to the Greek.

http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/10-4.htm

1 Corinthians 10:1-4 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock (petra) that followed them, and the Rock (petra) was Christ.

http://biblehub.com/text/romans/9-33.htm

Romans 9:30-33 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

http://biblehub.com/text/1_peter/2-8.htm

1 Peter 2:1-8 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.

As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,

“The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,”

and

“A stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense.”

They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

All occurrences of *petra* in the Greek.

http://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_4073.htm

Why don't you guys 'believe' what your own ECFs have written [about the matter of Peter]??

First, one point that seems to be glossed over here is that the ECF's you quoted are clearly not disputing the fact that Jesus is "building a church". I implore you or anyone reading this to dwell on that point a minute. His church is going to be built on something, and that "something" is not just Jesus Christ. That's clear even from what you quoted. Even if it's going to be built on just Peter's confession (and not also on Peter the man, more on that in a minute), Peter's confession is not Jesus. So let that sink in for a second. Jesus is building His church on something more than just Himself.

Secondly, more focused on the point of "Peter's confession" as the basis of the Church's construction: the Catholic Catechism itself says this as I've seen, if not you, at least someone else on these threads point out. Now I would think someone who at least wishes to think of himself as "thoughtful" would wonder: "Why did the Catholic Church do this in their catechism? I thought that Peter was the foundation of their Church, not his confession? Are Catholics crazy?"

That should be the first question but one shouldn't stop there, again if one wishes to think of oneself as "thoughtful". Or at least "intelligent". One should then go to where the Catechism speaks of this matter and see what is said, that would be a good starting place, again, to the thoughtful person.

CCC 555, in part reads, "...Christ, the "living Stone", thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church...." (emphasis added).

So we can see how this notion (of building the church on Peter's confession, as the ECF's you quote below talk about) and the notion of building it on Peter himself are not contradictory. In fact they are complementary. Again, "because of the faith he confessed", Peter himself is the "rock" (or "stone" if you prefer) that Christ builds his Church upon. Both the confession and Peter himself are this "stone", but not that one can separate the confession from the man, as if they are two separate entities. Indeed one (the confession) comes from the other (the man). So to say that Jesus builds His Church on a confession is to say, at least by implication, that it is also built on that same man who issued the confession. It's not "either/or", it's "both/and."

Thirdly, there are other fathers who clearly talk about how Peter (the man) is the foundation Christ chose. "With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).", that's from Cyprian, but there are others here.

I suppose a cynical person may say "so the Catholics pick and choose which ECF to listen to and when, just to fit their agenda". Such cynicism would ignore the point made above that, at least on this matter, the ECF's describe two faces of the same coin so to speak, not that they contradict each other. But also, it would be truly cynicism to say such a thing, to claim it's just "fitting an agenda" to "pick and choose" quotes, because the same could be said of the Protestant's use of ECF quotes.

This actually demonstrates yet again the need for an authoritative body, a teaching authority (itself led by the Holy Spirit), to keep us on track, to remind and inform us of what the true authentic teaching was and is. Or else anyone can claim anything they want about the ECF's (just like can be done with Scripture).

Really?

READ what is in your book![ regarding who Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to]!

I must admit this is an inventive way of reading the passage in question. That's perhaps the most charitable assessment I can make of this argument.

As you correctly state, there are no chapters and verses in the "originals" (really copies of course but that's an irrelevant point here). So let's place ourselves in this scene, by imagining ourselves as witnesses to this exchange between Jesus and His apostles. A good practice by the way the Church encourages (it's called "lectio divina", reading Scripture, and meditating on it, with the expectation that we are dialoging with God and wish to hear what He has to say). So let's do that.

Imagine the scene. Jesus, at a certain point when He entered the region took an opportunity to ask his disciples, (all of them present), "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" So He's talking to all of them at this point.

Then they all respond with various (incorrect) answers, and so He asks them all again, "Who do you say I am" meaning the entire group, who do they say He is.

At this point they all fall silent, because probably no one wants to look the fool. But at a certain point, Peter speaks up ("impulsively" as you say, rather amusingly, because this "impulse" of Peter clearly comes from God the Holy Spirit Himself), but he speaks up and says "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God".

At this point, when I've read this passage, I always imagine Peter shouting this sentence at the top of his voice, as He is moved by the Holy Spirit in a profound way.

At any rate, we've now reached the critical juncture of the exchange, the point you say He then continued to speak to everyone, but Catholics say He only spoke to Peter.

I would only submit the following in reply to such a claim: Imagine again the scene. If someone asks a group a question, and then that group falls silent, for a time however long doesn't matter, but then one person in that group speaks up to answer the question what is the natural, human way such an interaction would proceed?

Would the questioner (here Jesus) then continue to address only the group, or would such a questioner (He) then start to address the only person who had spoken up?

I submit the latter is the natural, human progression of such an interaction. Think about a business meeting or any other kind of meeting between human beings (of which Christ is one). When the group reaches an impasse, but then one of the group speaks up with an idea or suggestion, what is the natural tendency of everyone else in that group at that point? To address the group again, or to address the person who spoke up?

It's to address the person who spoke up. That's just plainly evident to anyone who has ever had interaction in a group setting. You reply to someone who spoke up, not to the group again, even if your question was to the group originally, if at least the one who spoke up was correct or had a good idea, as Peter was correct. So the natural tendency would have been for Christ to then address only Peter at that point, since he was correct in what he said, and also what he said was very profound, very important, and thus deserving of some recognition. Such recognition is even recorded in verse 17.

If the entirety of the above is not convincing, then at least consider the next facts. One, in verse 17-18, we clearly have Jesus addressing only Peter. So are we to believe He addressed only Peter in verses 17-18, but then went back to addressing the group as a whole in verse 19? I submit that makes no sense, given the natural human tendencies as described above but more importantly in the Greek the "you" in verse 17-18 is the same "you" (same tense) as verse 19, the singular. Secondly, that throughout history at least, up until the "Reformation", no one ever denied that at this point, verse 19, Jesus was addressing Peter and Peter alone, not the group. But again, as I pointed out in my previous post, this shows yet again a need for a divinely led teaching authority, or else everyone's personal opinion is what rules instead of the truth.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Strategies for Returning to the Church