Posted on 09/06/2009 3:50:15 PM PDT by NYer
And in a big way. A lot of you have seen the great ads produced by a group called Catholics Come Home. The ads, evidently, are working. And spreading.
From the Los Angeles Times:
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento is home to nearly 1 million Catholics. On a typical Sunday, less than 137,000 can be found in church.Curious to see what all the fuss is about? Check out the videos below. And you can find more at the Catholics Come Home link.
Now, using a strategy straight from the secular playbook, its leaders hope to lure back those who have drifted.
The diocese and nearly a dozen others across the country are preparing to air several thousand prime-time TV commercials in English and Spanish, inviting inactive Catholics to return to their religious roots.
In addition to Sacramento, dioceses in Chicago, Omaha, Providence, R.I., and four other cities will launch the “Catholics Come Home” advertising blitz during Advent, the period before Christmas.
Four more dioceses will follow during Lent next spring. Los Angeles is not among the initial group but could be part of a nationwide campaign slated for December 2010.
"I'm hoping that a significant number of people will give us another look," Sacramento Bishop Jaime Soto said of the campaign. "Many Catholics have a sense of believing but not always a sense of belonging."
The potential audience is huge.
Only about one-quarter of U.S. Catholics say they attend Mass every week, and a majority go to religious services a few times a year or less, according to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University, which conducts social science research about the Catholic church.
Researchers there also found that two-thirds of Catholics believe they can be good members of their faith without attending Mass regularly.
Inactive Catholics cite a number of reasons for their absence. Many do not believe that missing Mass is a sin, the center reported. Others say they are too busy with family or work, or, as other analysts point out, are more interested in material happiness than spiritual fulfillment.
"There is a strange pattern of people who aren't practicing but still have beliefs and pick up parts of the faith," said Mark Gray, a research associate with the center. "They may give up meat on Fridays during Lent or attend Ash Wednesday services."
Okay. I think I get it. Your contention is that our “hearing and doing” makes us family, while being his cousin doesn’t? So “equivalent” in the first post becomes more in the “replacement” territory.
I think as a general principle that’s okay.
But, if “family” and familiar terms (especially “mother” — heh heh) are used univocally then IHS acted like Mary was his mother at the cross, did He not? So he acted like “are also”, at least with respect to her. And, again, it seems pretty clear that she heard and did the Word of God, so she qualified on both counts. So the “implied exclusion” does not seem to apply with logical completeness and rigor.
In discussing this with a priest, I found that we agreed that there might be those to whom (in this life) Christ was content to remain anonymous.
That is stfassisi's infused with love muslim (or even pagan, I suppose) could by Grace be brought ( in the pagans' case, to monotheism, and then) to the realization that the only relationship with the one God worth having would be one of self-offering, one in which one places oneself and one's destiny in His hands.
So our hypothetical person might THINK only that this one God created everything. That is, in his thought, all he would consciously hold was that he was placing himself in the hands of the Creator.
But all that thinking and prayer and offering can only come from IHS who is the Truth.
I guess we're holding out that God in Christ could (and maybe even does) save those who have heard His call but do not know His name.
To be clear, I don't think 841 says ALL those who acknowledge the Creator are saved, if that's relevant.
Fading here ....
Yes, He did. And who did he act like was His brother, who was to become Mary's son?
I am not saying that Jesus replaced Mary as His mother; however, He quite explicitly - and on multiple equations - considered ALL who follow and keep His teachings the equivalent of His physical family on earth.
You and I are equals in relation to Christ as His mother! That is what Christ said.
2 things:
(1) I would LOVE some sociologist with too much time on his hands to follow how these threads ebb and flow and live and die. It fascinates me. It looks like it’s just you and me. Let’s go out for a beer or something.
(2) As I used to say in the old women’s ordination days: There’s “equal” and then there’s “same.” I guess the polarity is that equal is “same in one respect” while same is “Same in all respects.”
So — and this is not an argument, it’s more a “how I think of it, where I stand” kind of deal:
Mary is most definitely same with respect to being a creature utterly dependent upon divine grace for every good thing she has. It’s the KOZmic version of “I found you in the gutter, and I took you and molded you, and made you a star!” (My array of metaphors includes some pretty tacky ones.)
So our devotion (and Dominicans at least claim to have an intense devotion to her) is predicated on Mary NOT as she is in herself (which amounts to .... zip), but as God made her to be, which is “more glorious than the cherubim,” as the hymn says.
And the controversial dogmata are viewed as promises made to all the faithful but fulfilled in her. She IS sinless (we say); the faithful all will be sinless. She “now” lives in the heavenly courts; all the faithful will live in the heavenly courts.
Yeah, there’s a considerable “primus (prima?) inter pares” thing going on, but the “pares” is critical to our joy in the “primus”.
I think Protestants make too big a deal of the “Queen of heaven and earth and of all the saints and angels” thing. Part of this is that since the 16th century we’ve all gotten so legalistic. So when we hear “queen” we think of a kind of political authority.
But, in systems where there’s a king, the “queen mother” is queen only in honor and affection. She is not queen “in her own right” as the phrase has it. It is a “courtesy title.” And all the faithful are to be kings (and queens) and priests to God.
To me, it’s all “proleptic eschatology”. The burst of confidence and peace we get now when we contemplate the Love that IHS is and has for us, is just earnest money compared to what we can anticipate. And Mary is, for us feelthy papists, THE token of what God has for all the faithful.
I say again, this was not meant to be persuasive or argumentative, but expository.
Oh yeah, one more thing: I think what interferes with the conversation is the tendency to isolate and separate gestation and parturition as biological functions happening not in and to Mary but only in and to her body. I think this suggests an unbiblical idea of what a human is.
Never said they were the same...Sure a man of God; a preacher, a pastor can err, can and will sin...But that's not the point...
No one criticized any of your popes for not being perfect nor for being less than perfectly moral...
The point is that there is no way the Holy Spirit would commission a man to lead God's church who bought the position of leader...
I would say without any hesitation that the pope who bought his way in was not a Christian...And he certainly had no apostolic succession...
The thing you guys seem to miss or ignore is that we Christians are filled with the same Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead and the same Spirit that overshadowed Mary...
That's why we are just as blessed as Mary was...
In the church age, God sends his Spirit to those who have accepted Jesus as their Savior...
I don't believe you'll find too many examples in the NT where people received the Holy Spirit willy nilly...
YOu are making quite a leap in thinking you will find a muzlim girl who loves everyone and everything unconditionally...If she did I can't see how she would be a muzlim...
I would say he was a lousy Christian. I'd go with Augustine on this. It sounds like you go with the more perfectionist Donatus.
How do you figure?
I mean how do you figure we miss or ignore that?
Really? Not ever?
The point is that there is no way the Holy Spirit would commission a man to lead God's church who bought the position of leader...
The Holy Spirit is powerful enough to make a vicar of Christ out of a man that flawed. But the Pope is not the leader of the Catholic Church (God's Church).
Christ is the leader of the Catholic Church.
God is powerful enough to protect His Church from errors in the Deposit of Faith even with so flawed a Vicar of Christ. It is a testament to the power of the Holy Spirit.
How is not erring in matters of faith or morals equivalent or identical to enjoying personal perfection?
Never said they were the same...But that's exactly the point. Saying the Holy Spirit would not commission a man so flawed is in fact conflating them, if not equating them.
"at the saying"
"at the saying"
"at the saying",
You're trying to state that Mary was afraid of the angel. She had no reason to fear the angel - she was without sin.
The reason you keep trying to shift her fear on the angel, is because there is no reason to fear the saying, except that it carries the gravity of being declared "full of grace", which no other creature enjoyed before or since the time of Adam and Eve's fall. Once you come to accept the entirety of the verse you cited it becomes clear that your exegesis is inaccurate:
29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be.
30And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.”
Objections?
The Greek word for afraid is identical to the word used of Zechariah.
The issue isn't the word "afraid". The issue is the object of her fear. And it's not the angel, but what the angel has said.
And since we're on "the Greek", the translation you provide is simply inadequate in the translation of kecharitomene, which is not merely "favored" one. According to the New World Encyclopedia:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Immaculate_Conception
kecharitomene, is the passive voice, present perfect participle of the verb "to grace" in the feminine gender, vocative case; therefore the Greek syntax indicates that the action of the verb has been fully completed in the past, with results continuing into the future. Put another way, it means that the subject (Mary) was graced fully and completely at some time in the past, and continued in that fully graced state. The angel's salutation does not refer to the incarnation of Christ in Mary's womb, as he proceeds to say: "thou shalt conceive in thy womb…" (Luke 1:31).
“Well done!” to Mary - who was an admirable young girl and woman.
But why her? Lottery?
Really? One could also charge that the Son of God would never commission a man like Judas to be an Apostle, who would betray Him for thirty pieces of silver.
The undercurrent of what you're saying - and I don't think you realize what you're implicating - is that the Holy Spirit is not omnipotent and cannot work through even the most flawed and corrupt human beings.
Even Pilate received his power from God, according to Jesus Christ Himself. Care to object?
Exactly right. By not "perfecting" the person of the Pope, the glory goes to the Holy Spirit and not a mere mortal. A pope cannot claim omnipotence or divinity - he is merely the instrument of the Holy Spirit - and, by design, remains humble by his own personal failings.
In post 335, YOU are the one who brings up fear:
“How is this not veneration? Can you find any other instances in scripture where an archangel greets a creature in such fashion? You’ll find that in almost every instance, the creature is compelled (wrongly) to worship the angel or react in fear.”
I simply said she had fear. The fear people feel is not always involving the angel per se, but what is happening - which is also the case with Mary. But in no sense is this veneration (a feeling of awe, respect, etc.; reverence) by the angel for Mary.
I wrote: “I don’t see where the angel Gabriel treated her with veneration.”
You replied: “Is this the Wal-Mart translation? At any rate, let’s play ball. How is this not veneration? Can you find any other instances in scripture where an archangel greets a creature in such fashion? You’ll find that in almost every instance, the creature is compelled (wrongly) to worship the angel or react in fear. In this instant, there’s no overpowering of Mary by an angel. She is not compelled to worship Gabriel. In fact, she QUESTIONS Gabriel. Zecheriah questioned Gabriel and he was punished. Mary questioned Gabriel, announced that she herself would be called “blessed”, and became the Mother of Jesus. Do you not see the difference?”
You are trying to switch from claiming the angel venerated Mary to worrying about WHY Mary was afraid. That allows you to dump an unsustainable position and create a false concern. The words, “Greetings, favored one” were the cause of her feeling troubled, but not of her fear - but she had fear, since the angel then told her not to be afraid.
To repeat what the scripture says:
“28 And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” 29 But she was very perplexed at this statement, and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was. 30 The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God.”
She was “very perplexed” at the statement, but the angel goes on to tell her not to fear.
As for “full of grace”:
It never occurred to me to connect fear to ‘full of grace’, so I had ZERO theological interest in pushing some position by saying she had fear - which she did, or else the angel wouldn’t say ‘Don’t be afraid’.
“except that it carries the gravity of being declared “full of grace”, which no other creature enjoyed before or since the time of Adam and Eve’s fall.”
Acts 6: “ 8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people.” And in Ephesians 1:5-6, all Christians are described using the same word.
“And since we’re on “the Greek”, the translation you provide is simply inadequate in the translation of kecharitomene, which is not merely “favored” one. According to the New World Encyclopedia:”
Seems the NWE is wrong.
“What does the Greek say here for “highly favored one? It is the single Greek word kexaritomena and means highly favored, make accepted, make graceful, etc. It does not mean “full of grace” which is “plaras karitos” (plaras = full and karitos = Grace) in the Greek.”
That is why no translation of the Greek uses ‘full of grace’ in that verse - because the Greek doesn’t say it.
If you wish to say someone was sinless, you would have a stronger case with the parents of John the Baptist: “6 They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.”
There is an 11 page discussion of the translation of kecharitomene here:
http://www.ichthys.com/mail-Mary-full-of-grace.html
“In our case all it would mean is that Mary had received favor from God in the past and was still in His good-graces. In short, this is just a verb form, not a miracle or the representation of one.”
I believe Iscool’s point is that we are told to recognize false teachers by their fruit. If someone buys high church office, then by their very offer to do so, they condemn themselves as false teachers.
No one is perfect, so in judging how their ‘fruit’ relates to being a false teacher, the individual must listen to the Holy Spirit and decide if the fruit is bad enough to merit saying the person is a false teacher.
If buying high church office doesn’t bother you, then you can believe they were true teachers. If it does, then you need to be concerned that they were false teachers - yet allowed and condoned to hold high church office in the Catholic Church.
BTW - NYer wrote: “Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13).”
Actually, those passages were to his disciples, not a church organization. And while I have no doubt the church will prevail, I see no reason to identify the organization called the Catholic Church as the Church mentioned in the NT. Too much Catholic doctrine comes from the uninspired writings of men, and contradicts the scriptures.
Yet he insisted "No one criticized any of your popes for not being perfect nor for being less than perfectly moral..."
Frankly, I'd be more concerned with the fruits of his teaching than the fruits of his personal behavior.
Again, Jimmy Swaggert is a flawed human being, but he never taught that what he did was not sinful. Quite the opposite, actually.
No one is perfect, so in judging how their ‘fruit’ relates to being a false teacher, the individual must listen to the Holy Spirit and decide if the fruit is bad enough to merit saying the person is a false teacher.
And for the anti-Catholic bigot, that analysis involves saying "their fruit is Catholic teaching, therefore they are false."
And Satan is the father of lies.
Do not use potty language - or references to potty language - on the Religion Forum.
I daresay we cannot all be called upon to be the Mother of God, and humbly give our consent to that request, submitting ourselves to be the literal handmaiden of the Lord.
It can be similar, we can pray that He do His will with our lives, but it can never be the same.
Mary's relationship with Christ is not merely blood. It is the way she--before anyone else on earth--believed that Jesus was Christ and vowed--to an angel of the Lord--to do His will. That is the way we can all have the same relationship with Him...by committing ourselves to Him in faith and obedience as much as we can.
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.