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

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

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."

did you get the notion that she was any kind of redeemer? From Luke 1, Genesis 3, Apocalypse 12 we know that Mary the Mother of God participates in salvation and so we call her a co-redeemer sometimes.

None of those passage state that.

Rev. 12 is referring to the nation of Israel.

Even your RCC Bible states that 'the woman adorned with the sun, the moon and the stars (images taken from Gn.37,9-10) symbolizes God's people of the Old and New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah and then became the new Israel (NAB, footnote, p.1438) <

That is not keeping the 'word' as Mary did keep the 'Word' in her womb. It is how we imitate her, because this is how Christ taught us to venerate her in Luke 11.

Christ never told anyone to venerate Mary in Lk 11,(or anywhere else for that matter)

He told people to honor His word (...it emphasizes that attentiveness to God's word is more important than biological relationship to Jesus' NAB,p.1165) where is Mary ever addressed as one without sin? In Luke 1:28.

It does?

Well, why don't you post it and show that it says that Mary was without sin.

Mary offered a sacrifice for her sins in Lk.2. The NAB states in its footnote that Mary gave an offering for an expiration of her sin (pg.1146)

Christ doesn't call Mary, 'the woman' he calls her 'woman' instead of mother ... Christ said 'who is my mother or brethren'(Mk.3:33) Christ calls her "woman" because Genesis refers to "woman", whatever the grammatical framework happens to fit. Mark 3:33 repeats the call to sanctity through Mary also made in Luke 11, and already discussed.

Christ calls her 'woman', not the woman.

Nothing you said fits anything in scripture, and goes against your own RCC Bible notes.

Why don't you pick up the Catechism if you have these questions: Mary - Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church

And why don't you read a Bible and find out the truth.

I omitted it because it is an opinion, and an immature one at that. "Unfair" is not a fact that belongs to encyclopedias. It is an 'argument' used by five-year-olds "it's not faaaair." Apparently, it seems to be good enough for you, but not for me. When you can demonstrate that "fair" is a valid argument, then we can talk.

Goodness, if a bishop is guilty of resorting to bribery and violence is "unfair judgment" then the line separating virtue from vice is completely obliterated.

I was making (and have made) is that there were Greek church fathers who held Proto-Protestant views

I would like to see exactly what Athanasius wrote regrading the OT. And even if it is true that he believed that only Hebrew scriptures were 'true' that doesn't make him "proto-Protestant" because his theology was not "proto-Protestant." Jerome was also fooled by the rabbis that the "true" OT was the one they had and not the one the Apostles used. That doesn't make him "proto-Protestant."

There were Greek Church Fathers who believed that even those who end up in hell will eventually be redeemed (St. Gregory of Nyssa, Origen), those who believed that Mary was not sinless (St. John Chrysostom), who refused the Revelation of St. John as canonical (lots of them, including the 9th century John of Damascus), etc. Saint Augustine retracted many of his beliefs at the end of his life, etc.

You ignore the fact that an opinion of one Church father means nothing as far as the Church is concerned, unless the Church as a whole reaches a consensus that the teaching is correct.

It is this consensus patrium that has been the guiding tradition of entire Church in the first millennium and certainly for the Eastern Orthodox Church ever since then.

That was not the question, the question was where does it say that was the only reason he was well respected by the Orthodox faith

As good as the only one. There were others who proposed the same or very closely the same canon and in that he was not unique. There was no imminent danger for the Church or any pressure to mean a deadline to pronounce the canon after 300 years of searching.

Arain heresy was very much the watershed that could have taken the Church in a completely wrong direction, was widespread and was supported by many bishops and even the Roman Emperor. Defeating Arian heresy and Athanasius' contribution in defeating it by far outweighs anything esle he has done.

And the sentence before that says "These [deutero-canonical books] were declared by the Councils of Jassy (1642) and Jerusalem (1672) to be genuine parts of Scripture." So, what this OCA site is saying is that (without proof of course) that 'most Orthodox scholars' do not believe what the Church believes.

Coming from the so-called OCA, a make-believe "Orthodox Church" infected with scores of Protestant converts, it does't surprise me.

You seem to have a knack for using peripheral, questionable, or unreliable sources, rather than genuine ones that have been around for the longest time. And GOARCH is not one of them. GOARCH didn't exist until the 1920 and was founded by a heretic, mason-Ecumenical Patriarch who all on his own "recognized" Anglican orders as "valid" and proclaimed the "union" between the Orthodox and Anglican communities. Luckily, GOARCH has since then cleaned up its shameful roots.

The RCC teaches that a man is justified by faith without works?

The Church teaches that man is justified by faith without works of law. Works of love are, however, necessary for salvation, and are not mere product of faith, but rather they are necessary to form faith.

6 [God] will render to every man according to his works. 7 To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: 8 But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation. 9 Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. 10 But glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
(Romans 2)
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?
(James 2)
5 ... the apostles said to the Lord: Increase our faith. 6 And the Lord said: If you had faith like to a grain of mustard seed, you might say to this mulberry tree, Be thou rooted up, and be thou transplanted into the sea: and it would obey you. 7 But which of you having a servant ploughing, or feeding cattle, will say to him, when he is come from the field: Immediately go, sit down to meat: 8 And will not rather say to him: Make ready my supper, and gird thyself, and serve me, whilst I eat and drink, and afterwards thou shalt eat and drink? 9 Doth he thank that servant, for doing the things which he commanded him? 10 I think not. So you also, when you shall have done all these things that are commanded you, say: We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which we ought to do.
(Luke 17)
12 Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works.
(Apoc. 22)

So clear even a Roman Catholic can understand it-but refuses to.

You are clearly delusional. All the smoke and mirrors and wishful thinking and trying to confuse people with St. Paul's writings will NOT make James 2 go away...

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. James 2:17

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? James 2:20-22

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James 2:26

Do you actually think that dead faith saves???!!!

No matter what sort of phony theological explanation you come up with, you are NOT going to be able to ignore the FACT that the Bible ITSELF says that one is a "vain man" who believes one is saved by faith WITHOUT works.

The Catholic Church teaches the Truth. You are not teaching the Truth according to the entire bible. Be careful, because the NT has some interesting words for those who are teachers of false doctrine like you are passing off.

Regards

So clear even a Roman Catholic can understand it-but refuses to. You are clearly delusional. All the smoke and mirrors and wishful thinking and trying to confuse people with St. Paul's writings will NOT make James 2 go away...

And your attempts to avoid dealing with what Paul wrote will not make it go away either.

You cannot deal with the clear scripture that Paul lays out and states.

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. James 2:17 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? James 2:20-22

Yes, the works showed His faith, it did not add anything to it.

Works reveal what kind of faith you have, they do not mix with the faith to save you.

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James 2:26

Yes, it is not producing any works, so the Lord has to remove that believer,

Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away (Jn.15:2)

Do you actually think that dead faith saves???!!!

Faith that is dead doesn't produce fruit, but it was once alive (hence is now dead), and did result in the seed of God being implanted in the believer for salvation (1Pe.1:23) that is incorruptible.

Unfruitful Christians are judged and disciplined (Gal.6,Heb.13,1Jn.5) even to the point of death (Acts 5), but they are still saved since works did not add to their salvation, it is by faith that one is saved.

No, the Bible says that one is saved by faith without works very clearly in Rom.4.

The Bible never says that ones salvation is dependent on works at all.

As I said, you guys give me a laugh!

James says nothing about salvation in that entire chapter, it speaks of showing ones faith by ones works, not that works do anything for salvation.

Even the note in your own RCC bible states that,

The theme of these verses is the relationship of faith and works (deeds). It has been argued that the teaching here contradicts that of Paul (espically Rom.4,5-6). The problem can only be understood if the different viewpoints of the two authors are seen. Paul argues against those who claim to participate in God's salvation because of their good deeds as well as because they have committed themselves in trust in God through Jesus Christ (Paul's concept of faith)....The author of James is well aware that proper conduct can only come about with an authentic commitment to God in faith....

Nothing is said about works adding to faith.

If you don't have the works, your faith is dead (not productive), but that doesn't mean you are spiritually lost if you had a living faith once,

If we believe not yet he abibeth faithful: he cannot deny himself. (2Tim.2:13).

You have distorted what James has said and have ignored what Paul said (as I predicted you would)

The RCC teaches that a man is justified by faith without works? The Church teaches that man is justified by faith without works of law. Works of love are, however, necessary for salvation, and are not mere product of faith, but rather they are necessary to form faith.

Well, then they aren't following the scriptures (what a shock!)

6 [God] will render to every man according to his works. 7 To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: 8 But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation. 9 Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. 10 But glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Romans 2)

And that passage is not speaking of adding anything to faith to be saved.

It is speaking of seeking the truth (like Corneilus did in Acts 10, who was called a 'devout man', but still an unsaved one).

The Jews who rejected the Gospel that Paul was preaching, by faith alone, stumbled over it since they sought it not by faith

In Acts 13 the Jew is called 'unworthy of eternal life' because they rejected the free offer of salvation presented by Paul. (Acts 13:46)

The Jews asked what work they might do to work the works of God, and Christ answered them,

this is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent (Jn.6:28-29)

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? (James 2)

And where have I seen this before?

As I stated in another post, a dead faith is a non-fruit bearing faith.

It doesn't mean the faith did not exist and thus, save the individual soul, since the seed that is planted is immortal (1Pe.1:22).

God deals with those who do not bear fruit with judgement on earth (Gal.6, Heb.13, 1Jn.5) and loss of rewards in heaven (1Cor.3), but James is not saying anything about salvation in James 2, he speaking of how one shows his faith, not how one adds to it.

But once again I do notice that you avoid Paul's statements in Rom.4 that state very clearly that works are not involved at all in salvation.

You would rather go to hell misunderstanding James and ignoring Paul then go to heaven believing what God wrote about salvation being by faith without works (Rom.4:5).

Faith is the root, works are the fruit, fruit adds nothing to the root, it is the root that is the issue and no fruit just shows that the root has died.

5 ... the apostles said to the Lord: Increase our faith. 6 And the Lord said: If you had faith like to a grain of mustard seed, you might say to this mulberry tree, Be thou rooted up, and be thou transplanted into the sea: and it would obey you. 7 But which of you having a servant ploughing, or feeding cattle, will say to him, when he is come from the field: Immediately go, sit down to meat: 8 And will not rather say to him: Make ready my supper, and gird thyself, and serve me, whilst I eat and drink, and afterwards thou shalt eat and drink? 9 Doth he thank that servant, for doing the things which he commanded him? 10 I think not. So you also, when you shall have done all these things that are commanded you, say: We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which we ought to do.

And that passage has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

It shows that we ought to work, not that works are necessarly for salvation since salvation comes by faith, not the works.

12 Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works. (Apoc. 22)

Yes, everyman will be judged according to his works, the Christian at the judgement seat of Christ and if he has produced nothing he will not receive any reward (but he will still be saved)(1Cor.3,Rom.14:10,2Cor5:10).

The unbeliever at the Great White Throne Judgement, who did not have faith and thus will be judged for his works to see if he rates entrance into heaven.

Since his works cannot save him, his name then will be searched for in the book of life and if it is not there, then he will be condemned to the lake of fire (Rev.20).

Works cannot save, they add nothing to faith, they only show what one has already believed.

Now, don't throw out 'proof texts' unless you are able to deal with what Paul states in Rom.4.

I have showed that James is not contradicting Paul and is not speaking of salvation, as even your own RCC bible states.

These are your personal opinions about these scriptures. Mine happen to come from the Church, so pardon me if I discard yours.

Well, you are free to discard anything you like, just don't pretend you have any scriptural support for what you believe, because you don't.

Mary offered a sacrifice for her sins in Lk.2 No, she did not and the scripture does not say she did. In Luke 1:28 the angel calls her "full of grace", this excludes any sin in her.

Not according to the NAB note.

Lk 2:24 states that she offered a sacrifice according to the levitical law (12:2),

The woman who gives birth to a boy is unable for forty days to touch anything sacred or to enter the temple area by reason of her legal impurity. At the end of this period she is required to offer a year-old lamb as a burnt offering and a turtle dove or young pigeon as an expiration of sin. The woman who could not afford a lamb offered instead two turtledoves or two young pideons, as Mary does here (p.1147)

So Mary offered up a sin offering like any other Jewish woman did after having a child as a sin offering.

You want to underatand Mary, read the catechism. There is also a good book by Pope John Paul II called the Theotokos

Thank you, but I am unconcerned about Mary.

The only one I am concerned about understanding is the Lord Jesus Christ.

And how convenient it is for you to have left out the entire view on the subject..."However, there are also many modern historians who object to this view and point out that such hostile attitude towards Athanasius is based on an unfair judgement of historical sources."[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria I omitted it because it is an opinion, and an immature one at that. "Unfair" is not a fact that belongs to encyclopedias. It is an 'argument' used by five-year-olds "it's not faaaair." Apparently, it seems to be good enough for you, but not for me. When you can demonstrate that "fair" is a valid argument, then we can talk.

And I omitted it because it was irrelevant to the discussion on Athansius influence on the Orthodox Church and it was a opinion.

Goodness, if a bishop is guilty of resorting to bribery and violence is "unfair judgment" then the line separating virtue from vice is completely obliterated.

The opinion was also that he might not have been guilty of those charges against him.

The judgment the historian were disputing were the sources

However, there are also many modern historians who object to this view and point out that such hostile attitude towards Athanasius is based on an unfair judgment of historical sources.

It seems you have a reading comprehension problem.

I was making (and have made) is that there were Greek church fathers who held Proto-Protestant views I would like to see exactly what Athanasius wrote regrading the OT. And even if it is true that he believed that only Hebrew scriptures were 'true' that doesn't make him "proto-Protestant" because his theology was not "proto-Protestant." Jerome was also fooled by the rabbis that the "true" OT was the one they had and not the one the Apostles used. That doesn't make him "proto-Protestant."

The fact is that he held the Apocrypha to be of a secondary nature (non-Canonical) because they were not written in Hebrew (as did Jerome, and later Luther and the other Protestants)

And so?

You first denied that Athanasius was a 'Greek' Father.

Protestants don't care about any Church Fathers, Greek or Latin, it is you guys who make a big deal over them.

All you have shown is why we put so little confidence in them.

You ignore the fact that an opinion of one Church father means nothing as far as the Church is concerned, unless the Church as a whole reaches a consensus that the teaching is correct.

No, I am not ignoring that fact, what I am stating is that the Protestant views on many issues had Greek Father support.

It is this consensus patrium that has been the guiding tradition of entire Church in the first millennium and certainly for the Eastern Orthodox Church ever since then. That was not the question, the question was where does it say that was the only reason he was well respected by the Orthodox faith As good as the only one. There were others who proposed the same or very closely the same canon and in that he was not unique. There was no imminent danger for the Church or any pressure to mean a deadline to pronounce the canon after 300 years of searching. Arain heresy was very much the watershed that could have taken the Church in a completely wrong direction, was widespread and was supported by many bishops and even the Roman Emperor. Defeating Arian heresy and Athanasius' contribution in defeating it by far outweighs anything esle he has done.

Well, that is your opinion, because what was regarded as a major contribution by Athanasius by the Orthodox source I cited, was his listing of the Canonical books as well as his defense of the Trintiy.

Moreover, it seems that Athansasius' view on the Apocrypha, as being less then Canonical is shared by Orthodox scholars... http://www.holy-trinity-church.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=39 And the sentence before that says "These [deutero-canonical books] were declared by the Councils of Jassy (1642) and Jerusalem (1672) to be genuine parts of Scripture." So, what this OCA site is saying is that (without proof of course) that 'most Orthodox scholars' do not believe what the Church believes.

Well, he is from your Orthodox Church.

Maybe you have another heretic loose!

Coming from the so-called OCA, a make-believe "Orthodox Church" infected with scores of Protestant converts, it does't surprise me.

LOL!

Maybe you better inform someone of this heresy!

And you seem to try to wiggle out of anything that goes against your own personal opinions.

I cited a legitimate Orthodox source that states that most Orthodox scholars reject the Apocrypha as Canonical.

It seems that your 'church' has as much confusion in it as the Protestant ones regarding doctrinal issues.

The fact is that the Protestant views are early views on the Canon and Sola Scriptura that were put forth by Greek Fathers, Athansisus and Chrysostom.

Athanasius of Alexandria (born ~293 CE, Alexandria -- died May 2 373 CE, Alexandria)
This icon is taken from Orthodox Byzantine Icons. The artist and date are unknown. A larger version is available.
Saint Athanasius, theologian, ecclesiastical statesman, and Egyptian national leader, was the chief defender of Christian orthodoxy in the 4th-century battle against Arianism, the heresy that the Son of God was a creature of like, but not of the same, substance as God the Father. Athanasius attended the Council of Nicaea (325) and shortly thereafter became bishop of Alexandria (328). For the rest of his life he was engaged in theological and political struggles with the Emperor and with Arian churchmen, being banished from Alexandria several times. He wrote many important works, including his major theological treatises, The Life of St. Antony and Four Orations against the Arians, and a number of letters on theological, pastoral, and administrative topics. A Catholic Encyclopedia article is online at St. Athanasius.

A clear acknowledgment of the NT canon of 27 books appears in the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius. Here the threefold division of Origen or Eusebius is abandoned. As 'springs of salvation' there are only the 27 writings in which 'the doctrine of piety is proclaimed'. Over against them are set the apocrypha fabricated by the heretics. Only the Didache and Shepherd of Hermas -- besides a few OT apocrypha -- are permitted for reading by those newly received into the Church, since the Fathers have so appointed. But these writings are not "canonical". We may however infer from the concession that the two writings mentioned still enjoyed very great esteem. For a visual summary of Athanasius' opinions see the Cross Reference Table.

There is no question that the emphasis on the exclusiveness and finality of the canon is closely connected with Athanasius' total theological conception, anti-heretical and Bible-related. Over and above that it has to be observed that precisely in the years after 362, his concern was directed towards the unity of the 'orthodox' Church, and hence that for him a uniform canon was also a necessity.

It is important that Athanasius turns sharply against all apocrypha, so that the lines are drawn as sharply as possible between canonical and apocryphal writings. Whatever they may be in terms of their origin, their content or their age, the 'apocrypha' are downgraded as heretical and therefore excluded from any ecclesiastical use. We cannot establish what effect Athanasius' letter had outside of Egypt. We may conjecture that it advanced the recognition of the 7 'catholic' epistles in the East, but it could not remove the opposition to the Revelation of John. This book only achieved its firm place in the canon of the Greek Church in the 10th century.
http://www.ntcanon.org/Athanasius.shtml

Well, this is from the Catechism that you linked me to,

2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ,(emphasis added) from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.

If it is all grace then it is not the believer doing the work, it is God doing it and the believer only gets the benefits for it.

The only role that the believer plays in the 'walk' is 'yielding' to God, but he is adding nothing to faith, but is yielding by faith.

And your attempts to avoid dealing with what Paul wrote will not make it go away either.

Sorry, but I began this "there is no faith alone" by stating James 2 as my evidence. You answer James by going to Paul? And I am having avoidance issues???

Listen. I certainly CAN explain what Paul wrote. I have done so many times on this very forum. However, the Bible clearly explains the issue in James. Why waste energy trying to prove something from Paul when it is so clearly written in James??? Why waste my time when James says it in ONE SENTENCE that you are wrong!

Here is another reason. Here is what Peter says regarding St. Paul...

"...our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15-16

Why try to argue from difficult Scriptures that can be twisted, even during the time of Peter, when Scriptures MORE CLEARLY settles the issue by VERY CLEARLY AND FORCEFULLY SAYING THAT ONE IS NOT SAVED BY FAITH ALONE in James!!!!

All you are doing is "twisting Scriptures to YOUR DESTRUCTION". That's right. Your false teachings is leading you and anyone who follows you to destruction. That can't be a good thing...

Give up the charade and the smoke and mirrors. Read the Bible and follow it when it clearly says we are not saved by faith alone. ADJUST YOUR INTERPRETATIONS OF PAUL! Paul and James share the same inspiration - God. God is not a God of confusion. Thus, when God clearly tells us we are not saved by faith alone - and God tells us that Paul's writings CAN be twisted and distorted, WHY ON EARTH DO YOU KEEP TRYING TO GO BACK TO PAUL WHILE IGNORING JAMES?

There can be only one answer - you can't admit you are wrong.

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? James 2:20

What more do you want? These verses are the "two by four to the head"! I have other things to do. Please do not bother me with your false teachings that twist things and bring people to their destruction. I am not in the mood to argue about such obvious issues...

I will pray for you that you realize that God's Word tells us that we are saved by a living faith, one with works of love.

It seems you have a reading comprehension problem

I would say it is you who has a problem with comprehension, reading or otherwise, because "unfair judgment" is someone's judgment and as such is not fitting material for factual discussions.

The fact is that he held the Apocrypha to be of a secondary nature (non-Canonical) because they were not written in Hebrew (as did Jerome, and later Luther and the other Protestants)

Okay, I admit that you have presented enough on this for me to believe that you have something there. Having been Orthodox one way or another all my life, I can honestly say that this is something utterly unknown and new to me, if it indeed true, as it seems to be. The story with Jerome, on the other hand, is well known.

For my part I have written to the OCA that claims "most Orthodox scholars" supporting this view. I will also inform other points of contact bringing that to their attention, as it is contrary to the extant Orthodox scripture and teaching.

The books that comprise Orthodox Bible include the deutero-canonical books, which are regarded as Scripture, and all Scripture is profittable...so there is no 'lesser' scripture, as there could be no lesser word of God.

If a majority (which has yet to be documented) Orthodox scholars truly believe they are not, then they do not believe their own Bible and the Church!

And so?

It must be that comprehension issue agian! And so, individual fathers did not always teach what the Church as a whole taught. As long as they deferred to the official doctrine, they were free to speculate, and therefore free to each wrong conclusions.

You first denied that Athanasius was a 'Greek' Father

I don't think I denied that he was Greek, I simply stated that he was a Western Father.

Protestants don't care about any Church Fathers, Greek or Latin, it is you guys who make a big deal over them

Correct. Protestants only care about their own private, man-made theology, based on personal interpretation of the Bible, generally out of context, that is habitually decorated with the Holy Spirit.

The fact is that the Protestant views are early views on the Canon and Sola Scriptura that were put forth by Greek Fathers, Athansisus and Chrysostom

Some of them taught all sorts ofmthings. but none of them put forth the sola scriptura myth.

It seems you have a reading comprehension problem I would say it is you who has a problem with comprehension, reading or otherwise, because "unfair judgment" is someone's judgment and as such is not fitting material for factual discussions.

What was being judged was the validity of the historical sources.

All historian have a responsibility to judge the validly of the sources they are using.

The fact is that he held the Apocrypha to be of a secondary nature (non-Canonical) because they were not written in Hebrew (as did Jerome, and later Luther and the other Protestants) Okay, I admit that you have presented enough on this for me to believe that you have something there. Having been Orthodox one way or another all my life, I can honestly say that this is something utterly unknown and new to me, if it indeed true, as it seems to be. The story with Jerome, on the other hand, is well known.

Well, Amen.

Alexandria has a large number of Jews and it is possible that Athanasius was also influenced by the rabbis, as Jerome was, to reject the OT used by the Apostles and embrace only the Palestinian version of the OT. For my part I have written to the OCA that claims "most Orthodox scholars" supporting this view. I will also inform other points of contact bringing that to their attention, as it is contrary to the extant Orthodox scripture and teaching. The books that comprise Orthodox Bible include the deutero-canonical books, which are regarded as Scripture, and all Scripture is profittable...so there is no 'lesser' scripture, as there could be no lesser word of God. If a majority (which has yet to be documented) Orthodox scholars truly believe they are not, then they do not believe their own Bible and the Church! And so? It must be that comprehension issue agian! And so, individual fathers did not always teach what the Church as a whole taught. As long as they deferred to the official doctrine, they were free to speculate, and therefore free to each wrong conclusions.

First, the Apostles never used the LXX, since it was not in existance.

Second, the Protestant view on the Fathers is that they are only to regarded when they follow the Scriptures.

Yours is when they follow the Church.

You first denied that Athanasius was a 'Greek' Father I don't think I denied that he was Greek, I simply stated that he was a Western Father.

You stated that he was an Alexandrian (which is true), but not a Greek.

One was defined as a Greek Father by the language he wrote in and Athansisus wrote in Greek and thus, was considered a Greek Church Father.

Protestants don't care about any Church Fathers, Greek or Latin, it is you guys who make a big deal over them Correct. Protestants only care about their own private, man-made theology, based on personal interpretation of the Bible, generally out of context, that is habitually decorated with the Holy Spirit.

Well, I would like to see what we interpret 'out of context'.

Our final authority is the 66 Books, yours is of consensus of men.

The fact is that the Protestant views are early views on the Canon and Sola Scriptura that were put forth by Greek Fathers, Athansisus and Chrysostom Some of them taught all sorts ofmthings. but none of them put forth the sola scriptura myth.

Chrysostom said regarding scripture, that every word was pure, directly from the Prophets and Apostles, and when one read the scriptures, it was as if they were there speaking directly to them.

He placed all tradition as being subject to the scriptures.

You flatly rejected what he said on the subject.

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.