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

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

[Forest Keeper]

More to the point, all [St. Augustine] says and I have read I like. He is a major father of the Western Church, no doubt. I do not like how he is misinterpreted.

Well, now that may be a problem. I understand that the Church interprets the Apostles. But who interprets the individual interpreters, especially on stuff that is not in consensus with the Church?

The Eucharist is not a human ritual. Humans cannot turn wine into blood, and rituals cannot save. It is a sacrament ordinarily necessary for salvation, yes, ...

Sure it's a human ritual:

Ritual:

1. a. The prescribed order of a religious ceremony. b. The body of ceremonies or rites used in a place of worship. (FOD)

Besides, you do say that humans can forgive sins, so that would make confession a ritual AND salvific.

So, you disagree with the early Church, period. You find something in Augustine that you use as a jumping off point.

While I think that Augustine was closer to scripture on many points than most (maybe all) of the others, I don't think the early Church was wrong about everything. We couldn't consider each other Christians otherwise. :)

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "[are you] ready to admit now that you believe the Church trumps the scripture?"

In this little diagram Blogger and I are arguing about, we talk about what proceeded from what. The Church wrote the New Testament and explained the Old. She did not find the scripture in the glove compartment and say "I got the instructions, let's fire this thing up".

Yes, I've been following your discussion with Blogger with interest. In your diagram you have the truth itself and scripture flowing not directly from God, but through the lens of the Church. By definition, that means that the Church doesn't "have to" following what the Bible says, HOWEVER, the Bible does "have to" follow what the Church says. In your diagram, the Church is dependent on God and the truth and scripture are dependent on the Church. That means the Church trumps scripture because the Church, and not God directly, defines what scripture means. In our model God defines what scripture means and the Church is dependent on that.

When you say that "the Church" wrote the NT, you imply that the Magisterium as a body wrote it (perhaps similarly to the way the Constitution was drafted). We both know that's not the way it happened. Individuals wrote the manuscripts, and each was individually inspired by the Spirit, infallibly. The writings were not an act of "the Church". The Church accepted those individual writings later, much later in the whole. That moves both the scriptures and truth ahead of the Church in the diagram.

[Forest Keeper]

Let's say I write a novel. ...... I write and they do as I wrote. There is no chance that any character in my novel will 'rebel' and do something that's not in the script, that I didn't put there. My book will begin, develop and end as I envision it exactly as I wrote it. ...... Now, in my book I have a character who is envious of his neighbor. And, one day, in a fit of jealous rage, my character kills his neighbor. What should be my reaction to this act? ...... Can I justifiably be 'angry' and 'disappointed' with him? Can I 'repent' for having created him in my book without blaming myself?

No, YOU cannot be justifiably angry or disappointed in him because he is a fictional character. You cannot love him. Of course it is completely different with God and us. We are real and God really does love us. That makes all the difference. God HATES sin, and even when He knows it is coming from us, He is still angered by it. As Dr. E. said, "God's anger is righteous". It does not have the flaws that our anger so typically does. God's anger is a good thing.

As for the allusion to God repenting for creating man, do you think God "repented"? I don't. If God repented, then that would mean He changed His mind. That would make Him mutable, and I was sure that the Orthodox strongly hold that God is immutable.

[Forest Keeper]

The KJV calls angels in Job 2:1 "sons of God" as well.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The Bible clearly distinguishes between angels and humans. The Bible also refers to "children of God" multiple multiple times as being humans. I don't see how this affects my assertion that some humans are "children of God" and some humans are not.

[Quester]

The revelation was the same as it always had been ... the scriptures.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you know, I have no problems with searching the Scriptures. I happen to love the Scriptures. However, as you also know, the interpretation of these same Scripture has changed after 1520. Again, I ask, "has God revealed Himself differently"? Do we now look at Sacred Scriptures totally differently then the first Christians do ?

In the scripture I cited, Jesus informs the Pharisees, the scribes, and the preservers of the Jewish Law (i.e. the Lawyers) ... that, though they had been entrusted with the scriptures, ... their interpretation was not accurate.

If those to whom the oracles were entrusted misinterpreted them ... so can others, no matter how well established.

Jesus made much of the scriptures ... I don't that it could be argued that He didn't make them, as opposed to Jewish culture and tradition (which HE frequently violated), ... the foundation of His ministry.

I don't think that it is a bad idea at all to follow His example in this.

[kosta50]

Kosta: The KJV calls angels in Job 2:1 "sons of God" as well

FK: I'm not sure what you're trying to say

Actually, the Septuagint uses the word "aggeloi" (angels), but the (Pharisaical) Hebrew text says "sons of God."

Whichever is 'correct,' the fact remains that Satan was one of them and therefore not some fallen, rebellious creature of God in Judaic mindset.

[kosta50]

God HATES sin, and even when He knows it is coming from us, He is still angered by it

If you freely and willingly allow something, even if you hate it, there is no reason for anger. Such anger could only be directed as yourself, for allowing things you hate to happen.

As for the allusion to God repenting for creating man, do you think God "repented"? I don't

In Gen 6:6 the various English translations say that God "repented," "grieved," or was "sorry" for having created man.

In Gen 6:7 the Lord is actually quoted as saying that it "repented" (KJV) Him, that He was "sorry" (NAB) or that he is "grieved" (NIV) for creating man. The Septuagint (LXX) says "angered" or "enraged" (ethumothen)

Of course Numbers 23:19 says "God is not a man that He should lie, nor a son of man that He should repent [LXX says "be threatened"]..."

When in doubt, drop the verses that don't fit the pre-fab image, right? In one it says God was sorry; the other says God cannot be sorry.

So, let' assume then that they really mean "angry," and we have much of God's anger in the OT. Looking at it from this POV as you like to say, clearly, God was angry for having created us; even just in His anger because He hates our sin. But, honestly, there is no reason even for His anger, even if there is reason for hating our sin.

If someone is in charge and he allows things he hates to go on, the only justifiable anger would be against oneself for allowing it, especially if allowing it with absolutely certain foreknowledge of the consequences of which he is the author.

[wmfights]

The road to the cross is a lonely one, the other road is broad and FULL of traffic...

Life experience really puts these lessons in perspective.

[wmfights]

You know, that was why the roman soldiers FEARED Jesus so much. Their business was killing enemy soldiers. And yet here is a guy that can bring dead people back to life!

So much for the image of Jesus held in his mom's hands, dependent upon her, and who's mom determines what he can and can't do!

[wmfights]

We receive it from God Himself, not from earthly men who claim that only they received it from God Himself. It's a similar process. The difference is in the exclusivity.

I think it's an eye opener how many parallels there are between the old Jewish religious hierarchy and the RCC and EO. The idea that salvation is to be filtered through them and that their "tradition" is a coequal of Scripture were condemned by Jesus and yet here we are 2,000 years later and see the same mistakes being made.

Mark 7:13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."

[Quix]

yes, I've been following your discussion with Blogger with interest. In your diagram you have the truth itself and scripture flowing not directly from God, but through the lens of the Church. By definition, that means that the Church doesn't "have to" following what the Bible says, HOWEVER, the Bible does "have to" follow what the Church says. In your diagram, the Church is dependent on God and the truth and scripture are dependent on the Church. That means the Church trumps scripture because the Church, and not God directly, defines what scripture means. In our model God defines what scripture means and the Church is dependent on that.

When you say that "the Church" wrote the NT, you imply that the Magisterium as a body wrote it (perhaps similarly to the way the Constitution was drafted). We both know that's not the way it happened. Individuals wrote the manuscripts, and each was individually inspired by the Spirit, infallibly. The writings were not an act of "the Church". The Church accepted those individual writings later, much later in the whole. That moves both the scriptures and truth ahead of the Church in the diagram.
= = =

GOOD POINTS, as usual. Thx

The idea that the magicsterical could define and trump Scrripture on its good old boy's club consensus whim has always been more than a little outrageous to me.

[Quix]

In the scripture I cited, Jesus informs the Pharisees, the scribes, and the preservers of the Jewish Law (i.e. the Lawyers) ... that, though they had been entrusted with the scriptures, ... their interpretation was not accurate.

If those to whom the oracles were entrusted misinterpreted them ... so can others, no matter how well established.

SUPER INDEED! THX

[Quix]

So much for the image of Jesus held in his mom's hands, dependent upon her, and who's mom determines what he can and can't do!

INDEED.

But . . . oh dear . . . you mean . . . Mommy meek and mild didn't neuter GOD??? Her feminization program of God was thwarted??? Oh, dear . . . better go 3 bell alarm the magicsterical! Work to do. Where's those neutering nippers when you need them? Oh me; Oh my; Oh HELP!

[wmfights]

Mommy meek and mild didn't neuter GOD??? Her feminization program of God was thwarted???

Wow, that's about as well said as anything I've seen!

I'm reading a book "The Cult of the Virgin Mary" by Carroll and it is eye opening. For example the girl at Lourdes said that the apparition told her she was "holding back the wrath of her son". The idea that Mary (this is the official position of the RCC about who the apparition was) controls God is stunning to say the least. This kind of thinking takes us down the road to having God the puppet of man.

[blue-duncan]

"If you freely and willingly allow something, even if you hate it, there is no reason for anger"

The ultimate origin of evil is not described in scripture and no attempt is made to give us a solution of the mystery as to why God permitted the first sin of man. Scripture begins by stating Satan's hostile and evil attitude towards God and to man. Gen. 3:1-7, Isa. 14:12-15, Ezek. 28:12-19, John 8:44, 2 Cor. 11:3, Rev. 12:9. Scripture deals with the consequences of sin and the development of variations of sin (Gen. 6 and 9-19), Job 14:1-10, Psalms 90:5-12, Rom. 3:10-18, 5:12-21, 7:5-24. 8:10, 19-22, 1 Tim. 2:12-15, James 4:14) and it gives us the penalty and satisfaction for sin.

What scripture does tell us is that :

God is not the author of sin (Isa. 45:7 means that god ordained the consequences of sin, not the sin itself).

God has no need of sin in order to enhance His glory, and He did not permit it solely in order to demonstrate His moral grandeur.

The subsequent responsibility of mankind in relation to sin is in no way diminished nor excused on the ground that men now living were not guilty of its inception.

God is not to be regarded as a party to the repeated acts of sin which man has all too successfully perpetuated, nor is He to be held responsible for the perpetuation of sin simply because He has not withdrawn His sustaining power from the universe. If man freely chooses to misuse certain of his wonderful endowments and to prostitute his remarkable abilities to sinful ends, it is scarcely just to blame God.

Scripture does not encourage philosophical speculation on the subject of the origin of sin or the reason for God's antipathy to it and, ever in keeping itself to the practical needs of man, focuses the attention on the acts of human responsibility. It gives no final answer to the question "Why did not God's foreknowledge lead Him to anticipate and to prevent sin both in the first man and also at its first entry into the universe, in whatever form that was?"

[kosta50]

Scripture begins by stating Satan's hostile and evil attitude towards God and to man. Gen. 3:1-7, Isa. 14:12-15, Ezek. 28:12-19

That is incorrect, BD. First, Genesis does not say that the serpent was Satan. It only says that "the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made." From this we know that the serpent was (1) craftier than other beasts, and (2) that he was one of God's creatures. If God made him, then God made him craftier then all other bests. He made him specifically with the purpose to use his craftiness on Adam and Eve, and in fact God 'allowed' the serpent to enter the Garden.

Surely we are not going to use "dog ate my homework" logic here! Obviously, God was behind it. God created the situation. The players had no choice but to do as God predestined. God was the creator, the director and the choreographer.

Isa 14:12 talks about someone other than Satan. There is no connection between the Babylonian god of Dawn and the accuser (sawtawna, satan) in Judaism.

Eze 28:12-19 likewise speaks of an actual king who was given everything. No Satan mentioned by name, as he is mentioned in several places in the OT.

God is not the author of sin (Isa. 45:7 means that god ordained the consequences of sin, not the sin itself)

Isa 45:7 does not mean that he ordained the consequences, it actually "quotes" God as saying "I (the Lord) create evil/calamity."

If something happens on your watch, BD, it's yours. Especially if you are the creator of everything and all. If God did not create evil and sin, then evil and sin do not exist.

This must be so if (1) we deny man's free will, (2) if we claim that God's will cannot be resisted, (3) if we insist on God's predestination that's not based on foreknowledge of our choices.

If God created us good, then we must have become evil by resisting God or esle we have only obeyed God's wishes that we become evil.

If man freely chooses to misuse certain of his wonderful endowments and to prostitute his remarkable abilities to sinful ends, it is scarcely just to blame God

Agreed, but I am shocked! Resisting God's will by our will?

[Forest Keeper]

What do you 'owe' your children, FK? You feed them, clothe them, provide for them...you'd think it immoral to feed only one and neglect the other(s) because, before they were even conceived, you decided that some will be cared for and others will be neglected.

God instilled in me the love I have for my children. He also commanded me to provide for their needs and teach them in the ways of the Lord. So I try to do that. He did not instill in me the same responsibility for all the children of the world. Neither does God have responsibility to save all people in the world. He only does to His children, the elect.

If all people are God's children, then you would have God standing at the street corner, watching billions of His beloved children walk right passed Him, fail to look both ways, and step right out in front of a bus. That isn't love to me. God would never pull His children back to the curb. No, no, no. God respects the idiocy of His children way too much for that. Well, I have no such respect for the idiocy of my children. I HAVE pulled them back. It sounds like under your system, God only really loves the smart ones.

[Forest Keeper]

Consider, however, that God assures us He won't let anyone snatch us from His hands; it doesn't say that we can't fall from His hands, unless one subscribes to the morbid idea that we are just little robots.

You are building in a caveat that is neither stated nor implied. It doesn't say "no one else" or "no one besides the sheep himself". It just says "no one". If someone else tried to push your child off a cliff, why that would be terrible and you would step right in to save your child's life. However, if your child wanted to commit suicide and jump right in front of you, that would be fine I guess. God doesn't work that way, and the Bible doesn't say that He does. In fact it says just the opposite. God will gather His sheep together and they will follow Him. When one strays on his own, God goes back to get him, every time.

I would also like to say here that having read so many Reformed and other Protestant views, it is no wonder the world is becoming secular or searching for alternate religions.

Bush's fault.

[jo kus]

As you mention, however (and this is crucial) he (Jerome) submitted to the wisdom and the Apostolic authoirty of the Church

That's the key difference between us and some Protestants... They submit only to themselves.

Regards

[jo kus]

If those to whom the oracles were entrusted misinterpreted them ... so can others, no matter how well established.

Well, that ignores Scriptures

"if I tarry long, that thou may know how it is expedient to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and base of the truth" 1 Tim 3:15

Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to all truth. Did God promise this to the Jews before Jesus came?

Jesus made much of the scriptures

Not sure what you mean by that...

I don't think that it is a bad idea at all to follow His example in this.

What is His example? To go off and invent your own interpretation of Scriptures? Jesus told the Apostles to obey the Pharisees - but not to imitate their hypocrisy.

Regards