'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 12/4/2006 | John-Henry Westen

[Pyro7480]

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

By John-Henry Westen

NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A review of New Line Cinema's The Nativity story by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the United States, points out that the film, which opened December 1, misinterprets scripture from a Catholic perspective.

While Fr. Geiger admits that he found the film is "in general, to be a pious and reverential presentation of the Christmas mystery." He adds however, that "not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady."

In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible predicts the coming of the Messiah saying: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Fr. Geiger, in an video blog post, explains that the Catholic Church has taught for over 2000 years that the referenced Scripture showed that Mary would not only conceive the child miraculously, but would give birth to the child miraculously - keeping her physical virginity intact during the birth.

The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ, which, he notes, the Fathers of the Church compared to light passing through glass without breaking it. Fr. Geiger quoted the fourth century St. Augustine on the matter saying. "That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother."

Fr. Geiger contrasts The Nativity Story with The Passion of the Christ, noting that with the latter, Catholics and Protestants could agree to support it. He suggests, however, that the latter is "a virtual coup against Catholic Mariology".

The characterization of Mary further debases her as Fr. Geiger relates in his review. "Mary in The Nativity lacks depth and stature, and becomes the subject of a treatment on teenage psychology."

Beyond the non-miraculous birth, the biggest let-down for Catholics comes from Director Catherine Hardwicke's own words. Hardwicke explains her rationale in an interview: "We wanted her [Mary] to feel accessible to a young teenager, so she wouldn't seem so far away from their life that it had no meaning for them. I wanted them to see Mary as a girl, as a teenager at first, not perfectly pious from the very first moment. So you see Mary going through stuff with her parents where they say, 'You're going to marry this guy, and these are the rules you have to follow.' Her father is telling her that she's not to have sex with Joseph for a year-and Joseph is standing right there."

Comments Fr. Geiger, "it is rather disconcerting to see Our Blessed Mother portrayed with 'attitude;' asserting herself in a rather anachronistic rebellion against an arranged marriage, choosing her words carefully with her parents, and posing meaningful silences toward those who do not understand her."

Fr. Geiger adds that the film also contains "an overly graphic scene of St. Elizabeth giving birth," which is "just not suitable, in my opinion, for young children to view."

Despite its flaws Fr. Geiger, after viewing the film, also has some good things to say about it. "Today, one must commend any sincere attempt to put Christ back into Christmas, and this film is certainly one of them," he says. "The Nativity Story in no way compares to the masterpiece which is The Passion of the Christ, but it is at least sincere, untainted by cynicism, and a worthy effort by Hollywood to end the prejudice against Christianity in the public square."

And, in addition to a good portrait of St. Joseph, the film offers "at least one cinematic and spiritual triumph" in portraying the Visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth. "Although the Magnificat is relegated to a kind of epilogue at the movie's end, the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth is otherwise faithful to the scriptures and quite poignant. In a separate scene, the two women experience the concurrent movement of their children in utero and share deeply in each other's joy. I can't think of another piece of celluloid that illustrates the dignity of the unborn child better than this."

See Fr. Geiger's full review here:
http://airmaria.com/

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your thoughtful reply!

Of course I agree that God's judgment is the one that ultimately matters. But the fact that God's judgment is the one that ultimately matters does not mean that we should not judge ourselves (I mean our own individual self). I think you agree with me on that point at least.

Yes, of course.

We often never take the time to consider whether or not our present position is heretical. Most people I talk to have never taken the time to consider this. They assume that their present position is correct, and that those who disagree with them are wrong. And they say that God will sort it all out at the Final Judgment…

So my question to Quix was an attempt to prompt that sort of mental exercise. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Catholic Church is the true Church that Christ founded, and its Magisterium the true ecclesial authority, how would Quix know that? Would his subjective experiences feel or smell any different than his present subjective feelings and smells?

If not, then he can't be so confident in dismissing the authenticity and authority of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

I cannot speak for you or Quix, but I can testify of my personal journey in this regard.

First, my age. I’m sixty years on this earth and have spent the biggest part of it walking with the Lord.

When I was yet new to the faith I spent huge amounts of time in fervent study of the Bible, ancient manuscripts, commentaries, maps, lexicons and the ilk. Over the years I have attended many different churches, studied their doctrines, spoken with their members. And my family’s favorite subject is Christ, so most of our conversations eventually turn to Him. All of my family is Christian, about half of them are Catholic.

Although I had been saved for many a year, it wasn’t until I learned how to let go and let God, to trust Him, that I really experienced the power of God, the indwelling of the Spirit. Miracles followed. Chief among them is the difference in me. I am nothing like the person I was. She was self-centered, mean-spirited and unlovable.

The second most important miracle is that the Scriptures which I had studied for long now come alive within me as my eyes pass over the text. When I need to know a thing, He brings it to mind. The Scriptures are no longer a manuscript to me, but the words of God authenticated by the Author Himself.

The third most important miracle is His personal leading. He warns me away from places and things and thoughts and people – and draws me to others. He opens my mind to understand things I should not be able to understand.

And then there have been many specific physical and spiritual miracles. For instance, when my beloved, ever so close, sister graduated to heaven, I felt holes in my being from her absence and prayed for God to fill those holes with Himself. He answered that prayer even before the word “amen” left my mind. And when I prayed asking Him about the crucifixion, He gave me a mental image of a great Light coming from the Cross, extending over all of space and time - and innumerable tiny bubbles (us) rising up from the darkness and disappearing into the Light.

The physical healings in answer to prayer were so many that it brings a chuckle in the family every time the doctors say “we must have made a mistake” or “I don’t know what it was.” And I’ve always had exactly what I needed – never too much, never too little.

Some would scoff and say “so what – no seas were parted, no mountains moved, no dead brought to life.” And to that I and the rest of my family would chuckle, our personal seas were parted, our personal mountains were leveled, our spiritually dead are now alive.

So, no, I am not concerned about heresies – either my beliefs or those of my beloved Catholic relatives. I have cast all of my burdens on Him, I have thrown all caution to His wind. My fate is in His hands. I choose to believe Him, to trust Him, to count on Him.

[adiaireton8]

Calvinists, to my knowledge, do not claim to know the [election] status of anyone except themselves

Then, as I pointed out to Dr. E., by their own doctrine Calvinists can have no assurance that their baptized infant is saved. Their "trust" is actually only "hope".

You can hardly bash Dr. E over the head when your Church holds a more radical view.

I have not "bashed Dr. E. over the head". I have pointed out a contradiction in her theology. I have not criticized her position for being "radical", whatever exactly that is supposed to mean. Of course the Catholic position is extraordinary and mind-boggling. The very gospel is foolishness to the 'wise'. But that is no refutation of it. A contradiction on the other hand, is a serious problem.

-A8

[kosta50]

Let me cite C. S. Lewis on this question: "A two-legged horse is maimed. A two-legged man isn't." God's willingness to take upon Himself human flesh, rather than an angelic hologram, indicates that the final resurrection is something to anticipate with joy

Sure, but that only means we are no there yet. We can look forward to the time when we will be "whole" again, but while we are waiting (in the spiritual state alone) we are not whole yet. In other words, we are "maimed."

[Quix]

Imho,

That post should be made into a tract.

Thanks tons.

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

[Risky-Riskerdo]

He’s not very fond of smugness exercised against His Scriptural standards, priorities and mandates.

If performing greater miracles than those Jesus did as a sign to Israel that He was indeed the Messiah to come spoken of by the prophets is a mandate as claimed above, then why are you NOT doing those miracles and greater???

Matthew 12:28
But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you.

Jesus did those miracles to confirm that He is the Divine One whom the Prophets said would come to Redeem His sheep, and as a sign that the Kingdom of God was then present on earth, in Him.

So, why aren't you doing greater miracles, after all, you have said it's a "mandate".

[HarleyD]

Dr. E., by their own doctrine Calvinists can have no assurance that their baptized infant is saved. Their "trust" is actually only "hope".

I'm not Presbyterian. I can't argue their point. I can only say that infant baptism, IMO, isn't correct. In my view it is a flawed Catholic tradition held over into Protestantism by the former Catholic Reformers.

You did not address the flaw of infant baptism within the Catholic Church that I could see. How can the Catholic Church say that infants are saved? What assurances do they have? Isn't your "trust" actually "hope"? You say Dr. E's position is wrong, that they cannot have assurance, and then it is the position of your own Church that baptized children are assured. Isn't your "trust" actually "hope"? Don't you see a bit of a disconnect?

Of course the Catholic position is extraordinary and mind-boggling. The very gospel is foolishness to the 'wise'. But that is no refutation of it. A contradiction on the other hand, is a serious problem.

I've read this five times and still can't figure out what you're saying.

[TomSmedley]

I can only say that infant baptism, IMO, isn't correct. In my view it is a flawed Catholic tradition held over into Protestantism by the former Catholic Reformers.

IOW, the entire church was in grievous error for 16 centuries, until the Anabaptists came along. This Deus abscondicus tendency may explain why Baptistic churches are so prone to splitting, hiving off new denominations, plus a few new cults. After all, every generation needs to rediscover fire and reinvent the wheel. (hmmm ... is that why Baptist culture is an oxymoron?)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your encouragement, dear brother in Christ!

I did notice upon re-reading it that I should have used a better word than "self-centered" because I was worse than that, I was "self-serving." It used to be all about me. LOL!

[HarleyD]

This is not a slight on Presbyterian churches. About the only thing I find wrong with them is this one doctrine-and that is saying a lot. (In fact I’m seriously thinking of becoming a Presbyterian.)

The problem with Baptists is that they spend very little time on good, solid doctrinal study. Like you’ve correctly stated, that is the reason they are prone to spliting off every few years. They’re simply not grounded.

[Forest Keeper]

If you look at the law given the Jews and later us Christians, then you may interpret [Noah's] behavior as sinful. But if you look at the law given him, that is, law prior to Moses, you will not have a basis to declare his drunken behavior sinful, and the inspired author of the Bible does not describe it as sinful:

I see what you're saying, but I respectfully disagree. What do you think of this? :

Gen 4:6-11 : 6 Then the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it." 8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. 9 Then the Lord said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" "I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?" 10 The Lord said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. 11 Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.

If you were Cain's lawyer, would you have said "But God, you never told Cain that killing was a sin"? Probably not. :) Indeed, even earlier we are told that Adam and Eve had a knowledge of "good and evil". So, I don't think that a lack of formal declaration of law relieves one from responsibility for sin. Now, there might be a case to be made for non-obvious or counterintuitive laws such as the dietary laws. Therefore, we have to decide whether what Noah did is of a kind as this.

I would not think so given that: as already discussed this was not Noah's first tilt, and he knew the effects of alcohol. He knew that drinking too much could cause one to lose control of one's faculties. Further, he knew that nakedness (in this context) was a sin from the story of Adam and Eve. Therefore, I would apply the felony murder rule here. :) -- For those who don't know, normally if you kill someone purely by accident (hunting, etc.) you are not charged with murder. However, if you accidentally kill someone while robbing a bank you DO get charged with murder. The idea is that you assume that risk when you make the original wrongful decision to rob the bank. -- I see Noah as falling into this category, given what he DID know at the time.

... historically, wine was not drunk for recreation as we do it, but because it was often the only way to hydrate your body in the field.

What??? Wine is a DE-hydrant because of the alcohol.

FK: "Jesus elevated the faith of the centurion above that of the Jews who HAD seen Him and known of Him."

That He did, at the expense of the Jews who were not equally quick to believe in Him without signs and miracles. Mary is not in that circle of comparison. The text says: "such great faith": not any faith but such faith that comes with zero prior knowledge.

In your immediately (unrelated) prior comment you said: "Again, this is a theory, and I am interested in what the scripture has to say." Sounds perfectly good to me. Why do you abandon it so quickly? :) You are building in something from nothing here. Jesus says: "I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel." That's it, no qualifiers. Mary is either part of "Israel" or she is not.

The patristic teaching as I know it was that Mary was the first capable of saying "yes" and meaning it. If mankind were ready for Christ a second sooner, He would have come a second sooner. But this is precisely why we venerate Mary so much.

Do you mean to say that God was standing on the sidelines, waiting for man to be "ready" before Christ was sent? That makes no sense to me because surely Mary was not the first Godly (righteous) woman. The OT has plenty of them. What are you saying?

FK: "Didn't God's foreknowledge of her "yes" include His giving of the special grace? That would take the decision out of Mary's hands and ruin everything."

No it doesn't, -- God gives all of us grace, but the decision to accept it is ours, as it was Mary's.

Now wait a minute. :) You hail Mary because she was full of grace. You can't tell me now that it was the same grace that everyone else is free to receive. It had to have been some kind of exclusive, special grace that is not available to anyone else. Otherwise, you have to convince me that no one else has "chosen" to partake of it either before OR AFTER Mary. Why would none of you good Catholics choose to accept such grace?

Plus, I thought that the Immaculate Conception meant that Mary was graced in her mother's womb. Mary certainly never accepted that!

[Risky-Riskerdo]

I like you. I've been reading your "find in forum" and would like to offer my "Welcome to FR!"

Thanks.

I would also like to say that I do not see Paul's Damascus Road experience as you do. I would not say that Jesus Christ "forced" Himself upon Paul. I would say that Jesus revealed Himself in full majesty to Paul there; that on this road Paul encountered the Living Christ

What was Saul doing on that road to Damascus??? Was Saul on that road seeking God???

NO! Saul of Tarsus had a bill of indictment in his satchel, with the authority of the high priest and Sanhedrin to go to Damascus to arrest Jews who were Christians with the intent of wiping out the Christian church there, as Saul of Tarsus had been responsible for the persecution and killing of a great number of Christians, and Saul of Tarsus did it with zeal. Saul of Tarsus was not seeking God, Saul of Tarsus did not ask Jesus to "come into his life", Saul of Tarsus did not give Jesus "permission to come into his life".

No, as Paul said, he was an enemy of God at that time, and was stuck down by Christ. Christ was not invited, Christ was not given permission to strike Saul down. Saul of Tarsus did not ask to be struck blind and converted. As a matter of fact, Christ struck Saul of Tarsus down AGAINST his will, for Saul's will was to go to Damascus to persecute Christ and His people. But the Will of Christ was overpowering, having chosen Saul to become Paul since before the foundation of the cosmos, and Saul of Tarsus did not grant permission for any of it, Christ DID IT, according to His Purpose and His Will.

And that is what I mean when I say that Christ forced Himself upon Saul of Tarsus, who was given the new name, as all the regenerated of God are given a new name.

[Ping-Pong]

He is not described as seeking to get drunk or seeking to disrobe himself in public

The sin wasn't Noah drinking and being drunk it was that his son "uncovered his father's nakedness". That means much more than it says. The sin was incest.

[Forest Keeper]

I think, the tilt of the head is to express attention and obedience to Christ, Who is often the central figure, or to other person of God, as in the Pentecost icon.

That makes sense, thank you. I was really noticing the particular angle of the tilt in many icons I have been showed. It just looks odd to me for some reason. :) But perhaps many of those I have seen were from the same general time period, and that was simply the artistic style of the time.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I'm behind in this discussion, but a fervent "Amen" to your post, AG.

Everyone, whether they admit it or not, bows to something, someone. Men err in bowing to other men, to governments, to ecclesiastic hierarchies. We are to kneel to none but Jesus Christ. And in doing so, we acknowledge that He alone is worthy of our prayers, our obedience and our fealty.

it wasn't until I learned how to let go and let God, to trust Him, that I really experienced the power of God, the indwelling of the Spirit. Miracles followed. Chief among them is the difference in me. I am nothing like the person I was.

This is His promise to us. This is the evidence of His truth. Really hearing the word of God changes our lives for the better. Christ spends a considerable amount of time speaking about the fruits of the spirit for a very good reason -- those fruits are the evidence of the indwelling Spirit. They will come because He has assured us He will not leave us comfortless.

"And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." -- Matthew 13:10-13

Christ is telling us that first the Holy Spirit indwells us by the will of God, and then we are given understanding and ears to hear and eyes to see.

"For whosoever hath, to him shall be given."

How much clearer could it be than that? Because at that point, our adoption by God is confirmed to us by the very real, tangible changes in our lives...

"But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty." -- Matthew 13:23

And later Paul confirms the "fruit of the spirit..."

"For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:

(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)

Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord." -- Ephesians 5:8-10

The "fruit of the spirit" in our lives actually "proves" the will of God, and confirms the presence of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

"Faith is a firm and certain knowledge of God's benevolence towards us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit." -- John Calvin

You probably know my affection for Calvin, AG, because he writes so strongly and clearly of the power and scope of the Holy Spirit in our lives. And this ready witness and tangible confidence is what I find in your posts, too.

JOHN CALVIN
The Theologian
by B.B. Warfield

"...The Institutes...constitute Calvin pre-eminently as the theologian of the Holy Spirit.

Calvin has made contributions of the first importance to other departments of theological thought. It has already been observed that he marks an epoch in the history of the doctrine of the Trinity. He also marks an epoch in the mode of presenting the work of Christ. The presentation of Christ's work under the rubrics of the three-fold office of Prophet, Priest and King was introduced by him; and from him it was taken over by the entirety of Christendom, not always, it is true, in his spirit or with his completeness of development, but yet with large advantage. In Christian ethics, too, his impulse proved epoch-making, and this great science was for a generation cultivated only by his followers.

It is probable however that Calvin's greatest contribution to theological science lies in the rich development which he gives--and which he was the first to give--to the doctrine of the work of the Holy Spirit. No doubt, from the origin of Christianity, everyone who has been even slightly imbued with the Christian spirit has believed in the Holy Spirit as the author and giver of life, and has attributed all that is good in the world, and particularly in himself, to His holy offices. And, of course, in treating of grace, Augustine worked out the doctrine of salvation as a subjective experience with great vividness and in great detail, and the whole course of this salvation was fully understood, no doubt, to be the work of the Holy Spirit. But in the same sense in which we may say that the doctrine of sin and grace dates from Augustine, the doctrine of satisfaction from Anselm, the doctrine of justification by faith from Luther, -- we must say that the doctrine of the work of the Holy Spirit is a gift from Calvin to the Church. It was he who first related the whole experience of salvation specifically to the working of the Holy Spirit, worked it out into its details, and contemplated its several steps and stages in orderly progress as the product of the Holy Spirit's specific work in applying salvation to the soul. Thus he gave systematic and adequate expression to the whole doctrine of the Holy Spirit and made it the assured possession of the Church of God.

It has been common to say that Calvin's entire theological work may be summed up in this--that he emancipated the soul from the tyranny of human authority and delivered it from the uncertainties of human intermediation in religious things: that he brought the soul into the immediate presence of God and cast it for its spiritual health upon the free grace of God alone. Where the Romanist placed the Church, it is said, Calvin set the Deity. The saying is true, and perhaps, when rightly understood and filled with its appropriate content, it may sufficiently characterise the effect of his theological teaching. But it is expressed too generally to be adequate. What Calvin did was, specifically, to replace the doctrine of the Church as sole source of assured knowledge of God and sole institute of salvation, by the Holy Spirit. Previously, men had looked to the Church for all the trustworthy knowledge of God obtainable, and as well for all the communications of grace accessible. Calvin taught them that neither function has been committed to the Church, but God the Holy Spirit has retained both in His own hands and confers both knowledge of God and communion with God on whom He will.

The Institutes is, accordingly, just a treatise on the work of God the Holy Spirit in making God savingly known to sinful man, and bringing sinful man into holy communion with God..."

[kosta50]

If you were Cain's lawyer, would you have said "But God, you never told Cain that killing was a sin"? Probably not. :)

No, because Cain inherited from his parents the knowledge of good and evil. That implies the knowledge of God as well as sin (so he was not completely "dead" as the Reformed believe). That makes him liable in his freedom to choose. Besides, the ignorance of the law does not make you innocent if you break it.

Wine is a DE-hydrant because of the alcohol

Not in small quantities to any significant extent. A wine that is 10-12% alcohol still contains between 90-88% water. Any sugar in the wine will also contribute to dehydration, but dehydration is significant only in large quantities.

The reason they drank wine over water was hygienic. One was sure that wine would not make you sick. The same could not be said of water. Besides, they didn't really guzzle wine the way we do. They sponged it by dipping dry and often hard pita bread into it to soften it and that alone prevented anyone from getting drunk or dehydrated on a cupful or two of wine (as the wine remained in the bread while it was slowly digested).

[kosta50]

What was Saul doing on that road to Damascus??? Was Saul on that road seeking God??? NO! Saul of Tarsus had a bill of indictment in his satchel, with the authority of the high priest and Sanhedrin to go to Damascus to arrest Jews who were Christians with the intent of wiping out the Christian church there

With all due respect, this is historically false. The Sanhedrin had no authority in Damascus. It would be no different that saying he was sent to Rome to arrest Christian Jews there and bring them to trial in Israel.

[Alamo-Girl]

Oh, dear Dr. Eckleburg, what a beautiful essay-sermon-post! Glorious and so insightful.

Thank you for all of your encouragements, and I too see the power of the Holy Spirit in your life through the words you speak on this forum. (I Cor 2)

To God be the glory.

[Quix]

Sounds like I’ve, by His Grace, managed to travel MUCH further toward that goal than you have.

WHEN you have done more on that score, I MAY entertain such questions more cooperatively.

Perhaps you’ve read about the plank vs splinter Scripture.

But to answer your question anyway—because I’ve not been willing to pay the price for that level of anointing.

And your reason?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Of all the people God could have chosen to bring the light of the Gospel to men, He looked around and chose Saul, a man who was personally, willfully and delightedly killing Christians!

That one act alone should convince us that God comes to us and shakes us to our very core, removes the scales from our eyes and gives us a completely new heart with which to understand.

"And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;

Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting." -- 1 Timothy 1:12-16

[adiaireton8]

You did not address the flaw of infant baptism within the Catholic Church that I could see.

What flaw would that be?

How can the Catholic Church say that infants are saved?

We know that baptized infants who die are saved, because we know that baptism "confers the grace of justification", and "effects the remission of all punishments of sin", and is "valid and licit" for young children. (Those three are all infallible Catholic dogmas.)

What assurances do they have? Isn't your "trust" actually "hope"?

No, because we have an authoritative and infallible Magisterium. Calvinists have no authoritative or infallible magisterium (well actually, they have one [ours] but they do not recognize or acknowlege it).

You say Dr. E's position is wrong, that they cannot have assurance, and then it is the position of your own Church that baptized children are assured. ... Don't you see a bit of a disconnect?

The Calvinistic conception of assurance requires knowing one's election [to glory] status in order to have assurance. The Catholic conception of assurance is not the same as the Calvinistic conception of assurance. The Catholic conception of assurance does not require knowing one's election [to glory] status. Therefore there is no hypocrisy (on my part) pointing out a contradiction with Dr. E.'s position regarding assurance with respect to baptized infants while at the same time holding that we [Catholics] can have assurance that baptized infants are saved.

-A8