Posted on 11/24/2009 4:10:44 PM PST by NYer
Statistics released Nov. 24 by the FBI show hate crimes against religious groups increased by 9% from 2007 to 2008.
USA Today reported that in 2008, there 1,519 incidents against people based on their religion, the statistics show.
The figures reveal that while anti-Jewish attacks made up the highest percentage of the attacks (17%), there was an increase in hate crimes against Catholics — 75, up from 61 in 2007.
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said the increase may be due to the Church becoming more vocal on life issues such as abortion and homosexual unions.
As the Catholic bishops take a stronger stance, he said, it filters down to the laity, and as more traditional Catholics become more vocal, they become targets for those who disagree with them.
“Unfortunately, it spills over into violence,” he said, adding that it’s just going to get worse before it gets better.
“I’ve never seen our country so culturally divided and so polarized,” he said. “These issues are not going away.”
A fine detail most people miss to notice...and a fine example of what the Jews believed would be God's Kingdom of Israel on earth. Surely you don't think they in "eat" in heaven too? :)
No, I am not aware of any; in fact I was not aware of the three references that you cite prior to your post.
At a minimum, your three references show that this line of thinking did enter legitimate theologians's mind prior to Leo XIII. And indeed it is logical on some level and with appropriate caution to give Mary such a title. Were she dogmatically described singly as a Spouse of the Holy Spirit, such a dogmatic statement would have come accompanied with a clear teaching in what sense she is and in what sense she isn't such spouse. Naturally, she did not cook the Holy Spirit dinners (like someone here suggested was the definition of a spouse), did not make any children with Him, and in fact Jesus is the Son of God the Father and not of the Holy Spirit. As it is, it is a honorific title among many that devout Catholics use in a non-doctrinal setting. It is no different than any term of endearment people give to other people they love.
When Catholic (or Orthodox or any other) devotional life is observed internally, such questions do not arise. The Orthodox know what "Panagia save us" means and what it doesn't. The Catholics know what co-Redemptrix, Mother of God, etc. means and what it doesn't. It only begins to matter when someone on the outside looking in with a chip on his shoulder decides to lecture people on the terms of endearment they use.
I'll be the first to admit, too, that not every Catholic pious practice has equal appeal to me, and likewise there are non-Catholic practices that I adopted or would wish to adopt. It is not worth arguing about.
It would be wrong if she were, but she isn't. In fact, come to think of it, if Mary were divine, there would be no mystery in the Incarnation at all, just gods interacting between themselves sort of like the Greek gods in the myths.
Thank you, Kolokotronis, for this clarification. The Real Presence is the fundamental belief of the Undivided Church. The Transubstantiation is how the Catholic Church explains the Real Presence in terms of rational philosophy. Our beliefs don't differ on the matter, our ways of talking about them differ. We have statues, you have icons. Two lungs, same air.
The Eucharist certainly has this communal aspect; it is correct to point out that one burdened by a social sin, for example, of uncharity, should confess it before receiving and if he did not, he would be taking the Eucharist in condemnation of himself, unworthily.
But there is no warrant in the context to reduce the warning to mere social sin. The discourse in 1 Cor. 11 specially makes reference not to the mystical body of Christ, that is His Church, but rather to His historical, physical, real body (1 Cor. 11:23-24). That real body is the body that died, and the call to discern it most naturally refers to it, and not to the social body of the Church referred to elsewhere.
So while the essay you posted makes valid points regarding the social aspect of the Holy Communion, it is still overall is an exercise in masking the critical parts of the scripture in order to make it fit the Protestant desacralized theology.
From the Jewish Encyclopedia: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=40&letter=S&search=sadducee
...the high priests who, tracing their pedigree back to Zadok, the chief of the priesthood in the days of David and Solomon (I Kings i. 34, ii. 35; I Chron. xxix. 22), formed the Temple hierarchy all through the time of the First and Second Temples down to the days of Ben Sira (II Chron. xxxi. 10; Ezek. xl. 46, xliv. 15, xlviii. 11; Ecclus. [Sirach] li. 12 [9], Hebr.), but who degenerated under the influence of Hellenism, especially during the rule of the Seleucidæ, when to be a follower of the priestly aristocracy was tantamount to being a worldly-minded Epicurean.
Is that not modern Judaism - secular and worldly? It continues:
The views and principles of the Sadducees may be summarized as follows:
(1) Representing the nobility, power, and wealth ("Ant." xviii. 1, § 4), they had centered their interests in political life, of which they were the chief rulers. Instead of sharing the 'Messianic hopes of the Pharisees, who committed the future into the hand of God, they took the people's destiny into their own hands, fighting or negotiating with the heathen nations just as they thought best, while having as their aim their own temporary welfare and worldly success. This is the meaning of what Josephus chooses to term their disbelief in fate and divine providence ("B. J." ii. 8, § 14; "Ant." xiii. 5 § 9).
(2) As the logical consequence of the preceding view, they would not accept the Pharisaic doctrine of the resurrection (Sanh. 90b; Mark xii. 12; Ber. ix. 5, "Minim"), which was a national rather than an individual hope. As to the immortality of the soul, they seem to have denied this as well (see Hippolytus, "Refutatio," ix. 29; "Ant." x. 11, § 7).
(3) According to Josephus (ib. xiii. 10, § 6), they regarded only those observances as obligatory which are contained in the written word, and did not recognize those not written in the law of Moses and declared by the Pharisees to be derived from the traditions of the fathers. Instead of accepting the authority of the teachers, they considered it a virtue to dispute it by arguments.
(4) According to Acts xxiii. 8, they denied also the existence of angels and demons. This probably means that they did not believe in the Essene practise of incantation and conjuration in cases of disease, and were therefore not concerned with the Angelology and Demonology derived from Babylonia and Persia.
Now you may call the narrow small group of Hasidim/Orthodox Jews Pharisaical, fine. But, the majority of Jews are Sadducean in outlook. They do not believe in a resurrection and are by and large secular humanist in outlook. They've been "Hellenized" in the modern world sense.
The deceased resolve nothing. It is up to God. The excommunication is a spiritual spanking by the Church administered by a parent; the condemnation is a statement that the parent thinks that the child is worthy of jail time. The parent does not actually put the child into theological jail (hell). At no time does the Church claim authority to drop anyone into hell: these Latin phrases don't always translate that well. It is more for the public at large - these actions are considered to be worthy of condemnation. Remember that the individual's salvation is at the final, between him and God.
The Trinity is not defined very well in the NT; only hinted at and mostly by John. It took the Church hundreds of years to develop the Trinitarian formula to the point where a Council could examine it and agree on it.
I remember the first time I saw this skit:
...And Dinsdale’s there in the conversation pit with Doug and Charles Paisley, the baby crusher, and a couple of film producers and a man they called ‘Kierkegaard’, who just sat there biting the heads off whippets and Dinsdale says ‘I hear you’ve been a naughty boy Clement’ and he splits me nostrils open and saws me leg off and pulls me liver out, and I said my name’s not Clement and then he loses his temper and nails my head to the floor.
Interviewer: (off-screen) He nailed your head to the floor?
Vince: At first, yeah
... biting and brilliant humour. "At first, yeah."
Thanks, that was a good way of putting it. Why then the insistence on the titles "Mother of God", "Queen of Heaven", "Spouse of the Holy Spirit"? Are these not the basis for the confusion in Catholics and non?
That's the inevitable admission anyone honest enough who tries to "figure out" what this is all about will come to admit. But Orthodox diod not "branch out" into this sort of thinking, it is the original Church teaching. Origen (late 2nd, early 3rd century) used apophatic theology (negative reasoning, what God is not), is (along with Platonism) the very foundation of the original Church.
Okay, that's true. I should have said that the East have done much more than the West in that regard.
No, Mark, that is positively Orthodox. The whole idea that the Christian God is both divine and human is something that is often neglected in the west. God, to most westerners I would say, especially in cultures where Protestantism rules supreme, is more akin to the Hebrew, Pauline God, than to Christ. The the eastern Christian, God is Christ.
God revealed is Christ, sure. But there is the rest of the Trinity; the West spends much more attention and effort on Christ as well, as opposed to the Father and the Holy Spirit, simply because we had Christ Incarnate for us. There is more emphasis in the East on Christ; is there time for a joke here about Orthodox Oneness Pentecostals?
Perhaps I should have spent some more time defining what I meant. We have a personal relationship with our idea of God. With His lowered hand, as it were. His lowered hand (the Incarnation) is what we have; God in All, we have not the capacity to undersatnd. Theosis is becoming like Christ, Chrits-like, restoring the likeness of God that was lost in the Garden. But how is one to become "God-like" unless one knows what God is like? Easy, he is like the Christ known to the Church!
My point exactly. We worship the Christ known to the Church. Not the entirely of God, which is unknowable.
Although he Church would never admit it, Christian God is unlike the elusive and often tyrannical Jewish God, unlike Allah, or Zeus; he is not some object like the Sun, or Mount Fuji...he is a real person, with eyes and ears, who feels, suffers and loves, someone you hope to become like one day, someone you recognize in those who have to varying degrees attained his likeness. But in the west, he is a powerful, cold, exacting, mighty unapproachable, unrecognizable king, and judge who is to be feared, respected and obeyed.
Now you're getting nasty(!) Let us not say the West and mix in the hellfire and brimstone crowd with the Latins; else we will start mixing in Muslims with the East. :)
The eastern Christains would never say that. Their God is Christ and all that is expected of them to know God is to know Chirst and become Christ-like.
That is correct too, in the West; but remember that our terminology is slightly mixed here. I am talking about all of God; you are talking about the God that He revealed to us, which is still not comprehensible to us, but less incomprehensible to us. :) Me engineer. Me talk technical like good Roman.
Christ's human spirit (soul) is very much separate from his "Goodhood."
I thought it was all one package.
And he does. A rather weighty soul; I'm glad he's on our side, although the reading is tough sledding.
But these are not statements of divinity. They describe what Mary scripturally is: Mother of Jesus Who is God; Queen Mother of Christ Who is King (don’t forget the crown wearing mother of Christ in Rev. 12), and one who the Holy Spirit overshadowed and a miraculous childbirth resulted.
They tend to elevate and praise her, but not divinize her.
Granted, if “Mother of God” were all we know of the gospels, and a Martian came down and heard this, he would be correct in assuming that Mary preexists God and so is divine. But that is not all we know; we say those things in the light of the complete knowledge of the gospel. Nor are our Protestant critics Martians. They should not act like ones.
Thanks for the explanation. It just seems that a fundamental tenet of Western thought is the absence of ex post facto punishments.
What is the CC view of Hell and the afterlife. There is no more Limbo, right? What about Purgatory? I looked at Wikipedia, but want it straight.
Is their a baptism by desire still? That is can those who would have still get salvation?
From Judaism 101
• Judaism does not have a[ny] formal mandatory beliefs
• The most accepted summary of Jewish beliefs is Rambam's 13 principles of faith
• Even these basic principles have been debated
• Judaism focuses on the relationships between the Creator, mankind, and the land of Israel
According to BBC most Liberal Jews "reject the idea of a personal Messiah at whose coming all the righteous dead would arise and live in unadulterated bliss and also reject the idea of physical resurrection. There is no consensus on an afterlife."
Belief. net states that "Reform Jews believe in the world to come and a messianic age (but no individual Messiah). Personal beliefs in the details of afterlife are diverse, as there is no official position. Some believe in heaven and hell but only as states of consciousness; some believe in reincarnation; some believe God is all-forgiving; and some may not believe in an actual afterlife. Regardless, Judaism generally focuses on living a virtuous life, rather than working toward reward after death."
Religion facts states that Conservative Judaism beliefs can range " from Reform to Orthodox in nature." It is actually a "nondenominational" sect.
So, all in all, there is no set list of beliefs to which any Jew is held dogmatically, except perhaps among the ultra-Orthodox. Jewish demographics are not an indication what an individual Jews believes. According to the United Jewish Communities report (2004), Orthodox Jews comprised 10%, Conservative 26%, Reform 35%, "Just Jewish" 20%, and 9% are made up of "other," yet Jewish households are 21% Orthodox!
Now, what survived is Pharisaical Judaism following the destruction of the Temple. "Sadduceeization" of rabbinic Judaism is a relatively recent phenomenon (apparently less than or just about 100 years old) and mostly characteristic of Judaism in the U.S. reform and Liberal Judaism do not reject Pharisaical beliefs about the coming messiah and the resurrection as a matter of dogma, but as a matter of personal "take" on the issue, which means that some believe it and others don't.
Judaism was never a monolithic and universal religion. That's why what makes you Jewish is not your faith but genetics (you are "born" Jewish if you mother is Jewish) and 'tradition.' That's why even an atheist can be a Jew, but not a Christian. The one thing that unites all Jewish etc, no matter how Orthodox or liberal, is their rejection of Jesus as a deity.
To make a blanket statement that modern Judaism is Sadducean in beliefs and practices is a misleading sweeping generalization. We don't even know reliably what the Sadducees would say, since none of their sources survive. What we know of them is what we read about them form their Pharisaical adversaries, who are not known for steel-cold objectivity. Joesphus is an unreliable source, period, whether he wrote about Christians or Jews.
It is, one person, two natures, inseparable, unmixed and unconfused.
We agree there. If you would be so kind, may I refute you later? :)
BTW, do you know of a reliable Orthodox Jewish FReeper? I'd like to get their opinion as mine was shaped by one.
Catholic belief is in the permanent state of the Judged after death. Some call hell punishment, the Church rather believes that it is what one calls down upon oneself.
What is the CC (you mean Catholic Church, right?) view of Hell and the afterlife. There is no more Limbo, right? What about Purgatory? I looked at Wikipedia, but want it straight.
As straight as I can. Hell is the place of Judgement for those who are unrepentent sinners. Since Jesus has died and conquered death, there is no more need for Limbo. Purgatory is not a place - it is a process in which the impure sinners who are Judged for salvation are made pure so that they can enter Heaven.
Is their a baptism by desire still? That is can those who would have still get salvation?
This is beyond Church teaching in any rigourous fashion and way beyond me. The Church teaches the way to salvation is through Jesus. There may be ways that baptism by desire works, but I am not prepared nor am I capable of fully and rationally dicussing them.
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.