Posted on 01/15/2009 9:50:50 AM PST by NYer
.- A new survey of denominational loyalty reports that churchgoing Catholics are significantly less likely than churchgoing Protestants to change denominations.
Six out of ten active Catholics would only consider attending a Catholic church, while about 30 percent would prefer attending a Catholic church but would consider others, the survey says. Eleven percent of churchgoing Catholics reportedly do not show a specific preference for attending a Catholic church.
By contrast, only 16 percent of Protestant churchgoers will only consider attending a church of their present denomination. About 51 percent express a preference for one denomination, while 33 percent do not have any preference for a specific denomination.
Phoenix-based Ellison Research released the results of the poll on Monday.
“The good news for the Catholic church is that six out of ten Catholics will not even consider attending church in any other denomination, which is far higher than for Protestants. The bad news, of course, is that four out of ten active Catholics would at least be open to another denomination, even though most would prefer to remain in the Catholic Church,” commented Ron Sellers, president of Ellison Research.
The survey of a representative sample of 1,007 American adults included 471 respondents who regularly attend worship services at a church broadly considered to be in the Christian tradition, categorized into Protestant, Roman Catholic, Mormon, and Orthodox.
Respondents who attend worship services at least once a month were first asked the specific denomination of the church they attend most often. This distinguished “Southern Baptist” from “Free Will Baptist,” for example.
The respondents were then asked what role that denomination would play if they could no longer attend their current church, in the case it closed or the respondent moved.
Sellers explained that there may be additional factors affecting the difference between Catholic and Protestant denominational loyalty.
“It’s not as though there are two hundred different Roman Catholic denominations,” he said. “On the Protestant side, there are scores of different denominations, with some of them fairly similar in practice and theology.
“The story of this research is that many Protestants may not see a lot of difference among some of these denominations,” Sellers said.
For comparison, Ellison Research asked Americans about their loyalty to certain brands in more than 32 categories of products and services. Respondents expressed between about 10 to 20 percent exclusive loyalty to brands like automobiles or toothpaste, while between about 60 to 70 percent reported a brand preference.
Respondents were especially loyal to toothpaste, with 22 percent saying they use one brand exclusively.
“It may not be lack of loyalty so much as it is the presence of so many options that is causing Protestants to be about as loyal to a brand of toothpaste or bathroom tissue as they are to their church denomination,” Sellers remarked.
Among all churchgoing respondents, three out of ten said they would only consider attending one denomination, while 44 percent said they have one preferred denomination but would also consider others. Eleven percent reported a small number of denominations they would consider.
According to the survey results, denominational loyalty does not vary significantly by gender, household income, age, or type of community. It does vary by race or ethnicity and by region of the United States.
Hispanic churchgoers, who are majority Catholic, are the most intensely loyal to their denomination. African-Americans reportedly have the least denominational loyalty.
Denominational loyalty is highest in the Northeast U.S., where Catholicism is more common than elsewhere in the country. Such loyalty is lowest in the South, where Catholicism is less common.
People who report attending a non-denominational church, the Ellison Research survey says, are actually more committed to remaining non-denominational than churchgoers in Protestant denominations are to staying within their denomination. About 29 percent of non-denominational churchgoers will only consider a non-denominational church, while 32 percent express a preference for a non-denominational church.
An angel flying in saying that is not loud enough?
Absolutely. The saved are just like Mary, and you can pray to them just like you pray to Mary. The difference is not that Mary is in heaven and others are not -- all the saints are in heaven with Christ; the difference is that she is described as filled with grace even before the Incarnation.
As you know, St. Stephen the first Martyr is also described as full of grace, but the original Greek is different. Of course, with Stephen, the infusion of grace is described just prior to his martyrdom and did not precede the Passion of Christ.
Mary is described as sinless in Luke 1:28. St. Joseph is not described as sinless at all and the Church does not ask you to believe he was. You can pray to him, he is the patron of fathers, workers, of all weighted with doubt, of happy death and many others. His feast day is March 19.
“Absolutely. The saved are just like Mary, and you can pray to them just like you pray to Mary. The difference is not that Mary is in heaven and others are not — all the saints are in heaven with Christ; the difference is that she is described as filled with grace even before the Incarnation.
As you know, St. Stephen the first Martyr is also described as full of grace, but the original Greek is different. Of course, with Stephen, the infusion of grace is described just prior to his martyrdom and did not precede the Passion of Christ.
Saved by Faith. Through Grace. Nothing else.
Mary is described as sinless in Luke 1:28. St. Joseph is not described as sinless at all and the Church does not ask you to believe he was. You can pray to him, he is the patron of fathers, workers, of all weighted with doubt, of happy death and many others. His feast day is March 19.”
Mary is NOT described as sinless in Luke 1:28. Let me step you through it:
‘28And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you”’
Where does it say Mary is without sin? She was favored by The Father to be overshadowed by the Spirit in order for Christ to be born incarnate. The angel says NOTHING about her being sinless. God says nothing of Mary’s sinlessness. Once again, no doubt, the hoodoo of holy tradition has taught you that... but, if so, you were taught in error. ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. ALL. INCLUSIVE. Mary too! And Joseph. And I will not be an idolator and pray to them, or to anyone other than the one true living God.
If you’re praying to a “saint”, you’re an idolator. It’s simple. Prayer is a form of worship. If you’re worshipping anyone other than God, you’re wrong... in a BAD way.
Hoss
You have an obfuscatory Protestant translation of Luke 1:28. The original epithet the angel applies to Mary is “kecharitomeneh”. That is a unique formation from “charis”, grace. It literally means something like “engraced”, but significant here is that as the angel speaks she is already filled with grace, — the grammatical form implies her “engracedness” in the past.
I bet you nowhere else does your translation use “favor” for grace. Go see how it translates St. Pauls discources on grace, for example, in Ephesians. Does it say “by favor we saved through faith”? Now ask yourself why the Protestant translators would choose to obscure the original meaning in Luke 1:28?
You have been lied to.
Prayer to saints is worship of God. I explained why: because the saints are God’s best creation and are with God.
Oh, please. Now it’s my translation.
Cold, hard fact: Mary was human. Were she to have been without sin, SHE could have been sacrificed for us and Christ would not have had to die for us. Why would God sacrifice himself for us when “Perfect” Mary was already here and without sin?
Jesus was born here as THE ONLY PERFECT SINLESS PERSON. He alone was acceptable; Mary was an imperfect sinner. Just like you and I. If not, we would have no need of Christ. That’s patently absurd; just as is your belief that Mary was without sin.
One last time: praying to anyone other than God is idolatry. Show me in scripture where GOD SAYS Mary is without sin.
Hoss
The angel did not say she had no sin.
Luke 1:30 And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
The word is χάρις, charis, khar'-ece = favor. Even if it was full of grace which it isn't it does not say she was without sin. How can you argue such with a straight face? Because you want it to say what you want it to say. Very dangerous, God can't be amused.
The bible is not some code book, a puzzle for tinfoilers to decode with their magic rings. God said all have sinned and no where does He say Mary was without sin.
Mary is human, but even a sinless human cannot atone for the sins of men; for the sacrifice of Christ to be efficacious, He had to be God as well as man.
The rest I have dealt with and repeatedly so.
, or use any searchable Greek Bible, ad search for chari (χάρι) in the New Testament. The last letter will be inflected, so don't include it in the search (add a wildcard instead). I'd give you a reach result link, but Unbound doesn't make them available, you have to make your own search.
You will find that King James, and, safe to assume, all Protestant translations consistently translate charis as grace -- all over John , Acts, Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, Galationa -- anywhere where the inspired author speaks of divine grace, the Greek "charis" is translated correctly, grace.
You will find three places where it is translated "favor". Two will be in Luke 1:28 and Luke 1:30. Nothing would have prevented them to use "grace" in there as well, they just chose to put the less forceful, pedestrian "favor". Why? Because as far as Mary is concerned, the Protestant translators intentionally mistranslate.
There will be one where charis is correctly translated "favor", Acts 2:47, "having favour with all the people", because indeed favor is what you have with people, and grace is what you have with God.
There are two topics on which all Protestant translations consistently and shamelessly lie to you: they mistranslate the names for the clergy as "overseers" and "elders", and they mistranslate the scripture concerning Mary.
If you want to know what the scripture really says, always check with Douay-Rheims Bible. It is not perfect, but it is good, and it is the complete canon.
Remember, if you are Protestant, you have been lied to.
reach result -> search result
With unbound, the wildcard is %
“The rest I have dealt with and repeatedly so.”
Well, the repeatedly is correct, but you certainly haven’t “dealt” with it.
“Mary is human, but even a sinless human cannot atone for the sins of men; for the sacrifice of Christ to be efficacious, He had to be God as well as man.”
Christ had to atone for our sins because ONLY HE could be sinless AND human (as God the Son). Mary, by definition then, CANNOT be sinless. It took God to do it because man cannot.
So, Mary was human. And she was sinful. And not perfect. And thus, not to be worshipped. You can argue all you wish about holy tradition, but that does not make it so. Again, and again, and again I ask you:
Show me in scripture where God says Mary is sinless. Show me where, in scripture, God says we are supposed to pray to her.
Show me in scripture where GOD says these things!
Hoss
“Remember, if you are Protestant, you have been lied to.”
Now THAT’S funny! :D I think I could just as easily substitute ‘Catholic’ for Protestant there and it might work.... But, I’ll try to remember.
Hoss
St. Peter, on the other hand promises "you shall sin at no time" (2 Pe. 1). So, at least as concerns the possibility that a human being can be sinless, the scripture is with me.
whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified. And whom he justified, them he also glorified (Romans 8:30)
That man can be sanctified scripture leaves no doubt. The question is, at what time it happened in the case of Mary, and Luke 1:28 provided the answer: at the time the Angel came to her, she was already filled with grace.
Hence her immaculate conception. Now, that is something the scripture doesn't directly say. But the Catholic Church teaches that, because that is the revealed truth of the Holy Tradition.
What I say, I prove. These passages in Luke 1 are intentionally mistranslated. You have been lied to.
Well, at least the majority of church-going protestants didn’t vote for Obama, which is more than I can say for Roman Catholics.
The proof has been shown by scripture that neither Mary nor any other person is without sin. Your spin annalex doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.
All the literal translations use ‘favor’ not ‘grace’ for that verse. But you content all the experts are wrong and your interpretation is correct even though it comes from someone who’s religion gives more weight to tradition and superstition than the word of God.
And even if grace was the proper english word to use in this scripture it still does not even hint at Mary being without sin. It is clear Mary found favor with God and He chose her to give birth to His Son Jesus the Messiah.
What kind of literality is it to translate the same word differently? That is plain obfuscation.
One filled with grace is without sin. Sin and grace do not coexist, as grace is stronger than sin (Romans 5:20)
past your bedtime, isn't it?
“That only Christ can be sinless is your theory. Show me where in the scripture it says so.”
Oh, my. Please (sincerely) please tell me you don’t think this is some sort of theory? But, since you ask:
1 Peter 2:
“21For to this you have been called,because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.”
Did you catch v. 22? The “He” referred to here is Christ... referenced in the preceding verse. That’s not a theory: that’s God’s Word.
“St. Peter, on the other hand promises “you shall sin at no time” (2 Pe. 1). So, at least as concerns the possibility that a human being can be sinless, the scripture is with me.”
No, it’s not. We are FORGIVEN our sins by the justification of us through grace by faith in Christ — he bore our sins on the cross — but, we are still human... and as such, we are still tempted and often fall prey to that temptation. We sin. Once justified, we don’t want to sin as we once did, but it still can happen. And, when we do, we are convicted of it and driven to repentance through prayer to the Lord. HE FORGIVES US. That doesn’t mean we’re sinLESS. Just as Mary wasn’t sinless; she was forgiven her sins.
“That man can be sanctified scripture leaves no doubt. The question is, at what time it happened in the case of Mary, and Luke 1:28 provided the answer: at the time the Angel came to her, she was already filled with grace.”
Yes, we are sanctified as we walk with The Lord. We’re saved by his grace through faith; that salvation occurs when God opens our hearts to him. There is NO question of that. We are sanctified by God’s working in us daily, and our desire to do good for Him. We are saved already. But, we had to have been sinners to be saved. As for Mary, her being filled with grace could certainly be seen as her salvation, but it does not mean Mary was sinless!!! Her sins had been forgiven her — but she was not without sin. She was human.
“Hence her immaculate conception. Now, that is something the scripture doesn’t directly say. But the Catholic Church teaches that, because that is the revealed truth of the Holy Tradition.”
You’re right about one thing for sure — scripture does NOT teach of Mary’s immaculate conception and being sinless from her birth. And that’ exactly why holy tradition is wrong... it has no foundation in scripture. It’s something that was made up by the Catholic Church.
Once again... Romans 3:
“23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift,(F) through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,”
‘All’ means Mary. And every human except Christ. And his sinlessness (according to scripture) is shown above.
Hoss
Not the first time that I have a feeling there is some cognitive dissonant between what I write and what you think I wrote, not unlike your way of reading the scripture.
We sin
We do -- Rom 3 assures us of that. But 2 Peter 1 states that if we do good works we, with the grace of God, shall not sin at any time:
brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time. (2 Peter 1:10)
But, we had to have been sinners to be saved.
It doesn't follow. Usually, it is indeed the case, but one can be saved from sin by sanctification that precedes the commission of any sin. That is Mary's case and there is no reason, scriptural or logical, why it cannot be.
holy tradition is wrong
If the Holy Tradition were wrong, you would have no reason to think that the Holy Scripture is right.
“The unscriptural theory is that Christ ALONE was without sin.
Once again, try reading the scripture yourself:
Romans 5:
“12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— “
Catch that — death spread to all men because ALL sinned.... And here (once again) Romans 3:
“22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. “
Note v. 23 (again) for ALL means ALL — that takes away ANY thought of anyone being without sin other than Christ. Take a look back in Genesis for additional proof of Original Sin. And, while you’re at it, once again, look at vv. 24 and 25.
Annalex, your heart is hard. I’m so sorry for that. As for cognitive dissonance, I heartily agree: but you mistake the sufferer. It is you. Not only is there dissonance there, there is a willing disregard for God’s word. Again, for that, I’m sorry. I keep trying, praying that the Lord will use all those who are replying to you to help you see this and to open you heart and mind. But, God’s will is his own, and I pray he will soften your heart to his Word and his mercy.
Faith in Christ alone will save you. I pray that the Lord will soon reveal this to you.
Hoss
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.