Posted on 05/07/2012 2:39:34 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Although the sinless life of Jesus Christ is a foundational tenet of the Christian faith, a study recently released by the Diocese of Camden found that 60 percent of practicing Catholics in southern New Jersey believe Jesus sinned during his time on Earth.
"The number of Catholics who have a very flawed, a seriously flawed, understanding of who Jesus is, that's troublesome," Bishop Joseph Galante of the Diocese of Camden said during a press conference, USA Today reports. "We've got to re-focus on how we teach and inform people. Jesus is the foundation of who we are as Catholics."
The study was commissioned by the diocese with the hope that the results would help it to better evangelize the communities it serves. The study was conducted by the Barna Group, a Ventura, Calif.-based research organization, which surveyed 612 adults living in the six New Jersey counties within the diocese.
Of those surveyed, 34 percent identified themselves as Catholic, but there are some discrepancies between what the church teaches and what some of them believe.
For example, the study showed that four out of ten of these Catholics disagree with the idea that sex should be reserved solely for marriage. While 38 percent of the total residents living within the Camden Diocese agree strongly with the idea that the Bible is "totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches," only 28 percent of Catholics in the diocese believe the same.
Another major issue Galante discussed during the press conference was the high number of Catholics in his diocese who simply don't attend Mass. One-third of lapsed Catholics said they have other priorities or are too busy to attend, while others said they just aren't interested in church (27 percent).
"What intrigued me in particular was the high number of people who don't attend Mass simply because they have other priorities," said Galante.
"One of the things we need to do is emphasize that worship time can also be part of family time as well. These findings are both troubling and a challenge as we begin to deepen our evangelization efforts."
Peter Feuerherd, director of communications for the Diocese of Camden, told The Christian Post on Monday that another thing that struck him from the study was the low percentage of Catholics who invite others to church. The study found that Catholics (33 percent) were half as likely as Protestants (66 percent) to invite someone to visit their church.
"I find that the 'ask' is so important, and Catholics are not in the habit of the 'ask.' Even our parishes are not in the habit of the ask," said Feuerherd.
He also indicated that a major issue all churches have to deal with is the tendency for people to want to always be productive in the American culture. Those who don't take time off from work on the weekends are honored in our society, he says, and other "distractions" like youth sporting events and various forms of entertainment can sometimes take away from church attendance.
"I think we have lost ... the idea that whatever that Sabbath day is, it is valuable. It's important that people have it," he said.
Other interesting findings from the study:
-Of the Catholics surveyed, 38 percent favor attending church only on holidays.
-Among all of the adults surveyed, 51 percent said churches are "too involved" in opposing abortion or same-sex marriage.
-Nine out of ten (89 percent) adults said they know about the clergy abuse scandals that have occurred within the Catholic Church. Among those who are aware of the scandals, 89 percent consider it a "major issue."
-Only 18 percent of Catholics strongly agree that it is their personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs with others, as compared to 40 percent of Protestants and 36 percent of people who believe in non-Christian faiths.
"Thomas Aquinas."
Does this god know he was defined by this man, Aquinas?
No, prayer and housework aren’t mutually exclusive.
But can you imagine doing housework while the Messiah was actually in your house, teaching your sister?
No, of course not.
I believe our Lord appreciated Martha’s efforts, but wanted her to get her priorities straight.
It’s not a debate. Jesus said one was better than the other.
Jesus loved Martha.
Another journalist picking on Catholics.
How many Methodists, Episcopalians, etc. think Christ sinned.
Catholics know that Christ did NOT sin.
“Ignorance of Scripture is an Ignorance of Christ.” St. Jerome
He did indeed!
Jesus sinned when he drove a herd of someone else’s swine off a cliff without recompense, and when he encouraged eating without hand-washing.
he’s God. He can pretty much do what he wants.
Only man can sin.
Like substantive discussions involving law and science, theology requires a knowledge and understanding of some basic Latin terms in order to precisely express ideas and concepts. It saves the embarrassment of trying to argue vagaries and error.
Ipsissima verba Scriptura literally means the exact words of Scripture. Ipsissima vox Deus literally means the exact voice or meaning of God. I used these two terms because there is clearly a difference between them absent a teaching authority to infallibly interpret Scripture.
Anyone frequenting these threads can clearly see that many who as you contend read Scripture have no clue as to what it means and rely on self interpretation to try to arrive at God's meaning. There is ample evidence that those whose religious training is limited to reading Scripture (as opposed to studying Scripture) are nowhere near as familiar as those religiously educated in the traditional Catechism and methodology established before widespread literacy or availability of vernacular bibles. There is certainly ample evidence that, if we use the new Decalogue (the Two Greatest Commandments and the eight Beatitudes) as a standard it more often than not produces less joyful, loving and forgiving Christians.
If you have access to a dictionary look up "omniscient". If you are serious read the Summa Theologica in which St. Thomas Aquinas stated; "That is perfect, which lacks nothing of the perfection proper to it.". If you are simply a knee-jerk anti-Catholic prefer a less Catholic source I would direct you to John Wesley, founder of Methodism, whose doctrines are largely founded on this definition.
"If you have access to a dictionary look up "omniscient".
Is this man Aquinas omniscient, or is the god he defined omniscient?
"If you are serious read the Summa Theologica in which St. Thomas Aquinas stated; "That is perfect, which lacks nothing of the perfection proper to it."."
Is that circular and arbitrary declaration typical of what's contained in that book?
"If you are simply a knee-jerk anti-Catholic prefer a less Catholic source I would direct you to John Wesley, founder of Methodism, whose doctrines are largely founded on this definition."
What definition, the god? Why do you think I would care for, or about any doctrine, which is based on a defined god.
Not according to the Diocese of Camden. According to the study they commissioned and released, 60% believe Christ sinned. These are folks the Diocese counts as Catholic. From the article:
" a study recently released by the Diocese of Camden found that 60 percent of practicing Catholics in southern New Jersey believe Jesus sinned during his time on Earth."
Shameful. I suppose this is all part of the Diocesan anti-Catholic program run by Bishop Galante.
"Another journalist picking on Catholics.
The journalist is recounting a Diocesan operation, it's results and the Bishop's comments on it.
"How many Methodists, Episcopalians, etc. think Christ sinned."
Irrelevant. The Bishop's interest is in what the members of his flock think and do. That's why he commisioned the study with the given limit.
“An acquaintance once told me that he lost his faith after watching the first Dan brown movie.”
It is more likely that he needed to rationalize abandoning his faith years before; that is what I find when dealing with people like that. When the homosexual scandal was in the news every day ten years ago, I had people who hadn’t been to Mass in 20 years tell me this was why; it was a convenient excuse for people looking to explain their lack of any faith at all.
No, mine was in fact the original dictation, interpreted for and explained to me personally by His Holy Spirit, so that I may better know Him... just inasmuch as He promised it would be in His perfect, unerring Word.
Now, care to address the plank in your own eye? Jesus actually suggested that you should do that first. Try to remember, He died for you, too, and He loves both of us more than He loved even His own Life.
<*))))>{
Ummm, I'm pretty sure that was Satan's demons (running scared) who ran them off the cliff...
"...without recompense..."
Seriously? And just how much more do you think Jesus should have paid? Interesting take you have there. For what shall it profit a man, if he should gain the whole world, but forfeit his soul?
You got some 'splainin to do, Lucy...
;^\
Ummm, I'm pretty sure that was Satan's demons (running scared) who ran them off the cliff...
"...without recompense..."
Seriously? And just how much more do you think Jesus should have paid? Interesting take you have there. For what shall it profit a man, if he should gain the whole world, but forfeit his soul?
You got some 'splainin to do, Lucy...
;^\
Maybe a little less “Social Justice” preaching from the altar and a little more Hell, Sin and Damnation might help. I was born and raised in south jersey and most of the sermons were bland talking points from the democrat party. Sad but true.
For a minute I forgot I was on FR and thought I had taken a wrong turn into the "other denominations" forum at catholic answers dot com
RE: There is a reason she was conceived without original sin.
Can you cite scripture for that please?
RE: How many Methodists, Episcopalians, etc. think Christ sinned.
We’ll just have to wait for another study for that.
The children of Catholics are not properly taught. Catechism was handed over in many or most parishes to dissident nuns and ignorant laymen, who were themselves never properly taught. What else can you expect, after more than 50 years of such negligence?
Catholic schools, catechism classes in parishes, and bishops’ staffs are still loaded down with ignorant or even malignant teachers. The majority of nuns in the country are dissident, and often one of them is still in charge of the parish’s catechetical effort.
Before Vatican II, there was a standard catechism that worked very well. That was thrown out. Eventually, “The Catechism of the Catholic Church” replaced it, but very few people actually use or consult it. Instead, we continue to have watered down and sometimes dissident texts.
And how many priests these days preach sermons that actually educate their parishioners in the truth of their religion? There are a few, but they are pretty scarce.
Actually, not true. There are three readings from the Bible every Sunday, and parts of the Mass are also taken from the Bible. And most parishes have voluntary Bible study classes.
The problem is dissident priests, nuns, and religious teachers who fail to explain the Bible properly after it is read.
Why? If it’s not in scripture, it’s not so? I suppose you’re not Catholic, so was never taught about the Immaculate Conception. Would it not make sense that the body and soul that carried Our Lord should not be perfect and free of all sin, including original? If you prefer to believe that she had sin on her soul, go ahead. I was taught differently, and I believe what I was taught.
Sadly, that flawed understanding is a direct result of 40 years of happy, clappy religious education, that focused on peace and love, and not much on Scripture and the life and teachings of Jesus.
Nah, they could easily educate themselves on Church teaching by picking up a copy of the new Catechism. It's very readable, has a great index for when one has a question about the Faith, and is chock FULL of the Scripture on which Church teachings are based.
Evidently they are not picking up the new version you mentioned and are too busy being liberal democrats.
"Christians" DO believe that Jesus is God!
Bingo. One of the issues is the concept "their parents will teach them". Great concept but with the major flaw of "What if they don't?" Some of the best and most solid members I know were the children of the lapsed and those who never were members. Why? Because when they have kids they send their kids to Sunday School with the vague idea that it will be good for them. And it is free babysitting for a few hours.
We send a bus around every Sunday to pick up kids who's parents do not attend. Some times they bring their little friends as well. And in Sunday School they get taught.
Not sweet generalities but the foundations of our faith.
Some of them don't stick. But a lot of them do. Sometimes their parents come to see what all the fuss is about. Sometimes they even stay.
But it starts with the children. Yes we do have people the convert in their 20's all the way up to their late 90's. Still if your children don't know what they believe or why they believe it they are not going to stay. So for those who's parents teach them you reinforce their teaching. For those who have no teaching from their parents, teach them as well.
Yes, I agree.
Count me a one of the less than half Catholics from South Jersey that believe Jesus was sinless.
MARKED FOR READING
Who and what is Jeff Schapiro?
RE: Who and what is Jeff Schapiro?
It says on the web page : By Jeff Schapiro , Christian Post Reporter
With all due respect it cannot be so if Scripture contradicts it — as it does clearly in many places (Romans 3:23, among others states clearly that ALL have sinned; Romans 3:10 - There is none righteous; no not one...” and that would include Mary). The difficulty is trying to make sense out of something using our own faulty human reasoning. We are bound to fail and twist Scriptures to say what they do not in the process. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts; neither are your ways My ways” (Isaiah 55:8)
You gotta understand, for people like murron, scripture has to be interpreted ACCORDING TO HOW THE VATICAN TELLS THEM TO.
He/she isn’t allowed to interpret it himself/herself.
There, fixed it for you.
Fine. You have your beliefs, and I have mine. I didn’t make comments on this thread to be “educated” by non-Catholics. I am very firm in my beliefs and the Blessed Mother is the Immaculate Conception as She told the children of Fatima, which I’m sure you don’t believe in as well. You can quote Scripture all day long, but I have learned through the years, anyone can interpret Scripture anyway they want to, so don’t waste your time on me.
Another hostile Non-Catholic who does not respect the religious beliefs of others. Why is your interpretation of the Bible more believable than the Vatican’s? Did God speak to you directly and tell you that you have been chosen to “educate” others and that you are more knowledgable? It seems that you have assumed a power that you don’t have. I have encountered many non-Catholics who seem so frightened by the Catholic Church that it has become a quest to prove her folllowers wrong. Good luck trying. The Church has been around over 2000 years and it will take more than those outside of the Church to bring Her down.
I tried to be very gracious in my response to you, but you are obviously very hostile about the truth. I’m sorry for that, but there really is no “interpretation” involved. Scripture says what it says. It’s got nothing to do with “your belief” versus “my belief”, or defending your denomination against any other. Scripture speaks for itself regardless of what one might want to believe. (I can choose to believe the world is flat, but that doesn’t make it so if the evidence and everything else points to the contrary.)
But you are right: I rest firmly on the Scripture — better that firm foundation than something I would like to believe and got from a non-Authoritative source at some point which has no backing or confirmation in God’s Word and actually contradicts it.
RE: Why is your interpretation of the Bible more believable than the Vatican’s? Did God speak to you directly and tell you that you have been chosen to “educate” others and that you are more knowledgable?
________________________
Roman Catholicism claims to be the only true church, and that it is the repository of God’s word and tradition. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church claims to tells us what the Bible really means and its members are not allowed to interpret scripture in a manner contrary to what the church says.
Non-Catholic Christians decry such a claim and point to Scripture alone (sola scriptura) as the final rule for everything it addresses. Roman Catholicism responds by saying it has dipped into the well of Sacred Tradition and drawn out truths that have been passed down from the apostles through the corridors of time in its halls, and since it is the “True Church” descended through Apostolic succession, it possess the authority to guide Christianity into the fullness of the faith. That is the claim. Is it biblical? No, it isn’t. But the problem is that the Catholic Church rejects sola scriptura and appeals to its own authority and tradition, Sacred Tradition that is.
So, it is the Roman Catholic church alone that tells the Catholic what the Bible “really” means, and no one is allowed to interpret it apart from its eccliastical guidance. But, let’s look at Romans 14:1-12 for a bit.
“Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One man has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 Let not him who eats regard with contempt him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. 10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God. 11 For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.” 12 So then each one of us shall give account of himself to God,” (Rom. 14:1-12).
Notice the above verses.
God tells us that people are allowed to have differences of opinion on debatable issues.
What are those debatable issues? They are dietary and worship days, two highly significant topics.
If Paul tells us that each person should be convinced in his own mind, then how can it also be true that the Vatican has to tell you what to believe?
There is a problem here. If Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, really understood that the Church was to tell people what to believe, why did he write that each person should be convinced in his own mind — on debatable issues? The answer is simple.
The Roman Catholic’s claim to be the only true church, that has the only right to interpret scripture, and reveals “new” doctrines via its Sacred Tradition, is nothing more than a fabrication not based in scripture. It is not biblical. In fact, it is against Scripture.
RE: There, fixed it for you.
Is that a fix or is that your own interpretation?
The Roman Catholic Church is the only Church founded by Christ Himself. They not only claim it to be so, it is. Sorry you don’t belong. You’re missing out on a great experience. I’ll pray the Rosary for you.
the fact that both of you decided to go nasty and go “behind my back” so to speak to mock me tells me that neither of you have the moral authority to quote any scripture. A true Christian tries to pattern his/her life after Jesus. Jesus did not mock others. Therefore, you are not acting like a true Christian. It’s too bad the Catholic Church intimidates you so much. That is your problem.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
RE: the fact that both of you decided to go nasty and go “behind my back” so to speak to mock me tells me that neither of you have the moral authority to quote any scripture
___________________
I just responded to you on Post #141 above. How is that going behind your back?
RE: The Roman Catholic Church is the only Church founded by Christ Himself.
Excuse me? Christ founded HIS CHURCH. This includes EVERYONE who truly believes in Him and Obey His words. Why are you limiting it ONLY to your church?
If Paul had stated the position that one must look only to himself for interpretation or truth then your position might have some merit, but that is not what Paul stated. As a Catholic I look to the teaching authority of my Church for clarification and meaning, within the context of the Gospels, Scripture and Tradition for Truth. That is my decision to do so and that is not debatable.
See posts 136 and 137.
Seems like I’ve hit a nerve. I didn’t draw the lines in the sand of me vs. you. You did. My Church is Catholic. If you choose to knock the Catholic Church, then you are not a member. How much more simple can it be?
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.