Posted on 05/17/2012 5:40:57 PM PDT by Gamecock
Any other institution that lost one-third of its members would want to know why.....
The number of people who have left the Catholic church is huge.
We all have heard stories about why people leave. Parents share stories about their children. Academics talk about their students. Everyone has a friend who has left.
While personal experience can be helpful, social science research forces us to look beyond our circle of acquaintances to see what is going on in the whole church.
The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life has put hard numbers on the anecdotal evidence: One out of every 10 Americans is an ex-Catholic. If they were a separate denomination, they would be the third-largest denomination in the United States, after Catholics and Baptists. One of three people who were raised Catholic no longer identifies as Catholic.
Any other institution that lost one-third of its members would want to know why. But the U.S. bishops have never devoted any time at their national meetings to discussing the exodus. Nor have they spent a dime trying to find out why it is happening.
Thankfully, although the U.S. bishops have not supported research on people who have left the church, the Pew Center has.
Pew’s data shows that those leaving the church are not homogenous. They can be divided into two major groups: those who become unaffiliated and those who become Protestant. Almost half of those leaving the church become unaffiliated and almost half become Protestant. Only about 10 percent of ex-Catholics join non-Christian religions. This article will focus on Catholics who have become Protestant. I am not saying that those who become unaffiliated are not important; I am leaving that discussion to another time.
Why do people leave the Catholic church to become Protestant? Liberal Catholics will tell you that Catholics are leaving because they disagree with the church’s teaching on birth control, women priests, divorce, the bishops’ interference in American politics, etc. Conservatives blame Vatican II, liberal priests and nuns, a permissive culture and the church’s social justice agenda.
One of the reasons there is such disagreement is that we tend to think that everyone leaves for the same reason our friends, relatives and acquaintances have left. We fail to recognize that different people leave for different reasons. People who leave to join Protestant churches do so for different reasons than those who become unaffiliated. People who become evangelicals are different from Catholics who become members of mainline churches.
Spiritual needs
The principal reasons given by people who leave the church to become Protestant are that their “spiritual needs were not being met” in the Catholic church (71 percent) and they “found a religion they like more” (70 percent). Eighty-one percent of respondents say they joined their new church because they enjoy the religious service and style of worship of their new faith.
In other words, the Catholic church has failed to deliver what people consider fundamental products of religion: spiritual sustenance and a good worship service. And before conservatives blame the new liturgy, only 11 percent of those leaving complained that Catholicism had drifted too far from traditional practices such as the Latin Mass.
Dissatisfaction with how the church deals with spiritual needs and worship services dwarfs any disagreements over specific doctrines. While half of those who became Protestants say they left because they stopped believing in Catholic teaching, specific questions get much lower responses. Only 23 percent said they left because of the church’s teaching on abortion and homosexuality; only 23 percent because of the church’s teaching on divorce; only 21 percent because of the rule that priests cannot marry; only 16 percent because of the church’s teaching on birth control; only 16 percent because of the way the church treats women; only 11 percent because they were unhappy with the teachings on poverty, war and the death penalty.
The data shows that disagreement over specific doctrines is not the main reason Catholics become Protestants. We also have lots of survey data showing that many Catholics who stay disagree with specific church teachings. Despite what theologians and bishops think, doctrine is not that important either to those who become Protestant or to those who stay Catholic.
People are not becoming Protestants because they disagree with specific Catholic teachings; people are leaving because the church does not meet their spiritual needs and they find Protestant worship service better.
Nor are the people becoming Protestants lazy or lax Christians. In fact, they attend worship services at a higher rate than those who remain Catholic. While 42 percent of Catholics who stay attend services weekly, 63 percent of Catholics who become Protestants go to church every week. That is a 21 percentage-point difference.
Catholics who became Protestant also claim to have a stronger faith now than when they were children or teenagers. Seventy-one percent say their faith is “very strong,” while only 35 percent and 22 percent reported that their faith was very strong when they were children and teenagers, respectively. On the other hand, only 46 percent of those who are still Catholic report their faith as “very strong” today as an adult.
Thus, both as believers and as worshipers, Catholics who become Protestants are statistically better Christians than those who stay Catholic. We are losing the best, not the worst.
Some of the common explanations of why people leave do not pan out in the data. For example, only 21 percent of those becoming Protestant mention the sex abuse scandal as a reason for leaving. Only 3 percent say they left because they became separated or divorced.
Becoming Protestant
If you believed liberals, most Catholics who leave the church would be joining mainline churches, like the Episcopal church. In fact, almost two-thirds of former Catholics who join a Protestant church join an evangelical church. Catholics who become evangelicals and Catholics who join mainline churches are two very distinct groups. We need to take a closer look at why each leaves the church.
Fifty-four percent of both groups say that they just gradually drifted away from Catholicism. Both groups also had almost equal numbers (82 percent evangelicals, 80 percent mainline) saying they joined their new church because they enjoyed the worship service. But compared to those who became mainline Protestants, a higher percentage of those becoming evangelicals said they left because their spiritual needs were not being met (78 percent versus 57 percent) and that they had stopped believing in Catholic teaching (62 percent versus 20 percent). They also cited the church’s teaching on the Bible (55 percent versus 16 percent) more frequently as a reason for leaving. Forty-six percent of these new evangelicals felt the Catholic church did not view the Bible literally enough. Thus, for those leaving to become evangelicals, spiritual sustenance, worship services and the Bible were key. Only 11 percent were unhappy with the church’s teachings on poverty, war, and the death penalty Ñ the same percentage as said they were unhappy with the church’s treatment of women. Contrary to what conservatives say, ex-Catholics are not flocking to the evangelicals because they think the Catholic church is politically too liberal. They are leaving to get spiritual nourishment from worship services and the Bible.
Looking at the responses of those who join mainline churches also provides some surprising results. For example, few (20 percent) say they left because they stopped believing in Catholic teachings. However, when specific issues were mentioned in the questionnaire, more of those joining mainline churches agreed that these issues influenced their decision to leave the Catholic church. Thirty-one percent cited unhappiness with the church’s teaching on abortion and homosexuality, women, and divorce and remarriage, and 26 percent mentioned birth control as a reason for leaving. Although these numbers are higher than for Catholics who become evangelicals, they are still dwarfed by the number (57 percent) who said their spiritual needs were not met in the Catholic church.
Thus, those becoming evangelicals were more generically unhappy than specifically unhappy with church teaching, while those who became mainline Protestant tended to be more specifically unhappy than generically unhappy with church teaching. The unhappiness with the church’s teaching on poverty, war and the death penalty was equally low for both groups (11 percent for evangelicals; 10 percent for mainline).
What stands out in the data on Catholics who join mainline churches is that they tend to cite personal or familiar reasons for leaving more frequently than do those who become evangelicals. Forty-four percent of the Catholics who join mainline churches say that they married someone of the faith they joined, a number that trumps all doctrinal issues. Only 22 percent of those who join the evangelicals cite this reason.
Perhaps after marrying a mainline Christian and attending his or her church’s services, the Catholic found the mainline services more fulfilling than the Catholic service. And even if they were equally attractive, perhaps the exclusion of the Protestant spouse from Catholic Communion makes the more welcoming mainline church attractive to an ecumenical couple.
Those joining mainline communities also were more likely to cite dissatisfaction of the Catholic clergy (39 percent) than were those who became evangelical (23 percent). Those who join mainline churches are looking for a less clerically dominated church.
Lessons from the data
There are many lessons that we can learn from the Pew data, but I will focus on only three.
First, those who are leaving the church for Protestant churches are more interested in spiritual nourishment than doctrinal issues. Tinkering with the wording of the creed at Mass is not going to help. No one except the Vatican and the bishops cares whether Jesus is “one in being” with the Father or “consubstantial” with the Father. That the hierarchy thinks this is important shows how out of it they are.
While the hierarchy worries about literal translations of the Latin text, people are longing for liturgies that touch the heart and emotions. More creativity with the liturgy is needed, and that means more flexibility must be allowed. If you build it, they will come; if you do not, they will find it elsewhere. The changes that will go into effect this Advent will make matters worse, not better.
Second, thanks to Pope Pius XII, Catholic scripture scholars have had decades to produce the best thinking on scripture in the world. That Catholics are leaving to join evangelical churches because of the church teaching on the Bible is a disgrace. Too few homilists explain the scriptures to their people. Few Catholics read the Bible.
The church needs a massive Bible education program. The church needs to acknowledge that understanding the Bible is more important than memorizing the catechism. If we could get Catholics to read the Sunday scripture readings each week before they come to Mass, it would be revolutionary. If you do not read and pray the scriptures, you are not an adult Christian. Catholics who become evangelicals understand this.
Finally, the Pew data shows that two-thirds of Catholics who become Protestants do so before they reach the age of 24. The church must make a preferential option for teenagers and young adults or it will continue to bleed. Programs and liturgies that cater to their needs must take precedence over the complaints of fuddy-duddies and rubrical purists.
Current religious education programs and teen groups appear to have little effect on keeping these folks Catholic, according to the Pew data, although those who attend a Catholic high school do appear to stay at a higher rate. More research is needed to find out what works and what does not.
The Catholic church is hemorrhaging members. It needs to acknowledge this and do more to understand why. Only if we acknowledge the exodus and understand it will we be in a position to do something about it.
“The Eucharist is not cannibalism BUT it is still God, Jesus Christ.”
If this be so then The Eucharist is worthy of our worship but this too is no part of inspired Scripture.
We are no more to worship some wafers made up by some bakery and some wine than a golden calf with the claim, “This is your God”.
“You take Him on His Word.
“This IS My body.”
Yes, and in view of the context the Gospel writers could well use “estin” in the sense of “means” or “represents”, something done frequently in both Greek and English.
Matthew 5:17-20 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
I wonder why Catholics don't take this passage literally as well.
After all, Jesus Himself said it.
One other thing.......
Once you start using HTML, you HAVE TO use paragraph markers to separate your paragraphs or you end up with one massive runon sentence.
You only need on everywhere you want to make a break of a line space and you don’t close them with the /.
So you would do it like this.....< p >
and viola, a paragraph
HTML is maddeningly nitpicky. It only does exactly what you tell it which is why you need to proof read your post before hitting the post button the second time so you can go back and make any corrections.
HTML does not like spaces inserted within the < >’s. If it isn’t working for you, make sure you didn’t put any spaces in where they don’t belong. Some code requires it but what you’re working with for now doesn’t.
God's word is to not eat the blood as it is for atonement. God's word cannot contradict itself. So which word then, do we take Him on?
BTW, it's considered proper protocol that if you mention another FReeper by name, that you ping them as well as a courtesy to let them know they're being talked about.
“This IS My body.”
Understand in a supernatural way. If God says it is Him, believe. Yes, God can confect Himself, it’s beyond our understanding with our little minds. Doesn’t matter, God can do anything.
False premise. God cannot do anything. God cannot lie and God cannot change. (Hebrews 6:18) Therefore it is not a valid argument to support the idea that God has *confected* Himself.
CYC: ...”but no such characteristics of such can be detected and yes, Jesus was passing around his body before ever he had offered it in heaven, in fact before he had died. How? Welll, he’s above and beyond time and sequence, space.’
stpioThe Blessed Trinity wants you to have faith because you don’t “SEE” a change in the bread or wine, nor fully understand. Having faith is something God is pleased with and Our Lord, how humble of Him to come to be in us in this manner. That’s how much He loves you.
There is nothing in Scripture to back up that rationalization and that's all that it is in an attempt to convince people that the RCC is correct. Having faith IS what pleases God, but it must be faith in truth. Believing in two contradictory and irreconcilable things is not *faith*.
How much God loves us? God doesn't show us how much He loves us by humbling Himself to allow Himself to be confected so we can eat Him.
This is how much God loves us.....
John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Philippians 2:5-8 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
There's an added problem with the idea that eating the eucharist gives eternal life. That is that if that is what is meant by *receiving Christ* then it is based solely on the physical act of eating it and it MUST work - all the time - regardless of the spiritual condition of the recipient.
In that case, eternal life is imparted to the individual regardless of how they live and how much they sin. Just eat and you've eaten God and viola, eternal life. Jesus said it would be that way and if it is a spiritual law, if MUST work and it MUST work all the time.
However, imparting eternal life to an individual who is still in a state of sinfulness is doing them no favor.
When Adam and Eve sinned, God drove them from the garden and placed an angel with a flaming sword to block access to the Tree of Life so that they would not eat and live forever.
What a blessing because who would want to live forever in a corrupted sinful state.
Death is the only chance for us to escape that fate and is actually an act of mercy on God's part because it's the only means by which we have the opportunity to avoid that fate.
But if it's argued that the act of eating and receiving life is also conditional on the recipients spiritual attitude or state for it to work, then it is a tacit admission that it DOESN'T work all the time, which means that it is NOT the means of salvation.
If it doesn't work all the time for all the people, then it cannot be that Jesus meant that literally eating the literal flesh and blood will give eternal life.
God gives every believer filled with the Holy Spirit the ABILITY to interpret and understand Scripture. There is nothing in the word that talks about *authority* to interpret Scripture. That is something the Catholic church made up to defend it's claim that it is the only body on the earth capable of *correctly* interpreting Scripture and that its interpretations must be accepted and recognized and adhered to.
1 Corinthians 2:11-16 11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
When we are born again and given spiritual life by the Holy Spirit and Christ takes up residence in our hearts and lives by faith, we have the mind of Christ and then have the ability to understand the things of God.
It's a promise given to each and every believer as individuals.
GUESS AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!
If ex-Catholics really were bitter about their decision, then they'd simply repent of it and go back. Being bitter about where one finds oneself only comes into play when one is not happy with where they find themselves and there's nothing that can be done about it any more. Yet, Catholics still urge ex-Catholics to *swim the Tiber*, meaning that it CAN be changed, it is not a permanent condition.
We are where we are because we CHOOSE to be and believe me, there is NOT bitterness in where I find myself now, but rather freedom and life and joy and peace.
The Eucharist is true, Mary’s help is for everyone and Confession to a priest, for the life of your soul.
No, the eucharist is not true, Mary cannot help anyone and no amount of confession to a priest can save your soul.
And if eating God is all that it takes, then nothing else the person does matters. They are still saved anyway because they've eaten.
The Remnant is Roman Catholic.
No, it isn't. There's nothing in Scripture that states that.
Really don’t understand this kind of FR thread. You will never convince those who hate Catholicism that they are wrong and should return or enter the Church. They do not have the inclination to do so within their hearts. These threads only give them a forum to spew their hate. You cannot change someone who is immersed in hate. They will never listen. They will never even admit that a tiny grain of what you say is correct.
The Church doesn't just "make stuff up," but that's not the point.
The point is you can no longer, with any kind of integrity, mentally substitute "the Bible" every time you read "thy Word," "God's word," etc..., nor can you dismiss anything as being "from God" just because you can't find it in the Scripture...the Church's teaching about Mary, included.
Though there is no hint of that in the entire Scripture, and in fact, you have to make grand sweeping assumptions, again, that are not actually IN the Bible, to assent to it. i.e. The "inspired table of contents" problem.
The ground rules are God's, not the Church's.
Far better that than the "bridge" Protestants are selling.
Oh, I see. So "that one doesn't count."
How convenient!
...but I will place my hope and trust upon the truth of God's word and agree with Irenaeus who said: These things are such as fall plainly under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures....the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all"
And if Irenaeus were correct in that assertion, there would not be so many different flavors of Protestant, all claiming "by the Bible."
You can't have it both ways.
Okay, but do you deny there's "more ink" devoted to "Body and Blood" with regard to consumption, than with the "Second Birth?"
Sorry, but the behavior of ex Catholics on this forum alone negates that. Speaking only for myself, I couldn't care less if you people "swim the Tiber". A person happy in their decision doesn't obsess about the people and institution(s) they left behind, and spend the majority of their time attention-whoring about it.
As I have said before, I hope none of y'all work in sales, cause you just aren't good at it.
Thanks, but my points remain.
I can't help how people choose to read into posts but it speaks more of projection than anything.
Catholics have no qualms about speaking out about what they perceive as the lies of Protestantism and I don't see you charging other Catholics of *bitterness* for doing the same thing. I am not bitter because I have no reason to be bitter. It's not like I or any member of my family were molested by one of the RC priests.
A person happy in their decision doesn't obsess about the people and institution(s) they left behind, and spend the majority of their time attention-whoring about it.
It's not obsessing. It's a matter of the truth. It's a matter of people's eternal destiny. If they're trusting anything but Jesus Himself for their salvation, they aren't getting it. Salvation is only by grace through faith in Christ. Jesus Himself said that faith saves and those verses have been posted repeatedly as well.
Catholicism and Catholics teach that the RCC has authority over Scripture and that's just wrong. It teaches salvation by works in contradiction to the vast weight of Scripture that says otherwise.
As I have said before, I hope none of y'all work in sales, cause you just aren't good at it.
Likewise, I'm sure.
King David was also effected such a change.
“And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Beth–lehem, which is by the gate! And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Beth–lehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mighty men. “ (2 Samuel 23:15-17)
Also,
“Only rebel not ye against the Lord, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us: their defence is departed from them, and the Lord is with us: fear them not. “ (Numbers 14:9)
“When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell. “ (Psalms 27:2)
“And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. “ (Numbers 13:32)
“Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel. “ (Ezekiel 3:1)
“Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O Lord God of hosts. “ (Jeremiah 15:16)
“As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. “ (John 6:57)
“But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. “ (Matthew 4:4)
“Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. “ (John 4:34)
All literal consumption by taking them at their literal word!
"Though there is no hint of that in the entire Scripture,"
What do you mean by no hint of that?
1. Scripture is the only distinct class of Divine revelation (versus the amorphous class of oral transmission) that we are assured is wholly inspired of God, (2Tim. 3:16) it being the part of oral tradition that has been written and established as Divine (though only some of it was first oral). Thus it is the assured, identifiable word of God, and is abundantly referenced as being so.
2. The word of God is abundantly testified to as being unique in quality, being praised only second to God Himself, (Ps. 19:7-11; 119, etc.) with accompanying supernatural attestation. (Heb. 2:3,4)
3. That Scripture, once written, was the transcendent supreme material standard for obedience and for the testing and establishment of Truth claims, is also abundantly evidenced*.
4. The church did begin in dissent from those who were over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) the stewards of the Word of God, who rested upon Divine promises and historical decent, who thus challenged the authority of the itinerant Preacher of Galilee, the Head of the church, whose claims were substantiated by Scripture and the supernatural attestation it provides being given to the Truth. (Mt. 22:29-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:39,42; etc.)
*In full, the New Testament is counted to have 263 direct quotes from and 370 allusions to the Old. The following list does not include all of the former, and rarely includes simple allusions to Scripture, but supplies a multiplicity of viewable (here) references substantiating the claim that the written word was the standard for obedience and in establishing truth claims.
Ex. 17:14; 24:4,7,12; 31:18; 32:15; 34:1,27; 35:29; Lv. 8:36; 10:10,11; 26:46; Num. 4:5,37,45,49; 9:23; 10:13; 15:23; 16:40; 27:23; 33:2; 36:13; Dt. 4:13; 5:22; 9:10; 10:2,4; 17:18,19; 27:3,8; 28:58,61; 29:20,21,27; 30:10; 31:9,11,19,22,26; 33:4; Josh. 1:7,8; 8:31,32,34,35; 10:13; 14:2; 20:2; 21:2; 22:5,9; 23:6; 24:26; Jdg. 3:4; 1Sam. 10:25; 2Sam. 1:8; 1Ki. 2:3; 8:53,56; 12:22; 2Ki. 1:8; 14:6; 17:37; 22:8,10,13,16; 23:2,21; 1Ch. 16:40; 17:3,9; 2Ch. 23:18; 25:4; 31:3; 33:8; 34:13-16,18,19,21,24; 34:30; 35:6,12; Ezra 3:2,4; 6:18; Neh. 6:6; 8:1,3,8,15,18; 9:3,14; 10:34,36; 13:1; Psa. 40:7; Is. 8:20; 30:8; 34:16; 65:6; Jer. 17:1; 25:13; 30:2; 36:2,6,10,18,27,28; 51:60; Dan. 9:11,13; Hab. 2:2;
Mat. 1:22; 2:5,15,17,18; 3:3; 4:4,6,7,10,14,15; 5:17,18,33,38,43; 8:4,17; 9:13; 11:10; 12:3,5,17-21,40,41; 13:14,15,35; 14:3,4,7-9;19:4,5,17-19; 21:4,5,13,16,42; 22:24,29,31,32,37,39,43,44; 23:35;24:15; 26:24,31,54,56; 27:9,10,35; Mark 1:2,44; 7:3,10; 9:12,13; 10:4,5; 11:17; 12:10,19,24,26 13:14; 14:21,47,49; 15:28; Lk. 2:22,23.24; 3:4,5,6; 4:4,6-8,10,12,16,17,18,20,25-27; 5:14; 7:27; 8:10; 10:26,27; 16:29,31; 18:20,31; 19:46; 20:17,18, 28,37,42,43; 22:37; 23:30; 24:25.27,32,44,45,46; Jn. 1:45; 2:17,22; 3:14; 5:39,45-47; 6:31,45; 7:19,22,23,38,42,43,51,52; 8:5,17; 9:26; 10:34,35; 12:14,15,38-41; 15:25; 17:12; 19:24,28,36,37; 20:9,31; 21:24; Acts 1:20; 2:16-21,25-28,34,35; 3:22,23,25; 4:11,25,26; 7:3,7,27,28,32,33,37,40,42,43,49,50,53; 8:28,30,32,33; 10:43;13:15,27,29,33,39; 15:5,15-17,21; 17:2,11; 18:13.24,28; 21:20,24; 22:12; 23:3,5; 24:14; 26:22; 28:23,26,27; Rom 1:2,17; 2:10-21,31; 4:3,7,17,18,23,24; 5:13; 7:1-3,7,12,14,16; 8:4,36; 9:4,9,12,13,15,17,25-29,33; 10:11,15,19; 11:2-4,8,9,26,27; 12:19,20; 13:8-10; 14:11; 15:3,4,9-12,21; 16:16,26,27; 1Cor. 1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19,20; 4:6; 6:16; 7:39; 9:9,10; 10:7,11,26,28; 14:21,34; 15:3,4,32,45,54,55; 2Cor. 1:13; 2:3,4; 3:7,15; 4:13; 6:2;16; 7:12; 8:15; 9:9; 10:17; 13:1; Gal. 3:6,8,10-13; 4:22,27,30; 5:14; Eph. 3:3,4; (cf. 2Pt. 3:16); Eph. 4:8; 5:31; 6:2,3; (cf. Dt. 5:16); Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27; 1Tim. 5:18; 2Tim. 3:14,16,17; Heb. 1:5,7-13; 2:5-8,12,13; 3:7-11,15; 4:3,4,7; 5:5,6; 6:14; 7:17,21,28; 8:5,8-13; 9:20; 10:5-916,17,28,30,37; 11:18; 12:5,6,12,26,29; 13:5,6,22; James 2:8,23; 4:5; 1Pet. 1:16,24,25; 2:6,7,22; 3:10-12; 5:5,12; 2Pet. 1:20,21; 2:22; 3:1,15,16; 1Jn. 1:4; 2:1,7,8,12,13,21; 5:13; Rev. 1:3,11,19; 2:1,8,12,18; 3:1,7,12,14; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5; 22:6,7;10,18,19 (Note: while the Bible reveals that there is revelation which is not written down, (2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) yet interestingly, a study of the the phrase “the word of God” or “the word of the Lord” shows that revelation that is referred to as being that normally was subsequently written down.)
What utter nonsense. Putting Mary on a par with Christ is blasphemy. Jesus was the only sinless human to ever live on this earth. She was a sinner and needed a savior just as every other human that has ever lived since Adam other than Christ.
The phrase "full of grace" in Greek is "plaras karitos" and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament; neither one is in reference to Mary.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth,
Acts 6:8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people,
In Luke 1:28 the phrase used is “chair kecharitōmenē” which is “greetings favored one”.
The Nestle Aland 26th edition, Greek New Testament Interlinear - "having gone into her he said rejoice one having been favored, the master is with you."
The NRSV English Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament - And he came to her and said, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you."
American Standard Version - "And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee."
King James Version- "And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."
New American Standard Bible - "And coming in, he said to her, Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.
International Standard Version - '"The angel'' came to her and said, “'Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you!"
The Latin Vulgate is the Latin translation of the Bible done by St. Jerome in the fourth century. He made the error of using "ave gratia plena” "Hail full of grace.” From which the current English Catholic translation was taken. The RCC has used the erroneous Latin translation and not used the original Greek. The entire doctrine concerning Mary is based on an error by St. Jerome when he translated from Greek to Latin.
The archangels greeting to Mary was NOT “Hail full of grace” but “hail highly favored”. Only Jesus and Stephen were referred to as "plaras karitos" or “full of grace and we know Stephen was not without sin.
The entire doctrine of Mary being without sin is based on error and putting her on an equal with Christ as sinless is blasphemy.
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.