Posted on 01/05/2008 7:06:01 AM PST by NYer
WIMAUMA - Father Demetrio Lorden walks into the garage of a concrete block house, slips on his robe and vestments, and unpacks a gold chalice.
He tests a microphone, and as dogs howl nearby, a small group of Hispanic workers and their families launches into a discordant song of praise.
Lorden calls this his "evangelism Mass," the one he has every Monday night in houses and mobile home camps of the Wimauma immigrant community.
Like other Catholic priests with Hispanic members, Lorden is trying to fend off competitors for the parishioners in his pews.
Protestant evangelists - people just as dedicated as he is, but with a quite different approach to Christianity - are aggressively recruiting on his turf. Some target workers as they labor in the fields; others approach them in their homes or at local bodegas, grocery stores.
Catholic priests like Lorden are responding with outreach and Bible studies, hoping to hold on to this large and growing population.
"Hispanic immigrants need to know someone is there caring for them," said Lorden, pastor of Our Lady of Guadalupe church. "But one of the things that pushed me to do that fervently and constantly was because ... other churches and denominations are visiting them and proselytizing them."
Sometimes Lorden's home-based Masses are the only contact workers have with the Catholic church, said Alejandro Lopez, 34, a construction worker who attended Lorden's service on a recent Monday night.
For those who can't make Sunday Mass because of work, Lorden's service helps sustain their faith, especially during hard times, Lopez said.
"It makes you feel better," he said.
The majority of Hispanics in the United States, or 68 percent, still call themselves Catholics. Of those who leave the Catholic church, most become Pentecostal or evangelical Christians or they leave religion all together, according to a national study released this year by the Pew Hispanic Center.
Some Catholic priests acknowledge that Protestant sects like the Pentecostals have responded faster and more aggressively to immigrants with aid and tight-knit worship circles in Spanish.
On a recent Saturday afternoon, the Rev. Jose Luis Correa, a Pentecostal pastor in Dover, handed out pamphlets with some church members as they walked through the parking lots of small Hispanic grocery stores or food stores with Hispanic patrons.
Then, they visited a mobile home park nestled between strawberry fields and railroad tracks. Many residents did not answer the door or weren't home. Others politely took the pamphlets and said they would come to church.
Sometimes, Correa said, he approaches them in the fields with water. Often he brings them clothes and food.
"We tell them we believe God will provide for their needs," said Correa, of Assembly of God or Templo Cristiano. "You're not going to reach them by being on a pulpit or sitting in an office."
Correa tackles their personal problems: marital disputes, alcoholism - a service sometimes lacking in the Catholic church.
For some immigrants like Edin Gonzalez, a 25-year-old Guatemalan carpenter who left most of his family behind, the church has become an instant community.
"It's like my second home. It's my family," he said.
* * *
When Hispanic converts from the Catholic church join Protestant sects, they let go of their attachment to the saints, religious images and Mary, the mother of Jesus, Correa said.
"We don't worship idols," he said.
Catholic priests bristle at the accusation and say Protestant evangelizers are tearing Hispanics away from their culture and faith.
"There's almost like a whole campaign to bring down the blessed Mother like she's the anti-Christ," said Father Carlos Rojas of St. Clement Catholic Church in Plant City.
Rojas, of Puerto Rican decent, said Hispanic Catholics, particularly Mexican Catholics, are very devoted to Mary.
They believe Mary, known as Our Lady of Guadalupe, appeared to a Mexican Indian peasant named Juan Diego in 1531. Juan Diego's story contributed greatly to Catholicism's spread in Mexico.
Recently, in a mix of religion and culture, St. Clement held a three-day festival and a two-day vigil to mark the feast day of Our Lady of Guadalupe that included Aztec dancers, mariachi bands and statues of the Virgin Mary.
The festival, which took place at the Plant City Stadium, drew 3,000 people, the first time it was held on such a large scale.
And it was yet another effort to cement the Catholic church's historical presence in the Hispanic community.
St. Clement, like other Catholic churches, started a Bible study for its Hispanic members in part to counter Protestant evangelizers, shifting from a tradition that left Bible readings and interpretations to priests.
"When you are entering into dialogue with other religions and people who are attacking the Catholic church, there is a need to have Bible studies," Rojas said. "If you are asked this question, here is a way you can respond."
Juan Gomez, pastor of the Church of God, a Protestant church in Wimauma, said his members don't attack Catholics. They just worship differently.
"We believe that (Mary) was a beautiful woman of God, but in terms of redemption, Christ is the one in terms of intercession, Christ is the interceder, not Mary, as they believe," said Gomez, who converted from Catholicism to the Church of God at 15 after immigrating to Ruskin from Mexico.
Gomez said he questions the Juan Diego story and the Catholic blending of religion with Hispanic culture.
But ultimately, newcomers aren't forced to stay in his church. If they don't like the spirited form of worship and Bible study, they go elsewhere.
"We try to bring people to a deeper relationship with Christ," he said. "It will always be up to the people."
Saundra Amrhein can be reached at amrhein@sptimes.com or (813) 661-2441.
Clear differences between the two
The battle for Hispanic faithful continues to brew between Catholics and Protestants, with both sides increasingly stepping up their recruitment efforts. Among the Protestant denominations, the Pentecostals have been particularly aggressive. Here are some major differences between Catholics and Protestants.
| PROTESTANTS vsCATHOLICS Believe the sacrament, or communion, is symbolic. Believe the sacrament istransformed into the body and blood of Christ. Have no supreme hierarchy such as a pope. Believe in the infallibility of the pope. Many churches, particularly Pentecostals, embrace aspirited worship style. Embrace a liturgical worship style. Allow women to pastor and become bishops. Allow only men to become priests and bishops. See no need for a priest to serve as a mediator between them and God. Revere Mary and the saints and ask them for intercession. Require confession before a priest. |
Source: Roman Catholic Diocese of St. Petersburg
That pretty much nails it Buddist-Hindu or is it Hindu-Buddist? I have enjoyed Christian contemplatives....Merton's a big fav; Sufi mysticism; Meher Baba;The Christ of A Course in Miracles.
“It’s possible to do that here at a keyboard; behind the wheel of a car stuck in traffic as well; it’s always available to us if we allow it.”
If you think you can do that at will, then what you’re doing is counterfeit. All genuine contact with God is at His initiative, not ours.
No, in this example the second shooter was "perfect", becuase he hit what he was aiming for every single time.
How did her precision (or lack of precision) affect his accuracy?
It didn't. It affected HER accuracy.
I don't "think" anything, in fact it's when I don't think that the connection is available......so long as I stay stuck in the "little me" I'll stay stuck in thought forms and the world of judgement. The holy instant that my thinking stops God is revealed.
***
No, in this example the second shooter was "perfect", becuase he hit what he was aiming for every single time.
Actually, you were right, because if the first shooter had been "perfect" as well (assuming she was aiming for the bullseye) then this would be the result. But the second shooter was still "perfect".
“In answer to that I have to ask another question? Why would he want to? Why would the Son of God want to further the physical ego illusion of the body thru an example of suffering? Why would Jesus want to set such an example for his students?”
So, you never heard of redemptive suffering? It’s not that he wanted to suffer; it was necessary.
Your fundamental error seems to be this Satanic delusion that the real world is illusory. You need to go back and read Descartes’ refutation of the notion that God is an evil deceiver.
“The holy instant that my thinking stops God is revealed.”
Ummm...yeah. (Backing away slowly and carefully.)
His shooting was more perfect than hers, but it wasn't perfect. If her skill had matched his, how many holes would have been in the target after she shot all of her rounds? If we assume that her first shot was placed perfectly, wouldn't her initial hole become her new target?
I said, "How did her precision (or lack of precision) affect his accuracy?" It didn't.
Correct. His accuracy was unaffected by hers.
It affected HER accuracy.
As the first shooter, she set the standard. Her skill affected her accuracy & her accuracy determined the precision of the session.
Says who? It may be necessary for you to believe that. Suffering is an option and one is welcome to chose it, just stay stuck in the mind created thought forms and one can have infinite suffering.
Chose to forgive and the need to suffer is gone.
Speaking of Descartes you might want to take a look at quantum field theory and the "real" world. God is not the deceiver it is the perceiver.
“Says who? It may be necessary for you to believe that. Suffering is an option and one is welcome to chose it, just stay stuck in the mind created thought forms and one can have infinite suffering.”
Right. (Looking around for somthing that might serve as a weapon as I continue to back away slowly and carefully.)
LOL I see new ideas aren't your strong suit.
“LOL I see new ideas aren’t your strong suit.”
New? You really imagine that you’re babbling anything people here haven’t seen a thousand times before?
(Jumping in my car and speeding away with a sigh of relief.)
We are assuming that he was aiming for the holes that the first shooter made, and that he hit each one, correct? Now, it's possible that his aim was so bad that he just completely missed the target everytime, or perhaps he intentionally missed the target, or by some fluke he aimed at one hole and the bullet went through another, etc. But if we assume that he hit exactly what he was aiming for with each shot, then yes, his shooting was perfect.
If her skill had matched his, how many holes would have been in the target after she shot all of her rounds?
If her aim were perfect, and she aimed at the same point with each shot, then there would be exactly one hole and it would be exactly at the spot where she aimed. If the second shooter's aim were perfect, and he aimed at the same spot, there would still be only one hole.
If we assume that her first shot was placed perfectly, wouldn't her initial hole become her new target?
One would think so, but she's the one with the gun go she gets to decide what to aim for. :)
As the first shooter, she set the standard. Her skill affected her accuracy & her accuracy determined the precision of the session.
Unfortunately, we still seem to be using the word "precision" differently. You seem to be talking about actual spread of the shots, while I am talking about the aim itself. A shot is accurate if it hits its mark, i.e. if it hits where the shooter wants it to. This depends on the precision of the shooter's aim, but is also affected by things like the calibration of certain parts of the gun. However, if the aim is imprecise, then the shots will tend to deviate from their intended marks (one may land a bit to the right, another up and to the left, etc.), and thus be inaccurate.
At any rate, we are discussing an illustration. My claim itself is found in post 122. It is this:
Anyway, I think the analogy might be this: In science, it is meaningless to say that measurements are accurate if they are all over the place (i.e. imprecise); in logic, it is meaningless to say that a statement is accurate if it is not defined precisely. In both cases, there are ideals for both accuracy and precision, but the ideal of accuracy cannot be attained without also attaining the ideal of precision. Also, the further one deviates from the ideal of presision, the further one [necessarily] deviates from the ideal of accuracy.
I was addressing the last part of your statement and should have clarified that. You wrote...or their Christian ancestors were never a part of the Roman Church.
Unless you are speaking of the Orthodox church after the Schism of 1054(?) your statement is not historically accurate.
No Protestant denomination which holds with orthodox Christian teaching such as the Divinity of Jesus, The Holy Trinity, that Christ is both fully God and fully man would want to claim some kind of relation with people who broke away from the early Church. They were by both their contemporary Church and modern Protestant definition heretics. They were Gnostics, Arians, Nestorians. They were not some hidden remnant that reemerged when the hammer pounded on that Wittenburg(sp)door.
If they have any descendants it is the Jehovah Witnesses, the Oneness Pentecostals, the Unitarians, the LDS and other sects which deny orthodox teachings about Jesus.
Ok. Please let me know where you spend rush hour traffic so I can avoid that stretch of road at all costs.
This did not, of course, deny or negate the goodness and realness of bodily life on this earth (or in Narnia): it was just deeper, wilder, better.
Correct. And the farther they followed Aslan, the deeper, wilder, and better it all became.
Well, actually no you don't HAVE to. :-)
But thanks for answering.
Then would you say that He was whipped and crucified and all that, but He didn't suffer and that any element of His suffering to the story was added by "followers"?
What I'm trying to nail down here is the "deceitful Christ" problem: If He LOOKED like He was suffering but wasn't, then we have something that looks like dishonesty. But if all the suffering elements of the story are added, then we have the problem of where you source your opinions since the "mainstream" followers are either deluded or manipulative (or both, I guess).
(1) I wonder if you would care to comment on the Bodhisattva Vows to save all sentient beings, to put an end to all desires, to master all the dharmas, and to attain the Buddha way.
(2) Be careful. Peter's comment is very apposite: Be sober, be vigilant, for your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about seeking whom he may devour. Many come to grief on that road.
It is not good, IMHO, to discuss too much the way you are taking. It is certainly of no use to debate it.
Thank you. Tha quote touches deeply.
Not quite correct. Each of his bullets made a hole that was connected to the hole that she had made. That's why I said, "double hole" & talked about his accuracy based on a center to center measurement. If all of the measurements were the same, then we could say that his accuracy was perfect. Making double holes prevented an assumption of a total miss of the target, so it would probably be correct to assume the near miss was intentional.
But if we assume that he hit exactly what he was aiming for with each shot, then yes, his shooting was perfect.
There'd be no reason to assume perfection without the center to center measurement, as there would be no reason to expect a variation in that was intentional.
If her aim were perfect, and she aimed at the same point with each shot, then there would be exactly one hole and it would be exactly at the spot where she aimed. If the second shooter's aim were perfect, and he aimed at the same spot, there would still be only one hole.
Each of the holes she made established a target for him. Her accuracy determined the precision of the session, but affected neither the accuracy, nor precision of any of his individual shots. However, it did impact his overall accuracy, when we are speaking in terms of the session. He hit dead center of the target no more accurately than she had. Getting accuracy within the session seems to be have less importance to him than demonstrating the precision with which he could place his shots & the accuracy of his shooting allowed him to do that.
I said, "If we assume that her first shot was placed perfectly, wouldn't her initial hole become her new target?"
One would think so, but she's the one with the gun go she gets to decide what to aim for. :)
LOL Makes me glad our posts passed in the middle of the ether & I didn't see your correction before posting additional explanation to you about the single hole scenario.
Unfortunately, we still seem to be using the word "precision" differently. You seem to be talking about actual spread of the shots, while I am talking about the aim itself.
Kind of. Precision is about replication. But, you say, he replicated all of her shots. That is true, but in doing so he failed to replicate any of his own. As far as session precision, his shots were a wash. He could have raised the session precision by increasing shot density in any location. A duplication of a single one of his shots wouldn't have changed the spread, but it would have improved the precision of the session.
A shot is accurate if it hits its mark, i.e. if it hits where the shooter wants it to. This depends on the precision of the shooter's aim, but is also affected by things like the calibration of certain parts of the gun. However, if the aim is imprecise, then the shots will tend to deviate from their intended marks (one may land a bit to the right, another up and to the left, etc.), and thus be inaccurate.
All true, but you're just throwing extra noise at me. Accounting for the throw of the weapon makes attaining accuracy & precision more difficult, but we're only dealing with the end results here.
Anyway, I think the analogy might be this: In science, it is meaningless to say that measurements are accurate if they are all over the place (i.e. imprecise);
If you're measuring a single thing & getting measurements all over the place, then yes. If you're talking about measuring many things, the precision of your standard wouldn't be knowable.
in logic, it is meaningless to say that a statement is accurate if it is not defined precisely.
Meaningless or not knowable? I'm reminded of Rumsfeld's talk about known knowns, known unknowns, unknown knowns & unknown unknowns.
In both cases, there are ideals for both accuracy and precision, but the ideal of accuracy cannot be attained without also attaining the ideal of precision.
Ideal is a newly introduced standard. The ideal of precision comes from replication, hitting that mark perfectly, with the more instances of hitting it raising the reliability of precision. The accuracy of something is unknowable unless tested against a precise standard, but something could be accurate without that test. You just wouldn't know how accurate it was. But, you said ideal, so a standard would be required to change your unknown known or known unknown into a known known.
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.