The Scott Hahn Conversion Story

The coming Home Network ^ | 1991 | Scott Hahn

[Cronos]

I'm not sure why Mel felt a need to change this. But people always seems to have a desire to want to tinker with the scriptures.
Again, the devil and other angels can't be classified by us mortal men (and women ;-P) as male/female. I think in the movie, though he uses an actress, the figure is not quite male or female, something weird -- I think that's what Mel wanted to potray -- the devil as being something familiar, yet so differnt, so alien that it gives you the shivers, a travesty of reality to wit.

[Cronos]

Luther thought so highly of the Catholic faith, he continued using the Catholic Bible. He said it was the truth so let us keep it.

Quite right. Luther's reformation DID clean up the corruption that crept into the church and even Catholics acknowledge that the Chruch has emerged stronger because of it. I only wish he had reformed, purified the church from the inside instead of splitting it up and allowing propagandaists ON BOTH sides to separate the church.

[Cronos]

Of the three, who was correct on this point of doctrine? And why should one believe that such a person has the authority to correctly declare such a doctrine?

That's one of my issues with non-Catholic preachers who do pop up from time to time (and I don't mean Luther, Calvin etc., I mean some evangelist ministers), they suddenly pop up and potray themselves as teachers. The Catholic church is a distillation of millions of people who have studied the bible over and over again. Many of the supposedly new issues raised by the new ministers are actually heresies that popped up in the early centuries (Gnosticism etc. ) and were convincingly refuted by the Church -- somewhat similar to (;p) the Jedi versus the Sith -- viz. the Church had proved those heresies wrong and let them disapper, but then forgot about them, so that people centuries later would make the smae mistakes again.

[Cronos]

And the emphasis of including Hindu practices in services in India seems a little bit unbiblical, doesn't it?

Huh? you mean where they sit on the ground and light candles? Those practises have been going on for 2000 years ever since St. Thomas converted folks in South India. The Vatican understands that the superficialities (how people sit, etc.) can be tuned to local cultures -- as long as the core scriptures remain unchanged -- and they HAVE remained unchanged.

[Cronos]

Quoting from Geocity home pages and potraying their made up statistics as facts?????

[sfRummygirl]

I just noticed your poem got banned. Ok, this is ridiculous. I KNEW this thread was only for bait. What a joke.

[Salvation]

Me too!

[sfRummygirl]

Sal, these catholic-versus-protestant threads really get the world nowhere fast.

[Salvation]

**Again, the devil and other angels can't be classified by us mortal men (and women ;-P) as male/female. I think in the movie, though he uses an actress, the figure is not quite male or female, something weird -- I think that's what Mel wanted to potray -- the devil as being something familiar, yet so differnt, so alien that it gives you the shivers, a travesty of reality to wit.**

Siobhan answered this in another thread and I will attempt to paraphrase.

The devil can take on anyone's/anything's form in order to serve his purpose. In the movie Mel Gibson had the devil morph the Blessed Virgin Mary (in black -- all in mockery). Even the ugly baby-who looks like the scourgers-is a mockery of Our Blessed Mother and the Christ Child.

Pinging Siobhan for further clarification. But basically Gibson wanted to portray the devil in direct opposition to Mary the Mother of God.

PS. I didn't figure it all out until I saw her post, so don't feel bad here. (very subtle on Gibson's part)

[Salvation]

**Yes, at least in one way -- he chucked out the book of Maccabbeees etc.**

Luther also added the words "faith only" to being saved.

[Siobhan]

Mel uses a female actress but he shaves off her hair eyebrows and eyelashes. He dubs over a man's voice. He wanted the Enemy to appear at first alluring, to draw one's interest but then to repulse.

Gibson wanted to show that satan cannot create, has never had an original idea, can only parody and ape God and God's work. So throughout this film we actually see satan in drag so to speak. satan is apeing Mary. In the Garden of Gethsemane the image from western iconography is a negative parody of "Our Lady of Grace". At first one might think "Our Lady of Sorrows" or perhaps a monk, or another apostle ... it is an arresting and confusing scene. But in the typology of the film with regard to Gibson's treatment., satan is this antitype of "Our Lady of Grace" -- Jesus Mother dressed in white radiantly triumphant in her Son's triumph and Grace, her foot crushing the serpent's head.

In this opening scene however, satan stands having told Jesus he can't succeed, he can't, he can't, he can't. satan is dressed in black not white, and instead of the snake being crushed under foot, the snake slithers out from between satan's "feet."

The genius then comes with Jesus crushing the serpent's head so that the prophecy of the Garden of Eden is joined to the Garden of Gethsemane -- just brilliant on Mel's part.

satan continues to appear in drag to mock Mary -- but the very striking image comes during the Scourgin of Christ at the pillar. The type of image seems to be a Madonna and Child image -- it reminded me of the Madonna of the Streets image -- and clearly satan is mocking Mary and Jesus by revealing the horror that satan was bringing forth out of humanity even as Mary had brought forth Jesus out of humanity.

Well, I could go on, but I think that puts it into perspective from this point of view. satan apes God, hates "Woman", goes about in drag, and is utterly defeated by the Woman's Son upon the Cross.

[nickcarraway]

Come now, you are expanding the definition of Feeneyism. Even the Cathechism would be Feenyite by that definition. Feeney's problem was what he taught about Baptism of Desire and Baptism by Blood, but he was excommunicated for disobedience, and for private interpretation of Scripture. Basically, Certain issues about salvation have not been setlled infallibly by the Church. There is a range of opinions within the Church, the one can hold without out being outside the bounds of Church teaching. So, one can hold a few different positions on salvation, but you van't claim that that interpretation is the only one taught by the Church.

[HarleyD]

In my reference to Hinduism I was referring to this and other articles on the beatification of Mother Teresa. My understanding is the Vatican rescinded (or something) the Hindu part of the ceremony. However, no action was ever taken against this Cardinal. Below is the link and a few excerpts.

Mother Teresa "Beatified" with Idolatrous Rites

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1044668/posts

“Briefly, in the name of inculturation, and with much subterfuge, Lourdusamy incorporated twelve Hindu gestures and rituals into the Sacrifice of the Mass, thus effectively Hinduizing it.”

“It was a triumphant day for paganism. Simon Cardinal Lourdusamy had reached the zenith of his career of Hinduizing the Catholic Church, whilst his opponent, the late Indian Resistance leader Victor Kulanday, was resoundingly defeated.”

“However, universal approval for the Hinduization and syncretization of the Church was growing, thanks to the consciousness-raising Federation of Asian Bishops' Conferences, founded in 1970 and supported by Paul VI and John Paul II. Cardinal Lourdusamy observes that FABC publications, the fruit of its many seminars, "have had considerable influence in the thinking of non-Asian episcopal conferences." “

(I won’t even get started on the Chinese Dragon used to “chase away” evil.)

[Cronos]

I'd say it was Indianization. Christianity MUST NOT be thought of as being a purely Westerner religion.

Also, things likethe Christmas tree and hte Easter Egg aren't strictly Christian but local customs that were used to spread the teachings of Christ. I agree it is a dicey situation and it's mostly dancing on the line, but Christianity in India MUST adopt some of the local culture, NOT the religious aspects.

So, the major festival for Indians is Diwali and it's celebrated by Muslims and Christians too. An Indian festival, NOT a hindu one, more like a harvest festival.

[Aquinasfan]

I think Sungenis' position is outside of the realm of acceptable teaching. Notice that the article is posted on a Feenyite website.

[Aquinasfan]

The last I knew the question of Salvation outside the (RC) Church is doctrine. Isn't it?

"The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men" (CCC 780).

The phrase "no salvation outside the Church" means "no salvation without the Church." That is, all salvific grace comes through Christ's redemptive death on the cross, which is mediated through the Church, Christ's Body.

For example, in the sacrament of Holy Eucharist, Christ's death on the Cross is re-presented when Christ, acting through the person of the priest, offers up His Body to the Father in an unbloody sacrifice, under the appearances of bread and wine.

Normally, sanctifying grace is first received in Baptism where we enter into the mystery of Christ's death and resurrection.

[HarleyD]

I’ve never seen a Christmas tree in a Christmas cantata or Easter eggs in a Passion play. As far as Diwali this is what I’ve found

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/Culture/Festivals/Diwali.html

“As with other Indian festivals, Diwali signifies many different things to people across the country. In north India, Diwali celebrates Rama's homecoming, that is his return to Ayodhya after the defeat of Ravana and his coronation as king; in Gujarat, the festival honors Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth; and in Bengal, it is associated with the goddess Kali.

Sorry. I don’t think the God of the universe looks kindly on sharing His services with false gods. This is a little more than an Easter egg.

[Cronos]

Sorry. I don’t think the God of the universe looks kindly on sharing His services with false gods.

But the false idols aren't being worshipped here.

[Aquinasfan]

Remember, "tradition" doesn't count.

The Bible is written Tradition, which began as oral Tradition. Jesus didn't hand over a completed New Testament to the Apostles.

In fact, the Bible doesn't record Jesus commissioning the Apostles to write a New Testament. The Great Commission was to "go and make Apostles of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

The Apostles were expecting the Second Coming within their lifetimes. When they realized that that might not happen, they began to record Jesus' life and teachings in writing, facts that had previously been passed on orally. A consensus regarding which books constituted Sacred Scripture later emerged, but many books were disputed. The canon of Scripture wasn't formally declared by the Church until around the year 400 A.D., in several Church Councils. It is the canon used by Catholics today.

[drstevej]

***In fact, the Bible doesn't record Jesus commissioning the Apostles to write a New Testament. The Great Commission was to "go and make Apostles of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."***

... teaching them to observe all that I have commanded.

Interesting where you stopped quoting the verse.