Posted on 06/23/2005 9:06:58 AM PDT by murphE
New York's massive Roman Catholic population will sit out this weekend's Billy Graham crusade in Queens because its parishes are too busy, spokesmen for the two closest dioceses say.
The 413 parishes in the Archdiocese of New York, representing 2.5 million Catholics, are too involved with school graduations, confirmations and the Vatican's emphasis on the Eucharist during 2005, spokesman Joseph Zwilling said yesterday.
The Graham crusade "asked if it would be possible for our churches to invite their people to come," he said, but "given everything happening in our parishes, especially it being the Year of the Eucharist, we didn't feel it'd be possible to ask our parishes to take on any additional activities."
Across the East River in the Diocese of Brooklyn, which lists 1.8 million Catholics, church leaders have also declined involvement, although the crusade will take place there in Flushing Meadows' Corona Park. Spokesman Frank DeRosa cited Year of the Eucharist preparations as a key reason.
Thus, none of that diocese's 217 parishes is among the 1,300 sponsoring congregations for the crusade, which is expected to draw up to 70,000 people a night for what's been billed as the evangelist's last American crusade. Neither are Catholics officially among the 15,000 volunteers amassed for the event.
The Rev. A.R. Bernard, crusade chairman, professed some puzzlement over the archdiocese's reasoning, noting Catholic involvement in other crusades.
"Those who were touched by the Catholic charismatic renewal will be there," he predicted. "You cannot judge by the leadership's protests because the lay people will come anyway."
Catholics are still welcome to attend, but the lack of official involvement amazed Graham biographer Bill Martin, who characterized the archdiocese's reasoning as a "change in policy" from Mr. Graham's 1991 Central Park crusade. Back then, he said, 630 Catholic churches cooperated with the crusade and information on the meetings was handed out at St. Patrick's Cathedral.
That 1991 stance had been a huge shift from Mr. Graham's first New York crusade in 1957, he said, when Catholics boycotted the event and Catholic clergy were instructed on how to counter Mr. Graham's preaching.
"So maybe something's come down from above saying not to be involved in this," Mr. Martin added.
Mr. Zwilling said he didn't remember any such cooperation from churches back then, but Catholic clergy in 1991 did receive names of Catholics who answered Mr. Graham's altar calls at the Central Park event.
In a column to be released Saturday in the diocesan newspaper the Tablet, Brooklyn Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio outlined the significant divide over how Catholics and Protestants understand salvation.
The bishop said he welcomed Mr. Graham into the area and promised to follow up on any names given to them by crusade organizers.
To forestall objections of "sheep stealing," crusade policy is that all Catholics attending the event who sign a card signifying a desire for salvation are referred to the diocese.
Another Graham biographer, David Aikman, said Mr. Graham had a "good relationship" with many Catholic prelates, such as the late Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing, who in 1964 praised the evangelist's talent for converting non-Christians, adding, "I only wish we had half a dozen men of his caliber to go forth and do likewise."
In 1997, Mr. Graham told New Man magazine, an evangelical publication, that "through the years I have made many friends within the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, when we hold a crusade in a city now, nearly all the Roman Catholic churches support it.
"And when we went to Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, for the crusade [last year], we saw St. Paul, which is largely Catholic, and Minneapolis, which is largely Lutheran, both supporting the crusade. That wouldn't have happened 25 years ago."
You wrote: "But first you must accept His Jewish blood sacrifice to cover your sins."
Sins are forgiven, not merely covered. They were covered under the old covenant in anticipation of the new. They are forgiven in Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. You'll notice that at the last supper, he stops the traditional Paschal rite and says he won't drink from the cup of consummation. That is fulfilled on the Cross. After he drinks the bitter wine he says, "It is consummated."
So, when I partake of that sacrifice as he instructed, my sins have been forgiven, not just covered over. And my participation in the sacrifice of the Mass is my acceptance of his sacrifice. The eternal sacrifice by God, of God and to God for the remission of my sins. So, each time I sin, I must renew that acceptance, because I constantly break the relationship. My fault, not God's. But fortunately, he anticipated all of that and made his sacrifice real and present to us, physically. And gave us a Church that is physically real to keep us connected to him.
Again, the keys were given to all 12 of the Apostles, not just Peter. Jesus was speaking to ALL of the Apostles.
well, 11 of them that were standing there! :)
But The Petros/petra HAs to be a pun, not a title or declaration
Deuteronomy 32 clearly calls GOD the Rock of Israel
Christ is clearly called the ROCK of the New Testament
Christ is called the foundation of the Church
In the passage this all started with, the main thrust of the conversation, was, WHO DO MEN SAY THAT I AM
Peter's answer is in full agreement with the rest of Scripture, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
It was the facts of the answer that was the ROCK, not the man who gave the answer
The man who gave the answeer was at that time an unregenerate sinful human in desperate need of a Saviour
Peter was a wicked sinner, just like you and me, in desperate need of a Saviour.
Peter is clearly not the ROCK spoken of by Jesus in that passage, JESUS BEING THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD, that is the ROCK.
GOD is the Rock
Not a sinful man.
Then why wasn't it said EVERYWHERE else?
Sorry, this fails the Scrupture test.
No, that's not what Christ said. He said, "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."
Peter was a wicked sinner, just like you and me,
See? You've returned to that whole "God can't found anything on a sinner" thing which is COMPLETELY unbiblical since Revelation says that the 12 foundations of the Church are the 12 apostles.
Why wasn't the distinction between "spirit" baptism and "water" baptism ever made in Scripture?
Sorry, this fails the Scripture test. :)
Just "activities" are involved for sponsoring congregations?
I wouldn't show up either after knowing the former rapist in chief and his pathological wife were invited guests.
By the grace of God I was drawn to the Catholic church where humility, prayer, communion, and most importantly WORSHIP form the core of our religious experience.
Real spiritual men fight and real spiritual men pay the price for bold clear loving proclamation of the truth.
Did you know that the Catholic Church calls the Church on earth, "the Church Militant", as opposed to the Church in Heaven, which is the Church Triumphant.
You're welcome.
"Real simple: There is no Salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church."
I think you should check with Father Pio on this. I think you are in for quite a shock.
The Church didnt gift me anything
NOTHING comes from a church
It comes from God alone
Wow, I cant believe you would even think that, let alone type that...
it sure was a distinction, what was your point again?
Reformed bump.
More specifically, bumping to post #219 and John MacArthur.
Incidently, I found it rather disturbing that there appears to be a move about to "annoint" Joel Osteen Graham's successor as the "voice of evangelical Christianity in America" instead of Billy's son Franklin.
I noticed that, too. No doubt young Franklin is sounding too "conservative" for them...again.
And sometimes he even sounds downright Reformed.
Where did you read about his move to annoint Osteen? Franklin seems better grounded.
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.